IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

EFL Teachers’ Autonomy Supportive Practices for Out-of-Class Language Learning
Tuba Işık
Erzincan Binali Yildirim University
TurkeyCem Balçıkanlı
Gazi University
Turkey63

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Abstract
Autonomy support is a recently defined role for teachers, and they are expected to help learners
engage in autonomous out-of-class learning. With a focus on English language learning outside
the classroom, this study intended to uncover English as a foreign language teachers’ practices
related to autonomy support and to discuss the challenges faced by the teachers in this process.
Eleven teachers working at the tertiary level at a state university in Turkey were interviewed.
Semi-structured interviews were conducted in three sessions to find out the extent to which theteachers help their learners become autonomous. The findings revealed that the teachers
perform many autonomy-supportive behaviors which are feasible in language classrooms suchas motivating students, giving language advice and promoting peer collaboration. In doing this,the teachers utilize five different support mechanisms: affective, resource, capacity,
technology, and social support. On the other hand, the findings uncovered such constraints ascrowded classes, overloaded curriculum, and low learner motivation. These challenges wereperceived as barriers hampering teachers’ efforts for autonomy support. This study highlights
the feasibility of creating an autonomy-supportive language learning environment and provides
implications for teachers of English as a Foreign Language.
Keywords: autonomy support, learner autonomy, learning, out-of-class language, teacher,technology

64

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Introduction
Recent research has stressed the interconnectedness of technology use and out-of-classautonomous language learning and shed light on various qualifications required forautonomous language learning with technology (Lai, 2017; Reinders & Hubbard, 2013;
Reinders & White, 2016; Richards, 2015). With reference to these qualifications, a vast amountof research has investigated the nature of learners’ out-of-class learning experiences and theirreadiness for autonomous language learning with technology (for example Gonulal, 2019; Lai& Gu, 2011). The literature concluded that most language learners lack the required
qualifications, which are found to be best acquired with teacher support (Lai, 2015a, 2015b;
Lai, Yeung, & Hu, 2016). However, despite the importance of the teachers’ role in autonomy
support, to date relatively little work has focused on teachers’ practices supporting autonomous
learning out-of-the class. Previous research has provided invaluable insights about teacher
perceptions of and attitudes toward autonomy support, and about the challenges faced bylanguage teachers (e.g., Borg & Al-Busaidi, 2012; Nakata, 2011). One common conclusionfrom this prior research is that a wide gap exists between the desirability and feasibility of
autonomy support in language classrooms. However, the literature lacks focus on the feasibilityof autonomy support and is limited to provide a detailed account of teacher’ related practices.
To this end, the current study aimed to explore teachers’ autonomy-supportive practices at thetertiary level, and investigated the feasibility of autonomy support in language classrooms.
Literature Review
Learner autonomy refers to the learners’ capacity to take control of their learning (Benson,2011). According to Holec (1988, as cited in Huang & Benson, 2013), learners need to havethe ability, willingness, and freedom to be autonomous in their learning. Firstly, the ability
refers to metacognitive (learning management skills) and metalinguistic skills (the knowledgeof the target language to control the learning). Thus, autonomous learners create a personal
agenda “which sets up directions in the planning, pacing, monitoring, and evaluating thelearning process” (Chan, 2000, p.75). Secondly, autonomous learners should be motivatedintrinsically or instrumentally to take responsibility for their learning (Breen & Mann, 1997).
Lastly, they need to be permitted to act independently by the significant agents in this process
as teachers, and to have convenient learning situations in which learners have a degree of
independence to control their learning (Huang & Benson, 2013).
Out-of-class language learning is defined as an engagement in various language learning
activities undertaken beyond the confines of formal learning institutions (Benson, 2011;
Richards, 2015). This form of language learning is assumed to create a convenient learning
situation for language learners without teacher interference. Out-of-class learning
environments may have a potential for providing situational freedom in which willing language
learners can practice and develop their metacognitive abilities. Thus, it has often been related
to the development of learner autonomy and argued to be closely intertwined with autonomous
language learning (Benson & Reinders, 2011). In other words, out-of-class learning may serve
as a platform by which learners can take full control of their learning in a teacher-independent
environment, and thus be an autonomous language learner.
In this respect Benson’s autonomy definition (2011) focuses on capacity, and argues that
autonomy is not a personal attribute of a learner but rather a feature that can be developed in
the learning process. For the development of this capacity, there are several other features that
language learners also need to have. First and foremost, learners should be willing to take65

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

responsibility for their learning (Chan et al., 2002; Lai & Gu, 2011). Secondly, they shouldhave independence and metacognitive skills to manage learning procedures (Lai, 2017).
Additionally, when learners use technology for their out-of-class language learning, they alsoneed to be aware of the potential of technology and know to how to locate, select, and use
appropriate technological resources (Castellano et al., 2011; Lai et al., 2016). Similarly, Bailly(2011) also proposes three conditions for language learners to display autonomous skills:
motivation (willingness), learning resources (appropriate language learning tools), and learning
skills (capacity for learning management).
Researchers have paid growing attention to the interconnectedness of learner autonomy andout-of-class language learning (Benson & Reinders, 2011). The research shows that technology
use is a significant predictor of autonomous out-of-class language learning (Reinders & White,
2016; Richards, 2015). In an influential work, Lai and Gu (2011) investigated 279 language
learners’ out-of-class language learning practices with technology. They found that out-ofclass language learning is much more complicated than expected. For example, while language
learners actively use technology for language learning, their technology use shows variations.
In other words, learners use technology selectively due to such reasons as language proficiency,
lack of knowledge about potential technological resources, and limited knowledge about how
to access technological learning materials. This study by Lai and Gu showed the significanceof the skills needed for autonomous language learning with technology such as making
informed learning decisions according to their learning styles, preferences, needs and goals(Chik, 2014), or knowing how to control “the time, the pace, the path to the goal, and themeasurement of success” (Healey, 1999, p.400). Reinders and Hubbard (2013) argued thatlearners need some skills to cope with the constraints of technology in the language learning
process. Autonomous language learners need to choose appropriate language learningmaterials in accordance with their levels and learning goals. In the same vein, they are supposed
to make informed decisions among a vast number of choices. Moreover, learners need to
distinguish the most useful forms of interaction on platforms that involve social interaction.
Lastly, learners are also supposed to have a critical capacity to identify what information isrelevant or not for their learning.
The work by Lai and Gu (2011) has led to further research intended to uncover the complex
nature of learners’ out-of-class language learning with technology (for example Çelik et al.,2012; Dincer, 2020; Şahin Kızıl & Savran, 2018; Trinder, 2017). One common conclusion ofthese studies is that most language learners are far from being autonomous since they lack therequired skills. Moreover, learners have a high expectancy of their teachers to guide them on
how to locate, select, and use technological resources for language learning purposes. Thus,
these learners need to be supported to manage their out-of-class language learning withtechnology (Lai et al., 2016). Importantly, teachers have been found to be a vital stakeholder
to provide this support, and a new role has consequently been assigned to the teachers:“autonomy-supportive teacher” (Lai et al., 2016; Lai et al., 2015; Reinders & Hubbard, 2013).
Given the research evidence about the importance of the teachers’ autonomy-supportive role,concerns have been raised about whether teachers can handle this prominent workload, and a
growing body of research has provided insights into teachers’ related perceptions and practices
for autonomy support (for example Alhaysony, 2016; Borg & Al-Busaidi, 2012; Nakata, 2011;
Wichayathian & Reinders, 2018). The most consistent finding from this research is thatteachers have indicated a strong preference for autonomous language learning and for
involving the learners in the decision-making process in their teaching since it is believed tobe conducive to their students’ language learning (Al Asmari, 2013; Borg & Al-Busaidi, 2012;66

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Wichayathian & Reinders, 2018). However, the teachers questioned the feasibility of
autonomy-support in their current teaching environments due to reasons such as learners’ lackof motivation, their dependence on teachers, their unwillingness to take responsibility, lack ofclass time and curriculum restrictions. These studies collectively indicated that there is a wide
gap between the desirability and feasibility of autonomy support even though teachers
expressed their desires for it and listed some autonomy-supportive practices in their classes
such as raising students’ awareness about the importance of autonomous out-of-class language
learning and encouraging independent work in and out-of-class (Haji-Othman & Wood, 2016;
Nakata, 2011; Yunus & Arshad, 2014). Some research studies also raised concerns aboutteachers’ readiness for their recently defined autonomy-supportive role. They argued thatteachers should be autonomous first and understand the pertaining pedagogy and skills before
autonomous learning initiatives are initiated in the classroom (for example Al Asmari, 2013;
Reinders & Balcikanli, 2011).
Previous work surveying teachers’ related perceptions and practices found that teachers areaware of the significance of learner autonomy and desire to promote it among their students;
however, they are skeptical about its feasibility in practice due to a range of challenges. Withreference to the gap between the desirability and feasibility of learner autonomy support, it isclear that despite significant progress in uncovering teachers’ perceptions of learner autonomy
and these challenges, the literature is still too limited to provide a clear picture of how feasible
teachers’ autonomy-support actually is. It is a fact that out-of-class language learning iscomplex in nature, and a bulk of research has been conducted to uncover the learners’ practices
so far. However, the investigation of teachers’ practices to support autonomous language
learning out-of-the class still lacks focus in research. Thus, it merits further investigation toenhance our understanding of the complex nature of autonomy support with technology, andthis current study has been designed to provide insights into the feasibility of autonomy supportand show how teachers support their students’ autonomous out-of-class language learning. To
this end, this study seeks to uncover English language teachers’ current practices pertinent toautonomy support and the challenges perceived by the teachers in this procedure.
MethodResearch Setting and Participants
The research setting of the study is a foreign languages school of a state university in Turkey.
The foreign languages school provides foundational English courses to English-based
departments such as civil aviation, engineering, and pharmacy. The classes are conducted
either face-to-face or online. It is also of importance for this study that the university has asmall library in which there is a limited number of language learning materials and has no selfaccess center. Thus, the language teachers serve as the only means of providing support forlearners’ out-of-class autonomous language learning.
Eleven EFL instructors (four females, seven males) participated in this study. While the least
experienced instructor worked for four years, the two most experienced instructors had 30years-experience in the field. Moreover, most of the participants continued their post-graduate
education in different departments related to English language such as English language
teaching (ELT), English language and literature, and translation and interpretation. Table 1
presents the details of the participants’ demographic information and interview durations.

67

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Table 1: Participant demographic details and interview durations
Participant

GenderAgeYears of
Experience

P1
P2

M
F

35
32

12
7

Graduation(Department
)
ELT
ELT

P3

F

29

6

ELT

P4

M

32

8

ELL

P5
P6

M
M

56
32

30
8

ELT
ELT

P7
P8

F
F

28
30

4
6

T&I
ELT

P9

M

32

8

ELT

P10
P11

M
M

31
54

6
30

ELL
ELT

The Highest
degreeMA
Ph.D.
(Student)
MA(Student)
Ph.D.
(Student)
Bachelor
MA(Student)
MA
Ph.D.
(Student)
MA(Student)
MA
MAInterview
Duration(In minutes)
43,12’
57,61’
53,03’
40,42’
80,04’
46,58
58,47’
52,23’
46,58
50,00’
26,37’

Note: F=Female; M=Male; T&I=Translation and Interpretation; ELL=English Language and Literature;
ELT=English Language and Teaching; MA=Master’s degree; PhD=Doctor of Philosophy, LTC=Language
Teaching Certificate.
*He was a visiting teacher from a foreign country.

Data Collection and Analysis
One-on-one semi-structured interviews were used as the primary data collection instrument inthis study. An interview guide was created based on the existing literature (Lai, 2015a; Lai etal., 2016; Nakata, 2011) to examine teachers’ autonomy-supportive practices. To ensure thecredibility of the guide, two experts in the field reviewed it. Then, the study was piloted with
one instructor, and later the guide was revised accordingly. The interviews were conducted ineither Turkish or English, depending on the participants’ preference. Signed informed consent
forms protected the rights of the participants. The interview sessions were organized in linewith the design of Dolbeare and Schuman’s three series of interviews (Schuman, 1982, as citedin Seidman, 2006). In the first session, the researchers aimed to become familiar with thecontext of the study and the participants, and to build a knowledge base for the followinginterview sessions. In the next session, the questions elicited the participants’ practices forpromoting learner autonomy. In the last session, the researchers intended to establish a link
between technology and learner autonomy and to induce the participants’ related experiences
and reflections on them. The audio-recorded interviews were transcribed after each session toprepare additional follow-up questions for the following session. Thus, the researchers got the
chance to elicit more in-depth elaborations on the practices mentioned previously.
The audio-recorded interviews were transcribed and then analyzed according to the steps oftheoretical thematical analysis proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006). After iterative readingsof the data, the researchers listed the initial codes. In the first phase, they divided the codes into
two categories: autonomy-supportive and non-autonomy supportive teacher behaviors. Then,they focused on autonomy-supportive codes including motivation, language advising, learner
involvement, promoting cooperation, language learning strategies. Finally, they sorted thesecodes into five themes: affective, resource, capacity, technology, and social. Whileconstructing the themes, the existing literature was used to name the themes (Bailly, 2011;68

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Dörnyei, 2001; Lai et al., 2016). Later, two experts in the field coded 25% of the data toenhance the dependability and conformability of the study (Miles et al., 2014). Lastly, thecoding results of all the coders were compared and discussed. After the intercoder discussion,
the researchers revised the codes and finalized the themes. In the presentation of the analysis,
the themes and their contents were illustrated in tables. Sample excerpts were also provided tosupport the research findings. Each participant was distinguished with a number (for example,
P1=Participant 1) to protect their anonymity.
Findings
EFL Teachers’ Autonomy-Supportive Practices
Thematic analysis of interviews reveals that the participants perform a variety of autonomysupportive practices. Five themes related to teachers’ autonomy-supportive practices emerged
as a result of the data analysis. Table 2 illustrates the themes and summarizes the content ofeach theme.
Table 2: Description of the teachers’ autonomy-supportive practices
ThemesContent

Affective support

Increase language learning motivation and lower affective barriers forlanguage learning
Help learners find appropriate learning resources and suggestinglanguage materials
Help learners to manage and take the responsibility for their learning
Guide learners about how to use technology for language learning
Promote cooperation among the language learners

Resource support
Capacity support
Technology support
Social support

Affective support. All the participants consider learner motivation one of the primaryconditions for learner autonomy. Accordingly, they give affective support to the learners using
different strategies parallel with Dörnyei’s (2001) suggestions to generate, maintain and protect
motivation in language classrooms. They attempt to increase the learners’ goal-orientedness(establishing learning goals) by verbal encouragement, use of interesting technologicallanguage learning tools, and try to increase learners’ self-confidence.
In terms of motivation, almost all the participants claim that they try to increase the learners’
goal-orientedness by introducing study-abroad chances. For instance, P8 said that she
introduces mobility/study abroad programs at the beginning of each year. “Students realize
how important English learning is to be accepted for Erasmus Program”. P2 also uses study
abroad programs for the same purpose, and she claimed that “students set their learning goals
in this way”. Moreover, the participants not only motivate their students by verbal
encouragement, but also use technological tools to make language learning more attractive.
They believe technology encourages students to learn English and engages all the students inthe class. They usually make use of educational tools and games to enhance their instruction.
For example, many participants make use of Kahoot (a free game-based digital learning
platform) to liven up their classes.
Many participants also underscore the importance of self-confidence in foreign language
learning. Because the learners perceive English as too challenging to learn and get demotivatedby this case, the teachers attempt to boost their self-esteem using many strategies. For instance,

69

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

P1 uses Simple Wikipedia on which the sentences are so simple that the learners think they canunderstand English very well and get motivated. In P1’s own words, “I just copy a text fromthere and give it to students as translation homework. Because it is simple English, they thinkthey can do it. It keeps them motivated”.
Resource support. The participants provide the learners with language resources and guidance
about how to use those materials. However, the willingness of learners qualifies how
effectively they use those resources. Almost all the participants were aware of this factor andstated that the learners’ willingness to learn English motivates them to put much more effort
into helping them. For instance, P3 indicated, “I do my best to help demanding learners, but I
can’t say I spend much time on those not interested in learning”.
Most of the participants take the role of a language advisor and provide learners with language
learning resources in line with their goals. Underlining the importance of the learners’ needs
and interests, P4 said, “If a student wants some techniques for getting a high score from anexam, I lead him to study on those techniques by recommending some resources”. P4 also
added that “But the others just want to learn spoken English, and I also lead them to speaking
clubs which are available at the university”.
Capacity support. Compared to the other two teacher autonomy-supportive practices,teachers’ efforts to help learners to manage their learning (for example identifying needs,
planning, monitoring, and evaluating the learning process) is more limited. Many participants
fall short of promoting learners’ capacity to maintain and sustain their learning. However, a
few participants perform some practices which can be considered potential feasible steps forcapacity support. For example, the teachers share learning strategies based on their own
learning experiences and pedagogical knowledge. P9 observes his role as a guide in the class.
He spends time on how to learn a foreign language, how to improve language learning skills
and how to speak English fluently. He thinks explaining all the alternatives to learn a language
helps learners become more independent in their learning.
The participants also expressed that setting goals is crucial for learners to be autonomous
language learners. They help their students to set their goals. Also, in some instances, they try
to persuade them English is vital. For example, P8 said that their students come to class without
any learning goals because they always fail through their language education. She noted, “Ishow something valuable to learn a foreign language in the first session of the semester andtry to persuade them to set learning goals accordingly”.
A few participants pointed out the importance of giving the syllabus beforehand to raiselearners’ awareness of monitoring and evaluating their learning. They expressed that thelearners know what they will learn and see throughout the semester. On this issue, P2 stated,“I believe whatever we [teachers] teach, we should tell them [students] ‘at the end of thislesson, you can gain these skills to help them monitor their learning”. P2 further noted theimportance of sharing responsibilities with the students. She let her students be responsible for
their learning with the flipped classroom method and helped students think, “I should study
this on my own rather than waiting for the teacher to expose these”.
Technology support. The findings showed that most participants support autonomous
language learning with technology in several ways. For this purpose, they use the technology
itself in class, teach how to use technology for language learning and verbally recommend
educational technology tools. The findings also suggest that teachers’ technology use in class70

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

affects learners’ out-of-class technology use.
Most of the teachers expressed the importance of technology for language learning and listed
how they use different strategies to promote independent learning with technology. For
instance, P5 suggested some websites and mobile phone applications for self-study. Suggestingsome websites as well, P10 demonstrated how he uses websites (e.g., https://busyteacher.org/)
while preparing his lessons. Thus, he intends to raise the learners’ awareness about how to
select and use technological resources. Some participants also noted that they suggest somelanguage learning websites and mobile phone applications for specific language learning skills
such as Busuu and Duolingo. Another participant, P9, underlined the importance of needoriented guidance and said, “If a student’s pronunciation is not very good, I offer them to listen
to voice records or the TV or radio channels broadcasting in English”.
The participants also underscored the practicality of technology for language learning. Theyemphasized how easy to learn with technology in today’s technological conditions. “Everybody
now has smartphones in their pockets so they can easily download and install language
learning applications on their mobile phones and use them whenever and wherever they want”.
Furthermore, P6 highlighted the new role of a language teacher in this technology-richenvironment and stated, “I always encourage [my students] that we [as teachers] are notneeded anymore, because we have plenty of teachers on YouTube”. Therefore, he leads thelearners to technological tools, applications and websites, and transmits the responsibility oflearning to the learners themselves.
Many participants also claimed that their courses affect the learners’ digital literacy and theirtechnology use habits in a way. They gave several examples of their practices and how theyaffect the learners’ technology use. P2 said that even though her class was not a technology
teaching class, her tasks helped her students to learn a lot about computers and other digital
devices. Similarly, P3 shared her related experiences and stated that she was using a TV series
in her classes and said, “My students really liked to learn English from a TV series, and manyof them continued to English series and movies to learn English”. Thus, what she did in classaffected the learners’ out-of-class learning. P8 also added how the learners were affected by
way of her teaching. “Some students didn’t know what Blog is. Today they follow blogs in
English”.
Social support. Most of the participants promote cooperation among learners, both inside andoutside the class. They believe in the usefulness of peer/group learning and take advantage ofpeer feedback in class. For instance, P8 recounted that she makes use of peer feedback in thewriting sessions and indicated its effectiveness. “They may not be able to find their mistakes
but when they see the same mistake in their peers’ paper, they can easily see and correct it”.
While many participants claimed to support peer feedback/learning for in-class activities, someof them asserted their preference for out-of-class collaboration. They explained theeffectiveness of peer learning outside the class and why they make use of expert-novice
matching. P4 reported that low-achieving students getting help from high-achievers could gethigher scores because they learn different things from each friend before the exams. P10 also
further added that “I cannot help outside the classroom all the time and I match academicallyweak and successful students to complete out-of-school activities and assignments together”.
Besides this, he transfers the responsibility of the learning to the learners and encourages themto learn cooperatively.

71

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Perceived Constraints Faced by Autonomy-Supportive Teachers
The participants focused on a lot of constraints while describing how they support learners’
out-of-class autonomous language learning. The responses showed that the constraints are
based on two factors: institution and learner. Under the constraints theme, two sub-themes
emerged and Table 3 presents the sub-themes and summarizes their content.
Table 3: Description of the constraints perceived by teachers
Sub-themes

Content

Institution-based constraints

crowded classes, poor technological infrastructure,overloaded curriculum and limited class time
low motivation and teacher-directed learning culture

Learner-based constraints

Institution-based constraints. The most oft-repeated institutional problem was crowded
classes. The teachers stated that they fall short of providing enough support for identifying
learners’ strengths and weaknesses, promoting cooperation among learners, and involving
them in decision-making in crowded classes. For example, P7, who used to give attention toeach student in small classes, stated that she does not have enough time and energy to pay
attention to every learner anymore. “I do not have time to observe and help all my studentsnow”. Instead, she supports the enthusiastic students who demand help to continue study
English out-of-the class.
The findings, in general, suggest that the language teachers do integrate technology into theirclasses and support learners with technological tools for their out-of-class language learning.
However, the teachers have problems with the poor technological infrastructure of theclassrooms. P9 stated, “there is only one computer, and only the teacher can use it”. While thisproblem hampers technology integration to support learning in class, it also leads to a teacherdirected classroom atmosphere where all the responsibility of teaching is on teachers. Thus,
students become passive information receivers.
Another major issue was the challenge of getting the objectives of the curriculum done in time,
which is the workload of the teachers in a limited period. Three participants expressed that they
had so many other things to do in the class apart from helping students to be autonomous
language learners. Therefore, there should be another department, a language advising center,to help learners for their out-of-class language learning. P1 recounted that “because our job isto teach a foreign language, we need to do it. But I think there must be another department at
the university”. It seems evident from the responses that a fixed curriculum poses a problem
for the participants; either they mention it or not. The participants spend time helping learners
in their free time, but in class, they need to manage their time to complete the curriculum
requirements.
Learner-based constraints. The participants reported that few students wish to learn English,
and the rest only complete course requirements. For instance, P11 stated that “My students tellme they just want to pass the class, it doesn’t matter to learn English or not”. Some participantsalso face some discouraging students’ behaviors or statements, as can be seen in P4’s
experience: “The majority of students want me to add extra 5 points to their grades instead ofadvising about how to learn English better”.
The learners’ learning culture also affects their language learning habits, beliefs, dispositions,72

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020and values. Learners bring their past learning habits to the current system, and it becomes achallenge to change them. Even if the teachers try to establish a totally new language learning
environment, they have difficulty to adapt to the recent changes. For instance, P2 changed herteaching method by using a different approach, flipped learning. However, it was challenging
for her to make students motivated. “The students are used to teacher-directed and spoon-fed
way of learning and studying for only the exams not for their development since the very earlystages of their education”. So that she described her experience as a challenge and used theword “force” to define her efforts to make them study in a new way. She also expressed thateven if her students continuously complain about the conventional language teaching methods,
when they face some difficulties in the new way of learning, they want to go back to the pastsystem.
Discussion
This study investigated English language teachers’ autonomy-supportive practices andrevealed constraints underlying the barriers to autonomy-support. The data were collected
qualitatively with semi-structured interviews. The findings showed that the teachers utilized avariety of support mechanisms. Even though their individual practices look small steps, theircurrent practices create a promising picture for the feasibility of autonomy support in foreign
language classes.
In line with Bailly’s (2011) proposal for autonomous language learning with technology (i.e.,
willingness, learning resources, and learning skills), the teachers utilize affective, resource andcapacity support. Teachers attempt to increase their students’ language learning motivation;
help learners find appropriate learning resources and suggest language materials; help learners
manage and take the responsibility of their learning. The thematic analysis further revealed twoother autonomy-supportive practices, namely technology and social support, which are also
pivotal for learners’ autonomous language learning. In other words, teachers guide theirstudents about how to use technology for language learning and promote cooperation among
learners. However, teachers face institutional and learner-based constraints hampering theirefforts for autonomy support.
Lai et al. (2016) revealed that learners need teacher help for selecting appropriate language
learning materials for their out-of-class learning. Moreover, many language learners are notaware of the potentials of technology and cannot also use technology for language learning
even though they are digital natives (Çelik et al., 2012; Lai & Gu, 2011). Thus, teachers shouldtake the role of an advisor and a guide to help them (Wichayathian & Reinders, 2018).
Similarly, the teachers in this study believe they should take the role of a language advisor forlearners’ out-of-class language learning and a guide for resource selection (Gardner & Miller,
2011; Morrison, 2008). Parallel to this assertion, the teachers in this study expressed their
willingness to support learners’ autonomous learning and reported their practices for this aim.
They use and model various language learning technologies in their classes; give technicaltraining on how to use them for language learning purposes and recommend technological tools
for out-of-class language learning. On the other hand, they tend to help willing students interms of resource support, rather than wasting time and energy for unmotivated students. The
teachers’ in-class technology use also affects learners’ out-of-school technology use.
Concurring with various prior research studies (Lai, 2015a, 2015b; Lai & Gu, 2011), theparticipants’ efforts were claimed to enhance the quality of the learners’ technology use for
language learning and to increase their digital competence. Thus, those practices might have apositive impact on learners’ autonomous language learning with technology.

73

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

It is widely argued in the literature that learners’ willingness to take the responsibility of theirlearning is of importance for out-of-class language learning and the development of autonomy(Dörnyei, 2001; Huang & Benson, 2013; Reinders, 2010; Zimmerman, 2011). In accordancewith this, the teachers in this study consider learner motivation one of the primary conditions
for successful language learning and the development of learner autonomy, as well. They
provide affective support using different strategies, as proposed by Dörnyei (2001). The
teachers attempt to increase learners’ goal-orientedness, raise their self-confidence in language
learning, and use technology to make language learning more enjoyable. However, the teachers
in this study expressed that many students are not entirely motivated to learn English
autonomously. This finding reflects various studies which conclude that the learners’
unwillingness is one of the challenges in the development of learner autonomy (for example
Alhaysony, 2016; Borg & Al-Busaidi, 2012; Okay & Balçıkanlı, 2017).
Another major finding of this study was that the teachers face many constraints, as found invarious studies from different contexts. The teachers addressed crowded classes (Alibakhshi,2015), poor technological infrastructure (Park & Son, 2009), and overloaded curriculum (Borg& Al-Busaidi, 2012; Wichayathian & Reinders, 2018) as the issues which hamper theirautonomy-supportive practices. Furthermore, the teachers identified their students as reluctant
to learn English autonomously (Al Asmari, 2013; Chan et al., 2002; Farahani, 2014; Yunus &Arshad, 2014). The teachers further indicated the learners’ teacher-centered learning culture,
which affects the learners’ learning habits, beliefs, dispositions, and values. This issue might
be connected to the Turkish education system in which “the authority is not shared;
individuality and creativity are less encouraged” (Balcikanli, 2010, p.99). Because of students’limited agency, they are expected to resist changing and taking control of their learning.
Conclusion
This current study has provided insights into how English language teachers working at thetertiary level in a state university in Turkey support their students’ out-of-class autonomous
language learning and the challenges in this procedure. The study revealed significant
implications for teachers. Given that teachers are supposed to create an autonomy-supportive
learning environment in their classes, they could initiate changes in their routines. One of thesechanges could be to learn more about the learners’ autonomy levels and technology
competence by conducting simple surveys at the beginning of each semester. Therefore, they
can redesign their classes and share their responsibilities based on the learners’ readiness forautonomous language learning. Another point is that teachers can inform learners of theprocedure of their material preparation and show how they find and prepare teaching materials
in line with their objectives in the classroom. In this way, learners could be more aware of how
they can select appropriate learning resources and manage their own learning out-of-the class.
What is more, the more teachers know about language learning technologies, the more theytune into supporting learners for out-of-class learning. Given that, teachers can participate in
in-service teacher training programs to keep up with the new technological advancements andcurrent pedagogical skills needed for teaching language learners of 21st century.
This study is not without limitations. The data were collected with a single data collection
instrument, semi-structured interviews, which is based on the participants’ self-report. Thissituation is potentially susceptible to “social desirability bias” (Grimm, 2010). Namely, theparticipants might have described their practices as better and more socially desirable than theiractual state. Observation and documentation would be useful to get a more comprehensible
overview of teachers’ related practices. Another limitation was that the study included a small

74

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

cohort of teachers working at the tertiary level, and the findings may not apply to language
teachers in other contexts.
While discussing the findings, the teachers’ demographic details were not considered due tothe small sample size. However, some differences were observed in the perceptions andpractices of the teachers with different educational backgrounds and the lengths of teachingexperience. For example, the teachers who were Ph.D. candidates were more autonomysupportive. Also, the younger teachers were more inclined to integrate technology than theolder ones. As such, teachers’ demographic variables could be studied in relation to autonomy
support to see whether such variables make any significant differences in their pedagogicalpractices.
Acknowledgements
This article is a part of the first authors’ master’s thesis under the supervision of the second
author.

75

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

References
Al Asmari, A. (2013). Practices and prospects of learner autonomy: Teachers’ perceptions.
English Language Teaching, 6(3), 1–10. https:// doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n3p1
Alhaysony, M. (2016). An investigation of EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices of learnerautonomy. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature,4(12), 45–59. https:// doi.org/10.20431/2347-3134.0412009
Alibakhshi, G. (2015). Challenges in promoting EFL learners’ autonomy: Iranian EFL
teachers’ perspectives. Issues in Language Teaching, 4(1), 98–79.
https://doi.org/10.22054/ILT.2015.3464
Bailly, S. (2011). Teenagers learning languages out of school: what, why and how do theylearn? How can school help them? In P. Benson & H. Reinders (Eds.) Beyond thelanguage classroom (pp. 119–131). Palgrave Macmillan.
Balcikanli, C. (2010). Learner autonomy in language learning: Student teachers’ beliefs.
Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(1), 90–103.
https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2010v35n1.8
Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and researching autonomy. Pearson Education
Benson P. & Reinders, H. (2011). Beyond the language classroom. Palgrave Macmillan.
Borg, S., & Al-Busaidi, S. (2012). Teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding learnerautonomy. ELT Journal, 66(3), 283–292. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccr065
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Researchin Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Breen, M. P., & Mann, S. J. (1997). Shooting arrows at the sun: Perspectives on a pedagogy
for autonomy. In P. Benson & P. Voller (Eds.), Autonomy and independence inlanguage learning (pp. 132–149). Longman.
Castellano, J., Mynard, J., & Rubesch, T. (2011). Student technology use in a self-accesscenter. Language Learning & Technology, 15(3), 12–27.
Chan, V. (2000). Fostering learner autonomy in an ESL classroom. TESL Canada Journal,
18(1), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v18i1.901
Chan, V., Spratt, M., & Humphreys, G. (2002). Autonomous language learning: Hong Kong
tertiary student’ attitudes and behaviours. Evaluation and Research in Education,
16(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500790208667003
Çelik, S., Arkin, E., & Sabriler, D. (2012). EFL learners’ use of ICT for self-regulated
learning. The Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 8(2), 98–118.
Chik, A. (2014). Digital gaming and language learning: Autonomy and community.
Language Learning & Technology, 18(2), 85–100. https://doi.org/10125/44371
Deepwell, F., & Malik, S. (2008). On campus, but out of class: an investigation into students’experiences of learning technologies in their self-directed study. ALT-J Research in
Learning Technology, 16(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687760701850166
Dincer, A. (2020). Understanding the characteristics of English language learners’ out-ofclass language learning through digital practices. IAFOR Journal of Education:
Technology in Education, 8(2), 47–65. https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.8.2.03

76

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Duong, T. M. (2014). EFL teachers’ perceptions of learner autonomy and their classroom
practices: A case study. International Journal of Education and Management
Engineering, 2, 9–17. https://doi.org/110.5815/ijeme.2014.02.02
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. Longman.
Farahani, M. (2014). From spoon feeding to self-feeding: Are Iranian EFL learners ready to take chargeof their own learning? Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 11(1), 98–115.
Gardner, D. & Miller, L. (2011). Managing self-access language learning: Principles andpractice. System, 39(1), 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.01.010
Grimm, P. (2010). “Social desirability bias”, Wiley International Encyclopedia of Marketing,John Wiley and Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444316568.wiem02057.
Gonulal, T. (2019). The use of Instagram as a mobile-assisted language learning
tool. Contemporary Educational Technology, 10(3), 309–323.
https://doi.org/10.30935/cet.590108
Haji-Othman, N. A., & Wood, K. (2016). Perceptions of learner autonomy in English language
education in Brunei Darussalam. In: R. Barnard, & J. Li (Eds.), Language learnerautonomy: Teachers’ beliefs and practices in Asian contexts (pp. 79–95). IDP Education.
Healey, D. (1999). Theory and research: Autonomy in language learning. In J. Egbert & E.
Hanson-Smith (Eds.), CALL Environments: Research, Practice and Critical Issues(pp.391–402). TESOL.
Huang, J. P., & Benson, P. (2013). Autonomy, agency and identity in foreign and second
language education. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 36(1), 7–28.
https://doi.org/10.1515/cjal-2013-0002
Lai, C. (2015a). Modeling teachers’ influence on learners’ self-directed use of technology for
language learning outside the classroom. Computers & Education, 82, 74–83.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.005
Lai, C. (2015b). Perceiving and traversing in-class and out-of-class learning: accounts fromforeign language learners in Hong Kong. Innovation in Language Learning andTeaching, 9(3), 265–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2014.918982
Lai, C. (2017). Autonomous language learning with technology: Beyond the classroom.
Bloomsbury.
Lai, C., & Gu, M. Y. (2011). Self-regulated out-of-class language learning with technology.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(4), 317–335.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2011.568417
Lai, C., Yeung, Y., & Hu, J. (2016). University student and teacher perceptions of teacher
roles in promoting autonomous language learning with technology outside theclassroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(4), 703–723.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2015.1016441
Lai, C., Zhu, W., & Gong, G. (2015). Understanding the quality of out-of-class English
learning. TESOL Quarterly, 49(2), 278–308. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.171
Miles, H., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook. SAGE.
Morrison, B. (2008). The role of the self-access centre in the tertiary language learning
process. System, 36(2), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2007.10.004

77

IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 4 – 2020

Nakata, Y. (2011). Teachers’ readiness for promoting learner autonomy: A study of Japanese
EFL high school teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(5), 900–910.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.03.001
Okay, A., & Balçıkanlı, C. (2017). The role of motivation in EFL students’ perceptions ofteacher/learner responsibilities and learner abilities. Asian-Pacific Journal of Secondand Foreign Language Education, 2(1), 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-017-0032-0
Park, N. C., & Son, J. B. (2009). Implementing computer-assisted language learning in the
EFL classroom: Teachers’ perceptions and perspectives. International Journal of
Pedagogies and Learning, 5(2), 80–101. https://doi.org/10.5172/ijpl.5.2.80
Reinders, H. (2010). Towards a classroom pedagogy for learner autonomy: A framework of
independent language learning skills. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(5),40–55. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2010v35n5.4
Reinders, H., & Balcikanli, C. (2011). Learning to foster autonomy: The role of teacher
education materials. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 2(1), 15–25.
https://doi.org/10.37237/020103
Reinders, H., & Hubbard, P. (2013). CALL and learner autonomy: Affordances andconstraints. In M. Thomas, H. Reinders, M. Warschauer, (Eds.), Contemporary
computer assisted language learning, (pp. 359–375). Continuum.
Reinders, H., & White, C. (2016). 20 years of autonomy and technology: How far have wecome and where to next? Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 143–154.
https://doi.org/10125/44466
Richards, J. C. (2015). The changing face of language learning: Learning beyond theclassroom. RELC Journal, 46(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688214561621
Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers ineducation and the social sciences. Teachers College.
Şahin Kızıl, A., & Savran, Z. (2018). Assessing self-regulated learning: The case of
vocabulary learning through information and communication technologies. Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 31(5-6), 599–616.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1428201
Trinder, R. (2017). Informal and deliberate learning with new technologies. ELT Journal,
71(4), 401–412. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccw117
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard.
Wichayathian, N., & Reinders, H. (2018). A teacher’s perspective on autonomy and selfaccess: from theory to perception to practice. Innovation in Language Learning andTeaching, 12(2), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccw117
Yunus, M. M., & Arshad, N. D. M. (2014). ESL teachers’ perceptions toward the practices
and prospects of autonomous language learning. Asian Social Science, 11(2), 41–51.
https:// doi.org/10.5539/ass.v11n2p41
Zimmerman, B. J. (2011). Motivational sources and outcomes of self-regulated learning andperformance. In B. H. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of selfregulation of learning and performance (pp. 49–64). Routledge.
Corresponding Author: Tuba IşikContact email: tuba.turkel@erzincan.edu.tr

78