Students’ autonomy in english learning at Thai Nguyen university of technology

Hoàng Thị Thắm Tạp chí KHOA HỌC & CÔNG NGHỆ 103(03): 97 - 101 
 97
STUDENTS’ AUTONOMY IN ENGLISH LEARNING 
AT THAI NGUYEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY 
Hoang Thi Tham* 
College of Technology - TNU 
SUMMARY 
This paper presents a study on investigating the learner autonomy of the first-year non-English 
major students in English learning at Thai Nguyen University of Technology. The results report 
that student’s autonomy in English learning is not quite positive. It is suggested that more attention 
should be paid to learner autonomy during learning and teaching process at the university. In 
addition, some implications to encourage learner autonomy are suggested. 
Key words: learner autonomy, learning strategies, language learning, autonomous learning 
INTRODUCTION* 
The concept of learner autonomy first 
appeared in language teaching in 1981 with 
Holec. According to Holec, learner autonomy 
is 'the capacity to take charge of ones' own 
learning [1]. Based on Holec's definition, 
Leni Dam defines autonomy in terms of the 
learner's willingness and capacity to control 
one's own learning. She emphasizes that a 
person can be seen as an autonomous learner 
when he or she independently chooses aims 
and purposes and sets goals; chooses 
materials, methods and tasks; exercises choice 
and purpose in organising and carrying out 
the chosen tasks; and chooses criteria for 
evaluation [2]. 
In a more general way, Benson and Voller 
state that the term autonomy can be used in 
five ways including situations in which 
learners study entirely on their own; a set of 
skills which can be learned and applied in 
self-directed learning; an inborn capacity 
which is suppressed by institutional 
education; the exercise of learners' 
responsibility for their own learning; and the 
right of learners to determine the direction of 
their own learning [3]. 
Learner autonomy has been interpreted in 
various ways and different terms have been 
frequently used to make reference to the 
autonomy of the language learner such as 
learner independence, self-learning, 
individualization, learning how to learn, self-
*
 Tel: 0982 232570 
access learning, etc. In general, autonomous 
learners tend to exhibit goal directedness, 
manage their academic time, meaningfully 
direct their practice, use cognitive and 
metacognitive strategies appropriately, and 
possess self-efficacy for the task [4]. 
Why is learner autonomy important? 
Ellis and Sinclair [5] state that for helping 
learners take on more responsibility for their 
own learning there are three reasons. First, 
learning can be more effective when they take 
control of their own learning. Second, 
learners who are responsible for their own 
learning can carry on learning outside the 
classroom. And finally, learners who know 
about learning can transfer learning strategies 
to other subjects. 
Stating why learner autonomy is vital, Little 
mentions that if learners are reflectively 
engaged with their learning, it is likely to be 
more efficient and effective than otherwise. 
Moreover, if learners are proactively 
committed to their learning, the problem of 
motivation is by definition solved; learners 
who are autonomous “have developed the 
reflective and attitudinal resources to overcome 
temporary motivational setbacks” [6]. 
From the above ideas, it can be noted that 
learner autonomy takes a significant role in 
language learning. And in the process of 
language learning, teachers have a crucial role 
to play in launching learners into self-access 
and in leading them a regular helping hand to 
stay afloat [7]. But teachers can only be 
100Số hóa bởi Trung tâm Học liệu – Đại học Thái Nguyên 
Hoàng Thị Thắm Tạp chí KHOA HỌC & CÔNG NGHỆ 103(03): 97 - 101 
 98
successful in helping students to improve 
their learner autonomy when they are well 
aware of the students patterns in autonomous 
learning. Thus, this paper aims at finding the 
answers to the following question: 
What is the general degree of the first-year 
non-English major students autonomy? 
THE STUDY 
The subjects 
The participants in the study were 152 first-
year students majoring in different specialties, 
including 11 female students and 141 male 
students. They have learnt English at school for 
six years and then at university for 8 weeks. 
Instrument 
In the study, the researcher conducted the 
Motivated Strategies for Learning 
Questionnaire (MSLQ) developed by Pintrich 
and DeGroot [8]. This 44-item instrument, 7-
point Likert scale (1 = not at all true of me 
and 7 = very true of me) was changed into a 
5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all true of me 
and 5 = very true of me). In addition, there 
was a Vietnamese version of MSLQ to avoid 
possible misunderstanding. 
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for self-efficacy 
 N Range Min. Max. Mean S.D. 
Item 
2 152 4 1 5 3.70 .982 
Item 
6 152 4 1 5 3.05 .909 
Item 
8 152 4 1 5 3.21 1.065 
Item 
9 152 4 1 5 1.71 1.059 
Item 
11 152 4 1 5 2.39 1.055 
Item 
13 152 4 1 5 2.86 1.136 
Item 
16 152 4 1 5 1.76 .975 
Item 
18 152 4 1 5 1.85 .954 
Item 
19 152 4 1 5 2.86 1.051 
Data collection and analysis 
The MSLQ was administered with all the 152 
participants. The questionnaires were returned 
within two days. The data of the study was 
analyzed using SPSS Version 15 through 
descriptive statistical procedures. 
RESULTS 
The results collected from the questionnaires 
are reported and discussed in five categories 
Pintrich and DeGroot summarized: self-
efficacy, intrinsic value, cognitive strategies, 
self-regulation and test anxiety. 
Self-efficacy 
As shown in the table, the means ranged from 
a high of 3.59 to a low of 1.71. The highest 
mean was item 2 (Compared with other 
students in this class I expect to do wel), 
whereas the lowest means fell into three 
items. They were item 9 (Compared with 
other students in this class, I think I’m a good 
student), item 16 (My study skills are 
excellent compared with others in this class, 
and item 18 (Compared with other students in 
this class I think I know a great deal about the 
subject). 
Intrinsic value 
Table 2. Descriptive statistics for intrinsic value 
 N Range Min. Max. Mean S.D. 
Item 
1 152 4 1 5 2.95 1.209 
Item 
4 152 4 1 5 3.76 1.144 
Item 
5 152 4 1 5 3.41 1.164 
Item 
7 152 4 1 5 2.79 .981 
Item 
10 152 4 4 1 2.97 1.162 
Item 
14 152 4 1 5 3.79 1.102 
Item 
15 152 4 1 5 4.03 .986 
Item 
17 152 4 1 5 3.07 1.189 
Item 
21 152 4 1 5 4.11 1.033 
The intrinsic value expressed by the students 
is reported in table 2. It can be seen from the 
table that item 15 (I think that what I am 
learning in this class is useful for me to know) 
and item 21 (Understanding this subject is 
important to me) got the highest mean (M = 
4.03, and M = 4.11, respectively). Item with 
the lowest mean was item 7 (M = 2.79). 
Cognitive strategy 
It can be seen from Table 3 that item 44 
(When reading I try to connect the things I am 
reading about with what I already know) 
101Số hóa bởi Trung tâm Học liệu – Đại học Thái Nguyên 
Hoàng Thị Thắm Tạp chí KHOA HỌC & CÔNG NGHỆ 103(03): 97 - 101 
 99
received the highest mean (M = 3.50). Other 
high means of 3.42 and 3.47 belong to items 
23 and 31. The item with the lowest mean 
was item 36 (I use what I have to learned 
from old homework assignments and the 
textbook to do new assignments) (M = 2.74). 
Table 3. Descriptive statistics for cognitive strategy 
 N Range Min. Max. Mean S.D. 
Item 
23 152 4 1 5 3.42 1.119 
Item 
24 152 4 1 5 2.95 1.051 
Item 
26 152 4 1 5 3.01 1.196 
Item 
28 152 4 1 5 2.77 1.070 
Item 
29 152 4 1 5 3.09 1.204 
Item 
30 152 4 1 5 3.38 1.218 
Item 
31 152 4 1 5 3.47 1.260 
Item 
34 152 4 1 5 2.89 1.099 
Item 
36 152 4 1 5 2.74 1.072 
Item 
39 152 4 1 5 3.03 1.035 
Item 
41 152 4 1 5 2.91 1.139 
Item 
42 151 4 1 5 2.66 1.145 
Item 
44 152 4 1 5 3.50 1.271 
Self-regulation 
It is expressed in table 4 that most of the 
items were below 3 points. The only item 
which got over 3 points was item 35 (Before I 
begin studying I think about the things I will 
need to do to learn). The lowest means were 
items 33 (Even when study materials are dull 
and uninteresting, I keep working until I 
finish) and 38 (I find that when the teacher is 
talking I think of other things and don’t really 
listen to what is being said), which got the 
means of 2.40 and 2.14, respectively. 
Table 4. Descriptive statistics for self-regulation 
 N Range Min. Max. Mean S.D. 
Item25 152 4 1 5 2.47 1.053 
Item27 152 4 1 5 2.64 1.284 
Item32 152 4 1 5 2.79 1.194 
Item33 152 4 1 5 2.40 1.147 
Item35 152 4 1 5 3.14 1.196 
Item37 152 4 1 5 2.82 1.313 
Item38 151 4 1 5 2.14 1.092 
Item40 152 4 1 5 2.95 1.132 
Item43 152 4 1 5 2.86 1.213 
Test anxiety 
Table 5 expresses students’ test anxiety. As it 
is shown on the table, items 12 (I have 
uneasy, upset feeling when I take a test), 20 (I 
worry a great deal about tests) and 22 (When 
I take a test I think about how poorly I am 
doing) got quite high means (M = 3.11, M = 
3.08, M = 3.04, respectively). 
Table 5. Descriptive statistics for test anxiety 
 N N Range Min. Max. Mean 
Item 3 152 4 1 5 2.78 1.208 
Item 
12 152 4 1 5 3.11 1.064 
Item 
20 152 4 1 5 3.08 1.315 
Item 
22 152 4 1 5 3.04 1.183 
DISCUSSION AND SUGGESTED 
IMPLICATIONS 
Students’ Self-efficacy 
From Table 1, it can be seen that most 
students expected to do well in class, however 
the mean was not very high. It reveals that the 
students do not hold a high confidence in 
learning English. This can be supported by 
the result of item 8 which says “I expect to do 
very well in this class”. Moreover, most 
students do not think they know a great deal 
about their subject. More surprisingly, the 
range was from 1 to 5, which means that there 
are students who do not expect to learn well. 
This may be related to students’ belief on 
learning English as Horwitz [9] argues that 
the concept of foreign language learning can 
be the source of negative outlook on language 
learning. This also explains why the students 
feel uncertain about their ability to “do 
excellent jobs on tasks and problems” 
assigned for the class and why they lack 
confidence in whether their skills are 
excellent or not. 
Hence, it is advisable for teachers to improve 
students’ self-efficacy. The more confident a 
student is in his or her capacity to learn a 
certain lesson, the greater the probability of 
success in accomplishing that goal. 
Apparently, high self-efficacy students are 
likely to perform better than low self-efficacy 
students. According to Schunk [10], 
102Số hóa bởi Trung tâm Học liệu – Đại học Thái Nguyên 
Hoàng Thị Thắm Tạp chí KHOA HỌC & CÔNG NGHỆ 103(03): 97 - 101 
 100
motivation is enhanced when students 
perceive they are making progress in learning. 
In turn, as students become more skilful, they 
maintain a sense of self-efficacy for 
performing well. 
Students’ intrinsic value 
It is noticed from the result of students’ 
intrinsic value that the students hold a right 
belief about the important role of English in 
their study but not at a high rate. Similarly, 
there are still many students who do not find 
what they are learning in class useful or 
important to them. It can be stated that many 
student are not full aware of the significant 
role of learning English or they find what is 
being taught uninteresting to them. They may 
not be willing to do extra homework or try 
challenging class activities. They will do what 
is asked to do with reluctance. 
Noticeably, students' beliefs about intrinsic 
value need to be improved. Teachers should 
help students to change their misconceptions 
about intrinsic value, so that they will be able 
to hold realistic beliefs about language 
learning, which lead to active attitudes and 
participation in learning activities. 
Additionally, intrinsic value refers to the 
interest and enjoyment that students 
experience when engaging in an activity [11]. 
Thus, when students enjoy class tasks, they 
are intrinsically motivated to do well. It is 
recommended that teachers create classroom 
environments which provide students with 
opportunities to engage in interesting, 
personally relevant, challenging activities. 
Teachers can also increase the intrinsic value 
of their classes by creating an enriching 
environment and providing opportunities for 
students to explore their interests. 
Students’ cognitive strategy and self-regulation 
It is realized that most students do not apply 
appropriate learning strategies. They may not 
know about learning strategies or may have 
difficulty in finding and selecting suitable 
strategies. Unexpectedly, such commonly 
used strategies as practising the important 
facts when studying for a tests or saying the 
words over and over to remember got poor 
attention from the students. Moreover, many 
students are not active in their self-regulation. 
They are unwilling to do hard parts in their 
work or easy to give them up; they do not want 
to try to learn when they don’t like the class. 
Learning strategies take a significant role in 
language learning. They help learners in the 
acquisition, storage, retrieval, and use of 
information; they make learning easier, faster, 
more enjoyable, more self-directed, and more 
transferable to new situations [12]. As it can 
be seen from the results, most students can 
use some learning strategies but they fail to 
make use of many others. They find it 
difficult in getting main ideas or inferring; 
they are not well aware of the vital role of 
practice in language learning. Furthermore, in 
terms of self-regulation, the students appear 
not to be so active in controlling themselves 
in such activities as doing extra homework or 
facing hard work. 
Thus, to encourage students’ autonomy, 
teachers, as facilitators, are suggested to 
provide students with information about 
learning strategies, introducing different 
strategies to them, helping them in choosing 
appropriate ones through the process of 
teaching. Yaping [13] suggests giving 
students a chance to apply the new learning 
strategies and ask them to evaluate the 
effectiveness of strategy use. It is also 
important that a key factor leading to success 
is for learners to discover for themselves the 
methods and techniques by which they learn 
best [14]. 
Students’ test anxiety 
The results on test anxiety revealed that the 
students are rather anxious when doing tests. 
They really need support from their teacher 
since Anxiety seriously affects not only on 
learners’ language performance but also on 
their further learning process. It is noticed that 
students need help from their teacher in 
lowering their test anxiety. This can be solved 
by giving them guidance and encouragement 
during their learning process. 
CONCLUSION 
In the paper, the first-year student's autonomy 
in English learning at Thai Nguyen University 
103Số hóa bởi Trung tâm Học liệu – Đại học Thái Nguyên 
Hoàng Thị Thắm Tạp chí KHOA HỌC & CÔNG NGHỆ 103(03): 97 - 101 
 101
of Technology has been explored. The results 
show that the students’ autonomy is not so 
positive. Most of students expect to do well in 
study but they lack confidence and are not 
active in learning the language. Moreover, 
they are somewhat unrealistic about their 
learning. They have difficulty in using 
effective learning strategies and in self-
regulation controlling. Additionally, they 
experience quite high degree of test anxiety. 
In order to improve student's autonomy some 
suggestions have been reported. 
REFERENCES 
[1]. Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and Foreign 
Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon. 
[2]. Dam, L. (1995). Learner Autonomy 3: From 
Theory to Classroom Practice. Dublin: Authentik. 
[3]. Benson, p. & Voller, P. (1997). Autonomy and 
Independence in Language Learning. London. 
Longman. 
[4]. Zimmerman, B.J., & Paulsen, A. S. (1995). 
Seld-monitoring during collegiate studying: An 
invaluable tool for academic self-regulation. In P. 
R. Pintrich (Ed.), Understanding self-regulated 
learning, 13-28. 
[5]. Ellis, G. & Sinclair, B. (1989). Learning to 
Learn English: a course in learner training. 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
[6]. Little, D. (2011).“Learner autonomy and 
second language learning”. Retrieved from: 
[7]. Sherin, S. (1997). An exploration of the 
relationship between self-access and independent 
learning. In P. Ben son, & P. Voller (Eds.), 
Autonomy& Independence in Language Learning. 
London: Longman 
[8]. Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). 
Motivational and self-regulated learning 
components of classroom academic performance. 
Joournal of Educational Psychology, 82 (1), 33-40. 
[9]. Horwitz, E. (1988). The Beliefs about 
Language Learning of Beginning University 
Foreign Language Students. Modern Language 
Journal, 72, 283-294. 
[10]. Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and 
academic motivation. Educational Psychology, 26, 
207-231. 
[11]. Schunk, D. H. & Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). 
Self-regulation of learning and performance: 
Issues and educational applications, 101-124. 
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 
[12]. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning 
Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know: 
Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. 
[13]. Yaping, Z. (2005). An investigation into 
learner autonomy in college English teaching. 
CELEA Journal, 28(2), 95-100. 
[14]. Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and 
researching motivation. In Candlin, C.N. & D.R. 
Hall, (Eds.), Applied Linguistics in Action [series] 
Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
TÓM TẮT 
TÍNH TỰ CHỦ CỦA SINH VIÊN TRONG VIỆC HỌC TIẾNG ANH 
TẠI TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC KỸ THUẬT CÔNG NGHIỆP 
Hoàng Thị Thắm* 
Trường Đại học Kỹ thuật Công nghiệp - ĐH Thái Nguyên 
Bài báo trình bày nghiên cứu về khảo sát tính tự chủ của sinh viên năm thứ nhất không chuyên ngữ 
trong việc học tiếng Anh tại trường Đại học Kỹ thuật Công nghiệp. Kết quả nghiên cứu cho thấy 
tính tự chủ trong việc học tiếng Anh của sinh viên còn hạn chế. Nghiên cứu đưa ra gợi ý cần chú 
hơn đến tính tự chủ của người học trong quá trình dạy và học tiếng Anh tại trường. Bên cạnh đó, 
tác giả đưa ra một số giải pháp nhằm khuyến khích tính tự chủ của người học. 
Từ khóa: tính tự chủ của người học, chiến lược học, học ngôn ngữ, tự chủ trong học tập 
Ngày nhận bài: 26/11/2012, ngày phản biện: 05/12/2012, ngày duyệt đăng:26/3/2013 
*
 Tel: 0982 232570 
104Số hóa bởi Trung tâm Học liệu – Đại học Thái Nguyên