大學生在電腦輔助語言自學中心之自主學習與學習方式

全文

(1)國立臺灣師範大學英語學系碩士論文 Master’s Thesis Graduate Institute of English National Taiwan Normal University. 大學生在電腦輔助語言自學中心之自主學習與學習方式 EFL College Students’ Autonomous Learning at a CALL Self-Access Center with an Emphasis on Learning Styles. 指導教授：林至誠博士 Advisor: Dr. Chih-Cheng Lin. 研究生：林韻安 Student: Yun-An Lin. 中華民國 102 年六月 June, 2013.

(2) 摘要藉由提供學習者可自由運用的教材，電腦輔助語言自學中心被視為培養學習者自主性的工具。好些研究調查學生觀感、學習策略使用、來訪自學中心頻率與其自主性發展的關係，但探討學習風格對自主學習潛在影響的研究卻寥寥無幾。本研究藉由長期觀察第二外語學習者在電腦輔助語言自學中心的自主學習，針對此議題提供更多實證並進一步檢視學習風格和自選式學習的相關程度，學習軟體的選擇、來訪自學教室的頻率等皆為探討之要素。研究對象為非英語系之大一學生：1,579 名來自 2010 年第一學期，1,265 來自 2011 年第二學期。學生須填寫一份十題的線上問卷，評量他們當次於自學中心所使用的軟體。每學期末，學生另須填寫一份二十三題的問卷，評量他們在自學中心的整體學習。此外在 2011 年第二學期末，440 位學生自願填寫一份三十題的學習風格問卷。除了量化資料，質性資料也經由助教隨機訪談三十八位來自 2010 年第一學期的學生與三十二位來自 2011 年第二學期的學生中收集。結果發現：由於舒適的環境、豐富的資源、個人化學習的可行性，第二外語學習者對於在自學教室學習英文抱持正向態度。學生亦指出他們在聽力、口說、閱讀、寫作、單字、批判性思考、評量技巧、西方文化理解等各面向的進步，其中又以聽力理解的進步最為顯著。觀看有字幕的電影是多數學習者練習英聽的主要管道，正因為看電影讓人放鬆且寓教於樂，學習者最常使用也最喜歡的學習軟體就是多媒體資源。接著，皮爾森相關分析與克瓦二氏檢定則用於探討自主學習和學習風格的關係。整體而言，大學生的學習風格並未對其在電腦輔助語言自學中心的自主學習造成顯著影響。學習者的學習風格與其英文程度和來訪自學教室頻率之相關均未達顯著。此外學生的性別、科系背景、軟體選擇皆未和特定學習風格達到顯著相關。關鍵字：自學中心、自主學習、學習風格.

(3) ABSTRACT It is believed that self-access centers (SAC) serve as the best-known vehicle leading learners to autonomy by providing materials they can use on their own. Some studies investigated students’ perception, strategy use, and frequency of visit in relation to their autonomy development while few explored the potential influence of learners’ learning styles on their autonomous learning in SACs. The present study aims to suffice for the longitudinal observation of adult EFL learners’ autonomous learning in a CALL SAC and examine the extent to which learning styles correlate with their self-access learning, in terms of their program choices, frequency of visits, etc. Participants included 1,579 and 1,265 non-English-major freshmen from fall semester 2010 and spring semester 2011 respectively. They were required to fill in a ten-item online survey to assess the learning program they just used after each visit. At the end of each semester, they had to fill out a 23-item questionnaire to generally evaluate their learning in the SAC. Moreover, 440 students voluntarily took a 30-item learning style questionnaire at the end of spring semester 2011. Aside from quantitative data, qualitative data was also collected by interviewing 38 students and 32 students randomly selected by the SAC assistants from each semester. Findings showed that adult EFL learners held positive attitude towards acquiring English in the SAC, owing to its cozy environment, abundant resources, and feasibility of individualization. Participants also reported their improvements in listening, speaking, reading, writing, vocabulary, critical thinking, evaluation skills, and western culture enhancement. Among them, betterment of listening comprehension was the most cited language gain and watching movies with subtitles appeared to be the principle mode for most learners to polish their listening in a rather relaxing and entertaining way. The most frequently-used and favorite learning program selected by those SAC visitors was accordingly the multimedia resources. Later, Pearson correlation and Kruskal-Wallis test were applied to probe into the relationships between autonomous learning and learning styles. On the whole, college students’ learning styles did not exercise significant influence on their autonomous learning in the SAC. No generally significant correlation between learners’ learning styles and their proficiency levels as well as frequency of visits was observed. In addition, students’ gender, fields of study, and program choices did not identify with specific learning styles, either. Based on the results, pedagogical implications and suggestions for the institution are presented. Key words: self-access center, autonomous learning, learning styles.

(4) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Eventually approaching the light at the end of the tunnel, I want to express my deep gratitude to those who joined me, accompanied me, helped me, and continuously urged me to put my thoughts into words. This research project would never be possible without the support of all the people walking beside me down the bumpy road. Were it not for them, I wouldn’t be able to keep my faith alive while struggling to juggle my challenging research life as a graduate student with the career as an EHP homeroom teacher shouldering heavy work load, a September bride embarking upon another life stage, and various roles I play simultaneously. My advisor, Dr. Chih-cheng Lin, guided me through the occasionally tedious research process via indicating potential research directions, sharing relevant literature, and constantly providing insightful advice as well as warm encouragement whenever acute anxiety was gnawing at me. It is Dr. Chih-cheng Lin’s altruistic devotion that succors me to accomplish the thesis. My committee members, Dr. Hsueh-ying Yu and Dr. Jun-jie Tseng, carefully read the thesis page by page, attentively listened to the oral presentation, critically examined the study results, and kindly offered constructive and detailed comments. It is Dr. Hsueh-ying Yu and Dr. Jun-jie Tseng’s suggestions that better this research. My fiancé, Chieh-Chih Chen, assisted me with the complex and time-consuming data processing, taught me how to operate the statistical analysis software, clarified my delusion of some statistical functions, tolerated my fiery temper, and surprised me by performing random acts of sweetness. Since he is a double major in statistics, I can rely on him to deal with the enormous data. Since he is my partner, I can rely on him for emotional support to fight for my goal. It is my fiancé’s love and concern that accompanies me to survive the sufferings. My dearest family provided me with financial support to go on with my study and mental shelter to take a rest from the exhausting world. They are my indispensible strength to pursue dreams. In the hope of enjoying more quality time with my mother, father and sister, I exerted myself to fulfill every obligation as effectively as possible. It is my family’s selfless love that motivates me to hang on there. My graduate school instructors fortified my knowledge about TESOL and ability to be an eligible teacher with their expertise and enthusiasm. My graduate school classmates explored the academic filed with me and enriched my life. My colleagues generously substituted for me when I was sick or had to ask for leave. At last, thanks God for answering my prayer. To my beloved advisor, committee members, fiancé, family, teachers, classmates, colleagues, and God, I dedicate this thesis..

(5) TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION.............................................................................1 1.1 Motivation and Background ............................................................................1 1.2 Research Question ...........................................................................................3 1.3 Significance and Purpose of the Study ............................................................3 1.4 Definition of the Terms ....................................................................................4 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................6 2.1 Learner Autonomy ...........................................................................................6 2.1.1 What is autonomy? ...............................................................................6 2.1.2 Autonomy and culture.........................................................................10 2.1.3 Autonomy and individual differences .................................................13 2.1.4 Autonomy and learning styles.............................................................22 2.1.4.1 What are learning styles? .........................................................22 2.1.4.2 Learning styles and language learning.....................................25 2.2 Self-Access Language Learning: Autonomy beyond the Classroom ............28 2.2.1 CALL, SALL and autonomy ..............................................................28 2.2.2 Empirical studies on SALL and autonomy .........................................30 2.2.3 Empirical studies on SALL and learning styles..................................31 2.3 The Present Study ..........................................................................................35 CHAPTER THREE METHOD ...................................................................................38 3.1 The CALL SAC in the Study: Pu101 ............................................................38 3.2 Participants.....................................................................................................39 3.3 Research Instruments .....................................................................................42 3.4 Data Collection and Data Analysis ................................................................45 CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION....................................................47 4.1 Results............................................................................................................47 4.1.1 End-of-semester questionnaires and interview results........................47 4.1.1.1 Questionnaire results................................................................47 4.1.1.2 Interview results.......................................................................56 4.1.2 End-of-visit survey results ..................................................................64 4.1.2.1 Learners’ evaluation of specific learning programs.................64 4.1.2.2 Learners’ written responses about what they have learned......67 4.1.3 Interaction between autonomous learning and learning styles ...........72 4.2 Discussion ......................................................................................................79 4.2.1 General description of EFL learners’ autonomous learning in the SAC ......................................................................................................................79 i.

(6) 4.2.2 Relationships between autonomous learning and learning style preferences ...................................................................................................85 CHPATER FIVE CONCLUSION ...............................................................................90 5.1 Summary of Major Findings..........................................................................90 5.2 Pedagogical Implications ...............................................................................93 5.3 Limitations and Directions for Future Research............................................94 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................96 Appendix A List of Recent Quantitative Empirical Studies on Learning Styles .......105 Appendix B List of Recent Empirical Studies on SALL and Autonomy ..................109 Appendix C Weekly Assigned Schedules in the SAC ............................................... 119 Appendix D End-of-semester Survey Questionnaire (English version) ....................120 Appendix E End-of-semester Survey Questionnaire (Chinese version)....................122 Appendix F Learning Styles Questionnaire (English version) ..................................124 Appendix G Learning Styles Questionnaire (Chinese version) .................................126 Appendix H Frequency of Use of Learning Software in the Fall Semester 2010 .....128 Appendix I Frequency of Use of Learning Software in the Spring Semester 2011...130. ii.

(7) LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 The Background Information of the Interviewees (Fall Semester 2010).....40 Table 3.2 The Background Information of the Interviewees (Spring Semester 2011) 41 Table 3.3 Sample Items from the Ehrman and Leaver Learning Style Questionnaire.44 Table 4.1 Learners’ Evaluation of Language Learning in the SAC .............................49 Table 4.2 Advantages of Learning in the SAC ............................................................50 Table 4.3 Top Five Most Favorite Learning Programs ................................................51 Table 4.4 Reasons for Most Favorite Learning Programs ...........................................52 Table 4.5 Top Three Least Favorite Learning Programs..............................................53 Table 4.6 Reasons for Least Favorite Learning Programs ...........................................54 Table 4.7 Areas the SAC Can Improve ........................................................................55 Table 4.8 Five Most Frequently Used Learning Programs ..........................................65 Table 4.9 Learners’ Evaluation of Emergency Room...................................................65 Table 4.10 Learners’ Evaluation of Friends.................................................................66 Table 4.11 Learners’ written responses to “What I have learned” ...............................67 Table 4.12 Correlation between Achievement Test Scores and Learning Styles .........74 Table 4.13 Correlation between Frequency of Visits and Learning Styles ..................75 Table 4.14 Correlation between Placement and Learning Styles.................................76 Table 4.15 Kruskal-Wallis Tests: Gender, Field of Study, Placement, Frequency, Program Choice versus Learning Styles ......................................................................78 Table 4.16 Kruskal-Wallis Tests: Placement, Frequency, Achievement Test Scores versus Program Choice ................................................................................................78. iii.

(8) LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Interaction between the Learner and the Self-access Environment...............30. iv.

(9) CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION. 1.1 Motivation and Background The education system in Taiwan has been through a series of reforms over the past decades so as to achieve learner autonomy and lifelong learning. Recently, our Ministry of Education announced a new policy named twelve-year compulsory education, which is going to be executed in 2014. Whether the policy serves as a panacea for all our problems remains controversial, but a large number of teachers and scholars point out the same question in newspapers: The phenomenon of bimodal distribution will certainly deteriorate due to the lack of screening entrance exam like The Basic Competence Test for Junior High School Student. In the aftermath of the policy, high school teachers encounter greater difficulty to cater to students’ individual differences and the same problem remains when these students enter colleges. In other words, the varied proficiency levels between high and low language achievers grow even wider and teachers suffer how to help each student learn effectively. While lower language achievers struggle to memorize basic vocabulary, higher language achievers may read extensively and want to have more opportunities to practice English composition. At this time, guiding students learning by themselves and providing them with resourceful self-study material to foster autonomous learning seem to be a feasible solution (Gardner & Miller, 1999). For example, a high-proficiency-level student can take TOEFL simulated tests while a low-proficiency-level student can use the software MyET to correct and improve his or her pronunciation and spelling, both sides’ needs and wants can be realized in a self-access classroom. 1.

(10) According to Gardner and Miller (1999), a self-access center (SAC) is a place where self-access materials and activities are made available in an organized way. By integrating self-access learning with regular coursework, learners satisfy diverse needs, develop individual strategies, reflect on learning, take responsibility and gain greater independence. With the advent of the Internet, increased internationalism and easier availability of educational technology, computer-assisted language learning (CALL) also plays a pervasive role in individualization and learner autonomy (Benson, 2006). Combining the concepts of SAC and CALL, National Taiwan Normal University (NTNU) established a computer-assisted self-access classroom, Pu101, in 2001. As the beacon and goalkeeper of Taiwanese education, NTNU pioneers not only the establishment of the self-access classroom but also the evaluation of its effectiveness. Several researchers investigated students’ perceptions of the SAC and their autonomous learning in it: In Ning’s (2008) study, an 8-item online survey questionnaire and a semi-structured interview were conducted to look into students’ perceptions of Pu101; a modified 10-item online survey questionnaire, an 23-item end-of-semester questionnaire and a semi-structured interview were administered in Lin’s (2010) study to further examine students’ autonomous learning. Their findings shed light on the contribution of SAC to EFL college students both quantitatively and qualitatively and indicate EFL college students’ improvement in vocabulary, listening, speaking, reading and cultural understanding (Lin, 2010; Ning, 2008; Wang, 2006). However, Lin (2010) and Ning (2008) mainly looked into the environment-related factors motivating EFL learners to continue visiting the SAC and their autonomous learning in it. Whether individual-difference-related factors like learning styles correlate with autonomous learning hasn’t been fully investigated and therefore needs confirming. Since learning styles imply a value-neutral nature to 2.

(11) decipher individual learners’ language acquisition (Kinsella, 1995) and several researchers investigated how learning styles enhance students’ autonomous learning (Borg & Al-Busaidi, 2012; Cohen, 2002; Ehrman & Leaver, 2003; Yang, 2003); the present study thus take learning style preferences into account when looking into EFL college students’ autonomous learning in a CALL SAC. 1.2 Research Question Specifically, the present study seeks to answer the following research questions: 1. What motivates adult EFL learners to keep visiting a computer-assisted self-access center throughout one academic year? 2. How do adult EFL learners engage themselves in the self-access language learning? 3. To what extent do learning styles correlate with EFL learners’ autonomous learning in a computer-assisted self-access center, in terms of their use of learning program, proficiency level, and frequency of visit, etc? 1.3 Significance and Purpose of the Study Since Gardner and Miller (1999) clearly delineated the conception of self-access, SAC has grown into a prominent theme of language learning and theoretical as well as empirical studies have been continuously conducted to examine its facilities, systems, materials, roles, management and effectiveness (Barnett & Jordan, 1991; Cotterall & Reinders, 2001; Gardner & Miller, 2011; Koyalan, 2009; Miller & Rogerson, 1993; Morrison, 2008; Reinders & Lewis, 2005; Reinders, 2007). Among them, the idea learner autonomy is frequently associated with SAC (Figura & Jarvis, 2007; Gardner & Miller, 2011; Gieve & Clark, 2005; Hua, 2001; Koyalan, 2009; Lin, 2010; Navarro & Thornton, 2011; Ning, 2008; Sanprasert, 2010). They investigated the connection between SAC and autonomous learning by looking into learners’ 3.

(12) attitude, perception, belief, and strategy use, etc. Koyalan (2009), Morrison (2008) and Reinders (2007) further point out that when individual differences emerge, the dilemma teachers face can be solved through the implementation of self-access centers, which serve as an alternative to conventional face-to-face learning model where learners’ needs are too great or diverse to be met. In the hope of generally introducing self-access classrooms to Taiwanese universities to alleviate the phenomenon of bimodal distribution resulting from the twelve-year compulsory education, the study aims to evaluate EFL college students’ autonomous learning in a CALL SAC in NTNU and further probes into whether EFL learners’ learning style preferences account for their autonomous learning in the SAC. In brief, the purpose of the present study is to examine the extent to which autonomy correlates with learning styles in the context of SAC; hopefully, the study can be another inquiry into the important issue of SAC and autonomy, providing more empirical evidence in the EFL context. 1.4 Definition of the Terms . Learner autonomy: The ability to set individual learning goals, make personal decisions, select learning materials, monitor learning processes, and evaluate learning outcomes through self-reflection. In other words, autonomous learners refers to those who possess positive attitude towards English language learning and frequently visit the self-access classroom, Pu 101 in NTNU, to watch movies in English, listen to English online magazines, or employ English learning programs to improve their four skills－listening, speaking, reading and writing－ even without their instructors’ requirements.. . Self-access center (SAC): A place where provides self-study materials and 4.

(13) counseling services that learners can use on their own. These materials or activities are organized in a structured way for learners to browse through and select what they need or want. Pu 101, the multimedia computer-assisted language learning center in NTNU which complements students’ in-class learning, refers to the CALL SAC in the current study.. 5.

(14) CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW. This chapter firstly aims to define the complex nature of learner autonomy and its interaction with culture, individual differences and particularly learning styles. In the second section, self-access language learning in self-access centers and its relationship with autonomy and learning styles are further illustrated. Apart from the theoretical accounts for each concept, empirical studies concerning these issues are discussed as well. 2.1 Learner Autonomy 2.1.1 What is autonomy? Recently, the deconstruction of traditional language learning classrooms and courses has aroused considerable interest in autonomy. As reported by Dickinson (1987), autonomy described the situation where learners took responsibility for all of the decisions about their learning and the implementation of those decisions. Different from the learning-situation point, Holec (1981) regarded autonomy as an attribute of learners who had “the capacity to take control of [their] own learning” (p. 3) by planning, selecting, monitoring, and assessing. Following the same line of thought, Little (1991) also supported the psychological attributes of autonomous learners. That is, autonomous learners accepted responsibility for their own learning, drew on their intrinsic motivation, and committed themselves to develop the skills of reflective self-management. Hence, their learning was efficient and effective and their knowledge acquired in the classroom could be applied to wider contexts. In Palfreyman and Smith’s (2003) review book, they briefly summarized Benson’s (1997) three perspectives of autonomy in language education: technical, psychological, and 6.

(15) political. First, the technical view accentuated “[cognitive, metacognitive, and social] skills or strategies for unsupervised learning” (p. 3). Second, the psychological view accentuated “broader attitudes and cognitive abilities which enable the learner to take responsibility for his [or] her own learning” (p. 3). Third, the political view accentuated “empowerment or emancipation of learners by giving them control over the content and processes of their learning” (p. 3). Among them, the psychological perspective was the most frequently adopted one (Benson, 2006). Owning to the inconclusive definitions of autonomy, many researchers sought to model levels of autonomy with a view to clarifying the components of it (Benson, 2001; Littlewood, 1997; Macaro, 1997; Nunan, 1997; Scharle & Szabo, 2000). According to Nunan (1997), learner autonomy could be sequenced into five stages ranging from awareness, involvement, intervention, creation, to transcendence. For instance, learners would transfer what they learn in the classroom to the situations arising outside the classroom when they achieved the transcendence level. Another insightful model was proposed by Littlewood (1997), suggesting three distinctive autonomy degrees: autonomy as a communicator, autonomy as a learner, autonomy as a person. In the context of language acquisition, autonomous learners were able to use the language to communicate personal meanings in real and unpredictable situations. In the context of classroom organization, autonomous learners were able to be responsible for their own learning and actively apply strategies to solve problems. Finally, autonomous learners were able to realize higher autonomy as individuals. Apart from the three-stage model implying a progression from lower to higher levels of autonomy, Littlewood (1999) also made a distinction between proactive and reactive autonomy. Learners belonging to the former category set up directions which they partially created by themselves while learners belonging to the latter category 7.

(16) organized their resources to reach the goal set up by others instead of creating their own one. Similar to the distinction, studies kept cutting the cake in different ways. Smith (2003), for instance, mentioned weak and strong pedagogies for autonomy. Weak pedagogies were based on the assumption that learners lacked autonomy and needed training towards. On the other hand, strong pedagogies were based on the assumption that learners were already autonomous to some degree and teachers could collaborate with them to exercise their autonomy. Corresponding perspectives including narrow and broad views of autonomy as well as convergence and divergence models of autonomy were recognized at the same time (Kumaravadivelu, 2003; Ribe, 2003). While the majority of researchers advocated the indispensability of learner autonomy and its characteristics as well as reliance on the learners’ part, Allwright (1990) and Little (1995) argued that, in fact, the development of learner autonomy depended on the development of teacher autonomy, and that because learning originated from interaction and a major feature of interaction was interdependence, learner autonomy substantially matured through teacher’s pedagogical dialogues. In other words, teachers’ ability and volition played an essential role in fostering their students’ autonomy, which was empirically corroborated in Nakata’s (2011) study. In detail, the study investigated Japanese high school English teachers’ perception and strategy use of autonomy by collecting the data through a closed questionnaire and a focus group interview. The results showed that most Japanese EFL high school teachers were not fully prepared for autonomous teaching approach despite their awareness of its necessity and urgency in the globalization era. Although they realized the importance of autonomous strategies, they seldom applied what they knew to where they taught, thus failing to promote autonomy in their students. Johnson (2006) 8.

(17) therefore suggested refined teacher education to nourish the “teaching force of transformative intellectuals who [could] navigate their professional worlds in ways that enable[d] them to create educationally sound, contextually appropriate, and socially equitable learning opportunities for the students they [taught]” (p. 235). So we could say that teacher autonomy should be fostered as much as learner autonomy to really engage students in their own learning. After glancing through the diverse interpretations and versions of learner autonomy,. it. seemed. to. be. difficult. to. define. the. complex. term. comprehensively. Nevertheless, researchers in language-acquisition field generally accepted that autonomous learners understood the purpose of their learning, accepted responsibility, set their goals, took initiatives in planning and executing activities, and regularly reviewed and evaluated the effectiveness of their learning. In other words, autonomous learners were metacognitive learners who took conscious steps to understand what they were doing when they learned, thus tending to be the most successful learners (Rahimi & Katal, 2012). Capturing the core spirit of learner autonomy, Little (2002) provided a rather holistic definition of it: “The practice of learner autonomy require[d] insight, a positive attitude, a capacity for reflection, and a readiness to be proactive in self-management and in interaction with others,” which revealed the cognitive, metacognitive, affective, and social dimensions of language learning. In this study, autonomy is viewed as the ability to set individual learning goals, make personal decisions, select learning materials, monitor learning processes, and evaluate learning outcomes by self-reflection. In addition, the operational definition of autonomous learners refers to those who possess positive attitude towards English language learning and frequently visit the self-access classroom, Pu 101, in NTNU, to 9.

(18) watch movies in English, listen to English online magazines, or employ English learning programs to improve their four skills－listening, speaking, reading and writing－even without their instructors’ requirements. 2.1.2 Autonomy and culture The concept of autonomy arising in Europe entails individualism and active participation by nature. However, whether it is appropriate to take learner autonomy as a universal goal of language education across different cultures has been hotly debated. Palfreyman and Smith (2003) summarized three uses of culture in their widely-cited book to speculate the interaction of autonomy and culture. First, national or ethnic culture was the most common connotation of culture, underlining the substantial influence of culture differences between East and West on the implementation of autonomy in non-Western societies. Second, culture connoted “values and customary ways of behaving in different kinds of community” (p. 1). Namely, it was the culture of specific kinds of learning environment such as a classroom or a school that marked a difference in autonomy. Moreover, the third interpretation of culture opposed the idea of leaner in isolation and related autonomy to the sociocultural context. Precisely, this trend pointed out the grandness of sociocutural context and collaboration with others when it came to education and our lives. In addition to Palfreyman and Smith’s (2003) abundant accounts of culture and the potential of learner autonomy around the world, a large number of studies have also kept arguing the appropriateness of learner autonomy. Some complained that the cultural attributes of Asian societies resulted in the reticence and passivity of learners, and that learners from Confucian-heritage cultures were particularly resistant to developing autonomy and were overly dependent on their teachers (Biggs, 1996; 10.

(19) Cheng, 2000; Ho & Crookall, 1995; Palfreyman & Smith, 2003). On the other hand, some argued that depending on others could be a responsible way to learn and that group-oriented activities as well as collaboration fostered the autonomous learning of students from ethnic cultures such as Japanese culture, Arab culture, African culture and Chinese culture (Chanock, 2004; Little, 1991; Smith, 2001; Sonaiya, 2002). That is, they tried to turn the shift from independence to interdependence, emphasizing the value and importance of working together with others and sharing responsibility to pursuit mutual benefits. Autonomy therefore meant setting one’s own goals and developing one’s own standards instead of simply pursuing learning activities without others’ assistance. In line with the alternative interpretation of autonomy in particular cultures, Littlewood (1999) focused on the traditions of East Asian education system and examined three sources of influence on students’ learning approaches, including the collectivist orientation of East Asian societies, learners’ acceptance of teachers as the authority figure and fount of all the knowledge, and the belief that success could be achieved through effort as effectively as through innate ability. At the same time, he considered which aspects of autonomy might be the most strongly rooted in East Asian culture and how they could be fostered to support English learning. After one year, Little (2000) carried out a follow-up study investigating Asian students’ learning attitudes with a comparison to European students’. Surprisingly, the results did not indicate significant differences between the East and the West, but a greater difference was shown between individuals within the same country, guiding us towards a better understanding of Asian students and their autonomous learning. Aside from theories and review articles, several empirical studies have been done to get a further look at the cultural appropriateness of autonomy as a learning 11.

(20) objective, especially in Asian contexts (Gieve & Clark, 2005; Ho & Crookall, 1995; Nakata, 2011; Sanprasert, 2010). Although their findings were mixed, a pervasive phenomenon was observed; that is, most Asian learners valued freedom in language learning and appreciated the opportunity to direct their own learning. Take Sanprasert’s (2010) study for example. Two groups of Thai college students, who were believed to be obedient and uncritical under the influence of their cultural and educational contexts, participated in an English foundation course accompanying with a course management system. They were acquired to fill in questionnaires concerning their perception of the course management system and to write journals to keep a record of their reflection and learning process during the whole semester. The results showed that Thai university students held a positive attitude towards autonomous learning with the help of the course management system. Additionally, they demonstrated their autonomy development through their behavior, strategy use and working with their peers, albeit the stereotype that autonomous learning would be hindered due to the negative effect of Eastern culture. Chinese undergraduates enrolling in a British university also embraced and enjoyed autonomy by adopting self-directed and tandem learning, as Gieve and Clark (2005) stated. In their study, Chinese college students and their European counterparts studying English as part of their university degree both expressed appreciation of such kind of autonomous learning in their written reflections, though they had different learning needs, language abilities, and cultural backgrounds. Gieve and Clark (2005) therefore asserted that autonomy was not a culturally-determined term; instead, it was a flexible approach could be adopted worldwide. Their commentary echoed Cheng’s (2000), who strongly claimed that the obstacles in our way to autonomy did not result from culture itself, but from the adverse effects of teaching methodologies and 12.

(21) learners’ insufficient language proficiency. In other words, it was unfair to overgeneralize the Eastern passive stereotype to all Asian learners and the so-called cultural impediments to autonomy development in EFL contexts were actually situation-specific factors. The researcher therefore concluded that with training and practice, language learners in non-Western learning environment could cultivate their autonomy as well as those in Western countries. As for students in Taiwan, incorporating the spirit of autonomy into our education can definitely promote and sustain their lifelong learning and simultaneously solve the educational problem we always encounter, the phenomenon of bimodal distribution. In brief, it was suitable and worthwhile to take learner autonomy as a universal goal of language education across different cultures because of the recent decontextualization and globalization of it (Schmenk, 2005). 2.1.3 Autonomy and individual differences Entering mainstream language education, autonomy has started to interact with other important second language acquisition (SLA) concepts, especially with individual differences and sociocultural approaches (Benson, 2006). In an attempt to get rid of the notoriety that autonomy connotes－learning in isolation or separation, a renewed focus on individual differences sprouted in the late twentieth century and has continued until now. As Benson (2006) mentioned in his condensed review article, “there [was] a clear conceptual link between autonomy and individual differences－ the idea of autonomy [responded] to the fact that individual learners [differed] from each other and [might] seek to develop their individuality through divergent learning processes” (p. 29). Before examining the relationship between autonomy and individual differences, we must firstly review what individual differences encompass in the field of SLA. 13.

(22) According to Dörnyei (2005), “individual differences (IDs) [were] characteristics or traits in respect of which individuals [might] be shown to differ from each other” (p. 1), and the study of it has been a prominent theme of applied-linguistic investigations for the past thirty years because the diverse outcomes of second language acquisition were attributable to the significant influence of individual differences including language aptitude, motivation, learning styles, learning strategies, anxiety, creativity, willingness to communicate, self-esteem, and learner beliefs (Dörnyei, 2009). Among them, the previous four ID factors enjoyed a greater popularity in SLA studies and their brief definitions synthesized by Dörnyei (2005) are as follows:  Language aptitude refers to individuals’ learning ability and their potential for acquiring new knowledge or skills, representing the cognitive domain of ID.  Motivation consists of effort, desire, and attitude towards learning. It implies the direction and magnitude of learning behavior in terms of the learner’s choice, intensity, and duration of learning, concerning the affective dimension.  Learning styles represent the manner of learning, a profile of the individual’s approach to learning, or a blueprint of the habitual or preferred way the individual perceives, interacts with, and responds to the learning environment.  Learning strategies are learners’ behaviors and thoughts aiming at facilitating their learning as well as the learning processes consciously selected by the learner who manages to overcome obstacles by using a battery of resources. Even though individual differences were naturally and theoretically embedded in autonomy, to our surprise, the link between the two areas has seldom been directly and empirically investigated. Fortunately, autonomy-investigating instruments such as case study, action research, and diary writing contributed to corroborating the interaction between the two important concepts (Benson, 2006). For instance, Benson 14.

(23) (2005) employed autobiography and biography to look into learner diversity and the mental processes behind their observable behavior. Norton (2001) probed into the issue of non-participation of two immigrant ESL learners in Canada and their dynamic expectations of ESL courses by conducting interviews and writing diaries, which also provided an insight into the interplay between individual differences and autonomy. Moreover, Lam (2000) documented the learning process, behavior, perception and outcome of a focal student, Almon, who emigrated from Hong Kong to America and was grouped into a low-proficiency-level ESL writing class. Explicitly, the researcher carried out an in-depth case study on him to capture the complexity of the ESL teenager’s learning and the way he changed by the written correspondence with a transnational group of peers on the Internet. Findings showed that Almon used different programs on the Web and from the files automatically, and that his English-writing ability improved dramatically through the computer-mediated communication. The progression Almon made proved that autonomy could be achieved through CMC, the individualized form of learning which catered to individual differences and facilitated autonomous and independent learning. In addition to viewing individual differences as a whole, much more studies investigated the link between autonomy and the factors in it like motivation and learning strategies in particular (Benson, 2006). As for motivation, Deci and Ryan’s (2002) self-determination theory, where self-determination was understood as the degree to which individuals were active participants in their own learning, formally related autonomy to it by pointing out that the three fundamental psychological needs for their proposition were competence, relatedness and autonomy. They further asserted that “autonomy [played] a central role in the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivations as well as the variants of internalization along the 15.

(24) self-determination condition” (p. 392), and that it could even nourish intrinsic motivation. Afterwards, the belief that motivated learners took responsibility for their own learning was widely accepted and supported in a series of empirical studies, which commonly assessed participants’ motivation and autonomy through questionnaires and their consequent engagement and achievement in language learning through interview or observation (Hayes, 2008; Lamb, 2004; Lüftenegger et al., 2012; Noels, 2005; Wijnia et al., 2011; Wu, 2003). In Wu’s (2003) quasi-experimental study, firstly he documented the classroom instruction and learning dynamics in both the experimental and control group; then he interviewed the students to understand their intrinsic motivation, perceived competence, and perceived autonomy to examine the effect of learning environment on their development of L2 intrinsic motivation and autonomy. His findings indicated that integrative strategy training and freedom to choose learning content, methods, and performance outcomes indeed promoted autonomy and the autonomy helped lead learners to develop L2 intrinsic motivation effectively. To add more evidence, Lamb (2004) carried out a case study, in September 2002 and May 2003, of a focal group of learners in one Indonesian school, seeking to unveil students’ attitude and motivation towards English acquisition and their level and type of independent learning activity. A total of nine students were selected on the basis of their initial questionnaire responses which showed their being highly motivated. Then, Lamb (2004) found a consistent picture of sustained autonomous learning behavior among these adolescent Indonesians who were highly motivated in English learning. For middle-class students, their autonomy seemed to be an attitude towards learning where they were prepared to take responsibility for their own learning. They took private courses, reflected on how to benefit from formal English classes, considered their improvement in different 16.

(25) aspects of English, and set up their own communicative goals for learning, which respectively embodied planning, monitoring, and evaluating in autonomy. As for motivated pupils whose parents could not afford the fees of private courses, they turned to school teachers, paper dictionaries, or superior peers for help and also became autonomous learners. Similarly, more recent studies have verified that the link between autonomy and motivation accounted for language learners’ behavior and performance to a certain degree (Wijnia et al., 2011; Lüftenegger et al., 2012). Analyzing the effectiveness of problem-based learning versus lecture-based teaching, Wijnia et al. (2011) discovered that undergraduates scored higher on competence when receiving problem-based learning. However, their study motivation and autonomy level did not differ from their counterparts, which might be attributable to controlling factors such as mandatory presentence and strict requirement. Although problem-based learning did not always foster autonomy and increase motivation, collaboration was proved to be a motivating and better-structured course design which helped elicit real autonomous and motivated learning. Besides, in Lüftenegger et al.’s (2012) research, they put persistent motivation and self-regulated learning behavior together as the key components of lifelong learning. Their study involved 2266 fifth to seventh graders to see the impact of classroom instruction on pupils’ interest, learning goals, and self efficacy. The triangulation of the data indicated that a student’s motivational belief served as a strong predictor of his or her autonomy in the classroom. Hence, a temporary conclusion based on the plentiful studies mentioned above could be drawn that promoting learner autonomy could simultaneously motivate learners, and vice versa. Another area enjoyed great popularity among research concerning the 17.

(26) relationship between autonomy and individual difference factor was learning strategies. According to Little (2000), learning strategies involved strategic control of language learning and use, thus being seen as a by-product of learner autonomy. In other words, students naturally adopted and created a wide range of strategies to overcome difficulties in their processes of becoming active, independent, involved, and autonomous. In order to achieve fluency and accuracy in the target language, students instinctively set up their own learning goals, monitored their performances, and evaluated their outcomes; all the stages required learning strategies to put them into practice. In agreement with this point of view, Wenden (2002) stated that the practice of strategy training as well as learner training or learner development, an interchangeable term for autonomy, was closely related to the concept of learning strategies. Since autonomy was theoretically allied with learning strategies, the interaction between them has successfully aroused researchers’ interest to tackle the issue (Figura & Jarvis, 2007; Gieve & Clark, 2005; Hart, 2002; Hurd et al., 2001; Mori, 2007; Sanprasert, 2010; Xhaferi & Xhaferi, 2011; Yang, 2003; Zangari, 1999). These experimental or empirical studies fell into two main categories: Firstly, some incorporated learning strategies into existing curricula through distant learning, small grouping, authentic material or portfolio to foster autonomous learning (Hart, 2002; Hurd et al., 2001; Xhaferi & Xhaferi, 2011; Yang, 2003; Zangari, 1999), which reveald the general assumption that autonomy could be enhanced through the implementation of various learning strategies; secondly, some directly analyzed to what extent the type or choice of learning strategies augmented the development of learner autonomy (Figura & Jarvis, 2007; Mori, 2007). Take Mori’s (2007) representative research for example. 151 college students were recruited from Japanese courses at an American university in the Pacific 18.

(27) Northwest during the spring term of 2005. In specie, the participants consisted of 46 freshmen, 40 sophomores, 36 juniors, and 29 seniors. Aiming to examine the degree to which the frequency and choice of strategy use differed across learners with varied Japanese proficiency levels, the researcher adopted the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning invented by Oxford in 1990 to collect students’ self-rating data. Although the results did not show any discrepancies in the frequency of strategy use among different levels of learners, the choice of strategy use varied significantly and revealed that different learning strategies were selected and used by students at varying levels. When it comes to juniors and seniors, metacognitive (organize language notebook to record important information), cognitive (use reference materials such as dictionary), affective (talk about my feelings concerning the language learning), social (ask the speaker to slow down, repeat or clarify), and compensation (if I cannot think of right expression, use gesture etc.) strategies were the most frequently adopted ones, which not only clearly described learners’ being responsible and their active participation but also embodied autonomous learning. The freshmen and sophomores, on the other hand, tended to employ metacognitive (preview the lesson), social (try to learn about the culture, pay attention to the feelings and thoughts of interacting people), and compensation (guess general meaning) strategies. Compared to the fourth and third year, the first and second year seemed to be less autonomous and more passive learners. For instance, both groups picked up metacognitive strategies but juniors and seniors organized language notebook to record important information while freshmen and sophomores previewed the lesson only. That is, the former required higher level of thinking and intellectual challenge, but the latter didn’t. In sum, the choice of strategies both reflected and enhanced learners’ autonomy because it allowed learners to take different degrees of 19.

(28) responsibility for their own learning. Since autonomous learners used strategies more effectively, the researcher therefore concluded that language learning strategies play an influential role in the formation of autonomy and vice versa. Conforming to Mori’s (2007) conclusion, Figura and Jarvis (2007) looked into the types of strategies EFL students used along with computer-based materials, finding that they demonstrated conscious application of cognitive and metacognitive strategies the most often and hence increased their autonomy. Aside from the focus on examining the direct causal link between strategies and autonomy, many researchers has devoted themselves to the preparation for autonomous language learners by introducing innovative learning strategies via media like portfolio (Yang, 2003; Xhaferi & Xhaferi, 2011) or distant learning program (Hurd et al., 2001). In Xhaferi and Xhaferi’s (2011) study, they investigated eighty university students and twenty language teachers in South East European University so as to identify students’ strategy employment and teachers’ teaching techniques, calibrate students’ autonomy level, and document teachers’ instruction on strategies. Generally speaking, findings indicated that students relied heavily on their teacher and that note-taking for learning new vocabulary was their most used strategy, which pointed out the need for students to reflect on and react to their learning experiences and difficulties. To improve the situation, teachers had to offer students a wide repertoire of language learning strategies to show them ways towards achieving learner autonomy. Accordingly, learner diary, vocabulary notebook, and portfolio were proposed as powerful tools to elicit and enhance autonomy step by step. This approach echoed Yang’s (2003), which also put emphasis on the integration of portfolios into regular courses as a medium for strategy training and autonomy development. In Yang’s (2003) freshman English course targeting at listening and 20.

(29) speaking, 42 Taiwanese non-English-major college students participated in the pilot study and later 45 in the formal one. Four instruments including learning strategy questionnaire, learning style survey, and two-phase portfolio survey were implemented to assess EFL learners’ autonomous performance. Based on the questionnaire results, compensation strategies were used most frequently while memory strategies the least. With such individualized strategy profiles, learners could utilize the information to re-set their learning objectives, arrange their learning activities, monitor and record their learning processes, and therefore develop better manipulation of strategies to achieve autonomy. According to the first-phase portfolio survey results, participants reported that they had to continuously keep contact with English by listening to or reading English materials everyday to prepare their portfolios. Concretely, up to eighty percent of the participants felt that portfolios offered them direction for learning. They formed a daily language learning habit, explored new learning materials from newspapers, magazines and the Internet instead of limiting themselves to classroom-based or textbook-based learning (90%), gradually possessed the sense to select their favorite topics for in-depth learning or work on their weakest areas (95%), acquired the skills of collecting, organizing and presenting information (86%), and simultaneously reflected on their learning results and check progress (91%). The second-phase portfolio survey results similarly approved that portfolios promoted students’ metacognitive strategy use as well as motivated active and multi-dimensional learning, which helped long-term independent learning. To conclude, the advantages of applying portfolios to the EFL context were as follows: raising students' awareness about learning strategies, facilitating their learning process, and enhancing their self-directed learning. In addition to ascertaining the interplay between autonomy and learning 21.

(30) strategies, Yang (2003) also probed into the interrelationship between autonomy and learning styles, which is the central focus of the present study. Before looking into this issue, an overview of learning styles would be provided in the next section. 2.1.4 Autonomy and learning styles 2.1.4.1 What are learning styles? It is generally believed that different language learners approach the same learning task in quite different ways and the systematic variation or patterns of their learning behavior can be termed learning styles. As Dörnyei (2005) summarized in his prestigious work, learning styles, also called modality, sensory preference, cognitive style and personality type, referred to an individual’s natural and habitual preferences for absorbing, processing, and retaining information. These preferences were not clear-cut points; instead, they represented a bipolar continuum ranging from one extreme point to the other. In other respects, Brown (2000) regarded learning styles as learners’ biologically-determined ways to respond to new information and situations in the educational context. Rayner (2000) highlighted that learning style was a profile of the individual’s approach to learning which comprised two aspects: One refered to the stable and internalized characteristic of individuals’ thinking whereas the other refered to their adaptation to the external learning environment. Thus far, the concept of learning styles has been clarified but it seemed quite similar to the definition of learning strategies because the two ID factors were both related to how learners deal with the learning tasks. Nevertheless, learning strategies were task-dependent or situation-dependent skills whereas learning styles were stable and consistent functioning within individuals; moreover, the former involved a conscious choice of alternatives but the latter operated without learners’ awareness (Riding, 2000; Snow et al., 1996; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2001). After distinguishing leaning styles from 22.

(31) learning strategies, it is time to scrutinize the theoretical construct of its measurement instruments for they not only described the components of learning style but also introduced the various dimensions it covered. This helped us gain further and more concrete understanding of learning styles, apart from the rather abstract definitions. The instruments to assess language learning styles have evolved from Reid’s (1995) Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire (PLSPQ), Oxford’s (1993, 1999) Style Analysis Survey (SAS), Cohen et al.’s (2001) Learning Style Survey (LSS) to Ehrman and Leaver’s (2003) Learning Style Questionnaire, which consisted of ten sub-dimensions. The following are Dörnyei’s (2005) brief descriptions of each subscale:  Field dependent–independent: Field dependence refers to the preference for selection and prioritization whereas field independence treats the whole context as the same. Field independents are better at focusing on some aspects of experience or stimulus, separating it from the background, and analyzing it unaffected by distractions. Field dependents are more responsive as they interact with the environment and, thus, tend to have a stronger interpersonal orientation and greater awareness to social cues than field independents. Besides, this scale treats the foreground and background as the same.  Field sensitive–insensitive: Field sensitivity–insensitivity concerns the preference for considering materials in a situated manner and being aware of their position in their broader context. Field-sensitive learners prefer to address material as part of the context in contrast to their field-insensitive counterparts, who make little or no use of the context. This scale relates to foreground and background together.  Random (non-linear)–sequential (linear): This dimension relates to how the learner processes information. Random learners follow their own, internally 23.

(32) developed and idiosyncratic order of processing (which may seem random to others), whereas sequential learners prefer a step-by-step, externally provided order of processing (such as the units in a syllabus).  Global–particular: This dimension is well encapsulated by the top-down vs. bottom-up processing metaphor.  Inductive–deductive: Inductive learners start with the details and facts, then form hypotheses, and finally test them; deductive learners start out with rules or theories and then try to apply them to examples.  Synthetic–analytic: Synthetic learners like to use pieces to build new wholes, whereas analytic students like to disassemble wholes into parts to understand their componential structure.  Analogue–digital: Analogue learners prefer to use metaphors, analogies, and conceptual links among units and their meanings, whereas digital learners take a more surface approach, characterized by a literal and logical understanding of what they can hear or see.  Concrete–abstract: Concrete learners prefer a relationship with direct experience to the extent of sensory contact, whereas abstract learners may have more interest in the system underlying language than in the actual language of communication.  Leveling–sharpening: This dimension concerns how people perceive, store and retrieve information. Levelers often blur things together and form a generalized image, whereas sharpeners notice small differences and store them as salient attributes in their memories.  Impulsive–reflective: Impulsive learners tend to respond rapidly and act on gut, whereas reflective learners prefer to think things through before they respond. Different from an ability continuum where impulsive is inefficient and reflective 24.

(33) efficient, this style dimension implies that both poles can be beneficial or dysfunctional. 2.1.4.2 Learning styles and language learning Learning styles were an appealing domain in the eyes of educationalists since the concept itself offered a “value-neutral approach for understanding individual differences among linguistically and culturally diverse students” (Kinsella, 1995, p. 171). Unlike language aptitude, learning preferences did not imply inborn ability automatically leading to success or make judgment on the value of each learning style, which meant that learners with divergent styles could all succeed, just in different ways. Along with the growing interest in learning preferences, a series of studies attempted to diagnose and construct the elements affecting or characterizing individuals’ learning styles (Cohen et al., 2001; Ehrman & Leaver, 2003; Oxford, 1993; Reid, 1987; Reid, 1995; Sadler-Smith, 2001; Wintergerst et al., 2003). Although the theoretical accounts of learning styles were abundant, empirical studies centering on the issue in the context of language learning were rather inadequate (Ehrman & Leaver, 2003). Fortunately, several qualitative (Bailey, 1980; Carson & Longhini, 2002) and quantitative studies (Ehrman & Leaver, 2003; Ghapanchi & Dashti, 2011; Jones, 1998; Lincoln & Rademacher, 2006; Psaltou-Joycey & Kantaridou, 2011; Reid, 1987; Srichanyachon, 2011; Wintergerst et al., 2003) have dedicated to investigating and validating the role of learning styles in SLA. It was clear that a majority of empirical studies were done in a quantitative way and this proved the practicability of the published evaluating instruments to look into learning styles when a large number of participants were involved. Recent quantitative empirical studies on learning styles from 2000 onwards were indexed in Appendix A, which simultaneously showed the foci that these studies in language 25.

(34) learning primarily explored the relationship between learners’ learning styles and their learning background to identify their preferences of learning. Nevertheless, the classification of learning styles in these studies seemed chaotic and inconsistent. Different researchers had different ways to look at learning preferences. To my understanding, there seemed to be no empirical study directly employing Ehrman and Leaver’s (2003) ten-dimension learning style questionnaire, which had a comprehensive theoretical construct, in a quantitative way. Ehrman and Leaver (2003) themselves simply carried out two case studies on two adult ESL learners with their newly-devised questionnaire. Aside from looking into the influence of individuals’ learning background on their preferences for acquiring a language, another trend in learning style studies contributed to relating learning preferences to learner autonomy, principally through courses aiming to decipher students’ learning styles and how their learning styles enhance their independent and autonomous learning (Borg & Al-Busaidi, 2012; Cohen, 2002; Ehrman & Leaver, 2003; Yang, 2003). For example, Cohen (2002) revised teaching materials and encouraged language learners to be more in touch with their learning style preferences. In this way, students paid more attention to their own styles of learning and developed a self-regulated learning mode. Following the same line of thought, Yang (2003) integrated portfolios into his freshman English courses in Taiwan and gathered information about EFL students’ preferences for learning with the new medium. The results indicated that, on the whole, students liked to take part in the decision-making process about how they were going to learn and felt great to take responsibility for their own learning. In detail, significant correlations were found between portfolio use and students’ learning styles; the following were the most representative ones. Learners with the learning style preference for taking notes 26.

(35) approved that portfolios helped them organize and arrange their English learning. Learners with the learning style preference for working in pairs or small groups approved that sharing portfolios with peers increase cooperation and mutual growth in English. Learners with the learning style preference for practicing English outside of the classroom approved that they could learn anytime and anywhere with portfolios demonstrating their efforts. Learners with the learning style preference for evaluating their own learning processes approved that portfolios helped them reflect on what they did and understand their strengths and weaknesses. In addition, most participants reached an agreement that portfolios enabled them to share useful English learning resources with peers, got into the habit of reading or listening regularly, and most important of all, reflected and assessed themselves consciously. To conclude, the use of portfolios facilitated EFL learners’ learning in accordance with their learning style preferences and became the momentum towards their independent, autonomous and life-long language learning. In order to foster autonomy, some researchers have further steered their studies towards observing and documenting learners’ learning behavior and their autonomous performance in a hypermedia environment like self-access centers or through the assistance of online learning resources to identify different learners’ learning preferences as Ehrman and Leaver (2003) summarized in their prestigious article. Self-directed learning in self-access centers, usually a computer-assisted environment, accordingly led trends in the SLA field. What is the relationship between CALL and autonomy? How can SAC foster learner autonomy? To which extent do learning styles correlate with autonomous learning in a self-access center? To answer these questions, the second phase of the literature is going to tackle the important issues.. 27.

(36) 2.2 Self-Access Language Learning: Autonomy beyond the Classroom 2.2.1 CALL, SALL and autonomy The contexts of application for autonomy emerged in a variety of forms, including self-access language learning (SALL), computer-assisted language learning (CALL), distance learning, tandem learning, studying abroad, out-of-class learning, and self instruction; the previous two learning modes particularly accounted for a great portion of studies regarding autonomous learning (Benson, 2006). So, what is the relationship between CALL and autonomy? According to Blin’s (2005) comprehensive summary of CALL applications and their potential for autonomy development, language learners could take control over their pace and mode of learning when drilled and tested on vocabulary and grammar by matching or selecting multiple choice items on the screen. They could also take control over text creation, text interpretation as well as process of learning, and develop matacognitive skills when using word processors or databases. They could even take control over the selection of materials and strategies for interpreting the materials when situated in a multimedia, hypermedia and interactive environment. Moreover, they could take control over their learning content and access as well as the way to interact with these inputs when involved in Internet-based activities such as online discussion and collaborative projects. In addition to accelerating autonomy development, another evident function of CALL was satisfying language learners’ individual needs and accommodating these differences ranging from proficiency levels to learning preferences, which has been proved true in many studies (e.g. Chapelle & Heift, 2009; Jones, 2009). Because CALL provided a promising autonomous learning environment which catered to individual differences, learner autonomy was often associated with 28.

(37) particular kinds of place, especially self-access centers (SAC) (Palfreyman & Smith, 2003). Self-access learning center was the best-known vehicle that attempted to train learners by providing materials that they could use on their own. Additionally, self-access learning could take place either in a controlled or in an uncontrolled environment (Gardner & Miller, 1999). Classrooms, libraries and self-access centers were representative of the controlled self-access learning contexts while the Internet, airports and student clubs were typical of the uncontrolled ones. Namely, the latter was totally away from the supervision of teachers or counselors. As for the former type, self-access materials and activities were organized in a structured way for learners to browse through and select what they need or want. Counseling services were also provided to encourage learners to “keep records, submit to assessments and participate in evaluations” (p. 20). In this way, instructors could integrate SALL with current coursework by obliging students to visit the self-access centers regularly and thus complemented their in-class learning as well as helped them cultivate a sense of autonomy. To provide a panoramic view of SALL, Gardner and Miller (1999) further visualized the interaction between learners and the self-access environment to delineate the elements of self-access and the ways in which learners interact with them in a bipartite, circular and recursive way (Figure 1). We can see that diverse elements categorized into people, resources, management systems, autonomous learning and individualization are required to establish an efficient and beneficial context for self-access learning to exercise. Specifically, goal setting, monitoring, reflection and evaluation revealed the core spirit of learner autonomy and understandably pointed out the link between self-access language learning and autonomy development. On the other hand, individualization encompassed learners’ 29.

(38) beliefs and attitudes, and showed that individual differences could be taken care of in the self-access environment. With the theoretical support for the evident interplay among autonomy, individual differences, and self-directed language learning, the present study aims to explore the link with empirical data. Before that, empirical studies regarding autonomy and learning style preferences－one major domain in individual differences－in the self-access centers or similar learning contexts would be reviewed as follows.. Figure 1 Interaction between the Learner and the Self-access Environment. 2.2.2 Empirical studies on SALL and autonomy The concept of learner autonomy and its implementation such as self-access centers originated from and were rooted in the Western education system; however, the vast majority of recent empirical studies investigating the link between self-access language learning and autonomy development were done in non-Western contexts, mainly in Asia including Hong Kong, Mainland China, Taiwan, Pakistan, Turkey and Thailand (Gardner & Miller, 2011; Koyalan, 2009; Lin, 2010; Sanprasert, 2010; Sana & Imtiaz, 2012; Zou, 2006). This might be attributed to the growing advocate of 30.

(39) independent and autonomous learning in Asian countries. Broadly speaking, those studies examined learners’ perceptions of SALL (Cheng, 2006; Cheng & Lin, 2010; Lu, 2010; Ning, 2008; Reinders, 2000), their strategy use (Figura & Jarvis, 2007; Gieve & Clark, 2005) and frequency of visit (Lin, 2010; Ning, 2008; Reinders, 2000) in relation to their degree of autonomy and language performance. Based on these findings, researchers came to an agreement that self-access or self-directed learning indeed fostered learner autonomy to some degree either by providing organized learning materials and learner support or by bringing language learning and independent learning together to enhance learners’ linguistic proficiency and learning skills (Morrison, 2008). Although all students held positive attitude towards SALL and demonstrated autonomous behavior, some could not sustain their independent learning (Cheng, 2006; Zou, 2006). Accordingly, studies further looked into the issue from teachers’ or managers’ perspectives (Gardner & Miller, 2011; Miller et al., 2005) and suggested that their guidance and support may help. Appendix B summarized these recent empirical studies concerning SALL and autonomy from 2000 onwards. A final note, the present study aims to examine the relationship between SAC and autonomy in an EFL context with a view to adding more empirical data. 2.2.3 Empirical studies on SALL and learning styles The correlation between self-access learning and autonomy has been explored by many researchers (Cheng & Lin, 2010; Figura & Jarvis, 2007; Koyalan, 2009; Lin, 2010; Lu, 2010; Morrison, 2008; Ning, 2008; Sana & Imtiaz, 2012) and the factors prompting. learners. to. continue. visiting. self-access. centers. were. mostly. environment-related (Koyalan, 2009; Lin, 2010; Ning, 2008). Students reported that they kept visiting the SAC because the learning materials and programs were well-designed and the environment was silent and cozy. However, few empirical 31.

(40) studies probed into whether individual-difference-related factors like learning styles correlate with self-access and autonomous learning. As mentioned in the previous section, learner autonomy could be attributable to learning style preferences (Cohen, 2002; Yang, 2003) but the extent to which learning styles correlate with autonomous learning, especially in a self-access center, has seldom been discussed with empirical evidence. Fortunately, Soo and Ngeow (1998) offered an early inquiry into this issue by evaluating the effectiveness of a CALL SAC in Malaysia. In their study, 188 ESL college students were divided into one experimental group who conducted self-access language learning in the CALL SAC (111 students) and one control group who received conventional teacher-dominated lectures (77 students). Namely, the former was a multimedia self-access English proficiency course aiming to return control to learners and cater to their diverse learning styles. After triangulating the data from interviews, ICA learning style questionnaire and TOEFL exams, the researchers found that the experimental group starkly outperformed the control group on the TOEFL tests by achieving 50% higher scores. In addition, participants matured into autonomous learners who could set up personal learning objectives, determine what they need and want to learn, accept responsibility for their whole learning process and become self-motivated without reliance on the teachers’ part. Nevertheless, students’ different learning styles－35 visual, 98 auditory, 36 kinesthetic－did not differentiate their language achievement in a significant way. That is, the three learning styles did not exert any statistically significant influence on the tests’ scores, which meant that learning style preferences did not necessarily correlate with autonomous learning in a self-access center. Contrary to Soo and Ngeow’s (1998) findings, Liu and Reed’s (1994) study on 63 ESL college students who went through semantic network-based 32.