Learner Autonomy and Interaction in English Language Learning among Thai EFL Undergraduate Students
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study explored the learner autonomy of Thai EFL undergraduates in English language learning and the extent to which they conducted learner-learner interaction, learner-instructor interaction, learner-content interaction, and overall interaction. Moreover, the study investigated whether there was a significant difference in overall interaction for different learner autonomy levels. The sample included 83 English major freshmen enrolling in an online English Phonetics course at a public university in Bangkok, Thailand. The data were collected through an online learner autonomy and interaction questionnaire. Descriptive statistics, one-way ANOVA, and post-hoc Tukey tests were utilized to analyze the data. The findings revealed that the participants possessed a high level of overall learner autonomy. While they had a high level of ability to learn English autonomously, they had a moderate level of responsibility for their learning process. Further, the participants had a high level of overall interaction. Although they had a high level of learner-content and learner-instructor interaction, they possessed an average level of learner-learner interaction. The participants with a low learner autonomy level had significantly lower overall interaction scores than those with a moderate or high level of learner autonomy.
Article Details
References
Anderson, T. (2003). Modes of interaction in distance education: Recent developments and research questions. In M. G. Moore, & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 129-144). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Anderson, T., & Garrison, D. R. (1998). Learning in a networked world: New roles and responsibilities. In C. Gibbon (Ed.), Distance learners in higher education (pp. 97-112). Atwood Publishing.
Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. Longman.
Brown, H.G. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. (2nd ed.). Longman.
Chaiyasat, C., & Intakaew, A. (2022). Why keep silent? Voices from Thai EFL students in an English-medium instruction university. Asian Englishes, 1-14.
Chan, V., Spratt, M., & Humphreys, G. (2002). Autonomous language learning: Hong Kong tertiary students’ attitudes and behaviours. Evaluation & Research in Education, 16(1), 1-18.
Chanthap, N., & Wasanasomsithi, P. (2019). The effect of integration of a blended learning and extensive reading instructional model on Thai EFL undergraduate students’ learner autonomy. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 12(2), 76-96.
Darasawang, P. (2007). English language teaching and education in Thailand: A decade of change. In D. Prescott (Ed.), English in Southeast Asia: Varieties, literacies and literatures (pp. 187-204). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Education First. (2022). EF EPI: EF English Proficiency Index. https://www.ef.co.th/assetscdn/WIBIwq6RdJvcD9bc8RMd/cefcom-epi-site/reports/2022/ef-epi-2022-english.pdf
Fotiadou, A., Angelaki, C., & Mavroidis, I. (2017). Learner autonomy as a factor of the learning process in distance education. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning, 20(1), 96-111.
Ha, L. T., Ngoc, V. P. H., & Canh, T. T. T. (2021). Language teaching and learning in emergency remote teaching: Are learners really engaged?. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 37(6), 18-32.
Hillman, D., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30-42.
Holec, H. (1979). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Pergamon Press.
Iamudom, T., & Tangkiengsirisin, S. (2020). A comparison study of learner autonomy and language learning strategies among Thai EFL learners. International Journal of Instruction, 13(2), 199-212.
Ismail, F. K. M., & Zubairi, A. M. B. (2022). Item objective congruence analysis for multidimensional items: Content validation of a reading test in Sri Lankan University. English Language Teaching, 15(1), 106-117.
Jitpaisarnwattana, N., Reinders, H., & Darasawang, P. (2021). Learners' perspectives on interaction in a language MOOC. JALT CALL Journal, 17(2), 158-182.
Jung, I., Choi, S., Lim, C., & Leem, J. (2002). Effects of different types of interaction on learning achievement, satisfaction and participation in web-based instruction. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(2), 153-162.
Kuo, Y. C., Walker, A. E., Schroder, K. E., & Belland, B. R. (2014). Interaction, Internet self-efficacy, and self-regulated learning as predictors of student satisfaction in online education courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 20, 35-50.
Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy 1: Definitions, issues and problems. Authentik.
Miller, G. (2015). Associations between learner interaction and achievement in an online course: A longitudinal study. NACTA Journal, 59(3), 197–201.
Moore, M. G. (1989) Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-7.
Muirhead, B., & Juwah, C. (2004). Interactivity in computer-mediated college and university education: A recent review of the literature. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 7(1), 12-20.
Murray, G. (2014). Exploring the social dimensions of autonomy in language learning. In G. Murray (Ed.), Social dimensions of autonomy in language learning (pp. 3-11). Palgrave Macmillan.
Osorno, J., & Lopera, S. (2012). Interaction in an EFL reading comprehension distance web-based course. Íkala, revista de lenguaje y cultura, 17(1), 45-59.
Ramadhiyah, S., & Lengkanawati, N. S. (2019). Exploring EFL learner autonomy in the 2013 curriculum implementation. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 231-240.
Samaie, M., Khany, R., & Habibi, N. (2015). On the relationship between learner autonomy and language learning strategies among Iranian EFL students. International Journal of Educational Investigations, 2(6), 96-109.
Spratt, M., Humphreys, G., & Chan, V. (2002). Autonomy and motivation: Which comes first?. Language Teaching Research, 6(3), 245-266.
Swatevacharkul, R., & Boonma, N. (2021). Learner autonomy assessment of English language teaching students in an international program in Thailand. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(3), 749-759.
Tan, K. E., & Phairot, E. (2018). Willingness to communicate among Thai EFL students: Does English proficiency matter?. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 15(3), 590-602.
Thamraksa, C. (2003). Student-centered learning: Demystifying the myth. Studies in Language and Language Teaching, 12, 59-71.
Thurmond, V. A. (2003). Defining interaction and strategies to enhance interactions in web-based courses. Nurse Educator, 28(5), 237-241.
Tuan, D. M. (2021). Learner autonomy in English language learning: Vietnamese EFL students’ perceptions and practices. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 307-317.
Yamane, T. (1967). Elementary sampling theory. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Yassi, A. H., Hanafiah, W., Sahib, H., Aswad, M., Nurchalis, N. F., & Azizi, Z. (2023). Exploring the effects of Pair-Interaction Model on improving Indonesian adult learners’ English proficiency. Studies in English Language and Education, 10(1), 117-136.