Feature Article
Integration of Autonomy, Reflection, andCollaboration in Pre- and In-Service EFL
Teacher Education
Hideo Kojima
Hirosaki University

Abstract
Today, the Japanese education ministry encourages teachers of English
to promote students’ communicative competence and autonomy. As ateacher educator at a Japanese university, I have implemented various
teacher education programs in my classes in order to develop initialand in-service teachers’ professional competence and autonomy. The
purpose of this paper was to consider the potential of the integration ofautonomy, reflection, and collaboration in pre- and in-service teacher
education. I proposed an argument for autonomous, reflective, andcollaborative approaches as a necessary condition, and illustrated thiswith some examples of my instruction while making use of the interaction
among these three approaches. We need to develop effective teacher
education programs which can help individual teachers to promote
their continuing professional development, and to foster collegiality
and mutual respect in their educational settings.

今日、日本の文部科学省は、英語指導者が学習者のコミュニ
ケーション能力とオートノミーを育成することを奨励している。筆者は、大学で英語科教員養成に携わる立場から、教職志望生と現職教員の専門的資質能力、オートノミーの向上を図るために、多様な教師教育プログラムを実施してきた。本
188

Integration of Autonomy... OnCUE Journal, 2(3), pages 188-205

研究は、教師教育において「オートノミー」「リフレクショ
ン」「コラボレーション」の３つのコンセプトの統合がもた
らす教育的潜在力を探ることをねらいとした。自律的、省察的、協働的アプローチの特徴を説いた後に筆者自身の実践例を紹介しながら、３つのアプローチ間のインターラクション
が相乗効果をもたらすことを示唆した。各教育機関において、指導者同士が同僚性、信頼性を高め、プロフェッショナ
ルとして成長し合えるように、効果的な教師教育による支援が必要とされる

Introduction
Recent directives from the Japan Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) encourage Japanese teachersof English as a foreign language (EFL) to develop their students’communicative competence and autonomy (MEXT, 2003). Learnerautonomy and teacher autonomy are two sides of the same coin.
Autonomous teacher-learners are likely to develop their students’autonomy. As a teacher educator at a Japanese university, I havehelped pre- and in-service EFL teachers to develop their professional
competence and autonomy through EFL instruction and to promote
their critical reflection and collaborative action research in theireducational settings.
In this paper, I aim to outline effective approaches to pre- and inservice EFL teacher education, taking into consideration the integrationof the three concepts of autonomy, reflection, and collaboration. I
propose an argument for autonomous, reflective, and collaborative
approaches as a necessary condition, and illustrate this with someexamples of my teaching practice, where I make use of the interaction
among these three approaches. I put autonomous approaches first in thispaper as I consider developing autonomy to be one of the major goalsof ELT. I regard reflection and collaboration as strategies for developing
189

Kojimaautonomy. Finally, I emphasize the integration of autonomy, reflection,and collaboration as such integration is necessary if professional
competence and autonomy are to be promoted.

Autonomous approaches to EFL teacher education
Learner autonomy was a major concern of Council of Europe
working groups in the 1980s and earlier (Morrow, 2004). The case forlearner autonomy had a strong political dimension, but since then it
has become a widely accepted and promoted pedagogic principle. In
the Common European Framework (Council of Europe, 2001), one of
the major aims of language learning is the idea that language study
offers opportunities to acquire independence and autonomy as learners(Morrow, 2004). Since Holec (1981) introduced the term autonomy to
the field of second language pedagogy, definitions of learner autonomy
have varied (Benson & Voller, 1997; Dickinson, 1996; Little, 1996;
Little & Dam, 1998; Littlewood, 1999; Sinclair, 2000; Wenden, 1991).
When attempting to promote autonomy in EFL learning and teachingin Japan, I think of Sinclair’s (2000, pp. 7-13) definition as one of
the most comprehensive ones. Her 13 aspects of learner autonomy
are: a) autonomy is a construct of capacity; b) autonomy involves awillingness on the part of the learners to take responsibility for theirown learning; c) the capacity and willingness of learners to take such
responsibility is not necessarily innate; d) complete autonomy is an
idealistic goal; e) there are degrees of autonomy; f) the degrees ofautonomy are unstable and variable; g) autonomy is not simply a matterof placing learners in situations where they have to be independent;h) developing autonomy requires conscious awareness of the learning
process, i.e., conscious reflection and decision making; i) promoting
autonomy is not simply a matter of teaching strategies; j) autonomy
can take place both inside and outside the classroom; k) autonomy has
a social as well as individual dimension; l) the promotion of learnerautonomy has a political as well as psychological dimension; and m)
190

Integration of Autonomy... OnCUE Journal, 2(3), pages 188-205

autonomy is interpreted differently by different cultures. In this paper, I
deal with these aspects synthetically and emphasize the integration ofautonomy, reflection, and collaboration.
MEXT (2003) expects each educational institution to conduct
its activities by emphasizing the importance of motivating students
to learn autonomously and helping them to develop abilities a) tolearn how to learn, b) to discover and solve problems, and c) to act
independently through positive interdependence in response to socialchanges. Autonomous learning is the means as well as the aim forthe development of learner autonomy. Setting up an autonomous
learning environment puts certain demands on teachers as well as
students. Autonomous learning may be described as what takes placein situations in which the teacher provides a learning environment
where the learners are given the possibility consciously to be involvedin their own learning. Evaluating autonomous learning may include
an evaluation of the process as well as the outcome and involve
various types of evaluation, such as teacher observation, learner selfevaluation, peer evaluation, and portfolio evaluation.
Learner autonomy, which is emphasized in education reform inJapan, seems to have a social as well as individual dimension. MEXT
guidelines (2003) encourage EFL teachers to implement Communicative
Language Teaching, which originally includes collaboration/
cooperation in learning, and the development of autonomous andreflective learning habits. Little (2000) suggests that the growth oflearner independence is supported by learner interdependence. I am
inclined to suppose that the strong attachment of Japanese culture to
their in-groups and the importance that they attach to mutual support
might provide ideal interpersonal environment for the development ofautonomy. Thus, I emphasize this social aspect of autonomy in Japan
traditionally known as a group-oriented society, although it seems to
be rather difficult to promote interdependence in ELT in Japan.
Regarding teacher autonomy, Little (1995, p. 179) states that
191

Kojimagenuinely successful teachers “have always been autonomous in
the sense of having a strong sense of personal responsibility for theirteaching, exercising via continuous reflection and analysis the highest
possible degree of affective and cognitive control of the teachingprocess, and exploiting the freedom that this confers.” In line with
Little (1995), McGrath (2000) suggests that teacher autonomy may beviewed from two different but related perspectives: teacher autonomy
as self-directed professional development and teacher autonomy as
freedom from control by others. In Japan, teacher autonomy as selfdirected professional development has not been emphasized in pre-andin-service teacher education. As McGrath suggests, in our enthusiasm
for this perspective on autonomy, pre- and in-service teachers need to
be aware that it requires of teachers a certain level of preparedness—
attitudinal and technical, and that it requires efforts and ways of thinking
that have not been emphasized in previous educational contexts.
In addition, McGrath (2000) implies that constraints on teacher
autonomy can be broadly categorized under the macro (decisions
taken outside the institution, over which teachers will normally have nocontrol) and the micro (institution-internal decisions, which the teacher
should be in a position to influence). Many Japanese and non-Japaneseteachers of English in Japan are worried about these constraints. Someof these teachers do not take the kinds of independent action that they
associate with autonomy, but there are those who have demonstrated
the capacity and freedom for self-direction. As I have experienced in
my autonomous, reflective, and collaborative approach to teachingpractice in pre-service teacher education (Kojima, 2008), the morecollaborative, or collegial, groups of teachers are, the more autonomous
learning and teaching may occur in their classes.

Examples of autonomous approaches
In relation to the development of learner autonomy, I give someexamples here of learner strategy training that I implement in my pre192

Integration of Autonomy... OnCUE Journal, 2(3), pages 188-205

service teacher education. In my investigations into individual trainees’
learning styles and strategies, most of them claimed that they did notknow how to learn English effectively. Oxford (1990) introduces various
sorts of learning strategies (e.g., memory, cognitive, compensation,
metacognitive, affective, social strategies). In order to focus on learnerautonomy, I emphasize the significance of developing the trainees’
metacognitive strategies that involve thinking about the mental
processes used in the learning process, monitoring learning while it istaking place, and evaluating learning after it has occurred. The moretrainees know about their own learning, the more autonomous they
will become. As I mentioned earlier in this paper, I regard reflection
and collaboration as learning strategies to develop learner and teacher
autonomy.
Portfolios have been shown to have various advantages, such as
the agreement between instruction and assessment; the promotionof learners’/teachers’ reflection, self-evaluation, and documentationon their learning/teaching; and the development of learner/teacher
autonomy (Danielson & Abrutyn, 1997). I encourage my preservice teachers to develop working portfolios that contain lessonplans, classroom procedures and management plans, student work,
worksheets, observation notes, discussion notes, and reflective
journals. The working portfolio is selected later for a more permanent“assessment portfolio.” The teacher trainees are expected to become
more autonomous by working on the portfolio. The portfolio would
contain evidence related to self-directed teaching and reflections
that outlines the teacher’s knowledge, abilities, and beliefs (Bullock& Hawk, 2005). Reflection, which is seen as a significant skill for
professionals, is the key component in portfolio development.

Reflective approaches to EFL teacher education
In the trainee-centered classroom, teaching and learning are
inextricably and elaborately linked. The assumption that the aim of193

Kojimateacher education is to develop trainees’ professional competence andautonomy leads to an argument for a reflective and inquiring approachas a necessary condition. Reflective learning could perhaps help teacher
trainees to develop their metacognitive abilities and autonomy in ELT
through the reflective processes of self-awareness, self-evaluation, peer
evaluation, and group processing. Reflection requires trainees to think
about what they are doing, why they are doing it, what the outcomes
are, and how the information can be used for their development.
Reflection is not just about self-improvement and self-development
but also about understanding and questioning the contexts in whichteaching and learning take place.
One of the fundamental purposes of reflective teaching is to improve
the quality of teaching in educational contexts. Richards and Schmidt(2002, p. 451) define reflective practice as follows:
an approach to teaching and to teacher education which is basedon the assumption that teachers can improve their understandingof teaching and the quality of their own teaching by reflecting
critically on their teaching experiences. In teacher education
programmes, activities which seek to develop a reflective approachto teaching aim to develop the skills of considering the teachingprocess thoughtfully, analytically and objectively, as a way of
improving classroom practices.
In line with my emphasis on autonomy, reflection, and collaborationin this paper, Zeichner and Liston (1996) highlight the social aspectsof reflective teaching: social conditions and contexts of schoolingthat impinge on teacher’s practice within the classroom and social
interactions where teachers collaboratively support and nourish
each other’s growth. Zeichner and Liston (p. 6) suggest that reflective
teaching emphasizes the following five key features. A reflective
teacher: a)examines, frames, and attempts to solve the dilemmas of194

Integration of Autonomy... OnCUE Journal, 2(3), pages 188-205

classroom practice; b) is aware of and questions the assumptions andvalues that he or she brings to teaching; c) is attentive to the institutionaland cultural contexts in which he or she teaches; d) takes part incurriculum development and is involved in school change efforts; ande) takes responsibility for his or her own professional development.
These are thought to be integral features of what it means to be areflective teacher.

Examples of reflective approaches
In order to help my trainees to reflect on their learning/teachingexperience continuously, I often use reflective journals. The reflective
journal that I encourage each trainee to write in my program is analternative to field-notes. It contains more subjective and personalreflections and interpretations than the relatively formalized recordingsof notes. I expect that personal reflective writing may help my trainees
to develop their critical thinking, to understand themselves, and to
make sense of their learning/teaching.
With regard to reflective teaching, I usually attempt to improve
my own instruction through action research (Kojima, 2005; 2008),
and encourage in-service EFL teachers to carry out action research
projects in order to promote continuing professional development andinnovation in ELT (Yoshikawa, 2005). Action research has gradually
become known to Japanese teachers by name, but few of them tend torecognize the advantages/disadvantages of action research in language
education through their own research experience. Action research ispart of a broader movement in education associated with the conceptsof “reflective practice” and “the teacher as researcher” (Schön, 1983;
1987). It typically involves four broad phases, which form a continuing
cycle or spiral of research: planning, action, observation, and reflection(Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988). It is done by systematically collecting
data on our everyday practice and analyzing it to come to somedecisions about what our future practice should be. Criticisms of action
195

Kojima

research have generally focused on questions relating to its rigour andits recognizability as a valid research methodology (Hodgkinson, 1957;
Winter, 1982). In contrast, the broad scope and flexibility of action
research mean that its application to the field of language teaching
is potentially numerous. Multiples in data collection or triangulation
might stimulate complexity and subtlety of insight and overcome any
problems of bias (Kojima, 2005; 2008; Yoshikawa, 2005).

Collaborative approaches to EFL teacher education
In order to improve the present EFL education in schools, I needto consider teacher education in the wider context of school culture.
Japanese school culture is likely to have a profound effect on Japaneseteachers and their perception of their role particularly in taking forwardchanges that will enhance the learning experiences of their students. In
designing pre- and in-service EFL teacher education programs, I haveto consider the relationships between the professionals working within
the context: collegiality, support, and mutual respect. Japanese teachers
need help in developing new skills, new understanding, and new ways
of working in the wider school context. My role is to encourage themto move into a new era of teacher professionalism, where teachers areenabled and trusted to work within their schools to create communities
of practice, certainly within frameworks of accountability, but ofaccountability that is more focused on teaching and learning.
Littlewood (1999) distinguishes proactive autonomy from reactive
autonomy. This distinction is mirrored in Flannery’s distinction (as citedin Littlewood, 1999) between collaborative and cooperative learning
strategies. With collaborative learning strategies (proactive autonomy),learners have a greater degree of choice and discretion about what andhow they should learn. It is the students themselves who set the agenda
for learning. With cooperative learning strategies (reactive autonomy),learners work independently on tasks, but it is still the teacher who sets
the agenda for learning, defines what counts as relevant knowledge,
196

Integration of Autonomy... OnCUE Journal, 2(3), pages 188-205

selects learning methods, and controls evaluation. In this paper, as ateacher educator, I expect my pre- and in-service teachers to develop
their proactive autonomy, and implement collaborative learning andteaching in my teacher education programs.
As for collaborative learning, I regard collaboration as a social
strategy to develop professional autonomy and usually pay attention to
the following key elements: a) positive interdependence, b) individual
accountability, c) face-to-face promotive interaction, d) social skills,
and e) group processing. Although Johnson, Johnson, & Smith (1991)
look on these as key elements of cooperative learning, I emphasize
the integration of these elements in my pre-service teacher education
programs. This may lead to the trainee group’s internal development andgrowing maturity, which go “hand in hand with the members’ taking
on increasing responsibility and control over their own functioning”(Dörnyei & Murphey, 2003, p.105).
In the Japanese classroom, both students and teachers are often
resistant to collaborative approaches to EFL learning because of its
novelty. Japanese students are accustomed to teaching-centered,direct instruction in which students are provided with the content thatthey need to know. Another major reason for apprehension is that theyoften do not know how to work together and are not given any help
in making their groups functional. Equally important is the impactof group learning on teachers. If teachers would like to implement
effective collaborative learning in their classes, they face many
instructional and institutional challenges. These include a) the shift inauthority from the individual instructor to shared authority with thegroup of learners, b) careful planning of the instructional setting suchas timing and efficiency concerns, and c) assessment issues such asgroup versus individual grades. Taking these into consideration, I havehelped my trainees to develop their autonomy through collaborativeinteraction among trainees, teacher educators, and school teachers. In
the group-oriented society in Japan, collaborative EFL learning has great
197

Kojimapotential as a culture-sensitive approach to developing communicativecompetence and learner autonomy.
Collaborative and team approaches to teaching have been usedin Japanese schools since the Japan Exchange and Teaching Program
started in secondary education in 1987. Since then, team teaching
between native and non-native English-speaking teachers has become
more widespread in primary and secondary schools, where it isgenerally expected that the use of native English-speaking teachers may
be able to contribute to improvements in students’ listening/speaking
abilities and cross-cultural understanding. Native English-speaking
teachers in universities tend to be expected to play their roles moreautonomously and collaboratively than those in primary and secondary
schools not only to develop students’ communicative competence but
also to contribute to university education reform. Collaborative andreflective teaching and research can be conducted by more than two
teachers, including native English-speaking teachers. Collegiality ofschool/university staff groups is positively related to the effectivenessof the school/university and the achievement of the students (Kojima,
2008; Tomiyama, 2006). Collaborative teachers a) share common
goals, professional values and norms, b) have frequent conversation
about teaching and learning, c) observe and provide feedback for one
another, d) work collaboratively on the curriculum, and e) teach one
another about teaching, learning and leading (Dörnyei & Murphey,2003). This type of collaboration will be significant in educational
contexts in Japanese schools/universities, including teacher education
programs (Kojima, 2005; 2008).
As Bailey (2006) suggests, one characteristic of the traditionalprescriptive approach to teacher education was the teachers’ lack ofautonomy, contrasted with the supervisor’s extreme autonomy. I havenoticed a gradual change in how we teacher educators look at teacher
development and professionalism. In my trainee-centered in-service
EFL teacher education programs, the supervisor is no longer seen as
198

Integration of Autonomy... OnCUE Journal, 2(3), pages 188-205

the dominant source of expertise. The fundamental features of mycollaborative and reflective supervision are: a) to help the teacher todevelop professional competence and autonomy through practicein reflection and self-evaluation; b) to jointly engage in problem
finding, problem solving, and trying new procedures, programs,
and curriculums; c) to have educational expertise, view teaching ascomplex work, and openly discuss the work and how it was done
to facilitate effective performance; d) to show respect for the teacher
by employing tact and choosing the right time and place to discussproblems and to help in the corrective process; e) to engage theteacher in the process of reflective teaching practice while fostering
critical inquiry into the process of teaching and learning; f) to broaden
and deepen the repertoire of images and metaphors that the teacher
can call on to deal with problems; g) to help the teacher to develop
the skills to interpret the data collected on his/her teaching; h) to allow
the teacher to play a major role in interpreting the data collected; i) to
examine the standards in relation to the peculiarities of the particularsetting, people and time; and j) to use and develop the expertise of theteacher to examine ideal purposes and procedures of teaching, and torefine present performance accordingly (Goldsberry, 1988; Nolan &Huber, 1989; Okeafor & Poole, 1992; Yoshikawa, 2005)

Examples of collaborative, autonomous, and reflective approaches
In order to illustrate my ideas described above, I give some examplesof my autonomous, reflective, and collaborative learning (ARCL)
approach and autonomous, reflective, and collaborative teaching(ARCT) approach to pre-service EFL teacher education. In my ARCL
program (Kojima, 2005), I have helped my trainees to develop theircommunicative competence, learner autonomy, teaching knowledge
and skills, which will enable them to implement their own autonomousand communicative approach to ELT in the future school classroom. In
the ARCL program, the trainees are divided into small groups, where
199

Kojimathey are asked to investigate a group research topic and to present
their research results collaboratively and reflectively. This processmeans a gradual shift of the initiative from the trainer to each trainee.
Increasing trainee-initiated independent work in small collaborativeand reflective learning team may offer pedagogically effective waysof evaluating autonomous learning in pre-service teacher education.
The formative/summative evaluation, based on class observation,questionnaires, discussion, and self-reflection, is very useful for me
to revise the program. ARCL is the prevailing philosophy from whichalmost all of my planning operates in my university teaching.
My ARCT approach to student teaching (Kojima, 2008), is
carried out collaboratively and reflectively by a teacher educator (me),student teachers, and a lower secondary school teacher in the attachedschool classroom. The experience of collaborative teaching andreflection on ELT tends to have significant effects on the developmentof teacher trainees’ teacher-learner autonomy, sharing EFL teachingideas, resources, and strategies, in the same classroom. Reflection on
the process of team teaching may be encouraged with the practical
aim in mind of developing teacher-learner autonomy through humaninterdependence. In order to analyze the effectiveness of the ARCT
program, quantitative and qualitative data collection methods (e.g.,questionnaires to survey the trainees’ reactions, teacher observation,reflective journals) are used continuously during the program. I
encourage each of the school student groups and the trainees todevelop their working portfolios. The process of triangulation helps me
to ensure that the data obtained are as reliable as possible. In order toincrease the likelihood for successful ARCT, the collaborators need torecognize each other’s contribution. Once the common goals have been
identified, each partner accomplishes those goals as autonomously as
possible. It is useful to set aside specific time for planning and teamprocessing on a regular basis. Because collaborative reflection is an
expected practice throughout the program, the trainees examine and200Integration of Autonomy... OnCUE Journal, 2(3), pages 188-205

assess their own teaching as team members. The work at this phase of
the program may serve as a precursor of collaborative action research.
In order to avoid a variety of constraints resulting from differencesin teaching principles between the teacher educator and the school
teacher, we are in the process of developing collaborative researchmeetings and promoting effective communication between the facultyof education and the attached school.

Conclusion
In this paper, I have considered some features of autonomous,reflective, and collaborative approaches to EFL teacher education, andintroduced some examples of my teaching practice. I have implemented
the interaction among the three approaches in my pre- and in-service
teacher education classes. However, not all university teachers would
like to promote trainees’ autonomy and staff members’ collegiality. At
my university, I have encountered various implementation problems
resulting from the difference of teaching philosophies among us.
Continuous and extensive further research will be required to fully
understand the nature and quality of pre- and in-service teachers’
development through autonomous, reflective, and collaborative
approaches. Individual or collaborative action research is necessary
to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation of such integrated
approaches in education settings in Japan.
In order to promote teacher trainees’ autonomy, it is importantfor us teacher educators to look at wider contexts of EFL teachers’
work. Japanese school culture is likely to have a profound effecton Japanese teachers and their perception of their role particularly
in taking forward changes that will enhance learner and teacher
development. We have to consider the relationships between theprofessionals working within the context: collegiality, support, andmutual respect. Japanese teachers need help in developing new skills,
new understanding, and new ways of working in the wider school
201

Kojimacontext. Our role is to encourage them to move into a new era ofteacher professionalism, where teachers are enabled and trusted towork within their schools to create communities of practice, certainly
within frameworks of accountability, but of accountability that is more
focused on autonomous, reflective, and collaborative learning andteaching. Just as learners are learners for life, effective teachers need toengage in lifelong professional development.
Dr. Hideo Kojima is a teacher educator at Hirosaki University. He
received his TESOL Graduate Certificate from Georgetown University,and both his MA in TEFL/TESL and PhD in Applied Linguistics from the
University of Birmingham. He has published a variety of papers on
autonomous, reflective, and collaborative approaches to EFL teacher
education. His research interests include: learner/teacher autonomy,reflective practice, collaborative learning/teaching, learning/teaching
portfolios, learning strategies, teacher education, and language policy.
He can be contacted at kojima@cc.hirosaki-u.ac.jp.

References
Bailey, K. M. (2006). Language teacher supervision: A case-based
approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Benson, P., & Voller, P. (Eds.). (1997). Autonomy and independence inlanguage learning. New York: Longman.
Bullock, A. A., & Hawk, P. P. (2005). Developing a teaching portfolio:
A guide for preservice and practicing teachers. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework ofreference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Danielson, C. & Abrutyn, L. (1997). An introduction to using
portfolios in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
202

Integration of Autonomy... OnCUE Journal, 2(3), pages 188-205

Dickinson, L. (1996). Learner autonomy 2: Learner training forlanguage learning. Dublin: Authentik.
Dörnyei, Z., & Murphey, T. (2003). Group dynamics in the language
classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goldsberry, L. (1988). Three functional methods of supervision.
Action in Teacher Education, 10(1), 1-10.
Hodgkinson, H. L. (1957). Action research—A critique. Journal of
Educational Sociology, 31, 137-153.
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy in foreign language learning. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Active learning:
Cooperation in the college classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction
Book Company.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (Eds.). (1988). The action researchplanner. Geelong, Australia: Deakin University Press.
Kojima, H. (2005). Collaborative learning: An approach to preservice EFL teacher education. Teacher Education Research andDevelopment, 1, 57-66.
Kojima, H. (2008). A collaborative, autonomous, and reflective
teaching approach to student teaching in pre-service EFL teacher
education: A case study. JACET Journal, 46, 1-15.
Little, D. (1995). Learning as dialogue: The dependence of learnerautonomy on teacher autonomy. System, 23 (2), 175-182.
Little, D. (1996). The politics of learner autonomy. Learning Learning:
JALT Learner Development. N-SIG Forum, 2 (4), 8.
Little, D. (2000). Learner autonomy and human interdependence:
Some theoretical and practical consequences of a socialinteractive view of cognition, learning and language. In B.
Sinclair, I. McGrath, & T. Lamb (Eds.), Learner autonomy, teacher
autonomy: Future directions (pp.15-23). London: Longman.
Little, D. & Dam, L. (1998). Learner autonomy: What and why? The
Language Teacher, 22 (10), 7.
203

Kojima

Littlewood, W. (1999). Defining and developing autonomy in East
Asian contexts. Applied Linguistics, 20 (1), 87-88.
McGrath, I. (2000). Teacher autonomy. In B. Sinclair, I. McGrath,& T. Lamb (Eds.), Learner autonomy, teacher autonomy: Future
directions (pp.100-110). London: Longman.
MEXT (The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science andTechnology). (2003). Regarding the establishment of an action
plan to cultivate “Japanese with English abilities.” Retrieved
October 24, 2006, from http://www.mext.go.jp/english/
topics/03072801.htm
Morrow, K. (Ed.). (2004). Insights from the common European
framework. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nolan, J., & Huber, T. (1989). Nurturing the reflective practitioner
through instructional supervision: A review of the literature.
Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 4 (2), 126-145.
Okeafor, K. R., & Poole, M. G. (1992). Instructional supervision andavoidance process. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 7 (4),372-392.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every
teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman dictionary of language
teaching & applied linguistics. London: Longman.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals
think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Schön, D. A. (1987) Educating the reflective practitioner. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Sinclair, B. (2000). Learner autonomy: the next phase? In B. Sinclair, I
McGrath, & T. Lamb (Eds.), Learner autonomy, teacher autonomy:
Future directions. London: Longman.
Tomiyama, M. (Ed.). (2006). English education at ICU: Based on theprinciple of liberal arts. Tokyo: Kenkyusha.

204

Integration of Autonomy... OnCUE Journal, 2(3), pages 188-205

Wenden, A. L. (1991). Learning strategies for learner autonomy.
London: Prentice Hall.
Winter, R. 1982. ‘Dilemma analysis’: A contribution to methodology
for action research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 12 (3), 1174.
Yoshikawa, C. (2005). Action research in strategies-based EFL
instruction: Is learning strategy training effective in developing
Japanese high school students’ autonomy? Unpublished master’s
thesis, Hirosaki University Aomori, Japan.
Zeichner, K. M. & Liston, D. P. (1996). Reflective teaching: An
introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

205