Science for Education Today, 2019, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 126–139
© Zhankina B. Z., Kostina E. A., Zhetpisbayeva B. A., Kargin S. T., 2019
UDC: 
378.2

Basic factors of developing learner autonomy in foreign language education (with the main focus on Kazakhstan) [In English]

Zhankina B. Z. 1 (Karaganda, Republic of Kazakhstan), Kostina E. A. 2 (Novosibirsk, Russian Federation), Zhetpisbayeva B. A. 1 (Karaganda, Republic of Kazakhstan), Kargin S. T. 1 (Karaganda, Republic of Kazakhstan)
1 Academician E.A.Buketov Karaganda State University
2 Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University
Full text (Open Access) — Downloaded 5258
Abstract: 

Introduction. The modernization of the education system in Kazakhstan, the continuity of education and the personality-oriented approach, determining the development of modern higher education system, have actualized the problem of training specialists capable of learner autonomy and having the skills required for independent work. The purpose of the research is to reveal the basic factors of developing learner autonomy in the modern foreign language education.
Materials and Methods. This study employed a quantitative research method. In order to identify the initial state of learner autonomy a special questionnaire was developed. It included questions of open and closed types. The voluntary and anonymous survey was conducted among part-time undergraduate students. The main goal of the survey was to identify the following: whether students possess qualities and skills required for independent work; factors hindering autonomous learning; characteristics of student-teacher interaction in terms of autonomy and digitalization of the educational process; and effectiveness of using modern Web 2.0 technologies in graduate studies.
Results. The authors have identified skills and abilities characteristic for academic autonomy.
The findings show the low level of learner autonomy among part-time undergraduate students. The study have identified the following factors hindering the development of learner autonomy: teacher-centered approach, insufficiently effective use of information and communication technologies, and weak student-teacher interaction. The authors have summarized organizational and teaching measures fostering the development of learner autonomy. They include compulsory online courses; high-quality methodological support and guidance of the course; and encouraging students to use information and communication technologies as a ‘producer’.
Conclusions. The following factors of learner autonomy are summarized in modern foreign language education: student-centered learning; innovative methods of teaching and assessment; opportunities for interaction, creative activities, personal development and taking responsibility.

Keywords: 

Higher education system; Form of education; Learner autonomy; Personal-orientated method; Interaction; Training strategies; Information and communication technologies; Web 2.0 service resources.

URL WoS/RSCI: https://www.webofscience.com/wos/rsci/full-record/RSCI:38191469

Prominence Percentile SciVal: 72.382 Learner Autonomy | Autonomous Learning | Self-Access

https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85065959660&origin=...

Basic factors of developing learner autonomy in foreign language education (with the main focus on Kazakhstan)

For citation:
Zhankina B. Z., Kostina E. A., Zhetpisbayeva B. A., Kargin S. T. Basic factors of developing learner autonomy in foreign language education (with the main focus on Kazakhstan) [In English]. Science for Education Today, 2019, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 126–139. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.1902.09
References: 
  1. Lengkanawati N. S. Learner autonomy in the Indonesian EFL settings. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2017, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 222–231. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v6i2.4847
  2. Yuliani Y., Lengkanawati N. S. Project-based learning in promoting learner autonomy in an EFL classroom. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2017, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 285–293. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v7i2.8131
  3. Yasmin M., Sohail A. Socio-cultural barriers in promoting learner autonomy in Pakistani universities: English teachers’ beliefs. Cogent Education, 2018, vol. 5, pp. 1501888. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1501888
  4. Ardi P. Promoting learner autonomy through schoology m-learning platform in an eap class at an Indonesian university. Teaching English with Technology, 2017, vol. 17, issue 2, pp. 55–76. URL: https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85018386332&origin=resultslist&sort
  5. Apeltauer E., Senyildiz A. Learner autonomy: Perceptions and attitudes of multilingual Turkish students training to become teachers. Moderna språk, 2015, vol. 109, issue 1, pp. 13–29. URL: https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84936873764&origin=resultslist&sort
  6. Fukuda S. T., Sakata H., Takeuchi M. Facilitating autonomy to enhance motivation: Examining the effects of a guided-autonomy syllabus. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 2011, vol. 8, issue 1, pp. 71–86. URL: https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-79960583230&origin=resultslist&sort
  7. Kulakli A., Mahony S. Knowledge creation and sharing with Web 2.0 tools for teaching and learning roles in so-called University 2.0. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2014, vol.  150, pp. 648–657. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.09.084
  8. Grosseck G. To use or not to use web 2.0 inhigher education? Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2009, vol. 1, issue 1, pp. 478–482. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.087
  9. Girgin E. G. A Web 2.0 tool for language teaching with flash content. Procedia Computer Science, 2011, vol. 3, pp. 627–631. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2010.12.105
  10. Mansor A. Z. Top five creative ideas using Web 2.0. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2012, vol. 59, pp. 429–437. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.297
  11. Nugultham K. Using Web 2.0 for innovation and information technology in education course. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2012, vol. 46, pp. 4607–4610. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.305
  12. Pieri M., Diamantini D. An E-learning Web 2.0 experience. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2014, vol. 116, pp. 1217–1221. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.371
  13. Reinders H., White C. 20 years of autonomy and technology: how far have we come and where to next?. Language Learning and Technology, 2016, vol. 20, issue 2, pp. 143–154. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10125/44466
  14. Turula A. Learner autonomy as a social construct in the context of italki. Teaching English with Technology, 2017, vol. 17, issue 2, pp. 3–28. URL: https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85018413323&origin=resultslist&sort
  15. Mirzaee M., Gharibeh S. G. Web-based language learning perception and personality characteristics of university students. Teaching English with Technology, 2016, vol. 16, issue 2, pp.  57–70. URL: https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84975688078&origin=resultslist&sort
  16. Luo T. Web 2.0 for language learning: Benefits and challenges for educators. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 2013, vol. 3, issue 3, pp. 1–17. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/ijcallt.2013070101
  17. Lee L. Autonomous learning through task-based instruction in fully online language courses. Language Learning and Technology, 2016, vol. 20, issue 2, pp. 81–97. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10125/44462
  18. Theunissen N., Stubbé H. iSELF: The development of an Internet-Tool for Self-Evaluation and Learner Feedback. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 2014, vol. 12, issue 4, pp. 313–325. URL: https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84904963103&origin=resultslist&sort
  19. Nishioka H. Learning language with web 2.0 is so difficult!!! hearing voices of Japanese language learners at a Korean University. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 2016, vol. 13, issue 1, pp. 131–149. URL: https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84975736120&origin=resultslist&sort=plf-f&src=s&nlo=&nlr=&nls=&sid=1960a030af5386eacc 9530ab463bb971&sot=a&sdt=cl&cluster=scopubyr%2c%222016%22%2ct&sl=23&s= SOURCE-ID+%2819900192534%29&relpos=9&citeCnt=0&searchTerm=
  20. Usluel Y. K., Mazman S. G. Adoption of Web 2.0 tools in distance education. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2009, vol. 1, issue 1, pp. 818–823. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.146
  21. Barber W., King S. Teacher-student perspectives of invisible pedagogy: New directions in online problem-based learning environments. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 2016, vol. 14, issue 4, pp. 235–243. URL: https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85011032032&origin=resultslist&sort
  22. Nakayama M., Mutsuura K., Yamamoto H. Student's reflections on their learning and note-taking activities in a blended learning course. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 2016, vol. 14, issue  1, pp. 43–53. URL: https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84964703040&origin=resultslist&sort
  23. Straková Z., Cimermanová I. Developing reflective skills of student teachers in the virtual learning environment. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 2018, vol. 16, issue 2, pp. 107–121. URL: https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85059226541&origin=resultslist&sort

24.Martins M. de L. How to effectively integrate technology in the foreign language classroom for learning and collaboration. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2015, vol. 174, pp. 77–84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.629

25. Marefat F., Hassanzadeh M. Applying form-focused approaches to L2 vocabulary instruction through podcasts. Language Learning and Technology, 2016, vol. 20, issue 3, pp. 107–127. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10125/44484

Date of the publication 30.04.2019