1. Students’ Autonomy Support in the Context of the English Foundation Program Dr Saleh Al-Busaidi (asad@squ.edu.om)asad@squ.edu.om & Dr Victoria Tuzlukova (victoria@squ.edu.om)victoria@squ.edu.om Sultan Qaboos University Sultanate of Oman 1

2. outline Definition Developments in learner autonomy Learner autonomy in language learning Autonomy and culture Autonomy and motivation Course design principles The study Conclusions 2

3. Definition  “The ability to take charge of one’s own learning” (Holec, 1981, p. 3).  Holec’s definition was seen as being rather broad but researchers found it hard to come up with a more precise one.  Little (1990) describes what autonomy is not: not a synonym for self-instruction not a matter of letting learners get on with things as best they can not a teaching method not a single easily described behavior not a steady state. 3

4. Developments DateDevelopment 1980s Definition of the concept Focus on the learner and individual character of autonomy Autonomy as a trait inherent in the learner Mid 1990s More scrutiny Relationship between autonomy and learner psychology – different levels of autonomy (Little’s work) Late 1990s Relationship between autonomy and culture - autonomy as a social construct Autonomy is not exclusively a western trait Learners from other cultures can develop autonomy despite prevailing cultural norms Present Autonomy and learner strategies/training Difficulties in developing learner autonomy – owing to cultural, technical, psychological or political constraints 4

5. Learner autonomy in language learning  It started with self study and self-access centers, to distance learning, to computer-assisted language learning (CALL), and most recently virtual learning environments (VLE)  Two assumptions:  Autonomy is not an absolute concept (Nunan, 1997; Thanasoulas, 2000)  Autonomy can take different forms depending on various factors, such as age, learning experience, learning goals and perceptions about learning  No clear connection between autonomy training and development in language proficiency  Autonomy training does not lead to more gains in language proficiency as there is a host of many learning factors that can affect acquisition. 5

6. Learner autonomy in language learning (Cont.)  However, there seems to be a positive correlation between autonomy and learning strategies  Learners who develop certain skills and strategies such as critical thinking tend to be more autonomous  They also tend to have more confidence in their abilities to accomplish demanding tasks and are more likely to resist difficulties 6

7. Learner autonomy in language learning (Cont.)  A similar interaction has been found between autonomy and motivation  Developing learner autonomy enhances their motivation to learn and vice versa (Dornyei, 2001)  However, research is not conclusive about whether motivation precedes autonomy or autonomy precedes motivation  Nevertheless, there is a general belief that motivation is important for autonomy to develop and sustain in learners the ability and willingness to take on responsibility for their own learning. 7

8. Developing autonomy in the curriculum  Learner autonomy has become an important part of language education  It is seen as a way of empowering students to take responsibility for their own learning inside and outside the classroom environment  Language programmes either integrate autonomy training into other skill courses or in a separate course. 8

9. Developing autonomy in the curriculum (Cont.)  One of the most common course designs is basing the course on projects  The project provides a “realistic vehicle” for practicing the study skills and language and gives the students a sense of achievement  Several principles for integrating learner autonomy into the curriculum have been proposed. 9

10. Design principles  Learner involvement – in setting goals, learning activities, etc.  Learner reflection – on learning process and achievement  Target language use – communicative and meaningful language use  Strategy training. 10

11. The study  Purpose: investigate the Omani students’ perception of the impact of the English language learning environment on developing them as autonomous learners  Research question: How supportive are the different components of the learning environment in developing learner autonomy as perceived by students?  Instrument: A bilingual questionnaire 11

12. Context  University students, Arabic speakers  Foundation program: English (six levels), Math, IT and study skills courses  Goal: Prepare students for undergraduate level and enable their successful transition to university 12

13. Sample  62 students from Level 2 and Level 6  All freshmen  Mostly educated in government schools with limited exposure to English  Generally lack study and academic skills and rely on the teacher  Spend one semester to two years in the foundation program 13

14. Results  The FP is a very important stage of university life  Has a great impact on students as learners and individuals  Is effective in providing students with ‘good, ‘nice, ‘useful’, ‘perfect’, ‘helpful’, ‘great’ and ‘exciting’ learner experiences.  Is useful for learning many new things and strategies that students did not know prior to their university life.  Is important in introducing students to new sources of knowledge and information. 14

15. Results  However, students often feel insecure, in need of more time and sometimes bored due to:  Lack of creativity-oriented and motivating classroom activities and strategies  New and unfamiliar ways of interactions and teaching  Need to del with new knowledge in a short time  Have no experience or understanding of the concept of autonomous learning. 15

16. Results  Principles of LA as perceived by students:  Self initiative  No influence by others  Leave students to learn what they must learn with teacher advice  Students learn by themselves 16

17. Results  The most supportive program components are:  Teachers  Relations with other students  Classroom and online activities  Curriculum 17

18. Results  Least supportive program components:  Projects  Supplementary materials  Classes in computer labs 18

19. Results  Students believe that supportive teachers are those who:  Provide time for independent work  Empower students with chances to achieve learning objectives  Tend to avoid directives and criticism  Provide rationale for all classroom activities  Do not make students learn through a teaching style which imposes pressure. 19

20. What do our students need?  To learn how not to be dependent on the teacher  To acquire skills for how to learn  To have teachers who display patience and understanding.  To have teachers who create a supportive learning environment where students gradually take some responsibility. 20

21. Future research  Type of training needed for teachers  Characteristics of the most effective materials  Learners’ and teacher’s role 21

22. Conclusion  The foundation program should further develop as a learning community where control of learning is distributed among all participants, who develop their capabilities and skills while building and exchanging knowledge in a relevant, supportive and meaningful context. 22

23. Thank you 23 Dr Saleh Al-Busaidi (asad@squ.edu.om)asad@squ.edu.om & Dr Victoria Tuzlukova (victoria@squ.edu.om)victoria@squ.edu.om Sultan Qaboos University Sultanate of Oman