2022
Annual Report
Original Article

Promoting language learner autonomy through portfoliobased instruction: A classroom experiment
Akiko OKUNUKI（Meiji University ）Tomohito HIROMORI（Meiji University ）The present study employs a quasi-experimental design to investigate the effectiveness of portfolio-based
instruction in facilitating secondary school language learner autonomy. Specifically, this study aims to answer thefollowing two research questions: (1) Does portfolio-based instruction for out-of-class learning promote students’autonomous attitudes? (2) Does portfolio-based instruction encourage them to put out-of-class learning into
practice? The participants were 58 first-year junior high school students (treatment group, n = 28; control group,n = 30). Autonomous attitudes were assessed using the Autonomy Diagnosis Scale pre- and post-test. Portfoliobased instruction was conducted for three weeks, only for the treatment group. The results showed that while theinstruction had a positive impact on the learners’ perceived autonomous attitudes, especially in their cognitive
processes, their effects on out-of-class study (i.e., actual autonomous behavior) varied remarkably among students.
Based on the overall results, the study provides the educational implications and directions for future research.

Keywords : learner autonomy, out-of-class learning, portfolio-based instruction, secondary school students,
self-directed learning

Introduction
The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Scienceand Technology (MEXT) highlights the importanceof “fostering a spirit of autonomy” in the Basic Act on
Education (MEXT, 2006). The newly revised national
curriculum standards present three competencies tocultivate a child’s ability: (1) knowledge and skills;(2) the ability to think, judge, and express; and (3) an
attitude towards learning and the ability to relate toothers (MEXT, 2017). These ideas underlie the slogan“Zest For Life,” which is the title of the course forelementary and secondary school education (MEXT,
2019). Ozeki (2010) claimed that “Zest For Life”
matches the definitions of autonomous learners; thatis, learners with metacognitive knowledge set theirown goals, use appropriate strategies, solve problems,and implement tasks. In order to promote these skills
in learners, encouraging self-directed, out-of-classlearning could be a possible approach. Benson (2011)
pointed out that the term “out-of-class learning” hasbeen used to mention activities that supplementclassroom learning, including homework, extracurricular activities, self-instructional materials, andother engagements ordinarily initiated by students(pp. 138–139). In this study, we define out-of-classlearning as students’ self-initiated and self-directed
English language learning outside of class, which
excludes learning with professional assistants, such as
cram school instructors and tutors.
At present, it seems that Japanese school2

Annual Report 2022

learners will often complete assigned homework, butsome of them will not perform additional studies.
According to research by the Benesse Educational
Research and Development Institute (2015), 67%of junior high school students in Japan felt unsure
about the methods of study at home. Moreover, somestudents were uncertain about how to study once they
entered university—they did not know how to direct
their own learning (Yamashita, 2015). They might nothave had enough opportunities to regulate their own
learning in their secondary school lives.
The Foreign Service Institute (FSI) of the
U.S. Department of State estimates that approximately
2,200 class hours are required for an English
speaker to obtain an intermediate level of knowledge(roughly equivalent to B1 according to the CEFR;
Council of Europe, 2001) of a foreign language that is
typologically different (e.g., Japanese) (U.S. Departmentof State, n.d.). This is also true for Japanese people
who learn English. Since the total number of hours ofEnglish classes in a regular public secondary school
in Japan is much smaller than 2,200 hours, learners
would need to independently create additional study
time. Out-of-class learning would be ideal because it
would increase study time and provide opportunities
for self-directed learning, which could develop learnerautonomy.

Assessing Learner Autonomy

Language learner autonomy is a multi-dimensional
capacity that takes different forms for different

Annual Report 20222

learners at different times in different situations(Benson, 1997, 2011; Little, 1991). Even thoughprevious researchers used the term “learnerautonomy,” they tended to focus on different
dimensions of autonomy in actual studies. Fore x a m p l e , s o m e r e s e a r c h e r s h a ve f o c u s e d o nautonomy’s cognitive aspects (e.g., ability, capacity,
skill), others on affective aspects (e.g., attitude,
readiness, self-confidence), and still others on
metacognitive aspects (e.g., setting goals, planninglearning activities, monitoring learning progress).
This classification itself is beneficial in terms of
ensuring diversity of learner autonomy research, but
it also makes it difficult to share actual images ofautonomous learners among different researchers or
educators.
Under these circumstances, Benson (2011)
argued that autonomy’s multidimensional aspects
must be included in any definition. He defined
language learners’ autonomy as “the capacity totake control over one’s own learning” (p. 58), andcategorized autonomy’s multidimensional capacities inthree: learning management, cognitive processes, andlearning content. Even though learner autonomy is acomplex matter (Everhard, 2015) and it is not a single,
easily describable behavior (Little, 1991), Benson(2011) claimed that aspects of autonomy should bemeasured for two reasons. First, aspects of autonomy
must be observable phenomena to create validity,
since this allows autonomy to be researchable.
Second, programs or innovations for fostering learnerautonomy would be more effective if educators
mutually agree on, and clearly understand, theconcept of autonomy. He also suggested that aspectsof autonomy should be described in a large variety offorms, and that appropriate forms should be chosen
according to the researchers’ recommendations(Benson, 2011). Using this framework enables us to
examine the three aspects of learner autonomy, whichhave hitherto been separately studied, from a holistic
perspective.
Based on the above arguments, Hiromori(2019a, 2019b) developed an Autonomy Diagnosis
Scale (ADS) to measure the multidimensional aspectsof learner autonomy. The instrument assesses learning
behavior by investigating the three aspects of learnerautonomy which evolved from Benson’s (2011)
operationalization. An exploratory and confirmatory
factor analysis of Japanese secondary school learners’
responses created an instrument w ith robust

3

Annual Report 2022

psychometric properties. In addition, the preliminary
investigation also demonstrated that the mean scoresof third-year junior high school students in all three
aspects were significantly lower than those of firstyear students. This implies that the learner autonomy
of junior high school students does not develop inparallel with their academic capacity in their natural
school context. We need to intentionally promoteautonomy.

Promoting Learner Autonomy

According to Benson (2011), learner-based approaches
aim to enable learners take greater control overtheir learning by providing them with opportunities
for self-directed learning. Some studies employing
learner-based approaches have introduced programs
that combine explicit instruction on strategies andlearning reflections. For example, Stoeger and Ziegler(2011) implemented self-regulated instruction for
fourth-grade elementary school children using theirmathematics homework. In the first week of thesix-week intervention, participants were informed
about the learning processes and strategies. In thesecond week, they were given homework, quiz,and self-observation sheets to monitor their out-ofclass learning and strategy use. After the third week,
they reflected on the outcomes of their strategy
use and modified their strategies to improve out-ofclass learning. The results showed that children who
received training improved in time management, study
skills, self-regulation, metacognitive competencies,
and motivation.
Self-regulation is a personal feedback
loop (Zimmerman & Moylan, 2009) that consistsof three levels: forethought, performance, and selfreflection (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998; Zimmerman& Moylan, 2009). According to Schunk andZimmerman (1998), expert self-regulated learners
have particular strategies for each phase. For example,
in the forethought phase, they build images of theirlearning goals by taking small concrete steps thatlead to a bigger goal. In the performance phase, they
monitor and control themselves to concentrate on
learning. This is followed by the self-reflection phase,where they review their progress. When they reachanother forethought phase, learners adopt or modify
their strategies thereby achieving high self-efficacy.
Zimmerman and Moylan (2009) mentioned that quite
a few studies on self-regulated learning focused on
students’ use of metacognition, such as strategy use

Annual Report 20223

and self-monitoring. To promote their self-monitoringskills, Anderson (2008) recommended the use ofjournals by students. Reading through their own
writings enhances students’ self-reflective thoughts(Mineishi, 2010).
Portfolios are usually defined as “purposefulcollections of students’ work” (Apple & Shimo,
2004; Genesee & Upshur, 1996). The optical andrepetitive quality of portfolios can be used to help
students monitor out-of-class learning. The benefits ofmaintaining portfolios are reflection, documentation,and collaboration (Zubizarreta, 2009). With regard
to collaboration, Little, Dam, and Legenhausen(2017) suggested using posters in combination withportfolios to create a collaborative learning processthat helps students create a work cycle.
According to Benson (2011, p. 186), teachers
help students’ autonomous learning as they (1) “planand carry out their independent language learning,”(2) “evaluate themselves,” and (3) “acquire the skills
and knowledge needed to implement the above.” Thisidea shares some key words with the self-regulated
feedback loop mentioned above (e.g., plan, carry out,
and evaluate or reflect). Self-regulated practices thattake such steps may lead students to “take control
over one’s own learning” as active autonomous
learners for the entire learning process. That is,teachers can foster student autonomy by enhancing
their feedback loop of self-regulated learning. In
addition, the use of portfolios would highlight their
feedback loop as well.
Based on the findings and discussions
summarized so far, we devised the follow ing
two research questions: (1) Does portfolio-based
instruct ion for out-of-class learning promotestudents’ autonomous attitudes? (2) Does portfoliobased instruction encourage them to put out-of-classlearning into practice?

Method
RQ1 was investigated through pre- and post-test
designs with a treatment and a control group. For
the intervention with the treatment group, portfoliobased instruction was conducted for three weeks.
Collaborative class discussions and posters were
utilized to amplify the potential of the portfolios. For
RQ2, we calculated the treatment group’s out-of-classstudy time during the intervention.

4

Annual Report 2022

Participants

The participants were 58 first-year junior high school
students drawn from two intact classes. Classes wererandomly assigned to either the treatment group (n =28) or the control group (n = 30). First-year students(aged 12 to 13) were chosen for the study because
they were at the beginning of secondary education
and would therefore have more chances to develop
their own out-of-class learning management skills
after the intervention. Given the possibility that theparticipants might not truthfully answer the questions,but choose the responses that seem socially favored,
they were told that their responses would not affecttheir grades.

Teaching Materials

Three types of teaching materials (portfolio
worksheets) were prepared: (1) Reflection worksheets
were created to help participants introspect on theirhabits related to out-of-class learning. The treatmentgroup was encouraged to engage in such reflection
before each of the three in-class lessons. (2) Foresightworksheets were used after each class to note ideas
and strategies from the classes for efficient out-ofclass learning. (3) Learning management worksheets,
named “Out-of-Class Learning Planner” (OCLP), were
designed to facilitate participants’ daily planning andreflection on their out-of-class learning.

Treatment
In-Class Activities
The treatment participants had lessons once a week,and each of the lessons dealt with one aspect ofautonomy in the ADS: learning management for the
first week, cognitive processes for the second, andlearning content for the third. In the first class, thefirst author gave a short lecture to the participants,
explaining that English language learners in Japanneeded to study for at least 2,200 hours to learn thelanguage. Since the participants’ class hours wereless than this, she added that the participants needed
270 additional minutes of out-of-class learning per
week until they finished second year in college. The
participants were told that using the OCLP would be
helpful in securing out-of-class study time. They thenreceived the portfolio file and OCLP sheets and were
instructed to write down their out-of-class learning
goals for the week (including learning content andstudy time).
The class in the second week covered theAnnual Report 20224

5

concept of cognitive processes. The participants
formed small groups and discussed problems thatinterfered with their out-of-class learning. After
presenting their problems to the class, participants
brainstormed solutions, wrote them on the memos,and attached them to the posters with the problem list.
Posters with the notes were displayed in the corridor.
During break times, the participants were encouraged
to find solutions from the posters appropriate totheir situations, and copy them onto the foresightworksheets.
The third week covered the concept oflearning content. Participants were encouraged toreflect on their out-of-class learning for the final
exam and gave themselves a percentage grade forthe quality of their preparation with the reflection
worksheets. In the next step, they considered what
content they needed to learn and devised concrete
ways of learning it. The ideas on the paper werecategorized by learning content and attached to blankposter sheets. After the third class, the participants
were encouraged to find supportive ideas from theposters and copy those onto the foresight worksheets.

Instruments
Autonomy Diagnosis Scale
The Autonomy Diagnosis Scale (ADS) was used toanswer RQ1. It was originally developed in ourprevious studies and has been validated for its
psychometric properties (Hiromori, 2019a, 2019b).
The scale contains three subscales: (1) learning
management (e.g., “I make it a rule to plan a studyschedule”; eight items), (2) cognitive processes (e.g.,“I try not to think about something unrelated to mylearning in order to focus on the task at hand”; eightitems), and (3) learning content (e.g., “I choose mylearning content by myself”; three items). All of these
items were rated on a seven-point scale, ranging from1 (not strongly applicable) to 7 (strongly applicable).

Out-of-Class Learning Planners (OCLP)The treatment participants were encouraged to use
the OCLP daily throughout the intervention. The
learning sessions were conducted four times per
week during the intervention. At the beginning ofeach class, the teacher asked the participants to taketheir portfolio files and reflect on the learning content
and study time of their previous out-of-class learning
session. Following this, they planned the next out-ofclass learning session for that evening, in the same
way as before. In addition, the teacher asked theparticipants to write a weekend learning plan in the
OCLP every Friday, and bring the files to school thenext Monday. The author from the first class collected
their portfolio files on the day. She wrote feedbackon the participants OCLPs, using positive words andempathizing with their reflections on out-of-classlearning, such as effort, ingenuity, and findings (forexample, “You tried so hard this week!”, “You made awonderful study plan!”, and “I think you found really
useful tips for out-of-class learning.”). The OCLPs withfeedback were returned to participants on Monday,
along with new OCLP sheets for the coming week.

Analysis Procedure

Annual Report 2022

Students’ Out-of-class Learning TimeTo answer RQ2, the treatment participants’ total outof-class study time was sorted by the first, second,
and third week that they recorded information in
their OCLP. We hypothesized that their length of
study time would indicate their out-of-class learning
implementation.

On the first and last days of the intervention, thetreatment and control participants took the ADS preand post-test during the morning classroom meeting.
The tests took approximately ten minutes each. IBM
SPSS Statistics 28 was used for data analysis. Afterthe validity and reliability of the scale were confirmed,
descriptive statistics were summarized for raw scalescores and change scores (i.e., from pre-test to posttest). T -tests were conducted to compare the change
scores between the treatment and control groups.
Finally, the treatment group’s out-of-class study time,sorted by week, was identified to reveal whether the
instruction encouraged the participants to engage inout-of-class learning.

Results and Discussion
Autonomous Attitude Changes

As a preliminary analysis, the validity and reliability of
the ADS were checked. The validity of the instrument
was confirmed by applying the concepts of contentand criterion-related validity. Content validity wasconfirmed by enlisting the advice of the teachers
in the research school. They evaluated whether
the content of the ADS was fit to find out about theAnnual Report 20225

students’ autonomous attitudes. Criterion-related
validity was confirmed by examining the correlation
between the treatment participants’ total out-of-classstudy time during the intervention and their degreeof autonomy (which was reflected in the ADS total
score). The Pearson correlation coefficient revealed astatistically significant relationship between averageout-of-class study time and the ADS pre-test and posttest scores combined (r = .55, p = .00).
As for reliability, the Cronbach’s alpha andMcDonald’s Omega scores were calculated to obtainthe value of internal consistency. The Cronbach alphaindexes in each subscale ranged from .80 to .88 in
the pre-test and .67 to .89 in the post-test, while the
McDonald omega indexes in each subscale ranged
Table 1from .82 to .89 in the pre-test and .68 to .89 in the
post-test, respectively. These results demonstrated that
the ADS used in this study had adequate psychometricfeatures, such as reliability and validity, and could be
used in subsequent research.
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics forthe treatment group which experienced the portfoliobased instruction, and the control group with no such
instruction. The two groups had a similar level ofautonomy before the intervention (i.e., at Time 1), as
the results of independent t -tests indicated that there
were no statistically significant differences between
the two groups (learning management: t = 0.00, p =.99; cognitive processes: t = 0.44, p = .59; learning
content: t = 1.22, p = .23; ADS total: t = 0.72, p = .48).

Descriptive Statistics for the ADS Mean Scores of the Treatment and Control Groups on Pre-test and Post-test

Variable
Learning Management
Time 1Time 2
Cognitive Processes
Time 1Time 2
Learning Content
Time 1Time 2ADS Total
Time 1Time 2Treatment Group (n = 28)
95% CIM
SD
LL
UL

Control Group (n = 30)
95% CI
SD
LL
UL

M

4.61
5.04

0.84
1.04

4.29
4.65

4.93
5.44

4.61
4.86

1.30
1.22

4.12
4.39

5.11
5.32

4.50
4.93

1.15
1.32

4.06
4.43

4.93
5.43

4.63
4.62

1.18
1.39

4.18
4.09

5.08
5.15

4.47
4.92

1.27
1.45

3.99
4.37

4.95
5.47

4.94
4.93

1.65
1.45

4.31
4.38

5.57
5.48

13.58
14.89

2.64
3.48

12.58
13.57

14.58
16.22

14.18
14.41

3.71
3.73

12.77
12.99

15.60
15.83

Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit

To examine the effect of the portfoliobased instruction on student autonomy, t -tests wereconducted with change scores as the dependent
variable and treatment condition (treatment group,
control group) as the independent, between-groups
variable. The results in Table 2 show that the preand post-total change scores of the treatment groupexceeded those of the control group (t = -2.61, p =.01). For cognitive processes, there was a statisticallysignificant difference in the mean change between
the two groups (t = -2.48, p = .02). This suggests that
portfolio-based instruction was particularly effective
in helping students to better monitor their own
learning processes (e.g., forgetting things that are not
relevant to the task at hand).
On the other hand, there was no statisticallysignificant difference between the two groups interms of learning management (t = 1.02, p = .31) and6

Annual Report 2022

learning content (t = -1.83, p = .07). As for the former(i.e., learning management), while the treatmentgroup participants used the OCLP in the portfolio,
the control group participants also used a similarworksheet distributed to all students to prepare forthe exam. This could be the factor that increased
both groups’ mean scores in learning management
at the post-test. Regarding the latter (i.e., learning
content), there was a relatively large difference in thechange score between the two groups (M diff = 0.46),
and if there had been more participants, a statisticallysignificant difference would have been confirmed.
O ve r a l l , t h e r e s u l t s s u g g e s t t h a t t h e
educational intervention, that included portfolio
worksheets and related classroom activities, had thepotential to promote autonomy in secondary school
students, especially in their cognitive processes. Thisis good news from an educational standpoint. Namely,

Annual Report 20226

in order to promote learner autonomy, if no additional
interventions are provided, as in the control group,no significant changes can be expected. On the other
Table 2

Variable
Learning Management
Cognitive Processes
Learning Content
ADS Total

hand, it is possible to intentionally increase learnerautonomy if explicit intervention is provided, as in thetreatment group.

Comparison of the T-tests for the ADS Mean Change Scores of the Two Conditions

Treatment Group (n = 28)
M
SD
0.43
0.79
0.43
0.73
0.45
0.94
1.31
1.83

Control Group (n = 30)
M
SD
0.25
0.59
-0.01
0.63
-0.01
0.97
0.23
1.31

t

p

Effect sizea

Difference

-1.02
-2.48
-1.83
-2.61

.31
.02
.07
.01

.02
.10
.06
.11

Treatment > Control
Treatment > Control

Note. M = mean of change score; SD = standard deviation; a effect size of η² = .01 represents a small effect, η² = .06 medium effect, andη² = .14 large effect (Dörnyei, 2007).

Out-of-class Study Time

Table 3 shows the mean scores, and maximum andminimum values for the treatment participants’ study
time, sorted by the first, second, and third weeks thatthey recorded information in their OCLP.

Table 3 Descriptive Statistics for the Treatment Participants’
Out-of-class Study Time

N

M

SD

Min.

1st week

28

260.86

156.6265

720

2nd week

28

225.82

128.4210510

3rd week

28

264.18156.19

35

600

Max.

Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; Min. = minimum scoreof study time; Max. = maximum score of study time. The scores
are expressed in minutes.

Figure 1. The box plot for the treatment participants’ out-of-class study time (minutes) sorted by week.
Note. The data point located outside the whiskers of the box plot is an outlier. The middle line of
the box represents the median values. The x in the box represents the mean value.

Figure 1 shows the distribution of individual
study times. The substantial differences between the
maximum and minimum scores indicate relatively
large individual differences among the participants. To
further examine these differences among treatmentgroup participants, cluster analysis, which enabled us
to classify the participants into groups (i.e., clusters)with similar characteristics, was employed. With the7

Annual Report 2022

aid of a dendrogram (a graphic representation of
the clustering process) obtained from the analysis,
the treatment participants were categorized into twogroups, high- (n = 19) and low-levels (n = 9), based on
their ADS pre- and post-test characteristics. As for thecharacteristics of the two clusters, the mean scores of
the three aspects of the high-level group were higher
than those of the low-level group at both the pre- andAnnual Report 2022

7

post-tests. The results of the Mann-Whitney U tests
were all statistically significant (p < .01).
Table 4 shows the descriptive statistics forthe high and low group’s out-of-class study times. For

Table 4the learning time difference between the high and lowgroups in each week, the results of the Mann-Whitney
U tests showed that there were significant differences
between the two groups (p < .05).

Descriptive Statistics for the High- and Low-level Group’s Out-of-class Study Time

1st week
High-level
Low-level
2nd week
High-level
Low-level
3rd week
High-level
Low-level

N

M

SD

Min.

Max.

19
9

301.63174.78167.52
85.86

99
65

720
270

19
9

261.74150132.05
83.03

10
40

510
320

19
9

313.05169.88161.18
79.41

35
74

600
315

Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation; Min. = minimum score of study time; Max. = maximum
score of study time. The scores are expressed in minutes.

The two groups of treatment participants
had different features not only in the three aspectsof autonomy in the ADS, but also in their out-ofclass study time during the intervention. While allparticipants were encouraged to do more than 270
minutes of out-of-class learning per week during
the intervention, the ADS high-level group tended
to achieve higher study minutes. This is deemed toreflect students’ autonomy development through theintervention. However, as can be seen in the size ofSD and minimum value in Table 4, there were large
individual differences in the high-level group.
There could be various reasons for the
result, but one may be their writing skills; some of theparticipants, especially those in the low-level group,
did not write their plans and reflections concretely
and often left sections blank in their OCLP. Moreover,there were some participants who were not good at
describing their ideas in writing; writing is only one
way of producing output. Those students would needsupport by providing more accessible ways to relay
their thoughts. Although the intervention in this study
aimed to promote each student’s autonomy in thesame way, some students needed alternative methods
or additional individual guidance.

Conclusion
The study has some limitations. First, the intervention
period was limited to three weeks. Although this study
indicates the effectiveness of the three-week portfoliobased instruction for enhancing learner autonomy, it

8Annual Report 2022

would not be easy to stabilize it only in three weeks.
Second, this study aimed to increase students’ outof-class learning by focusing on the length of thestudy time, but it did not cover whether the time wasconcentrated learning time.
This study was conducted to promote
Japanese junior high school students’ autonomy
by encouraging the management of their out-ofclass learning. Portfolio-based instruction was used
to increase the treatment participants’ out-of-classstudy time. The portfolios, which contained OCLP andseveral reflection and foresight sheets, helped theparticipants experience learning cycles with planningand reflection. The participants had opportunities tothink about their out-of-class learning in more depth
through the three-week intervention. The results
showed that the intervention had the potential topromote students’ autonomy, especially in their
cognitive processes. The components of cognitive
processes in the ADS include selective attention,
emotional control, motivation control, and copingwith failure (Benson, 2011). Schools should instruct
students on strategies for cognitive processes whenintroducing study planners.
In addition, portfolio-based instruction
encouraged treatment participants to achieve theirtargeted study minutes each week, while some of theparticipants could not achieve this goal. This suggeststhat some students need extra help to describe theirthoughts to increase their out-of-class study time.

Annual Report 2022

8

References

84 , 125–150.
Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy 1: Definitions, issues

Anderson, N, J. (2008). Metacognition and good language

Little, D., Dam, L., & Legenhausen, L. (2017). Language

language learners (pp. 99–109). Cambridgelearner autonomy: Theory, practice and research.

University Press.

Multilingual Matters.

Apple, M., & Shimo, E. (2004). Learners to teacher:

Mineishi, M. (2010). 学習者の自己省察・自律を促すポー

Por tfolios, please! Perceptions of por tfolio

トフォリオ [Portfolios as a tool for EFL learnerassessment in EFL classrooms. In T. Newfields, V.

skill development]. In H. Kojima, N. Ozeki & T.

Ishida, M. Chapman & M. Fujioka (Eds.), Annual

Hiromori (Eds.), 成長する英語学習者 [Learner

Proceedings of JALT Pan-SIG Conference (pp.

development in English education] (pp. 162–

53–58). JALT.

192). Taishukan Shoten.

Benesse Educational Research and Development Institute.

Ministr y of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and(2015). 第5回学習基本調査 [T he Fi f t h Ba sic

Technology [MEXT]. (2006). 教育基本法 [Basic

Sur vey for Learning]. https://berd.benesse.

act on education]. https://www.mext.go.jp/b_

j p /u p _ i m a g e s /r e s e a r c h /5 k i h o n c h o u s a _menu/houan/an/06042712/__icsFiles/afieldfi

datebook2015_all.pdf

le/2017/06/13/1237916_001.pdf

Benson, P. (1997). The philosophy and politics of learner

Ministr y of Education, Culture, Sports, Science andautonomy. I n P. Ben son & P. Vol ler ( E ds.),

Technology [MEXT]. (2017). 幼稚園教育要領、

Autonomy and independence in language

小・中学校学習指導要領等の改訂のポイント [Thelearning (pp. 18–34). Longman.

points of revision for kindergarten, elementary,

Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and researching autonomy inlanguage learning (2nd ed.). Longman.
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework

and junior high school educational guidelines].
https://www.mext.go.jp/content/1421692_1.pdf
Ministr y of Education, Culture, Sports, Science andof Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching,Technology [MEXT]. (2019). 生きる力：学びの、そassessment. Cambridge University Press.

の先へ [Zest of life: Beyond the learning]

D ör nyei , Z . (20 07 ). Research metho ds in applied

https://www.mext.go.jp/component/a_menu/

linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed

educat ion /m icro_det a i l /_ _ ic sFi les/a f ield f imethodologies. Oxford University Press.

le/2019/02/14/1413516_001_1.pdf

Everh a r d , C. J. (2015). T he a s s e s sment-autonomy

Ozeki, N. (2010). 学習ストラテジーとメタ認知 [Learning

relationship. In C. J. Everhard (Ed.), Assessment

strategies and metacognition]. In H. Kojima, N.

and autonomy in language learning (pp. 8–34).

Ozeki & T. Hiromori (Eds.), 成長する英語学習者

Palgrave Macmillan.

[Learner Development in English Education] (pp.

G ene se e, F., & Up shu r, J. A . (1996). Por t fol io a nd
conferences. In F. Genesee & J. A. Upshur (Eds.),

75–103). Taishukan Shoten.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.). (1998). Self-

Classroom-based evaluation in second language

regulated learning: From teaching to self-

education (pp. 98–117). Cambridge University

reflective practice. Guilford Press.

Press.

Stoger, H., & Ziegler, A. (2011). Self-regulatory training

Hiromori, T. (2019a). Prof iling and t racing learnerthrough elementary-school students’ homework

autonomy development through an integrated

completion. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunkundersta ndi ng of autonomous la ng uage(Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning

le a r n e r s . I n C . Cu n n i n g h a m , C . D a nj o, I .

and performance (pp. 87–101). Routledge.

Meddegama, D. Brien & R. Wicaksono (Eds.),

U.S. Department of State. (n.d.). Foreign language training.

Taking risks in applied linguistics: Proceedings ofht t p s : //w w w. s t at e . gov/fo r e i g n - l a n g u a ge -the 51st annual meeting of the British Association
for Applied Linguistics (pp. 36–39). Lord Mayors
Walk, York (UK), York St John University.
Hiromori, T. (2019b). Enhancing autonomous learning

9

and problems. Authentik.

learners. In C. Griffith (Ed.), Lessons from goodtraining/
Yamashita, H. (2015). Affect and the development oflearner autonomy through advising. Studies in

Self-Access Learning Journal, 6 (1), 62–85.

through a learner profiling approach. Memoirs

Zi m mer ma n, B. J., & Moyla n, A . R . (2009). W hereof the Institute of Humanities Meiji University,

metacognition and motivation intersect. In D.

Annual Report 2022

Annual Report 2022

9

J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky & A. C. Graesser (Eds.),

Handbook of metacognition in education (pp.
299–316). Routledge.
Zubizarreta, J. (2009). The learning portfolio: Reflective

practice for improving student learning. John
Wiley & Son.

Author Note:
Akiko Okunuki is a PhD candidate in Applied Linguistics at Meiji University. She is interested in autonomous
learning in an EFL (English as a Foreign Language) context, and her research interests include student engagement
and the effects of instruction on foreign language development. Her recent publication includes Journal of Global

Japanese Studies, Meiji University (2021).
Tomohito Hiromori is a Professor in Applied Linguistics at Meiji University. His research interests cover various
aspects of individual learner differences (e.g., language learner motivation and strategies) and second language
acquisition. His books include “Mechanisms for Learning English: Effective Study Methods Based on Second
Language Acquisition Research” (2015) and “Learner Development in English Education: Learner Factors andAutonomous Learning” (2010). His studies have been published in journals such as International Review of Applied

Linguistics (2003), System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics (2009,2013), Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics (2021), and Journal for the Psychology of Language
Learning (2021).

要旨
本研究では準実験的なデザインを用い、中学校の言語学習者のオートノミーを促進するためのポートフォリに基づいた指導の効果を調査した。具体的には、本研究は以下の2つの研究課題に答えることを目的とした。
（1）ポートフォリオに基づいた指導は、授業外学習に対する生徒の自律的な態度を促進するか？（2）ポートフォリオに基づいた指導は、生徒の実際の授業外学習を促進するか？ 参加者は、中学1年生58名（実験群：n = 28，対照群：n =30）であった。彼らの自律的な態度は、自律性診断尺度を用いた事前・事後テストで評価された。ポートフォリオに基づいた指導は、実験群の生徒に対してのみ3週間行われた。その結果、全体として学習者の自律的な態度、とりわ
け認知プロセスには肯定的な変化が見られたものの、授業外の学習時間（＝実際の自律的行動）に対する影響は、学習者によって著しく異なることが明らかとなった。これらの結果を踏まえて、教育上の意義と今後の研究の方向性を示した。

キーワード：学習者自律、授業外学習、ポートフォリオに基づいた指導、中学・高校生、自主学習―2021.10.06 受稿 , 2022.01.17 受理―

10Annual Report 2022

Annual Report 202210