Feature Article

The Proof of the Pudding: Active
Learning and Self-Regulated Learning
Skills in University Classrooms
Steve T. Fukuda
Tokushima University

Hiroshi Sakata
Tokushima University

Hiroshi Yoshida
Tokushima University

Christopher J. Pope
Tokushima University

Maiko Kamioka
Tokushima University
Recent mandates from the Ministry of Education in Japan call for more active
learning (AL) in universities to boost learning outcomes. Each university isrequired to develop and adhere to individual definitions of AL. However,many universities, such as the subject institution, have adopted the Ministry’s
definition which does not include explicit mention of fostering self-regulated
learning (SRL) skills regardless of an overall educational objective to foster thelife-long learner. We argue for university definitions of AL to include explicit
statements of SRL skills development. We also explore student preferences of
AL after students have experienced AL and SRL skills training. Our results
suggest student preferences towards AL slightly change after experiencing
courses using AL which differed from previous reports. We also discuss thepotential benefits of SRL skills training in the university EFL classroom.

344

The Proof of the Pudding, OnCUE Journal, 9(4), pages 344-371
近年、大学教育の質保証という文脈の中で、アクティブラーニングの促進が強く叫ばれている。これまでにも、アクティブラーニング型授業に関する実践報告がなされているが、その多くが、大学が独自に作成したアクティブラーニングの定義や、文部科学省中央教育審議会答申「新たな未来を築くための大学教育の質的転換に向けて」の用語集に示されている定義を採用しており、学習の要となる学生の学習に対する自己調整能力の育成が含まれていない。本稿では、学生の自己調整能力の育成を含めたアクティブラーニングを定義し、教育の質保証において自己調整能力が必要不可欠であることを議論する。また、近年の全国的な調査において、我が国の大学生はアクティブラーニング型授業を好まないという結果が示されているが、本稿では、学習に対する自己調整能力の育成を含めたアクティブラー
ニングを経験することで、授業の選好に対する傾向が変化したことが示された。

Learning Preferences and Out-of-Class StudyTime

The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT,
2012b) instructs universities to improve classroom methodology by implementing
more active learning (AL). AL is activities used in the classroom that engage thestudent in the learning process. Bonwell and Eison (1991) define AL as activities(e.g., group discussion, role plays, etc.) that involve students in “doing things
and thinking about what they are doing” (p. 5). MEXT (2012c) defines AL as
follows:
In distinction to the one-sided lecture by the teacher, AL is a term for teaching
and learning methods which incorporate active participation in the learning
process by the learners. Learning in an active manner, learners cultivate
general knowledge while developing cognitive, ethical, and social skills
through deepening their understanding of culture, increased knowledge, andlearning experience. AL includes discovery learning, problem-based learning,
experiential learning, and fieldwork. Classroom methodology includes group
discussions, debates, and group work. (translation by authors)
Implementing more AL is MEXT’s attempt to shift classroom instructional
approaches from teacher-directed to learner-centered. Meanwhile, Benesse(2012) reported students preferring more teacher-directed learning approaches,suggesting a mismatch in teaching approaches and learning preferences. This
345

Fukuda et al.

mismatch potentially inhibits learning (Peacock, 2001).
Benesse’s (2012) survey on 4,911 Japanese university students comparedresults with a previous (Benesse, 2008) survey on learning environments. The
aim of the more recent survey was to examine these environments in relation to
MEXT’s (2012a) document requesting universities to swiftly improve learning
environments and be accountable for learning outcomes by increasing AL inside
the classroom, increasing study time outside the classroom, systemizing curricula,and making productive use of syllabi. While Benesse (2012) reported 70% of
their respondents understood the university as a place for independent study,
these respondents also reported having a drastic decrease in out-of-class study
time upon matriculation. More than forty-eight percent of the respondents
reported having the hardest time in English courses, followed by math courses(37.7%). Generally, respondents preferred classes that were lecture-centered anddid not require much effort other than attendance.
Eison and Bonwell (1988) noted that American university students resisted
learner-centered approaches because these approaches are far from the “familiar
passive listening role to which they have become accustomed” (p. 4). Could it
be that Japanese students do not prefer AL because it is something they have notexperienced? We set out to investigate student learning preferences after students
have completed a course that included AL.
Additionally, we felt a need for a better definition of AL not only for thisstudy but also to help university instructors implement AL successfully forbetter language learning outcomes. In his summary of the Benesse’s (2012)
survey results, Higuchi (2012) argued for more instruction on how to learn insecondary school classrooms. He pointed out that high school students who
studied more than three hours a day in preparation for university entrance exams
study less than two hours per week in university. In the tertiary context, Nakata(2006) found that Japanese university students who possessed a higher levelsof learning skills were more likely to study autonomously after completing EFL
courses.
To gain mastery in a foreign language, out-of-class study time must be
increased because university curricula such as the institution in this study have no346

The Proof of the Pudding, OnCUE Journal, 9(4), pages 344-371

room for additional courses. We agree with Lai, Gardner, and Law (2013), who
said teachers should be responsible for equipping learners with the learning skills
necessary to study effectively outside of class. Tsuda and Nakata (2013) note thatJapanese EFL students who are more capable of taking the responsibility of theirown autonomous learning possess self-regulated learning (SRL) skills.

Fostering the Autonomous Learner

Accumulating the necessary hours of instruction to acquire and be able to apply
subject knowledge in a university curriculum makes it essential to develop theautonomous learner. While learner autonomy is a capacity learners possess totake responsibility of their own learning (Benson, 2011), SRL skills are what
learners use to “direct their own learning” (p. 78). “Learners who are more selfregulated in learning a foreign language ‘skillfully’ are able to utilize that skill to
become more responsible and autonomous learners” (Nakata, 2014, p. 347). The
autonomous learner utilizes SRL skills to become an agent in their own learningby effectively (a) identifying what has been taught or needs to be learned, (b)developing individual learning objectives, (c) selecting and implementing
appropriate learning strategies, and (d) monitoring their own learning (Dickinson,
1987). For students to take responsibility for their learning, these skills become
necessary because they allow students “to increase their ability to become better
active learners” (Bransford, 2000, p. 13).
Odlin (1989) reported that it took native speakers of English at least 1,200
hours of instruction to master Japanese as a foreign language. The instruction
time it takes a Japanese L1 user to learn English as a foreign language is arguably
similar with some arguing for more than 2,000 hours (Hiromori, 2015).
Unfortunately, by the time Japanese EFL students graduate from college, theamount of classroom instruction they have received amounts to a mere 800 plus
hours (MEXT, 2015).
If better learning outcomes (e.g., understanding and application of the subject
matter or proficiency in the target language) are to be expected, instructors’
conceptualization of educational policies, such as in defining and practicing
AL, becomes critical in that their understanding must match original objectives.
347

Fukuda et al.

AL includes activities such as ice breakers, think-pair-share, Q&A activities,
roundtables, peer survey, and jigsaw teamwork (University of Minnesota, 2013),
which have been in our classroom, where we adopt a communicative language
teaching (CLT) approach, and in many teaching EFL activity books. However,as with AL, CLT does not consider the development of SRL skills for learners
to take responsibility for their own learning (Heip, 2007). Educational research
institutes (e.g., Benesse, 2014; CIER, 2016; NIER, 2015), EFL academic
conferences (e.g., JACET, 2010; JASELE, 2014), and government authorized
textbook authors (e.g., Takeuchi, 2011) in Japan have proposed more emphasis
be placed on training learners to become autonomous learners. However, thisidea has yet to spread through the Japanese EFL context ( Jimbo, 2012) and it
adds time and effort to the students’ workload.
In secondary and tertiary EFL contexts, Nakata (2014) wrote that SRL
skills training becomes a concrete method for instructors to know how toscaffold students’ learning to foster the development of the autonomous learner.
As mentioned above, this process consists of learning how to plan, monitor,
and reflect (Cohen, 2012; Goda, 2014) one’s own learning. The developmentof these skills to manage autonomous learning is what Wenden (1998) calls
learner training. In her review of the literature in second language instruction
from the early 1900s, she suggested three approaches of implementing learnertraining into the second language curriculum: (a) separating learner training andlanguage instruction (e.g., workshops in a self-access center), (b) incorporating
learner training into pedagogical tasks (e.g., teaching and using self-assessment),and (c) incorporating learner training into the syllabus (e.g., explicitly adding
SRL skills training in course objectives). These three approaches are successfully
being implemented today in the Japanese EFL university context to foster thedevelopment of SRL skills, for instance, (a) in self-access center learner advisingprograms (Kato & Mynard, 2015), (b) in a speaking course implementing selfassessment activities (Pinner, 2016), and (c) in an EFL course with the aim ofincreasing SRL skills (Fukuda, Sakata, & Pope, 2015).
SRL skills should be explicitly taught to deepen understanding and theability to learn autonomously (Bransford, 2000; Nakata, 2015; Usuki, 2007).
348

The Proof of the Pudding, OnCUE Journal, 9(4), pages 344-371

EFL courses in the Japanese university context are clear examples of the necessity
for SRL skills. Most Japanese university students take once-a-week 90-minuteEnglish courses for two years. Unfortunately, in-house surveys and personalcommunications with students reveal that after students complete their courses,
they discontinue their studies. Data analysis from a previous study suggested that
this may be due to the lack of SRL skills (Fukuda, Sakata, & Takeuchi, 2011).
Therefore, simply adding more activities may not necessarily improve learningor learning outcomes. Thus, in this study, we propose a better definition of AL
which explicitly includes the development of SRL skills.

Active Learning and Learner Training“All genuine learning is active, not passive” (Adler, 1982, cited in Bonwell & Eison,
1991, p. 3). What did Adler mean by genuine? The term AL can be problematic.
For some instructors, it may be a self-evident concept because one could argue
that “it is impossible to learn anything passively” (University of Minnesota, 2013,
para. 1).
MEXT’s (2012c) definition (see above) without explicit mention of thedevelopment of SRL skills potentially causes problems because many instructors
at the university level do not perceive themselves as being well-versed in
educational theory. Thus, they may not understand the underlying concepts of
discovery learning, problem-based learning, and experiential learning which may
include SRL skills training. While MEXT is allowing all institutions to define
AL themselves, most institutions simply use MEXT’s wording. For instance, theinstitution in the current study defines AL as:
The active learning promoted at [subject institution] is a classroom where theteacher does not just pass on information one-sidedly but adds problem-based
exercises, Q&As, reflections, group work, discussions, and presentations, inwhich teachers encourage students to think on their own and where teaching
and learning are interactive. (University Website, 2011, translation byauthors)
Classroom instruction based on current definitions of AL may seem more349

Fukuda et al.

active on the surface. However, experiencing a more active classroom does
not necessarily mean students will gain the skills needed to continue studying
outside of class or after courses are completed.
To define AL in a more practical sense, Bonwell and Eison (1991)
introduced the AL Continuum in the U.S. tertiary context, and Kawai Juku
(2010) introduced the AL Hierarchy in the Japanese tertiary context. The AL
Continuum is a conceptual framework that moves from simple tasks to complex
tasks. In the AL Continuum, simple tasks are relatively short and unstructured
while complex tasks are longer, carefully planned, and structured. The AL
Hierarchy was developed after an examination of university education quality.
Kawai Juku defined AL by level of task type with no mention of developing SRL
skills. Their hierarchy of tasks includes higher-order AL tasks (e.g., problembased learning) and lower-order activities (e.g., presentations). This framework
may assist instructors who are not well-versed in educational theory to include
more activities in their classroom which may engage their students in thelearning process.
In our attempt to define AL that includes the development of SRL skills, weborrow from Wenden’s (1998) work in learner training. She wrote that training
students to self-regulate their own learning “changes the learner’s roles by making
them learn to take an active role” (p. 21). She also emphasizes that students need
to be provided with an environment to acquire these skills.
Integrating Bonwell and Eison’s AL Continuum, Kawai Juku’s AL Hierarchy,
and Wenden’s learner training for this study, we operationally define AL at theuniversity level as a methodology which focuses on student engagement in
the learning process including the explicit teaching SRL skills training. In our
proposed Active Learning Continuum (Figure 1), the left side can be viewed
as a more traditional or non-autonomy classroom and the right side the moreautonomous or guided-autonomy classroom. The teacher would be doing
simpler activities (e.g., pair work, presentations, etc.) on the left and higher ordertasks (e.g., problem-based learning, fieldwork, etc.) as the instructional methods
move towards the right. Also, moving from left to right, instructors would be
implementing more learner training techniques for SRL skills. At the far-right
350

The Proof of the Pudding, OnCUE Journal, 9(4), pages 344-371

Figure 1. Proposed active learning continuum.

end of the continuum the teacher gives full responsibility of learning to thestudents; a course would incorporate learner-centered activities and aim forthe students to develop their SRL skills for autonomous learning of the course
content.
This operational definition of AL was used to compare two required EFL
courses which were each at the far ends of the continuum (non-autonomy
and guided-autonomy) for our examination of student preferences towards
instruction, as well as the effectiveness of the development of SRL skills training.
Our two research questions were (1) Do student preferences towards AL change
after experiencing a course with AL? and (2) Are there any benefits for students
who experience AL that includes SRL skills training?

Methods

We explored student preferences of instruction before and after completingcourses in different applications (non-autonomy and guided-autonomy) of AL
based on our proposed Active Learning Continuum. We also set out to identify
any changes within participants who experienced an AL classroom that includes
SRL skills training. This study adopted a cross-sectional pre/post-course survey
design with the classroom duration being 15 weeks.
Participants
The target population was Japanese university undergraduates from a facultyof arts and sciences which consisted of about 180 students per grade level. All
students were required to enroll in an EFL program for all first- and second-year
students. A sample of 93 students was enrolled in the first author’s English course.
All participants studied English for at least six years prior to matriculation.
351

Fukuda et al.

The EFL program consisted of three courses titled Basic English (firstyear, first semester), Thematic English (first year, second semester), andCommunicative English (second year, first semester). The Basic and Thematiccourses focused on reading and listening skills using commercial textbooks andtaught by a Japanese teacher of English. In the Communicative English course,
the focus was on speaking and writing skills, and the course was taught by anative speaker of English. At the time of data collection, the objective of the
EFL Program was to develop the autonomous learner. The approach to learnertraining in each course was decided individually by the instructor. Thus, all firstyear students would receive one of Wenden’s (1998) three approaches to learnertraining. In the previous year, there were no explicit objectives for each course in
the EFL Program. Thus, second year students in this study did not experience
any learner training before and during this study. An in-house survey found thatboth first- and second-year participants’ out-of-class study time was less than 30
minutes and TOEIC-IP test scores had an average score of 404 points.
Our exploratory investigation was conducted in two EFL courses: (a) nonautonomy course and (b) guided-autonomy course. The non-autonomy course
has been taught with the CLT approach since 2008, and the guided-autonomy
course which aimed to enhance SRL skills in a student-centered environmenthas been implemented since 2011.
Non-autonomy course. Two required English courses titled Communicative
English consisted of 20 and 21 second-year students (n = 41) and was taught
by the first author. The syllabus was based on the course presented previously
in Fukuda and Yoshida (2013) using a CLT approach. The course objective
was for each student to deliver three individual presentations on familiar
topics (e.g., hometowns or favorite sports). The course was broken down into
three modules (five weeks each) in which students prepared for three-, five, and eight-minute presentations respectively. In each module, students spent
three weeks on communicative activities on familiar topics, and then prepared
for individual presentations the following week. In the fifth week, participantsdelivered a presentation in small groups of four to six students. There was no
explicit teaching of SRL skills, however, the course was based on a learner352

The Proof of the Pudding, OnCUE Journal, 9(4), pages 344-371

centered approach consisting of many AL activities (e.g., presentations, pair andgroup work, problem-based learning, etc.). No students experienced the guidedautonomy course described below or other courses with the focus on SRL skills
training. Thus, these participants were thought to have experienced courses only
based on the far-left end of our proposed AL Continuum.
Guided-autonomy course. The course consisted of 52 first-year students
and was titled Basic English. The syllabus was based on the guided-autonomy
syllabus presented in Fukuda, Sakata, and Takeuchi (2011). The goal of thecourse was to raise awareness of and practice SRL skills to develop autonomous
learners. This course was divided into three modules (five weeks each) in which
students learned about SRL skills in the first module. In the second module,
participants chose what to learn, set goals, and created learning plans in the class.
Outside of class, students studied based on their plans and monitored progresswith peer and teacher feedback coming in the following week’s class. In the third
module, students conducted self-evaluations of their learning, redesigned theirlearning plans, and continued their autonomous learning in the same way as theyexperienced in the second module. Each week during the course, students werealso participating in AL activities such as pair work and group discussions. This
was a learner training course to develop students’ SRL skills. The participants
experienced a course in SRL skills training along with AL activities which was
based on the far-right end of our proposed AL Continuum.
Data Collection Process and Instruments
A pre-course survey was administered in the third week of class and a post-course
survey in the final fifteenth week. The pre-course survey consisted of the same
10 items used by Benesse (2012) asking students to choose their preference of
instruction (Appendix A). Benesse’s (2012) survey used a semantic differential
approach in which participants assessed items on a set of bipolar pairs choosing
which instructional method they preferred (e.g., I prefer courses that are easy forme to obtain credit even if I am not interested in the content. or I prefer courses that
I am interested in even if it is hard to obtain credit.).
The post-course survey consisted of the same 10 items from the pre-course
353

Fukuda et al.

survey with additional items measuring non-autonomy and guided-autonomy
courses content (Appendix A). We added two questionnaires (29 items) to
confirm (a) the non-autonomy course was taught using a CLT approach andincluded AL with no SRL skills training and (b) the guided-autonomy course
included both AL and SRL skills training. We added Fenton’s (2006) modified
version of Savignon and Wang’s (2003, cited in Fenton, 2006) survey on CLT
instruction to assess whether the courses were conducted with a CLT approach.
The original Savignon and Wang survey consisted of 72 items on a 7-point
Likert scale measuring learner perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs of classroom
practices. Fenton modified the survey into a 5-point Likert scale with 11 items(e.g., English teaching in my class is grammar focused).
SRL skills training was assessed using a survey developed by Fujita and Iwata(2001) on a 5-point Lickert scale. Fujita (2010) administered the survey toJapanese university students and identified four factors valid in exploring SRL
skills in the Japanese university context: self-monitoring strategies, self-planning
strategies, behavior regulation strategies, and metacognitive strategies (Appendix
A). Participants assessed their SRL skills on a 5-point Lickert scale.
Each participant responded to the pre-course (10 items) and post-course(39 items) surveys. Responses were calculated to produce a CLT approach and
SRL skills training score. We hypothesized that if the guided-autonomy course
met its objectives of SRL skills training, the SRL skills scores for the participants
would be higher than the participants in the non-autonomy course who did
not received SRL skills training. We also expected both courses to receive high
CLT scores because both used AL. The second and third authors administeredboth surveys after explaining the study in the participants’ native language andgiving them the option of not responding to the survey. The authors also made it
clear that participation did not influence course grades. Students were given 15
minutes to respond to each survey. All data was input and analyzed using SPSS
version 21J.

354

The Proof of the Pudding, OnCUE Journal, 9(4), pages 344-371

Results and Discussion
Do Student Preferences Towards AL Change After
Experiencing a Course With AL?
Pre-course survey results were nearly identical to those in Benesse’s (2012) reportin which a little over half of the respondents did not prefer learner-centeredinstruction, or AL (CLT = 54.17%, guided-autonomy = 53.16%; Benesse =54.8%). An independent sample Mann-Whitney U was administered to our
nonparametric categorical data and no significant differences were found between
our two groups before the intervention with exception to Q7 (z = -2.20, p > 0.05)
about current learning styles (Figure 2 and Table 1). A within-group analysis forQ7 in the pre- and post-course surveys found no significant differences (p < 0.05)
in response pattern.
Descriptive results of the pre- and post-course survey of instructional
preferences show that for both groups responses slightly shifted towards apreference for student-centered instruction on some items but not all in bothgroups (Appendix B). From a look at the descriptive statistics alone, the reader
may think that experiencing AL in any form would not change students’preferences of instruction much. Nevertheless, our inferential statistical analysis
showed a slightly different picture.

Figure 2. Pre-survey results of instruction preferences.

355

Fukuda et al.
Table 1Pre- and Post-Course Survey Results of Instructional Preferences
Pre between-groupcomparisons

Post between-groupcomparisonsWithin-group prepost comparisons(guided-autonomy)

Within-group prepost comparisons(non-autonomy)

Mann-Whitney U

Mann-Whitney U

Wilcoxon

Wilcoxon

Z

Z

Z

Z

Q1

-0.834-.0.565-1.414-0.477Q2-1.738-0.024-0.632-1.732

Q3-0.694-0.553-0.302-0.775Q4-0.090-1.622-0.8320.000

Q5-1.537-0.0400.000-1.000Q6-0.627-0.334-0.277-0.943Q7-2.198*-0.5840.832-0.728Q8-1.402-2.348*-2.236*-1.460Q9-0.408-0.254-0.500-0.728Q10-1.278-1.951*-1.387-1.508Notes. Pre-course survey sample guided-autonomy (n = 38) and non-autonomy (n = 48); Postcourse survey sample guided-autonomy (n = 41) and non-autonomy (n = 46)* p < 0.05

The results of a Shapiro-Wilk test of normality revealed a normal
distribution in our post-course survey data for both courses. Thus, we proceededby administering parametric two-tailed independent samples t-tests. Results
confirmed that each course was conducted according to their respective aims
(Table 2). The average score for the CLT items in the non-autonomy course (M= 3.21, SD = 0.34) group was significantly higher (t(84.64) = 4.28, p > 0.05)
compared to the guided-autonomy course (M = 2.88, SD = 0.40), and resultsfrom the SRL items in the guided-autonomy course (M = 3.57, SD = 0.51)
were significantly higher (t(84.97) = -2.38, p > 0.05) than in the CLT group356

The Proof of the Pudding, OnCUE Journal, 9(4), pages 344-371(M = 3.33, SD = 0.44). These results confirmed that classes were taught using
different approaches of AL. From module two of the guided-autonomy course,
responsibility for learning was given to the students, which may be the reason the
CLT scores were significantly different. There was not much English teaching
per se from the sixth week.
From the 10-item Benesse items in the post-course survey, significant
differences were found in Q8 (z = -2.35, p > 0.05) and Q10 (z = -1.95, p >0.05) (Table 2). For Q8, participants provided responses on how they would
choose courses and how much they should depend on their instructor. In the
non-autonomy course, 28.95% of participants felt they should decide theirgoals before taking courses in the pre-course survey and responded similarly(29.27%) in the post-course survey. In the guided-autonomy course, 43.75%
felt they should decide their goals before taking courses in the pre-course survey.
However, this percentage rose to 54.35% in the post-course survey.
Post-course survey results of Q10 showed explicit SRL skills training in class
had positive influences outside the realm of the language classroom. SRL skills
training activities covered areas of effective methods of studying (e.g., studyingin the morning when the mind is clear) which also seemed to connect to ourparticipants’ daily life. For instance, the fourth author’s personal communications
Table 2
Results of Independent Samples t-test

CLT score

SRL score

Group

n

M

SD

F

t

df

Nonautonomy

41

3.22

0.34

1.71

4.28*

84.64

Guidedautonomy

46

2.88

0.40

Nonautonomy

41

3.33

0.44

0.40

-2.38*

84.97

Guidedautonomy

46

3.58

0.50

Notes. CLT = Communicative language teaching; SRL = Self-regulated learning* p < 0.05

357

Fukuda et al.

with participants in the guided-autonomy course revealed that planning out-ofclass study time helped one student wake up earlier because of his plan to study
before heading to school. This change in behavior arguably led to a better life
style as an independent university student.
Non-parametric Wilcoxon tests results revealed similar results for withingroup comparisons of pre- and post-course survey responses. For the guidedautonomy course, analysis revealed no significant changes in preferences withexception to Q8 (z = -2.24, p > 0.05, Table 1). The number of participants who
felt it was better to decide what courses to choose after deciding a future goalrose from 43.75% to 54.35%. This significant increase for Q8 may be due to theexplicit training of SRL skills training, such as goal-setting and monitoring in thecourse, has potential to motivate students for autonomous learning. Our test for
the within-group comparison for the non-autonomy course found no significant
differences (p < 0.05) on all 10 items (Table 2).
Are There Any Benefits for Students Who Experience AL that
Includes SRL Skills Training?
The results above illustrate a slight but insignificant change in preference of
instructional methods in university courses after experiencing SRL training.
Within the guided-autonomy course, the percentage for Q2 tripled. In the
pre-course survey, only 6.25% of the students said they preferred the morechallenging choice of tests and reports, and in the post-course survey 21.74%of the participants preferred the more challenging choice. The participants in
the guided-autonomy course were taught how to learn effectively. For instance,
topics taken up in the course were using tests for learning and long-term retention,effective time-management, and pitfalls of procrastination and cramming.
Learning about these in the course may have given participants more confidence
in their ability to obtain credit and exert more effort into their learning (fourthauthor’s personal communications with students), and thus perhaps a change inpreference for some participants to prefer more learner-centered instruction.
Similarly, Q4 asked participants their preferences of teacher-directed orlearner-directed instruction. In the pre-course survey, 12.50% of the guided358

The Proof of the Pudding, OnCUE Journal, 9(4), pages 344-371

autonomy course participants preferred lectures to learner-directed approaches.
However, the post-course survey percentage rose to 26.09%. Though results
were insignificant (p < 0.05), this increase shows that more participants may
have preferred AL with SRL skills training after experiencing it. Though further
research is necessary, finding this increase only in the guided-autonomy course
slightly suggests the potential that SRL skills training may have on helping
students better understand the benefits of learner-centered instruction.
From our analysis above, we see the potential of implementing change inapproaches from teacher-directed to learner-directed instruction to improvelearning outcomes. Concerning the roles of teachers in developing their students’SRL skills, Cohen (1998, cited in Chamot, 2004) introduced the following:(a) diagnostician (e.g., helping learners identify their beliefs and strategies), (b)language learner (e.g., teachers sharing their language learning experiences), (c)learner trainer (e.g., training students to use strategies), (d) coordinator (e.g.,supervising and monitoring students’ learning), and (e) coach (e.g., providing
on-going support). Most instructors at any level, however, are not trained totake on these roles, and some instructors may expect students automatically toknow their role of learning autonomously or they expect students to adapt and“function as autonomous learners from the outset of their time at university”(Railton & Watson, 2005, p. 183).
For university instructors in EFL and other fields who feel unable toimplement SRL skills training, Lai, Gardner, and Law (2013) have developed
a program titled OWL (Orientation, Workshops, and Learner Autonomy
Facilitation Resources). This program familiarizes language teachers withthe benefits of developing student’s learning skills and enhancing students’autonomous learning. Unfortunately, most instructors may not have the time
to take part in such programs. Lai, Gardner, and Law also introduce a 12-weekcourse structure for their Taiwanese EFL students in which instruction for eightweeks is in small groups where half the class meets the teacher for one hour while
the other half learns the content autonomously by doing a teacher-directed task.
The remaining four weeks are set aside for diagnostics of needs, guidance ofautonomous learning, and for developing and accessing an autonomous learning359

Fukuda et al.

plan. Though Lai, Gardner, and Law’s course structure is similar to the guidedautonomy course in this study, some may argue of its feasibility in the Japanesecontext.
It may be feasible for instructors to start with an activity in each of thethree stages of learner training proposed by Cohen (2012): (a) goal-setting,(b) monitoring, and (c) self-reflection. For instance, instructors can allow a
few minutes for students to plan their studies for the following week after
introducing new material or posing new questions. These activities provide
opportunities to reflect on autonomous learning and set learning goals. Also,
instructors can allot several minutes to discuss new questions students’ may havein the first few minutes of class or have the students discuss approaches to outof-class study among themselves to raise awareness (Wenden, 1998). In an EFL
class, these discussions may lead to new ideas for learning (e.g., a new book, app,or website) which will help students in planning and implementing out-of-classstudy. These activities, however, require the instructor to plan, and use extra timein their course. In the beginning, students may need more time, but as they getused to learner training activities, the time allotted for these activities can belowered.
Instructors may also feel that they have an insufficient amount of timein class or that class time should not be used for learner training in which wesuggest flipping the SRL skills training component of a course. The basic idea offlipping the classroom is “to make use of technology so that we do less ‘teaching’in the class and focus more on group work and task based learning in the lesson”(Stannard, 2015, para 2). Though everything should be done for the first time inclass with teacher support and ample opportunity to practice, instructors can,for instance, create their own worksheets to upload, web applications, or video
lectures in which students can learn about and develop their SRL skills or use
material that is already available online (e.g., The English Language Planner 2015
Website at http://www.kandagaigo.com/elp/index.html or English Learning
4U Website at https://flipboard.com/@hiroshisaka45cf/english-learning-4ud19jsl5jy)

360

The Proof of the Pudding, OnCUE Journal, 9(4), pages 344-371

Conclusion

We have argued that research conclusions on students’ beliefs and attitudes
should be derived only after students have experienced what is being asked on asurvey. Our data shed light on a situation in which student preferences towards
instructional method changed after actual experience of instructional method.
Our data revealed slightly different results from reports previously stating that
university students did not prefer learner-centered instruction. Certainly, thosepapers were simply reporting on the status-quo.
However, university educators not well-versed in teaching methodology
may wonder why national educational policies are pushing for more AL while
their students do not prefer it, and thus sticking to their old routines of teacherdirected instruction. As mentioned in the outset, surely a mismatch of teaching
and learning styles inhibits learning. Regardless, it may be hard for students
to prefer something they have not experienced. The reader may be remindedof the proverb: The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Our preliminary
analysis suggests that participants were not confident in studying at the more
independent university level. That feeling may have influenced their decision tochoose the more familiar instructional method or prefer courses they viewed aseasier to obtain credit perhaps due to a lack of confidence to succeed in learning.
We also argued for university definitions of AL to include a component of
SRL skills training to meet national and institutional objectives of bettering
educational outcomes and creating life-long learners. In doing so, institutions
need to equip their students with the SRL skills necessary to continue theirstudies in the subject matter during the course to increase out-of-class study
time, as well as after courses are completed as effective autonomous learners.
Only then can we benefit from AL and MEXT’s ultimate aim of deeper learningand application of subject matter.
Readers should be cautious in interpreting our results of this exploratory
study, because of its small sample size and data only from EFL courses which may
have skewed our data. We also compared survey responses from three different
courses in which participants were in their first and second years of university.
Thus, furthering this research through repeated studies in various courses and361

Fukuda et al.

using the same age or grade level is necessary. Measuring results from a course
in different applications of our proposed Active Learning Continuum is also
necessary. For instance, qualitative data from interviews, classroom observations,or learner diaries will enable deeper interpretation of learning preferences inrelation to survey responses.
In sum, our study provided some insight into the potential of AL in theJapanese university EFL classroom. With implementation of AL that explicitly
includes the development of SRL skills training, universities will be able toprovide the scaffolding necessary for the jump students take into the autonomous
tertiary context from their teacher-directed secondary learning experience.
Implementation of SRL skills training may also provide students with thenecessary skills to continue learning after a course. Instead of simply making
classrooms more active on the surface, incorporating SRL skills training into
courses may allow more students to achieve academically (e.g., raising English
language proficiency) at the university level.

References

Benesse. (2008). First report on the investigation of learning and life stylesof university students. Retrieved from http://berd.benesse.jp/koutou/
research/detail1.php?id=3161
Benesse. (2012). Second Report on the investigation of learning and life stylesof university students. Retrieved from http://berd.benesse.jp/koutou/
research/detail1.php?id=3159
Benesse. (2014). Improving the learning quality of studying at home. View
21: Junior High School Edition, 3. Retrieved from http://berd.benesse.jp/
magazine/chu/booklet/?id=4429
Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and researching autonomy (2nd ed.). Harlow, UK:
Pearson Education.
Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in theclassroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, D.
C.: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human
Development. Retrieved from http://www.ydae.purdue.edu/lct/hbcu/
362

The Proof of the Pudding, OnCUE Journal, 9(4), pages 344-371

documents/Active_Learning_Creating_Excitement_in_the_Classroom.
pdf
Bransford, J. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Chamot, A. U. (2004). Issues in language learning strategy research andteaching. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 1(1), 14-26.
CIER. (2016). In search for English education that fosters the autonomous
learner: Language education to connect elementary, junior high school,
high school, and university. Chu-o Institute for Educational Research,
Research Report 87. Retrieved from http://www.chu-ken.jp/pdf/kanko87.
pdf
Cohen, M. T. (2012). The importance of self-regulation for college student
learning. College Student Journal, 46(4), 892-902. Retrieved from http://
www.freepatentsonline.com/article/College-Student-Journal/312618227.
html
Dickinson, L. (1987). Self-instruction in language learning. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Eison, J., & Bonwell, C. (1988). Making real the promise of active learning.
Paper presented at the National Conference of the American Associationof Higher Education, Washington, D. C. Retrieved from http://
servicelearning.msu.edu/upload/3.7.pdf
Fenton, A. L. (2006). A study of learner attitudes and perspectives in Japanesecommunicative language teaching EFL contexts. Chiba University ofCommerce Review, 44(2), 31-51.
Fujita, T. (2010). A study of relationship of self-regulated learning strategy andacademic help-seeking in university students. Bulletin of Nara University of
Education, 59(1), 47-54.
Fujita, T., & Iwata, M. (2001). A study of self-regulated learning in elementary
school children (I). Bulletin of Institute for Educational Research of Nara
University of Education, 37, 55-64.
Fukuda, S. T., & Yoshida, H. (2013). Time is of the essence: Factors
encouraging out-of-class study time. ELT Journal, 67(1), 31-40.
363

Fukuda et al.

Fukuda, S. T., Sakata, H., & Pope, C. J. (2015). The GAS that fuels motivation:
Satisfying the need for relatedness in the guided-autonomy syllabus.
Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 12(2), 219–237.
Fukuda, S. T., Sakata, H., & Takeuchi, M. (2011). Facilitating autonomy toenhance motivation: Examining the effects of a guided-autonomy syllabus.
Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 8(1), 71-86.
Goda, Y. (2014). Practice in developing learner autonomy. In Japanese Society ofEnglish Language Education 40th Anniversary Edition, 246-250.
Heip, P. H. (2007). Communicative language teaching: Unity within diversity.
ELT Journal, 61(3), 193-201.
Higuchi, K. (2012). Problems with high school/university connection. Retrieved
from http://berd.benesse.jp/koutou/research/detail1.php?id=3159
Hiromori, T. (2015). English learning mechanism: Effective study strategies basedon SLA research. Tokyo, Japan: Taishukan.
JACET. (2010). Learner development in English education: Learner factors andautonomous learning. Tokyo, Japan: Taishukan.
JASELE. (2014). Trends and current issues in English language education in
Japan: Integrating theory and practice. Ishikawa, Japan: Noto Printing
Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.jasele.jp/wp-content/uploads/
kinen-tokubetsushi_web.pdf
Jimbo, H. (2012). A comprehensive study on the framework of English
language teachers’ professional development in Japan. JACET Researchon Educational Issues: Retrieved from http://www.waseda.jp/assocjacetenedu/2010_report_j.pdf#page=159
Kato, S., & Mynard, J. (2015). Reflective dialogue: Advising in language learning.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Kawai Juku. (2010). Investigation on active learning in universities. Retrieved
from http://www.kawaijuku.jp/research/AL/archives.html#AL01
Lai, C., Gardner, D., & Law, E. (2013). New to facilitating self-directed learning:
The changing perceptions of teachers. Innovation in Language Learning andTeaching, 7(3), 281-294.
MEXT. (2012a). Changes in the quality of university education to build new364

The Proof of the Pudding, OnCUE Journal, 9(4), pages 344-371

futures. Retrieved from http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chukyo/
chukyo0/toushin/1325047.htm
MEXT. (2012b). Inquiry on the quality of undergraduate education. Retrieved
from http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chukyo/chukyo4/015/
attach/1318247.htm
MEXT. (2012c). Status-quo and problems of undergraduate education. Retrieved
from http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chukyo/chukyo4/015/
gijiroku/07012401/001.htm
MEXT. (2015). Current course of study and zest for living. Retrieved fromhttp://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/new-cs/youryou/1356249.htm
Nakata, Y. (2006). Motivation and experience in foreign language learning.
Oxford, England: Peter Lang.
Nakata, Y. (2014). Self-regulation: Why is it important for promoting learnerautonomy in the school context? Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal,
5(4), 342-356.
Nakata, T. (2015). Developing self-directed learners: Challenges for learnerautonomy. Tokyo: Hitsujishobo.
NIER. (2015). Cultivation of aptitude and ability: Research into the state of
the national curriculum. Document presented at the national curriculum
planning special committee, March 26, 2015.Retrieved from http://www.
nier.go.jp/05_kenkyu_seika/pf_pdf/20150326.pdf
Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language
learning. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Peacock, M. (2001). Match or mismatch? Learning styles and teaching styles in
EFL. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 1-20.
Pinner, R. (2016). Using self-assessment to maintain motivation in a dynamic
classroom environment: An Exploratory Practice inquiry of one Japanese
university speaking course. The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(1),27-40.
Railton, D., & Watson, P. (2005). Teaching autonomy. Active Learning in
Higher Education, 6(3), 182-193.
Stannard, R. (2015, December 5). Is the flipped classroom relevant to ELT?
365

Fukuda et al.

EFL Magazine. Retrieved from http://eflmagazine.com/flipped-classroomrelevant-elt/
Takeuchi, O. (2011). Fostering the autonomous learner: Ideas for the firststep. Teaching English Now, Special Edition, 2, 6-7. Retrieved from http://
tb.sanseido.co.jp/english/newcrown/pdf/ten/TEN_vol2_04.pdf
Tsuda, A., & Nakata, Y. (2013). Exploring self-regulation in language learning:
A study of Japanese high school EFL students. Innovation in Language
Learning and Teaching, 7(1), 72-88.
University of Minnesota. (2013). What is active learning? University of
Minnesota Center for Teaching and Learning website. Retrieved fromhttp://www1.umn.edu/ohr/teachlearn/tutorials/active/what/index.html
University Website. (2011). Acceleration program for university education
rebuilding: Strike the iron while its hot dojo. Retrieved from http://www.
tokushima-u.ac.jp/campus/education/acceleration_sih.html
Usuki, M. (2007). Autonomy in language learning. Tokyo: Sankeisha.
Wenden, A. (1998). Learner training in second/foreign language learning: A
curricular perspective for the 21st century. ERIC ED, 416(67), 1-36.

Author bios

Steve T. Fukuda teaches general English, teaching methodology, and university
study skills courses in the Faculty of Integrated Arts and Sciences in Tokushima
University. His research interests are in classroom methodology, learner coaching,learner motivation, and learner autonomy. steve.fukuda@tokushima-u.ac.jp
Hiroshi Yoshida is lecturer in the Centre of University Education, Tokushima
University. He holds an MA in mathematics, specializing in number theory. His
research interests and publications are in classroom methodology for science-related
subjects and faculty development. hiroshi-yoshida@tokushima-u.ac.jp
Maiko Kamioka, assistant professor in the Centre of University Education,
Tokushima University. She holds an MA in school psychology. Her research interestsand publications are in classroom research and faculty development. mkamioka@
tokushima-u.ac.jp366

The Proof of the Pudding, OnCUE Journal, 9(4), pages 344-371

Hiroshi Sakata works for the International Center in Tokushima University as an
associate professor of cross-cultural communications and second language acquisition.
He is currently interested in the development of English programs fostering learnerautonomy. kobayashi@tokushima-u.ac.jp
Christopher J. Pope is from Houston, Texas in the USA. He has taught ESL andEFL at the secondary and tertiary levels for the past 15 years, in both the USA andJapan. He currently works at the Center for General Education in the Tokushima
University. pope@tokushima-u.ac.jp
Received: March 22, 2015
Accepted: December 7, 2016

367

Fukuda et al.

Appendix A

Pre- and Post-Course Survey Items of Instructional Preferences
Teacher Directed Instruction

Learner Directed Instruction

Q1

I prefer courses that are easy for me to
I prefer courses that I am interested in
obtain credit even if I am not interested in even if it is hard to obtain credit.
the content.

Q2

I prefer courses that put more weight on
attendance and class participation in the
final grade.

Q3

I prefer courses that put more focus on the I prefer courses that put more focus onlearning the basics than application of the the application of material learned thanmaterial learned.
learning the basics.

Q4

I prefer to learn in lecture style course
where the teacher teaches me knowledge
and skills.

I prefer to learn in learner-centeredcourses where the student does researchand presents on the material to be learned.

Q5

University students should gain
knowledge and skills from a broad rangeof fields in their studies.

University students should gain deep
knowledge and skills from a particularfield in their studies.

Q6

It is better to have a more systematic
curriculum instead of one with manyelective courses.

It is better to have more elective courses
even if learning would not be systematic.

Q7

University students should receive all thenecessary information from the teacher.

University students should develop theirown way of learning and learn what isnecessary autonomously.

Q8

University students should take courses
after deciding what they want to do in the
future.

University students should decide what
they want to do in the future in thecourses they take.

Q9

University instructors should interact with University instructors do not have tostudents outside of class as well.
interact with students much outside ofclass.

Q10

University instructors should instruct and University students should be given full
support students in their daily life outside responsibility of their daily life outside ofof academics.
academics.

I prefer courses that put more weight on
final exams and reports in the final grade.

Notes. Items adopted from Benesse (2012), assessed using a semantic differential approach, andtranslated by authors.

368

The Proof of the Pudding, OnCUE Journal, 9(4), pages 344-371

Post-Course Survey Items Assessing CLT Instruction
Q1

English teaching in this class is grammar−focused. (reversed)

Q2

My English teacher in this class often asks us to do sentence drilling and repeat
sentences after him. (reversed)

Q3

The language used in this classroom by my teacher is mostly Japanese. (reversed)

Q4

English teaching in this class is mainly explaining and practicing grammar rules.
(reversed)

Q5

I seldom need to open my mouth in this classroom. (reversed)

Q6

English teaching in this class is communication−based.

Q7

My teacher often designs activities to have us interact in English with peers.

Q8

Our focus in this class is communication, but the teacher would explain grammar
when necessary.

Q9

The English teacher in this class allows us trial−and−error attempts to communicate
in English.

Q10

My English teacher often creates an atmosphere for us to use English.

Q11

My English teacher often corrects my errors in class. (reversed)

Notes: Items adopted from Fenton (2006), assessed items on a 5-point Lickert scale and reworded
to match university EFL context by authors.

369

Fukuda et al.

Post-Course Survey Items Assessing SRL Skills
Q1

Even if I am not good at English, I will try to get good grades in the English course.
(Behavioral)

Q2

Even if it is really difficult to understand, I try to make sense of what my teacher issaying. (Behavioral)

Q3

I try to listen carefully to the teacher during the class, so I do not have to worry too
much later about missing anything. (Behavioral)

Q4

Even if the learning content is hard, I try my best because it is important for me tolearn it. (Behavioral)

Q5

When I study for exams, I try to memorize as much content as possible. (Behavioral)

Q6

I think about how much I will study that day before I start. (Planning)

Q7

I decide how much time to study before I start. (Planning)

Q8

Before studying for exams, I make a study plan. (Planning)

Q9

I make sure my study style matches me while I study. (Monitoring)

Q10

I think about how much I can actually study before I study. (Monitoring)

Q11

If there is a part I do not understand in my studies, I try out other learning styles.
(Monitoring)

Q12

I think about what I am supposed to do for each task before I start. (Monitoring)

Q13

I apply everything I previously learned to the task at hand. (Monitoring)Q14

I search for the things I understand and those I don’t understand while studying.
(Cognitive)

Q15

Before starting a difficult task, I make sure I understand the basics necessary tocomplete the task. (Cognitive)

Q16

To remember content, I copy what I wrote in my notes originally. (Cognitive)

Q17

When I study for exams, I summarize the content of the class and textbook.
(Cognitive)

Q18

When I study by reading books, I summarize the main points of each chapter.
(Cognitive)

Notes: Items adopted from Fujita (2010), assessed on a 5-point Lickert scale and translated byauthors.

370

The Proof of the Pudding, OnCUE Journal, 9(4), pages 344-371

Appendix B

Percentages of Pre- and Post-Course Survey
Results on Instruction Preferences
Pre-course survey
Non-autonomy(n = 48)

Post-course survey
Non-autonomy(n = 46)

Pre-course survey
Guided-autonomy(n = 38)

Post-course survey
Guided-autonomy(n = 41)

TDI

LDI

TDI

LDI

TDI

LDI

TDI

LDI

Q1

63.16

36.84

57.00

43.90

54.17

45.83

50.00

50.00

Q2

81.58

18.42

78.05

21.95

93.75

6.25

78.26

21.74

Q3

86.84

13.16

82.93

14.63

81.25

18.75

80.44

19.57

Q4

86.84

13.16

87.81

12.20

87.50

12.50

73.91

26.08

Q5

60.53

39.47

57.00

43.90

43.75

56.25

56.52

43.48

Q6

31.58

68.42

29.27

70.73

25.00

75.00

32.61

67.39

Q7

21.05

78.95

26.83

73.17

43.75

56.25

32.61

67.39

Q8

28.95

71.05

29.27

70.73

43.75

56.25

54.35

45.65

Q9

71.05

28.95

80.49

19.51

75.00

25.00

78.26

21.74

Q10

10.53

89.47

9.76

90.24

20.83

79.17

26.09

73.91

Notes: TDI = teacher directed instruction; LDI = learner directed instruction371