Soufiane 

Blidi

Collaborative
Learner
Autonomy
A Mode of Learner Autonomy
Development
Collaborative Learner Autonomy
Soufiane Blidi

Collaborative Learner
Autonomy
A Mode of Learner Autonomy Development

123
Soufiane Blidi
Faculty of Language Studies
Sohar University
Sohar
Oman

ISBN 978-981-10-2046-9 ISBN 978-981-10-2048-3 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-2048-3

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016946006

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or
for any errors or omissions that may have been made.

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer Science+Business Media Singapore Pte Ltd.
Preface

Over the past few decades, autonomous learning has emerged as one response to the
emerging challenges and changes in the educational field. The use of reading circles
(RCs) as a mode of autonomous learning in the Omani context of higher education
institutions (HEIs) indicates learners’ positive perceptions and attitudes of learner
autonomy and their readiness to adopt autonomous learning practices. Building on
findings from these RCs, the present book proposes Collaborative Learner
Autonomy (CLA) as a novice interpretation (theory) of learner autonomy and
advocates it for use in the Omani context and potentially for similar educational
contexts within the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region.
The CLA results from the exploration of learner autonomy in the Omani context
from a number of perspectives. It argues against the claim that autonomy is typi-
cally a product of Western educational environments only as, for example, sug-
gested in Sonaiya’s (2002) study on African educational contexts. It then proposes a
group-oriented and gradual approach to enhance the development of learner
autonomy and to incorporate autonomous learning practices in formal and informal
teaching platforms, creating learning opportunities conducive to autonomy in
collaboration.
The CLA builds on a firm belief in teachers’ responsibility for the development
of their learners’ learning awareness and “conscious perception and take-up of a
learning opportunity” Crabbe (2007: 119). It advocates a shared responsibility and a
common goal different stakeholders need to embrace so that learners become
“actively engaged in identifying and managing the learning opportunities” (Ibid).
Teachers, HEIs, parents and learners themselves, share the responsibility to ensure
that “learners are better equipped, and therefore more likely, to manage learning
opportunities outside the classroom” (Ibid).
The CLA puts much emphasis on the constructive role that the teachers play in
developing autonomy in their learners. It fact, it suggests the term Responsible
Reliance to describe Omani’s perception of teachers’ presence and claims that the
training and orientation of learners have to be formalised and made systematic

v
vi Preface

through integrated orientation programmes, such as the Autonomous Learning

Orientation Programme (ALOP) applied in some HEIs.
The CLA perceives autonomy as a social construct that includes the ability to
operate effectively in collaboration as a cooperating member in a group with the
capacity and willingness to act autonomously and in collaboration with others as a
social and responsible person. The willingness and motivation Omani learners have
to develop autonomy in collaboration can be detected in their readiness, interde-
pendence and particular perception of autonomy as a collective endeavour. As
learning involves both dependent and interdependent learning strategies, the CLA
perceives Omani students as individual learners who responsibly accept the
teachers’ presence and role without depending on teacher-led learning experiences.
Drawing on observations in the Omani context explored in our research, it could
be concluded that the interdependent self is the predominant conceptualisation and
model of the self and that Omani learners’ reliance on the teacher and their need for
assistance, support and guidance should not be viewed as a rejection of and
resistance to autonomy.
The book draws on research findings and conclusions to refute misconceptions
about learner autonomy in the MENA region context initially nurtured by wrong
assumptions and stereotypes on learners in these educational contexts, being
unfairly placed within the traditional and rote-learning frame. It is important to
reject ill-founded cultural stereotypes and generalisations that can harm the rapport
between teachers and their students and ultimately hinder the development of
learner autonomy.
Our research concludes that while students, teachers and educational stake-
holders believe in the merits of autonomous learning and the need to develop it,
they admit that there are constraints that hinder the development of learner
autonomy. They also admit the relative failure of the teachers and HEIs in the
Omani context to provide what Crabbe (2003) terms “learning opportunities”
(Crabbe 2007: 118). They can, as much as the learner, fail to recognise the need for
autonomous learning in a rapidly changing society.
The book finally recommends a new learner autonomy continuum the
Individual-Competitive-Collaborative-Autonomous Learning Continuum (ICCAC),
grading the progress of the learner to autonomous learning practices and suggests
that it is a shared responsibility that students, teachers, HEIs, families and the
society should assume in a spirit of partnership.

Sohar, Oman Soufiane Blidi

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my appreciation to the people who kindly accepted to take
part in this book through support, encouragement, criticism, inspiration, research
design and implementation, manuscript draft and review. The book inevitably owes
much to my students, teachers and colleagues who have shaped my approach to
teaching and learning and my perspective to the role of each contributor in the
education scene.
I acknowledge and express my gratitude to the contribution of each of these
people: my father who is a teacher himself; my teachers who taught me that
individual differences can be positive and inspiring; my students and colleagues at
Majan College and Sohar University who generously and relentlessly took part in
the research underpinning the book; students and teachers in higher education
institutions in Oman for their kind support in answering research questionnaires;
and students in the Faculty of Language Studies at Sohar University, Oman, for
their kind acceptance to participate in the implementation of various samples of
autonomous learning activities.
Special mention should be made to Dr. Munir Triki, University of Sfax, Tunisia;
Dr. Thomas Roche, Southern Cross University, Australia; Dr. Rafik Jamoussi,
Dr. Rakesh Belwal, and Mr. Abdelkader Chaou, Sohar University, for their constant
support, encouragement, helpful comments and constructive criticism.
Special thanks are also due to my little angles, my wife and my family for being
unfailingly on my side, bearing it all.
I acknowledge the important impact a number of autonomous learning
approaches and perspectives had on the development of the CLA and its ICCAL’s
continuum of gradual development of learner autonomy. Clear reference has been
made to landmark works from Phil Benson, Henri Holec, Hayo Reinders, Sarah
Cotterall and William Littlewood, Gardner and Miller, among other prominent
landmark theorists on learner autonomy.

vii
viii Acknowledgements

As I place the book as a contribution in the field of learner autonomy, displaying

another perspective and sharing a different experience, I hope it serves as a platform
for further discussions with the strong belief that knowledge is an experience
sharing inspirational quest worth living for.
Contents

1 Learner Autonomy—An Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 Proliferation of Learner Autonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Learner Autonomy from Different Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3 Learner Autonomy and Learning Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.4 Theoretical Typology of Learner Autonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.4.1 Proactive and Reactive Autonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.4.2 Influential Factors in Developing Learner Autonomy . . . . . 13
1.4.3 Learner Autonomy Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2 Learner Autonomy and the MENA Region Context . . . . . . ...... 21
2.1 Misconceptions About Learner Autonomy
in the MENA Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 22
2.2 Attitudes to Control and Authority in Learner Autonomy . ...... 26
2.3 Redefining Responsibility and Autonomy
in the Omani Context. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 31
2.4 Impact of Learning Styles on Learner Autonomy. . . . . . . ...... 33
2.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 63
3 Gradual Development of Learner Autonomy. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 65
3.1 Levels of Learner Autonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 67
3.2 Contexts of Application and Their Impact on the Typology
of Autonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 69
3.2.1 Autonomy Beyond the Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 69
3.2.2 Autonomy in the Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 73
3.3 The 21st Century T&L Challenge: Understanding Learners’
Psychological Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
3.4 Learner Autonomy Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
3.5 Optimising Learners’ Positive Attitudes Through ALOP . . . . . . . . 81
3.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

ix
x Contents

4 Learner Autonomy and the CLA Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 97

4.1 Autonomy and Socio-Cultural Conceptualisation . . . . . . . . . . . .. 97
4.2 Individualism, Self-regulation, Motivation
and Interdependence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
4.3 Reading Circles: A Mode of Collaborative Learner Autonomy . . . 106
4.4 Impact of SLV Use on the Development of Learner Autonomy
Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
4.5 Pedagogical Implications of Autonomous Learning . . . . . . . . . . . 126
4.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
5.1 Learning Habits and Attitudes Towards Learner Autonomy . . . . . 134
5.2 Learner Autonomy Educational Environment Provisions . . . . . . . . 136
5.3 Aspects and Implications of the CLA and the ICCAL
Continuum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
5.3.1 Partnership and Collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
5.3.2 Response to Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
5.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Resources Pack. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Appendix A: Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
Appendix B: Interviews with Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Appendix C: Interviews with Teachers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Appendix D: Impact of ALOP on Language Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Appendix E: Reasons for Using the LRC Among Students . . . . . . . . . . 195
Appendix F: Reading Circles—Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Appendix G: Post-implementation Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
Appendix H: Interdependence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Appendix I: Teacher’s Image . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Appendix J: Readiness and Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Appendix K: Self-esteem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Appendix L: Voluntariness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
Appendix M: Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
Appendix N: Teacher’s Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
Appendix O: Peer Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
Appendix P: Overall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
List of Tables

Table 2.1 Students’ learning styles and habits (Working time) . . . . ... 34
Table 2.2 Students’ learning styles and habits (What to study) . . . . ... 36
Table 2.3 Students’ learning styles and habits (Having an outline). . ... 36
Table 2.4 Students’ learning styles and habits (Waiting for an
overview from the Teacher) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 37
Table 2.5 Students’ learning styles and habits (I prefer to work
alone) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 37
Table 2.6 Students’ learning styles and habits (I prefer working
with peers). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 38
Table 2.7 Students’ learning styles and habits (I can get more ideas
working in group). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 38
Table 2.8 Students’ learning styles and habits (Prefer discussing
assignments with their peers) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 39
Table 2.9 Students’ learning styles and habits (Clear instruction). . . ... 39
Table 2.10 Students’ learning styles and habits (Preferring assign-
ments) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Table 2.11 Students’ learning styles and habits (Searching) . . . . . . . . . . 41
Table 2.12 Students’ learning styles and habits (Teacher guidance) . . . . . 41
Table 2.13 Students’ learning styles and habits (GW assignments) . . . . . 42
Table 2.14 Students’ learning styles and habits (Read others’ ideas) . . . . 42
Table 2.15 Students’ learning styles and habits (Preferring
own reading) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 43
Table 2.16 Students’ learning styles and habits (Learning
by reading) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 43
Table 2.17 Students’ learning styles and habits (Imagination) . . . . . . ... 44
Table 2.18 Students’ learning styles and habits (Opportunity for
break) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 44
Table 2.19 Students’ evaluation of ALOP (Better use of time) . . . . . ... 45
Table 2.20 Students’ evaluation of ALOP (Becoming more
responsible) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 46

xi
xii List of Tables

Table 2.21 Students’ evaluation of ALOP (Helpful

to work autonomously) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 46
Table 2.22 Students’ evaluation of ALOP (Should be compulsory
in all courses). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 47
Table 2.23 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level
(Be required) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 47
Table 2.24 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level
(Correlation test 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 49
Table 2.25 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level
(Correlation test 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 50
Table 2.26 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level
(Correlation test 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 50
Table 2.27 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level
(Correlation test 4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 51
Table 2.28 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level
(LRC feature 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 53
Table 2.29 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level
(LRC feature 5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 53
Table 2.30 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level
(LRC feature 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 53
Table 2.31 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level
(LRC feature 8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 54
Table 2.32 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level
(LRC feature 6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 54
Table 2.33 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level
(LRC feature 7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 55
Table 2.34 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level
(LRC feature 9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 55
Table 2.35 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level
(LRC feature 10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 55
Table 2.36 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level
(LRC feature 11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 56
Table 2.37 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level
(LRC feature 12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 56
Table 2.38 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level
(LRC feature 13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 57
Table 2.39 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level
(Correlation test 6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 58
Table 2.40 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level
(Correlation test 7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 59
Table 2.41 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level
(Correlation test 8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 59
Table 2.42 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level
(Correlation test 9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 62
List of Tables xiii

Table 3.1 Modes of learning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 70

Table 3.2 Students’ evaluation of ALOP (ALOP is offered) . . . . . . ... 88
Table 3.3 Students’ evaluation of ALOP (Efficiency
and sufficiency) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 88
Table 3.4 Students’ evaluation of ALOP (Teacher sending
me to LRC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 89
Table 3.5 Students’ evaluation of ALOP (LRC frequency) . . . . . . . ... 89
Table 3.6 Students’ evaluation of ALOP (Fair LRC frequency). . . . ... 90
Table 3.7 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level
(Way 1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 91
Table 3.8 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level
(Way 2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 91
Table 3.9 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level
(Way 3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 91
Table 3.10 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level
(Way 4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 92
Table 3.11 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level
(Correlation test 10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 93
Table 3.12 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level
(Correlation test 15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 93
Table 3.13 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level
(Correlation test 16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 94
Table 4.1 Task distribution in the cycle of self-regulation
(Based on Pintrich 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 103
Table 4.2 Omani students’ attitudes to self-access and autonomous
learning (Correlation test 17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 117
Table 4.3 Omani students’ attitudes to self-access and autonomous
learning (Correlation test 18) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 118
Table 4.4 Omani students’ attitudes to self-access and autonomous
learning (Correlation test 19) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 118
Table 4.5 Omani students’ attitudes to self-access and autonomous
learning (Correlation test 20) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 119
Table 4.6 Omani students’ attitudes to self-access and autonomous
learning (Correlation test 21) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 120
Table 4.7 Omani students’ attitudes to self-access and autonomous
learning (Correlation test 22) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 120
Table 4.8 Omani students’ attitudes to self-access and autonomous
learning (Correlation test 23) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 121
Table 4.9 Omani students’ attitudes to self-access and autonomous
learning (Correlation test 24) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 123
Table 4.10 Omani students’ attitudes to self-access and autonomous
learning (Correlation test 25) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 123
Table 4.11 Omani students’ attitudes to self-access and autonomous
learning (Correlation test 26) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 124
xiv List of Tables

Table 4.12 Omani students’ attitudes to self-access and autonomous

learning (Macro skills section answered) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Table 4.13 Omani students’ attitudes to self-access and autonomous
learning (Micro skills section answered) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
List of Images

Image 3.1 Movie circle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Image 3.2 Debate circle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Image 3.3 Play and Operetta—Sample Image 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Image 3.4 Play and Operetta—Sample Image 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Image A.1 Reading circle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Image A.2 Movie circle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
Image A.3 Debate Circle—Sample Image 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Image A.4 Debate Circle—Sample Image 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Image A.5 Photo talk contest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Image A.6 Job fair. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
Image A.7 Job Interview—Sample Image 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Image A.8 Job Interview—Sample Image 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Image A.9 Operetta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
Image A.10 Play . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

xv
List of Charts

Chart 2.1 Students’ learning styles and habits (Deadlines) . . . . . . . ... 35

Chart 2.2 Impact of ALOP on language skills. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 45
Chart 2.3 Reasons for using the LRC among students . . . . . . . . . . ... 48
Chart 2.4 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level
(Activities done in SLV) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 52
Chart 2.5 The use of LRC among Omani students at tertiary level
(Self-image as good at learning autonomously) . . . . . . . . ... 60
Chart 2.6 Students’ perception of autonomous learning . . . . . . . . . ... 61
Chart 2.7 Suggestions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 62
Chart 3.1 Learner autonomy development (Based on Benson and
Voller 1997: 1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 77
Chart 3.2 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level
(Is it important for students to develop autonomy?) . . . . . ... 95
Chart 3.3 Omani students’ attitudes to self-access and autonomous
learning (Importance of well-established SLVs
in developing autonomy) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 96
Chart 4.1 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level
(Whether or not having a preference for self-learning) . . . ... 110
Chart 4.2 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level
(Degree of importance of self-learning to the student) . . . ... 110
Chart 4.3 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level
(Class work and self-learning: which is most important?) . ... 111
Chart 4.4 Omani students’ attitudes to self-access and autonomous
learning (Finding the right materials) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 113
Chart 4.5 Omani students’ attitudes to self-access and autonomous
learning (It is easy to learn autonomously) . . . . . . . . . . . ... 114
Chart 4.6 Omani students’ attitudes to self-access and autonomous
learning (Tutorials and training sessions on how to use
SLVs are offered) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 115
Chart 4.7 Omani students’ attitudes to self-access and autonomous
learning (Opinion about having someone to help) . . . . . . ... 115

xvii
xviii List of Charts

Chart 4.8 Omani students’ attitudes to self-access and autonomous

learning (Most important part of learning) . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 116
Chart 4.9 Omani students’ attitudes to self-access and autonomous
learning (What is most important: the atmosphere
or the input in the SLV?) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 122
Chart 4.10 Omani students’ attitudes to self-access and autonomous
learning (Teachers are proactive and helpful in directing
students to use SLVs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 125
Chart 4.11 Omani students’ attitudes to self-access and autonomous
(Teachers’ readiness to direct students to use SLVs
and offer opportunities for autonomy) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 125
List of Appendices

Appendix A Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

Appendix B Interviews with Students. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Appendix C Interviews with Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Appendix D Impact of ALOP on Language Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Appendix E Reasons for Using the LRC Among Students . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Appendix F Reading Circles—Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Appendix G Post-implementation Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
Appendix H Interdependence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Appendix I Teacher’s Image . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Appendix J Readiness and Motivation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Appendix K Self-esteem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Appendix L Voluntariness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
Appendix M Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
Appendix N Teacher’s Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
Appendix O Peer Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
Appendix P Overall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

xix
Abbreviations

ALOP Autonomous Learning Orientation Programme

AMEP Australian Migrant Education Programme
CALL Computer-Assisted Language Learning
CRAPEL Centre de Recherches et d’Applications Pédagogiques en Langues
CSA Cognitive Style Analysis
CSI Cognitive Style Index
DC Debate Circles
EAP English for Academic Purposes
EFL English as a Foreign Language
EL Experiential Learning
ELT English Language Teaching
ESL English as a Second Language
FL Foreign Language
FLL Foreign Language Learning
GFP General Foundation Programme
HE Higher Education
HEIs Higher Education Institutions
ICCALC Individual-Competitive-Collaborative-Autonomous Learning
Continuum
IELTS International English Language Testing System
JF Job Fair
JI Job Interviews
LC Literature Circles
LEC Learning Enhancement Centres
Lib Library
LRC Learning Resources Centres
LSI Learning Style Inventory
LTKA Learning Task Knowledge Awareness
MC Movie Circles
MENA Middle East and North Africa

xxi
xxii Abbreviations

MoHE Ministry of Higher Education

PRC Professional Reading Circles
PRG Professional Reading Groups
PTC Photo Talk Contest
QA Quality Assurance
RC Reading Circles
SAC Self-Access Centres
SALC Self-Access Learning Centres
SDLC Self-Directed Learning Centre
SELC Self-Enhanced Learning Centre
SL Second Language
SLA Second Language Acquisition
SLL Second Language Learning
SLVs Self-Learning Venues
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences
T&L Teaching and Learning
TESOL Teaching English for Speakers of Other Languages
TOEFL Teaching of English as a Foreign Language
UAE United Arab Emirates
UK United Kingdom
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
UNO United Nations Organization
USA United States of America
ZPD Zone of Proximal Development
Introduction

Higher education institutions (HEIs) in Oman1 and the Middle East and North
Africa (MENA) region in general, both public and private, aim to produce talented,
knowledgeable and creative graduates who enjoy employability, leadership, entre-
preneurial and ethical attributes.
Learner autonomy and autonomous learning practices have emerged as one
response to the challenges of the twenty-first century educational environment in
relation to teaching and learning theories, learning styles and strategies, and
approaches that can meet the needs of the job market. The present book explores
learner autonomy in the Omani context from different perspectives,2 Experiential
learning (EL) in particular where the perception and the experience of the learners
play an important role in their educational development. It proposes the
Collaborative Learner Autonomy (CLA) as a novice interpretation adopting a
gradual approach to the development of autonomy in the Omani context and similar
contexts in the MENA region.
The CLA is based on a field research the author conducted in Oman on the
implications that the adoption of autonomous learning entails and which shows that
learners and teachers in the Omani context are ready to adopt autonomous learning.
In fact, while students, teachers and educational stakeholders believe in the merits
of autonomous learning and the need to develop it, they admit that there are
deficiencies, or constraints, using Benson’s (2000) terms, that underpin the

1
Oman, officially referred to as the Sultanate of Oman, is an Arab Muslim gulf state neighbouring
the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia to the West, Yemen to the South, the Gulf of Oman
and Iran to the North and the Indian Ocean to the East. In the last decade, the Sultanate of Oman
witnessed a remarkable proliferation of HEIs with academic affiliation (partial or full) with
Western universities from the United Kingdom (UK), Canada, the United States of America
(USA), Australia, Germany and Arab universities from Jordan, Egypt and other countries. Subject
to academic and administrative accountability to the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE),
Omani HEIs extensively adhere to Academic Quality Assurance requirements.
2
Other perspectives are as follows: psychological development, personal development, humanistic
approaches, sociolinguistics and post-method approach.

xxiii
xxiv Introduction

assumption that autonomy cannot be applied outside Western contexts. They also
admit the relative failure of the teachers in the Omani context to provide what
Crabbe (2003) terms “learning opportunities” (Crabbe 2007: 118), enabling learners
to develop autonomous learning skills and strategies.
Building on findings from the research aforementioned, the book advocates the
Individual-Competitive-Collaborative-Autonomous Learning Continuum (ICCALC),
grading the progress of the learner from drill-driven individual practices to autonomous
learning practices. The CLA’s learner autonomy development process continuum is
inspired, and developed, from Nunan’s (2000) Degrees of Autonomy, Jones’s
Independent Learning Continuum (Jones 1998) and Benson’s (2006) Levels of
Autonomy.
The concept of autonomy has proved arduous to define and describe as there has
not been any consensus as to what it means and what it involves (See Gremmo and
Riley 1995; Little 1991; Benson 2001; Holec 2007). Autonomy is a multifaceted
concept that has been discussed in the specialist language learning literature from
many perspectives, especially from the academic perspective.3 The first definition
of learner autonomy emerged from the Council of Europe’s Modern Languages
Project, which led to the publication of Holec’s (1981) seminal report. In this report,
he defined autonomy as “the ability to take charge of one’s own learning’’ (Holec
1981: 3). Holec’s (1981) definition, which is most widely cited in the literature and
has inspired a number of variations, remains remarkably robust. Other variations of
this definition, for instance, use the term capacity to replace ability, while the phrase
``take charge of'' is often replaced by take responsibility for or take control of one’s
own learning.4 The aspect of responsibility leads us to investigate situations where a
learner can be autonomous. These are associated with Benson’s (1997: 1) conno-
tations and learner autonomy applications in specific contexts:
1. learners’ use and creation of learning opportunities to study entirely on their
own,
2. learners’ acquisition and implementation of self-directed learning skills,
3. learners’ inborn capacity which is oppressed by institutional education,
4. learners’ exercise of responsibility for their own learning, and
5. learners’ right to determine the direction of their own learning.
The key element in learner autonomy definitions of this kind is that autonomy is
an attribute of learners, rather than learning situations (Dickinson 1987: 11). The
assumption that learners do not develop the ability to self-direct their learning simply
by being placed in situations where they have no other option is one of the more
significant developments in the definition of learner autonomy over the few decades.
It is important for the learners to develop the ability to foster their language profi-
ciency on their own because the teacher will not always be available to assist them.
Autonomous learners are defined as learners who enjoy the capacity to set their

3
See Benson (2001, 2007) for an overview.
4
These substitute terms are also used by Holec in other works (1981, 2007).
Introduction xxv

own learning direction and take responsibility for their own learning. Concomitant
with responsibility are a number of features that characterise learners who wish to
become responsible: risk taking, self-reflection, self-awareness, creativity, flexibility
and the ability to think critically and analytically. For a learner to be able to set their
own direction and take responsibility for their own learning, a number of conditions
should be available and will be discussed later (See Sect. 1.4.3). Above all,
rationalising the direction towards autonomous learning is a key condition in its
success especially that students are by nature reluctant to accept change unless it is
well-justified. It is then vital to give learners convincing reasons for moving towards
autonomous learning. A number of studies conducted in Japan support this view and
show if learners are made aware of how important it is to be autonomous, they realise
that this new direction allows them to better utilise their skills, potential and avail-
able resources.
Wenden (1998) presents a summative list of characteristics (See also Omaggio
1978) autonomous learners need to develop:
1. insights into their learning styles and strategies,
2. an active approach to the learning task at hand,
3. the willingness to take risks,
4. guessing abilities,
5. accuracy and appropriateness (form and content in language, for instance),
6. the ability to process language into a separate reference system,
7. the willingness to revise and reject hypotheses and rules that do not apply, and
8. a tolerant approach to language.
Although the above characteristics represent a set of conditions required in
autonomous learners, alone they do not guarantee autonomy. Autonomy equally
depends on other factors as well as the needs of the learners, their motivation, their
learning strategies and their language awareness. It is noteworthy that viewing
autonomy as an end product distorts the reality as autonomy is not a sudden event.
Learners do not suddenly become autonomous. They rather engage in a process that
gradually leads to autonomy. In this process, learners’ readiness interacts with skills
taught through educational interventions and experience sharing. Perceived as such,
learner autonomy is a partly acquired and partly innate outcome. This is, in fact,
what Little (1991: 4) refers to in his definition of autonomy as “a capacity for
detachment, critical reflection, decision making, and independent action”. Capacity
is a key term in this definition. Capacity, of whatever kind, is something that may
develop with practice and may also disappear with idleness. The term capacity
incorporates an element of readiness as well as an innate drive on which practice
builds. It is a capacity for autonomy, which is initially innate, and has to be
developed with practice. The interaction between an initial readiness to develop
autonomy and factors that further promote it is at the heart of the CLA interpre-
tation of autonomy the present book advocates.
The concept of learner autonomy is associated with independence, self-
fulfilment, freedom from external constraints and taking control over the concep-
tualisation. Associating learner autonomy with independence, for example, has
xxvi Introduction

caused many leaner autonomy advocates to claim that autonomy is difficult and
almost impossible to apply or have any relevance outside the individualistic
Western contexts in which it first emerged (Littlewood 1999). Jones (1995: 228)
adds that autonomy is “laden with cultural values, especially those of the West” and
thus cannot take place in other contexts. Perceiving learner autonomy as a concept
that can apply only in the West seems too strong and does not square with reality.
In fact, teachers can detect signs of autonomy in their learners almost everywhere in
every context. This is manifested in the readiness they show to work independently
of the teacher and in their own groups (Littlewood 1999). There is a tendency to
consider that this readiness, within some contexts, can be viewed as a form of
autonomy. The idea is that any form of learning and teaching that defies the
teacher-centred and authority-oriented traditions is considered as a form of auton-
omy. Redefining learner autonomy in the Omani context builds on this view of
liberating learners, teachers and learner autonomy as a concept from the one-sided
framing. Learner autonomy yields as many recipes as there are learning environ-
ments. Learners’ readiness, enthusiasm and engagement in group projects reported
by many teachers in the Omani context, for example, support this view and show
their willingness to develop autonomy.
The growing emphasis on the psychology of learner autonomy represents a
crucial development in the concept. Little (1991) places psychology at the heart of
learner autonomy. He refers in this definition to Holec’s focus on the qualities of
autonomous learners, which involve the skills of planning, selection of materials,
monitoring learning progress and self-assessment.
Autonomy in language learning depends on the development and exercise of a capacity for
detachment, critical reflection, decision making and independent action (See Little, 1991: 4);
autonomous learners assume responsibility for determining the purpose, content, rhythm and
method of their learning, monitoring its progress and evaluating its outcomes (Holec 1981: 3).

It can be assumed that the capacity to manage their own learning depends upon
certain underlying psychological capacities required of learners. Concomitant with
the above, Holec’s (1981) perspective does not describe autonomy itself but rather
the exercise of autonomy. In other words, the emphasis in Holec’s definition is on
what autonomous learners are able to do and not on the way they are able to do it.
Little’s psychological approach raises a vital question: What are the most important
components of autonomy in language learning?
As Benson (2006) claims, the answer to the above question represents the focus
of recent literature theorising autonomy. Benson (2006) made particular reference
to Littlewood (1996), Pemberton (1996), and Benson (2001). Research attempting
to identify the components of autonomy in language learning led to the emergence
of two notions: “degrees of autonomy” (Nunan 1999, 2000, 2003) and Little’s
(1991: 4) “forms of autonomy”. Little (1991: 4) refers to the behaviour of auton-
omous learners who “can take numerous different forms, depending on their age,
how far they have progressed with their learning, what they perceive their imme-
diate learning needs to be, and so on”. These two notions led to the emphasis on
Introduction xxvii

potential meanings of learner autonomy and the practical implications these

meanings involve.
The above view of learner autonomy reflects a constructivist line of reasoning
which perceives the learner as self-activator with potential to volitionally cause
learning to happen rather than submissively wait for teaching to be exercised on
them. Learning is, then, perceived as the outcome of self-initiated interaction
learners establish with the world. They engage in a process of constructing meaning
through their interaction with their environment. From the constructivist perspec-
tive, learners’ readiness, willingness and active role are core aspects typical of and
vital for autonomy. These aspects can be perceived as too ambitious to be achieved
in some Teaching and Learning (T&L) without proper gradual development and
adequate ground preparation. This is mainly because definitions of autonomy tend
to attribute characteristics to learners that are, in reality, rarely achieved. This
idealistic image of autonomy in a constructivist view does not reflect the actual
learning environment. Feedback from most English as a Foreign Language
(EFL) classes in the Gulf area,5 Oman in particular, portrays students as incapable,
and often unwilling, to take an active role in their learning, especially that they have
a preference for teacher-led learning.
Crabbe (2007: 120) considers that “the primary purpose of a curriculum is to
provide a range of learning opportunities and to facilitate the take-up of those
opportunities in order to achieve specified goals”. Learners’ awareness and
understanding of the learning task are vital as they develop in them a sense of
identification with their learning. It is believed that learners who are familiar with a
learning task identify better with learning, and as a result, their motivation
increases. Learners’ identification with learning and their motivation represent a
central step towards the gradual development of autonomy. It is subject to the
degree of their involvement in choosing, designing and preparing the materials.
Crabbe (2007: 120) insists on the conscious character of the learning process “with
a link made between the activity and learning goals”. The success of the teacher in
leading learners to establish the link between specific classroom activities and
general awareness of how to learn means that learners will become able to “know
how to replicate the activity outside the classroom, thus providing them with an
enhanced ability to manage their own learning, to be more autonomous” (Ibid).
A current belief today is that learners’ awareness of their learning strategies, which
evolve around personal growth, and the required strategies for them to develop
autonomy are central to help them take greater control over their own learning
(Griffiths 2007; Macaro 2001; Benson 2001, 2007). Personal growth relates to the
learner’s drive towards learning, collaboration, competition and autonomy as is
manifested in the desire for challenge, independent mastery, curiosity and interest.
This drive is perceived as a process that takes learners the CLA advocated in its
ICCCAL continuum of learner autonomy gradual development.

5
See Plafreyman (2001), Zeytoun-Millie (2002) and Malcolm (2004).
xxviii Introduction

Malcolm (2004) rightly claims that more effective learners are those who take on
responsibility for their own learning.6 This view is further supported by pertinent
research studies.7 It is the focus on the development of such responsibility that
engages the teachers and the HEIs in the process of developing autonomy. Though
the idea of taking responsibility for the learning is like stating the obvious and is an
old idea in the literature, it is important in the context of the present book. Learners’
responsibility for their own learning is a novice concept in the Omani and the
MENA region teaching and learning contexts. The main role teachers and HEIs
should play in developing learner autonomy is training learners to become
responsible for and get more involved in their learning. The current move towards
increased learner involvement in the language teaching context shows that learning
is individual-oriented and context-based in the sense that there is no “fit-for-all”
learning technique that works well with learners in all contexts. It is vital here to
recall and refute the common assumption that learner autonomy is a Western
concept that cannot be applied to contexts other than Western learning environ-
ments.8 As stated above, the present book aims to explore learner autonomy in the
MENA region and, ultimately, argues against the claim that autonomy is typical of
Western educational environments only.
In an interesting article on the implications of autonomy in education, Smith
(2008) suggests that learners can provide deep insights into facets of learner
autonomy which may have been neglected in the past. This implies that individual
language learners, irrespective of their background or origins, do have their own
voices and enjoy the ability to reflect on and express their own views about what
and how they are learning. It is important to place more emphasis not only on what
autonomy is for different learners in different settings but also on what it is for.
Learners’ awareness of what is significant for them implies that they are required to
go beyond the mere acquisition of the language system and skills in their current
conceptions and equally of language learning and of learner autonomy. Hence, the
exploration of students’ perceptions of learner autonomy is important and crucial to
the gradual development of learner autonomy. This will be the focus of the second
chapter. It is equally important to recognise the importance of developing
self-esteem in general, engaging the whole person and guiding learners intellec-
tually, imaginatively and affectively as well as literally (Mercer 2008). Teachers
who manage to appraise learners’ values, develop in them self-concepts, and
reshape their learning environment are likely to become better tuned with the

6
Diane Malcolm presented her research findings about self-directed learning in Bahrain in TESOL
Arabia Conference 2001 in a paper entitled Self-directed Activities in a Credit EAP Course.
7
See White and Shelley’s (2003) research on responsibility in distance learning and Ushioda’s
(2006) research on the link between learner autonomy and motivation.
8
See Littlewood’s (1999) research findings on autonomy in the East Asian context in which he
argues against the assumptions made about the East Asian learners and the East Asian educational
environment being incompatible with the concept of autonomy. Littlewood’s work on these
assumptions influenced my interest in exploring the issue of autonomy in the present book.
Introduction xxix

interests and needs of the learners and thus are more capable of developing learner
autonomy in them.
The book puts much emphasis on the constructive role the teachers play in
developing autonomy in their learners. The CLA does not perceive the Omani
learners’ reliance on teachers as harmful as it is often wrongly perceived. It is rather
a characteristic that should be properly exploited to help in the development of
learner autonomy. From the CLA perspective, this reliance is termed as Responsible
Reliance on the Teacher,9 which is reliance in the sense of having the teacher
present to provide the learners with the learning opportunities and the learning tasks
and guide their use of such opportunities. Ultimately, learners who are well-guided
are expected to replicate these opportunities and tasks outside the classroom in an
autonomous manner.
Crabbe (2007: 118) reiterates the importance of providing learners with
“learning opportunities” that, according to him, refer “simply to a specific cognitive
or meta-cognitive activity that a learner can engage in that is likely to lead to
learning”. In a further development and in the book’s attempt to relate the notion of
“learning opportunity” to the concept of learner autonomy, reference can be made
to Crabbe (Ibid) who claims that while “tasks are normally available in classrooms,
learning opportunities are available to learners everywhere at all times”. Engaging
learners in such opportunities requires a degree of self-direction and accordingly
needs modelling. Hence, as the present book stresses, teachers’ constructive role in
developing autonomy in their learners emerges again. Teachers are responsible for
the gradual development of their learners’ learning awareness and what Crabbe
(2007: 119) calls “conscious perception and take-up of a learning opportunity”. It
implies that “learners themselves need to be actively engaged in identifying and
managing the learning opportunities [and this can only happen] when learners are
better equipped, and therefore more likely, to manage learning opportunities outside
the classroom” (Ibid). Training and orienting learners in this manner is important,
and it has to be formalised and made systematic through integrated orientation
programmes, such as the Autonomous Learning Orientation Programme (ALOP)
applied in some HEIs and explored in the research that underpins the present book.
These are introductory and training sessions that aim at familiarising students with
the resources and the ways in self-learning venues (SLVs). The present book tries to
find whether such programmes exist in the Omani context and explores their effi-
ciency and sufficiency.
One of the challenges of the twenty-first century in relation to higher education
is the correlation between individual styles and experiences and the learning

9
I used this term to describe the distinctive feature that characterises the dependence of the Omani
learners on the teacher. It is a constructive reliance viewed from a different perspective as one
factor that helps develop learner autonomy. It ensures the gradual progress of the learners to
autonomy without sudden disappearance of the teacher that might lead to learners’ loss of security
and confidence.
xxx Introduction

strategies learners are equipped with. This means that new materials, delivery
modes and learning environments need to be developed in response to the latest
emerging concepts of competency and job-relatedness. The focus of the present
book is on redefining learner autonomy in the Omani and MENA region context
and presenting it as a positive answer to the learning trends and aspirations in a
process that culminates in advocating the CLA and its ICCAL continuum of
gradual learner autonomy development. The role of HEIs is to prepare graduates
towards meeting the expected needs through equipping them with generic skills,
competencies and knowledge that make them become autonomous and able to cope
in this era of change which places demands on learners to increase their capacity for
learning. This capacity is not necessarily about learning more, but about expanding
and enhancing the ways in which learning takes place and helping learners become
more flexible, more self-reliant and autonomous.
Learner autonomy, which has emerged as a response to the above challenges,
has gone through major influential developments.10 The global interest in autono-
mous learning in recent years has also manifested itself in the emergence of
self-access11 as a component in learning. Autonomous learning initiatives have
spread over the last few decades through various implementations and institutions
that provided the opportunity for learner autonomy development to take place and
in most cases achieve success.
Developing students’ awareness of their autonomy outside the classroom is
important as language learning is a lifelong quest and continuous endeavour.
Autonomous learning is for some time believed to apply solely to the Western
context, a context that is believed12 to provide a positive learning environment that
helps develop learner autonomy, and is therefore unsuited to other contexts which
have different educational traditions. Benson (2006: 25) states that “this idea has
been discussed in a number of papers on autonomy in Asia in the 1990s,13 which
largely argue for group-oriented approaches to the implementation of autonomy in
these settings”. Benson’s (2006) claim is central to the CLA approach to learner
autonomy development. This implies the need to have a thorough exploration of
learning styles and strategies. With insights into learners’ styles and strategies,
teachers become more aware of the roles they need to adopt, adding another
dimension to learner autonomy.

10
See Benson (2006), Holec (1981), Dickinson and Wenden (1995), Pemberton et al. (1996) and
Benson and Voller (1997, 1998, 2000).
11
Self-access centres, together with other terms such as self-direction, self-control, self-enhancement,
self-investment and self-management, are used in the literature to refer to a form of learning done,
designed, controlled, managed and evaluated by the learner.
12
See, for example, Sonaiya’s (2002) argument that the idea of autonomy is not appropriate to
African settings.
13
See reviews in Palfreyman and Smith (2003): ELT and TESOL conferences in the Gulf and
Middle East in recent years have been devoted to the theme of Autonomy, Learner Involvement,
and Independence… etc.
Introduction xxxi

Assumptions on Learner Autonomy in the Omani Context

The book presents an attempt to validate and refute a number of assumptions14

about learner autonomy in the MENA region, Omani context in particular. These
are as follows:
1. Rejection of and resistance to autonomy,
2. Degree of crude readiness to develop autonomy,
3. Lack of motivation,
4. Over-reliance on the teacher,
5. Positive perception of learner autonomy,
6. Learner autonomy is a one-fit-for-all concept,
7. Learner autonomy: a one-go development, not a gradually developed capacity,
8. Non-interventionist role of the teacher,
9. Collectivism and Individualism do not coexist,
10. Autonomy and collaboration do not coexist,
11. Need for redefined roles of the teachers and HEIs, and
12. Peer scaffolding is vital for the Omani learners’ perception of autonomy.

Book Structure

Chapter 1 presents an overview of learner autonomy, focusing on the proliferation

of autonomous learning in the twenty-first century with a historical account of the
major developments related to the emergence of this relatively novice approach to
learning. After investigating the major contextual antecedents for autonomous
learning pedagogy, it addresses learner autonomy definitions from different per-
spectives, psychology and culture in particular and typology. It sheds light on
various conditions and factors identified and discussed in the literature in relation to
the development of learner autonomy and implementation of successful autono-
mous learning through the provision of learning opportunities and a learning
environment conducive to autonomy.
Chapter 2 relates learner autonomy to the Middle East and North Africa
(MENA) region context, addressing misconceptions about learners there in relation
to individualisation and autonomy and describing how it is understood in the Omani
context as a collaborative undertaking that is perceived within the more general
concepts of collectivism and interdependence. It uses findings from the explorative
research conducted in Omani higher education institutions (HEIs) to identify
characteristics of learner autonomy in the Omani context and redefine learner
autonomy accordingly. It addresses the implications of learner autonomy, stressing

14
The identification of these assumptions and the exploration of their validity to the Omani context
was mainly influenced by Littlewood’s (1999) assertions about Eastern learners.
xxxii Introduction

the importance Omani students give to learner autonomy as a capacity for

self-direction, individualisation within the scope of interdependence and responsi-
ble reliance on the teacher with a redefined role as a knowledge facilitator, not
provider. The chapter also addresses issues that have always been associated with
the development of learner autonomy, such as negative attitudes and resistance to
autonomy.
Chapter 3 presents the gradual development of learner autonomy as the core
of the Collaborative Learner Autonomy (CLA) approach to learner autonomy in the
Omani context and advocates it as the theory to apply in the MENA region context.
It gives an overview of different theoretical developments and their impact on the
concept of autonomy and the various models they generated. It reiterates the
importance and central role training and guidance have in the effective development
of learner autonomy.
Chapter 4 sets learner autonomy within the perspective of the Collaborative
Learner Autonomy (CLA), relating it mainly to the culture of relatedness prevailing
in the Omani context and similar contexts in the MENA region. It revisits a number
of concepts that emerge in the process of promoting learner autonomy, such as
self-regulation, motivation, individual differences and teacher development. It
concludes by presenting findings from the field implementation of reading circles as
a mode of CLA and moves to providing the features of the learning environment
advocated by the CLA.
Chapter 5 revisits the main findings of the research the present book is based on,
stressing the importance of reading circles and the importance of the positive
learning attitudes Omani students have in relation to the development of autonomy,
their readiness to engage in learning opportunities conducive to autonomy, reiter-
ating the need for all stakeholders (learners, teachers, HEIs and the community) to
create a learning environment of partnership and collaboration with each party
embracing redefined roles conducive to autonomy.
Chapter 1
Learner Autonomy—An Overview

This chapter gives an overview of learner autonomy and its proliferation in the 21st
century and a historical account of related major developments and contextual
antecedents for autonomous learning pedagogy. It also synthesises definitions of
learner autonomy from different perspectives, exploring various conditions and
factors that influence the development of learner autonomy.

1.1 Proliferation of Learner Autonomy

As Benson (2006) claims, the 20th and the 21st centuries were marked by a con-
siderably growing interest in autonomy. Conferences, which were devoted to the
themes of autonomy, learner involvement, self-learning, self-enhanced learning,
have been held in Europe, Asia, Australia, and Latin America and recently in the
MENA region. The number of contributions listed under the heading of autonomy
in international conferences and congresses has increased in the last few decades.
A sheer volume of publications1 related to autonomy have been published and have
considerably increased, taking the literature on autonomy to new directions, per-
spectives and dimensions which influence theory and practice.
The concept of learner autonomy emerged out of practice and as a development
of the research and studies conducted by a group of teacher-researchers in the early
1970s. The early history of autonomy in language education is well documented
(Gremmo and Riley 1995; Little 1991; Benson 2001) and shows the rapid growth
1
Benson (2006) lists some major recent publications on autonomy in language education. These
include published reports on collaborative projects, journal special issues, collections from con-
ferences, collections of commissioned papers, short summary articles in encyclopedias and
handbooks, short summary articles on the web, online entries on learner autonomy, guides for
teachers and learners, chapters on autonomy in general guides to language teaching, and papers on
autonomy appearing in collections covering topics not directly related to autonomy, including
affect.

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017 1

S. Blidi, Collaborative Learner Autonomy,
DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-2048-3_1
2 1 Learner Autonomy—An Overview

of interest in learner autonomy that characterises the 1990s and 2000s. Important
work from this period can also be found in early issues of the journal Mélanges
Pédagogiques2 and in papers presented at a 1976 seminar at the University of
Cambridge. Henri Holec’s3 research studies on the ability of the learners to take
charge of their own learning have substantially influenced interest in the widening
access to education and promoting life-long learning.
One main practical implication that emerged soon was that participants did not
necessarily have the full competence to take responsibility for their learning,
engaging themselves in the process of decision-making in all the areas normally
determined by an institution, teacher, or textbook. These areas include learning
content (materials), stages (syllabus), methods and techniques (learning styles and
strategies), process and environment (pace, time, and place), objectives and eval-
uation procedures.
Benson (2006) claims that the early pedagogical experiments related to auton-
omy were inspired by humanistic expectations aroused by the political turmoil and
“counter-cultures” of late-1960s in Europe (Holec 1981; Gremmo and Riley 1995).4
Primary practical applications focused on self-directed learning and led to the
development of self-access centres and learner training as focal points for
experimentation.
Social changes have an impact on the role distribution in the education scene as
well as on the setting of language teaching and learning goals throughout the world.
At the same time, new insights into language acquisition, language use and learning
styles have increased the understanding of what the process involves. These
changing roles are particular when they relate to the development of the concept of
learner autonomy. The concepts of learner autonomy and independence have
gained momentum (Little 1991: 2) in making autonomy in language learning a
topic of widespread discussion (Holec 1981; Pemberton et al. 1996; Benson and
Voller 1997). The international interest in autonomous learning in recent years has
also manifested itself in the emergence of learner-access5 as a component in
learning.
One of the most important pillars of communicative language learning and
teaching has been a focus on the role of the learner (Wenden 1998). This means a
shift of responsibility from teachers to learners with the ultimate aim of achieving
an effective learner-centred learning. With the radical changes that classrooms have
undergone, especially in the structure of authority, the image of the teacher as the

2
Translation from French: Pedagogic Mixtures.
3
Henri Holec is the former Director of Le Centre de Recherches et d’Applications Pédagogiques en
Langues (CRAPEL) at the University of Nancy, France. He is a prominent educationalist and
education theorist whose works on Learner Autonomy are of great influence.
4
Though beyond the scope of the book, it is worth-mentioning that these relate to the
‘de-schooling’ movement of the era.
5
Self-direction, self-control, self-enhancement, self-investment and self-management are used in
the literature to refer to a form of learning done, designed, controlled, managed and evaluated by
the learner.
1.1 Proliferation of Learner Autonomy 3

knowledge-provider has started giving way to the learner occupying the centre
stage. The trend has become more towards learning than teaching with a new
perspective perceiving learning as a student-centred process that regards learners as
active and productive agents with a “capacity for detachment, critical reflection,
decision-making, and independent action” (Little 1991: 4). Within this new
dimension, these students are labelled “autonomous learners”, who are expected to
assume a greater responsibility for, and take charge of, their own learning.
The current movement away from the teacher as the knowledge owner and
dispenser should in no way be understood as implying redundancy for the teacher.
Teachers’ “educational interventions”, as Candy (1991) calls them, remain
important and needed in this dynamic autonomous process. The ownership and
responsibility for one’s learning call for the development of decision and choice
making skills. These skills recall Lee’s (1997) concepts of responsibility for the
learning objectives, self-monitoring, self-assessing and taking an active role in
learning.
A wide-spread belief today is that learners’ awareness of their learning strategies
and the required strategies for them to develop autonomy is central to help them
take greater control over their own learning. Individual differences in learning
habits, interests, needs, and motivation, which generate varying degrees of inde-
pendence, are an issue of concern in learners’ autonomy.
Reinders’ (2000) perception of self-access learning and autonomy from political
perspective relates them to philosophical works from a number of philosophers
from Aristotle through to Kant in the 19th century.6 This has manifested itself in the
emergence of the individual and the social individual as the focal points in the
political scene worldwide. As part of a community, the individual has become
placed within the context of inter-individual interaction, dependence, and interde-
pendence. It is within this perspective that learner autonomy and autonomous
learning are placed. One of the major political developments is the impact it has on
the teaching and learning scene and the educational environments where education
has become perceived as an empowering tool that would raise people’s awareness
of the issue of autonomy. The individual thus has taken an active role in shaping
their own life. Education has taken the dimension and role of preparing learners for
autonomy and the trend towards learning rather than teaching, which involves
equipping learners with the skills necessary to take control over the processes and
content of learning. In the words of Collins and Hammond (1991: 13):
It begins with the assumption that the ultimate purpose of education is the betterment of
society, and that critical awareness and social action to promote emancipation are desirable
results of any educational intervention.

In the same vein, and in a later development of the above, a number of concepts
and approaches emerged, such as Language Awareness Movement (Reinders 2000;
Hawkins 1981, 1984). These approaches stress the political impact that the

6
I would add the communist ideology as a major political phenomenon of the 20th century.
4 1 Learner Autonomy—An Overview

perceptions of the learners have on their own learning. The focus is on raising
students’ and all stakeholders’ awareness of the impact that the political context
related to learning has on the concept of learner autonomy.
In the context of the present book, this has manifested itself in the political
developments that Oman witnessed with the establishment and enactment of rep-
resentative bodies that provide a forum for individuals to have a say on national
issues. These are entities made of group of people and carry out the task of rep-
resenting the community and raising their concerns, needs and views at the state
level as well as the academic level.
One of the major social developments resulting from the Second World War is
the change in learning needs in terms of educational content, strategies and skills.
There was an increasing demand and need for foreign and second languages. As a
result of the changes that characterised the political, industrial and technological
scenes, the T&L content and methodology became more important than ever
before. This meant a shift in the teaching and learning scope from knowledge
acquisition only to knowledge, competencies and skills acquisition. New skills
involved critical thinking skills, problem-solving skills, communication skills, and
management. Relating this shift to the emerging need for second language and
foreign language and the different strategies and skills that relate to that, reference
can be made to Broady and Kenning’s (1996: 10) claim that:
Using language effectively for communication involves negotiation of meaning, rather than
mere decoding of linguistic tokens, thus requiring the ability to cope confidently with
unpredictable information.

A further development emerging from the global industrial and technological

changes of the post-war period was the abundance of information. This abundance
had a strong impact on the expectations of people concerning the way they process,
use and deal with information (Pemberton 1996). This meant the need for more
interactive, collaborative and autonomous learning skills. Learners became more
and more aware of the need to acquire new learning, academic, communicative and
knowledge processing skills that enable them to cope with quickly changing cir-
cumstances. The idea of a fixed body of knowledge that can be transmitted onto
learners has become obsolete. The body of knowledge in relation to Teaching and
Learning (T&L) content and targeted skills has become complex and versatile. In
the same vein, and from financial perspectives, the increase in the number of
university students heavily influenced the capacity of education systems to provide
learners with everything they need. Learners need to develop the ability to play an
active role in providing for their own learning needs. These social developments
had a clear impact on learning and the development of learner autonomy.
Lewis and Reinders (2007) set the development of autonomy and autonomous
learning within the historical framework of political, social, pedagogical and psy-
chological context of the 20th and 21st centuries which is characterised by change.
It has become vital for teachers to equip learners with the mechanisms that enable
them to positively interact with their socio-cultural context and adapt themselves to
the changing environment, needs and realities. It is believed that autonomous
1.1 Proliferation of Learner Autonomy 5

learning skills are vital and central in this direction. Teachers with an individualist
orientation encourage learners to believe in their own unique identity and are more
likely to claim the right to express themselves, make personal choices, and strive for
self-actualisation but within the framework of collectivism and collaboration that
provides a safe, non-threatening and comfortable learning environment.
Collectivism-oriented educational systems, on the other hand, stimulate learners to
identify with their community and train them to see themselves as an inseparable
part of the in-group. Comparative studies7 of the attitudes and cultural values in the
MENA region reveal a much stronger collectivist orientation than people in
Western countries. Since the focus in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) is the
individual within that culture, the focus is on the “person-based concepts of the
independent self and the interdependent” (Littlewood 1999). A particularly sig-
nificant concept that underpins the CLA’s gradual development of autonomy in
collaboration is the perception of the self. Learners are perceived as individuals
with two constructs that interact inside. The independent construct which makes the
individual perceive themselves as separate from others. The interdependent con-
struct drives the individual to see themselves as connected with others. Drawing on
observations in the Omani context, it could be concluded that the interdependent
self prevails, which underpins the focus on redefining learner autonomy and
advocating CLA as a necessary stage in the process of gradual development of
learner autonomy. In fact, the exploration of learning styles and strategies in the
Omani context has identified interdependence and collectivism as central to the
Omani learning culture which is mainly oriented towards collectivism.
One aspect of this interdependence is the Omani learners’ responsible reliance
on the teacher. This poses the issue of learners’ perceptions of the role of the
teacher. Indeed, learners’ commitment to autonomous learning cannot hide the fact
that they are bound to ask for support, teacher support and guidance as well as peer
scaffolding. Autonomy and reliance on teachers are not contradictory or mutually
exclusive. Pemberton et al. (2001) warn teachers, in their emerging role as advisors,
against the traditional tendency to interfere much as this undermines learners’
ability to develop autonomy. They put emphasis on the ability of the teachers, as
advisors and learning support providers, to “control the impulse to teach” (2001:
23). The extreme sense of the non-interventionist policy above cannot be applied in
the Omani context given that Omani students come from other language and cul-
tural backgrounds. However, in a moderated sense and relating it to the responsible
reliance on teachers, it is important not to perceive learners’ needs for support and
guidance as a rejection of and resistance to autonomy. Rather, it is an evidence of a
higher-order form of autonomy, providing the learners with the luxury of choosing
between being dependent and being independent. In fact, autonomy is not a colossal
concept. It is a gradual development from different perspectives. Teachers need to
develop learner-informed standards and criteria. These take into account learners’
needs and the requirements of the learning environment and realities. With this

7
See Hofstede (1991) and Triandis (1995).
6 1 Learner Autonomy—An Overview

objective in mind, the teacher can be portrayed as a manager who creates a sup-
portive and stimulating learning environment and a guide who is available as a
resource person. This implies that becoming autonomous entails that learners accept
responsibility and seek models. It is the role of the teacher to work on providing
these models and developing in learners the need to seek them and use them.
In the same respect, instead of embracing radical and prejudiced generalities
about a particular sense of self, it is useful to learn about the cultural factors
affecting the students, taking into consideration their impact on learners’ attitudes to
learning. For example, while many writers stress the collective nature of the Arab
and Muslim heritage cultures, implicitly claiming that they are unable to develop
autonomy, Scollon and Scollon (1995) claim that individualistic cultures can
incorporate collectivist features and collective cultures can similarly incorporate
individualistic traits. The wide reference to collectivism in the Eastern cultures
should not yield us to the false conception that learners in these cultures lack
individualism or individuality. Promoting autonomy does not necessarily, at least at
its initial stage, require the teachers to transform the way their students perceive
themselves, their relation to others and the value of hierarchy and authority.
Teachers rather need to respect learners’ self-perceptions and gradually tune them
towards the development of readiness and willingness to develop autonomy. This
echoes the ICCA continuum of gradual learner autonomy development the CLA
advocates in the present book.

1.2 Learner Autonomy from Different Perspectives

The current section links learner autonomy to different perspectives, mainly Life-long
Learning, Experiential Learning, and Learning Psychology theories and pedagogy.

The emergence of life-long learning is one major development in Europe which

is thought to have an impact on educational policies and teaching-learning trends
across Europe, and the world. It relates to the awareness of the need to bridge the
gap between education systems and the socio-economic needs in particular.
Education is believed to work more and be directed towards exploring and catering
for new emerging needs. In 1996 Europe celebrated The European Year of
Life-long Learning, stressing the need to respond to fears about competitiveness,
innovations in technology and capitalist globalisation. Substantial changes in
education systems are expected to cater for the new needs. Responding to change
has become a must and, as often stated by policy-makers, there is a mounting
urgency to adapt and upgrade education to be able to respond to the changing
global economic, social and political environment.
A later development of life-long learning is the perception8 of education as
economic policy and social justice, which resulted in a consensus between

8
This is the view of the British Labour government expressed by Tony Blair in 1998.
1.2 Learner Autonomy from Different Perspectives 7

academics, policy-makers, employers and teachers on the need to reshape education

in a way that enables it to respond to change. This implies changes to institutional
structures, qualifications and funding formulae as well as educational trends. It
indicates a movement away from teaching to learning and the emergence of the
post-method principle in education. In fact, the most recent change in education and
teaching methods relates to the new belief by theorists and practitioners that we are
today in the post-method era where there is no method or approach that fits for all.
Classroom realities and practical needs direct the teacher to make instant provisions
that are situation-bound. This takes the teacher and the learner away from being
framed and shaped within static methods.
Building on the above, initiatives to develop learner autonomy face a number of
obstacles, such as lack of participation in learning and low levels of learners’
motivation, structural barriers related to the learning environment, and organisa-
tional problems. It is vital to direct common efforts to address these issues and
remove these obstacles in order to reach the targeted profile of potential graduates
who are highly skilled, versatile, and adaptable. They enjoy, apart from scientific
and academic skills, generic skills showing evidence of educational achievement
and success of educational systems to win the challenge.
Over the past three decades there has been a political emphasis on life-long
learning as an investment in human capital. From the perspective of formal regular
education, this means developing in learners a set of targeted skills and compe-
tencies that are generated from current economic, social and job market needs, not
only providing them with pure academic knowledge without addressing practical
field issues. Learners become self-interested individuals in a competitive market
and autonomy for them becomes synonymous with the concepts of self-interest and
self-development. It targets the increase of the individual’s employability through
curricula that derive from and match the needs of the learners and the market.
Human capital encourages educators and policy-makers alike to promote
self-interest and instrumental motivation based on the fact that education enables
learners to gain credentials which ultimately determine their degree of employa-
bility as graduates. The objective then becomes not education for its sake, and in its
true sense as a factor that enhances self-development but rather the qualification.
However, with the emergence of life-long learning as a social need and develop-
ment, new T&L dimensions have emerged. New graduate attributes and generic
skills appeared as vital and became more and more incorporated in teaching and
learning. The role of HEIs as providers of these needs has taken further impetus. It
has become the responsibility of the education system to provide skills necessary
for this process. Autonomous learning and learner autonomy emerged here as one
answer to these needs. The success of HEIs in equipping learners with autonomous
learning skills can be seen as a step in the right direction. The European Council,
for example, has recognised this and stimulated research into this area, generating
several reports9 with recommendations to this end.

9
See Holec (1994), Holec et al. (1996), Holec and Huttunen (1997).
8 1 Learner Autonomy—An Overview

Psychology in the 1960s was marked by an awareness of the need to relocate the
individual in the centre of their own development to become the focus of the
teaching and learning scene. This new perspective meant a shift in learning from
acquiring patterns of linguistic behaviour through drills, repetition and reinforce-
ment by teacher to the construction of linguistic knowledge in a dynamic social
context. The individual has become perceived as a contributor and a role player in
this development. This awareness has been, to a larger extent, influenced by the
shift from positivism to constructivism. Positivism views knowledge as an accurate
reflection of objective reality that can be discovered and taught whereas knowledge
from a constructivist perspective is a reorganisation and restructuring of experience.
This means that it cannot be taught because it is unique for every individual (Candy
1989). The implication of constructivism on learning is that learners participate in
their development as they construct their own learning. Experiential Learning
emerged as a later development of the humanistic trend in psychology and learning.
The behaviour of the learners becomes less important than their experiences and
insights. Kelly claims that “it is not the events and texts themselves that are
ingrained in his [the learner] memory but the object of his attentions” (1955: 35).
The belief is that development and growth happen through experience and it is the
reflections of the learners on their experiences that enable them to develop.
Perceived from the Collaborative Learner Autonomy (CLA) perspective, expe-
riential learning is considered as one of the pillars of autonomous learning whereby
learners learn by experiencing, that is by doing. One of the most driving motives
with regard to experiential learning is that it is important to provide learners with
any learning opportunity where they can exercise their ability to do. Teachers are
required to refrain from doing things for them as this takes away an opportunity for
them to learn responsibly. Experiential learning is perceived in the literature as a
development within the realm of psychology and cognition.
Advocates of experiential learning focus on rationalising learners’ experience by
raising their awareness of it and guiding them to consciously reflect on their own
learning. What enables learners to build such consciousness and how personal
constructs help learners develop this awareness have been well explored in Kelly’s
Theory of Personal Constructs (1955). The basic concept in this theory is that
individuals recognise the world through constructs they develop for themselves. It
is the individual’s active involvement in making sense of the world that supports the
common assumption that autonomy is initially innate in human nature. In fact,
learners from the Theory of Personal Constructs perspective need to be perceived,
and actually are, active and responsible participants who make choices based on
reality as they perceive it, not just lazy consumers and passive responders. Human
beings according to Kelly (1955) are innately inclined more towards proactive
rather than reactive autonomy.
From the Humanistic Psychology perspective (Rogers 1969), learning starts as
an innate system and the individual’s self-concept develops as a social product that
is gradually shaped as they interact with the environment (Rogers 1969). Autonomy
is rather social and can be paced in reactive autonomy. The development of a
healthy self-concept is facilitated by a positive self-regard and an unconditional
1.2 Learner Autonomy from Different Perspectives 9

acceptance by others. This implies that the individuals’ awareness of one’s feelings,
openness to new experiences, and tolerance are central to this development.
Accordingly, as Rogers (1969) and earlier Kelly (1955), argue, personal develop-
ment is a process of individual’s response to events in accordance with how they
perceive and interpret them. Experiential learning theory invites conscious attention
to the importance of learners’ subjective experiences, attitudes and feelings about
their learning. The more reflective learners are, the more autonomous they can
become. Learning experiences gained in the process of learning will have a
cumulative influence on the development of the learners’ cognitive and affective
characteristics, and thus their views of themselves as learners. Helping learners
improve their views of themselves as learners makes them better learners, able to
utilise their potential more fully.
Kolb’s (1984) Model of Experiential Learning describes learning as a cycle of
perceiving and processing. Learners alternate between the perception and then the
processing of any input. This cycle is characterised by continuous alternation in
learning between reflection and experimentation, abstract conceptualisation and
concrete experience, assimilating and accommodating, diverging and converging,
thinking and feeling, and finally watching and doing. Kolb’s learning cycle stresses
the simultaneity between the passive and active, receptive and productive com-
plementary aspects of learning. Accordingly, as Kolb’s model suggests, learning
has four orientations: concrete experience, abstract conceptualisation, reflective
observation, and active experimentation.
Learning is then a four-stage cycle that combines these orientations and takes the
learner from the reception of theoretical concepts to the experiencing and the
reflection of these concepts until they become part of their frame of reference.
Reflection, a core aspect of learner autonomy, provides a bridge, as it were, between
experience and theoretical conceptualisation. So, the learning process involves, and
actually consists of, engaging the learners in recycling their experiences at deeper
levels of understanding and interpretation.
One major pedagogical implication resulting from the emergence of autonomous
learning is the shift from teacher-centeredness and behaviourism to
learner-centeredness, constructivism, cognitive and social constructive learning
theories. From the socio-linguistics perspective, the shift equally implies a change
in learners’ profile from receptiveness and passivity as individual learners to
activeness and productivity as learners interacting in a social context. With the
emergence of socio-linguistics, the learner has been moved onto the centre of the
teaching and learning context. The learner is no longer that receptive, static and
passive individual. Learners are perceived as active and productive role players
interacting with other learners in a social context. This is mainly because language
is inseparable from its socio-cultural context and social reality acquired a role in the
learning environment. Learners need to be perceived as inseparable from the
socio-cultural context in which they exist and the learning environment in which
they operate. Relating these developments to the context of the present book,
10 1 Learner Autonomy—An Overview

autonomous learning places emphasis on the interaction between learners and their
socio-cultural context, influencing it and getting influenced by their changing social
reality. It has become vital for teachers to equip learners with the mechanisms that
enable them to adapt themselves to the changing environment, needs and realities.
Autonomous learning skills are central in this direction as they provide learners
with meaningful and stimulating environment for the development of learner
autonomy and the promotion of autonomous learning.

1.3 Learner Autonomy and Learning Culture

Learner autonomy has become an influential concept in language education in a

variety of contexts in recent years, and ‘culture’ has often been mentioned as a
significant variable in connection with its appropriateness and/or practicality. The
claim that learner autonomy is a cultural trait, with assumptions on the Western
autonomy versus other autonomies, is very often stated. With this focus in mind, it is
worth considering that the influence of culture touches upon the availability of
different meanings of autonomy, the implications of culture as an impetus to
autonomy, and culture as a constraint on the development of autonomy. From a
cultural perspective, autonomy is a multifaceted concept, susceptible to a variety of
interpretations. Holec’s (1981: 3) widely-cited definition of learner autonomy as “the
ability to take charge of one’s own learning” reiterates the exercise of responsibility
that needs to be developed in learners. However, interpreting what the phrase
“ability to take charge” entails and what “own learning” might mean is a tedious and
complex, yet vital, task. This is mainly when taking into consideration that learning
is context-bound as it inevitably takes place within the bounds and with the resources
of particular socio-cultural contexts. One interpretation, rather implication, is the
need to resist reduction to, for example, technical or psychological or political
interpretations, in favour of different possible sources of insight for practice. For
purely practical purposes, teachers may need to be aware that there are different
versions of autonomy with various underpinning approaches (see Sect 1.4).
Different interpretations of autonomy exist among learners given the different
cultural backgrounds they belong to. Professional discourses of autonomy used by
teachers need to focus on the detection of elements indicative of learners’ readiness
and willingness to develop autonomy in their learning behaviour. It is important,
then, to be aware of the strengths of different approaches but critical at the same
time so as to avoid falling in the trap of embracing narrow interpretations of what
“ability to take charge” entails. Learners can have different perceptions of learning
for their own purposes in different contexts. The resources learners, and teachers,
draw upon as well as the constraints they face are likely to vary according to setting.
Such variations explain why there cannot be a “one-fit-for-all” approach to
developing autonomy across cultures. Hence, one major implication of autonomous
learning among Omani students is the need it entails to redefine learner autonomy
for the Omani context. Learners’ background cultures have often been seen as a
1.3 Learner Autonomy and Learning Culture 11

hindrance to the development of autonomy, a view which has been associated with
claims for some contexts that promoting autonomy is only possible within Western
cultures. Learner autonomy is seen as a concept that is impossible to apply else-
where for cultural reasons (Sonaiya 2002). However, considering and redefining
culture with regard to the learning context, it can be advanced that promoting
autonomy can be both viewed as appropriate and made feasible in a wide variety of
settings, so long as what students already know and want is not a hindrance but a
major impetus.
It seems clear then that both the appropriateness and the feasibility of promoting
autonomy depend on the degree to which teachers’ and students’ conceptions are
not in mismatch. In fact, in situations of mismatch a teacher advocating learner
autonomy may resort to imposing autonomous learning activities on learners who
might not be ready for it. Avoiding such inappropriate impositions requires teachers
to be self-critical of their own professional preconceptions. It equally requires that
they develop an awareness of different learner autonomy interpretations other than
those they ‘inherited’ as teachers. This means redefining learner autonomy to fit the
learning environment. In practice, teachers can develop new conceptions through
interventions which set out to investigate and utilise students’ existing social
autonomy, manifested in the Omani learners’ inclination towards forming groups
where they feel safe. In this connection, many of the research approaches to
autonomy-oriented practice make use of culture as a source of autonomy promotion
and development. This involves the use of narratives, interviews, learners’ diaries,
ethnographic observations, more structured observations, learning logs, reflective
writing, and conversation groups. These techniques and tasks develop students’
ability to reflect on and take greater meta-cognitive control of their learning.
It is evident that the role of the teachers is to explore how their own students can
learn for themselves in their own spaces of freedom where they are guided to use
various resources to learn autonomously and value them. Autonomy has to be
developed in ways which are meaningful to learners, who need to be guided to use
ways of access appropriate to new resources. This also implies that even in learning
environments which lack resources building on what is available, including
learners’ affective needs for enjoyment and their love of movies, for example, can
combine with new input and ideas of autonomy to productive effect. Using learners’
ideas for classroom work and increasing their control over resource selection can be
similarly productive. Even in resourceful learning environments where a
well-established self-access centre exists students’ creativity remains vital. The
need remains vital, and a key priority, to build on and enhance this creativity.
A particularly successful strategy for developing autonomy is collaboration among
learners. Learners’ background culture, in this case relating to universal needs for
meaningful relationships with others, can be seen as a usable resource, not a
constraint.
Building on the above, the decision on whether autonomy should and can be
promoted in a particular context may depend largely on the conception of autonomy
and type of approach adopted. Omani learning culture reflects a perception of
individual learners’ inclination towards the development of autonomy through
12 1 Learner Autonomy—An Overview

independence, self-access, self-enhancement, and self-investment practices while

preserving its voluntary and group-oriented aspect. Features of group-oriented
autonomy as learning culture are collaboration among learners, negotiation of
meaning, and collaboration among teachers. Collaboration can enhance autonomy,
helping teachers to identify ways to utilise existing opportunities as well as con-
struct new resources for learner development. For Omani students, working in
groups and using peer support, Peer Scaffolding as the CLA advocates, reflect the
group-oriented perception they have of learner autonomy. It develops in them
self-confidence and autonomy-related self-constructs, self-esteem and
self-sufficiency, which helps them develop autonomy.

1.4 Theoretical Typology of Learner Autonomy

Nunan’s (2000) argument that autonomy is not an all-or-nothing concept implies

the need to investigate its varying degrees and types. This helps reaching a better
understanding of how the concept of autonomy is viewed in the literature, and in
practice with the book’s central focus of redefining learner autonomy in mind.
Littlewood (1999) suggests a continuum that categorises learner autonomy in terms
of varying degrees from proactive to reactive.

1.4.1 Proactive and Reactive Autonomy

The term proactive autonomy is used to refer to the effort made by the student to
regulate both the direction of the activity and the activity itself. This type is typical
of, if not restricted to, the Western societies. Action words are often used to
describe and refer to this type of autonomy, suggesting that learners are taking
control of their own learning by developing the ability to determine their objectives,
select methods and techniques and evaluate their learning outcomes (Holec 1981).
These words imply that learners individually set up a world fully or partially created
by themselves and for which they enjoy full freedom in deciding which direction to
take (Littlewood 1999).
Reactive autonomy refers to the effort made by the student to regulate the
activity once its direction is regulated by the teacher or any other guidance provider.
The purpose is to motivate learners to learn without feeling compelled to, and this is
by encouraging their own initiative, enabling them to choose the way to organise
their work and themselves, individually or collaboratively through competitive
pairing and group dynamics. This kind of learner autonomy is considered as a
preliminary step towards proactive autonomy in the sense that it enables the learners
to organise their resources autonomously in order to reach afore set goals.
Learning strategies and styles vary from individualist and competitive to
cooperative and collaborative learning. Cooperative learning strategies involve
1.4 Theoretical Typology of Learner Autonomy 13

learners working in an independent way but the teacher preserves the designing,
setting and controlling roles. They decide about the tasks, the goals, the knowledge
input, and learning methods. Such strategies are designed to complement rather
than challenge the teaching and learning situation (Littlewood 1999). Collaborative
learning strategies develop in learners the freedom of choice related to the process
and the product of learning, implying the emergence of a shared control over
classroom knowledge and authority by teachers and learners.
Whether proactive or reactive, autonomous learners enjoy the ability to com-
municate with other people in a variety of situations, collaborate with them in
performing learning tasks, manage their learning at the macro-level, and decide on
the strategies at the micro-level. Variations of degrees in their control learners can
exercise on their learning can be observed between both ends of Littlewood’s
(1999) continuum.

1.4.2 Influential Factors in Developing Learner Autonomy

A number of factors should be taken into account to develop and promote auton-
omous learning. These factors are so crucial that Lee (1997) considers them as
prerequisites for autonomy. When students voluntarily join an autonomous learning
programme or engage in any form of self-learning activities, they play a proactive
role to take as much benefit as possible. Evidence and results from the research that
underpins the Collaborative Learner Autonomy (CLA) approach to learner auton-
omy development in the Omani context reiterate the importance of the following
factors.
Voluntariness is the first factor that plays a role in enhancing or inhibiting
learners’ perception and attitudes to learner autonomy. This implies that if students
are compelled to join a self-directed learning programme, they may not benefit as
much as those who volunteer (Lee and Ng 1994). This refers to the element of
compulsion with regard to the development of learner autonomy often seen as
counterproductive. Compulsion contradicts with the principles of readiness and
willingness that are influential in the learner autonomy development process. In the
Omani context, however, this seems to be different as compulsion is not necessarily
negative and that it might emerge as a necessary initial stage part of the preparation
work to develop learner autonomy and, primarily, to overcome some cultural and
psychological hindrance, such as shyness, hesitation, and lack of self-confidence
which have a negative impact on learners’ readiness and willingness to develop
autonomy.
The second factor is learner choice of learning tasks, pace, location and related
conditions, which is perceived as central in directing students towards embracing
learner autonomy. Lee (1997) stresses learner choice as essential to autonomous
learning. This recalls Holec’s (1981) definition, perceiving learner autonomy as an
exercise of learning that involves making decisions. Decisions on learning include
14 1 Learner Autonomy—An Overview

setting objectives, defining contents and progressions, selecting methods, moni-

toring the procedure, and evaluating the outcome of learning.
The third factor is flexibility that is found to be an important criterion for
establishing a supportive environment that facilitates and fosters learner autonomy.
In the context of autonomous learning, Lee (1997) claims that flexibility means that
students can change learning options, such as objectives, contents, process of
learning, among others, according to their needs and interests. This is in line with
learners’ need to identify with learning opportunities availed for them.
The relationship that the teacher establishes with students, supporting and
guiding them in their learning, plays a crucial role in fostering autonomy.
Accordingly, teacher’s role is the next factor that is expected to help learners
develop the readiness and willingness to become autonomous. In fact, teachers need
to embrace a supportive role as a facilitator who helps learners formulate their goals
more clearly, and provides feedback, encouragement, and reinforcement. The tea-
cher facilitates the process of re-orientation and personal discovery. In the Omani
context, the existence of a supportive teacher learners can rely on for guiding and
orientation purposes is deemed important and effective. This reliance on the teacher
to provide guidance, initiate the task and provide a sort of training, however, does
not indicate any sense of resistance to or rejection of learner autonomy.
The fifth factor is peer support and the role it plays in developing learner
autonomy among learners. In fact, being autonomous and self-directed does not
necessarily mean learning alone only and discarding peer support. There is an
implicit collaborative element in autonomous learning since learners have to
interact, negotiate and collaborate with peers. Accordingly, autonomy, as Dam
(1995) puts it, reflects the capacity and willingness of the learner to act indepen-
dently and in collaboration with others, which is found to strongly apply to the
Omani context. This recalls Benson’s (2006) concept of tandem learning portraying
two learners sitting together reading to each other a language work. It also recalls
Breen and Littlejohn’s (2000) concept of negotiated learning and Little et al.’s
(2002) collaborative teaching projects. From the CLA perspective, peer support is
vital and has an important impact. Peer support is then a major factor that the CLA
considers as playing a vital role in developing learner autonomy through Peer
Scaffolding in a collaborative learning environment, which echoes Vygotsky’s
notion of Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD).

1.4.3 Learner Autonomy Conditions

Benson and Voller (1997) claim that the development of learner autonomy requires
a set of conditions that put the teacher at the forefront. It requires a teacher who
prepares the ground for learners to develop the skills and adopt learning styles that
ultimately develop in them autonomy and promote autonomous learning. This is
considered as a necessary ground preparation that can be done by sending learners
1.4 Theoretical Typology of Learner Autonomy 15

into self-access centres and providing them with regular support. These conditions,
as identified by Benson and Voller (1997) consist of cognitive strategies, meta-
cognitive strategies, motivation, attitudes, and knowledge about language learning.
The development of learning strategies conducive to learner autonomy is no doubt
vital and necessary. The importance of learning strategies and styles in the context of
learning autonomy derives from “personal preference rather than innate endowment”
(Skehan 1998: 237). The style and strategy a learner adopts reflects their disposition
and readiness to be autonomous. O’Malley and Chamot (1990), whose research
project on learning strategies is a reference in the field, define learning strategies as
“special thoughts or behaviours used by individuals to help them comprehend, learn,
or retain new information” (O’Malley and Chamot 1990: 1). A more refined defi-
nition was given by Wenden who describes learning strategies as “mental steps or
operations that learners use to learn a new language and to regulate their efforts to do
so” (1998: 18).
Teaching that takes into account, and stems from, individual learning styles is an
efficient way to ensure students’ achievement and motivation. Awareness of
learning styles, it is argued, influences meta-cognition and choice of relevant
learning strategies. Consciousness of own improvement provides students with new
perspectives of their learning potential. Such positive academic experiences may
enhance self-efficacy. A teaching approach that bases itself on students’ learning
styles and on teaching methods that match the individual student’s learning style
preference is likely to be favourable for learner autonomy. Dunn and Griggs (2003)
refer to Learners’ Style Theory, which entails methodological diversification. They
argue for the need to have teachers capable of providing learners with appropriately
and adequately diversified learning opportunities. From the CLA perspective, these
opportunities can start with formal instruction in class through to competitive,
collaborative and self-learning beyond class that enables learners to exercise choice
and control of the method that best suit their needs. Coffield (2004) refers to the
conflicting assumptions and competing ideas about teaching and learning that
various models of learning styles inherently indicate.10 There is need to apply
methods and strategies that correspond to the identified learning styles of the stu-
dents. This is considered as one way to individualise instruction and is offered as a
method to encourage and develop motivation through the enhancement of learners’
identification with their learning. Learning strategies describe the way in which
students choose to deal with specific learning tasks (Coffield 2004). This suggests
that these strategies are spontaneous choices and learned or conscious patterns of
learning. In investigating learning strategies for reading, for example, Santa and
Engen (1996) reiterate teachers’ role in developing competence in their students so
that they can create their own strategies. Previous knowledge of the students, their
learning styles and learning problems and the difficulties they encounter have a

10
See: Kolb’s (1999) Learning Style Inventory (LSI); Cognitive Style Analysis (CSA) and
Allinson and Hayes’s (1988) Cognitive Style Index (CSI).
16 1 Learner Autonomy—An Overview

clear impact on the learning strategies and styles they choose and the way they do
so. It is important to understand the conditions under which learning takes place and
to create consciousness of this among teachers and students. Inefficient strategies
generate incorrect learning process decisions, destroying students’ ability to identify
with the learning they do and thus fail to develop responsibility and control over it.
This shows the importance of meta-cognition as a basis for building strategies.
Students can and should be taught, guided and trained to monitor and use various
learning styles and strategies. Strategies are not totally fixed and teachers can both
build on existing strengths and develop in their learners additional competencies,
such as self-regulation. In view of developing learner autonomy in the Omani
context, teachers need to redefine learner autonomy before implementing it on their
learners and requiring it from them. Students perceive learning methods based on
learning styles as important aspects of their learning process. This is basically
because it helps them develop new strategies of their own.
According to Coffield (2004), autonomy is a series of conscious choices the
learners make, which necessarily require their awareness of meta-cognition, reit-
erating the importance of developing among learners the skills that enable them to
consciously take initiatives in their own learning process. This can only be achieved
if learners are made aware of which strategies they need, properly and sufficiently
trained to use them for different tasks, and guided to assess their suitability and
efficiency. The work on meta-cognition is one important stage in the process of
redefining learner autonomy for the Omani students in the context of the CLA
gradual approach to the development of learner autonomy. Students’ awareness of
meta-cognition and their reflective skills is vital for the development of
meta-cognitive strategies. These strategies are expected, at a later stage, to enable
students to set goals and develop adequate awareness of the psychological pro-
cesses that shape their perception of autonomy (Coffield 2004). This awareness is
only feasible through (1) a better understanding of learning conditions, (2) being
aware of the impact that choices of strategies have on learning, and (3) having an
adequate knowledge of teaching methods, learning styles, and learning strategies.
Learners’ increased self-awareness of their strengths and self-efficacy can enhance
academic competence and resilience and learner autonomy as a result and at a later
development stage.
Concomitant with metacognition awareness, learners’ reflection is considered as
an impetus to the enhancement of the three core components of meta-cognition:
comprehensibility, manageability and meaningfulness. Learners are accordingly
expected to perceive and reflect on themselves as active and proactive individuals
with strengths and possibilities for personal growth and transformation, not merely
passive recipients. In this respect, it is worth mentioning that reflection, and
autonomy from a broader perspective, is cumulatively built through learning
experiences. Having an awareness of learning methods makes learning better, more
efficient and with a positive impact on success. Achievement, retention, attitudes
and comprehension are important factors in helping learners develop self-reflection.
In the same vein, it is expected that the exploration of learners’ learning styles can
1.4 Theoretical Typology of Learner Autonomy 17

facilitate the development of meta-cognitive understanding and meta-learning11 and

ultimately enhance the development of learner autonomy. According to Stensmo
(1997), meta-learning is the concept of learning consciously and the ability of the
learners to reflect on their learning and develop learning consciousness. As a
process, it is influenced by different affective and psychological conditions of the
learner and relates to the way learners operate in their learning environment and
how they respond to it and to themselves as learners as well. It operates at the two
levels of procedural and completion knowledge (Stensmo 1997). Procedural level
refers to learners’ knowledge of abilities, strategies and strategies that are necessary
to carry out a learning task. Completion level indicates an understanding of how to
assess that a learning task is completed and the knowledge involved is retained.
If properly addressed, awareness provides practitioners with a clearer perspective
of the possibilities and complexity of learning strategies. The task of the HEIs is not
only to teach and to transmit knowledge but also to provide students with the skills,
competencies and attributes needed to use that knowledge and process it out
independently during their academic life and also in their future professional lives.
HEIs then bear the responsibility of creating the best possible circumstances that
enable students to attain knowledge and provide an environment that encourages a
positive attitude towards learning. One implication of this is that it should be the
goal of the HEIs to help students grow confident in their own abilities and develop
self-belief, as well as better understand their own learning. A later potential
development of self-belief is the ability students develop to evaluate and monitor
their own efforts in a more efficient way. The learner autonomy environment at
stake is an environment where teachers avail learning opportunities that engage
learners in a process of reflection and self-awareness in relation to their learning.
This suggests that the initial task of the teachers is to explore adequate ways to
provide students with the necessary learning strategies and how to access them.
Students who reflect on their learning can develop a clear understanding of the
learning task developed by meta-cognition and meta-learning. They have better
clarity in relation to their demands on teachers, their institutions and their educa-
tion; understand their learning and reflect on it; and better understand the structure
of the school system making it easier for them to participate actively. The ability,
and actually the success, of the students to define their learning and at a later stage
develop reflection on it enable them to influence their learning process. Reflection
can occur on several different levels when experience is converted into learning
about learning. Learning facilitates a change in the individual’s view of their sur-
roundings and themselves as a person. This defies the view that learning is an
internal, active and outwardly invisible process that leads to a change in behaviour.
Learning then plays the role of facilitating changes in learners’ ways of being or
acting through several different ways such as the development of learning con-
sciousness and conscious reflection, which is at the heart of learner autonomy.

11
Meta-learning is a term that refers to learners’ exercise of reflection on their own learning and
indicates their self-awareness.
18 1 Learner Autonomy—An Overview

In relation to learner autonomy, the attitudes of the learners and the degrees of
motivation they enjoy have the same importance as the cognitive activities that
explicitly characterise learning. The role that learners’ attitudes and motivation play
in shaping learners’ approaches to their learning is incontestable. It is believed that
positive attitudes yield increased motivation and negative attitudes result in
decreased motivation. For example, a learner with a negative stance vis-à-vis
autonomy may lack the motivation needed to sustain the considerable effort
involved in developing autonomy. Accordingly, teachers advocating the mission of
developing autonomy in their learners need to give due care to the interaction
between learners’ attitudes and motivation on the one hand and the cognitive
processes involved in the learning activity on the other. Defenders of this position,
such as Graham (1997), claim that the affective variables each learner holds may
have an impact on the way they respond to any learning situation. Age is a factor
that plays a distinctive role, from the life-long learning perspective in particular.
However, critics of this position tend to de-emphasise such importance and
stress the importance of other factors believed to provide a better justification and
explanation of learners’ reaction to their learning process. For them, social and
psychological factors, such as self-esteem and desire to learn, prime over other
factors. In a country where the society is not familiar, and does not enjoy, the
concepts of negotiation, freedom of speech and respect of individual undertakings,
it would be difficult for students to cope with an autonomous learning environment.
In fact, influenced by the social structure of the country, the educational environ-
ment in the Omani and the MENA region context has a long history of formal
teaching and learning where the teacher is an incontestable authority and a
knowledge provider and the educational institution is a well-established formal
environment subject to the authority of the ministry. In fact, all programmes,
courses and awards offered in HEIs are subject to formal approval from the MoHE.
Reducing and moderating this authoritative aspect and formality is now the actual
challenge that the educational system in Oman and the MENA region raises and
aims to win. Redefining autonomy in the Omani context falls within this attempt to
reduce the impact of the formal authoritative model of teaching and learning which
had long dominated the Omani educational scene.
In the same respect, as a kind of reconciliatory perspective, both positions are
believed to touch on the reality and are based on solid arguments. In an attempt to
define learners’ attitudes, Wenden (1998: 52) mentions “learned motivations, val-
ued beliefs, evaluations, what one believes is acceptable, or responses oriented
towards approaching or avoiding”. To put it simply, Wenden (1998) distinguishes
two types of attitudes: (1) those learners hold about their role in the learning process
and (2) those they hold about their capability as learner.
Learner attitudes are the “beliefs [learners hold] about their role and capability as
learners” and which are dependent on “other beliefs they hold about themselves as
learners” (Wenden 1998: 54). For example, a learner who believes that leadership is
a personality trait that is needed to perform a certain task would simply abandon the
task if they lack that trait. In the Omani context, teachers have long experienced
their students’ lack of autonomy in performing a speaking or research task in
1.4 Theoretical Typology of Learner Autonomy 19

English due to their internal belief that they lack the skills and personality traits
needed for the task. They rather prefer to be engaged in pen-and-paper activities.
This relates to the need felt in the present book to redefine learner autonomy in
accordance to the needs and perceptions of the Omani students. Wenden (1998)
mentions the illustrative example of learners who work under the misconception
that learning is successful only within the context of the traditional classroom,
where the teacher directs, instructs, and manages the learning activity while stu-
dents must follow the teacher’s footsteps. Although this example sounds con-
vincing, it can be defied on the grounds that the key here is learners’ perceptions
and interpretations of the way the teacher directs, instructs and manages learning.
The presence of someone directing, instructing and managing is not a hindrance to
the development of autonomy. It rather facilitates autonomy and eliminates the
misconception about the role of the teacher or any other learning support provider.
In fact, redefining autonomy in the Omani and MENA region context is expected to
clear this misconception and understand the teacher’s role as vital within the
gradual development of autonomy. Perceived as an impetus to autonomy, and
contrary to Wenden’s view above, these learners are not likely to show resistance to
learner-centred strategies aiming at autonomy.
Defining the term motivation has always been a controversial issue. Yet, there is
a unanimous agreement when it comes to the determination of the importance and
effect motivation has with regard to learning, and especially autonomous learning.
In Dornyei’s words motivation “provides the primary impetus to initiate learning
and later the driving force to sustain the long and often tedious learning process”
(Dornyei 1998: 117). In the same vein, Gardner and Miller (1999) and Gardner
(2007) refer to, and emphasise, three components that motivation involves. These
are the desire learners develop to perform, the efforts they extend in the direction of
achieving a goal, and the task satisfaction generated. The interest in exploring
learners’ motivation in the context of the present book is part of understanding
learners’ autonomous learning potential and their readiness to develop autonomy,
and thus redefining autonomy for Omani students.
Chapter 2
Learner Autonomy and the MENA
Region Context

This chapter gives an overview of learner autonomy perceptions in the MENA

region context, addressing misconceptions and portraying learners in relation to
their capacity and penchant for individualisation and autonomy but within an
environment that respects their culturally adopted concepts of collectivism and
inter-dependence. Using findings from the explorative research conducted in Omani
HEIs, the chapter identifies characteristics of learner autonomy specific to Omani
learners and re-defines learner autonomy accordingly. The chapter equally
addresses negative attitudes and resistance to autonomy which emerge as major
issues that have always accompanied the development of learner autonomy.
A thoughtful reading of the 21st century teaching and learning environment shows
that the responsibility is not only on the learner’s side but it equally falls on other
stakeholders. These, as much as the learner, may be unable to recognise the need for
new approaches to learning in a rapidly changing society. In the same vein, Lambert
(2001) asserts that the needs of the learners, irrespective of their background, may have
some common elements. In their higher education, learners need a keen perception of
new social trends and change. They need to develop the skills of self-reliance,
risk-management, setting goals for learning, and identifying the value of the learning
opportunities provided to them. The successful development of these skills helps
learners become confident and enjoy a sense of self-worth supported towards
responsibility in learning. This argues for the importance of adopting the Collaborative
Learner Autonomy (CLA) gradual approach through learning opportunities of hard
and soft skills combination following the Individual-Competitive-Collaborative
Autonomous Learning Continuum (ICCALC).
Mercer (2008) refers to learners’ self-constructs which are likely to have an
impact on behaviour and attitudes. These are self-confidence, self-concept,
self-efficacy and self-esteem, and as Mercer (2008: 182) claims “can be found in
work on affect, autonomy, strategies, individual differences, motivation, identity,

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017 21

S. Blidi, Collaborative Learner Autonomy,
DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-2048-3_2
22 2 Learner Autonomy and the MENA Region Context

attributions, anxiety, and willingness to communicate”.1 They are fundamental

principles in the development of learner autonomy as perceived from the CLA
perspective. Concomitant with the above interest in portraying learners’ profile, it is
important to explore the extent to which developing an ability to take charge of
learning can be significant from learners’ own perspectives. Despite novice attempts
to involve learners in course design and in various aspects of the learning process,
learner voices contribute in a limited manner to professional discussions. In the
spirit of developing autonomy and getting learners to take responsibility for some
parts of their learning, it is vital to involve learners as much as possible in the
decision-making process. Such involvement makes them feel happy and enables the
process to work better. Involving learners in many aspects of learning develops in
them a clearly evident culture of ownership.

2.1 Misconceptions About Learner Autonomy

in the MENA Region

Autonomous learning has emerged as one response to the growing challenges and
the changes that continually happen in the field of education, and has become
central to teaching and learning. Learning problems relate in one way or another to
learner autonomy, learner-centeredness and the absence of reflective and explora-
tory practice in most EFL classes.
Scharle and Szabo (2000: 1) acknowledge the “frustration [most language
teachers experience] investing endless amounts of energy in their students and
getting very little in response”. They explain this situation by learners’ passive
approach to learning characterised by their “over-reliance on the teacher” (Ibid)
concluding that promoting learning autonomy involves changing learners’ attitudes
and the redistribution of roles in the learning process. Pierson (1996) characterises
Chinese students, for example, as passive, dependent and lacking in initiative.
Findings from various research studies suggest that this statement is valid about
Omani students at the tertiary level, who show limited interest and incentive to learn
outside regular classrooms and tend to stick to teachers’ instructions and what is
taught in the course mainly as they are almost, and by default, mark-driven.
Littlewood’s (1999) assertions about autonomy in the Eastern context can apply
to the Omani context and reflect related T&L situations. These assertions triggered
the interest in the issue of autonomy as they also appeared to apply to the MENA
region, the Omani context in particular:
1. Students perceive themselves as interdependent with other students. Omani
students prefer to form groups which work towards common goals. This is
mainly because groups provide the learner with the sense of protection that

1
See, for example, Dornyei (2005), Yang (1999) and Yashima et al. (2004).
2.1 Misconceptions About Learner Autonomy in the MENA Region 23

enables them to perform collaboratively and at a later stage autonomously (see

Littlewood 1999; Jones 1995). However, in an open classroom situation,
learners are often reluctant to participate and voice their views.
2. The teacher is often perceived as “an authority figure whose superior knowledge
and control…should not be questioned [providing knowledge that they conceive
as] “something to be transmitted by the teacher rather than discovered by the
learners” (Littlewood 1999: 85). Omani students still perceive the teacher within
this authority image and perceive formal class learning as most important.
3. East Asian students enjoy a high level of ambition and motivation that is
transmitted through group belonging and combined with the readiness to put
effort into their learning. Consequently, they are more likely to have “reactive
autonomy, both individually and in groups” (Littlewood 1999: 87). Reactive
autonomy here manifests itself in learners’ gradual development of
self-regulation skills that enable them to self-regulate their motivation, readiness
and willingness through their responsible reliance on the teacher. Teachers take
a guidance provider role, offering learners training, support and a sort of
modelling and piloting. Omani students have a clear penchant to work in
competitive and collaborative modes that enable them to form groups that
provide them with a sense of comfort and security and help them develop
self-confidence.
4. Irrespective of their background, learners have the same capacity for autonomy.
It is therefore the classroom [and implicitly the teacher and the institution] which
bears the responsibility of providing learners with a “favourable environment for
developing the capacity for autonomy” (Littlewood 1999: 88). The positive
performance of Omani students in competitive and collaborative learning
opportunities indicates that they have an innate capacity for autonomy and enjoy
reasonable levels of readiness and willingness to develop it.
According to Gan (2009), in the last few decades the impact emphasis has
moved from the cultural traditions to the institutional contexts and social envi-
ronments. Gan (2009) reiterates the view that strategies and motivation in English
language learning are largely determined by institutional contexts and social
environments. This view echoes one of the major claims the CLA defends, advo-
cating a new role teachers and HEIs should adopt, facilitating the learning envi-
ronment conducive to autonomy. Gan’s view (2009) is relatively valid for the
Omani and MENA region context in general. Reviewing some major findings from
a study on the use of Professional Reading Circles (Brown and Hayes 2000) to
enhance learner autonomy and from a replicated study of Reading Circles (RC) in
Oman, a number of observations emerge.2 RCs emerge then as a
competitive-collaborative-autonomous learning venue, encouraging participants to

2
The model of RC they developed was based on a number of earlier models, such as Culture
Circles, Literature Circles. Brown and Hayes (2000) propose the Professional Reading Groups
(PRG) and Journal Clubs (JCs), and, as a later development, Professional Reading Circles (PRCs)
where a group of learners meet to research and discuss particular problems or issues.
24 2 Learner Autonomy and the MENA Region Context

think about relevant topics or problems and solve them. The first finding is that RCs
were successful in proving the readiness and willingness of Omani students to
develop autonomy. The research came out with specific aspects and properties that
characterise learner autonomy in the Omani context. Using them in a reading
support course fostering learner autonomy, the research concluded that RCs can
represent a successful mode of autonomous learning. The second finding is that
students in Oman are mark-driven and do not value the merits of their learning
experiences. In an attempt to foster reading, students were required to keep personal
reading notebooks as records of autonomous learning. They were often asked either
to submit them for written correction and feedback or present them in class as part
of speaking-reading activities. All students’ enquiries were of the type: “Is this part
of our assessment grade?” and “How much is it worth?” This implies that they are
not interested in the positive impact such activity has on their learning and the
capabilities for autonomous learning it generates. They only engage in any task if a
mark is connected to it. Why do they fail to see the value of keeping a reading
notebook in helping them with their English and with their reading skills in par-
ticular? Thirdly, reference can be made to an ambitious Reading Drive project
approved by the management of a HEI in Oman,3 availing an amount of money to
any group of students to use in order to purchase any book they like, read it,
circulate it and conduct post-reading activities in groups. This project aims at
fostering a reading culture by the creation of a pool of reading books, and auton-
omous reading and learning activities that reflect learners’ needs and preferences.
Only five groups, that is 7 % of the targeted students, seized the opportunity and
used this scheme. Can this be explained by students’ fear or lack of interest in this
kind of autonomous learning? No matter what the explanation is, these students had
a negative reaction to the project. With this negative attitude, not exploiting this
opportunity, students showed a limited sense of autonomy. This begs the question,
why are Omani tertiary students scared of reading in general, and probably reading
autonomously?
The exploration of students’ feedback forms in two major HEIs in Oman indi-
cate that students in Oman lack the ability to reflect on their own learning, thus tend
to develop some misconceptions about it. Strikingly contrastive were the students’
responses as the majority of them highly evaluate their lessons and often rate class
sessions as “well organised”, course delivery as “efficient and enthusiastic” and
learning opportunities availed by the course as “sufficient”. However, when asked
to rate their benefit from the course and whether they had improved their language
ability over the semester, the responses sometimes indicate otherwise. Deeper
exploration of these responses shows a correlation between students’ grades and
their evaluation of the courses. They rate their improvement in the language as
limited, which indicates limited degree of reflection on what really goes on in class.
Omani students show a significant degree of readiness and innate capacity for
autonomy. Findings from previous research show that they are consciously, and

3
The management of Majan College (University College), Muscat, Oman.
2.1 Misconceptions About Learner Autonomy in the MENA Region 25

sometimes unconsciously, ready and motivated to take the role of autonomous

learner. The RCs showed how fundamental and innate learner autonomy and
self-actualisation were among students. However, hardly any adequate provision
and measures were taken by HEIs to exploit learners’ readiness and willingness to
develop learner autonomy.
Cotterall and Reinders (2001) suggest that exploring learners’ beliefs, orienting
them to the available resources at the Self-learning Venue (SLV), providing ade-
quate training and support to the students, and strengthening the link between the
classroom and these venues, are expected to enhance students’ use of autonomous
learning opportunities, and ultimately develop learner autonomy. This echoes one
of the main focuses of the research underpinning the CLA, which is exploring
Omani students’ perceptions of the effectiveness of SLVs and ultimately strengthen
these venues and their ability to provide what their name implies. Cotterall and
Reinders (Ibid) conclude their research on the use of the Self-Access Centres
(SAC) at the University of Victoria in Wellington, New Zealand with four sug-
gestions for improving students’ use of the centre, and thus develop and enhance
learner autonomy:
1. Exploration of learners’ beliefs by SAC staff (teachers and learners as done in
the research underpinning the CLA),
2. Provisions for an effective initial orientation to SAC and autonomous learning
opportunities (similar to the ALOP the present research underpinning the CLA
explores and recommends),
3. Provisions for on-going support to students by SAC staff (teachers and learners
as well).
4. More links between the Self-access Centres (SACs) and formal learning
(courses and exams).
Reviewing Cotterall and Reinders (2001) and the above four suggestions was
influential in establishing the direction of the CLA to advocate a redefined concept
of autonomous learning in the Omani context through the gradual approach to
learner autonomy development. The gradual aspect is achieved through the adop-
tion of the Competitive-Collaborative-Autonomous Learning Continuum (ICCALC)
in an environment that fosters learners’ genuine participation in and ownership of
their learning as well as an active engagement in self-actualisation (Benson 1997;
Benson and Lor 1998) and self-development. With a wider perspective, the CLA
reflects current educational tendencies shifting the focus from teaching to learning
and developing in students the skills and attributes needed to become autonomous
learners. It is expected that the sum of experiences learners are exposed to and
teachers bring into play would provide students with insights into reflective practice
and autonomous learning that match the contemporary educational trends in a
collaborative and autonomous environment.
26 2 Learner Autonomy and the MENA Region Context

2.2 Attitudes to Control and Authority in Learner

Autonomy

Learners’ perception of intervention from others in their own learning and of

control in relation to learning activities, tasks and opportunities influences their
readiness and willingness to develop learner autonomy. In the same vein, Hofstede
(1991) suggests the term “power distance” to refer to learners’ attitudes vis-à-vis
these intervention, referred in Hofstede’s words, as “control power and authority”.
The degree of power distance learners have, whether low or high, determine their
attitudes to differences in a group. High levels of power distance mean some degree
of readiness to accept differences and adapt to the requirements of group belonging
whereas low levels mean lack of acceptance and an inclination to reduce differ-
ences. Hofstede’s works show that most cultures which rate high in collectivism
also rate high in power distance, which echoes the situation in most MENA region
educational contexts. Using data resulting from surveys in 53 countries, Hofstede
(1991) compares the ranking of selected East Asian and Western countries, on both
the degree of collectivist orientation and degree of their acceptance of differences in
power and authority. Using Hofstede’s works to explore Omani students’ attitudes
to power and authority, it appears that reaction to power in the Omani context does
not take the form of total resistance. Students, on the contrary, perceive power and
authority as guiding and supporting whether from a teacher or even a peer. This
underpins the principle of peer scaffolding the CLA advocates. In the same vein,
Chu (2007) refers to definitions of the term “resistance” to learner involvement as
an aspect of students’ behaviour in relation to autonomy in language learning.
According to Chu (2007), learning resistance is not necessarily to the teacher but
rather to the system and it can appear in different forms and variations, full or
partial, permanent or temporary, can be detected. For example, learners can be
covert, latent and passive. These aspects and similar learner features are bound to
disappear with proper guidance, competition, collaboration and, particularly interest
raising and enhancement. Escandon (2004) describes seven patterns of resistance
including, among others, sleeping in class, being late or absent and pretending not
knowing the answer to a question. Omani students’ resistance is due to lack of
engagement. The question that arises is whether this resistance indicates a princi-
pled rejection of involvement in learning and autonomy or a rejection of specific
applications in their context. Omani students are rarely given the opportunity to be
decision makers in class, and when they are, they may feel insecure of how to
organise their own learning. However, over time they come to appreciate the
benefits of a more active engagement in learning English. It can be safely argued
that teachers’ awareness of different cultural orientations can provide a useful
correction to assumptions about learning. Variation in individual student cultural
differences is a factor that is influential. Promoting autonomy does not necessarily,
at least at its initial stage, require the teachers to transform the way their students
perceive their selves, their relation to others and the value of hierarchy and
authority. These rather need to be preserved, respected, taken into account as
2.2 Attitudes to Control and Authority in Learner Autonomy 27

influential factors, and at an advanced stage, gradually tuned towards responsibility,

control over learning and autonomy.
Autonomous learners could well choose to learn in what is generally regarded as
being the more passive modes. Thus the activity of autonomous learners is best
thought of as the pursuit of whatever learning activities the learners consider would
best help them to achieve their learning goals. Autonomy does not mean the
absence of guidance. It is rather the outcome of a learning process that provides the
learners with the opportunity to work with such guidance as they wish to take,
whether it is from peers, from electronic media, or from tutors. This, it seems to me,
accords much better with the idea of respecting students’ decisions in the learning
process rather than the prescription from teachers, that students must be made to
take responsibility for their learning.
There is a misconception that Eastern ways of learning are non-autonomous,
mainly based on memorising. In fact, it seems unquestionable that the exclusive use
of memorising as a learning style component is associated with lack of autonomy
and reflects refusal to reflect and understand. This reflects the assumption that the
educational tradition of Arab and Muslim cultures are non-autonomous due to the
emphasis on memorising texts. Learners in these contexts are thought to be
dependent on syllabus, passive and lacking initiative due to their educational
background and tradition of surface, teacher-driven and institutional-bound
approach to learning. However, it is important to address the activity of memo-
rising not as an issue in itself, but in relation to the way it used constructively for
learning purposes. The same is true of dependence and reliance on the teacher for
advice and information.
Research on learner autonomy in the MENA region context in general, namely
Oman, UAE, Bahrain and Qatar (see Palfreyman 2001; Mynard 2003) links the
concept of autonomy with self-direction and the refined roles that teachers and
learners need to embrace. It is important to recall learner autonomy continuum that
distinguishes between learner-based self-direction and materials-based
self-direction. In a materials-based self-directed situation, the directive pedagogic
element is in the learning material. Self-instruction refers to the situation in which
learners learn by themselves, with or without having selected materials themselves,
with or without being conscious of it. Lee (1997) depicts a common confusion in
using autonomy interchangeably with self-direction.4 She considers that autonomy
is a capacity while self-directed learning is a way of organising learning (Lee 1997).
Little (1991) describes autonomy essentially in terms of the psychological relation
the learner establishes with the process and content of learning. According to Little
(1991: 4), learner’s “capacity for detachment, critical reflection, decision-making,
and independent action” is essential for autonomy to be achieved. The psycho-
logical dimension of the relationship the learner establishes with the learning

4
See Holec’s (1983) Distinction between self-directed learning (a desired learning situation or
behaviour) and learner autonomy (concept that refers to the capacity of the learner for autonomous
learning).
28 2 Learner Autonomy and the MENA Region Context

process and content, on which Little (1991) lays emphasis, implies that autonomy is
not a skill or a technique to be taught. It cannot be imposed or forced on learners,
yet if properly redefined in concordance with the learning environment, the need to
impose it disappears and it becomes a need emerging from the learners themselves.
It is important to add to Little’s focus (1991) on psychology that the
learner-learning relationship involves social, intellectual and psychological aspects
that intersect and interact in a complex way. Little’s emphasis (1991) on the lear-
ner’s psychological readiness to be autonomous is valid. Holec (1983) describes
such readiness as the willingness of the learners and the capacity they develop to
control or oversee their own learning. However, in defining learner autonomy, the
active dimension is given much more importance than the dimensions of readiness
and willingness. Holec (1983) describes the autonomous learner as a learner who
enjoys the independence of choosing their learning purposes, freely sets goals,
enjoys the freedom to choose materials, methods and tasks, and, in short, delib-
erately and independently exercises choice in all aspects of their own learning. In
other words, for autonomy to be achieved, the learner should play an active role in
their own learning process through the use of the learning opportunities available to
them and by them. Autonomous learners are as such expected to engage in genuine
participation in learning activities with the ideas they generate and the exchange of
information and experience they make with peers rather than simply reacting to
various stimuli of the teacher (Kohonen 2000).
Contrary to theory about the teacher’s role in promoting learner autonomy where
the image looks ideal and promising, the actual situation in practice is not as neat as
it should be. Some teachers still bear the traditional portrait of knowledge provider
with an authority in class that is unquestionable, making students passive receptors
and leaving little room for them to take responsibility over their learning. In fact, in
most classes teachers still face difficulties to detach themselves from the teaching
role in class in favour of the role of learning facilitator. McGarry (1995) describes
such situations as a class where students are taught in ways which reinforce
teacher-dependence and fail to develop in them the necessary skills that enable
them to apply the knowledge they learn and the skills they acquire beyond the
classroom. The teacher’s role is a further important condition for autonomy to be
achieved. It may be safe to venture into considering that autonomy can never
happen without developing an appropriate role for the teacher. In an attempt to
portray effective autonomous learners, McGarry (1995) implicitly puts the teacher
at the heart of the issue:
Students who are encouraged to take responsibility for their own work, by being given
some control over what, how and when they learn, are more likely to be able to set realistic
goals, plans of work, develop strategies for coping with new and unforeseen situations,
evaluate and assess their own work, and, generally to learn how to learn from their own
successes and failures in ways which will help them to be more efficient learners in the
future (1995: 1).

The passive constructions (“are encouraged” and “being given”) are a clear
reference to the central role the teacher can play in developing learners’ autonomy.
2.2 Attitudes to Control and Authority in Learner Autonomy 29

This role paves the way towards autonomy and reiterates the gradual aspect that its
development entails. Although the reduction of the teacher’s role in the class is at
the heart of developing learners’ autonomy, the teacher remains central in sup-
porting the development of autonomy.
The responsibility autonomous learners are expected to take for their learning
involves a redistribution of control in the learning situation. It has to be shared
between the learners and the teacher. Teacher’s control and learners’ control are not
contradictory and they can efficiently complement each other. Teacher’s control
should be guidance and orchestration while students’ control has to be proactive
engagement and participative involvement. The new distribution of control can be
viewed as a means by which teachers can facilitate autonomous learning. Teachers
deliberately surrender certain prerogatives and accept learners’ responsibility.
Meaningful sharing of responsibility and control is important at this stage to avoid
falling into the trap of having a redundant teacher and learners at a loss.
Unfortunately, current implementations of autonomous learning do not really
deviate from such practices. Learners view teachers as abandoning their guidance
and orientation role, leaving them desperate, unguided and bound to lose interest.
This further stresses the need to explore the current practices and the concepts
behind them to redefine learner autonomy and bring the teacher back to the stage
with a refined and redefined role and enable the students to reshape their position in
the learning stage with a refined and redefined perception. A crucial issue for
consideration is the definition given to autonomy from an educational perspective,
considering it as a learner’s capacity to use their learning independently from the
teacher, which implies that it would be a shared goal for every learner everywhere.
The goal attached to the teaching of a language will influence the learning out-
comes, the classroom learning experience, the development of discourse, skills and
styles which are all to be achieved autonomously.
A later development of the concept of autonomy in relation to the teacher’s role
is the distinction Holec (1983) made5 between the concept of self-direction, a
desirable learning situation or behaviour, and learner autonomy as a concept that
refers to the capacity of the learner for such learning. This practically calls for a
vital role the teacher plays in making learning arrangements such as self-access,
Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) and distance learning which are
potentially learning platforms that can best host learner autonomy. These are the
learning environments where learners genuinely enjoy decision-making in the areas
identified by Holec (Ibid). However, it has to be admitted that such forms of
learning may require the exercise of autonomy but they do not necessarily develop
this capacity (Benson 2006) in the absence of a guiding role of the teacher and an
active role played by the learner. In the same vein, the teacher continues to play an
important role to prepare the learners for autonomy through promoting the psy-
chological attributes and developing in them the practical abilities involved in
learner autonomy. This implies the need to unveil the innate capacity for autonomy

5
This distinction was largely accepted in the literature. See Benson (2001, 2007) and Little (1991).
30 2 Learner Autonomy and the MENA Region Context

through practice.6 One implication of this unveiling effort is to embrace the belief in
the value of interdependent learning in classrooms and beyond to defy the common
individualistic interpretations of learner autonomy. Interpreting autonomy as
interdependence leads practitioners to perceive learner autonomy as learners’
readiness and willingness to perform independently and in cooperation with their
peers in a spirit of social responsibility. The CLA builds on the readiness, inter-
dependence and responsible reliance on the teacher that characterise the Omani
students.
In continuing with the aspects of teacher’s role, it is vital for teachers to resolve
the conflict between pedagogical approaches which perceive autonomy primarily as
a learner need and the approaches which perceive autonomy as innate, at least to
some degree, in all learners irrespective of their background. The conviction that
learners innately have the desire and tendency to exercise control over their own
learning (Smith 2003) means that teachers are required to support them in putting
into practice their innate readiness for autonomy. This is believed to be an important
basis for the progressive and gradual development of learner autonomy. Developing
and exercising learner autonomy as a capacity to be reinforced with practice and
engagement, and not a particular method or a tendency for individualism, can be
seen as an educational goal. Yet this goal requires different forms of pedagogy and
meets with different kinds of constraints according to context (Palfreyman and
Smith 2003; Barfield and Brown 2007). Learners need help to develop their
autonomous learning skills, which require the presence of the teacher whose role in
the learning process will not decrease but will rather change (Little 1995). However,
the current focus on the psychological aspect of learner autonomy without
increasing the learner’s awareness of its political aspects, such as freedom of
choice, poses a practical implication (Pennycook 2001; Benson 1997; Benson and
Lor 1998; Kenny 1993). Offering learners the freedom of choice does not neces-
sarily mean that they will become autonomous and that they manage to develop
learner autonomy. Preparing students for proper exercise of freedom and guiding
them towards the development of responsibility over their choices in learning are
vital endeavours teachers and HEIs are required to engage in.
Gibbs proposes a definition of learner autonomy that reflects the tendency to
incorporate political elements into learning curricula (1979: 119) and the teachers to
take into consideration these political aspects:
An autonomous individual must have both independence from external authority and
mastery of himself and his powers. He must be free from the dictates and interference of
other people, and free also from disabling conflicts or lack of coordination between the
elements of his own personality. He must have the freedom to act and work as he chooses,
and he must be capable of formulating and following a rule, pattern or policy of acting and
working.

6
See Benson (2001) for an overview of different pedagogical approaches, Lambert (2001) for an
interesting profile of the 21st century learner and Dam (1995) for an account of innovative
classroom practice.
2.2 Attitudes to Control and Authority in Learner Autonomy 31

The exploration of the political aspect of learner autonomy calls for an emphasis
on its relation to culture. Learner autonomy is often, and wrongly it can be argued,
perceived as a concept that is typically limited to Western educational contexts and
that cannot be applied in other contexts and cultures. Commenting on this
assumption, Pennycook rightly relates it to the ethnocentrism of the Western
post-modernist culture and claims that:
This is not to say that autonomy as a concept or an educational goal does not exist
elsewhere, but rather that a notion of autonomy will be very different in different educa-
tional contexts. To encourage ‘learner autonomy’ universally, without first becoming
acutely aware of the social, cultural and political context in which one is working, may lead
at best to inappropriate pedagogies and at worst to cultural impositions (1997: 44).

The notion of different autonomy concepts in different educational contexts is

central to the CLA advocated here and represents a principle underpinning the focus
of the present book to redefine responsibility, authority and autonomy in the MENA
region context.

2.3 Redefining Responsibility and Autonomy in the Omani

Context

A major principle autonomous learning entails is that students should take

responsibility for their own learning (Holec 1981).7 However, a common obstacle
identified by teachers in the MENA region context, Oman in particular, it seems, is
that students from Arab and Muslim cultures are particularly resistant to this idea
and are overly dependent on their teachers. Does this reflect a rejection of auton-
omy? Or, does it indicate a different perception of autonomy and responsibility?
The interpretation of dependence on teachers by Western researchers as rejection
of responsibility stems from their culture where responsibility is identified with
autonomy. This, however, does not have the same interpretation in the MENA
Region context. Students’ reliance on the teacher does not necessarily mean the
rejection of responsibility, it rather means acceptance of responsibility but in a
redefined manner. Hence, redefining the concept of learner autonomy and
responsibility emerges as a vital need within the Omani context. Using Boud’s
words, the goal is to “enable students to become more autonomous in their learning:
that is, assist students to learn more effectively without the constant presence or
intervention of a teacher…the role of teachers is not just to transmit knowledge but
also to help students take increasing responsibility for their own learning” (1988: 7).
Perceived as the concept which entails that learners set their own goals and
develop their own standards, learner autonomy does not mean the mere pursuing of
learning activities without a teacher. Autonomous learners are learners who are able
to define what they really want, or what interests them. This implies the ability to

7
See also Benson and Voller (1997), Little (1997), Champagne et al. (2001) and Cotterall (2000).
32 2 Learner Autonomy and the MENA Region Context

conceive learning goals, policies and plans, and to form purposes and intentions
independently of any pressure from others. It also implies that the teacher’s role is
to do the ground work for students in order to help them achieve the above and thus
develop learner autonomy. This echoes the works of Rogers who writes (1983:
158):
The evaluation of one’s own learning is one of the major means by which self-initiated
learning becomes also responsible learning. It is when the individual has to take respon-
sibility for deciding what criteria are important to him, what goals must be achieved, and
the extent to which he has achieved those goals, that he truly learns to take responsibility
for himself and his directions.

It is this task that teachers in the MENA region need to carry out and it is for this
purpose that dependence and reliance on the teacher remain vital within the overall
attempt of redefining learner autonomy. Autonomy is in tune with the natural
processes of psychological development, which ends up with maturity through a
process of gradual growth. The individual learner develops an increasingly deep
psychological need to be independent, first, of parental control, and then, later, of
control by teachers and any other type of institutional control. So, developing the
ability to take increasing responsibility and become gradually and increasingly
autonomous is an essential aspect of maturity. This process does not happen sud-
denly. It is gradual, multi-faceted and requires the contribution of all, not an
individual undertaking within the culture of individualism, as wrongly perceived.
However, the identification of responsibility with independence is a cultural
assumption, rather than a natural or universal truth.8 The effect of placing ideas
within such a framework of psychology is to naturalise assumptions and to make
them seem universally applicable. The commitment of the learners to autonomous
learning cannot hide the fact that many of them cannot readily discover autonomy
for themselves, and that they are bound to ask for support. In any new situation the
learner faces, it is a sign of responsibility to depend on more knowledgeable
individuals in the sense of seeking support and guidance, for example. It is through
this support and guidance that learners can learn how to operate in any new context.
The shift to autonomous learning has developed in some practitioners a sort of
orthodoxy that teachers, perceived as tutoring and learning support providers,
should not be directive and interventionist to the extent that they should teach by
refusing to teach (Clark 2001). In fact, Pemberton et al. (2001: 21) claim that they
“feel it necessary for advisers to be aware of the danger that learners’ ability to
develop their self-directed learning might be undermined if these tendencies are not
guarded against”. They justify this by what they term as the ability of the teachers,
as advisors and learning support providers, to “control the impulse to teach” (Clark
2001: 23), lest their tendencies to intervene in the learning process hinder the
development of learner autonomy.

8
See Benson and Voller (1997) and Pennycook (2001).
2.3 Redefining Responsibility and Autonomy in the Omani Context 33

Relating the concept of interventionism to the MENA region context, it is evi-

dent that in its radical and extreme sense the non-interventionist policy above is
bound to fail in the Omani context given that Omani students come from another
language and a different cultural background from English. As Second Language
(SL) and Foreign Language (FL) practitioners, teachers in the Omani context
cannot yield themselves to this tendency “to teach by refusing to teach” (Ibid).
Increasingly, teachers still hold the role of knowledge informants and skills
developers. This implies the need to consider “the schemata needed for successful
study” (Clark 2001). These include, in addition to knowledge about the language,
knowledge about the skills, structures and styles. It is in the hands of the teacher to
support learners in seeking, developing and acquiring this knowledge.
From the perspective of the responsible dependence on teachers, it is necessary
for students to recognise how much they do not know about the underlying prin-
ciples, the structure of knowledge, and the learning skills they need. Accordingly,
learners’ need for assistance through teacher guidance and peer scaffolding does not
necessarily represent some rejection of and resistance to autonomy. In the same
direction of thought, it should be reminded that autonomy is not a monolithic
concept. Teachers need to develop their own standards and criteria that match the
needs of the learners and the requirements of the learning environment and realities
which will be applied on. With this objective in mind, the teacher can be portrayed
as a manager who creates a supportive and stimulating learning environment, and is
available as a resourceful person who challenges learners to achieve their potential
and helps them to become aware of institutional requirements and expectations
associated with the disciplines they follow. Responsibility in the sense of autonomy
may well be desirable but it is at the same time a luxury that not everybody can
afford.
Over the last few decades, a series of psychological, educational, political and
social developments had a pertinent impact on learning, autonomous learning in
particular. One major development was the shift from teacher-centeredness and
behaviourism to student-centeredness and constructivism. This led to the emer-
gence of learner autonomy with various typologies, versions and levels. The con-
cept of autonomy as the capacity of the learners for individualism and responsible
reliance on the teacher, in full respect of the learners’ collectivist learning behaviour
is central for autonomy the CLA advocates. It suggests the redefinition of autonomy
in the Omani context, advocating the gradual development of autonomous learning
among students with collaboration being an aspect of the Omani students’
autonomy.

2.4 Impact of Learning Styles on Learner Autonomy

This section aims to explore the way students learn and investigates their learning
habits and styles in order to assess whether these habits and styles reflect a readiness
to develop autonomy (see Appendix 1, Section 1). The explored learning styles and
34 2 Learner Autonomy and the MENA Region Context

habits consist of six main aspects of student learning. These are ‘Time’ aspect which
refers to the time students prefer to study and do out-of-class activities as well as
their relation with deadlines. The aspect of ‘Interaction with Peers’ relates to the
opinions of the students in relation to group work, team work and group assign-
ments. The ‘What to study’ aspect relates to what interests students to study, the
clarity of the courses they have and the teacher’s instructions. The aspect of
‘Guidance’ in dealing with assignments and solving problems represents a further
aspect worth investigation. The aspect of ‘Self-reliance’ relates to the learner’s
self-engagement in learning through doing individual search, readings and use of
imagination in carrying out any learning task. The aspect of ‘Relaxation’ relates to
the learners’ need to use self-learning activities and opportunities as occasions for
breaks between official learning sessions. These main aspects of learning enable the
detection of traces of autonomy and readiness to develop learner autonomy among
students.
Findings from the exploration of the styles and habits show that 74.6 % of the
surveyed students (41.4 %: ‘Totally agree’ and 33.2 %: ‘Agree’) do not adhere to a
strict routine (see Table 2.1). This suggests that these students have a preference for
working whenever they find time.
Flexibility in relation to learning time emerges as a vital condition. This is
mainly with the understanding that learners have a preference for learning in the
time they decide, which undoubtedly implies a certain degree of control over
learning. Claiming control over the time when they learn requires learners’
engagement in developing responsibility for their learning, deciding on when to
start, when to finish, where to study and the pace to follow. The ability to take this
responsibility is indicative of some kind of awareness of the requirements that this
flexibility entails. Be it full awareness or partial, be it full control over learning or
limited, learners express a clear preference for time flexibility. This can be per-
ceived as an evident trace of readiness to involve in their learning within a more
active and responsible role and thus develop autonomy. Teachers and HEIs need to
build on this readiness to gradually develop collaborative and autonomous learning
skills through proper teacher guidance and support and peer scaffolding. In fact, the
sense of responsibility that the control over time implies is further evidenced by
learners’ attitude towards time requirement in relation to deadlines. Our research

Table 2.1 Students’ learning styles and habits (Working time)

Working time
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid Totally agree 111 41.4 41.4 41.4
Agree 89 33.2 33.2 74.6
Undecided 4 1.5 1.5 76.1
Disagree 36 13.4 13.4 89.6
Totally disagree 27 10.1 10.1 99.6
Not applicable 1 .4 .4 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0
2.4 Impact of Learning Styles on Learner Autonomy 35

I respect deadlines
Totall agree Agree Undecided
Disagree Totally disagree Not applicable
2% 2%
5%
15%
39%

37%

Chart 2.1 Students’ learning styles and habits (Deadlines)

shows that there is a strict compliance with time deadlines (Chart 2.1) and that
students behave with time with an evident sense of responsibility towards their
engagements (37 %: ‘Totally agree’ and 39 %: ‘Agree’).
They express their entire engagement to respect deadlines in submitting
assignments. This reflects a sound sense of responsibility on their part. It is then the
task of the teachers and the HEIs to build on this sense of responsibility, being
perceived in the literature as a central aspect of autonomy, and help students
develop other aspects of autonomy.
Learning content, another aspect explored in relation to learning styles and
habits, is vital to the development of learner autonomy. Guiding learners to acquire
the skills to develop responsibility and control over the choice of what to study is a
pivotal step towards the development of learner autonomy. It is of paramount
importance to decide at the outset whether learners have the required inclination to
choose and readiness to assume the responsibility that this entails. In fact, our
research proves that there is an evident correlation between learners’ readiness and
inclination towards responsibility and the degree of support and guidance provided
by teachers and HEIs. Support by teachers and HEIs and through peer scaffolding is
also extended to the content of learning (see Table 2.2) in terms of what interests
students to study. In fact, 60 % of the students claim that they study what interests
them (24.3 %: ‘Totally agree’ and 25.7 %: ‘Agree’). Our research proves that
Omani students tend to reject dictated learning and strict timetables. Learning what
is interesting for them at their own pace and in a friendly and informal environment
seems to be what they prefer. This proves the need for teachers and HEIs to work
on creating more and more supportive learning environments and learning oppor-
tunities that involve students in the design, implementation and control of their
learning.
There is a high degree of confusion in relation to what students study in a
self-learning venue and this implies the need for support through teacher’s guidance
and peer scaffolding. It can be understood that learners seem to have an innate
36 2 Learner Autonomy and the MENA Region Context

Table 2.2 Students’ learning styles and habits (What to study)

What to study
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid Totally agree 65 24.3 24.3 24.3
Agree 69 25.7 25.7 50.0
Undecided 60 22.4 22.4 72.4
Disagree 59 22.0 22.0 94.4
Totally disagree 14 5.2 5.2 99.6
Not applicable 1 .4 .4 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0

tendency to study what they find interesting. They derive pleasure from learning
and gain interesting knowledge about learning. Following from this understanding,
learning input and the degree of identification students have with it play an
important role in developing autonomy among students. The sense of identification
with the learning opportunities enhances learners’ involvement and deliberate
engagement in learning. This implies the need to take the aspect of identification
with learning into account while developing and promoting learner autonomy in the
Omani context. The aspect of identification with learning that emerges in the Omani
context relates to the clarity of the learning task and the outline they are given. In
fact, 89.6 % of the respondents (learners) find it vital for the learners to have a clear
outline (see Table 2.3) of the learning task they engage in.
Although this could initially be read as a sign of reliance on the teacher, it does
not necessarily exclude the development of autonomy. Awareness of the course
requirements, objectives and plan plays an important role in helping learners
develop interest in what they study and provides them with the guidance that they
will use in designing, implementing and controlling their own learning. Interest in
what to learn emerges as a vital factor in the success of learning and is one
parameter that guides the gradual development of learner autonomy. It is an
important factor in preparing learners for autonomy. This is in keeping with
Littlewood’s claim (1999) that absolute learner autonomy is almost impossible to
achieve. Learner autonomy does not mean teachers should become obsolete. It
rather means a change in the perception of teachers’ and learners’ role in the
teaching-learning setting. To develop autonomy teachers should embrace a new

Table 2.3 Students’ learning styles and habits (Having an outline)

Having an outline
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid Totally agree 140 52.2 52.2 52.2
Agree 100 37.3 37.3 89.6
Undecided 17 6.3 6.3 95.9
Not applicable 11 4.1 4.1 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0
2.4 Impact of Learning Styles on Learner Autonomy 37

Table 2.4 Students’ learning styles and habits (Waiting for an overview from the Teacher)
Overview from tutor
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid Totally agree 106 39.6 39.6 39.6
Agree 64 23.9 23.9 63.4
Undecided 54 20.1 20.1 83.6
Disagree 33 12.3 12.3 95.9
Totally disagree 11 4.1 4.1 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0

role, that of the facilitator. As shown in Table 2.4, 93 % of the respondents always
wait for the teacher to give an overview of the subject (39.6 %: ‘Totally agree’ and
23.9 %: ‘Agree’).
In the same vein, 98.3 % of the teachers think their students wait for the
overview the teacher presents. This shows the need for teachers to remain in the
learning situation through their interventions. But this does not need to be neces-
sarily in the form of control. The overview that the teacher provides makes learning
input meaningful and the process interesting in the eyes of the learners and thus
helps them develop autonomy. Evidence from informal chats during interviews
with both teachers and students shows that when students are aware of the course or
lesson, they feel more secure and then can perform and develop even in the absence
of the teacher. They rather develop a tendency to interact and do tasks, availing
learning opportunities. The sense of confidence and security students in the MENA
region have working in groups is vital in the development of learner autonomy in a
collaborative environment. HEIs need to build on this and strive to create a learning
environment that supports autonomy in collaboration. Research evidence shows
that only 36.2 % (28 %: ‘Totally disagree’ and 8.2 %: ‘Disagree’) of the learners do
not prefer to sit and work alone in the library or in any SLV study area (see
Table 2.5).
Informal evidence, deriving from post-interview chats with students, reveals that
the tendency towards individuality among students is closely linked to the learning
habit of memorisation. In fact, students often prefer to study alone when they are

Table 2.5 Students’ learning styles and habits (I prefer to work alone)
Work alone
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid Totally agree 78 29.1 29.1 29.1
Agree 51 19.0 19.0 48.1
Undecided 36 13.4 13.4 61.6
Disagree 22 8.2 8.2 69.8
Totally disagree 75 28.0 28.0 97.8
Not applicable 6 2.2 2.2 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0
38 2 Learner Autonomy and the MENA Region Context

Table 2.6 Students’ learning styles and habits (I prefer working with peers)
Working with peers
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid Totally agree 134 50.0 50.0 50.0
Agree 48 17.9 17.9 67.9
Undecided 31 11.6 11.6 79.5
Disagree 27 10.1 10.1 89.6
Totally disagree 28 10.4 10.4 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0

actually not studying but memorising. One student said: “I prefer to work alone in
the early morning and this [sic] I do when I learn [sic] definitions and rules for
exams”. It also shows that Omani students enjoy working with peers since 50 % of
the respondents (learners) ‘Totally agree’ while 17.9 % ‘Agree’ (see Table 2.6).
This shows an inclination towards collaborative learning and shows the need to
create an environment that enhances cooperation and collaboration.
The sense of protection and, in some way, the sense of commonality that groups
provide is what students look for. Groups make students feel comfortable as they
can ‘hide’ in the group. Making mistakes and getting corrected in group leads
students to feel more comfortable. This implies that learning opportunities within
groups are important to exploit further. This echoes the CLA’s gradual approach to
the development of learner autonomy in collaboration and its Individual-
Competitive-Collaborative-Autonomous Learning Continuum (ICCALC) our
research puts forward.
In the same vein, statistics (see Table 2.7) show that 91.5 % the respondents
(54.9 %: ‘Totally agree’ and 36.6 %: ‘Agree’) think that being in a group encourages
the learners to get rid of their inhibitions and participate in learning through col-
laboration and peer scaffolding. This generates more ideas through the experiences
group members share. Respondents reject the claim that team work is a waste of
time and prefer discussing assignments with their peers. This further supports the
above claim that groups provide important learning opportunities. Collaborative
learning can be seen, as one teacher respondent puts it, “the best manner to pave the
way to [sic] learner autonomy”. “Our students”, he stresses, “fear autonomous
learning because they find it threatening. That’s [sic] why the stage of collaborative

Table 2.7 Students’ learning styles and habits (I can get more ideas working in group)
More ideas from group
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid Totally agree 147 54.9 54.9 54.9
Agree 98 36.6 36.6 91.4
Undecided 22 8.2 8.2 99.6
Totally disagree 1 .4 .4 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0
2.4 Impact of Learning Styles on Learner Autonomy 39

Table 2.8 Students’ learning styles and habits (Prefer discussing assignments with their peers)
Prefer discussing assignments
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid Totally agree 70 26.1 26.1 26.1
Agree 152 56.7 56.7 82.8
Undecided 34 12.7 12.7 95.5
Disagree 5 1.9 1.9 97.4
Not applicable 7 2.6 2.6 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0

learning is vital in the direction towards autonomy”. As shown in Table 2.8 and in
response to whether they prefer discussing assignments with peers, 82.8 % of the
respondents (learners) show a clear preference for such discussion with the option
‘Agree’ at a percentage of 56.7 % and ‘Totally agree’ at 26.1 %. This further
stresses the importance of students’ perception of collaborative learning as a stage
towards learner autonomy development within a gradual approach that helps
learners build self-confidence and self-esteem, which will ultimately enable them to
develop learner autonomy. In fact, teachers confirm their students’ need for dis-
cussion with peers, clarity of instruction and guidance. This implies that learner
autonomy and autonomous learning need preliminary adequate ground work. One
aspect of this ground work is exploring how students learn and redefine learner
autonomy for them in the light of their perceptions and needs. This has to be done in
order to prepare students for the acquisition of such learning strategy and learning
skills.
Learners’ responses to statement 8 “I prefer to be told exactly what I have to do”
(see Table 2.9) show that 53 % (23.5 %: ‘Totally agree’ and 29.5 %: ‘Agree’) of the
learners rely on clear instructions from their teachers (95 % according to teachers).
This stresses the great need for guidance, which is wrongly perceived by some
practitioners as an illegitimate need, reflecting a lack of autonomy and an incli-
nation towards teacher-centeredness. Discussing this with respondents during the
interviews, these claims were strongly criticised. This can indicate a certain degree
of uncertainty due to lack of clarity, say misconception and misinterpretation of
what guidance means. The existence of guidance aspect and the degree it reaches

Table 2.9 Students’ learning styles and habits (Clear instruction)

Clear instruction
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid Totally agree 63 23.5 23.5 23.5
Agree 79 29.5 29.5 53.0
Undecided 42 15.7 15.7 68.7
Disagree 24 9.0 9.0 77.6
Totally disagree 60 22.4 22.4 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0
40 2 Learner Autonomy and the MENA Region Context

Table 2.10 Students’ learning styles and habits (Preferring assignments)

Prefer assignments
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid Totally agree 36 60.0 60.0 60.0
Agree 12 20.0 20.0 80.0
Undecided 6 10.0 10.0 90.0
Disagree 6 10.0 10.0 100.0
Total 60 100.0 100.0

are essential parameters in the redefining process of learner autonomy in the Omani
context. Learner autonomy is not, and should not be understood as a rejection of all
types of guidance. The ability of the learner to properly perceive guidance is at the
heart of developing autonomy. Understood in its facilitating and orienting role,
guidance is helpful. But if viewed as teacher’s control, it is counterproductive.
Responding to statement 5 as to whether they prefer to be given clearly
instructed assignments or enjoy the freedom of choice, 80 % of the respondents do
not want to choose (see Table 2.10). They rather want assignments with clear
instructions from the teacher.
This tendency is further supported by both teachers and students in the inter-
views. In fact, a teacher respondent expresses concern about “students’ fear of
choice…they often feel undecided and sometimes they waste the time given for the
assignment by jumping from one choice to the other…many times students come
and request their teacher’s approval to change the topic of the assignment”. In the
same vein, a student respondent makes clear reference to the learning styles, and
indirectly to teaching methods when he says “we are used to be [sic] dictated [to]
and so we are not used to making [sic] choices” (see Appendix B).
Apart from this aspect of learning habits and tradition, can this fear of choice be
understood as a rejection of responsibility, and thus resistance to autonomy? The
answer is that it is only indicates a lack of readiness to change given that students
are not trained to do that. This is another parameter that is important in the process
of redefining learner autonomy.
An investigative study of a large number of assessments, as well as an explo-
ration of assessment strategies and methods in pre-tertiary education, shows that the
way students are assessed does not give room for choice and is far from getting
students to develop autonomy. Self-learning portfolios, being a highly recom-
mended assessment method that trends with learner-centeredness and the overall
move towards learning rather than teaching, are barely present (portfolios are
mentioned in only 4 out of 20 courses examined). They do not exist in almost the
majority of the assessments investigated. When asked about this during the inter-
views, students, as well as teachers, show that they do not know about such
assessment tools (8 students/2 teachers). This claim finds its support in responses to
statement 6 as to whether students prefer to think and make library, online and field
searches on topics they are given. Only 16.7 % agree and confirm they search. The
2.4 Impact of Learning Styles on Learner Autonomy 41

Table 2.11 Students’ learning styles and habits (Searching)

Searching
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid Agree 10 16.7 16.7 16.7
Undecided 8 13.3 13.3 30.0
Disagree 35 58.3 58.3 88.3
Totally disagree 7 11.7 11.7 100.0
Total 60 100.0 100.0

majority of the respondents, 70 % (58.3 disagree and 11.7 % totally disagree) have
no preference for searching (see Table 2.11).
The question remains: is this an issue of preference or lack of readiness? It is
quite legitimate that students tend to fear choice if they are not familiar with it. It is
not wise to change from imposed assignments to choice all of a sudden. There is a
need to develop in learners the study and academic skills of searching, critical and
analytical skills before putting them in a situation of choice. Choice, no doubt,
involves and requires awareness, which is another parameter to be considered in
redefining learner autonomy. In the same respect, as much as 96.6 % of the
respondents (52.2 %: ‘Totally agree’ and 44.4 %: ‘Agree’) prefer to have clear
guidance from the tutor (see Table 2.12).
The vital role that guidance appears to have in the mind of the students can be
explained by the lack of freedom they have been used to. This lack of freedom
developed in them an anxiety with regard to freedom of choice and working alone.
This can be understood as a clear gap in preparing students to develop autonomy.
Ground work emerges as a shortcoming that needs to be addressed. Guidance and
support do not only relate to what teachers provide. They also relate to what
learners can get from each other while they work in groups and this is at the heart of
the notion of peer scaffolding the CLA advocates as part of the gradual approach to
the development of learner autonomy. When asked whether they prefer assignments
to include group work, 55 % of the respondents prefer to engage in group
assignments (28.3 %: ‘Totally agree’ and 26.7 %: ‘Agree’). The relatively large
percentage of the respondents who disagreed (36.7 %) does not necessarily reflect a
rejection of group and collaborative work or refutation of guidance from peers (see
Table 2.13).

Table 2.12 Students’ learning styles and habits (Teacher guidance)

Teacher guidance
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid Totally agree 140 52.2 52.2 52.2
Agree 119 44.4 44.4 96.6
Undecided 5 1.9 1.9 98.5
Disagree 4 1.5 1.5 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0
42 2 Learner Autonomy and the MENA Region Context

Table 2.13 Students’ learning styles and habits (GW assignments)

GW assignments
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid Totally agree 17 28.3 28.3 28.3
Agree 16 26.7 26.7 55.0
Undecided 2 3.3 3.3 58.3
Disagree 18 30.0 30.0 88.3
Totally disagree 4 6.7 6.7 95.0
Not applicable 3 5.0 5.0 100.0
Total 60 100.0 100.0

Learners’ disagreement might be interpreted as a rejection of assignment as an

assessment tool and a preference for other assessment tools, especially as some
irregularities and bad habits accompany assignments (reliance of low-achievers on
high-achievers, cheating, and other academic misconduct instances). Responses to
statement 14 asking students if they prefer to work in groups and read their peers’
ideas rather than think and develop their own ideas (32.9 % ‘Agree’ and 47.4 %
‘Disagree’) show the confusion students feel. This explains the existence of some
uncertainty (15.7 % answered ‘Undecided’ and 4.1 % ‘Not applicable’). Should it
be understood that students prefer to work autonomously? In fact, 47 % of the
students claim they prefer to develop their own ideas (see Table 2.14). Can this be
understood as a sign learner autonomy? The answer can be partly detected in
students’ response to whether they prefer to think and make searches on topics of
interest. 30 % of the respondents search individually, while 13.3 % remain unde-
cided (see Table 2.11). This can show that the degree of self-reliance is low due to
confusion. It is necessary then to address this confusion as part of the ground work
preparing students for autonomy, proper awareness raising and adequate explana-
tion of what autonomy means. This also involves the creation of a cooperative and
collaborative environment that enhances peer scaffolding in the comforting pres-
ence of the teacher carrying out a refined role of facilitator and guide.
Informal evidence (see Appendix B), deriving from side chats during the
interviews, identifies lack of exposition to library and out-of-class work as a reason

Table 2.14 Students’ learning styles and habits (Read others’ ideas)
Read others
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid Totally agree 53 19.8 19.8 19.8
Agree 35 13.1 13.1 32.8
Undecided 42 15.7 15.7 48.5
Disagree 49 18.3 18.3 66.8
Totally disagree 78 29.1 29.1 95.9
Not applicable 11 4.1 4.1 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0
2.4 Impact of Learning Styles on Learner Autonomy 43

Table 2.15 Students’ learning styles and habits (Preferring own reading)
Own reading
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid Totally agree 3 5.0 5.0 5.0
Agree 9 15.0 15.0 20.0
Undecided 7 11.7 11.7 31.7
Disagree 33 55.0 55.0 86.7
Totally disagree 8 13.3 13.3 100.0
Total 60 100.0 100.0

behind students’ refraining from searching individually. One student claims that
“[sic] none of my teachers took us to the library or asked us to do some work
there…and even when they do it, they only send us without guiding…after all we
need to know what to do”. This implies that, according to students, their deficient
performance in working in LRCs does not necessarily mean that they do not want to
do it. It rather means that they are not trained by the teachers to do it.
Training emerges as another parameter that constitutes a pillar in the redefining
effort related to learner autonomy. In the same vein, 20 % of the respondents
(teachers) claim that their students prefer to develop their own reading lists. This
supports the positive impact that providing students with clear instruction and
guidance by the teacher (see Table 2.15) plays in developing autonomous learning
skills. During the interviews teachers admit that their students want the courses and
the assignments to include a list of readings they can refer to. When asked if their
students learn more when they read, 81.6 % of the respondents agreed (see
Table 2.16). Our research proves that Omani students tend to reject dictated
learning and strict timetables.
Learning what is interesting for them at their own pace and in a
‘non-threatening’ and informal environment seems to be what they prefer. This
proves the need for teachers and HEIs to work on creating more and more sup-
portive learning environments and learning opportunities that involve students in
the design, implementation and control of their learning. This is a crucial stage in
the gradual development of learner autonomy.
This shows that Omani students enjoy readiness and willingness to develop
autonomy but their potential for autonomy is still crude and has to be properly

Table 2.16 Students’ learning styles and habits (Learning by reading)

Learning by reading
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid Totally agree 11 18.3 18.3 18.3
Agree 38 63.3 63.3 81.7
Undecided 7 11.7 11.7 93.3
Totally disagree 4 6.7 6.7 100.0
Total 60 100.0 100.0
44 2 Learner Autonomy and the MENA Region Context

Table 2.17 Students’ learning styles and habits (Imagination)

Imagination
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid Totally agree 4 6.7 6.7 6.7
Agree 16 26.7 26.7 33.3
Undecided 2 3.3 3.3 36.7
Disagree 35 58.3 58.3 95.0
Not applicable 3 5.0 5.0 100.0
Total 60 100.0 100.0

tuned. In the same vein, when asked in statement 20 whether their students prefer to
do activities that engage imagination, 33.4 % (6.7 %: ‘Totally agree’ and 26.7 %:
‘Agree’) of the respondents (teachers) claim their students engage in activities that
involve the use of imagination in learning (see Table 2.17). This can be considered
as a sign of autonomy. In the same direction of imagination, 98.4 % of the teacher
respondents (66.7 %: ‘Totally agree’ and 31.7 %: ‘Agree’) think that their students
tend to consider autonomous learning activities as opportunities for relaxation and
break from formal learning (Table 2.18).
A surface reading of this response may make it understood as a waste of time
and shows that no learning can be perceived and achieved in this way. However,
when asked about this during the interviews, responses show that students take
autonomous learning activities and Self-learning Venues (SLVs), Learning
Resources Centre (LRC) in our research, as a different form of learning. For
example, one student describes them as “a variety which is good to help us avoid
feeling bored because we have nothing to do in class [sic]”. A teacher respondent
praised the diversification aspect that autonomous learning brings into the
teaching-learning scene and stresses the need for training as a fundamental stage in
the process of learner autonomy development among learners. SLVs emerge as the
learning environment-to-be where training, teacher support and peer scaffolding
take place. In fact, an SLV can be said to be effective when it helps students
develop learner autonomy and autonomous learning skills. Statistics in Chart 2.2
show that 67.5 % of the respondents think that working at the self-learning venue
helped them improve their reading skills (35.8 %: ‘Totally agree’ and 31.7 %:
‘Agree’). 66.8 % of the respondents claim that working in the LRC improved their
writing and listening proficiency while 60 % claim that the use of LRC improved

Table 2.18 Students’ learning styles and habits (Opportunity for break)
Opportunity for breaks
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid Totally agree 40 66.7 66.7 66.7
Agree 19 31.7 31.7 98.3
Disagree 1 1.7 1.7 100.0
Total 60 100.0 100.0
2.4 Impact of Learning Styles on Learner Autonomy 45

Chart 2.2 Impact of ALOP on language skills

their speaking skills through the interaction opportunities they found while working
with their peers in the LRC (see Appendix D for more detailed statistics). There is a
fair degree of awareness among Omani students of the merits of SLVs in the
improvement of their study skills. Building and capitalising on students’ positive
perception of SLVs is vital in the quest of developing learning autonomy. It equally
stresses the importance of collaboration, peer-scaffolding, teacher guidance and
self-regulation that the gradual development of learner autonomy in collaboration
advocates. Learners perceive SLVs to be effective and this probably has a positive
influence on students’ motivation and pleasure in learning, and identifying with
learning, learning materials, the learning environment. The use of LRC is perceived
to have a positive impact on students’ learning habits and language skills. In fact,
54.8 % (‘Totally agree’: 23.1 % and ‘Agree’: 31.7 %) claim that working at the
SLVs enabled them to learn how to better use their time (see Table 2.19).
What is more, students believe their time management skills improved and, as a
result, they feel they became more responsible. This perception of the SLVs can be
exploited as an impetus to the development of responsibility and autonomy in
learners. There is need to enhance learners’ responsibility. In fact, 59.7 % of the
respondents think they became more responsible thanks to their use of the LRC,
19 % ‘Totally agree’ and 40.7 % ‘Agree’ (see Table 2.20).
A better capacity to work autonomously is believed to be the result of the
combination of the three aspects: language learning skills, time management and

Table 2.19 Students’ evaluation of ALOP (Better use of time)

Better use of time
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid No answer 55 20.5 20.5 20.5
Totally agree 62 23.1 23.1 43.7
Agree 85 31.7 31.7 75.4
Undecided 48 17.9 17.9 93.3
Disagree 18 6.7 6.7 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0
46 2 Learner Autonomy and the MENA Region Context

Table 2.20 Students’ evaluation of ALOP (Becoming more responsible)

More responsible
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid No answer 55 20.5 20.5 20.5
Totally agree 51 19.0 19.0 39.6
Agree 109 40.7 40.7 80.2
Undecided 18 6.7 6.7 86.9
Disagree 8 3.0 3.0 89.9
Totally disagree 27 10.1 10.1 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0

responsibility for one’s own learning. 49.6 % of the students think that working in
the SLVs improved their skills with 27.6 % who answered ‘Totally agree’ and
22 % who answered ‘Agree’ (see Table 2.21), which can be interpreted as a sound
belief in the merits of SLVs and the great help they can provide in enhancing
students’ autonomous learning. Confusion arises when students are not clear about
what they are supposed to do. There is then need to make sure students are clear
about what they should do as this increases their degree of identification with their
learning. On the one hand, these statistics show that students have a good per-
ception of the impact of SLVs. On the other hand, confusion is an obstacle to the
development of learner autonomy that prevails. Addressing it is an integral part of
the redefining process in the Omani context. Around 20 % of the students did not
answer the question whether their autonomous learning skills improved or not
thanks to the SLVs as 49.6 % (see statistics in Table 2.21: 27.6 % ‘Totally agree’
and 22 % ‘Agree’) believed it to be ‘Helpful to work autonomously’ while a
relatively high percentage of 27.2 % answered ‘undecided’.
Yet, it is evident that students’ perceptions of SLVs and autonomous learning are
positive and promising. When asked to show whether the importance of autono-
mous learning is high to the extent that they would suggest it should be incorpo-
rated in a formal course (‘Should be compulsory in all courses’), 47 % of the
students ‘Totally agree’ and 29.9 % ‘Agree’ totalling at 76.9 %, which is a dis-
tinctively high percentage (see Table 2.22). The exploration of the rationale behind
the use of SLVs is vital in the attempt to develop a sound understanding of Omani

Table 2.21 Students’ evaluation of ALOP (Helpful to work autonomously)

Helpful to work autonomously
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid No answer 55 20.5 20.5 20.5
Totally agree 74 27.6 27.6 48.1
Agree 59 22.0 22.0 70.1
Undecided 73 27.2 27.2 97.4
Totally disagree 7 2.6 2.6 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0
2.4 Impact of Learning Styles on Learner Autonomy 47

Table 2.22 Students’ evaluation of ALOP (Should be compulsory in all courses)

Should be compulsory in all courses
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid No answer 8 3.0 3.0 3.0
Totally agree 126 47.0 47.0 50.0
Agree 80 29.9 29.9 79.9
Undecided 35 13.1 13.1 92.9
Disagree 9 3.4 3.4 96.3
Totally disagree 2 .7 .7 97.0
Not applicable 8 3.0 3.0 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0

students’ perception of autonomous learning opportunities. In view of Omani

students’ commitment to formal learning and inclination to perceive teachers’
presence in the T&L scene as vital, it appears that compulsion is the main motive
behind using SLVs. Compulsion means here that teachers should incorporate
learning opportunities in SLVs in formal learning in order to ensure that learners
engage in self-learning. However, our research proves that compulsion does not
appear to be the most important reason that makes students go to the SLV to carry
out self-learning tasks. 48.5 % of the respondents (see Table 2.23) claim that they
go to the SLV to do autonomous learning tasks only when it is compulsory and
required by the teacher.
The SLV is not then the place students prefer to go to when they need to study
on their own. 29.5 % of the respondents use the self-learning venue because they
‘want to study by themselves’ (Chart 2.3). A percentage of 67.2 % of the
respondents answered ‘No’, indicating that they use the self-learning venue for
other reasons (see Appendix E). However, it is worth mentioning that data
emerging from post-interviews indicate that the term ‘learning’ is used in the sense
of homework tasks or acts of memorisation that require being alone. One of the
reasons is ‘meeting friends’ with 34.3 % of the respondents who answered ‘Yes’
(see Chart 2.3 and Appendix E).
It remains subject to investigation whether students meet friends in the SLV to
study together or as an opportunity to take a break. Observations in different
timings of the day conducted in the study areas at the LRC as well as feedback from
LRC staff members show that collaborative learning activities are usually carried

Table 2.23 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level (Be required)
Be required
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid Yes 130 48.5 48.5 48.5
No 127 47.4 47.4 95.9
7 11 4.1 4.1 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0
48 2 Learner Autonomy and the MENA Region Context

REASONS FOR USING THE LRC AMONG STUDENTS

Study on my own
Do homework
29.5%
47%
Meet friends
34.3%
Use computers
44%

Quiet place
66.4%

Use resources
72.4%

Chart 2.3 Reasons for using the LRC among students

out during these meetings. This further stresses the importance of creating a
non-threatening learning environment where learners work individually, compete
with peers, collaborate and work in groups. Another reason worth investigating is
the quietness of the atmosphere in the SLV. 66.4 % of the respondents claim they
use the SLV because they ‘want a quiet place’ (see Chart 2.3 and Appendix E).
This is telling about the learning environment that the SLV provides to students.
Moving from the environment to the resources available at the SLV and whether
or not they constitute a reason why students use the venue, 72.4 % of the
respondents (see Chart 2.3 and Appendix E) agree and claim that they go there to
use resources. Provisions in LRCs for adequate, relevant and sufficient resources
and support, are vital for the enhancement of learners’ use of peer scaffolding
opportunities. This reiterates the role of HEIs and teachers in building capacity at
LRCs by availing trained staff members and resources that make students’ expe-
rience in LRCs positive. Apart from these resources, 15 % of the respondents (see
Chart 2.3 and Appendix E) go there to use IT facilities, such as computers and IT
devices and software as their preferred resources in the SLV. 47 % of the
respondents use the SLV as a place where they can do their homework (see
Chart 2.3 and Appendix E). One student claims during an interview that in the LRC
students find IT facilities and peers to resort to help and support when they need it.
They can also use books, dictionaries and other materials when they have an
assignment to do.
The interpretation of the reasons why students in the Omani context use SLVs
shows that HEIs and teachers need to work on building a learning environment that
is non-threatening, resourceful and attractive for students who can resort to it when
they need to work alone in peace, with peers, use resources and seek support from
peers and teachers also. LRC resourcefulness is vital and it is important to have
input from teachers and from students. Students want to see all types of resources
2.4 Impact of Learning Styles on Learner Autonomy 49

Table 2.24 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level (Correlation test 1)
Variable 1 Variable 2 Pearson correlation
coefficient
Fair LRC frequency of use Readiness to do more −.181
Fair LRC frequency of use LRC helps learning .295
Fair LRC frequency of use Interesting .170
Fair LRC frequency of use Lovely and enjoyable −.017
environment
Fair LRC frequency of use Useful LRC .301
Useful LRC Lovely and enjoyable .318
environment
Useful LRC Interesting .518
Useful LRC LRC helps learning .724

available for them and they express their readiness to suggest and provide materials
and resources. Resources cover a wide and interesting range that includes movies,
internet resources, magazines, dictionaries, ELT books, documentaries, videos…
etc. Previous students’ projects and assignments as well as previous exam packages
are also perceived as useful resources often sought by students going to the LRC.
Students’ involvement in resource pro visions indicate their inclination towards
engagement and responsibility in their own learning as they have the initiative that
HEIs and teachers need to monitor, support and build on.
It is interesting to relate students’ use of such materials to the frequency of use in
order to assess the degree of correlation that may exist between the type of
resources and their frequency of use. The positive correlation between the variable
LRC materials and resources and the variable frequency of use indicates that the
frequency is connected with the degree of satisfaction with the resources
(Tables 2.24 and 2.25). Research statistics (Table 2.24) reveal a positive correlation
between the LRC Frequency of Use and the degrees of Helpfulness it provides at a
Pearson coefficient of .295. A similarly positive correlation of .301 exists between
LRC Frequency of Use and its Helpfulness. The Usefulness of the LRC staff
members strongly correlates with the degree of Interest LRC materials and learning
opportunities provide as well as with the degree of LRC Helpfulness at Pearson
correlations of .518 and .724, respectively. Equally strong are the correlations
(Table 2.25) between the variable Supportiveness and Helpfulness of the LRC and
the variable LRC Training Sufficiency at .572 and between the variables LRC
Usefulness and LRC Training Sufficiency at .793. But it could also mean that the
frequency of use influences their perception of the usefulness of the LRCs. In other
words, if learners are required to use the SLVs, they might start to value them more.
This might find its support in the significant correlation between the variable
‘Should be compulsory in all courses’ and the variables ‘LRC frequency’ and ‘Fair
LRC frequency’ at .280 and .196 respectively (see Table 2.26).
It appears valid that the element of compulsion is important in the Omani context
as it enhances the use of the LRC and influences students’ perceptions of the
50 2 Learner Autonomy and the MENA Region Context

Table 2.25 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level (Correlation test 2)
Variable 1 Variable 2 Pearson correlation
coefficient
Supportive and helpful LRC Opportunity for exchange .607
helpdesk
LRC Use should be compulsory Opportunity for exchange −.064
LRC Use should be compulsory Reliable and ease of success .229
LRC Use should be compulsory Having sufficient training .141
LRC Use should be compulsory Supportive and helpful LRC .245
Helpdesk
Useful LRC Having sufficient training .793
Supportive and helpful LRC Having sufficient training .572
helpdesk

Table 2.26 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level (Correlation test 3)
Correlations
LRC Fair LRC Should be compulsory
frequency frequency in all courses
LRC frequency Pearson 1.000 .483** .280**
correlation
Sig. – .000 .000
(2-tailed)
N 268 268 268
Fair LRC frequency Pearson .483** 1.000 .196**
correlation
Sig. .000 – .001
(2-tailed)
N 268 268 268
Should be compulsory in Pearson .280** .196** 1.000
all courses correlation
Sig. .000 .001 –
(2-tailed)
N 268 268 268
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

usefulness of the learning opportunities available at the SLV. Compulsion is per-

ceived by Omani students, and teachers occasionally, as vital in guiding students to
work autonomously. It is important to clarify that compulsion refers to the incor-
poration of self-learning activities in formal learning, not in the sense of dictating
learning. The value of any learning opportunity for students is determined by
whether it has a formal component. The type of the learning environment that HEIs
create in LRCs or any form of SLV plays an important role in enhancing students’
use of self-learning opportunities.
2.4 Impact of Learning Styles on Learner Autonomy 51

Table 2.27 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level (Correlation test 4)
Correlations
LRC Fair LRC Materials you Other
frequency frequency refer students to resources?
LRC frequency Pearson 1.000 .295* −.562** −.207
correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) – .022 .000 .113
N 60 60 60 60
Fair LRC Pearson .295* 1.000 −.241 −.740**
frequency correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .022 – .064 .000
N 60 60 60 60
Materials you Pearson −.562** −.241 1.000 .352**
refer students to correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .064 – .006
N 60 60 60 60
Other resources? Pearson −.207 −.740** .352** 1.000
correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .113 .000 .006 –
N 60 60 60 60
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

With a Pearson negative correlation coefficient of −.562 (see Table 2.27)

between the frequency of LRC use and the materials teachers assign to their stu-
dents, it is clear that Omani students’ limited use of the LRC is due to their degree
of dissatisfaction with the LRC environment and structure.
In the same vein, the correlation test between the ‘Fair LRC frequency’ and the
use of ‘Other resources’ by the students is significantly negative at −0.740 (see
Table 2.27), indicating that the resources available at the LRC are relatively suf-
ficient and students did not feel the need to use other resources. It appears that it is
the LRC environment that plays an important role in the frequency with which it is
used. Answering the interview question about whether their students mostly did
things they told them to do or things they decided to do when working in the SLV,
60 % of the teachers claim their students did what is assigned to them. However,
they add that teachers’ assignments are a starting point for the activities that stu-
dents choose and do by themselves (see Chart 2.4). Most teachers report that the
assignments they give to students to do in the LRC usually develop in them the
confidence they lack and stimulate their appetite to do things on their own. This is
in keeping with the 40 % of the teachers who claim students mostly did what they
decided for themselves. But they also insist on the fact that this is done under the
guidance of the teacher, which echoes the principal aspect of students’ responsible
reliance on the teacher for guidance and support that characterises learning among
Omani students. Teachers are perceived as facilitators and reliance on their guiding
52 2 Learner Autonomy and the MENA Region Context

ACTIVITIES DONE IN SELF-LEARNING VENUES

They mostly do
what they decide
for themselves but
under my guidance
40%
What I assign to
them is the starting
point
60%

Chart 2.4 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level (Activities done in SLV)

and supportive role does not mean resistance to or rejection of autonomy. The
percentage of students who carried out learning tasks of their own choice in the
SLV is higher than that of students who did activities decided by their teachers.
Compulsion is probably not the best way to make people use the SLV. It is only
seen as an enhancement tool required given the dominating cultural impact, having
students who require the presence of the teacher as a guide and confidence gen-
erator. Students in the MENA region tend to give value and commitment to any
kind of learning opportunity only if it is linked with formal learning and with
grades. This mirrors the issue of interest and the sense of identification students
need to feel with their learning, as a parameter of the development of learner
autonomy. Any learning opportunity learners are provided with needs to mean
something tangible to them and they need to feel that they can identify with it and
see their needs identified by the teachers and the learning opportunity provider.
A correlation between students’ use of the resources and their perception of its
usefulness for learning to learn is expected. Before looking into the correlations, it
is useful to explore the features of the LRC as perceived by the students (Appendix
A, Section 4). Ease of use is perceived as an important feature to characterise the
SLV. In fact, as Table 2.28 shows, 75 % of the respondents (28 % ‘Totally agree’
and 47 % ‘Agree’) perceive the venue as ‘User-friendly’ (Feature 2). Under the
umbrella of ‘User-friendly’, issues like organisation and structure of the venue, ease
and convenience of access, support of the venue staff, and other issues emerge as
vital to the success of the learning experience there.
Statistics related to Feature 5 (Accessible at convenience) show that 83.6 % of
the respondents consider accessibility at convenience as important with 22.8 % who
‘Totally agree’ and 60.8 % who ‘Agree’ (see Table 2.29).
Lack of proper orientation, training and guidance is one of the main reasons why
students refrain from using the LRC. A Self-learning Venue (SLV) is believed to
‘help students develop self-confidence’ (Feature 3) and thus be able to work
autonomously through guiding them and training them to develop the skills
2.4 Impact of Learning Styles on Learner Autonomy 53

Table 2.28 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level (LRC feature 2)
Feature 2
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid No answer 17 6.3 6.3 6.3
Totally agree 75 28.0 28.0 34.3
Agree 126 47.0 47.0 81.3
Undecided 26 9.7 9.7 91.0
Disagree 24 9.0 9.0 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0

Table 2.29 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level (LRC feature 5)
Feature 5
Frequency Percent valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid No answer 28 10.4 10.4 10.4
Totally agree 61 22.8 22.8 33.2
Agree 163 60.8 60.8 94.0
Undecided 11 4.1 4.1 98.1
Disagree 5 1.9 1.9 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0

Table 2.30 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level (LRC feature 3)
Feature 3
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid No answer 26 9.7 9.7 9.7
Totally agree 65 24.3 24.3 34.0
Agree 99 36.9 36.9 70.9
Undecided 62 23.1 23.1 94.0
Disagree 1 .4 .4 94.4
Totally disagree 15 5.6 5.6 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0

required for the development of self-learning competencies. In the same vein, in

response to Feature 3, a total of 61.2 % of the respondents (24.3 % ‘Totally agree’
and 36.9 % ‘Agree’) claim that their experience at the SLV developed in them some
degree of self-confidence (see Table 2.30). Some degree of satisfaction is expres-
sed, appraising the learning opportunities availed to students in SLVs as useful in
developing in them the self-confidence they lack in the gradual movement towards
developing autonomous learning.
Grading the resources and materials available at the LRC is believed to be an
important factor that stipulates its use. In fact, in response to feature 8 (graded
materials), and as shown in Table 2.31, 71.6 % of the students (15.7 % ‘Totally
agree’ and 54.9 % ‘Agree’) agree that the grading of the learning materials is
54 2 Learner Autonomy and the MENA Region Context

Table 2.31 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level (LRC feature 8)
Feature 8
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid No answer 20 7.5 7.5 7.5
Totally agree 42 15.7 15.7 23.1
Agree 147 54.9 54.9 78.0
Undecided 48 17.9 17.9 95.9
Disagree 10 3.7 3.7 99.6
Totally disagree 1 .4 .4 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0

important and helpful. The issue of self-confidence needs to be addressed to

develop learner autonomy. The combination of accessibility, user-friendliness and
grading of the resources is believed to reinforce students’ readiness to become
autonomous (Feature 6).
This belief finds evident support in students’ expressed readiness and willingness
to develop autonomy. 76.2 % of the respondents (see Table 2.32) showed readiness
and willingness to become autonomous learners (36.6 % who ‘Totally agree’ and
39.6 % who ‘Agree’). Equally important in any SLV is the feature of providing an
opportunity for students to use English, interacting with peers, communicating with
teachers for enquiries, making requests in English to LRC staff members…etc. In
response to feature 7 ‘Enabling the use of English for Communicative Purposes’, a
total percentage of 68.6 % of the respondents (24.6 % ‘Totally agree’ and 44 %
‘Agree’) claim the venue enables them to use English and exposes them to authentic
English (see Table 2.33).
The self-learning venue that provides learners with autonomous learning
opportunities is believed to be efficient in exploiting their readiness and willingness
to acquire autonomous learning and reflection skills in an environment which is
friendly and collaborative.
In fact, in response to feature 9 ‘Trains students to develop autonomous learning
and reflection skills’, as Table 2.34 indicates, a total percentage of 73.9 % of the

Table 2.32 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level (LRC feature 6)
Feature 6
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid No answer 28 10.4 10.4 10.4
Totally agree 98 36.6 36.6 47.0
Agree 106 39.6 39.6 86.6
Undecided 18 6.7 6.7 93.3
Disagree 11 4.1 4.1 97.4
Totally disagree 7 2.6 2.6 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0
2.4 Impact of Learning Styles on Learner Autonomy 55

Table 2.33 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level (LRC feature 7)
Feature 7
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid No answer 28 10.4 10.4 10.4
Totally agree 66 24.6 24.6 35.1
Agree 118 44.0 44.0 79.1
Undecided 36 13.4 13.4 92.5
Disagree 20 7.5 7.5 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0

Table 2.34 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level (LRC feature 9)
Feature 9
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid No answer 21 7.8 7.8 7.8
Totally agree 90 33.6 33.6 41.4
Agree 108 40.3 40.3 81.7
Undecided 49 18.3 18.3 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0

respondents believe the SLV managed to provide such opportunities (33.6 %

‘Totally agree’ and 40.3 % ‘Agree’).
It is also thought that students’ perseverance and continuation of their training
endeavours at the SLV would guarantee the success of the learning experience. This
experience enhances students’ self-investment in learning. In fact, the better training
students get, the more self-investment they show. In confirmation of this claim,
statistics related to Feature 10 (Enhances self-investment in learning) show that
62.7 % (24.6 % ‘Totally agree’ and 38.1 % ‘Agree’) support this view in (see
Table 2.35).
Similarly, and in the same vein, more investment in self-learning on the part of
the students decreases their dependence level on the teacher. Students’ responses to
feature 11 ‘Reduces the reliance of the students on the teacher’ show that 30.6 % of

Table 2.35 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level (LRC feature 10)
Feature 10
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid No answer 29 10.8 10.8 10.8
Totally agree 66 24.6 24.6 35.4
Agree 102 38.1 38.1 73.5
Undecided 64 23.9 23.9 97.4
Disagree 7 2.6 2.6 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0
56 2 Learner Autonomy and the MENA Region Context

Table 2.36 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level (LRC feature 11)
Feature 11
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid No answer 21 7.8 7.8 7.8
Totally agree 82 30.6 30.6 38.4
Agree 92 34.3 34.3 72.8
Undecided 59 22.0 22.0 94.8
Disagree 7 2.6 2.6 97.4
Totally disagree 7 2.6 2.6 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0

the respondents ‘Totally agree’ and 34.3 % ‘Agree’, which provides clear support
to the above claim (see Table 2.36).
The successful achievement of the above features would enable the students to
develop the ability to decide on their own learning outcomes. Statistics related to
students’ responses to Feature 12 ‘Help students develop their own learning out-
comes’ show that 64.5 % of the respondents are satisfied (34.3 % ‘Totally agree’
and 30.2 % ‘Agree’) with the SLV’s impact on their capacity to create their own
learning opportunities and thus achieve some control over their own learning (see
Table 2.37). This supports the view that students’ ability to develop the skills of
deciding their own learning outcomes is the culmination of the efforts made by
students in the SLV to become autonomous.
However, it is important to note that students’ development of autonomy does
not mean and should by no means be interpreted as discarding the teachers and
peers in class and outside class. Peer scaffolding and responsible reliance on
teachers remain core components of learner autonomy in collaboration as perceived
in the Omani context. Omani students value the sense of self-confidence, safety and
protection they derive from their performance with peers within a group.
In the Omani context, learner autonomy and autonomous learning are closely
interlinked with a guiding, orchestrating and supportive role of the teacher and a
collaborative role of student peers. The need to redefine learner autonomy within
this perspective appears to be vital. Students learn from and with each other under

Table 2.37 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level (LRC feature 12)
Feature 12
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid No answer 21 7.8 7.8 7.8
Totally agree 92 34.3 34.3 42.2
Agree 81 30.2 30.2 72.4
Undecided 29 10.8 10.8 83.2
Disagree 38 14.2 14.2 97.4
Totally disagree 7 2.6 2.6 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0
2.4 Impact of Learning Styles on Learner Autonomy 57

Table 2.38 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level (LRC feature 13)
Feature 13
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid No answer 36 13.4 13.4 13.4
Totally agree 51 19.0 19.0 32.5
Agree 89 33.2 33.2 65.7
Undecided 74 27.6 27.6 93.3
Disagree 17 6.3 6.3 99.6
Not applicable 1 .4 .4 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0

the guidance and the support of the teacher. It is almost only in this frame of
protection that students feel comfortable to learn. Omani students are interdepen-
dent and prefer collaborative learning which respects individual traits and the desire
for competition. They develop autonomy within collaboration and teachers’ guid-
ance. In response to feature 13 ‘Providing opportunities for inter-dependence and
collaboration’, 52.2 % of the respondents (19 % ‘Totally agree’ and 33.2 %
‘Agree’) support the above view (see Table 2.38). Interdependence is not nega-
tively viewed in the Omani context and does not indicate any resistance to
autonomy or rejection of learner autonomy development.
Even the relatively high percentage of ‘undecided’ students, 27.6 % (see
Table 2.38), can be read as reluctance from students due to confusion and lack of
clarity, guidance, training and support. They are undecided because they are not
clear about what learner autonomy means and entails. If they are made clear about
learner autonomy, it is believed that their opinion will change and they will appraise
the role of SLVs in availing interdependent and collaborative learning opportunities
to students. Undecidedness signals some kind of hesitation due to uncertainty, lack
of direction and self-confidence. It is believed that undecidedness will disappear
once direction is set, support is provided, and guidance is made.
Omani students exhibit a positive perception of the usefulness of the LRC and
any form of SLVs, and by extension the merits of autonomous learning and learner
self-investment in learning. A correlation between students’ use of the resources
and their perception of its usefulness for learning to learn is expected to be positive.
The correlation test between the ‘Fair LRC frequency’ and the feature
‘User-friendly’ (Feature 2) is significantly positive at .327 (Pearson), indicating that
the ease of use and the LRC environment and structure are vital in encouraging
students to use the LRC more frequently. However, there is a negative correlation
between the fair frequency of LRC use and the aspect of self-confidence students
develop (Feature 3) at a coefficient of −.189 (see Table 2.39). This indicates a kind
of deficiency that needs to be addressed in order to ensure that SLVs help learners
develop self-confidence, which would make their self-investment in learning better.
It is not only by availing themselves for resources and venues for self-learning that
students would use the LRC more and in a better manner. In fact, the correlation test
yields a Pearson coefficient of −.036 (see Table 2.39) between the fair frequency of
58 2 Learner Autonomy and the MENA Region Context

Table 2.39 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level (Correlation test 6)
Correlations
Fair LRC Feature 2 Feature 3 Feature 5
frequency
Fair LRC Pearson 1.000 .327** −.189** −.036
frequency correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) – .000 .002 .560
N 268 268 268 268
Feature 2 Pearson .327** 1.000 −.032 .207**
correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 – .598 .001
N 268 268 268 268
Feature 3 Pearson −.189** −.032 1.000 .384**
correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .598 – .000
N 268 268 268 268
Feature 5 Pearson −.036 .207** .384** 1.000
correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .560 .001 .000 –
N 268 268 268 268
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

LRC and the feature of ‘Accessible at convenience’ (Feature 5). Students’ use of
SLVs is subject to the degree of satisfaction with the LRC environment and
structure. This implies the need for HEIs to work on the improvement of the
learning context and provide students with autonomous learning opportunities in a
favourable autonomy-enhancing environment. Such environment is what actually
lacks in most HEIs in Oman and it is one of the parameters to be taken into account
while redefining and promoting learner autonomy in the Omani context.
Out-of-class learning environments lack support, training, and self-access learning
support, all of which are perceived by Omani students as important and vital in the
development of learner autonomy.
Although the use of the LRC does not necessarily ensure the increase in the level
of students’ self-confidence, it certainly reinforces their readiness and willingness to
become autonomous (Feature 6). Omani students show a low degree of
self-confidence and it is necessary in the process of redefining learner autonomy in
the Omani context. The correlation is significant between the fair frequency of LRC
use and the feature of ‘Readiness’ with a Pearson coefficient of .168 (see
Table 2.40). It is even higher and more significant at .219 with the feature of
‘training students to develop autonomous learning and reflection skills’ (Feature 9).
In this respect, there is a lower correlation at .045 between the fair frequency of
LRC use and the feature of ‘providing opportunities for inter-dependence and
collaboration’ (Feature 13). This implies that in the long run, and gradually, stu-
dents’ self-confidence as autonomous learners is likely to increase (see Table 2.41).
2.4 Impact of Learning Styles on Learner Autonomy 59

Table 2.40 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level (Correlation test 7)
Correlations
Fair LRC Feature 6 Feature 9 Feature 13
frequency
Fair LRC Pearson 1.000 .168** .219** .045
frequency correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) – .006 .000 .463
N 268 268 268 268
Feature 6 Pearson .168** 1.000 .128* .408**
correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .006 – .037 .000
N 268 268 268 268
Feature 9 Pearson .219** .128* 1.000 .400**
correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .037 – .000
N 268 268 268 268
Feature 13 Pearson .045 .408** .400** 1.000
correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .463 .000 .000 –
N 268 268 268 268
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Table 2.41 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level (Correlation test 8)
Correlations
Fair LRC frequency Feature 11 Feature 12
Fair LRC frequency Pearson correlation 1.000 −.191** −.061
Sig. (2-tailed) – .002 .316
N 268 268 268
Feature 11 Pearson correlation −.191** 1.000 .718**
Sig. (2-tailed) .002 – .000
N 268 268 268
Feature 12 Pearson correlation −.061 .718** 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) .316 .000 –
N 268 268 268
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

This further proves the validity of the CLA interpretation of autonomy our research
proposes for the Omani context and the need to follow the Individual-
Competitive-Collaborative-Autonomous Learning (ICCAL) continuum of gradual
development of autonomy advocated here.
Feedback from interviews with students (Appendix B) indicates a more opti-
mistic image. When asked to evaluate their degree of confidence about studying
60 2 Learner Autonomy and the MENA Region Context

English after being trained to work autonomously, students responded positively.

One student answered: “Yes. Confidence is one of the advantages of autonomous
learning.” In keeping with this confidence, students stressed the importance of
developing learner autonomy in their answer to the question: Do you think it is
important for students to develop learner autonomy? One student linked it with
knowledge, saying “Yes…in order to increase the level of knowledge.” When
asked whether she developed better learning habits and performance through
learning autonomously in her courses, one student said in a tone of dissatisfaction:
“Yes I have…but in some courses only. We wish to have this practice in all
courses.” Another student said: “[sic] we like it when the teacher gives us a task to
do in groups in the LRC…this makes us feel we can do things”.
The above sample quotes indicate the readiness of the students to develop
learner autonomy, and their developed positive image of themselves as able and
eager to learn autonomously. They also show the deficient role of the HEI and the
teachers in incorporating the dimension of autonomous learning, Autonomous
Learning Orientation Programme (ALOP) and SLVs in formal learning. Students’
perception of themselves as good at learning autonomously show that 50 % of them
consider themselves as good and 33 % think they are good but not always whereas
17 % link their image as good autonomous learners with proper guidance and
support (see Chart 2.5).

SELF-IMAGE AS GOOD AT LEARNING

Yes, AUTONOMOUSLY
especially
when guided
and
supported
17%

Yes, but not Yes, of course

always 50%
33%

Chart 2.5 The use of LRC among Omani students at tertiary level (Self-image as good at
learning autonomously)
2.4 Impact of Learning Styles on Learner Autonomy 61

This implies that the environment and the structure of the SLV emerge as vital
factors in the frequency with which they are used. The guidance and support
students mentioned relate to the teacher and the LRC staff. However, there is a
negative correlation between the fair frequency of LRC use and the feature of
‘Reducing the reliance on the teacher’ (Feature 11) at Pearson −.191 (see
Table 2.41). There is deficiency that needs to be addressed in terms of the kind of
tasks required of the students at the LRC. Students’ use of SLVs is then subject to
the approach and the activities teachers provide students with there. In the same
negative trend, there is a negative correlation between the fair frequency of LRC
use and the feature of ‘Help students develop their own learning outcomes’ (Feature
12) at Pearson −.061 (see Table 2.41).
Overall data emerging from the interviews with the students showed a significant
degree of satisfaction among students with self-learning and SLVs. Their percep-
tion is positive (see Chart 2.6) since 37 % find autonomous learning a good way of
learning, 27 % find it very important, 23 % find it a useful skill and an attribute
students should enjoy and finally only 13 % are still unclear about it (see
Chart 2.6). This might imply that once students are made aware and are
well-trained, they are likely to hold the same positive attitude. In fact, this claim
finds its support in teachers’ suggestions at the end of the interviews. 30 % of the
teachers interviewed hold the view that teachers and learners should be made aware
of autonomous learning and autonomous learning centres. 30 % of the teachers felt
the need to support the steps undertaken towards the establishment of a coherent
self-access learning centre, a form of self-learning and autonomous learning venue
(see Chart 2.7).
There are indeed significant Pearson correlations between the frequency of LRC
use and its impact on students’ language learning skills and learning styles (see
Table 2.42). Accordingly, students who use the resources more, value as higher the
potential SLVs have in helping them to learn how to learn.

Perception of autonomous learning

A good way of learning Very important Useful skill / attribute to enjoy Not clear about it

13%
37%
23%

27%

Chart 2.6 Students’ perception of autonomous learning

62 2 Learner Autonomy and the MENA Region Context

Suggestions
We need to support the steps undertaken towards the establishment of a coherent SALC 30%
Teachers and learners should be made aware 30%
Autonomous learning should be implemented 40%

40% 30%

30%

Chart 2.7 Suggestions

This could be because of their work in the SLV or because they rate the
importance of learning to learn higher and therefore use the resources more as one
way of reaching this goal. If this is correct, then raising students’ awareness of the
importance of autonomous learning could lead to a higher use of the self-learning
resources. This means that the experience students had with self-learning and the
LRC plays an important role in helping them become autonomous. Tests made
trying to identify any correlations between the dependent variable of ‘Fair LRC
Frequency’ and a number of related variables yield significant levels of correlation
(see Table 2.42). In fact, with a significant high correlation of .295 (Pearson)
between ‘Fair LRC Frequency’ variable and the variable ‘Helps learning’, it is clear
that the impact of working at the LRC is significantly positive. The more helpful
they find working in the LRC, the higher is the frequency of LRC use. Another
significant correlation is between ‘LRC Frequency’ and ‘Usefulness’ at .301 and at
.170 (see Table 2.42) with the variable Interesting. These correlations indicate that

Table 2.42 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level (Correlation test 9)
Variable 1 Variable 2 Pearson correlation
coefficient
LRC frequency of use Fair LRC frequency of use .483
LRC frequency of use Readiness to do more .341
LRC frequency of use LRC Helps learning −.098
LRC frequency of use Interesting .127
LRC fair frequency of use Lovely and enjoyable .170
environment
LRC fair frequency of use Useful LRC .301
Fair LRC Frequency of Readiness to do more −.181
use
Fair LRC frequency of use LRC Helps learning .295
2.4 Impact of Learning Styles on Learner Autonomy 63

the impact of the self-learning venues and autonomous learning opportunities

availed there, resulting from a fair frequency of LRC use, is important but still
remains subject to fair use. In other words, the more use, the more guidance, the
better results. However, there are negative correlations between the dependent
variable of ‘Fair LRC Frequency’ and the variables ‘Ready to do more’ at −.181
and −.017 with the variable of ‘Lovely and enjoyable’ (see Table 2.42). This
implies that the readiness of the students to do more autonomous learning activities
and whether their experience at the LRC is lovely and enjoyable do not correlate
with the frequency with which they use the LRC.

2.5 Summary

The exploration of the students’ perceptions of the usefulness of Self-learning

Venues (SLVs) shows that Omani students are well aware of the merits of
self-learning and SLVs. They are positive about autonomous and self-learning
resources for the sense of freedom and the learning experience they gained at the
SLV. They praise the sense of ownership that they liked and would work further to
reinforce. They perceive self-learning as an important mode of learning because it
relates to practical issues in learning. In fact, they do not see that self-learning and
work in class are mutually exclusive. Teachers in Omani HEIs claim that their
students think these two modes of learning complement each other. In SLVs,
students mostly do what they are instructed to do and consider that class work is
believed to be the starting point for self-learning. Working in the SLV, according to
them, is believed to improve students’ study skills as well as the degree of
responsibility they show toward learning. In relation to the SLV environment,
students are satisfied with the aspects of planning, monitoring progress, and eval-
uating. They are satisfied with the resources but still need more, especially with
regard to training them how to manage these resources. Choice is something Omani
students like but fear, so they want it to be with the guidance of the teacher. They
argue for the need to identify with their learning tasks, materials and learning
environment. However, they think there is still some degree of confusion among
students about learning autonomously in SLVs and that this confusion needs to be
addressed. One way to do this is to incorporate autonomous learning in all courses.
Chapter 3
Gradual Development of Learner
Autonomy

This chapter presents the gradual development of learner autonomy as the core
aspect of the Collaborative Learner Autonomy (CLA) approach to learner auton-
omy development in the Omani context and advocates it for application in the
MENA region context. It gives an overview of different theoretical developments
and their impact on the concept of autonomy and the various models they gener-
ated. It reiterates the importance and central role training and guidance have in the
proper development of learner autonomy.
Recent literature related to the theoretical aspects of learner autonomy, however,
addresses the issue of autonomy as a more problematic concept which involves
different levels, ways, versions, aspects and representations. Hence, the interest in
the research that underpins the present book is to address the implementation of the
concept of autonomy in the Omani context and advocates the CLA for this context,
and potentially similar contexts. This implies addressing and challenging the issue
of the radicalism with which the concept of autonomy is sometimes perceived as a
concept that discards collaboration, teacher’s intervention, peer scaffolding and
group formation in learning. A number of writers have attempted to reconstruct the
relevance of the concept of autonomy to language teaching and learning. Benson
(2006: 23) suggests that this attempt “arises from the assumption that autonomy is
both contextually-variable and a matter of degree and from concerns that main-
stream views of autonomy pay scant regard to cultural variability within language
education on a global scale.” With the perception of learner autonomy as dependent
on contexts and inherently consisting of various levels, versions and degrees, the
understanding of these is vital to the gradual development of learner autonomy.
Benson’s (1997) notion of different ‘versions’ of autonomy is one major per-
spective development in learner autonomy. The terms ‘technical’, ‘psychological’
and ‘political’ are used by Benson as terms that describe the three major versions of
autonomy in language education. The notion of Versions of Autonomy introduced
by Benson (1997) has a clear influence following developments in the literature.

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017 65

S. Blidi, Collaborative Learner Autonomy,
DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-2048-3_3
66 3 Gradual Development of Learner Autonomy

The development of different versions generate different associations advocates

of each model establish. Palfreyman and Smith (2003) cite Smith’s (2003: 131)
association of weak pedagogies with the perception of autonomy as a capacity that
students need to be equipped with and trained to develop and use. Advocates of
strong pedagogies assume that students enjoy some degree of innate autonomy and
therefore the focus is on working together with the students to create optimal
conditions for the exercise of their own autonomy. Ribé’s association (2000: 15) of
convergence models of autonomy with a movement towards shared, other-directed
curriculum goals is a second example. Ribé also associates divergence models with
more open approaches to language curricula in which autonomy lies in the exercise
of choices that the autonomous learning process involves (control, management and
strategic decisions).
Benson (2006) recognises the legitimacy of all versions of autonomy and sug-
gests that components of different perspectives can be applicable in different con-
texts. Benson cites Ribé’s (2000) argument that “an optimal learning environment
probably requires a mixture of the three perspectives” of autonomy. In the same
vein, it is often argued that it is vital to combine many perspectives since using one
single perspective would not be comprehensive and would antithetically discard
others. However, it is important to acknowledge that the stronger versions of
autonomy are more legitimate.
The main critique to Benson’s process of modelling versions of autonomy
(Benson 2006) is the argument that, sometimes, language learners are far more
capable of autonomous action, especially in relation to decisions about the content
of learning, than teachers typically suppose. This is one of the findings that emerged
from the Reading Circles (RCs) implemented in the research that underpins the
CLA the present book advocates. These RCs engender a shift in learning input to
provide the learners with activities, materials and tasks they can identify themselves
with and in which they feel more comfortable as they satisfy their needs and relate
to their personal experiences. Autonomous learning can thus be perceived as a step
in this direction of appraising and using learners’ experiences. One of the aspects,
and merits, of autonomous learning is the development of awareness among
learners of their learning process, which is a prerequisite for successful learning. In
the same respect, when learners manage to perceive their learning environment as
inseparable entities from their personal experience, true interaction will be
achieved, and thus a positive learning experience is built up. Perceiving learning
environment as an inseparable entity from their personal experience represents an
important step learners take in the gradual development of learner autonomy. It is
part of the ground preparation work which builds in students the competencies and
skills that enable them to embrace learner autonomy as an approach to learning.
Following a number of developments1 and their impact on education and
learning, new educational theories emerged. These more recent educational theories

1
See Bruner’s (1966) works on the concepts of self-realisation, self-actualisation, self-investment,
self-direction…etc. and their emphasis on the individual, making reference to the development the
3 Gradual Development of Learner Autonomy 67

put emphasis on how affective and personal factors have a clear influence on the
direction of learning. One example is the emergence of Humanistic Curricula.
Dubin and Olshtain (1986: 75) describe the Humanistic Curriculum as a curriculum
which “puts high value on people accepting responsibility for their own learning,
making decisions for themselves, choosing and initiating activities, expressing
feelings and opinions about needs, abilities and preferences”. This type of curricula
puts learning, and autonomous learning in particular, within a context that
emphasises self-development. These humanistic curricula, which started to emerge
since the 1950s put a strong emphasis on meaningful communication where the
learner is the focal point in a learning process. The learning environment caters for
the needs of the learners and appraises their personal experiences and
self-realisation. Learners thus acquires a considerable say in their own learning,
taking part in controlling the decision-making process, thus achieving control of
their own learning.

3.1 Levels of Learner Autonomy

Littlewood’s (1999) perspectives on the concept of autonomy bring about a number

of associations with other key concepts. Exploring these key concepts is of para-
mount importance towards redefining and reconceptualising, to use Benson’s
(2007) words, learner autonomy. This involves the exploration of current practices
and the study of features, concepts and attitudes emerging from the implementation
of autonomous learning and the implications that need to be addressed. These
concepts are central features of the gradual implementation of autonomous learning
in the Omani context and typical of what Benson (2006) refers to as
“group-oriented” implementations of autonomous learning in contexts other than
the Western educational context.
From the perspective of the level of application, reference can be made to
Nunan’s (2000) typology of autonomy and how he perceives learner autonomy as a
capacity to exercise control over one’s own learning. This implies that autonomous
learners need to develop the ability and skills to determine the general focus of their
learning, actively manage their learning process and enjoy freedom of choice
content-wise and process-wise. Perceived as such, autonomy entails the concept of
self-access, guided and enhanced by the teacher in a favourable environment.
Jones (1998: 379), for example, identifies learner independence2 as being a
gradual development continuum that stretches from minimum to maximum learner

(Footnote 1 continued)
individual achieves with thinking and the quest for knowledge. See also Rogers’s (1969) focus on
the tendency on the part of the individuals to actualise all of their capacities as the main motivation
for growth. This echoes the shift in education from teaching to learning.
2
Jones (1998) uses the word Independence as the umbrella term that incorporates learner autonomy
and any form of self-learning.
68 3 Gradual Development of Learner Autonomy

independence. The continuum involves growth from class work through to full
autonomy and natural immersion. The reference to Jones’s continuum in this
chapter is deliberate and aims to focus on the gradual nature of learner autonomy
development. Students need to be taken towards full learner autonomy through the
continuum starting from class work individually to competition to group activities
and collaboration. Class work and homework are learning activities that require the
least amount of independence on the part of the learner and they appear on the
extreme left side of the continuum. Jones (1998) puts self-access, teacher-led
autonomy, and teach-yourself autonomy in the middle of the spectrum. Full
autonomy and naturalistic immersion require the most amount of learner inde-
pendence and they are placed on the extreme right side.
Jones (1998) places self-access learning between homework and teach-yourself
autonomy. One important issue is how self-access truly fits in. Homework and class
work are included as integral aspects of autonomous learning. Homework and class
work leave students with little freedom and assignments are fairly non-negotiable.
With homework, students can decide the time of learning while with class work
students can only decide if they are going to do it. Most of the literature reviewed
(Jones 1998) addresses self-access, teacher-led autonomy, self-instruction, and full
autonomy as essential components, and degrees, of autonomous learning. Self-access
proves to be a broader term than portrayed in Jones’s continuum. The purpose of
SLVs is to provide students with more than just a place to work on homework.
Teacher-led autonomy refers to autonomous learning activities and strategies that
are initiated and provoked by teachers through their interventions (Jones 1998). The
implementation of teacher-led autonomy, from the CLA perspective, is an integral
part of the gradual approach to the development of learner autonomy. This type of
autonomy usually takes place in a classroom atmosphere. The teacher might teach
students skills to help them become more autonomous but will also require students
to complete a corresponding activity independently. In this type, teachers are
expected to give homework to their students but they also have another major task,
which is trying to help students find other activities that will help them learn on their
own. SLVs can play an important role in this type of autonomy because they provide
a tangible learning environment (study areas, desks, conference rooms…etc.) and
the materials (task sheets, materials design, development and search guidelines,
project samples, illustrated instructions, and learning input). It is also necessary for
students to find other materials to learn on their own. The creation of such learning
environments, locations and provisions with materials that support teacher-led
autonomy is a step in the process of gradual development of learner autonomy. It is
expected that on completion of this step, the task of creating the environment and the
materials is transferred from the teacher to the students in their groups in what the
present book calls peer scaffolding towards learner autonomy.
Jones (1998) defines the component of teach-yourself as a form of
self-instruction guided by a syllabus. Research (Reeves 1993) reveals a high level
of attrition in teach-yourself instruction. This is basically due to the lack of social
contact and peer support. Differently perceived within the overall effort of
redefining learner autonomy as no longer synonymous with a library where books
3.1 Levels of Learner Autonomy 69

are exhibited and borrowed, SLVs can be the place where this social interaction
happens. In SLVs, the support provided by peers, SLV staff and the additional
materials provided by teachers can help lower the rate of attrition. These centres can
provide social interaction as well as yield learning benefits.
Dickinson (1995) defines full autonomy as the individual instruction based on a
syllabus or course designed by the learner. This means that learners are totally free
and in charge of their learning, not part of any institution and are not subject to any
intervention of an instructor. In this sense, the fully autonomous learners then
prepare materials specific to their needs. At this level of autonomy access to dif-
ferent types of learning materials, formal and informal, is vital for this type of
learners who take freedom in processing learning materials for their learning goals.
These learners may even use materials that are produced for institutionalised
courses, preserving to themselves the freedom to decide the process to follow (how,
when, how often and how much to use). SLVs can provide these fully autonomous
students with resources. In the Omani context, learners are relatively far from being
fully autonomous despite their expressed readiness and willingness to develop
learner autonomy. Omani students seem to lack features of full autonomous learners
since their current learning habits, styles, and their perceptions of the role of the
teacher in particular, lack proper orientation towards the acquisition of autonomous
learning skills. Full autonomy involves complete self-access where learners choose
materials they need and prefer. Although learning takes place within and through
prescribed materials set in, this does not deny them the right and freedom to choose
other materials or resources to supplement their learning process.

3.2 Contexts of Application and Their Impact

on the Typology of Autonomy

The focus of autonomy in language education was initially on self-directed learning

in Self-access Centres (SACs) and then gradually, towards the beginning of the 21st
century, on classroom applications. Although the importance of self-access in the
literature has diminished in favour of classroom applications, the proliferation of
SACs (in different modes and under different names) indicates that it remains a
central focus as far as learner autonomy is concerned. The current section discusses
two contexts of application for autonomy: “beyond the classroom” and “within the
classroom” (Benson 2007).

3.2.1 Autonomy Beyond the Classroom

According to Benson (2006: 26), “the development of applied linguistics in the

20th century was grounded in the institutionalisation of language learning and the
70 3 Gradual Development of Learner Autonomy

assumption that languages are normally acquired in classrooms”. Benson (2007)

introduces a new categorisation of autonomy: in classroom and beyond the class-
room. This comprises self-access, Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL),
distance learning, tandem learning, out of class learning, and self-instruction (see
Table 3.1). He thinks that the concept of beyond the classroom is poorly explored
in the literature for several reasons. Basically, it is difficult to conceptualise learning
without relating it to the word classroom, without a clear reference to particular
settings and modes of practice, such Self-Access Centres (SACs), Self-Access
Learning Centres (SALCs), Self-Enhanced Learning Centres (SELCs), and
Self-Directed Learning Centres (SDLCs), among several other labels given by
practitioners.
Benson (2007) claims that classroom research on autonomy shows that the focus
of classroom autonomy seems to be on what happens in the classroom, and does not
relate it to what happens outside the classroom. A theory of beyond the classroom
learning covers a whole range of different topics and poses some issues for further
consideration.
Van Lier’s definition of the second language classroom refers to various learning
situations likely to facilitate and generate learner autonomy. These include situa-
tions similar to the ones created by Autonomous Learning Orientation Programmes
(ALOPs) mentioned in our research. These programmes constitute a platform for
learning opportunities that offer learners advising and guidance sessions. ALOPs
are suggested in our research as vital orientation, training and guiding sessions
where learners are trained to use learning resources on their own out of the formal

Table 3.1 Modes of learning

Mode Focus Major reference
works
Self-access The difficulty of making SACs work Gardner and
independently of teacher support for autonomy Miller (1999)
Shift of attention from the organisation of SACs to Gardner (2006)
the integration of self-access learning with
coursework
Self-access advising as a particular form of Gremmo and
teaching Castillo (2007)
Computer-assisted Opportunities for learner facilitated by the advent
Language Learning of the Internet, computer technology
Importance of attention to autonomy in the Corder and
development and use of CALL technologies Waller (2006)
Distance Learning Growth of distance language learning and its Hurd (2005)
implications on autonomy
Tandem Learning Tandem learning and its long association with Little (2001)
autonomy: the rise of the Internet
22 UK universities now offer tandem learning to
their students and projects have developed in
Europe, Japan, Russia and the USA
(continued)
3.2 Contexts of Application and Their Impact on the Typology of Autonomy 71

Table 3.1 (continued)

Mode Focus Major reference
works
Study Abroad Visits incorporated in language learning Bodycott and
programmes allowing students to spend time in Crew (2001)
target language communities to learn
autonomously through interaction with native
speakers: “study abroad”, “immersion”, and
“residence abroad”
Out-of-class The efforts of learners taking classroom-based Hyland (2004)
Learning language courses to find opportunities for
language learning and use outside class
Refers to the use of printed or broadcast self-study Fernandez-Toro
materials and this is what Benson calls (1999)
“other-directed” mode of learning (2001: 62)
Self-instruction Refers to situations in which learners undertake Benson (2006,
language study largely or entirely without the aid 2007)
of teachers and this is what is called in the
literature “self-directed learning”

classroom context. Benson (2007) refers to similar situations as a form of learning

beyond the classroom. According to Nunan (2000), classroom research on auton-
omy can focus on the developmental aspects of language learning, learning
strategies and learning styles. Although largely shared by scholars, Nunan’s view is
refuted by Benson (2007) who questions the validity of exploring these areas within
the realm of classroom research. In the same vein, Benson (2007) feels that
beyond-the-classroom learning is always poorly defined and he sees this as privi-
leging the formal classroom context, suggesting that learning takes place pre-
dominantly in the classroom. Benson (2007) suggests the following dichotomies:
1. School learning versus out-of-school learning,
2. Classroom learning versus out-of-class learning,
3. Instructed learning versus non-instructed learning,
4. Formal learning versus informal learning.
Concomitant with these dichotomies, Benson (2006) proposes a short but
interesting overview of terms “modes of practice” with a focus on key reference
works (see Table 3.1). Benson’s review of these modes of learning shows the
complexity that characterises the relationship between learning beyond the class-
room and autonomy. In fact, these modes involve autonomous learning (Dickinson
1987) and demand a capacity for autonomy (Holec 1981).
Benson (2006) claims that the focus on modes of learning, and learners’ choice
of what could be the most adequate mode for them, leads to the concept of blended
or distributed learning, which refers to various combinations of modes of teaching
and learning. The increased use of Virtual Learning Environments in the context of
72 3 Gradual Development of Learner Autonomy

self-access and classroom-based courses (Reinders 2007) indicates that the concept
is valid and relevant.
Benson’s modes of practice are perceived from the CLA perspective as steps and
aspects of the gradual development process of learner autonomy that need to be
followed. Benson (2006) stresses the need to extend learning settings to involve not
only place but also time. He refers to learning modes of practice as the kinds of
routine activities that match the learning setting and the realities that surround them.
For example, a self-learning venue (SLV) is a setting, and the mode of practice is
the learning opportunity offered in that context and its related learning tasks. There
are then different modes of practice possible in the same setting. However, we share
Benson’s (2006) skepticism about the notions of self-access, self-directed,
self-managed, and self-enhanced learning as these are broad notions. It can cover
many different modes of practice, and ultimately becomes counterproductive and
confusing, making learners unclear about what autonomy represents to them, how it
should be and what it entails. In practical terms this confusion manifests itself in
misconceptions of learner autonomy. This is mainly because it is impossible to
safely categorise students at tertiary level as either exclusively out-of-class or
exclusively in-class. Similarly, most learning does not fall neatly into one category
or the other as it is circumstances-specific.
Research on learning beyond the classroom is scarce and only began in the
1960s with the focus on looking at different ways of learning beyond the con-
ventional classroom. A new trend reshaped this research in the 1990s where the
focus moved on to consider that learner autonomy depends on teacher autonomy.
This is a claim that Little (1995) and Smith (2001) advocate, considering that
learner autonomy and teacher autonomy are interdependent. However, this claim
can be refuted on the grounds that it would mean that in order to become auton-
omous as a learner one would have to have a teacher. In support of this claim,
Benson (2006) mentions many new literacy practices that have emerged lately in a
changing world, resulting from globalisation and the IT revolution in particular. He
argues that literacy is becoming a much more complex construct with new types of
literacy that can develop outside class. In the same vein, Benson (2006) refers to
Lamb’s research on English language teaching (2004), concluding that most of this
learning takes place out of class. The configurations of the settings seem to be very
highly localised both in terms of place and time making learning settings complex.
What adds to the above complexity is that in the learning setting everything is
changing quickly, and accordingly, older and younger learners have very different
experiences which are localised in terms of time and place. A further explanation
Benson (2007) advances is that institutional learning experiences are co-constructed
by the learner, the teacher, and various stakeholders. The kind of research that
should be targeted is not the focus on categorising and contrasting in-class and
out-of-class learning but the exploration of the everyday world of the student.
Within the everyday world of the student there are multiple settings, multiple
contexts, and multiple modes of practice that intersect and influence learners’
choices and decisions about learning.
3.2 Contexts of Application and Their Impact on the Typology of Autonomy 73

3.2.2 Autonomy in the Classroom

The shift towards classroom applications of autonomy that started in the early
1990s is reflected in several recent collections of papers with a strong focus on the
classroom. Below is a synopsis of major research works streamlined across different
foci:
1. Group work and cooperative classroom decision-making and small-scale
experiments (Hart 2002; Coyle 2003; Lamb 2004)
2. Larger scale curriculum-based approaches to autonomy in the classroom (Dam
1995; Breen and Littlejohn 2000; Little et al. 2002; Lynch 2001; Cotterall 2000)
3. Assessment of autonomy (Champagne et al. 2001; Lai 2001; Rivers 2001;
Morrison 2005)
4. Autonomy and language teaching and learning (Hedge 2000; Harmer 2001;
Kumaravadivelu 2003; Thornbury 2005)
5. Learner autonomy and teacher development (Harmer 2001)
6. Learner training, classroom decision-making and out-of-class learning (Hedge
2000)
7. “Macro-strategies” and the “post-method condition” (Kumaravadivelu 2003:
173): “a search for an alternative to method rather than an alternative method”
and a “principled pragmatism.”
The above research works indicate what Benson (2006) calls the rise of class-
room autonomy. This concept, as Benson (2006) argues, requires “a re-conceptu-
alisation of autonomy as a usable construct for teachers who want to help their
learners develop autonomy without necessarily challenging constraints of class-
room and curriculum organisation” (2006: 28). Confronting constraints on auton-
omy in classroom and beyond the classroom settings is an important theme in recent
literature. As a further development, White (2003) outlines a conception of
autonomy based on dimensions of learner involvement and collaborative control.
This is actually one of the underlying principles our research proposes and which
underpins the gradual approach to learner autonomy development in the Omani
context advocated the present book advocates.

3.3 The 21st Century T&L Challenge: Understanding

Learners’ Psychological Development

The 21st century’s T&L environment is characterised by swift change and sub-
stantial impact of TALL, flexible delivery modes and globalisation. It is important
to understand the learners, their learning environment, the learning requirements
and current challenges and place them within own teaching theoretical background
and perceptions. The present section portrays the learner and the challenges that
teachers face in their attempt to cater for the needs of the learners and the
74 3 Gradual Development of Learner Autonomy

development of learning approaches, autonomous learning in particular. It is

believed that this portrayal is important to the overall goal of reconceptualising
learner autonomy and shaping the gradual development approach advocated.
Understanding and addressing learners’ beliefs and psychological development
represent a vital stage in the process of gradual development of learner autonomy.
Self-constructs are beliefs about oneself that affect behaviour and attitudes
(Mercer 2008). Reference to self-confidence, self-concept, self-efficacy, and
self-esteem can be found in works on learner autonomy and related concepts. These
concepts include learning strategies, individual differences, motivation, identity,
attributions, anxiety, and willingness to communicate.3 However, although the
significance of self-beliefs has been increasingly recognised in FLL, they have not
so far received the same degree of attention as they do in educational psychology
(Bandura 1997; Baumeister et al. 2003). Theoretically, the emphasis on learners’
attitudes and beliefs about their learning attributes and personal abilities is a shared
focus in self-concept, self-esteem, and self-efficacy beliefs. Benson (2007). From
the CLA’s perspective of gradual learner autonomy development, it is imperative
that teachers and HEIs work on the understanding and improvement of learners’
self-beliefs.
Self-esteem is defined as “a personal judgement of worthiness that is expressed
in the attitudes that the individual holds towards himself” (Coopersmith 1967: 4–5)
and thus definitely shapes their approach to learning. A learner enjoying a high
self-esteem is likely to perform well individually, or in group and thus can develop
autonomy. The opposite applies to the case of a learner with low self-esteem, which
is likely to lead to negative attitudes towards their capability as a learner. The efforts
of HEIs and teachers in the Omani context should be directed towards increasing
learners’ self-esteem and avoiding low self-confidence as part of the gradual
development of learner autonomy. Self-esteem can be seen as a more global con-
struct, one which is related to an individual’s value system, and thus considered to
have a larger evaluative component. Mercer (2008) cites Harter (1999: 5) who
claims that self-esteem is focused “on the overall evaluation of one’s worth or value
as a person”, and she uses the terms self-esteem and self-worth interchangeably.
Mercer (2008) describes self-esteem as the broadest and most evaluative
self-construct. It has to be understood that the development of learner autonomy is
not attainable in the absence of learners’ self-esteem.
Self-efficacy is seen as more cognitive in nature and more concerned with
expectancy beliefs about one’s perceived capability to perform a certain task in a
very specific domain (Bandura 1997), for example, to carry out a particular type of
reading or writing activity. In other words, self-efficacy is an assessment of com-
petence that is context-bound and aims at getting the learner to perform a specific
task. It enables the learners to judge their capabilities to carry out specific
situation-bound learning activities. The role of HEIs and teachers is vital in guiding
learners towards proper identification of their expectancy beliefs. Learners who are

3
See Dornyei (2005); Yang (1999); and Yashima et al. (2004).
3.3 The 21st Century T&L Challenge: Understanding Learners’ … 75

clear about their expectancy beliefs and enjoy high levels of self-efficacy are likely
to develop high degrees of self-esteem and ultimately develop learner autonomy.
Our research shows that Omani students, and students in similar MENA region
contexts, tend to have low-efficacy and self-esteem levels. Their potential for
learning collaboratively, individually and autonomously is obscured and often
constrained by the negative perception they have of their abilities and competen-
cies. Given the existence of low levels of self-efficacy among Omani learners, the
CLA finds it important for the gradual development of learner autonomy to improve
self-efficacy. The urgency of such work on self-beliefs is evident since Omani
learners’ attitudes vis-à-vis their learning and capacity to develop autonomy are
influenced by the lack of self-confidence they have. Limited self-confidence levels
are certainly due to low levels of self-beliefs. The CLA advances that addressing
learners’ self-beliefs and constructs is a stage in the development of learner
autonomy. The self-construct of self-esteem is central to the Omani students. Our
research shows that they have low self-self and self-confidence, which is an
obstacle to learner involvement. The RC emerges as an efficient means to improve
self-constructs in the Omani context. The recommended task HEIs and teachers
have to carry out is to reduce, and eventually, get rid of, low self-esteem and
self-efficacy among learners. They rather should gradually develop among them
positive self-evaluation.
Self-concept is viewed as containing both cognitive and affective elements, and
is seen as less context-dependent than self-efficacy. It concerns the individual’s
self-perceptions in a wider domain than is the case for self-efficacy.
Self-constructs in FLL may be different in nature from those for other subjects,
and may play an even more central role. According to Cohen and Norst (1989: 61),
research shows that “there is something fundamentally different about learning a
language, compared to learning another skill or gaining other knowledge, namely,
that language and self are so closely bound, if not identical, that an attack on one is
an attack on the other”. Thus, a clear understanding of the nature of learner
self-beliefs is crucial to make greater sense of the individual motivation and
behaviour of foreign language students, and, thereby, the development of sound FL
teaching approaches in general, learner autonomy in particular as it is the focus of
the present book. The CLA advocates the need to address self-concepts and
believes it is a vital stage in the development of learner autonomy is the true and
proper understanding of learners’ self-beliefs.
A further aspect of the gradual development of learner autonomy in the Omani
context is the understanding of learners’ psychological development and their
knowledge acquisition and thinking skills which develop with experience. This
notion echoes works of the philosopher Rousseau (1966) who perceives the indi-
vidual character as the starting point of the humanistic development and, as a result,
autonomy emerges as central. In his book Emile, Rousseau portrays the child’s
development as a serial process in which the child learns through the experience
lived as individuals interacting with their immediate natural environment and then
with their social environment. Applying Rousseau’s portrayal of the T&L context,
the university campus, the classrooms, the library, and SLVs are the immediate
76 3 Gradual Development of Learner Autonomy

natural learning environment of the learner. Learners’ social environments consist

of their teachers and their peers. In the same vein, philosopher Dewey (1943)
perceives this process of individual learning as a simultaneous process where
individual growth takes place within a social context. He puts emphasis on the
individual’s mastery of learning tools and skills which learners derive from their
own experience in the spirit of trial-error and learning by doing. This echoes
definitions of autonomous learning in the literature, putting much focus on the role
of the learner in their learning, deciding goals, choosing materials and input, and
owning their learning. The RC experience in the Omani context shows the
importance of this understanding. Huttunen (1986) thinks that the task of the tea-
cher is to guide students through directing their personal progress, developing the
logical, psychological and ethical aspects towards autonomy. Huttunen (1986: 19)
stresses the need for the teacher to fulfil the task of finding ways of enriching,
balancing and clarifying the student’s experience. This enables them to guide their
students to “seek new experiences to structure and simplify experiences when
needed, and to find ways of connecting the student’s experiences with the diverse
ways of life in his culture, including its heritage.” This implies a change in the role
of the learner and the teacher who, both, embrace different roles. It also implies that
learner autonomy is a concept and a competency that is gradually developed.
Rousseau’s and Dewey’s focus on the process of individual’s development is a
direction that the CLA seconds and supports. The CLA perceives the development
of learner autonomy as a gradual process that requires prior preparation work at
different levels related to the individual set of self-beliefs and at the level of learning
environment. Learners need to be gradually further involved in the process of
learning in terms of decisions, design and choice, not only implementation.
The third aspect of Omani learners’ gradual development of learner autonomy is
the work on HEIs and teachers’ need to perform in order to improve learners’
capacity for individualisation and optimise their characteristic of interdependence.
Exploiting Omani learners’ high degree of interdependence and their capacity for
individualisation is a stage of paramount importance in this gradual development.
Holec (1981) notes that individualisation does not necessarily mean or lead to
autonomy and that there is a distinction between the mode of learning and the
orientation towards learning. To other learner autonomy theorists and practitioners,
individualisation refers to a student’s progressing through a curriculum at their own
pace. In the same vein, Broady and Kenning (1996) point out that the shift to
individualisation which can be seen in many classrooms around the world nowa-
days negates the social aspect of autonomy. However, this claim is refutable as it
builds on the wrong assumption that individualisation is a central aspect of
autonomy without which it cannot develop while it is, in fact, only one necessary
condition for autonomy.
The effort to be deployed towards the development of individualism aspect falls
within the gradual approach to learner autonomy. Autonomy is a social construct
that includes the ability to function effectively as a cooperative member in a
group. This is further supported in Little’s view when he claims that “because we
3.3 The 21st Century T&L Challenge: Understanding Learners’ … 77

Studying Skills required for

entirely on self-directed
one’s own
AUTONOMY

Inborn capacity Right to determine

suppressed by direction of own
institutional learning
learning

Learners’ Exercise
of Responsibility

Chart 3.1 Learner autonomy development (Based on Benson and Voller 1997: 1)

are social beings our independence is always balanced by dependence…our

essential condition is one of interdependence” (1991: 5). It is then within the
framework of developing a positive perception of interdependence that the gradual
creation of collaborative understanding and approach to autonomy can be seen.
Omani learners’ interdependence creates room for gradual development of learner
autonomy through peer scaffolding that is further nurtured by teacher’s guidance,
orientation and the building of high self-esteem, self-efficacy and self-reliance
levels.
Benson and Voller (1997) explore five elements that relate to the development of
learner autonomy (see Chart 3.1). Benson’s five elements represent aspects that can
gradually lead to the development of learner autonomy. It is important to ensure that
each of these aspects are developed among learners.
Autonomy as a sense of total detachment is not the way our research perceives
learner autonomy. Learning involves dependent and interdependent learning acts
and these are simultaneous. The individual learner must accept interdependence
within a gradual development process that takes into account individual, group,
social and context-bound realities since one cannot receive benefits from a social
structure without contributing to it. Interdependence is a stage towards indepen-
dence and does not contradict with autonomy. The type of autonomy the CLA
advocates in the present book is that of a collaborative and gradual character. The
same applies to the teacher’s presence and role. Just as autonomous learning is not
necessarily learning alone, it is not necessarily learning without a teacher. Boud
(1981: 25) claims that:
It is compatible with autonomous learning for learners to opt to be ‘taught’ in situations in
which they have decided that it is desirable for their own ends. Developing autonomy does
not simply involve removing structured teaching; it may require a greater degree of
structure than didactic teaching, but of a different kind.
78 3 Gradual Development of Learner Autonomy

Recent developments in the fields of teaching and learning philosophy, theories,

approaches and methodology4 resulted in English as a Second Language (ESL) and
English as Foreign Language (EFL) classes where learners are no longer taught but
assume a master role in their own learning. It is thought that this role derives from
the teachers who should help learners to “become more independent…in their life
choices” (Cotterall 1995: 219). Building on this, it can be argued that some degree
of freedom in learning is required if learners are to develop their autonomy. Total
freedom is not conceivable within the scope of autonomy as freedom will always be
constrained. This implies that freedom in learning does not necessarily mean, or
result in autonomy. It is one necessary step in the direction of developing auton-
omy. Freedom in contexts such as the Omani context may result in a sense of loss
and thus becomes counter-productive.
Freedom is not a concept that means breaking all ties with formal control by
teachers and HEIs. It is rather a concept that means the development of control own
learning by increasingly and gradually taking up role in learning decisions.
The learner decides what to learn, how to learn and controls the pace of learning.
A development of Rousseau’s and Dewey’s views with regard to learning input is
that the learning materials with which learners identify have a greater impact on the
development of autonomous learning. Learners’ identification with their learning
materials is subject to the degree of their involvement in the choice, design and
preparation of these materials. Developing learners’ sense of identification is a
gradual process that finds its support in Huttunen’s claim that “new material,
brought into their possession through active involvement, again moulds and
changes the structure of his knowledge and his modes of activity” (1986: 35). This
involvement is a stage in the gradual development of learner autonomy in
collaboration.
Accordingly, it can be claimed that the process of input knowledge development
determines the meaningfulness of new knowledge. This is vital to the success of the
learning because if the learners do not perceive their learning as meaningful, it is
less likely to be incorporated into internal schemes. As a result, it ends up being a
mere act of memorisation. Further development on the concepts of self-efficacy and
self-esteem recalls Dickinson’s (1995) distinction between proactive learners5 and
reactive learners.6 One implication of the psychological developments related to the
works of Rousseau (1966) and Huttunen (1986) on learning is the emergence of the
concepts of the learner’s involvement in their learning, their identification with

4
Particular reference here should be made to the communicative and humanistic approaches as
well as the methodological and the philosophical trends of the post-method era.
5
This is the term Dickinson (1995: 14) uses to describe learners who act from internal stimuli and
work towards taking responsibility for the process of learning with the ultimate objective of
gaining control over their own learning.
6
This is the term Dickinson (Ibid) uses to describe learners who wait for external stimuli to engage
in learning and always rely on help and support from the teacher.
3.3 The 21st Century T&L Challenge: Understanding Learners’ … 79

what and how they learn and the meaningfulness of learning to the learner. Through
the interaction with their learning environment, learners can have various degrees of
engagement in their learning. They also take up varying degrees of responsibility in
the process of their knowledge acquisition and skills development. It is quite rea-
sonable to assume that the aspects of learner engagement, involvement, and
interaction learners need to have with their learning environment, teachers and
peers are by no means sudden happenings. They are rather parts of a gradual
process. Relating this to learning and the typology of learners, it can be claimed that
the model learner at stake is that of the autonomous learners (Wenden 1998) who
actively engage in their learning process, manage to self-assess their own learning
and are capable of monitoring their learning and that of their peers. This targeted
profile can only be achieved when the learning process manages to relate the
learning content to the personal goals of the learners. This way the intrinsic
motivation of the learners develops and increases with active participation that is
one major characteristic of learner autonomy. Autonomous learning becomes
accordingly a motivating learning experience. Learners start finding a rationale for
their learning and identifying themselves with learning goals and processes, which
increases in them the level of self-motivation. In the same respect, Ushioda rightly
claims that “self-motivation implies taking charge of the affective dimension of that
learning experience” (1996: 39). Building on this claim, autonomous learners can
be described as self-motivators. They continually seek further control over their
own learning through active engagement and participation. They take their own
experience as a starting point and build on it, thus maintaining positive belief
structures and self-perceptions, generating learning.

3.4 Learner Autonomy Models

Nunan’s (1996) attempt remains a landmark that involves a model of five levels of
‘learner action’. These levels consist of ‘awareness’, ‘involvement’, ‘intervention’,
‘creation’ and ‘transcendence’. They indicate the sequencing of learner develop-
ment activities in language textbooks and the dimensions of ‘content’ and ‘process’.
Sequencing needs to be perceived within the overall gradual process approach.
Nunan’s model, perceived as a spectrum, suggests that the development of the
learner takes place between awareness (the left side of the spectrum) where learners
start by gaining knowledge of the concept and then gradually move towards
transcendence (the right side of the spectrum). This implies that at the awareness
level, learners would be made aware of the pedagogical goals and content of the
materials, identify strategic implications and pedagogical choices, and determine
their own preferred learning styles and strategies. At the transcendence level,
learners would make links between the content of classroom learning and the world
beyond and become teachers and researchers.
80 3 Gradual Development of Learner Autonomy

Autonomy, from the language acquisition context perspective, involves learners’

ability to operate autonomously with the language in real as well as unpredictable
situations. This implies that, in the context of classroom organisation, autonomy
indicates learners’ ability to become responsible for their own learning. Extending
perspectives of autonomy to any broader context, it appears that the concept of
autonomy indicates a higher-level goal, making of autonomy a greater generalised
individuals’ attribute. Macaro (1997: 70–172) proposes a three-stage model
involving ‘autonomy of language competence’, ‘autonomy of language learning
competence’ and ‘autonomy of choice and action’. Scharle and Szabo (2000: 1)
propose another three-phase model that consists of raising awareness, changing
attitudes and transferring roles. They published a landmark resource book for the
development of autonomy. This model of learner autonomy involves dimensions
that relate to the control over language learning and teaching processes. These
dimensions are learning management, cognitive processing and the content of
learning (Benson 2001).
Littlewood’s (1997: 81) three-stage model involves the dimensions of language
acquisition, learning approach and personal development. In a further major
development of the three-stage model, Littlewood (1999) distinguishes proactive
and reactive autonomy. This distinction is widely-cited in the literature. Proactive
autonomy is the kind of autonomy that affirms learners’ individuality and sets up
directions learners themselves have partially created. In reactive autonomy,
although learners do not create their own directions, they become “able to organise
their resources autonomously in order to reach their goal” (Littlewood 1999: 75)
once a direction has been initiated.
These models imply flexible, possible and gradual progression of the learners
from lower to higher levels of autonomy. They equally reflect a perceived need to
identify learning contexts at the lower levels, where autonomy might be fostered
without radical educational reforms. The adoption of one model or the other
remains subject to the learning context in which the learners evolve. As Nunan
(1996) rightly argues the choice of model is subject to teaching and learning
environment context. In the same vein, models and levels of autonomy do not
exclude each other. Littlewood (Ibid) argues that “although for many writers
proactive autonomy is the only kind that counts, reactive autonomy had its place”.
It can be a step towards proactive autonomy, or as a goal in its own right.
However, one problem with such models is their assumption that the relationship
between the development of autonomy and language proficiency is unproblematic.
Kumaravadivelu (2003: 144) argues, for example, that “it would be a mistake to try
to correlate the initial, intermediary, and advanced stages of autonomy […] with the
beginning, intermediate, and advanced levels of language proficiency”. This is
because the stages of autonomy depend more on the linguistic and communicative
demands of particular tasks.
3.5 Optimising Learners’ Positive Attitudes Through ALOP 81

3.5 Optimising Learners’ Positive Attitudes

Through ALOP

The present section tries to determine how teachers and HEIs can enhance the
development learner autonomy through positive practices that optimise the positive
attitudes Omani learners have vis-à-vis of autonomous learning. Learners’ attitudes
and motivation indicate and help predict the degree of achievement learners have.
Findings from our research show that these factors play a vital role in learners’
success in their experiential learning, the Reading Circle (RC) experience in our
research, and thus ultimately in achieving an acceptable, rather encouraging, degree
of autonomous learning. The gradual approach adopted in the RCs facilitates the
orientation and guiding of the learners in the spectrum of learner autonomy
development in a collaboration environment from awareness to transcendence and
self-initiative. Learners’ relatively high degree of motivation and positive attitude to
learn and achieve personal growth can be seen as a general drive towards com-
petence, self-direction and self-determination. Observations conducted during the
RCs show signs of readiness and willingness among learners to adopt a
self-directing autonomous approach to their learning. These can be read as signs
that mirror what is considered as primary dimensions of readiness to become
autonomous. Omani learners, as our research findings indicate, have a desire for
challenge, a desire for independent mastery, and curiosity and/or interest.
Learners’ positive perceptions and feelings of their autonomous learning com-
petence increase their intrinsic motivation and their self-confidence. This gradually,
in turn, increases their degree of self-confidence making their expectations of their
capacities and their degree of self-esteem higher. In an important sense it can be
thus argued that competence develops through confidence. The development of
competence also entails an internalisation of the criteria for success. This is fostered
by teaching that develops in learners the skills that enable them to self-assess and
reflect on their own learning, both alone and with peers. This is achieved in
cooperative learning groups through gradual development from individual tasks to
competition tasks to pair work and group work activities to autonomous perfor-
mance guided by teacher’s support, orientation and support as well as peer scaf-
folding. The development of autonomous learning competence through the increase
of learners’ self-concept and self-esteem plays an important role in the learners’
personal growth towards ultimately achieving autonomy in the framework of
gradual development approach. Self-conceptualisation and self-esteem are con-
ceived as characteristics that correlate with successful learning. Learners who enjoy
a reasonably balanced self-concept can cope with new demands better. Confident
and self-esteem learners are less likely to feel threatened and the development of
self-esteem is rather a gradual development, not a sudden acquisition. Learners’
readiness and willingness to grow and achieve personal growth and autonomous
learning are features that, in varied degrees, characterise Omani students at tertiary
level. The extent to which HEIs are doing what is necessary to exploit these two
features remains an issue to be addressed.
82 3 Gradual Development of Learner Autonomy

Learners’ personal growth enhances their expectancy for self-direction and

gradually develop in them an awareness of their process. There are various degrees
of autonomy and self-direction depending on the learner’s attitude and ability to
organise and manage their learning. Congruent with this, it is important to stress the
fact that learners’ movement from ‘other-directed’ (teacher-centred) to self-directed
(learner-centred) is a gradual development process within a spectrum that incor-
porates a range of possibilities reflecting various degrees of autonomy. This echoes
Nunan’s works and Jones’s autonomy continuum from teacher-led autonomy to full
autonomy and Littlewood’s typology of learner autonomy. The development of
such autonomy requires the gradual development of the ability among learners to
manage their own learning. They need to gain an understanding of learning in order
to be able to develop their learning skills consciously and organise their learning
tasks. Holec (1981) points out the danger of having learners perceiving themselves
as consumers of learning courses only. He reiterates the need for them to hold a
different perception as active learners able to become producers of their own
learning. This can be achieved by conscious reflection on learning experiences and
the sharing of such reflections with other learners in cooperative groups. This would
ultimately increase learners’ awareness of learning. Research findings, RCs in
particular, support this view. One of the merits of the RCs is the reflective side of
the learning experience they provide. An equally important merit is that they
facilitate students’ exchange of experiences and thus bring a collaborative aspect to
the learning activities. Learners’ deliberate and enthusiastic engagement in creating
and carrying out activities, such as movies watching (see Image 3.1) and class
debates (see Image 3.2) reflect an evident signs of reflection on learning, exchange
of learning experience and collaboration.
These signs show Omani students’ positive perception of autonomous learning
and clear readiness and willingness to develop learner autonomy. Our research

Image 3.1 Movie circle

3.5 Optimising Learners’ Positive Attitudes Through ALOP 83

Image 3.2 Debate circle

suggests a number of learning tasks and activities that build on these signs to
provide autonomous learning opportunities (see Resources Pack). The collaborative
activities students engage in during the RCs and the initiatives they take to create
learning opportunities are quite important and indicate their potential inclination
towards autonomy in an atmosphere of peer scaffolding. In students’ responses to
the post-implementation questionnaire, the aspect of peer support emerges as a
learning aspect that has great importance. The positive, and even occasionally
enthusiastic, engagement in minutely filling in the observation sheets and writing in
their log books, putting in words their impressions, reflections and comments on
their peers’ performance and their own shows the extent to which this experience
marks learners’ perception of their own learning. It also indicates the growth of
their awareness of their own learning awareness.
However, learners’ detachment from the teacher and engagement in activities
created and carried out by themselves should not be taken to mean that teachers
become obsolete and redundant. On the contrary, the teacher’s role remains vital as
the task that they have to play is to provide learners with any type of support,
guidance and monitoring when required. Teachers’ role equally involves taking
learners through a process of gradual skills development and experience living and
capacity building. The success of learners participating in our research to gain
autonomy and self-direction through the RCs is in way made possible by the
teacher’s success in properly guiding and supporting learners in their autonomous
learning endeavours. Teachers’ guidance which involves knowledge about learning
strategies and meta-cognitive knowledge about learning is vital. Apart from
developing task-specific cognitive strategies, the merit of developing self-direction
and autonomy among learners is that they gain a wider application of their general
84 3 Gradual Development of Learner Autonomy

learning skills, especially in terms of helping the learner to gain control of the whole
process of learning by reflecting on the nature of learning. There is evidence to
suggest that autonomous learners can use a variety of strategies to assist other
students in gaining command over the new learning skills (O’Malley and Chamot
1990).
Thus, reflecting on learning is beneficial for learning and learners and it is a
central and important step in the gradual development of learner autonomy. To
complete the cycle of learning, learners should be given opportunities to experiment
with different ways of learning, such as RCs, Project-based Learning Tasks, and
Focus Groups. Our research provided learners with such opportunities by engaging
in RCs as a form of enhancement of autonomous reading. Finding explanations of
the rationale behind the different learning styles and techniques helps learners
understand why they work and make personal choices. One of the key elements in
the success of the RCs experience is the teacher’s focus on ensuring learners’ full
awareness and understanding of the rationale behind the task. This awareness
raising task helps learners understand why they work and enables them to take
informed decisions and make choices on their own learning. Such learning will
result in what Wenden (1998, 1999, 2002) calls pedagogic autonomy, that is, the
acquisition of the skills and knowledge necessary to learn to manage and regulate
one’s learning. Learners can become competent autonomous learners when they
manage to learn how to deal with the autonomous learning task in rational and
informed ways. Meta-learning, which is learning about learning, increases the
learners’ feelings of confidence and competence. Accordingly, as O’Malley and
Chamot (1990) rightly argue, learners without meta-cognitive knowledge are
essentially learners without direction and the ability to review their progress.
Learners are not ‘blank slates’ that absorb learning. They can rather learn in pur-
poseful ways. Metacognitive knowledge development is a stage in the gradual
development of learner autonomy as perceived in the CLA.
The use of the term meta-cognition here is in the sense that learners are able to
reflect on their individual “active monitoring and consequent regulation and
orchestration of processes in relation to the cognitive objects or data on which they
bear, usually in the service of some concrete goal or objective” (Flavell 1979: 231).
Within the context of autonomous learning, the distinction between proactive and
reactive learners lies in the degree of learners’ engagement and involvement in the
learning process. Proper growth of learners into proactive learners is a psycho-
logical development that relates to what Hacker et al. (1998) refer to as meta-
cognitive awareness. When learners develop an awareness of meta-cognition and
meta-cognitive skills, their growth into proactive learners becomes informed and
aware, not a direction decided by someone else. Learners’ awareness of process
knowledge and strategic knowledge (Flavell 1979)7 is relevant to the development

7
For further exploration, see the three kinds of meta-cognition (Flavell 1979). They are: (1) person
knowledge: beliefs about universal truths and self-concept, (2) task knowledge: knowledge of the
general process and nature of language learning, and (3) strategic knowledge: perceptions of the
use and usefulness of certain strategies.
3.5 Optimising Learners’ Positive Attitudes Through ALOP 85

of autonomy. In the same vein, Hacker et al. (1998) identify three components of
meta-cognitive awareness. They are:
1. Meta-cognitive knowledge: thinking of what one knows,
2. Meta-cognitive skill: thinking of what one is currently doing, and
3. Meta-cognitive experience: thinking of what one’s current cognitive or affective
state.
Meta-cognitive awareness relates to autonomy in the sense that when learners gain
awareness of the processes underlying their own learning, they attempt to use
appropriate strategies to manage their own learning. However, it remains vital to
recognise factors that are influential in guiding learners towards this awareness. The
success of the learners in monitoring and self-regulating their thinking “depends on
the task, the demands posed by the task, people’s knowledge of the task, and the kinds
of cognitive strategies they can bring to bear on the task” (Hacker et al. 1986: 10).
Developing Learning Task Knowledge and Awareness (LTKA) among learners
plays an important role in their success to achieve efficient learning and develop
learner autonomy. LTKA implies a proper mapping of the task which involves the
ability to match its implementation features and pedagogic rationale to its learning
environment. Teacher’s success in acquainting the learners to the learning envi-
ronment facilitates their success in gaining increasing control over their own
learning and become autonomous.
Learners’ awareness of the learning task and its functions is vital, especially as a
framework to which they can integrate new learning experiences, and thus feel safer
when confronting new learning tasks. This gradually nurtures their self-confidence
and thus increases their levels of self-esteem, self-concept and self-efficacy, which
in turn enhances their involvement in learning. Materials and tasks alone do not as
such guarantee anything. The central issue is what the learner does with these
materials and tasks. This question echoes learners’ responses to the questionnaire
about the support they have in the SLV. Learners reiterate the need to have their
teachers send them to work autonomously in the SLV and guide them in the
process. They feel the importance of modifying the input so that the output has a
personal meaning for them to identify with, no matter how modest such modifi-
cations or productions can be. Learners’ responses to the question on their learning
preferences (‘What to study’) represent an evidence that what they consider a real
input for them is any learning materials that interest them and with which they can
identify. From the experiential learning point of view, this means encouraging
learners to gradually engage in authentic tasks that involve them. This involvement
would ultimately guarantee proper acquisition following a learning process that
gradually helps students develop autonomy in a collaborative environment created
and supported by teachers and HEIs. This is actually the learning environment that
the CLA theory advocates where learning opportunities help students shift from
conscious learning of language rules to unconscious and spontaneous acquisition.
This view finds its support in the claim that a conscious learning of rules is a
86 3 Gradual Development of Learner Autonomy

precursor to an automatic skill execution (O’Malley and Chamot 1990). Research

findings advocate experiential learning theory as important for autonomous learning
in particular. It involves aspects that approach learner autonomy within the
framework of gradual of gradual development:
1. an emphasis on understanding the content and the rationale behind the task,
2. learner reflection aiming at conscious control of learning,
3. an emphasis on the importance of stretching learners’ skills to become pro-
ductive in a communicative, cooperative and collaborative environment, and
4. corrective feedback by the teacher and peers.
Viewed as such, learning is thus a continuous process aimed at an incrementally
fine-tuned understanding of the system and an increasingly automated use of it with
several opportunities for practice. In our research, the culmination of the gradual
students’ engagement in competitive, collaborative and autonomous learning
opportunities was the performance of an Operetta and a Play (see Images 3.3 and
3.4) during the RCs in our research
In order to develop learners’ knowledge of the learning task, it is important that
teachers understand their learners. Research findings show that one of the main
challenges teachers face at tertiary level in Omani HEIs is the enormous demands
learning situations today pose. These demands are so complex that learners, and
even occasionally teachers, may be unprepared to address them properly without
adequate orientation, guidance and gradual development of relative skills and
competencies.
Feedback from teachers participating in our research stresses the need to make
learners establish an appreciation not only of their language competencies but also
of their learning styles and habits and, at a later stage, develop a critical view of

Image 3.3 Play and Operetta—Sample Image 1

3.5 Optimising Learners’ Positive Attitudes Through ALOP 87

Image 3.4 Play and Operetta—Sample Image 2

them within the overall framework of reflective learning. Learners need to be

encouraged to reflect on their learning styles, their individual challenges and
strengths and this is a gradual development that aims at developing meta-cognitive
awareness of learning. The success of the learners to develop this reflective
approach to their learning enables them to develop more understanding of them-
selves as learners. Teachers become more aware of learners’ expectations from the
teacher and of the importance of developing learner responsibility acceptance for
their learning. The gradual development of learners’ capacity to take responsibility
for their own learning requires training, guidance and orientation. Training students
to develop autonomy is a shortcoming that needs to be addressed in the MENA
region context. Although there are a number of studies that show training has no
long-term effect and is detrimental on motivation, we believe that, in the Omani
context, training is required to serve initiation and familiarisation purposes as well
the adoption of the gradual approach to the development of learner autonomy. This
is why one of the arguments put forward in our research is that training students to
develop autonomous learning skills has a strong positive impact on learner
autonomy among students.
One of the ways to determine the effectiveness of a programme is measuring its
contribution to language learning. Participants in our research strongly support the
idea of having an Autonomous Learning Orientation Programme (ALOP) and
report that they believe in its usefulness for learning, changing learning habits and
styles, learning to better manage their time, and most importantly learning to learn
autonomously. In fact, 54.1 % of the respondents (see Table 3.2) acknowledge that
they are offered some ALOP sessions, or a similar programme that trains them to
work outside the classroom and engage in self-learning activities.
88 3 Gradual Development of Learner Autonomy

Table 3.2 Students’ evaluation of ALOP (ALOP is offered)

ALOP is there
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid Yes 145 54.1 54.1 54.1
No 123 45.9 45.9 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0

In response to the interview question about whether she learned better to learn
autonomously in her course(s), one student answered, “Yes I have…but in some
courses only. We wish to have this practice in all courses.” Asked whether her
teacher often refers the students to the Self-learning Venue (SLV), the student
answered, saying: “Unfortunately this is done only few times and not in all cour-
ses”. When asked if she experienced any attempt from the teacher to develop
learner autonomy through work in the SLV, one student expressed some dissatis-
faction, “No, but some students are trying to create some groups for this”. The
above quotes stress the need to have more training activities initiating and devel-
oping learner autonomy in students and reiterate the importance of adopting a
gradual approach to the development of learner autonomy.
Only 23.9 % of the respondents find ALOPs highly efficient and sufficient while
28 % found them only partly enough and adequate (see Table 3.3). This shows the
limitations of these programmes in the eyes of the students.
HEIs either do not provide such programmes or, similarly when offered, they
still remain deficient and not properly and gradually developed. Students report a
limited effort on the part of the teachers to send students to the SLVs and claim that
the incorporation of such activities in formal learning is important as this helps them
gradually become autonomous. Statistics (Table 3.4) show that 53.7 % answer that
their teachers send them to the LRC (the SLV equivalent in SU) and engage them in
varied autonomous learning activities. Sending students to work in the LRC implies
involving SLVs in learning and incorporating the aspect of learning out-of-class in

Table 3.3 Students’ evaluation of ALOP (Efficiency and sufficiency)

Efficiency and sufficiency
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Valid No answer 70 26.1 26.1 26.1
Highly efficient and 64 23.9 23.9 50.0
sufficient
Partly efficient and 75 28.0 28.0 78.0
sufficient
Undecided 43 16.0 16.0 94.0
Somehow efficient but 9 3.4 3.4 97.4
insufficient
Inefficient and insufficient 7 2.6 2.6 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0
3.5 Optimising Learners’ Positive Attitudes Through ALOP 89

Table 3.4 Students’ evaluation of ALOP (Teacher sending me to LRC)

Teacher sending me to LRC
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid No answer 14 5.2 5.2 5.2
Yes 144 53.7 53.7 59.0
No 91 34.0 34.0 92.9
3 9 3.4 3.4 96.3
4 10 3.7 3.7 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0

Table 3.5 Students’ evaluation of ALOP (LRC frequency)

LRC frequency
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
percent percent
Valid No answer 45 16.8 16.8 16.8
Always 29 10.8 10.8 27.6
Occasionally 97 36.2 36.2 63.8
Only when 46 17.2 17.2 81.0
requested
Rarely 40 14.9 14.9 95.9
Never 11 4.1 4.1 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0

the learning culture of the students. This is believed to be vital for the gradual
development of learner autonomy as it relates to the Omani, MENA region,
learning environment often regarded as non-favourable to the development of
autonomous learning.
Although the figure might look high, indicating fair use of SLVs and autono-
mous learning opportunities, responses of the students show a limited frequency. In
fact, 10.8 % of the respondents claim using the LRC ‘always’ while 36.2 % use it
‘occasionally’ and 17.2 % use it ‘only when requested’ (see Table 3.5).
This can be interpreted as indicative of what can be termed as teachers’ passive
role in directing their students to work autonomously. Students in most cases are
sent to the LRC without proper guidance and prior training which should start at
school. They cannot feel the gradual growth into autonomy and they rather see
sudden, non-connected initiatives from individual teachers. This further reiterates
the need to redefine the role of the teacher and the adoption of a gradual and
well-monitored approach to the development of learner autonomy. The relatively
high percentage of respondents who did not answer (18.7 %) and those undecided
(23.9 %) further stresses the dissatisfaction of the students with the frequency with
which they are sent to the LRC to work autonomously (see Table 3.6). Teachers’
attempts to familiarise students with autonomy and train them to work in an
autonomous learning environment remain limited.
90 3 Gradual Development of Learner Autonomy

Table 3.6 Students’ evaluation of ALOP (Fair LRC frequency)

Fair LRC frequency
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
percent percent
Valid No answer 50 18.7 18.7 18.7
Largely enough 15 5.6 5.6 24.3
Just enough 90 33.6 33.6 57.8
Undecided 64 23.9 23.9 81.7
Somehow not 34 12.7 12.7 94.4
enough
Not enough at all 15 5.6 5.6 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0

The exploration of the students’ perceptions of the ALOP usefulness shows that
guidance and preparatory class work represent one condition to the success of their
experience. Teachers’ role in the promotion of autonomous learning is incontestable
and this defies a common misconception of learner autonomy. This misconception
perceives learner autonomy as a synonym of teacher’s obsoleteness. Omani stu-
dents link autonomous learning with proper guidance and class work, which
indicates their responsible reliance on teachers. Despite the reluctance some Omani
students show in relation to accepting responsibility for their own learning, they still
acknowledge the benefits of the ALOP, especially with the strategies and tech-
niques they deem useful for the future. Most Omani students value the development
of their autonomous learning skills and think that they should be incorporated in
their formal learning (in all courses and modules). The need to train students to use
SLVs is evident, especially that LRC staff members recurrently report having
received inquiries about and requests from students for information regarding how
to access resources in-campus and off-campus. Omani students are unfamiliar with
information search, library work, and use of learning resources. This is due to the
lack of an adequate, proper, efficient and sufficient ALOP. This is indicated in
respondents’ focus on the need of having proper help desk with specialised
self-learning staff. There is a vital need to raise awareness among students of their
learning styles and habits as well as their perception of learning through ALOP. The
poor integration of autonomous learning into the class curriculum is perceived as an
obstacle to the development of learner autonomy. Our research stresses the firm
belief and perception of a more proactive role that teachers are expected to play in
guiding students towards collaboration, and autonomy as a result. The first major
way is that SLVs should endeavour to provide the most ‘Adequate support mate-
rials’. 76.5 % of the respondents support this view (see Table 3.7). The responsi-
bility for providing such materials is on the side of the teachers who should work on
this provision and, at an advanced stage, gradually train students to provide their
own materials and involve them in materials building. This requires more collab-
oration with SLVs. LRC managers in the HEIs surveyed claim that the degree of
involvement of the teachers in LRC materials choice is still unsatisfactory. They
3.5 Optimising Learners’ Positive Attitudes Through ALOP 91

Table 3.7 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level (Way 1)
Adequate support materials
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid No answer 1 .4 .4 .4
Yes 205 76.5 76.5 76.9
No 62 23.1 23.1 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0

Table 3.8 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level (Way 2)
Required by teacher
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid No answer 1 .4 .4 .4
Yes 190 70.9 70.9 71.3
No 66 24.6 24.6 95.9
3 11 4.1 4.1 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0

Table 3.9 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level (Way 3)
Try it in class
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid No answer 1 .4 .4 .4
Yes 154 57.5 57.5 57.8
No 86 32.1 32.1 89.9
3 10 3.7 3.7 93.7
5 6 2.2 2.2 95.9
6 11 4.1 4.1 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0

add that some teachers do not even have an account in the LRC and when they send
their students to the LRC, they never come or ask for any support to be provided for
them. Compulsion appears as the second major reason behind using LRCs and
learning in SLVs.
In fact, 70.9 % of the respondents answered ‘Yes’ in response to the statement
‘Required by the teacher’ (see Table 3.8). This reinforces the belief in the role of
the teacher for the Omani students as a ‘Safety line’ and further supports the claim
that autonomous learning should be made formal and should be echoed in the
assessments. Trial in class is believed to be productive and useful as students think
that teachers should provide them with opportunities to ‘Try it in class’, with
57.5 % of the responses ‘Yes’ (see Table 3.9). This requirement from students is
only legitimate as it is quite normal that trial is needed to familiarise, and then excel,
in any undertaking. Trial in class shows the importance of gradually developing
learners’ from passive to proactive learners who self-access learning.
92 3 Gradual Development of Learner Autonomy

Table 3.10 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level (Way 4)
Enough training
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid No answer 1 .4 .4 .4
Yes 137 51.1 51.1 51.5
No 115 42.9 42.9 94.4
3 4 1.5 1.5 95.9
7 11 4.1 4.1 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0

In the same vein, the fourth major way self-learning can be enhanced according
to the students is by offering ‘Enough training’ with 51.1 % of the respondents who
answered ‘Yes’ (see Table 3.10). It is believed that the role of the teachers and HEI
is important and the aspect of gradual development of learner autonomy emerges as
evidently valid and vital.
However, in practice, HEIs fail to play the role of providing students with
opportunities to try and train themselves to become autonomous. Significant cor-
relations are expected between the variable ‘Usefulness of the LRC’ and other
variables: ‘ALOP is there’, ‘Efficiency and sufficiency of ALOP’, ‘Workshops to
guide’, ‘Had sufficient training’ and ‘Flexibility of the LRC staff’. In fact, there is a
significant negative correlation at Pearson −.349 between offering an ALOP and the
usefulness of the SLV. This indicates that the degree of satisfaction, sufficiency and
efficiency, is low. In the same vein, with the improvement of the ALOP, the
situation changes and the correlation becomes positive and significant at Pearson
.212 between the variable ‘Usefulness of the LRC’ and the variable ‘Efficiency and
sufficiency of ALOP’.
There is also a correlation between the variable ‘Usefulness of the LRC’ and the
variable ‘Had sufficient training’ but it is quite insignificant at Pearson .016.
However, the correlation between the variable ‘Usefulness of the LRC’ and the
variable ‘Flexibility of the LRC staff is significant at Pearson .274 (see Table 3.11).
In the same respect, three influential factors emerge in relation to students’ per-
ception of SLV usefulness. The implementation of a proper and efficient ALOP and
the impact of training and orientation is the first factor that influences the perception
of the students of the SLV efficiency. There is a reasonably strong relationship
between how the degree of ‘Efficiency and sufficiency’ of this introduction and their
perception as ‘Helpful to work autonomously’) at a Pearson coefficient of .376
compared with a significantly negative correlation of −.378 between the variable
‘Helpful to work autonomously’ and the variable ‘ALOP is there’ (see Table 3.12).
This means that it is not enough to offer an orientation programme to guarantee the
development of autonomous learning skills. It rather requires offering an adequate,
efficient and sufficient programme that trains students and guides them on how to
properly use the SLV. There is a certain degree of deficiency on the teachers’ side,
and HEI implicitly, in providing students with enough and adequate training on
3.5 Optimising Learners’ Positive Attitudes Through ALOP 93

Table 3.11 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level (Correlation test 10)
Variable 1 Variable 2 Pearson correlation
coefficient
ALOP is there Usefulness of the LRC −.349
(offered)
Usefulness of the Flexibility of the LRC .274
LRC
Usefulness of the Efficiency and sufficiency of ALOP .212
LRC training
Usefulness of the Had sufficient training .016
LRC

Table 3.12 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level (Correlation test 15)
Variable 1 Variable 2 Pearson correlation
coefficient
Efficiency and sufficiency of ALOP Helpful to work .376
training autonomously
ALOP in there (offered) Helpful to work −.378
autonomously
Efficiency and sufficiency ALOP Workshops −.221
training
Efficiency and sufficiency ALOP Becoming more .162
training responsible
Efficiency and sufficiency ALOP Better use of Time .132
training
Efficiency and sufficiency ALOP Had sufficient training −.158
training
ALOP in there (offered) Becoming more −.423
responsible
ALOP in there (offered) Better use of Time −.322
Efficiency and sufficiency ALOP Helpful to work .376
training autonomously

how to use the SLV efficiently and develop autonomous learning skills and
strategies.
However, this does not necessarily discard the role of the students because
providing training and workshops is not the only guarantor of a good ALOP. In
fact, there is a significant negative correlation between the efficiency and sufficiency
of the ALOP and making ‘Workshops’ at −.221 (Pearson) and at −.158 with the
variable ‘Had sufficient training’ (see Table 3.12). There are significant correlations
of .132 and .162 respectively between the perception of the efficiency and suffi-
ciency of the ALOP and the improvement of the students’ use of time and
becoming more responsible (see Table 3.12).
94 3 Gradual Development of Learner Autonomy

Table 3.13 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level (Correlation test 16)
Variable 1 Variable 2 Pearson correlation coefficient
Fair frequency of LRC use No support .477
Fair frequency of LRC use Hard to access .127
Fair frequency of LRC use Not interesting materials .245
No support Noise .331
Not interesting materials Noise .685

It is important to mention that there are significant negative correlations between

the implementation of an ALOP, irrespective of its degree of efficiency and suffi-
ciency, and the improvement of the students’ use of time and becoming more
responsible at −.423 and −.322, respectively (see Table 3.12). So, the more efficient
and sufficient the ALOP is, the more helpful it is in promoting autonomous
learning. There is a significant positive Pearson correlation coefficient of .376
between the efficiency and sufficiency of the ALOP and the variable ‘Helpful to
work autonomously’ (see Table 3.12). The second factor influencing students’
perception of SLVs and self-access is the environment of the SLV and help desk.
Correlation tests in Table 3.13 show a significant correlation of .477 (Pearson)
between the fair frequency of LRC use and the absence of support at the SLV and
of .127 (Pearson) comparing the fair frequency with the degree of hard access
students faced using the LRC. This indicates that the presence of someone to
provide some support and guidance to the students when they are in the SLV has a
positive impact on the success of the learning opportunity.
This equally indicates that the approach to follow to develop autonomy builds on
students’ reliance on the teacher to establish a gradual development that incorpo-
rates training, guidance and peer scaffolding. It is important to incorporate learner
autonomy activities in a coherent programme and avoid throwing students into the
adventure of self-learning without proper guidance and enough training. The degree
of interest these materials have for students correlated significantly with the fair
frequency of LRC use with a Pearson coefficient of .245. The experience was
frustrating when the noise in the LRC was combined with the lack of support
(Pearson .331) and the lack of interest of the materials there (Pearson .685).
According to the students, teachers are expected to provide proper guidance on
how to better use the SLV materials and, more importantly, want their teachers to
be involved in equipping the SLVs with materials that are interesting and useful for
them as learners who seek to gradually move towards autonomy. Students’
awareness of the most efficient way to learn autonomously is useful for the rest of
their life. Most of the respondents think that the SLV can certainly help, especially
as there were a lot of materials. Having a variety of materials enabled students with
different needs to use their own techniques and strategies. Even students, who seem
very reluctant to accept any responsibility for their own learning, admit that the
strategies and techniques they learn in class or through the ALOP are useful for
them for the future. It is then class trial of autonomy-related activities and strategies
that has a positive impact on students’ appreciation of SLV. Class trial helps
3.5 Optimising Learners’ Positive Attitudes Through ALOP 95

Chart 3.2 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level (Is it important for students to
develop autonomy?)

approach the development of learner autonomy and collaborative learning. In

general, almost all the students agree that autonomous learning is important and are
able to see advantages in it. As Chart 3.2 shows, 37 % of the respondents find the
relative development of learner autonomy skills through training and class trial an
important achievement and well appraise the gradual approach they feel in the RCs
is well appraised.
The RC experience enables them feel their capacity to develop gradually from
individual performance to competitive and cooperative endeavours through to
autonomous acts of learning following the Individual-Competitive-Collaborative-
Autonomous Linstrumental. They find it very important earning (ICCAL) contin-
uum. This is mainly important given that developing autonomous learning skills
according to 23 % of the students helps increase knowledge and skills while 40 %
perceive learner autonomy as an attribute that would help students, future gradu-
ates, meet job market needs. Research findings show that students find the devel-
opment of their autonomous learning skills important and should be incorporated in
formal learning. This is reflected in the significant correlation between the variable
‘Should be compulsory in all courses’ and the variables ‘LRC frequency’ and ‘Fair
LRC frequency’ at .280 and .196 respectively (see Table 2.25 in Chap. 2). When
asked about this point during the interviews, most students concurred and gave
several reasons for it. When asked whether they think that the ALOP and working
in the SLVs are helpful in enabling them to become autonomous learners, most
answers are positive and link this to an improvement in their English or in their
academic and study skills (reading, speaking, listening, writing, CALL, research,
library skills…etc.).
In fact, responding to one of the questionnaire questions related to how to
encourage students to use the LRC, 57.5 % find it important to try it in class while
only 32.1 % see it otherwise (see Table 3.9 in this chapter). One student claims
(quoting) “[sic] yes, before I didn’t realise about that [sic], so now I understand that
independent learning is very important and after realising that my English improved
96 3 Gradual Development of Learner Autonomy

Chart 3.3 Omani students’ attitudes to self-access and autonomous learning (Importance of
well-established SLVs in developing autonomy)

more when I worked at the LRC” (see Appendix 2). Understanding what learner
autonomy and self-learning are to students is important since 76.9 % of the students
(47 % ‘Totally agree’ and 29.9 % ‘Agree’) see the development of autonomous
learning skills and their integration in all courses as a must while only 3.4 %
disagree with this. A large percentage of students (87 %) say that the SLV has been
instrumental. They find it very important (see Table 2.22 in Chap. 2 and Chart 3.3).

3.6 Summary

Research findings explored in this chapter show that Omani students have a positive
perception of learner autonomy and SLVs and reasonable levels of readiness and
willingness to develop autonomous learning skills. Misconceptions and wrong
perceptions of autonomy need to be addressed by teachers. It is the lack of a
proactive role that teachers and HEIs are expected to play in training, orienting and
guiding learners towards autonomy through the creation of a positive environment
and the provision of autonomous learning opportunities. Our research reiterates the
importance of optimising Omani learners’ positive attitudes and perceptions
through the adoption of a collaborative and gradual approach to the development of
learner autonomy.
Chapter 4
Learner Autonomy and the CLA
Perspective

This chapter sets learner autonomy within the perspective of the CLA, relating it
mainly to the culture of relatedness prevailing in the Omani context, and similar
contexts in the MENA region. It revisits a number of concepts that emerge in the
process of promoting learner autonomy, such as self-regulation, motivation, indi-
vidual differences, and teacher development. It concludes by presenting findings from
the field implementation of Reading Circles (RCs) as a mode of the Collaborative
Learner Autonomy (CLA) and traces the features of the learning environment con-
ducive to autonomy as advocated by the CLA in a continuum of gradual development
of autonomous learning, the Individual-Competitive-Collaborative-Autonomous
Learning Continuum (ICCALC).

4.1 Autonomy and Socio-Cultural Conceptualisation

The self is perceived from the autonomy perspective as an agent and drive of one’s
behaviour (Deci and Ryan 1982), which develops in learners a sense of authen-
ticity. They identify with the actions they do, being actions deriving from them on
their own and with their own will. This sense of identification that, in relation with
others, represents a further learner’s need that Deci and Ryan (1982) call related-
ness. It means that learners need to identify with each other, with their learning
environment and with the learning task, materials and input. Relatedness then refers
to the vital role and positive impact that learners’ identification with their learning
can play in helping them develop autonomy. In other words, relatedness refers to
contact, support and community with others (Deci and Ryan 1982). However, if
understood as the exercise of control, relatedness can impede, if not generate a loss
of, autonomy. Relatedness and contact with others and the learning environment
should support learners and motivate them to engage in activities with their peers. It
should also reduce interference as much as possible with the ultimate objective of
making contact with others a facilitating factor in learning. Perceived as such, as the
© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017 97
S. Blidi, Collaborative Learner Autonomy,
DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-2048-3_4
98 4 Learner Autonomy and the CLA Perspective

CLA suggests, relatedness and autonomy generate a type of autonomy that Deci
and Ryan (1982) term as autonomous interdependence. In the same vein, Little
(2001a) supports the above view and considers that learner autonomy is the product
of interdependence rather than independence. It has to be stressed that learner
autonomy and teacher autonomy are interdependent (Little 1995 and Smith 2000)
in the sense that teachers’ reflections on their attitudes, beliefs, practices, experi-
ences, expectations, teaching strategies and choices represent one step in the right
direction of developing autonomy in learners. These reflections ensure the existence
of what Benson (2003) considers as a favourable environment for learner autonomy
in his advice to teachers stating that instead of trying to teach students to become
more autonomous, they should rather train them to do that by creating “the
atmosphere and conditions in which they will feel encouraged to develop the
autonomy they already have” (2003: 305).
Little’s (1995) perception of autonomy defies the common assumption that
learner autonomy is synonymous of total independence in the sense of having
learners learning on their own. Very often learner autonomy is perceived as learning
without assistance, which is an ideal situation far from being real. It is too ambitious
to believe in the existence of an entirely independent learner free from the influence
of any classroom, teacher, peer, textbook and course requirements.1 An autono-
mous learner is perceived from the CLA perspective as a learner who learns col-
laboratively in an environment that respects his individualist inclination, need for
teacher’s guidance and support and openly exploits peer scaffolding opportunities
offered in their learning environment.
The move towards increased learner involvement in language teaching context
over the last three decades has given the teacher new roles and has added new
dimensions to teaching. Benson and Voller (1997) portray teachers in autonomous
learning classes as facilitators, counsellors and resourceful with many roles
encompassed in there. Dependence on the teacher is sometimes wrongly perceived
as opposite to learner autonomy, which leads teachers to try to withdraw completely
from the learning scene and refrain from providing any support or giving any
help. In fact, it is safe to support the claim that working alone does not necessarily
and automatically result in learners’ acquisition of autonomous learning skills and
that learner autonomy can take place in the classroom (Broady and Kenning 1996).
Autonomy refers to the concept of getting learners involved in their own learning
process with the ultimate objective of making meaningful connections with the
world outside the classroom. Managing to make these connections, “contact” and
“relatedness” to use Deci and Ryan’s words, reduces the reliance of the learners on
the teacher and develops in them the sense of responsibility required for autonomy.
As Chu (2007: 225) puts it, interdependent autonomy is then a shared quest and
common “work for mutual development”.

1
For a list of characteristics of dependent and independent learners, see also Holec (1981), Little
(1991), Dickinson (1987), Oxford (1990) and Barnett (1993).
4.1 Autonomy and Socio-Cultural Conceptualisation 99

Building on the above, the ideal facilitating environment for autonomy advo-
cated by Deci and Ryan (1982) broadly refers to a number of factors that positively
conjure up autonomy and relatedness. It is vital to provide learners with concrete
support through the provision of help and resources. Personal concern and
involvement developed through peer scaffolding and teacher’s guidance play a role
in achieving relatedness and autonomy. This can be further enhanced with adequate
opportunities for making choices and freedom from a sense of being controlled by
external agents. Accordingly, having the favourable environment provided to them
and from the perspectives of relatedness and reflective learning, learners can iden-
tify shared as well as individual goals and work mutually towards achieving them.
In fact, exploring students’ reaction to power and responsibility, Chu (2007: 225)
refers to Smith’s interpretation of his students’ observed reflection realising that:
Students had various goals and preferences for improvement of their English and were far
more active in attempting to learn English independently than I had expected (Smith 2003:
133)

Smith’s realisation reflects the importance of properly exploring learners’ needs

and perceptions. It equally stresses the need to stop working on assumptions and
generalisations, thus failing to address students’ concerns and true needs.
A recent development is Schmenk’s consideration of different contexts that
interplay in learning (2005). He argues that the promotion of autonomy as a uni-
versal good in language education requires addressing the issue of “what autonomy
might entail in specific social, cultural, or institutional learning contexts”, which
“leaves the concept devoid of specific characteristics and thus facilitates its
homogenization” (2005: 112).
In a further development, Schmenk (2005: 115) argues that the value of the
concept of autonomy is valid only when language educators “admit that autonomy
is not a universal and neutral concept and that it encompasses a critical awareness of
one’s own possibilities and limitations within particular contexts”. The concept of
autonomy has various representations and perceiving it from a single mainstream
invalidates its reality. The CLA perspective of learner autonomy supports
Schmenk’s view and reiterates the need to perceive learner autonomy from different
perceptions and acknowledge the multitude of representations it may have.
The cultural value of learners’ active participation and individualism is funda-
mental to the development of learner autonomy and central to the CLA our research
advocates. As Benson (2006) suggests, a number of papers on autonomy in Asia in
the 1990s largely argue for group-oriented approaches to the implementation of
autonomy in these settings (Smith 2001; Palfreyman 2003). More recently,
Sonaiya’s (2002) argument that the idea of autonomy is inappropriate to African
settings is an example of such assumptions. Although this claim is directed at
individualised, technology-based approaches to language instruction, it illustrates
how debates on autonomy and culture are often less concerned with the appro-
priateness of the principle of autonomy. Advocates of learner autonomy are more
concerned with the fact that learners should take more control of their learning
100 4 Learner Autonomy and the CLA Perspective

rather than with the appropriateness of autonomy-oriented methods of teaching and

learning.
Several attempts have been made to explore how learners, teachers and different
stakeholders perceive learner autonomy. In an attempt to take the discussion of
autonomy and culture beyond discussion of teaching and learning methods,
Palfreyman (2003) discusses the understanding and representation of autonomy by
various stakeholders involved in implementing autonomy in a Turkish university,
highlighting the impact of the immediate socio-cultural factors on the perception of
autonomy. Aoki and Hamakawa (2002) explore the issue of autonomy from a
feminist perspective. Recent literature in contexts other than the Western educa-
tional contexts tries to seek harder empirical evidence on responses to the idea of
autonomy among students in these contexts.2 Findings from these studies indicate
that students in these contexts value freedom in language learning and claim the
need to have the opportunity to direct their own learning. Benson (2006) adds that
these research studies suggest that one major issue is the inter-cultural learning that
foreign language study necessarily involves and the challenge this poses to cul-
turally conditioned conceptions of the self. It is commonplace in SLA literature that
individual differences related to cultural background have a great influence on
learners’ behaviour. Reconciling these differences and positively viewing such
influence is the challenge teachers need to win. A sheer volume of comparative
studies and research on intercultural differences bring about a number of
generalisations.3
As all-inclusive, generalisations cannot apply to all learners in all contexts. For
example, an EFL teacher in Oman writes “Omani learners lack confidence in
themselves and their abilities and have limited potential for autonomy”. Such a
statement is an exaggeration that does not reflect the reality and, in SLA, such claim
is a serious misconception that can have adverse implications on teaching choices.
To resolve this issue Benson (2007) refers to Sperber (1982) who adopts a per-
spective in which culture needs to be seen and explained in terms of different types
of, using Sperber’s term ‘representations’. These representations are mental in
essence and become social through communication among groups where they
become beliefs, rumours, fashions, cultural values, and traditions. It is in the course
of communication with other members of their culture that they construct both their
view of the world (Littlewood 1999) and their personality. Cultural influence that is

2
See implementations in China (Gan et al. 2004; Gieve and Clark 2005), Hong Kong (Littlewood
1999, 2000; Chan, Spratt and Humphrey 2002; Braine 2003), Japan (Smith 2001; Snyder 2002)
and recently in the Gulf region (Plafreyman 2001; Zeytoun 2002; Mynard 2003; Malcolm 2004).
3
Germans conduct themselves in a very formal manner; The Japanese value collectivism over
individualism and collaboration over competition; The Chinese do not tolerate outward displays of
anger; Arab learners show a great preference for memorisation, group work and competition;
Asians (Gulf region learners also) go to great lengths to preserve not only their own face but
everyone else’s; Americans treat others as equals, and prefer to be treated in the same manner;
Arab learners, Gulf region in particular, prefer to memorise rather than think.
4.1 Autonomy and Socio-Cultural Conceptualisation 101

often claimed to have an important impact and effect on attitudes and behaviour
derives from three main sources: collectivism, reaction to power and authority, and
the belief in self-discipline and effort.

4.2 Individualism, Self-regulation, Motivation

and Interdependence

Little (1991) emphasises the psychological attributes of autonomous learners and

prioritises interdependence over independence in learning. Little (1995) argues that
learner autonomy depends on the quality of the pedagogical dialogue between
teachers and learners rather than on a particular mode of practice. In this respect,
cultural influence and inter-cultural differences have a clear central influence and
are measured against the parameter of whether the culture to which the learner
belongs is oriented more towards collectivism or individualism. Teachers with an
individualist orientation encourage learners to believe in their own unique identity
in order to make them more likely to claim the right to express their views, make
personal choices, and strive for self-actualisation. Collectivism-oriented educational
systems, on the other hand, stimulate learners to identify with their community and
train them to see themselves as an inseparable part of the group. They expect and
are expected to accord first priority to the views, needs, and goals of the group
rather than isolate and prioritise themselves as individuals.
A number of comparative studies of the attitudes and cultural values in the East
and the MENA region, the Gulf region in particular,4 have emerged in the last two
decades and were influential in the direction of our research. These studies reveal a
much stronger collectivist orientation among learners in these contexts than in
Western countries. Since the focus in SLA is the individual within culture, not the
culture, “person-based concepts of the independent self and the interdependent”
(Littlewood 1999) prime. The notion of multiple selves has a long history in
psychology. Of particular significance to the present discussion are two construc-
tions of the self. In each individual there is an independent self who perceives itself
as separate from others, and an interdependent self as connected with others.
Drawing on observations in the Omani context, it could be concluded that the
interdependent self is the predominant, which directs the focus on redefining learner
autonomy.
From the autonomous learning perspective, studying is deliberate and purposeful
learning that is pursued individually. It is deliberate and not incidental, purposeful
and not random, autonomous and not controlled. While some students seem to
know instinctively how to learn autonomously, most need to develop both strategies
and methods to implement these strategies through gradual training towards proper

4
See Hofstede (1991), Triandis (1995), Plafreyman (2001), Zeytoun (2002), Mynard (2003), and
Malcolm (2004).
102 4 Learner Autonomy and the CLA Perspective

implementation. Contrary to the assumption that students develop and generalise

these learning skills independently (Rohwer 1984), in reality, unless they are taught
specific study strategies, students rarely develop the necessary self-monitoring skills
for optimal academic performance. Shifting from simply teaching specific study
strategies to teaching students self-regulation is now recommended (Zimmerman
and Martinez Pons 1988) to facilitate the development of learner autonomy. This
recommendation is further stressed by Puustinen and Pulkkinen (2001: 283) who
rightly consider that the focus in the teaching and learning situation should be the
“development of self-regulatory skills and the creation of opportunities for life-long
learning”. They add that “self-regulated learners actively and autonomously guide
their own learning and update their knowledge whenever necessary” (Ibid).
Perceived as such, self-regulation is the concept that encompasses the skills and
strategies that prepare the ground for learners to develop learner autonomy. The
development of self-regulation skills is a component of the gradual development of
learner autonomy the CLA advocates. In fact, when skills are initially being
developed or maintained at an advanced stage, mental training is needed and used.
Murphy and Phillips (2005) provide what can be considered as components that
mental training encompasses. These involve setting realistic goals, raising aware-
ness, improving motivation, and managing experience. In the Omani context, the
management of negative emotions, such as anxiety and shyness, is part of the
mental training typically needed for Omani students. Self-regulation equally
involves the improvement of the learners’ degree of attention and concentration.
These require the presence of the teacher who knows how to properly guide stu-
dents. Without this guided instruction, autonomy as an innate talent has no
importance and is bound to vanish.
Students should learn to self-regulate motivation, emotions, behaviour, time
management, cognition, and context to optimise their learning and become learners
capable of achieving control of their learning and develop autonomy. They need to
learn how to apply specific strategies as they learn and learn how to evaluate these
strategies, which will ultimately help them to modify their strategies according to
their success (Schunk et al. 2010). Deciding on learning strategies is the ability they
develop through self-regulation. It is the ability to critically reflect on and control all
the aspects of their learning and which is a core component of autonomy. The
success of the learners to reflect on their learning reflects their ability to take
decisions and make informed choices.
Factors related to self-regulation, in relation to learning, consist of every com-
ponent in the learning environment, which together make up the dynamic system
that continually and mutually influences other factors in the system. In the learning
situation, self-regulation consists of many micro-processes. In recent years, con-
siderable research has been devoted to examining such micro-processes (Schunk
et al. 2010; Zeidner et al. 2000). These include:
1. holding positive beliefs about own capabilities,
2. experiencing and fostering positive emotions about learning,
3. managing goal orientations,
4.2 Individualism, Self-regulation, Motivation and Interdependence 103

4. setting goals for learning and strategic planning,

5. effective use of cognitive strategies,
6. employing meta-cognitive strategies to assess the efficacy of learning strategies,
7. monitoring performance and managing time effectively,
8. establishing a productive learning environment,
9. using resources effectively, and
10. seeking assistance when needed.
Research conducted on the efficacy of using self-regulatory strategies predicts
remarkable improvement in academic achievement. Pintrich (2000) claims that,
unanimously, self-regulation consists of three phases (see Table 4.1). Preparation
phase consists of tasks that engage learners in deciding on the learning activities
they undertake. This implies that they carry out defining, planning, analysing, and
selecting tasks. In the second phase, Performance Phase, learners implement what
they decided in phase one. They use strategies, monitor processes, experiment ideas
and self-control their tasks. The third phase is the Appraisal Phase where learners
engage in reflection, evaluation, and judging in order to self-evaluate their learning
and reach self-satisfaction.
The appraisal phase leads to subsequent modifications in preparation and per-
formance in a recurring cycle that decreases discrepancies between current and
ideal performance (Puustinen and Pulkkinen 2001). Conscious and deliberate
attention to the phases of preparation, performance, and appraisal is always required
though in varying degrees depending on the learning situations. However, if not
properly monitored, guided and gradually developed, self-regulation strategies
become inefficient and can result in frustration and learning problems. This implies
the need for effective interventions of the teacher to encourage students to examine,
evaluate, and modify their self-regulation cycle.
Although the focus of recent literature on autonomy continues to be on learning
strategies, learner training and learner development (Benson, 2007), it is note-
worthy to acknowledge that in the wider literature learning strategies are not
considered central to the learner development. Personal constructs like learner
beliefs (Mercer 2008), metacognitive knowledge (Wenden 1998), learner self-
management (Rubin 2001), and self-regulation (Dornyei 2005) are believed to

Table 4.1 Task distribution in the cycle of self-regulation (Based on Pintrich 2000)
Phase Label Tasks involved
1 Preparation Forethought, task definition, planning, goal setting, task analysis,
strategy selection, selection of beliefs such as self-efficacy, outcome
expectations, valuing, and intrinsic motivation
2 Performance Goal striving, strategy use, strategy monitoring and revision,
self-monitoring, self-instruction, attention focus, self-recording,
self-experimentation, and self-control
3 Appraisal Self-reflection, self-judgment, performance evaluation, performance
feedback, and self-satisfaction
104 4 Learner Autonomy and the CLA Perspective

occupy a more vital position. In a recent critique of learning strategy research,

Dornyei (2005: 170) considers that such research lags behind the field of educa-
tional psychology in terms of direction and focus. Educational psychology currently
shows limited interest in learning strategies and, on the contrary, puts much
emphasis on the concept of self-regulation that is believed to be more versatile, and
fit for the study of a complex concept such as learner autonomy. One can argue in
favour of Dornyei’s view, especially that he defines self-regulation as “the degree to
which individuals are active participants in their own learning” (Dornyei 2005:
191), which implies that self-regulation fits more with the concept of autonomy
(Benson 2007).
Motivation and autonomy share a central concern with active learner involve-
ment, which indicates that the link between the two concepts is evident. Although
the interest in motivation is not new, it is important to explore what Benson (2007)
considers as resurgence of interest in motivation in the 1990s. This resurgence is
marked by the emergence of alternative paradigms. Works on the link between
autonomy and motivation from the new paradigms perspectives suggest that
enhanced motivation is conditional upon learners taking responsibility for their own
learning. This implies that, as Spratt et al. (2002) claim, motivation precedes
autonomy, especially that motivation is predominantly linked with the sense of
identification learners have with their learning.
Concomitant with this, Deci and Ryan’s (2002) Self-determination Theory is one
of the most prominent developments with regard to the link between motivation and
autonomy. In their theory, they put equal emphasis on two notions. The first notion
is the power of intrinsic motivation. It incorporates the features of vitality, spon-
taneity, genuineness, and curiosity that are intrinsic in the human nature. The
second notion is the importance of the sense of personal autonomy, which repre-
sents the feelings among students that their behaviour is truly their own choice, not
others’ choice imposed on them. They believe that both notions are central to the
development of motivation to become autonomous. A major development Ushioda
(1996) makes to the fields of autonomy and motivation is the concept of
self-motivation, largely built on self-determination theory, which she considers as a
crucial factor in autonomy. Ushioda’s incorporation of Deci and Ryan’s intrinsic
motivation within a Vygotskyan framework (1979) represents a further substantial
development. She claims that social mediation and social environment play a role in
the development of motivation and autonomy. This means that, in socio-cultural
terms, students’ ability to control strategic thinking processes is mediated through
cognitive and motivational scaffolding processes. These processes, she argues,
require a supportive social environment that enhances learners’ sense of autonomy
and intrinsic motivation with the ultimate objective of pursuing optimal challenges
through the Vygotskyan (1979) Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD).
4.2 Individualism, Self-regulation, Motivation and Interdependence 105

One major shortcoming in views related to the concept of autonomy in language

learning is that they were influenced by the assumption that autonomy implies
individualism. This reflects a confusing interchangeable use of the concepts of
individualism and individualisation. In other words, the focus on individualism had
an exclusionary purpose. Autonomous learners are wrongly described as individual
learners who must act individually. This description can be refuted based on the
argument that autonomy does not mean rejection of the teacher and the peers.
However, the resurgence of interest in individual differences (Dornyei and Skehan
2003; Dornyei 2005) and the emphasis on individual learners in empirical works
informed by the socio-cultural turn of recent years (Zuengler and Miller 2006) led
to the recent renewed focus on the individual in literature on autonomy. The idea of
individual differences relates to the concept of autonomy in the sense that individual
learners use different divergent learning processes to develop their individuality.
Research on individual differences explores the impact of psychological and social
factors on learning processes and outcomes rather than the way learners develop
individual identities through language learning processes (Benson 2005). This
implies that socio-cultural approaches have directed the focus on the social
dimension of language teaching and learning, highlighting the interdependent
character of individuality and the close connection it has with the development of
the collaborative autonomy. The notion of individualism is seen as a personal
construct that interacts and intersects with the interdependent self. In the same vein,
one of the main socio-cultural contributions in a development of Benson’s (1997)
model of technical, psychological and political versions of autonomy, two socio-
cultural perspectives emerge:
1. Socio-cultural Perspective I: all learning is situated in a particular “social and
cultural setting occupied by individuals with their specific socio-cultural fea-
tures. This perspective is influenced by Vygotskyan learning theory (Lantolf
2000).
2. Socio-cultural Perspective II: the context of autonomy primes over the indi-
vidual exercising it. This perspective is influenced by a number of theories,
mainly Situated Learning Theory (Norton 2000). This work suggests that its
main contribution is to counter tendencies toward de-contextualisation and
individualism in the autonomy literature.
In the same line of thought followed by Little (1999 and 2000b) and Ushioda
(2003 and 2006) and based largely on Vygotsyan theory, the CLA perceives the
development of learner autonomy as an interdependent concept that is socially
mediated. However, the degree of attention socio-cultural approaches give to
learner individuality remains questionable, and requires further research focus. In
fact, from second language socio-cultural perspective, the focus is mainly on how
individuals perform in specific social, historical, and cultural contexts. The
106 4 Learner Autonomy and the CLA Perspective

distinctive socio-cultural features lay in viewing individuals as differentially posi-

tioned within contexts of learning. This implies that they may be free, or potentially
free, of their influence.

4.3 Reading Circles: A Mode of Collaborative Learner

Autonomy

The current section describes how the RCs implemented in our research proves to be
efficient in gradually developing a sense of responsibility and ownership, ultimately
autonomy, among Omani students. It explores how students perceive RCs as a useful
way to develop autonomy and how learner autonomy for Omani students is con-
ditioned and does not contradict with structured learning. Participants in our research
consider that the RCs represent interesting and stimulating learning opportunities
they identify with. They also represent a learning experience that gradually takes
them into a stage of autonomy through competitiveness and collaboration in a
friendly environment where peer scaffolding and teacher’s support and guidance
take place. Overall, they perceive RCs as good, interesting and useful. They insist on
the need for more effort as the event, quoting some interview responses “could be
better” and there is “room for improvement” (see Appendix F). One interesting and
positive development was students’ engagement in a movie watching activity. The
movie’s topic was the same as that of the text in hand. The movement from a text
choice for the RC to watching a movie on the topic of the text chosen then con-
ducting a debate session is a sign of gradual monitored development of learner
autonomy. This implies relying on improving the students’ use of research and
library skills to be able to find a movie on that topic. One participant in this RC says:
“in order to find a movie I used research skills, asked people, and used the Internet
and this is good for me as it means learning out-of-class” (see Appendix F). Similarly
interesting was the local story telling activity that took place in one of the RCs.
However, the majority of comments still express some dissatisfaction, claiming
that still “more is needed” at the level of pre-RC preparation, leadership and par-
ticipation. Although students’ constant sense of dissatisfaction has much to do with
criticism of peers’ competence as leaders, it can be interpreted as a sign of
awareness. It reflects a sense of awareness of the need to develop autonomy and
positive learning habits. It also reflects a psychological readiness to change, evi-
denced for instance by another participant who says: “I wish these reading circles
stayed longer [sic]…and that they become part of our courses and exams” (see
Appendix F).
Overall the majority of the respondents are satisfied with the RCs and think the
event reflects a learners’ success in correcting wrong perceptions of autonomy and
fostering their independent endeavours. They also claim that the actual low level of
autonomy is basically due to their wrong perceptions and negative attitudes as well
as the lack of preparation work as gradual development approach. Ultimately, they
4.3 Reading Circles: A Mode of Collaborative Learner Autonomy 107

highly value the role of reading as an efficient tool to learn a language. They
conclude that it is the absence of a reading culture in their society that is behind
these negative attitudes and low performances. The exploration the findings that
emerge from the implementation of the RCs in our research conclude that RCs
represent a potential mode that enhances autonomous and collaborative learning. As
a learning mode, they reflect the type of learner autonomy applicable and efficient in
the Omani context: autonomy in collaboration.
Pre-RC activities for the first RC meeting range from the simple act of reading the
text in a group to more extensive activities, such as sharing similar stories extracted
by Internet search and engaging in debates. Interestingly, the activities increase in
their level of appeal and demand as the research progresses. This constitutes a
growing degree of participants’ interest in working autonomously in a collaborative
environment facilitated by the gradual pace and the provisions for peer scaffolding
and teacher’s support and guidance. It shows the success of the RCs in promoting a
certain degree of autonomy. The variety and richness of the activities students
engage in while preparing for the RCs reflect a degree of autonomy. The pre-RC
activities mentioned in participants’ log books consist of reading the text, alone or
with peers, tutorials with teacher-researcher and an Internet search activity. The
majority of respondents express a more or less satisfied opinion of their own con-
tribution as well as that of leaders and peers. But they insist on the need for more
effort as they “could be better” and there is “room for improvement”. Some
respondents negatively comment on their peers’ work, suggesting that “it does not
show that they did any reading before the RC meeting” (see Appendix F).
In addition to the activities mentioned above and in preparation for RC meetings
2 and 3, one group of students engaged in a movie watching activity that later
developed into a Movie Circle (see CLA Resource Sheet 2). The movie’s topic was
the same as that of the text in hand. Others report sharing local stories with topics
related to the topic of the text proposed for the circle. Reflecting on their own
contribution as well as that of leaders and peers, respondents express more positive
opinions. For example, in RC 3, one of the students portrays his peers’ work as
“showing good preparation”. However, the majority of the comments still hold a
sense of dissatisfaction, claiming that still “more is needed” at the level of pre-RC
preparation, leadership and participation (see Appendix F). The constant sense of
dissatisfaction and call for more effort and work reflect the success of the RCs in
raising the students’ awareness of the importance of this aspect of autonomous
learning. A new and interesting activity emerged in the fourth RC. All the partic-
ipants decided to extend their preparation for the circle meeting with a deliberate
Debate Circle (see Resources Pack, Activity Sheet 3).
The analysis of the data gathered after the RCs confirm the findings of the diary
log books about the perceived role of RCs in promoting autonomy.
Post-implementation interviews and questionnaire findings are instrumental in
identifying aspects of learner autonomy in collaboration as developed gradually
through the RC learning opportunity and experience. Statistics show that Omani
students have a preference for group interaction and believe in the merits of
interdependence. Group belonging makes them feel comfortable, confident and less
108 4 Learner Autonomy and the CLA Perspective

stressed, 75 % of the respondents perceive themselves as independent and capable

of learning autonomously. Autonomy in a collaborative learning environment is
what they advocate. This echoes the CLA that our research proposes and advocates
as a new interpretation of autonomy in the Omani context. In fact, 66.7 % versus
33.4 % highly value their participation in RCs (Appendix H). As shown in the chart
and tables (Appendix I), 88.3 % of the responses portray the teacher’s image in the
eyes of the learners as a facilitator and 50 % of them consider that the learning
process is more important than the knowledge imparted. Students in the studied
population do not consider the teacher as redundant in the context of implementing
autonomous learning. Students, as well as teachers, think that the presence of the
teacher in autonomous learning activities is vital, especially with a redefined role.
Teachers are expected to carry out the role of guiding supporting and facilitating
students’ development of autonomy-related skills and their actual engagement in
autonomous learning activities.
Our research findings show that most of the responses to statements 5 to 9
(Appendix J) in the post-RC questionnaire confirm traces of reasonable and
encouraging levels of readiness, willingness and motivation among learners to
become autonomous. Responses range between 66.6 and 83.3 % in favour opposed
to 16.6 to 25 % against. The only exception was in statement 5 about which a
student says: “I feel mentally ready…but still fail to reach required level of moti-
vation”. These statistics indicate that students enjoy acceptable degrees of readi-
ness, willingness and motivation. Teachers also find that Omani students, in varied
degrees, have innate readiness and are motivated to become autonomous. Self-
esteem is believed to be one major condition for a learner to become autonomous.
Responses gathered here show that 91.7 % of the students agree that they enjoy
acceptable degrees of self-esteem and belief in their capability to achieve autonomy
(Appendix K). They find such personal constructs important for autonomy to be
developed. Findings from the RC experience indicate that students’ participation in
the RC helps them develop these constructs. One RC leader appraises her RC
experience, saying “I learned something good about myself…it is that I can do
more than what I thought. Now I believe I can”. It is this sense of confidence that
the participation in the RC develops in the learners and increases the level of their
self-esteem. This is an important development in the process of gradual develop-
ment of autonomy. This echoes the gradual approach to the development of
autonomy in a collaborative learning environment that the CLA and ICCA con-
tinuum in the present book propose.
Responses in our research in relation to the impact of voluntariness support the
view that scholars and researchers hold, considering voluntariness as central to
learner autonomy. In fact, only 41.7 % support the claim that forcing students into a
self-learning programme makes them benefit less. However, when it comes to
learners’ involvement in their learning, the percentage of agreement goes up to
66.7 % (Appendix L). Although they believe in having autonomous learning
incorporated in their formal learning in one way or another, students suggest that
they still prefer to voluntarily engage in learning that they identify with. They find
that some aspects of compulsion should be there but not at the expense of the
4.3 Reading Circles: A Mode of Collaborative Learner Autonomy 109

voluntary feature of the learning. They prefer some elements of flexibility to be

there. In fact, the chart and tables in Appendix M show that 58.3 % of the
respondents believe that flexibility is important as a condition to learner autonomy.
One of the major features of autonomous learning according to the students is that it
implies working at one’s own pace. This means that they highly appreciate the
flexibility that autonomous learning opportunities involve.
Exploring respondents’ perceptions of teacher support and peer support in the
context of autonomous learning, findings show that more or less than half (41.7 and
58.3 %, respectively) of the participants think the support teachers and peers pro-
vide is essential and important (Appendices N and O). Omani students’ inclination
towards forming and belonging to groups is reflected in their belief in the role of
their peers in the development of one another. They suggest that teachers need to
provide learners with opportunities to work together and to learn from each other
under the facilitating guidance, not compelling orders, of their teachers.
Overall the majority of the respondents show a high degree of satisfaction with
the RCs, appraising the change they cause to their perception of autonomy. In fact,
one student said: “my participation in the RC, both as a member and as a leader
changed my view on autonomy and helped me do independent activities”. Another
student claims that “the low level of autonomy we have as students is basically due
to the wrong way we see this kind of learning”. Ultimately, students highly value
the role of reading as an efficient “tool to learn a language”, as one student claims.
Results emerging from the RCs represent preliminary findings that indicate Omani
students’ readiness and positive attitudes to autonomy evidenced by their voluntary
and enthusiastic participation in the RCs.
Results emerging from the RCs indicate that Omani students enjoy a high level
of interdependence. For them, the presence of the teacher and that of the peers are
vital given the support they provide. Omani students enjoy a high degree of
motivation and readiness to adopt autonomous learning practices and they highly
praise the voluntary and flexible aspects of the RC as a learning opportunity
enabling them to develop autonomy in collaboration. These findings prove the
claim made in our research that learner autonomy in the Omani context needs to be
redefined with teachers, learners and the HEIs taking new roles within a learning
environment of collaboration that is conducive to autonomy. This supports the
validity of the CLA and its ICCAL continuum of gradual development of learner
autonomy in a collaborative learning environment (see Resources Pack).

4.4 Impact of SLV Use on the Development of Learner

Autonomy Awareness

In an attempt to make a deep exploration of students’ perceptions, their perspectives

and the related practices to validate findings from the quantitative part of our
research, interviews were conducted with participants in the RCs. Students’
110 4 Learner Autonomy and the CLA Perspective

Chart 4.1 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level (Whether or not having a preference
for self-learning)

responses during the interviews about whether they have a preference for learning
outside class, individually or in groups, at home and in the SLV venue portray a too
optimistic image. In fact, 60 % of the interviewed students showed a clear pref-
erence for self-learning while 10 % are undecided, which could be interpreted as
potentially a preference for autonomous learning, if they are properly directed (see
Chart 4.1). All the interviewed students show some belief in the importance of
self-learning but with varied degrees (see Chart 4.2). For example, 30 % of the
respondents answer that self-learning was important for them and they start liking
it. It is then at its early stage and much has to be done to further develop the skills
necessary for the improvement of their autonomous learning.
Feedback from interviews shows that 40 % of the interviewed students find
self-learning very important but their main problem is that they lack orientation,

Chart 4.2 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level (Degree of importance of
self-learning to the student)
4.4 Impact of SLV Use on the Development of Learner Autonomy Awareness 111

Chart 4.3 LRC use among Omani students at tertiary level (Class work and self-learning: which
is most important?)

guidance and training. If not well addressed, the element of knowing how to work
autonomously and use the SLVs entirely hinder students from developing auton-
omy. In fact, 30 % of the interviewees find self-learning very important but refrain
from it because they lack awareness of its merits. Their apprehension and lack of
familiarity with such learning opportunities prevent them from seeking contacts
outside their class environment, controlled by the teacher. They appraise the con-
fidence and feeling of safety that SLVs provide learners with, protecting them from
the anxiety and the embarrassment they would feel in class. As shown in Chart 4.2,
40 % of the respondents praise the sense of freedom they gain, or at least start
sensing and gaining, from their learning experience at the SLV. 27 % of the
respondents think that, thanks to the learning opportunities provided in the LRC
and the self-learning experience they had, they feel they managed to develop a
positive sense of ownership they believe they like and will work further to
reinforce.
During the interview, they equally stress their appraisal of the gradual aspect and
the collaborative approach to the development of learner autonomy. In fact, 13 % of
the students mention the aspect of guidance and preparatory class work as a sort of
condition to the success of their experience (see Chart 4.2). Equally, 13 % of the
students think that self-learning is very important because it relates to practical
issues in learning and as 7 % of the students refer to the sense of belonging that
self-learning makes them feel vis-à-vis their learning (see Chart 4.2). In the same
vein, teachers’ responses to the statement whether class work or work at the SLV is
most important, show that according to 70 % of the teachers (see Chart 4.3)
self-learning and work in class complement each other, and accordingly they are not
mutually exclusive. This view echoes the existing two modes of learner autonomy
in-class and beyond class.
The other 30 % of the teachers back this claim, adding that class work should be
the starting point for self-learning, thus stressing the close link between learning in
112 4 Learner Autonomy and the CLA Perspective

class and learning outside class; learning collaboratively and autonomously. This
further echoes the validity of the proposed CLA interpretation of learner autonomy
in our research. The link, identified and stressed by teachers, yields the perception
that teachers play a vital role in the promotion of autonomous learning and defies a
common misconception that learner autonomy means the retirement of the teacher.
From the teachers’ perspective, the term deficient role is used to describe the
lack of success on the part of the teachers to promote autonomous learning as a
necessary form of learning that complements class learning. This finds its expla-
nation in students’ lack of self-motivation and their refrain from taking the
responsibility of actually engaging in this kind of learning. According to them, their
students are more explicit in their preference for classroom-based learning. One
student reports: “[sic] in class I know what to do because the teacher tells us but
outside class no one is there to tell me what to do and how”. Another student finds
autonomous learning mainly useful when it is related to what goes on in class,
saying “I like working in the LRC only when the teacher sends us to do some
homework or search in the library part of the course we study” (see Appendix B).
However, clearly, not all students see autonomous learning as so useful. They
always link it with proper guidance and class work, reflecting their identified
responsible reliance on teachers. One student says: “I prefer studying myself…but
what I am given in class is a better way to help myself”. Other students are more
enthusiastic about their own learning and claim that they need to work on their own
as a teacher cannot explain everything. What happens in class is important as it
provides them with guidelines for their own learning. It can be used, as they said, as
the starting point. In the same respect, one of the interviewed teachers claimed that
“what [students] do in class is the starting point and they follow some strategies that
might help them. But what they do by themselves is for sure more important
because what they learn in class they will apply when they work [on their own].”
This is further recommended by a student, claiming that “what we do by ourselves
is most important. The biggest improvement I got was from out class” (see
Appendix B). When asked to be more explicit about the advantages of SLVs and
the development of autonomous learning skills, students report that learning in the
SLV enables them to work on things they are really interested in. This is in keeping
with the high preference the majority show to learning what interests them. This
also mirrors the need for students to feel the sense of identification with the learning
opportunity they are offered. 50 % of the respondents show a preference to ‘What
interests them’ with 24.3 % who ‘Totally agree’ and 25.7 % ‘Agree’ (see Table 2.4
in Chap. 2). Understanding what learner autonomy and self-learning are to students
is important since 76.9 % of them see the development of autonomous learning
skills and their integration in all courses as a must. A large percentage of students
(87 %) say that the SLV has been instrumental in this, perceiving it as very
important (see Table 2.22 in Chap. 2 and Chart 3.5 in Chap. 3 for more detailed
statistics).
Rating the usefulness of different kinds of resources available in the SLV, it is
quite interesting to know from the SLV staff as well as from students that there are
many inquiries and requests for information regarding how to access resources
4.4 Impact of SLV Use on the Development of Learner Autonomy Awareness 113

in-campus and off-campus. This implies their readiness to work beyond class and to
take responsibility for their own learning once properly guided, given the resources
and equipped with the skills needed. This is further reiterated by the request made
by them to have a proper SLV resources guide which is apparently not available, or
not user-friendly. In fact, as shown in Table (2.29 in Chap. 2), 75 % of the students
consider the feature of ‘User-friendly’ as important. This can perhaps be an indi-
cation that students see the self-learning resources more as a convenient collection
of materials rather than as a place to actively work on their autonomous learning
skills. Likewise, when asked to identify the most difficult aspect of working in the
SLV, none of the answers refers to matters of planning, monitoring progress, and
evaluating. Perhaps students interpret this question as being about the resources
more than their learning but even with this interpretation, their answers indicate that
students see the SLV primarily as a resource centre. It seems that the perceptions of
the students are still unclear. This further justifies the need to redefine learner
autonomy, change students’ perceptions of SLVs and gradually develop learner
autonomy skills. The need for ground work, which the ALOP offers, emerges as
central in this redefining process. Although most students claim that working in the
SLVs is helpful for them to learn how to learn, 27 % of the respondents (see
Chart 4.4) think it is difficult to find the right materials and 23 % refrain from using
the SLV because the atmosphere there is not favourable. In the same vein, 53 % of
the respondents find working autonomously in the SLV difficult with 30 % due to
the lack of guidance and support. Interview questions asking for recommendations
and problems about using the SLVs do not reveal any problems with the way
materials are organised. They rather reveal a great deal of unfamiliarity with
information searches, library work, and use of learning resources. These relate to
the development of learning skills that are directed towards the development of

Chart 4.4 Omani students’ attitudes to self-access and autonomous learning (Finding the right
materials)
114 4 Learner Autonomy and the CLA Perspective

Chart 4.5 Omani students’ attitudes to self-access and autonomous learning (It is easy to learn
autonomously)

learner autonomy. This reiterates the importance of gradual development of learner

autonomy by equipping students with autonomous learning skills through training
and guidance. It further stresses the need for ground work, preparing students to
develop learner autonomy by equipping them with the necessary skills in a gradual
process. It is believed that the responsibility to play the training role is that of the
ALOP in the absence of a fully integrated formal course.
Although respondents admit having been introduced to the resources and to
CALL that is integrated in their courses, the issue of having a proper help desk with
specialised self-learning staff (not a library clerk) remains of paramount importance.
During the interviews students and teachers as well informally mention the issue of
proper coordination and liaison between the SLV and the teaching staff. At an initial
stage of its development, the ease of learning autonomously depends largely on the
existence of learning support. Teachers admit that they need to work more closely
in the SLV, teaching students how the SLV is organised and how to use the
interactive computer catalogue and a hard copy of the catalogue (see Chart 4.5).
What is missing, according to the respondents, is students’ awareness of these
resources and a proper training in efficiently using them. Such awareness is cur-
rently impossible to reach with the lack of training, guidance and support. In fact,
60 % of the respondents (see Chart 4.6) claim that they have never heard of
tutorials and training sessions and 23 % answer ‘Don’t know’, which implies lack
of awareness. Training and developing the ability to find appropriate resources is
reported in our research as a shortcoming on the part of the teachers and course
designers.
It is strongly believed that the presence of someone to help in the SLV is as
much necessary as useful. 40 % of the students think it is a great idea, 23 % find it
‘Helpful’ and ‘Very important’, respectively and 14 % of the respondents consider
4.4 Impact of SLV Use on the Development of Learner Autonomy Awareness 115

Chart 4.6 Omani students’ attitudes to self-access and autonomous learning (Tutorials and
training sessions on how to use SLVs are offered)

Chart 4.7 Omani students’ attitudes to self-access and autonomous learning (Opinion about
having someone to help)

it a ‘Good idea’ (see Chart 4.7). The presence of someone to help (preferably the
teacher, if not a specialised SLV staff member) is influential. The on-going support
is evaluated very positively by students.
Interview results help portray a clearer picture of how students perceive
autonomous learning. The development of autonomous learning requires intensive
work to help learners take more responsibility for their learning and equip them
with the necessary skills to do so. Learners are encouraged to take what they learn
in class beyond the classroom situation and transfer the knowledge and skills they
acquire in an attempt to create new learning opportunities. Teachers and students
find autonomous learning an important goal in a training course like the ALOP.
116 4 Learner Autonomy and the CLA Perspective

Chart 4.8 Omani students’ attitudes to self-access and autonomous learning (Most important part
of learning)

However, when asked which is more important for their learning, their work in
the classroom, or the work they do by themselves, not all students are so positive.
70 % of the teachers (see Chart 4.8) think that their students find what they do in
class as the most important part of their learning whereas the other 30 % talk about
a mixture of in class and out of class learning. The classroom is the most important
source of learning because they find it hard to work on their own. This is justified
by the sense of confidence classroom situation creates among Omani students. It
reiterates the collaborative aspect learner autonomy has in the Omani context and
the importance of adopting a gradual approach.
However, other students are more explicit in their preference for
classroom-based learning. In fact, feedback from interviews (see Appendix B)
indicates that a number of comments and answers are interesting and can tell
something about students’ opinions. For example, according to one student, “To
follow the teacher is the best way, I think [sic]. It’s useful for me to improve my
English, the teacher teaches us step-by-step [sic], and the teacher knows what we
need, what our weakness is”. Another student claims that: “Class is more important,
[sic] the teacher can follow-up. [Sic] Non-class work we do in spare time.
Self-learning I don’t feel the significance of the progress.” This student finds it
difficult to monitor progress.
Another student equates autonomous learning with reading, saying: “Classroom,
[sic] it’s more interactive, correction. By reading a book, you learn new words or
grammatical structure, by listening and speaking to others, you have more input,
more different kinds of learning. Reading might be boring.” Formal learning is
always equated to learning in class, at least as an initiation stage preparing them for
autonomous learning in SLVs. The respect Omani students have for the formal
aspect of learning explains their preference for what they learn in class.
Although students express their dissatisfaction with the limited opportunities
availed for them to learn autonomously and the lack of a coherent programme that
trains them to work efficiently in the SLV, the image for them is still bright. They
are optimistic about their readiness, willingness, motivation and abilities as well as
the readiness of the teachers to make up for these shortcomings in the future.
Students consider that what might enhance or hinder their use of the SLVs is mainly
4.4 Impact of SLV Use on the Development of Learner Autonomy Awareness 117

Table 4.2 Omani students’ attitudes to self-access and autonomous learning (Correlation test 17)
Variable 1 Variable 2 Pearson correlation coefficient
LRC frequency of use No free time 0.225
Fair frequency of LRC use No free time 0.482
lrc frequency of use Noise −0.139
Fair frequency of LRC use Noise 0.193
Fair frequency of LRC use Not part of the exam 0.382
LRC frequency of use Don’t like working alone 0.299
Fair frequency of LRC use Don’t like working alone 0.563

the lack of time. In fact, there is a significant Pearson correlation of 0.225 between
the variable ‘LRC frequency’ and the variable of ‘No free time’ and the correlation
becomes stronger at 0.482 (Pearson) between the ‘Fair LRC frequency’ and the
variable of ‘No free time’ (see Table 4.2).
None of the responses reveals any structural problem in the working of the SLV.
While noise, and the overall environment of the self-learning, do not seem to have
an impact on the frequency of the LRC use since the correlation is negative at
Pearson (−0.139), the fairness of this frequency had much to do with the variable of
‘Noise’ with a correlation of .193 (see Table 4.2). There is a significant correlation
between the fairness with which the LRC is used and the integration of self-learning
activities in exams (‘Not part of exams’) at a Pearson correlation coefficient of
0.382 (see Table 4.2). Whether students like to work on their own or not is another
factor that hinders self-learning and has an impact on the use of the LRC and its
frequency. The correlation between this aspect and the LRC frequency is as sig-
nificant as between the aspect of liking to work alone and the fair frequency of LRC
use at Pearson coefficients of 0.299 and 0.563, respectively (see Table 4.2). It is
found, during interviews, that more proficient users seem to use the SLVs less. Is
this because they use other resources? Does it mean that the less proficient the class
is, the less they use other resources? There is a weak correlation of 0.016 between
the LRC frequency and access to library resources (see Table 4.3). However, when
it comes to the use of Internet resources and the use of LRC resources, the cor-
relations are significant at 0.491 (Pearson) and 0.303 (Pearson), respectively (see
Table 4.3). In other words, students want their teachers only to guide, not to take
decisions for them.
If so, then the sense of ownership and freedom expressed during the interviews
is further stressed here. Similarly, there is a significant negative correlation of
−0.207 (see Table 4.4) between the LRC frequency and the use of other resources
other than the ones available at the LRC. Yet, this correlation remains negative but
lower at −0.241 (see Table 4.4) between the ‘Fair LRC frequency’ variable and the
materials teachers referred their students to. In the same vein, the correlation
between the ‘Fair LRC frequency’ variable and the use of other resources by the
students remains negative but also higher at Pearson −0.740 (see Table 4.4).
The above correlations may mean that once they try the materials teachers direct
them to, they feel they were satisfactorily useful and then feel less need to use other
118 4 Learner Autonomy and the CLA Perspective

Table 4.3 Omani students’ attitudes to self-access and autonomous learning (Correlation test 18)
Correlations
LRC To use Accessing library Internet
frequency resources resources resources
LRC Pearson 1.000 .303b .016 .491a
frequency correlation – .000 .793 .000
Sig. (2-tailed)
268 268 268 268
N
To use Pearson .303b 1.000 .144a .285b
resources correlation .000 – .018 .000
Sig. (2-tailed)
268 268 268 268
N
Accessing Pearson .016 .144a 1.000 .053
library correlation .793 .018 – .388
resources Sig. (2-tailed)
268 268 268 268
N
Internet Pearson .491b .285b .053 1.000
resources correlation .000 .000 .388
Sig. (2-tailed)
268 268 268 268
N
a
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
b
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Table 4.4 Omani students’ attitudes to self-access and autonomous learning (Correlation test 19)
Correlations
LRC Fair LRC Materials Other
frequency frequency you refer resources?
students to
LRC frequency Pearson correlation 1.000 .295a −.562b −.207
Sig. (2-tailed) – .022 .000 .113
N
60 60 60 60
Fair LRC frequency Pearson correlation .295a 1.000 −.241 −.740b
Sig. (2-tailed) .022 – .064 .000
N
60 60 60 60
Materials you refer Pearson correlation −.562b −.241 1.000 .352b
students to Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .064 – .006
N
60 60 60 60
Other resources? Pearson correlation −.207 −.740b .352b 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) .113 .000 .006 –
N
60 60 60 60
a
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
b
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
4.4 Impact of SLV Use on the Development of Learner Autonomy Awareness 119

Table 4.5 Omani students’ attitudes to self-access and autonomous learning (Correlation test 20)
Correlations
LRC ELT TOEFL/IELTS Readers and
frequency books literature
LRC Pearson correlation 1.000 .409b .141a .191b
frequency Sig. (2-tailed) – .000 .021 .002
N
268 268 268 268
ELT books Pearson correlation .409b 1.000 .564b .457b
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 – .000 .000
N
268 268 268 268
TOEFL/IELTS Pearson correlation .141a .564b 1.000 .586b
Sig. (2-tailed) .021 .000 – .000
N
268 268 268 268
Readers and Pearson Correlation .191b .457b .586b 1.000
literature Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .000 .000 –
N
268 268 268 268
a
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
b
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

resources. Exploring the materials they prefer to use at the SLV and whether or not
they correlate with the LRC frequency, the results are interesting. In fact, there are
significant correlations with English Language skills and learning materials, which
are found user-friendly and efficient. For example, the correlation coefficient is as
significant as 0.409 with ELT Books; 0.141 with TOEFL/IELTS preparation
materials and old exams and 0.191 with Readers and Literature, especially graded
readers (see Table 4.5). There are more significant correlations with audio-visual
and electronic materials such as 0.222 with movies, 0.411 with games, 0.261 with
TV, 0.264 with videos and 0.146 with songs (see Table 4.6). These materials
probably have high face validity for students and therefore are likely to provide
good ways of making people use the resources more.
A major factor hindering the development of learner autonomy is the lack of an
adequate and proper efficient ALOP and even the ones implemented are limited or
possibly poor. This is in reiteration of the gradual approach with which the
development of learner autonomy needs to be addressed. This is a factor that is seen
in relation to students’ perception of the usefulness of the resources. A poor
introduction does not provide students with sufficient knowledge of the resources
and is a severe handicap for them when using the SLV. It is also related to students’
use of the resources. There are significant correlations of 0.302 (Pearson) and 0.216
(Pearson) between the fair frequency of LRC resources use and the implementation
of ‘Workshops to guide’ and the existence of ‘Enough training’, respectively (see
Table 4.7). In fact, in practice there is a significant Pearson negative correlation of
−0.448 between students’ perception of the LRC Desk feature as supportive and
helpful and the Fair LRC Frequency. However, this negative correlation becomes
positive and significant at 0.196 (Pearson) between the students’ use of the
120 4 Learner Autonomy and the CLA Perspective

Table 4.6 Omani students’ attitudes to self-access and autonomous learning (Correlation test 21)
Correlations
LRC Movies Games TV Videos Songs
frequency
LRC Pearson 1.000 .222b 411b .261b .264b .0146a
frequency correlation –
Sig. (2-tailed)
268 .000 .000 .000 .000 .017
N
268 268 268 268 268
Movies Pearson .222b 1.000 .149a .609b .542b .495b
correlation .000 – .014 .000 .000 .000
Sig. (2-tailed)
268 268 268 268 268 268
N
Games Pearson .411b .149 1.000 .244b .236b .384b
correlation .000 .014 – .000 .000 .000
Sig. (2-tailed)
268 268 268 268 268 268
N
TV Pearson .261b .609b .244b 1.000 .636b .693b
correlation .000 .000 .000 – .000 .000
Sig. (2-tailed)
268 268 268 268 268 268
N
Videos Pearson .264b .542b .236b .636b 1.000 .572b
correlation .000 .000 .000 .000 – .000
Sig. (2-tailed)
268 268 268 268 268 268
N
a
Songs Pearson .146 .495b .384b .693b .572b 1.000
correlation .017 .000 .000 .000 .000 –
Sig. (2-tailed)
268 268 268 268 268 268
N
a
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
b
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Table 4.7 Omani students’ attitudes to self-access and autonomous learning (Correlation test 22)
Fair LRC Workshops to Enough
frequency guide training
Fair LRC Pearson 1.000 .302a .216a
frequency correlation – .000 .000
Sig. (2-tailed)
268 268 268
N
Workshops to Pearson .302a 1.000 .861a
guide correlation .000 – .000
Sig. (2-tailed)
268 268 268
N
Enough training Pearson .216a .861a 1.000
correlation .000 .000 –
Sig. (2-tailed)
268 268 268
N
a
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
4.4 Impact of SLV Use on the Development of Learner Autonomy Awareness 121

Table 4.8 Omani students’ attitudes to self-access and autonomous learning (Correlation test 23)
Fair LRC Usefulness Flexibility LRC desk
frequency of the of the supportive
LRC LRC and
helpful
Fair LRC Pearson 1.000 .301b .196b −448b
frequency correlation – .000 .001 .000
Sig. (2-tailed)
268 268 268 268
N
Usefulness of the Pearson .301b 1.000 .274b −.053
LRC correlation .000 – .000 .389
Sig. (2-tailed)
268 268 268 268
N
Flexibility of the Pearson .196b .274b 1.000 −.120a
LRC correlation .001 .000 – .049
Sig. (2-tailed)
268 268 268 268
N
LRC desk Pearson −.448b −.053 −.120a 1.000
supportive correlation .000 .389 .049 –
and helpful Sig. (2-tailed)
268 268 268 268
N
a
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
b
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

resources and the flexibility of the LRC (see Table 4.8). Although the direction of
causality cannot be firmly determined, it can be explained by the fact that the extra
support, approachability and friendliness, as mentioned by students during the
interviews, has an influence on the number of students using the resources.
When asked for additional suggestions, several students request more help and
the presence of teachers in the SLV. There are two possible explanations for this.
This is possibly because the resources are badly organised, the SLV staff members
are not helpful and the catalogue difficult to work with. It may also possibly be
because students do not develop the skill of locating appropriate resources during
this course. Both possibilities are plausible and have serious implications. If it is a
matter of students’ failure to develop autonomous learning skills, this means that
the classroom does not provide students with the necessary skills and guiding
resources that help develop learner autonomy skills. Links between the classroom
and the resources are probably weak or absent. Addressing this deficiency is at the
heart of redefining learner autonomy in the Omani context.
This deficiency is one of the main obstacles to using the SLV. The potential of
the resources is not unleashed. This further aggravates the difficulties students face
when working at the LRC. In fact, responding to one interview question ‘What is
most important at the SLV: the atmosphere or the input?’ Chart (4.9) shows that
35 % of the students find the atmosphere most important. This means that the
structure, facilities, guidance, support, and staff members at the SLV play a decisive
role in making it useful or not. Only 15 % of the respondents mention the input,
122 4 Learner Autonomy and the CLA Perspective

Chart 4.9 Omani students’ attitudes to self-access and autonomous learning (What is most
important: the atmosphere or the input in the SLV?)

which can be interpreted as an indication of the degree of satisfaction students have

with the input. But the majority of the students (40 %) combine both the atmo-
sphere and the input, thus implying deficiency at both sides and the need for the
HEI (teachers and LRC staff) to further work towards the improvement of the SLV.
In this respect, there is a highly significant correlation of 0.603 (Pearson)
between the ‘Fair LRC frequency’ and the difficulty of the materials available at the
SLV. This contradicts with what is identified above as a satisfaction with these
materials. This contradiction, however, can be justified by a sort of confusion
students feel when they do not find the adequate support and guidance. One of the
obstacles in this respect can be the use of language which is, as identified from
informal feedback from LRC staff, too difficult for some students. Students may
equally refrain from using the resources because they probably do not see the
advantage they have over other resources or probably lack awareness of their
merits. There is no relationship between previous experience with working in an
SLV and the difficulty students have in using the resources. The poor integration of
autonomous learning into the class curriculum emerges as another obstacle to the
development of learner autonomy. There is a strong significant correlation between
how helpful the LRC is and students’ opinion about the introduction to the LRC
with a Pearson coefficient of 0.707 (see Table 4.9). In the same vein, there is a
significant strong correlation between the perception of the teacher’s role at the
SLV as a collaborator and the materials teachers refer students to with a Pearson
correlation coefficient of 0.308 (see Table 4.10). There is a more significant cor-
relation between the collaborative role of the teacher, as perceived by both the
teachers and the students, and what students actually do in the SLV, with a Pearson
correlation coefficient of 0.488 (see Table 4.10).
Exploring teachers’ perceptions of their students’ and their own role in the LRC,
a number of significant correlations emerge. A central understanding is that in
4.4 Impact of SLV Use on the Development of Learner Autonomy Awareness 123

Table 4.9 Omani students’ attitudes to self-access and autonomous learning (Correlation test 24)
Correlations
How Students Students
helpful opinion view
about the of having
intro to support at
LRC the
LRC
How helpful Pearson 1.000 .707a .004
correlation – .000 .976
Sig. (2-tailed)
60 60 60
N
Students opinion about Pearson .707a 1.000 .200
the intro to LRC correlation .000 – .125
Sig. (2-tailed)
60 60 60
N
Students view of Pearson .004 .200 1.000
having correlation .976 .125 –
support at the LRC Sig. (2-tailed)
60 60 60
N
a
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Table 4.10 Omani students’ attitudes to self-access and autonomous learning (Correlation test 25)
Materials you What do Teacher
refer students to they do collaborator
Materials you Pearson correlation 1.000 .575b .308a
refer students to students to sig. (2-tailed) – .000 .017
N
60 60 60
What do they Pearson correlation Sig. .575b 1.000 .488b
do (2-tailed) N .000 – .000
60 60 60
Teacher Pearson correlation Sig. .308a .488b 1.000
collaborator (2-tailed) N .017 .000 –
60 60 60
a
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
b
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

LRCs almost all respondents perceive themselves as learners, implying that the
LRC is not a library or materials collection place. It is rather an SLV where students
go to learn. There is a significant strong correlation between this perception and the
guiding and orientation role of the teacher in the LRC with a Pearson coefficient of
0.583 (see Table 4.11). The correlation of 0.495 between the guiding and orien-
tation role of the teacher in the LRC and the aspect of teacher-collaborator is
equally significant. The collaborative role implies that teachers need to carry out a
124 4 Learner Autonomy and the CLA Perspective

Table 4.11 Omani students’ attitudes to self-access and autonomous learning (Correlation test 26)
Correlations
In LRC they are Teacher Orienting role
learners collaborator in LRC
In LRC they are Pearson 1.000 .255a .583b
learners correlation – .050 .000
Sig.
60 60 60
(2-tailed) N
Teacher Pearson .255a 1.000 .495b
collaborator correlation .050 – .000
Sig.
60 60 60
(2-tailed) N
Orienting role in Pearson .583b .495b 1.000
LRC correlation .000 .000 –
Sig.
60 60 60
(2-tailed) N
a
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
b
Correlation is significant at the level (2-tailed)

monitoring task of the students’ progress. The correlations are as significant as

0.262 and 0.495, respectively. This is a further echo and support of the CLA’s
gradual development of autonomy in a collaborative learning environment where
the teacher’s presence is central. It is a vital stage in the ICCA continuum proposed
in the present book. The correlations presented above indicate limitations that
characterise the actual role that teachers play in the promotion of autonomous
learning and the enhancement of SLV use. They equally stress the firm belief and
perception of a more proactive role teachers are expected to play. In fact, data from
interviews reveal that 53 % of the respondents (see Chart 4.10) think that some
teachers are proactive and helpful in directing students to use the SLVs. But they
insist that these instances reflect individual attempts from individual teachers, not a
well-established coherent programme. 17 % of the respondents claim that they find
their teachers ‘only sometimes’ proactive in this direction while a similar 17 %
believe teachers are not proactive.
It seems that this situation relates the readiness of the teachers, and the students,
since 23 % of the respondents claim that teachers show readiness to direct students
to use SLVs and offer opportunities for autonomy. 44 % of the respondents
describe this readiness as occasional while 13 % report that their teachers never
show any readiness and they claim that the justification they have from these
teachers is the fact that students are not ready for that. Similarly 20 % of the
respondents justify the non-readiness by the non-availability of SLVs (see
Chart 4.11) in their HEIs.
Another possible interpretation of the deficient role of the teacher is the lack of
an autonomous learning culture and the limited knowledge about learner autonomy
among teachers. Teachers’ responses to Sect. 7 of the Teachers’ questionnaire
entitled Language Counselling Skills for Teachers in LRC and Self-Access Centres
4.4 Impact of SLV Use on the Development of Learner Autonomy Awareness 125

Chart 4.10 Omani students’ attitudes to self-access and autonomous learning (Teachers are
proactive and helpful in directing students to use SLVs)

Chart 4.11 Omani students’ attitudes to self-access and autonomous (Teachers’ readiness to
direct students to use SLVs and offer opportunities for autonomy)

interestingly indicate a deficient role of the teacher. In fact, 58.3 % of the

respondents left this section empty (see Tables 4.28 and 4.29), indicating that they
do not know anything about autonomous learning skills (macro-skills and
micro-skills). This shows teachers’ lack of awareness and knowledge in relation to
learner autonomy, an issue that requires further care. Without teachers’ conviction
with the positive impact of autonomous learning and their awareness of its merits
and knowledge about it, attempts to develop learner autonomy are bound to fail
(Table 4.12).
126 4 Learner Autonomy and the CLA Perspective

Table 4.12 Omani students’ attitudes to self-access and autonomous learning (Macro skills
section answered)
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid Yes 25 41.7 41.7 41.7
No 35 58.3 58.3 100.0
Total 60 100.0 100.0

4.5 Pedagogical Implications of Autonomous Learning

The current section tries to explore the various pedagogical implications autonomous
learning and learner autonomy development reconceptualisation imply. It addresses
various issues that the implementation of autonomous learning poses in relation to
learning environment, teachers, learners, curriculum, and methodology. The adop-
tion of autonomous learning has various implications on pedagogical choices in
HEIs. Although, in principle, all forms of pedagogy have their place in autonomous
learning, it has to be understood that appropriateness to the context remains a
condition to be achieved for any pedagogical choice to be made. There is clearly
identify the purpose, limitations and constraints of pedagogies used and link them
with the current context. There must be clear spaces for learners to exercise their
autonomy with due pragmatic consideration of the context realities. This applies
more severely to the environment of the SLVs. In fact, as drawn from research
findings about the Omani context, an autonomous learning environment without
proper guidance, rationale clarification and professional support is likely to result in
autonomous learning disillusionment. There is the feeling of being autonomous
learners without actually being so. Learners wrongly see themselves as autonomous
when they mostly spend their time in the SLV chatting, doing homework and mere
word-processing tasks with no true autonomous learning in its true sense. In fact, in
such mere activities, there is no sign of autonomous learning skills development.
This echoes the actual situation in the majority of HEIs surveyed where LRCs are
only a space for trivial activities. The central pedagogical implication on the learning
environment is that it has to provide students with more than materials. It has to
provide them with real active learning opportunities and gradually train them to put
into practice autonomous learning skills and strategies (Table 4.13).
In an autonomous learning environment, teachers see that they themselves
become learners. They need to experience autonomous learning themselves, as
Smith (2000) seconds the view, adding that teachers need to be committed to

Table 4.13 Omani students’ attitudes to self-access and autonomous learning (Micro skills
section answered)
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid Yes 25 41.7 41.7 41.7
No 35 58.3 58.3 100.0
Total 60 100.0 100.0
4.5 Pedagogical Implications of Autonomous Learning 127

developing themselves. In fact, teachers admit the existence of some degrees of

self-development deficiency on the part of the teachers. Another issue related to
teachers is their readiness to advocate and embrace autonomy. It is important for
teachers to find the answer to the question: How can teachers be psychologically
prepared? This is important as it touches upon the issue of anxiety among teachers
having to depart from their comfort zone and embrace new roles. Feedback from
colleagues in informal chats during pre-questionnaire sessions shows that teachers
have more or less varying degrees of anxiety vis-à-vis autonomy. Anxiety is often
caused by the apprehensions from students’ reactions, the pedagogic skills, the
degree of familiarity with the resources, and technology that the adoption and the
development of learner autonomy stipulate. However, these apprehensions and this
anxiety do not hide teachers’ genuine and central belief in the merits of autonomous
learning. They need to acquire relevant knowledge and skills in relation to the ways
that can help them set up autonomous learning in terms of design, resourcing, and
needs analysis systems. They also need to develop themselves in terms of coun-
selling and how it is appropriate to intervene (Pemberton et al. 2001).
Learners’ ability to judge the appropriateness of learning materials and value
informed choice is vital in their direction towards autonomy. The defective ability
of materials appropriateness on the part of the learners justifies learners’ tendency to
do what they are asked to do, and to use materials teachers refer them to. This
reflects an inclination towards waiting for the teacher for instruction and helping or
even imposing choice of materials shown in learners’ responses. In the same vein,
the development of what Benson and Voller (1997) call ‘negotiation’ skill is
important as it relates to the extent to which learners can make decisions based on
their own needs. This defies the whole learning situation when it comes to exam-
inations and curricula. In fact, learners’ choice seems to be largely affected by such
constraints. This echoes learners’ tendency to be curriculum-bound and
exam-oriented. They see the benefit of any learning task in relation to its impli-
cation on their exams, marks and grades. This is clearly reflected in their response
concerning reasons for using and working in SLVs. As drawn from the research that
underpins the CLA, students claim that they use SLVs if it is part of their formal
learning. They add that in order to use it, it should be compulsory, part of an exam,
and required by teachers. SLV compulsion is connected and correlated to the
development of autonomous learning. The major issue related to curriculum design
and autonomy is the way new learning/teaching techniques and methods oriented
towards learner autonomy can be integrated across the curriculum and in personal
learning spheres. This claim indicates a mounting need that emerge from our
research. Students express their desire to have autonomous learning activities and
tasks incorporated in their formal learning. In fact, the incorporation of such
learning, although expressed by respondents in terms of compulsion, is perceived as
central in learners’ direction towards autonomous learning.
Pedagogical issues are important considerations, both in detail and in principle,
and need to be taken into account. Failing to address these issues properly, the
system is bound to fail. Given the nature of autonomy, it is absurd to talk about
128 4 Learner Autonomy and the CLA Perspective

‘appropriate methods’ devoid of context specific details. The focus needs to be on

the learning environment rather than methodology as such in its abstract absurd
meaning. Criteria for a positive learning environment involve choice, flexibility,
adaptability, and suitability. Responses in relation to the features of SLVs in our
research mirror to some extent six factors of good management, suitable location
and facilities, staff training and development, learner training and development,
using the cultural strengths of the learners, and appropriate materials. In continu-
ation with appropriate materials, the debate is on-going around the relationship
between autonomous learning materials and the promotion of learner autonomy.
Research findings related to materials recall recurrent discussions in the literature
about learners’ beliefs about learning materials, guided discovery tasks based on
authentic data, fluency activities for pairs and groups, student-generated materials,
and peer evaluation guidelines. The following key issues discussed in the literature
are central to the development of learner autonomy, and research findings seem to
back this importance.
One further impact of autonomous learning on teaching practices is the change
in teaching and learning philosophy that the development of learner autonomy
entails. Research findings on the influence that autonomous learning has on the role
of the teacher and the teaching practice enable the sketching out of major teaching
philosophy change aspects. One major impact is the influence that advocating
autonomous learning on the teacher in relation to the enhancement of knowledge
seeking. More increased awareness of autonomous learning and learner autonomy
manifests itself in increasing attempts from teachers to make substantial back-
ground reading into learner autonomy and self-learning. Attempts are also directed
towards the exploration of materials available, and to be availed, for learners at the
SLVs. These attempts reflect a degree of awareness on the part of the Omani
teachers and students, as drawn from our research, of the need to embrace auton-
omous learning and learner autonomy. Congruent with this is their awareness of the
need to re-visit their learners’ self-learning, study skills and learning strategies. As
one of the teachers puts it, reading about learner autonomy, and attempting to
implement it, “certainly helped me think about how the learners in front of me in
my normal teaching role actually learn and what I can advise them to do outside
class”. This awareness is evident in the significant changes that teachers, as they
claim during the interviews, start making in their course profiles, incorporating
autonomy components (Appendix C). The second impact relates to the increasingly
felt change in teaching philosophy from teaching to supporting learning, coun-
selling, guiding and orienting learners throughout the process. Seeing tertiary level
students struggling with their learning skills and content, as well as language and
study skills, in their university courses and trying to familiarise themselves with the
new learning environment, calls for a change in teacher’s role. It is the belief in the
teacher’s role in making learners more aware and more autonomous so that they can
continue studying and acquire self-confidence and autonomy. Self-confidence, and
ultimately learner autonomy are currently gaining momentum and they are central
graduate attributes and generic skills advocated recently worldwide. The emerging
perception of the teaching task does not embrace teaching-specific language and
4.5 Pedagogical Implications of Autonomous Learning 129

content on their own but rather the development of learning skills that target the
facilitation of future learning. The new philosophy of teaching echoes the recent
trend to shift from teaching to learning. Change in teaching philosophy equates
more focus on strategies and generates more classroom focus on the practice of
more skills and strategies. Research findings focus on providing a new dimension of
homework, for example, as an opportunity for learners to apply and practice the
strategies learnt in class and the warmers become an opportunity to share experi-
ence of the strategies. The third impact is on the understanding of what learner
autonomy means for Omani students and the approach to autonomy development
where respect to the structured type of learning and conditioned autonomy Omani
students prefer should prime. Research findings show that learning in the Omani
context is structured but allows for the development of learner autonomy with a
redefined perception of gradual development of learner autonomy in a collaborative
learning environment put forward by the CLA in our research. Participants’
responses to the questionnaires (Appendices A and G) show that more than half of
the students in the present research do not believe in creative chaos and imagina-
tion. A possible interpretation of this is that these students prefer structured and
organised learning, where they follow clear instructions. The way they process the
input in their learning shows a preference for reasoning over imagination. They
prefer to see and understand the logical sequence, which reflects an inclination
towards structured and organised learning where they would feel safe and moni-
tored rather than engaging in learning experiences for which they are not prepared,
as one respondent claims, saying: “For me, we are not prepared to be completely
autonomous…and I want our teachers to prepare us for that with activities like the
reading circle” (see Appendix B). This inclination is further supported by students’
prudent and serious approach to deadlines. However, their preference to have clear
instructions to follow does not necessarily and solely reflect a full inclination
towards structured learning. It rather represents confidence-building measures and a
safety tool that students, given their teacher-centred prior education background,
need to engage in before embarking on any different learning undertaking, auton-
omous learning for instance. This can be interpreted initially as a non-preference for
autonomous learning, given that 63.5 % of the students prefer a logical sequence.
This non-preference gradually disappears with proper guidance, trial and support.
However, the interpretation changes when 82.1 % of them show a preference to
develop their own projects, using their own imagination. It is this concept of
ownership and taking responsibility for their own learning that emerges from the
RCs. Providing students with the freedom to select their own articles to present in
the RCs is an attempt to develop in students the power and sense of ownership.
The sense of ownership can be interpreted from the angle of the experiential
learning aspect of the RCs, which highlights students’ learning experiences. In this
respect, it is important and vital that teachers do not deprive students of any ‘op-
portunity to learn responsibly’, one teacher says. In the same vein, the element of
responsibility appears in most research and reviews about autonomy. Benson and
Voller (1997) define autonomy in terms of learners’ exercise of responsibility for
their own learning. Interchangeably used with self-directed learning, autonomy is a
130 4 Learner Autonomy and the CLA Perspective

capacity for detachment, critical reflection, decision-making, and independent

action. It is a capacity to ‘control or oversee [one’s own] learning.5 Students in our
RC research experience report having gained more and more control over their own
learning and developing more responsible attitudes. This is mainly achieved
through programmes that encourage students “to take responsibility for their own
work” (McGarry 1995: 1) and provide them with opportunities to have “some
control over what, how and when they learn” (Ibid).
Students’ responses about how to work and how to solve problems, for instance,
further support the new trend towards this sense of responsibility. In support of the
above claim, respondents express their preference for enjoying the freedom to work
in their own way. However, the sense of protection created when working in
collaboration remains important to learners. Respondents show a preference to be
given the opportunity to work out how to solve problems for themselves. Although
the majority of the respondents prefer to have clear instructions, it seems students
want autonomy but they want it in their own way, with due respect and under-
standing of their limitations and apprehensions. In fact, as Benson and Voller
(1997) assert, it is important for teachers to understand that their students have
somewhere inside them a potential and an ability (that need to be unveiled) to
become “authors of their own worlds” (1997: 53) in their own ways.
Teachers need to understand that the type of autonomy Omani students would
embrace is conditioned autonomy, autonomy in collaboration, and that structured
learning does not necessarily mean rejection of autonomy. The current attachment
on the part of the Omani students to conditioned autonomy and structured learning
with signals of inclination towards autonomy only mean that students want a safe
passage from reliance on teachers to self-reliance with teachers to orient them and
guide their steps. It is important not to misunderstand and mismanage this attitude
as this would make students, as Wenden (1998: 54) puts it, “learners who labour
under the misconception that learning is only successful within the context of the
traditional classroom, where the teacher directs, instructs, and manages the learning
activity, and the students must follow the teacher‘s steps”.

4.6 Conclusion

In summary, it is evident that a structured type of learning still prevails among the
majority of Omani students at tertiary level. The majority of the students believe in
conditioned autonomy. Students are not prepared enough for total autonomy. The
major obstacle lies in the link Omani students make between learning and quali-
fications. Being exam-oriented, mark-driven and qualification-oriented, Omani
students still have apprehensions with regard to learning as a target itself. This
implies that students fail to see the positive impact learner autonomy and related

5
Holec (1983).
4.6 Conclusion 131

activities have in the long run on their learning capabilities. Omani students still fail
to attach any value to learning unless it is part of the formal structured learning,
generates marks and has a direct impact on success. They show limited interest in
the developmental aspect learner autonomy and autonomous learning can develop
in them. However, the attachment of the Omani students to structured learning does
not mean they reject autonomy. As drawn from our research, the type of learner
autonomy that Omani students seem to favour is conditioned autonomy. It is
autonomy that is conditioned by the presence of the teacher in an initial stage but
with a guiding and advising role, not an authoritative role. It is also conditioned by
a high degree of collaboration with peers. The security that group belonging and
peer support represents a vital condition in the Omani sense of learner autonomy.
Building on aspects, parameters, learning environment realities, challenges and
learners’ perceptions and attitudes that emerge from our research in the Omani
context, our research reiterates the importance of addressing observations that
reflect vital issues to the proper development of learner autonomy. These are
summarised in the list below:
1. improve learners’ behaviours directed towards performance and involvement in
their learning,
2. provide learners with explicit and learning contracts that help them overcome
apprehensions and reluctance,
3. ensure SLVs incorporate adequate resources, including materials suggested
and/or designed by learners,
4. orient, guide and train learners to properly use the resources,
5. incorporate extra-curricular activities and self-learning tasks in formal learning,
6. adopt a gradual approach to the development of autonomy,
7. involve students, peers, teachers, HEIs, families and the community in a col-
laborative gradual process that shifts students from dependence to autonomy,
8. develop in learners self-reflection ability and skills,
9. guide learners to perceive their classrooms as learning venues where they
collaborate and work towards common goals, and
10. appraise and enhance peer scaffolding and teacher guidance.
Chapter 5
Conclusion

This chapter builds on our main research findings, stressing the importance of the
Reading Circle and the positive learning attitudes of Omani students have in
relation to the development of autonomy. It appraises learners’ readiness, will-
ingness and motivation to engage in learning opportunities conducive to autonomy,
reiterating the need for all stakeholders to create a learning environment of part-
nership and collaboration with each party embracing redefined roles conducive to
autonomy.
The major implication that the development of autonomous learning entails is
the required involvement of all the parties constituting the learning environment. In
the Omani context and similar contexts in the MENA region, the concept of learner
autonomy finds enthusiastic but careful reception. Teachers praise the merits of
autonomous learning but express their caution and, occasionally apprehensions,
about its implementation. Learners who find it interesting and motivating somehow
fear engaging totally in autonomous learning activities. While HEIs admit the
positive impact learner autonomy has on the learning and success, they fail to
provide the required environment conducive to the development of autonomy.
Our research is an attempt to explore students’ approach to learning occasionally
characterised by an “over-reliance on the teacher”, concluding that promoting
learning autonomy involves changing students’ attitudes and the redistribution of
roles in the learning process. These are, in fact, among the issues that the proposed
CLA’s gradual approach to the development of autonomy and the Individual-
Competitive-Collaborative-Autonomous Learning Continuum (ICCALC) of a
group-oriented (Benson 2006: 25) gradual development of learner autonomy,
advocated in the present book, entails. These practical issues relate to the imple-
mentation of autonomous learning in the Omani context, and potentially similar
contexts in the MENA region.

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017 133

S. Blidi, Collaborative Learner Autonomy,
DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-2048-3_5
134 5 Conclusion

5.1 Learning Habits and Attitudes Towards Learner

Autonomy

Our research results show that Omani students highly value the variety of activities
and perceive it as important to create a favourable environment for autonomy. As an
observer conducting this research, and a teacher who is well-aware of the Omani
learning context, I believe that the pre-RC activities are of significant interest to the
students. In fact, they are beyond expectations of even the most optimistic observer.
The choice of topics, reading texts, movies and documentaries as input and the
debate format as a structure indicate their awareness of the merits of variety, cre-
ativity, and autonomy. Learners’ performance in RCs, the Movie Circle or the
Debate Circle in particular, indicates their developed level of autonomy and recalls
Little’s (1991: 4) sense of “detachment, critical reflection, decision-making, and
independent action”. Having taken place without the teacher’s intervention, RCs
serve the initial purposes set for them. Students autonomously and deliberately
engage in their own learning. This event can be indicative of an actual significant
potential for autonomy that is inherent in students and which can be developed
through appropriately structured approaches.
One major dimension to take into consideration is Omani students’ interde-
pendence. In fact, Omani students perceive themselves as interdependent with other
students, not independent from them. They prefer to form groups to act within,
which reflects a clear “inclination to form in-groups which work towards common
goals” (Littlewood 1999). Most students prefer to interact in groups where they feel
safe and confident. Autonomy in a collaborative learning environment is what they
advocate. Omani students’ preference of group-oriented tasks results from the sense
of protection these groups provide. For these students, this sense is a condition for
autonomy. In fact, informal observations in regular classes confirm the above and
further show that, in open classrooms, students are often reluctant to participate and
voice their views. This is one further principle that underpins the group-oriented
and gradual development of autonomy in the Omani context the CLA proposes in
our research and its related ICCAL autonomy development continuum.
Omani students’ learning styles and strategies reflect their interdependence and,
using Skehan’s words, “reflect personal preference rather than innate endowment”
(1998: 237). However, Skehan’s view is refutable as what he terms as “personal
preference” does not contradict with “innate endowment”. On the contrary, stu-
dents’ preferences for learning strategies that develop autonomy reflect an internal,
inherent and innate endowment to be autonomous. With this understanding,
autonomy is an innate feature for which all learners, irrespective of their back-
ground, have the same capacity.
Research findings emerging from the implementation of the RCs as a mode of
autonomous learning represent supporting evidence of Omani learners’ positive per-
ceptions of learner autonomy and their readiness to adopt autonomous learning
practices. Building on findings from these RCs, the present research proposes the CLA
5.1 Learning Habits and Attitudes Towards Learner Autonomy 135

approach of gradual development of learner autonomy and proposes a modified

version of group-oriented approaches Benson (2006: 25) to encourage the develop-
ment of autonomy in the Omani context, and potentially similar contexts within the
Gulf region as well as throughout the Arab world. It is therefore the formal classroom
teaching and learning providers (teachers and HEIs) that bear the responsibility for
providing learners with a “favourable environment for developing the capacity for
autonomy” (Littlewood 1999). The targeted environment is one that supports and
exploits students’ interdependence and uses it as one way towards autonomy. In such
an environment, although Omani students perceive the teachers as the top authority in
class, they recognise them as facilitators and caretakers.
Findings in the research indicate a relatively acceptable degree of readiness (in
its crude form), willingness and motivation to develop autonomy among Omani
students. Exploring respondents’ perceptions of teacher’s support and peers’ sup-
port in the context of autonomous learning, findings show that students think that
the support teachers and peers provide is essential and important. In summary,
students’ readiness and motivation towards autonomy is relatively acceptable.
Although the majority of responses may show a preference for structured learning,
in a way teacher-centred, the type of autonomy Omani students embrace is that
where the sense of confidence and security is respected and catered for by pre-
serving certain habits and an evident role for the teacher. It is an autonomy of the
“reactive type” and which derives from a high level of ambition and motivation that
are individually innate and socially oriented. From the CLA perspective, it develops
towards the proactive type.
The feelings of ownership and responsibility learners develop through the RCs
reflect a psychological readiness that is not imposed or taught and that can gradually
be developed into autonomy. Omani HEIs need to create a cooperative and col-
laborative learning environment where learners feel confident and secure, and can
gradually develop confidence, self-esteem and learning skills required to develop
autonomy. Motivation is what Omani HEIs need to capitalise on to build a learning
environment which develops learner autonomy in students. The freedom and
responsibility given to students in the choice of the reading input reduce the neg-
ative attitudes and apprehensions and respect students’ awareness of the social,
political and cultural context of the learning process, which enhances autonomy.
The more their preferences are respected, the more their awareness of the purposes
they responsibly set for their readings becomes evident. A further concept that
parallels this freedom of choice is the concept of “voluntariness”, which is one of
the conditions for autonomy. In relation to learners’ involvement in their learning,
Omani students engage deliberately and get involved in different ways as long as
they get enough guidance, support and training and have the whole picture clear in
from of them. This means that learners’ view of autonomy is still conditioned by a
safety measure that must be provided by teacher’s support. In this same sense, RCs
allow for a further implementation of reading as a set of processes that reflect
socio-culturally transmitted and mediated literacy.
136 5 Conclusion

Learner autonomy develops through the increase of self-concept and self-esteem,

and learners’ personal growth towards ultimately achieving autonomy. The movement
of the students from other-directed to self-directed learning implies a range of pos-
sibilities reflecting various degrees of autonomy. Familiarising students with academic
goals is one important parameter in redefining and promoting learner autonomy in the
Omani context. This is especially that one of the defects of the Omani students in
learning autonomously is the lack of a rationale. Conscious reflection on learning
experiences and sharing reflections with peers in cooperative groups, RCs, help to
achieve the exchange of experiences in a collaborative environment.

5.2 Learner Autonomy Educational Environment

Provisions

The emerging changes in graduates’ profiles stipulates the need felt by teachers and
students in Omani HEIs to address their students’ entry and exit profiles. So, the
improvement of the graduates’ exit profiles and equipping them with the attributes
and generic skills directed towards the new trend responding to change, and
increasing their employability and potential for self-employment represent valid
goals HEIs need to achieve. Learner autonomy is perceived as one of the tools to
achieve these goals. Teaching and learning attitudes and practices have a clear
impact on the development of learner autonomy among Omani students through
adequate use of their readiness, willingness and motivation to develop autonomy.
This is clear refutation of the wrong assumption that Omani students lack readiness
and willingness to develop autonomy. It shows how positive attitudes on the part of
the learners, genuine involvement and a redefined role on the part of the teacher,
and due logistical and programmes provisions on the part of the HEIs lead
autonomous learning attempts and undertakings to success.
As a practice sample, RCs encourage learners to take responsibility for their role
in the group and provide a forum where learners share views and ideas with peers.
The aim of the RCs is to promote learner autonomy with the ultimate objective of
developing and improving the level of responsibility students take for their learning.
It is a form of Experiential Learning (Kohonen 2000) that enables learners to
become autonomous and responsible in accordance with the contemporary trend,
gradually shifting the initiative from the teacher to the learner. Ultimately, indi-
vidual learners, interacting in RCs, are exposed to a range of views and ideas that
they may not otherwise access. The challenge they face in defending their own
personal ideas and values and refuting others’ promotes self-reflection and peer
evaluation. RCs impose reflection on existing beliefs and values and initiate
reflection. Forcing reflection does not mean creating a stressing and stressful
atmosphere since the informal nature of the RCs alleviates the situation and enables
the learners to read the article[s] at their own pace and take time to formulate their
5.2 Learner Autonomy Educational Environment Provisions 137

own responses to the questions. They manage to enhance initiatives and deliberate
involvement in autonomous learning.
The small size of the groups promotes a favourable environment for discussion
compared with a whole class discussion where students’ lack of confidence stops
them from exposing their views. One major issue, often stated by students during
post-RC interviews, is group effectiveness. Although this effectiveness is largely
dependent on members, which is in itself a weakness, the actual process is more
important than the outcome. Learners’ engagement in RCs, whether fully or par-
tially effective, achieves at least the awareness raising objective. In fact, RCs enable
participant learners to be self-aware. RCs achieve efficient combinations involving
self-efficiency and independent choice of learning input; accountability vis-à-vis
oneself and others; self-awareness and shared experience and knowledge. It is the
existence of such combinations that creates an environment favourable and con-
ducive to autonomous learning. However, it is worth noting that these combinations
cannot be productive if they do not have their impact on learning materials. The
variety of topics makes students feel empowered by challenging their comfort zone
and “gaining strength in new knowledge”.
RCs transform the students from hesitating learners, who doubt their capacities
and defy their abilities, often whispering “I don’t think I can!” to autonomous
learners, who:
1. have ideas that challenge,
2. experience a sense of comfort in a situation of shared reflection,
3. occasionally move out of their comfort zone,
4. make that extra effort that would enrich the experience,
5. take responsibility for the form and focus of their learning,
6. express their own views without feeling judged by an authority figure,
7. share opinions with peers freely, and
8. feel a new strength from the sense of developing knowledge.
In the same respect, Omani students in our research highly value the principle of
shared learning, manifested in the opportunities that the RCs offered for autono-
mous and collaborative learning through the preparation for and the implementation
of debates and discussions. It is important and interesting for the students to
develop the learning skills of respecting diverse opinions and having their own
views challenged. Our research reflects varying degrees of awareness in its different
levels. Students develop learner awareness, subject matter awareness, learning
process awareness and social awareness. These various levels of awareness improve
the degree of autonomy in both the students and the teacher. This further supports
the view that learner autonomy and teacher autonomy are inter-related and recip-
rocally influential. It can be safely claimed that the RC learning experience manage
to develop positive attitudes towards learning and a more evident willingness to
take more responsibility for learning, which reflects learner autonomy.
Learner autonomy does not necessarily reduce the interventions or the initiatives
the teacher does. Students express their positive attitudes vis-à-vis the guiding role
138 5 Conclusion

of the teacher in helping and supporting them to develop autonomy. RCs provide an
evident opportunity for cooperative and autonomous learning, often preferred by
Omani students described as conditioned autonomy. Learning takes place in small
groups of four learners, positively interdependent and individually accountable,
with each group member making useful contribution to the overall learning. In the
same respect, it is vital to warn ourselves against the direct intervention of the
teacher in group learning opportunities.
Learner autonomy practices like the RC are indicative of the positive impact that
teachers’ involvement and engagement in autonomy and the redefined role teachers
embrace can have on the development of autonomy in collaboration. Teachers are
responsible for the development of their learners’ learning awareness and what
Crabbe (2007: 119) calls “conscious perception and take-up of a learning oppor-
tunity”. This responsibility implies that “learners themselves need to be actively
engaged in identifying and managing the learning opportunities” and this can only
happen “when learners are better equipped, and therefore more likely, to manage
learning opportunities outside the classroom”. The CLA put forward in our research
emphasises the constructive role of the teachers and HEIs in developing autonomy
in their learners through an Autonomous Learning Orientation Programme (ALOP).
Creating awareness among students of the need to develop autonomy is central
to the success in implementing autonomous learning. Teachers report having made
attempts to do substantial background reading about learner autonomy and explore
materials available, and to be available, for learners at the SLVs. These attempts
reflect a degree of awareness of the need to adopt autonomous learning, and con-
comitant with this is their awareness of the need to revisit their learners’
self-learning, study skills and learning strategies. Another indicator of this aware-
ness is the significant changes that teachers, as they claim during the interviews,
start making in their course profiles, incorporating autonomy components. One
significant change is the involvement of training and orientation skills in learning.
This is mainly in response to the reported lack of adequate support materials in
SLVs. It is also a positive response to the importance research participants give to
training, familiarity and trial in class. They are considered as vital for the Omani
students. The implementation of a proper ALOP is believed to be important and
useful, though half of the HEIs surveyed do not offer such programmes. The more
sufficient and efficient the ALOP, the more frequent the students use the SLV.
Research findings indicate that the environment of the SLV (materials, quietness,
and flexibility) influences the students’ perception of the learner autonomy and
autonomous learning.
Research findings support ideas advanced in the literature stating a number
1
barriers as being obstacles that hinder the development of learner autonomy and

1
These barriers are: 1. Affective barriers: personal lives, attitudes, personal contacts. 2. Availability
of full-fledged Autonomous Learning Centre that is well-equipped, well-staffed and accessible.
3. More learning time, less teaching time that requires less time in class, less teaching time, more
time in preparing learners for self-learning venues, trust in learners, trust in teachers, flexibility,
less tightness to curriculum. 4. Working in isolation: there is much to go wrong and a lot of
5.2 Learner Autonomy Educational Environment Provisions 139

the promotion of autonomous learning. It is evidently crucial to make students, as

well as teachers, aware of these barriers and the need to work collaboratively and
consciously towards addressing them. This is a major argument put forward in our
research to redefine learner autonomy in the Omani context.

5.3 Aspects and Implications of the CLA and the ICCAL

Continuum

The current section describes the main aspects and features of the CLA approach of
gradual development of learner autonomy proposed in our research. It discusses the
aspects of partnership, collaboration, redefined roles, gradual development,
self-efficacy, relatedness, motivation, and non-threat as characteristics of the ideal
learner autonomy environment targeted and the role of the teachers, HEIs and the
outer circle in securing required practices, logistics and provisions.

5.3.1 Partnership and Collaboration

There is no contradiction between collaborative and autonomous learning on the

one hand and leadership on the other. Most Omani students (as is often the case
with Eastern students) think leadership and collaboration are vital to learning in that
it provides them with a sense of security and confidence through the direction and
guidance they involve. In fact, the collaborative aspect of learning somehow relates
to leadership. The research proves that a typical Omani student prefers to perform in
a collaborative environment with a strong leader. In their observation forms, stu-
dents reflect high inclination to leadership. This might be understood as a rejection
of autonomy. However, autonomy for Omani students is conditioned by the vital
sense of confidence and security they feel when being led and directed by a leader.
In the same vein, feedback from informal interviews conducted after the RC
meetings show that the success of the RC in the eyes of the participants is primarily
subject to the success of the leader in giving clear instructions, managing the team
well and nurturing students’ confidence.
The success of RCs as an opportunity to develop autonomous learning is also
subject to students’ interaction within the group. Although the leadership-

(Footnote 1 continued)
planning to be done before embarking on any kind of guided self-learning. The need to find
someone with the experience who can help you anticipate issues relevant for teaching situations
before they advise and work through the issues.
140 5 Conclusion

interaction combination looks contradictory, there is a sense of logic in this. The

confidence and the motivation that makes students learn autonomously and col-
laboratively derive from the non-threatening environment that leadership and group
members provide. Another factor influencing the success of the RCs is the role of
the teacher, acting as a facilitator and guide. This means advocating a change in
perception and role in the teaching-learning environment with each party embracing
new roles. Students think that the teacher’s role remains incontestable. They prefer
the teacher to be in some way involved in guiding the task. Omani students feel
more comfortable when they learn in collaboration, guided by a leader (or the
teacher) who gives instruction and initiates discussions to make students feel
confident. It is often claimed that peers’ support of academic achievement is highly
correlated with students’ success. This involves the exploration of appropriate and
proper ways parents can use to assist in learning. Although learning and learner
autonomy are perceived as resulting from individual goals and behaviours, they are
actually socially mediated.
Peers’ support affects students’ ability to self-regulate. An isolated student
learning individually without any interaction with and support from peers is bound
to have a limited level of engagement in learning. The academic success of a
student like this diminishes correspondingly. The social group to which students
belong influences academic effort, habits, motivation, and time spent on academic
work, just like the preference of the Omani students to form groups and perform
through them. Peers can provide one another with academic support, make learning
more pleasurable, and increase each other’s desire to succeed academically
(Christenson and Anderson 2002). Peers significantly affect students’ ability to
study and learn independently. In the Omani context at tertiary level, students
increasingly turn to peers for information, support, and coping strategies. Insofar as
students perceive peer relationships as positive and supportive, their motivation is
increased, and their academic success is positively affected, hence resulting in
collaborative learner autonomy that reflects the CLA interpretation of autonomy
proposed in our research.

5.3.2 Response to Change

Our research concludes that the responsibility of implementing autonomy is not

only the learners’ but it equally belongs to other stakeholders in the education
pyramid: the teachers and the management of HEIs. These can, as much as the
learner, fail to recognise the need for adapted approaches to learning. Targeted
learning approaches should be tailored based on needs analysis in a rapidly
changing society. From the CLA perspective, such failure is due to the miscon-
ceptions and misinterpretations of autonomy which result from an entire emphasis
put on what autonomy is. The emphasis should rather be on how different learners
in different settings perceive autonomy and what objectives it aims to achieve. The
21st century poses challenges that higher education has to respond to. These require
5.3 Aspects and Implications of the CLA and the ICCAL Continuum 141

an effort towards successfully correlating the individual styles and experiences with
the learning strategies, new materials, new delivery modes and new learning
environments at the learners’ disposal. Positive responses to the new emerging
concepts of competency and job-relatedness are needed. One of these is the
implementation of autonomous learning and the development of learner autonomy
among students at the tertiary level. The focus of the present research on redefining
learner autonomy in the Omani context is then a positive response to the learning
trends and aspirations in a process that culminates in the emergence of CLA.
Aiming at developing and promoting autonomous learning, thus, means shifting
emphasis onto the learner and increasingly allowing the development of more
responsibility. This also implies a change in role distribution with the teacher
embracing new roles (the care taker, the orchestrator, and the facilitator) and the
learner embracing, similarly, new roles (the risk-taker, the analyser, the collabo-
rator, and the team member).
The ideal learning environment conducive to the development of autonomy
needs to be supportive and challenging. Reflecting on what she considers as a
“marvellous” class activity, one respondent student made reference to a class debate
her teacher engaged them in while trying to answer “challenging question”: How do
you describe your secondary school experience? The teacher, reports the student,
addresses the students in a question-answer session in which students shared their
impressions of their secondary schooling and suggested ways in which the expe-
rience might be enriched. This session is a telling example of the positive impact of
engaging learners in learning by giving them confidence and bringing them to a
supportive and challenging environment. Learners willingly contribute to the dis-
cussion and their mastery of English to convey their messages. This learning
environment is supportive and manages to get learners to develop a degree of
control and ownership of their learning.
One of the pillars of autonomous learning is that it offers potential for a learning
atmosphere of shared partnership, a common purpose and a joint management and
regulation of learning. Class behaviour is owned by the whole group, of which the
teacher is one member and not the only member dictating and taking decisions. This
implies advocating ground rules of decisions and discipline shared and agreed upon
jointly in a responsibility-sharing spirit. An essential feature of these ground rules is
that they are based on mutual trust and respect. Learners’ responses to questions
related to their view of the teacher and their peers back this view of ground rules.
Knowledge is no more seen as a spell the teacher (knowledge provider as tradi-
tionally perceived) throws on learners but as open to negotiation and redefining by
challenging existing constructions of meaning. Learning can become a discovery of
new understandings with the energy of the learners channelled into more creative
pursuits. The involvement of the learners in different stages of the learning deter-
mines the degree of autonomous and self-directed learning. This involvement
implies more responsibility on the part of the learners in taking these decisions,
which results in a greater degree of autonomy. The extent to which the decisions are
taken together reflects a shared management and regulation of learning, with the
teacher functioning as a guide and expert consultant of learning. At a deeper level,
142 5 Conclusion

an autonomous approach involves a basic trust in the readiness, the willingness, and
the ability of the learners to cope with various learning tasks and respect for their
person and choice. On the basis of such trust and respect, learners can be given
increasing amounts of initiative in undertaking the task, choosing the content and
assessing their work. In the same vein, with reference to the implementation of the
RCs, the trust and respect that these circles build among learners and the confidence
they develop in them with regard to their choices and capacity represent a positive
experience. This experience succeeds in enabling learners to develop autonomy and
gain increasing confidence and thus control over their own learning. The feeling of
ownership and responsibility learners develop during and as a result of their con-
tribution to the RCs is at the heart of learners’ autonomy, and it is another important
parameter in the process of redefining autonomy in the Omani context. Such feeling
cannot be imposed or taught. It has to be detected as a psychological readiness then
gradually directed and tuned towards autonomy being developed in students.
The central idea that the CLA puts forward in our research is that learner
autonomy in the Omani context is collaborative where the aspects of interdepen-
dence and relatedness for the learners are vital to the development of autonomy.
The majority of the students have a preference for interdependence and relatedness,
not independence. Autonomy is positively perceived in the studied population
within the framework of respect to the tendency among students to be
inter-dependent and form groups in which they feel secure. In the same vein, as
evidenced by the research findings learners’ inclination towards collaborative
autonomy can only mirror this view. It implies the need for the HEIs to create an
environment of cooperation and collaboration where learners feel confident and
secure, and thus ultimately and gradually can develop confidence and self-esteem to
go for individual autonomous undertakings and initiatives.
Environmental variables are critical when considering autonomous learning.
There is a visible readiness on the part of the students to engage in autonomous
learning activities. However, it is also important to address individual student
factors such as motivation because the ability to self-motivate is essential for
autonomous learning. Motivation, which is best considered as a set of beliefs and
behaviours rather than a personality trait, is what teachers and HEIs need to cap-
italise on to build a learning environment which develops learner autonomy in
students.
There is a relatively acceptable degree of readiness and motivation among stu-
dents to develop ownership of their learning. It is upon this that HEIs need to create
an environment that leads to the development of autonomy. Regardless of family,
friends, and classroom variables, students need to know how to manage their own
motivation across contexts. When students do not have any clear academic goals,
they seem not to care. They believe that success is more closely tied to ability,
which they think they do not have, rather than to effort. This develops in them a
sense of pessimism. It implies that one important parameter in redefining and
promoting learner autonomy in the Omani context is familiarising students with the
setting up of academic goals. To put it simply, there must be reasons for learning
and academic goals are the set of reasons that, together, make up the rationale for
5.3 Aspects and Implications of the CLA and the ICCAL Continuum 143

learning. It is believed that one of the defects of the Omani students in learning
autonomously, and even in learning in general, is the lack of their awareness of the
rationale behind learning, which reduces the degree of motivation they have. They
feel they are sent to learn, compelled in one way or another, and most importantly
have no choice in deciding what to study. In this respect, it is believed that student
motivation and self-discipline have an obvious and profound impact on academic
achievement. According to theories and research addressing why individuals are
motivated, for all students, academic motivation varies according to the subject
matter, assignments, classroom climate, teacher–student relationships, peer rela-
tionships, and other situational factors ranging from health to environmental
stressors.
Students’ motivation to work collaboratively creates a positive interdependence
among them. This explains learners’ tendency to form groups where they feel
secure and protected. It is vital to provide room for flexibility in the formal teaching
situation as well as the SLV, where the aspects of individualism, competition and
collaboration have their place. Learners need to know how to work on their own,
how to collaborate with others and how to compete, for fun, enjoyment and learning
in a non-threatening environment where they can set learning goals together and
work collaboratively to achieve them. Flexibility is important in the development of
learner autonomy as it avoids constraining the learners with goal orientations with
which they cannot identify. In fact, a considerable body of research has differen-
tiated goal orientations into four types: (1) mastery, (2) performance approach,
(3) performance avoidance, and (4) work avoidance. Each orientation type has been
associated with particular settings and academic outcomes (Wolters 2003a, b).2
Students with mastery goal orientations, which is the type of goal orientation
relevant to the Omani context, are intrinsically oriented and focus on improving
their knowledge, skills, and understanding of the material. These orientations are
most prevalent in settings with competency-based or criterion-referenced standards.
Students with these orientations tend to value learning as an end in itself, use more
effective cognitive learning strategies, prefer more challenging tasks, and display
greater persistence in learning.
In relation to the Omani context, although the type of learning and the learning
philosophy are more oriented towards mastery, not performance, students are rel-
atively deficient in this regard. They show a weakness in setting goals and building
a rationale for them to learn. Changing Omani students’ perception of learning, and
the philosophy that underpins their learning is at the heart of redefining learner
autonomy in the Omani context. It is important to change the Omani students’
understanding of learning from learning towards mastery to learning towards per-
formance. It is equally, and even more, important for teachers and HEIs to work
more on increasing the degree of awareness they currently have of the need to
promote autonomy and enhance autonomous learning. In fact, research findings
show that teachers and HEIs in Oman are well-aware of the need to develop

2
See Ames (1992), Elliot (1999), Harackiewicz et al. (2002) and Meece and Miller (1999).
144 5 Conclusion

autonomy in learners and of their role in providing a learning environment con-

ducive to autonomy. This can be traced in documents such as course profiles, T&L
policies and strategies, generic skills, graduate attributes… etc. But, as students and
even teachers claim, in practice HEIs and teachers seem not to do enough in this
direction. Their role and contribution remain limited in providing the targeted
learning environment. Students usually develop their belief systems by adopting the
belief systems of their parents and teachers. Thus the expectations of the educators
and the parents have a profound influence on the development of students’ beliefs
about their ability and a direct impact on academic performance. When educators or
parents convey low expectations, students respond with lower achievement and
have lower self-assessments of their ability. High expectations drive students to
respond with higher achievement and improved academic self-efficacy (Bempechat
2004). One way that teachers convey expectations is by the difficulty level of
assigned work. According to Meece & Miller (1999), students who have the
opportunity to complete in high-challenge tasks find the experience interesting,
They appraise the creative and positive emotions they challenge involves. Those
not exposed to high-challenge tasks questioned whether they had the ability to
complete them and were bored with the low-challenge tasks.
Omani students’ goal orientation depends in some ways on shared collective
goals. In fact, from the perspective of autonomous learning as perceived and pre-
ferred by Omani students at tertiary level, the goal structure is that of interdepen-
dence where teachers are expected to engage learners in tasks that promote
individual learning, competition between learners and cooperation in a gradual way.
This echoes the rationale of the CLA put forward in our research and the ICCAL
continuum of gradual development of autonomy. Learning styles and habits and
their preferences as shown in this research reflect learners’ need to undertake their
individual work at their own pace, and to have their own materials respected but in
a competitive but non-threatening environment where they can compete with each
other. Rather, they have a preference for cooperative learning situations where they
can work together to accomplish shared goals. Their achievements, initially shared
with their peers, develop motivation to work together for mutual benefit in order to
maximise their own learning. The ICCA engages the four aspects of the learner
together in a gradual sequencing that starts with the enhancement of individual
work in small-scale tasks then engages learners in competition tasks that increase
interest and motivation. Then it moves to further challenge that involves working
collaboratively in pairs and teams. The continuum ultimately ends up with the
conviction that learners can work autonomously in a collaborative environment that
enhances the spirit of partnership. It reflects the way the teacher structures inter-
dependence among learners, which will determine how they interact with each other
and the teacher during the lesson (Johnson and Golombek 2002).
No doubt, learner autonomy constitutes an important pillar in building
self-efficacy, reflection and critical self-evaluation skills among learners. The tea-
cher remains the architect who helps design and implements, curricula and syllabi
that enhance autonomy. This enhancement can be achieved by adapting resources,
materials, and methods to the learners’ needs and even abandoning all this,
5.3 Aspects and Implications of the CLA and the ICCAL Continuum 145

relinquishing control in favour of resources, materials, and methods chosen by

students. These students, within a learner autonomy perspective, should be aware of
their strategies, needs, and goals as well as ready to reconsider and refashion
approaches and procedures for optimal learning. In the light of the above, it should
be understood that autonomy cannot be incorporated within the scope of short-term
objectives, as it takes a long time to develop. In fact, it is not just by “simply
removing the barriers to a person’s ability to think and behave in certain ways”
(Candy 1991: 124) that autonomy can be achieved. It rather requires a combination
of attitudes, context-based requirements, favourable environment, supportive
teachers and appropriate teaching materials. Creating a good autonomous learning
environment is a long-term undertaking that requires profound thought and minute
planning initially and an on-going commitment to adjusting to learner needs.
The RC in our research is designed as the vehicle to optimise the effectiveness of
students’ learning, providing them with the opportunity to develop the ability to set
their own objectives, work independently of the teacher both inside and outside the
classroom, select and use the most appropriate strategies, and achieve a sense of
autonomy. These abilities echo the characteristics of the targeted autonomous
learner as portrayed in the literature. Autonomous learners are learners who are
capable of critical reflection and thinking, enjoy a high level of self-awareness, take
responsibility for their own learning, work creatively with complex situations, and
are able to create their own meanings and challenge ideas/theories.
Learner autonomy advocated in our research stresses more the interdependent
feature of the Omani learners rather than independence. Using the terminology
presented by Marton and Booth (1997: 44) with respect to conceptions of learning,
autonomy within the Omani context is of the “collective structure”. Learner
autonomy, at least as a readiness to develop autonomy, can be found in Omani
students but is “scattered across individuals (and contexts)” with individual learners
“contextually variable bearers of fragments or constituent parts” of this collective
experience. Perceiving autonomy as such enables us to identify “elements which are
emphasised in one culture and others which are emphasised in another” (Ibid).

5.4 Summary

In conclusion, genuinely successful teachers have always been autonomous in the

sense of having a strong sense of personal responsibility for their teaching, exer-
cising through continuous reflection and analysis the highest possible degree of
affective and cognitive control of the teaching process. It is recommended that these
teachers work on transferring this same sense to their learners as, in fact, the
promotion of learner autonomy depends on the promotion of teacher autonomy.
Through learning about autonomy, even without being conscious of it, teachers
relatively manage to develop the readiness and the desire to become promoters of
autonomy. There is a growing interest in advocating autonomous learning and the
development of learner autonomy among students. This manifests itself in changes
146 5 Conclusion

teachers have made to their ways of teaching, more frequent visits to self-access
facilities and the interest in learning more about autonomy. Teachers have also
become more attentive to what their role as autonomy promoters is. This is because
they feel they are partly responsible for making, facilitating or just letting students
become more autonomous. The claim that every individual is innately an autono-
mous learner can be safely embraced. This concern has made teachers move in
different directions. Sometimes, coinciding with others, other times taking an
opposite direction. But, ultimately, trying to reach a common goal: building
responsible and autonomous learners.
How can learner autonomy be fostered? One of the most important answers, our
research points out, is to raise the awareness of students of the learning processes
they engage in. In a constructivist view of learning, being conscious of the learning
process is an integral part of the process itself. In the same vein, it is a learned
lesson from cognitive psychology that a proper thinking process does enhance
learning, too. Accordingly, reflection on learning is the key word. It is vital in the
process of developing autonomy as it invites students to reflect upon their own
learning. This implies that students will take advantage of meta-cognition, intro-
spection and retrospection. This means that students need to develop an awareness
of the importance that skills related to their learning like planning are necessary yet
not enough to ensure the development of autonomy. They also need to develop
skills enabling them have a proper evaluation of what has worked and what has not.
Cognitive psychology stresses the need to raise students’ awareness of the mental
processes that are involved in learning with the aim of enhancing them by making
them explicit and public. Constructivist psychology has given teachers a green light
in becoming observers of the process that learners go through and in being wit-
nesses of how learners find their own ways and how this experience will eventually
transform into something meaningful and significant for them.
In the process of developing learner autonomy and the promotion autonomous
learning, the focus on reflection is important and vital. Reflection means that
teachers require students to take responsibility for making their own meaning. It is
therefore seen as substantially different from a relationship where teachers as
experts who transfer knowledge to students. Students need to develop attributes of
constructivism which include students’ initiatives, higher-level thinking, social
discourse between students and teachers, and the use of raw data, primary sources,
and interactive materials to encourage multiple perspectives on an issue.
Learners are expected to work towards autonomy and self-regulated learning,
and to achieve greater understanding of the processes of learning itself. They
become the observers of their own behaviour and through reflection gauge their
own progress, judge the extent to which their knowledge is effective and gain the
insight necessary to improve their own learning. Teachers are expected to develop
knowledge of the different learning styles of their students, thus enabling them to
personalise learning. Socio-constructivism is where students work together, sup-
porting each other and learning from each other. It is within this perspective that
learner autonomy for Omani students can be placed: autonomy in collaboration. In
other words, it is within socio-cultural, socio-constructivist and experiential
5.4 Summary 147

learning perspectives that learner autonomy in the Omani context can be redefined.
The learner is seen as a person consisting of a self with a social identity and as a
member of and participant in a society and a culture. Learners have access to
knowledge, power and resources and have an identity and a variety of contextual
social roles.
Our research concludes that the claim that autonomy is a Western concept valid
only for Western educational contexts is refutable as autonomy is an innate attribute
that develops when favourable environments are created. The CLA group-oriented
implementation of autonomy in the Omani context that the present research pro-
poses advocates a gradual approach to the development of autonomy through the
ICCAL continuum, engaging all education stakeholders: learners, teachers, HEIs,
and the community. The CLA requires the engagement of all the parties involved in
the learning environment in carrying out their reconceptualised roles in a collab-
orative, shared responsibility and partnership environment. Learner autonomy is not
a sudden occurrence in a vacuum. It is rather the result of the interaction of an
individual innate attribute with a series of developments of a chain-reaction type
involving peers, teachers and the learning environment. The failure of one in car-
rying out their role breaks the whole chain, the chain of autonomy in collaboration.
Resources Pack

Activity name CLA Resource Participants Students Teacher Yes

Sheet 1 audience No √
Reading Circle (RC)
Activity type Group—contest Interaction – Groups of 5 LRC Yes √
Collaborative dynamics – 1 rotational support No
Competitive leader needed
– 4 members
Specify the rationale behind answering Yes (Teacher/LRC Support needed):
LRC support is needed to provide adequate location, logistics, books required, support and guidance
during reading weeks in book/information search RC members would conduct in preparation of the
meeting. The teacher is not needed but could occasionally attend for guidance and support purposes
without interfering in the RC
Learning 1. Consolidate reading strategies 5. Consolidate team-spirit,
objectives 2. Implement communication skills collaborative working and
outcomes 3. Develop critical and analytical leadership skills
skill 6. Implement communication and
4. Practise information search using group discussion protocols
the Library, the Internet and
multiple database
Language and 1. Polite forms 4. Use of modals
communication 2. Spoken discourse markers 5. Grammatical structures used to
target 3. Speech features express opinion (agreement,
disagreement…etc.)
6. Text-bound lexicon depending on
the theme of the text chosen for RC
Resources • Round tables with 5 chairs each
required (LRC, • PC and data show
IT, audio-visual, • Recorder (audio/video)
accessories…etc.) • Books, stationery, banners, accessories…etc.
(continued)

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017 149

S. Blidi, Collaborative Learner Autonomy,
DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-2048-3
150 Resources Pack

(continued)
Process Each group of 5 students meet bi-weekly to discuss a reading text chosen by the
leader who prepares a task sheet with questions to accompany the reading text
assignment and potentially selects a supporting video, documentary, audio
document on the same topic of the text assigned. The leader changes every RC
meeting. Alternatively a number of groups (a whole class divided into 6 or 7
groups) meet to discuss a text chosen by one group each time. The RC meeting
can start with a presentation on the text by the leader then proceeds with answers
to the task sheet questions, discussions on the theme and issues raised by
participants (see Image A.1)
The objective of the RC is mainly to ensure that students:
1. Selected a reading of their own choice
2. Run the discussion at their own style and pace
3. Performed in a non-threatening and a friendly environment
4. Identified with a learning opportunity, gaining a sense of belonging
and protection
5. Participated from within the group and developed self-confidence
Developments on the RC as a CLA activity can be the generation of follow-up
activities such as:
1. Film circle
2. Documentary writing
3. Debate session
4. Student reading club forum

Image A.1 Reading circle

Resources Pack 151

Activity name CLA Resource Sheet 2 Participants Students Teacher Yes √

Movie Circle (MC) audience No
Activity type Group Interaction – Groups of 5 LRC Yes √
dynamics – 1 rotational support No
leader needed
– 4 members
Specify the rationale behind answering Yes (Teacher/LRC Support needed):
LRC and IT support is needed to provide adequate location and technical support related to the
broadcasting of the audio-visual input. The teacher is not needed but could occasionally attend for
guidance and support purposes without interfering
Learning 1. Consolidate listening skills and 4. Consolidate team-spirit, collaborative
objectives strategies working and leadership skills
outcomes 2. Implement communication skills 5. Implement communication and group
3. Grasp movie structure and technical discussion protocols
features
Language and 1. Polite forms 4. Grammatical structures used to
communication 2. Spoken discourse markers express opinion (agreement,
target 3. Use of modals disagreement…etc.)
5. Tenses
Resources • Round tables with 5 chairs each
required • PC and data show
(LRC, IT) • Accessories
audio-visual,
accessories…
etc.)
Process As a follow-up development of the RC Activity, a movie watching session can
be organized (see Image A.2). The movie selected addresses the same issue of
the RC text
The MC meeting can start with a presentation of the movie by the leader then
proceeds with watching then a post-movie discussion in which participants:
1. Express their appreciation of the movie
2. Discuss themes and issues the movie raises
3. Compare the way the theme was addressed by the RC text and by the movie
The objective of the MC is mainly to ensure that students:
1. Selected a movie of their own choice
2. Run the activity at their own style and pace
3. Performed in a friendly learning environment within a group with which they
feel secure
4. Identified with a learning opportunity that is interesting and developed in them a
sense of self-confidence
Developments on the MC activity can be the generation of follow-up activities such
as:
1. Documentary writing
2. Debate session
3. Student movie club forum
4. Establishment of a movie
5. Student movie festival/week
152 Resources Pack

Image A.2 Movie circle

Resources Pack 153

Activity name CLA Resource Sheet 3 Participants Students Teacher Yes √

Debate Circle (DC) audience No
Activity type Group—contest Interaction – Groups of 5 LRC Yes √
Collaborative dynamics – 1 rotational support No
Competitive leader needed
– 4 members
Specify the rationale behind answering Yes (Teacher/LRC Support needed):
LRC support is needed to provide adequate location, logistics, books required, support and guidance
during reading weeks in book/information search group members would conduct in preparation of the
meeting. The teacher is not needed but could occasionally attend for guidance and support purposes
and to enhance the debate. Guests (other classes or teachers) can be invited to attend the debate
Learning 1. Consolidate language skills 3. Consolidate team-spirit,
objectives (speaking and listening) collaborative working and
outcomes 2. Implement communication skills leadership skills
4. Implement communication and
debate protocols
Language and 1. Polite forms 4. Grammatical structures used to
communication 2. Spoken discourse markers express opinion (agreement,
target 3. Use of modals disagreement…etc.)
5. Tenses
Resources • Round tables with 5 chairs each
required • PC and data show
(LRC, IT, • Accessories
audio-visual,
accessories…
etc.)
Process As a potential development of the RC and MC Activity, a DC session can be
organized (see Images A.3 and A.4). The debate culminates initial discussions
that took place in RC and MC meetings
The Debate Circle meeting can start with a presentation of the debate theme and a
summary of the RC and MC activities by the leader then proceeds with the
debate. Participants:
1. Express their opinions in relation to the themes discussed in RC and MC
2. Activities
3. Open up horizons on related issues
4. Broaden background knowledge and culture
The objective of the DC is mainly to ensure that students:
1. Freely expressed their views in an open debate
2. Exchanged opinions and ideas in a friendly cooperative learning environment
3. Run the activity at their own style and pace
4. Identified with a learning opportunity that is interesting and developed in
them a sense of self-confidence
Developments on the DC activity can be the generation of follow-up activities
such as:
1. Documentary writing
2. Debate forum
3. Student magazine
154 Resources Pack

Image A.3 Debate Circle—Sample Image 1

Image A.4 Debate Circle—Sample Image 2

Resources Pack 155

Activity name CLA Resource Sheet 4 Participants Students Teacher Yes √

Literature Circle (LC) audience No
Activity type Group Interaction – Class LRC Yes √
Collaborative dynamics – 1 rotational support No
leader needed
Specify the rationale behind answering Yes (Teacher/LRC Support needed):
LRC support is needed to provide adequate location, logistics, books required, support and guidance
during reading weeks in book/information search group members would conduct in preparation of the
circle meeting. The teacher is needed to guide, support and enhance the debate literary work at stake.
Guests (other classes or teachers) can be invited to attend the discussion of the literary work
Learning 1. Consolidate knowledge about literary 4. Consolidate language skills (speaking
objectives works (structure, characterization, and listening)
outcomes climax, themes, imagery…etc.) 5. Appreciate stylistics and genre
2. Implement communication skills features (rhyme, rhythm, imagery,
3. Consolidate critical and analytical symbols…etc.) in literary works
skills (novel, poetry…etc.)
Language and 1. Use of tenses in narrative genre 4. Grammatical structures used to
communication 2. Use of verbs, nouns and adjectives in express opinion (agreement,
target literary works disagreement…etc.)
3. Nominal versus verbal structures 5. Communications skills and polite
forms use in discussions
Resources • Round tables with 5 chairs each
required • PC and data show
(LRC, IT, • Accessories
audio-visual, • Copies of literary work at stake (Circle leader to provide extracts to be covered)
accessories…
etc.)
Process The class can meet monthly to discuss a selected extract from a literary work (a
novel, a poem, a play…etc.). One voluntary student takes the lead and chooses the
literary work to be used. The leader prepares a task sheet and potentially selects a
supporting video, documentary, audio document on the same topic of the text
assigned. The leader changes every LC meeting. An alternative structure could be
dividing the whole class into 6 or 7 groups. The LC meeting can start with a
presentation on the novel chosen by the leader then proceeds with answers to the
task sheet questions, discussions on the theme and issues raised by participants then
ends up with a photo talk activity (e.g. Cover Page photos of the novel)
The objective of the LC is mainly to ensure that students:
1. Selected a literary work of their own choice and interest
2. Run the discussion at their own style and pace
3. Performed in a friendly learning context
4. Identified with a learning opportunity that provided them with a sense of
belonging and protection
5. Developed their sense of self-confidence
Developments on the LC as a CLA activity can be the generation of follow-up
activities such as:
1. Film Circle (the story of the film should be the same novel or play selected for
the LC)
2. Documentary writing
3. Debate session on the literary work and its film
4. Photo talk contest
156 Resources Pack

Activity name CLA Resource Sheet 5 Participants Students Teacher Yes √

Photo Talk Contest (PTC) audience No
Activity type Group Interaction – Class LRC Yes √
Competitive dynamics – 1 rotational support No
leader needed
Specify the rationale behind answering Yes (Teacher/LRC Support needed):
LRC support is needed to provide adequate location, logistics, IT technical support for the contest. The
teacher is needed to monitor the contest and chair the evaluation panel. Guests (other classes or teachers)
can be invited to attend the contest and take membership of the panel
Learning 1. Develop a critical eye on visual input 3. Consolidate language skills
objectives and relate it to symbolism, imagery… (speaking and listening)
outcomes etc. 5. Appreciate artistic and symbolic
2. Practise communication skills value of photography, paintings and
3. Enhance critical and analytical skills video-filming
Language and 1. Speaking and listening skills 4. Communication skills, polite forms
communication 2. Express opinion and use linguistic and contest protocols
target structures to present own arguments 5. Use of modals
3. Spoken discourse markers
Resources • Round tables with 5 chairs each
required • PC and data show
(LRC, IT, • Accessories
audio-visual, • Copies (hardcopy and softcopy) of the photos to be displayed for debate and
accessories… description during the Photo Talk session (Group leaders take turns in displaying
etc.) the photos chosen by their groups for the contest)
Process The PTC can be run monthly to compete in reading and interpreting visual input.
The activity can reach further impact by linking it with what was studied in regular
classes to appeal to students and create interest (e.g. Photo exhibition follow up
activity conducted by students—see Image A.5)
The PTC aims to ensure appeal and knowledge/skills transfer.
The PTC meeting can start with a presentation of the contest aims and objectives
then some trial examples can be made to facilitate the grasp of the contest
proceedings.
The objective of the PTC is mainly to ensure that students:
1. Selected photos they like and would like to share with peers
2. Competed with peers and appreciated their own contribution
3. Performed in a friendly learning context at their own style and pace,
4. Identified with a learning opportunity that provided them with a sense of
belonging and protection
5. Developed their sense of self-confidence
Developments on the PTC as a CLA activity can be the generation of follow-up
activities such as:
1. Film circle (select a film related to one of the photos
displayed in the contest)
2. Photo exhibition
Resources Pack 157

Image A.5 Photo talk contest

158 Resources Pack

Activity name CLA Resource Sheet 6 Participants Students Teacher Yes √

Job Fair (JF) audience No
Activity type Group Interaction – Class groups LRC Yes √
Collaborative dynamics support No
Competitive needed
Specify the rationale behind answering Yes (Teacher/LRC Support needed):
LRC support is needed to provide adequate location, logistics, IT technical support for the contest. The
teacher is needed to monitor the job fair contest and probably act as a guest of honour. Guests (other
classes or teachers) can be invited to attend the job fair
Learning 1. Develop a critical eye on job ads 3. Consolidate language skills (speaking
objectives (requirements, interview, recruitment and listening)
outcomes process…etc.) 5. Consolidate job-related vocabulary
2. Practise communication skills
3. Practise job search protocols
Language and 1. Speaking and listening skills 4. Communication skills, polite forms
communication 2. Job-related lexicon and contest protocols
target 3. Spoken discourse markers 5. Use of modals
Resources • Furniture
required (LRC, • PC and data show
IT, audio-visual, • Accessories
accessories… • Stands
etc.) • Flyers, brochures…etc.
Process The Job Fair can be run once per semester where groups of students act as business
enterprises coming to the university on a recruitment campaign (see Image A.6)
Other groups of students will act as job seekers. The JF activity can start with an
opening ceremony (Role Plays, speeches…etc.)
The objective of the JF is mainly to ensure that students:
1. Selected the role they prefer to act
2. Competed with peers and appreciated their own
contribution
3. Performed in a friendly learning context at their own style and pace
4. Identified with a learning opportunity that provided them with a sense of
belonging and protection
5. Developed their sense of self-confidence
Developments on the JF as a CLA activity can be:
1. Conducting a series of job interviews
2. Job fair exhibition

Image A.6 Job fair

Resources Pack 159

Activity name CLA Resource Sheet 7 Participants Students Teacher Yes √

Job Interviews (JI) audience No
Activity type Group collaborative Interaction – Class groups LRC Yes √
dynamics support No
needed
Specify the rationale behind answering Yes (Teacher/LRC Support needed):
LRC support is needed to provide adequate location, logistics, IT technical support for the contest. The
teacher is needed to monitor the job interview session and probably act as a panel member
Learning 1. Develop a critical eye on job ads 3. Practise job interview protocols
objectives (requirements, interview, recruitment 4. Consolidate language skills (speaking
outcomes process…etc.) and listening)
2. Practise communication skills 5. Consolidate job-related vocabulary
Language and 1. Speaking and listening skills 4. Communication skills, polite forms
communication 2. Job-related lexicon and contest protocols
target 3. Spoken discourse markers 5. Use of modals
Resources • Furniture
required • PC and data show
(LRC, IT, • Accessories
audio-visual, • Stands
accessories… • Flyers, brochures…etc.
etc.)
Process The JI sessions can be run as a follow-up of the Job Fair where groups of students
can perform role plays, acting as job seekers and interview panel members
(see Images A.7 and A.8)
The objective of the JI is mainly to ensure that students:
1. Practiced their communication skills
2. Tasted the job interview atmosphere
3. Performed in a friendly learning context at their own style and pace
4. Identified with a learning opportunity that provided them with a sense of
belonging and protection
5. developed their sense of self-confidence
Developments on the JI as a CLA activity can be:
1. First day at work
2. Job description contest
3. Problems at work and ways out
160 Resources Pack

Image A.7 Job Interview—Sample Image 1

Image A.8 Job Interview—Sample Image 2

Resources Pack 161

Activity name CLA Resource Sheet 8 Participants Students Teacher Yes √

Operetta audience No
Activity type Group collaborative Interaction – Mixed group LRC Yes √
dynamics from various support No
classes needed
Specify the rationale behind answering Yes (Teacher/LRC Support needed):
The teacher is needed to monitor, inspire and guide the activity (probably act as a director and actor,
poet, narrator, decoration designer/etc.). LRC/IT support is needed with accessories, stage set up, lighting
and so8nd systems, location…etc.
Learning 1. Practise communication skills 4. Consolidate language skills
objectives 2. Develop and practise artistic skills, (speaking, listening and writing)
outcomes know-how and protocols 5. Team-work, leadership and
3. Critical, analytical and creative performance-based learning skills
thinking skills 6. Develop appreciation for artistic
genres
Language and 1. Consolidate the four language skills 3. Standard vs non-standard language
communication 2. Musical and artistic jargon 4. Communication skills, polite forms
target and artistic protocols
Resources • Furniture
required (LRC, • PC and data show
IT, • Accessories and costumes
audio-visual, • Stands
accessories… • Flyers, brochures…etc.
etc.) • Lighting and sound system
• Musical instruments
Process The Operetta can be run once per semester as a productive culmination of a number
of individual, pair and group activities and rehearsals. The teacher can act as the
director and project manager with appropriate delegation of tasks and managerial
duties to group members. The Operetta starts with a series of thinking, designing and
planning sessions. During these sessions students exhibit negotiation, critical
thinking, artistic and collaborative skills (see Image A.9)
The objective of the Operetta is mainly to ensure that students:
1. Practiced their communication skills
2. Thought of, designed and planned a substantial project activity, performed in a
friendly learning context at their own style and pace
3. Identified with a learning opportunity that provided them with a sense of
belonging and protection
4. Developed their sense of self-confidence
5. Linked various skills and genes in a coherent exhaustive piece of artistic
performance
Developments on the Operetta as a CLA activity can be:
1. Musical festival
2. Epic
3. Play
162 Resources Pack

Image A.9 Operetta

Resources Pack 163

Activity name CLA Resource Sheet 9 Participants Students Teacher Yes √

Play audience No
Activity type Group Interaction – Mixed group LRC Yes √
Collaborative dynamics from various support No
classes needed
Specify the rationale behind answering Yes (Teacher/LRC Support needed):
The teacher is needed to monitor, inspire and guide the activity (probably act as a director and actor,
poet, narrator, decoration designer/etc.). LRC/IT support is needed with accessories, stage set up, lighting
and sound systems, location…etc.
Learning 1. Practise communication skills 4. Consolidate language skills
objectives 2. Theatrical techniques, strategies, skills, (speaking, listening and writing)
outcomes know-how and protocols 5. Team-work and leadership skills
3. Critical, analytical and creative 6. Develop appreciation for artistic
thinking skills genres
Language and 1. Consolidate the four language skills, 3. Standard vs non-standard language
communication 2. Theatrical and artistic jargon 4. Communication skills, polite forms
target and artistic protocols
Resources • Furniture
required • PC and data show
(LRC, IT, • Accessories and costumes
audio-visual, • Stands
accessories… • Flyers, brochures…etc.
etc.) • Lighting and sound system
• Musical instruments
Process The Play can be run once per semester as a productive culmination of number of
individual, pair and group activities and rehearsals. The teacher can act as the
director and project manager with appropriate delegation of tasks and managerial
duties to group members. The Play starts with a series of thinking, designing and
planning sessions. During these sessions students exhibit negotiation, critical
thinking, artistic and collaborative skills (see Image A.10).
The objective of the Play is mainly to ensure that students:
1. Practiced their communication skills
2. Thought of, designed and planned a substantial project activity, performed in a
friendly learning context at their own style and pace
3. Identified with a learning opportunity that provided them with a sense of
belonging and protection
4. Developed their sense of self-confidence
5. Linked various skills and genes in a coherent exhaustive piece of artistic
performance
Developments on the Play as a CLA activity can be:
1. Theatre festival
2. Writing scripts workshop/contest
164 Resources Pack

Image A.10 Play

Appendix A
Questionnaire

This questionnaire is designed after consultation of various questionnaires con-

ducted in a number of prominent researches visited in the literature, namely:
1. Cotterall, S. (1995)
2. Gardner and Miller (1999)
3. Reinders, H. (2000)

Section 1: Students Learning Styles/Habits

Please read the statements carefully then write the number that corresponds to your
opinion.
1: Totally agree 2: Agree 3: Undecided 4: Disagree 5: Totally disagree 6: Not
applicable

Statement: I/my students Opinion

1 Work whenever time is there and do not follow a strict routine
2 Study what interests me/them and do not follow a strict timetable
3 Always meet deadlines and submit work on time
4 Prefer to be given a clear outline and a plan in advance
5 Prefer to be given assignments rather than choose
6 Prefer to think over an issue and make relevant search
7 Prefer to develop own readings
8 Prefer to be told what to do
9 Usually wait for the teacher to give an overview
10 Like to have breaks between activities
11 Prefer to have a clear guidance on how to handle any activity undertaken
12 Prefer group tasks
13 Prefer to work alone in the LRC/SLV
14 Prefer to read others’ ideas rather than develop own ideas
15 Enjoy working with peers
16 Learn more through reading
17 In groups ideas are easily generated
18 Think that teamwork is a waste of time
19 Like to discuss assignments with peers
20 Prefer to take part in activities that engage imagination

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017 165

S. Blidi, Collaborative Learner Autonomy,
DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-2048-3
166 Appendix A: Questionnaire

Section 2: Evaluation of Autonomous Learning Orientation Programmes

(ALOP):

Part A
1. Is there any ALOP (or any form of workshops or lessons that train students and
guide them to properly use the LRC/SLV and work in libraries individually or
with peers) in your HEI?
Yes ____________ No _____________
2. If your answer is ‘Yes’, how do you rate the success of the ALOP in providing
students with the required skills? Tick the right box.

Highly efficient Partly effi cient Undecided Barely efficient Inefficient and
and sufficient and sufficient and sufficient insufficient

3. Are students sent by the teacher to the LRC/SLV to carry out learning activities?
Yes ____________ No _____________
4. If your answer is ‘Yes’, how often? Tick the right box.
Always in every lesson Occasionally Only when requested Rarely Never

5. How do you rate the frequency with which students are sent to work inde-
pendently or in peers in the LRC/SLV? Tick the right box.

Largely enough Just enough Undecided Barely enough Not enough

Part B
If most of your answers to Section 2/Part A are ‘No’, please skip this part and go
straight to Section 3.
Please read the statements carefully then write the number that corresponds to
your opinion.
1: Totally agree 2: Agree 3: Undecided 4: Disagree 5: Totally disagree 6: Not
applicable

Statements Opinion
1 The ALOP helps students improve their English language skills
2 Students like the ALOP for the break opportunities it offers from formal classes
3 Students like the ALOP as it enables them to use audio-visual materials
4 Students like the ALOP because there they can find books and resources
(continued)
Appendix A: Questionnaire 167

(continued)
Statements Opinion
5 Students like the ALOP because there they can use computers and printers
6 Students like the ALOP because there they can access websites
7 Students like the ALOP because there they can improve their English
8 Students like the ALOP because it helps them better use time
9 Students like the ALOP because there they develop responsibility and control
10 During ALOP sessions students prefer to be told what to do
11 Students like the ALOP because there they are free to decide what to study
12 During ALOP sessions students prefer to be told how to work to improve their
English
13 Working independently during ALOP workshops helps students develop own
strategies to improve their English

Section 3/Part A
Reasons for not using the LRC/SLV among Omani students at tertiary level.
1. Why do students refrain from using the LRC/SLV? Put the reasons that you find
valid in the order of importance according to you.

Reasons Opinion
1 No free time
2 Not interesting materials
3 Too difficult materials to use
4 Not part of assessments
5 No preference for working on their own
6 No one available to support and guide
7 Not requested by the teacher
8 Lacking the skills required to work in the LRC/SLV and use resources
Other…__________________________________________________________

2. What would encourage students to use the LRC/SLV and develop autonomy?
(Tick the reasons you find valid).

Reasons Opinion
1 Spend time in the LRC/SLV with their class peers
2 Required by the teacher
3 Support and guidance by the teacher
4 Teacher offering workshops and training tasks
5 Incorporated in formal learning
6 Teachers guiding students to useful internet sites with language tasks
7 Having enough training at the beginning of each term
168 Appendix A: Questionnaire

Section 3/Part B
Reasons for using the LRC/SLV among Omani students at tertiary level.
3. Why do students use the LRC/SLV? Tick the reasons that you find valid.

Reasons Opinion
1 Required by the teacher
2 Prefer to study on their own
3 Opportunity to meet peers
4 Quiet place
5 Use learning tasks sheets and resources
6 Use IT facilities and computers
7 Finding someone to support and guide

Materials used in the LRC/SLV and the frequency of use.

4. Read the types of materials and write the number that corresponds to your
opinion.

Very often—1 Sometimes—2 Rarely—3 Never—4

Materials Opinion
1 Books, CDs…etc.
2 Movies
3 Dictionaries/reference books
4 Readers and novels
5 ELT books
6 Test preparation materials
7 Computers and ELT software
8 Internet language practice
9 Magazines
10 User manuals
11 Letters
12 Leaflets and flyers
13 TV programmes
14 Radio programmes
15 Videos
16 Lectures and speeches
17 Songs
Appendix A: Questionnaire 169

5. Please read the features carefully then write the number that corresponds to
your opinion.
1: Totally agree 2: Agree 3: Undecided 4: Disagree 5: Totally disagree

Statements Opinion
1 Novel and attractive
2 Relaxing
3 Develops self-confidence
4 Authentic
5 Accessible
6 Reinforces readiness to study independently
7 Offers an opportunity to communicate in English
8 Offers an opportunity to make choice
9 Offers an opportunity to train and guide
10 Offers an opportunity for self-investment
11 Reduces reliance on controlled class practices
12 Helps develop autonomous learning strategies and skills

Section 4/Students attitudes vis-à-vis self-access, self-learning and learner

autonomy
6. How often have your experienced self-access and self-learning in your formal
learning? Tick the right box.
A great deal Fair enough Some Never

7. For statements 1–8, write the number that corresponds to your opinion.
1: Totally agree 2: Agree 3: Undecided 4: Disagree 5: Totally disagree 6: Not
applicable

Statements: self-access learning opportunities Opinion

1 Facilitate learning independently
2 Enhance discipline
3 Provide useful feedback
4 Offer opportunities to interact with peers and teachers
5 Offer opportunities to exchange information with peers
6 Prompt feedback on learning
7 Help develop learning strategies
8 Enhances students’ readiness and willingness to develop autonomy
170 Appendix A: Questionnaire

8. Which adjectives better describe students’ experience with self-access and

self-learning activities? Tick.

Adjectives Opinion
1 Useful
2 Flexible
3 Frustrating
4 Helpful
5 Interesting
6 Hard to access
7 Challenging
8 Lovely and enjoyable

9. Self-access and self-learning tasks enhance learners’ readiness and willingness

to develop learner autonomy through different means.
Write the number that corresponds to your opinion.
1: Totally agree 2: Agree 3: Undecided 4: Disagree 5: Totally disagree 6: Not
applicable

Statements Opinion
1 Contact with peers
2 Working on own pace
3 Access library/LRC/SLV resources
4 Training and guidance
5 Opportunity to discuss ideas with peers

10. Write the number that corresponds to your opinion.

1: Totally agree 2: Agree 3: Undecided 4: Disagree 5: Totally disagree 6: Not
applicable

SACs/SLVs Opinion
1 Are reliable and easy to access
2 Offer students enough training
3 Have helpful helpdesks
4 Involve tasks that should be incorporated in formal learning
5 Offer an opportunities to exchange information with peers
Appendix A: Questionnaire 171

Section 5/Teachers’ use of LRCs and SLVs

1. How often teachers send students to study in LRCs and SLVs?

More than twice a week Once to twice a week Few times Rarely Never

2. How useful do you think students’ studying in LRCs and SLVs is?

Very useful Useful Not always useful Not useful at all Undecided

3. Which materials Teachers send students to use in LRCs and SLVs? How useful?
Write your opinion opposite the materials you select.

Materials Opinion
1 Books, CDs…etc.
2 Movies
3 Dictionaries/reference books
4 Readers and novels
5 ELT books
6 Test preparation materials
7 Computers and ELT software
8 Internet language practice
9 Magazines
10 User manuals
11 Letters
12 Leaflets and flyers
13 TV programmes
14 Radio programmes
15 Videos
16 Lectures and speeches
17 Songs

4. What materials do you think can be added?

________________________________________________________________
5. What materials do you think can be used more often?
________________________________________________________________
6. When students work in LRCs and SLVs, they:
(a) Mostly do things they are told to do by the teacher: ________
(b) Mostly do things they decide for themselves: ________
172 Appendix A: Questionnaire

7. What is the most difficult aspect of working in the LRCs and SLVs?
_________________________________________________________
8. Do teachers get their students to make use of other resources from other centres?
Yes ____________ No _____________
9. How useful was the introduction given to students on how to work in LRCs and
SLVs (ALOP, for instance)?

Very useful Useful Not always useful Not useful at all Undecided

10. How helpful did students find it to have someone to guide, support and help in
LRCs and SLVs?

Very useful Useful Not always useful Not useful at all Undecided

11. How difficult was it for students to find learning materials at the LRCs and
SLVs?

Very much difficult Somehow difficult A little difficult Not difficult Undecided

12. How much previous experience students have with working at LRCs and SLVs
before the ALOP?

A great deal Fair enough Some Never

13. Do you think that working in LRCs and SLVs helps students to learn how to
learn English by themselves in the future?
________________________________________________________________
14. Do you think it is important for students to have a course the trains them to
work in LRCs and SLVs?
________________________________________________________________
15. How important do students find the tasks/activities teachers refer them to do in
LRCs and SLVs?
________________________________________________________________
16. Do you have any suggestions to improve the LRCs and SLVs?
_______________________________________________________________
Appendix A: Questionnaire 173

Section 6/Teachers’ Role in LRCs and SLVs

Please read the statements carefully then write the number that corresponds to your
opinion.
1: Totally agree 2: Agree 3: Undecided 4: Disagree 5: Totally disagree 6: Not
applicable

Statements Opinion
1 In LRCs and SLVs students are perceived as collaborative learners
2 Teachers consider themselves in LRCs and SLVs as collaborators
3 LRC and SLV materials are negotiable and flexible
4 Teacher’s role in LRCs and SLVs is orienting students to an array of materials and
resources
5 Teachers in LRCs and SLVs discuss and develop in learners self-monitoring ways
6 Teachers in in LRCs and SLVs play the role of a reflective listener
7 In regular formal classes teachers use/refer students to a variety of learning materials
available in LRCs and SLVs
8 LRCs and SLVs activities provide teachers with the opportunity to offer learners
one-to-one feedback and support

Section 7/Student Counselling Skills in SACs/LRCs/SLVs

Kindly go through Kelly’s (1996: 94) Macro-skills and Micro-skills for Students’
counselling and write your opinion about each.

Macro-skills Opinion
1 Initiating
2 Goal-setting
3 Guiding
4 Modelling
5 Supporting
6 Giving feedback
7 Evaluating
8 Linking
9 Concluding

Micro-skills Opinion
1 Attending
2 Restating
3 Paraphrasing
4 Summarising
5 Questioning
6 Interpreting
7 Reflecting feelings
8 Emphasising
9 Confronting
Appendix B
Interviews with Students

Interview I
Students Attitudes to Self-access Learning Centres

Question Answer
Which is the most important part of your What I do myself is the most important for
learning: class, self-access learning centres or me
other?
Do you like to study by yourself? Yes…most of the time
How important is what you do yourself I prefer studying myself…but what I am
compared with what you do in class? given in class is a better way to help myself
Are you good at learning by yourself? Yes
Where do you often prefer to study by At home because the library and the LRC
yourself? are always crowded
Do you know the self-access learning centre Yes
(SALC/LRC/LIBRARY)?
Do you ever use the SALC/LRC/LIBRARY? Yes
How often do you use the Only when I have to find something
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY?
What do you do in the Find books and consult reference resources
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY?
Do you do your homework here? Not at all
What is most important in the Both as I think they are connected
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY: the input or the
atmosphere or both?
How do you try to get as much input as I always start by asking the library assistant
possible while in the SALC/LRC/LIBRARY?
What materials do you use? I use the Internet to download e-books
Do you use the computers? Yes
When you work out-of class, do you mainly do I start by doing what I am asked to do, and I
things your teacher told you to do or things can do other things if I am free
you decide to do yourself?
Tutorial and self-access sessions try to teach No
you how to learn independently/autonomously.
(continued)

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017 175

S. Blidi, Collaborative Learner Autonomy,
DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-2048-3
176 Appendix B: Interviews with Students

(continued)
Question Answer
Do you have any sessions like that in your
university/college? If yes, what is your
experience with them?
One of the goals of the SALC/LRC/LIBRARY No, but some students are trying to create
is developing learner autonomy. Do you some groups for this
experience this in your university/college?
Do you find it difficult to find the right Yes…because of the lack of books that we
materials and work at the need
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY?
What do you think about there being someone That is very important because it will make
in the SALC/LRC/LIBRARY to help you? things easier
Do you feel your teacher shows you how to Sometimes yes
learn by yourself?
Do you find it difficult to work by yourself? No…because I concentrate and do things
Why? the way I like them to be done
Are there any other ways your teacher is Yes
explicitly trying to develop your autonomous
learning skills?
Do you notice that your teacher tries to Yes
develop your autonomous learning skills? Are
there any implicit ways your teacher tries to
develop these skills?
Do you think it’s important for students to Yes…very important I would say
develop learner autonomy?
Is it useful for students to learn how to learn by Yes
themselves?
Have you learned better to learn by yourself in Yes I have…but in some courses only. We
your course(s)? wish to have this practice in all courses
So what you learn autonomously now will help Definitely…
you in the future?
Will you use these autonomous learning Yes…and I would get as many as I can from
strategies after you finish your courses? my peers to do the same
Do you feel confident about studying English Yes. Confidence is one of the merits of
after being trained to work autonomously? autonomous learning
Does your teacher often refer you to the Unfortunately this is done only few times
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY? and not in all courses
Do you think that it would be better if your Sometimes more guidance is required and
teacher were little more directing? would be useful
What is your opinion about autonomous It is very much important and helpful in all
learning? the ways
Is it a good philosophy? Yes it is…without doubt
(continued)
Appendix B: Interviews with Students 177

(continued)
Question Answer
Do you think students have to know about this I believe this philosophy must be the
philosophy of self-access learning? guiding lines of teaching and learning
practices
Do you have any suggestions? I think the LRC should be supported by a
well-equipped and well-established
Self-access Learning Centre

Interview II
Students Attitudes to Self-access Learning Centres

Question Answer
Which is the most important part of your What I do myself
learning: class, self-access learning centres or
other?
Do you like to study by yourself? Yes…I do
How important is what you do yourself I prefer doing what I like… What I do myself
compared with what you do in class? is more important as then I feel free to choose
what I want to study
Are you good at learning by yourself? I believe so
Where do you often prefer to study by In my bed at home because the library is
yourself? always crowded and when there is room the
noise and the lack of discipline make it
difficult for me to work there
Do you know the self-access learning centre Yes
(SALC/LRC/LIBRARY)?
Do you ever use the SALC/LRC/LIBRARY? Yes
How often do you use the Yes…if there is a need for it
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY?
What do you do in the Find reference books and online materials
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY?
Do you do your homework here? No
What is most important in the Both of them. One completes the other
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY: the input or the
atmosphere or both?
How do you try to get as much input as I always try to get the help of library staff and
possible while in the SALC/LRC/LIBRARY? try to access the Internet for support
What materials do you use? Books and downloads
Do you use the computers? Yes
When you work out-of class, do you mainly I start by doing things that the teacher asks to
do things your teacher told you to do or me to do but mostly I prefer to do things I
things you decide to do yourself? decided by myself
Tutorial and self-access sessions try to teach No
you how to autonomously. Do you have any
(continued)
178 Appendix B: Interviews with Students

(continued)
Question Answer
sessions like that in your university/college?
If yes, what is your experience with them?
One of the goals of the No, there is no system but there are some
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY is developing learner individual tries
autonomy. Do you experience this in your
university/college?
Do you find it difficult to find the right Studying there is difficult because the
materials and work at the atmosphere is not favourable and the
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY? materials are limited
What do you think about there being Yes…it would help students a lot
someone in the SALC/LRC/LIBRARY to
help you?
Do you feel your teacher shows you how to Not all of them, only very few of them
learn by yourself?
Do you find it difficult to work by yourself? No…I am able to control everything related
Why? to my studies
Are there any other ways your teacher is Yes
explicitly trying to develop your autonomous
learning skills?
Do you notice that your teacher tries to Yes by giving hints and giving example
develop your autonomous learning skills?
Are there any implicit ways your teacher tries
to develop these skills?
Do you think it’s important for students to Yes…of course
develop learner autonomy?
Is it useful for students to learn how to learn Yes
by themselves?
Have you learned better to learn by yourself Yes I have…but by myself
in your course(s)?
So what you learn autonomously now will I agree
help you in the future?
Will you use these autonomous learning Yes… I will
strategies after you finish your courses?
Do you feel confident about studying English Yes, I do
after being trained to work autonomously?
Does your teacher often refer you to the Rarely and sometimes not directly
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY?
Do you think that it would be better if your Yes
teacher were little more directing?
What is your opinion about autonomous I believe it is a very useful skill
learning?
Is it a good philosophy? Yes
Do you think students have to know about Yes
this philosophy of self-access learning?
Do you have any suggestions? Apply self-access learning at the university
Appendix B: Interviews with Students 179

Interview III
Students Attitudes to SACs/SLVs/LRCs

Question Answer
Which is the most important part of your Self-learning
learning: class, self-access learning centres or
other?
Do you like to study by yourself? Yes…100 %
How important is what you do yourself I feel that what I do by myself is more
compared with what you do in class? important that what I do in class because I
feel like it belongs to me
Are you good at learning by yourself? Well! Yes, but not always. Sometimes I need
some other hands from others
Where do you often prefer to study by Home in a quiet place with Internet access
yourself? network to help
Do you know the self-access learning centre No, we don’t have but we have an LRC
(SALC/LRC/LIBRARY)?
Do you ever use the SALC/LRC/LIBRARY? Yes
How often do you use the Rarely
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY?
What do you do in the Small meetings, self-learning and with
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY? friends, computer access and reading
newspapers
Do you do your homework here? Sometimes yes
What is most important in the I feel like the atmosphere is more important
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY: the input or the than the input because if the atmosphere is
atmosphere or both? not good, the other things may not come in
hand
How do you try to get as much input as I always try to make use of the available ones.
possible while in the SALC/LRC/LIBRARY? Reading, asking the library staff about the
tasks I need
What materials do you use? Books, newspapers, magazines, researches…
Do you use the computers? Definitely, yes
When you work out-of class, do you mainly Both but usually I use what the teacher and I
do things your teacher told you to do or build in that
things you decide to do yourself?
Tutorial and self-access sessions try to teach Yes
you how to learn autonomously. Do you have
any sessions like that in your
university/college? If yes, what is your
experience with them?
One of the goals of the Yes, individually but not systematically.
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY is developing learner There were some individuals
autonomy. Do you experience this in your
university/college?
(continued)
180 Appendix B: Interviews with Students

(continued)
Question Answer
Do you find it difficult to find the right Sometimes, yes
materials and work at the
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY?
What do you think about there being It is good and time saving. With his/her
someone in the SALC/LRC/LIBRARY to experience he/she may give me a better idea
help you?
Do you feel your teacher shows you how to Not all of them, only very few of them
learn by yourself?
Do you find it difficult to work by yourself? No
Why?
Are there any other ways your teacher is Yes
explicitly trying to develop your autonomous
learning skills?
Do you notice that your teacher tries to Yes, sometimes by giving us the materials
develop your autonomous learning skills? and the handouts which may require the
Are there any implicit ways your teacher tries independent learning skills
to develop these skills?
Do you think it’s important for students to Yes…in order to increase the level of
develop learner autonomy? knowledge
Is it useful for students to learn how to learn Yes
by themselves?
Have you learned better to learn by yourself Yes
in your course(s)?
So what you learn autonomously now will I agree
help you in the future?
Will you use these autonomous learning Yes… I will
strategies after you finish your courses?
Do you feel confident about studying English Yes, I do
after being trained to work autonomously?
Does your teacher often refer you to the Sometimes
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY?
Do you think that it would be better if your Yes
teacher were little more directing?
What is your opinion about autonomous Yes… I will
learning?
Is it a good philosophy? Yes
Do you think students have to know about Yes
this philosophy of self-access learning?
Do you have any suggestions? Establish a self-access centre at the university
and use self-access learning in courses
Appendix B: Interviews with Students 181

Interview IV
Students Attitudes to SACs/SLVs/LRCs

Question Answer
Which is the most important part of your What I do myself
learning: class, self-access learning centres or
other?
Do you like to study by yourself? Yes
How important is what you do yourself I feel myself autonomous and hard working.
compared with what you do in class? So, for me what I do myself is more
important because it makes me feel free
Are you good at learning by yourself? I think so
Where do you often prefer to study by Anywhere that is calm. Sometimes with my
yourself? friends, and in the study area in the LRC
Do you know the self-access learning centre Yes
(SALC/LRC/LIBRARY)?
Do you ever use the SALC/LRC/LIBRARY? Yes
How often do you use the Almost daily
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY?
What do you do in the Most of the times to find reference books and
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY? online materials and work with my group
members when we have assignments
Do you do your homework here? No
What is most important in the They are complementary
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY: the input or the
atmosphere or both?
How do you try to get as much input as Seeking adequate support from specialised
possible while in the SALC/LRC/LIBRARY? staff
What materials do you use? Anything, especially those teachers refer us to
Do you use the computers? Yes
When you work out-of class, do you mainly I start by what is assigned by the teacher but
do things your teacher told you to do or mostly I prefer to do things I decided by
things you decide to do yourself? myself
Tutorial and self-access sessions try to teach No
you how to learn autonomously. Do you have
any sessions like that in your
university/college? If yes, what is your
experience with them?
One of the goals of the No. Only individual tries
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY is developing learner
autonomy. Do you experience this in your
university/college?
Do you find it difficult to find the right Sometimes yes…but very often it is difficult
materials and work at the to study there because the atmosphere is not
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY? favourable and the materials are limited
(continued)
182 Appendix B: Interviews with Students

(continued)
Question Answer
What do you think about there being Yes
someone in the SALC/LRC/LIBRARY to
help you?
Do you feel your teacher shows you how to Only two or three of them
learn by yourself?
Do you find it difficult to work by yourself? No
Why?
Are there any other ways your teacher is Yes
explicitly trying to develop your autonomous
learning skills?
Do you notice that your teacher tries to Yes
develop your autonomous learning skills?
Are there any implicit ways your teacher tries
to develop these skills?
Do you think it’s important for students to Yes
develop learner independence/autonomy?
Is it useful for students to learn how to learn Yes
by themselves?
Have you learned better to learn by yourself Yes
in your course(s)?
So what you learn autonomously now will Sure
help you in the future?
Will you use these autonomous learning Yes… I will
strategies after you finish your courses?
Do you feel confident about studying English Yes
after being trained to work autonomously?
Does your teacher often refer you to the Not directly
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY?
Do you think that it would be better if your Yes
teacher were little more directing?
What is your opinion about autonomous Great and should be used in all courses
learning?
Is it a good philosophy? Yes
Do you think students have to know about Yes
this philosophy of self-access learning?
Do you have any suggestions? Apply self-access learning at the university
Appendix C
Interviews with Teachers

Interview V
Teachers Perceptions of SACs/SLVs/LRCs

Question Answer
Which is the most important part of your I think it is the class and they will never
students learning: class, self-access learning experience self-access learning if I ask them to
centres or other? do so
Do you think it is important for your students Yes of course. Sometimes they don’t know
to study by themselves? Do they like it? how to start planning or don’t have
information search skills or problem solving
According to you, how important is what your What they do in class is the starting point and
students do themselves compared with what they follow some strategies that might help
they do in class? them. But what they do by themselves is for
sure more important because what they learn
in class they will apply when they work
Are they good at learning by themselves? They will be so with more practice. Nobody
can be good at something without practising it
because they might find some problems and
they can avoid it in the next time
Where do your students often prefer to study At home
by themselves?
Do you have a self-access learning centre No, an LRC
(SALC) in your university? If not, is it a LRC
or a Library?
Do your students ever use the They use it when they have homework, some
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY? project work or if they need it. Only around 10 %
of the students use it in their own learning
How often do they use the Only when needed
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY?
What do your students do in the Doing their homework, searching, reading,
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY? discussions in the study spaces, interviews,
chatting and spending their free time
Do you your students do their homework in Yes
the SALC/LRC/LIBRARY?
(continued)

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017 183

S. Blidi, Collaborative Learner Autonomy,
DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-2048-3
184 Appendix C: Interviews with Teachers

(continued)
Question Answer
What is most important in the I think both
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY: the input or the
atmosphere or both?
What materials do your students use/get your Books, the Internet, magazines…etc
students to use?
Do your students use the computers? Yes, they have to because they need it for their
homework, especially when using the SULMS
(Sohar University Learning Management
System)
When your students work out-of class, do they Mostly what I tell them to do because they
mainly do things you told them to do or things think of marks. Some of them they do what
they decide to do themselves? they decide in their free time
Getting started with the SALC: Tutorial and No
self-access sessions try to teach students how
to learn autonomously. Do you think your
students experience that?
One of the goals of the SALC/ No
LRC/LIBRARY is developing learner
autonomy. Do you think your students
experience this in your university/college?
Do you think your students find it difficult to Yes, it is difficult to find them and they can’t
find the right materials and work at the work there because of the noise
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY?
What do you think about there being someone Sure, a well experienced and exposed
in the SALC/LRC/LIBRARY to help your library/LRC assistant who knows the materials
students? and the reference books and can help students
in implementing research skills
Do you feel you need to show your students Yes, I do. Some students don’t have research
how to learn by themselves? skills
Do your students find it difficult to work by Sometimes only. This is because they lack the
themselves? Why? required research skills
Are there any other ways you can use to Training and voluntary work
explicitly develop autonomous learning skills
among your students?
Do your students notice that you try to Yes, by making more exercises or team project
develop autonomous learning skills in them? work. LRC weekly Search Sheets
Are there any implicit ways you try to develop
these skills?
Do you think it’s important for students to Yes
develop learner autonomy?
Is it useful for your students to learn how to Yes
learn by themselves?
Have your students learned better to learn by I think, yes
themselves in your course(s)?
To what extent you think what your students To a large extent
learn autonomously now will help them in the
future?
(continued)
Appendix C: Interviews with Teachers 185

(continued)
Question Answer
Do you often refer your students to the Yes, I send them to the LRC to do their
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY? assignments and make library search
Do you think that it would be better if you No
were little more directing?
What is your opinion about the autonomous It is very beneficial. It builds one’s personality
learning? and helps students in their own learning
Is it a good philosophy? Yes of course
Do you think your students have to know Yes
about this philosophy of self-access learning?
Do you have any suggestions? I suggest that we start workshops and
awareness programmes. Teachers should
know these strategies of self-access learning
so that they can help their students

Interview VI
Teachers Perceptions of SACs/SLVs/LRCs

Department Faculty University/college Levels/courses taught Interview

date
Teacher 2 F.H.S.S Sohar University Level 1 and 2: EAP / 11/04/2010
D.E.L.T Intercultural Encounters
Question Answer
Which is the most important part of your I think the class and they do things outside
students learning: class, self-access learning the class only if the teachers do ask them to
centres or other? do it
Do you think it is important for your students Yes, for sure but most of them do not like it
to study by themselves? Do they like it? because they are not aware about it
According to you, how important is what your The class must be the starting point only and
students do themselves compared with what then the students have to complete most of
they do in class? the work by themselves
Are they good at learning by themselves? No, they are not that good, because they do
not know how to do it
Where do your students often prefer to study Mostly at home
by themselves?
Do you have a self-access learning centre No, an LRC
(SALC) in your university? If not, is it a LRC
or a Library?
Do your students ever use the Yes, they use it in some cases
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY?
How often do they use the Often when they are asked to use it
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY?
What do your students do in the To do their homework, research, chatting,
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY? reading, finding information….etc.
(continued)
186 Appendix C: Interviews with Teachers

(continued)
Department Faculty University/college Levels/courses taught Interview
date
Do you your students do their homework in Yes they do
the SALC/LRC/LIBRARY?
What is most important in the I believe the input only
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY: the input or the
atmosphere or both?
What materials do your students use/get your Books and internet
students to use?
Do your students use the computers? No, because there are no computers in LRC
but, they can use their own laptops
When your students work out-of class, do they Mostly they do things the teachers ask them
mainly do things you told them to do or things to do
they decide to do themselves?
Getting started with the SALC: Tutorial and No
self-access sessions try to teach students how
to learn autonomously. Do you think your
students experience that?
One of the goals of the No
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY is developing learner
autonomy. Do you think your students
experience this in your university/college?
Do you think your students find it difficult to Yes, they do
find the right materials and work at the
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY?
What do you think about there being someone Sure, it will be very helpful idea to help the
in the SALC/LRC/LIBRARY to help your students
students?
Do you feel you need to show your students Yes, sure because they need to know the
how to learn by themselves? strategies
Do your students find it difficult to work by Yes, because they do not know how to do it
themselves? Why? and they are not aware about it
Are there any other ways you can use to Yes, we need to create the awareness among
explicitly develop autonomous learning skills the students about the importance of the
among your students? autonomous learning and then show them
how to do it
Do your students notice that you try to develop Yes, by trying to create the awareness about
autonomous learning skills in them? Are there it
any implicit ways you try to develop these
skills?
Do you think it’s important for students to Yes
develop learner autonomy?
Is it useful for your students to learn how to Sure
learn by themselves?
Have your students learned better to learn by Yes, I think
themselves in your course(s)?
(continued)
Appendix C: Interviews with Teachers 187

(continued)
Department Faculty University/college Levels/courses taught Interview
date
To what extent you think what your students To a large extent
learn autonomously now will help them in the
future?
Do you often refer your students to the Yes I do
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY?
Do you think that it would be better if you Yes
were little more directing?
What is your opinion about the autonomous It is the best way that the students can learn
learning? and improve
Is it a good philosophy? Yes
Do you think your students have to know Yes
about this philosophy of self-access learning?
Do you have any suggestions? I suggest we need to create the awareness
among teachers about this and train them to
create it among their students

Interview VII
Teachers Perceptions of SACs/SLVs/LRCs

Question Answer
Which is the most important part of your Actually, it’s a mixture of in-class and
students learning: class, self-access learning out-of-class activities. It depends primarily on
centres or other? the task assigned. But still due to their
conservative learning culture, the majority of
the students find their class work most
important
Do you think it is important for your students It’s more than important. It’s vital. Like it or
to study by themselves? Do they like it? not? Well, I guess that they started liking it
According to you, how important is what Work at home and in the LRC (out of class)
your students do themselves compared with complements class work and both should feed
what they do in class? in each other to reach common objectives
Are they good at learning by themselves? The majority are struggling to make right
moves in this direction. But there are some
students who displayed good potential and
outstanding performance in practice
Where do your students often prefer to study At home, I guess, or in the students’ common
by themselves? room. The majority of the students find the
LRC sort of a repulsive environment, not
favourable for learning (crowd, noise, lack of
resources…)
Do you have a self-access learning centre No, an LRC
(SALC) in your university? If not, is it a LRC
or a Library?
(continued)
188 Appendix C: Interviews with Teachers

(continued)
Question Answer
Do your students ever use the Yes, but not as should be
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY?
How often do they use the For few cases, it’s daily, as they claim. For
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY? the majority it’s only when required/on need
What do your students do in the Basically their homework and some search
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY? for their assignments
Do you your students do their homework in Yes for a large number of them
the SALC/LRC/LIBRARY?
What is most important in the I think both. And actually this is what makes
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY: the input or the of it a repulsive environment: poor content
atmosphere or both? and disorganised
What materials do your students use/get your Software, ELT books, videos, books…etc.
students to use?
Do your students use the computers? Yes, especially for Internet search part of
their assignments
When your students work out-of class, do What I assign to them usually constitute the
they mainly do things you told them to do or starting point. But mostly they do what they
things they decide to do themselves? decide for themselves based on my guidance
Getting started with the SALC: Tutorial and Yes
self-access sessions try to teach students how
to learn autonomously. Do you think your
students experience that?
One of the goals of the Yes but to be sincere about it, not in all
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY is developing learner courses and with all lecturers!!!
autonomy. Do you think your students
experience this in your university/college?
Do you think your students find it difficult to Yes despite the support provided by the staff
find the right materials and work at the there (as well as the catalogue facility
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY? “ALICE”). It’s a matter of awareness and
habit formation
What do you think about there being Definitely, this is vital and very much fruitful.
someone in the SALC/LRC/LIBRARY to I feel that proper guidance is still required
help your students? from academic staff, and from LRC support
staff
Do you feel you need to show your students Of course there must be an initiation stage.
how to learn by themselves? And I think this is the major shortage in our
university
Do your students find it difficult to work by Yes. Partly because of the non-constructive
themselves? Why? learning habits/styles/strategies they
developed. They can’t digest the transition.
Also, there is a lack of proper and systematic
guidance from staff
Are there any other ways you can use to Literature and the sheer volume of
explicitly develop autonomous learning skills experiments and projects made all over the
among your students? world constitute an endless resourceful
repertoire of ways to develop/improve
autonomous learning
(continued)
Appendix C: Interviews with Teachers 189

(continued)
Question Answer
Do your students notice that you try to Yes. They always come back to me after each
develop autonomous learning skills in them? task to discuss the objectives, procedures…
Are there any implicit ways you try to problems. They often come to tell me that the
develop these skills? ultimate objective is to make them learn by
themselves
Do you think it’s important for students to Very important. Extremely important
develop learner autonomy?
Is it useful for your students to learn how to Very useful. Extremely useful
learn by themselves?
Have your students learned better to learn by I think so. Yet much needs to be done to
themselves in your course(s)? consolidate these achievements. Still a long
way to go
To what extent you think what your students I strongly believe this is the most important
learn independently/autonomously now will investment they can ever make. Their harvest
help them in the future? in the future will be very much rewarding
Do you often refer your students to the Very often
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY?
What is your opinion about the autonomous It is gaining momentum and will always pay
learning?
Is it a good philosophy? Yes, definitely. But ground work needs to be
properly done
Do you think your students have to know Yes of course
about this philosophy of self-access learning?
Do you have any suggestions? We need to support the steps undertaken
towards the establishment of coherent SALC

Interview VIII
Teachers Perceptions of SACs/SLVs/LRCs

Question Answer
Which is the most important part of your I think mostly class work as this is what they
students learning: class, self-access learning have been used to. But some students show
centres or other? an inclination towards having a mixture
Do you think it is important for your students We cannot reverse the clock…we are in the
to study by themselves? Do they like it? age of autonomy. I think it is high time our
students develop the skills to learn
autonomously
According to you, how important is what Learning is good wherever it takes place.
your students do themselves compared with In-class and out-of-class learning should
what they do in class? complement each other. They are not rivals
and none excludes the other
Are they good at learning by themselves? Some of them proved fair mastery and
outstanding performance but the majority
have gone some steps ahead but still not
enough. They still struggle
(continued)
190 Appendix C: Interviews with Teachers

(continued)
Question Answer
Where do your students often prefer to study Because of the noise and what they think as
by themselves? lack of resources at the LRC, the majority
prefers to work home or in hostel
Do you have a self-access learning centre No, an LRC
(SALC) in your university? If not, is it a LRC
or a Library?
Do your students ever use the Yes but to the minimum possible
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY?
How often do they use the When needed or when we send them
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY?
What do your students do in the Homework or library search
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY?
Do you your students do their homework in Yes
the SALC/LRC/LIBRARY?
What is most important in the Both
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY: the input or the
atmosphere or both?
What materials do your students use/get your Software, ELT books, videos, books…etc.
students to use?
Do your students use the computers? Sure, especially for assignments
When your students work out-of class, do Mostly they do what they decide for
they mainly do things you told them to do or themselves based on my guidance
things they decide to do themselves?
Getting started with the SALC: Tutorial and Yes
self-access sessions try to teach students how
to learn autonomously. Do you think your
students experience that?
One of the goals of the Not as should be…still the effort is limited
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY is developing learner
autonomy. Do you think your students
experience this in your university/college?
Do you think your students find it difficult to Yes. Training is needed and awareness, as
find the right materials and work at the well
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY?
What do you think about there being Useful and needed
someone in the SALC/LRC/LIBRARY to
help your students?
Do you feel you need to show your students Sure
how to learn by themselves?
Do your students find it difficult to work by Yes
themselves? Why?
Are there any other ways you can use to Task-based and project-based learning.
explicitly develop autonomous learning skills Involve these in exams and formal teaching
among your students?
(continued)
Appendix C: Interviews with Teachers 191

(continued)
Question Answer
Do your students notice that you try to Yes
develop autonomous learning skills in them?
Are there any implicit ways you try to
develop these skills?
Do you think it’s important for students to Very important
develop learner autonomy?
Is it useful for your students to learn how to Useful
learn by themselves?
Have your students learned better to learn by Although modestly but sure yes
themselves in your course(s)?
To what extent you think what your students I strongly believe in it
learn autonomously now will help them in the
future?
Do you often refer your students to the Always
SALC/LRC/LIBRARY?
Do you think that it would be better if you Yes
were little more directing?
What is your opinion about the autonomous The approach needed in order to build
learning? students with productive skills
Is it a good philosophy? Yes
Do you think your students have to know Of course
about this philosophy of self-access learning?
Do you have any suggestions? Establishing a SALC
Appendix D
Impact of ALOP on Language Skills

Students’ Evaluation of ALOP (Improving reading skills)

Improving reading skills
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid No answer 55 20.5 20.5 20.5
Totally agree 96 35.8 35.8 56.3
Agree 85 31.7 31.7 88.1
Undecided 25 9.3 9.3 97.4
Disagree 7 2.6 2.6 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0

Students’ Evaluation of ALOP (Improving writing skills)

Improving writing skills

Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid No answer 55 20.5 20.5 20.5
Totally agree 115 42.9 42.9 63.4
Agree 64 23.9 23.9 87.3
Undecided 17 6.3 6.3 93.7
Disagree 11 4.1 4.1 97.8
Totally disagree 6 2.2 2.2 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017 193

S. Blidi, Collaborative Learner Autonomy,
DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-2048-3
194 Appendix D: Impact of ALOP on Language Skills

Students’ Evaluation of ALOP (Improving listening skills)

Improving speaking skills

Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid No answer 55 20.5 20.5 20.5
Totally agree 107 39.9 39.9 60.4
Agree 70 26.1 26.1 86.6
Undecided 15 5.6 5.6 92.2
Disagree 7 2.6 2.6 94.8
Totally disagree 14 5.2 5.2 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0

Students’ Evaluation of ALOP (Improving speaking skills)

Better use of time

Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid No answer 55 20.5 20.5 20.5
Totally agree 62 23.1 23.1 43.7
Agree 85 31.7 31.7 75.4
Undecided 48 17.9 17.9 93.3
Disagree 18 6.7 6.7 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0
Appendix E
Reasons for Using the LRC Among
Students

LRC Use among Omani Students at Tertiary Level (Want to study by myself)
Want to study by myself
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid No answer 8 3.0 3.0 3.0
Yes 79 29.5 29.5 32.5
No 180 67.2 67.2 99.6
4 1 .4 .4 100.0
Tot 268 100.0 100.0
al

LRC Use among Omani Students at Tertiary Level (An opportunity to meet
friends)

Meeting friends
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid No answer 8 3.0 3.0 3.0
Yes 92 34.3 34.3 37.3
No 150 56.0 56.0 93.3
3 6 2.2 2.2 95.5
4 1 .4 .4 95.9
8 11 4.1 4.1 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017 195

S. Blidi, Collaborative Learner Autonomy,
DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-2048-3
196 Appendix E: Reasons for Using the LRC Among Students

LRC Use among Omani Students at Tertiary Level (Want a quiet place)

Want a quiet place

Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid No answer 8 3.0 3.0 3.0
Yes 178 66.4 66.4 69.4
No 82 30.6 30.6 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0

LRC Use among Omani Students at Tertiary Level (To use resources)

To use resources
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid No answer 14 5.2 5.2 5.2
Yes 194 72.4 72.4 77.6
No 42 15.7 15.7 93.3
3 18 6.7 6.7 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0

LRC Use among Omani Students at Tertiary Level (Using computers)

Computers
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid No answer 14 5.2 5.2 5.2
Yes 118 44.0 44.0 49.3
No 119 44.4 44.4 93.7
3 6 2.2 2.2 95.9
6 11 4.1 4.1 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0

LRC Use among Omani Students at Tertiary Level (Do homework)

Do homework
Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent
Valid No answer 14 5.2 5.2 5.2
Yes 126 47.0 47.0 52.2
No 104 38.8 38.8 91.0
3 11 4.1 4.1 95.1
4 2 .7 .7 95.9
5 11 4.1 4.1 100.0
Total 268 100.0 100.0
Appendix F
Reading Circles—Samples

Extracts from Student Diary Log Books

Students’ Diary Log Book

Reading Circle No...1.......

Reflections on the Implementation:

This section relates to any activity/task you conducted during the period prior to the
meeting.
1. Activities
As a leader I had to select the article. It was difficult but very interesting. I had to
read many texts, search on the net and buy newspapers. Once I selected the text, I
worked individually and consulted my teacher and a friend to prepare the task
sheet. Despite the confusion and the stress I felt, I think I learned a lot from this
task.
2. Reflections
As it is the first time we did something like this, I was not sure about how to do it,
especially that I was the leader. But with the support and the guidance of the
researcher I managed to understand the task and I think I did well. I can improve in
the coming meetings.
3. Please read the statement then circle the number that is appropriate to you:
1. Not applicable 2. Completely dissatisfied 3. Dissatisfied 4. Satisfied 5. Mostly
satisfied 6. Completely satisfied
I am very satisfied with the work I have done during this period. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reflections on the Meeting:
This section relates to how you perceive, rate and evaluate the meeting.

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017 197

S. Blidi, Collaborative Learner Autonomy,
DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-2048-3
198 Appendix F: Reading Circles—Samples

1. My participation/contribution to the meeting was:

As a leader I am satisfied with the text I selected and the task sheet. I managed the
discussion well although there were some instances of lack of control. But overall it
was an interesting and lively activity.
2. My peers’ participation/contribution to the meeting was:
They were confused because it was the first time and sometimes they made some
noise because they were enthusiastic to participate. They gave me the chance to
learn how to manage a group and work in a group. I learned a lot. I liked the idea.
I wish we have these activities in our courses.
Please circle the number that is appropriate to how you rate your peers’
contribution:

1 2 3 4 5 6

3. Please circle the number that is appropriate to how you rate you leader’s
contribution:

1 2 3 4 5 6
Appendix F: Reading Circles—Samples 199

I was the leader.

Students’ Diary Log Book

Reading Circle No...2.......

Reflections on the Implementation:

This section relates to any activity/task you conducted during the period prior to the
meeting.
1. Activities
I read the text that the leader gave me. I did not like it in the beginning but when I
read it another time I found the topic interesting. I remembered a film that
I watched in the past about the topic of the text. I called my group members and
watched the film again with them. Then we chatted about the film and the text.
2. Reflections
II find the activity very nice and interesting. It helped all of us become more
confident about our capability to work together outside of the class. It is not boring
like the activities in class.
3. Please read the statement then circle the number that is appropriate to you:
1. Not applicable 2. Completely dissatisfied 3. Dissatisfied 4. Satisfied 5. Mostly
satisfied 6. Completely satisfied
I am very satisfied with the work I have done during this period. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reflections on the Meeting:
This section relates to how you perceive, rate and evaluate the meeting.
1. My participation/contribution to the meeting was:
I discussed with the group and told the story of the movie. I talked to my mates
about the importance of the topic. I exchanged similar stories from real life. I felt a
bit frustrated sometimes when they disagreed with me. I was upset but later
I learned that this was good and I am sure I will do more activities like this.
2. My peers’ participation/contribution to the meeting was:
Good.
Please circle the number that is appropriate to how you rate your peers’
contribution:
1 2 3 4 5 6

3. Please circle the number that is appropriate to how you rate you leader’s con-
tribution:
1 2 3 4 5 6
200 Appendix F: Reading Circles—Samples

Students’ Diary Log Book

Reading Circle No...3.......

Reflections on the Implementation:

This section relates to any activity/task you conducted during the period prior to the
meeting.
1. Activities
I read the article that the leader selected. I discussed it with my class mates. Then I
went to the LRC and tried to find some documentaries online about the topic of the
article. I discussed the topic also at home with my father. He told me a real story
that is similar to the story in the article. It happened to one of his relatives.
2. Reflections
I am very much satisfied with what I did. The activity very much motivated me and I
felt confident. I did a lot in different places and I see learning like this good. I am
sure in future activities like this, I can do more and better.
3. Please read the statement then circle the number that is appropriate to you:
1. Not applicable 2. Completely dissatisfied 3. Dissatisfied 4. Satisfied 5. Mostly
satisfied 6. Completely satisfied
I am very satisfied with the work I have done during this period. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reflections on the Meeting:
This section relates to how you perceive, rate and evaluate the meeting.
1. My participation/contribution to the meeting was:
I contributed a lot in the discussions that took place. I presented my opinion and
gave the arguments that support it. I listened to others’ opinions. Although we
disagreed I am happy that it was an activity full of life. My group members liked the
story that I told them about the relative of my father.
2. My peers’ participation/contribution to the meeting was:
As I said above it was an activity full of life. All group members participated and
discussed. There was some noise and sometimes shouting but this is because the
topic was interesting and differences were big. What I remember about this meeting
was that we learned together and each had his individual ideas.
Please circle the number that is appropriate to how you rate your peers’
contribution:
1 2 3 4 5 6

3. Please circle the number that is appropriate to how you rate you leader’s con-
tribution:
1 2 3 4 5 6
Scales: 1 Very poor 2 Poor 3 Modest 4 Good 5 Very good 6 Excellent.
Appendix G
Post-implementation Questionnaire

Post-implementation Questionnaire
Please read the factors below carefully then circle the number that is appropriate to
you:
1: Not applicable 2: Completely disagree 3: Disagree 4: Agree 5: Completely
agree

Statement Rate
Interdependence
I perceive myself as an independent learner capable of learning autonomously 123456
Participating in discussion groups/interest groups/reading circles makes me feel 123456
confident and supports my individual endeavours
Teacher’s image
The teacher is not just an authority in class. He is also a facilitator and a support 123456
provider
The learning process is more important than any knowledge provided by the 123456
teacher
Readiness and motivation
I feel mentally ready learn autonomously but still fail to reach required level of 123456
motivation
I have a mounting desire to achieve a goal autonomously 123456
I engage all my potential capacity and skills in an effort to achieve my goal 123456
I am quite satisfied that I am genuinely heading towards the achievement of a 123456
self-determined goal
I am now more aware of the importance of being autonomous and limiting the 123456
impact of socio-cultural factors
Self-esteem
I think if one believes he has a role to play in the learning process, he can develop 123456
the ability to learn autonomously
Self-esteem and belief in one’s capability as a learner is important to achieve 123456
autonomy
(continued)

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017 201

S. Blidi, Collaborative Learner Autonomy,
DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-2048-3
202 Appendix G: Post-implementation Questionnaire

(continued)
Statement Rate
Voluntariness
Students who are coerced into joining a self-directed learning may not benefit as 123456
much as those who volunteer
Learner autonomy implies learners’ involvement in setting objectives, defining 123456
contents and progressions, selecting methods and techniques, monitoring the
procedure, and evaluating the outcome of learning
Flexibility
Autonomous learning requires flexibility, which means that students can change 123456
options (e.g. objectives, contents, process of learning) according to their needs
and interests
Teacher’s support
Autonomy requires a supportive teacher, who plays an important role in 123456
facilitating the process of re-orientation and personal discovery, which is a natural
outcome of self-directed learning
Mates’ support
Reading circles changed our views on autonomy and fostered our independent 123456
endeavours
Overall
On completion of the reading circle project, I feel students’ low autonomy is 123456
largely due to their wrong perceptions and negative attitudes
I now believe that reading is the best tool to learn a language and excel in it and 123456
that it is the absence of a reading culture in our society that influenced our
attitudes and performances
Appendix H
Interdependence

Post-implementation Questionnaire: Interdependence (St 1)

Post-implementation Questionnaire: Interdependence (St 2)

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017 203

S. Blidi, Collaborative Learner Autonomy,
DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-2048-3
Appendix I
Teacher’s Image

Post-implementation Questionnaire: Teacher’s Image (St 3)

Post-implementation Questionnaire: Teacher’s Image (St 4)

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017 205

S. Blidi, Collaborative Learner Autonomy,
DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-2048-3
Appendix J
Readiness and Motivation

Post-implementation Questionnaire: Readiness and Motivation (St 5)

Post-implementation Questionnaire: Readiness and Motivation (St 6)

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017 207

S. Blidi, Collaborative Learner Autonomy,
DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-2048-3
208 Appendix J: Readiness and Motivation

Post-implementation Questionnaire: Readiness and Motivation (St 7)

Post-implementation Questionnaire: Readiness and Motivation (St 8)

Appendix J: Readiness and Motivation 209

Post-implementation Questionnaire: Readiness and Motivation (St 9)

Appendix K
Self-esteem

Post-implementation Questionnaire: Self-esteem (St 10)

Post-implementation Questionnaire: Self-esteem (St 11)

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017 211

S. Blidi, Collaborative Learner Autonomy,
DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-2048-3
Appendix L
Voluntariness

Post-implementation Questionnaire: Voluntariness (St 12)

Post-implementation Questionnaire: Voluntariness (St 13)

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017 213

S. Blidi, Collaborative Learner Autonomy,
DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-2048-3
Appendix M
Flexibility

Post-implementation Questionnaire: Flexibility (St 14)

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017 215

S. Blidi, Collaborative Learner Autonomy,
DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-2048-3
Appendix N
Teacher’s Support

Post-implementation Questionnaire: Teacher’s Support (St 15)

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017 217

S. Blidi, Collaborative Learner Autonomy,
DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-2048-3
Appendix O
Peer Support

Post-implementation Questionnaire: Peers’ Support (St 16)

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017 219

S. Blidi, Collaborative Learner Autonomy,
DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-2048-3
Appendix P
Overall

Post-implementation Questionnaire: Overall (St 17)

Post-implementation Questionnaire: Overall (St 18)

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017 221

S. Blidi, Collaborative Learner Autonomy,
DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-2048-3
222 Appendix P: Overall

Post-implementation Questionnaire: Overall (St 19)

References

Allinson, C.W., and J. Hayes. 1988. The learning styles questionnaire: An alternative to Kolb’s
Inventory. Journal of Management Studies 25(39): 269–281.
Allwright, D. (ed.). 1990. Autonomy in language pedagogy. Lancaster: Centre for Research in
Language Education, University of Lancaster.
Ames, C. 1992. Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational
Psychology 84: 261–271.
Aoki, N. 2002. Aspects of teacher autonomy: Capacity, freedom, and responsibility. Learner
Autonomy 7: 110–124.
Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Barfield, A., and S.H. Brown. 2007. Reconstructing autonomy in language education: Inquiry and
innovation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Barnett, L. 1993. Teacher off: Computer technology, guidance and self-access. System 21(3):
443–452.
Baumeister, R.F., et al. 2003. Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal
success, happiness or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest 4: 1–44.
Bempechat, J. 2004. The motivational benefits of homework: A social-cognitive perspective.
Theory into Practice 43: 189–196.
Benson, P. 1997. The philosophy and politics of learner autonomy. In Autonomy and
independence in language learning, ed. B. Voller. London: Longman.
Benson, P. 2001. Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. Harlow,
England/New York: Longman.
Benson, P. 2002. The experience of language learning. Journal of Applied Linguistics (Special
issue of The Hong Kong International Language Education Conference) 2(7).
Benson, P. 2003. Autonomy in Language Learning. In P. Benson. Autonomy in Language
Teaching and Learning. Language Teaching, 40: 21-40.
Benson, P. 2006. Autonomy in language teaching and learning. ELT Journal 40: 21–40.
Benson, P. 2007. Teachers’ and learners’ perspectives on autonomy. In Learner and teacher
autonomy: Concepts, realities and responses, ed. T.E. Lamb, and H. Reinders. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Benson, P., and W. Lor. 1998. Making sense of autonomous language learning. Hong Kong:
Hong Kong University Press.
Benson, P., and D. Nunan. 2005. Learners’ stories: Difference and diversity in language learning.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Benson, P., and S. Toogood. 2002. Challenges to research and practice. Dublin: Authentik
Language Learning Resources Ltd.
Benson, P., and P. Voller. 1997. Autonomy and independence in language learning. London:
Longman.
Berofsky, B. 1995. Liberation from self: A theory of personal autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017 223

S. Blidi, Collaborative Learner Autonomy,
DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-2048-3
224 References

Block, D. 2003. The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Block, D., and D. Cameron. 2002. Globalization and language teaching. London: Routledge.
Bodycott, P., and V. Crew. 2001. Language and cultural immersion: Perspectives on short term
study and residence abroad. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute of Education.
Boekaerts, M., Pintritch, P.P., and Zeidner, M. (2001). Self-regulation: Directions and challenges
for future research. In M. Boekaerts, R. Pintritch and M. Zeidner (Eds.). Handbook of
self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bostrom, L. 2004a. Learning and method. Research concerning the effect of learning-style
responsive versus traditional approaches on grammar achievement. Doctoral dissertation.
School of Education and Communication. Jonkoping and Helsinki University, Helsinki.
Bostrom, L. 2004b. Learning and strategies. Didacta Varia, 9(2): 73-81.
Boud, D. 1981. Toward student responsibility for learning. London: Kogan Page.
Boud, D. 1988. Developing student autonomy in learning, 2nd ed. London: Kogan Page.
Braine, G. 2003. From a teacher-centered to a student-centered approach: A study of peer feedback
in Hong Kong writing classes. Journal of Asia-Pacific Communication. 12(13): 269–288.
Breen, M.P. 2001. Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research.
Harlow: Longman.
Breen, M.P., and A. Littlejohn. 2000. Classroom decision-making: Negotiation and process
syllabuses in practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Broady, E., and M. Kenning. (Eds.). 1996. Promoting Learner Autonomy in University Language
Teaching. London: Association for French Language Studies/CILT.
Brown, M., and H. Hayes. 2000. Professional reading circles: A story of learning. Paper presented
at the University of Ballart Research Conference, Ballart.
Bruner, J. 1966. The culture of education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Candy, P.C. 1989. Constructivism and the study of self-direction in adult learning. Studies in the
Education of Adults 21: 95–116.
Candy, P.C. 1991. Self-direction for lifelong learning: A comprehensive guide to theory and
practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Champagne, M.F., et al. 2001. The assessment of learner autonomy and language learning. The
AILA Review 15: 45–55.
Chambers, A., and G. Davies (Eds.). 2002. ICT and language learning: A European perspective.
Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Chan, V., M. Spratt, and G. Humphreys. 2002. Autonomous language learning: Hong Kong tertiary
students, attitudes and behaviours. Evaluation and Research in Education 11(16): 11–18.
Christenson, S.L., and A.R. Anderson. 2002. Commentary: The centrality of the learning context
for students’ academic enabler skills. School Psychology Review 31: 378–393.
Chu, P. 2007. How students react to the power and responsibility of being decision makers in their
own learning. Language Teaching Research 11: 225.
Clark, C.M. 2001. Talking shop: Authentic conversation and teacher learning. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Coffield, F. 2004. Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning a systematic and critical
review. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre.
Cohen, Y.M.J.N. 1989. Fear, dependence and loss of self-esteem: affective barriers in second
language learning among adults. RELC Journal 20(2): 61–77.
Coleman, J.A., and J. Klapper. 2005. Effective learning and teaching in modern languages.
London: Routledge.
Collins, R., and M. Hammond. 1991. Self-directed learning: Critical practice. London: Kogan
Page.
Coopersmith, S. 1967. The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and
Company.
Corder, D., and G. Waller (Eds.). 2006. Using a CALL package as a platform to develop effective
language learning strategies and facilitate autonomous learning. Dublin: Authentik.
References 225

Cotterall, S. 1995. Readiness for autonomy: Investigating learner beliefs. System 23(2): 195–206.
Cotterall, S. 2000. Promoting learner autonomy through the curriculum: Principles for designing
language courses. ELT Journal 52(54): 109–117.
Cotterall, S., and D. Crabbe. 1999. Learner autonomy in language learning: Defining the field and
effecting change. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Cotterall, S., and H. Reinders. 2001. Learners’ perceptions and practice in self access language
learning. TESOLANZ Journal 8: 23–38.
Coyle, D. 2003. Managing the differentiated classroom: Differentiation and learner autonomy. In
Differentiation in the modern languages classroom, ed. M.L. Jimenez-Raya, and T.E. Lamb,
165–176. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Crabbe, D. 2003. The quality of language learning opportunities. TESOL Quarterly 37: 39–34.
Crabbe, D. 2007. Learning opportunities: Adding learning value to tasks. ELT Journal 61(62):
118–125.
Creswell, J.W. 2009. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.
Los Angeles: Sage.
Dam, L. 1995. From theory to classroom practice. Dublin: Authentik Language Learning
Resources.
Deci, E., and M. Ryan. 1982. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behaviour.
New York: Plenum.
Dewey, J. 1943. The school and society. Chicago: The University of Chicag Press.
Dickinson, L. 1987. Self-instruction in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Dickinson, L. 1995. Autonomy and motivation. System 22(23): 165–174.
Dickinson, L. and A. Wenden. 1995. Special issue on autonomy. System 23(2).
Doll, B., S. Zucker, and K. Brehm. 2004. Resilient classrooms: Creating healthy environments for
learning. New York: Guilford.
Dornyei, Z. 1998. Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language Teaching 31:
117–135.
Dornyei, Z. 2001. Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Dornyei, Z. 2001. Teaching and researching motivation. Harlow: Longman.
Dornyei, Z. 2005. The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second
language acquisition. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dornyei, Z., and L. Csizer. 1998. Ten commandments for motivating language learners: Results of
an empirical study. Language Teaching Research 2(3): 203–229.
Dornyei, Z., and P. Skehan (Eds.). 2003. Individual differences in second language learning.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Dubin, F., and E. Olshtain. 1986. Course design: Developing programmes and materials for
language learning. New York: University of Cambridge.
Dunn, R., and S.A. Griggs. 2003. Synthesis of the Dunn and Dunn learning style model: Who,
what, when, where, and so what? New York: Centre for the Study of Learning and Teaching
Styles, St John’s University.
Elliot, A. 1999. Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational
Psychologist 34: 169–189.
Escandon, A. 2004. Education/learning resistance in the foreign-language classroom: A case
study. Research Paper Series. AIS St Helens Centre for Research in International Education.
Fernandez-Toro, M. 1999. Training learners for self-instruction. London: CILT.
Field, J., and M. Leicester. 2000. Life-long learning. London: Routledge/Falmer.
Flavell, J.H. 1979. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental
inquiry. American Psychologist 34: 906–911.
Gan, Z. 2009. Asian learners’ re-examined: An empirical study of language learning attitudes,
strategies and motivation among mainland Chinese and Hong Kong students. Journal of
Multilingual and Multicultural 1(30): 41–58.
226 References

Gan, Z., G. Humphrey, and L. Hamp-Lyons. 2004. Understanding successful and unsuccessful
EFL students in Chinese universities. The Modern Language Journal 82(88): 229–244.
Gardner, D. 2006. Learner autonomy 10: Integration and support. Dublin: Authentik.
Gardner, D. 2007. Integration and support. Dublin: Authentik.
Gardner, D., and L. Miller. 1999. Establishing self-access: From theory to practice. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, B. 1979. Autonomy and authority in education. Journal of Philosophy of Education 13:
119–132.
Gieve, S., and R. Clark. 2005. The Chinese approach to learning: Cultural trait or situated
response? The case of a self-directed learning programme. System 33(32): 261–276.
Graham, S. 1997. Effective language learning. Great Britain: WBC.
Gremmo, M., and D. Castillo. 2007. Advising in a Multilingual Setting: New Perspectives for the
Role of the Advisor. In T.E. Lamb, and H. Reinders (Eds.), Learner and teacher autonomy:
Concepts, realities and responses. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gremmo, M.J. (Ed.). 1988. Autonomie dans L’apprentissage: L’évaluation par les Apprenants
d’un Système Autodirigé. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Gremmo, M.J., and P. Riley. 1995. Autonomy, self-direction and self-access in language teaching
and learning: The history of an idea. System 23(22): 151–164.
Griffiths, C. 2007. Language learning strategies: Students’ and teachers’ perceptions. ELT Journal
61(62).
Hacker, D., J. Dunlosky, and A. Graesser. 1998. Meta-cognition in educational theory and
practice. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Harackiewicz, J.M., et al. 2002. Revision of achievement goal theory. Journal of Educational
Psychology 94: 638–645.
Harmer, J. 2001. The practice of English language teaching, 3rd edn. Harlow: Longman.
Harmer, J. 2007. The practice of English language teaching, 4th ed. Harlow: Pearson Longman.
Hart, N. 2002. Intra-group autonomy and authentic materials: A different approach to ELT in
Japanese colleges and universities. System 30: 33–46.
Hawkins, E. 1981. Modern languages in the curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hawkins, E. 1984. Awareness of language: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Hedge, T. 2000. Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Hofstede, G.H. 1991. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.
Holec, H. 1981. Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Holec, H. 1983. Autonomy and self-directed learning: Present fields and applications. Strasbourg:
Council of Europe.
Holec, H. 1994. Self-directed learning: An alternative form of training. Strasbourg: Council of
Eurpoe.
Holec, H. 2007. A brief historical perspective on learner and teacher autonomy. In T.E. Lamb, and
H. Reinders (Eds.) Learner and teacher autonomy: Concepts, realities and responses.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Holec, H., and I. Huttunen. 1997. L'autonomie de l'apprenant en langues vivantes. Strasbourg:
Council of Europe.
Holec, H., D. Little, and R. Ritchterich. 1996. Strategies in language learning and use. Strasbourg:
Council of Europe.
Hurd, S., and L. Murphy. 2005. Success with languages. London: Routledge.
Huttunen, I. 1986. Towards foreign language learning in senior secondary school. Oulu:
Department of Teacher Education, University of Oulu.
Hyland, F. 2004. Learning autonomously: Contextualising out-of-class English language learning.
Language Awareness 13(13): 180–202.
Johnson, K.E. 2006. The socio-cultural turn and its challenges for second language teacher
education. TESOL Quarterly 40(41): 235–257.
References 227

Johnson, K.E., and P.R. Golombek. 2002. Teachers’ narrative inquiry as professional
development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jones, F. 1995. Self-access and culture: Retreating from culture. ELT Journal 43(49): 228–234.
Jones, F.R. 1998. Self-instruction and Success: A learner-profile study. Applied Linguistics 19:
378–406.
Kaplan, R.B. 2002. The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kaplan, R.B. 2010. The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Kelly, G. 1955. The psychology of personal constructs. London: Routledge.
Kenny, B. 1993. For more autonomy. System 21(24): 431–442.
Kohonen, V. 2000. Experiential learning in foreign language education. London: Longman.
Kolb, D. 1984. The Kolb learning style inventory. Journal of Management Studies 25(23):
269–281.
Kolb, D.A. 1984. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Kolb, D.A. 1999. The Kolb learning style inventory. Version 3. Boston: Hay Group.
Kumaravadivelu, B. 2003. Beyond methods: macrostrategies for language teaching. New Haven:
Yale University Press.
Lai, J. 2001. Towards an analytic approach to assessing learner autonomy. The AILA Review, 15:
34–44.
Lamb, M. 2004. It depends on the students themselves: Independent language learning at an
Indonesian state school. Language, Culture and Curriculum 17(13): 229–245.
Lamb, T., and H. Reinders. 2006. Supporting independent language learning: Issues and
interventions. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Lamb, T., and Reinders H. 2008. Learner and teacher autonomy: Concepts, realities, and
responses. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub. Co.
Lambert, M. 2001. 21st Century Learners—and their approaches to learning. Paper originally
presented at the Eighth International Literacy and Education Research Network Conference on
Learning, Spetses, Greece.
Lantolf., 2000. Socio-cultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Lee, I. 1997. Supporting greater autonomy in language learning. ELT Journal 52: 54.
Lee, I., and R. Ng. 1994. Self-directed learning: does it make any difference? Paper presented at
the International Language Education Conference. Hong Kong.
Levine, G. 1992. Constructions of the self. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Levine, M., and S.R. Hooper. 2001. Survey of teenage readiness and neuro-developmental status.
Cambridge: Educators Publishing Service.
Levine, M.D. 2002. A mind at a time. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Lewis, M., and H. Reinders. 2007. Using student-centred methods with teacher-centred students.
Toronto: Pippin.
Lewis, T., and L. Walker. 2003. Autonomous language learning in tandem. Sheffield: Academic
and Electronic Press.
Little, D. 1991. Learner autonomy 1. Dublin: Authentik.
Little, D. 1995. Learning as dialogue: The dependence of learner autonomy on teacher autonomy.
System 23(22).
Little, D. 1996. The politics of learner autonomy. Learning 2(4): 7–10.
Little, D. 1997. Language awareness and the autonomous language learner. Language Awareness
6: 81.
Little, D. 2001a. Learner autonomy and the challenge of tandem language learning via the
Internet. How independent can independent language learning really be? In J.A. Coleman,
D. Ferney, D. Head and R. Rix (Eds.). Language-learning Futures: Issues and Strategies for
Modern Language Provision in Higher Education. London: CILT.
228 References

Little, D. 2001b. Learner autonomy and the challenge of tandem language learning via the
Internet. In A. Chambers, and G. Davies (Eds.). ICT and language learning: A European
perspective. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Little, D. 2002. The European Language Portfolio: Structure, origins, implementation and
challenges. Language Teaching 35(33): 182–189.
Little, D., J. Ridley, and E. Ushioda. 2002. Towards greater learner autonomy in the foreign
language classroom. Dublin: Authentik.
Little, D.E. 1989. Self-access systems for language learning: A practical guide: Authentik in
association with CILT.
Littlewood, W. 1996. Autonomy: An anatomy and a framework. System 24(24): 427–435.
Littlewood, W. 1999. Defining and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts. Applied
Linguistics 20(21): 71–94.
Littlewood, W. 2000. Do Asian students really want to listen and obey? ELT Journal 51(54): 31–35.
Long, M.H., and C. Doughty. 2011. The handbook of language teaching. Oxford: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Lovelace, M.K. 2005. Meta-analysis of experimental research based on the Dunn and Dunn model.
Journal of Educational Research 98: 176–183.
Lynch, B.K. 1996. Language program evaluation: Theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lynch, B.K. 2003. Language assessment and programme evaluation. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Lynch, T. (Ed.). 2001. Promoting EAP learner autonomy in a second language university context.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Macaro, E. 1997. Target language, collaborative learning and autonomy. Clevedon [England]:
Multilingual Matters.
Macaro, E. 2001. Learning strategies in foreign and second language classrooms. London:
Continuum.
Mackenzie, C., and N. Stoljar. 2000. Relational autonomy: Feminist perspectives on automony,
agency, and the social self. New York: Oxford University Press.
Malcolm, D. 2004. Why should learners contribute to the self-access centre? ELT Journal 58:
346–354.
Marton, F., and S. Booth. 1997. Learning and awareness. Mahwah: L. Erlbaum Associates.
McGarry, D. 1995. Learner autonomy 4: The role of authentic texts. Dublin: Authentik.
Meece, J.L.M. 1999. Changes in elementary school children’s achievement goals for reading and
writing: Results of a longitudinal and an intervention study. Scientific Studies of Reading 3:
207–229.
Mercer, S. 2008. Learner self-beliefs. ELT Journal 62(2).
Miller, L. 2007. Autonomy in the classroom. Dublin: Authentik.
Morrison, B. 2005. Evaluating learning gain in a self-access language learning centre. Language
Teaching Research 9(3): 267–293.
Murphy, J., and D.K. Phillips. 2005. Psychological perspectives in assessing mathematics learning
needs. Journal of Instructional Psychology 32: 277–286.
Mynard, J. 2003. Synchronous computer-mediated communication and learner autonomy in
female Emirati learners of English (PhD), University of Exeter, Exeter.
Norton, B. 2000. Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change.
Harlow: Longman.
Nunan, D. 1992a. Collaborative language learning and teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Nunan, D. 1992b. Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Nunan, D. 1996. Towards autonomous learning: Some theoretical, empirical and practical issues.
In R. Pemberton, et al. (Eds.). Taking control: Autonomy in language learning. Hong Kong:
Hong Kong University Press.
References 229

Nunan, D. 1999. Collaborative language learning and teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.
Nunan, D. 2000. Autonomy in language learning. Paper presented at the ASOCOPI 2000
Conference, Cartengena. Columbia.
Nunan, D. 2003. The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and practices
in the Asia-Pacific region. TESOL Quarterly 37(34): 589–613.
Nunan, D., and C. Lamb. 1996. The self-directed teacher: Managing the learning process.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O'Malley, J.M., and A.U. Chamot. 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.
Oxford, R.L. 2011. Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Harlow: Longman.
Palfreyman, D. 2001. Learner autonomy: Knowing who to depend on and how?. Dubai: Zayed
University.
Palfreyman, D. 2003. Expanding the discourse on learner development: A reply to Anita Wenden.
Applied Linguistics 24(22): 243–248.
Palfreyman, D. 2006. Social context and resources for language learning. System 34(3): 352–370.
Palfreyman, D., and R.C. Smith. 2003. Learner autonomy across cultures: Language education
perspectives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pemberton, R., et al. 1996. Taking control: Autonomy in language learning. Hong Kong: Hong
Kong University Press.
Pemberton, R., et al. 2001. Approaches to advising for self-directed language learning. The AILA
Review 15: 16–25.
Pemberton, R.E. 1996. Taking control: Autonomy in language learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong
University Press.
Pennycook, A. 2001. Critical applied linguistics: a critical introduction. Mahwah: L. Erlbaum.
Pierson, H.D. (Ed.). 1996. Taking control: Autonomy in language learning. Hong Kong: Hong
Kong University Press.
Pintrich, P.P. 2000. Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and
achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology 92: 544–555.
Pintrich, P.R., and D.H. Schunk. 2002. Motivation in education: Theory, research, and
applications (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Merrill, Prentice-Hall International.
Puustinen, M., and L. Pulkkinen. 2001. Models of self-regulated learning: A Review.
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 45: 269–286.
Reeves, N.B.R. 1993. The efficacy of home and distance language learning: The “OLLO”
experiment. Paper presented at the BAAL Annual Conference. Greater Manchester, United
Kingdom.
Reinders, H. 2000. Self-access language learning in the English proficiency programme. A Report
on Students’ Perceptions and Use of Independent-Learning Resources.
Reinders, H. 2007a. Big brother is helping you. Supporting self-access language learning with a
student monitoring system. System 35(1): 93–111.
Reinders, H. 2007b. The English Language Self-Access Centre. IATEFL Learner Autonomy
Newsletter 39(3).
Reinders, H., and M. Lewis. 2005. How well do self-access call materials support self-directed
learning? JALT CALL Journal 1(2): 41–49.
Reinders, H., and M. Lewis. 2006. An evaluative checklist for self-access materials. ELT Journal
60(3): 272–278.
Reinders, H., and N. Lazaro. 2007. Current approaches to assessment in self-access. TESL-EJ
11(3): 1–13.
Reinders, H., P. Hacker, and M. Lewis. 2004. The language advisor’s role: Identifying and
responding to needs. Language Learning Journal 30: 30–35.
230 References

Reinders, H., M. Lewis, and A. Kirkness. 2006. Transform your teaching. Auckland: Pearson
Education.
Reinders, H., N. Moore, and M. Lewis. 2008. The international student’s handbook. Basingstoke:
Palgrave.
Ribe, R. (Ed.). 2000. Developing learner autonomy in foreign language learning. Barcelona:
University of Barcelona.
Rivers, W.P. 2001. Autonomy at all costs: An ethnography of meta-cognitive self-assessment and
self-management among experienced language learners. The Modern Language Journal
85(82): 279–290.
Rogers, C. 1969. Freedom to learn. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.
Rogers, C. 1983. An invitation to an educational psychology of studying. Educational
Psychologist 19: 1–14.
Rohwer, W.D. 1984. An invitation to an educational psychology of studying. Educational
Psychologist 19: 11–14.
Rousseau, J.J. 1966. Correspondence complete. Institut et Musée Voltaire.
Rubin, J. 2001. Language learner self-management. Journal of Asia-Pacific Communication
11(11): 25–37.
Santa, C.M., and L. Engen. 1996. Content reading including study system. Randaberg Trykk:
Stavanger.
Scharle, A.G., and A. Szabo. 2000. Learner autonomy: A guide to developing learner
responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmenk, B. 2005. Globalizing learner autonomy. TESOL Quarterly 39(31): 107–118.
Schunk, D.H., Pintrich, P.R., and Meece, J.L. 2010. Motivation in education: Theory, research,
and applications (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.
Schutz, P.P.A., and S.L. Lanehart. 2002. Introduction: Emotions in education. Educational
Psychologist 73: 67–68.
Scollon, R., and S.B.K. Scollon. 1995. Intercultural communication: A discourse approach.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Sinclair, D., I. McGrath, and T. Lamb (Eds.). 2000. Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy:
Future Directions. Harlow: Longman.
Skehan, P. 1998. A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skinner, C.H., R.L. Williams, and C.E. Neddenriep. 2004. Using independent group-oriented
reinforcement to enhance academic performance in general education classrooms. School
Psychology Review 33: 384–387.
Smith, R.C. 2000. Starting with ourselves: teacher-learner autonomy in language learning. In
D. Sinclair, I. McGrath and T. Lamb (Eds.). Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy: Future
Directions. Harlow: Longman.
Smith, R.C. 2003. Pedagogy for autonomy as (becoming-) appropriate methodology. In
D. Palfreyman, and R.C. Smith (Eds.). Learner autonomy across cultures: Language
education perspectives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Smith, R. 2008. Learner autonomy. ELT Journal 62(64).
Smith, R.C. 2001. Group work for autonomy in Asia. The AILA Review 15: 70–81.
Sonaiya, R. 2002. Autonomous language learning in Africa: A mismatch of cultural assumptions.
Language, Culture and Curriculum 15(12): 106–116.
Spratt, M., G. Humphrey, and V. Chan. 2002. Autonomy and motivation: Which comes first.
Language Teaching Research 6(3): 245–256.
Stensmo, C. 1997. Classroom management. Studentlitteratur: Lund.
Thornbury, S. 2005. How to teach speaking. London: Longman.
Triandis, H.C. 1995. Individualism and collectivism. Boulder: Westview Press.
Tudor, I. 1996. Learner-centredness as language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Ushioda, E. 1996. Learner autonomy 5: The role of motivation. Dublin: Authentik.
References 231

Ushioda, E. 2000. Tandem language learning via e-mail: From motivation to autonomy. ReCALL
12(12): 121–128.
Ushioda, E. 2003. Motivation as a socially mediated process. In D. Little, et al. (Eds.). Learner
autonomy in foreign language classrooms: Teacher, learner, curriculum and assessment.
Authentik: Dublin.
Ushioda, E. 2006. Motivation, autonomy and sociocultural theory. In P. Benson (Ed.). Learner
autonomy 8: Insider perspectives on autonomy in language teaching and learning, 5–24.
Dublin: Authentik.
Vygotsky, L. 1979. Consciousness as a problem of psychology of behavior. Soviet Psychology 17:
29–30.
Wenden, A. 1998. Meta-cognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics 19(14):
515–537.
Wenden, A. 1999. Special issue on meta-cognitive knowledge and beliefs in language learning.
System 27(24).
Wenden, A. 2002. Learner development in language learning. Applied Linguistics 23(21): 32–55.
White, C. 2003. Language learning in distance education. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
White, C., and M. Shelley. 2003. Open learning. Special issue on languages in distance education.
The Journal of Open and Distance Learning 18(11).
Wolters, C.A. 2003a. Regulation of motivation. Educational Psychologist 38: 189–205.
Wolters, C.A. 2003b. Understanding procrastination from a self-regulated learning perspective.
Journal of Educational Psychology 95: 179–187.
Yang, N.D. 1999. The relationship between EFL learner’s beliefs and learning strategy use. System
27(24): 515–535.
Yashima, T., L. Zenuk-Nishide, and K. Shimizu. 2004. The influence of attitudes and effect on
willingness to communicate and second language communication. Language Learning 54(51):
119–152.
Zeidner, M., M. Boekaerts, and P.P. Pintritch. 2000. Self-regulation: Directions and challenges for
future research. In M. Boekaerts, R. Pintritch and M. Zeidner (Eds). Handbook of
self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Zeytoun-Millie, D. 2002. Vocational self-directed Learning in Fujairah Workplaces: Alive but is it
all? Geelong: Deakin University.
Zhou, G., L. Zhang, and G. Fu. 2001. A study on the relationship between self-regulated learning
strategy and academic achievement. Psychological Science (China) 24: 612–619.
Zimmerman, B.J. 1998. Academic studying and the development of personal skill: A self-regulatory
perspective. Educational Psychologist 33: 73–86.
Zimmerman, B.J., and M. Martinez-Pons. 1988. Construct validation of a strategy model of
self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology 80: 284–90.
Zimmerman, B.J., S. Bonner, and R. Kovach. 1996. Developing self-regulated learners: Beyond
achievement to self-efficacy. Washington: American Psychological Association.