Student Teachers' Perceptions on the Effectiveness of Practicum and Practicum Supervisors
EFL TEACHERS' AND STUDENTS' PERCEPTIONS AND ...
184
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HUE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES LE THANH NGUYET ANH EFL TEACHERS’ AND STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS AND PRACTICES REGARDING LEARNER AUTONOMY: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY AT A VIETNAMESE UNIVERSITY IN THE MEKONG DELTA DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY THESIS IN THEORY AND METHODOLOGY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING HUE, 2019
-
Upload
khangminh22 -
Category
Documents
-
view
2 -
download
0
Transcript of EFL TEACHERS' AND STUDENTS' PERCEPTIONS AND ...
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HUE UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES
LE THANH NGUYET ANH
EFL TEACHERS’ AND STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS AND
PRACTICES REGARDING LEARNER AUTONOMY:
AN EXPLORATORY STUDY AT A VIETNAMESE
UNIVERSITY IN THE MEKONG DELTA
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY THESIS IN THEORY AND
METHODOLOGY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING
HUE, 2019
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HUE UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES
LE THANH NGUYET ANH
EFL TEACHERS’ AND STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS AND
PRACTICES REGARDING LEARNER AUTONOMY:
AN EXPLORATORY STUDY AT A VIETNAMESE
UNIVERSITY IN THE MEKONG DELTA
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY THESIS IN THEORY AND
METHODOLOGY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING
CODE: 62140111
SUPERVISORS:
1. Dr. TRUONG BACH LE
2. Assoc. Prof. Dr. DO MINH HUNG
HUE, 2019
BỘ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TẠO
ĐẠI HỌC HUẾ
TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ
LÊ THANH NGUYỆT ANH
NGHIÊN CỨU THĂM DÒ Ý KIẾN TỪ GIẢNG VIÊN VÀ
SINH VIÊN TIẾNG ANH VỀ NHẬN THỨC VÀ THỰC HIỆN
DẠY HỌC TỰ CHỦ ĐỐI VỚI SINH VIÊN CHUYÊN NGÀNH
TIẾNG ANH TẠI MỘT TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC Ở ĐỒNG BẰNG
SÔNG CỬU LONG
LUẬN ÁN TIẾN SĨ
LÝ LUẬN VÀ PHƯƠNG PHÁP DẠY HỌC BỘ MÔN TIẾNG ANH
HUẾ, NĂM 2019
BỘ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TẠO
ĐẠI HỌC HUẾ
TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ
LÊ THANH NGUYỆT ANH
NGHIÊN CỨU THĂM DÒ Ý KIẾN TỪ GIẢNG VIÊN VÀ
SINH VIÊN TIẾNG ANH VỀ NHẬN THỨC VÀ THỰC HIỆN
DẠY HỌC TỰ CHỦ ĐỐI VỚI SINH VIÊN CHUYÊN NGÀNH
TIẾNG ANH TẠI MỘT TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC Ở ĐỒNG BẰNG
SÔNG CỬU LONG
LUẬN ÁN TIẾN SĨ
LÝ LUẬN VÀ PHƯƠNG PHÁP DẠY HỌC BỘ MÔN TIẾNG ANH
MÃ SỐ: 62140111
NGƯỜI HƯỚNG DẪN KHOA HỌC:
1. TS. TRƯƠNG BẠCH LÊ
2. PGS.TS. ĐỖ MINH HÙNG
HUẾ, NĂM 2019
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I have learnt, and experienced to become an autonomous learner throughout
my PhD course. I believe that this precious experience will help me with my
teaching process. Without my supervisors’, lecturers’, colleagues’, students’,
friends’ and family’s help, encouragements, and suggestions, the present thesis
would not have succeeded.
First of all, I would like to express my deeply sincere gratitude to my two
supervisors: Dr. Trương Bạch Lê and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Đỗ Minh Hùng for their early
suggestion of the topic, invaluable guidance, support and sincere advice throughout
my PhD journey. Both of them have supplied a large amount of their expert
knowledge to me and have helped me to change track completely to finish my thesis.
I am also heavily in debt to the staff of Hue University of Foreign
Languages: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Trần Văn Phước, Dr. Bảo Khâm, Assoc. Prof. Dr.
Phạm Thị Hồng Nhung, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Trương Viên, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Lê Phạm
Hoài Hương, Dr. Tôn Nữ Như Hương who provided me with critical, useful
feedback to help me conduct my thesis better. I would also like to thank Assoc.
Prof. Dr. Lê Văn Canh for his early advice and early suggestion of the title.
I also gratefully acknowledge my colleagues as well as my students in the
Faculty of Foreign Language Education at Dong Thap University who assisted,
understood, and supported me through my thesis.
My special thanks to my Mum, my husband, my brothers’ family, and my
friends for their love, encouragement, and being with me along my PhD course.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................ i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................ii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................... vii
LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................viii
LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................ ix
ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................... x
Chapter One INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background of the research ......................................................................................... 1
1.2 Aims of the research ..................................................................................................... 7
1.3 Research questions ........................................................................................................ 7
1.4 Research significance .................................................................................................. 7
1.5 Organization of the thesis ........................................................................................... 7
Chapter Two LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................ 9
2.1 Learner autonomy ........................................................................................................ 9
2.1.1 Definition of learner autonomy............................................................................. 9
2.1.2 Roles of learner autonomy..................................................................................... 9
2.1.2.1 Learner autonomy in Asian EFL higher education............................... …10
2.1.2.2 Learner autonomy in Vietnamese EFL higher education .........................11
2.2 Learner autonomy in foreign language education ............................................. …12
2.2.1 Learner autonomy as ability ................................................................................12
2.2.2 Learner autonomy as responsibility ...................................................................13
2.2.3 Learner autonomy as cognitive processes .........................................................15
2.2.4 Learner autonomy in lifelong learning ..............................................................16
2.2.5 Learner autonomy as cultural challenge ............................................................17
2.2.6 Learner autonomy in this study .........................................................................20
iii
2.3 Aspects of learner autonomy .....................................................................................21
2.3.1 Technical aspect of learner autonomy ...............................................................21
2.3.2 Psychological aspect of learner autonomy ........................................................22
2.3.3 Political aspect of learner autonomy ..................................................................22
2.3.4 Sociocultural aspect of learner autonomy .........................................................23
2.4 Perceptions and practices ..........................................................................................24
2.4.1 Perceptions ............................................................................................................24
2.4.2 Practices .................................................................................................................26
2.4.3 Relationship between perception and practice of learner autonomy .............30
2.5 Assessment as learning in learner autonomy...........................................................31
2.5.1 Assessment as learning as an indispensable segment of LA...........................31
2.5.2 Teachers’ role........................................................................................................33
2.5.3 Learners’ role ........................................................................................................35
2.6 Previous studies on EFL teachers’ and students’ perceptions and
practices of learner autonomy ...................................................................................36
2.7 Summary ......................................................................................................................42
Chapter Three RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ..........................43
3.1 Research approach: Mixed methods research .........................................................43
3.2 Research participants ..................................................................................................46
3.2.1 Teacher participants .............................................................................................46
3.2.2 Student participants ..............................................................................................46
3.3 Data collection methods .............................................................................................47
3.3.1 Interviews ..............................................................................................................48
3.3.1.1 In-depth interview ..........................................................................................49
3.3.1.2 Group interviews ............................................................................................50
3.3.1.3 Interview for teachers ....................................................................................51
3.3.1.4 Interview for students ....................................................................................52
3.3.2 Questionnaire ........................................................................................................52
3.4 Research procedure .....................................................................................................57
iv
3.4.1 Pilot study ..............................................................................................................57
3.4.2 Main study .............................................................................................................58
3.4.3 Coding questionnaire and interview data ..........................................................59
3.5 Data analysis ................................................................................................................59
3.5.1 Qualitative data analysis ......................................................................................59
3.5.1.1 Transcribing data............................................................................................59
3.5.1.2 Translating data ..............................................................................................59
3.5.1.3 Data analysis and reconcilement ..................................................................60
3.5.2 Quantitative data analysis ....................................................................................61
3.6 Research reliability and validity................................................................................61
3.7 Ethical considerations .................................................................................................62
3.8 Summary ......................................................................................................................63
Chapter Four FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ..........................................................64
4.1 Teachers’ perceptions and practices of learner autonomy .....................................64
4.1.1 Teachers’ perceptions of the concept of learner autonomy.............................64
4.1.2 Teachers’ perceptions of the role of learner autonomy ...................................66
4.1.3 Teachers’ self-report of their practices of learner autonomy ..........................68
4.1.3.1 Teachers’ stories of organizing learner autonomy activities ....................69
4.1.3.2 Teachers’ achievements of organization and instruction of
students’ LA activities ..................................................................................73
4.1.3.3 Teachers’ difficulties of organization and instruction of
students’ LA activities ..................................................................................73
4.1.3.4 Teachers’ assessment of their students’ LA ability ...................................74
4.1.3.5 Teachers’ self-assessment about their organization and
instruction of students’ LA activities .........................................................75
4.2 Students’ perceptions and practices of learner autonomy......................................76
4.2.1 Students’ perceptions of the concept of learner autonomy .............................77
4.2.2 Students’ perceptions of the role of learner autonomy ....................................80
4.2.3 Students’ self-report of practices of learner autonomy....................................84
v
4.2.3.1 Students’ special LA stories .....................................................................84
4.2.3.2 Students’ achievements of practicing LA activities ...............................90
4.2.3.3 Students’ difficulties of practicing LA activities ....................................91
4.2.3.4 Setting goals ................................................................................................92
4.2.3.5 Study plan ....................................................................................................93
4.2.3.6 Learner autonomy activities ......................................................................93
4.2.3.7 Time management ......................................................................................95
4.2.3.8 Learning resources ......................................................................................95
4.2.3.9 Metacognition in learning language .........................................................96
4.2.3.10 Students’ self-assessment of learner autonomy ....................................98
4.3 Relationships between teachers’ and students’ perceptions and practices ....... 100
4.3.1 Relationship between teachers’ perceptions and practices........................... 100
4.3.2 Relationship between students’ perceptions and pr actices........................... 101
4.3.3 Relationship between teachers’ and students’ perceptions .......................... 103
4.3.4 Relationship between teachers’ and students’ practices .............................. 104
4.4 Discussion ................................................................................................................. 105
4.4.1 Teachers’ perceptions and practices of learner autonomy ........................... 105
4.4.1.1 Teachers’ perceptions of learner autonomy ............................................. 105
4.4.1.2 Teachers’ practices of learner autonomy ................................................. 106
4.4.2 Students’ perceptions and practices of learner autonomy ............................ 109
4.4.2.1 Students’ perceptions of learner autonomy ............................................. 109
4.4.2.2 Students’ practices of learner autonomy .................................................. 110
4.4.3 Relationships between teachers’ and students’ perceptions and
practices .............................................................................................................. 115
4.4.3.1 Relationship between teachers’ perceptions and practices .................... 115
4.4.3.2 Relationship between students’ perceptions and practices .................... 117
4.4.3.3 Relationship between teachers’ and students’ perceptions .................... 118
4.4.3.4 Relationship between teachers’ and students’ practices ........................ 119
4.4.3.5 The influential factors in relationship between teachers’
and students’ perceptions and practices of learner autonomy .............. 119
4.5 Summary .................................................................................................................. 124
vi
Chapter Five CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS ........................................ 126
5.1 Summary .................................................................................................................. 126
5.2 Contributions of the study....................................................................................... 127
5.2.1 Theoretical contributions .................................................................................. 127
5.2.2 Methodological contributions .......................................................................... 128
5.2.3 Pedagogical contributions and implications for the future of
TESOL in Vietnam............................................................................................ 130
5.2.4 Learner autonomy in local context .................................................................. 131
5.3 Limitations ................................................................................................................ 131
5.4 Further research ........................................................................................................ 131
5.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 132
PUBLICATIONS INTEGRATED IN THE THESIS ..................................................... 1
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 1
APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................... 1
vii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
LA : Learner autonomy
EFL : English as foreign language
MOET : Ministry of Education and Training
ELT : English language teaching
DTU : Dong Thap University
SPSS : Statistical package for the social science
TESOL : Teaching English to students of other languages
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Research questions and instruments .............................................................47
Table 3.2: Summary of teacher interview clusters ........................................................51
Table 3.3: Summary of student interview clusters ........................................................52
Table 3.4: Summary of questionnaire clusters...............................................................57
Table 3.5: Summary of Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients ..............................................62
Table 4.1: Students’ perceptions of ability and cognition ............................................78
Table 4.2: Students’ perceptions of responsibility ........................................................79
Table 4.3: Students’ perceptions of role of learner autonomy .....................................83
Table 4.4: Students’ practices of setting goals...............................................................92
Table 4.5: Students’ practices of planning study...........................................................93
Table 4.6: Students’ practices of LA activities ..............................................................93
Table 4.7: Students’ practices of time and life management .......................................95
Table 4.8: Students’ practices of materials and resources............................................95
Table 4.9: Students’ practices of metacognition in language learning .......................96
Table 4.10: Students’ practices of self-assessment .......................................................99
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: The interaction of perception, cognition, and action ................................30
Figure 3.1: Exploratory design procedure in this study................................................45
Figure 4.1: Integrated students’ perceptions and practices regarding LA............... 102
x
ABSTRACT
Learner autonomy is currently one of the central themes in language
education in the 21st century. In life-long learning societies, autonomous learning
plays an important role not only in university life but also extends beyond
university. Exploring English-as-foreign-language (EFL) teachers’ and EFL
students’ perceptions and practices of LA is necessary, especially in local contexts.
It became more special when the study was conducted in a rural area in Mekong
Delta because there was very little research on EFL autonomous learning there.
In the present exploratory study, a mixed methods approach was conducted
with 20 EFL teachers and 60 EFL students through in-depth interviews and group
interviews respectively, and with 285 EFL students at a University in Mekong Delta
by means of a questionnaire survey. Data of the study were collected through two
stages, including qualitative data and quantitative data.
The findings disclosed that most of the teachers and students had positive
understandings in related aspects and levels of learner autonomy as well as its role
in English language study at higher education. For teachers, in practice, they made
significant attempts to cultivate students’ autonomy. However, they faced certain
problems shared by EFL teachers elsewhere. For students, they gained
achievements to different extents and related problems were found. Besides, the
relationship between teachers’ and students’ perceptions and practices of learner
autonomy was investigated. Thereby, it implies that since learner autonomy is a
long process, students should patiently keep on cultivating it by virtue of both their
own sufficient ongoing efforts and instructor supports when in need. The findings of
this study also indicated a relationship between perceptions and practices of learner
autonomy among the teachers and the students as well. If teachers perceived the
importance of learner autonomy, they tended to apply it in their teaching practice.
Similarly, if students believed that learner autonomy was a crucial factor, they
implemented it in their own learning. The results of the study will provide more
insights of this realm for EFL teachers, policy-makers, and administrators to make
plans in order to foster EFL students’ LA ability to meet the socio-economic needs.
1
Chapter One INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents background and focus on the study. The aims of the study,
research questions, research significance, and organization of the thesis are introduced.
1.1 Background of the research
Recently, the importance of autonomy in second language learning has been
intensively concerned. Autonomy plays a vital role in language education because
in any educational contexts, learners are autonomous when they establish their own
learning goals and have responsibility for planning, managing and evaluating
particular learning activities and the learning process overall. The practice of learner
autonomy (henceforth LA) not only depends upon, but also develops and expands
the learner’s ability for detachment, critical reflection, decision making, and
independent action (Little, 1991). Yet, LA is originated from European education
(Benson, 2006) and whether it is suitable for Asian learning style (Pennycook,
1997) is both Western educators’ and Asian educators’ concern. Therefore, how
Vietnamese university students, can be encouraged to increase their autonomous
practices, which is a challenge to the Vietnamese Ministry of Education and
Training (MOET) as well as educators.
In the context of the informative technological development these days and the
changing situation of ELT in the 21st century, autonomy is considered as a crucial
goal in teaching and learning process. Therefore, the Vietnamese MOET has
supported the Law of Higher Education to promote the quality of the higher
educational system approaching international standards in the 21 st century. Recently,
the Vietnamese MOET has tried to integrate and develop LA in the credit education
system. A number of new policies have been issued. In Article 40, the Vietnamese
Education Law (National Assembly of Vietnam, 2005, p.13) mentions the
requirements on contents and methods of education in higher education, in which LA
plays a crucial role: “Training methods in higher education must be brought into play
to foster the learners’ability to be active learners, to study and to research by
themselves, and to foster their practical abilities, self-motivation, creative thinking,
and ambition”. Hence, teaching and learning method in higher education needs to be
2
fulfilled with three aims: (1) fostering students to learn autonomously, self -research,
(2) helping students to increase their creative thinking, (3) training practical ability,
attending scientific research and application. Meanwhile, the government indicates
that Vietnamese education system should be innovated totally to enrich students’
creativity, autonomous learning, and lifelong learning.
Additionally, accompanying the Decision No.1400/QĐ-TTg, 30 September
2008 issued by the Prime Minister (Vietnamese Prime Minister, 2008) in “The
National Foreign Language Project 2020”, teaching and learning foreign languages
in National educational system in 2008 – 2020 period have been innovated to meet
the requirements of industrialization – modernization and fast emerging economic
conditions of the country in the market-oriented socialism so that up to 2020 the
Vietnamese young, who graduate from colleges or universities, will have had
enough foreign language ability to use it independently, communicate it
confidently, learn, and work in the international integration based on multilingual
and multicultural settings. Furthermore, accompanying the official document
number 2196/BGDĐT-GDĐH, 22 April 2010 issued by the Vice Minister
(Vietnamese MOET, 2010) in instruction of constructing and announcing Outcome
standards, one of the program outcome standards for learners after graduating from
university is that they must own their updating knowledge ability, creation at work,
lifelong learning, and professional development. Meanwhile, Vietnamese teachers
with the traditional role are to transmit knowledge to students; they would like to
teach all things in classroom. However, in the rapid technological information era
these days students can find knowledge by a click on the Internet. Hence, teachers’
roles should change to instruct students to shape their perceptions of a certain type
of autonomous learning of language acquisition, help them discover their
autonomous learning ability, and offer them opportunities to make decisions about
their learning.
Besides, the National Strategy for Human Resource Development, 2011–2020
(Decision No.579/QĐ-TTg, 19 April by Vietnamese Prime Minister, 2011),
emphasises skills for Vietnamese human resource such as foreign language
3
competence, especially English. What is more, in the developmental education
policy in 2011 – 2020 period, accompanying the Decision No. 711/QĐ-TTg, 13
June 2012 issued by the Prime Minister (Vietnamese Prime Minister, 2012), the
Vietnamese government has identified to go on innovating teaching methods and
assessment, training students with the aim of developing their activeness, creativity,
and LA ability. In addition, accompanying the Resolution No.29/NQ-TW, 4
November 2013 issued by General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam
(Central Executive Committee, 2013), the duty of Vietnamese education to innovate
education and training basically and comprehensively is to develop learners’
creative ability, learner autonomy, and lifelong learning. Since 2015, Vietnam has
been a member of the ASEAN and ASEAN Economic Community. However, one
of the challenges of Vietnamese students and Vietnamese young human resource is
their weak foreign language competence (Nguyễn Đức Thịnh, 2015). In short,
teaching and learning foreign languages, especially English, and fostering
Vietnamese students’ LA ability have become a primary concern for the
Vietnamese government and the MOET.
For Mekong Delta, the Decision No.1033/QĐ-TTg, 30 June 2011 issued by
the Prime Minister on developing education, training, and vocational training in
Mekong Delta in the period 2011 – 2015 brought hopes for a breakthrough in
enhancing the labors’ education and quality (Vietnamese Prime Minister, 2011).
However, after five years this Decision was conducted, the quality of education and
training in Mekong Delta was still lower than other regions in Vietnam (Đỗ Nam,
Tân Thành, & Phùng Dũng, 2017). Mekong Delta consists of 13 provinces and the
majority of local people live on growing rice, fruit, and aquaculture.
Notwithstanding gaining a number of remarkable achievements of agriculture, this
area has been a “depression” in Vietnamese education, especially in teaching and
learning English. According to Lê Văn (2017), foreign language competence is
Vietnamese students’ weakness, which is one of the conclusions of the report for
analyzing Vietnamese education at the Educational Forum 2017. In this report, only
13.55% of Mekong Delta students at schools gained the standard level of
4
competence in English. This report confirmed that students’ weak competence in
English was the big barrier when they attended colleges or universities, or
participated in labor market in the context of Vietnam. For certain reasons,
traditional teaching and learning English, or teacher-centered approach in Mekong
Delta still somehow exists although educational reforms of English language
education in Vietnam have been conducted for over ten years. In the rapid
technological information era these days students can easily use a wide variety of
technological devices for English learning (Hoàng Nguyễn Thu Trang, 2017). As a
consequence, teacher role should change so as to help students to foster their LA
ability effectively. Meanwhile, like many other countries in the world in general and
other universities in Vietnam in particular, Mekong Delta’s higher education has
applied a credit system in recent years. Under this system, students are required to
rely more on themselves in learning rather than on their instructors in the classes.
The problem that appears here is how students are able to study independently of
teachers given that they did not experience this during previous education.
Although there has been a lot of research about LA conducted around the world
in many ways and a variety of studies of EFL teachers’ perceptions and practices
towards learner autonomy in Western nations, Asian countries, and Vietnam such as
Borg (2006), Borg and Al-Busaidi (2012b), Keuk and Heng (2016), Haji-Othman and
Wood (2016), Tapinta (2016), Alhaysony (2016), Nguyễn Văn Lợi (2016), and
Dogan and Mirici (2017) as well as EFL students’ perceptions and practices
regarding LA in Asian contexts generally and in Vietnam particularly (i.e. Balcikanli,
2010; Chan, Spratt, & Humphreys, 2002; Đặng Tấn Tín, 2012; Joshi, 2011; Lê Xuân
Quỳnh, 2013; Talley, 2014), their results have yet to be comprehensively generalized
and final conclusions have yet to be made. Up to now, there have been one thesis of
LA (Trịnh Quốc Lập, 2005) and an article about this field (Nguyễn Văn Lợi, 2016)
conducted in Cần Thơ University, in Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Trịnh Quốc Lập
(2005) explored LA with a tasked-based approach in a Writing course for EFL
students at Cần Thơ University while Nguyễn Văn Lợi (2016) investigated EFL
teachers’ beliefs and practices of LA in six universities – three in the central area and
5
three in the South of Vietnam. It needs to notice that Cần Thơ city has been the most
developed city in Mekong Delta in Vietnam and Cần Thơ University is the biggest
university in the South of Vietnam. Therefore, further LA research in other provinces
in the South of Vietnam, especially the poor and rural provinces, needs to be carried
out because according to Smith and Ushida (2009) LA capacity should be localized
and dealt with in particular social settings. In this vein, teachers and students in
different socio-cultural settings may conceptualize LA and implement it in their
teaching and learning practices differently.
The present study was carried out at the Faculty of Foreign Language
Education at a public university – Dong Thap University (DTU) – in the Mekong
Delta, South of Vietnam. DTU was upgraded to multidisciplinary university status
in 2003. The strength of DTU is to educate teacher students. DTU is considered a
young, active university with a mission to train high-quality human resources of
multi-careers, especially in educational science and pedagogies, to conduct
scientific research and provide community services, to enhance the socio-economic
development of the Mekong Delta. DTU hopes to be a qualified and prestigious
training center in the Mekong Delta and one of the universities educating high-
quality teachers in Vietnam. In addition, the Faculty of Foreign Language
Education, where the researcher has worked, consists of twenty-two lecturers and
has a duty to train English major teacher students and non-teacher students. Like the
students of the other faculties, EFL students are educated in a credit-based training
system. Under this system, for two periods of a subject in classroom, university
students must prepare that lesson at home for four periods. Additionally,
accompanying the Decision No.805/QĐ-ĐHĐT, 28 October 2016 issued by DTU
Rector (Dong Thap University, 2016) on issuing the Regulation for DTU students,
students have to learn autonomously (at Article 4).
Since the Decision No.2080/QĐ-TTg, 22 December 2017 was issued by the
Prime Minister on strengthening teaching and learning foreign languages in
National educational system for the period 2017 – 2025 (Vietnamese Prime
Minister, 2017), foreign-language autonomous learning has been developed.
6
However, most of English major students at Foreign Language Education Faculty at
the University obtained their weaker background in English than others in the big
cities like Cần Thơ City or Hồ Chí Minh City. For EFL students in this faculty,
especially the freshmen, they were not used to studying in a university environment
because it was quite different from the learning styles during the previous stages.
However, the current curriculum of English major at the University does not include
any course like “LA skills in learning English at higher education” and there has not
been any handbook of learning English major autonomously. Thus, they faced with
difficulties to adapt themselves to the needs of the university learning environment
because to comprehend knowledge at higher education totally, students had to make
significant efforts in learning, save a lot of time for learning autonomously, and
adopt their own effective learning methods. In this case, Thomas and Ben (2008)
indicates that there is a wide and growing opportunity gap between urban and rural
and between a wealthy elite and the great majority who remain poor. For this
reason, a large number of students in rural or remote or island areas have not had
enough conditions to study English.
Importance of research on LA in teaching and learning English at DTU
The context of this study is that Mekong Delta tertiary education in general,
and DTU in particularly have made an effort to be able to keep up with other big
universities in other regions in Vietnam. According to Dương Thị Hoàng Oanh
(2011), autonomous skills are needed to give students necessary transferable skills
for facing the real social situation after university. Also, she claims that autonomy is
very seldom and ineffectively practiced, and there is very little research in Vietnam
into its concept and practice. Actually, up to the time this study starting to be
conducted in 2014, there had not yet been any research related to LA for both
teachers and students carried out in this faculty, although it had run for nearly 15
years. Hence, further research needs conducting in this field in such rural areas as in
the Mekong Delta, South of Vietnam, especially in DTU to find out some solutions
to improve EFL learners’ LA ability in a local context. This study, thus, explored
how much teachers and students understood the learner-autonomy concept and how
7
they applied it in teaching and learning process in a university in Mekong Delta,
South of Vietnam, where little research about LA among EFL teachers and students
had been done. The present study made an attempt to explore this as well as to
provide more insights about LA in the views of Vietnamese-speaking EFL teachers
and students, who were maybe the insiders of their own LA developing process.
1.2 Aims of the research
The present study sets out with three main aims. First, it aims to understand
how Vietnamese EFL teachers perceive LA and express it in their teaching practice.
Second, it explores students’ understanding of LA and the ways they learn English
autonomously. Lastly, it investigates the relationship between the EFL teachers’ and
the EFL students’ perceptions and practices of LA.
1.3 Research questions
With the aims stated above, the following research questions are addressed in
relation to EFL teachers and students in a Vietnamese university in the Mekong Delta:
1. What are EFL teachers’ perceptions and practices of LA?
2. What are EFL students’ perceptions and practices of LA?
3. What are the relationships between EFL teachers’ and EFL students’
perceptions and practices of LA?
1.4 Research significance
This study aimed to achieve some significance in LA field. First of all, the
present study provides necessary insights into models of LA from local EFL
teachers and EFL students’ perspectives in learning environments in a rural area in
Mekong Delta, South of Vietnam. Second, understanding teachers’ and students’
practices of LA in EFL learning environment contributes to a LA profile for the
local context in Vietnam. Third, the current study contributes more knowledge to
LA field which is provided in Chapter Two.
1.5 Organization of the thesis
The thesis is held into five main chapters. In Chapter One, the author would
like to describe the important part of autonomy in language learning in tertiary
education and the reason why this study was carried out. Chapter Two discusses
8
theories of autonomy with basic knowledge background so that the author uses
them to discuss many solutions in later chapters. The research design as well as
methodology to fulfill this thesis presented clearly in Chapter Three. After that, data
were analyzed, and shown in findings, and then the results found were discussed
effectively in Chapter Four. Some suggestions and further research were given in
Chapter Five.
9
Chapter Two LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter addresses a synthesized short description of learner autonomy in
foreign/second language learning. It begins with presenting the definition of LA and
the role of learner autonomy in higher education is discussed. Next, a summary of
five definitions, and four aspects linking to LA are introduced. Teachers’ and
students’ perceptions and practices of learner autonomy are then addressed. Finally,
both teachers’ and students’ assessment of LA are presented. These are a base of
exploring process of EFL teachers’ and students’ perceptions of LA and how they
implement it in their teaching and learning.
2.1 Learner autonomy
This section defines LA and the role of LA in teaching and learning language
in higher education. Then, detailed discussions about the role of LA in Asian EFL
tertiary education as well as in Vietnamese one are presented.
2.1.1 Definition of learner autonomy
Learner autonomy was primitively defined as the “ability to take charge of
one’s own learning” by Holec (1981, p.3) and up to now this definition has been
cited in LA literature often. Holec (1981) also states that LA ability is not inborn,
but learners can obtain it by practicing it in formal education. Hence, later LA has
been believed and defined in practice in such a variety of ways that Little (1991)
calls it as a “buzz word”.
2.1.2 Roles of learner autonomy
In the context of the rapid technological development today and the changing
situation of teaching methods in the 21st century, LA is considered to be a crucial
goal in teaching and learning process. LA in language learning is not new, but in the
last three decades it has still been an interesting topic and had an extremely
powerful effect on language teaching and learning (Benson, 2006; Blidi, 2017). In
language learning, LA has been a major objective, especially in higher education
(Sinclair, 2000). In Norman’s view (1994), LA should become an aim of education.
These days, the important duty of education is to instruct students how to achieve
knowledge by themselves, and how to continue to have their interest in learning.
10
Moreover, LA can make learners to gain their creation and independence in high
levels. Improving learners’ autonomous learning ability should be considered as one
of the most vital factors that lecturers as well as educators try their best to conduct.
It goes without doubt that to improve students’ ability to learn autonomously
becomes every teacher’s duty. Borg and Al-Busaidi’s findings (2012a) point out
that in terms of learner-autonomy impacts on second/foreign language learning,
93.4% of teachers agree that LA contributes to language learners’ success
remarkably. According to Bajrami (2015, p.149), LA promises “the positive
outcomes at the university level, such as flexibility, adaptation, self-initiative, and
self-direction”. One more major reason for continuing exploring and developing LA
at tertiary education is for the purpose of life-long learning for both teachers and
students. For example, in politics, lifelong learning is emphasized as “an investment
in human capital” (Blidi, 2017, p.7). In other words, students should be fostered “a
set of targeted skills and competencies” to meet the requirements of the present
economy, culture, and job market (ibid.). It is extremely vital for research educators,
policy-makers, administrators, and teachers to enhance suitable and necessary skills
for students in lifelong learning. In brief, LA plays an important role of instructing
university students.
2.1.2.1 Learner autonomy in Asian EFL higher education
Recently, a large number of studies about the benefits of LA and the
importance of fostering LA in foreign/second language education in Asian context
have been conducted. This shows the positive role of LA in this field in Asian
university settings, especially in the context of LA considered to have originated
from Western countries and so far to have been used in Asia with a crucial role to
help students become active and autonomous learners. For example, Dafei (2007)
proves that learners’ English competence has a close-knit relationship with their LA
ability. In other words, when learners have good LA capacity, they will learn
language better and vice versa. In Balcikanli’s study (2010), when students have
chances to decide their learning process, they show their positive attitude and it
makes their learning more and more focused and purposeful. To agree with the vital
11
role of LA, Cakici’s findings (2017) show that LA is highly valued by participants,
and they are willing to take more responsibilities for and make decisions about their
own language learning. Generally, the value of LA has extremely been appreciated
by the researchers as well as the informants.
2.1.2.2. Learner autonomy in Vietnamese EFL higher education
These days, LA has appeared in Vietnamese MOET’s educative strategies, in
Vietnamese Education Law, as mentioned in section 1.1 above, which shows the
importance of LA in learning. Mentioning the role of LA in higher education, Trịnh
Quốc Lập (2005, p.17) indicates that one of the goals of English Language Teachers
training programs in Vietnamese universities is LA development. That means the
programs aim to develop English major students’ personal and autonomous learning
skills, which they will go on using after their graduation from university. Therefore,
by exercising autonomy learnt within the educational context, a person will have
ample opportunity to practise autonomy by exposing himself to learning tasks
(Nguyễn Thị Cẩm Lệ, 2009, p.11).
In addition, Đặng Tấn Tín (2012, pp.26-27) indicates that LA “directly
contributes to both processes and outcomes of learning activities”, helps “students
to face the challenge of technical difficulties”, and “is especially important for
knowledge construction and sustainable learning in today’s globalized world”.
Besides, Lê Xuân Quỳnh (2013) considers the role of LA in three aspects such as
ideology, psychology, and economy. Dương Mỹ Thẩm and Seepho (2014) assert the
increasing important role of LA in both academic study and teaching practices in
the 21st century by pointing out that students are taught not only knowledge but also
the practices of LA. Nguyễn Văn Lợi (2016) compares the Western concept of
“LA” with the Vietnamese one “tự học” (translated literally as study by oneself).
After that he investigates the potential to increase LA in Vietnam and finds that the
top-down education system has prevented the development of LA though it can be
grown in Vietnamese local context. In short, LA is also crucial in learning English
in Vietnam.
12
2.2 Learner autonomy in foreign language education
Over the last three decades, the term “learner autonomy” has been one of the
primary concerns in second/foreign language learning literature. Clarifying LA
attributes is vital to EFL teachers and learners in their teaching/learning processes.
Given a variety of adopted views of the concept of LA, researchers have not yet
reached a consensus on the definitions of this term. As a result, a large number of
definitions have been introduced up to now. Generally, researchers have defined it
as “learners’ capacity in learning” (Benson, 2001; Dam, 1995; Dickinson, 1994;
Holec, 1981, 1985; Little, 1991; Littlewood, 1996), “responsibility in learning”
(Benson & Voller, 1997; Borg & Al-Busaidi, 2012b; Dam, 1995; Holec, 1981;
Little, 1991; Littlewood, 1999), and “cognitive attitude in learning” (Dickinson,
1995; Little, 2000, 2004; Wenden, 1991). Recently, Alhaysony (2016, p.46) reviews
different definitions of LA defined by many language researchers and concludes
that most of them have focused on learners’ ability, capacity, responsibility, control,
demonstration, attitude, willingness, mode of learning. In the present study, three
key terms of LA such as ability, responsibility, cognition are echoed, and then two
more other definitions of LA – lifelong learning and cultural challenge – are
explored.
2.2.1 Learner autonomy as ability
Holec (1981, p.3), one of the pioneers in this field provides a definition of
LA as “ability to take charge of one’s own learning” – one that is popularly cited by
language researchers around the world. Thus, LA is the ability to proceed to
learning independently and consciously. Additionally, Holec (1985, p.180) defines
LA as “a matter of acquiring those capacities which are necessary to carry out a
self-directed learning programme”. Meanwhile, others use the concept “capacity”
instead of “ability” for LA in their studies (Benson, 2006). For example, Little
(1991, p.4) likens autonomy to “a capacity for detachment, critical reflection,
decision-making, and independent action”. It is clear that Little (ibid.) emphasizes
learners’ cognitive abilities to detach themselves, analyze and make decisions on
their own, followed by being able to act or perform independently. In more details,
13
Dickinson (1994) makes these LA cognitive abilities of language learners clearer
through being able to recognize the objectives of what they learn in the c lassroom,
plan their own learning goals, choose a suitable type of learning strategies, and
manage and evaluate their implementation of learning strategies. Moreover, Dam
(1995, p.1) confirms the concept again when defining LA as “a capacity and
willingness to act independently and in co-operation with others, as a socially
responsible person”. Littlewood (1996) agrees with others when he indicates two
main attributes to LA are ability and willingness. He explains learners’ autonomous
learning ability is based on their “knowledge about the alternatives from which
choices have to be made and the necessary skills for carrying out whatever choices
seem most appropriate” (Littlewood, 1996, p.428), while learners’ willingness is
based on their motivation and their confidence. He strongly confirms that a learner
who wants to be successful in practice autonomously must combine ability,
willingness, knowledge, and skills together.
Benson (2001) also supports Holec’s view (1981, p.2) when defining LA as
“the capacity to take control over one’s learning”. Although the former replaces the
term “ability” of Holec (ibid.) with “capacity” and “take charge of” with “take control
over”, both the former and the latter (ibid.) appear to focus on learners’ voluntary
responsibility for learning. In other words, Benson (ibid.) defines that LA is learners’
ability to take control over their own learning which is the main factor of all
conceptualizations about LA. Subsequently, he (2009, p.18) continues to develop the
concept of LA as a combination of “abilities, attitudes or dispositions”. Therefore, it
is necessary for students to obtain their ability of learning autonomously and for
teachers to adopt a crucial role in fostering this ability in learners.
2.2.2 Learner autonomy as responsibility
All of the above definitions of LA imply that language learners should take
responsibility for their learning. Holec (1981, p.3) also mentions that LA is - “to
take charge of one’s learning is to have, and to hold, the responsibility for al l the
decisions concerning all aspects of this learning”. He emphasizes that through
taking responsibility for their own learning, autonomous learners could manage all
14
decisions about their learning such as determining objectives, clearly showing
contents and progressions, choosing methods and techniques used, observing the
process of acquisition, and evaluating their learning. Dickinson (1987, p.11) points
to LA as a “situation in which the learner is totally responsible for all of the
decisions concerned with his or her learning and the implementation of those
decisions” (as cited in Hui, 2010). According to Little’s definition of LA (1991,
p.4), autonomous learners are people who take responsibility for their own learning
apparently and obviously.
Ho and Crookall (1995) suggest a model with many certain activities for
Chinese learners taking responsibility and for their learner autonomy ability studied
and obtained. They focus on learners’ taking responsibility for their own learning
through certain actions such as making decisions about their learning, study plan,
evaluation of their learning, monitoring, and assessment. For instance, they show
the ways to help students develop skills to make decisions, “take responsibility for
the simulation tasks” namely “goal setting”, “weekly meetings to discuss the affairs
of state”, and “for the learning and use of necessary skills” such as “conflict
resolution skills, language skills for professional communication, and time
management and contingency planning” (Ho and Crookall, 1995, pp. 6-7).
Taking LA as responsibility also means developing a set of behaviors and
skills which Benson and Voller (1997, p.2) classify into five main components.
Specifically, learners can be considered autonomous learners if they are able to
“study entirely on their own”, form “a set of skills which can be learned and applied
in self-directed learning”, activate their “inborn capacity which is suppressed by
institutional education”, implement their “responsibility for their own learning”, and
“determine the direction of their learning”. In addition, Littlewood (1999) maintains
that autonomy should consist of two characteristics: 1. Learners should have a duty
to their learning process; 2. Learners have to design their learning objectives, find
their learning styles, and assess their learning process. It can be clearly seen that
learners should be directly responsible and active in their learning. As a student
pays attention to his learning, he will try his best to find out his suitable learning
15
way for him, plan his short-term and long-term study, and then self-evaluate what
he gains.
Through above researchers’ views of LA, it seems that autonomous learners have
to take responsibility for their own learning activities. To gain that, they need to have
conscious attitudes in learning which are discussed in the immediate next section.
2.2.3 Learner autonomy as cognitive processes
One more definition of LA is supported as cognitive process by researchers.
Specifically, Wenden (1991, p.15) believes that autonomous learners are the ones
who “have acquired the learning strategies, the knowledge about learning, and the
attitudes that enable them to use these skills and knowledge confidently, flexibly,
appropriately and independently of a teacher”. She argues that to develop LA,
knowledge about learning strategies (cognition, self-management), knowledge
about language learning (metacognition), and knowledge about learner attitudes are
essential. Dickinson (1995, p.167) also considers LA as “an atti tude towards
learning”. In other words, students should be prepared to make decisions about
their own learning. In White’s study (1995, p.209), LA is thought as “an attitude on
the part of the learners towards taking control of the language learning process”.
Dam (1995, p.1) also gives one definition of LA: “Learner autonomy is
characterized by a readiness to take charge of one’s own learning in the service of
one’s needs and purposes”. Little (2000, p.16) highlights the notions of
individuality and independence as being the nucleus of the concept of LA. He
argues that “individual cognition is embedded in processes of social interaction”. In
brief, learners’ cognition of LA and their attitude to LA are very important for their
own learning.
As mentioned above, metacognition is one of the important factors of learning
attitude for autonomous students to take. According to Hennessey (1999, p.3),
metacognition is “awareness of one’s own thinking, awareness of the content of one’s
conceptions, an active monitoring of one’s cognitive processes, an attempt to regulate
one’s cognitive processes in relationship to further learning, and an application of a
set of heuristics as an effective device for helping people organize their methods of
16
attack on problems in general”. Also, Rolheiser, Bower, and Stevahn (2000, p.32)
define metacognition as “thinking about thinking”. In other words, it is considered as
learners’ understanding of their thinking processes with the aim of obtaining a
number of “cognitive skills” to finish a task or gain a goal or final product. Rolheiser
et al (2000, p.34) indicate that “students who have acquired metacognition skills are
better able to compensate for both low ability and insufficient information”. The
concept of metacognition is further supported by Harris (2003, p.4) who maintains
that “metacognition is concerned with guiding the learning process itself and so
includes strategies for planning, monitoring and evaluating both language use and
language learning, key elements in developing autonomy”.
In short, learners’ consciousness in autonomous learning plays an important
role. How to help students control this cognitive process is very vital to develop
their learning effects.
2.2.4 Learner autonomy in lifelong learning
According to Thomson (1996, p.78), language learning is “a life-long
endeavor”. LA lays the foundation of lifelong learning. Jacobs and Farrell (2001,
p.5) show that LA emphasizes the process of learning and students have to “see
learning as a lifelong process”. Kose (2006, p.29) mentions LA as “lifelong learning
project”. Borg and Al-Busaidi (2012b, p.3) hold that LA “prepares individuals for
lifelong learning”. Azizi (2014, p.130) indicates that LA is “a matter of lifelong
process rather than a need for a particular situation or course”. In addition, LA is
learners’ lifelong learning process after they graduate from university. According to
Blidi (2017), the development of lifelong learning is deemed to strongly impact on
policies of education and trends in teaching and learning in Europe as well as in the
globe because it is considered as the solution to connect education products and the
important and essential things of social economy. Blidi (ibid., p.6) uses the image of
the bridge as a metaphor of lifelong learning to fill “the gap between education
systems and the socio-economic needs”. In short, lifelong learning is an important
perspective of LA in language learning.
17
2.2.5 Learner autonomy as cultural challenge
Recently, LA has been considered as a concept which affects language
teaching and learning in different settings, and culture has become an important
factor in relation to its suitability and effectiveness. Additionally, LA has been
considered as a cultural characteristic in Western countries versus Asia countries.
Hence, Blidi (2017) indicates that it is necessary for researchers to give attention to
the impact of culture on different characteristics of LA, and suggests that culture is
the motivation of LA and a challenge to promote LA. In this light, some research of
LA as a cultural challenge to ASIAN students has been conducted up to now. Ho
and Crookall (1995) show that Asian learners, consisting of Vietnamese learners,
have the same strong beliefs of social relations and relational hierarchy in the
classrooms. Students must respect their teacher’s explanation or opinion. Moreover,
Littlewood’s view (1999) about this term is that East Asian students own reactive
autonomy; meanwhile, Western ones have proactive autonomy. In addition, Asian
leaners consider the formal and teacher-led learning method important. Đặng Tấn
Tín (2010) claims that influenced by the Asian culture, the common philosophy of
Vietnamese education practice is more absorbing and memorizing, but less
experimenting and creating knowledge. Besides, students’ creativity is less
encouraged at schools. Therefore, they have an intention of not taking responsibility
for their own studying in their learning process. Furthermore, Phan Thị Thanh Thảo
(2012) indicates that East Asian students are used to teacher-centered method.
According to Nguyễn Thanh Nga (2014), there are three main differences
between Western cultures and Asian cultures in academic environment. First of all,
the connection of teachers and students is mentioned. In Western cultures, teachers
and students are quite equal, and have informal relationship. The students can
comfortably question and challenge their teachers and their classmates. Moreover,
they are independent of learning. Meanwhile, in Asian cultures, the teachers are
always respected and stay in control of their students’ studies. The students often
have their passive way to learn and do not dare to put question to their teachers.
Next, the second dissimilarity is learning styles and approaches to learning. In
18
Western education, student-centered methodology is widely applied, and students
are expected to learn deeply and responsibly as well as develop their critical
thinking. Asian students, in contrast, always wait to receive knowledge or
information from their teachers. The teachers have dominated both teaching and
learning process. Students pay attention to surface learning and learn by heart what
teachers transmit in class. Finally, the last different characteristic between Western
and Asian students is attitudes to knowledge and learning. Western students think
people can possess their own ideas and they admit others’ ones. They do not accept
dishonesty or plagiarism in learning environment. However, Asian students do not
have the same thought as Western ones. They think knowledge cannot be possessed
and do not often cite the source of ideas or information in their writing.
In Vietnam, English has been a core subject from primary schools to
universities, and educational reforms of English subject have been conducted for
over ten years. However, it has been facing lots of challenges and is considered one
of the most serious issues worth concerning for future development. In Kennett and
Knight’s words (1999), sitting in rows of immobile tables and chairs, Vietnamese
students’ learning follows the hierarchy of first listening to the teacher, then
repetition, and then copying models. Most of the time, classroom interaction is one-
way, between the teacher and the individual student. Students will answer the
teacher’s question when asked. Interruptions, arguments and asking for clarification
are hardly observed. Additionally, the English learning environment in Vietnamese
classrooms could be described as a “cultural island” (Lê Văn Canh, 2000) in which
the teacher is supposed to be the provider of knowledge of the target language. The
focus of instruction is on the language structure more than on its use. It means that a
comprehensive mastery of grammatical structures of the English language is an
expected pre-requisite for teachers in teaching their students. Another role of the
teacher supposed to assume is a feedback giver. Whenever a student makes a
mistake, the teacher is expected to interrupt the student at once and to correct it. If
the teacher does not correct the student’s mistake, it is seen as a shortcoming and
the teacher is deemed incompetent. Students’ learning outcomes are evaluated
19
within a product-oriented framework, so teachers assume another role of an
evaluator who grades students’ performance on tests and exams, and makes the final
decisions on a students’ grade. Besides, they are the indicators of success or failure
in learning. As mentioned earlier, teaching and learning English are examination-
driven, which leads to another role of the teacher as a high-pass-rate guarantor. As
not being expected, what and how the teacher teaches are dictated by the
requirements of the examination, and are not linked to the learning needs of
individual students. In such a teaching context, students are expected to be the good
listeners and good imitators of their teacher. At the end of the semester, students are
expected to “return” (Lê Văn Canh, 2000) what they have learned in their lessons in
examinations. This requires rote learning. It has been observed that teachers hold a
key role in the transmission of knowledge, and are as a learning quality guarantor.
With such roles of the teachers, students are not provided with the opportunities to
take an active role for their learning (Trịnh Quốc Lập, 2005). Đặng Tấn Tín (2010,
p.5) claims that “being strongly considered part of the Eastern culture, teaching and
learning in Vietnam are more teacher-centered”.
For students in Mekong Delta, LA seems to be one of the big challenges
because of the following reasons. Hồ Sỹ Anh (2018) indicated that only 12% of
Mekong Delta people graduated from high school to university in 2014. That was
the lowest rate in comparison with other regions in Vietnam. In addition, Mekong
Delta people have not been concerning their children’s learning. It is a cultural trait
in this region that becomes a challenge for teachers and students to practice LA.
Due to the above reasons, according to Palfreyman and Smith (2003), to
apply LA in Asian context, the factor of learners’ cultural background is usually a
difficult thing. When Curtis (2004) did a LA study at RMIT University in Vietnam,
he claimed that the first way to help them learn autonomously was to change their
belief from learning by memory to the demonstration of comprehension. According
to Blidi (2017, p.10), students have different perceptions or opinions of LA and
learning because of their different cultural backgrounds. Notwithstanding students’
cultural background considered as a difficult thing to promote LA, if culture and LA
20
are thought and redefined in the learning setting, culture can become a mainly
advanced factor to develop students’ LA ability.
Scholars give all above definitions of LA in Western and Asian context of
language education. Research has been carried out to establish the appropriacy of
LA for Asian educational settings as Little (1999) does claim that autonomy is a
popular kind of language learning and can apply in any culture. Therefore,
considering and redefining the meanings of LA in foreign language education in
Mekong Delta in Vietnamese setting are necessary.
2.2.6 Learner autonomy in this study
Reviewing elements or characteristics of definitions of LA is an attempt.
However, it is difficult to determine what are the most important components of LA
in language learning (Benson, 2006). Hence, based on above analyzed definitions of
LA and sociocultural conditions in Mekong Delta in the South of Vietnam, in the
current study, LA is redefined as language learners’ cognition, ability to take
responsibility for their own learning by setting learning goals, planning, practising,
monitoring and assessing their autonomous learning processes through teachers’
guide and orientation, as well as their lifelong learning. For teachers, interpreting
students’ background cultures with regard to the autonomous learning context helps
teachers understand their students more clearly, and then they can consult and
orientate their students in autonomous learning. Additionally, teachers can design a
number of LA activities for their students. It is important for teachers to encourage
and motivate students in learning. For students, the autonomous students must be
active and motivated in their own learning (Nguyễn Thanh Nga, 2014). To be ready
in studies, they need to understand deeply what they should do in autonomous
learning. Helping and fostering LA from teachers can make them become the
autonomous learners. After that and even after graduating from the university, they
can learn autonomously.
Understanding the definitions of LA is important for both teachers and
students; however, it is quite vital for teachers to know other aspects related to the
concept of LA to develop LA better for their students. It can be seen that current
21
definitions of LA are not unanimously shared by researchers around the world.
However, the unanimous focus seems to be on the learner’s perception, intentions
and actions of his/her own learning , which can be realized in various detailed
aspects as presented above.
2.3 Aspects of learner autonomy
As mentioned in 2.2, LA is defined and clarified by a lot of researchers
around the world. Besides, it is analyzed in several aspects regularly endorsed in the
literature. Benson (1997) shows his opinions about autonomy into three standard
aspects in teaching language that are technical, psychological, and political. The
author (ibid., p.19) considers these three aspects as “ideal constructs” to explore
“relationship between autonomy in language learning and theories of knowledge
and learning”. After that, Oxford (2003, p.76) adds one more aspect of social
culture. These four aspects have contributed to establishing the conceptual basis of
LA commonly addressed in the language learning literature.
2.3.1. Technical aspect of learner autonomy
According to Benson (1997, p.19), technical aspect of LA is clearly shown as
“the act of learning a language outside the framework of an educational institution
and without the intervention of a teacher”. He emphasizes the physical situation for
autonomous learners to take and develop their responsibility for their own learning.
He uses positivism for this aspect because he believes that “knowledge is a more or
less accurate reflection of objective reality” (Benson, 1997, p.20). The technical
version of LA is linked to positivistic approaches to learning strategies and
technical skills which are necessary for students to control their own learning.
Specifically, it emphasizes the time, the place, and the way of learning, planning
and organizing the study, and assessment of learning. In view of this, it needs to
equip learners with essential learning skills and techniques so as to enable them to
learn a language and deal with circumstances in learning without a teacher. Some
previous studies (Gardner & Miller, 1999, 2011; Morrison, 2008) were based on
this aspect of LA to enhance learner autonomy in self-access learning centres.
Benson (2006) reviews a number of modes of LA beyond the classroom, namely
22
self-access centre, computer-assisted language learning, distance learning, out-of-
class learning, etc. However, the technical perspective on autonomy would be hard
to be moved without the psychology.
2.3.2. Psychological aspect of learner autonomy
Psychological aspect relates to learners’ attitudes and aware abil ity when
they take their responsibility for their own study. Benson (1997, p.19) defines
psychological aspect of LA as “a capacity – a construct of attitudes and abilities –
which allows learners to take more responsibility for their own learning”. The
psychological version of autonomy is connected to constructivist outlook and
implies LA as an ability with cognitive features (Benson, 2001), namely attitudes
and capacities influencing learners’ learning. Additionally, it involves learners’
motivation and learning style. In the vein of constructivism, learners have to
discover knowledge and then may change complicated information to become their
possession (Slavin, 2003). This perspective emphasizes the learners’ role in
building their own target language version in language learning progress. According
to Oxford (2003), this psychological aspect relates to learners’ mental and
emotional characteristics in developing their LA ability. The psychological
perspective starts to be clearer as Little (2003) connects Holec’s definition (1981)
and his in order to concretize that autonomous students have full perceptions of and
understand their courses’ goals, approve their responsibility, actively plan study and
conduct their learning activities, and usually assess their learning effects. Therefore,
this aspect suggests enhancing more mental factors, namely positive perceptions, as
well as abilities such as “reflection, and a readiness to be proactive in self-
management and in interaction with others” (Little, 2003, p.1) for the students.
2.3.3. Political aspect of learner autonomy
Political aspect of LA is based on critical theory, and focuses on learners’
“control over the processes and content of learning” (Benson, 1997, p.19). This
version of LA is the approaches that permit learners to manage both their own
learning and the institutional settings. It seems to be learners’ rights in learning.
Also, critical theory emphasizes the social contexts and the form of LA as access,
23
control, power, and ideology (Pennycook, 1997) which are looked for in particular
locations, circumstances, groups, institutions, and socioeconomic positions. In the
same line, Oxford (2003) has the same idea as Pennycook’s opinion (ibid., p.88)
when she confirms that the political-critical view “centrally involves issues of
power, access, and ideology”. It means that autonomous students have the right to
manage their own learning circumstances, to opt their learning activities, and to
become free from obligation.
2.3.4. Sociocultural aspect of learner autonomy
Basing on Benson’s three aspects of LA (1997), Oxford (2003) introduces one
more aspect of LA into her framework that is sociocultural perspective. This
perspective emphasizes social interaction in shaping learners’ cognition and
language development. Oxford (2003) bases herself on Vygotsky’s sociocultural
theory (1978) to form this aspect of LA. According to Vygotsky (1978), through
environmental stimulation and social interactions with learning environments,
people’s cognition has developed. Vygotsky (1978, p.86) describes the Zone of
Proximal Development as “the distance between the actual developmental level as
determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development
as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration
with more capable peers”. In other words, learners can practise a task with teachers’
instruction or with peer cooperation instead of performing it alone. Pennycook
(1997, p.45) states that “promoting autonomy in language learning, therefore, needs
to take into account the cultural contexts of the language learners, to open up spaces
for those learners to deal differently with the world, to become authors of their own
words”. Palfreyman (2003, p.13) indicates that “sociocultural approaches provide
valuable concepts for understanding how the behavior, attitudes and motivation of
individuals interact with cultural meanings and social interests in particular learning
situations”. Little (2004, p.19) draws on Leni Dam’s example (1995) and has a
belief that “learner autonomy involved collaboration”. In addition, Little (2004, pp.
21-22) claims that “Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory of development and learning
explained the relation between collaboration and autonomy”. Thus, this aspect
24
relates to the interactions of the students and their environment, namely a variety of
problems, community, and relationships.
It can be seen that three above aspects of LA advocated by Benson (1997,
2006) are necessary conditions. The “social” perspective that Oxford (2003)
suggests is the sufficient condition – the environment for educators to implement
LA. This four-aspect model of LA is accepted in research and many Asian authors
have adopted it to explore EFL teachers’ and students’ perceptions and practices of
autonomy (Lê Xuân Quỳnh, 2013; Nguyễn Thị Cẩm Lệ, 2009; Nguyễn Thanh Nga,
2014; Nguyễn Văn Lợi, 2016; Wang & Wang, 2016).
2.4 Perceptions and practices of learner autonomy
2.4.1 Perceptions
A number of definitions of perception in scientific research literature in the
world have been studied. Perception is defined as a series of actions of awareness,
organization, and analysis of input information. More specifically, Angell (1906,
p.122) defines perception as “the consciousness of particular material things
presents to sense”. Kanwisher (2001, p.90) indicates that the concept “perception”
is considered as “the extraction and/or representation of perceptual information
from a stimulus, without any assumption that such information is necessarily
experienced consciously”. Additionally, in Chambers Dictionary, perception is
defined as the process of recognizing “one’s environment through physical
sensation, which denotes an individual’s ability to understand”. Bodenhausen and
Hugenberg (2009, p.2) base on social cognition to define perception as “essentially
the interface between the outer and inner worlds”. McShane and Von Glinow (2010,
p.68) clearly show that “perception is the process of receiving information about
and making sense of the world around us”. It can be seen that perception is
understanding of the real world shaped from information through the five physical
abilities. People are likely to bring meaning and significance, judgments and
analyses, values, objectives to their actions. What they do in their life depends on
how they understand their position in the world. In other words, people’s perception
25
forms and determines their behavior. Thus, in order to understand one’s behavior, it
needs to understand their perceptions.
In the LA field, the term “perception” is utilized to explore both EFL teachers’
and EFL students’ perceptions of LA in a number of studies (Al Asmari, 2013;
Azizi, 2014; Đặng Tấn Tín, 2012; Dogan & Mirici, 2017; Dương Mỹ Thẩm &
Seepho, 2014; Gardner, 2007; Haji-Othman & Wood, 2016; Harati, 2017; Joshi,
2011; Wang & Wang, 2016). Based on the analysis above, in this current research
the term “perception” is, therefore, used to explore teachers’ and students’
understanding or cognition on the concept of LA.
The concept of language teachers’ perception is defined by Borg (2006) as
teachers’ cognition of what they consider, are familiar with, and believe. Basing on
Borg and Al-Busaidi’s questionnaire (2012b), Benson’s views (2011), and Little’s
views (1991, 1999), Xhaferri, Waldispuhl, Xhaferri, and Eriksson-Hotz (2015) list
ten concepts which are used as a framework to explore beliefs about LA. They are
technical views, psychological views, social views, political views on LA, the role
of the teacher in LA, the relevance of LA to diverse cultural contexts, age and LA,
language proficiency and LA, the implication of LA for teaching methodology, and
the relationship of LA to effective language learning (Xhaferri et al, 2015, p.13).
Xhaferri et al (2015, p.14) also claim that these ten concepts deal with “different
theoretical aspects of learner autonomy and cannot be seen on the same level”.
Many researchers (Haji-Othman & Wood, 2016; Keuk & Heng, 2016; Nguyễn
Thanh Nga, 2014; Nguyễn Văn Lợi, 2016; Wang & Wang, 2016) applied these
concepts in their set of questions to investigate EFL teachers’ perceptions or beliefs
of LA.
Learners’ perceptions of LA are an important issue for both educators and
learners themselves investigated by a number of language researchers. Van Lier
(1996) indicates that acting on learner’s perceptions regarding their own learning,
they can develop their strengths and improve their weaknesses in learning (as cited
in Jacobs and Farrel, 2001, p.5). White (1995, p.209) states that only when learners
have developed their “understanding of the nature of language learning, and of
26
his/her role in that process”, can they gain ability to practice LA. However, if
learners possess erroneous beliefs, they may have ineffective language learning
strategies, and not succeed in their language learning process.
Understanding LA is an important duty for teachers and students, especially
EFL ones to approach new standards in the new century. Besides, teachers’
perceptions of the valuable and meaningful LA from their academic knowledge will
help them develop as professional foreign language teachers. Also, students’
perceptions of LA and the importance of LA will help them succeed much in their
own learning. Therefore, finding how teachers’ and learners’ perceptions of LA
affecting their practices of LA is necessary for educators to be able to support them
in their language teaching and learning.
2.4.2 Practices
In this part, before both teachers’ and learners’ practices towards LA are
discussed, the definition of practice is introduced. Although a large number of the
previous studies have explored teachers’ and students’ practices of LA recently,
definition of practice has rarely been defined. Normally, those studies just presented
what teachers and students did to promote LA in practice. In this research, the
concept of practice is specified. Dewey (1904) states that giving a definition of
practice depends on one’s purpose. Dewey (ibid., p.9) indicates that practice work is
“an instrument in making real and vital theoretical instruction; the knowledge of
subject-matter and of principles of education”. Additionally, practice is defined as
“the actual application or use of an idea, belief, or method, as opposed to theories
relating to it” (Oxford living dictionaries online). It seems that practice gives
students better opportunities to acquire knowledge.
Teachers’ practices of LA relate to the ways they instruct their students doing
LA activities. One of Vygotsky’s three main themes is the Zone of Proximal
Development (Vygotsky, 1978), which is the distance where learners can study
autonomously and might need helping during learning process. To do this, Brown
(1994, p. 124) claims that instructing students how to study is an important duty for
teachers. According to Dam (1995), teachers have a vital role to play in enhancing
27
LA. Also, Sheerin (1997, p. 63) points to the “paradox of independent learning that
almost all learners need to be prepared and supported on the path towards greater
autonomy by teachers” (as cited in Benson & Huang, 2008, p. 425). Besides, to
persuade teachers to apply LA in teaching, Gardner and Miller (1999) emphasize
three main reasons for teachers having a motivation to foster LA in teaching and
learning language. The first reason is that LA improves students’ characteristics.
Second, it can be carried out both inside and outside of the classroom. Finally, it is
an important part in practices of education. Đặng Tấn Tín (2012) claims that the
development of LA needs to be fostered systematically and deliberately (Holec,
1981), and educationists and researchers have used various practices, depending on
particular situations, to enable learners to take more control of their learning.
Teachers’ important role in fostering students’ LA ability has been “expected to
help learners develop the readiness and willingness to become autonomous” (Blidi,
2017, p.14). Thus, language teachers’ roles in promoting students’ LA ability have
been researched.
A number of various technical terms are used to describe the teachers’ new
roles in autonomous learning contexts differing from traditional ones such as
facilitator, helper, coordinator, counsellor, consultant, manager, advisor, knower,
and resource (Riley, 1997, as cited in Benson & Huang, 2008, p. 426). In the same
vein, Benson and Voller (1997) give three roles of teachers in fostering LA in
learners – a facilitator, a counsellor, and a resource. For the teacher as a facilitator,
Lowes and Target (1999) claim that teachers’ duty is to control the classroom
activities and support students to build their own learning plan. For the teacher as a
counsellor, Nunan (2003) suggests that teachers should listen to learners’ learning
problems and give them the best advice which is suitable for every situation. For the
teacher as a resource, teachers are advised to direct learners to choose and use
materials which are appropriate for their own learning styles. Also, Al Asmari
(2013, p.1) indicates that as facilitators and counselors, teachers “help students to
take their responsibility by setting their own goals, planning practice opportunities,
or assessing their progress”, and “guide the students to accept responsibility for
28
their own learning, guide them to be reflectively engaged in planning, monitoring
and evaluating their learning”.
Additionally, Boakye (2007) indicates that it is important for teachers to help
students recognize their erroneous beliefs about using language so as to bring them
closer to becoming the good language learners. Little (2009) developes this idea
more clearly that teachers have to support students to recognize their own learning
wants. Similarly, Yan (2012) gives an opinion on it as follows:
Autonomy requires the understanding of new roles between teachers and
learners. It is necessary for teachers to change their role so as to adapt
themselves to the new requirement of autonomy. The promotion of autonomy
is dependent greatly on how teachers are aware of their new roles. (Yan, 2012,
p. 3)
Yan (2012) also indicates that teachers should move their role from teacher-centred
teaching method to learner-centred teaching method and consider learners as the
central to their teaching process. Furthermore, Benson (2016) emphasizes the
teachers’ role in enhancing students’ LA like this:
It is important that teachers who intend to foster autonomous learning attend to
the personal relevance of the language that is being learned. Learners are, of
course, often the best placed to determine their individual interests and
purposes, while teachers can play a role in scaffolding self-determined goals
and decision-making processes that follow them. Teachers can also play an
important role in guiding students towards resources and activities that will
meet their personal learning goals. (Benson, 2016, p. xxxiv)
He also showed five following steps for teachers who desire to enhance LA for their
students. First, teachers should positively engage in students’ learning. Second, they
supply choices and learning materials to their students. Third, they give their
students options and chances to make their own decisions. Forth, they should help
their students when they have problems. Finally, they should encourage students to
reflect what they have already done in practice LA. Additionally, ten strategies are
identified and mentioned in his study to help teachers who want to develop their
29
profession through fostering LA for their students. They are encouraging student
preparation, drawing on out-of-class experience, using “authentic” materials and
“real” language, independent inquiry, involving students in task design,
encouraging student-student interaction, peer teaching, encouraging divergent
student outcomes, self- and peer-assessment, encouraging reflection (Benson, 2016,
p. xxxix).
Regarding students’ practices of LA, based on Holec’s definition (1981) of
LA, it seems that he clarifies students’ LA ability and responsibility for their
learning through five vital actions to practice LA. Those are “determining
objectives, defining content and progressions, selecting methods and techniques to
be used, monitoring procedure of acquisition, and evaluating what has happened”
(Holec, 1981, p.3). Based on the previous definitions of LA, Dam (1995) specifies
autonomous learners’ duty in learning. They autonomously have to opt for “aims
and purposes”, “materials, methods, and tasks”, and “criteria for evaluation”,
establish learning objectives, and use “choice and purpose in organizing and
carrying out the chosen tasks”. To complete these activities well, they must be
active or even proactive in learning, create their opinions, and make study
opportunities.
From a different angle, many researchers have tried to rank LA into its
continuum of linked representation. For example, Macaro (1997, pp.170-172)
suggests a three-phase model including “autonomy of language competence”,
“autonomy of language learning competence”, and “autonomy of choice and
action”. Agreeing with Macaro’s views, Littlewood (1999) gives a model of three
features: language acquisition, learning approach, and personal development.
Additionally, Littlewood (1999) develops definition of learner autonomy in two
levels of proactive autonomy and reactive autonomy. He indicates that East Asian
students own reactive autonomy as Western ones get proactive autonomy. In the
way of proactive autonomy, learners work individually and set up their “directions
which they themselves have partially created” while reactive autonomy “which does
not create its own directions, but once a direction has been initiated, enables
30
learners to organize their resources autonomously in order to reach their goal”
(Littlewood, 1999, p.75). In practice, students should move from reactive autonomy
to proactive autonomy. Furthermore, Scharle and Szabó (2000, p.1), when
discussing the growth of autonomy, introduce a three-stage model of “raising
awareness”, “changing attitudes”, and “transferring roles”. Like the afore-
mentioned authors, Benson (2001) tries to give a model of levels of LA: learning
control and organization, a series of cognition, and the learning content. According
to Benson (2006), each of the above models proposes a positive advance of LA
from lower to higher stages.
2.4.3 Relationship between perception and practice of learner autonomy
Discussing the interaction between perception and practice, Bodenhausen and
Hugenberg (2009, p.14) indicate that “perception is linked to action in some fairly
obvious ways”. They illustrate the connection of input, perception, cognition, and
action in a diagram:
Target
Figure 2.1: The interaction of perception, cognition, and action
(Bodenhausen & Hugenberg, 2009, p.15)
The figure 2.1 shows that one’s perception through his or her cognition guides
his or her action and the action, then, impacts on perception. The present study uses
this circle to discuss the relationship of perception and practice.
Teachers’ perceptions are a crucial part in teaching practice because they
straightly influence teachers’ selection of objectives and activities. Buchmann (1986)
shows that objectives of education may shape teachers’ beliefs regarding what is
suitable for teaching and teachers’ conceptions about their professional role.
Conceptions of their role, in turn, shape their teaching practice. Reflecting and trying
Perception cognition action
31
to understand how their beliefs affect their teaching are critical to teachers’
development and change in teaching practices. Similarly, Florio-Ruane and Lensmire
(1990) state that positive change depends on teachers’ beliefs, attitudes, and
experiences before and that meaningful change in instruction is based on fundamental
change in what teachers know and believe. Moreover, Blake and Pope (2008) claim
that learners who are instructed in learning can achieve a lot of success in study.
When teachers understand and use these, they can gain success in teaching.
According to Horwitz (1987), learners’ beliefs can affect their attempts in
learning new languages and decide what they do. Moreover, Riley (1996, p.128)
shows that learners’ beliefs strongly influence their language learning process more
than their teachers’ stimulation on them because “it is their beliefs that hold sway
over their motivation, attitudes, and learning procedures”. Wenden (1986) and
Erlenawati (2002) also give their views about learners’ beliefs impacting on their
learning strategies, practices, evaluation, and motivation.
In short, one the one hand, teachers’ and students’ perceptions orientate and
guide their practices of LA explicitly or tacitly. On the other hand, teachers’ and
students’ practices of LA might be present to direct their informed perceptions.
Researchers on over the world show various opinions about the inconsistency
between the teachers’ and students’ perceptions and practices of LA and take notice
of the different contextual characteristics in the large sociocultural environment
where the teachers and students live in. The section 2.6 will indicate more detail.
2.5 Assessment as learning in learner autonomy
In this section, issues related to assessment as learning in LA. Teachers’ and
students’ roles in assessment as learning in LA are examined in detail.
2.5.1 Assessment as learning as an indispensable segment of LA
Talking about relationship between assessment and learning, Boud (1995,
p.36) states that “assessment always leads to learning” and then explains “every act
of assessment gives a message to students about what they should be learning and
how they should go about it”. Boud (ibid.) emphasizes learners’ cognition of
assessment as well as the relationship between their learning and their assessment.
32
Assessment is an important and “natural part of the teaching and learning process
and is undertaken to support learning” (Berry, 2008, p.17). She explains that
students can use data from assessment in order to establish their learning goals,
make learning decisions about their becoming better in learning, and increase their
cognition of standard work. In addition, students can assess both their own learning
and their friends’ learning. They can discuss their current learning situation and
have not only their teachers but also their friends give feedback. To summarize
these views of this field, Berry (2008, p. 17) defines the concept “assessment” as
“conscious and systematic activities used by teachers and students for gathering
information, analyzing and interpreting it, drawing inferences, making wise
decisions, and taking appropriate actions in the service of improving teaching and
learning”. From the definitions of LA, the importance of LA, and the aim at turning
learners into “authors of their own worlds” (Pennycook, 1997, p. 45) in language
learning mentioned above, it can be seen that assessing LA should be integrated in
learners’ autonomous learning. Boud (2002, p.2) considers assessment as the most
important “prompt for learning” and “a message to student about what they should
be learning and how they should go about it”. It means that assessment affects
learners’ decisions on how and what to study. Thus, assessment is a vital part in
students’ learning, and it is necessary for students to understand it more clearly so
that they can judge their own learning progress.
One of the three assessment approaches, assessment as learning (AaL), is used
in LA. According to Earl and Katz (2006, p.41), AaL is “an active process of
cognitive restructuring that occurs when individuals interact with new ideas”. In this
process, students are “the critical connectors between assessment and learning”.
Similarly, Berry (2008, p.47) states that this approach offers students’ learning
responsibility, urges students to learn in depth, and focuses on “assessment as a
process of metacognition for students”. Additionally, Berry (2008, pp. 48-49)
emphasizes that AaL has three major functions: 1. helping learners understand
standards expected of them, 2. promoting learners’ capacities of self-monitoring, self-
assessing, self-evaluating, and self-correcting their learning, 3. enabling learners to
33
develop their own study plans. Furthermore, this approach focuses on learners’
thought of their learning as well as the strategies they apply to enhance their studies.
Hence, AaL in LA is necessary for development of LA in higher education.
In general, AaL is a crucial part in LA for both teachers and students. The
important objective in AaL is to help students to obtain the skills and the habitual
behavior of mind to have metacognition on developing their autonomous learning.
AaL emphasizes the direct enhancing of students’ ability for a time to help them
become the best assessors. However, to do this, teachers’ role is to introduce,
instruct, and give chances for students to assess themselves (Earl & Katz, 2006).
2.5.2 Teachers’ role
In assessment as learning, teachers play the crucial role, including “designing
instruction and assessment that allow all students to think about, and monitor, their
own learning” (Earl & Katz, 2006, p.42). Furthermore, Earl and Katz (2006)
suggest teachers’ duties in fostering the increase of autonomous learners through
AaL. Teachers are to:
• model and teach the skills of self-assessment;
• guide students in setting goals, and monitor their progress toward them;
• provide exemplars and models of good practice and quality work that reflect
curriculum outcomes;
• work with students to develop clear criteria of good practice ;
• guide students in developing internal feedback or self-monitoring mechanisms
to validate and question their own thinking, and to become comfortable with the
ambiguity and uncertainty that are inevitable in learning anything new;
• provide regular and challenging opportunities to practise, so that students can
become confident, competent self-assessors;
• monitor students’ metacognitive processes as well as their learning, and
provide descriptive feedback;
• create an environment where it is safe for students to take chances and where
support is readily available.
(Earl & Katz, 2006, p.43)
34
Likewise, Berry (2008) states that teachers’ role in AaL is extremely important. She
indicates that teachers plan their teaching with the opportunities, which helps
students self-assess and peer-assess their learning.
Furthermore, teachers should observe and assess learners’ practices of LA.
They can learn where students’ LA ability and students’ strengths and weaknesses
are, and then they may have a teaching plan to support their students to develop
autonomy. Gardner (1999) shows teachers’ three duties in this process. First of all,
teachers have to increase learners’ awareness of positive points of self-assessment.
Next, teachers have to instruct them to carry out self-assessment forms. Finally,
they have to make students have in-depth understanding of advantages of self-
assessments in their autonomous learning.
Besides, teachers have to self-assess their instruction of LA activities because
of the following reasons. Airasian and Gullickson (1994, p.196) define teachers’
self-assessment related to the terms as “the reflective practitioner”, “personal
theorizing”, “connoisseurship and criticism”, “teacher research”, “reflection in or on
action”, “self-understanding”, and “analysis of practice”. It means that teachers
should look back on their teaching actions by research, analysis, and criticism to
self-realize the effectiveness or the ineffectiveness of their teaching activities.
Additionally, Boud (1995) suggests that teachers should provide a number of self-
assessment forms with a checklist of standards for both teachers and learners. In the
same line, according to Madsen (2005, p.21), teachers’ self-assessment was
explored in the previous research as “teachers’ thinking and reflection”. Teachers
reflect their teaching practices to self-assess whether those activities are effective or
not, and then have suitable solutions for the next time. Nova (2017) summarizes
benefits of teachers’ self-assessment in previous studies and indicates the needs of
conducting it due to the following reasons. First, teachers can recognize the
necessity of setting up activities in teaching. Next, using self-assessment, teachers
can foster their performance in teaching practices. Importantly, by self-assessment,
they can self-reflect to study situations in teaching and have more duty with their
next performance.
35
2.5.3 Learners’ role
To become the active, involved and critical assessors in assessment as
learning, students are like ones with personally analyzing, evaluating, and critically
considering what they implement in learning. Then, they can adjust, adapt, or
change their present study goals, and plan their new learning objectives. Therefore,
students are the connectors between teaching and learning (Berry, 2008).
From definitions of LA in section 2.1, autonomous language learners have to
take responsibility for their own learning and their progress. That is the reason for
self-assessment to be used in higher education since it helps “to prepare students not
just to solve the problems we already know the answers to, but to solve problems we
cannot at the moment even conceive” (Brew, 1995, p. 57). Furthermore, Gardner
(1999) considers self-assessment as an important element to look back and decide
learners’ level of knowledge and skills. Furthermore, Little, Hodel, Kohonen, Meijer
and Perclova (2007) indicate the significance of self-assessment to promoting the
development of LA to language teachers. According to Little et al (ibid.), self -
assessment plays an important role in learner reflection in both their language
learning and their target language. Therefore, learners can look back their learning
goals, their learning objectives, learning activities, and their results depend on their
perceptions regarding LA. In Little’s study (2010, p.3), LA is “to take charge of their
own learning by engaging them fully in planning, monitoring and evaluation”. One of
the important elements of learners’ evaluation is self-assessment. It can be said that
self-assessment is the key term to promote LA because the self-assessment forms can
facilitate LA in language study. By using self-assessment, learners can shape their
own standards to measure and self-assess their strengths and weaknesses in their own
language learning. Little (2004, p.22) indicates that one of three pedagogical
principles of a theory regarding LA is “learner reflection” which “acquires
independent status by virtue of the key role played by self-assessment in the
development of learner autonomy”. It means that students have to assess their
learning results and identify their strengths and their weaknesses as well so that they
36
will set up suitable learning goals and study plan in the next time. This also shows
students’ ability in assessing their development in learning.
2.6 Previous studies on EFL teachers’ and students’ perceptions and practices
of learner autonomy
Recently, a number of studies have been conducted to explore EFL teachers’
perceptions and practices of LA and achieved some results. More specifically, in the
Western, Dogan and Mirici (2017) conducted a study with 96 EFL instructors in
nine Turkish universities to explore their perceptions and practices regarding LA.
The results of their study reflected teachers’ positive ideas and definitions of LA
like previous studies, namely “responsibility, awareness, control, freedom, choice,
curiosity for further improvement and independence” (Dogan & Mirici, 2017,
p.183). They kept their perceptions strong about its advantages in learning
language. Dogan and Mirici’s study’s results (2017) reported that there was a
missing link between teachers’ perceptions and practices regarding LA. Teachers
felt it hard to involve students in making decisions on their own language learning.
Besides, Balcikanli (2010) fulfilled a study with 112 EFL student teachers at
Gazi University, Turkey through a survey and 20 volunteers of them in interview.
The results from both questionnaire and interview indicated that they possessed a
clear understanding of LA. However, it was difficult to involve themselves in
making decisions on some aspects such as choosing time and place of a class, or in
selecting materials in learning because they were not allowed.
In Asia, Borg and Al-Busaidi (2012b) carried out a study of 61 EFL teachers’
perceptions and practices about LA in a university language center in Oman. They
emphasized the necessity to investigate teachers’ perceptions of LA to enhance LA
for learners. The findings showed that the teachers had positive perceptions towards
the notion of LA and its advantages for language students. Moreover, Borg and Al-
Busaidi (2012b) showed two main views: (1) teachers’ beliefs could strongly form
both what teachers did and the studying chances students received, (2) teacher
education had an influence on teachers’ practices when it was based on an
understanding of the beliefs teachers hold. As mentioned above, Borg and Al-
37
Busaidi’s findings (2012b) showed that they found that teachers’ thought of
enhancing students’ role to decide their learning (i.e. objectives, assessment and
materials) had a mismatch with their practices. In their survey, almost 80% of the
teachers answered that their teaching offered their students many chances to
increase LA. The results from the interviews and workshops showed that there were
five activities, namely sharing the importance of LA with their students, inspiring
students to interest autonomous performance, having students reflect on their LA
activities, applying LA activities inside the classroom, and designing LA activities
outside the classroom, which those teachers used to inspire learners’ LA. However,
the participants shared difficulties which they met were fixed curriculum, students’
weak LA experience, students’ demotivation, students’ trust in their teachers,
students’ learning English out of classes, students’ aim in passing exams, limited
learning materials for both teachers and students, students’ weak capacity of
exploring learning resources, students’ weak competence in learning English, etc.
Wang and Wang (2016) reported a study of perceptions and practices of 44
language teachers regarding enhancing LA in a Chinese university through
questionnaires, interviews, and holding four workshops. Their research showed that
the participants lacked a clear understanding of the aspects of society and culture
affecting LA and did not make students increase their perceptions of LA or instruct
them to evaluate their learning. Moreover, the findings showed that 88.6% of
participants agreed that they enhanced LA for their students, and in the interview
the LA-oriented activities which they used were studying topics related to learning
in classes, self-editing or peer-grading their writing, different types of working in
groups, quizzes, students’ presenting textbook materials, online assignments, free
reading at home and then sharing in the classroom, etc. Yet, their students’ LA
ability was negative and this was the challenge for them to apply LA practices.
In addition, as educators, teachers have to understand learners’ perceptions
towards LA to be able to promote LA in many aspects. A number of studies of
exploring students’ practices of LA have been carried out in the last decade. For
instance, Chan et al (2002) conducted a research with 508 undergraduates at
38
HongKong Polytechnic University to explore their attitudes and behaviors of LA by
using questionnaire and interview. The results showed that their perception and
motivation did not create their practice of LA; most informants believed teachers
had to take responsibility for the methodological aspects such as choosing what
materials and what activities to use to learn English in English lessons, deciding
what to learn next in the English lessons and the objectives of the English course,
evaluating their learning; many of them perceived they had to take main
responsibility for deciding what to learn outside the class, making them work
harder, making sure they make progress outside class; one-fourth of participants
believed they had good/very good decision-making abilities. The results were used
to guide “curriculum development, syllabus and material revisions and inform
classroom practice regarding the promotion of learner autonomy at tertiary level”
(Chan et al, 2002, p.3). Additionally, Chan et al’s findings (2002) about LA
activities outside the classroom showed that over 50% of informants answered that
they “sometimes” or “often” conducted 10 activities, especially sending e-mails,
using English for the Internet, and watching English movies, and rarely practiced
the 12 others. For the inside activities, they rarely made suggestions to the teachers.
After that, Chan et al (2002) concluded that there was a distance between students’
attitudes and practices regarding LA. As mentioned earlier, the students had positive
perceptions on LA and high motivation, but these were not present in their
performance of learning language autonomously.
In the same vein, in Iran, Azizi (2014) conducted a study with 61 Iranian EFL
students to explore their perceptions of LA in foreign language classes and of their
teachers’ role in learning language autonomously. The findings showed that
students believed in some LA activities they and their teachers shared duty together.
Yet, in some others, students perceived that they had to take certainly responsibility
for conducting them, namely making progress outside class. In some others,
students thought that their teachers took responsibility, especially the activities
related to methodological aspects, study planning, activity control.
39
In Southeast Asia, Keuk and Heng (2016) carries out their research on 70
Cambodian EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices. The findings showed that the
teachers had the same beliefs as ones in Oman and they implemented LA activities
in classes with the aim of fostering students’ LA ability effectively in learning
English. But they admitted that it was hard for EFL teachers to apply the current
curriculum, learning resources, desirable level of LA in practice, and they did not
have enough necessary knowledge and skills to conduct studies of LA. Also, Haji-
Othman and Wood (2016) investigated 32 EFL teachers’ beliefs of LA in a specific
Brunei context. The results indicated that 81% of participants perceived that LA
influenced language learning positively; 63% deemed LA effective in helping
students learn language. In addition, Tapinta (2016) conducted a study on 35 Thai
EFL teachers’ perceptions of development of LA in Thai university context. Her
study revealed that the participants had a strong belief in developing LA. They also
recognized the role of them as facilitators in students’ learning process. Likewise, in
the Philippine university context, when exploring and finding 50 EFL teachers’
perceptions and practices on LA, Ranosa-Madrunio, Tarrayo, Tupas, and Valdez
(2016) state that their teachers deemed LA gained with a variety of class activities.
Furthermore, in Vietnam, Nguyễn Thanh Nga (2014), for example, explored
LA at ten universities in Ha Noi with 188 teachers answering questionnaires and 4
teachers taking part in interviews and observed lessons. The results indicated that
overall teachers did not have full understandings of the concept and did not enhance
LA due to many factors such as difficult conditions of their teaching settings, and
the strict courses. Especially, they did not know how to foster LA. Nguyễn Thanh
Nga’s study’s results (2014) indicated that the participants could not enhance LA
for their students due to the difficulties of their teaching setting, the strictly-fixed
syllabuses, and the fixed table-and-chair class. One more important finding in her
study was that the teachers “did not understand what learner autonomy was and so
did not know how to apply it in the classroom” (Nguyễn Thanh Nga, 2014, p.148).
Additionally, Phan Thị Thanh Thảo (2015) explored three EFL teachers’
understanding of and their perceptions of pedagogic approach to foster students’
40
language autonomy. The findings showed that teachers believed that LA consisted
two major elements: (1) ability (goal setting, planning, implementing, and
evaluating), (2) attitude (Phan Thị Thanh Thảo, 2015, p.247). They also focused on
implementation in LA to improve students’ LA ability. Besides, Nguyễn Văn Lợi
(2016) investigates 84 English language teachers’ beliefs and practices in six
universities in Vietnam. The results indicated that though English teachers showed
their appreciation of the crucial role of LA in language learning, their perceptions of
LA about students’ ability in making choices and decisions were weak. Instead, they
perceived they decided and set up class activities. According to Nguyễn Văn Lợi
(2016), most teachers in his study offered their students some activities such as giving
assignments and then checking, project work and presentations, helping students to
recognize the role of LA in learning, and instructing both learning skills and choosing
learning resources to develop LA ability. Nguyễn Văn Lợi (2016) found the same
problems as previous researchers in LA. He indicated that teachers rarely created
opportunities for students to make choices and decisions in their own learning.
In addition, Đặng Tấn Tín (2012) explored Vietnamese EFL students’
perceptions of LA in online and offline learning environments through developing a
four-dimension model, namely monitoring, initiating, goal-setting and evaluating,
and using Information Communication Technologies. The findings indicated that
goal-setting and evaluating learning was more valued than monitoring learning
processes. Besides, the participants had positive perceptions of initiating learning
opportunities as well as of the vital role of technology to help their learning. In this
light, Đặng Tấn Tín (2012) found that Vietnamese EFL students’ perceptions of LA
and their practices on LA activities based on four dimensions had a high correlation.
They cared to conduct what they deemed crucial for their language learning.
However, he stated that analyzed data in his study indicated that “the relationship
between perception and performance of LA is not strong [...]. Learners cannot
always do what they want to do for their learning even though they understand that
it is necessary and useful to do so” (Đặng Tấn Tín, 2012, p.184). The findings from
the interviews showed that they could not implement their LA activities due to
41
“travelling problems, part-time job commitments, or friend-related issues” (Đặng
Tấn Tín, 2012, p.184).
Furthermore, Lê Xuân Quỳnh (2013) studied Vietnamese students’
perceptions of LA at a private university in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. According
to his study’s results, students showed their main perception of LA as the initiating
learning, namely self-study, and as the elements of Littlewood’s reactive autonomy
(1999). Lê Xuân Quỳnh’s findings (2013) showed that most of the students in his
study practiced audio-visual LA activities such as listening to music; many of them
carried out social-interaction LA activities, and a few others applied metacognition
in learning language. He found that students performed LA activities which had
characteristics of Littlewood’s framework of reactive autonomy (1999). Students
met many difficulties when promoting their LA ability, namely teacher-dependence
learning habit in previous education, traditional teaching methods, a few chances to
implement English, and so on. Additionally, Phan Thị Thanh Thảo (2015)
investigated EFL students’ understanding of and their awareness of pedagogic
method to enhance language learner autonomy at a University in Vietnam through
project work. Accordingly, students showed their beliefs in the link between LA
and language accomplishments, in the perfect learning surroundings in which
practices and evaluation of LA focused.
Notwithstanding a variety of studies investigating EFL teachers’ LA
perceptions and practices, the obtained results are by no means invariant across the
board at all aspects under investigation. Although they are mostly positive, EFL
teachers from different contexts understand LA and get involved in developing it
for EFL students at dissimilar levels. The present study revisits LA by exploring
how EFL teachers from Dong Thap University, a rural area in South Vietnam, think
of LA values and what they are trying to do for its development. The study results
are hoped to provide more evidence to the current literature and to open for
practical instructions and further studies, at least at this university.
Despite a large number of studies exploring EFL students’ LA perceptions and
practices, the achieved results show that EFL students from different settings have
42
their understanding of LA and engage in LA activities on various levels. Part of the
current study revisits LA by investigating how EFL students from DTU, a rural area
in Mekong Delta, South Vietnam, deem LA and how they are implementing LA
activities with the aim of enriching the literature in this field and illuminating the
perceptions and performance of LA by EFL tertiary students in a low-resource
socioeconomic region.
2.7 Summary
This chapter presents an overview of definitions, aspects, perceptions, and
practices of LA in literature in previous studies. Moreover, it provides a number of
achievements of LA research as well as the constraints both EFL teachers and
students have met when they have implemented LA activities. The chapter also
discusses the role of assessment as learning in LA process for EFL teachers and
students which is rarely mentioned in previous studies. It introduces the theoretical
framework for the current study to be conducted. While a modest amount of
previous research explored LA as lifelong learning, especially LA studies in
Vietnamese context, and assessment as a part of autonomous learning, the current
study filled this gap in literature. Furthermore, this study mentioned LA as a cultural
challenge in Mekong Delta, the South of Vietnam, which has not constituted in
previous studies. The next chapter will describe the research design and methods
used in the present study.
43
Chapter Three RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
In this chapter, research methods are presented. First of all, it provides good
reasons for research approaches applied in this current study. After that, it presents a
detailed description of the research design with full information about research
participants, data collection instruments, and data analysis.
3.1 Research approach: Mixed methods research
It is a large number of complexities surrounding learner autonomy that
appeals a multiple research approach rather than a single one in order to raise the
degree of confidence in responding the three research questions in this study. Thus,
the present research employed a mixed methods approach, typified by a process of
combining and analyzing both qualitative and quantitative data (Creswell, 2014;
Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007) to gain “greater depth of understanding
and corroboration of findings” (Johnson et al, 2007, p.124). The results of a
combination of diverse data resources, got at different phases in conducting a study,
can be “the most informative, complete, balanced, and useful” (Johnson et al, 2007,
p.129) and provide more details about the circumstance explored (Creswell &
Clark, 2011; Creswell, 2012, 2014). According to Hesse-Bier (2010, p.1), the
development of mixed methods research is “a result of a convergence of the
factors”. The benefits of this mixture help more full comprehension of research
difficulties than using separate approach (Creswell, 2012, 2014). Next, there are a
number of models of mixed-method approaches. While Saunders, Lewis, and
Thornhill (2009) present three basic types of mixed methods research, namely
exploratory, descriptive, explanatory, Ivankova and Creswell (2009) introduce four
basic designs – Explanatory, Exploratory, Triangulation, and Embedded. Depending
on research purpose, researchers can choose a suitable kind of mixed methods
design for their study (Saunders et al, 2009).
In this research, an exploratory study of mixed methods design was opted
because the aim of this research kind was to find “what is happening; to seek new
insights; to ask questions and to assess phenomena in a new light” (Robson, 2002,
p.59). Saunders et al (2009) indicate that exploratory research is particularly
44
advantageous for researchers when they want to clarify their comprehension of an
area. The current study searches to understand the EFL teachers’ and the EFL
students’ perceptions and practices of LA at a university in Mekong Delta, the
South of Vietnam where there is little research available in this field. Up to now,
there has been only Trịnh Quốc Lập’s work (2005) about Writing for EFL students
conducted at Can Tho University – the biggest university in Mekong Delta, the
South of Vietnam. Therefore, exploring other aspects of LA in other provinces in
Mekong Delta is necessary to have full understanding of LA field in the local
contexts. According to Cooper and Schindler (2014, p.129), the exploratory
research is extremely useful in circumstances in which information is limited, and
basing on exploration researchers progress “concepts more clearly, establish
priorities, develop operational definitions”. They suggest that for new or vague
field, researcher should conduct exploratory research to study something about the
difficult situations they are facing.
Besides, Cooper and Schindler (2014) state that different techniques,
including both quantitative techniques and qualitative techniques, can be applied in
exploration though an exploratory study is based more heavily on qualitative
techniques. Next, to conduct an exploratory study, in procedure of fulfilling the
study, at first the researcher started by investigating with qualitative data, and
analyzed them. Then, the results of analyzed qualitative data were used to build
quantitative data in the second phase (Creswell, 2014). The qualitative data can
provide some aspects in details about what EFL teachers and EFL students think
about LA and its role in learning English, and what they utilize LA in local teaching
and learning situation in order to build more information in this field in literature
and to be foundation for designing a set questionnaire for quantitative research. The
quantitative data permits the study to recognize the local EFL students’ perceptions
and practices of LA in depth. This combination of two data resources can support
the research to understand the study problem clearly (Johnson et al, 2007). Hence, it
is completely suitable for the researcher to use an exploration with both qualitative
and quantitative techniques for this study.
45
Saunders et al (2009, p.140) indicate three major ways to carry out an
exploratory study, namely “a search of the literature, interviewing “experts” in the
subject, and conducting focus group interviews”. The present researcher sought to
understand both EFL teachers’ and EFL students’ perceptions and practices of LA
more deeply and completely in different aspects as well as their advantages, their
disadvantages, and their self-assessment of practicing LA. In order to get
information from EFL teachers about their thoughts of their students’ autonomous
learning and the ways they practiced LA in their teaching, and to have more
students’ experiences of learning autonomously to be further explored, the
researcher used neither interviewing “experts” nor focus group interview as
Saunders et al (2009) mentioned above. The reasons were that the EFL teachers and
the EFL students maybe were not experts of LA, and the participants were not asked
to discuss LA in conversation. Instead, in-depth interview for EFL teachers and
group interview for EFL students were used in qualitative research, and
questionnaire was utilized in quantitative research. Figure 3.1 illustrates research
design in this study.
Qual Qual Connect Quan Quan Interpret
Figure 3.1: Exploratory design procedure in this study
In brief, integrating quantitative research and qualitative research in this
study is necessary to have in-depth understanding of teachers’ and students’
thoughts and real situations of applying LA in learning and teaching in Mekong
Delta. Questionnaire can supply numerical data of a large number of respondents;
meanwhile, interview data usually collects a clear, deep understanding of
informants’ perceptions and practices (Kendall, 2008). Simultaneously, collecting
data from questionnaire and interviews provides a variety of sources of information
in different aspects of LA which are a foundation to give some suggestions in the
following chapter of this study. Besides, both qualitative research and quantitative
Interviews
(N = 80)
Codes and
categories Developing
survey
items
Survey
(N =
285)
Internal consistency
reliability; content
and construct validity
Interpretation
based on
QUAL and
QUAN results
46
research support together to increase the reliability to answer three research
questions for this study.
3.2 Research participants
3.2.1 Teacher participants
A total of 20 Vietnamese-speaking EFL teachers in Foreign Language
Education Faculty, at a university in Mekong Delta, South Vietnam (where the
present author has been working as an EFL lecturer for nearly 10 years, and this
Faculty has 26 EFL teachers in total), voluntarily took part in the interview. There
were six more EFL teachers in the Faculty, but for some personal reasons they
refused to join the interview. They were all MA holders, 13 females and seven
males from 23 to 50 years old, currently teaching English major classes. Like their
partners in other universities throughout Vietnam, most of them have so far taught
several different subject courses (i.e. speaking, listening, reading, writing, and
grammar). It should be noted that by the time the current study was conducted, none
of them had attended any workshops or training programs exclusively on EFL
students’ LA. They were asked about their perceptions of LA as well as the role of
LA in students’ learning in university environment. Besides, these voluntary
teachers responded whether or not they instructed their students learning
autonomously outside classroom. If yes, how they implemented and how they
checked their students studying autonomously. The reason why teachers were
interviewed in this research was because as mentioned in literature review section,
teachers recognized their role in students’ autonomous learning, which was very
vital. They shared their real stories about students’ autonomously learning ability.
They were valuable evidence to evaluate the reality of applying LA.
3.2.2 Student participants
The second participant group were 285 current English majors (243 females
and 42 males from 18 to 25 years old) in Foreign Language Education Faculty at the
university. They included 52 freshmen, 107 sophomores, 55 juniors, and 71 seniors.
The number of participants depended on the total of students of each academic
course and their willingness to take part in this study. They all had around ten years’
47
experience of learning English at secondary and high schools. All of them
volunteered to join the survey, and complete the questionnaire. Of 285 participants,
60 voluntary students responded to interview questions of what they learned after
school. They were six males and 54 females (which represented well a male-female
student ratio in this faculty in current years) from 18 to 22 years old. It included 15
freshmen, 15 sophomores, 15 juniors, and 15 seniors (2016-2017 academic year).
The researcher wanted to interview 60 students because she would like to have the
large qualitative data to serve the purpose of this research as well as to get more
information for this study. After fully informed of the purpose of this study by the
author, all of them volunteered to join this research, and answered interview
questions relating to both their perceptions of LA and what they did to develop LA
in their learning. It should be noted that none of them have yet to attend any training
programs exclusively on EFL students’ LA.
3.3 Data collection methods
In this part, the contents and benefits of not only interview questions but also
questionnaire are introduced. At the beginning, a summary of research questions
and instruments is presented below.
Table 3.1: Research questions and instruments
Research questions Instrument Number of respondents
1. What are EFL teachers’
perceptions and practices
regarding LA?
In-depth interview
20 EFL teachers
2. What are EFL students’
learner-autonomy perceptions
and practices?
Group interview
Questionnaire
60 EFL students
285 EFL students
3. What are the relationships
between EFL teachers’ and
EFL students’ perceptions and
practices regarding LA?
Questionnaire
Group interview
In-depth interview
285 EFL students
60 EFL students
20 EFL teachers
48
3.3.1 Interviews
The benefits of interview have been appreciated by many researchers.
According to Kvale (1996, 2003), interview is a powerful way to receive informants’
narrative deeply. Communicating with one or more people through spoken way is one
of the most effective methods to gain their ideas about the research topic. Also,
Cohen, Manion, and Morison (2007, p.29) show that the benefit of interview is “a
valuable method for exploring the construction and negotiation of meanings in a
natural setting”. Moreover, Kumar (2011) gives some benefits of interview; for
example, it is more suitable for complicated contexts, a helpful tool to collect clear,
deep data; the researcher can describe interview questions more clearly. In interview
process, the interviewees not only report their views detailedly but also they can
“speak in their own voice and express their own thoughts and feelings” (Berg, 2007,
p. 96). It is a common tool in collecting data in research.
There are a number of types of interview, and it is crucial for researchers to
choose a suitable interview for their studies; hence, it is not except for this study. As
mentioned above, in-depth interview and group interview were used in this study
instead of other kinds of interview because of the following reasons. According to
Saunders et al (2009), one of three principle paths to carry out an exploratory study
is focus group interview. However, these researchers also state that in an
exploration, in-depth interview is very suitable to seek information; structured
interview is effectively used in descriptive research; and semi-structured interview
is helpful for an explanation. Similarly, Cooper and Schindler (2014) indicate that
one of four exploratory techniques is focus group interview. Normally, a focus
group includes from 6 to 10 participants exchanging their opinions, feelings, and
experiences on a particular topic, and they must discuss their ideas together.
Meanwhile, in this study, there were 20 teacher interviewees and 60 student
interviewees. If both teacher and student informants had been interviewed as focus
groups, it would have been hard for the researcher to obtain the results as expected
because the aim of this research was to investigate respondents’ perceptions and
practices about LA at a university. Specially, their experiences of autonomous
49
learning in the past, at present, and their intention in the future were explored
carefully. Their real stories about LA in learning and teaching were valuable data
for this study. They did not “exchange” or “discuss” their ideas and experiences;
instead, they just told the interviewer their working life and their learning life with
LA. According to Creswell (2014, p.32), qualitative research is used to explore and
understand “the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human
problem”. With qualitative method, researchers can focus on small samples but
details and in depth. Hence, in-depth interview was opted to be able to gain the
outcomes of this research according to Saunders et al’s view (2009) and Creswell’s
(2014). In this interview, the teachers told the interviewer about their LA working
life individually, and group interview was utilized for students. The concepts of in-
depth interview, their values, and benefits of group interview were analyzed in
the following.
3.3.1.1 In-depth interviews
A number of international researchers have recognized the contribution of in-
depth interview to education in general, and TESOL and applied linguistics in
particular. Robson (2002, p.59) indicates that in-depth interview is extremely useful
to “find out what is happening [and] to seek new insights”, and is analyzed clearly
in the following section. Using in-depth interview, the researcher can explore “as
much depth as possible the respondent’s experiences, views, or feelings” and obtain
“the richness of insight” (Richards, 2009, p.185). Similarly, Saunders et al (2009,
p.321) talk about the advantages of in-depth interview as investigating the general
field in depth and the participants given a chance “to talk freely about events,
behaviors, and beliefs in relation to the topic area”. They indicate that in-depth
interview supplies the researcher “with the opportunity to ‘probe’ answers, where
the researcher wants his/her interviewees to explain, or build on, their responses”
(Saunders et al, 2009, p.324). According to Cooper and Schindler (2014), individual
depth interview provides “detailed individual experiences, choices” for the
researcher. Therefore, this type of interview is suitable for this study to explore the
teachers’ perceptions and practices of LA.
50
Two ways of interview techniques were used in this study. For EFL teachers,
individual depth interview was used to collect more information about LA from
them. Regarding EFL students, group interview was considered a helpful way to
understand deeply EFL students’ thought of LA. The benefits of group interview are
discussed in the following.
3.3.1.2 Group interview
Group interview has a lot of benefits which have been researched by many
researchers on the world (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992; Watts & Ebbutt, 1987). First of
all, using group interview helps researchers develop and obtain a wider set of
answers from interviewees through their own stories than in individual ones. Next,
it brings to researchers diverse thoughts or ideas. And then, it saves time because
the interviewer can interview a group of people at the same time. Psychologically,
when interviewed in groups, students will not be asked alone and can be stimulated
to remind them of more ideas relating to the topic while they are listening to their
friends’ story. To summarize the advantages of using the group interview, Aubel
(1994, p.8) lists ten points:
1. The group setting can potentially provide a secure atmosphere in which
participants can spontaneously express their ideas.
2. Participants do not feel pressured to respond to every question asked.
3. People generally enjoy being asked to discuss their experiences and share
their ideas in a receptive group setting.
4. The flexible format allows the facilitator to explore related but unanticipated
topics or issues as they arise in the discussion.
5. A wide range of information can be generated in a short time.
6. They are often less expensive than studies which require a random sample of
interviewees.
7. Results are available more quickly to project personnel, particularly when
they participate directly in the study.
8. The group exerts a certain degree of control over participants which can
dissuade them from giving dishonest or false answers.
51
9. The technique fosters a flexible and fluid communication process with
project beneficiaries.
10. Participation by project personnel can improve their communication skills.
To help interviewees to feel more comfortable and freer tell their stories about
how they have ever learnt independently, interviewers should create warm and
friendly interviewing atmosphere. In order to get learners’ information, Josselson
and Lieblich (1995) suggest that researcher should have learners tell their learning
experiences, emotions, and ideas by using a set of questions related to their
learning. Another reason of using group interview is that students could learn from
their friends’ LA style. In this study, after the students listened to their friends’
stories, they could support their story with some details they forgot before. This
helped the researcher gain rich data which served the purposes of this study.
Therefore, two sets of interview questions designed to serve interviews of both
teachers and students will be introduced in part 3.3.1.3 and 3.3.1.4 below.
3.3.1.3 Interview for teachers
Teacher interviewing questions were divided into three parts. They were asked
about definitions and role of LA, teachers’ reflections about applying LA in their
teaching, teachers’ assessment of their EFL students’ autonomous level and their
self-assessment of instructing and organizing LA activities for their students . These
purposes were to get EFL teachers to tell what they thought about LA and what they
implemented LA activities outside the classroom. These interview questions
designed based on definitions of, four aspects of LA, LA role at university
environment, teacher role in teaching, and assessment in autonomous learning
which were mentioned in Chapter Two. The information collected from the
teachers’ stories helped to answer research questions 1 and 3.
Table 3.2: Summary of the teacher interview clusters
Contents Items
Teachers’ perceptions of definition, role, and demonstration of LA 1-2
Teachers’ teaching practices of LA 3-5
Teachers’ assessment of their LA activities 6-7
52
3.3.1.4 Interview for students
EFL students’ interview questions were designed with three parts. The EFL
students had to answer their perceptions towards definitions of learner autonomy
and its role in higher education, their reflections of what they learned autonomously
after class, and their self-assessment of their own LA ability. The contents of the
interview guide also based on the foundation of definitions of, four aspects of, and
self-assessment of LA discussed in Chapter Two. These research data answer
research questions 2 and 3. Students were interviewed in groups of five.
Table 3.3: Summary of the student interview clusters
Contents Items
Students’ perceptions of definition, role, and demonstration of LA 1-2
Students’ practices of LA 3-10
Students’ self-assessment of their LA 11
3.3.2 Questionnaire
As discussed above, in an exploration, analyzed data from interview were
used to build questionnaire in quantitative research; therefore, quantitative research
was utilized in this study to have complete understanding of this situation. Fowler
(2009) suggests using questionnaires or structured interviews to collect data in this
kind of method. Additionally, Creswell and Plano Clark (2011) indicate that the
researchers can conduct a quantitative method with large samples. According to
Creswell (2014, p.32), quantitative research is applied to test “objective theories”
through numbered data analyzed in statistical procedure. Survey research is applied
because it “provides a quantitative or numeric description of trends, attitudes, or
opinions of a population by studying a sample of that population” (Creswell, 2014,
p.42). In the context of this study, questionnaire was only used for EFL students,
not for the EFL teachers because there were only 20 EFL teachers at the university
where this study was carried out and this number of teachers was too small to
answer questionnaire. It is completely suitable for the purpose of studying
53
participants’ cognition of LA field in this research. Hence, questionnaire tool is
appropriately used to collect data for EFL students.
One more reason explaining questionnaire method opted is that it is an
effective tool to collect information data and save time for informants to answer.
Kumar (2011, p.141) indicates the benefits of questionnaire that “it is less
expensive”; “it offers greater anonymity”. It means that the researcher can save his
or her time, finance, etc. when he or she uses questionnaires to investigate a
scientific problem. Cohen et al (2007, p.317) cited Wilson and McLean’s words
(1994) about the concept of questionnaire “is a widely used and useful instrument
for collecting survey information, providing structured, often numerical data, being
able to administered without the presence of the researcher, and being
comparatively straightforward to analyze”. Yet, Kumar (ibid.) argues some
problems when the researchers use this tool such as limit application, low response
rate, a self-selecting bias, lack of chance to clarify issues, and so on.
Questionnaire developing process
A constructed questionnaire was made into scale for statistical analysis. These
questions used a five-point Likert-type scale. These kinds of scales are the most
useful in behavioural research because they can help avoid loading participants with
an immense workload and ensure an overall view of the focus of the research
(Hinkin, 1995). Likert-type scales can vary in the number of scale points (e.g. 4 or 7
points) as well as the descriptors. For the current study, the unbalanced scale (5)
was used because a 5-point Likert-type scale was widely accepted as a proxy
interval level of measurement in line with common practice in educational research
(Dornyei, 2003). Additionally, Likert method is considered as “almost perfect over
other techniques in this field” (Singh, 2006 , p. 207).
The questionnaires were grown in four steps: 1. piloting, 2. revising, 3. testing
again and getting feedback, and 4. including feedback into a final version of the
questionnaire.
The items of the questionnaire in this study were first developed from
interview data. Quantitative pilot questionnaire conducted with 30 EFL students in
54
different levels at the end of the first semester of school year 2016-2017 provided
some clear, deep understanding of LA in Mekong Delta setting in Vietnam.
However, the quantitative data showed unexpected findings that made the
researcher look back her questionnaire and revise it. Actually, the researcher just
asked students for 50 general questions with 8 clusters about perceptions and
practices of LA for general students, not for English majors. They are what is LA?
(8 items), LA role at higher education (8 items), setting goals (4 items), planning
study (5 items), learning styles and study methods (10 items), time and life
management (6 items), materials and resources (3 items), and self-assessment (6
items). Additionally, there was not metacognition in learning language. As a result,
the researcher omitted, added, and changed many of items in the revised version to
have the final questionnaire presented below.
The researcher looked back qualitative data carefully, and based on the
theories in LA for language learners in literature, empirical studies, and mixing
previous questionnaires in this field such as Chan et al (2002), Dafei (2007), Sakai
and Takagi (2009), Duruk and Kecik (2014), and Talley (2014), to formulate a new
questionnaire. More specifically, from item 27 to item 38 were in Chan et al (2002);
items 65, 66, 67, 70 were adapted from Talley (2014); item 68 was in Dafei (2007);
from item 71 to item 85 were in Duruk and Kecik (2014); item 86 was adapted from
Sakai and Takagi (2009). Perception, setting goal, and planning study sections were
not adapted from previous studies because they were not suitable for purpose of the
present research. Therefore, the rest items were designed and developed due to
interview results and literature review.
The following items were added to setting goals, planning study, LA activities,
and self-assessment:
I set appropriate learning goals for speaking English at the beginning of
attending university.
I set appropriate learning goals for reading English at the beginning of
attending university.
55
I set appropriate learning goals for listening to English at the beginning of
attending university.
I set appropriate learning goals for writing English at the beginning of
attending university.
I maximize my strengths of English study.
I step by step minimize my weaknesses of English study.
I try my best to solve English learning problems before seeking assistance.
I watch English movies on TV or the Internet.
I learn English through Youtube.
I learn English through Facebook.
I take part in English Clubs at university.
I take part in extra activities of Faculty of foreign languages Education.
I learn new words through videos or pictures focusing on teaching
vocabulary on the Internet.
I learn new words incidentally in reading passages.
I learn structures in reading passages.
I choose topics to write English at home.
I read English stories to practice reading skills, learn vocabulary and
structures.
I prepare new lessons before English classes.
I assess the quality of English language I have got.
I assess the quantity of English language I have acquired.
I self-assess my carrying out study plan of English after each semester.
In addition, some of items were deleted because they had the same idea as
others:
LA is key to EFL majors success at university and post-university.
LA helps EFL students be active and positive in learning.
Besides, some items were reworded to simplify their meaning to help students
understand them more clearly:
56
Original item: I set up my own long-term objectives of English study at
university from the beginning of the 1st semester to graduating.
Reworded item: I had my own long-term objectives of English study at the
beginning of attending university.
Original item: I set up my own short-term objectives of each English subject
from the beginning of the 1st semester to now.
Reworded item: I had my own short-term objectives of each English subject
at the beginning of attending university.
Original item: I set up objectives after university graduation.
Reworded item: I have objectives of English study before and after university
graduation.
Original item: I could design my English study plans in details from the
beginning of the 1st semester to now.
Reworded item: I have designed my English study plans well at the beginning
of attending university.
Original item: I could carry out those plans effectively.
Reworded item: I plan how to achieve my English study objectives.
At the third step, a revised version of the questionnaire was translated into
Vietnamese. Then, the researcher asked her two colleagues and her two students to
re-read it in Vietnamese version to make sure that all readers could understand it.
Next, the Vietnamese questionnaire was delivered to 30 voluntary students to
complete. After collecting, calculating, and analyzing this new version, quantitative
data displayed remarkably expectable results.
In the final stage, the researcher collected all comments and feedback in the
final questionnaire designed in two main parts. Part one was demographic data of
participants’ gender, age, and previous English education background at high school
level. Part two was designed with two sections. In the first section, a five-point scale
of strongly disagree, disagree, not sure, agree, and strongly agree was used to
investigate students’ perceptions towards LA. Meanwhile, another five-point scale
of never, rarely, sometimes, often, and usually was used in the second one to
57
explore how frequently students conducted LA activities. The items of
questionnaire were classified into two main sections such as perceptions and
practices with ten subscales of eighty-six items and delivered at the stage two. Table
3.4 below illustrates the number of items in every cluster in the questionnaire:
Table 3.4: Summary of questionnaire clusters
Clusters Items
Ability and cognition of LA 1, 5, 9, 10
Responsibility 2,3,4,6,7,8
Role of LA 11-15
Setting goals 16-22
Planning study 23-26
Learning activities outside the classroom 27-51
Time and life management 52-54
Materials and resources 55-63
Self-assessment 64-69
Metacognition 70-86
Table 3.4 shows that the number of items in perception section is smaller than
in practice one because one thought can have diverse ways in practices. The close
relationship of items between perceptions and practices towards LA is presented in
Appendix D. The final questionnaire with 86 items was translated into Vietnamese
and then delivered to 285 EFL students to ask them to complete from April 2017 to
May 2017. They were invited to respond the questionnaire in their free time. After
that, the researcher received 285 completed copies of the questionnaire.
3.4 Research procedure
3.4.1 Pilot study
In this stage, only quantitative pilot questionnaire was conducted. The process
of piloting the development of questionnaire was described carefully in section
3.3.2.
58
3.4.2 Main study
Stage 1
In interviews, informants were recorded their experience of the topic.
Therefore, these could be considered as representations and interpretations of that
topic (Muylaert, Junior, Galo, Neto, & Reis, 2014).
In stage one of the current research, 20 EFL teachers were interviewed to find
out their understandings of LA and which LA methods they used in teaching. The
content of the interview focused on aspects as mentioned above. They were
interviewed individually about thirty minutes. At first, the guide interview questions
were designed in English. But, when conducting the interview, the researcher used
Vietnamese version to instruct the participants to tell their story in Vietnamese. The
author used two digital recorders (one is a mobile phone and another is a recorder)
simultaneously to record all the interviews (one as a backup for the other).
According to Kumar (2011, p.135), “the biggest advantage of narrative recording is
that it provides a deeper insight into the interaction”. The researcher also tried to
avoid background noise by choosing quiet places for interviews.
Students were asked to share their cognition of LA and tell how they practiced
autonomous learning in their early and current learning. Like teacher interview, the
content including English and Vietnamese versions of student interview consisted
of the main parts as table 3.3. Students joined in interview in groups of five. They
took turn to tell their own autonomous learning life while their friends were
listening to their story. They could support their details later which they forgot
during interview time. The current researcher conducted this with 12 groups of
students. Each group shared their own story about an hour. Additionally, two kinds
of recorders were used, and the place where the interviews took place was quiet.
Stage 2
In this period, 285 EFL majors voluntarily received and answered the
questionnaire. They responded all questions in Vietnamese version after class or at
break. Then, all their responses were collected. After that, the researcher used SPSS
software to analyze data according to scales (see Table 3.4). The results of this
59
survey helped to answer research questions 2 and 3 and to give some suggestions to
improve students’ autonomously learning ability.
3.4.3 Coding questionnaire and interview data
In Phase 1, qualitative data were recorded and administered by the researcher.
Every participant was coded for both students and teachers. For instance, students
No.1, No.2 were coded S1, S2, and teachers No.1, No.2 were T1, T2, and so on. For
student interview, each group of five students’ transcription was put and saved in
separate file in order. Similarly, every teacher’s transcription was stored separately.
This helped the researcher distinguish them easily.
In Phase 2, after collected, questionnaire was managed and coded by the
researcher. Each finished questionnaire was numbered hand-writtenly in order on
the first page. In addition, it was coded with student year and put in order in the
pile. This was very crucial for the researcher to identify students in different years.
3.5 Data analysis
3.5.1 Qualitative data analysis
3.5.1.1 Transcribing data
Transcribing data from an oral version to a written one is an important step in
interviewing because according to Cohen et al (2007, p.365), “there is the potential
of massive data loss, distortion, and the reduction of complexity”. Kvale (1996,
p.176) indicates that transcript is choosing information and can be “an opaque
screen between the researcher and the original live interview situation”. Thus,
Cohen at al (ibid.) suggest that the researcher should make certain of data
transcribed. The researcher of this study transcribed her own interviews of EFL
teachers and students thanks to Miles and Huberman’s suggestions of twelve
planned ways (1994, as cited in Cohen at al, p.368, 2007) to interpret transcribed
and interview data. The researcher transcribed data from student interview and
teacher interview in Vietnamese.
3.5.1.2 Translating data
As mentioned above, interview questions were designed in English and then
translated into Vietnamese and used to ask teachers and students in interview
60
process. After that, the current researcher had to translate the interviewed data into
English to serve the purposes of this research.
3.5.1.3 Data analysis and reconcilement
Interpreting interview data is a challenge to researchers (Muylaert et al, 2014).
Shutze and Bauer (2002) give a quite didactic framework of a process of analyzing
interviews (as cited in Muylaert et al, 2014, p.187):
1. After transcription, they separate the indexed from the nonindexed material:
The first corresponds to the rational, scientific, concrete content of who does
what, when, where, and why
The second, the nonindexed information goes beyond the events and express
values, judgments, refers to the wisdom of life and therefore is subjective.
2. In the next step, using the indexed content, events are ordered for each
subject what is trajectories.
3. The next step is to investigate the dimensions that are not indexed in the text.
4. Then, we group and compare individual trajectories.
5. The last step is to compare and establish similarities among individual cases
thus allowing the identification of collective trajectories.
Also, Cohen et al (ibid., p.368) also give an example about many steps of data
analysis such as “generating natural units of meaning; clarifying, categorizing and
ordering these units of meanings; structuring narratives to describe the interview
content; interpreting interview data”. Creswell (2012) suggests that the researchers
should use coding and categorizing processes to serve data analysis. Creswell (2012)
also presents steps of coding qualitative data with the different levels of codes. For
the present study, coding interview data based on five dimensions such as ability,
cognition, responsibility, and cultural challenge of LA in the literature review.
In the current research, based on above outline, transcribed and translated
information from interviews of EFL teachers and students was analyzed to respond
questions 1, 2, and 3. These qualitative data were interpreted their meaning to be
considered the reality of how teachers and students understood the concept, the role
of LA at university environment, and what they did or did not carry out LA outside
61
classroom. Additionally, validity and reliability of qualitative data analyzed were
focused. According to Gibbs (2007), the researcher must test the qualitative validity
of the findings through using assuredly collecting and analyzing data procedures.
For qualitative reliability, the research approaches of this study must be stable.
After analyzed, teachers’ views were being compared with students’ ones to
find out the relationship between their perceptions and practices of LA. These made
“a coherent system for all interview in the research, being the final product the
gathered interpretation of the relevant aspects to both researchers and informants”
(Muylaert et al, 2014, p.187). From this evidence, some suggestions for bridging the
gap between them were offered.
3.5.2 Quantitative data analysis
Report information of a survey through questionnaire was used a software
program named Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) to code and give
statistics. This analysis indicated the means, standard deviations. Furthermore,
analysis based on coding and categorizing quantitative data according to scales of
LA as discussed above. Besides, validity and reliability of these statistics were
being paid attention because they “lead to meaningful interpretations of data”
(Creswell, 2014, p. 200). The results of this data analysis answered research
questions 2 and 3.
3.6 Research reliability and validity
To check reliability of all statements in questionnaire before statistics were
carried out to analyze the quantitative data, 86 items of ten subscales were measured
their Cronbach’s alpha coefficients to assure their internal consistency. Table 3.5
shows that twenty-five items of LA activities obtain the highest Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient at .899. The next level is Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .892 of
seventeen items of “metacognition in learning language” group. Next, six items of
students’ perceptions of responsibility of LA get Cronbach’s alpha coefficient at
.885. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of items of perceptions of role of LA and setting
goals are nearly same when they gain in order at .852 and at .855. Self-assessment
section has Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .830, and materials and resources are
62
.819. Items in “planning study”, “time and life management”, and perceptions of
ability and cognition are lowest with .728, .752, and .700. In other words, all
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of 86 items in questionnaire have the acceptable
value and show the good internal consistency among them. Additionally, they
indicate that all items measure the same thing and have high correlations.
Table 3.5: Summary of Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients
Scales Cronbach's
Alpha
Number of
Items
Perceptions of LA
Ability and cognition .700 4
Responsibility .885 6
Roles of LA .852 5
Practices of LA
Setting goal .855 7
Planning study .728 4
LA activities outside the classroom .899 25
Time and life management .752 3
Materials and resources .819 9
Self-assessment .830 6
Metacognition .892 17
Total 86
3.7 Ethical considerations
The EFL teachers and students took part in this research voluntarily. That
meant they had their own freedom to withdraw from the research whenever they
wanted. Students did not need to be afraid that their marks in class would be
influenced when they stopped participating in this project. Besides, all participants’
names would be protected. The students did not write their name in the
questionnaire paper. Similarly, in the interview, the teachers’ and the students’
63
stories about LA were kept in a secret and just used exclusively for the study
purposes. Furthermore, the researcher could provide some information about LA of
this study before interviewing the participants. This helped them know what they
would be asked about.
3.8 Summary
This chapter just presented the research design with a mixed methods
approach of an exploratory study. Each tool of quantitative research and qualitative
research was introduced. More specifically, an exploratory study with in-depth
interview, group interview, and questionnaire was discussed with their benefits as
well as the ways to conduct them. The participants’ information, and two phases of
the research were mentioned. This is very important because it is the driving license
for the study to collect data, analyze and then move ahead.
64
Chapter Four FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter reports the results of the present research. The data collected
from the questionnaire for students and interviews with both teachers and students
are analyzed in three main sections: teachers’ perceptions and practices of LA,
students’ perceptions and practices of LA, the relationships between teachers’ and
students’ perceptions and practices of LA. Then, based on the findings of this study,
discussion is made in responding to the three research questions.
4.1 Teachers’ perceptions and practices of learner autonomy
This section shows data from interviewing 20 EFL teachers at a university.
These results were used to answer the first and the third research questions of this
study. Each of the 20 EFL teachers interviewed expressed their own standpoints,
and most of them addressed their strong voices, clear perceptions of LA baseline
and higher levels and positive attitudes towards the role of LA for EFL students. It
includes their reports on their instructions and organization of LA activities.
4.1.1 Teachers’ perceptions of the concept of learner autonomy
Twenty EFL teachers, who were interviewed about their understanding of EFL
students’ LA, shared a number of ideas in three domains of LA: ability,
responsibility, and cognition. It needs to be noted that each participant shared his or
her understanding of two or three dimensions of LA.
First, one-fifth of teachers stated that EFL students had to have their ability of
autonomous learning in diverse ways. For instance, T1 mentioned that EFL students
had to “adjust their learning actively”, and master “the ways to learn autonomously,
and self-research”. Next, T7 added that EFL students with an LA ability had their
own far vision of their learning as their “capacity”. She indicated that “For those
who only have low vision, they only think about solving their duty at that time such
as doing homework. However, for those who have LA ability have farther vision of
their learning as well as their career, because when they research new things, they
develop more than the others.”. In addition, T17 seemed to understand the concept
of LA deeply since she mentioned two LA terminologies, namely “proactive
autonomy” and “reactive autonomy”. She said, “The first type comprises the
65
students who absolutely learn autonomously. The second consist s of the students
who learn autonomously with teachers’ instructions. In other words, based on
teachers’ plans, activities, and instructions, they are gradually aware of their LA
ability. On this basis, they can design their learning goals and their own learning
plan by themselves which are suitable for them”. It can be seen that these teachers
had basic understanding of students’ LA ability. In other words, they could indicate
that autonomous learners had to own these abilities of LA as mentioned above.
Second, thirteen participants emphasized students’ “responsibility” for their
own learning. For example, T2 perceived that they had to “know what they need,
what they do to obtain their learning goals. If EFL students set up their clear
learning goals, they will actively arrange their time, choose a place like the library
to learn autonomously, buy books [...] In general, they try to do what they can do to
gain their good learning results”. Also, T4 stated that when attending DTU EFL
students had to “...know certificates of their outcome standard clearly. They must
actively ask their teachers, their supervisor, and officers in Faculty of Foreign
Languages Education and Office of Academic Affairs to know their English
program major including the number of units, subjects, and credits. Basing on
those, they themselves have to arrange their time to learn and have strategy for
each semester in which they will register which subjects. Parallelly, they must
design their specific learning plan for each subject”. Furthermore, T5 believed that
EFL students with LA ability were for those who: 1. actively found materials to
support the knowledge that the teacher explained in class, 2. needed to network or
cooperate outside class to revise the knowledge they learned in classes and find new
things. T5 understood the concept of LA according to its technical aspect as well as
sociocultural one when he mentioned the knowledge students searched outside
classes and social learning environment. According to T6, they had to prepare new
lessons at home before going to class. Besides, she mentioned when teachers gave
their learning duty at home such as reading textbooks, studying materials, and doing
homework, they had to complete them all. T12’s view of LA was that EFL students
had better practice their listening skills autonomously through videos on the
66
Internet, and their speaking to their English major friends; for those who lived in
dormitory could talk together by daily simple English sentences. Similarly, T13
added students had to “find forums to follow to learn more because the learning
time in classes is not much enough for teachers convey all knowledge. Besides,
lecturers at university only instruct them main ideas, instead of showing them all
knowledge”. Clearly, these teachers stated that EFL students were autonomous
learners when and only when did those students take these responsibilities for their
own learning. It cannot be denied that they indicated concrete LA activities which
students needed to do in studying English.
Third, three informants focused on EFL students’ LA as “cognition”, and
“self-consciousness” outside the classroom. More specifically, T8 indicated that
“EFL students with a good LA ability do not need to go to classes as one period in
class is fifty minutes and students practice English very little. Instead, they can
actively listen to more English at home, practice speaking to their friends, and
writing as well”. This showed the power of awareness of LA in learning. In other
words, when students had good cognition and self-consciousness in learning, they
could develop and practice LA activities well outside the class.
In conclusion, all participants stated their positive perceptions towards the
concept of learner autonomy. Furthermore, their perceptions of three dimensions of
LA related together. It means that their perceptions of one dimension are dependent
on other dimensions.
4.1.2 Teachers’ perceptions of the role of learner autonomy
All of the participants appreciated the extreme importance of the EFL
students’ LA in learning a foreign language in the integrated time and technology
era these days and in their job in the future. In other words, they mentioned the
dimension “lifelong learning” of LA. Each of them showed their perception of role
of LA and expressed their thought diversely in three following themes.
First, of twenty teachers, six perceived that LA helped students learn better in
classes and get good learning results. For instance, T1 believed that “after class the
students need to self-research and self-discover knowledge to seek new things from
67
what they have learnt in class”. Next, T2 talked about the limited time in class in
the credit-education system and emphasized that if EFL students wanted to master
the language skills, they had to allocate their time to practise inside or outside
classes to speak English fluently. T8 considered that LA played an important role
for the EFL students at DTU because their background of learning English was
lower than others in other universities in Vietnam in general and in Mekong Delta
in particular. However, he claimed that if they learned autonomously well and
practised English effectively in four years at university, after graduating, they could
keep in touch with other English major ones in other universities. Specifically, T3
added “students will get good learning results. And through LA, when they research
problems by themselves, they know information clearly related to their major”’. T16
mentioned that EFL students’ outcome standard was that they had to master their
language; therefore, their LA would determine sixty percent of their success.
Second, one-fourth of teachers expressed one more function of LA: “It also
helps EFL students with lifelong learning spirit”, and learning was the people’s
lifelong activity. T2 stated that “if the students build their LA ability clearly when
they are at university, they will learn autonomously during their life. When they are
at work they have to continue to learn because there will be some knowledge they
have not been taught at university”. T4 thought that LA was like people’s instinct
for survival, and anything that students knew originated from LA. T10 said that
EFL students had to learn more autonomously to make progress and their necessary
skills such as critical thinking, communication, etc. in the 21st century should have
been built.
Finally, twelve teachers mentioned the benefits of LA in students’ future jobs.
For instance, T3 believed that if they had good LA ability, “after graduating from
DTU, they are more confident and have LA experience”. She felt that when they
were at university, they were instructed by teachers. But at work in the future they
had to decide their work, so if they did not have LA ability, they would meet
difficulties there. One more thing she mentioned was that EFL teacher students
could show their learning experience to their students in the future. According to
68
T5, their practices of LA brought them different experience which would mainly
affect their jobs in the future because first they would know how to interact with
their co-workers and the others in society; second, LA brought them problem
solving skills to deal with difficult situations they would meet in society in the
future; third, LA maybe trained them to have leader ability in small companies or
ability to work in groups or in pairs. Similarly, T7’s opinion seemed to summarize
other aforementioned ones, and she had a deep look at the role of LA to EFL
students below:
If students’ learning in classes is important, their practice of LA is more
important. For students, LA is the background for them to enrich their
knowledge. In addition, when they are at work in the future, LA is
professional development. Furthermore, when they are at work, they may
have a few chances to be trained their profession more. Specially, LA forms
EFL students in the habit, and if they are school teachers of English in the
future, though they will not be participated in training courses, they can
foster themselves.
(Teacher interview, T7)
It cannot be denied that the importance of LA in learning language and all the
teachers agreed with this theme. They also recognized the role of lifelong learning
of LA for EFL students both at university now and in their work in the future.
4.1.3 Teachers’ self-report of practices of learner autonomy
When asked to talk about the ways to instruct their students to do LA
activities, a number of the teachers reported that they used the same methods. For
example, at the beginning of a course, they designed their detail teaching plans with
LA which occupied twenty percent of the total grade for the subjects they taught. In
addition, they gave homework, exercises or assignments, or questions to students to
do at home. Then, in the classes, they checked whether the students did their duties.
Besides, some of the teachers had their own special ways to hold and instruct their
students to carry out LA as follows.
69
4.1.3.1 Teachers’ stories of organizing learner autonomy activities
T3 – using portfolios and Edmodo in Writing
T3, in the Writing courses, held a portfolio-like activity. The students would
submit their paper on time and have another assessment of that paper at the end of the
semester. They could self-correct their papers and submit the best final ones at the end
of the semester to her. Furthermore, she set a small project for the third-year students.
She asked the students to write their dairy on their notebooks with topics given by her
or chosen by themselves and submitted their notebooks to her every week. In another
class, she had them write journal entries about what they acquired as well as what they
did not understand in that writing class in order to help her have a plan to support them.
In the first semester of the school year 2016 – 2017, she instructed her EFL students to
do peer-correction in writing on Edmodo – an educational technology website where
teachers can share contents, distribute quizzes, assignments, and manage
communication with students, colleagues, and parents both inside and outside the
classroom. Students self- or peer-corrected their versions and submitted their best
papers to her at the end of the semester. She could control whether they corrected their
friends’ mistakes in Edmodo or not. She said to her students, “I can see you log in
Edmodo or not. If you spend a lot of time on commenting or correcting your friends’
writing, I give you high marks and vice versa”.
T4 – using groupwork, self- and peer-assessment, and Google Drive
T4 always asked his students to learn autonomously in his instructional courses.
He believed that LA was like the people’s instinct for survival, and what they knew
originated from LA. In the first period of every course, he gave them clear rules,
shared his experience and contents, and told them the class requirements, as well as
possible problems, which they would meet during that course, and what they had to
do to get good results. In addition, he instructed them, step by step, to get familiar
with the learning methods in a few next periods, and after that they had to learn
autonomously by themselves. For example, in a Translation class, before each class,
he gave the students an assignment, and they used the reading skills to read the text
and underlined difficult words or phrases which they did not know and looked them
70
up in dictionaries. When they learned new words, they had to explain the words by
their own definitions or explanations, and thus they had to use monolingual
dictionaries (English-English dictionaries rather than English-Vietnamese ones).
After that, they translated those assignments and posted them on their folder in the
Google drive. They could see their friends’ work. He also asked them not to copy
their friends’ answers and if they did, he would give them a zero mark. Besides, he
divided the class into four groups and gave them a list of topics. Each group
discussed to choose some of the topics to translate into Vietnamese at home and then
divided work for each member. They edited their work so that other students could
understand. They evaluated their group members’ work. In class, four groups would
evaluate each other; for example, group No.2 and group No.3 evaluated group No.1,
and to do so, they had to see other groups’ work on the Google drive. For example,
they evaluated the organization of that translation version and the ways of using
words effectively, compared with the English version, and then gave marks. After
that, the evaluated group could address to two observing groups about what they
agreed or disagreed with. This made a debate in the class and they could learn
autonomously from each other. Even the evaluated group could say they agreed or
disagreed with the marks they received and explained the reasons honestly; for
instance, a group gave the evaluated group 7.5 points and the other gave them 8
points. However, the evaluated group was willing to accept 7.5 points and pointed out
some explanations. The teacher thought that this way helped students increase their
LA ability, activeness, honesty, and responsibility for learning.
For Teaching practice subject, he only divided students into groups to practice
teaching skills in Pedagogic professional competence training course 5 th and course
6th. He often asked each group to choose a type of skill lesson and language focus
one first to design lesson plans and posted them on Google drive to adjust. Next,
each group’s members chose different lessons in different grades at high school or
A2 or B1 programs to discuss, design, and practise teaching outside the classroom.
During their time of designing lesson plan, they could discuss it on Facebook, etc.
Then, they had to practise teaching their lesson and took photos to show him that
71
they worked in groups. They could post their lesson plans on the Google drive to
discuss and then brought the final ones to teach in class. He gave marks for whole
group but it did not mean that every member in a group received the same marks
since then they evaluated and gave mark to each member of their group based on his
marks. Who worked effectively got higher marks, and who did not work could get
zero mark. If they did not know how to learn autonomously, he had to instruct them
too much. He had some forms for them to fill and instructed them step by step.
T10 – using project-based learning and no homework
For Speaking classes, T10 told students that to speak well they needed to listen
very much. However, in reality, their listening skills were weak, so they had to
spend at least one hour or as much as possible on listening, and learning vocabulary
so that those helped them be able to express their ideas. Besides, they spent time on
reading newspapers, books increasing their social knowledge which helped them
have ideas to talk. Specially, she held project-based learning for them in American
Culture and British Culture. They were divided into groups and almost learning
method was LA. With teacher’s instruction, students explored the problem as they
did small research on any topics. After that they reported their result of that research
in groups. She could see that LA occupied students’ time in those two subjects.
T13 – using English clubs and the Internet
For Speaking classes, T13 held English clubs for them to practice together.
Also, she told them when they had a chance to meet a foreigner, they should talk to
him or her so as to practice listening and speaking. Concerning Writing classes, as
all students had their account on Facebook these days, she organized some groups
on Facebook for them to post and peer-review their papers. In addition, she held
another group for those who liked to compose or create new things. If they wanted,
they could write and post their products on their group’s Facebook page, and the
others would read and comment. For British Literature classes, she gave some links
with stories or poems and from two to five questions for them to read and answer at
home to check their understanding, and then they wrote a short report to share their
ideas after they read in classes. As for Listening classes, she also introduced some
72
websites of short English news such as BBC, VOA, and links of movies to them.
Additionally, she sent a long list of English songs to them to fill in the blanks and
sing to practice both listening and speaking because she thought that singing is a
high level of speaking. If she told them to speak English alone and autonomously,
they could not or were not patient, but when she told them to sing, they could.
Those were some ways for them to learn autonomously with her instruction, not
from their self-consciousness. For Reading classes, EFL students were required to
get C1 when they graduated from DTU; thus, she introduced some short stories
collections, websites of short stories or fables to them so that they could have more
vocabulary and train their reading habit because they could read in Vietnamese and
were not familiar with reading in English. They were afraid and did not dare to read
when they saw a text which was full of an A4 sheet. Therefore, she showed them
gradually by short stories with a half of an A4 sheet, or an A4 sheet, and then long
stories. As a result, their skills were increased. For tests, after a time, she checked
whether they did all reading tests in time or not. For Listening and Speaking, she
often based on the results of final exam to evaluate because she could not assess
those parts outside the classroom or by feeling.
T16 – designing activities based on students’ levels
T16 usually held a large number of LA activities for EFL students. In Reading
classes, the activities were designed to be based on students’ levels. For example,
the simplest activity was a reading passage to read at home, and a short quiz in class
to check which students read it and which ones did not. At the next level, she gave
them from one to three passages and they designed questions at home. At level
three, the students chose their favorite passages and wrote questions. She mingled
their reading passages among groups and the students worked again on them in
class. When they finished, the authors checked their friends’ answers. At level four,
each student chose their favorite passage with its source, wrote a five-minute report,
and then presented it in class. At the most difficult level, they did the reading tests
in TOEFL books or ones of the Vietnamese Standardized Test of English
Proficiency tests. They did one reading test in class and one at home every week.
She gave marks for all their activities.
73
It seems that five teachers above diversified their teaching activities for their
students. Likewise, they combined technology information and assessment in
teaching language.
4.1.3.2 Teachers’ achievements of organization and instruction of
students’ LA activities
In this theme, there are two main types of ideas from participants. More
specifically, three-quarters of the interviewed teachers reported that when students
practiced LA outside the classes such as peer-correction, preparing old and new
lessons at home, doing homework or assignments, they saved time to explain
lectures or correct students’ homework, and students learned faster and better in
classes. Besides, through LA activities, teachers could understand students more
and design other ones in the following semester. The rest stated that basing on the
Internet and technology, the teachers and their students had e-communicative
environment. Students used technology well and joined English clubs.
Clearly, teachers gained some benefits in teaching when their students
prepared the new lessons at home, did assignments before the students went to the
class. Besides, that students learned English major subjects autonomously outside
the classroom helped the teachers teach better in the classes as they saved time to
explain new lesson to students and just focused on the important points.
4.1.3.3 Teachers’ difficulties of organization and instruction of students’
LA activities
Three-quarters of teachers stated that they met difficulties because some
students were lazy, passive, unconscious of the importance of LA. They did not
have enough time to give feedback to students’ LA activities in the classroom. They
could neither manage nor measure their students’ LA at home. Some students felt
too much pressure when going to classes because they were asked to work
perfectly. The large-size classes also affected their instructions of LA activities.
A quarter admitted that the teachers did not understand students’ needs to
design suitable LA activities. Moreover, the students were inpatient, and had no free
74
time to learn autonomously due to their second foreign language and Informatics
classes, and extra-activities as well.
All the evidence above proved that some students lacked their self-
consciousness in their own learning. They were still passive and inpatient in
learning. Regarding the teachers, they knew these difficulties, but they could not
design effective measures to foster their students’ LA ability.
4.1.3.4 Teachers’ assessment of their students’ LA ability
When asked to evaluate their students’ LA ability, one-fourth of teachers
stated that in general, the EFL students’ LA ability was from good to very good.
Students invested their time to learn autonomously. However, T2 recognized
students had the biggest problem that the students did not know what and how they
should learn. Sometimes the students learned autonomously, but their learning
quality was low.
Additionally, six teachers claimed that their EFL students’ LA ability was
average. T4 explained that students carried out LA activities following teacher’s
requirements while true LA was more than that. For instance, when taking about
Tram Chim Ramsar, he asked them what Ramsar meant and they did not know, so
he had to instruct them that when they learned this subject autonomously, and they
saw the word “Ramsar”, they should have put a question why it was called Tram
Chim Ramsar instead of Tram Chim National Park before. Besides, T8 considered
that his students’ LA ability was average because their beginning background of
English was low.
Also, three of twenty teachers mentioned that from 60% to 70% of EFL
students had low LA ability. T3 and T11 shared the same view that the main reason
for this situation was that their consciousness of LA was not good. Only excellent or
good students had LA ability and had their self-consciousness more than the others.
In contrast, some of EFL students did not have LA ability because they maybe
disliked English major, or it was their characteristics. However, if teachers gave
duty to them and checked, they could do it.
75
Furthermore, three teachers said that it was hard if they assessed their students
in total; thereby, these teachers separated the students into newcomers and the old
ones. According to T10, the first-year students almost did not know what LA was
and learned very little because at high school they were supervised their learning by
their teachers at school and by their parents at home. But in higher education, they
were free and lecturers did not manage them as high school stage. Many of them
told her that they felt confused, did not know how to learn, especially university
learning styles. She thought that the first-year students’ LA ability was very weak or
did not know the ways to learn. For older students such as from the second-year
students to later, they had learning experience at least one year, so they knew
learning methods at university; she thought they were better. In contrast, T15 saw
the first and the second-year students were more hard-working than the third and the
last year ones at that time. Also, T13 found that EFL students’ LA ability depended
on each course. Students of this course were active and creative, but some were not.
She felt that the students of course 2015 seemed to be better than others.
The rest claimed that they did not know which LA level EFL students got.
They thought that most of the students were still controlled by teachers.
From the findings above, it could be seen that a number of the teachers
complained that their students had from average to low LA ability. However, they
did not indicate the reasons for such low competence.
4.1.3.5 Teachers’ self-assessment about their organization and instruction
of students’ LA activities
A vast number of the interviewed teachers self-assessed their organization and
instruction of students’ LA activities which were very good (3/20) and good
(10/20). For T13, she stated that her LA activities were from good to very good
because sometimes after she finished a lesson in class, the students asked her
whether she gave any links to them. This indicated that the students concerned their
LA. So, she believed it was effective. However, she was not sure about whether
they read them at home. Furthermore, T16 evaluated that her LA activities were
76
high because she worked hard. T6 and T11 shared the same view that they tried to
adjust them year by year to organize them more effectively.
Meanwhile, four teachers evaluated that their organization and instruction of
students’ LA activities were just over average. T2 mentioned that it was difficult to
self-assess his activities because he found any ways to help them practice LA; for
instance, he shared his translation papers on Facebook, or held clubs. His activities
aimed to stimulate them to remember their duty which was that they had to learn
more outside classes. In fact, he perceived that the quality of his activities was not
good because the majority of them were subjective. He did what he thought and did
not know his students’ needs. Sometimes, there were a few students coming to his
clubs. The biggest difficulty was the ways to organize his LA activities. Besides,
though he updated the content of those classes many times, they were not still
appropriate for his students’ needs. He thought maybe if EFL teachers wanted
students to learn autonomously well, they needed cooperate to organize LA
effective activities for them. He could not carry out it effectively if he did it alone.
Also, T15 thought that she did not spend much time on them.
And, the rest said that they always took responsibility for teaching. T10 said
that she always took responsibility for teaching. Also, in whatever subjects she
taught, at the first period and during the course she always told, reminded, and
instructed them about LA. She found that it was hard for her to self-assess because
she tried her best to do what she thought were good for them. For those who learned
autonomously she thought that they were good and the rest were not.
These results showed that there were thirteen teachers, who self-assessed their
instructions of LA activities, which were from good to very good. In other words,
they thought that they organized effective LA activities for their students to learn
English autonomously outside the classroom.
4.2 Students’ perceptions and practices of learner autonomy
This section presents data gained from interviews with 60 students and the
questionnaire delivered to 285 students to address the research questions 2 and 3 of
this study. It consists of students’ perceptions of LA, their views of the roles of LA
77
at tertiary education, and their performance of LA activities. Next, the alignment
between students’ perceptions and practices is discussed.
4.2.1 Students’ perceptions of the concept of learner autonomy
From the interviews with 60 student participants about their understanding of
EFL students’ autonomy, their responses can be grouped into three main concepts
related to “ability”, “responsibility”, and “cognition” (see Appendix E). Like the
teachers, students’ perceptions of LA were interrelated. In other words, each student
showed their understanding of two or three dimensions of LA.
First, nearly a quarter of the 60 students thought that they should have the
ability to learn language autonomously. Specially, for them, LA means “ability” to
arrange time to do self-study, control and divide their time to learn each skill of
English equally inside and outside the classes, and join other daily activities (6
students); to design a clear study plan to what they wanted to carry out and obtain
high results (6 students). For instance, while S46 maintained that EFL students had
to know the scientific learning methods, S52 took LA to mean that students needed
to have an idea of what they had to learn, and actively look for materials.
Second, it involves their “responsibility” to prepare and autonomously search
learning materials/ resources “on the Internet or books” before or after classes for
better class-participation and understandings, especially English language skills and
culture (15 students). They had to watch English movies or music to develop new
words (4 students), and practice English with foreigners in case they come across
them (2 students). Besides they had to make groups for self-study (2 students),
actively participate in school extra-curriculum activities (3 students), even to
consult upper-class students for learning experiences (1 student), and make
reflections on what has been done for reinforcements (1 student).
Third, the following opinions were shown about cognition of LA in learning
language. Two students focused on social supports from teachers and peers for
learner autonomy inside and outside the classroom, e.g. finding out useful materials
introduced by their teachers or their friends, usually practicing English, paying
attention to EFL teachers’ explanation carefully in classes, actively consulting
78
higher-level students about effective self-study methods. As one put it, “Students
must actively go to meet teachers to ask what they haven’t understood and don’t let
teachers remind them. Second, they actively share and learn from their friends to
understand their lessons more deeply and get more information”. Six others
strongly showed their idea about a self-conscious spirit in seeking their own
appropriate learning methods as well as learning resources, doing exercises to get
good learning results instead of being reminded, finding their own solution to
problems, planning their study.
Specifically, S7 and S8 shared their ideas that “students must self-analyze
when they need to learn this, and when they need to learn that”. Then, S27
maintained that if students had much preparation for new lessons at home and
investigated it clearly, they were not afraid of sharing their ideas or their problems
when they studied that. In addition, S38 went as far as advocating independence
from teachers: “lecturers are instructors, so EFL students should not depend on
their instructors much”.
Quantitative data in this section provide more information about students’
perceptions of LA. Table 4.1 and table 4.2 show in detail.
Ability and cognition
Table 4.1: Students’ perceptions of ability and cognition
N=285
Statements Strongly
disagree
Dis-
agree
Not
sure
Agree Strongly
agree
Mean SD
1. I know clearly what I study in the
English programs at university.
1.8%
4.2%
2.5%
63.9%
27.7%
4.12
.785
5. I should not wait for teachers’
instructions on what to do. 1.8% 4.9% 8.8% 55.1% 29.5% 4.06
.858
9. I should autonomously prepare new
English lessons before going to class.
1.1%
2.8% 11.9% 61.4% 22.8% 4.02 .746
10. I should ask teachers or the others
about what I do not understand. 0.4% 3.5% 10.2% 61.8% 24.2% 4.06 .717
Overall perceptions of ability and
cognition
1.3% 3.8% 8.3% 60.6% 26.0%
5.1% (negative) 86.6 positive)
79
Table 4.1 shows students’ responses to four items and 86.6% of the EFL
students had positive perceptions of ability and cognition in autonomous learning.
For example, the statement of having a clear idea of learning content has the highest
mean score of 4.12 from students’ answers. For the statement of preparing lessons
before going to school, the mean score is 4.02 for students’ responses which is the
lowest. Besides, the two others obtain the same mean score of 4.06. The percentage
of students who answered negatively in this part was rather low, 5.1 %.
Responsibility
Table 4.2: Students’ perceptions of responsibility
N=285
Statements Strongly
disagree
Dis-
Agree
Not
sure
Agree Strongly
agree
Mean SD
2. I should set up my learning long-term
goals independently and clearly.
2.1%
3.2%
6.3%
55.4%
33.0%
4.14 .832
3. I should set up my learning short-
term goals independently and clearly. 1.1% 1.8% 9.5% 60.4% 27.4% 4.11 .723
4. I should design my learning plan in
details and carry out effectively. 1.8% 3.2% 12.3% 47.4% 35.4% 4.12 .866
6. I need to find out English resources
to learn autonomously. 1.4% 2.1% 4.2% 51.2% 41.1% 4.28 .764
7. I shoud actively practice four skills of
English outside the classroom everyday.
1.8%
3.2% 5.6% 44.6% 44.9% 4.28 .846
8. I should arrange my learning time
and my daily activities reasonably. 1.8%
2.5%
6.0%
57.9%
31.9%
4.16 .782
Overall perceptions of responsibility 1.7% 2.6% 7.3% 52.8% 35.6%
4.3% (negative) 88.4% (positive)
In Table 4.2, it is shown that nearly 90% of students had positive perceptions
of their responsibility in learning language. The mean scores of six items are from
4.11 to 4.28. More specifically, both statements about looking for English materials
as well as usually and actively practicing English skills gain the mean score of 4.28.
The statement about setting learning short-term goals has the lowest mean score of
4.11. The others have their mean scores from 4.12 to 4.16. Meanwhile, only 4.3% of
students had negative perceptions of this theme.
80
In conclusion, most interviewees showed their positive perceptions of the
concept of LA in learning English. The results from questionnaire were the same as
ones from interview. In other words, most of the students responded in the survey
that they had high understanding of LA. Besides, their insights into dimensions,
namely ability, cognition, and responsibility of LA, were interrelated.
4.2.2 Students’ perceptions of the role of learner autonomy
When asked about the importance of LA to EFL students at university and
after graduating from university, all informants agreed that LA has its following
benefits. First of all, LA influenced students’ learning results and future work. For
instance, S16 talked about this term that “LA is prerequisite to determine a student’s
learning quality. When a student has high learning quality, he/she has high LA
ability. Through LA students can find more knowledge resources than learning in
the classroom”. According to S34’s and S59’s opinion, “LA occupies 90% learning
results of students as well as makes a chance for them to get a job [...] If we have
LA ability, we will have benefits at work in the future”. Four others supported that
as EFL students, if they did not learn autonomously, not self-research, and not self-
find materials on the Internet, they could not gain their learning objectives
established at the beginning of the course.
Second, EFL students needed to practice English autonomously every day.
According to S23’s opinion, English is a difficult foreign language, so EFL students
had to learn it autonomously outside the classroom to enhance their speaking skills
and others. Three other students mentioned that EFL students had to practice
English every day because they could not be good at it in a short time. Nearly a
quarter believed that teachers could not convey all knowledge in classes and
information of lessons which teachers explained to students in the classroom was a
base because of the limited time; therefore, they had to self-study at home to
develop their learning results. To make this clearer, S24 stated that EFL teachers
could not take care of each student well because of the large class and usually
instructed the main parts of a lesson, so students had to study more and did
exercises at home to understand lessons more.
81
Third, due to the limited time and limited knowledge conveyed in classes,
students had to learn autonomously outside the classes. Two other ideas were that
learning was never enough. Especially for those who were EFL students, knowledge
they needed was very much; therefore, they had to be active to explore it to update
new things every day. Three other interviewees perceived that it was not enough if
EFL students only read books or materials given by their teachers, and it was better
if they read English articles or other materials to find out something new or to
understand more something.
Fourth, LA helped students self-improve their learning. Four of them indicated that
when they did not have their own LA ability, they could not be excellent at English
though they had been taught by good teachers, and used this ability in the future to mee t
the needs of society. S49 believed that if they did not learn autonomously, they were
treading water in class, and could not learn more and widen their knowledge. S15 shared
an interesting idea that students had to reconstruct the old lessons and teachers’
explanation at home to be their own knowledge, and perceived if they could do like that,
they would be successful in learning. Similarly, three others expressed their interesting
view that what other people taught EFL students belonged to those people and students
could understand them partially; so, as students found out something through LA
activities, they belonged to them.
Fifth, LA was one of the obligatory characteristics of credit-education system.
Two of interviewees quoted from that policy that to learn and understand one period
in class, students had to learn autonomously two periods at home. S38 considered
that when they practiced LA they controlled English language.
Next, some students shared their LA experience as well as its advantages they
conducted at previous time. More specifically, S20 mentioned that teachers
understood very little about their students' learning ability and it was students
themselves who understood where their learning level is; therefore, LA helped them
improve their weaknesses as well as develop their strengths. According to S51’s
view, EFL students needed to collect a variety of sources of materials from different
countries, so when they learned more like that, they could fill their lack of
82
knowledge. S17 added one more idea that when they did not understand some
problems in classes, they could ask their good friends at home. Two others saw that
the Internet was a good tool to self-study, and LA trained EFL students themselves
to have self-consciousness. Approximately one-tenth of students claimed that LA
helped them develop their skills of learning English as well as their awareness of
other fields, train them to have patience, arrange things logically, especially not
depending on other people. S32 indicated that when EFL students learned English
autonomously, they could memorize knowledge more deeply than teachers or their
friends provided for them. S31 quoted an interesting saying: “When we are fed
something from one’s mouth, it is less nutritious than we eat by ourselves” to
support S32’ idea. Additionally, S8 shared the interesting fact that she got more
knowledge thanks to her autonomous learning. Moreover, she had her belief that
LA would form LA skills for students to enhance other fields. Also, S29 believed
that LA created her main knowledge. When she was a secondary and high school
student, she always self-studied English, especially doing grammar exercises in Mai
Lan Huong’s English exercise books. She showed that learning in class was minor.
Then, the others also emphasized the orientation of LA as well as LA habit to their
professional development in the future. One-tenth of the informants mentioned that if
they were teachers, they needed to learn autonomously more to teach their students,
because if not, or if their students had their LA ability more than them, perhaps they
would be lost to their students. In S46’s opinion, a teacher had to possess three or four
times as knowledge as their students’ to solve problems when teaching. According to
three others, they could share their LA experience with their students. Furthermore, two
others considered that LA was also an essential skill for EFL students after graduating
from university as she understood the high school students’ feelings of teachers’
explanation, and emphasized that teachers should learn autonomously to find out many
useful teaching methods to help their students understand lessons more clearly. Besides,
one-fifth confirmed that LA would be developed when they were teachers or officers in
the future to update new knowledge as well as promote their jobs. S27 was the only one
of students to share her views most clearly and deeply:
83
[...]After we graduate from DTU, LA stimulates our passion for our job
because when we are teachers of English, our students ask us some problems
in class which we don’t know, so we must explore them autonomously at
home. From that, we will formulate many skills or characteristics[...].
(2nd year student interview, group 3, S27)
Finally, some of the students mentioned that LA in learning English was a
long process. For example, S27 thought that LA “forms our patience to find out
lifelong knowledge”. S52 stated that if EFL learned it autonomously and regularly,
their ability of using English language was gradually better and better. S1 also said
that EFL students had to maintain their learning English, even after graduating from
this university because of the countless knowledge of English.
This part of the questionnaire was designed with the aim of examining
students’ perceptions of the role of LA at university. Table 4.3 shows that 90.9% of
them agreed with the importance of LA in their learning language. For instance, the
highest mean score is 4.36 for the statement of lifelong learning of LA. The
statement of LA making students promote has the lowest mean score of 4.13. The
three others have their mean scores which are rather high from 4.23 to 4.34.
However, 3.1% of students responded negatively in this theme.
Table 4.3: Students’ perceptions of role of learner autonomy
N=285
Statements Strongly
disagree
Dis-agree Not
sure
Agree Strongly
agree
Mean SD
11. I believe LA helps develop my
potentials, especially my strengths. 1.4% 1.1% 4.9% 51.2% 41.4% 4.30 .736
12. I believe LA helps me keep up
with progress in science and
technology.
1.4% 1.4% 9.8% 57.5% 29.8% 4.13 .751
13. I believe LA helps me be self-
confident in learning. 1.8% 2.1% 3.9% 45.3% 47.0% 4.34 .800
14. I believe LA helps me make
good use of learning resources and
facilities.
1.1% 2.1% 6.3% 53.7% 36.8% 4.23 .748
15. I think LA lays the foundation of
lifelong learning for me. 1.8% 1.1% 5.3% 43.2% 48.8% 4.36 .782
Overall perceptions of the role of LA 1.5% 1.6% 6.0% 50.2% 40.7%
3.1% (negative) 90.9% (positive)
84
In short, the results of this theme from interview data and questionnaire data
were same and this showed that the findings did not conflict; in contrast, they
supported together to increase the confidence for this study. The findings from the
interview data showed that the students knew to give typical samples of advantages
of LA if they practiced LA correctly and well. The majority of the students
identified the benefits of LA in their learning at university as well as their work in
the future.
4.2.3 Students’ self-report of practices of learner autonomy
The most interesting section in interview process was that each participant
took turn to report their real LA activities at university. They shared their learning
goals, study plan, learning methods of four skills of English, the ways to revise the
old lessons, the ways to arrange their time reasonably to learn, the ways to find out
learning resources, and advantages as well as disadvantages when they practiced of
LA. Most of them had the same ways to learn English outside the classes and look
for materials, etc. However, some of them possessed their own learning styles in
learning language autonomously. The following section presents some typical
students’ autonomous learning ways. These are their summarized stories of how and
what they practiced LA.
4.2.3.1 Students’ special LA stories
S11 – doing homework more than the other LA activities
S11 began to say that at that time she had no specific study plan. Sometimes
she learned English all day, but sometimes she entertained all day. She practiced
listening to PET, KET, music, and others much, or watching movies and videos in
English. She rarely practiced writing skills. Besides, she did TOEFL reading tests.
She just revised grammar because she had no difficulty in learning it. For Speaking,
she imitated English songs and found some topics to practice. Furthermore, she did
homework given by her teachers and other exercises found by herself. However, the
time she spent on doing homework more than the others. She liked to learn alone.
She just set up general goals such as getting A marks or winning a scholarship. Her
long-term goals were to graduate from university in time with a good Certificate of
85
BA and to get a job. Additionally, she could balance her time for her daily activities
and her study; however, she thought that she arranged her time for learning
autonomously and other activities unreasonably because she still stayed up late to
learn her lessons. She found materials recommended by her teachers such as
englishtips.org, Cambridge website, Oxford website. Normally, after school, she
reviewed her old lessons again and when she took tests, she would see them again.
Until that time, she had no plan for the next exam.
S16 – practicing Speaking more
S16 showed that he had a study plan at the middle of the first semester. He had
to practice each skill of learning English and at that time he was the weakest at
Speaking, so he concentrated on practice it. Next, he used applications to practice
Speaking such as ELSA Speaker and English-English dictionaries. He listened to
them and repeated. He learned each type of writing; for example, he wrote
introduction and conclusion of a kind of an essay and learned by heart to save time
to do body paragraphs. Besides, he watched Mr. Dan’s videos. He also listened to
English songs but did not understand them completely. He learned vocabulary
randomly. For instance, when he saw new words, he looked up them in the
dictionary as well as their synonyms, antonyms, and usages. Therefore, though he
did not look up many new words, he owned a lot of their synonyms, and antonyms.
He said that he was finding the most effective way to learn grammar since he saw
that learning grammar by heart was not effective. Therefore, he had to find some
tips to memorize it more deeply. Besides, the time he learned autonomously was not
fixed because of his timetable in classes, daily activities, university or class
activities, so he practiced LA about thirty minutes in the morning, and thirty
minutes in the afternoon. In general, he spent about near two hours of four days a
week on learning autonomously. S16 also considered that his balancing time was at
accepted level, not reasonable because sometimes he felt it suitable, but sometimes
there were some sudden things in his daily activities, so his learning English
autonomously was limited. Furthermore, he found materials from his friends, and
websites such as tienganh123.com, sometimes in textbooks. What he had from
86
practicing major ones regularly he used in the exams or tests. He only paid attention
to revise writing skills; however, he got low result for it. He only revised major ones
just one day before the exam.
S27 – a typical autonomous learner
Additionally, S27 shared many interesting things with her friends. She often
learned English autonomously spontaneously. Before she began learning, she wrote
down the order and how many minutes of subjects she intended to learn on that day.
She did not like to watch English movies or listen to English music because she
thought that those forms were to entertain. She knew that when she saw phrases on
the screen of TV, she could memorize them, but for her, LA was the same real
learning as in class. Therefore, she did tests in some books such as a series of
IELTS tests shared on the Internet. She could practice Listening and Reading well
but Speaking and Writing were not. After writing papers, she needed someone to
correct them to help her know where she was wrong, but she had no one. Normally,
she thought her papers were good but when people read her papers, they, perhaps,
disliked them because they were bad. For Speaking, she only trained pronunciation
and intonation. When she listened to any paragraphs, she imitated their voice. She
learned vocabulary through reading exercise and listening ones. Those new words
were in practice test books, so they were rather difficult. When she listened to them
in the first time, her grade was bad. Therefore, when she did them again, she
checked vocabulary. After finishing a reading test, she looked up new words, wrote
down in a notebook, and learned. When learning new words, she memorized them.
But when she wrote essays, she did not remember them to use, so she was angry.
When making an outline of an essay, she also thought of many ideas and selected
the main ones to use in three body paragraphs; however, when she wrote she only
used the words she already knew before. After that she opened her notebook and
saw that she wrote good words but she could not apply them. Then, S27 gave an
example as when people learned a new word, they often made an example sentence
with it. She also did the same but still forgot them when she wrote essays. She felt
her memory was not bad, and did not know why it was. So, she was so angry at
87
herself, and had no solution to that problem. She spent the most two hours on some
days learning English autonomously about five or six days a week. At the beginning
of the first semester, her goal was to get 6.5 points for IELTS or C1 certificate and
after that she rethought that she had better increase her goal getting 7.5 points for
IELTS. However, until the fourth semester she was afraid she could not do that.
Next, she had her own learning plans for each subject. For example, she was good
at any subject and only improved it more. She was weak at that subject, so she had
to find more other materials about it to enhance her knowledge. Sometimes, she
could not balance her time for her study. At first, she thought after dinner, she could
learn from seven p.m. to ten p.m., but later when she learned, there were many
factors affecting her such as doing housework. In addition, she followed some pages
on Facebook which shared some materials of skills of learning English, and also
downloaded updated materials. For revision, she said that actually, she accumulated
knowledge during her autonomous learning process; therefore, she only revised
non-major subjects near the exams. She mentioned to LA of materials out of class.
When she practiced LA, she found what knowledge she lacked and then she self-
supported or filled in it. When teachers gave her any topics or assignments in class,
she supported them in different ways by herself and then saw them again. S27
believed that she learned skills of learning English, so if she practiced LA on them
regularly, her skills could be increased very fast. Specially, near the exam if she
were suddenly hard-working to practice listening, reading, doing exercises, etc.
continuously, when she took the final examinations, she did the tests faster because
she was familiar with looking at them before. She thought that LA which was
practiced regularly was effective.
S29 – having new ways in learning Writing
Also, S29 talked to her group about her LA activities. For Listening, she liked
to listen to music and watch videos. Due to using 3G, she seldom watched them on
the Internet. For Speaking, when she was walking from the class to her dormitory
and vice versa on the campus, she talked alone about her favorite things, and often
about her feelings. She often learned new words on the books and was afraid of
88
forgetting them, so she often read them again and again and wrote them down in the
notebook. She often read much in books, and sometimes she read some good
articles on the Internet. Since scientific articles often had difficult vocabulary, she
often looked up it on dictionary. For Writing, she selected structures, synonyms,
antonyms, and tried to use them. She wrote an essay, then replaced words and
crossed out the same ideas. On normal days, she often spent about two hours on
learning autonomously. She often learned which subjects she liked first before. In
that semester she withdrew her own experience that she had to learn the most
difficult subject first instead of her favorite ones. It was called “eat that frog”;
therefore, then she had better results. For learning resources, her teachers gave her
materials and she found more books in the library where there were some good
books. In addition, she felt that LA helped her with confidence more in classes.
When teachers explained lectures to her, she understood them immediately. She
could not revise all things near the exams, so if she had LA practice process in
advance, she was confident and tried her best. Besides, she found that she could not
control her LA regularly as her friends invited her to go out. Specially, when she
returned her hometown, she could not learn anything.
S36 – using many kinds of learning resources
In addition, S36 told his group about his practice regarding LA. For Reading,
he read BBC news, or books and then took notes. He used the information from
them to write topics. He listened to tapes in textbooks or IELTS books of
Cambridge from volume one to volume nine. Also, he used Cambly software to
practice speaking three times a week. That software allowed him to speak directly
to foreigners from seven to ten minutes. He often spent about thirty or forty minutes
on practicing reading. He did Writing homework. He went to the library to read
topics, wrote them, and submitted them on Making Mate web to be corrected. He
often spent about one hour on learning two skills autonomously. He revised old
lessons on Monday, and other days for other skills.
89
S55 – effectively autonomous learning at late night
S55 showed her friends to know that she learned English autonomously on
Moon.vn and registered to learn IELTS with Listening, Speaking, Reading, and
Writing there. She chatted with foreigners online; she listened to videos of Obama’s
speech on YouTube or watched good teachers’ websites such as Kenny. She both
watched and relaxed through American TV channels. She learned English
autonomously most effectively from 10 p.m. to 3 a.m. She corrected her
pronunciation through listening to teachers’ pronouncing and practicing it in front
of a mirror. Sometimes she sat in front of webcam to record what she said to listen
to them again to self-correct. She often listened to news on VOA and BBC, and then
imitated with setting the time and record.
S58 – using mind-mapping in learning autonomously
S58 said that she learned without any plan. Whenever she had the highest
pressure, she began to have her motivation to learn autonomously more. Her
learning method was that after a course she used mind-mapping or diagram to
summarize what she understood. After finishing homework, she often spent the
most one hour to learn autonomously through English cartoons or clips about
foreign volunteers instructing Vietnamese students to learn English. At the
beginning of each semester, she felt eager to think about her learning goals, but later
it decreased gradually, and she had her motivation again next to the exams. She felt
she was weak at finding materials skill since she depended on Internet. There were
many books in the library but for good books, they were not allowed to borrow to
bring them to their home and had to read them there. Because there was no one
controlling her, she easily neglected her learning duty. For example, first she
thought she learned much was ok. Then, she thought she learned little was still ok.
And finally, she thought she did not need to learn was ok, too.
Others
On the contrary, S17 was very conscious of her child-like learning style in that
she watched English videos and repeated, and listened to English stories to relax.
And this is how S22 learned English vocabulary: he wrote one word he did not
90
know, and then omitted vowels; then wrote many words and did the same. After ten
minutes, he remembered vowels and filled them again. This made him impressive
and easy to learn vocabulary. But S23 shared a different way to learn English
vocabulary: she wrote new words on small pieces of paper and stuck them on the
wall so that she could see them to memorise.
The findings showed that a number of participants had the same ways to learn
English outside the classroom. Normally, they did homework and assignments; they
listened to English music, watched English movies or videos, and searched learning
materials on the Internet. A few students designed their learning goals, and study
plan at the beginning of the first year at university. The typical students above had
their proper ways to learn English autonomously. These students not only finished
what the teachers asked them to do at home, but also found other knowledge of
English to enhance their English competence.
4.2.3.2 Students’ achievements of practicing LA activities
When asked about advantages of practicing LA activities outside classroom,
all 60 students responded that they achieved a lot. First, they got new knowledge,
websites, and materials (13 students) because they learned what they liked first, and
they understood what they liked faster (6 students). Second, they could memorize
lessons more clearly, deeply, and longer, and what they found when they learned
autonomously belonged to theirs (9 students). Third, they felt learn autonomously at
home more comfortably and effectively than in class (8 students). Next, learning
English autonomously made them feel good and inspired (7 students). Besides, they
saw that they actively used their time (8 students), and increased their self-
consciousness (2 students). They could find which fields they were weak to improve
(5 students), ask their friends (3 students), and summarize their lessons (1 student).
Also, they gained autonomous learning experience (4 students), more effective
learning methods (2 students), and problem-solving skills (4 students).
Clearly, all the participants in the interview indicated that they achieved a
large number of benefits when they learned English autonomously outside the class.
They talked about these kinds of LA benefits clearly as seen above.
91
4.2.3.3 Students’ difficul ties of practicing LA activities
With regard to possible difficulties, many of them found that it was hard for
them to self-assess their LA assignments or to ask whom for help. For instance, S27
said that after writing papers/essays, she needed someone to correct them to help
her know where she was wrong, but she had no one. Or when making an essay
outline, she thought of many ideas and selected the main ones to use in three body
paragraphs; however, when writing essays she only used the words she already
knew before. After that she opened her notebook and saw that she wrote good
words in it, but could not apply/use them. She felt her memory was not bad, but she
did not know why it was. So, she felt somehow angry at herself, and had no solution
to that problem.
For S31, she could not learn in groups for four skills of English because she
and her friends had different timetables. S39 revealed that although she liked to read
bilingual stories such as Harry Potter any time during the day and understand them,
she could not answer the questions that followed. Interestingly, S58 confessed that
since there was no one controling her, she easily neglected her learning duty or
plans. Or they were easily attracted by other inducements (17 students) such as
chatting, going out with friends, surfing webs, Facebook, Zalo and so on.
Next, some students considered that their alone learning was not effective,
especially in speaking skill (8 students), and their living environment was noisy (3
students). They did not have enough techniques to search materials in the library (1
student). Or when they wanted to share or ask something with their friends, they
were not available online (1 student).
The findings of this theme showed that the students lacked some skills in order
to learn English autonomously. Specially, their autonomous learning was affected
by other daily activities. They also had no one who could support them in practices
of LA. Throughout students’ typical stories about their LA activities, they showed
their colorful pictures of learning language out of classes. The following part
presents data from questionnaire and interviews of students’ practices of LA.
92
4.2.3.4 Setting goals
Table 4.4: Students’ practices of setting goals
N=285
Statements Never Rarely Some-
times
Often Usually Mean SD
16. I had my own short-term objectives
of each English subject at the beginning
of attending university.
3.5% 10.2% 47.4% 33.0% 6.0% 3.28 .858
17. I had my own long-term objectives
of English study at the beginning of
attending university.
3.2%
13.0% 38.2% 34.4% 11.2% 3.38 .955
18. I had objectives of English study
before and after university graduation. 5.6% 14.0% 33.7% 39.3% 7.4% 3.29 .987
19. I set appropriate learning goals for
speaking English at the beginning of
attending university.
3.2%
17.5% 32.3% 39.3% 7.7% 3.31 .955
20. I set appropriate learning goals for
reading English at the beginning of
attending university.
3.5%
18.2% 38.2% 33.0% 7.0% 3.22 .943
21. I set appropriate learning goals for
listening to English at the beginning of
attending university.
2.8%
18.2% 33.3% 39.3% 6.3% 3.28 .930
22. I set appropriate learning goals for
writing English at the beginning of
attending university.
3.5%
17.5% 34.7% 36.5% 7.7% 3.27 .958
Overall practices of setting goals 3.6% 15.5% 36.9% 36.4% 7.6%
19.1%(negative) 44.0% (positive)
Table 4.4 shows the mean scores of 7 items are from 3.22 to 3.38. The highest
mean score is activity 17 of 3.38; meanwhile, the lowest is the activity 20 of 3.22.
There were 44% of students having positive practices of setting up their learning
goals. On the other hand, 19.1% of them did not show their positive practices in this
part. Clearly, more than a half of the students did not participate in designing their
long-term, short-term learning objectives at university.
93
4.2.3.5 Study plan
Table 4.5: Students’ practices of planning study
N=285
Statements Never Rarely Some-
times
Often Usually Mean SD
23. I have designed my English
study plans well at the beginning
of attending university.
5.3%
23.2% 34.7% 30.9% 6.0% 3.09 .992
24. I plan how to achieve my
English study objectives. 5.6% 22.1% 38.2% 29.5% 4.6% 3.05 .961
25. I maximize my strengths of
English study. 2.8% 15.4% 40.4% 33.7% 7.7% 3.28 .915
26. I step by step minimize my
weaknesses of English study. 3.2% 16.1% 42.1% 32.6% 6.0% 3.22 .898
Overall practices of planning study 4.2% 19.2% 38.8% 31.7% 6.1%
23.4% (negative) 37.8% (positive)
Table 4.5 expresses the results in “planning study” cluster with four items with
their mean scores from 3.05 (activity 24) to 3.28 (activity 25). The overall practices
of this theme showed that 37.8% of students often planed their learning and 23.4%
rarely conducted these activities. No one could deny that more than 60% of the
students did not concern to make their own study plan.
4.2.3.6 Learner autonomy activities
Table 4.6: Students’ practices of LA activities
N=285
Statements Never Rarely Some-
times
Often Usually Mean SD
27. I do non-compulsory
assignments. 3.2% 22.5% 44.6% 25.6% 4.2% 2.74 1.076
28. I practice using English with my
friends. 5.6% 25.6% 37.9% 23.5% 7.4% 2.23 1.042
29. I do English self-study in a
group. 13.0% 29.5% 33.7% 18.2% 5.6% 3.05 .881
30. I talk to foreigners in English
outside the classroom. 27.7% 36.1% 24.9% 8.1% 3.2% 3.01 1.007
31. I write a diary in English. 46.3% 28.8% 17.2% 5.6% 2.1% 1.88 1.019
32. I exchange e-mails in English. 33.3% 34.0% 24.6% 6.0% 2.1% 2.09 1.001
33. I watch English programs on TV
or the Internet. 1.8% 7.4% 29.5% 40.0% 21.4% 3.72 .941
34. I listen to English songs. 0.0% 4.6% 18.9% 39.3% 37.2% 4.09 .859
94
35. I listen to English news on TV
or the Internet (e.g. CNN, BBC,
VOA, etc.).
1.4% 14.7% 34.4% 31.9% 17.5% 3.49 .992
36. I do English grammar exercises
on my own. 1.8% 14.0% 41.8% 33.7% 8.8% 3.34 .887
37. I do revision not required by the
teacher. 2.8% 19.3% 38.9% 33.0% 6.0% 3.20 .915
38. I go to see my teachers so as to
discuss my work. 6.3% 28.4% 39.6% 20.0% 5.6% 2.90 .977
39. I try my best to solve English
learning problems before seeking
assistance.
0.7% 9.1% 39.6% 37.9% 12.6% 3.53 .854
40. I watch English movies on TV
or the Internet. 0.4% 8.1% 25.6% 37.2% 28.8% 3.86 .939
41. I learn English through
YouTube. 1.1% 4.9% 25.6% 39.6% 28.8% 3.90 .910
42. I read English news in online
newspapers. 4.6% 25.6% 34.4% 26.0% 9.5% 3.10 1.035
43. I learn English through
Facebook. 3.2% 9.5% 34.0% 33.7% 19.6% 3.57 1.010
44. I take part in English Clubs at
university. 11.2% 28.8% 39.3% 15.4% 5.3% 2.75 1.021
45. I take part in extra activities of
Faculty of foreign languages
Education.
3.9%
27.0% 36.8% 23.5% 8.8% 3.06 1.005
46. I learn new words through
videos or pictures focusing on
teaching vocabulary on the Internet.
1.1% 11.6% 36.8% 38.9% 11.6% 3.48 .882
47. I learn new words incidentally in
reading passages. 0.4% 10.2% 33.3% 43.5% 12.6% 3.58 .851
48. I learn structures in reading
passages. 1.4% 9.5% 40.0% 41.4% 7.7% 3.45 .823
49. I choose topics to write at home. 10.5% 36.8% 37.9% 12.6% 2.1% 2.59 .913
50. I read English stories to practice
reading skills, learn vocabulary and
structures.
2.5% 21.1% 37.5% 31.6% 7.4% 3.20 .939
51. I prepare new lessons before the
English classes. 7.4% 20.0% 36.5% 30.2% 6.0% 3.07 1.017
Overall practices of LA activities
7.7% 19.5% 33.7% 27.8% 11.3%
27.2% (negative) 39.1% (positive)
95
Table 4.6 gives information about students’ practices of LA activities outside
the classroom. The highest mean score is 4.09 of listening to English songs. The
mean scores of activities 27, 28, 31, 32, 38, 44 and 49 are rather low, under 3
(neutral). Even mean score of item 31 is the lowest, under 2. Overall, only 39.1% of
students had positive practices of LA activities. The percentage of students
answering negatively was 27.2%. In other words, a few students conducted
activities 27, 28, 31, 32, 38, 44 and 49. Additionally, more than 60% of the students
did not carry out LA activities.
4.2.3.7 Time management
Table 4.7: Students’ practices of time and life management
N=285
Statements Never Rarely Some-
times
Often Usually Mean SD
52. I arrange my time for my
English study and my daily
activities reasonably.
2.1% 13.0% 43.9% 34.0% 7.0% 3.31 .862
53. I avoid stress in my English
study. 5.6% 17.9% 34.7% 31.2% 10.5% 3.23 1.043
54. I avoid feeling bored about
learning English. 6.7% 21.1% 32.3% 29.1% 10.9% 3.16 1.086
Overall practices of time and
life management
4.8% 17.3% 37.0% 31.4% 9.5%
22.1% (negative) 40.9% (positive)
Table 4.7 shows that 40.9% of students had positive practices of this part and
22.1% of them did not. Additionally, the mean scores of three items are from 3.16
to 3.31. This means that over 50% of the students could not manage their time and
their life well.
4.2.3.8 Learning resources
Table 4.8: Students’ practices of materials and resources
N=285
Statements Never Rarely Some-
times
Often Usually Mean SD
55. I use available English
materials to learn effectively. 2.1% 14.4% 38.2% 37.2% 8.1% 3.35 .897
56. I use English dictionaries well. 1.1% 14.0% 33.7% 40.7% 10.5% 3.46 .897
96
57. I use English reference books
well. 0.7% 18.6% 38.2% 33.7% 8.8% 3.31 .898
58. I look for English materials
on Facebook. 2.1% 9.5% 29.5% 39.3% 19.6% 3.65 .969
59. I look for English materials
from my friends. 1.1% 10.5% 34.7% 38.2% 15.4% 3.56 .912
60. I use English library books
well. 6.7% 18.9% 39.3% 22.1% 13.0% 3.16 1.084
61. I surf the Internet for finding
English learning resources
effectively.
4.9% 14.7% 39.3% 29.8% 11.2% 3.28 1.009
62. I find English materials from
my EFL teachers. 8.1% 23.5% 34.7% 25.6% 8.1% 3.02 1.068
63. I choose English books,
English exercises which suit me. 3.2% 15.1% 32.6% 37.9% 11.2% 3.39 .978
Overall practices of learning
resources
3.3% 15.5% 35.6% 33.8% 11.8%
18.8% (negative) 45.6% (positive)
Table 4.8 shows information about students’ finding learning resources.
There are 45.6% of informants responding positively. However, 18.8% of them
answered negatively this part. The mean scores of nine items are from 3.02 to 3.65.
The highest mean score of 3.65 is of activity 58. The lowest one of 3.02 is of
activity 62. Over 50% of the students did not explore learning resources well,
especially from the library and from their teachers.
4.2.3.9 Metacognition in learning language
Table 4.9: Students’ practices of metacognition in language learning
N=285
Statements Never Rarely Some-
times
Often Usually Mean SD
70. I consciously select learning
ways to overcome problems I
encounter in English.
2.8% 17.5% 40.7% 30.9% 8.1% 3.24 .930
71. I preview the English lessons to
get general ideas of what they are
about, how they are organized, and
how they relate to what I already
know.
1.8%
13.3%
42.1%
37.5%
5.3%
3.31 .833
97
72. When someone is speaking
English, I try to concentrate on what
the person is saying and I don’t
think anything else.
0.0% 5.3% 24.2% 47.4% 23.2% 3.88 .820
73. I decide in advance to pay
special attention to specific English
aspects; for example, while
watching a film I focus on the way
native speakers pronounce certain
English sounds.
2.5% 10.2% 29.5% 37.5% 20.4% 3.63 .997
74. I try to find out all I can about
how to be a better English learner
by reading books or articles, or by
talking to others about how to learn.
0.7% 12.6% 33.3% 38.2% 15.1% 3.54 .921
75. I arrange my schedule to study
and practice English consistently,
not just when there is the pressure
of a test.
8.1% 29.5% 37.5% 19.6% 5.3% 2.85 1.002
76. I arrange my physical
environment to promote learning
English; for instance, I find a quiet,
comfortable place to review.
0.7% 9.5% 36.1% 40.0% 13.7% 3.56 .868
77. I organize my English notebook
to record important English
information.
11.9%
27.7% 32.3% 22.5% 5.6% 2.82 1.084
78. I plan what I am going to
accomplish in learning English each
day or each week.
7.7%
22.5%
37.5%
26.3%
6.0%
3.00
1.019
79. I prepare for an upcoming
English task (such as making an
oral presentation in English) by
considering the nature of the task,
what I have to know, and my
current English skills.
3.2% 14.0% 38.9% 31.6% 12.3% 3.36 .974
80. I clearly identify the purpose of
the language activity; for instance,
if the purpose of a class activity
requires specific listening, I
recognize it.
3.2% 16.5% 36.8% 33.3% 10.2% 3.31 .969
81. I take responsibility for finding
opportunities to practice English.
1.1% 7.0% 27.0% 43.5% 21.4% 3.77 .900
98
82. I actively look for people to
whom I can speak English. 4.2% 21.8% 40.7% 27.0% 6.3% 3.09 .950
83. I try to notice my language
errors and find out the reasons for
them.
1.1% 18.2% 26.0% 39.3% 15.4% 3.50 .995
84. I learn from my mistakes in
using English. 0.7% 4.2% 28.4% 47.0% 19.6% 3.81 .823
85. I evaluate the general progress I
have made in learning English.
1.8%
10.2% 35.8% 42.1% 10.2% 3.49 .875
86. I prepare for proficiency tests
such as IELTS, C1, etc.
3.9%
13.3% 30.2% 35.8% 16.8% 3.48 1.043
Overall practices of metacognition
3.3% 14.9% 33.9% 35.3% 12.6%
18.2% (negative) 47.9% (positive)
According to Table 4.9, the mean scores of 17 items are from 2.82 to 3.88.
The highest one of 3.88 is item 72; meanwhile, the lowest one of 2.82 is item 77.
The others are from 2.85 to 3.81, and items 75 and 77 have the mean scores under 3.
In addition, 47.9% of students answered that they were active in these activities, and
18.2 % of them were not. In short, more than 50% of the students did not organize
those metacognitive activities. In addition, a number of students did not arrange to
practice English frequently and take important notes in learning English.
Comparing the findings of this theme from interview data with those from
survey data, it can be seen that there was an interrelation between them. As
mentioned in chapter Three, based on interview data, a set of items of questionnaire
was designed. As a result, the survey revealed that the rate of the students who often
or usually applied LA activities was rather low. These echoed the results of
interview data.
4.2.3.10 Students’ sel f-assessment of learner autonomy
In the interview, participants self-assessed their practices of LA in different
levels. Most of the interviewed students evaluated their LA poor (13 students) or
around average (40 students), while the rest (7 students) self-assessed their LA
good. Some detailed accounts are provided below.
99
For S53, she felt that her LA ability was effective since when undertaking her
study plans, she gained certain promotions. In the same line, S54 found that LA
implementation enabled her to reap better learning results. By virtue of LA
practices, she usually found something new and interesting. That stimulated her to
explore it more and increased her LA time. Meanwhile, S59 explained her
increasing LA efficacy in the sense that despite her poor LA capability, she found
her LA ability during the late college semesters was increased more significantly
than when she was as a high school student. At high-school time, the concept of LA
seemed very strange to her. Similarly, S57 said that comparing with the first year,
she self-assessed her LA ability better in her second year. Unfortunately, S52 and
60 considered that their LA ability was ineffective because they had no clear
learning goals, were unable to successfully fulfill study plans as expected or were
somehow affected by unwanted incidents like health problems, extra-curriculum
activities, family or friendship affairs. Thus, S10 admitted that LA is crucial but
difficult to put into practice.
Table 4.10: Students’ practices of self-assessment
N=285
Statements Never Rarely Some-
times
Often Usually Mean SD
64. I appraise my objectives of
English study after each semester.
4.9%
13.7% 41.1% 31.6% 8.8% 3.26 .968
65. I assess the quality of English
language I have got. 2.8% 11.2% 43.2% 34.7% 8.1% 3.34 .884
66. I assess the quantity of English
language I have acquired. 3.2% 12.3% 43.9% 32.6% 8.1% 3.30 .900
67. I expect the teacher to be
responsible for evaluating how much
I have learnt in the English class.
1.8% 7.4% 30.9% 37.9% 22.1% 3.71 .950
68. I make self-exam with the
English exam papers chosen by
myself.
3.2%
19.6%
41.8%
29.8%
5.6%
3.15
.909
69. I self-assess my carrying out
study plan of English after each
semester.
3.9% 13.0% 43.9% 31.9% 7.4% 3.26 .913
Overall practices of self-assessment 3.3% 12.8% 40.8% 33.1% 10.0%
16.1% (negative) 43.1% (positive)
100
Table 4.10 shows information about students’ self-assessment of their
practices on LA. Of 285 students, 43.1% stated that they evaluated their LA
activities positively and 16.1% did not. The highest mean score of 3.71 is of item
67. The lowest one of 3.15 is of item 68. The rest are from 3.26 to 3.34. Clearly, the
degree of students’ self-assessment of their LA activities is not high. Specially, over
55% of students did not pay attention to this theme.
In brief, both results of interview and of questionnaire in this theme are
similar. Many participants felt that their LA ability in learning English was not
good. Besides, many of them did not know how to self-assess their own learning as
well as where their LA level was.
4.3 Relationships between teachers’ and students’ perceptions and practices
4.3.1 Relationship between teachers’ perceptions and practices
The results above stated that there was a certain relationship between teachers’
perceptions and practices. The current research confirmed that EFL teachers at DTU
had insights into the concepts, aspects, and levels of LA and its crucial role in
learning a foreign language at tertiary education. As presented in 4.1.1, the teachers
showed their understanding of the concept of students’ LA. For example,
autonomous students had to know what they needed and what they did when
learning in their major at the university, controlled their learning, found materials
actively, created network to learn, prepared new lessons at home, and asked other
people for what they did not know. Clearly, they emphasized students’ LA ability
outside the classroom. From the teachers’ perceptions of LA, it could be seen that
what all interviewed teachers in the present study did to develop LA was to manage
to administer LA activities for students, especially behind classroom, such as
assigning homework of grammar, speaking, writing, listening tapes, portfolios, and
projects to present in class, and providing some learning materials, websites, etc.
Additionally, some teachers perceived the concept of autonomous students in
different ways. For instance, T1 considered LA as self-study and self-research; T9
said that students had to know LA method; T11 and T17 thought that students had
to have LA plan, learning goals, and follow it; T20 thought that instead of waiting
101
for teachers’ instructions in the classroom, students had to discover new lessons at
home. However, what the teachers self-reported in the interview indicated that they
did not instruct their students how to learn English autonomously, how to set goals,
and how to make study plans. Besides, when instructing LA activities, many
teachers admitted that they did not have sufficient measures to check their students’
LA activities outside classes like T3’s and T6’s thought. In class, they only checked
whether or not students completed assignments/ homework and then gave general
corrections due to limited classroom time. Although most teachers gave good
comments on their LA-oriented activities and students’ LA ability, they could not
provide valid criteria for their assessments of students’ practices of LA.
Furthermore, the findings of this study showed that some teachers’ experience
of LA directed their informed and stated beliefs. T4 revealed that he always learned
autonomously when he was young; therefore, he always asked his students to do
autonomous learning in any subjects he taught. He affirmed that LA was “like
people’s instinct for survival” and if students did not learn English autonomously,
they would meet many difficulties in achieving his subject’s objectives. Similarly,
T10 instructed her students how to learn English major autonomously. Both T4 and
T10 shared their LA experience with their students. T10 said that though most of
her students listened to her instructions of how to apply LA in learning process, a
few students implemented LA activities in their learning because they were
attracted by other social activities.
In short, there was an interaction between teachers’ perceptions and teachers’
practices of LA. In other words, what they thought of LA drove what they applied it
in teaching and vice versa.
4.3.2 Relationship between students’ perceptions and practices
The data from the present study showed that the relationship between
students’ perceptions and their practice of LA was clear. Figure 4.1 shows
information about this distance clearly because it summarizes 10 tables of students’
perceptions of LA and their reports of conducting LA activities in sections 4.2.1,
102
4.2.2, 4.2.3. In Figure 4.1, it can be seen that students have positive perceptions of
LA and its role, but their practice of LA is not as high as their perceptions.
Figure 4.1: Integrated students’ perceptions and practices regarding LA
The interview results of this study indicated that all of the students understood
the concept of LA as in 4.2.1. In practice of LA, at the higher dimensions
(responsibility and cognition), students did set up their own learning objectives,
their learning plans (though not all of them functioned well); they actively chose
suitable methods, strategies, materials subject to their learning styles and looked for
materials and learnt by themselves without waiting for teachers’ instruction or
request; they autonomously practiced four skills of English, learnt new words and
grammar structures as well, got prepared before class, and asked teachers or others
in case of having problems; they took part in college extra-activities, and had self-
consciousness in learning.
Yet, the present findings also confirm that there still exists quite a noted
mismatch between what students perceived and what they actually obtained from
LA developments. Most of them responded in the interview that they did not know
how to set up their specific learning goals at the beginning in the first year or they
only established general goals. Normally, after one or two first semesters, they
Column1
Series 3
0102030405060708090
100
103
began to set up their specific goals. A large number of students did not have their
own daily or weekly learning plan. Some students designed their study plans but did
not make it effective because they did not manage their time for these plans or were
attracted by other unplanned activities or lacked sufficient efforts and strong will.
They confided that they easily felt bored when learning alone. Specially, when they
surfed the Internet, they were easily attracted by social websites such as chatting
with their friends on Facebook instead of paying attention to their learning practice.
In addition, most of them did not know what websites on the Internet having
reliability to study.
A few students underwent experiences of LA when they were secondary and
high school students. S29 was a typical one. She said that she always learned
English autonomously outside the classroom, and learning in class was minor. This
formed her LA habit, and she brought it to learning environment at university. Thus,
she stated that she had good results when she studied in higher education. One more
example was S27. Nearly finishing the third semester, she realized that LA was very
important for students’ learning, and if students learned English autonomously and
self-assessed their practices of LA well, when they went to the classes, they just
asked their teachers for the problems they did not understand. Learning in this way
helped her achieve the best results.
Clearly, some students’ perceptions of LA reflect their actions of LA. In
contrast, when some students implemented LA in their learning, they believed that
LA was useful and vital in their own learning.
4.3.3 Relationship between teachers’ and students’ perceptions
The results of this study showed that both teachers and students, most of them,
had high perceptions of four dimensions of LA as ability, cognition, responsibility,
and lifelong learning. They indicated clearly that what LA was through detail
activities as in 4.1.1 and 4.2.1. Specially, both focused on learners’ LA ability
outside the classroom. Additionally, most of the teachers and students believed in
the important role of LA in learning language in higher education and students’ life
after students graduate from university (see 4.1.2 and 4.2.2). These showed that the
104
relationship between teachers’ perceptions and students’ perceptions was very
strong.
However, what teachers thought about students’ LA ability was higher than
students’ thought. For example, T1 said that students had to self-research their
problems by themselves; T2 thought that students had to know what they wanted
and did at university; T7 believed that autonomous students had to have far view of
the future in learning. Meanwhile, students did not have these thoughts. This
showed that teachers emphasized on students’ metacognition in learning while
students only gained cognition of LA. Besides, 5.1% of students did not have full
understanding of ability and cognition of LA; 4.3% of them did not know their
responsibility for autonomous learning; and 3.1% of them did not admit the vital
role of LA in learning in university environment.
In short, most of the teachers and students had insights into the concept of LA
as well as the role of LA in learning and in students’ life after they graduate from
university. Although a few students did not believe in LA and its role, the
relationship between teachers’ perceptions and students’ perceptions of LA was
clear and powerful.
4.3.4 Relationship between teachers’ and students’ practices
The findings from interviews and questionnaire showed that the relationship
between teachers’ practices and students’ practices of LA was clear. The data
mentioned in 4.1.3 and 4.2.3 indicated that all teachers held many LA activities for
their students, and students joined these though some students were lazy and
passive, did not do homework, or did not submit their assignments on time. In
addition, the data from questionnaire showed that the percentage of students who
never or rarely set learning goals was 19.1%. Besides, 23.4% of students never or
rarely planned their study; 27.2% of them did not participate in LA activities; 22.1%
of them could not manage their time in learning and their life; 18.8% of them could
not find learning resources; 18.2% of them never or rarely took part in
metacognition activities in learning language; and 16.1% of them did not self-assess
their LA activities. This showed that some students’ LA activities were weak, and
105
the relationship between teachers’ practices and students’ practices of LA was not
strong enough.
4.4 Discussion
This section discusses teachers’ and students’ perceptions of LA, teachers’
and students’ practices towards LA, as well as the relationship between EFL
teachers’ and EFL students’ perceptions and practices of LA. The discussion bases
on the definitions of LA in this study defined in Chapter Two as language learners’
cognition, ability to take responsibility for their own learning by se tting learning
goals, planning, practicing, monitoring and assessing their autonomous learning
processes through teachers’ guide and orientation , as well as their lifelong
learning. Besides, psychology, learning environment, and social culture are
analyzed as mediating factors of autonomous learning.
4.4.1 Teachers’ perceptions and practices of learner autonomy
4.4.1.1 Teachers’ perceptions of learner autonomy
The results of this theme confirmed that the teachers interviewed had
positive conceptualizations of LA as ability, responsibility, self-consciousness and
activeness (cognition), and lifelong learning in EFL learning. According to the
teachers, autonomous students had ability to set up their own learning objectives,
and their learning plans. Besides, the students had to take responsibility for actively
looking for materials, preparing new lessons at home, learning by themselves
without waiting for teachers’ instructions or requests, knowing what they had to do
at university, asking other people for what they did not understand, autonomously
practicing the four skills of English, learning new words and grammar structures,
and creating a network to learn in a close collaboration with each other.
Additionally, the teachers thought that autonomous learners had to have cognition
and self-consciousness of their own learning. It suggests that teachers expect their
students to have metacognitive EFL learning. All of the teachers agreed with the
key role of LA for students at higher education and after graduating from the
university (i.e. life-long learning). These results echo those in the previous
researches (i.e. Borg & Al-Busaidi, 2012b; Dogan & Mirici, 2017; Keuk & Heng,
106
2016; Nguyễn Văn Lợi, 2016; Tapinta, 2016). Yet, the results of this research seem
to conflict with prior studies (i.e. Nguyễn Thanh Nga, 2014; Wang & Wang, 2016)
because those researchers found that the EFL teachers had their weak perceptions of
the concept of LA. As mentioned before in section 2.4.4 in Chapter Two, Nguyễn
Thanh Nga (2014) found that EFL teachers did not have a clear perception of LA
and nor were students fostered perceptions of LA. Wang and Wang’s results (2016)
echo Nguyễn Thanh Nga (2014).
However, most of the teachers did not mention the influence of the socio-
cultural factor on LA in this university in Mekong Delta context. Of twenty teachers,
only T5 said that autonomous learners needed to create a learning network and
collaborate in learning outside the classroom. T8 and T10 only claimed that the EFL
students had weak background of English rather than ones attending other
universities, and they did not indicate the factors affecting the students’ weakness in
learning English. In other words, the teachers did not pay attention to the relation
between local culture and students’ LA ability. Additionally, teachers seem not to
recognize their roles in students’ autonomous learning. Most of them did not indicate
their position in students’ LA environment. Instead, they just presented what students
had to do to be autonomous learners as mentioned above. Only T10 realized that she
needed to instruct her students in the ways to learn English autonomously. Besides,
the teachers did not talk about AaL as well as the students’ role in LA learning
process. The teachers did not show their duties in students’ assessment in LA learning
as Earl and Katz’s model (2006) or Berry’s (2008) (see 2.5.2).
Clearly, the teachers showed their understanding of LA as ability,
responsibility, cognition, and lifelong learning. It seemed that their perception of
one dimension of LA was dependent on perceptions of the others. This showed that
these four dimensions were interrelated. However, they did not talk about their roles
in students’ LA learning as well as in students’ assessment of LA activities.
4.4.1.2 Teachers’ practices of learner autonomy
According to what the teachers reported in the interview, there were some
active signs in their teaching practices of LA. For example, they organized some LA
107
activities for their students to do (see 4.1.3). In particular, as seen above,
groupwork/ pairwork or collaborative learning was optimized by most teachers
interviewed. This is the classroom feature commonly found in Vietnam setting and
particularly in DTU. Groupwork involves the students in taking responsibilities,
making plans and choosing means/tools to fulfill shared assignments/goals. Thus, a
series of relevant groupwork if properly administered is definitely leading students
to the LA target (Harmer, 2007). Therefore, in the case of commonly large-size
classes and limited classroom duration, it is a good idea for teachers to frequently
manipulate groupwork of various formats, especially outside the classroom and
through the Internet.
However, the teachers just gave homework, assignments, and introduced
some websites to the students to learn English outside the classes, but the teachers
did not listen to the students’ needs so that they could consult each student about
how to learn English autonomously at home as every of the students could possess
his or her own learning style. Besides, the teachers did not make a learning
community for their students. Only T5 said that the autonomous students had to
make a network to support their study together. He did not mention the teachers’
role in helping the students to hold learning net. Importantly, they did not play their
roles as facilitators, helpers, coordinators, counsellors, consultants, managers, and
advisors well. More specifically, they did not foster some LA activities to develop
students’ LA ability such as cognition of learning strategies and self-management,
metacognition of language learning, and learner attitudes (Wenden, 1991). These
activities are keys elements for promoting learners’ LA. It is understandable when
the teachers did not have any cognition of their role in EFL teaching in the new era
and were not trained about LA as mentioned above.
For assessment of LA activities, the teachers just checked their students’
finishing assignments or homework in the classroom. The fact that nine teachers
assessed their students having from average to low LA ability, and three teachers
could not assess their students’ LA ability because those students depended on their
teachers (see 4.1.3.4) while of twenty teachers, thirteen self-assessed that they
108
organized LA activities for their students from well level to very well showed that
there was a conflict between the way they assessed their students and their
instruction of LA. What the teachers shared in the interview revealed that they did
not discuss a set of clear criteria of good performance with their students to assess
the students’ LA activities and self-assess both the teachers’ and the students’ LA
activities; did not observe, and manage their students’ LA activities. Teachers did
not instruct and model “the skills of self-assessment”, “guide students in setting
goals, and monitoring their progress”, “provide exemplars and models of good
practice and quality work that reflect curriculum outcomes”, “guide students in
developing internal feedback or self-monitoring mechanisms to validate and
question their own thinking, and to become comfortable with the ambiguity and
uncertainty that is inevitable in learning anything new”, “provide regular and
challenging opportunities to practice, so that students can become confident,
competent self-assessors”, “monitor students’ metacognitive processes as well as
their learning”, “provide descriptive feedback”, and “ create an environment where
it is safe for students to take chances and where support is readily available” (Earl &
Katz, 2006, p.43). In general, the teachers did not develop their roles well in holding
their students’ LA activities because they did not have a complete understanding of
their new roles in teaching and learning.
To apply LA successfully in teaching, teachers themselves must be self-
educated as Karl Marx’s (1818-1883) saying “If you want to enjoy art, you must be
artistically educated man”. If the teachers do not understand the concept of LA and
how to apply it in their professional development process, they can hardly instruct
their students how to learn autonomously. Furthermore, Little (1995) pointed:
Genuinely successful teachers have always been autonomous in the sense of
having a strong sense of personal responsibility for their teaching, exercising
via continuous reflection and analysis the highest degree of affective and
cognitive control of the teaching process, and exploring the freedom of this
confers. (Little, 1995, p. 179)
109
And then, other authors, namely Smith (2000), Sinclair, McGrath and Lamb (2000)
discuss that the teachers have their ability to improve their own teaching through
their own efforts, self-direction, self-development, self-making decisions about their
own professional learning needs. According to Holec’s view (1981), LA ability is
not inborn, but it can be got by formal learning. This means that students have to be
fostered perceptions, and LA skills to promote their LA capacity. Thus, in LA
learning, students tend to need the teachers’ support and fostering LA ability in
order to help students promote their LA ability. Similarly, Alhaysony (2016) states
that there are not only students in learning but also the interaction between teachers
and students. So, the teacher should be an autonomous learner first, and then he or
she shares his or her LA experience with his or her students.
Additionally, the number of the interviewed teachers helped the researcher gain
more rich data to analyze. Among previous studies of LA conducted in Vietnamese
context, only Nguyễn Thanh Nga (2014) explored teachers’ perceptions of LA and she
interviewed four teachers while there were 20 EFL teachers with over one to over 25-
year teaching experience asked in this study. Information of organizing LA activities
from these teachers provided diverse data for the researcher to answer research
questions 1 and 3. This is also a resource for further research.
In conclusion, what the teachers did in teaching practices of LA was guided
by their thinking of LA, and for some teachers, their thought of LA was influenced
by their experience of LA. What they responded in the interview reflected the
current situation of teaching English in Vietnam, where the teaching is still likely to
be more teacher-centered. The teachers did not acknowledge the importance of
socio-cultural influence on forming LA ability for the students.
4.4.2 Students’ perceptions and practices of learner autonomy
4.4.2.1 Students’ perceptions of learner autonomy
The findings above confirmed that all the students had the insights of LA as
ability, responsibility, and cognition in language learning (at the baseline and higher
dimensions of LA). This meant they knew what they had to do at university as well
as the characteristics the autonomous learners possessed as presented in 4.2.3.
110
Furthermore, all of them were aware of the vital role of LA for students in higher
education and after they graduated from university (i.e. life-long learning). Their
perceptions of these four dimensions of LA were interrelated like their teachers’
case. These findings echo those in the previous studies (i.e. Azizi, 2014; Balcikanli,
2010; Chan et al, 2002; Đặng Tấn Tín, 2012; Joshi, 2011; Lê Xuân Quỳnh, 2013).
However, the findings showed that the students did not gain metacognition
much. What they shared indicated that they did not obtain knowledge of language
learning, learner attitudes, and learning strategies. According to Wenden (1991),
these factors are the needs to formulate autonomous learners. They did not show the
characteristics of metacognition in learning as Hennessey (1993) mentioned (see
2.2.3 in chapter Two).
Additionally, all the students did not show their perspective of LA in culture
and why they learned English unwell. Most of them came from the rural regions in
Mekong Delta and they did not share how the socio-cultural aspect in their
hometown affected their autonomous learning. They did not mention the reasons
they had weak background of learning English. The findings also showed that they
did not have the foundation of LA in previous schools.
Furthermore, the students did not share their understanding of assessment as
well as its role in LA learning. They did not know their roles in assessment as
learning in autonomous learning, and how to become active assessors. They did not
know how to self-assess their LA learning. They did not indicate that they are
connectors, critical assessors between teaching and learning. This is quite
understandable because these things were not taught to the students before.
Clearly, the students just had their cognition of LA, what they had to do in
learning English major at DTU, and the importance of LA in their English lifelong
learning after graduating from the university. However, the results of this study
showed that most of them did not own metacognition of LA.
4.4.2.2 Students’ practices of learner autonomy
The analyzed data showed that the students did acknowledge achievements
of different degrees thanks to LA practices at the university setting, which was
111
unknown to them in the previous stage of education. The findings from interview
indicated that they were all moving on the right tracks of LA development, despite
not at the same pace and level. This is quite understandable because LA ability is
made up of multiple dimensions and no two students are exactly the same in terms
of personal traits, learning styles and characteristics. They tend to learn what they
like first in learning English.
Additionally, in the case of the students at DTU, what LA activities they
reported in the interview and the results from survey showed they still possessed
reactive autonomy like ones somewhere in East Asia (Littlewood, 1999). This
echoes Lê Xuân Quỳnh’s study’s findings (2013). As mentioned in 2.2.1.5 in
Chapter Two, most of the students came from the rural areas in Mekong Delta, the
South of Vietnam; therefore, they brought their culture to the university. In other
words, their awareness of learning is rather low because of Mekong Delta people’s
characteristics and culture. According to Đỗ Nam et al (2017), local people’s
limited cognition about developing education for themselves and their children
makes this region considered as a “depression” in the quality of education. These
authors indicate that many of the parents only let their children learn to how to read
and write, and then those children leave school when they have not graduated from
high school, even secondary school yet, in order to work as the employees with
their parents in other provinces. Many of the students at schools have not been
interested in study. According to the Vietnamese MOET’s official statistics, the rate
of the leaving-school students in Mekong Delta is higher than other regions in
Vietnam. This explains why the students in this study only gain reactive autonomy.
Hence, it is important to foster the students’ cognition about autonomous learning to
change from reactive autonomous learners to proactive autonomous ones. This
change will take learners a long time to improve. Specially, they have to be patient
in process of autonomous EFL learning.
Based on Scharle and Szabó’s a three-stage model (2000, p.1) of the growth
of autonomy as “raising awareness”, “changing attitudes”, and “transferring roles”,
it cannot be denied that EFL students’ LA activities at DTU jus t got levels of
112
awareness and involvement of LA. In other words, most students were aware of
what they should do to become autonomous learners and involved in some LA
activities which were most given by teachers, namely assignments, and homework.
A few students got level “transferring roles” like modifying and adapting the goals
and content of the learning program. From the results of this theme, although
students had their positive perceptions of LA, its vital role in higher education, as
well as advantages of LA in learning English, they did not gain the highest level of
LA, transferring roles. They just recognized what they had to do to become
autonomous learners, but they did not try their best to change their mind, practice
LA, and change their roles in LA process. In other words, they did not change their
roles to become active autonomous learners.
In addition, based on qualitative data and four aspects of LA (technical,
political, psychological, and sociocultural discussed in Chapter Two), no one can
deny that the students have their mismatch. First, the students did not make their
own decision on their learning. They could not choose what they should learn to
serve their study. They just learnt or found out information according to their
teachers’ instruction. In the case some students searched learning resources related
to the subjects they studied in the class, they did not know whether those were
reliable. They did not really control their autonomous learning as Benson (1997)
mentioned. Second, the students developed their role in autonomous learning
unwell. Many of them did not or rarely go to the library to seek information. They
explained that they neither have their free time nor know the ways to find out books
in the library. Besides, the students were attracted by other daily activities such as
going out with their friends, and surfing the Internet or Facebook. Finally, most of
the students wanted to learn independently, and did not organize learning group or
learning community outside the class. They only did groupwork because of their
teachers’ requirements. Discussing this problem, they said that working in group
was not effective as their friends were often late, did not take their responsibility for
the whole group’s work, and they hardly had the same free time to learn together.
Additionally, the students could not develop their metacognition in learning
113
language. In other words, they could not plan their study, set learning goals, self-
manage, monitor, evaluate their language learning (Harris, 2003). This can quite be
understandable because they were not enhanced deep cognition and metacognition
in learning language.
Furthermore, the students did not show their ability to be active assessors in
LA learning. They could not analyze, self-assess, and critically consider their own
autonomous learning; thus, they could not adjust, adapt, or change their current
learning objectives, as well as plan their new studying goals. They did not know
how to self-assess their LA learning. They just made their comments on their
autonomous learning that they gained weak LA ability. All these are because they
have never been trained about them before.
In comparison with the findings of the previous studies of LA in Vietnamese
setting, this study has obtained its own values in this field. For example, the number
of interviewed students in this study is 60, more than the others and they were from
freshmen to seniors while both Nguyễn Thị Cẩm Lệ (2009) and Đặng Tấn Tín
(2012) interviewed 11 ones; and Lê Xuân Quỳnh (2013) interviewed 18 ones in
three focus groups. Interviewing 60 students helped the current researcher get huge,
various data to explore and then to give reliable results for this study. Additionally,
students could learn from their friends’ LA methods when they were interviewed in
groups of five. Next, the researching purposes of using interview tool in those
studies were different. Nguyễn Thị Cẩm Lệ (2009, p.121) used interview for three
purposes: (1) the students’ strengths and weaknesses in learning English and their
understanding of “student and teacher responsibilities in learning process”, (2) the
students’ “writing behaviors”, (3) the students’ activities to enhance English inside
and outside the classroom while Đặng Tấn Tín (2012) reported his interview data to
discuss effect of preference, motivation, and attitude on LA. Furthermore, Lê Xuân
Quỳnh (2013) asked his interviewed students about their assessment of the
effectiveness in implementing the learning contract and writing the learning diary.
Meanwhile, group interview in this study was used with the aim of creating many
opportunities for students to talk about their LA activities, their benefits, their
114
difficulties, their needs, as well as their self-assessment of their LA activities more
clearly, concretely and emotionally which the researcher maybe did not found in
questionnaire. The results of this study showed that students reported their LA
process in different ways depending on their learning styles and their kinds of
multiple intelligences they possess. In addition, although they had a common in
practicing four skills of learning English, vocabulary, and grammar, they conducted
LA activities according to their hobbies, their needs, their strengths, and their
weaknesses, and had their own autonomous learning method as shown above. This
helped their groupmates be able to learn LA experience each other. It was also real
lessons that they hardly gained in other situations.
Due to group interview, the researcher could find out learners’ experiences at
real school contexts because it gave an insight of complicated problems or
situations (Creswell, 2012). The students met their clear benefits and drawbacks
during a process of autonomous learning as mentioned in 4.2.3.2 and 4.2.3.3. All
this, on the one hand, says that the present students appeared to be proceeding to
dimension 4 (lifelong learning) of LA ability, where they self-assessed and reflected
on the outcomes realizing relevant constraints.
On the other hand, the findings showed that LA did not mean an absolute
absence of teacher role, especially at the first college stages. Most of the students
said that they did not set learning objectives, daily or weekly study plans at the
beginning of the first university year. Until the second year, or even the third year,
the students did establish their learning goals. Additionally, many students
complained that they did not know whom to ask their problems when they learnt
English autonomously outside the class. This means that the teachers’ roles in
supporting, helping, consulting the students are very vital.
In short, the analyzed data of this study showed that students just partly
involved in their own autonomous learning. They lacked skills for learning English
major autonomously. The findings also reflect the contemporary circumstances of
learning English in Vietnam in which the students tend to learn for tests and final
scores rather than to focus on their learning experience. Furthermore, they did not
115
recognize the extreme importance of socio-cultural power to shape their own
autonomous learning.
4.4.3 Relationships between teachers’ and students’ perceptions and
practices
Perceptions and practices have rarely been combined in an exploration about
LA (Đặng Tấn Tín, 2012). Normally, researchers have investigated EFL teachers’
or EFL students’ perceptions or beliefs about LA. In fact, some previous studies
(i.e. Azizi, 2014; Balcikanli, 2010; Borg, 2006; Joshi, 2011; Lamb, 2009; Nguyễn
Thanh Nga, 2014; Talley, 2014; Tapinta, 2016) concentrated on investigating the
perception or belief of LA. Meanwhile, other research (i.e. Hart, 2002; Lê Xuân
Quỳnh, 2013; Nguyễn Thị Cẩm Lệ, 2009; Trịnh Quốc Lập, 2005) explored practice
of LA in some experiments. To fill this gap, recently, perceptions or beliefs and
practices of LA have been integrated into some investigations (i.e. Alhaysony,
2016; Borg & Al-Busaidi, 2012b; Chan et al, 2002; Đặng Tấn Tín, 2012; Dogan &
Mirici, 2017; Dương Mỹ Thẩm & Seepho, 2014; Keuk & Heng, 2016; Nguyễn Văn
Lợi, 2016; Ranosa-Madrunio et al, 2016; Wang & Wang, 2016) for EFL teachers or
EFL students. However, up to now, there have rarely been LA studies in Vietnam
which explore both perception and practice for both EFL teachers and EFL students
into an investigation. Therefore, this study seems to be the one in Vietnamese
context designed to fill this gap and to understand relationship between teachers’
and students’ perceptions and practices of LA without conducting experiment.
Basing on the findings of relationship between teachers’ and students’ perceptions
and practices of LA mentioned in 4.3, the following sections discuss these
relationships according to literature review in Chapter Two.
4.4.3.1 Relationship between teachers’ perceptions and practices
The analyzed data from teacher interview shows that there is the clear
alignment between their perceptions and their teaching practices. The findings of
the present study indicated that the teachers had insights of the concept of LA. They
stated necessary characteristics for an EFL autonomous learner who should own
(see 4.1.1). However, compared which definitions and characteristics of LA the
116
teachers perceiving with their teaching practice on LA in the interview, it can be
seen clearly that there is a missing link between their positive perceptions of
students’ LA ability and their organizing LA activities in teaching English. In other
words, the relationship between teachers’ perceptions and teaching practices
towards LA is weak and has a mismatch. The analyzed data above showed that they
expected their students to own full characteristics of EFL autonomous learners (see
4.1.1); however, the teachers did not teach their students how to learn English
autonomously. Put it simply, the teachers did not instruct their students the skills of
LA learning, the ways to design learning objectives, learning plan, and discuss the
criteria of assessment as learning in detail with them. Besides, LA activities the
teachers held for the students seem to be unsuitable. In other words, the teachers did
not design effective LA activities to foster their students to become EFL
autonomous learners. In the interview, they did not deem their roles as helper,
consultor, and adviser in their students’ autonomous learning process in promoting
students’ LA ability in new autonomous learning contexts in the 21 st century (Riley,
1997, as cited in Benson & Huang, 2008, p.426) because they did not understand
their role in teaching practices of LA fully. In this case, Bodenhausen and
Hugenberg (2009) is right when they state that one’s perception guides his/her
actions. Since the teachers did not identify their roles in instructing their students to
study autonomously, they did not play their roles well in teaching practice of LA.
This showed that the teachers did a partial LA in teaching practice in compared with
what they thought about LA.
Besides, a few teachers gained LA ability when they were young, and then
their LA experience deviated their announced cognition as mentioned in 4.3.1. They
shared their LA experience with their students, and instructed them to learn English
major autonomously as T4 and T10. Especially T4, he always asked his students to
practice LA activities, and peer-assess their assignments. Clearly, he based on LA
experience he obtained before to teach the students to learn autonomously.
However, he just checked how the students finished the assignments he gave. What
he shared in the interview showed that he did not guide the students how to create
117
their learning goals, study plan, and explore the subjects independently at home.
Similarly, T10 just said that she instructed her students to learn her subjects
autonomously in general, but she did not talk about the concrete skills in LA
learning which she presented to them. It can be seen that these teachers’
performances of LA reflect their thought when they engaged their students in LA
learning. This is quite right with Bodenhausen and Hugenberg’s view (2009) in the
opposite direction that one’s actions will affect again his or her perceptions (see
figure 2.1).
In summary, teachers’ perceptions and practices of LA has interaction with
each other. This means that their perceptions impact their practices and vice versa.
The mismatch between their cognition and their performance of LA is quite
understandable because they have never been trained in any formal course of LA as
well as they have not attended any workshop about LA yet. Thus, this relationship
is not very strong.
4.4.3.2 Relationship between students’ perceptions and practices
Generally, there is a certain alignment between students’ perceptions and
practices toward LA. They had full understanding of LA as well as knew what they
should do to learn English well at university. The findings showed that not all of
EFL students were able to understand what LA was as well as how important it was
at university, and there was a distance between EFL students’ perceptions and
practices of LA happening. According to Bodenhausen and Hugenberg (2009),
one’s perception guides his/her actions. However, for EFL students, although they
understood what they had to do at university to become autonomous learners, they
implemented LA activities ineffectively. It seems that relationship between their
perceptions and practices is not strong. Some students were not consciousness and
hard-working in learning as some teachers complained. The results showed that the
students learned English spontaneously. Besides, it seemed that they did not know
how to learn autonomously and had no skills of LA. It is understandable because as
analyzed above they were not trained LA skills at the previous stages of education
and not fostered metacognition skills in learning language.
118
However, there were a few students who had their own LA experience as
S27 and S29. These students had their LA ability when they were at high school;
therefore, they knew what to do at university environment. Furthermore, they were
excellent students in this faculty. T3 said “In my opinion and observation, there are
not many EFL students who have LA ability. Only excellent or good students have
this. They have their self-consciousness of LA learning more than the others”. So, it
is quite true in the case of S27 and S29. This shows that students’ practices of LA
will affect their perceptions and make them believe in the effect of LA in learning
more and more. Besides, these students gained metacognition in learning language.
What they reported showed that they knew the ways to organize their learning.
Their effective learning showed that when students had metacognition skills, they
were able to gain the good results in their learning language (Rolheiser et al, 2000).
In short, all of the students had insights into LA, but their practices of LA
were not good due to some reasons mentioned above. Besides, there was the
interaction between their cognition and their actions in LA learning. If they both
understood the concept of LA clearly and implement it effectively, they would gain
success in their own learning and vice versa. Like the teachers’ situation, the
relationship between their perceptions and practices of LA is not strong. Statistics
and analyzed data from student interview and questionnaire of this study indicated
that the probability of utilizing students’ perception to diagnose their level of
practice of LA activities was little.
4.4.3.3 Relationship between teachers’ and students’ perceptions
As mentioned in 4.3.3, there was a certain, strong relationship between
teachers’ and students’ perceptions of LA when both of them showed their full
understanding of four dimensions of LA. This seems to be good and important
because people’s perceptions determine their performances. Therefore, that teachers
understood the concept of LA helped them much with instructing and organizing
LA activities for their students. Similarly, when students understood their
autonomous learning clearly, they could promote their strengths and enhance their
weaknesses (Van Lier,1996, as cited in Jacobs and Farrel, 2001, p.5). Additionally,
119
when students explored and realized the characters of autonomous learning and
their role in learning process, they could obtain the ability to carry out LA
(White,1995). In this study, due to understanding what LA was, both teachers and
students held some LA activities as in 4.1.3 and 4.2.3. Yet, teachers seemed to
expect more for their students because what they mentioned LA required
autonomous students to have to possess metacognition and high self-consciousness
in their own learning. Meanwhile, students thought about LA more simply. It is
quite understandable because teachers always want their students to become better
and better while those students come from the rural region and did not learn
autonomously in previous education (as mentioned in Chapter One).
4.4.3.4 Relationship between teachers’ and students’ practices
The data of this study showed that the relationship between teachers’ and
students’ practices of LA was not strong. Some LA activities which teachers held for
students were not suitable for students as well as did not attract students since
teachers did not understand students’ needs (T2). Besides, some activities which
students wanted were that teachers instructed them in the autonomous learning
methods such as how to set up effective learning goals, the ways to plan effective study,
the ways to manage time, the effective ways to find materials, etc. This mismatch
happened because as mentioned above teachers did not understand their role in
students’ autonomous learning, and they believe in students’ metacognition in learning
language while students were not equipped LA skills as well as LA knowledge.
4.4.3.5 The influential factors in the relationships between teachers’ and
students’ perceptions and practices of learner autonomy
Effects of psychology and cognition
Although most of the informants showed their positive perceptions of LA
according to the findings of this study, it seemed that they just understood what LA
was, and did not apply LA activities effectively. As a matter of fact, what the EFL
students thinking about LA has not become their own intrinsic motivation in
learning English. Of twenty teachers, fifteen said that many of the students were
lazy, passive, and unconscious of LA. The students were not ready and willing to
120
really carry out LA activities. Students were unprepared for LA development. They
mainly went to class for listening, taking notes and waiting for exams. They seemed
not to volunteer and be flexible in their own learning. This also revealed that despite
teachers’ significant efforts there was a gap between what teachers expected/desired
from students and what teachers actually observed in their students. This problem
was reported in previous studies (i.e. Dogan & Mirici, 2017; Nguyễn Văn Lợi,
2016; Tapinta, 2016). Understandably, there is much for teachers to do for LA
development, basically because LA is multi-dimensional and cannot be present in
all students after limited time. According to Dương Thị Hoàng Oanh’s statistics
(2011), Vietnamese students faced many difficulties such as lack of instructions and
effective methods, being occupied with other activities, having insufficient time,
laziness, insufficient materials, and lack of time. And, the results of the study
suggested that EFL students at DTU had the same these characteristics as Dương
Thị Hoàng Oanh’s study (ibid.). Recently, many English major students in Vietnam
have not known how to study autonomously. Trần Thị Tuyết (2013) claims that
many students in higher education system in Vietnam possess their passive learning
style. She also indicates this is not appropriate or even dangerous for student’s
development in our society today, especially at work and in life after they graduate
from the institutions.
The results suggest that those students should be at positivism, and they be
not on the shift from positivism to constructivism. Furthermore, learners were not
taught how to restructure what they learnt because it depended on each person’s
capacity and cognition. Thus, the students did not practice LA well. The teachers’
performance of organizing LA activities for their students was the same as the
students’ situation. In other words, their teaching practices of LA were not
successful because they did not have enough cognition of LA as well as their roles
in students’ LA learning. Therefore, psychology and cognition, especially
metacognition, should be concerned more in autonomous learning. Accordingly,
Blidi (2017) reviews the importance of psychology aspect of LA in teaching and
learning setting in which learners must be conscious to become a constructor to
121
develop in constructivism. In accordance with this theory, learners themselves have
to reorganize and reconstruct the knowledge transmitted by teachers. It implies that
learners take part in their own learning to promote. Hence, learning by doing or
experiential learning has become a trend and has been believed as a promotion of
psychology and cognition of LA field. One of the vital components of experiential
learning is to enhance students’ cognition on learning by their experience and to
instruct them the ways to reflect their learning based on Kelly’s Theory of Personal
Constructs. The students in this theory are “active and responsible participants who
make choices based on reality as they perceive it, not just lazy consumers and
passive responders” to move in the direction of proactive autonomy instead o f
reactive autonomy (Kelly, 1955, as cited in Blidi, 2017, p.8).
Effects of learning environment
The results from this theme of the study imply that EFL students at DTU
face a large number of obstacles such as lack of LA skills, learning conditions, and
living conditions. More specifically, they were not fostered LA ability through self-
access learning centres, computer-assisted language learning, and distance learning,
etc. (Gardner & Miller, 1999, 2011; Benson, 2006; Morrison, 2008) because DTU
did not equip self-access learning centres, computer-assisted language learning, or
digital library for students to learn autonomously. EFL students were just instructed
some out-of-class activities as mentioned above. Besides, the majority of the
students came from the poor, rural areas in Mekong Delta; thus, they were poor
students, and did not have a computer or a laptop to serve their learning. At their
boarding houses or at dormitory, there was weak Wifi, and this made them meet
some difficulties in accessing the Internet to search learning resources. Furthermore,
at these places, there was no LA space for the students; so, they were easy to feel
bored when they learned alone or they were attracted by other daily activities as
they complained in the interview. Additionally, students have not developed their
choices in learning and explored learning resources effectively yet. Thereby,
teachers should foster students with necessary skills to be able to make decisions
about what related to their own learning. Furthermore, finding learning materials
122
skills on the Internet and in the library should be trained to learners. Vietnamese
Institutions, including DTU, should build a system of online libraries to serve
learners’ learning needs. This helps students search learning documents easily when
they have free time, especially at night because a number of universities in Vietnam
do not open their library in the evening, including DTU.
From findings above, it could be seen that both the teachers and the students
did not participate in any workshops, training courses, or conferences on LA;
therefore, that both had mismatch in practising LA activities was easy to
understand. Hence, it is urgent to organize more conferences and training
workshops among EFL teachers and researchers to deal with not only a relevant
continuum of LA-oriented activities (i.e., how to build up LA in students step by
step), but also a shared framework of LA ability (i.e., at which level a student’s LA
ability is, and what they should do next with reference to language proficiency
levels). This LA framework should easily be used by both teachers and students for
assessment and self-assessment. In other words, it should function as a working tool
of LA, leading and adjusting them into the right tracks.
Effects of sociocultural challenge
Some regional or local factors as sociocultural challenge affecting teachers’
and students’ perceptions as well as practices need discussing. First of all, the
biggest gap between teachers’ and students’ practices on LA activities was that they
did not understand each other. According to Horwitz (1988), language teachers
should investigate to have knowledge of their students’ beliefs regarding language
learning so that they could understand their students’ expectations of, commitment
to, success in, and satisfaction with their English classes when they want to gain the
desired outcomes. Meanwhile, EFL teachers and EFL students at DTU have not had
opportunities to share their feelings together. The findings from teachers’ stories
about their implementation of LA indicated that they did not investigate students’
needs at the beginning of each course. Teachers expected that students gained their
metacognition in learning English (e.g. knowing what they did, what they learned at
university, mastering LA, self-researching, setting up their learning objectives, their
123
study plan, actively meeting to ask their teachers, and positively exploring
materials). Meanwhile, most of the students were confused at the beginning when
they attended university because they did not use to be trained LA skills in both
previous education and tertiary environment.
Second, the results of the study showed that LA activities which both
teachers and students reported lacked the vital factors of negotiation with and
support from teachers outside the classes, peer support and Collaborative Learner
Autonomy. The students could not learn autonomously in groups outside the
classroom because they considered that it took time and had ineffectiveness. They
did not also dare to connect with the teachers to ask their learning problems out of
class. Besides, both teachers and students did not build LA community at DTU
because both of them had no time for LA activities. For example, T10 said that “In
general, I can’t manage them outside the classroom because my time is limited.
These days teachers’ work pressure is too much. We must work much, and
managing students’ LA is out of official hours. Teachers of English in general in
this country have time to do that unless their work is decreased and they are
encouraged through both material and spirit”. For students, they had to finished
their homework, assignments on time. They joined extra-activities, second language
classes, and Informative classes. Meanwhile, to develop LA in language learning,
students should interact, negotiate, and collaborate with their friends, their teachers,
and the others in society. This was mentioned in Vygotsky’s (1978), Dam’s (1995),
and Benson’s studies (2006). Accordingly, these play a cruc ial role to foster LA for
language learners in a collaborative learning environment.
Third, another problem in conducting LA activities was large-size classes of
mixed learning styles. Most teachers taught many large-size classes each semester;
thus, it was really hard for the teachers to assess their students’ LA activities outside
as well as give feedback about their homework/assignments inside the classroom.
Additionally, the students possessed different learning styles, so teachers should
recommend/test out learning methods and ways to suit each student group of
specific-learning styles. Large-size classes are common throughout Vietnam and
124
this will not go away in the near future. Thus, teachers should be aware of this and
get prepared to design different activities for diverse learning styles, especially at
beginning stages. Once students have got on the right tracks, things will definitely
become unproblematic.
Finally, cultural and local factors also influence on teachers’ and students’
perceptions and practices of LA. As mentioned in chapter One and chapter Two,
most of the students came from rural and promote areas in Mekong Delta; they did
not care to improve themselves much in learning English; their family did not
investigate their studying appropriately (Đỗ Nam et al, 2017). This region is still a
“depression” in education in being compared with others in Vietnam. Due to the
teachers’ limited cognition of LA, they did not develop their roles in promoting
students’ LA ability.
In conclusion, there were factors which explicitly affected EFL teachers’ and
learners’ cognition and performance of LA as discussed above. Besides, other vital
factors namely examinations and daily activities could affect teachers’ and students’
perceptions and performance of LA. Some students could not do that they wished
due to the difficulties. They just practiced some simple LA activities to complete
the assignments which their teachers gave in order to satisfy their teachers. Hence, it
is important for policy-makers and educators to make an effort to have measures in
teaching and learning to help students remove those constraints and foster their LA
skills so that they will reach the job market needs.
4.5 Summary
The current study provided evidence about the EFL teachers’ perceptions of
LA principles in the Mekong Delta context. It strongly emphasized the teachers’
positive views towards the LA role for the students’ college success and later life.
Thus, in their ken, the teachers were making significant attempts for its
development in their teaching classes through regular course assignments,
especially groupwork outside the classroom. Due to large-size classes of dissimilar
learning styles, class-time limitation, students’ passiveness, lack of motivation and
involvement, they mostly failed to reap what they expected from their students.
125
In addition, the present study provided evidence about EFL students’
perceptions of LA role and their practice of LA in the Mekong Delta context.
Although placed in a rural area and never trained exclusively on it before, they all
had positive perceptions of the LA role for college success and later life, and full
awareness of their learning responsibility. Furthermore, they were trying various
ways to reach the set learning goals. Since LA is multidimensional and developed
throughout one’s college time and later life, what the interviewed students gained
was rather limited and it also uncovered spaces where they faced problems and
needed supports and feedback. Thus, the present study maintains the instructor’s
clear, specific and helpful guidance, not only right at the beginning at but also
during the training program whenever students, especially less strong ones, are in
need because most students trust their teachers and think that they can learn
something new from them (Wang, 2010), and because while students are still in
short of self-discipline in learning, teachers might interfere to guarantee that
learning happens (Yao & Li, 2017).
126
Chapter Five CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
This chapter summarizes the main points of this study, and discusses the
contributions of the present study to conclude the thesis. Then, the limitations,
implications, and further research are presented.
5.1 Summary
The research reported in this thesis explored LA as a vital ability in EFL
learners’ own learning. The study was motivated by a concern that students in
Mekong Delta gained weak background of learning English. In addition, they
lacked LA skills because they were not trained about LA ability in previous stages.
An exploratory mixed methods study was conducted to investigate both EFL
teachers’ and EFL students’ perceptions and practices of LA at a university in
Mekong Delta. Participants in this research consisted of 20 EFL teachers and 285
EFL students at DTU. Data were collected from questionnaire survey, in-depth
interview, and group interview.
A set of actions was developed and fulfilled to analyze the research data.
Concerning the survey data and interview data from EFL teachers’ and EFL
students’ perceptions and practices of LA, four dimensions of LA appeared as
ability, responsibility, cognition, and lifelong learning. These dimensions
represented LA as a multidimensional construct in Mekong Delta context, in the
South of Vietnam. However, it is necessary to be noted that there was
one dimension – cultural challenge – which participants did not mention in
the interviews.
Further analyses indicated that teachers and students had insights of LA, but
their practices of LA were lower than their perceptions. In other words, there was a
distance between their understanding of the concept of LA and their practices of LA
activities outside the classroom. They identified the importance of LA in teaching
and learning English. However, the ways they applied LA were ineffective because
both teachers and students were never trained or attended any LA courses or LA
workshop before. Furthermore, other analyses showed that local cultural factors
impacted their perceptions and practices of LA.
127
The findings of this study suggested that there be an interrelated relationship
between the EFL teachers’ perceptions and practices of LA, and the EFL students’
as well. If teachers perceived the importance of LA, they tended to apply it in
teaching. Similarly, if students believed that LA was a crucial factor, they
implemented it in their own learning. This can quite be understandable because
human beings’ actions are considered likely to be influenced by their thought. Yet,
this relationship is not strong because the students were affected by other daily
activities and community. What is more, there was the impact of some teachers’ and
some students’ LA activities back to their thinking. It meant their experience of LA
earlier drove their thought about LA.
5.2 Contributions of the study
5.2.1 Theoretical contributions
Learner autonomy is not a new topic in the scientific educational field these
days because it has been explored widely for over three decades. However, this
study was conducted to develop previous LA studies’ theory with some new points
as mentioned in detail below.
The present researcher developed two more dimensions of LA, namely
lifelong learning and cultural challenge in this study. The present study revealed
that one of the major perceptions of LA was lifelong learning. It deemed a solid
base for development of learners’ LA ability. In other studies, the researchers
focused on the main dimensions of LA such as ability, responsibility, attitude,
readiness, and willingness (e.g. Trịnh Quốc Lập, 2005; Nguyễn Thị Cẩm Lệ, 2009;
Đặng Tấn Tín, 2012; Lê Xuân Quỳnh, 2013; Nguyễn Thanh Nga, 2014; Dương Mỹ
Thẩm, 2015; and Phan Thị Thanh Thảo, 2015). The present study based on this
working LA framework of five major dimensions (ability, responsibility, cognition,
lifelong learning, and cultural challenge), which was tentative to investigate EFL
teachers’ and EFL students’ perceptions and practices of LA at DTU. Both the EFL
teachers and the EFL students participating in this study admitted the importance of
LA ability in the students’ work in the future like lifelong learning. It helps the
students promote in their career. However, the purpose of training the EFL students
128
becoming more patient and having LA habits is not easy to obtain because of the
cultural characteristics in Mekong Delta. People as well as learners in this region
have not been keen on learning yet, especially English. It takes a long time to
conduct it, and the students should be fostered metacognitive knowledge in EFL
autonomous learning.
Additionally, this study mentioned assessment as learning, teachers’ role, as
well as students’ role in LA learning. In Đặng Tấn Tín’s study (2012), one of the
four dimensions used to explore the students’ perceptions and practices of LA is
setting goals and evaluating learning. He designed a few items about evaluation in
questionnaire, but in the interview, the students’ self-assessment of their
performance of LA did not appear. Nguyễn Thanh Nga (2014) investigated the EFL
teachers’ beliefs about LA; however, she did not introduce the teachers’ self -
assessment in Literature Review. Only Lê Xuân Quỳnh (2013) mentioned the
students’ self-assessment in literature and investigated this theme. Moreover, it is
hard to find the teachers’ self-assessment of their teaching practice on LA activities
in previous studies. Therefore, the findings from the teachers’ self-assessment about
their organizing and instructing LA activities for their students deem source of
information for further research in this field.
5.2.2 Methodological contributions
Although the data collection instruments in this study were usual
questionnaire and interview like the previous studies, some differences in a set of
statements in questionnaire and in-depth interview were used. The benefits of these
two tools analyzed in chapter Three. A comparison between these two tools in this
study and in the others in Vietnam is presented below.
This study is to use in-depth interview in an exploratory study in a LA
research in Vietnam. Most previous studies in LA fields (i.e. Balcikanli, 2010; Borg
& Al-Busaidi, 2012b; Chan et al., 2002; Đặng Tấn Tín, 2012; Lê Xuân Quỳnh,
2013; Joshi, 2011; Keuk & Heng, 2016; Nguyễn Thanh Nga, 2014; Talley, 2014;
Wang & Wang, 2016) used interview to collect data. More specifically, Nguyễn Thị
Cẩm Lệ (2009) used interview to ask students about their strengths and weaknesses
129
in learning English, their perceptions of students’ and teachers’ responsibilities in
learning, their writing performances, and their practices to enhance English inside
and outside the classroom; Đặng Tấn Tín (2012) used semi-structured interview to
investigate students’ ability of initiating EFL learning, monitoring EFL learning
process, setting learning goals and evaluating learning, and using Information and
Communication Technologies for EFL learning purpose. Lê Xuân Quỳnh (2013)
also used semi-structured interview for focus group students. Nguyễn Thanh Nga
(2014) applied individual interviews and initial interviews to teachers. In this
present study, in-depth interview was used for the teachers, and group interview for
the students. For students, they told their stories about LA in groups of five. It
aimed for them to share their autonomous learning stories with their friends and the
interviewer, and they and their friends could learn LA experience from each other.
For teachers, they reported their stories individually. The findings which were
presented in Chapter Four showed benefits of this tool because all participants
shared their stories honestly, clearly, deeply, and open-mindedly. Furthermore, the
number of participants joining interviews was much more than the previous studies
in Vietnamese contexts as discussed in Chapter Four.
Generally, scholars (Nguyễn Thị Cẩm Lệ, 2009; Đặng Tấn Tín, 2012; Lê
Xuân Quỳnh, 2013; Nguyễn Thanh Nga, 2014) designed their questionnaires for
EFL students or EFL teachers in different ways. More specifically, Nguyễn Thị
Cẩm Lệ (2009) designed self-initiation questionnaire about elements of LA, aspects
of LA, out of class learning English activities, out of class using English activities,
overt in class language learning activities, and covert in class language learning
activities based on Spratt, Humphreys, and Chan (2002), and Gao, Zhao, Cheng,
and Zhou (2004, 2007). In Đặng Tấn Tín’s study (2012), questionnaires of students’
perceptions and performance about initiating, monitoring, and evaluating LA were
adapted from the Learner Autonomy Inventory developed by Yang (2007) . Lê Xuân
Quỳnh’s questionnaires (2013) about students’ attitudes, practices of LA, and
teachers’ and students’ view about their responsibility for LA activities were based
on previous studies by Cotterall (1995, 1999), Broady (1996), Spratt et al (2002),
130
Hsu (2005), and Thang and Alias (2007). It is interesting that Nguyễn Thị Cẩm Lệ
(2009), Lê Xuân Quỳnh (2013) also used LA activities on Spratt et al (2002) in their
studies. However, the current study had some clusters differing from previous
studies, especially perception of the role of LA at higher education, time and life
management, and metacognition in learning language. Furthermore, clusters such as
setting goals, planning study, self-assessment in the present study were designed
more deeply than in the others. For example, in Đặng Tấn Tín’s questionnaire
version (2012), there were three items (5, 18, and 23) in phase one and phase two
mentioning using time, learning plan, and making their timetable. Nguyễn Thị Cẩm
Lệ (2009) and Lê Xuân Quỳnh (2013) did not put these themes in their
questionnaires.
5.2.3 Pedagogical contributions and implications for the future of TESOL in
Vietnam
The present study also makes pedagogical contributions to enhancing EFL
students’ LA ability in the future. It supplies information for administrators or
teachers to design syllabuses. Furthermore, it provides scientific evidence that LA
training course should be designed and integrated into EFL training learning
program in Vietnamese tertiary educational setting. This course should be set up to
include LA skills and autonomous learning methods so that students can conduct
LA activities outside class. The topic “the development of autonomous learning
skills in learning English at higher education” should be reported to the first-year
students at the beginning of the academic year. A handbook of learning English
major autonomously should be published and delivered to all students from
freshmen to seniors so that they can follow its instructions in their learning process.
Besides, it should have another course for EFL teachers who lack LA knowledge or
do not know how to promote their students’ LA ability. The findings of this study
showed that most students lacked LA skills because they had not been trained it
before. Similarly, teachers have the same situation as their students. They have not
attended any workshops and LA training course before.
131
5.2.4 Learner autonomy in local context
The previous LA studies in Vietnam focused on promoting LA at universities
in main big cities such as Can Tho city, Ho Chi Minh city, and Ha Noi capital.
Besides, they only investigated one side of LA: students’ perceptions and practices
of LA or teachers’ beliefs and practices of LA. This situation is the same as others
in the world. Therefore, this study was conducted at DTU – a rural university in
Mekong Delta where most of EFL students (as mentioned in Chapter One and
Chapter Three) were not as strong as their peers in other urban universities in terms
of English proficiency, learning facilities and English language exposure.
Moreover, as mentioned in chapter One and chapter Two, education of English
subject in Mekong Delta gained low rate. Exploring both EFL teachers’ and EFL
students’ perceptions and practices of LA in this region helps the researchers, policy
makers, and administrators have more information in this field in local context so
that they will have suitable measures to develop Mekong Delta students’ LA ability.
5.3 Limitations
Limitations of this study are quite clear. Data were collected from in-depth
interview involving a small number of the teacher participants (20 EFL teachers)
and group interview for 60 EFL students, and one survey for 285 students from one
university. No matter how deep the interviews were conducted, the validity of what
teachers and students actually did in and out the classroom of LA activities had yet
to be realized. Besides, observation method was not used in this study to provide
more evidence of EFL students’ practices on LA because both the teachers and
researcher were very busy and these teachers did not permit the researcher to visit
their classes due to their personal reasons. Additionally, this study was not
experimented to foster LA ability for EFL students.
5.4 Further research
The current study is taken by its researcher as the first step to explore the LA
theme at this university. The next moves should be (1) one conference for teachers
to share ideas of what should be done to develop LA effectively, possibly paving
the path for a shared framework of LA ability (as mentioned above), based on
132
rigorous classroom observations, analysis and backchecking; and then (2) having
LA training course for EFL students in this university and trace its effects (if any) in
them by a certain means of measurement such as some new testing criteria. EFL
students should be instructed this course at the beginning in the first year. In the
following years, they will be supported and observed by their teachers to assess
their development of LA ability. Besides, it is crucial for researchers to explore the
realm of these perspectives, especially cognitive strategies, metacognitive strategies,
motivation, attitudes towards LA more and more to help learners develop their LA
capacity for themselves. Additionally, there have been any LA studies in lower
educational levels in Vietnam. Thus, it is necessary for researchers to carry out LA
research to foster LA ability for primary students, secondary students, and high
school students to establish their solid LA base in EFL autonomous learning and to
help them learn English better in higher education.
5.5 Conclusion
The study was conducted to seek the EFL teachers’ and the EFL students’
perceptions and practices of LA at a university in Mekong Delta. The results of this
research showed that although the teachers and students gained their positive
understanding of LA and LA role, both had their limit in implementation in LA
activities because of their mismatch between their perceptions and practices, and
cultural characteristics in Mekong Delta. The following suggests some solutions in
order to fill this gap at DTU.
As educators, teachers have to understand learners’ perceptions of LA to be
able to promote LA in many aspects. It is implied that the EFL students at DTU
lacked LA skills because they were not trained those ones at schools before. To
solve these problems, consequently, it is advisable that at the very first semester of
the training course, EFL students should be made fully aware of LA by instructors
in charge, specifically they should be guided (1) how to set up feasible learning
goals, based on a thorough analysis of their individual needs, strengths and
weaknesses, (2) make compatible plans down to monthly, weekly and daily ones if
possible, and appropriately choose learning methods, strategies, activities and
133
materials for the set goals, (3) consciously and closely monitor learning processes to
constantly ensure things go right, (4) patiently work hard and build effective ways
to combat stress, boredom and other unexpected problems or out-of-plan
inducements, (5) frequently make reflections, self-assessments and draw
experiences from what have been done. Secondly, these guidances should be
regularly repeated throughout the training course to reinforce LA ability. Third,
instructors should always get prepared to willingly provide further guidelines,
assistances and encouragements in case students get astray, feel demotivated and
search for help or feedback on their ways because LA is a long-term process, even
throughout an entire life.
1
PUBLICATIONS INTEGRATED IN THE THESIS
Lê Thanh Nguyệt Anh (2018). EFL teachers’ perceptions and practices regarding
learner autonomy at Dong Thap University, Vietnam. Hue University
Journal of Social Science and Humanities , 127(6B), 5-13.
Lê Thanh Nguyệt Anh (2018). EFL students’ voices on learner autonomy at a
university in the Mekong Delta. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 34(2), 26-
38.
Lê Thanh Nguyệt Anh (2018). An overview of EFL autonomous learning in the 21 st
century in Vietnam: International integration and challenge . Proceedings of
the sixth international OpenTESOL conference on language learning and
teaching transformation in the post-method era.
1
REFERENCES
Airasian, P. W., & Gullickson, A. (1994). Examination of teacher self-assessment.
Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 8(2), 195-203.
Al Asmari, A. (2013). Practices and prospects of learner autonomy: teachers’
perceptions. English Language Teaching, 6 (3), 1-10. Retrieved on 20 June,
2016, from http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n3p1
Alhaysony, M. (2016). An investigation of EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices of
learner autonomy. International Journal on Studies in English Language and
Literature, 4(12), 45-59. Retrieved on 22 June, 2017, from
http://dx.doi.org/10.20431/2347-3134.0412009
Angell, R. J. (1906). Psychology: An introduction study of the structure and
function of human conscious. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Aubel, J. (1994). Guidelines for studies using the group interview technique.
Switzerland: International Labour Organization.
Azizi, S. (2014). Iranian EFL learners’ perception of autonomous language learning
in language classrooms. Journal of Studies in Learning and Teaching
English, 2(7), 129-144.
Bajrami, L. (2015). Different approaches for learner autonomy in higher education.
In B. Xhaferri, M. Waldispuhl, B. Eriksson-Hotz, & G. Xhaferri (Eds.),
Promoting Learner Autonomy in Higher Education (pp. 147-156). Tetovo:
South East European University.
Balçıkanlı, C. (2010). Learner autonomy in language learning: Student teachers’
beliefs. Australian Journal of Teacher Education , 35(1), 90-103.
Benson, P. (1997). The philosophy and politics of learner autonomy. In P. Benson
and P. Voller (Eds.), Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning
(pp. 18-34). London: Longman.
Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning .
London: Longman.
Benson, P. (2006). Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Language
Teaching, 40 (1), 21-40. Doi: 10.1017/S0261444806003958
2
Benson, P. (2009). Making sense of autonomy in language learning. In R.
Pemberton, S. Toogood, & A. Barfield (Eds.), Maintaining control:
Autonomy and language learning (pp. 26-39). Hong Kong: Hong Kong
University Press.
Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and researching autonomy (2nd Edition). Harlow:
Longman.
Benson, P. (2016). Language learner autonomy: Exploring teachers’ perspectives on
theory and practice. In R. Barnard & J. Li (Eds.), Language learner
autonomy: teachers beliefs and practices in Asian contexts (pp.xxxiii-xliii).
Cambodia: IDP Education (Cambodia) Ltd.
Benson, P. & Huang, J. (2008). Autonomy in the transition from foreign language
learning to foreign language teaching, DELTA. Revista de Documentação de
Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada. Pontifícia Universidade Católica
de São Paulo, 24, 421-439.
Benson, P. & Voller, P. (1997). Autonomy and independence in language learning
(Eds.). Harlow: Longman.
Berg, B. L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. London:
Pearson.
Berry, R. (2008). Assessment for learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University
Press.
Blake, B. & Pope, T. (2008). Developmental psychology: Incorporating Piaget’s
and Vygotsky’s theories in classrooms. Journal of Cross-Disciplinary
Perspectives in Education 1(1), 59-67.
Blidi, S. (2017). Collaborative learner autonomy: A mode of learner autonomy
development. Springer Science+Business Media Singapore
Boakye, N. (2007). Investigating students’ beliefs about language learning. Per
Linguam 23(2), 1-14. Retrieved on 22 July, 2015, from
http://dx.doi.org/10.5785/23-2-52
Bogdan, R. G. & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education (2nd
Edition). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
3
Bodenhausen, G. V., & Hugenberg, K. (2009). Attention, perception, and social
cognition. In F. Strack, & J. Förster (Eds.), Social cognition: The basis of
human interaction (pp. 1-22). New York: Psychology Press.
Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: research and practice .
London: Continuum.
Borg, S. & Al-Busaidi, S. (2012a). Teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding learner
autonomy. ELT Journal 66(3), 283-292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccr065
Borg, S. & Al-Busaidi, S. (2012b). Learner autonomy: English language teacher’s
beliefs and practices. British Council ELT research papers 1, 213-244.
London, England: British Council.
Boud, D. (1995). Assessment and learning: contradictory or complementary? In P.
Knight (Ed.). Assessment for learning in higher education , (pp. 35-48).
London: Kogan Page.
Boud, D. (2002). The unexamined life is not the life of learning: rethinking
assessment for lifelong learning . Professional lecture presented at Trent Park,
Middlesex University, London UK.
Brew, A. (1995). What is the scope of self assessment? In D. Boud, Enhancing
learning through selfassessment, (pp. 48-63). London: Kogan Page.
Broady, E. (1996). Learner attitudes towards self-direction. In E. Broady & M.-M.
Kenning (Eds.) Promoting learner autonomy in university language
teaching, (pp. 215-235). London: Association for French Language Studies /
CILT.
Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language
pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Buchmann, M. (1986). Role over person: Morality and authenticity in teaching.
Teachers college record, 87, 529-543.
Cakici, D. (2017). An investigation of learner autonomy in Turkish EFL context.
International Journal of Higher Education , 6(2), 89-99.
https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v6n2p89
4
Central Executive Committee (2013). Resolution number 29/NQ-TW, 4 November
2013 issued by General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam.
Chambers Dictionary (hardcover, 13th Edition) (2014). Chambers.
Chan, V., M. Spratt & G. Humphreys (2002). Autonomous language learning: Hong
Kong tertiary students’ attitudes and behaviours. Evaluation and research in
education, 16(1), 1–18.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th
Edition). London: Routledge.
Cooper, D. R. & Schindler, P. S. (2014). Business research methods (12th Edition).
New York: McGraw-Hill/ Irwin.
Cotterall, S. (1995). Readiness for autonomy: Investigating learner beliefs. System
23(2), 195-206.
Cotterall, S. (1999). Key variables in language learning: what do learners believe
about them? System 27(4), 493-513.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (4th Edition). Boston: Pearson.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (4th Edition). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Curtis, B. (2004). Practical applications of postmodern theory for promoting
learner autonomy in a foundation studies program. Proceedings of the
independent learning conference.
Dafei, D. (2007). An exploration of the relationship between learner autonomy and
English proficiency. Asian EFL Journal, 24, 6-8.
Dam, L. (1995). Learner autonomy 3: From theory to classroom practice . Dublin:
Authentik.
Đặng Tấn Tín, (2010). Learner autonomy in EFL studies in Vietnam: A discussion
from sociocultural perspective. English language teaching, 3(2), 3-9.
5
Đặng Tấn Tín, (2012). Learner autonomy perception and performance: A study on
Vietnamese students in online and offline learning environments. Ph.D.
thesis, La Trobe University.
Dewey, J. (1904). The relation of theory to practice in education. In C. A. McMurry
(Ed.), The third yearbook of the national society for the scientific study of
education, Part I, 9-30. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Dickinson, L. (1994). Preparing learners: Toolkit requirements for
preparing/orienting learners. In E. Esch (Ed.), Self-access and the adult
language learner, 39-49. London: CILT.
Dickinson, L. (1995). Autonomy and motivation a literature review. System, 23(2),
165-174.
Đỗ Nam, Tân Thành, & Phùng Dũng, (2017). Cải thiện chất lượng giáo dục - đào
tạo vùng đồng bằng sông Cửu Long [Improving the quality of education –
training in Mekong Delta]. Retrieved on 27 July 2017, from
http://www.nhandan.com.vn/giaoduc/tin-tuc/item/33605202-cai-thien-chat-
luong-giao-duc-dao-tao-vung-dong-bang-song-cuu-long.html
Doğan, G. & Mirici, İ. H. (2017). EFL instructors’ perception and practices on
learner autonomy in some Turkish universities. Journal of
Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(1), 166-193.
Dong Thap University, 2016. Decision No.805/QĐ-ĐHĐT, 28 October 2016 issued
by DTU Rector.
Dornyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction,
administration, and processing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum associates.
Duruk, E. & Kecik, I. (2014). Investigation of teacher autonomy and learner
autonomy in Turkish EFL setting. International Journal of Education and
Research, 2(10), 145-160.
Dương Mỹ Thẩm, (2015). A portfolio-based learner autonomy development model
in an EFL writing course (Doctoral dissertation). Available from Suranaree
University of Technology.
6
Dương Mỹ Thẩm, & Seepho, S. (2014). Promoting learner autonomy: A qualitative
study on EFL teachers’ perceptions and their teaching practices.
Proceedings of the International Conference: DRAL 2 / ILA 2014. Retrieved
on 22 June, 2015, from http://www.sola.kmutt.ac.th/.../129-
137%20ILA%20Tham%20M.pdf
Dương Thị Hoàng Oanh (2011). Tertiary education in America and Vietnam:
Educational structure and learner autonomy. Vietnamese National
University Press.
Earl, L. M., Katz, M. S., Manitoba., & Western and Northern Canadian Protocol for
Collaboration in Education. (2006). Rethinking classroom assessment with
purpose in mind: Assessment for learning, assessment as learning,
assessment of learning. Winnipeg: Manitoba Education, Citizenship &
Youth.
Erlenawati, R. (2002). Beliefs about language learning: Indonesian learners’
perspectives, and some implications for classroom practices. Australian
Journal of Education. Retrieved on 12 July, 2015, from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6475/is_3_46/ai_n28968.
Florio-Ruane, S. & Lensmire, T. J. (1990). Transforming future teachers’ ideas
about writing instruction. Curriculum Studies, 22 (3), p.277-289.
Fowler, F. J. (2009). Survey research methods (4th Edition). Los Angeles: Sage.
Gao, Y., Zhao, Y., Cheng, Y., & Zhou, Y. (2004). Motivation types of Chinese
university undergraduates. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 14 ,
45-64.
Gao, Y., Zhao, Y., Cheng, Y., & Zhou, Y. (2007). Relationship between English
learning motivation types and self-identity changes among Chinese students
TESOL Quarterly, 41(1), 133-155.
Gardner, D. (1999). Self-assessment for autonomous language learners. Links &
Letters, 7, 49-60.
Gardner, D. (2007). Understanding autonomous learning: Students’ perceptions.
proceedings of the independent learning association 2007 Japan conference:
7
Exploring theory, enhancing practice: Autonomy across the disciplines .
Kanda University of International Studies, Chiba, Japan.
Gardner, D. & Miller, L. (1999). Establishing self-access: Theory to practice.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gardner, D. & Miller, L. (2011). Managing self-access language learning:
Principles and practice. System, 39, 78-89. http://doi:
10.1016/j.system.2011.01.010.
Gibbs, G.R. (2007) Thematic coding and categorizing, analyzing qualitative data.
London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781849208574
Haji-Othman, A. N. & Wood, K. (2016). Perceptions of learner autonomy in
English language education in Brunei Darussalam. In R. Barnard & J. Li
(eds.), Language learner autonomy: Teachers’ beliefs and practices in Asian
contexts (pp. 79-95). Cambodia: IDP Education (Cambodia) Ltd.
Harati, M. (2017). Teachers’ perceptions on learner autonomy in the EFL
educational context in Iran. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods,
7(8), 200-207.
Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching. Essex, UK: Pearson
Longman.
Harris, V. (2003). Adapting classroom-based strategy instruction to a distance
learning context. TESL-Electronic Journal, 7(2), 1-19.
Hart, N. (2002). Intra-group autonomy and authentic materials: A different
approach to ELT in Japanese colleges and universities. System, 30(1), 33-46.
Hennessey, M. G. (1999). Probing the dimensions of metacognition: Implications
for conceptual change teaching-learning. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching,
Boston, MA.
Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2010). Mixed methods research. New York: The Guilford Press.
Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of
organizations. Journal of Management, 21(5), 967-988.
8
Ho, J. & Crookall, D. (1995). Breaking with Chinese cultural traditions: Learner
autonomy in English language teaching. System, 23(2), 235-244.
Hồ Sỹ Anh, (2018). Giáo dục ĐBSCL chậm hơn...42 năm so với cả nước
[Education in Mekong Delta is lower 42 years than other regions in
Vietnam]. Retrieved on 12 July 2018 from https://thanhnien.vn/giao-
duc/giao-duc-dbscl-cham-hon42-nam-so-voi-ca-nuoc-960337.html
Hoàng Nguyễn Thu Trang, (2017). What do learners of technology say about self-
directed English learning with technology? VNU Journal of Foreign Studies,
33 (1), 118-132.
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning . Oxford: Pergamon
Press.
Holec, H. (1985). On autonomy: some elementary concepts. In P. Riley (Ed.),
Discourse and learning (pp. 173-90). London: Longman.
Horwitz, E. K. (1987). Survey student beliefs about language learning. In Wenden,
A. & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp.119-129).
Englewood Cliffs: NJ Prentice Hall.
Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning foreign
language students. The Modern Language Journal 72(3), 283-294.
Hsu, W. C. (2005) Representations, constructs and practice of autonomy via a
learner training programme in Taiwan. Unpublished PhD Thesis. University
of
Nottingham. U.K.
Hui, Y. (2010). Teacher-learner autonomy in second language
acquisition. Canadian social science 6(1), 66-69.
Ivankova, N. V. & Creswell, J. W. (2009). Mixed methods. In J. Heigham & R. A.
Croker (Eds.), Qualitative research in applied linguistics (pp. 135-164). New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Jacobs, G. M., & Farrell, T. S. (2001). Paradigm shift: Understanding and
implementing change in second language education. Retrieved from
http://www.tesl-ej.org/ej17/a1.html.
9
Johnson, R.B., Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Turner, L.A. (2007). Toward a definition of
mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133.
http//:doi10.1177/1558689806298224
Joshi, K. (2011). Learner perceptions and teacher beliefs about learner autonomy in
language learning. Journal of NELTA, 16(12), 13–29.
Josselson, R., & Lielblich, A. (Eds.) (1995). Interpreting Experience. In the series
The narrative study of lives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kanwisher, N. (2001). Neutral events and perceptual awareness. In Cognition 79,
89-113. Retrieved on 12 August 2016, from http://
web.mit.edu/bcs/nklab/media/pdfs/KanwisherCognition01.pdf
Kendall, L. (2008). The conduct of qualitative interview: Research questions,
methodological issues, and researching online. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C.
Lankshear, & D. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies
(pp.133-149). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kennett, P., & Knight, J. (1999). Baseline study report on lower secondary English
language teaching in Vietnam: ELTTP project. Hanoi: Ministry of Education
and Training and the Department for International Development.
Keuk, N. C., & Heng, V. (2016). Cambodian ELT teachers’ beliefs and practices
regarding language learner autonomy. In R. Barnard & J. Li (eds.), Language
learner autonomy: Teachers’ beliefs and practices in Asian contexts (pp. 62-
78). Cambodia: IDP Education (Cambodia) Ltd.
Kose, S. (2006). Universal design for the aging. In International encyclopedia of
ergonomics and human factors (edited by W. Karwowski), 227-230. CRC
Press.
Kumar, R. (2011). Research methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners (3rd
Edition). Sage, New Delhi.
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing .
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kvale, S. (2003). The psychoanalytic interview as inspiration for qualitative
research. In P. M. Camic, J. E. Rhodes, & L. Yardley (Eds.), Qualitative
10
research in psychology (pp.275-297). Washington, USA: American
Psychological Association.
Lamb, T. (2009). Controlling learning: learners’ voices and relationships between
motivation and learner autonomy. In R. Pemberton, S. Toogood, & A.
Barfield (Eds.), Maintaining control: Autonomy and language learning (pp.
67-86). Hong Kong: Hong Kong
Lê Văn (2017). Ngoại ngữ vẫn là điểm yếu của học sinh Việt Nam [Foreign
languages are still Vietnamese students’ weakness]. Retrieved on 22
September 2017, from http://vietnamnet.vn/vn/giao-duc/nguoi-thay/ngoai-
ngu-van-la-diem-yeu-cua-hoc-sinh-viet-nam-399639.html
Lê Văn Canh (2000). Language and Vietnamese pedagogical contexts. Proceedings
of the fourth international conference on language and development.
Lê Xuân Quỳnh (2013). Fostering learner autonomy in language learning in
tertiary education: An intervention study of university students in Hochiminh
city, Vietnam. Ph.D thesis, Nottingham University.
Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy 1: Definitions, issues and problems. Dublin:
Authentik.
Little, D. (1995). Learning as dialogue: The dependence of learner autonomy on
teacher autonomy. System, 23(2), 175–182.
Little, D. (1999). Learner autonomy is more than a Western cultural construct. In S.
Cotterall & D. Crabbe (Eds.), Learner autonomy in language learning:
Defining the field and effecting change (pp. 11-18). Frankfurt am Main: Peter
Lang.
Little, D. (2000). Learner autonomy and human interdependence: Some theoretical
and practical consequences of a social-interactive view of cognition, learning
and language. In B. Sinclair, I. McGrath & T. Lamb (Eds.), Learner
autonomy, teacher autonomy: Future directions, (pp. 15-23). Essex: Pearson
Education Limited.
11
Little, D. (2003). Learner autonomy and second/foreign language learning.
Retrieved on August, 14, 2016 from
https://www.llas.ac.uk/resources/gpg/1409
Little, D. (2004). Constructing a theory of learner autonomy: Some steps along the
way. Future perspectives in foreign language education. Retrieved on 16
August 2016, from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252532772_Constructing_a_theory
_of_learner_autonomy_Some_steps_along_the_way
Little, D. (2009). Learner autonomy, the European language portfolio and teacher
development. In R. Pemberton, S. Toogood, & A. Barfield (Eds.),
Maintaining control: autonomy and language learning (pp. 147-174). Hong
Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Little, D. (2010). Learner autonomy, inner speech and the European Language
Portfolio. Advances in research on language acquisition and teaching:
Selected papers, 27-38.
Little, D., Hodel, P. H., Kohonen, V., Meijer, D., & Perclova, R. (2007). Preparing
teachers to use the European language portfolio – Arguments, materials and
resources. Council of Europe.
Littlewood, W. (1996). “Autonomy”: An anatomy and a framework. System, 24(4),
427-435.
Littlewood, W. (1999). Defining and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts.
Applied linguistics, 20(1), 71-94.
Lowes, R. & Target, F. (1999). Helping students to learn – A guide to learner
autonomy. London: Richmond Publishing.
Macaro, E. (1997). Target language, collaborative learning and autonomy.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Madsen, J. A. (2005). Where is the "self " in teacher self-assessment?: an
examination of teachers' reflection and assessment practices in relation to
their teaching practices. Retrospective teses and dissertations. Retrieved on
12 September 2016, from http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/1755
12
McShane, S. L., and Von Glinow, M. A. (2010). Organizational behavior:
Emerging knowledge, global reality (5th Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill
Education.
Morrison, B. (2008). The role of the self-access centre in the tertiary language
learning process. System, 36, 123-140. http://doi:
10.1016/j.system.2007.10.004
Muylaert, C. J., Junior., V. S., Gallo, P. R., Neto, M. L. R., Reis, A. O. A. (2014).
Narrative interviews: an important source in qualitative research. In Rev Esc
Enferm USP, 48(2), 184-189. Retrieved on 30 July 2016, from
http://www.ee.usp.br/reeusp
National Assembly of Vietnam (2005). Vietnamese education law. Law number
38/2005/QH11, 14 June 2005 issued by National Assembly of Vietnam.
Nguyễn Đức Thịnh, (2015). Gia nhập AEC: 5 thách thức Việt Nam phải đối mặt
[Joining AEC: 5 challenges Vietnam faces]. Retrieved on 2 December 2015,
from http://kinhtevadubao.vn/chi-tiet/91-4452-gia-nhap-aec--5-thach-thuc-
viet-nam-phai-doi-mat.html
Nguyễn Thị Cẩm Lệ (2009). Learner autonomy and EFL learning at the tertiary
level in Vietnam. Doctoral Thesis. Victoria University of Wellington.
Retrieved on 12 July 2014, from
http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/1203
Nguyễn Thanh Nga (2014). Learner autonomy in language learning: Teachers’
belief. Ph.D thesis, Queensland University of Technology.
Nguyễn Văn Lợi (2016). Learner autonomy in Vietnam: Insights from English
Language teachers’ beliefs and practices. In R. Barnard & J. Li (eds.),
Language learner autonomy: Teachers’ beliefs and practices in Asian
contexts (pp. 1-22). Cambodia: IDP Education (Cambodia) Ltd.
Norman, R. (1994). 'I did it my way': Some thoughts on autonomy. Journal of
Philosophy of Education, 28(1), 25-34.
13
Nova, M. (2017). Constructing teacher’s self-assessment of rapport building in EFL
classroom. International Journal of Education, 9(2), 89-96. Doi:
dx.doi.org/10.17509/ije.v9i2.5462
Nunan, D. (2003). Practical English language teaching. New York: McGraw Hill.
Palfreyman, D. (2003). Introduction: Culture and learner autonomy. In D.
Palfreyman & R. C. Smith (eds.), Learner autonomy across cultures:
Language education perspectives, (pp.1-22). Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Palfreyman, D. & Smith, R. C. (2003). Learner autonomy across cultures:
Language education perspectives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pennycook, A. (1997). Cultural alternatives and autonomy. In Benson, P. & Voller,
P. (Eds.) Autonomy and independence in language learning. Longman:
London & NY.
Phan Thị Thanh Thảo (2012). Teacher autonomy and learner autonomy: An East
Asian’s perspective. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity,
2(6), 468-471. Doi: 10.7763/IJSSH.2012.V2.149
Phan Thị Thanh Thảo, (2015). Towards a potential model to enhance language
learner autonomy in the Vietnamese higher education context (Doctoral
dissertation). Available from Queensland University of Technology.
Oxford, R. L. (2003). Toward a more systematic model of L2 learner autonomy. In
D. Palfreyman & R. C. Smith (Eds.), Learner autonomy across cultures:
Language education perspectives (pp. 75-91). New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Oxford living dictionaries online. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/
Ranosa-Madrunio, M., Tarrayo, N. V., Tupas, R., Valdez, N. P. (2016). Learner
autonomy: English language teachers’ beliefs and practices in the
Philippines. In R. Barnard & J. Li (eds.), Language learner autonomy:
Teachers’ beliefs and practices in Asian contexts (pp. 114-133). Cambodia:
IDP Education (Cambodia) Ltd.
14
Richards, K. (2009). Interviews. In J. Heigham & R. A. Croker (Eds.), Qualitative
research in applied linguistics: A practical introduction. Palgrave
Macmillan.
Riley, P. (1996). “BATS” and “BALLS”: Beliefs about talk and beliefs about
language learning. Proceedings of the international conference autonomy
2000: The development of learning independence in language learning ,
Bangkok. Retrieved on 12 September 2014, from
http//:revues.univnancy2.fr/melangesCraplel/IMG/pdf/09_riley.pdf.
Robson, C. (2002). Real world research (2nd Edition). Oxford: Blackwell.
Rolheiser, C., Bower, B., & Stevahn, L. (2000). The portfolio organizer:
Succeeding with portfolios in your classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Sakai, Sh., & Takagi, A. (2009). Relationship between learner autonomy and
English language proficiency of Japanese learners. The Journal of Asia
TEFL, 6(3), 297-325.
Saunders, D., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business
students. (5th Edition). Pearson.
Scharle, Á. & Szabó, A. (2000). Learner autonomy: A guide to developing learner
responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sheerin, S. (1997). An exploration of the relationship between self- access and
independent learning. In P. Benson & P. Voller (Eds.), Autonomy and
independence in language learning (pp. 54-65). New York: Longman.
Sinclair, B., McGrath, I. & Lamb, T. (Eds.) (2000). Learner autonomy, teacher
autonomy: Future directions. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Singh, Y. K. (2006). Fundamental of research methodology and statistics . New
Delhi: New age International Publishers.
Slavin, R. E. (2003). Educational psychology: Theory into practice (7th Edition).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Smith, R. C. (2000). Starting with ourselves: Teacher-learner autonomy in language
learning. In B. Sinclair, I. McGrath & T. Lamb (Eds.), Learner autonomy,
15
teacher autonomy: Future directions (pp. 89-99). Essex: Pearson Education
Limited.
Smith, R., & Ushioda, E. (2009). 'Autonomy': under whose control? In R.
Pemberton, S. Toogood & A. Barfield (Eds.), Maintaining control:
Autonomy and language learning (pp. 241-253). Hong Kong: Hong Kong
University Press.
Spratt, M., Humphreys, G. & Chan, V. (2002) Autonomy and motivation: which
comes first? Language teaching research, 6(3), p.245-66.
Talley, P. C. (2014). Students’ responses to learner autonomy in Taiwan: An
investigation into learners’ beliefs. International Journal of Humanities and
Social Science, 4(4), 24-34.
Tapinta, P. (2016). Thai teachers’ beliefs in developing learner autonomy: L2
education in Thai universities. In R. Barnard & J. Li (eds.), Language
learner autonomy: Teachers’ beliefs and practices in Asian contexts (pp. 96-
113). Cambodia: IDP Education (Cambodia) Ltd.
Thang, M. S. & Alias, A. (2007) Investigating readiness for autonomy: A
comparison of Malaysian ESL undergraduates of three public universities.
Reflections on English language teaching, 6(1), 1-18.
Thomson, C. K. (1996). Self-assessment in self-directed learning: issues of learner
diversity. In R. Pemberton, E. S. L. Li, W. W. F. Or, & H. D. Pierson (Eds.),
Taking control: Autonomy in language learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong
University Press.
Trần Thị Tuyết, (2013). The causes of passiveness in learning of Vietnamese
students. VNU Journal of Education Research, 29(2), 72‐84.
Trịnh Quốc Lập, (2005). Stimulating learner autonomy in English language
education: A curriculum innovation study in a Vietnamese context. Ph.D
thesis.
Vietnamese MOET, (2010). Official document No.2196/BGDĐT-GDĐH, 22 April
2010 issued by the Vice Minister.
16
Vietnamese Prime Minister, (2008). Decision No.1400/QD-TTg, 30 September
2008 issued by the Prime Minister.
Vietnamese Prime Minister, (2011). Decision No.1033/QĐ-TTg, 30 June 2011
issued by the Prime Minister.
Vietnamese Prime Minister, (2011). Decision No.579/QĐ-TTg, 19 April 2011
issued by the Prime Minister.
Vietnamese Prime Minister, (2012). Decision No.711/QD-TTg, 13 June 2012
issued by Prime Minister.
Vietnamese Prime Minister, (2017). Decision No.2080/QĐ-TTg, 22 December
2017 issued by the Prime Minister.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Wang, J. (2010). A study of the role of the ‘teacher factor’ in washback. PhD
Thesis.
Wang, Y. & Wang, M. (2016). Developing learner autonomy: Chinese university
EFL teachers’ perceptions and practices. In R. Barnard & J. Li (eds.),
Language learner autonomy: Teachers’ beliefs and practices in Asian
contexts (pp. 23-42). Cambodia: IDP Education (Cambodia) Ltd.
Watts, M. & Ebbutt, D. (1987). More than the sum of the parts: Research methods
in group interviewing. British Educational Research Journal, 13(1), 25-34.
Wenden, A. (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wenden, A. L. (1986). Helping language learners think about language learning.
ELT Journal, 40(1), p.3-12.
White, C. (1995). Autonomy and strategy use in distance foreign language learning.
System, 23(2), 207–21.
Xhaferri, B., Waldispuhl M., Eriksson-Hotz B., & Xhaferri, G. (2015). Students’
and teachers’ beliefs about learner autonomy at SEEU Tetovo, Macedonia,
and PH Zug, Switzerland: A comparative study. In B. Xhaferri, M.
Waldispuhl, B. Eriksson-Hotz, & G. Xhaferri (Eds.), Promoting learner
17
autonomy in higher education (pp.10-38). Tetovo: South East European
University.
Yan, S. (2012). Teachers’ Roles in Autonomous Learning. Journal of Sociological
Research, 3(2), 557-562. http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/jsr.v3i2.2860
Yang, T. (2007). Construction of an inventory of learner autonomy. On CUE, 15(1),
2-9.
Yao, J. & Li, X. (2017). Are Chinese undergraduates ready for autonomous learning
of English listening? – A survey on students’ learning situation. The Journal
of Language Teaching and Learning, 7(2), 21-35.
1
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Interviewing questions (for teachers)
I. Teachers’ perceptions of definition, role, and demonstration of learner
autonomy
1. How do you understand the term “learner autonomy” in case of EFL
students?
2. What do you think about the role of learner autonomy to English majored
students at Dong Thap University in the integrated time today and when they are
employed to be teachers of English or officers in the future?
II. Teachers’ teaching practices of learner autonomy
3. How long have you taught English? Which majors subjects do you often
teach? Have you ever implemented autonomously learning activities for your EFL
students? If yes, what LA activities have you ever organized in each English subject
in details? Inside or outside classroom? How often?
4. How can you check or evaluate whether your students have carried out those
or not?
5. Which advantages and disadvantages do you meet when organizing
autonomously learning activities for your EFL students?
III. Teachers’ assessment of their LA activities
6. You evaluate which level of LA ability EFL students at Dong Thap
University get: poor, average, good, or excellent? Why?
7. How do you self-assess your instruction of LA activities for EFL students?
2
Appendix B
Interviewing questions (for students)
I. Students’ perceptions of definition, role, and demonstration of learner
autonomy
1. How do you understand the term “learner autonomy” in case of EFL students?
2. What do you think about the role of learner autonomy to English majored
students at Dong Thap University in the integrated time today and when you are
employed to be English teachers or officers in the future?
II. Students’ practices of leaner autonomy
3. Could you share what and how you have learned English autonomously in
details? How much time do you spend on learning English every day out of
class? How often?
4. Have you set your goals in learning English? How? When?
5. Have you planned your English study? How? When?
6. Can you arrange reasonable time for your English study and your life? How?
7. How can you search English materials for your study?
8. How do you revise your old English lessons before every test/exam? And
when?
9. Which advantages do you meet when learning English autonomously? Give
reasons.
10. Which disadvantages do you meet when learning English autonomously? Give
reasons.
III. Students’ self-assessment of their LA
11. You self-assess your LA in which level: poor, average, good, or excellent.
3
Appendix C
Questionnaire
(For EFL students) Dear students,
This questionnaire is designed to investigate EFL students’ perceptions and practices regarding LA
at DTU. Please answer the following questions honestly and to the best of your ability. We value your
opinions all of which will be treated with the utmost of confidentiality. The responses to this questionnaire
will only be used for the purposes of this research and for no other purposes. Thank you very much for your
time and consideration. Please fill in the blanks or tick () the idea which you choose.
Các bạn sinh viên thân mến,
Các bạn vui lòng dành chút thời gian đọc và đánh dấu ( ) theo ý kiến nhận xét, đánh giá của chính
bạn. Nội dung trong bản khảo sát này chỉ nhằm mục đích phục vụ cho công trình nghiên cứu khoa học của
chúng tôi về năng lực tự học của sinh viên chuyên ngành tiếng Anh, trường Đại học Đồng Tháp.
I. Background information
Gender □ Male □ Female
Age □ 18 □ 19-20 □ 21-25 □ over 25
You have learned English for… □ 5 years □ 7 years □ 8-11 years □ over 11 years
Thông tin cá nhân
Giới tính: Nam Nữ
Tuổi: 18 19-20 21-25 trên 25
Bạn học tiếng Anh được bao nhiêu năm?
5 năm 7 năm 8-11 năm trên 11 năm
II. Content of survey
Stt Students’ perceptions of LA
Strongly
Disagree
(Hoàn toàn
không
đồng ý)
Dis-
agree
(Không
đồng ý)
Not
sure
(Không
biết)
Agree
(Đồng
ý)
Strongly
agree
(Hoàn toàn
đồng ý)
1 I know clearly what I study in the English
programs at university.
Tôi nắm rõ nội dung, chương trình học chuyên
ngành tiếng Anh ở đại học.
2 I should set up my learning long-term goals
independently and clearly.
Tôi nên tự đặt ra mục tiêu học tập dài hạn rõ
ràng.
3 I should set up my learning short-term goals
independently and clearly.
Tôi nên tự biết cách đặt mục tiêu học tập ngắn
hạn rõ ràng.
4 I should design my learning plan in details
and carry out effectively.
Tôi có thể tự lên kế hoạch chi tiết cho việc học
và thực hiện kế hoạch có hiệu quả.
5 I should not wait for teachers’ instructions on
what to do.
Tôi không nên chờ đợi cho đến khi giảng viên
bảo nên học cái gì.
6 I need to find out English resources to learn
autonomously.
Tôi cần chủ động tìm các nguồn tài liệu tiếng
Anh để học tập.
7 I should actively practice four skills of English
outside the classroom everyday.
Tôi nên chủ động luyện tập 4 kỹ năng: Nge,
4
Nói, Đọc, Viết tiếng Anh mỗi ngày, sau giờ
học trên lớp.
8 I should arrange my learning time and my
daily activities reasonably.
Tôi có thể tự sắp xếp thời gian hợp lý cho việc
học và sinh hoạt hằng ngày.
9 I should autonomously prepare new English
lessons before going to class.
Tôi nên chủ động chuẩn bị bài mới cho các
môn chuyên ngành trước khi đến lớp.
10 I should ask teachers or the others about what
I do not understand.
Tôi nên nêu thăc mắc, hỏi giảng viên hoặc
những người khác về những gì chưa hiểu rõ.
Students’perceptions regarding the role of
LA
11 I believe LA helps develop my potentials,
especially my strengths.
Tôi tin rằng tự học giúp phát huy những tiềm
năng, đặc biệt là những điểm mạnh của tôi.
12 I believe LA helps me keep up with progress in
science and technology.
Tôi tin rằng tự học giúp tôi theo kịp sự tiến bộ
của khoa học và công nghệ.
13 I believe LA helps me be self-confident in
learning.
Tôi tin rằng tự học giúp tôi trở nên tự tin trong
học tập.
14 I believe LA helps me make good use of
learning resources and facilities.
Tôi tin rằng tự học giúp tôi sử dụng tốt các
nguồn tài liệu và thiết bị phục vụ cho học tập.
15 I think LA lays the foundation of lifelong
learning for me.
Tôi nghĩ rằng tự học tạo nền tảng cho việc học
tập suốt đời cho tôi.
Students’ practices regarding LA
Hoạt động tự học của SV tiếng Anh
Never
(chưa bao
giờ)
Rarely
(hiếm
khi)
Some-
times
(thỉnh
thoảng)
Often
(thườn
g
thường
)
Usually
(thường
xuyên)
Setting goals/Đặt ra các mục tiêu cần đạt
16 I had my own short-term objectives of each
English subject at the beginning of attending
university.
Tôi đã đặt ra mục tiêu ngắn hạn cho mỗi môn
học tiếng Anh ngay từ lúc bắt đầu vào học đại
học.
17 I had my own long-term objectives of English
study at the beginning of attending university.
Tôi có đặt mục tiêu dài hạn cho việc học
chuyên ngành tiếng Anh ngay từ lúc bắt đầu
vào học đại học.
18 I had objectives of English study before and
after university graduation.
Tôi đã đề ra mục tiêu cho việc học tiếng Anh
trước và sau khi tốt nghiệp đại học.
5
19 I set appropriate learning goals for speaking
English at the beginning of attending
university.
Tôi đã đặt mục tiêu phù hợp cho kỹ năng Nói
tiếng Anh từ lúc bắt đầu vào học đại học.
20 I set appropriate learning goals for reading
English at the beginning of attending
university.
Tôi đã đặt mục tiêu phù hợp cho kỹ năng
Nghe tiếng Anh từ lúc bắt đầu vào học đại
học.
21 I set appropriate learning goals for listening
to English at the beginning of attending
university.
Tôi đã đặt mục tiêu phù hợp cho kỹ năng Đọc
tiếng Anh từ lúc bắt đầu vào học đại học.
22 I set appropriate learning goals for writing
English at the beginning of attending
university.
Tôi đã đặt mục tiêu phù hợp cho kỹ năng Viết
tiếng Anh từ lúc bắt đầu vào học đại học.
Planning study/Lên kế hoạch học tập
23 I have designed my English study plans well at
the beginning of attending university.
Tôi đã lập kế hoạch học tập tốt tiếng Anh ngay
từ lúc bắt đầu vào học đại học.
24 I plan how to achieve my English study
objectives.
Tôi lập kế hoạch làm thế nào để đạt được mục
tiêu học tập đã đề ra.
25 I maximize my strengths of English study.
Tôi khai thác được những điểm mạnh của tôi
trong học tiếng Anh.
26 I step by step minimize my weaknesses of
English study.
Tôi từng bước khắc phục những điểm yếu của
tôi trong học tiếng Anh.
LA activities/ các hoạt động tự học
27 I do non-compulsory assignments.
Tôi chủ động thực hiện tất cả các bài tập GV
không giao hoặc không bắt buộc.
28 I practice using English with my friends.
Tôi thực hành sử dụng tiếng Anh với bạn bè
ngoài giờ học trên lớp.
29 I do English self-study in a group.
Tôi tự học tiếng Anh với 1 nhóm bạn.
30 I talk to foreigners in English outside the
classroom.
Ngoài giờ học trên lớp, tôi nói tiếng Anh với
người nước ngoài.
31 I write a diary in English.
Tôi viết nhật ký bằng tiếng Anh.
32 I exchange e-mails in English.
Tôi viết thư điện tử bằng tiếng Anh.
33 I watch English programs on TV or the
Internet.
Tôi xem các chương trình tiếng Anh trên tivi
6
hoặc trên Internet.
34 I listen to English songs.
Tôi nghe các bài hát tiếng Anh.
35 I listen to English news on TV or the Internet
(e.g. CNN, BBC, VOA, etc.).
Tôi nghe tin tức tiếng Anh trên tivi hoặc trên
Internet (ví dụ: các kênh BBC, CNN, VOA,
v.v...)
36 I do English grammar exercises on my own.
Tôi tự làm các bài tập ngữ pháp tiếng Anh.
37 I do revision not required by the teacher.
Tôi tự ôn bài cũ mà không chờ GV dặn dò hay
nhắc nhở.
38 I go to see my teachers so as to discuss my
work.
Tôi gặp GV để hỏi những vấn đề tôi thắc mắc.
39 I try my best to solve English learning
problems before seeking assistance.
Tôi cố gắng tìm tài liệu để tự giải đáp những
vấn đề tôi chưa hiểu trong khi học tiếng Anh.
Nếu vẫn không hiểu, tôi mới đi tìm người
khác để hỏi, tìm hiểu thông tin ( như GV, bạn
bè, những người quen trên các mạng xã hội,
v.v...)
40 I watch English movies on TV or the Internet.
Tôi xem phim tiếng Anh trên tivi hoặc trên
Internet.
41 I learn English through Youtube.
Tôi học tiếng Anh trên Youtobe.
42 I read English news on online newspapers.
Tôi đọc tin tức tiếng Anh trên các báo điện tử.
43 I learn English through Facebook.
Tôi học tiếng Anh trên Facebook.
44 I take part in English Clubs at university.
Tôi tham gia các câu lạc bộ tiếng Anh ở
trường đại học.
45 I take part in extra activities of Faculty of
foreign languages Education.
Tôi tham gia các hoạt động ngoại khóa của
Khoa Sư phạm Ngoại ngữ.
46 I learn new words through videos or pictures
focusing on teaching vocabulary on the
Internet.
Tôi học từ mới trong các video hoặc hình ảnh
chuyên dạy từ vựng trên Internet.
47 I learn new words incidentally in reading
passages.
Tôi học từ mới trong khi đọc các đoạn văn.
48 I learn structures in reading passages.
Tôi học cấu trúc câu trong khi đọc các đoạn
văn/bài khóa.
49 I choose topics to write English at home.
Ở nhà, tôi tự nghĩ ra và chọn các đề bài để
luyện kỹ năng viết tiếng Anh.
50 I read English stories to practice reading
skills, learn vocabulary and structures.
Tôi đọc các câu chuyện tiếng Anh để luyện kỹ
7
năng đọc, học từ vựng và cấu trúc câu.
51 I prepare new lessons before English classes.
Tôi chuẩn bị bài mới trước khi đến lớp.
Time and life management
52 I arrange my time for my English study and
my daily activities reasonably.
Tôi sắp xếp thời gian hợp lý cho việc học
tiếng Anh và các hoạt động sinh hoạt hằng
ngày.
53 I avoid stress in my English study.
Tôi tránh căng thẳng trong khi học tiếng Anh.
54 I avoid feeling bored about learning English.
Tôi làm cho tôi không chán nản khi học tiếng
Anh.
Materials and resources
55 I use available English materials to learn
effectively.
Tôi học tiếng Anh hiệu quả qua các tài liệu
tiếng Anh có sẵn.
56 I use English dictionaries well.
Tôi sử dụng tốt từ điển tiếng Anh.
57 I use English reference books.
Tôi có đọc các sách tham khảo tiếng Anh.
58 I find English materials on Facebook.
Tôi tìm tài liệu tiếng Anh trên Facebook.
59 I find English materials from my friends.
Tôi tìm tài liệu tiếng Anh từ bạn bè tôi.
60 I use English library books.
Tôi có sử dụng sách của thư viện trường.
61 I surf the Internet for finding English learning
resources effectively.
Tôi biết những cách hiệu quả để tìm tài liệu
học tiếng Anh trên Internet.
62 I find English materials from my EFL
teachers.
Tôi tìm tài liệu tiếng Anh từ GV Khoa Sư
phạm Ngoại ngữ.
63 I choose English books, English exercises
which suit me.
Tôi tự chọn những sách, bài tập tiếng Anh phù
hợp với trình độ của tôi.
Self-assessment
64 I appraise my objectives of English study after
each semester.
Tôi tự đánh giá những mục tiêu học tập tiếng
Anh tôi đã đạt được sau mỗi học kỳ.
65 I assess the quality of English language I have
got.
Tôi đánh giá chất lượng, mức độ học tiếng
Anh tôi đã đạt được.
66 I assess the quantity of English language I
have acquired.
Tôi đánh giá khối lượng kiến thức tiếng Anh
tôi đã đạt được.
67 I expect the teacher to be responsible for
evaluating how much I have learnt in the
English class.
8
Tôi mong đợi phần GV đánh giá học lực của
tôi trong các lớp học tiếng Anh.
68 I make self-exam with the English exam
papers chosen by myself.
Tôi tự làm các bài thi thử tiếng Anh.
69 I self-assess my carrying out study plan of
English after each semester.
Tôi tự đánh giá việc thực hiện kế hoạch học
tập tiếng Anh của tôi sau mỗi học kỳ.
Metacognition in learning language
70 I consciously select learning ways to
overcome problems I encounter in English.
Tôi có ý thức lựa chọn các cách học để vượt
qua các khó khăn tôi gặp phải khi học tiếng
Anh.
71 I preview the English lessons to get general
ideas of what they are about, how they are
organized, and how they relate to what I
already know.
Tôi xem lại các bài tiếng Anh đã học ở lớp để
nắm ý chính, cấu trúc bài học, và có những
kiến thức nào mà tôi đã biết trước đó.
72 When someone is speaking English, I try to
concentrate on what the person is saying and I
don’t think anything else.
Khi nghe ai đó nói tiếng Anh, tôi cố gắng tập
trung lắng nghe người đó đang nói gì và
không nghĩ bất kỳ chuyện gì khác.
73 I decide in advance to pay special attention to
specific English aspects; for example, while
watching a film I focus on the way native
speakers pronounce certain English sounds.
Tôi biết cách tập trung chú ý vào những đặc
điểm cụ thể nào của tiếng Anh. Chẳng hạn
như, trong khi đang xem 1 bộ phim, tôi chú ý
lắng nghe người bản xứ phát âm tiếng Anh.
74 I try to find out all I can about how to be a
better English learner by reading books or
articles, or by talking to others about how to
learn.
Tôi cố gắng tìm tất cả các cách mà tôi có thể
học tiếng Anh tốt hơn như đọc sách, báo, hoặc
hỏi những người khác phương pháp học hiệu
quả.
75 I arrange my schedule to study and practice
English consistently, not just when there is the
pressure of a test.
Tôi sắp xếp lịch học và thực hành tiếng Anh
cố định, và tôi học không phải hoàn toàn vì áp
lực thi cử.
76 I arrange my physical environment to promote
learning English; for instance, I find a quiet,
comfortable place to review.
Tôi sắp xếp môi trường học phù hợp để thúc
đẩy việc học tiếng Anh của tôi. Ví dụ như tôi
tìm 1 nơi yên tĩnh, thoải mái để ôn bài.
77 I organize my English notebook to record
9
important English information.
Tôi sắp xếp cuốn “sổ tay tiếng Anh” của tôi
thành 1 hệ thống để ghi chú những thông tin
tiếng Anh quan trọng.
78 I plan what I am going to accomplish in
learning English each day or each week.
Tôi lập kế hoạch sẽ làm gì để hoàn thành việc
học tiếng Anh mỗi ngày hoặc mỗi tuần.
79 I prepare for an upcoming English task (such
as making an oral presentation in English) by
considering the nature of the task, what I have
to know, and my current English skills.
Tôi chuẩn bị 1 bài tiếng Anh sắp học (ví dụ
như làm 1 bài thuyết trình bằng tiếng Anh)
bằng cách xem kỹ bài có những nội dung gì,
những gì tôi phải biết và các kỹ năng tiếng
Anh tôi đang có là gì.
80 I clearly identify the purpose of the language
activity; for instance, if the purpose of a class
activity requires specific listening, I recognize
it.
Tôi nhận ra rất rõ mục đích của các hoạt động
ngôn ngữ ở trong giờ học. Ví dụ, nếu mục
đích của hoạt động này là nghe tìm ý chi tiết,
tôi sẽ nhận ra ngay.
81 I take responsibility for finding opportunities
to practice English.
Tôi ý thức được là phải tự tìm các cơ hội cho
bản thân để thực hành tiếng Anh.
82 I actively look for people to whom I can speak
English.
Tôi chủ động tìm người để tôi có thể thực
hành nói tiếng Anh.
83 I try to notice my language errors and find out
the reasons for them.
Tôi cố gắng chú ý các lỗi tôi đã làm sai khi
học tiếng Anh và tìm hiểu nguyên nhân tại sao
tôi sai.
84 I learn from my mistakes in using English.
Tôi học tập, rút khinh nghiệm từ những lỗi sai
của tôi trong quá trình sử dụng tiếng Anh.
85 I evaluate the general progress I have made in
learning English.
Tôi đánh giá những tiến bộ cơ bản tôi đạt
được khi học tiếng Anh.
86 I prepare for proficiency tests such as IELTS,
C1, etc.
Tôi chuẩn bị cho các kỳ thi năng lực tiếng
Anh như IELTS, C1, v.v....
Thank you for your help!
Chân thành cảm ơn sự cộng tác của các bạn!
10
Appendix D
Summary of LA perception-practice relationship items
No. Perceptions Practices
1 I know clearly what I
study in the English
programs at
university.
Q18: I had objectives of English study before and
after college graduation.
2 I can set up my
learning long-term
goals independently
and clearly.
Q17: I had my own long-term objectives of English
study at the beginning of the 1st semester.
3 I can set up my
learning short-term
goals independently
and clearly.
Q16: I had my own short-term objectives of each
English subject at the beginning of the 1st semester.
Q19: I set appropriate learning goals for speaking
English at the beginning of the 1st semester.
Q20: I set appropriate learning goals for reading
English at the beginning of the 1st semester.
Q21: I set appropriate learning goals for listening
to English at the beginning of the 1st semester.
Q22: I set appropriate learning goals for writing
English at the beginning of the 1st semester.
4 I can design my
learning plan in details
and carry out
effectively.
Q23: I have designed my English study plans in
detailed from the beginning of the 1st semester to
now.
Q24: I plan how to achieve my English study
objectives.
Q25: I carry out those plans effectively.
5 I should not wait for
teachers’ instructions
on what to do.
Q28: I do non-compulsory assignments.
Q37: I do English grammar exercises on my own.
Q38: I do revision not required by the teacher.
6
14
I need to find out
English resources to
learn autonomously.
I believe LA helps me
make good use of
learning resources and facilities.
Q56: I use available English materials to learn
effectively.
Q57: I use English dictionaries well.
Q58: I use English reference books well.
Q59: I look for English materials on Facebook.
Q60: I look for English materials from my friends.
Q61: I use English library books well.
Q62: I surf the Internet for finding English learning
resources effectively.
Q63: I find English materials from my EFL
teachers.
Q64: I choose English books, English exercises
which suit me.
11
7 I should actively
practice four skills of
English outside the
classroom every day.
READING:
Q43: I read English news in online newspapers.
Q47: I learn new words through videos or pictures
focusing on teaching vocabulary on the Internet.
Q48: I learn new words incidentally in reading
passages.
Q49: I learn structures in reading passages.
Q51: I read English stories to practice reading skills, learn vocabulary and structures.
LISTENING:
Q34: I watch English programs on TV or the
Internet.
Q35: I listen to English songs.
Q36: I listen to English news on TV or the Internet
(e.g. CNN, BBC, VOA, etc.).
Q41: I watch English movies on TV or the Internet.
WRITING:
Q32: I write a diary in English.
Q33: I exchange e-mails in English.
Q50: I choose topics to write at home.
SPEAKING:
Q31: I talk to foreigners in English outside the classroom.
8 I can arrange my
learning time and my
daily activities
reasonably.
Q53: I arrange my time for my English study and
my daily activities reasonably.
Q54: I avoid stress in my English study.
Q55: I avoid feeling bored about learning English.
9 I should autonomously
prepare new English
lessons before going
to class.
Q52: I prepare new lessons before the English
classes.
10 I should ask teachers
or the others about
what I do not
understand.
Q29: I practice using English with my friends.
Q30: I do English self-study in a group.
Q39: I go to see my teachers so as to discuss my
work.
Q67: I expect the teacher to be responsible for
evaluating how much I have learnt in the English class.
11 I believe LA helps
develop my potentials,
especially my
strengths.
Q26: I maximize my strengths of English study.
Q27: I step by step minimize my weaknesses of
English study.
12 I believe LA helps me Q42: I learn English through YouTube.
12
keep up with progress
in science and
technology.
Q44: I learn English through Facebook.
13 I believe LA helps me
be self-confident in
learning.
Q40: I try my best to solve English learning
problems before seeking assistance.
Q45: I take part in English Clubs at university.
Q46: I take part in extra activities of Faculty of
foreign languages Education.
Q65: I appraise my objectives of English study after each semester.
Q66: I assess the quality and quantity of English
language I have acquired.
Q68: I make self-exam with the English exam
papers chosen by myself.
Q69: I have the ability to learn English well.
15 I think LA lays the
foundation of lifelong
learning for me.
Q70: I consciously select learning ways to
overcome problems I encounter in English.
Q71: I preview the English lessons to get general
ideas of what they are about, how they are
organized, and how they relate to what I already
know.
Q72: When someone is speaking English, I try to
concentrate on what the person is saying and I don’t think about anything else.
Q73: I decide in advance to pay special attention to
specific English aspects; for example, while
watching a film I focus on the way native speakers
pronounce certain English sounds.
Q74: I try to find out all I can about how to be a
better English learner by reading books or articles,
or by talking to others about how to learn.
Q75: I arrange my schedule to study and practice
English consistently, not just when there is the
pressure of a test.
Q76: I arrange my physical environment to
promote learning English; for instance, I find a
quiet, comfortable place to review.
Q77: I organize my English notebook to record
important English information.
Q78: I plan what I am going to accomplish in
learning English each day or each week.
Q79: I prepare for an upcoming English task (such
as making an oral presentation in English) by
considering the nature of the task, what I have to
13
know, and my current English skills.
Q80: I clearly identify the purpose of the language
activity; for instance, if the purpose of a class activity requires specific listening, I recognize it.
Q81: I take responsibility for finding opportunities
to practice English.
Q82: I actively look for people to whom I can
speak English.
Q83: I try to notice my language errors and find out
the reasons for them.
Q84: I learn from my mistakes in using English.
Q85: I evaluate the general progress I have made in
learning English.
Q86: I prepare for proficiency tests such as IELTS,
C1, etc.
14
Appendix E
TWO EXCERPTS OF THE INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS
Interview transcript with Student 27
Consent form explanation
I: Interviewer
S: Student
I: How do you understand the term “learner autonomy” in case of EFL students?
S: I think EFL students who have LA ability is when teachers give a topic for whole
class to study, they dare to say their ideas in front of the class.
I: What do you think about the role of learner autonomy to English majored students at Dong Thap University in the integrated time today and when you are
employed to be English teachers or officers in the future?
S: In my opinion, LA is more important than learning in the classroom. After the
first year and nearly finishing the third semester, I recognize that if we carry out LA
at home well or successfully as we self-assess, we only need to discuss something
we don’t know or want to widen our knowledge with teachers in classes because we
have limited time in the classroom and there are many students in a class. If we
don’t read lessons at home or learn them autonomously before going to classes or
we have some problems both on textbooks and out of textbooks, our teachers can’t
explain all of them to us in classes. I think that we need to have our own
autonomous learning methods. We can learn autonomous learning methods from
our friends, our teachers, or our supervisor to find out our most suitable, effective
autonomous learning method to apply. After we graduate from DTU, LA stimulates
our passion for our job because when we are teachers of English, our s tudents ask us some problems in class which we don’t know, so we must explore them
autonomously at home. From that, we are formed many skills or characteristics. For
example, when we read articles or field of education relating to informatics, we find
materials to study that field. This makes a chain, and we have knowledge of many
fields and are formed our patience to find out knowledge long-lifely.
I: Could you share what and how you have learned English autonomously in
details? How much time do you spend on learning English every day out of class?
How often?
S: I often learn English autonomously spontaneously. It means that before I begin
learning, I write down the order and how many minutes of subjects I intend to learn
on that day. But my learning is interrupted by many factors. For example, after
having dinner, it’s time for LA and I tell myself that I want to watch TV a few
minutes; therefore, I do LA late and my timetable for LA is not carried out exactly.
So, when I have free time, I learn autonomously. I don’t like to watch English
movies or listen to English music because I think that those forms are to entertain. I know that when I see phrases on the screen of TV I can memorize, but for me, LA
is true learning as in class. Therefore, I do tests in some books such as a series of
15
IELTS tests shared on the Internet. I can practice listening and reading well, but
speaking and writing are not. After writing papers, I need someone to correct them
to help me know where I am wrong, but I have no one. Maybe I think my papers are
good but when people read my papers perhaps dislike them because they are bad.
For speaking, I only train pronunciation and intonation. When I listen to any
paragraph, I imitate their voice. I learn vocabulary through reading and listening.
These new words in practice test books, so they are rather difficult. When I listened
to them in the first time, my grade is bad. Therefore, when I do them again, I check
vocabulary. After finishing a reading test, I look up new words, write them down in
a notebook as S26, and learn them. However, when learning new words, I memorize
them. But when I write essays, I don’t remember them to use, so I am angry. When
making outline of an essay, I also think of many ideas and select main ones put into
3 body paragraphs, but when I write I only use words I have already known are old. After that I open my notebook and see that I wrote good words but I can’t apply
them. There are some ways to learn vocabulary autonomously shown. For example,
when we learn a new word, we make an example sentence with it. I also do like that
but I still forget them when I write essays. I think my memory is not bad, and I
don’t know why it is. So, I am so angry at myself, and have no solution to this
problem. I spend the most 2 hours on some days. On some other days, I spend 30
minutes when I do 1 task I have a headache because it is too difficult. I learn
English autonomously about 5 or 6 days a week.
I: Have you set your goals in learning English? How? When?
S: Yes, at the beginning of the first semester, my goal is to get 6.5 points for IELTS
or C1 and after that I think again I should increase my goal getting 7.5 points for
IELTS. However, now I am afraid I can’t do that. I learn Teaching methodology in
this semester and see it abstractly. But when I read it carefully, I see that it is
interesting. If we want to be a teacher of English, we should master this subject. Therefore, my short-term goal of this semester is not to fail Teaching Methodology,
and try to get 3.6 points for final result. I had no goal for the first semester. My goal
in the second semester was to get 3.6 or over.
I: Have you planned your English study? How? When?
S: I have learning plans for each subject. For example, I am fair at that subject and I
only improve it more. I am weak at that subject, so I should find more other
materials about it to enhance my knowledge.
I: Can you arrange reasonable time for your English study and your life? How?
S: Sometimes, it is not yet. At first, I think after dinner, I can learn from 7 p.m. to
10 p.m., but when I learn, there are many factors affecting me such as doing
housework.
I: How can you search English materials for your study?
S: I follow some links on Facebook which share some materials of skills of learning
English. I also download update materials.
I: How do you revise your old English lessons before every test/exam? And when? S: Truly, I accumulate knowledge during my autonomous learning process. I only
revise non-major subjects. For major subjects, because we learn skills of learning
16
English, if we do exercises more and more, our level will increase. Before the exam,
my friends often revise vocabulary, structures learnt or old lessons. I think it is not
important. The important thing is while we are learning we understand them
carefully. When taking the exams, we should be comfortable and we just see tips
again. For example, for Reading, we need to read in how many minutes and divide
how many minutes for reading comprehension as well as filling the blanks and think
again the method to do it.
I: Which advantages do you meet when learning English autonomously? Give
reasons.
S: My friends just talked about LA in textbooks. For me, I mention to LA of
materials out of class. When I practice LA I see that what knowledge I lack I can
self-support or fill in it. When teachers give us any topics or assignments in class, I
support them in different ways by myself and then see them again. We learn skills of learning English, so if we practice LA on them regularly, our skills can be
increased very fast. Specially, near the exam if we are suddenly hard-working to
practice listening, reading, doing exercises, etc. continuously, when we take exams
we do the tests faster because we are familiar with looking at them before. I think
LA which should be practiced regularly is effective. After the exams, I have relaxed
for a week, and then learn autonomously again, my feeling for LA is limited,
unsame as the time before the exams. Therefore, I am not keen on LA in the new
semester.
I: Which disadvantages do you meet when learning English autonomously? Give
reasons.
S: I am not satisfied with myself. For example, after finishing a test, looking at
answer keys, I see its points are rather low and think when I can increase my level,
and then I am bored. I am angry with this because before doing a test, I am highly
determined but while doing it I have some problems which I must solve by myself, I am stuck. I wonder how much I learn and how much I try to get good level in
English. I feel I learn much but why I can’t apply them in tests or exams. Although
no one says I am bad, I am angry at myself and bored. I haven’t improved this.
I: You self-assess your LA in which level: poor, average, good, or excellent.
S: I self-assess my LA that is average.
Interview transcript with Teacher 4
Consent form explanation
I: Interviewer
T: Teacher
I: How do you understand the term “learner autonomy” in case of EFL students?
T: EFL students having LA ability are that when they attend DTU they must know the requirements of English major as well as curriculum and set up their learning
objectives at the beginning of the course. Besides, they have to know certificates of
17
their outcome standard clearly. They must actively ask their teachers, their
supervisor, and officers in Faculty of Foreign Languages Education and Office of
Academic Affairs to know their curriculum major including the number of units,
subjects, and credits. Basing on those, they themselves have to arrange their time to
learn and have strategy for each semester in which they will register which subjects.
Parallelly, they must design their specific learning plan for each subject.
I: What do you think about the role of learner autonomy to English majored
students at Dong Thap University in the integrated time today and when they are
employed to be teachers of English or officers in the future?
T: LA plays a crucial role for EFL students because if they are active in learning,
they will know what they should learn, which skills they should practice, what they
are lacking to find materials or ask their teachers’ or their friends’ support to
interact each other to gain their objective of subjects. Their LA ability will affect both their work and their life positively in the future.
While they actively design and have measures to carry out their learning plan at
university, it forms their life skills and work skills. They will work with their plan
and have strategies to obtain their objectives. Moreover, they will work well after
graduating. For example, for teacher students, if they have LA ability, they know to
design a plan for each work, the ways to fulfil it, arrange their time reasonably, and
as a result, they can share their LA experience with their students, hold and manage
their class very effectively. Similarly, non-teacher students know the ways to work
well.
I: How long have you taught English? Which majors subjects do you often teach?
Have you ever implemented autonomously learning activities for your EFL
students? If yes, what LA activities have you ever organized in each English subject
in details? Inside or outside classroom? How often?
T: I have been a teacher of English for 28 years. I usually teach Speaking, Listening, Teaching Methodology, Pedagogic professional competence training, and
Translation. Due to learning autonomously when I was young, I always ask my
students to learn autonomously very much in any subjects. I think LA is like
people’s instinct for survival, anything they know originates from LA. Therefore,
students who learn in my classes have to have their consciousness of increasing
their LA. If they don’t learn autonomously, they are hard to obtain my subject’s
objectives. I gave them clear rules of my subject, share my experience and content
of subject, told them my requirements as well as the problems they would meet in
that subject, and what they had to do to get good result in the first class. In addition,
I instructed them step by step to help them be familiar with learning method in a
few following classes, and after that they had to learn autonomously by themselves.
For Speaking, my students prepared their LA at home. At first, I gave them a
handout of exercises and requirements, but later I used information technology such
as Google drive. For example, the topic for the next lesson was Hometown, and
they had to find vocabulary relating to it. When they expressed their ideas, they had to use vocabulary in collocations, so they had to find collocations. To have ideas to
write, they found some questions about Hometown. They could find those on the
18
Internet, were not asked to find how many words, and then shared what they found
with each other through Google drive. They were force to do that because without
it, they could not have anything to talk in class. In speaking class, I usually asked
them to discuss face to face, interview, etc. so if they prepared lesson at home
already, they could work with me and their friends.
Similarly, in translation, before each class, I gave them an assignment, and
they used reading skill and underlined difficult words or phrases to look up. When
they learned new words, they had to explain them by their definitions or
explanations and they needed to look up them in monodictionary. That was one way
of LA to help them increase their vocabulary and form their resource of the number
of new words. This helped them in communication or taking reading exam. Also,
they translated structures into Vietnamese. After that, they translated assignments,
and posted on their folder in Google drive. They could see their friends’ assignments. I also asked them not to copy their friends’ assignments and if they
had, I would give them 0 mark. Besides, I divided class into 4 groups and gave them
a list of topics. Each group discussed to choose some topics to translate into
Vietnamese at home and then divided duty for each member. They did the same
steps as above, and then edited their work for other people to be able to understand.
They evaluated their group’s members’ work. In class, four groups would evaluate
each other; for example, group 2 and group 3 evaluated group 1, and to do that, they
had to see other groups’ work on Google drive. They evaluated the organization,
using words effectively or not, compared with English version, editing or not, and
then gave marks. After that, group which was evaluated could said their ideas to
two groups examiners that they agreed with these but disagreed with those and they
explained. That made an argument in class and they could learn autonomously from
each other too much. Even they had to say they disagreed or not with their marks
and explained why honestly. For example, this group gave them 7,5 points and that group gave them 8 points. However, the group evaluated were willing to accept 7.5
points and showed the reasons they received that mark. I think this way helped them
increase their LA ability, activeness, honesty, responsibility for learning.
For Teaching Methodology, I didn’t have much time, so I only divided them
into groups to practice teaching skills in Pedagogic professional competence
training 5 and 6. In Pedagogic professional competence training 5, they were given
marks for whole group. In this subject, my aim was that they knew procedure of
each kind of skill lesson and language focus one. I often asked each group to choose
a type of skill lesson and language focus one first to design lesson plans and posted
them on Google drive to adjust. A representative of a group demoed their group’s
lesson for whole class in class. After that, they discussed their friend’s presentation,
gave ideas, and suggested some exercises for that lesson. Next, each group’s
members chose different lessons in different grades at high school or A2 or B1
programs to discuss, design, and practice teaching outside the classroom. During
their time of designing lesson plan, they could discuss on Facebook, etc. Then, they had to practice teaching their lesson and took photos to show me that they worked
in groups. They could post their lesson plans on google drive to discuss and then
19
brought the final ones to teach in class. I gave marks for whole group but it didn’t
mean that every member in a group had the same marks. Then they evaluated and
gave mark for each member of their group based on my marks. Who worked
effectively got higher marks, and who didn’t work could get 0 mark. After they
worked in groups, taught in class, they self-assessed their work in a form; for
example, they were satisfied or unsatisfied with which points and what and how
they needed to change and submitted it to me. I wanted to make sure that they
worked effectively or not. Besides, they took notes every class when they observed
their friends’ teaching to evaluate and give their opinion. If they don’t know how to
learn autonomously, I have to instruct them too much. I had some forms for them to
fill and instruct them step by step.
I: How can you check or evaluate whether your students have carried out those or
not? T: The easiest way to know some of students who were lazy was to look at their
observation sheets. I asked them to try to write some paragraphs. Some students
wrote their observation as an interesting essay. However, some students only listed
some dashes to write simple things.
I: Which advantages and disadvantages do you meet when organizing
autonomously learning activities for your EFL students?
T: When they were familiar with my teaching methods, they were active, so at that
time I had many advantages and just looked at their work. They felt too much
pressure when learning with me because I asked them to work perfectly. Also, I had
to instruct them too much because they weren’t familiar with my teaching methods.
For example, when teaching translation subject, I gave them my subject’s
requirements and some sample texts and they had to choose their own texts,
translate, and edit but they didn’t know format of word text, so I had to show them.
Most of them didn’t pay attention to my instructions, so I had to remind them a lot. Lazy students’ friends would share their ideas to them in groups. I also commented
my opinions on their work.
I: You evaluate which level of LA ability EFL students at Dong Thap University get:
poor, average, good, or excellent? Why?
T: I assess EFL students’ LA ability that is average because they carried out LA
activities following teacher’s requirements while LA is more than that. For instance,
in my translation subject, they only translated exercises which I gave. In those
exercises, there were some terms they had to learn autonomously more deeply to be
able translate but they couldn’t. For example, when taking about Tram Chim
Ramsar, I asked them what Ramsar meant and they didn’t know, so I had to
instructed them that when they learned autonomously, they saw Ramsar they should
have put a question why it was called Tram Chim National Park before instead of
Tram Chim Ramsar now.
I: How do you self-assess your instruction of LA activities for EFL students?
T: I self-assess my instructions of students’ LA activities that are good. However, I
haven’t had enough time to check their LA carefully.
