Learner Autonomy for English Learning of Thai EP High School Students
Keywords:
English, English Program (EP), Grade 12, Learner Autonomy, Thai StudentsAbstract
The concept of learner autonomy that is associated with, and leads to, life-long learning has been emphasized in the Thai education system. Likewise, the significance of the role of English as a tool for international communication has been recognized in the Thai education system, and this is the rationale for the establishment of English Programs or EP in some schools by the Ministry of Education in 1995 (B.E. 2538). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the learner autonomy of students learning English in an English Program (EP) and non-EP students in a normal program. This study employed explanatory design mixed research methods which used two different methods to confirm, cross-validate, or corroborate findings. Quantitative data were gathered by questionnaires, and qualitative data were collected by the semi-structured interviewing method. The learner autonomy questionnaire is composed of willingness to take learning responsibilities, self-confidence to learn autonomously, motivation to learn English, and capacity to learn autonomously. The study subjects were Grade 12 students in three public schools that offer EP and non-EP in Bangkok, randomly selected by a cluster sampling technique. In total, there were 454 students; among them 227 were from the EP and another 227 were from the non-EP.
Based on the independent samples t-test analysis, the results showed that there was a significant difference in terms of learner autonomy for English learning for students in the EP and non-EP (p < 0.05). This means that, on average, learner autonomy for students learning English in the EP was higher than that of the students in the non-EP. Discussions were made on “opportunities to use English that are enhanced by “the content and language integrated learning (CLIL)” as the approach employed by the EP provides opportunities for the use of the target language. Exploitation of the provided opportunities is seen to be associated with the students’ “causal attribution of learning success to effort”. In addition, “learning motivation” was found to have a dramatic influence on the greater degree of learner autonomy of the EP students, and the discussions were furthered by exploring factors causing such high learning motivation. Implications were drawn and recommendations were provided for teachers, policy makers, and further researchers
References
Banegas, D.L. (2013). The integration of content and language as a driving force in the EFL lesson. In E. Ushioda (Ed.), International Perspectives on Motivation (pp. 82-97). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bax, S. (2010). Researching English Bilingual Education in Thailand, Indonesia and South Korea. Retrieved February 2, 2013 from www.britishcouncil.org/accessenglish
Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning. London: Longman.
Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and Researching Autonomy. (2nd ed). Harlow: Pearson.
Benson, P. & Lor, W. (1999). Conceptions of language and language learning. System, 27, 459-472.
Breen, M. & Mann, S. (1997). Shooting arrows at the sum: perspectives on a pedagogy for autonomy. In P.
Benson & P. Voller (Eds.), Autonomy & Independence in Language Learning (pp. 132-149). London: Longman.
Brown, H. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. (Fourth edition). New York: Longman.
Diamantopoulos, A. & Siguaw, A.D. (2000). Introducing LISREL: a Guide for the Uninitiated. London: Sage Publications.
Dickinson, L. (1987). Self-Instruction in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dickinson, L. (1995). Introduction. The Proceedings of Seminar on Self-Access Learning and Learner Independence: A South East Asean Perspective (pp. 1-10). Bangkok: KMITT.
Gao, X. (2013). Motivated by visions: stories from Chinese contexts. In E. Ushioda (Ed.), International Perspectives on Motivation (pp. 176-191). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Hsieh, P.H. (2012). Attribution: looking back and ahead at the ‘why’ theory. In S. Mercer, S. Ryan and M. Williams (Eds.), Psychology for Language Learning (pp. 90-102). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Knowles, M. (1975). Self-Directed Learning: a Guide for Learners and Teachers. Chicago: Association Press Follett.
Lamb, M. & Budiyanto. (2013). Cultural challenges, identity and motivation in state school EFL. In E. Ushioda (Ed.), International Perspectives on Motivation (pp. 18-34). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Little, D. (1990). Autonomy in language learning. In I. Gathercole (Ed.), Autonomy in Language Learning (pp. 7-15). London: CILT.
Littlewood, W. (1996). “Autonomy”: an anatomy and a framework. System, 24 (4), 427-435.
Office of the National Education Commission. (2003). National Education Plan: Revised Edition (B.E. 2002-2016).
(In-Thai). Bangkok: Prikwan Graphic, Co., Ltd. Office of the Education Council. (2010). National Education Act B.E. 2542 (1999). Retrieved June 8, 2013 from http://www.onesqa.or.th/en/publication/nation_edbook.pdf
Pemberton, R. & Cooker, L. (2012). Self-Directed Learning: Concepts, Practice, and a Novel Research Methodology. In S. Mercer, S. Ryan and M.
Williams (Eds.), Psychology for Language Learning (pp. 203-219). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ryan, S. & Mercer, S. (2012). Implicit theories: language learning mind-sets. In S.
Mercer, S. Ryan and M. Williams (Eds.), Psychology for Language Learning (pp. 74-89). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Scharle, A. & Szabo A. (2000). Learner Autonomy: a Guide to Developing Learner Responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sinclair, B. (1996). Materials design for the promotion of learner autonomy: how explicit is ‘explicit’? In R. Pemberton, E. Li, W. Or, and H. Pierson
(Eds.), Taking Control: Autonomy in Language Learning (pp. 149-165). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Spratt, M., Humphreys, G., & Chan, V. (2002). Autonomy and motivation: which comes first? Language Teaching Research, 6(3), 245-266.
Swatevacharkul, R. (2009). An Investigation on Readiness for Learner Autonomy, Approaches to Learning of Tertiary Students and the Roles of English
Language Teachers in Enhancing Learner Autonomy in Higher Education. Unpublished research report. Dhurakij Pundit University.
Swatevacharkul, R. (in press). Readiness for learner autonomy on English learning of Mattayom Suksa 6 students. Journal of Education Naresuan University. The Educational Innovation Development Commission. (2011). English Program. (In-Thai).Retrieved August 15, 2014 from http://www.moe.go.th/5TypeSchool/school_eng_next.htm
Ushioda, E. (1996). Learner Autonomy 5: The Role of Motivation. Dublin: Authentik.
Weiner, B. (1986). An Attribution Theory of Motivation and Emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Wenden, A. (1987). Conceptual background and utility. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner Strategies in Language Learning (pp. 3-13). Hertfordhire: Prentice Hall International.
Wenden, A. (1991). Learner Strategies for Learner Autonomy: Planning and Implementing Learner Training for Language Learners. Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall International.
Williams, M. & Burden, R. (1999). Students’ development conceptions of themselves as language learners. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 193-201.
Wolff, D. (2003). Content and language integrated learning: a framework for the development of learner autonomy. In D. Little, J. Ridley, and E. Ushioda (Eds.), Learner Autonomy in the Foreign Language Classroom (pp. 211-222). Authentik.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Content and information of the article published at Suthiparithat Journal are based on the sole opinions and responsibility of author(s) only. Neither the editorial board involve in......
