LEARNING LEARNING

Volume 24 Issue 2 Summer 2017

Raising Autonomy by Negotiating Rules with Students: An
Exploratory Discussion about Action Research into Learner
Development and Autonomy

Tokiko Hori

Andrew D. Tweed

Soka University
Email: thori@soka.ac.jp

Meijo University
Email: adtweed@gmail.com

Andrew Tweed: Tokiko, how about if we begin by explaining how we each became
interested in action research?
Tokiko Hori: I’d heard about the term “action research” (AR) sometimes; however, I
did not have any specific knowledge about it until I attended a faculty development forum
at Soka University in which Anne Burns shared her experiences with her career as an AR
professional. (She was a visiting professor at my university and was teaching TESOL
students at that time.) I was fascinated by the stories of teachers who conducted AR,
improved their teaching skills, and got a lot of fruit from that. When Anne suggested trying
a project at the end of her lecture, I put up my hand. As a novice teacher, I promised
myself to try every opportunity to develop myself as an educator/researcher as much as
possible. I did not have any knowledge about AR (sorry to admit this), and I had neverread Anne’s books beforehand and really was not sure what it would be like.
At the time I had several challenges with classroom teaching and management,
especially managing a classroom of 25 freshmen with mixed motivation and English
proficiency levels. So it was easy to decide where I would take action and conduct research.
Andrew: You are very fortunate to be able to learn and get support from Anne Burns.
I led some workshops on this topic with a group of teacher trainers in Cambodia, and weused Anne’s book (Burns, 2010) on Action Research (AR). When I met Anne a couple ofyears later she said that she had wanted to write the book in a way that made it easy forteachers new to AR to try it out.
I think it was a good decision to employ AR in your situation. While teaching a groupwith varying levels of motivation and English language proficiency is a common issue, inthis case, using AR would help you to understand the differences in your particular group.
Two of the trainers I worked with in Cambodia were concerned with a similar issue—thisis briefly discussed in a chapter I wrote about AR (Tweed, 2014). They taught large classesof over 50 students, their students had very different levels of English, and some of them
participated much more than others. The question that they explored was how they could
get students to speak more in their classes. What was the particular question that you asked
in your AR, Tokiko?

Special Issue: Reflective Writing on Learner Development

70

LEARNING LEARNING

Volume 24 Issue 2 Summer 2017

Tokiko: My questions were related to my classroom rules. The course was a mandatory
English class for freshmen, twice a week. Students were allocated to the class based on
their TOEIC scores and supposed to be in the same class during Spring and Fall semesters.
My university surveys students about courses at the end of each semester, and as areflection on the results of the Spring semester questionnaire, I decided to introduce threerules in the Fall semester classroom. However, I was not sure whether those rules werereally good for my students, because they did not seem to work well. In particular, the rule
about “unnecessary smartphone usage” had not worked as I expected. So I wondered what
I should do with those rules to improve the learning environment.
We, AR project members, were in Anne’s office brainstorming what we could do for
our AR attempts. I admitted my concerns about classroom rules, and Anne suggested
involving the students in solving these problems. I was very lucky to have such helpfuladvice from her, and I decided to negotiate about the existing classroom rules with mystudents.
The first step I took was to allocate 30 minutes of class time for this negotiation. I
started by explaining that those rules resulted from reflection to their responses to thesemester-end questionnaire. I told my students that university students have more freedom
and responsibility for their own learning, just as they have rights of voting and marriage
because they are already regarded as adults. Discussion took place in small groups of threeor four, which were randomly assigned. After 10 minutes, each group shared theiropinions. Surprisingly, their responses were basically the same. There was more variety ofopinions when they were discussing in groups, but no one disagreed or asked for any
change to those rules. I wondered whether this was because of peer pressure or the wellknown Japanese cultural norm of group-oriented behavior. At the time, I thought that thisnegotiation had failed, since there were no changes and no critical or creative opinions,which I had expected to hear from my students.
Andrew: It sounds like you got started off in a good direction. One of the key pointsof AR is to select a problem, issue, or puzzle that you would like to explore for the purposesof making some positive change. I like the idea of involving students in discussing issues.
Sometimes just letting them know that there is an issue can make a difference, as students
and teachers focus on different things and have different perspectives on learning when
they come together in a classroom. Having these discussions with students can raise theirawareness of issues they had not previously considered. In your case, however, the students
did not suggest any new ideas. That must have been frustrating. I’m curious about the threerules that you mention. What were these three rules and why did you decide to focus on
them?
Tokiko: The first rule was allowing students to sleep in classroom. There were 30-45
minutes of free reading and/or watching time almost every class. Especially when thelesson was conducted in the CALL room once in a week, students were to choose materials
by themselves. Books with CDs and some DVD titles were provided, and they were also
allowed to watch YouTube videos. We call this “free reading” and “free watching.” Since thisinvolved independent activity, some students fell asleep or struggled not to sleep. I know
many teachers hate students sleeping in the classroom, but I believe people need so-called“power nap” sometimes, and set up this rule. The second and third rules were purely inresponse to my students’ comments. A couple of students were upset that a few students
were checking SNSs or web comics on their smartphones in the classroom. Those kindsof behaviors distracted other students, so the second rule addressed that. The third rulefocused on students going out of the classroom during the lesson. The three rules that we
agreed on are shown in Figure 1.

Special Issue: Reflective Writing on Learner Development

71

LEARNING LEARNING

Volume 24 Issue 2 Summer 2017

Andrew: I think it is interesting that you and your class agreed on these rules. While
there are also classroom rules that might be related to academics (e.g., percentage of L1 vs.
L2 spoken during class; homework lateness policies, etc.), these rules are related to
students’ individual rights in the classroom. I imagine that the students felt that they wererespected and treated like adults because you involved them in making these rules andallowed some flexibility.
Figure 1. Negotiated Rules
Sleeping in class:
You are allowed to sleep 15 – 30 mins in class.
Your partner should set the timer for 15 mins and then wake you up. Sleeping more than
30 mins = absent.
Unnecessary smartphone / cell phone usage:
If you are spotted unnecessarily using your smartphone for things like LINE or games
during class, it will be counted as 1 out.
2 outs = 1 absence.
* You may use your smartphone if you ask the instructor first, or if the instructor indicatesyou should use it.
Leaving the classroom:
You may leave the classroom to go to the toilet if you ask the teacher before you leave theclassroom. However, 30 mins or more out from classroom is regarded as an absence.

Now I’m wondering what you did next. Anne Burns and others talk about the cycle ofAR, and that this cycle does not always move in one direction. Sometimes things do not
go as planned so we have to go backwards. What did you do when your students didn’t
give you any new ideas regarding these three rules?
Tokiko: That’s so true. When people notice that there is a problem, it raises theirawareness of the issue and sometimes solves the problems. According to my memo fromAnne’s lecture, I understand that there are four phases in AR: Plan, Act, Observe, and Reflect.
Once I had taken action, I didn’t do anything about that. Instead, I observed students’behavior with a slight hope of it changing.
About two weeks passed, and I was wondering why students in that particular classstarted to submit their homework much more than students in another class. Regarding
the classroom rules, I could see that their awareness of those rules had grown slightly andthat their behavior had changed a little—but not so much. However, I was surprised tosee more and more students in that class starting to submit homework regularly, especiallyfor the vocabulary development project, which was due by the end of semester. That
project consisted of five worksheets of word lists that students should learn and master attheir own pace. In contrast, regarding the other class (who were also freshmen, had thesame proficiency level, but were from a different faculty), their attitude during class time
was always good, but few students had submitted their vocabulary worksheets. It is
important to point out that I had not negotiated any classroom rules with this other group.
This made me wonder whether there might be a connection between negotiating rules
and the increased submission rate. I hypothesized that negotiating rules raised students’ownership of the class. Accordingly, the sense of ownership resulted in an increase in theSpecial Issue: Reflective Writing on Learner Development

72

LEARNING LEARNING

Volume 24 Issue 2 Summer 2017

students’ autonomy. In the end, I found an article that helped me to understand thissituation. Stefanou, Perencevich, Dicintio & Turner (2004) propose three types ofautonomy support:● organizational autonomy support● procedural autonomy support● cognitive autonomy support,
and argue that varying combinations of those autonomy supports lead to different
classroom outcomes. In my case, it seemed that, by negotiating rules with students, theclass had become high in organizational autonomy support. Both of my classes werealready high in both procedural autonomy support and cognitive autonomy support, so
the difference between the two classes could, from this point of view, be attributed to thelevel of organizational autonomy support.
Andrew: I agree with you that these rules are related to organizational autonomy, but I
still have some questions. What is the relationship between these changes in organizational
autonomy and the changes in the students handing in the vocabulary homework? Do you
have any data which points to a link between these two changes?
Tokiko: Before explaining my understanding about these changes, let me introduce
those three categories of autonomy support and associated strategies by Stefanou et al.
(2004):
Table 1. Strategies Associated with Different Features of Autonomy Support(Stefanou et al., 2004)
Organizational Autonomy Support

Procedural Autonomy Support

Cognitive Autonomy Support

Students are given opportunities
to:● choose group members● choose evaluation procedure● take responsibility of due dates
for assignments● participate in creating andimplementing classroom rules● choose seating arrangement

Students are given opportunities
to:● choose materials to use in classprojects● choose the way competence
will be demonstrated● display work in an individual
manner● discuss their wants● handle materials

Students are given opportunities
to:● discuss multiple approaches
and strategies● find multiple solutions toproblems● justify solutions for the
purpose of sharing expertise● have ample time for decision
making● be
independentproblemsolvers with scaffolding● re-evaluate errors● receive informational feedback● formulate personal goals or
realign task to correspond withinterest● debate ideas feely● have less teacher talk time;
more teacher listening time
● ask questions

According to the table, participating in creating and implementing classroom rules isunder organizational autonomy support as I mentioned above. Likewise, my classes

Special Issue: Reflective Writing on Learner Development

73

LEARNING LEARNING

Volume 24 Issue 2 Summer 2017

included procedural and cognitive support such as choosing the way of demonstratingcompetence and receiving cognitive autonomy support. For example, during “free reading”
and “free watching” time, students made notes in a “study report” about what they learned
from the material they chose.
As their teacher, I encouraged students to write down their reflections, including
difficult words or phrases, and questions or opinions about the contents and/or language.
Students were allowed to write both in English and Japanese. English was recommended
but not forced. So some students wrote totally in English, but other students preferred towrite in Japanese. Some even drew pictures to illustrate what they learned from the books
she read. At the end of the activity, students shared their study reports with each other.
Later, students received my comments on their reports as well as responses to theirquestions. However, in most cases, those responses were useful information or strategies
to find the answers by themselves, which could be regarded as a form of “cognitive autonomy”
support.
To come back to your question, Andrew, in terms of actual data, I don’t have specificnumbers now. However, more than half of the students of that particular class handed in
vocabulary homework while only a few students in the other class did when I noticed thedifferences between the two groups. As I explained already, both of my classes had a lotof procedural and cognitive autonomy support. The only difference was the negotiation ofrules (in other words, additional organizational autonomy support for one group). As aconsequence, I hypothesized those increases in handing-in rate were connected to raising
their autonomy, but I was not sure.
This also led me to reflect on my personal beliefs about language learning andteaching. After 10 years of working professionally as a freelance translator, I really knew
well that grammar-translation methods have limitations with regard to language
acquisition. I first came across extensive reading about seven years ago, and experienced
language acquisition with minimal L1 support. That experience increased my interest in
implicit language learning (i.e., extensive reading/listening, and casual speaking/writing),
so I conducted some research on longitudinal implicit language learning of adult learners.
My teaching beliefs are also rooted in value-creating (=soka) education, which myuniversity is named after (Makiguchi, 1972). Value-creating pedagogy argues that the“happiness” of students is the purpose of education, and that the meaning of student
happiness is the capacity to develop oneself and contribute to society by creating “values”(Ikeda, 1996).
Based on those beliefs, I designed the course to guide students to be users of English
rather than learners of English—especially a user of English who can contribute to others
using English as a tool of communication. So, I put greater emphasis on students’ active
learning and fluency development. For example, students engaged in quick writing (for fiveminutes, because they were basic level) for fluency development. Speaking practice starts
from preparing to express their own opinions or information to lower their affective filter
and to personalize their learning as much as possible. On the other hand, the textbook wasused for language-focused learning, especially when grammatical items were explained. To
practice those grammatical items, students were engaged in various games, pair work, andgroup activities, which is common in active learning classroom. Furthermore, I gave
“Express Yourself to the World” as the theme of their final projects. For this project students
were to find the way to connect themselves to the world by using English as acommunication tool. I prepared two online platforms (a class blog and YouTube channel)
for them to present their projects, allowing them to use other ways too if they wanted to.

Special Issue: Reflective Writing on Learner Development

74

LEARNING LEARNING

Volume 24 Issue 2 Summer 2017

So one student made a beautiful pamphlet of Japanese castles for international students,
and another student made a picture book for kindergarten children.
Andrew: Your students were very lucky to have you as their teacher! What you
describe is a very interesting approach towards conducting an English course. Fukuda andcolleagues (Fukuda, Sakata, & Takeuchi, 2011; Fukuda, Sakata, & Pope, 2015) took asimilar approach. They argued that many Japanese university students have been made tolearn English, for example, to pass tests, and have lost interest and motivation to learn. In
response to this issue, as well as in recognition of the belief that a focus on autonomy
promotes lifelong learning, they decided to create a course in which the students have thefreedom to set their own goals, plan what they would do, select their own learning activities
and materials, and evaluate their own learning. And just like with your class, this was still arequired class. In addition to promoting self-directed learning, the instructors actively
supported students’ needs, in terms of autonomy, relatedness, and competence, which are
the three needs emphasized by Ryan and Deci (2000) to help students become selfdetermined, or, motivated. Fukuda and colleagues did not measure gains in language
proficiency, but they did measure students’ changes in motivation by employing validated
questionnaires measuring levels of “amotivation,” “extrinsic motivation,” and “intrinsic
motivation.” They reported a general trend of students moving in the direction of intrinsic
motivation.
To return to your AR project, let me see if I understand the outcome and yourconclusion. You negotiated rules with one class. By involving your students in making
these rules, which were about going out of the class, sleeping in class, and smartphone use,the class had more organizational autonomy. After these rules were agreed on, you noticed achange, which was that students were taking more responsibility for turning in their
vocabulary worksheets. The task of students doing their vocabulary worksheets can beclassified as both procedural and organizational autonomy. You also noticed an increase in
students doing more extensive reading and joining which could be labeled under proceduralautonomy. While another class you were teaching was a good class, you did not negotiateclassroom rules with them, and you did not notice the same kind of changes in their
behaviors. As a result of your observations, you hypothesize that by negotiating rules withstudents, which is classified as organizational autonomy, these students began to exhibit
greater autonomy, which is associated with procedural autonomy. Does this sound accurate toyou?
Tokiko: Yes, I think you articulated all the points I discussed above. And the workof Fukuda et al. (2011, 2015) has given me other insights to improve my teaching. Thankyou, Andrew.
Andrew: I don’t think it is a leap to say that one kind of autonomy can influenceanother kind of autonomy. Going back to self-determination theory, Ryan and Deci (2000)
claim that autonomy-supportive teaching can lead to more internalized forms of
motivation. Considering that perspective on your findings, it is possible that yourautonomy-supportive teaching was motivating for the students, and that this motivation
led them to be more proactive and take more responsibility for their own learning.
I’m glad that we have had the opportunity to have this discussion about AR as I am
also interested in interventions related to learner autonomy. I currently work as a learning
advisor in a university self-access center. In this work environment, self-directed learningis the norm. However, one of our key challenges is to provide the appropriate amount ofstructure and support for the students while the learner still remains in control of thelearning process. Another concern of mine, which many EFL educators in Japan share, is
how to increase student motivation, which is so important for students learning in self-

Special Issue: Reflective Writing on Learner Development

75

LEARNING LEARNING

Volume 24 Issue 2 Summer 2017

access centers. I would like to undertake AR that explores alternative ways of offering
structure and support to students in self-access centers as well as new methods forincreasing student motivation.
How about you, Tokiko? Do you have any plans to for any future AR projects?
Tokiko: As you mentioned, balancing structure and support while allowing students
to take responsibility for their learning is very challenging. Now I have all data from thoseclasses and noticed the gap between the lowest and highest scores of TOEIC is muchbigger in the class where I negotiated the three rules. Even though more than 20% of thestudents in both classes increased TOEIC scores by around 100 points, the scores ofseveral students in that particular class noticeably dropped. Why did this happen?
According to Stefanou (2004), the combination of “low in organizational autonomy support”
with “high in procedural and cognitive autonomy support” leads to the best performance outcomes.
I am therefore planning to re-design the course next academic year with better structure,and more powerful procedural autonomy support and cognitive autonomy support todecrease the gap. So, my new question at this point is “How can I decrease the gap among
students’ performance outcomes by constructing well-organized, but flexible and individualized language
learning in and outside of the classroom?”

References
Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching. A guide for practitioners. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Fukuda, S. T., Sakata, H., & Takeuchi, M. (2011). Facilitating autonomy to enhance
motivation: Examining the effects of a guided-autonomy syllabus. Electronic Journal of
Foreign
Language
Teaching,
8(1),71–86.
Retrievedfrom
http://eflt.nus.edu.sg/v8n12011/fukuda.pdf
Fukuda, S. T., Sakata, H., & Pope, C. J. (2015). The GAS that fuels motivation: Satisfying
the need for relatedness in the guided-autonomy syllabus. Electronic Journal of Foreign
Language
Teaching,
12(2),
219–237.
Retrievedfrom
http://eflt.nus.edu.sg/v12n22015/fukuda.pdf
Ikeda, D. (1996, June). Thoughts on education for global citizenship [Lecture text].
Teachers
College,
Columbia
University.
Retrievedfrom
http://www.daisakuikeda.org/sub/resources/works/lect/lect-08.html
Makiguchi, T. (1972).
[Soka kyouikugaku taikei/The system of valuecreating pedagogy]. Tokyo: Seikyo Shimbun. (Original work published in 1930).
Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. The American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
Stefanou, C. R., Perencevich, K. C., DiCintio, M., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Supporting
autonomy in the classroom: Ways teachers encourage student decision making andownership. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 97-110.
Tweed, A. (2014). Getting started with action research: An introduction for teachersinterested in investigating classroom issues. In E. Doman (Ed.), Insight into EFL teaching
and issues in Asia (pp. 9-19). Newcastle upon Tyne, England: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing.

Special Issue: Reflective Writing on Learner Development76