Content uploaded by Benjamín Cárcamo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Benjamín Cárcamo on May 24, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Abstract—As online education programs increase their
numbers, autonomous learning becomes more necessary to
achieve academic success. The present research determines the
impact that participating in an online course has on students’
language learner autonomy. To quantify this impact the
Measuring Instrument for Language Learner Autonomy was
applied in the second and last week of the course. By means of a
paired samples t-test, it was confirmed that the students
participating in the course increased their language learner
autonomy. Additionally, the specific behaviors that changed
were revealed to be associated with self-regulated learning.
Therefore, it can be asserted that participation in the online
learning course led to an increase of the level of autonomy of the
students by means of increasing the frequency of behaviors
related to taking charge of their own learning process.
Index Terms—Autonomy, EFL, ESL, online education.
I. INTRODUCTION
For second language learners, the concept of autonomy has
been important since the Council of Europe's modern
languages project of 1981, which identified it as one of the
most vital components of a successful language learner [1].
Currently, varied teaching methodologies have been
promoted that insist on scaffolding from the dependence of
the teacher as a linguistic model to the independence of the
learner as an explorer of learning resources [2]. In other
words, there is a clear trend that poses as one of the primary
roles of ESL/EFL teachers of the 21st century to foster
autonomy in their students [3]. In line with this, tertiary
education, in general, has also shifted to a focus on
developing the necessary abilities to function effectively in
the world after graduating from university being one of the
main factors that impact this process the level of autonomy
achieved by the students [4].
It has been suggested that online learning environments
may be conducive to the development of this autonomy
considering they provide students with access to self-directed
learning [5]. However, having access to technology does not
necessarily result in learning; therefore, exploring this
connection nowadays is of paramount importance [6]
especially considering that enrollment in online courses
continues to increase steadily [7], [8].
In this context, the present research examines how
Manuscript received October 31, 2021; revised December 17, 2021.
The authors are with Facultad de Comunicaciones, Universidad de Las
Américas, Sede Providencia, Manuel Montt 948, Santiago, Chile (e-mail:
benjamin.carcamo@edu.udla.cl, cperezc@udla.cl).
participating in an online English course impacts the degree
of behavioral autonomy of students considering the design
features the format of this course considers. To determine this
a group of beginner students sat for the Measuring Instrument
for Language Learner Autonomy during the first and last
months of the semester in which they were coursing an
English online course.
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
A. Autonomy and Its Measurement
In the field of cognitive psychology and education,
Everhard [3] identifies different terms used in the literature
by which the experts analyze the movement from a
continuum between heteronomy and autonomy. Some of
these terms are self-reliance, independence, and ownership of
learning, among others. Heteronomy is understood as being
able to make decisions based on the presentation of different
options and the advice of others whereas autonomy has to do
with the creation of the paths one wants to follow. In
heteronomy, the power relations involved may harm both the
use of critical thinking as well the ability to distance oneself
emotionally from the decisions one needs to make whereas in
the case of autonomy the power relations are means to the
development of the capacity of making one‟s own choices.
When the individual is more autonomous, power relations are
conceived as beneficial for both. Contrary to what one might
think, heteronomy and autonomy are not opposites, in fact, at
least under Piagetian conceptions, they are two moments of a
continuum. First, the person, as a child, begins in a stage of
absolute heteronomy and then moves, as the years pass,
towards autonomy.
In the realm of language learning, autonomy has found its
place quite recently. In 1981, learner autonomy was first
defined as the ability students have to take charge of their
own learning [9]. This definition has been considered
essential for research on the concept of autonomy as well as
studies on the benefits of learning autonomy. In line with
Piagetian conceptions, learning autonomy in language
learning is also seen as part of the development of students,
which can be boosted by the use of the right strategies,
methods, and techniques.
It is reasonable to expand on the notion of autonomy not as
an individual‟s trait, but as part of an individual‟s learning
process [10]. Autonomy can be said to develop through
psychological factors (motivation, attitude, learning
preferences, etc.) and environmental factors (adequate
learning environments, appropriate task selection, a political
Toward Autonomous Learning: Exploring the Impact of
Participating in an Online Second Language Learning
Course
Benjamín Cárcamo and Cristian Pérez
International Journal of Information and Education Technology, Vol. 12, No. 5, May 2022
449
doi: 10.18178/ijiet.2022.12.5.1640
power structure, etc.) [11]. These elements add to the
definition of autonomy making it complex and dynamic in
the sense of the personal and contextual dimensions that are
involved. Autonomy is constantly changing even in the same
individual as he participates in different contexts.
Consequently, it can be asserted that language learning
autonomy is a multidimensional construct that involves
features not only related to the capacity to take charge of
one‟s own learning. For example, it has been noted that
autonomous behavior presupposes and entails a particular
frame of mind toward the learning process and the content
that is being learned. In other words, students who believe
that autonomous work is essential to learning will probably
be more autonomous than those who do not believe so. Apart
from this, autonomy unfolds in particular situations, thus, it
can be analyzed also based on the context in which the
learners find themselves [12].
Recently the importance of attending to psychological and
social factors related to autonomy has gained popularity in
the field [1], [3], [13]. Concrete actions such as detaching
oneself from the immediate input, reflecting critically, and
taking action independently relate closely to a psychological
component. Regarding the social component, it is clear that
taking control of learning a language frequently involves
collective decision-making processes. Consequently,
understanding, for example, that one may ask a classmate for
help and not only the teacher increases the opportunities for
learning a language. On the contrary, the belief that one is
only supposed to follow the teachers‟ instructions inhibits not
only the capacity to learn in general but to develop linguistic
competence in particular. In fact, being less dependent on the
teacher can significantly increase the capacity to establish
one‟s own goals and targets, which leads to the need of
searching for more exposure to the foreign language [3].
If heteronomy and autonomy are part of a continuum, it is
possible and necessary to identify at which point of this
continuum students are. However, due to its complexity, the
operationalization of autonomy as well as its measurement is
currently still challenging [13]. Several techniques have been
used for research purposes to quantify the level of autonomy.
In fact, qualitative and quantitative tools have been proposed
for the assessment of autonomy. The main challenge for these
techniques is to account for the multidimensionality of the
construct.
Qualitative strategies for evaluating students‟ autonomy
are the use of portfolios, interviews, reflective essays, and
self-assessment. Tassinari [14] proposes a dynamic model of
learner autonomy that considers competencies, skills, and
actions that autonomous students put to use. Some examples
are the capacities to evaluate, monitor, plan, and complete
tasks. These and other skills interact with each other under a
superordinate concept labeled „managing my own learning‟.
In addition, each of the components entails descriptors (in the
form of can-do statements) that specify the corresponding
competencies, skills, and actions of learners. During the
evaluation process, students may choose which aspects to
reflect on based on the descriptors offered. Then, they can
tick each of the descriptors based on three options that refer
to whether the student thinks he has achieved it, would like to
develop it, or does not consider it important. Subsequently,
the student and advisor have a conversation about the results,
so that the student can later make decisions for further
learning. This process is recursive; thus, it can continue being
implemented during the course. Although this, as well as
other qualitative strategies, are clearly useful and powerful,
in most contexts they are not feasible to implement. It is
almost impossible for a teacher to serve as a personal advisor
for the hundreds of students he may have in two or three
courses during the semester. Therefore, quantitative
strategies may be more easily implemented in these particular
contexts.
From a quantitative perspective, few instruments have
been designed for the assessment of second language
learning autonomy particularly. One of the recent successful
research efforts is the Measuring Instrument for Language
Learning Autonomy (MILLA). The MILLA considers four
dimensions as constituents of the construct of second
language learning autonomy considering the research on the
field: technical, psychological, political-philosophical, and
sociocultural. However, after its implementation and
validation with Japanese EFL students, factor analysis
showed that the psychological and political-philosophical
dimensions were too highly correlated to justify their
separation, hence, they were merged. The final three
dimensions of the updated version of the MILLA are
technical, psycho-political, and socio-cultural [13].
1) Technical Autonomy: This dimension of autonomy is one
of the most important for university students since it
refers to what students do in practical terms according to
the degree of autonomy they have. These behaviors can
be motivated by the need to work autonomously or due to
the conscious effort to use strategies in order to progress
in self-directed learning. At the level of higher education,
technical autonomy is vital since students are just one step
away from becoming professionals independent of the
academic context [15], [16].
2) Psycho-political autonomy: This dimension considers the
emotional component of the individual and how he or she
is able to regulate it in order to take control of their
learning [1], [17]. This is very important because, in
environments where there is a lack of feedback or
extrinsic motivation, it is the students who have to
motivate themselves in case of having vocational doubts
or problems regarding their academic performance.
3) Socio-cultural autonomy: This dimension is related to the
context in which the participants involved in the
educational experience live. Chirkov [18] points out that
even though autonomy is a universal concept, it is valued
differently around the world, which implies that the
concept of autonomy may acquire a different connotation
depending on the context. The term context does not only
include the general national context, but also the specific
context of an educational classroom in terms of what
students expect, for example, from their teachers [19],
[20]. In summary, the vision of learning in different
cultures (Eastern and Western) has an impact on the
perception of autonomy, whether due to national identity
or the expected role in the classroom. This affects
whether students want to be autonomous, therefore, it is
important to consider it when evaluating student
International Journal of Information and Education Technology, Vol. 12, No. 5, May 2022
450
autonomy.
B. Autonomy and Online Education
Learner autonomy can be understood as the shift in control
from the teacher to the student [21]. Under the world‟s
current events and the fast pace at which our society moves,
new and better online tools for learning, such as Moodle,
BlackBoard, Zoom, Screencasting, etc., are flourishing as
key aspects of independent and asynchronous learning.
Online learning environments are defined as instances in
which learning takes place on the internet [22]. Online tools
offer a wide range of possibilities to students, from allowing
them to set the time and place where learning could take place,
to selecting the most appropriate online tools and materials
available based on a personal criterion. Another relevant
aspect is the possibility to access real-world environments
where they could interact with native speakers in real-time
despite the geographical distances through video
conferencing alternatives, or engage in collaborative learning
opportunities through blogs, instant messaging, or discussion
forums.
Positive findings connecting the use of technology and the
promotion of autonomy can be found in recent research.
Zhong [21] did a case study in China whose objective was to
investigate changes in the subject‟s path towards autonomy
in online environments. By means of two in-depth interviews,
the researcher compared a student‟s experience in China and
New Zealand considering the impact the different learning
environments had on this students‟ learning.
Three key aspects emerged from the interviews. The first
one is related to the student becoming a critical user of
multiple online resources. As Zhong puts it, the student used
the internet as a learning resource center for his self-directed
English language learning after some online research on how
to better learn English back in China. The second one refers
to the student becoming a collaborative online learner. Here,
Zhong establishes a change in self-directed language learning.
The third one relates to the student becoming a more capable
manager and organizer, where the changes emerged from the
use of metacognitive strategies. All these findings point
towards the role and importance that instructors have in the
formation of learner autonomy when creating the learning
conditions and environments that are conducive to
autonomous learning.
As for quantitative studies, there is also evidence
supporting the role technology has in promoting learner
autonomy. Liu, Liu and Tu [23] carried out an experimental
study with a control group and an experimental group. The
experiment had as its main objective to explore the impact of
multimedia-assisted instruction on reading ability and learner
autonomy. The experimental group underwent
multimedia-assisted instruction, which consisted of the
implementation of multimedia technology in the English
lesson. In contrast with the control group receiving normal
lessons, the experimental group adopted reading strategies
more frequently and significantly increased their levels of
learner autonomy. In the context of MOOC EFL courses,
research has also shown that having students naturally
interact in courses that offer meaningful choices, self-paced
learning, and task involvement lead to the development of
language learner autonomy [24].
III. METHODOLOGY
A. Context of the Study
This research took place in a private university where
English is compulsory in different study programs such as
nursing, accounting, and special education. LCE (Language
Communicative English) courses take place in a fully virtual
learning environment due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The
courses are asynchronous and implemented by means of a
Learning Management System (LMS). All the students
within the programs have to take two levels of English, which
are LCE001 and LCE002 respectively.
During the first three weeks of the LCE001 course, some
important milestones occur. In the first week, the induction
stage is introduced. During this period, students are informed
about the program and modality they are in so that they can
better prepare for the challenges of learning a second
language online. During the second week, students are given
the opportunity to sit for a placement test in which their
current level of English is tested, and based on the results
they can be exempted from the course. In the third week,
students gain access to the English Discovery platform and
they are oriented through a series of tutorials to guide them
through the process.
The EDUSOFT platform offers a learning management
system for each teacher in order to keep track of each
student‟s progress. Within the platform it is possible to
download students' reports on the amount of time spent on
tasks, their latest access to the platform, as well as the overall
progress in the form of a percentage. Students‟ contact with
their facilitators is through emails, virtual classroom alerts,
videos, and optional Zoom meetings since there is not a fixed
schedule for this type of courses. The methodology of the
English courses is based upon the facilitator assessing the
students‟ work and progress in the LMS after sharing the
learning outcomes for the expected performance and the
specification tables for the assessment tools. In addition to
this, the course uses the Blackboard platform which has
material available for the students to practice their critical
thinking skills and their language skills. Lastly, optional
weekly workshops are available for students to sign up in
case they are interested in the topics offered and have the
time to do so.
B. Sample
Ninety-one college students from a university in Chile
participated in this study voluntarily based on principles of
convenience sampling. They were all enrolled in the LCE001
course. These ninety-one students read and signed an
informed consent approved by the bioethical committee of
the university. Although all ninety-one participants sat for the
first instance of the application of the questionnaire MILLA,
only fifty of the ninety-one students participated in the
second application. Thirty-six were female (72%) and
fourteen were male (28%). The high attrition rate is not rare
in online learning contexts. It may be in fact twice as high as
the one in traditional classrooms [25].
International Journal of Information and Education Technology, Vol. 12, No. 5, May 2022
451
C. Objectives
The study had the following specific objectives:
1) Determine if participating in an online EFL course had a
positive impact on students‟ behavioral autonomy.
2) Examine the behaviors, indicative of autonomous
behavior, that were the most positively impacted by the
participation in an online EFL course.
D. Instrument
The Measuring Instrument for Language Learning
Autonomy (MILLA) is made of 113 statements, which allow
the evaluation of 3 sub-dimensions of the construct: technical
autonomy, psycho-political autonomy, and sociocultural
autonomy. While all three dimensions are essential to
understand language learning autonomy, the technical
dimension is the one that focuses on the actual actions that
students take toward improving their learning outcomes. That
is, it refers to the strategies and techniques the students use to
learn without the teacher‟s supervision once they are outside
the classroom.
Only the statements related to this dimension of the
autonomy construct were considered for the study. The
reasoning underlying this decision was that the interest of the
research was in whether participating in an online course
affected the behaviors students had while learning English
and not on how they viewed themselves (psycho-political) or
their surroundings (sociocultural).
The statements from the MILLA that encapsulate
behaviors are twenty-five and follow the format of a Likert-5
scale. Thus, students have to score from 1 to 5 (1 being never
and 5 always) in order to report how often they implement the
corresponding actions. Examples of these statements are the
following ones:
I set long-term goals in learning English.
I make study plans that match my goals in learning
English.
The Cronbach alpha coefficient of the instrument for this
study was .936, so it has excellent internal consistency [13].
E. Procedure
Within the first and second week after the start of the
course, potential participants were first contacted by their
course facilitators through email and passed on the message
the research team prepared inviting them to participate in this
study. The ones who accepted the invitation received
informed consent approved by the bioethical committee of
the university in which the study took place.
The survey was made available to the participants in the
form of a Google Form survey that collected their responses.
During the third and fourth week, the researchers asked the
course facilitators to remind their students about the MILLA
survey to increase the number of answers.
Two months prior to the end of the semester, the students
who responded to the MILLA the first time were contacted
via email by the researchers to remind them about the second
application of the MILLA. The reason for only contacting
students that answered during the first call was to ensure that
we would be able to compare the data of the first and second
applications. All data were registered and analyzed using
SPSS V. 25.
During the experience in their online EFL course, the
students could interact with 2 platforms: Edusoft LMS and
Blackboard. The first one was made available to the students
while asking them to focus on the units of the student‟s book
whereas the latter was used to make available material related
to units about university life, critical thinking, and EFL
learning.
IV. RESULTS
A. Impact of Online Course on Behavioral Language
Learning Autonomy
Descriptive statistics for the pre-test (M = 79.4; SD = 20.37)
and post-test (M = 85.62; SD = 19.31) revealed an average
increase of 6 points from the pre-test to the post-test. The
instrument showed in both instances high internal reliability
(pretest α = 0.944; posttest α = 0.942).
To confirm if the difference showed in the descriptive
statistics was statistically significant paired-samples t-test
was run. Prior to running the test, the assumption of
normality was confirmed using the Shapiro-Wilk test of
normality. No outliers were detected using the interquartile
range. The corresponding paired-sample t-test (t(49) = 2.25,
p < 0.5) confirmed the difference was statistically significant
(Table I). Therefore, it can be stated that participation in the
online English course had a positive impact on the students‟
level of behavioral autonomy.
TABLE I: PAIRED-SAMPLES T-TEST
Mean
Std dev
Std Error
Mean
T
df
Sig
(2-tailed)
-6,26
19,69337
2.78506
-2.248
49
0.29
Cohen's d was estimated at 0.344 using the software
GPower. Based on Cohen's [26] guidelines this effect size
can be considered between small to moderate. That is,
although participation in the course does make a statistically
significant impact, this should probably be accompanied by
other measures to have a more noticeable impact on students‟
behavior.
B. Behavioral Change after Being Part of Online EFL
Course
The MILLA contains statements that are representative of
autonomous language learning behavior. A critical behavior
was conceived in this study as one that was significantly low
before the participation in the online language learning
course. Descriptive statistics were run on each of the
statements to determine which were rarely shown by the
participants of the study in the pretest. Six behaviors were
identified as least used (mean below 3). These were the
statements 1, 4, 21, 22, 23, and 25 of the MILLA instrument,
which are the following ones:
s3: I set goals for the day before I start studying English.
s4: I make study plans for the day before I start studying
English.
s21: I take notes about how much time I spent on my
English study.
s22: I keep records of what kind of methods I used for my
English study.
International Journal of Information and Education Technology, Vol. 12, No. 5, May 2022
452
s23: I write down what kinds of materials I used for my
English study.
s25: I take notes of my feelings while I am studying
English.
After the participation in the online course, all six
behaviors identified as critically showed an increase in terms
of frequency. This can be seen in Table II.
TABLE II: INCREASE IN FREQUENCY IN CRITICAL BEHAVIORS
Behavior
Pre-test mean
Post-test mean
S3
2.8
2.96
S4
2.62
3.2
S21
2.64
2.94
S22
2.94
3.14
S23
2.74
2.68
S25
2.04
2.56
Finding a significant improvement in the frequency in
which these behaviors are exhibited makes sense when
considering the nature of the interactive platform and its
implementation in the course.
First of all, in the course, as in most online courses,
students have to comply with completing a certain number of
units before set deadlines. This feature naturally promotes the
increase of the frequency of behaviors in statements 3 and 4.
The freedom to interact with the platform at the time that the
student prefers probably moves them to set specific goals
when they open the platform to work on it as well as to make
specific plans the day prior.
As for statements 21, 22, 23, and 25, these are behaviors
associated with self-regulated learners. McCormick [27]
defines self-regulated learners as those who engage in
metacognitive processes constantly evaluating the
effectiveness of the regulatory cognitive processes used.
Note-taking strategies, specifically, have been shown to be
crucial to support all phases of self-regulation [28], [29].
It is important to notice that although these four behaviors
show a change, statement 23 did not increase as the others did
in terms of frequency. It actually decreased. A possible
explanation for this is the nature of the platforms the students
interacted with. These platforms contain the activities the
students are supposed to use; therefore, there is no need for
the students to write down the materials being used during
their study sessions.
V. DISCUSSION
The positive impact of the implementation of this online
EFL course can be related to two dimensions of the
framework for self-determination in MOOCS proposed by
Martin, Kelly, and Terry [24]. These two are related to the
features of the design of the course itself and to the support
offered to the learners. As for the former, four characteristics
can be highlighted, which will be explained in light of the
course format and then discussed considering the results:
1) Offering meaningful choice: the LMS platform is
implemented in this course in a way in which the student
has to follow the units in order, but the students are also
offered other learning opportunities to foster their
learning. These are a Blackboard platform with material
available for them to explore on topics related to EFL as
well as university life and optional workshops that focus
on varied issues related to their learning experience.
Naturally, the opportunity to make meaningful choices
fosters the autonomous behaviors of setting goals as well
as making study plans in advance since the students have
the responsibility to select which activities to do out of the
range offered.
2) Allowing self-paced learning: Even though there is a
calendar with the recommended pace for the students to
work on the activities offered in the LMS as well as
Blackboard platforms, the students are the ones to decide
if they stick to it and how they organize their time to work
on the platform. Self-paced learning may have been
beneficial in the promotion of behaviors associated with
keeping track of the activities and methods that have been
working.
3) Limiting task imposition: Out of all the possibilities the
students have (LMS, Blackboard, and workshops), only
the LMS component partially contributes to grades.
Therefore, although Blackboard and workshops are
available to students. Similar to the first feature, limiting
task imposition relates to the opportunities students get to
make study plans and set goals for the days in which they
decide to work on the course.
4) Providing task involvement and sense of presence:
Teachers in charge of the online EFL courses have the
responsibility to monitor and guide the students enrolled.
They can use the QMS system of the LMS platform, for
example, to check students‟ progress. Based on this input,
facilitators contact the students to congratulate them on
their progress, ask them to speed up their work if they are
significantly falling behind, and inform them about their
results in the course. This aspect is more difficult to
interpret in light of the behaviors that the students
adopted during the course. However, it could be stated
that students taking notes of how they feel as well as their
accomplishments can be related to this feature on the
grounds that in the interactions with the teachers taking
into consideration these ones require the delivery of
explanations justifying their performance.
Regarding the aspects that foster competence by
supporting the learner, the framework created by Martin,
Kelly, and Terry [24] considers four, which will be discussed
in relation to the program and results obtained.
1) Provides structure, supportive information, and clear task
rationales: The beginning of the online course includes an
asynchronous lesson by means of which the course
facilitator outlines the course, shares the program,
communicates the assessment instances, and offers other
administrative information of potential use for the
students. This lesson especially focuses on the
importance of taking control over one‟s learning as well
as managing the platforms rigorously and in an organized
manner. Consequently, it can be understood as the
planting of the seeds for fostering autonomous behavior.
In addition, the two weeks of the course are dedicated to
activities related to the information and tasks students
need to know and do in order to be successful by means of
an induction unit available on Blackboard before the
International Journal of Information and Education Technology, Vol. 12, No. 5, May 2022
453
students have access to their LMS.
2) Creates an optimal level of challenge: Edusoft English
Discoveries, the LMS platform, guides students to the
achievement of an A1 level based on the standards of the
Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages. Considering that this is the first English
course students have at the university and the existence of
a placement test at the beginning of the semester, it can be
asserted with certainty that this is the ideal level for the
students. With regard to the importance, this has on the
development of the students‟ autonomy, suffice to say,
that an ideal challenge is the best catalyst for the
development of autonomous behaviors. It is important for
the student to feel that they can do it, so they can keep
track of how they move toward this goal as well as the
techniques that are helping them do so.
3) Gives an indication of progress: The LMS by nature gives
students‟ the feeling of progress since it alerts students of
the progress made in each unit. This feature also helps
students identify if they missed any part of the unit. As for
the material in Blackboard, this is organized in units as
well based on complexity. The student receives the
suggested pace at which they can work on this material by
means of a calendar. Thus, the planning of their work
becomes imperative and behavior that students can
benefit from since it is naturally promoted.
4) Provides positive and constructive feedback with
unexpected rewards: Regarding this aspect, the main role
of the teacher in the online course is to provide students
with positive and constructive feedback as the course
progresses based on the monitoring of their work. Having
said that, although rewards are provided based on the
students‟ performance in the forms of grades and exam
exemption, these are informed in advance as advised in
the literature on goal-setting theory and assessment [30],
[31]. Therefore, this is something that needs further
investigation.
One final point to comment on is the significant attrition in
participation from the first application of the MILLA to the
second one. This big dropout number was expected based on
the context of the study. The study, due to the nature of the
course as well as the impact of the pandemic, was done
entirely online. Studies carried out in this manner tend to
have a very high attrition rate [25]. Research on online
learning environments has shown that one of the main
reasons for this is not being able to handle the complexities of
an online course due to the lack of experience with learning
environments that rely on the students‟ responsibility and
organization, which is related to low autonomy levels [32],
[33]. Therefore, it could be argued that the students who drop
out, inadvertently miss the opportunity of developing the
autonomy they need to succeed in the course as they work on
it. As the findings reveal, participation in the online course
leads to a better overall ability to self-regulate, which, in turn,
should help lower dropout rates [34].
VI. CONCLUSION
Increasing students‟ autonomy has been one of the most
relevant challenges educational institutions have been facing
during the pandemic due to the natural switch to online
learning. The present study has shown that interacting with
an interactive learning platform during a semester has an
overall moderate positive impact on increasing students‟
second language learner autonomy as well as the behaviors
on which interacting with online platforms impacts the most.
This study adds to the incipient line of research exploring
the impact that learning in an online environment with
interactive platforms has on language learner autonomy.
Although the study contributes to the field, there is one
important limitation that needs to be acknowledged. It was
not possible to account for other variables related to the
development of language learner autonomy that might have
affected students apart from the participation in the course.
For example, students might have taken on other activities
that could have helped them develop their language learner
autonomy, such as workshop participation or language
learning app use. This weakness could have been avoided if it
had been possible to implement a survey to gather this
information during the posttest. However, due to the number
of surveys being conducted at the time in which the study
took place, it was not feasible. In a future replication, this will
be addressed.
Future studies are necessary in this area of study to achieve
two objectives. First, it is necessary to narrow down the
scope of the study in order to identify the specific activities
that have the biggest effect on language learner autonomy out
of all the wide variety offered by the platform. Secondly,
more research done using a mixed methods approach should
be done. Complementing quantitative data with qualitative
information may shed light on the perceptions students have
of how their interaction with the LMS changes the behaviors
they exhibit.
All in all, language learner autonomy is nowadays more
important than ever. With the advent of online education and
the increasing number of programs adopting this modality,
understanding its nuances as well as how students can grow
to be autonomous learners should be one of the main tasks
researchers in the education field should undertake
considering the clear positive relationship between
increasing autonomous behavior and improving academic
performance [35].
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION
BC designed and conducted the research and analyzed the
data. CP supervised the research and helped communicate the
information. Both authors collaboratively wrote the article.
REFERENCES
[1] P. Benson, Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language
Learning, 2nd ed. Harlow, U.K.: Pearson, 2011.
[2] I. Egel, “Learner autonomy in the language classroom: From teacher
dependency to learner independency,” Procedia, vol. 1, pp. 2023-2026,
2009.
[3] C. Everhard, “The assessment-autonomy relationship,” in Assessment
and Autonomy in Language Learning, C. Everhard and L. Murphy, Eds.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019, ch 1, pp. 33-63.
International Journal of Information and Education Technology, Vol. 12, No. 5, May 2022
454
[4] J. E. Lozano-Jiménez, E. Huéscar, and J. A. Moreno-Murcia, “Effects
of an autonomy support intervention on the involvement of higher
education students,” Sustainability, vol. 13, p. 5006, April 2021.
[5] J. Wong, M. Baars, D. Davis, T. Zee, G.-J. Houben, and F. Paas,
“Supporting self-regulated learning in online learning environments
and MOOCs: A systematic review,” International Journal of
Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 35, no. 4-5, pp. 356-373, 2019.
[6] M. Esfandiari and M. Wais, “Is technology paving the way for
autonomous learning?” World Journal of English Language, vol. 9, no.
2, pp. 64-73, 2019.
[7] J. A. Muñoz-Cristóbal, J. M. Rodríguez-Triana, V. Gallego-Lema, H. F.
Arribas-Cubero, J. I. Asensio-Pérez, and A. Martínez-Monés,
“Monitoring for awareness and reflection in ubiquitous learning
environments,” International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction,
vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 146-165, 2017.
[8] J. B. Wandler and W. J. Imbriale, “Promoting undergraduate student
self-regulation in online learning environments,” Online Learning, vol.
21, no. 2, pp. 1-16, 2017.
[9] H. Holec, Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning, Oxford, U.K.:
Pergamon, 1981.
[10] P. Benson, “Autonomy in language teaching and learning,” Language
Teaching, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 21-40, January 2007.
[11] M. Hamilton, Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning in a Virtual
Learning Environment, London, UK: Bloomsbury, 2013.
[12] D. Little, Learner Autonomy 1: Definitions, Issues and Problems,
Authentik, 1991.
[13] F. Murase, “Measuring language learner autonomy: Problems and
possibilities,” in Assessment and Autonomy in Language Learning, C.
Everhard and L. Murphy, Eds. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015,
ch 2, pp. 35-63.
[14] M. Tassinari, “Assessing learner autonomy: A dynamic model,” in
Assessment and Autonomy in Language Learning, C. Everhard and L.
Murphy, Eds. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015, ch 3, pp. 64-88.
[15] A. Merc, “The effect of a learner autonomy training on the study habits
of the first-year ELT students,” Educational Research and Reviews, vol.
10, no. 4, pp. 378-387, February 2015.
[16] B. Xhaferi and G. Xhaferi, “Developing learner autonomy in higher
education in Macedonia,” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
vol. 11, pp. 150-154, December 2011.
[17] S. Moussaoui, “An investigation of the effects of peer evaluation in
enhancing Algerian students writing autonomy and positive affect,”
Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 69, pp. 1775-1784,
December 2012.
[18] V. I. Chirkov, “Culture, personal autonomy and individualism: Their
relationships and implications for personal growth and well-being,” in
Perspectives and Progress in Contemporary Cross-cultural
Psychology, G. Zheng, K. Leung, and J. G. Adair, Eds. Beijing, China:
China Light Industry Press, 2007, pp. 247-263.
[19] L. Han, “Teacher‟s role in developing learner autonomy: A literature
review,” International Journal of English Language Teaching, vol. 1,
no. 2, pp. 21-27, April 2014.
[20] S. Yan, “Teacher‟s roles in autonomous learning,” Journal of
Sociological Research, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 557-562, July 2012.
[21] Q. M. Zhong, “The evolution of learner autonomy in online
environments: A case study in a New Zealand context,” Studies in
Self-Access Learning Journal, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 71-85, March 2018.
[22] J. L. Moore, C. Dickson-Deane, and K. Galyen, “E-Learning, online
learning, and distance learning environments: Are they the same?” The
Internet and Higher Education, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 129–135, March
2011.
[23] X. Liu, Y. Liu, and J-F. Tu, “Multimedia technology and learner
autonomy: An experimental study for asymmetric effects,” Symmetry,
vol. 12, no. 462, March 2020.
[24] N. Martin, N. Kelly, N., and P. Terry, “A framework for
self-determination in massive open online courses: Design for
autonomy, competence, and relatedness,” Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 35-55, April 2018.
[25] Y. Levy, “Comparing dropouts and persistence in e-learning courses,”
Computers & Education, vol. 48, pp. 185–204, February 2007.
[26] J. Cohen, “A power primer,” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 112, no. 1, pp.
155-159, July 1992.
[27] C. B. McCormick, Metacognition and learning, in Handbook of
Psychology (vol. 7), I. Weiner, W. Reynolds, & G. Miller, Eds.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 79-102, 2003.
[28] N. Dabbagh and A. Kitsantas, “Using web-based pedagogical tools as
scaffolds for self-regulated learning,” Instructional Science, vol. 33, pp.
513–540, November 2005.
[29] B. J. Zimmerman and M. Campillo, Motivating self-regulated problem
solvers, in The Psychology of Problem Solving, J.E. Davidson & R.J.
Sternberg, Eds. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp.
233-262.
[30] E. A. Locket, K. N. Shaw, L. M. Saari, and G. P. Latham, “Goal setting
and task performance: 1969–1980,” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 90, no.
1, pp. 125–152, July 1981.
[31] G. Richter, D. Raban, and S. Rafaeli, “Studying gamification: The
effects of rewards and incentives on motivation,” in Gamification in
Education and Business, T. Reineers & L.C. Wood, Eds. Springer
International, 2015, pp. 21-46.
[32] H. Fournier, R. Kop, and G. Durand, “Challenges to research in
MOOCs,” Journal of Online Learning and Teaching,” vol. 10, no. 1,
1-15, March 2014.
[33] K. F. Hew and W. S. Cheung, “Students‟ and instructors‟ use of
massive open online courses (MOOCs): Motivations and challenges.”
Educational Research Review, vol. 12, pp. 45–58, June 2014.
[34] Y. Lee and J. Choi, “A review of online course dropout research:
Implications for practice and future research,” Educational Technology
Research and Development,” vol. 59, pp. 593–618, 2011.
[35] L. Barnard-Brak, V. O. Paton, and W. Y. Lan, “Self-regulation across
time of first-generation online learners,” Research in Learning
Technology, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 61–70, March 2010.
Copyright © 2022 by the authors. This is an open access article distributed
under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original
work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0).
Benjamín Cárcamo is a Chilean researcher who holds
a PhD in linguistics. Additionally, he holds a master‟s
degree in assessment and a master‟s degree in applied
linguistics.
He currently teaches in EFL programs in face-to-face
as well as online modalities. His main field of research
is materials analysis for EFL teaching and learning. He
has published several research articles in recognized journals indexed in
Scopus and WoS.
Dr. Cárcamo is a member of different ESL/EFL associations in his country.
Cristian Pérez holds a master‟s degree in education.
Currrently he works as head of the EFL department in
Viña del Mar campus in UDLA. He teaches in different
universities and his main research interest is
e-liearning.
International Journal of Information and Education Technology, Vol. 12, No. 5, May 2022
455
