See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330496841

University Students' Perception on Autonomous Learning: A Case of Private

University, Thailand

Conference Paper · January 2019

CITATION READS

1 1,787

1 author:

Patcharee Scheb-Buenner
Hatyai University
6 PUBLICATIONS   7 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

students self evaluation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Patcharee Scheb-Buenner on 19 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The 1st International Conference on English Studies: Innovation in English Language Teaching and Learning

University Students’ Perception on Autonomous Learning: A Case of

Private University, Thailand

Patcharee Scheb-Buenner

Didyasarin International College, Hatyai University, Thailand

[email protected]

Abstract
The concept of autonomous learning is related to cognitive, meta cognitive systems
of humans reflecting in their abilities and attitudes (Joshi, 2011). To develop students to
be autonomous learners apparently has been focal points of many studies for over 40 years
(Dam, 1995). This current survey study focuses on raising awareness of autonomous
learning in university students. The study investigates the students’ and teachers’ attitudes
towards autonomous learning. Fifty seven university student respondents from a private
university were purposively asked to answer the questionnaire consisting of four aspects
and an opened-ended question. The teachers were interviewed. The findings showed that
the students did not certainly know the concepts of autonomy well. For aspects of managing
learning and evaluation, the respondents perceived it was both teachers’ and students’ roles
together. A majority of respondents (89%) perceived that they were autonomous learners;
however, their explanation reflected the limited scope of autonomous learning styles. It
means that students may have misconception about the concept of autonomous learning,
additionally the teachers show similar ideas. Therefore, the implication on this study is that
autonomous learning should be provided as formal instruction or guidelines.

Keywords: Autonomous Learning, Perception, University Students

Introduction
“…Because language learning is largely an autonomous activity, promoting learner
autonomy is vitally important. It involves helping learners learn how to learn, equipping
them with the means necessary to self-direct their own learning…” (Kumaravadivelu,
1994). As a language teacher, most of us perform our duties in classroom and
enthusiastically hope that students learn at best and could use the language to serve
communicative purposes effectively. In reality the students learn only theories or learn to
take an exam more than learn to learn. A study by Wiriyachitra (2002) described the quality
and characteristics of Thai university students that their English proficiency was low, and
they were passive. Compared with western student peers, Thai students are perceived as
passive and lack of confidence, book-based learners. They mostly rely or depend on their
teachers. How to change the learners to be become autonomous would be another approach
to go hand in hand with the advancement of technology and develop the Thai English
learners efficiently. This thought may be corresponding to so-called another paradigm shift
referring teacher authority in classroom to learners’ autonomy (Joshi, 2011).

321
 The 1st International Conference on English Studies: Innovation in English Language Teaching and Learning

In Thailand, the government has issued the 12th national strategy plan, totalling ten
strategies, one of the strategies is stated in the 3rd strategy to develop life long learners.
This means that all parties involved in the education should promote educational
institutions as such, which may need tremendous efforts including financial and intellectual
efforts and on the other hands, to promote the students to become life long learners would
be initiated in classroom.
This initiative has been evidenced as many studies were conducted in Thai context.
Kriwattanapong (2001) investigated non-formal education students’ readiness for self-
directed learning. The non-formal students were ready for self-directed learning, but they
lacked creative thinking skills. Vanijdee (2003) examined learner autonomy of Thai
distance students. There were two main groups of learners based on degrees of autonomy:
self-sufficient & dynamic students, which dynamic students were able to extend their
learning using a more variety of materials and to learn on their own in a wider context
while Self-sufficient students were able to handle their learning with the assistance of self-
instructional materials and their goal was to pass the exam or to satisfy the curriculum
requirements. Sanprasert (2010) investigated the extent to which a blended learning (BL)
situation was able to change students’ learning habits and their perception of learning in
relation to autonomous learning, it was found that the teachers were central of teaching and
learning process. Sojisirikul and Intratat (2008) examined students’ attitudes and
confidence after taking the course delivered in autonomous learning style, the study
revealed that students were satisfied and confident in learning by themselves. Additionally
students found consultations with lecturers highly helpful when learning autonomously and
consultations about grammar was regarded the most helpful when students were to take
charge of their own learning.
However, when considering these studies, there are some gaps such as they did not
put the light on mainstream of tertiary education and cultural-related behaviors, and how
the teachers perceive autonomous learning and their roles in assisting students have not
much been investigated in Thai context.

What do the autonomous learners look like?

Learning autonomy is one's ability to control how they learn something by
determining objectives and to involve with psychological process to internalise what s/he
is learning (Holec, 1981; Little 1991). Little (1994) stated “As social beings our
independence is always balanced by dependence, our essential condition is one of
interdependence whereas total detachment is a principal determining feature not of
autonomy but of autism”. Later on Little (2007) extended that most learning autonomy
describes how autonomous learning would be or look like rather than its outcomes. Having
two interesting ideas about learning autonomy, Little reflects two important continuums of
constructs which are independence and dependence and process and outcome. These
continuums of constructs can be learning objectives of language learning. Language
learner autonomy should focus on both ends of the continuums, which means that the
development of learner autonomy should support the integration of dependence and
independence. Moreover, the growth of language proficiency can be focused on both
outcomes and processes. It means that language learners who can put effort into learning
322
 The 1st International Conference on English Studies: Innovation in English Language Teaching and Learning

using different processes. As Holec (1981) describes the process of learning autonomy as
determining the objectives, defining the contents and progressions, selecting methods and
techniques to be used, monitoring the procedures of acquisition, evaluating what has been
acquired. Considering these small processes, Holec puts priority on independence. The
outcomes may show a variety of degree. On another thought, autonomous learners may not
be always independent, there however, would be a time that they become dependent to the
assistance or guidance of teachers
Sinclair et al (2000) defined that autonomy is cultural-bounded, autonomy can be
differently interpreted in different cultures and contexts. The awareness of this has
significant implication for language teaching. Having said that the cultural sensitivity to
understand the respondents’ perception should be taken into account. Benson (2007)
illuminated two broad spectrum of autonomy, which are Autonomy Beyong the Classroom
and Autonomy in the Classroom. The former covers Self-Access, Computer-Assisted
Language Learning, Self-instruction, Distance Learning, Study Abroad. Autonomy in
classroom embraces group works, co-operative learning, innovative learning or other
classroom actions and activities. Under Benson s Autonomy, learners can see a continuum
of dependency to the other end of independency. Joshi (2011) studied Nepalese students
autonomy and found that the students did a lot of self-efforts to improve and enhance their
English. They performed many autonomous activities outside the class such as use of
libraries, listening and watching audio-visual materials in English, but the modern
technologies were used less
From the theoretical issues (Holec, 1981; Little, 1991, 1994) to practical issues
(Lamb, 2004; Joshi, 2011), the autonomous learners should be guided to become
autonomous and degree of autonomy is another matter account for success in language
learning.

What roles of the teachers?

Chan (2003) conducted a large scale study on learner autonomy with both
university students and teachers in Hong Kong. In her study, the focus was on teachers’
roles and responsibilities to facilitate autonomous learning to the students. This study
echoed what Camilleri (2000), Little (2004), and Smith (2003) argued that teachers are
not able to encourage their learners to be autonomous as long as they are not autonomous.
This statement has brought a challenge to teachers. This means that teacher autonomy is a
pre condition of the learners’ autonomy. Supporters of these views regarding learner
autonomy argue that teachers cannot achieve to encourage their learners’ autonomy unless
they are themselves autonomous as teachers and have been educated as autonomous
learners. They perceive teacher autonomy as a precondition for learner autonomy. If
autonomous learning is a gradual, cumulative and collaborative process, as Camilleri
(2000) argues this emphasizes the role of teachers in teaching and formal classroom.
Another study by Lamb (2004) also brought a challenge to teachers’ roles in autonomy
learning. He found that in limited resource contexts, the students wanted to learn based on
their own pace using different available out-of-classroom recourses such as listening to
radio programs watching movies, reading books, playing computer games, practicing
conversation with friends because they were aware that some of their teachers were not
323
 The 1st International Conference on English Studies: Innovation in English Language Teaching and Learning

able to speak fluently themselves. Teachers perceived that they were less responsible in
outside classroom learning by students in a study by Chan (2003) at a tertiary level. Joshi
(2011) also studied about learners’ perception and teacher belief, not surprisingly, teachers
reflects their roles as a facilitators or supporters. Contrary to a study by Vile and
Buyukduman and Vile (2013), they found that most students had ideas that teachers took
control of learning and teaching process, they much relied on their teachers, but later on in
their study, they became more autonomous in association with Little's definition (2007).
However this study did not explain how autonomy was created or developed from
assigning students to write a journal for seven weeks. Khoosf et al (2014) also had an
assumption that a teacher’s autonomy led to learners’ autonomy.
Most studies did not reveal unexpected roles of teachers, and it seems that learners
also perceived it similarly. As it can be observed in many studies, characteristics of
autonomous learners, teachers’ roles fostering learner autonomy were studied but there is
no evidence that the issue of teachers playing as a role model has been brought into
attention of any study and also discuss it as cultural issues.

Theoretical issues underpinning Language Autonomy

Social Learning Theory was formulated by Bandura (1977), he explains that people
learn from observing others when working together, peers can be role models and
demonstrate guidance models for the actions of other students. Collaborative activities also
help increase students’ sense of relatedness with their peers (Carson, 2007).
Another conceptual framework underpins learning autonomy adopted to explain
the behaviors of learners in this study is from Reinders (2010), he suggests the stages of
learning autonomy: identifying needs, planning, selecting resources, selecting learning
strategies, practice materials, monitoring progress, assessment and revision. All of these
are put together by reflection, motivation/self-motivation and interaction which provide the
cognitive, affective and social backbone of a course aimed at fostering learners’ autonomy.
Arnold (2006) identified 11 factors that promote autonomy in the online environment:
flexible access, learning facilitation, self-selection, a lack of face-to-face contact, media
choices, community peer learning and dialogue, peer review, negotiated learning activities,
self evaluation, evaluation of performance, and reflection on learning. This framework
resonates the Social Learning Theory.
Having reviewed a variety of studies and literature, this study has two focal points
to investigate which are students perception on autonomy and the teachers perception, in
particular to investigate how teachers perceive to set a pre condition in learning autonomy.

Method
This study is quantitative and mixed with interview method. To answer the research
questions
1. Respondents
The research respondents were 57 students aged 18-23 years old. They were
purposively selected because they were students taking programs conducted in English and
most of them took international programs at an international college in Thailand. They
were all international students, who had completed their English I and were pursuing
324
 The 1st International Conference on English Studies: Innovation in English Language Teaching and Learning

degree program in varying programs in the same university. Most of the respondents were
female (65.5%). The respondents majored in English (41.5%), International Business
Management or IBM (19%), Tourism Industry (39.5%).
The scores and grades from the student respondents were statistically analysed
using SPSS (Pearson product moment) to identify the relationship. Four of the twelve
lecturers were randomly selected to be interviewed by the researcher. These lecturer
respondents taught English and subject matters in English at the same college, each of them
taught some student respondents at least one or two courses. In some sense the students
would have ideas or perceptions of learning English from this group of lecturers.

2. Instrument
The instrument in this study was questionnaires. The questionnaires were
developed from four issues of learner autonomy by Eccles and Roeser (2003): student
achievement, motivation, academic confidence and learning strategies. Moreover the
questionnaires were based on the study by Joshi (2011).
The questionnaires consisted of four main sections: 5-point Likert scale items, 3-
option items and open-ended items were applied in the questionnaires. Section 1 with 6
demographic questions. The items in Section 2 were constructed to elicit their Perceptions
about Learning English. Followed by Section 3, Learning Strategies were asked. Section
4 consisted of questions of Teachers’ Roles. The item in the questionnaires ended with an
open-ended question asking the students’ what their preferred Self-learning Activities. The
questionnaires were written in English with a Thai translation to prevent language barriers.
The questionnaires were piloted with a group of 30 students to achieve comprehensibility
and reliability. The reliability of the pilot was .81. Later the actual version was administered
by distributing to the groups of student participants. The reliability was .87. The researcher
met and talked to the respondents how this study was important and all information from
them were kept autonomous. The interview questions for teachers were developed from
Joshi (2011). Four teachers in the English department were informed about this study and
later interviewed in their office. This method was designed to answer how the Thai students
and teachers perceived autonomy and is autonomy cultural issues in the Thai context.

Findings
1. Data from the questionnaires were analysed using percentages and means.
Table 1: Descriptive Data of Respondents Perception on Learning English
Perception of Learning Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Mean
English disagree (%) (%) (%) agree (%)
(%)
1.Having ability to learn 1.8 54.4 - 26.3 17.5 3.58
English well
2.Learning English is 3.4 19 36.2 39.7 4.14
enjoyable.
3.I do well due to my 5.3 7.0 43.9 31.6 12.3 3.39
ability
4.Trying to do my best - 1.7 27.6 41.4 27.6 3.96
to learn English

325
 The 1st International Conference on English Studies: Innovation in English Language Teaching and Learning

5.Making decisions to - - 24.1 36.2 37.9 4.14

set goals
6.Evaluating themselves - 1.8 40.4 28.1 29.8 3.86
to learn better
7.No required class - 5.3 24.6 36.8 33.3 3.98
attendance, my
attendance will be high

Table 2: Descriptive Data of Respondents Perception on Learning Activities

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Mean
Learning activities disagree (%) (%) (%) agree (%)
(%)
1.Prefer working in pairs 7.0 12.3 29.8 28.1 22.8 3.47
2.Prefer individual work 5.3 14.0 22.8 31.6 26.3 3.60
3.Preview lessons before 1.8 17.2 55.2 10.3 13.8 3.17
class
4.Making notes and 1.8 15.5 34.5 32.8 13.8 3.42
summaries
5.Doing grammar 3.5 10.5 56.1 19.3 10.5 3.23
exercise
6.Doing not compulsory 3.5 12.3 54.4 21.1 8.8 3.19
assignments
7.Talking to teachers 3.4 13.8 25.9 34.5 20.7 3.56
and friends
1. Using self-study 1.8 - 31.6 36.8 29.8 3.93
materials
2.Making good use of 1.8 8.6 37.9 31.0 19.0 3.57
free time
3.Preferring active - - 26.3 29.8 43.9 4.18
participation
4.Using internet - 12.5 25.0 42.9 19.6 3.69
5.Practicing English 1.8 5.4 37.5 33.9 21.4 3.68
outside classroom
6.Making use of self 1.8 12.5 42.9 16.1 26.8 3.54
access center
7.Using DynEd 21.1 7.0 22.8 26.3 22.8 3.23
8.Talking to foreigners - 3.5 36.8 26.3 33.3 4.10
9. Watching English - 1.8 15.8 50.9 31.6 4.12
movies

326
 The 1st International Conference on English Studies: Innovation in English Language Teaching and Learning

Table 3: Descriptive Data of Respondents Perception on Teachers Roles

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Mean
Teachers’ roles disagree (%) (%) (%) agree (%)
(%)
1.Encouraging students 3.5 1.8 21.1 36.8 36.8 4.02
contribution
2.I don’t do well due to 1.8 3.5 40.4 24.6 29.8 3.77
my little effort
3.I don’t do well due to 21.1 26.3 33.3 15.8 3.5 2.54
the teachers
4.Stimulating students’ Both (72.4%) Teachers Students
interest (15%) (12.1%)
5.Identifying students Both (50%) Teachers Students (32%)
weaknesses and (15%)
strengths
6.Deciding what will be Both (26.7%) Teachers Students (19%)
in the next lesson (53.4%)
7.Evaluating learning Both (48.3%) Teachers Students
performance (48.3%) (3.4%)
8.Making sure that Both (56.9%) Teachers Students
students make progress (15.2%) (27.6%)
outside classroom

In the first section of the questionnaire, the students showed their perception of
learning English that more than 70% of the respondents relatively agreed that it was
enjoyable and they made decisions set goals of learning by themselves. The perception of
learning English showed that they did not possess much of characteristics of autonomous
learners. The data showed that 69% of the respondents agreed that they did their best to
learn English. When being asked a specific action, 40% of them were not certain that they
had to do self-evaluation to improve their learning. About 70% of the respondents showed
that they would go to class even there is no attendance required, which may reflect their
self-disciplined.
In Table 2, the activities being asked the respondents can explain the types or scope
of autonomy. The first part of this section links to scope of Autonomy in the Class (Benson,
2007). In some statements, the respondents did not show that they liked or preferred certain
activities since high percentages went to Somewhat. For instance, "They liked grammar
exercises." (56.1%) or "They previewed lesson before class." (55.2%) or "They do not
compulsory exercises." (54.4%). When considering means, it was found that many
activities in classroom were given means lower than 3.50.
The findings of autonomous out-of-classroom learning activities were consonant
with Lamb (2004). There are similar activities which the generation of young learners in
watching movies or reading English books, practicing with friends. Very interesting that
many respondents reflected that they did not depend on their teachers to learn English, they
could seek for knowledge on Internet and also talked to native English speaking when
facing language problems. The findings were similar to Lamps study in Indonesian students
(2004). In total of 55.3% of the respondents agreed and strongly agreed that they used
Internet as a resource and 82.5% preferred watching movies as a way to learn English. The

327
 The 1st International Conference on English Studies: Innovation in English Language Teaching and Learning

respondents also chose Watching movies and Listening to songs as top two preferred
activities when learning English outside classroom. The findings also illuminated the
respondents might prefer participation or learning in a group (mean = 4.18) or Talking to
foreigners (4.10) rather than individual activities, e.g. Using DynEd (3.23), Using self-
access center (3.54).
Table 3 illuminated what the respondents thought about their teachers’ roles in their
learning. It was found that they were not clear or did not make a clear decision who would
be responsible for their learning. Among the five questions, they still put priority on their
teachers and themselves as high combined percentages shown on Both teachers and
students and only Teachers were chosen (86.2%, 65.5%, 79.3%, 89.4% and 70.7%). They
wanted their teachers to check their progress while learning outside classroom too.
Regarding the performance, the students were not certain who would be responsible when
they could not study well, as seen that 47.4% seemed to accept that it was not teachers’
responsibilities, but about 50% tended to think oppositely. This means that the students are
much reliant on the teachers. The respondents (73.6%) also believed that the teachers were
supposed to encourage them to learn.
What the respondents perceived about their teacher roles much reflected what they
thought about language learning and how they learned as shown in their leaning activities
or styles. This issue may be cultural-associated as suggested by Sinclair et al (2000) which
will be further discussed.
2. Teachers voice
The purpose of asking lecturers derived from the conceptual ideas by Camilleri (1999),
Little (2004), Smith (2003) stating that teacher autonomy is a pre condition of learner
autonomy. This part of the study aimed to see Teachers perception, four teachers were
interviewed. There were varied in the questions about the relationship between learners
autonomy and the students proficiency.
Teacher A, C and D revealed similar ideas; when students are autonomous, they
practice more in classroom and out of classroom. Only Teacher B thought differently since
she believed students learn well in classroom may not know how to study out of classroom.
Their answers reveal that the teachers focus on practices rather than looking into the actual
concept of autonomy as defined in many studies.
When asking the teachers what factors driving independent learning, most teachers
answered similarly that the motivation, especially intrinsic motivation, will play a
significant role for developing autonomy. For instance, Teacher C "Students own self,
environment that supports and time management". But Teacher D "Curiosity is probably
a major factor... ".
Regarding the question of teachers roles, all teachers responded similarly a teacher
must be a facilitator, consultor and supporter. Teacher C "A teacher must be a facilitator,
consultor and supporter."
Another question reflecting whether the teachers pertains ideas of autonomy and
apply it in their teaching was their assessment on this issue. Two teachers answered
similarly that they assigned particular tasks (homework or language program-DynEd) and
check whether the students could do it or how much they did it. While another teacher
rather observed her students participation, questioning and individual in classroom.
328
 The 1st International Conference on English Studies: Innovation in English Language Teaching and Learning

Teacher A "Their participation or performance on the assignment. "

Teacher B "Give the students materials beforehand or use a software/courseware the
students can study out of classroom. "
Teacher C "Observe the students’ participation, the students ask questions, their individual
work. "
Teacher D: "We can’t directly access them. Student can self-report on questionnaires or in
direct inquiries."
This is very interesting, three teachers had similar thinking of assessment of
autonomy; that is to assign them and see the outcomes. While the last teacher thought
differently; that is autonomy was difficult to assess.
Last question was about suggestions to help those less autonomous learners and
autonomous learners. Teacher D "We tell our students that in order to learn English, they
must find ways to use English in their daily lives by reading, listening, writing, speaking,
and vocabulary building. We must treat them as adults and make them live up to their
responsibilities as language learners (speaking in class and outside of class, blocking daily
time for independent learning using traditional and education technology). We should
regularly inquire about what our students do outside of class to learn English and praise
those students for being independent learners. "
Teacher C " They have to change their mindset, explain them what is autonomous
learning, try to support them when they feel down of becoming autonomous learners. For
the autonomous learners, the lecturers have to create the activities that challenge their
ability, make them to feel fun of being self-discoverer."
It may be observable between Teachers C and D, in which Teacher C seemed to take
control of teaching (…to create the activities that challenge…) while Teacher D focuses
on " their responsibilities as language learners..."

Discussion and Conclusions

As this study is in Thai context, the cultural issues get involved in some extent as
suggested by Sinclair et al (2000). Thai cultures of high respected teaching profession may
hold the students ideas to learn by themselves and they possibly did not have clear concept
of what learner autonomy is and that made the students to wait for the clear instruction
from their teachers and totally agree with what their teachers said. The students reflect their
passive roles in learning because they perceived all duties about learning, planning next
lessons, evaluating their performance are down to the teachers.
The teachers were not well aware of the comprehensive meaning of autonomy, most
of them perceived autonomy in the same way to independent or self-study. Having this
perception, this may hinder to ingrain our students to.
Socio-cultural theories may explain types or scope of activities the students in this
study chose or preferred. Thailand is a highly collectivist culture (Dimmock, 2000). Thai
individuals tend to consider themselves as part of a group, society, or organization.
Cohesion, harmony and interests of the group are emphasized more than any individuals’
personal accomplishments. The students prefer learning in a group rather individually.
Then to promote the autonomy in Thai students also need to take the culture into account.
It implies that facilitators may manage them to learn in a group or do project in a group. In
329
 The 1st International Conference on English Studies: Innovation in English Language Teaching and Learning

western countries which values individual freedom, learners may prefer individual learning
styles. What teachers perceive the autonomy in association with the B defined, that is
Autonomy outside classroom. They did mention such as "to create activities in classroom,
giving students materials beforehand." This reflects that the teachers still hold the central
power in classroom while the students themselves are aware of that. In this point, the
teachers may need to fully understand the concept of autonomy, they may be able to adjust
to adopt appropriate approaches both inside classroom and outside classroom. They would
prefer taking passive roles in classroom as they were in high schools or as a norm of Thai
culture which teachers or seniors are well-respected and juniors should follow their
instructions.
In conclusion, this study found out that the students and teachers may not have
comprehensive understanding of autonomy. The teachers still tend to play roles of
instructors whereas the students take passive roles and do not have guidelines to be
autonomous. Leaning autonomy to them refers to studying outside classroom or make uses
of their free time.
Another point revealed in this study is that the students feel comfortable when they
could learn in a group, not individual. The study suggests implications based on the results;
1) teachers should adapt appropriate Autonomous concept to accommodate the nature of
their students, 2) teachers may need to explain the concept of autonomous learning directly,
how to be autonomous, 3) learners should see how teachers become autonomous such as
sharing ways of their learning autonomy with the students.

Acknowledgements
I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to Hatyai University for all
supports as well as my students and colleagues who gave me the valuable time to conduct
this study. I believe this study will become another channel to shed the light on developing
our students learning autonomy.

References
สรุ ปสาระสําคัญแผนพัฒนาเศรษฐกิจและสังแห่งชาติฉบับที12 www.nesdb.go.th/
Arnold, L. (2006). Understanding and promoting autonomy in UK online higher education.
International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 3(7).
Retrieved on March 2, 2018, from http://itdl.org/Journal/Jul_06/article03.htm
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Benson, P. (2007). Autonomy in language teaching and learning. State-of-the art article.
Language Teaching. 40 (1), 21-40.
Buyukduman, I. & Vile, E., A, D. (2013). Breaking the chains: autonomous learners
4th international conference on new horizons in education social and behavioral
sciences 106, 570-575. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.065
Camilleri, G. (1999). Learner Autonomy: The Teachers’ Views. Germany: Council of
Europe.
Camilleri, G. (2000). Towards learner autonomy. Retrieved on March 2, 2018 from
http://www.gozo.com/ugc/vol11no4/autonomy.html

330
 The 1st International Conference on English Studies: Innovation in English Language Teaching and Learning

Carson, L. (2007). Relatedness and learner autonomy: A case study of an adult refugee
learning English in Ireland. Reflections on English Language Teaching. 6(2), 21–
38.
Chan, V. (2003). Autonomous Language Learning: the teachers’ perspectives. Teaching in
Higher Education. 8(1). 33-54.
Dam, L. (1995). Learner Autonomy 3: from Theory to Classroom Practice. Dublin,
Authentik.
Dimmock, C. (2000). Designing the learning-centred school: A cross-cultural perspective.
London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Eccles, W. R. & Roeser, S. J. (2003). School as developmental contexts. Eds Gerald Adams
and Berzonsky, A chapter in Blackwell Handbook of Adolescences (129-148).
Blackwell Publishing.
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Oxford, Pergamon.
Joshi, R, K. (2011). Learner perceptions and teacher beliefs about learner autonomy in
language learning. Journal of NELTA. 16(1-2), 14-29.
Khoosf, S. Y, Choobsaz, G., & Khosravani, M. (2014). Making autonomous learners by
the help of autonomous teachers. International Journal of Foreign Language
Teaching in the Islamic World. 2(2), 14-18.
Kriwattanapong, T. (2001). Factors related to self-directed learning readiness of non-
formal education students in the vocational certificate program in Bangkok
metropolis. Unpublished master’s dissertation, Chulalongkorn University,
Bangkok, Thailand.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The postmethod condition: (e)merging strategies for
second/Foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly. 28(1), 27-48.
Lamb, M. (2004). ‘It depends on the students themselves: Independent language
learning at an Indonesian state school. Language, Culture and Curriculum,
17(3), 229–245.
Little, D. (1991): Learner Autonomy 1: Definitions, Issues and Problems. Dublin:
Authentik.
Little, D. (1994). Learner autonomy: a theoretical construct and its practical applications.
Die Neueren Sprachen, 93(5), 430–442.
Little, D. (2004). Learner autonomy, teacher autonomy and the European language
portfolio. Retrieved on March 22, 2018 from
www.utc.fr/~untele/2004ppt/handouts/little.pdf
Little, D. (2007). Language learner autonomy: some fundamental considerations revisited
language learner Autonomy: Some Fundamental Considerations Revisited.
Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching. 1 (1). 14-29. doi:
10.2167/illt040.0
Reinders, H. (2010). Towards a classroom pedagogy for learner autonomy: A framework
of independent language learning skills. Australian Journal of Teacher Education.
35 (5). 40-55.
Sanprasert, N. (2010). The application of a course management system to enhance
autonomy in learning English as a foreign language. System. 38(1), 109-123. doi:
10.1016/j.system.2009.12.010
331
 The 1st International Conference on English Studies: Innovation in English Language Teaching and Learning

Sinclair, B., McGrath, I. & Lamb, T. (2000). Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy:
Future Directions. London: Longman.
Smith, R. C. (2003). Teacher education for teacher-learner autonomy. Retrieved on March
12, 2018 from http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~elsdr/Teacher_autonomy.pdf
Sojisirikul, P., & Intrarat, J. (2008). The initial step of autonomous learning. Retrieved
from http://digital.lib.kmutt.ac.th/journal/text/kmuttv31n1_3.txt
Vanijdee, A. (2003). Thai distance English learners and learner autonomy. Open
Learning. 18(1), 75-84.
Wiriyachitra, A.(2002). English Language teaching and learning in Thailand in this
decade. Retrieved on March 23, 2018. From
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242127244_English_Language_Teachin
g_and_Learning_in_Thailand_in_this_Decade

332

View publication stats