Classroom-Based Learner Training

Classroom-Based Training Towards Learner Autonomy
Tomoko Eto
Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University
etomoko@apu.ac.jp
Misato Saunders
Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University
misato@apu.ac.jp
Kiyu Itoi
Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University
kiyu@apu.ac.jp

Author Biography
Tomoko Eto is a tenured senior English lecturer at the Center for Language Education,
Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University, in Oita, Japan. Her research interests include language
learning strategies, learner beliefs, and needs analysis.
Misato Saunders is a part-time English lecturer at the Center for Language Education and a
Language Advisor at the Self-Access Learning Center (SALC), Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific
University, in Oita, Japan. Her research interests include language learning strategies andmotivational strategies.
Kiyu Itoi is a full-time English lecturer at the Center for Language Education, Ritsumeikan
Asia Pacific University, in Oita, Japan. Her research interests include language learning
strategies, translanguaging, and academic discourse socialization.

JASAL Journal Vol.1, No. 1, June 202037

Classroom-Based Learner Training
Abstract
Fostering learner autonomy is one of the ultimate goals of language education. Various
researchers argue that the utilization of language learning strategies (LLS) facilitatesautonomous learning. However, learners often do not have sufficient opportunities to develop
their LLS utilization in language classrooms since language classes currently give little
attention to learner training (LT) on LLS. To address this issue, classroom-based LT was
designed and incorporated into an English course at a mid-sized private Japanese university.
In this module, students were expected to learn and practice target LLS with support fromtheir course teachers. A list of target LLS was created mainly referring to three existing LLS
inventories. Five types of training tools, such as study-note samples and learning resources,were developed and employed for this LT. Since the purpose of the research was to examine
the implemented LT for future improvement, two surveys were conducted with 140 students
and three teachers following a one-semester-long implementation of LT. Although the survey
results revealed students’ overall positive perceptions towards LT, the operation of LT still had
some room for improvement in terms of support for both students and teachers. This paper
describes the implementation of the LT, its rationale, and the analysis of the survey results.
Based on the findings, it concludes by providing practical suggestions for designing an LT
incorporated English program.
学習者の自律学習能力を育成することは、言語教育の目標の一つである。多くの研究者が、言語学習ストラテジー(LLS)の使用と自律学習能力の向上の関連について論じている。しかし、現在の英語教育では LLS に関する学習者養成(LT)に注意が向けられていないため、学習者の多くは、授業内で LLS についての理解を深める機会を充分に得ていない。そこで、授業内 LT を考案し、日本の中規模私立大学の英語コースのカリキュラムに組み込んだ。この LT では、教員支援の下、参加者が対象 LLS の学習と訓練を行うことが期待された。対象 LLS は、既存の 3 つの LLS リストを参照に作成された。学習ノートサンプルやワークシート等の 5 つの教材を開発し、指導に利用した。本研究の目的は、この LT の実施状況を分析し、改善のための知見を得ることであったので、一学期間の LT 実施後に、サーベイを実施し、学生 140 名と教員 3 名から回答を得た。調査結果は、学生の LT に対する前向きな認識を示したが、学生・教員の支援のあり方について、改善の余地を示した。本稿では、この一連のLT の実施内容とその根拠を提示し、調査結果の分析を行う。最後に、これら分析に基づき、今後の授業内 LT の実施についての提言を行う。
Keywords: learner autonomy, learner training, language learning strategies

JASAL Journal Vol.1, No. 1, June 202038

Classroom-Based Learner Training
The term “autonomy” is defined as “the ability to take charge of one’s own learning”(Holec, 1981, p. 3). To be more precise, it is “the ability of the learner to take responsibility
for his or her own learning and to plan, organize, and monitor the learning process
independently of the teacher” (Hedge, 2000, p. 410). One of the current goals of foreign
language education is to foster autonomous learners, since once learners understand how tolearn effectively, they can apply this knowledge to achieve their learning goals in the future.
In response to a common question among language practitioners, “How can learnerautonomy be developed?”, various experts argue that the utilization of language learning
strategies (LLS) promotes learners’ autonomous learning (Fewell, 2010; Oxford, 1999;
Wenden, 1991). Harmer (2001), for instance, suggests that, “students need to develop theirown learning strategies, so that as far as possible they become autonomous learners” (p. 335).
Therefore, we designed a strategy-based learner training (LT) module and incorporated it into
an English course at a Japanese university in order to develop students’ autonomous learning.

Language Learning Strategies
Definition and Types of LLS
Although there is a lack of consensus regarding the definition and types/classificationof LLS, Rubin’s (1987) definition of LLS is commonly referred to by various researchers.
Rubin explains LLS as the actions taken by language learners to learn and regulate theirlearning. In terms of types of LLS, Oxford’s (1990) list, the Strategy Inventory for Language
Learning (SILL), has been regarded as being comprehensive and includes 50 strategies under
the six categories: memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive, affective, and social
strategies. Although SILL has been widely used to collect data in LLS research (Mizumoto &Takeuchi, 2018), one strategy inventory alone cannot account for all the variables that enter
into learners’ strategy use, such as their sociocultural environments or accessibility totechnology (Amerstorfer, 2018). Therefore, researchers are encouraged to make appropriate
JASAL Journal Vol.1, No. 1, June 202039

Classroom-Based Learner Training
adaptations to the SILL and have their own strategy inventories if the original statements areinappropriate for their research participants or do not reflect the research context (Hsiao &Oxford, 2002).
Instruction of LLS
As a framework of LLS instruction, Griffiths (2015) summarizes five principal
phases which are most likely to contribute to the successful learning of LLS: (a) “Raisingawareness,” (b) “Explicit instruction,” (c) “Practice,” (d) “Implicit instruction” and (e)“Evaluation” (p. 429-430). However, she also emphasizes that the utilization of all
instructional phases is not a prerequisite of successful instruction (Griffiths, 2015). In order toaccommodate the many variables of learners, LLS selection and utilization, as well as thecontents and methods of LLS instruction, should be tailored appropriately.
Connection Between LLS and Success of Learning
The connection between LLS and successful learning has been proven not to bestraightforward (Rubin, 1975). However, a sufficient number of research results show that aconnection exists between them. In the research of Green and Oxford (1995), for instance,
more proficient language learners utilized LLS more frequently than the less proficient.
Moreover, in Griffiths’ (2008) study, the proficient learner group utilized a wider variety of
LLS than the other group. Similarly, various research results indicate that learners’ extensive
use of LLS is one of the contributing factors to one’s learning success (Fewell, 2010; Hedge,
2000; Zare, 2012).

Learner Training
LT and Learner Autonomy
Harris (1991) defines LT as “the systematic and explicit training of learners inlearning strategies in general (metacognitive strategies) and strategies for dealing withlanguage and communication in particular (cognitive strategies)” (p. 7). In addition, since
JASAL Journal Vol.1, No. 1, June 202040

Classroom-Based Learner Training
learner “autonomy is a matter of degree,” LT is viewed as moving learners forward “to fullautonomy,” or pursuing “a greater degree of” control for their learning (Wenden, 1998, p. 3).
In short, LT is the help that teachers give to learners so that they might explore various LLS
and establish the most optimal system for themselves, which is expected to promote theirautonomy.
Needs of LT
Teachers’ support is deemed to be instrumental in learners’ exploration of how theylearn most effectively (OʼMalley et al., 1985). However, language classes currently pay little
attention to LLS or LT (Griffiths, 2015). Fewell’s (2010) research on the utilization of LLS by
Japanese college learners, for instance, reveals participants’ limited access to LLS and
identifies their teachers’ common lack of awareness towards LLS as one of the contributing
factors. A similar tendency is reported in many Asian countries (Fewell, 2010). The situation
at the institution where this research was conducted was not an exception. Previous research
results regarding learners’ needs in English communication at the institution suggest clear
individual differences in students’ utilization of communication strategies, although it should
be noted that teachers’ awareness towards LLS was not examined in this research (Eto, 2019).
Researchers, such as Oxford (2008) and Meyer (2012), who studied pedagogicaldifferences between the Eastern and Western education system, assume that the Westernnotion of autonomy cannot be easily integrated into Asian cultures, where teacher-centeredteaching has been traditionally regarded as standard. In these contexts, it has been suggested
that Asian learners tend to feel rather demotivated if they are asked to independently takecontrol of their studies (Biggs, 1994). This tendency of Asian language learners further
justifies teachers’ involvement in LT in order to develop learner autonomy in language
education in Asia.
Considering these perspectives, the need for classroom-based, teacher-guided learnertraining was recognized to help students to improve their learning.
JASAL Journal Vol.1, No. 1, June 202041

Classroom-Based Learner Training
Implementation of LT
In order to meet learners’ needs, a small-scaled LT component was incorporated as a“self-study” module into a mandatory university English course over a semester in 2019. ThisLT intended to help students facilitate their learning and be more effective at learning English.
Since the course predominantly aimed to cultivate learners’ reading skills and improve theirscores on the Test of English as a Foreign Language Institutional Testing Program (TOEFLITP), LLS introduced in the module were related to these learning objectives.
Methods
For strategy instruction in LT, 12 types of LLS were selected, taking the course
objectives into account, as well as the tasks and the learning environment of the learners.
Among these target strategies, 10 were extracted from three different LLS inventories: SILL
(Oxford, 1990), the English Language Learning Strategy Inventory (ELLSI) (Griffiths, 2013)
and Strategies for Language Skills Development (LSD) (Griffiths, 2004). Subsequently, inorder to add slight variety to the LLS list, two new strategies were created by the researchers,
based on the nature of the students’ tasks (see Table 1). For instance, “utilizing appropriate
approaches according to one’s learning goal” was designed because students were asked toconsider different approaches to achieve their learning goals and select the best one forthemselves in LT.
Five types of training tools were designed as scaffolding for learners’ LLS
development (see Table 1). A physical notebook was selected as a medium for teachers tomonitor students’ self-study. In addition, a list of learning resources, note samples, aworksheet for planning and reviewing, and workshops were provided to supplement students’
self-study. Griffiths’ (2015) five principal phases for LLS instruction was also taken into
account. Among them, three phases, including raising awareness, explicit instruction, andpracticing, were adopted, based on the assumption that students were at the early stage of
their LLS learning (see Table 1).
JASAL Journal Vol.1, No. 1, June 202042

Classroom-Based Learner Training
Table 1
Framework of LT

Tool
Notebook

1.
2.

Target strategy

Instructional
phase

Source of
LLS

Keeping a language learning notebook
Spending time studying English

Explicit
instruction,
Practice

ELLSI 17ELLSI 27

Finding suitable learning resources for Raisingoneself
awareness

LSD
Reading 3

Learning
resources3.

Note
samples

4. Utilizing appropriate approaches according Raising
to one’s learning goal
awareness
Explicit
5. Studying English grammar
instruction
6. Consciously learning new vocabulary

Worksheet&teachers’
feedback

Workshop

7. Learning from mistakes
8. Watching YouTube videos for learning
9. Planning one’s schedule to have time to Explicit
study
instruction,
10. Having clear goals for improving one’s PracticeEnglish
11. Thinking about one’s progress in learning
English
12. Learning from the teacher

Raisingawareness,
Explicit
instruction

Researchers
ELLSI 15ELLSI 16ELLSI 26
Researchers
SILL 34
SILL 37
SILL 38ELLSI 2

ProcedureIn the introduction workshop held at the beginning of the course, students were asked
to buy a physical notebook for their self-study, which was called a “self-study notebook.”
After receiving some explicit instruction on LT and LLS, it was explained to students thatthey had to fill two notebook pages with their self-study work as their weekly assignment.
The content of their self-study was of the students’ choice although some self-study examples
JASAL Journal Vol.1, No. 1, June 202043

Classroom-Based Learner Training
created by researchers were shown. The notebooks were collected by teachers for grading andfeedback twice a semester.
On Manaba, the institution’s Learning Management System (LMS), a list of learning
resources, such as TOEFL books and English learning websites (see Appendix A) was shared.
In addition, note samples were displayed for students in order to show them different
approaches to achieve their learning goals. These samples were given as PDF documents
which included a photocopy of self-study notebook pages made by researchers and sample
feedback on the study contents as well as dos and don’ts. The samples were provided
according to the learning goals, such as improving reading/standardized test scores or English
communication (see Appendix A).
An electronic worksheet in the Microsoft Excel format was provided so that students
had an opportunity for setting a goal, and planning and reviewing their studies every month(see Appendix A). Teachers collected the worksheet for grading and feedback twice asemester.
Advising workshops were designed to raise students’ awareness of LLS andexplicitly introduce LLS. Course teachers were expected to conduct these workshops twice asemester, using default slides created by researchers. In addition, teachers commented on
students’ actual notebooks in the workshops.
At the end of semester, students’ performance in the LT accounted for five percent of
their final grade: four percent was allotted to their notebook study, and one percent to theirworksheet completion. As only five percent was allocated to the self-study, it was considered
to be relatively low-stakes. Most of the students’ work for LT was completed outside theclassroom.
Research
Two surveys were designed to refine the future implementation of LT. They sought toanswer the following research questions:
JASAL Journal Vol.1, No. 1, June 202044

Classroom-Based Learner Training
1.

How did students and teachers perceive LT incorporated into an English course
at a Japanese university?

2.

What aspects do course designers need to keep in mind in designing LT
incorporated into an English course?

Context
The study was conducted in a medium-sized private university in Kyushu. The
university has approximately 6,000 students of which half are domestic, and the other half isinternational from about 90 countries. The school offers a Japanese and English bilingual
education system, and students are required to complete a language program that is not in thelanguage of instruction they chose upon enrollment. For instance, if a student chooses
Japanese for their language of instruction in their major subjects, they are required to takeEnglish language courses. The English program has four mandatory courses: Elementary, Preintermediate, Intermediate, and Upper intermediate. The present study was conducted in theIntermediate course.
After implementing LT with the students in the Intermediate English course levelfrom the beginning of the semester, a survey was given to students and teachers at the end of
the semester. The language proficiency level of the course curriculum was A2+ to B1 on thescale of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR).
Methodology
This section describes the two surveys that were conducted in order to analyze theneeds of students and teachers and evaluate the LT.
In general, quantitative methods, such as surveys, are used to measure, rank,
categorize, identify patterns and make generalizations. Cohen et al. (2007) outline thefunctions of surveys as to “gather data at a particular point in time with the intention ofdescribing the nature of existing conditions, or identifying standards against which existing
conditions can be compared, or determining the relationships that exist between specific
JASAL Journal Vol.1, No. 1, June 202045

Classroom-Based Learner Training
events” (p. 205). Since the purpose of the research was to collect data broadly from a large
number of students and teachers in order to obtain a picture of their perception of LT,
including pros and cons, surveys were adopted as the most suitable method for this research.
Data Collection
Method of Collecting the Data from Students
In terms of collecting data from the students’ perspectives, an online survey was
conducted via Google Forms on the last day of the 2019 spring semester. The approximately
10-minute-long anonymous survey was carried out during English class, yet students’participation in the survey was not mandatory. The students were studying in the Intermediate
English course where they focused on improving their reading skills and TOEFL ITP testscores. Of the 152 respondents to the survey, 140 agreed to cooperate with the research.
The survey consisted of 14 questions given in both Japanese and English (seeAppendix B). Multiple choice and short answer questions were employed. In regard to
multiple-choice questions, there were three styles. The first was to answer questions on afour-point Likert scale: with “one” being “Not at all helpful” and “four”, “Very helpful.”
Another type of question involved choosing one or more options from a list of items. The
third was a simple binary option. For example, “Which do you prefer, x or y?” Regarding
short answer questions, students were required to explain the reasons or opinions for theiranswer choices provided in the multiple-choice questions. Students’ responses were thenanalyzed using a thematic analysis.
Method of Collecting the Data from Teachers
With respect to the teachers’ survey, an online survey was conducted via Google
Forms between August 8th and August 27th in 2019 after classes were finished for thesemester. The survey asked teachers to describe their experiences with and perceptions of LT
and provide suggestions for future improvement. Of the 12 Intermediate Course teachers,
only six responded to the survey and only three teachers further participated in the study. The
JASAL Journal Vol.1, No. 1, June 202046

Classroom-Based Learner Training
low response rate may have been due to the spring semester having just finished. Most
teachers had already left for vacation and may not have been aware that the survey was being
conducted.
Data Analysis
Since the purpose of the research was to examine the perceptions of the implemented
LT and identify improvements for the future, it focused on the following four items: students’
perception of LT, their preferred medium of self-study, their use of learning resources, andteachers’ feedback on the training implementation. Students’ perception on LT was analyzed
by examining five target survey questions: Q2, Q3, Q4, Q 9 and Q12 (see Table 2). Teachers’
difficulties in guiding LT and suggestions to improve the framework were extracted byreferring to their short descriptive answers in the survey (see Table 3). Descriptive statistics
were used to describe and present the data (see Appendix B).

Table 2Students’ Perception Examined and Survey Questions:

Perception
examined

Target question
Question#

Question

Satisfaction
with LTQ2“To what extent, do you think your self-study at theIntermediate English course helped you improve yourEnglish skills?”

Q12“Please write your comments/feedback on the self-study
practices used at the Intermediate English course thissemester.”Preferred
mediumof selfstudy

Q3“With your self-study, which do you prefer to use, anotebook or an online tool [OneNote, Manaba, etc.]?”Q4“Please write the reasons for your answer to Question 3
above.”

Use ofQ9“Did you use learning resources [useful materials and

JASAL Journal Vol.1, No. 1, June 202047

Classroom-Based Learner Training
learning
resources

websites] introduced on Manaba for your self-study?”
Q12“Please write your comments/feedback on the self-study
practices used at the Intermediate English course thissemester.”Table 3Teachers’ Perception Examined and Survey Questions:

Perception examined

Survey question

Difficulties“Please write the difficulties that you or your students faced
regarding IE self-study”

Suggestions“Please write any suggestions to improve students’ self-study
next semester.”Survey Results
Students’ Survey Results
Satisfaction with LT
Students’ responses to Q2 and Q12 were analyzed to examine their attitudes towards
the classroom-based LT, called self-study. Approximately two-thirds of students answered thatis was “Helpful” or “Very helpful,” while the rest responded that it was “Not at all helpful” or“Not helpful.” From this result, a large proportion of students’ overall perception was that thisclassroom-based LT was rather helpful. Students’ reasoning behind their choices were codedand classified into two general groups depending on their attitudes towards LT: positive andnegative. Subsequently, within each attitude toward LT, reasons and examples were given (seeTable 4).

Table 4Students’ Satisfaction with LT (Q2 and 12)

JASAL Journal Vol.1, No. 1, June 202048

Classroom-Based Learner Training
Attitude

Answer choicefrequency,n (%)

ReasonExample quote

Positive

Helpful66 (47.1%)

Study habit“It was a good opportunity to regulate my selfstudy.”

Study
motivation“I was able to study hard since self-study wascounted as part of grade.”

Freedom of
choice“It was nice to be able to choose what I want tostudy.”

Very helpful
26 (18.5%)
Subtotal

92 (65.7%)

Negative

Not at all
helpful15 (10.7%)

Obligation“It was a study just to fill out my notebook.”“It required lots of work.”“It should be self-study, so it should be up tome. However, I felt like it was obligation.”

Not helpful
33 (23.5%)

Necessity ofteachers’support“I wish there had been more workshops or
feedback from my teacher.”

Subtotal48 (34.2%)

Total
Mean

140 (100%)
2.7

Medium Preference
In students’ responses to Q3 and Q4, compared with online tools, the use of physicalnotebooks was supported by nearly 60% of respondents. Students preferred using physicalnotebooks mainly because they believed that it was effective for memory retention andconvenient to use, while students advocated online tools due to superior accessibility and theirconcern for the environment (see Table 5).

Table 5Preference of Medium (Q3 and 4)

MediumFrequency,n (%)

ReasonJASAL Journal Vol.1, No. 1, June 2020

Example quote
49

Classroom-Based Learner Training
Notebook

83 (59.7%)

Online toolTotal

56 (40.2%)

Memory retention“I can memorize better when writing thantyping.”Convenience“I can review easier.”

Accessibility“I can study anywhere.”“It covers my learning demands.”

Eco-friendliness“Saving the environment because it ispaperless.”

139 (100%)

Use of Learning Resources
Students’ responses to Q9 and Q12 were investigated in order to evaluate their use oflearning resources shared on LMS. Although a third of students used the resources, themajority of students did not utilize them, mainly because they felt they already had suitablelearning resources for themselves, or the resources given mismatched with their needs (seeTable 6).

Table 6
Use of Learning Resources (Q9 and 12)

AnswerchoiceFrequency,
n (%)

Yes

46 (33.3%)

Fit for TOEFL
study“I used TOEFL ITP textbooks introduced on
LMS.”

No

92 (66.6%)

Possession ofalternatives“I used the textbook that I had used when I wasa high school student.”

Needs of morelearning
resources“I wanted to know more textbooks or materials
to study English.”

JASAL Journal Vol.1, No. 1, June 2020

50

Total

ReasonExample quote

138 (100%)

Classroom-Based Learner Training
Teachers’ Survey Results
This section outlines the results of the teachers’ survey. Although the number of
respondents was limited, their responses provided insight on how to improve the LT module.
Difficulties Reported by Teachers•

The workload was heavy. It was too much work to check students’ self-study
notebooks. The work should be less laborious.

•

The regularity of students’ self-study was dubious. Lots of students just started working
on it two days before the notebook checking day.

•Most students’ main concern was to fill the space in the notebook as opposed to making
good use of their time. They apparently had limited knowledge on LLS and faceddifficulty using a notebook to improve their English.

•

I'm sure it was very helpful for most of the students, but some students felt that it was
an obligation and meaningless.

Suggestions Made by Teachers•

Teachers should check students’ notebooks more frequently, at least once a month.

•

Teachers should spend more class time on introducing how to study more effectively.

Summary of the Survey Results
According to students’ survey results, the majority of students perceived thisclassroom-based LT as helpful, while a third found it useless mainly because of their sense ofobligation and the need for more assistance from their teachers. The teachers’ survey results
revealed the points for improvement in the LT module, which were related to teachers’
workload and engagement, frequency of the self-study notebook check, and what content toprovide in order to raise students’ awareness and cultivate their knowledge on LLS. These
points will be discussed in the following sections to make suggestions for a refined
implementation of LT.

JASAL Journal Vol.1, No. 1, June 202051

Classroom-Based Learner Training
Discussion
This study explored the students’ and teachers’ perceptions towards LT of
LLS incorporated into a university English course. It found that students had an overall
positive experience. However, there are some implications from the study that indicate
changes to the program are necessary, as the proposed framework used for LT unfortunately
did not necessarily foster autonomous language learners. Therefore, some findings from thestudy will be discussed in this section.
First, there seems to be a need for teacher training on conducting LT in class.
Anecdotal evidence gained through classroom communication with students and discussion
with other teachers suggested that some teachers did not offer feedback on students’ selfstudy notebooks or practical advice on how to access learning resources. Some of theirstudents tended to fill the notebook in order to get points, not for their self-study. On the other
hand, other teachers were able to give feedback to students about how they were conducting
their self-study and recommended some useful resources to them. Compared to those that did
not receive feedback, these students were given more opportunities to improve their ability as
language learners. Because of this, the outcome of the LT might have differed depending onteachers’ approaches. From these differences in approach, it can be argued that teachers need
to form a consensus on how to proceed with LT, and individual teachers need to be trained as
language coaches when conducting LT in order to foster language learners’ growth.
Also, more importantly, teacher training can improve their negative perception
regarding their workload since it can be a place for teachers to establish a consensus on theimplementation of LT. Anecdotal evidence gained through discussion with teachers suggested
that there might have been some mis-communication between researchers and course teachers
about the LT implementation, including feedback. The researchers expected teachers to spotcheck students’ notebooks with simple feedback. However, some teachers seemed to havethought that they should give detailed feedback based on professional expertise to individual
JASAL Journal Vol.1, No. 1, June 202052

Classroom-Based Learner Training
students. Therefore, it is important for teachers to exchange opinions on how to manage LT
both effectively and efficiently and search for common ground in terms of how much teachers
should be involved, what kind of feedback would be helpful to students, and what is feasible
with the limited time teachers and students have for LT. This can help them have a clear
picture on their roles in LT and work on LT with less stress.
Next, it seems there is a need for more support for students when conducting LT inclass. Students’ survey responses suggested that some students were not even sure why they
were required to do self-study as a part of the course, which decreased their overallmotivation towards LT. In addition, some students completed their notebook study only fromtheir sense of obligation. Furthermore, teachers’ survey responses suggested that somestudents had limited knowledge of different LLS and faced difficulty in improving theirEnglish using a notebook. Some students apparently did not make any changes in their use of
LLS throughout the semester. They used the same ones they did at the beginning, such as
simply writing the same words again and again. Therefore, it is obvious that there is a needfor more learner support, including support that helps students learn different ways of selfstudy. Such support can hopefully help them gradually become autonomous learners. Offeringteachers an opportunity to learn about LLS in a teacher-training workshop could be one waythat LT would improve in the sense that teachers would be more equipped with various LLS
that they could share with their students.
In addition, some students complained about the workload created by theirnotebook study. As some survey responses suggested, this might be partially because they
filled in all the pages of the assignment right before the deadline and did not work steadily by
doing two pages per week as the instructions stipulated. Teachers’ frequent checking of theirnotebook can be a help to change students’ perception of their workload. Also, in the LT
workshop, teachers could clearly mention how many hours of students’ self-study is expected
every week, for instance one hour, to resolve students’ anxiety.
JASAL Journal Vol.1, No. 1, June 202053

Classroom-Based Learner Training
Lastly, the term “self-study” seemed to cause confusion among teachers andstudents. The researchers called the assignment “self-study” in order to convey themessage that students were not obligated to study particular topics or skills, but instead they
were free to choose what they would like to study. However, students’ survey responses
suggested that they thought teachers should not be involved at all if the assignment was truly
self-study, which they felt should be a student’s own independent study. Despite this being
the case, their accounts also suggested more involvement of teachers is desirable for the better
implementation of LT. Therefore, reconsidering how the assignment is named might benefit
both teachers and students. Perhaps, the ideal terminology would be something whichindicates that the assignment allows students to exercise autonomy to some extent, butwould also involve some teacher guidance.
Implications
Based on the findings of this study, some aspects need to be reconsidered when
conducting LT in English courses. First, as previously discussed, if the goal of this kind ofactivity were to develop autonomous language learners with the help of teachers, the name of
the task should be altered. Instead of simply calling it self-study, perhaps calling it guided
independent study or something that indicates that teacher will be involved as well might
reduce students’ misunderstanding of the assignment.
In addition, some teacher training sessions or faculty development workshops
offered to teachers beforehand might benefit both teachers and students. These sessions would
provide opportunities for teachers to learn various LLS, gather learning resources, gain
knowledge on language advising and form a consensus on their roles. With such support,teachers can offer students feedback on their independent study and guide them to improvetheir own studies.
Lastly, some students’ accounts suggested that this LT module’s use ofnotebooks did not accommodate different learning styles/demands. For instance, it is
JASAL Journal Vol.1, No. 1, June 202054

Classroom-Based Learner Training
difficult for students to self-study speaking and listening, when they are asked to share theirlearning using notebooks. They cannot share their progress in speaking fluency orpronunciation after their shadowing practice since paper notebooks cannot allow them torecord their voices. This might lead to an avoidance of practicing these skills even if theywant to improve them. Especially with the growing technology in educational settings,
methods to incorporate different types of learning in LT should be considered. Althoughrequiring students to fill in two pages of their written notebook has many advantages such as
developing consistent study habits, this cannot accommodate some types of learning that rely
more heavily on technological tools. Therefore, alternatives to using notebooks need to be
discussed and considered.
Conclusion
This study explored students’ and teachers’ perceptions of classroom-based learnertraining of LLS to develop autonomous learning. Overall, the research results reveal thatstudent participants in this study perceived the classroom-based LT to be helpful; although it
did not address a direct connection between the LT and learner autonomy or teacher
participants showed less positive responses towards the LT. The results also indicate thatstudents prefer using a physical notebook to online tools, such as OneNote, yet it was
found that a notebook format does not cater to all kinds of learning styles/demands.
Nevertheless, students’ and teachers’ accounts suggested that learners found LT
useful, and put forward practical suggestions for future LT. The terminology used for the LT
module requires careful consideration and a clear consensus when being shared. In this casethe term used, “self-study,” misled learners, and in a worst-case scenario ended up
discouraging some students. In addition, the results of the survey suggest that for such LT towork, teachers’ increased support as information sources and coaches to improve students’learning is desirable. Based on the findings of the study, the following are deemed crucial:teachers’ knowledge of language learning and LLS, a higher degree of teacher involvement,
JASAL Journal Vol.1, No. 1, June 202055

Classroom-Based Learner Training
teachers’ training as language coaches as well as an opportunity to form a consensus about LT
to avoid misunderstanding, and ongoing opportunities for both teachers and students to learn
various LLS. With more assistance from teachers, it will be more likely that LT will help
develop individual student’s ability to take control of their studies, which will be an essential
part of promoting autonomous learning. Thus, future implementation of LT needs to consider
teacher training to ensure better results.
References
Amerstorfer, C. M. (2018). Past its expiry date? The SILL in modern mixed-methods strategy
research. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8(2 Special Issue),497–523. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.2.14
Biggs, J. (1994). What are effective schools? Lessons from east and west. The Australian
Educational Researcher, 21(1), 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03219558
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th edition).
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203029053
Eto, T. (2019). Japanese EFL learners in bilingual group discussions: A needs analysis. APU
Journal of Language Research, 4, 91–119. https://doi.org/doi/10.34382/00011373
Fewell, N. (2010). Language learning strategies and English language proficiency: an
investigation of Japanese EFL university students. TESOL Journal, 2, 159–174.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Language-learning-strategies-and-Englishlanguage-Fewell/14df88b6498469cba3de5c9405dabc522f4ab3ac
Green, J. M., & Oxford, R. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, andgender. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 261–297. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587625
Griffiths, C. (2004). Studying in English: Language skills development. AIS St Helens, Centre
for Research in International Education.
http://crie.org.nz/research-papers/C.Griffiths_OP5.pdf

JASAL Journal Vol.1, No. 1, June 202056

Classroom-Based Learner Training
Griffiths, C. (2008). Strategies from good language learners. In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons
from good language learners. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511497667
Griffiths, C. (2013). The strategy factor in successful language learning. Multilingual
Matters. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccu058
Griffiths, C. (2015). What have we learnt from “good language learners”? ELT Journal,69(4), 425–433. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccv040
Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching (3rd ed.). Longman.
Harris, M. (1991). Learner training: From theory to classroom reality. Revista deInvestigación e Innovación En La Clase de Idiomas, 6, 6–20.
https://ebuah.uah.es/dspace/handle/10017/881
Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Language Teaching(Vol. 56). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/56.3.337
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy in foreign language learning. Oxford University Press.
Hsiao, T., & Oxford, R. L. (2002). Comparing theories of language learning strategies: A
confirmatory factor analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 86(3), 369–383.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00155
Meyer, D. (2012). Broadening language learning strategies for Asian EFL students. Language
Education in Asia, 3(2), 243–251. https://doi.org/10.5746/leia/12/v3/i2/a12/meyer
Mizumoto, A., & Takeuchi, O. (2018). Modelling a prototypical use of language learning
strategies: Decision tree-based methods in multiple contexts. In R. L. Oxford & C.
M. Amerstorfer (Eds.), Language learning strategies and individual learnercharacteristics: Situating strategy use in diverse contexts (pp. 99–122).
Bloomsbury.
O’Malley, J., Chamot, A., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Kupper, L., & Russo, R. (1985).
Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL Students. Language
JASAL Journal Vol.1, No. 1, June 202057

Classroom-Based Learner Training
Learning, 35(1), 21–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1985.tb01013.x
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies : What every teacher should know.
Newbury House.
Oxford, R.L. (1999). Relationships between second language learning strategies and language
proficiency in the context of learner autonomy and self-regulation. Revista Canaria
de Estudios Ingleses, 38, 109–126.
https://www.academia.edu/24255872/RELATIONSHIPS_BETWEEN_SECOND_LANGUAGE_LEARNING_STRATEGIES_AND_LANGUAGE_PROFICIENCY_IN_THE_CONTEXT_OF_LEARNER_AUTONOMY_AND_SELF_REGULATION
Oxford, R. L. (2008). Hero with a thousand faces: Learner autonomy, learning strategies andlearning tactics in independent language learning. In S. Hurd & T. Lewis (Eds.),
Language Learning Strategies in Independent Settings (pp. 41–66). Multilingual
Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847690999-005
Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research history and typology.
In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 15–30). Prentice-Hall.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 41–
51. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586011
Wenden, A. L. (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy. Prentice Hall.
Wenden, A. L. (1998). Learner training in foreign/second language learning: A curricularperspective for the 21st century. Eric Document Reproduction Service ED416 673,
1–32. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED416673.pdf
Zare, P. (2012). Language learning strategies among EFL/ESL learners: A review ofliterature. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(5), 162–169.
http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_2_No_5_March_2012/20.pdf
JASAL Journal Vol.1, No. 1, June 202058

Classroom-Based Learner Training
Appendix A
Instructional Tools
a. A Learning Resources Webpage

b. A Note Sample

JASAL Journal Vol.1, No. 1, June 202059

Classroom-Based Learner Trainingc. A Worksheetd. Workshop Slides

JASAL Journal Vol.1, No. 1, June 202060

Classroom-Based Learner Training
Appendix B
Survey (For Students)

JASAL Journal Vol.1, No. 1, June 202061