Oktatás | Andragógia » Chang Shih Chuan - An Experimental Study of Learner Autonomy in Language Learning

Source: http://www.doksinet An Experimental Study of Learner Autonomy in Language Learning Chang Shih Chuan Assistant Professor of the Department of Applied Foreign Languages Cheng Shiu University Abstract Autonomous learning has greatly developed both on theory and practice ever since its appearance in 1960s. It has become a hot issue in educational field over the past forty years and it is important to cultivate learners’ ability of self-directed inquiry. The ultimate goal of quality-oriented education is to promote learner autonomy. But its promotion through systematic learner development is a relatively recent phenomenon, let alone the one proposed by Scharle and Szabo (2000). After some modification, the program intends to make the students be aware of the importance of responsible attitude and independent learning ability. The purpose is to develop the students’ learning performance, give guidance on their learning strategies, and develop their interest in language

learning. Two non-English major classes participated in the experiment. The learner development program lasted for one semester. During the course, the SILL questionnaire and language proficiency test were used and both the methods of interview and classroom observation were employed. Besides, students were asked to write regular journals to keep track of their learning experience. Comparisons were made in the following three aspects: the language performance in the test; a change of learning strategies; stimulation of interest. The results show that using the content of regular school classroom teaching as a meaningful context for the development of responsibility can not only enhance the learning effect, but also save time for the optional strategy training. According to the scores in the post-test are concerned, the experimental group had a high mean score than the control group. The two sets of questionnaire results show that the experimental group benefited from the program by

using more learning strategies. Besides, most of the students in the experimental group reported a higher interest in language learning after the experiment. However, the control group showed no great difference in all these aspects Key words: learner autonomy, autonomous learning, strategy Introduction Since the 1970s, research interest in learner autonomy and independence has gained growing attention in foreign language learning, and there has been a heated discussion about how teachers should teach and how learners should learn in the context of language learning. The traditional way of teaching foreign language lays emphasis on teaching instead of learning. The teacher, who explains the text in a traditional grammar-translation way and tries to put everything into students’ head (as is called cramming method of teaching), is in complete charge of class activities. This has severely prevented learners from thinking and learning independently. However, the present epoch is

expecting and demanding more from people than ever before. Just learning by what teachers give is not enough, which means it’s important for people to be independent learners. On the other 1 Source: http://www.doksinet hand, good teachers should be able to cultivate learners’ ability to do things individually and independently. Thus, more and more teachers accept the learner-centered approach According to this approach, both teachers and students participate in the teaching and learning process, accordingly, the students have more opportunities to practice the four basic language skills efficiently. All this needs the ability of students’ autonomous learning as well as the change of teachers’ role, and the former of which is just the ultimate goal of language learning. As a result, growing interest in the promotion of autonomy was found since the early 1970s. In Taiwan, the shift of research to learner-centeredness and individual learners took place mainly in the last ten

years, but the research is far behind that of the Western countries. However, autonomous language learning has had some development in Taiwan since the communicative teaching method and some other learner-centered approaches were introduced to English teaching during the 1980s. Experiments have been made to foster learner autonomy. Though many teachers realized the importance of learner responsibility and even tried to train their students to be autonomous both in and out of class through various activities, it seems that little formal academic discussion about learner autonomy has been held, let alone the carrying out of systematically practiced learner development program that can be integrated into classroom teaching. In view of the situation described above, this academic paper, on the basis of reviewing the current theory and practices of fostering learner autonomy in foreign language, aims to explore the feasibilities of one integrated learner development program in classroom

environment. This paper, by performing an experiment, also tries to justify the effectiveness of the program on the development of learners’ language performance, their use of learning strategies and the stimulation of their interest. As no consensus has ever been reached on the concept of learner autonomy, the paper firstly reviews the definitions and studies on autonomy from different angles. It takes the view that the understanding of learner autonomy requires a broader interpretation. It also explores various reasons to foster learner autonomy and believes that the promotion of learner autonomy is in urgent need and possible. In so doing, it argues that integrating learner development into regular classroom setting is more practical in the Taiwanese context. Reasoning and arguing alone are not enough. This paper then gives a brief introduction of the learner development program by Scharle and Szabo (2000) and the modifications the author has made to it. An experiment was

conducted to testify the effectiveness of the modified program. Students from two classes participated in the experiment, one as the experimental group that work with the program, while the other as the control group under the traditional teaching method. The experiment is both qualitative and quantitative and the results are satisfactory. Based on the results of the experiment, this paper tries to explore the implications of the program on foreign language teaching and puts forward some suggestions on both the program and future research. It recommends that more experimental study is needed to examine this program thoroughly in an effort to extend it and correct it. I. Literature Review 1.1 Definition of learner autonomy Learner autonomy has been a widespread phenomenon in the context of foreign language teaching or second language teaching. It was introduced into the field of SL/FL pedagogy in the 1970s, and has drawn considerable attention of educational researchers ever since the

1980s, especially in recent years. Little (1991) defines learner autonomy as “essentially a matter of the learner’s psychological 2 Source: http://www.doksinet relation to the process and content of learning. It is to be found in a wide variety of behaviors as a capacity for detachment, critical reflection, decision-making and independent action”. In his opinion, learner autonomy presupposes a positive attitude to the purpose, content and process of learning and thus developing positive attitudes towards this is crucial to the success of the development of learner autonomy and is an essential, long term aim of any learner training program. Similarly, Benson (1996) suggests that a ‘psychological view’ of autonomy focuses on the importance of the ‘psychological’ or ‘internal’ capacities of the learner, such as cognitive and learning styles, motivation, attitudes, aptitude and so on. Its goal is ultimately the learners’ responsibility for their own successes and

failures in learning. Gardner, in his book Establishing Self-AccessFrom Theory to Practice, introduces the history of this concept and discusses the wide range of terms related to it and used in the language field. He thinks that the concept of learner autonomy “stemmed from debates about the development of life-long learning skills and the development of independent thinkers, both of which originated in the 1960s” (Gardner, 2002). Campbell defines learner autonomy as “a quality enabling a person to interact with text or accomplish some other language task in a self-directed manner without significant or constant assistance from others” (Campbell 2004). Since 1990s, many educationalists shifted their focus to the social aspects of developing autonomy in the field of foreign language teaching as a renewed interest in Vygotsky’s works took place. Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory suggests that development depends on interaction with people and the tools that the culture

provides to help form their own view of the world. Therefore, learner autonomy is not only concerned with the individual. It can only be developed through social and collaborative learning. Benson (1996) suggests that “greater control over the learning process, resources and language cannot be achieved by each individual acting alone according to his or her own preferences” and Lee (1998) calls for “a supportive environment” too. He believes that interaction, negotiation, collaboration, etc. are important factors in promoting learner autonomy. However, individual autonomy is still the focus of learner autonomy in the West until recent years. Social views of autonomy are believed to exist in what is called collectivist societies Perhaps the most often quoted definition is still that of Holec (1981), who defines autonomy as “the ability to take charge of one’s own learning”. To take charge of one’s own learning is to have, and to hold, the responsibility for all the

decisions concerning all aspects of this learning, i.e 1) determining the objectives; 2) defining the contents and progressions; 3) selecting methods and techniques to be used; 4) monitoring the procedure of acquisition.; 5) evaluating what has been acquired. This definition adequately covers the man areas of the learning process in which one might expect the autonomous learner to exercise control. Besides, Holec believes that the ability to take charge of one’s own learning is not inborn but must be acquired in a systematic, deliberate way. His view that autonomy needed to be encouraged led to the development of a wide range of techniques and procedures known most commonly as “learner training”, or “learning to learn”. Complex as the concept is, there are at least three generally accepted senses of autonomy in language teaching. They are as follows: (1) Students should take responsibility for their own learning; (2) Teachers, courses and institutions influence the

development of this responsibility; (3) Learner autonomy is a goal of education that learners, teachers and institutions should work together to achieve. 1.2 Description of learner autonomy The different definitions of learner autonomy stress on different aspects of the term and lead 3 Source: http://www.doksinet to a partial understanding of the concept and often confuse the language teachers with their stress on different dimensions. Therefore, what is needed is a broader description On a general note, the following thirteen aspects of learner autonomy, adapted from Sinclair (1996), appear now to have been recognized and broadly accepted: 1) Autonomy is a construct of capacity; 2) Autonomy involves a willingness on the part of the learner to take responsibility for their own learning; 3) The capacity and willingness of learners to take such responsibility is not necessarily innate; 4) Complete autonomy is an idealistic goal; 5) There are degrees of autonomy; 6) The degrees of

autonomy are unstable and variable; 7) Autonomy is not simply a matter of placing learners in situations where they have to be independent; 8) Developing autonomy requires conscious awareness of the learning process; 9) Promoting autonomy is not simply a matter of teaching strategies; 10) Autonomy can take place both inside and outside the classroom; 11) Autonomy has a social as well as an individual dimension; 12) The promotions of learner autonomy have a political as well as psychological dimension; 13) Autonomy is interpreted differently by different cultures. These aspects cover almost all the dimensions of the term and make it easy to understand. Among the above 13 aspects, what attract our attention most are those dealing with the degrees of autonomy. Oxford (1990) insists that autonomy is not an ‘all-or-nothing’ concept Nunan (1988) also says autonomy is not an absolute concept, and there are degrees of autonomy. To conclude, whether learner autonomy should be thought of as

capacity or behavior; whether it is characterized by learner responsibility or learner control; whether it is a psychological phenomenon with political implications or a political right with psychological implications; and whether the development of learner autonomy depends on a complementary teacher autonomy, it is clearly not something which learners achieve without having the opportunities to learn or be taught, neither is it an all or nothing concept. It is something which is achieved over time with practice, experience and support, and, possibly with some degree of maturity. Teachers should take into account of all these aspects in facilitating students to be autonomous. 1.3 Significance of developing learner autonomy 1.31 The inadequacy of formal instruction In essence, the purpose of developing learner autonomy is to cultivate an ability of learners’ for continuing learning and life-long education. Of course, we shouldn’t doubt about the role of formal instruction in FLA as

it improves learners’ second language proficiency and change the rate of second language learning, and provides a chance for learners to learn systematically and efficiently. However, formal instruction is not enough for learners to meet the constant change of our society because of some major issues. For example, it cannot provide limitless resources for learners, and neither can it provide for learners with adequate knowledge learners need in the future; hence developing learner autonomy is undoubtedly the continuity of formal instruction to make up this inadequacy. Therefore, both of providing knowledge and developing learner independence, especially the latter, become the fundamental purpose of modern FLA. 1.32 The need of our changing society Nowadays, our society is experiencing a series of changes. With the profound revolutions of science and technology, our society has entered the information era in which the tendency of globalization has been increasing. Education, supposed

to meet the changes of the society and serve for its further development, faces unprecedented changes, with the dramatic changes of new technology, and patterns of education are being changing greatly. Various kinds of educational 4 Source: http://www.doksinet patterns such as electronic education, home-based education, community-based education, Internet education are or will be available for people to meet their own needs, and, therefore, education will meet its more objectives than ever before. In the meta-technological era, education assumes more responsibilities, and the goals of education will be “education for employment, education for life, education for the world, education for self-development and education for pleasure” (Schuller 1979). Even if the purposes mentioned above are proposed in the last century, they’re undoubtedly still the main goals of current education, especially the purposes of education for life, for the world, as well as for pleasure. Not only

transferring and implanting knowledge, cultivating creative thinking and life-long learning but also learning for a better life becomes the essential part of education. In other words, in the new era, how fast one can find out new things, how much one can enjoy learning and make his own time, especially his spare time, enjoyable seems more essential and significant. Under this situation, the role of teachers is no longer dominant, the relationship between teachers and students is no longer simple and the educational process becomes more and more active and truly bilateral, in which students are the real centers. In a word, life-long study becomes the need of the current and future society, so autonomous learning becomes the demand of the society. Because the future society will be a ‘learning society’, in which the human eagerness of learning and ability of autonomous learning will be substantial for future life. II. Learner Autonomy in Language Learning 2.1 Possibilities of

learner autonomy in language learning In most of regular Taiwanese foreign language classroom teaching, the component of learner autonomy training is often missing or ignored because of the tight teaching schedule for knowledge and skills. Teachers are busy explaining grammar, vocabulary and skills to pass the exams instead of involving students taking on responsibility of their own learning and learning to learn. It seems that learner autonomy is not indigenous to the classroom, it has no roots there, and it has no chance of even surviving or thriving in that alien environment. However, no matter how unfit the idea of autonomy may be in the whole-class environment, we can, if we look, find the elements of ‘autonomy’ and ‘individualization’ even in that apparently uncongenial place. Firstly, in recent years, teachers’ beliefs about learning and learners and about themselves as functioning individuals within the role of a teacher changed a lot. Aiming to teach students enough

language items to pass the examination will obviously have different implications for the approach to teaching compared with seeing learning a new language as a lifelong process. To view learners as resisters, receptacles and raw materials is more teacher dominated than to view them as partners, individual and democratic explorers. In current Taiwanese foreign language teaching context, many more teachers tend to favor the learner-centered approach and pave the right way for the promotion of learner autonomy. Integrating autonomy in university classroom is possible because college students have much more advantages in learning. Aside from the external factors, they are internally more prepared for autonomous learning, both physically and psychologically. By “physically prepared”, it means that they are mature enough to take responsibilities for whatever they intend to do and they are competent enough to use metacognitive strategies to improve their autonomous learning. Besides, the

spreading use of CALL has been seen as an effective way to enhance language learning. Studies seem to show that CALL aid language teaching and learning in terms of increased motivation, interest and autonomy. The practice of incorporate multi-media and computer technology into language instruction opens up a new horizon for EFL instructors to 5 Source: http://www.doksinet improve the overall quality of language instruction. In short, the impact of cultural context does not necessarily mean that Taiwanese foreign language learners will not take on responsibilities for their own learning. With the stronger advocacy for quality education in Taiwan, the components of learner autonomy will spread widely in classroom teaching. 2.2 The learner development program by Scharle and Szabo Scharle and Szabo (2000) choose to integrate responsibility development into the regular classroom teaching because they think that students’ autonomy developed most when autonomy training are integrated

into regular classroom activities in an informal, natural way. Various classroom activities are designed to help learners to realize the importance of their contribution and develop their abilities to take charge of their own learning. This is a gradual process and consists of mainly three phases: 1) Raising awareness is the starting point. This stage is designed to present new viewpoints and new experiences to the learners and encourage them to bring the inner processes of their learning to the conscious level of their thinking. Most of the activities at this stage are rather tightly structured and controlled by the teacher because learners are assumed not yet very responsible and need to be told what to do. 2) Changing attitudes is a slow process to practice what they discovered at the previous stage. They need to be conscious of the strategies they apply in doing the tasks, how and why they do things this way or that. Most of the activities at this stage are repeatable, and they

tend to allow more room for learner initiative. 3) Transferring roles to the learner requires a considerable change in classroom management and so it may be the most demanding phase. Students are expected to take over some roles from the teacher and enjoy the freedom of being more responsible. The activities are loosely structured, giving a considerable amount of freedom to the students in accomplishing tasks. In all three phases, various activities are designed to work on familiar targets of learner development, such as motivation, learning skills, empathy, and cooperation. The novelty lies in the systematic combination of such targets. However, if our students are directly and simply involved in these program, even if the activities are aimed to raise their awareness of the of responsibility and autonomy, they will surely feel uneasy, because as above discussed that Taiwanese students are so accustomed to being listeners and receivers in EFL classroom that sudden active participation

in the teaching and learning process seems novel to them. Moreover, some of the activities are not suitable or practical in Taiwanese teaching context, they should be carefully selected and then integrated into main textbook. Therefore, modifications seem necessary to make it fit into the Taiwanese foreign language teaching and learning context. 2.3 Modifications of the program Before modifying the program, some difficulties faced by Taiwanese teachers of English have to be taken into account. First, they are working under a rigid syllabus Together with the prescribed course contents, students bring into the same classroom their diverse interests, levels of English, and goals in learning the target language. And it is difficult for the teacher to meet the needs of all of them if all students are to learn effectively. The teachers sometimes have to slow down for some students or, conversely, speed up to others. It is quite common to hear other teachers speaking about ‘focusing on the

average level of the students’ hoping that this will best satisfy students’ needs. Second, they are in a fierce competition for the students’ time When a 6 Source: http://www.doksinet student’s time is consumed by work, outside interests and other subjects, it is difficult to consider the requirements necessary for learning in a classroom even though a student may appear interested in the subject content. In this context, how can the teachers manage to train their students to be more autonomous? Nunan (1997) proposes five levels to do so: 1) Awareness: learners are made aware of pedagogical goals, contents and strategies; 2) Involvement: learners are actively involved in the learning; 3) Intervention: learners are encouraged to modify and adapt their goals, learning style and strategies; 4) Creation: learners set up their own goals and plans for self-directed learning; 5) Transcendence: learners move beyond classroom setting for independent learning. To help the students

understand the purpose of the program and learn more effectively, I redivided the whole process of the program into two stages: the preliminary stage and the dependent action stage. 2.31 The preliminary stage The preliminary stage, also aiming to raise students’ awareness of the importance of learner autonomy, is designed on the basis of the first phase of the original program. But it intends to achieve more than that. It tries to get the students prepared for the oncoming changes they will experience in their classroom, both psychologically and methodologically. 2.311 Psychological preparation Holec (1980) writes of psychological preparation as a gradual ‘deconditioning process’ through which the learner can free himself from many kinds of assumptions and prejudices about learning languages, for example, that there is one ideal method and that teachers possess it; that he is not capable of making any valid assessment of his performance, and so on. Psychological preparation is

concerned mainly with helping learners become willing to take responsibility for their learning. Many researchers have already realized the importance of psychological willingness (Little, 1991). Learners’ willingness to be autonomous is especially important to implement autonomous language learning in most EFL classroom setting. It is a prerequisite for the actual occurrence of autonomous language learning. So to promote autonomous language learning there, the first thing to do is not to directly involve learners in actual autonomous language learning practice, but to develop their psychological willingness to be autonomous. 2.312 Methodological preparation Compared with the abstract arguments of psychological preparation, methodological preparation impresses people with the practical value of particular activities, such as strategy training. Language learning strategies were generally defined as specific actions, behaviors, steps or techniques that learners employed to comprehend,

store, remember new information, and to use the second language (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990). Oxford (1990) expanded this definition by saying that “language learning strategies were specific actions taken by the learner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective and more transferable to new situations.” In the classroom, the application of learner training often focuses on exclusively learning strategies. Students are often induced to use strategies (usually cognitive strategies) without any rationale as to why it might be helpful to them. 2.32 The action stage Being aware of the values of autonomous language learning and equipped with strategy knowledge, learners come directly to the action stage of the program, which combine the last two phases of the original program. That means learners begin to engage in autonomous language learning activities. All the activities at this stage are classified into three types, the 7 Source:

http://www.doksinet individual-centered, the group-centered, and the project-centered activities, aiming to develop students’ sense of responsibility in learning and establish a new way of teacher-student interaction. 1) The individual-centered activities focus on individual learners and their needs. Teachers, co-learners and other resources for learning are enlisted to facilitate the attainment of the goals of the individuals as defined by the individual. 2) The group-centered activities focus on the needs of a particular group of learners and a strong commitment to group learning and group processes. Individuals pursue their own learning needs within the context of the group, referring to others for support and feedback. Much learning occurs from interactions between group members. However, equal attention must be given to a consideration of what different individuals want to get from the class and bring to the class; and equal opportunity must be given to different individuals to

exercise their judgment or whatever skills and resources they do bring to the class. 3) Learning through projects is one of the most common activities in courses in all disciplines. It can be defined as an activity in which students develop an understanding of a topic through some kind of involvement in an actual (or simulated) real-life problem in which they have some degree of responsibility in designing their learning activities. The key goal of the action stage is to help students move from relying on teachers to being able to select their own achievable goals, make and exercise plans, monitor and evaluate their progress step by step. However, in Taiwan, teachers are usually seen as an authoritarian figure and the teacher-student relationship is usually maintained in a hierarchical way, in which stresses are easily produced. To promote autonomous learning, the classroom phenomenon should be kept less hierarchical and friendly, which will make learners feel relaxed and act more

actively. Littlewood (1999) notices that Asian learners have a high level of proactive autonomy in collaboration and communication when they are amongst equals, but not when they are in a hierarchical educational context, where they lose this proactive autonomy and become the ‘passive’ learners. In fact, most Taiwanese learners just behave the same way. So maintaining a less hierarchical teacher-student relationship in Taiwanese classroom setting is critical to successful application of autonomous language learning. III. Methodology 3.1 Research hypotheses Generally speaking, the fundamental hypothesis of the present experiment is that the modified program would have positive effect on the promotion of learners’ autonomous learning ability. The following are concrete descriptions of all the hypotheses that are supposed to work for the experiment. Hypothesis 1: the program can improve students’ learning effectiveness; Hypothesis 2: the program gives students guidance in their

learning strategies; Hypothesis 3: the program helps to enhance students’ motivation. 3.2 Participants 79 students whose ages ranged from 17 to 21 and with an average age of less than 19 participated in the experiment. All the participants were freshmen from the two classes, who were enrolled in two different classes, covering majors in Biological Technology and Mechanical Engineering. The experiment lasted for one semester Both the two classes used the same textbook under the guidance of the same teacher and followed the same syllabus. The only difference was that one class was under the traditional grammar-translation teaching approach (Control Group), 8 Source: http://www.doksinet and the other was under the learner development program (Experimental Group). The background information about the participants was provided in Table 3.1, including their age, gender, and major, etc. Table 3.1 Background Information about the Participants Age Gender Major items Biological Mechanical

Max Min Mean Male Female Total Technology Engineering EG 20 17 18 29 11 40 0 40 CG 21 17 19 27 12 39 39 0 From table 3.1, it showed that the two classes did not differ significantly on any of the background characteristics. Their pre-test scores, as shown in Table 3.2, revealed that the two classes were of the same level in language performance before the experiment. The average test score of experimental group was 64.8750, with a range of 4700; while that for control group was 648462, with a range of 47.00 And the spread of scores at different levels was kept almost balanced between the two classes of students, with the standard deviation of 11.0504 for the experimental group and 115429 for the control group respectively. Table 3.2 Comparison of Pre-test Scores between Experimental Group and Control Group N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. D Range EG 40 37.00 84.00 64.8750 110504 47.00 CG 39 37.00 84.00 68.8462 115429 47.00 3.3 Instruments (1) Language proficiency test. Two language

proficiency test papers (one before and another after the experiment) were randomly selected from the test paper databank. To guarantee the reliability of the tests, the objective parts of the tests were scored by computer and the subjective parts of the tests were scored blindly by other teachers. The pre-test and post-test scores of the two classes of students were collected then to test the effectiveness of the leaner development program on their language performance, Analysis of data was done with SPSS 16.0 (2) Questionnaire. The “Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL, Oxford, 1990, version 7.0)” questionnaire was delivered to the students during their self-study class twiceat the beginning and the end of the experiment. The SILL questionnaire consists of 50 items in six categories. They are Memory Strategies, A1-A9; Cognitive Strategies B10-B23; Compensation Strategies C24-C29; Metacognitive Strategies D30-D38; Affective Strategies E39-E44 and Social Strategies

F45-F50. A five-point scale is employed to assess how true the statement is, from 1， which refers to “never or almost never true of me” to 5 which means “always or almost always true of me”. To avoid students giving conforming answers, the questionnaire was distributed and collected by a third person, without my personal attendance, which I believe to be able to help students feel free to give their true opinion. (3) Interviews and observations. During the experiment, I paid special attention to two sample students, one high achiever and one low achiever from the experimental group. I observed the way they behave in class and chatted with them occasionally, either in their free time or during the class breaks if time permitted. Besides, learner diaries and classroom observations were also applied to find out whether there existed any changes in students’ attitude and learning behavior. 3.4 Data collection 9 Source: http://www.doksinet The results of the questionnaire and

the scores of pre-test and post-test were put into computers, and SPSS 16.0 statistical analysis was used to analyze them, including the descriptive statistics, means comparison, and paired sample T-test, when data allowed. The observations were taken down and its subsequent themes and patterns were analyzed. The interpretation of different information is contained within the following section. Analysis of the two classes’ pre-test and post-test scores was conducted to test the effectiveness of the program. Paired sample T-test was conducted between the pre-test and post-test scores of the two classes respectively to test if there was significant difference in language performance after the experiment between the two classes. In addition, analysis of the SILL questionnaire was done by means of comparison and paired sample T-test, to find out what learning strategies were used frequently by the students from the two classes, and if the two classes held similar features in terms of

learning strategy before and after the experiment. 3.5 Results and Analysis The results of both the quantitative data and qualitative reports show that students in the experimental group benefited a lot from this learner development program. Analyses focused on comparisons in the following three aspects: the assessments of language achievement in the test; a change of learning strategies; stimulation of interest. 3.51 The effect of the program on improving students’ language performance To test the effectiveness of the learner development program, analysis of students’ post-test scores has been conducted. Table 3.3 Comparison of post-test Scores between EG and CG N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. D Range EG 40 46.00 88.00 71.5750 100534 42.00 CG 39 45.00 87.00 68.0256 113250 42.00 Table 3.3 showed that the students’ scores in the EG were higher than that of the CG after the experiment. The mean score of the EG was 715750, with a range of 4200; while the mean score of the CG was

68.0256, with a range of 4200 Their respective standard deviations were 10.0534 and 113250 As can be seen, students in the EG outperformed those in the CG after the experiment. A paired sample T-test was conducted between the pre-test and post-test scores in the two classes to test further if there was significant difference in students’ language performance before and after the experiment. Table 3.4 Paired Sample T-test between Pre-test and post-test Scores in EG and CG N Mean Std. D T df Sig. Pre-test -6.7000 11.9705 -3.560* 39 .001 &post-test Pre-test CG -3.1795 12.2214 -1.625 38 .112 &post-test From table 3.4, Compared with the CG, the EG achieved some improvement in language performance after the experiment. The results of paired sample T-test showed that, there was a mean difference of 6.7000 in the EG before and after the experiment It suggested that, compared with the pretest, the experimental group made significant progress in the posttest with a gain of 6.7000

in their mean score What’s more, the t value of the EG was -3560, exceeded the critical EG 10 Source: http://www.doksinet value of 3.551, which was significant at the 0001 level, reached the significance value for difference (p< 0.05), showing that there was significant difference between the scores before and after the experiment for the students in the EG. On the other hand, there was a mean difference of 3.1795 in the control group before and after the experiment, it showed that, the control group also made some improvement with a gain of 3.1795 in their mean score, but the t value was -1625, which was significant at the 0.20 level, did not reach the significance value for difference (p= 0.112> 005), so the improvement demonstrated by the students of the CG was not significant In other words, the results seemed to claim that the EG performed better in the language performance test than the CG after they experienced the experiment. 3.52 The effect of the program on the

deployment of learning strategies In formal educational context, students do not automatically accept responsibility for their learning and not all students will spontaneously master the knowledge and personal qualities at the outset of their learning career. Consequently, concern with the development of learner autonomy has given rise to research into the means by which learners can be helped to acquire the insights into language learning, the relevant attitudinal traits and, crucially, the learning strategies they need in order to operate in an informed and self-directed manner. In recent years, studies aimed at training learners to be better at the learning and use of language has been growing. They all emphasize discussions about the use and values of strategies, encourage conscious and purposeful strategy use and transfer of those strategies to other contexts, and allow students to monitor their performance and evaluate the effectiveness of the strategies they are using in an

attempt to help learners consider the factors that affect their learning and discover the learning strategies that suit them best. This tendency is predicted on the assumption that if learners are conscious about and become responsible for the selection, use, and evaluation of their learning strategies, they will become more successful language learners by improving their use of classroom time, completing homework assignments and in-class language tasks more efficiently, becoming more aware of their individual learning needs, taking more responsibility for their language learning, and enhancing their use of the target language out of class. In other words, the ultimate goal of strategy training is to empower students by allowing them to take control of the language learning process. Therefore, to assess the effect of this program, I was not only interested in the language learning outcomes but also interested in the process of the development of learning skills and strategies.

Comparisons were made based on the results of the two sets of SILL questionnaires of the two classes before and after the experiment. 3.521 Comparison of the overall frequency of strategy use between EG and CG before the experiment Table 3.5 shows the descriptive statistics of the six types of learning strategies before the experiment. Table 3.5: Comparison of the overall frequency of strategy use in six SILL categories by the students in EG and CG before the experiment EG CG Item Memory Strategies Cognitive Strategies Compensation Strategies Mean Std .D Mean Std .D 3.4079 3.2104 3.3548 .7182 .5942 .5368 3.0714 3.1221 3.3051 .6017 .5180 .7111 11 Source: http://www.doksinet Metacognitive Strategies 3.1737 .8245 3.2857 .5621 Affective Strategies 3.0240 .8316 2.9095 .4258 Social Strategies 3.3107 .7608 3.2714 .7093 Total 3.1864 3.1608 According to the pre-experiment questionnaire, the frequency of strategy use for both the experimental group and control group was almost at

the same level (Table 3.5) The total mean were 3.1864 and 31608 respectively, which linked in the medium range according to Oxford’s Profile of Results (High: mean from 3.5 to 50; Medium: mean from 25 to 34; Low: mean from 1.0 to 24) There were no great differences in any of the six categories of the frequency of strategy use. The frequencies analysis provided us with the strategies frequently used and less frequently used by all the students. Before the experiment, students of the two classes reported use compensations strategies most frequently. According to Oxford (1990), compensation strategiesguessing when the meaning is not know, or using synonyms or gestures to express meaning of an unknown word or expressionare the heart of strategic competence. Some researchers (Mochizuki, 1999; Hashim & Sahil, 1994) also found that Asian students used compensation strategies most frequently. Perhaps this is a characteristic of Asian students, trying to make up for their lack of

knowledge by other means such as paraphrasing or guessing when learning English as a foreign language. Chamot et al (1987) found that the powerful affective strategies are woefully underusedreported by about 1 in every 20 language users. This was, perhaps, because few studies have examined the frequency of use of affective strategies, and also because learners are not familiar with paying attention to their own feelings as part of the L2 learning process. Memory strategies, which involve the mental processes for entering new information into memory storage and for retrieving it when needed, were the second least reported in the pre-experiment questionnaire. Nyikos & Oxford (1987) report that although memory strategies can be powerful contributors to language learning, university students report using memory strategies infrequently. It might be that students simply do not use memory strategies very much, especially beyond elementary levels of language learning. However, an

alternative explanation might be that they are unaware of how often they actually employ memory strategies. 3.522 Changing take place in employing the learning strategies between the two classes after the experiment After the experiment, some changes did occur in the deployment of learning strategies between the two classes. (See table 36 & table 37) Table 3.6 Paired Sample T-test on learning Strategy use before and after the Experiment in CG Categories Sources Means Std. D Memory Strategies Cognitive Strategies Compensation Strategies Metacognitive Strategies Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test 3.0714 3.0952 3.1221 3.1057 3.3051 3.1562 3.2857 3.2143 .6017 .5631 .5180 .5711 .7111 .4603 .5621 .7523 12 df T Sig. 38 .147 .885 38 -1.142 .186 38 -1.359 .392 38 -0.471 .645 Source: http://www.doksinet Pre-test 2.9095 .4258 Affective 38 1.031 .321 Strategies Post-test 2.9524 .4412 Pre-test 3.2714 .7093 Social 38 -1.331 .219

Strategies Post-test 3.1135 .6838 Table 3.7 Paired Sample T-test on learning Strategy use before and after the Experiment in EG Categories Sources Means Std. D df T Sig. Pre-test 3.0479 .6182 Memory 39 2.516 .026 Strategies Post-test 3.4524 .4051 Pre-test 3.2104 .5942 Cognitive 39 1.009 .199 Strategies Post-test 3.2997 .6216 3.3548 .5368 Compensation Pre-test 39 .748 .662 Strategies Post-test 3.4232 .7396 3.1737 .8254 Metacognitive Pre-test 39 2.515 .034 Strategies Post-test 3.5817 .6112 Pre-test 3.0240 .8316 Affective 39 2.766 .016 Strategies Post-test 3.5238 .4662 Pre-test 3.3107 .7608 Social 39 3.010 .010 Strategies Post-test 3.6857 .3621 By examining the results of the Paired Sample t-test analysis for the change in strategy use within the two classes in Table 3.6 and Table 37, it turned out that the students in the experimental group tended to use four out of the six categories of strategies more frequently after the experiment (Table 3.7) They were metacognitive strategies

(P=0034<005), affective strategies (P=0.016<005), social strategies (P=0010<005), and memory strategies (P=0026<005) In sharp contrast, the t-test result of the CG (Table 3.6) did not show clear changes Below are detailed discussions of each category. Metacognitive strategies are extremely important in language learning. They involve thinking about the learning process, planning for learning, monitoring of comprehension or production while it is taking place, and self-evaluation of learning after the language activity is completed. During the experiment, all students in the experimental group were asked to keep a learning diary, making plans for their own English learning according to their ability, time available, personal learning style, etc; they were also encouraged to notice and correct their own difficulties and errors, to judge their work not only from teachers’ feedback but also from their peer classmates’ and their own evaluation, hence the mean deployment

frequency of the metacognitive strategies in the experimental group was significantly higher than before the program and higher than that of the control group (3.5817>31737; 35817>32143) Besides, the t value of the experimental group in strategy deployment before and after the experiment, 2.515, exceeded the critical value of 2.021 at the 005 level, showing that there was significant difference between the strategy use before and after the experiment for this class. However, the t value of the control group in strategy deployment before and after the experiment was -0.471, with p=0.645>005, not reaching the significance value for difference Therefore, no significant changes in strategy use occurred in control group before and after the experiment. The effect of anxiety in language learning is described as subtle and pervasive. However, the affective strategies like lowering anxiety and self-encouragement are often forgotten by students. 13 Source: http://www.doksinet They

are so used to the teacher-centered classroom and rely on teachers’ encouragement that they do not realize they can provide their own. During the experiment, one student once complained to me that he was worried about his learning because he had not made any progress. I advised him and the whole class that they had to firstly lower their anxiety level by thinking about any minor progress as encouragement and never be discouraged by setbacks. Once they know the methods for relaxing and lowering anxiety, they would apply these strategies to lessen their anxiety. However, strategies directly targeted at anxiety reduction are not the only ones that help learners to calm down. Self-encouragement and self-assessment can help learners realize when they are anxious and indirectly reduce performance anxiety as well. To make the students more effective and enjoyable, I not only offered students as many enjoyable classroom activities as possible, but also tried to show them learn to make

positive statements on their own learning, etc. Therefore, it was not surprising that an increase in strategy deployment in the experimental group would occur after the experiment. Paired Sample T-test in Table 37 showed that the mean frequency of affective strategy deployment in the experimental group was 3.5238, and t value of 2766, which was at the significant level (p=0.016<005) Again, the t value of control group before and after the experiment, 1.031，did not reach the significance value for difference (p= 0321>005) College students complain most frequently about the large amount of vocabulary they have to deal with. It seemed that how to memorize the new words was a difficult problem for most of them. The Paired t-test results showed that the experimental group did use the memory strategies with a significantly higher frequency after the experiment (P=0.026< 005) One explanation might be that some activities like “How do I learn word” provided students with

opportunity to practice the various means of memory strategies or mnemonics to enlarge their vocabulary. Another explanation might be that by getting to be involved in those classroom activities, students gradually reflected their own ways of learning and were aware of the strategies they already used. Some of the memory strategies favored by the students in the experimental group were: connecting the sounds of new words to an image or a picture, making a mental picture of a situation in which a word might be used, using rhymes, physically acting out a word, and remembering new words or phrases by remembering their location on pages, the board, etc. However, the students of the control group, though also complain about the difficulty in memorizing new words, probably did not know about these techniques, thus, they did not show any significant difference in using memory strategies (p=0.885>005) One major influence on learner autonomy arises from the work by the Soviet psychologist

Vygotsky. His emphasis on social relationships in the development of mental abilities and thus also learning underlines the importance of peer support for any form of learning. Central to his theory is the idea of “the zone of proximal development. It is 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” (Vygotsky, 1978). The Vygotskian approach emphasizes the need for a collaborative learning environment where learners are enabled and encouraged to interact and to give each other support with their language learning, a public space characterized by interaction and scaffolding. The group-centered and project-centered activities in this experimented learner development program involve the cooperation among students. With more involvement in the activities in the program aiming to stimulate

cooperation and collaboration, students in the experimental group were used to the new idea and appreciated value in group work. It’s obvious that students in the 14 Source: http://www.doksinet experimental group tended to use the social strategies, especially the cooperative strategies, much more frequently than before, while the control group did not show significant changes. The mean frequency of the social strategies of the experimental group was 3.6857 after the experiment, compared with 3.3107 before the experiment, and the t value before and after the experiment was 3.010, which exceeded the critical value of 2704 at the 001 level, showing significant difference In contrast, the t value of the control group in the deployment of social strategies before and after the experiment was -1.331, with p=0219>005, showing no significant difference As for cognitive strategies and compensation strategies, Paired Sample t-test (Table 3.7) shows that the change in the deployment

frequency of the experimental group before and after the experiment was not significant, with P=.199>005 for cognitive strategies, and P=662>005 for compensations strategies. The reason might be that before the experiment, the experimental group had already used the strategy more often than the control group. After the experiment, though the experimental group did make more progress compared with the control group, this difference was not significant compared with the strategy deployment frequency of the experimental group before the experiment. 3.53 The effect of the program on the enhancement of students’ interest for learning Generally speaking, students in the experimental group showed great enjoyment in learning during the experiment according to my observation. To them, learning was no longer a hard task Instead, it was enjoyable and interesting. Involved in a different teaching and learning setting, students learnt with higher motivation and self-confidence, and some

students were not merely test-oriented any longer. They showed more interest in learning and participating in the activities, thus their self-confidence in communication greatly improved. The students tended to grasp any chances to learn and use English whereas in the past, they waited to be told about the knowledge. They made full use of their faculties to hunt for information from different resources, including an English encyclopedia and all kinds of English language magazines and newspapers. In addition, they visited the library and internet, interviewed people and held discussion sessions regularly. It seemed now that peers, teachers, other people and their life experiences were all rich learning resources for them. One student reported in the interview that in the past he learnt English because it was a compulsory course. He felt that he was forced to learn Now, he thought he had learned many things and skills such as how to do researches with others, how to present views freely

in public, how to assess both others and himself. In short, the result of the experiment is quite satisfactory. It shows that using the content of regular school classroom teaching as a meaningful context for the development of responsibility and autonomy can not only enhance the learning effect, but also save time for the optional strategy training and interest stimulation. Moreover, at the end of the experiment, when I asked the students to vote the effect of the experiment, more than half of them voted for the conduction of this program and some even asked for further experiments in the following semester. IV. Conclusion 4.1 Major findings of the research Through the above quantitative and qualitative analysis, we can draw the following conclusion about this experiment. First, the research used six types of strategies to promote learner autonomy in the experimental group. Specifically, they were memory strategies, cognitive strategies, compensation strategies, metacognitive

strategies, affective strategies and social strategies. After the experiment, 15 Source: http://www.doksinet it turn out that the students in the experimental group tended to use four out of the six categories of strategies more frequently, they were metacognitive strategies, affective strategies, social strategies, and memory strategies, meanwhile, we can see that the experimental group benefited from the program by using these learning strategies. The result also showed that the control group didn’t make any changes in the deployment of learning strategies. Second, before the experiment, we hypothesize that the program can improve students’ learning effectiveness, after experiencing one experimental semester, the results shows that the learners in the experimental group have made a significantly greater achievement in language learning than those in the control group. Third, according to interviews and observations, most of the students in the experimental group reported a

higher interest in language learning after the experiment. However, the control group showed no great difference in all these aspects. 4.2 Teaching implications Findings of the present study indicate, despite some limitations, that a well-designed learner development program does have positive effects on promoting learner autonomy. The results provide implications for English teaching in Taiwan. (1) Integrate learner autonomy into regular English classroom Learner training can also be in the form of optional lectures, which introduce students to the characteristics of autonomous learners step by step. However, as shown in this study, teachers can explicitly and systematically integrate learner autonomy into regular classroom teaching through various activities to promote them to be autonomous. During the course, the subjective preferences felt by the learner are crucial for effective language learning, therefore, some kind of negotiation is needed between the teacher and learner.

Information has to be exchanged about roles and expectations, both teachers’ and learners’ awareness of each other’s needs and resources has to be raised and compromises have to be reached between what learners expect and want and what the teacher feels he/she can and ought to provide. (2) Procedures for implementing learner autonomy Just as Brown (1994) suggests, not all learners are alike. The first step in implementing learner autonomy is to assess the needs of the learners, including their past experience with language learning, current language proficiency, etc. Teachers should adjust their plans and teaching activities to the learners’ needs and wants within the domain of general teaching plans, if it is necessary. Secondly, select or design carefully the program that is suitable for the students, taking account of learner differences and time available. No single program fully addresses all the needs of students. Yet if success can be measured by high academic

performance and satisfaction with oneself, then the specific program is clearly valid. Thirdly, carry out the program systematically and explicitly. Teachers inform the students fully with the aims of the activities included, the underlying rationale and some further suggestions on how to use them. Finally, it should be noted that ongoing evaluation and revision of the program is necessary to ensure its success. Teachers can get insightful feedback either from the learners or from their own observations. (3) Adopt new roles for teachers Promoting learner autonomy does not necessarily mean a complete rejection of teacher authority. A complete rejection of teacher authority might be dangerous In fact, the learners need a great deal of guidance and feedback from the teacher in order to learn to organize their work on 16 Source: http://www.doksinet their own. The specific help, support and encouragement from teachers are a central element in the process. In such case, a “teacher”

means more than the traditional teacher who teaches knowledge As put by Cohen (2000), teachers should act as change agents in the classroomshifting the responsibility for learning more onto the shoulders of the students themselves, and taking on a series of roles as diagnosticians, learner trainers, coaches, coordinators, language learners and researchers. 4.3 Limitations of the research and expectations It is clear that students should have a major role in their own learning from the professional literature. Their involvement is critical to producing learning that is both lasting and important Consequently, teachers should facilitate them to be autonomous and independent learners. This paper has given strong support for the claim that integrating learner autonomy promotion into regular classroom in EFL teaching is feasible in Taiwanese foreign language teaching context. But, it is not without its own problems and faces some obstacles. First, this study is an attempt to investigate the

impact of a learner development program on promoting students’ autonomous leaning ability. Since both learner autonomy and learner training are extremely complex, and all the participants in the study were non-English majors from the same university, the findings from the research can be only certain to be applied to learners as such. Whether it can be applied to other English learners has to be left for further research. Second, owing to the time limit, the conduction of the program is relatively short, and the notion of autonomy embodied in the activities is still limited. So teachers should consciously explore and modify materials for future use. Furthermore, carrying out such kind of learner development program makes extra demands on the teacher’s time and energy, makes advance planning more difficult, and, as a result of the developmental nature of course structure, can add stress. To conclude, the research is only an attempt in fostering learner autonomy in Taiwan. Some

problems do appear, various constraints do exist, but the author has noticed changes in students, which is an indication that students can take responsibility of their learning. Future researches can replicate this program cross-sectionally and longitudinally with larger samples in collaborative and comparative studies. REFERENCES Benson, P. 1996 “Concepts of autonomy in language learning” In Pemberton, R, Li, E S L, Or W. W F, Pierson, H D (eds) Taking control: Autonomy in Language Learning Hong Kong: HKU Press: 27-34. Brown, H. D 1994 Principles of Language Learning and Teaching Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall Regents. Campbell, C. 2004 Teaching Second Language Writing: Interacting with Text Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Cohen, A. D 2000 Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Charnot, A. U 1987 “The learning strategies of ESL students” In Wenden, A& Rubin, J. (eds) Learner

Strategies in Language Learning Cambridge: Prentice Hall Gardner, D. & Miller, L 2002 Establishing Self-Access: from Theory to Practice Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. Hashim, R. A & Sahil, S A S 1994 “Examining learners’ language learning strategies” 17 Source: http://www.doksinet RELC Journal 25/2: 1-20. Holec, H. 1980 “Learner training: meeting needs in self-directed learning” In Altman, H. B & James, CV (eds) Foreign Language Learning: meeting individual needs. Oxford: Pergamon Holec, H. 1981 Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning Oxford: Pergamon Lee, I. 1998 Supporting greater autonomy in language learning ELT Journal 52/4: 282-89 Little, D. 1991 Learner Autonomy Definitions, Issues and Problems Dublin: Authentik Littlewood, W. 1999 “Defining and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts” System. 20 (1):71-74 Mochizuki, A. 1999 “Language learning strategies used by Japanese university students” RELC Journal 30/2: 101-13.

Nunan, D. 1988 The Learner-centered Curriculum: A Study in Second Language Teaching Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nunan, D. 1997 “Designing and adapting materials to encourage learner autonomy” In Benson, P. & Voller, P (eds) Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning New York: Addison Wesley Longman. Nyikos, M. & Oxford, R 1987 “Strategies for foreign language learning and second language acquisition”. Paper presented at the conference on SLA and FLL, Illinois, Champaign-Urbana. O’Malley, J. M, Chamot, A U 1990 Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oxford, R. L 1990 Language Learning Strategies: what every teacher should know New York: Newbury House Publishers. Scharle, A. & Szabo, A 2000 Learner Autonomy Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Schuller, T. 1979 Recurrent Education And Lifelong Learning New York: Kogan Page, London / Nichols Company. Sinclair, B. 1996 “Materials design for the

promotion of learner autonomy: how explicit is “explicit”?” In Pemberton, R., Li, E S L, Or W W F, Pierson, H D (eds.) Taking control: Autonomy in Language Learning, Hong Kong: HKU Press Vygotsky, L. S 1978 Mind in society USA Harvard 18