This site uses cookies for learning about our traffic, we store no personal details. ACCEPT COOKIES DECLINE COOKIES What are cookies?
univerge site banner
Review Article | Open Access | Br. J. Arts Humanit., 4(5), 154-164 | doi: 10.34104/bjah.02201540164

Developing Student Autonomy through the Enhancement of Technological Approaches

Alim Asanov* Mail Img

Abstract

The concept of “learner autonomy” (LA) infatuates the interest of researchers across different dimensions of science and technology. In the previous century, the initial associations with the term springing to ones mind were to do with self-access technology-rich centres, commonly known as “resource centres; however, with its rapid global penetration, it reached the contexts of developing countries, thus introducing change to how the learners can become better versions of themselves. The aim of this study is to report on the effectiveness of the consequent introduction of a wide range of e-tools studied and experimented with minor teacher intervention. The study is limited to a scope of 24-25 CIFS students studying at Westminster International University in Tashkent (henceforth WIUT) aged between the ages of 17 and 20. The group will be randomly divided into two samples: experimental and control. Supposedly, there will be 12 students in each of the two sample groups. 

INTRODUCTION

The concept of “learner autonomy” (LA) infatuates the interest of researchers across different dimensions of science and technology. In the previous century, the initial associations with the term springing to ones mind were to do with self-access technology-rich centres, commonly known as “resource centres; how-ever, with its rapid global penetration, it reached the contexts of developing countries, thus introducing cha-nge to how the learners can become better versions of themselves (Smithet al., 2018, p8). However, due to not being inherent and its complex individual hier-archy (Dickinson, 1992 cited in Hu, 2014, p435), developing LA is not a matter of a few random tech-niques, but rather a painstakingly planned approach (Gholami, 2016, p50). The notion of LA, coined by Henry Holec, first came to light in the early 1980s and initially implied an ability of learners to be in chargeof their own learning (Holec, 1981, p3 cited in Hu, 2014, p435). The multi-dimensional formulations of auto-nomous learning depend on the study area and geo-graphy and could be explained by its initiating dyna-mic, but the closest and most crucial to the nature of the current research definition characterizes an auto-nomous learner as a vigorous participant actively inter-preting new data from the perspective of his/her frame of reference within the social milieu where learning happens (Dam, 1990, cited in Ceylan, 2015, p86). The focus of study is the English language classroom where being autonomous determines the degree of a learners success. To this effect, the proposed study will intensify the understanding of LA for it intends to explore it within the framework of modern techno-logies utilized by educators to facilitate content cover-age of various disciplines. In the sphere of Language Education, despite the omnipresence of holistic over-view and multifaceted Ness, this field is under-studied and rather promising for research.

Statement of purpose

The main purpose of this study is to investigate the effect that the enhancement of learning through tech-nologies has on developing students autonomy in Academic English writing. 

Research question(s) 

The prospective study will address this matter by exploring the following RQs -

Main question

1) How can the enhancement of technological app-roaches develop student autonomy in learning Academic English?

Sub-questions

1) What e-learning tools developing student auto-nomy are mostly preferred among students?

2) How much teacher intervention is needed to maintain effective autonomous learning?

Research objectives

The following objectives have been established for the intended study:

1) To apply various e-learning tools in order to esta-blish if they contribute to developing autonomy in learning to write in Academic English

2) To experiment with various e-learning tools so as to discover the most efficient ones for autono-mous learning.

3) To evaluate if teacher intervention in students autonomous learning upholds effective autono-mous learning in students.

Scope of the study

Whilst autonomy and technology as concepts are not novice and have been extensively documented in the framework of versatile scientific contexts, they have been scarcely studied as far as the effect the former and the latter may have on the improvement of writing skills among the international university students enro-lled on a first year of study. The aim of this study is to report on the effectiveness of the consequent intro-duction of a wide range of e-tools studied and exp-erimented with minor teacher intervention. The study is limited to a scope of 24-25 CIFS students studying at Westminster International University in Tashkent (henceforth WIUT) aged between the ages of 17 and 20. The group will be randomly divided into two sam-ples: experimental and control. Supposedly, there will be 12 students in each of the two sample groups. So the experiment will be conducted on 12 students while in-class conditions and instructions for both groups will be exactly the same. Because the experiment will last for 10 weeks and it aims to look into the notion of autonomy, all assignments the students will be exp-ected to work on are going to be carried out in their free off-class time. Communication with the research participant will, to a large extent, be taking place via WIUT Learning Board, rarely via Telegram group, university email accounts and face-to-face. To this end, all members of the experiment group will be added to the WIUT Learning Management System (LMS) in “My Classes folder from which further communication and learning will take place. The idea of student active engagement in their autonomous learning lies in encouraging them to experiment with any convenient e-learning tool or a set approximately 15 tools from the suggested list borrowed from the research findings of (Benosa, 2015; Ghufron and Nur-dianingsih, 2019, p983; Dhillon and Murray; 2021, p10). The whole range of tools they applied in their studiesis enumerated and analyzed in the liter-ature review section. However, their learning is not expected to be entirely autonomous, but rather semi-auto-nomous. To extrapolate, the students will be able to get familiarized with each suggested tool as recom-mended by Cole and Vanderplank, (2016, p33), I, as an instructor, will scaffold their motivation by pre-paring a brief description and general instructions about their usage to each e-learning tool. With prior reference to the Teaching Calendar, they will be aware of the topic of the upcoming seminar so that to explore it more insightfully prior to attending the class using a tool (or a few of them) by their choice, in the mean-time, as social cognitivists would put it, fostering assi-milation. After each seminar, they should write a brief reflection (50-100 words) about their experience (of getting to know about the tool, learning a new seminar-related concept, performing in class and deducing a takeaway) and upload it in the Discussion entering their private folder accessible by the others. The stu-dents should feel encouraged to read at least two reflection logs (preferably circulating them) and pro-vide brief comments by the end of each week. As for my role as a teacher, all reflection summaries should be commented upon to ensure the students dynamic work is appreciated, guided and evaluated. All this organization and monitoring is essential because fail-ure of any representative to comply with the set con-ditions may affect the final results; therefore, in order to preclude this from happening, non-compliant mem-bers may have to be excluded from the study.

Literature review

Learning autonomy is a widely-discussed topic in edu-cational circles and the abundant availability of tech-nological underpinnings makes this capacity even more attractive to research from multiple angles. The thematically-built literature review that follows aims to ascertain the value from various sources through ana-lysis and critical evaluation. 

Benefits of learning English autonomously

One of the indicators of a successful reform in teach-ing is developing students ability to learn autono-mously, whereby they can devise methods typical of their best potential (Li, 2015, p435). Since autonomy kindles learners perseverance and dedication to mater-ialize aspirations, it plays a pivotal role in learning an L2 (Bravo et al., 2017, p101). The two main affective factors, motivation and confidence, significantly stre-ngthen when students opt for in- and interdependence in learning (Hu, 2014, pp13-17). Whats more, with the help of English majors, which are high in perception levels, learners can be prepared for one of the top life skills of the current century, viz. ability to perform tasks independently (Tran and Vo, 2019).  

As regard particular skills, learning vocabulary auto-nomously helps students to memorize a greater number of lexical units within a short span of time (Janitra, 2020, p13); especially, among those doing so from frequent exposure to television wherein a compre-hensive range of vocabulary is at the learners disposal (Kusyk and Sockett, 2012, p11). Through increasingly sophisticated practice, which is scaffolded by moti-vation to obtain knowledge from the sources, predomi-nantly created by experts, autonomous learners gra-dually, but surely become experts themselves (Cole and Vanderplank, 2016, p33; Cada, 2021).

Factors hampering autonomous learning in students 

There can be many factors precluding the students becoming self-reliant from academic perspectives, but a substantial body of evidence places emphasis on several most egregious ones. One aspect is a dissoj-nance, especially in the developing world, between what many learners covet to acquire and what, in fact, the formal education has to offer (Smith et al., 2018, p11) since there are still many educational establish-ments limited to a mere “chalk and talk” pedagogies postponing autonomous self-expression (p14). More-over, excessive bureaucratic control from teachers side could seriously undermine the lure for indepen-dence in learning (Gao, p45). Teachers involuntary intrusion in their students ‘autonomy can also lie within their uncertainty about the extent to which the instructions executed in class are effectiveness as well as their dearth of expertise and constraints in relevance of applied materials and assessment instruments (Little, 2009, p244). Unsupportive atmosphere both within the household and in the classroom sets out to be another reason why students fail to maintain learn-ing concentration (Agustina and Fajar, 2018, p154). Other external constraints to LA in language acqui-sition are severe institutional constraints (examina-tions, curriculum, rules and regulations) and language teaching methodologies (Benson, 2000, p114). Like-wise Borg, (2011) identified institutional and teaching factors, but also added learner ones, mainly paucity of motivation among learners for independent learning (p222).

Impact of technology on autonomous learning 

A comparison between more and less autonomously engaged learners using digital tools shows that the former can better individualize them and monitor the progress they make in language development (Dincer, 2020, p62). Other research findings show that the acc-ess to various applications and videos on multimedia devices during out-of-class time is the most preferred way to acquire skills in English (Rahayu, 2020, p55). Research into in-class experience demonstrates that such technological advancements as computers, pro-jectors, software, 3D tools, PPPs, etc., enhance teach-7uing and learning making both more interesting and interactive (Rajaand Nagasubramani, 2018, p34). Vari-ous e-learning resources for learning foreign languages autonomously, such as e-credit books, electronic lib-rary systems, e-learning resources and versatile educa-tional platforms make students experience more effi-cient and exciting (Chikileva, 2019, p477). Besides, while letting students select individual activities in learners “personal learning environment” (PLE), such platforms are designed to develop students time man-agement and ability to control pace of learning (p480). 

Technology helps learners build their knowledge thro-ugh round-the-clock access to various web tools, mate-rials, interfaces and remotely collaborates with their peers (Agustina and Fajar, 2018, pp155-56; Raja and Nagasubramani, 2018, p 34; Aminatun and Oktaviani, 2019, p216). Encouraging students to independently explore new knowledge via technology enriches their schemata and enables them to support in-class discuss-ion with their teacher and groupmates (Francis and Flanigan, 2012). Nevertheless, ICT may have a nega-tive effect accelerated by dividesin the digital sphere, meaning that because of the costs, those financially-challenged learners can be deprived of what the tech-nology has to offer; moreover, the learners can shift from the subject content to technology aspect, thus succumbing to distractive marketing ploys (Israel, 2014, p156). Other authors reveal lack of focus, poor concentration and decline in writing skills as the most vulnerable aspects the students can undermine (Raja and Nagasubramani, 2018, p 35). 

Foundation and strategies applied by autonomous learners 

LA is not a personal quality or a ready-made product as it is mistakenly deemed. One can lay the foundation for autonomous learning only when an amalgam of conditions (cognitive and metacognitive strategies, attitudes, motivation and knowledge about efficient mechanisms of learning a language) is created (Nunan, 1997). In fostering LA, successful students apply a greater repertoire of learning strategies on a constant basis, thus strengthening metacognitive thinking, the main concepts of which are awareness, planning and goal setting, and monitoring (Chamot, 1998, p14; Hu, 2014, p22). Earlier a cluster of six main factors, viz., the role of teacher and feedback, learners indepen-dence and confidence in studying, experience of lear-ning foreign languages and chosen approach chosen to study, was elicited to determine whether or not students are prepared for learning autonomously (Cotterall, 1995, p197). In the view of Sariçoban, (2012), reading strategies applied metacognitively cultivate reading autonomy; he distinguished 12 sub-strategies (i.e. reviewing and connecting the studied materials, paying/directed/selected attention, deter-mining goals, finding opportunities to practice, self-management and evaluation) that might be applied to develop not only reading autonomy, but also other study skills (p50). As such, the implementation of various technological approaches at each separate stage is highly feasible. However, without an auto-nomous teacher, fostering LA can be vitiated (John-son et al., 1990; Thanasoulas, 2009, p7). Teacher auto-nomy presupposes cognitive and affective aspects since teachers prior mission is not about inculcating LA, but also teaching students how to overcome fee-lings of fear, low self-respect and debacles in attempt-ing to gain independence (Gabryś-Barker, 2017, p176). This, oftentimes, implies rethinking the expository mode of teaching roles (no talking means no teaching) and becoming the educational resources counsellor instead of being the information purveyor (Little, 1991, pp44-45).

Teaching strategies promoting technological approaches

A master teacher is flexible to adapting to students concurrent instructional needs and sufficiently exploits technology to detect and amend their errors and misconceptions (Ostankowicz-Bazan, 2016, p3). A Japanese researcher predicts that the influence of tech-nology will gain momentum and most educational establishments will “adopt bring-your-own-device policies and will expect their teachers to be tech-literate to make proper use of these devices (Lavolette, 2022, p1). Concurrently, the University of Helsinki Language Centre is actively engaged in Autonomous Learning Modules (ALMs) where the students accom-plish the required writing studies component as part of curriculum (Karlsson and Dradley, 2020, p142). In seeking to transform conventional classrooms and aug-ment students comprehension of the core concept via blogs, websites, e-books and videos, a flipped method of teaching is commonly integrated these days (Beno-sa, 2015; Ghufron and Nurdianingsih, 2019, p983). Other studies revealed that the most effective way to inculcate LA is to vary the spectrum of e-learning collaborative and corpus linguistic technology tools. 

Among the most preferred ones are videos (TED, YouTube), Virtual Learning Environment (Edmondo, Blackboard, MOODLE), plagiarism software (Viper, Turnitin), tools for feedback writing (Kaizena, MS Word Track Changes), collaboration (Padlet, Dropbox, GoogleDocs), referencing tools, quizzes, interactive whiteboard and social media (Dhillon and Murray, 2021, p10). Most explored literature suggests that stu-dents are unlikely to gain complete autonomy without motivation, auspicious external conditions and teac-hers thorough curriculum planning, support and mod-erate guidance. To ensure learners delve into realizing the importance of, establishing and honing their auto-nomy through an effective application of e-learning technology, a “digital immigrant” teacher should be motivated to keep pace with technological advance-ments, their versatility and applicability (Dhillon and Murray, 2021, p2). There is, nevertheless, relatively insufficient research investigating how enhancing the use of e-learning technology in the Academic English module can make students more autonomous and thus better as well as more independent writers. Moreover, no findings were revealed about LA in academic writing and the use of e-technologies to foster auto-nomy at a foundation university level in the context of Uzbekistan, therefore, addressing these gaps may render valuable results.  

METHOLODOGY

Research Design

Having made assumptions about the sort of data needed, in my future study, I have decided to imple-ment the Experiment Research or Hypothesis-testing method. According to Trochim and Donnelly, (2006, p191), experimental design is the most rigorous of all research designs and when properly executed becomes the“golden standard” because other designs, due to its strongest internal validity, are judged against it. At this stage, I would not be targeting any golden standards, but as suggested by Hammond and Wellington, (2021), obtaining useful data in the context of technological effects on LA and comparison between groups might suggest, rather than prove, what the actual impact is (p86). Since this design can fall into four different types, True experimental, Quasi-experimental, Pre-experimental and Ex post facto (Walliman, 2022, pp148-149), following a thorough familiarization with this classification, I decided that only the former one corresponds to what indeed my research pursues to undertake, thus hypothesizing causal relationship bet-ween variables. The main reason why I intend to go with the True experiment design is that it will allow me to make a careful random selection of the hypoth-eses I am going to test. Next, this method gives room for comparing outcomes gained from control and experimental groups. Whats more, the groups can be tested to determine their properties before the experi-ment is conducted. It also allows for the variables to be closely monitored and neutralized. Finally, the gath-ered data can prospectively become the foundation for making generalizations. However, the only way I can determine whether technologies have an effect on LA is to do a controlled experiment. For this reason, I should first of all identify my variables elicited from the main research question:

Independent Variable: Use of technology

Dependent Variable: Becoming more autonomous as a learner.

Although these determine the main thrust of my study, they are still not specific enough in relation to the main variables to be studied and the study population. I can-not establish how autonomous a student is until I decide what constitutes the LA and how it can be determined; similarly, I cannot measure whether the technological approach is indeed strengthened if I have not instituted and circumscribed what particular e-tools, pieces of equipment or software are common to equate. Thereby, in my study, I set forth to clearly define them not to cause any confusion and ambiguity. This will be done through establishing working/opera-tional definitions. For construct validity, a researcher should operationalize terminology within a semantic net (Trochim and Donnelly, 2006, p71). Operational definitions here are necessary in case some other researcher decides to replicate the study to see whether the same results can be obtained.

Description of the study area

Educational domain is immensely broad and stratified. This ushers in diverse topics for scientific exploration. However, with the penetration of technology in edu-cation, the latter “... has gone from passive and re-active to interactive and aggressive” (Raja and Naga-subramani, 2018, p34). This proposal focuses on the topical issue of technological approaches in developing LA at a higher education level. Technology has both advantaged and disadvantaged educators, but cumuli-tive evidence convincingly suggests that its future is inextricably linked to it like any other sphere of the digital era. Studying the effects that technology brings in education is the dictate of time because it has allowed learners to acquire knowledge in ways they never did before (Harris et al., 2016, p370). Prima facie the achievements in the study area bode well, but learning more about the residual effects that tech-nology tools have on learners growing more indepen-dent in their academic endeavors is of the hitherto concern. 

Sample, sample size and sampling technique

In this study, I will focus on any one of the four CIFS (Certificate of International Foundation Studies) groups where I teach an Academic English module. The total student population expected to do the course in the academic year 2022-23 is about 1,500 students. Each group consists of an average of 25 students. In fact, I will be experimenting with approximately 2% of the total CIFS population. The students in the group will have many common characteristics, such as age and interests, therefore, as stated by Johnson and Christensen, (2016), the more homogeneous a popu-lation is, the smaller the studied sample size can be (p270). Moreover, as the researchers recommend in the table adapted from Krejecie and Morgan, (1970), the size of population of 25 (N) should engage 24 (n) sample members (p271). Iintend to shun any sort of bias, and consequently have the results of my study generalized to a larger population; therefore, non-pro-bability sampling methods are beyond any consider-ation. Because the study aims to find out the causal relationship between the variables, they need to be separated into two separate sub-groups: experimental and control ones. 

The former group will be exposed to the independent variable, i.e. technology use while the latter, control group, with which the former will be compared, will not be exposed to any treatment or intervention and will be taught in a regular manner. The students will be divided into the sub-groups through random assign-ment using a list of names from WIUT Learning Board attendance system and pasting it through online randomizer-team generator (https://www.gigacalcul-ator.com/randomizers/random-team-generator.php). This will eliminate any con-founding elements and give each group member an equal chance to be selec-ted in either group (Som, 1995, pp515-16). Such technique is called Simple Random Sampling.

Ethics consideration

Considering an ethical side of the matter is another essential aspect when formulating a research problem. Collecting data by means of any of the applied met-hods may involve ethical issues (Kumar, 2005, p24). The current study should closely look at this problem because for some students the extended period they are anticipated to be part of the study may be deemed bur-densome, or some sample representatives may develop a feeling of being “guinea pigs”, or they might need to share both private and sensitive information, or they may feel burdened because of a moral obligation to complete the experiment. Any of these ethical con-cernsmust be carefully examined and transparently communicated to the prospective study participants. Wallimans, (2022) advice on the problem is the most pertinent for it looks at researchers individual values (integrity, frankness and honesty) and adequate treat-ment towards research participants through courtesy, anonymity, confidentiality, & informed consent (p51).

Data collection

In my research, for the purpose of accumulating quan-titative data on LA and their adherence to outside-class activities devoted to learning English, the study popu-lation is expected to share their perceptions, feelings and attitudes twice through an online quest-ionnaire. Johnson and Christensen, (2016) define a “question-naire” as a data-collection survey instrument filled out by research participants in the format of a self-report (p227). The most convenient way is to do so through free survey administration software known as Google Forms. This package is convenient for my study for various advantages:

1) It is very common when conducting experi-mental research.

2) It is inexpensive; considering the fact that I will be collecting the responses at the university by asking students to scan the QR-code redirecting to the questionnaire itself, it will involve no per-sonal expenses.  

3) The questionnaire will be filled out by the res-pondents in a group situation; so, I will man-age the data collection setting and ensure every-one has completed it; as such, it is expected that there will be a high response rate. 

4) It is quick and will take 10 minutes maximum.

The same questionnaire (see Appendix A) will be applied to both experimental and control samples at the time the semester commences (Teaching Week 3) and upon its completion (Teaching Week 12) with the interval of 10 weeks. The offered questionnaire, which is still tentative and subject to undergo further polish-ing, has been mainly constructed from two basic sources and numerous arguments and findings synthe-sized in the literature review part of the current proposal. The total of 61 questions retrieving students self-perception, performance, attitudes, personality and aptitudes have been grouped to delineate the concept and degree to which the LA is developed as of the survey time. These predominantly reflect the amalgam of students independence in writing, some general study skills and interaction modes with peers and teachers as well as their ability to utilize technology for self-directed learning. The reason why I intend to gather data from both the experiment and control groups using the same questionnaire is to see theextent to which the experiment group will become more autonomous. 

Data analysis and presentation/Expected findings

The nature of the data analysis correlated the study design. Per this intended study, I considered Experi-ment Research or Hypothesis-testing design. Conse-quently, to determine statistical relationships among the variables, the Hypothesis-testing method will be applied. The quantitative, hard statistical data, will be analyzed inferentially. To clarify, “inferential stati-stics… [uses] ... the laws of probability to make infer-ences and draw statistical conclusions about popu-lations based on sample data” (Johnson and Chris-tensen, 2016, p530). In my study, I intend to identify the cause and effect relationship between the enhanced use of technology (mainly, e-learning collaborative tools) and becoming more independent as a learner in academic writing. I have observed that technology-literate students are better organized in their learning and perform better as writers. This study will cor-respondingly determine whether the relation (my assumptions) that I predict among the variables truly exists. This prompts the following Verbal Null and Alternative hypotheses deduced through a top-down approach in reasoning.

H0 Applying technological approaches have no effect on developing LA in learning Academic English writing.

H1 The enhancement of technological approaches develops LA in learning Academic English writing.

H0 Experimenting with various e-learning tools cannot help students recognize which ones are best for their autonomous learning.

H2 Varied use of e-tools helps students recognize the most effective one(s) for their own learning and thus becoming more independent.

H0 No teacher intervention in LA should be in place.

H3 Moderate teacher monitoring and guidance throughout a semester contributes to effective auto-nomous learning in students.

All three “alternative” hypotheses, which are based on my prediction since I personally support them (Tro-chim and Donnelly, 2006, p9), will be tested directly and relying on the conviction that hypothesis testing operates under the conjecture that the null hypothesis is true, to find out whether they are true indeed NHST (null hypothesis significance testing) should be applied (Johnson and Christensen, 2016, p540). As regard the presentation, I assume that that the major part of the obtained data, I will show in the tabulated format. According to Ellison, (2010) this is only advised when the data from a small group of respondents is to be reviewed and illustrated in a tabular form (p64). Since I will be dealing with a relatively small sample, this undertaking deems to be rather feasible. The expecta-tion of their being due to gain a more proficient skill set relies on the fact that both sample groups will be taught a regular pre-planned class aiming at nurturing their autonomy through various strategies, technical included, but as the RQ goes, the experimental group will be actively “enhancing” their independent learning using versatile technological means in the off-class periods. This extracurricular 10-week engagement in strengthening the LA via technologies is sure to illus-trate different results not only from the initial question-naire, but also from those of the control sample pro-ving my main hypothesis claiming that techno-logical approaches develop LA in learning Academic English writing. Other expected results will show that experi-menting with a broad spectrum of e-learning tools, the experimental sample representatives will develop their own preferences ensuring the most fool-proof effi-ciency in learning. The other anticipated outcomes will prove that moderate guidance and monitoring by the instructor is essential before the learner becomes fully-independent and throughout a semester contributes to effective autonomous learning in students. As Jiménez and Flávia, (2020) view it, the teachers role should be strengthened and expanded while the work they do ought not to be treated as the process ‘pro-ducing learning but rather as the process ‘facilitating it” (p23).  

Benefits/limitations/reflections

I expect the outcomes of the proposed study to provide inputs to the existing body of knowledge about the most effective technological tools helping students at tertiary level to improve their writing abilities within the scope of their own, enhanced potential to obtain relevant information. Since the study will be free of my bias, be based on random samples of ample size and have the confounding impact of various variables eliminated, there could be a strong likelihood of the study findings to be generalized and further replicated on other (sub) populations across the country and beyond involving larger numbers of participants. The result of the intended research may have positive repercussions on the syllabus and assessment design of the AE course of other disciplines involving academic writing. At the meantime, the proposed research pro-cedure may overlook some essential undertakings which are due to be identified, traced and eliminated prior to the actual research process. For the time being, a few limitations may obfuscate the alleged study. 

Firstly, direct application to specific local circums-tances and individuals might be impeded due to the too general or conceptual knowledge to be produced. Secondly, instead of generating the hypothesis, there might be some confirmation bias resulted from the inclination to disprove the null hypotheses while test-ing the alternative ones. Finally, with the study de-manding from experimental sample participants some extended participation, there exists a risk of “attrition bias” (Miller and Hollist, 2007, p57; Kandel, 2020, p49) that may seriously confine the generalizability of the prospective results. 

CONCLUSION

Extensive examination of the topic has been carried out which resulted in discovering what merits auto-nomy heralds and what factors can debilitate it in learning. It has been revealed how technology and the idea of LA are connected and what strategies both learners and instructors should apply to foster a self-directed approach in the process of knowledge acquis-ition. Therefore, the main focus of this proposal is to set for further examination the effect that the enhance-ment of learning through technologies can have on the development of students autonomy in Academic English writing. This research proposal embodies vari-ous operational steps described and justified for further specialist consideration. The process of writing the current piece has been challenging as well as enjoy-able. In retrospect, the entire endeavor required good theoretical and intermediary knowledge, some blanks within which lagged the progress of writing. This suggests that further progress and intensive familiari-zation with the vast theoretical background should create a solid and balanced foundation for the forth-coming thesis writing.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author would like to express his sincere grati-fication to his research supervisor, Lobar Babak-hodjaeva (Associate Professor at Westminster Inter-national University in Tashkent), for her professional guidance throughout the entire process of writing the paper. Moreover, the author is grateful to his family members for providing moral endorsement.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

Article References:

  1. Agustina, D. and Fajar, D. A. (2018). LA as a Challenge in English Language Education 4.0 in Indonesia. ELLiC Proceedings, 2, 155-159. https://jurnal.unimus.ac.id/index.php/ELLIC/article/download/3518/3341 
  2. Aminatun, D. and Oktaviani, L. (2019).  Mem-rise: Promoting Students Autonomous Learning Skill through Language Learning Application. Metathesis: Journal of English Language Liter-ature, 3(2), 214-223. https://doi.org/10.31002/metathesis.V3i2.1982 
  3. Benson, P. (2000). Autonomy as a Learners and Teachers Right. In: Sinclair, B., Mcgrath, I. and Lamb, T. (eds.) LA, Teacher Autonomy: New Directions. London: Addison Wesley Longman, 111-117. 
  4. Borg, S. (2011). Language Teacher Education. In: Simpson, J. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Applied Linguistics. London: 215-228.
  5. Bravo, J.C. et al. (2017). Motivation and Auto-nomy in Learning English as Foreign Language: A Case Study of Ecuadorian College Students. English Language Teaching,10(2), 100-113. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n2p100 
  6. Cada BA. (2021). Learning styles and academic performance of teacher education students, Br. J. Arts Humanit., 3(4), 86-96. https://doi.org/10.34104/bjah.021086096   
  7. Ceylan, N. O. (2015). Fostering LA. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199, 85–93. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042815044948 
  8. Chamot, A. U. (1998). Professional Preparation of Teaching Assistants in Foreign Languages. Foreign Language Annals, 22(1), 13-22. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED433719.pdf 
  9. Chikileva, L. S. (2019). The Role of the Tutor in the Choice of Pedagogical Management Tools for Autonomous Work in Foreign Languages. Integration of Education, 23(3), 475-489. https://doi.org/10.15507/1991-9468.096.023.201903.475-489 
  10. Cole, J. and Vanderplank, R. (2016).  Compa-ring autonomous and class-based learners in Brazil: Evidence for the present-day advantages of informal, out-of-class learning. Elsevier, 61, 31-42. https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/10.1016/j.system.2016.07.007 
  11. Cotterall, S. (1995). Readiness for Autonomy: Investigating Learner Beliefs, System, 23(2), 195-205. https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/10.1016/0346-251x(95)00008-8 
  12. Dhillon, S. and Murray, N. (2021). An Investi-gation of EAP Teachers Views and Experiences of E-Learning Technology, Education Sciences, 11(54), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11020054 
  13. Dincer, A. E. (2020). Understanding the Chara-cteristics of English Language Learners Out-of-Class Language Learning through Digital Prac-tices. IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education, 8(2), 47-65. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1265678 
  14. Ellison, C. (2010). Concise Guide to Writing Re-search Papers, New York, Chicago: McGraw-Hill.
  15. Gabryś-Barker, D. (2017). Preservice Teachers Perceptions of Teacher Autonomy. In: Pawlak, M., Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A. and Bielak, J. (eds.) Autonomy in Second Language Learning: Mana-ging the Resources. Poland: Springer International Publishing Switzerland, 161-178.  
  16. Gao, X. (2018). Language Teacher Autonomy and Social Censure. In: Chik, A. Aoki, N. and Smith, R. (eds.) Autonomy in Language Learning and Teaching. United Kingdom:  Palgrave Macmillan, 29-50.  
  17. Gholami, H. (2016). Theory and Practice in Lan-guage Studies, Academy Publication, 6(1), 46-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0601.06 
  18. Ghufron, A. M. and Nurdianingsih (2019). Flipped Teaching with CALL in EFL Writing Class: How Does It Work and Affect LA? European Journal of Educational Research, 8(4), 983-997. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.8.4.983 
  19. Hammond, M. and Wellington, J. (2021). Res-earch Methods: The Key Concepts, 2nd ed. London and New York: Routledge. 
  20. Harris, J. L., Al-Bataineh, M. T. and Al-Bat-aineh, J. A. (2016). One to One Technology and its Effect on Student Academic Achievement and Motivation. Contemporary Educational Technology, 7(4), 368-381. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339277885 
  21. Hu, Y. (2014). The Role of LA for Learning English Out-of-class in Chinese Universities. UVIC, 1-60.  https://dspace.library.uvic.ca/handle/1828/7323 
  22. Israel, O. B. (2014). The impacts (positive and negative) of ICT on education in Nigeria. Deve-loping Country Studies, 4(23), 154-156. https://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/DCS/article/viewFile/17715/18098 
  23. Johnson R.B. and Christensen L.B. (2016). Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches, 6th ed. United States of America: SAGE Publications. 
  24. Janitra, T. I. (2020). Exploring Autonomous and Self-Regulation in Vocabulary Learning. J. Pen-elitian, Pendidikan, dan Pembelajaran, 15(28), pp.1-19. http://riset.unisma.ac.id/index.php/jp3/article/view/7449/5987 
  25. Jiménez, R. M. and Flávia, V. (2020). Autonomy in Language Education: Theory, Research and Practice. New York and London:  Routledge.
  26. Kandel, R. K. (2020). Experimental Research Design: A Play of Variables. Journal of NELTA, Surkhet, 2, 34-52. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343890005 
  27. Karlsson, L. and Dradley, F. (2020). From there to Autonomy: An Autoethnography of Auto-nomous Learning Modules. In: Jiménez, R. M. and Flávia, V. (2020). Autonomy in Language Education: Theory, Research and Practice.New York and London:  Routledge, 142-156.
  28. Kumar, R. (2005). Research methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners,2nd ed. London: SAGE Publications.
  29. Kusyk, M. and Sockett, G. (2012). From infor-mal resource usage to incidental language acqui-sition: language uptake from online television viewing in English. ASp la revue du GERAS, 62, 1-19. https://journals.openedition.org/asp/3104 
  30. Lavolette, E. B. (2022). Optimizing the future of language teaching with technology in Japan. In: Cooper, T. D. et al. (eds.) Remote Teaching & Beyond. Japan: JALT CALL SIG, 1-14.
  31. Li, X. (2015). Study on College English Tea-chers Role in Developing LA. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(2), 435-441.  http://www.academypublication.com/issues2/tpls/vol05/02/27.pdf 
  32. Little, D. (2009). Language LA and the Euro-pean Language Portfolio: Two L2 English exa-mples. Language Teaching, 42(2), 222–233. Available from - https://dspace.library.uvic.ca/handle/1828/732310.1017/S0261444808005636 
  33. Miller, R. B. and Hollist, C. S. (2007). Attrition Bias. Encyclopedia of Measurement and Statis-tics, 1, 57-60. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1044&context=famconfacpub 
  34. Missoum, M. (2016). ICT Use and EFL LA -Student Questionnaire Method. ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.11890.15047
  35. Nunan, D. (1997). Designing and adapting materials to encourage LA. In: P. Benson and P. Voller (Eds.), Autonomy and independence in language learning, London: Longman, pp192-203.
  36. Ostankowicz-Bazan, H. (2016). Teaching and Technology. ResearchGate, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.2534.0562 
  37. Rahayu, S. P. (2020). Watching Videos to Imp-rive Autonomous Learning Behaviour for Uni-versity Students as Generation Z. Saga, 1(1), 53-58. http://doi.org/10.21460/saga.2020.11.25 
  38. Raja, R. and Nagasubramani, P. C. (2018). Impact of modern technology in education, Jour-nal of Applied and Advanced Research, 3(1), pp.33-35. https://updatepublishing.com/journal/index.php/jaar/article/view/6790 
  39. Smith, R., Kuchah, K. and Lamb, M. (2018). LA in Developing Countries. In: Chik, A. Aoki, N. and Smith, R. (eds.) Autonomy in Language Learning and Teaching. United Kingdom:  Palg-rave Macmillan, 7-28.  
  40. Som R.K. (1995). Practical Sampling Tech-niques, 2nd ed.Boca Raton: CRC Press. 
  41. Sultana N., and Yoko NT. (2021). Impact of teachers feedback in improving students wri-ting skills:  a study of tertiary level students in Dhaka, Br. J. Arts Humanit., 3(5), 128-139. https://doi.org/10.34104/bjah.02101280139   
  42. Teng, L. S. and Lawrence, J. Z. (2016). A Questionnaire-Based Validation of Multi dimen-sional Models of Self-Regulated Learning Stra-tegies. The Modern Language J., 100, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.123390026-7902/16/1–28 
  43. Thanasoulas, D. (2009). What isLA and How Can It Be Fostered?  The Internet TESL Journal, 1-12. Available from - https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/What-is-Learner-Autonomy-and-How-Can-It-Be-Fostered-Thanasoulas/eb5b44d36b14b333f3938751c13c3916a8caedcd 
  44. Tran. T. Q., and Vo. D. Q. (2019). Tertiary Eng-lish majors perceptions of the importance of LA and autonomous language learning strategy use. Proceedings of the International conference: Au-tonomy and motivation for language learning in the interconnected world at Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology and Education. Ho Chi Minh City: Vietnam National University - Ho Chi Minh Press, 102-113. 
  45. Trochim, W. M. K. and Donnelly, J. P. (2006). Research Methods Knowledge Base. Australia, United Kingdom, United States: CENGAGE Le-arning.
  46. Walliman, N. (2022). Research Methods: The Basics,3rd ed. London and New York: Routledge. 

Article Info:

Academic Editor

Dr. Sonjoy Bishwas, Executive, Universe Publishing Group (UniversePG), California, USA.

Received

September 9, 2022

Accepted

October 13, 2022

Published

October 22, 2022

Article DOI: 10.34104/bjah.02201540164

Corresponding author

Alim Asanov*

Lecturer, School of Law, Technology and Education, Department of Global Education, Westminster International University in Tashkent, Uzbekistan.

Cite this article

Asanov A. (2022). Developing student autonomy through the enhancement of technological approaches, Br. J. Arts Humanit., 4(5), 154-164. https://doi.org/10.34104/bjah.02201540164 

Related Articles

Views
221
Download
291
Citations
Badge Img
Share