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


unfavorable circum stances in other aspects o f language learning. C hom sky (1998)
points out the im portance o f activating lea rn ers’ m o tiv atio n , “the tru th o f the m atter is
that about 99 percent o f teaching is m aking the students feel interested in the m aterial”
(C hom sky,

1998:181). But the relationship betw een m o tiv atio n and autonom y in

language learning has been a very controversial issue, the co n tro v ersy being on w hether
it is autonom y that enhances m otivation o r it is m o tiv atio n that p ro d u ces autonom y.
D ickinson (1995) suggests that “autonom ous learners b eco m e m ore highly m otivated
and w ork m ore effectively” . A lso by m ak in g a survey o f the relevant literature and
m eanw hile carrying out a large-scale study o f H ong K o n g tertiary level students, M ary
Spratt and her associates argue that ‘'m o tiv atio n m ay lead to au tonom y or be a
precondition for it” (Spratt, H um hreys & C han, 2002), w h ic h is significant for the task
o f language learn ers’ training, as it indicates w here teach ers should ch o o se to place their
teaching priorities.
Based on the early w ork o f G ardner and L am bert (1972), G ard n e r (1985) and other SLA
researchers further elaborated the classification o f m o tiv atio n in language learning. It
has been agreed that language-learning m o tiv atio n can fall into extrinsic and intrinsic
m otivation. E xtrinsic m otivation com es from the desire to get a rew ard or avoid
punishm ent; the focus is on som ething external to the learn in g activity itself. Intrinsic

m otivation sees the learning experience as its ow n rew ard , “ intrinsic m otivation is in
evidence w h en ev er stu d e n ts’ natural cu riosity and interest energize th eir learning” (D eci
& Ryan, 1985: 245). R esearch indicates that, w hile ex trin sic m otivation can also be
beneficial, learning is m ost favorably in fluenced by in trinsic m o tivation, especially for
long-term retention (A rnold, J. & H. D. B row n, 1999). T he bo tto m line is that
m otivation is “a central m ediator in the pred ictio n o f lan g u a g e ach ie v e m e n t” (G ardner
& M acntyre, 1993:3).
W ith the reference to the teacher role, L ittle (1995), T o rt-M o lo n e y (1997), M cG rath
(2000), and Sm ith (2000) also provided ev id en ce that tea c h e rs w ho th em selv es w ere not
autonom ous language teachers m ay have a negative in flu en ce on the developm ent o f
autonom y in their students. L ittle (1995) p o in ts out th at learn er autonom y depends on
teacher autonom y. To help E FL learners d evelop autonom y, teach ers have to relinquish
som e o f th eir control over learners, learn new skills to take on th eir new roles as
counselor, assessor, evaluator, m aterial d ev elo p er, m anager, a d m in istrato r and organizer
(G ardner & M iller, 1999), in a w ord, b eing facilitato rs o f autonom ous learning.
E rd o g a n 's (2003) study into student au tonom y at a T u rk ish secondary school concluded

11


that teacher factors h indered the d ev elo p m en t o f learner autonom y because the teachers
them selves had been train ed w ith in the sam e education system , and w ere unable to
change th eir habits (review ed in Sert, 2006). S tiller and R yan (1992), and C lem ente
(2001) likew ise su g g ested that teach er au tonom y support and involvem ent (and parental
support for au tonom y and in v o lv em en t) had direct links w ith stu d e n ts' assim ilatio n o f
their classroom co n tex t and su b seq u en t academ ic outcom es. O n the sam e path w ith
these researchers, S heerin (1997, cited in B enson & V oller. 1997: 63.) succinctly put it,
" ...T e a c h e rs have a crucial role to p lay in launching learners into self-access and in
lending them a reg u la r h elp in g hand to stay afloat". Thus, autonom ous learning is by no
m eans teach erless learning and the teach er's role is to create and m aintain a learning

environm ent in

w hich

learners can

be

autonom ous

in order to

becom e

m ore

autonom ous. A d d itio n ally , in the research on building language learning environm ents
to help tech n o lo g y u n iv ersity studen ts dev elo p English independent learning, H su
(2005) em p h asized the role o f teachers. A s for the researcher, learn er autonom y or
learner in d ependence d o es n ot m ean the teach er becom e redundant. O n the contrary,
teachers play a crucial role in creatin g environm ents to facilitate and m o tivate learners
to take resp o n sib ility for th eir learning, d evelop good learning habits, and becom e
independent learners.
Furtherm ore, le a rn e rs’ m etaco g n itiv e k now ledge is also an im portant facto r im pacting
learner autonom y. T he term in etaco g n itio n as used by Flavell (1979; 1987) refers to an
in d iv id u al's aw aren ess o f his or her co g nitive processes and strategies. In attem pting to
understand how in d iv id u als learn, he su ggested that an in d iv id u al's u n d erstan d in g o f his
or her thin k in g is ju s t as im p o rtan t to learning as the inform ation th at is learned.
A ccording to F lav ell, a learn er dev elo p s m etacognitive aw areness w hen he or she is
aw'are o f o n e ’s k n o w led g e bu t also o f w hat one does not know : noting th at one type o f

problem is hard er to learn th an an o th er, realising that a piece o f in fo rm atio n m ust be
checked before it can be accep ted as fact, and being open to co nfusion and uncertainty
w hile solving problem s. H e says, “ M etaco g n itio n refers, am ong oth er things, to the
active m o nitoring and co n seq u e n t reg u latio n and orchestration o f pro cesses in relation
to the cognitive o b jects or d ata on w'hich they bear, usually in the service o f som e
concrete goal or o b je c tiv e ” (1976: 231). M oreover, according to H acker, D unlosky and
G raesser (1998), m eta co g n itiv e aw aren ess consists o f three parts: th in k in g o f w hat one
know s

(m etaco g n itiv e

kn o w led g e),

thin k in g

of

w hat

one

is

cu rren tly

doing

(m etacognitive skill), and th in k in g o f w tiat o n e ’s current cognitive or affective state is

12

(m etacognitive e x p erien ce). W hat is im portant that w ere discussed above is that all the
beliefs and p ercep tio n s are related to learner au tonom y in that they are needed to m ake
inform ed decisio n s a b o u t o n e 's learning. If it is the aim o f education to let learners take
charge o f their o w n learning, then they need to be able to plan, m onitor and evaluate
their learning. A n d in o rd er to do so, they need to be m etacognitively aw are. As
O 'M a lle y et al (1985) sum m arizes, “ Students w ith o u t m etacognitive approaches are
essentially

learners

w ith o u t

directio n

and

ab ility

to

review

th eir

progress,

accom plishm ents and future learning d irectio n s" (1985: 24). In C hina, Y ang X iaohu and
Z hang W enpeng (2002) reached the conclusion after th eir em pirical study that the

stu d en ts' m etaco g n itio n status is tig h tly and p o sitively related to th eir E FL reading
p erform ance and also th eir E FL proficiency. S tudents w ho h old insightful beliefs about
language learn in g p ro cesses, and w ho regard th em selv es as initiators o f th eir ow n
learning and depend on th eir personal potential as good language learners “tend to
develop a m ore active and th u s, au to n o m o u s attitude that allow s them to take charge o f
their learning w h a te v er the situ atio n m ay be” (V ictori & L ockhart, 1995). I f students
hold is co n cep tio n s a b o u t th eir ow n learning, they attrib u te undue im portance to factors
external to their ow n actio n and c o n seq u en tly fail to regard them selves as causes o f their
ow n learning, th ey are un lik ely to “adopt a resp o n sib le and active attitude in their
approach to learning and m ay n ev er becom e a u to n o m o u s”(ibid). T eachers should assist
learners in m o d ify in g and rec o n stru c tin g th eir m etaco g n itiv e know ledge i f it is possibly
obstructing their learn in g and th eir potential for autonom y. B ecause learn er beliefs are
m odifiable, teach ers can ask students to talk ov er th eir beliefs and e x p ectatio n s about
language

learn in g

and

can

use

persu asiv e

co m m u n ic a tio n

to

rem ove

stu d e n ts’

m isconceptions, w h ich in retu rn can “ facilitate the d ev elo p m en t o f learn er au to n o m y ”
(Y ang, 1999). T o get o u r learners ready and w illin g for pursuing th eir learning
autonom y, teach ers should im p ro v e th eir m etaco g n itio n such as th eir attitude tow ard
autonom y, b eliefs and e x p ectatio n s about language learn in g and teaching, personal
needs and o bjectives, th eir co n scio u sn ess o f their ow n w eak n esses and strengths, and
their task and strategic k n o w ledge.
B esides, learn er au to n o m y co u ld be influenced by socio-cultural factors. From birth
onw ards, the m em b ers o f a cu ltu re are bom barded by th eir g ro u p 's public and cultural
representations c o n c ern in g v alues, tra d itio n s, w ays o f beh av in g , and so on. A s a result,
it is not su rprising if, w h en th ey en ter form al education, th eir values and p ercep tio n s o f
learning have b een in flu en ced to a co n siderable ex ten t by the values and perceptions


that they have com m only experienced w ithin their socio-cultural group. T his does not
m ean, how ever, that they have been passively m oulded or that all individuals will
conform to the com m on pattern. M ing and A lias (2007) from U niversities K ebangsaan,
M alaysia,

investigated

the

readiness

for autonom y

and

com pared

the

learning

characteristics from M alaysian ESL undergraduates o f three public universities in
M alaysia, nam ely the N ational U niversity o f M alaysia (U K M ), The Putra U niversity o f
M alaysia (U PM ) and T he O pen U niversity o f M alaysia (O U M ). The ultim ate goal o f
this study w as to determ ine the extent o f autonom y am ong M alaysian u ndergraduates in
public universities. The study revealed that a m ajority o f the students from all three
universities preferred a teacher-centered approach to learning. H ow ever, this did not
m ean that the learners w ere not capable o f being autonom ous as they did p ossess
autonom ous learning characteristics such as aw areness o f the im portance o f reading
w idely and acquiring appropriate learning strategies. The learners m ay have the capacity
to be autonom ous, but this quality w as not revealed probably because o f the influence o f
socio-cultural factors. The authors proposed that in interpreting autonom y in the
M alaysian context, socio-cultural factors should also be taken into consideration.
M oreover, for the past few years, studies on H ong K ong learners have suggested a
general pattern o f typical H ong K ong C hinese learner. H ong K ong learners w ere
reported to favour rote learning over creative learning, dependent on the syllabus,
lacking in intellectual initiative, passive, reticent, and reluctant to openly challenge
authority especially teachers (Pierson, 1996). M urphy (1987) pointed out that H ong
K ong students displayed an unquestioning acceptance o f the know ledge o f the teach er
or lecturer instead o f an expression o f opinion, independence, self-m astery, creativity
and all-around personal developm ent. In addition, an investigation o f H ong K ong
im m igrant children in C anadian schools by C han and H ui (1974) indicated th at the
C hinese students w ere very polite, but m ore quiet and shy th an other students. P ierson
(1996) further found them to be subm issive to their teacher and that they did not

challenge h im /her sufficiently. A nother personality o f C hinese students is that C hinese
students tend to be cooperative and have m ore faith in team w ork. For exam ple, w hen
they are asked to discuss the answ ers in groups, the students are m ore w illing to speak.
They know that the hum iliation and em b arrassm ent that result from the incorrect
answ ers could be shared by all the m em bers in the group. In short, socio-cultural factor
can affect the potential roles o f teachers and learners.

14


T o sum up. as discussed above, there are m any factors im pacting learner autonom y. As
related to the learner him self, the factors that exert influence on the developm ent o f
learner autonom y can be intrinsic or extrinsic or both, and are m ore or less interrelated.
A nd few w ould doubt that learner autonom y in language learning is a positive thing and
m ay lead to learners w ho are m ore proficient in the target language. T he im portant issue
o f LP will be addressed in the follow ing section.

2.2. L an gu age Proficiency

T his section aim s to provide readers a variety o f term inological definitions and
classification s o f language proficiency in general and E nglish language proficiency in
particular proposed by different authors.

2.2.1. D efin ition o f L an guage P roficiency
In spite o f v arious definitions provided for it, language proficiency has been alw ays a
difficult concept to define and realize. T he W isconsin L iteracy E ducation and R eading
N etw ork Source (2003) defines LP as "the ability to speak, read, w rite and understand
that language well enough to be able to thrive in a m onolingual society" and "com pete

with native language speakers in the classroom ". H ow ever, Briere (1972) points out that

the p aram eters o f LP are not easy to identify. A cknow ledging the com plexities involved
in the concept o f LP, B riere states th at the term ‘p ro fic ie n c y ’ m ay be defined as the
degree o f com petence o r the capability in a given language dem onstrated by an
individual at a given point in tim e independent o f a specific textbook, chapter in the
book, or pedagogical m ethod.
F arhady (1982) objects the idea by p o in tin g out the am biguities o f B riére ’s definition
and m aintains that such a com plicated definition could very w ell result in vague
h ypotheses about LP and LP tests. T hey could be vague w ith respect to unspecified
term s such as “ co m petence,” “cap ab ility ,” “dem o n strated ,” and “ in dividual.” T he term
com petence could refer to linguistic, socio-cultural, or oth er types o f com petence. The
term capability could refer to the ability o f the learner to recognize, com prehend, or
produce language elem ents (or a com bination o f them ). D em onstration o f know ledge
could be in either w ritten or the oral m ode. Finally, the expression individual could refer
to a language learner as listener, speaker, or both. T hese concepts should be clarified
and their characteristics should be identified in order to develop explicit hypotheses.

15