Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching
ISSN: 1750-1229 (Print) 1750-1237 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rill20
Exploring EFL teachers’ beliefs about and practices
of learner autonomy across experience and
licensure
Bijan Ahmadianzadeh, Zohreh Seifoori & Nasrin Hadidi Tamjid
To cite this article: Bijan Ahmadianzadeh, Zohreh Seifoori & Nasrin Hadidi Tamjid
(2020) Exploring EFL teachers’ beliefs about and practices of learner autonomy across
experience and licensure, Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 14:2, 97-113, DOI:
10.1080/17501229.2018.1501694
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2018.1501694
Published online: 01 Aug 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 753
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rill20
INNOVATION IN LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING
2020, VOL. 14, NO. 2, 97–113
https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2018.1501694
Exploring EFL teachers’ beliefs about and practices of learner
autonomy across experience and licensure
Bijan Ahmadianzadeh
, Zohreh Seifoori and Nasrin Hadidi Tamjid
Department of English, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran
ABSTRACT
Learner autonomy (LA) has become an intriguing topic in the field of
language teaching. This study explored Iranian EFL teachers’ beliefs
about and practices of LA in light of two under-researched variables,
namely experience and licensure. To this end, a cluster sample of 50
teachers were chosen who were further categorized into TEFL versus
non-TEFL based on their degree and then into novice versus
experienced, based on their teaching experience. The data were gleaned
utilizing the Learner Autonomy Questionnaire [Borg and Al-Busaidi 2012.
Learner Autonomy: English Language Teacher’ Beliefs and Practices.
London: The British Council], a class observation form designed based
on the questionnaire, and a semi-structured interview. The results of
two-way ANOVA revealed significant differences in the participants’
beliefs toward autonomy in terms of experience and licensure and
significant differences in the autonomy-promoting practices only in
terms of experience. The results of the interview indicated that the
teachers overlooked the significance of strategic investment in
promoting LA and conceived of policy-makers and learners’ expectations
as two factors defying autonomy-promoting practice. The findings carry
a number of implications for teacher education.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 21 May 2018
Accepted 15 July 2018
KEYWORDS
Learner autonomy; EFL
teachers; licensure;
experience; beliefs; practices
Introduction
Experts in teacher education have long acknowledged the close ties between language pedagogy
and the overall social conditions of the contexts in which learning takes place. This has led to reformulation of the pedagogical aims and objectives with a focus not only on the teaching content but
on the way learning is to happen. Teachers, on the one hand, are now orchestrating students’ efforts
toward achievement of course objectives and, on the other hand, are designing and employing
teaching and learning activities that can lead them along the regulation continuum from object/
other-regulated toward self-regulated autonomous learning experiences. This bilateral emphasis is
in line with the close link that has been established between educational contexts and the larger
social contexts in which learning takes place. It also accentuates the paramount role that the
former can play in reforming the latter through training independent individuals who have been
equipped with thinking skills and are capable of critically analyzing and regulating not only their
own learning but also the social community in which they live. The relatively recent massive theoretical and empirical upsurge in autonomous learning emanated from the educational philosophy
which acknowledges learner emancipation and independency as the ultimate goal of education. It
is assumed that autonomous learners can more efficiently resist social injustice and strive to preserve
largely acknowledged human rights including the right to learn and to know.
CONTACT Zohreh Seifoori
seifoori@iaut.ac.ir
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
98
B. AHMADIANZADEH ET AL.
Like any other characteristic of the post-method era, learner autonomy (LA) is a multi-faceted
concept which might be envisaged at a micro and a macro level. The frequently quoted definition
of LA as achieving the ability to manage one’s learning (Holec 1981) represents the micro-level
definition of LA which is promoted through scrutiny of all relevant variables that may have a
bearing on various aspects of the language learning process, particularly in instructional contexts
and within the boundaries of a language classroom. The primary focus is on using various objects
and techniques that help teachers lead learners toward self-regulation and taking charge of their
own learning both in and out of the class (Thanasoulas 2000). The emphasis on LA at a micro level
seems justifiable with regard to the macro-level interpretation which aims to prepare learners to function efficiently as enlightened citizens who can cope with the intricacies of the social context in which
they live and promote the living standards of their community (Borg and Al-Busaidi 2012). It is along
this socially-oriented conception of autonomy that Jiménez Raya, Lamb, and Vieira (2007) view it as a
‘competence to develop as a self-determined, socially responsible, and critically aware participant in
(and beyond) educational environments within a vision of education as (inter) personal empowerment and social transformation’ (1).
Since its emergence in the 1970s, LA has provided the incentive for radical restructuring of
language teaching pedagogy via introduction of totally new strands that called into question the
legitimacy of many traditional practices (Allwright 1988). This new trend owes its conceptual and
empirical rigor to research findings that have reaffirmed its compatibility with the aims of progressive
education (Benson 2011, 2013; Camilleri 2007; Lamb and Reinders 2008, to name a few). Autonomous
learners are described as more effective learners (Borg and Al-Busaidi 2012) who are risk-takers, tolerant, and outgoing toward the target language (Thanasoulas 2000).
Despite the legitimacy of autonomous learning at the micro level of language learning and the
macro level of social emancipation and prosperity (Borg and Al-Busaidi 2012; Oxford 2008), the
achievement of this significant goal relies heavily on the beliefs and practices of teachers who can
develop this competency in learners directly or indirectly. They can either pay lip-service to LA but
regard it as a catchy and empty slogan and while in their classes do like other traditional teachers
or strive to apply the principles of autonomous learning through techniques like needs analysis,
negotiated syllabus, strategic investment, and alternative process-oriented assessment techniques.
Such learner-oriented techniques have been underscored by the advocates of LA with reference
to restrictions of students’ presence in pedagogical contexts and the paucity of the instructional
time, on the one hand, and learners’ need to be equipped with techniques and strategies to
extend their learning out of the classroom, on the other.
Viewing learning as a mediated process that begins intermentally underscores the responsibility
of teachers who may or may not assume their role in this process. Two of the very important teacher
variables are experience and previous education as university students. The former is conceived of as
shaping and reshaping the beliefs and practices of teachers at any stage of teaching (Phipps and Borg
2009), and the latter is deemed to impress how teachers view all the aspects of their teaching practicum in the forthcoming years (Freeman 1992). There is a commonsensical view that experience promotes teacher effectiveness (Rice 2010).
Nunan (2004) and Kuzborska (2011) have linked the paramount role of teachers to various pedagogical decisions they make at different stages of their teaching that are heavily contingent upon the
beliefs they hold about different aspects of the teaching and learning processes including LA.
However, it was in the late 2000s that teachers’ views toward the very nature of learning and their
voices of what autonomy meant to them began to be amply and systematically explored in isolation
and in relation to practical aspects of their classroom teaching (e.g. Al Asmari 2013; Anderson 2015;
Borg and Al-Busaidi 2011, 2012).
Despite numerous studies addressing teachers’ and learners’ beliefs and practices of LA, very few,
if any, has ever approached these beliefs and practices from the perspective of teachers’ teaching
experience and licensure. In response to the growing demand for English teachers worldwide, we
can witness the rush of many individuals who pursue a successful career in language teaching.
INNOVATION IN LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING
99
Many of these applicants are non-TEFL English-related graduates who have not been trained as TEFL
teachers and start their teaching career soon after they pass concise introductory training courses
which are mostly focused on practical aspects of teaching without due attention to underlying conceptual understanding of relevant issues. Hence, an unfulfilled research potential is the investigation
of the extent to which diversity in teaching experience and licensure can influence practicing teachers’ beliefs and practices of LA. The purpose of the present study was to explore this potential.
Licensing is ‘the legal process of permitting a person to practice a trade or profession once he or
she has met certification standards’ (Cronin 1983, 175) and in the context of Iran this process is
geared around in-depth coverage of courses such as Teaching Methodology, Testing, Practicum,
etc. for TEFL teachers and cursory coverage of the aforementioned courses for non-TEFL teachers.
Although licensure is a vibrant undertaking in Iran, the issue of its contributions to teachers’
beliefs and practices of LA has been under-researched and this study aims to explore this void.
Literature review
Studies which have investigated teachers’ beliefs and practices with regard to LA can be categorized
into: 1) teachers’ beliefs (Bashiri, Hadidi, and Seifoori 2014 ; Bullock 2011), 2) teachers’ beliefs and
practices (Al Asmari 2013; Borg and Al-Busaidi 2011; Borg and Al-Busaidi 2012; Dogan 2015), and
3) teachers’ and learners’ beliefs and practices (Anderson 2015; Farahani 2013) toward LA.
Borg and Al-Busaidi (2012) explored language teachers’ beliefs of LA with respect to their practices
of autonomy-friendly techniques they employed while teaching. They developed a questionnaire to
elicit teachers’ beliefs and carried out interviews with the participants to discuss their instructional
practices of autonomy. Collectively, the findings revealed that the teachers endorsed engaging learners in the decision-making process owing to the positive impact of this involvement on learners’
motivation and subsequently on their learning. Nevertheless, the study was delimited in terms of
actual practice since there was no observational measure of what was happening in real classrooms.
In the context of Iran, Farahani (2013) compared 110 teachers’ and 305 learners’ conceptions of LA.
The findings indicated mismatches in the groups’ perceptions of lapses in the learners’ autonomy;
teachers accused learners of displaying low autonomy and learners expressed their unfulfilled expectations regarding their teachers’ autonomy-friendly practices.
Research has supported the primacy of teaching experience in enhancing teaching effectiveness
(Kane, Rockoff, and Staiger 2008; Kini and Podolsky 2016). Among attributes that distinguish
experienced teachers from novice teachers are positive attitudes toward teaching and effective
classroom management (Mayall 2006) and preoccupation with pedagogy and student outcomes
rather than learner reactions (Gatbonton 2008). In the Iranian context, Akbari and Moradkhani
(2010) explored the efficacy beliefs of 447 with regard to teaching experience. The results of the
study revealed that experienced teachers outperformed their novice counterparts in terms of their
instructional practices.
The type of licensure has also been reported to influence teachers’ perceptions of teaching-related
concepts (e.g. Akbari and Dadvand 2011; Boyd et al. 2007; Karimi 2011; Nazari 2016). Karimi (2011)
investigated 6 teachers’ variations in producing Pedagogical Thought Units (PTUs) in light of their
licensure. The participant teachers were divided into Standard Licensed (SL) – TEFL holders –, Alternatively Licensed (AL) – English-related fields like English Translation –, and Non-Licensed (NL) who
had attained English proficiency in private language institutes. The results indicated that the SL
teachers produced a higher number of pedagogical thought units compared to the other teachers.
Collectively, the results of the aforementioned studies point to the differential impact of licensure on
the beliefs and practices of teachers who hold different degrees.
The research findings seem to underscore the necessity of taking into account the local and situated nature of all instructional variables including LA. Although major concepts of learner-centered
instruction like LA are based on explicit and straightforward underlying principles, they cannot be
limited to a set of one-size-fits-all practical techniques that teachers can receive top-down. Rather,
100
B. AHMADIANZADEH ET AL.
such concepts should be conceived of as closely linked to the socio-cultural and political contextual
elements that can exert tremendous direct and indirect restrictions on the extent to which teachers
can remain loyal to them. From this perspective, we may expect a proliferation of practical techniques
that can be justified in terms of the immediate context in which the teaching is taking place.
Language teachers themselves are among those significant contextual elements that can greatly
impact implementation of LA.
One of the teacher-related variables that seems to be bi-directionally linked to their beliefs and
practices is experience. Instructional practices are assumed to be greatly influenced by deepseated and fervent beliefs that have their roots in individuals’ experience as a learner and in the
course of time challenge long-held beliefs and help to foster them (Phipps and Borg 2009; Richardson
1996). Experienced teachers are presumed to learn more from their experience and gain higher
expertise (Bigelow 2000). However, whether years of teaching experience can have any comparative
impact on teachers’ beliefs and practices of LA has received insufficient, if any, attention in the
literature.
Additionally, licensure or the formal education student teachers receive at graduate and postgraduate levels has been found to play a significant role in shaping and reshaping their beliefs
and practices (Cabaroglu and Roberts 2000; Peacock 2001; Karimi 2011; Karimi and Nazari 2017;
Nazari 2016). It has been conceived of as the ‘major quality control mechanism for the teaching profession’ (Blanton et al. 2006, 116).
A cursory look at the teacher education literature shows the paucity in research concerning
how teachers of different licensure types conceive of LA and how their perceptions interact
with their experience to influence their practice. This gap is more conspicuous in the context
of Iranian EFL which is characterized by the rush for learning English and the wide range of teachers from different educational backgrounds teaching English at private institutes. Hence, the
current study was conducted to bridge this gap by exploring Iranian EFL teachers’ beliefs and
practices of LA in light of their experience and licensure. Specifically, the study addressed the following questions:
(1) Do EFL teachers participating in this study differ significantly in their beliefs toward LA across
experience and licensure?
(2) Do EFL teachers participating in this study differ significantly in their autonomy-promoting
instructional practices across experience and licensure?
(3) What challenges do the EFL teachers participating in this study face in promoting LA?
Method
Participants
The cluster research sample in this mixed-method study comprised 100 teachers who were given
the questionnaire to fill. From this sample, 20 questionnaires were partially completed and were
thus discarded. From the remaining 80 questionnaires, 50 were selected randomly to be deployed
for data analysis. These 50 teachers, both female (N = 35) and male (N = 15) whose age ranged
from 20 to 33, were the ones whose questionnaires were utilized to explore their beliefs
toward learner autonomy. Those participants with one to three years of experience were regarded
as novice and those with experience of above six years were considered as experienced (25 teachers per group). The TEFL participants were those holding BA in TEFL while those holding
degrees in English Literature, English Translation, and Linguistics were regarded as non-TEFL participants. Owing to executive problems, it was not possible to observe all the teachers’ classrooms.
Hence, a representative purposive sample of 15, TEFL (N = 8) and non-TEFL (N = 7), novice (N = 5)
and experienced (N = 10), were selected from the initial sample to be videotaped. They ranged in
age between 22-29.
INNOVATION IN LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING
101
Instruments
Three instruments were utilized to collect the data: the LA Questionnaire (henceforth LAQ) designed
by Borg and Al-Busaidi (2012), a researcher-made observation form that was based on the questionnaire and was piloted and validated prior to the study, and a semi-structured interview. The LAQ was
a 37-item scale, seven of which were not compatible with the context of the study and were thus
omitted. The reported reliability of the 37-item scale was .83 (Borg and Al-Busaidi 2012) and that
of 30-item scale was .82 which, based on Cohen, Manion, and Morrison (2007), are both acceptably
high. The lowest score obtained in the questionnaire could be 30 and the highest score could be 150.
Teachers’ actual use of autonomy-promoting activities was quantified via a 5-point Likert-type
observation form (Appendix A) comprising five factors: engaging learners in curriculum (items 4, 7,
12, 13, 19, 22, and 23), learning how to learn (items 2, 5, 11, 24, 28, and 29), out of class activities
(items 2, 6, and 26), learners’ participation (items 4, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, and 25), and (self) evaluation
(items 19, 27, and 30). The Likert levels included 1 to 5 (never to always) that reflected the frequency
with which the teachers employed autonomy-promoting activities. The lowest and highest scores
obtained could be 22 and 110, respectively.
The content validity of the observation form was checked by a panel of five university professors
teaching TEFL courses, one of them was an internationally licensed teacher trainer and mentor. In
addition, the scale was piloted in three classes by three supervisors to check its reliability. Since
the items of the observation form were congruent with their corresponding items in the LAQ, this
stage did not yield in changing the items.
In order to explore the teachers’ views about LA in more depth and the challenges arising when
teachers attempt to apply principles of LA, a semi-structured interview (Appendix B) was run with the
15 teachers whose classes had been video-recorded. The interview comprised four questions, each
accompanied by their follow-ups. The first question explored how teachers conceive of the LA; the
second question explored the teachers’ views on the importance of LA; the third question investigated what autonomy-promoting instructional practices the teachers implement in their classes;
and the last question explored what challenges the teachers face in developing autonomy in their
learners. The average duration of the interviews was 15 minutes.
Procedure
At first, the LAQ was distributed among 100 teachers. From this sample, 20 questionnaires were partially completed and were thus discarded. From the remaining 80 questionnaires, 50 were selected
randomly to be deployed for data analysis. The selected 50 teachers were once categorized into a)
TEFL and non-TEFL groups and once into b) novice and experienced teachers. The collected data
were categorized based on the participants’ experience and licensure.
In the second stage of the study, three intermittent video-recorded teaching sessions of TEFL/nonTEFL and novice/experienced teachers were selected to be observed by two experienced observers
independently. The observers were precisely briefed on the observation form and the purpose of the
study prior to the observations. They further delineated the participant teachers’ autonomy-promoting instructional practices based on the validated researcher-made observation form. Each class of
the teachers lasted approximately 90 minutes totaling 45 hours. At this stage the inter-rater reliability
of the research data was checked which yielded a .95 value of consistency. The observed classes were
at intermediate level based on the policies of the institutes. The materials covered by the teachers
included Family and Friends 6 (Quintana, 2010) and Four Corners 1 (Richards and Bohlke 2017).
The last phase of the data collection was to collect the data from the semi-structured interviews
which were conducted to elicit 15 teachers’ views (being recorded digitally and through face-to-face
and phone-conversation modes) on the challenges they face in promoting LA. These were selected
from different institutes of Shahindej and Tabriz, Iran so that they could represent both groups of
experienced/novice and TEFL and non-TEFL participants.
102
B. AHMADIANZADEH ET AL.
Data analysis
The research data obtained from the questionnaire and the observation form were analyzed quantitatively via calculating descriptive statistics and two-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for comparing the teachers’ beliefs and practices. The teachers’ views toward practical challenges to LA were
interpreted qualitatively based on the guidelines delineated by Cohen, Manion, and Morrison
(2007). That is, the teachers’ recorded responses were initially transcribed and coded, looking for
the themes emerging from the responses. Then, the themes were further compared, refined, and subcategorized based on the frequency of the teachers’ responses.
Results
The first step in the data analysis was to calculate the descriptive statistics pertaining to the participants’ stated beliefs about LA, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1 shows that the TEFL participants reported more positive beliefs (M = 109.78, SD = 4.67)
than the non-TEFL group (M = 105.91, SD = 3.32). With regard to licensure, the TEFL teachers
were found to hold more positive beliefs (M = 109.78, SD = 4.67) compared to the non-TEFL
ones (M = 105.91, SD= 3.32). Among the novice teachers, the views of those holding TEFL degrees
(M = 106.33, SD = 3.72) were more positive than the ones holding non-TEFL degrees (M = 103.08,
SD = 1.18). Regarding teaching experience, experienced TEFL teachers (M = 113.23, SD = 2.48)
revealed more positive views compared to experienced non-TEFL teachers (M = 108.75, SD = 2.09).
Overall, experienced TEFL and non-TEFL teachers reported higher LA-oriented beliefs (M = 111.08,
SD = 3.21) compared to novice TEFL and non-TEFL teachers (M = 104.64, SD = 3.13), respectively.
Yet, to test the significance of the observed difference in the participants’ beliefs toward LA, we
conducted a two-way between-groups ANOVA, the results of which are displayed in Table 2.
As displayed in Table 2, the main effect of licensure on the participants’ beliefs was statistically
significant, F (1,46) = 29.40, p = .00, with a large effect size (partial eta squared = .39). There was
also a statistically significant main effect for teaching experience, F (1.46) = 77.62, p = .00), and the
effect size was large (partial eta squared = .69). The interaction effect of licensure and teaching experience on the teachers’ beliefs, however, did not turn out to be significant, F = .73, p < .05. In other
words, experienced TEFL and non-TEFL teachers’ beliefs were significantly more LA-oriented than
those of their novice counterparts. By the same token, TEFL teachers, both experienced and
novice held more positive beliefs than their non-TEFL counterparts.
To explore the participant teachers’ autonomy-promoting instructional practices, as posed in
research question two, we first calculated the descriptive statistics based on the observation form.
Table 3 presents the results.
As indicated in Table 3, the novice TEFL and non-TEFL teachers obtained lower scores for their
autonomy-promoting practices (M = 64.83, SD = 4.49) compared to the experienced counterparts
(M = 83.50, SD = 4.92), displaying a remarkable difference. Moreover, among the novice participants,
TEFL teachers (M = 68.00, SD = 5.29) outperformed the non-TEFL teachers (M = 61.66, SD = 4.49) while
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for beliefs towards learner autonomy.
Licensure
TEFL
non-TEFL
Total
Experience
Experienced
Novice
Total
Experienced
Novice
Total
Experienced
Novice
Total
Mean
113.23
106.33
109.78
108.75
103.08
105.91
111.08
104.64
107.86
Std. Deviation
2.48
3.72
4.67
2.09
1.18
3.32
3.21
3.13
4.52
N
13
12
25
12
13
25
25
25
50
INNOVATION IN LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING
103
Table 2. Tests of between-subjects effects with beliefs as dependent variable.
Source
Intercept
Licensure
Experience
Licensure *Experience
Error
Total
Type III Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Partial Eta Squared
580,626.43
186.77
493.01
4.67
292.14
582,691.00
1
1
1
1
46
50
580,626.43
186.77
493.01
4.67
6.35
91,422.38
29.40
77.62
.73
.00
.00
.00
.39
.99
.39
.62
.01
among the experienced participants, it was the non-TEFL group (M = 84.00, SD = 5.03) whose practice
was slightly more autonomy-promoting than the TEFL group (M = 83.00, SD = 5.29). To probe the significance of the observed difference in the participants’ instructional practices, we ran another twoway ANOVA, the results of which are presented in Table 4.
Moreover, as shown in Table 4, the main effect of teaching experience on the participants’ practices was significant (F = 49.32, p < .05), showing a large effect size (partial eta squared = .81).
However, the main effect of licensure on the teachers’ practices was not significant, F = 1.00,
p > .05. The interaction effect of teaching experience and licensure on the teachers’ autonomy-promoting instructional practices did not reach a significant level, F = 1.90, p > .05. In other words, what
could significantly influence teachers’ practical use of LA activities was their teaching experience, not
their licensure.
The third research question addressed the challenges the teachers face in actualizing their autonomy-promoting cognitions. This question had been formulated to take into account the dynamic
nature of research in teacher education and in accordance with Borg’s (2009) emphasis on the significance of exploring the contextual factors impacting teachers’ beliefs and practices. We also
intended to triangulate the data collection process to arrive at a more precise understanding of
what the participating teachers thought about LA and barriers to LA-friendly classroom activities.
Each of the main four questions were accompanied by follow-up questions that were posed based
on the participants’ responses (see Appendix B). To analyze the teachers’ responses, the data were
thematized and the percentages of the responses were calculated and tabulated (Table 5).
As indicated in Table 5, the first item aimed to elicit the teachers’ conceptualization of LA. The teachers conceived of LA as learner decision-making (40%), learner self-evaluation (28.2%), learner
Table 3. Descriptive statistics for autonomy-promoting instructional practices.
Experience
Experienced
Novice
Total
Licensure
TEFL
non-TEFL
Total
TEFL
non-TEFL
Total
TEFL
non-TEFL
Total
Mean
83.00
84.00
83.50
68.00
61.66
64.83
79.25
74.42
76.83
Std. Deviation
5.29
5.03
4.92
5.29
4.49
4.49
8.32
12.62
10.44
N
6
4
10
2
3
5
8
7
15
Table 4. Tests of between-subjects effects with instructional practices as dependent variable.
Source
Intercept
Experience
Licensure
Experience * Licensure
Error
Total
Type III Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Partial Eta Squared
70,408.88
1115.02
22.75
43.02
248.66
90,463.00
1
1
1
1
11
15
70,408.88
1115.02
22.75
43.02
22.60
3114.60
49.32
1.00
1.90
.00
.00
.33
.19
.99
.81
.08
.14
104
B. AHMADIANZADEH ET AL.
Table 5. The teachers’ responses to interview questions.
Q1: What does LA mean to you?
Learner decision-making (40%)
Learner self-evaluation (28.2%)
Learner upgrading (22.5%)
Learner self-monitoring (9.3%)
Q2: Is it important (desirable) for you to have autonomous learners?
Improvement based on learner needs and interests (26%)
Outcomes enhancement (21%)
Lifelong learning (18.4%)
Increasing learner self-confidence (15.6%)
Educational upgrading (9.7%)
Promoting learner self-monitoring (9.3%)
Q3: How is it possible for you to develop autonomous learners? (techniques)
Out of class activities (24%)
Expressing opinions on activities (20.4%)
Explicit explanation of the concept (16.8%)
Cooperative class atmosphere (14.5%)
Self-reliance (12.2%)
Learners choosing assignments (12.1%)
Q4: What problems do you face in developing LA in your classrooms?
Learner unfamiliarity with the concept (30.6%)
Inadequacy of professional development initiatives and teacher inexperience (22.7%)
Limitations posed by policy makers (20.4%)
Learner proficiency level (15.5%)
Tensions between teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about autonomy (10.8%)
upgrading (22.5%), and learner self-monitoring (9.3%), respectively. Surprisingly, the interviewees
totally ignored strategy training altogether and failed to link self-monitoring and self-evaluation to
metacognitive strategies that have been underscored as indispensable components of autonomous
learning. While acknowledging the significance of autonomous learning, they tended to emphasize the role of teachers’ scaffolding and guidance in promoting LA. For example, one of the teachers
stated:
In my opinion, learner autonomy means the learner is not dependent on the teacher and he/she studies out of the
class; for example, if we want to work on grammar, the learner studies the structure at home and in the class we
work on the details. Learner autonomy is not learning without the teacher.
Such views might reflect fundamental misconceptions English teachers share concerning the
product-oriented nature of autonomous learning that is embodied as out of class self-study.
However, what seems to be missing is the strategic investment as the process through which this
ultimate goal is to be achieved through strategy awareness-raising and training and enriching learners’ strategic repertoire.
When asked about the desirability of promoting learner capacity for independent learning, the
teachers highlighted the compatibility of LA with learners’ needs and interests (26%) and its
effectiveness in enhancing outcomes (21%), lifelong learning (18.4%), learner self-confidence
(15.6%), educational upgrading (9.7%), and learner self-monitoring (9.3%). The participants also
explicated their propensity toward LA in terms of the role it has in alleviating teaching pressure.
They described independent learners as those who progress farther and faster, are critical of their
teachers and help to broaden and deepen their teachers’ knowledge, are more curious and
actively involved in class activities, bear responsibility, demonstrate willingness to learn, motivation and self-confidence and are more likely to transfer classroom content to their lives. For
example:
You know, I think that autonomous learners become better than other learners. In addition, they learn the topics faster
and you can feel their progress more vividly. These learners can also criticize what the teacher says more than those
who take what the teacher says for granted. This in turn helps the teacher to know that he/she should always be prepared and master the content.
INNOVATION IN LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING
105
As for the techniques that could enhance self-governed learning, teachers provided verbal consent
for out of class activities (24%), expressing opinions on activities (20.4%), explicit explanation of the
concepts (16.8%), cooperative class atmosphere (14.5%), self-reliance (12.2%), and learners’ selection
of assignments (12.1%). None of the participants acknowledged the significance of strategic investment as a prerequisite for autonomous learning. Further scrutiny of the techniques employed by the
interviewees revealed a number of follow-up themes including accentuating the significance of prior
preparation for class activities and follow-up activities to consolidate newly-learned knowledge,
establishing a warm and welcoming atmosphere, close relationship with the learners, and engaging
learners in teaching the content. For example, one of the teachers added:
I teach the first lesson myself; from there on, I have them take part in teaching the activities. I do this gradually through
having them present a small part of the lesson and then many parts. I also provide enough feedback on their
performance.
Finally, with regards to the impediments facing the teachers in developing autonomy, the participants stressed learner unfamiliarity with the concept of autonomous learning (30.6%), limitations
posed by policy makers (20.4%), inadequacy of professional development initiatives and teacher
inexperience (22.7%), learner proficiency level (15.5%), and tensions between teachers’ and learners’
beliefs about autonomy (10.8%). The themes further underscored by the interviewees were density of
school assignments and taking instructional opportunities lightly, short-term achievement expectations of policy-makers that limit teachers’ creativity, product-oriented curricular expectations and
one-size-fits-all type of materials imposed on both teachers and learners. For example:
Learners think that teachers should do everything in the class and we, as teachers, are in blame. Policy-makers
influence both teachers and learners. In addition, we have to cover the curriculum and not to move beyond it.
Discussion
The findings emerging from the present study verified that licensure was one of the determinants of
teachers’ beliefs toward LA. This might be explicated in terms of the most solid theoretical foundation
that is laid for TEFL graduates during their years of university studies in a wide range of technical
courses like critical analysis of teaching methods and methodology, principles of teaching language
skills, advanced language testing, theories of second language acquisition and other ELT-related
courses. Such courses deal with the principles of post-method language pedagogy from different perspectives and aim to enrich student teachers’ understanding of crucial concepts like Kumaravadivelu’s (2003) macro-strategies which demonstrate ways of promoting learner autonomy and
maximizing educational outcomes via applying a set of relevant micro-strategies. One of these
macro-strategies emphasizes the role of LA and delineates ways of involving learners in strategic
self-regulated learning. Such perceptual background is normally established theoretically through
introduction of widely accepted global principles governing second language learning and teaching,
and is accompanied by interactive class discussions of local educational problems. The resulting
glocal declarative knowledge seems to encourage fervent positive beliefs toward LA.
In comparison, non-TEFL practitioners who lacked such a theoretical basis and had more restricted
perceptual understanding of LA could have encountered autonomy related concepts merely in
concise teacher training courses (TTCs), which seem to have been less effective in enhancing LAfriendly beliefs. The difference in the two groups’ beliefs toward the very nature of autonomous learning accentuates the need to extend the content of various TTCs to embrace autonomous learning.
The finding regarding the significance of licensure is in line with Karimi (2011) who found significant differences between teachers across licensure and proposed that variety in licensure type may
result in different conceptions. The findings, however, contrast with those of Nazari (2016) who compared TEFL and non-TEFL teachers’ beliefs and found no significant difference between them.
Teaching experience was also found to significantly influence the participants’ beliefs toward LA.
This finding is in line with Bashiri, Tamjid, and Seifoori ( 2014) who reported a significant difference in
106
B. AHMADIANZADEH ET AL.
the beliefs of novice and experienced teachers regarding LA. The findings might be explained with
regard to the reinforcing and refining role of experience in dispelling misconceptions novice teachers
may initially have when they embark on their teaching career. Among such misconceptions, as stated
by Agustina (2017), is misinterpreting learner autonomy and self-instruction as synonymous and mistakenly equating LA with learning without teachers (Little 1991) which leads to underestimating the
role of teachers and the contributions they can make to the process of learning and formation of LA
(Benson and Voller 1997). A multifaceted and optimal construct like LA requires relatively developed
cognitive processes that may not be fundamentally shaped in novice teachers’ cognition whose conception of LA is constrained by their more limited field experience in teaching.
A major experience-related factor that can influence learners’ achievement of autonomy and teachers’ beliefs toward LA is the gradual shift in teacher’s role from that of transmitting information to
facilitating learning (Ciekanski 2007; Little 1995). Teachers who facilitate learning have learned how to
share control of the classroom with their students (Feryok 2013). It is through teaching experience
that teachers can viably discover ways of operationalizing shared control in terms of engaging learners in the process of decision making about goals and objectives, the teaching content, methodology and evaluation (Nunan,2003). Experts have widely acknowledged the symbiotic relationship
between beliefs and practices and the reinforcing role of practice on beliefs, on the one hand, and
the important influence of beliefs on ways of conceptualizing tasks (Nespor 1987), on the other.
This enriched conceptualization can also explain why beliefs geared around the concept of autonomy
were found to be more entrenched in experienced teachers participating in the present study.
The refining function of experience can also be quite adducible with regard to the experiential
learning theory (Kolb, 1984) which envisages learning as the process of flexibly applying abstract concepts in a variety of situations that constitute new experiences. From this perspective, novice teachers
during the initial years of their teaching career tend to apply the concepts they have learned in a wide
range of instructional contexts. The feedback they receive serves to broaden their outlook and extend
their horizons, reinforcing more upbeat genuine attitudes toward various aspects of teaching and
learning, including LA.
However, the extent to which experience and licensure can serve to reshape teachers’ practice, the
concern of the second research question in this study, is still controversial. Unlike previous studies
investigating teachers’ belief-practice based on self-reports (e.g. Borg and Al-Busaidi 2012; Dogan
2015), the present study utilized a researcher-made observation form to detect the extent to
which the participating teachers comply by their beliefs in their acts of teaching. This selection
was an attempt to avoid the problem of the participants’ tendency to merely cling to their best practices and leave out problematic practical issues.
The findings from the present study indicated no significant differences between TEFL and nonTEFL practitioners’ practices, which support those of Nazari (2016). This is incongruent with Pennington’s (1992) contention that English literature, linguistic or any other non-TEFL degree cannot be a
suitable background for what teachers do in the classroom. Teaching experience, however, was
found as the only significant determinant of more autonomy-promoting practice; experienced teachers displayed more autonomy-promoting practices in all the sub-parts of the observation form.
This is congruent with Gatbonton’s finding (2008) regarding the significant differences between
novice and experienced teachers’ classroom practice. The differences can be attributed to the multifaceted nature of learner autonomy and the wide range of pedagogical indicators it has. One major
observed difference between the participating experienced and novice practitioners concerned the
more frequent use of pair/group work by the TEFL teachers which reflected the attempt to involve
the learners in the learning process compared to the non-TEFL teachers who tended toward more
teacher-centered activities like presentations.
The practical differences between novice and experienced teachers can be justified with regard to
Anderson’s ACT Model (1983) that differentiates the knowledge of what (declarative knowledge)
from application of that knowledge (procedural knowledge) with the latter developing from the
former through three stages of cognitive, associative, and autonomous learning. Although DeKeyser
INNOVATION IN LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING
107
(1997) criticized the uni-directional orientation of this model with respect to first language acquisition, the model seems quite valid with regard to formally developed skills like teaching methodology. The TEFL participants’ positive beliefs toward LA seem to have been based on the
declarative technical knowledge they had developed during long years of university studies of teaching-related concepts and on their teaching experience. This declarative knowledge is normally proceduralized through an associative stage involving focused peer and self-observation of teaching
practice followed by critical analysis of the observed or recorded observations and receiving feedback
from peers and mentors or even based on self-evaluation. This was more accessible for the TEFL
graduates who had a more comprehensive declarative knowledge compared to their non-TEFL
counterparts.
An interesting finding from the present study concerns the data obtained from the interview to
elicit the teachers’ views toward the very nature of LA, its desirability, possibility, and problems.
With regard to the nature of LA, the interviewees envisaged it in terms of engaging learners in the
process of decision making (40%), learner self-evaluation (28.2%), learner upgrading (22.5%) and
learner self-monitoring (9.3%). As already mentioned, despite giving verbal service to LA, the participants failed to acknowledge the necessity of raising learners’ strategic awareness as a viable way of
enhancing their autonomous learning.
The desirability of LA was attributed to factors like needs-based improvements in educational outcomes (47%), promotion of life-long learning (18.4%), enhancing learners’ self-confidence (15.6%)
and educational upgrading (9.7%) and promoting self-monitoring (9.3%). These might be viewed
as aims at which LA is targeted.
The participants believed that achieving LA is possible through out of class activities (24%) and
self-reliance (12.2%). Such views imply a sort of misconception on the part of the interviewees of
LA as learning without teachers, as highlighted by Agustina (2017). Other autonomy-promoting
activities underscored by the participants were expressing opinions on activities (20.4%), explicit
explanation of the conceptual content (16.8%), cooperative classroom atmosphere (14.5%) and engaging learners in selecting assignments (12.1%). In other words, they underrepresented the significance of strategy training as a pivotal feature of LA.
With regard to problems hindering autonomy-promoting activities, the findings depicted learners
and policy-makers as two major impediments to autonomy-oriented practice. Policy-makers and learners have also been reported by Karimi and Nazari (2017) and Borg and Al-Busaidi (2012) as two
major obstacles that can hinder achievement of LA.
Most of the participants in this study underscored the top-down nature of the curriculum development and the tight constraints imposed on teachers to follow the curriculum as a major problem.
This problem has been stressed in the literature on teacher education as a crucial impediment in maximizing learning. Experts in the field like Richards and Rodgers (2003) and Richards and Farrell (2005)
have rightly underscored the need for a realignment of curriculum toward a bottom-up approach in
which local teachers are engaged in the process of decision makings. Mentoring is a viable mechanism that can contribute to the betterment of practice via observing and monitoring teachers’ performance, exploring their concerns and preoccupations, offering practical suggestions to enhance
practice and informing policy-makers of unique local situations that have to be taken into account
may help to reorient curriculum. The feasibility of such a proposal could be an agenda for further
research.
Also, the teachers regarded learner self-monitoring and self-reliance as the least influential dimensions of autonomous learning which alludes to the misconception of learning autonomy and selfreliance or learning without teachers (Agustina 2017). Learners are the major stakeholders in the
process of learning on whom the burden of learning lies more than others (Nunan 2015). Theoretical
and empirical perspectives (e.g. Benson 2011; Borg and Al-Busaidi 2012) underscore the role of dynamically engaging learners’ in evaluating their competencies. Like all other aspects of the learning
process, such engagement, along with the ultimate outcome which is learning how to learn, has
to be gradual and mediated by a more knowledgeable expert who can use a wide range of
108
B. AHMADIANZADEH ET AL.
techniques to help the learner move along the other-regulation toward self-regulation and autonomous learning (Lantolf and Appel 1994). Unfortunately, this misconception was well reflected in
the participants’ practice of strategy awareness-raising emphasizing the need for developing teachers’ awareness of the significance and effectiveness of strategic investment. Teachers may get familiar with the concept of LA and ways of promoting it in real classrooms during their pre-service
training. Moreover, the conditions for continual development need to be simultaneously provided
so that this declarative knowledge can be effectively proceduralized via the associative stage at
the level of classroom. Alternatively, such awareness-promoting initiatives could be attainable
through professional development programs which center around reconciling practicing teachers’
theory and practice of learner autonomy.
Conclusions
Although the present study was restricted in terms of the research sample, the findings accentuate
the need for declarative technical knowledge concerning LA and informed experience to proceduralize that knowledge into autonomy-promoting practice. It should be borne in mind that merely
knowing about the importance of LA is not sufficient to warrant autonomy-oriented practice. Of
crucial importance is, according to Nakata (2011), expanding teachers’ ability to teach learners
how to learn autonomously. This assistance can take the form of an interactive process of helping
students understand LA in the first place, engaging them in goal specification and content selection
and raising their awareness of various strategies that can be applied to gain control over their learning and the teaching content (Balcikanli, 2010; Dornyei, 2001; Feryok 2013; Little 2007).
One typical autonomy conducive element that was also present in the observed practices in the
present study is cooperative learning (Kohonen 1992). Fortunately, cooperative learning has become
a constituent element of the learning process in many educational contexts including Iranian context.
However, much more assistance can be offered to Iranian teachers via nationally or institutionallyorganized mentoring programs whose primary function is to broaden teachers’ perspectives by
directly engaging them in the process of detection, analysis, evaluation and solution of local
problems.
Developing of such programs entails more precise information about actual classroom procedures. Thus, a fertile soil for further research is the exploration of what teachers actually do
while teaching, like the present study, as well as the investigation of various ways of enhancing
their teaching effectiveness through peer/self-observation, critical analysis and mentoring. The
implementation of such an autonomy-oriented pedagogy is dependent to a great extent on
macro-evaluation procedures targeted at teaching effectiveness. It is hoped that recurrent research
findings, alluding to this fundamental need, convince policy-makers to reverse the top-down direction of curriculum development and to use the research findings as a point of departure to address
numerous pedagogical problems from the bottom-up.
Disclosure statements
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Notes on contributors
Bijan Ahmadianzadeh is a PhD candidate at Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran. His areas of interestinclude learner
autonomy, language teacher education, and reading comprehension.
INNOVATION IN LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING
109
Zohreh Seifoori is an Associate Professor of English Language Teaching at Islamic Azad University, Tabriz Branch and an
internationally licensed teacher and teacher trainer. She has published a number of research papers in renowned
national and international journals. Her research intersts include teacher education, learner autonomy and teaching
methodology.
Nasrin Hadidi Tamjid has a PhD in TEFL. She is an assistant professor who has been teaching at Islamic Azad University,
Tabriz Branch for 19 years. She is also an official translator to the justice administration and the managing editor of the
Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice. She has published and presented a number of papers in different
international journals and conferences. Her main research interests are alternative assessment, teacher education, and
teaching language skills.
ORCID
Bijan Ahmadianzadeh
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7719-8313
References
Agustina, D. 2017. “A Complex System of Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices in Developing Learner Autonomy in Indonesian
Junior High School Contexts: A Mixed-Methods Study.” (PhD dissertation). Victoria University of Wellington.
Akbari, R., and B. Dadvand. 2011. “Does Formal Teacher Education Make a Difference? A Comparison of Pedagogical
Thought Units of BA Versus MA Teachers.” The Modern Language Journal 95 (1): 44–60. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.
2010.01142.x.
Akbari, R., and S. Moradkhani. 2010. “Iranian English Teachers’ Self-Efficacy: Do Academic Degree and Experience Make a
Difference?” Pazhuhesh-e Zabanha-ye Khareji 56: 25–47.
Al Asmari, A. 2013. “Practices and Prospects of Learner Autonomy: Teachers’ Perceptions.” English Language Teaching 6
(3): 1–10. doi:10.5539/elt.v6n3p1.
Allwright, R. L. 1988. “Autonomy and Individualization in Whole-Class Instruction.” In Individualization and Autonomy in
Language Learning, edited by A. Brookes, and P. Grundy, 35–44. London: Modern English Publications and the British
Council.
Anderson, V. 2015. “Language Learner Autonomy: Both Sides of the Coin: A Study of EFL Teachers” and Students”
Perceptions of Autonomy in Spain.” MA thesis, Linkoping University.
Balcikanlı, C. 2010. “Learner Autonomy in Language Learning: Student Teachers’ Beliefs.” Australian Journal of Teacher
Education 35 (1): 90–103. doi:10.14221/ajte.2010v35n1.8.
Bashiri, S., N. Hadidi Tamjid, and Z. Seifoori. 2014. “Iranian EFL Experienced vs. Novice Teachers’ Beliefs Regarding Learner
Autonomy.” Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice 7 (15): 24–41.
Benson, P. 2011. Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning. Harlow: Longman.
Benson, P. 2013. “Learner Autonomy.” TESOL Quarterly 47 (4): 839–843.
Benson, P., and P. Voller. 1997. Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning. London: Longman.
Bigelow, L. J. 2000. “Class Planning Strategies of Expert and Novice Teachers.” The Sloping Halls Review 7: 1–11.
Blanton, Linda, Paul. T. Sindelar, Vivian Correa, Mike Hardman, John McDonnell, and Karen Kuhel. 2006. “Conceptions of
Beginning Teacher Quality: Models for Conducting Research.” Center on Personnel Studies in Special Education.
(Research Report), 1–9.
Borg, S. 2009. Introducing Language Teacher Cognition. Leeds: Centre for Language Education Research, School of
Education, University of Leeds..
Borg, S., and S. Al-Busaidi. 2011. “Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices Regarding Learner Autonomy.” ELT Journal 66 (3): 283–
292. doi:10.1093/elt/ccr065.
Borg, S., and S. Al-Busaidi. 2012. Learner Autonomy: English Language Teacher’ Beliefs and Practices. London: The British
Council.
Boyd, D., D. Goldhaber, H. Lankford, and J. Wyckoff. 2007. “The Effect of Certification and Preparation on Teacher Quality.”
The Future of Children 17 (1): 45–68.
Bullock, D. 2011. “1. “Learner Self-Assessment: An Investigation Into Teachers’.” Beliefs.” ELT Journal 62 (2): 114–125. doi:10.
1093/elt/ccq041.
Cabaroglu, N., and J. Roberts. 2000. “Development in Student Teachers’ Pre-Existing Beliefs During a 1-Year PGCE
Program.” System 28 (3): 387–402. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(00)00019-1.
Camilleri, A. 2007. “Pedagogy for Autonomy, Teachers’ Attitudes and Institutional Change: A Case Study.” In Challenges in
Teacher Development: Learner Autonomy and Intercultural Competence, edited by M. Jimenez Raya, and L. Sercu, 81–
102. Frankurt: Peter Lang.
Ciekanski, M. 2007. “Fostering Learner Autonomy: Power and Reciprocity in the Relationship Between Language Learner
and Language Learning Adviser.” Cambridge Journal of Education 37 (1): 111–127. doi:10.1080/03057640601179442.
Cohen, L. M., L. Manion, and K. Morrison. 2007. Research Methods in Education. New York: Routledge.
110
B. AHMADIANZADEH ET AL.
Cronin, J. 1983. “State Regulation of Teacher Preparation.” In Handbook of Teaching and Policy, edited by L. Shulman, and
G. Sykes, 171–191. New York: Longman, Inc.
DeKeyser, R. M. 1997. “Beyond Explicit Rule Learning: Automatizing Second Language Morphosyntax.” Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 19 (2): 195–221.
Dogan, G. 2015. “EFL Instructors’ Perception and Practices on Learner Autonomy in Some Turkish Universities.” Master’s
thesis, Graduate School of Educational Sciences of Hacettepe University.
Dornyei, Z. 2001. Motivation Strategies in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Farahani, M. 2013. “A Study on Teachers’ and Learners’ Readiness for Autonomous Learning of English as a Foreign
Language.” PhD dissertation, Kharazmi University.
Feryok, A. 2013. “Teaching for Learner Autonomy: The Teacher’s Role and Sociocultural Theory.” Innovation in Language
Learning and Teaching 7 (3): 213–225. doi:10.1080/17501229.2013.836203.
Freeman, D. 1992. “Collaboration: Constructing Shared Understandings in a Second Language Classroom.” In
Collaborative Language Learning and Teaching, edited by D. Nunan, 56–80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gatbonton, E. 2008. “Looking Beyond Teachers’ Classroom Behaviour: Novice and Experienced ESL Teachers’ Pedagogical
Knowledge.” Language Teaching Research 12 (2): 161–182. doi:10.1177/1362168807086286.
Holec, H. 1981. Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon. (First published 1979, Strasbourg: Council
of Europe).
Jiménez Raya, M. J., T. Lamb, and F. Vieira. 2007. Pedagogy for Autonomy in Language Education in Europe. Dublin:
Authentik.
Kane, T. J., J. E. Rockoff, and D. O. Staiger. 2008. “What Does Certification Tell us About Teacher Effectiveness? Evidence
From New York City.” Economics of Education Review 27 (6): 615–631. doi:10.3386/w12155.
Karimi, M. N. 2011. “Variations in EFL Teachers’ Pedagogical Knowledge Base as a Function of Their Teaching License
Status.” The Journal of Teaching Language Skills 3 (3): 83–114.
Karimi, M. N., and M. Nazari. 2017. “The Congruity/Incongruity of EFL Teachers’ Beliefs About Listening Instruction and
Their Listening Instructional Practices.” Australian Journal of Teacher Education 42 (2): 62–80. doi:10.14221/ajte.
2017v42n2.5.
Kini, T., and A. Podolsky. 2016. Does Teaching Experience Increase Teacher Effectiveness? Palo Alto: Learning Policy Institute,
1–72.
Kohonen, V. 1992. “Experiential Language Learning: Second Language Learning as Cooperative Learner Education.” In
Collaborative Language Learning and Teaching, edited by D. Nunan, 14–39. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kolb, D. A. 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Kumaravadivelu, B. 2003. Beyond Methods: Macrostrategies for Language Teaching. London: Yale University Press.
Kuzborska, I. 2011. “Links Between Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices and Research on Reading.” Reading in a Foreign
Language 23 (1): 102–128.
Lamb, T. E., and H. Reinders. 2008. Learner and Teacher Autonomy: Concepts, Realities, and Responses. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Lantolf, J. P., and G. Appel. 1994. Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Little, D. 1991. Learner Autonomy: Definitions, Issues and Problems. Dublin: Authentik.
Little, D. 1995. “Learning as Dialogue: The Dependence of Learner Autonomy on Teacher Autonomy.” System 23 (2): 175–
181. doi:10.1016/0346-251X(95)00006-6.
Little, D. 2007. “Language Learner Autonomy: Some Fundamental Considerations Revisited.” Innovation in Language
Learning and Teaching 1 (1): 14–29. doi:10.2167/illt040.0.
Mayall, B. 2006. “Values and Assumptions Underpinning Policy for Children and Young People in England.” Children’s
Geographies 4 (1): 9–17. doi:10.1080/14733280600576923.
Nakata, Y. 2011. “Teachers” Readiness for Promoting Learner Autonomy: A Study of Japanese EFL High School Teachers.”
Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (5): 900–910. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.03.001.
Nazari, M. 2016. “The Correspondence Between EFL Teachers’ Dispositions Towards Task-Based Language Teaching and
Their TBLT-Related Instructional Practices.” MA thesis, Kharazmi University of Tehran.
Nespor, J. 1987. “The Role of Beliefs in the Practice of Teaching.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 19 (4): 317–328. doi:10.
1080/0022027870190403.
Nunan, D. 2003. Practical English Language Teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nunan, D. 2004. Task-based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. 2015. Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages: An Introduction. New York: Routledge.
Oxford, R. L. 2008. “Hero with a Thousand Faces: Learner Autonomy, Learning Strategies and Learning Tactics in
Independent Language Learning.” In Language Learning Strategies in Independent Settings, edited by S. Hurd, and
T. Lewis, 41–63. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Peacock, M. 2001. “Pre-service ESL Teachers’ Beliefs About Second Language Learning: A Longitudinal Study.” System 29
(2): 177–195. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00010-0.
Pennington, M. C. 1992. “Second Class or Economy? The Status of the English Language Teaching Profession in Tertiary
Education.” Prospect 7 (3): 7–19.
INNOVATION IN LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING
111
Phipps, S., and S. Borg. 2009. “Exploring Tensions Between Teachers’ Grammar Teaching Beliefs and Practices.” System 37
(3): 380–390. doi:10.1016/j.system.2009.03.002.
Quintana, J. 2010. Family and Friends 6. Oxford, London: Oxford University Press.
Rice, J. K. 2010. The Impact of Teacher Experience: Examining the Evidence and Policy Implications. Brief, 11. Washington, DC:
Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research.
Richards, J. C., and Bohlke D. 2017. Four Corners 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., and T. S. C. Farrell. 2005. Professional Development for Language Teachers: Strategies for Teacher Learning.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., and T. S. Rodgers. 2003. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Richardson, V. 1996. “The Role of Attitudes and Beliefs in Learning to Teach.” In Handbook of Research on Teacher
Education, edited by J. Sikula, 102–119. New York: Macmillan.
Thanasoulas, D. 2000. “What is Learner Autonomy and How can it be Fostered?” The Internet TESL Journal 6 (11): 37–48.
112
B. AHMADIANZADEH ET AL.
Appendix A: The Observation Form
Teacher’s Name:
Teacher’s Degree:
Age:
BA □
Teaching experience:
MA □
Major: ELT □
EL
ET □
Class: A □ B □ C □ Number of learners in Class: … … … … ..
▪ Please complete the following checklist based on the frequency with which the teacher
performs the activities: 1 = never, 2 = rarely, 3 = often, 4 = usually, 5 = always.
INNOVATION IN LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING
Appendix B. The interview questions.
1. What does Learner Autonomy mean to you?
2. Is it important (desirable) for you to have autonomous learners?
. If yes, why?
. If not, why?
. What aspects of autonomous learners please you?
3. What techniques do you think teachers can use to help their students gain autonomy?
. Is it possible for you to develop autonomous learners?
. If not, why?
. What autonomy techniques do you promote autonomous learning?
4. What problems do you face in developing Learner Autonomy in your classrooms?
. What are the sources of the problems? (learners, teachers, parents, and policy makers.)
. Which of these sources play the most significant role?
113