1075812

research-article2022
LTR0010.1177/13621688221075812Language Teaching ResearchChong and Reinders

LANGUAGE
TEACHING
Article RESEARCH

Language Teaching Research

Autonomy of English language

1­–26
© The Author(s) 2022

learners: A scoping review of Article reuse guidelines:

research and practice sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221075812
DOI: 10.1177/13621688221075812
journals.sagepub.com/home/ltr

Sin Wang Chong

Queen’s University Belfast, UK

Hayo Reinders
King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, Thailand; Anaheim University, USA

Abstract
Learner autonomy is a vibrant and diverse field. In its approximately 40-year history, it has drawn
liberally on theoretical constructs and research methodologies from other disciplines. In turn, it has
contributed to the field of applied linguistics by drawing attention to the fundamental importance
of understanding the language learner as an active agent in the learning process. To understand
the role of autonomy in, and its connections with other areas of study, it is important to ask
how it has been conceptualized and operationalized. In addition, given its elusive and amorphous
nature, it is timely to ask if and how (the development of) learner autonomy has been evaluated.
In this article we conducted a scoping review, or a systematic and comprehensive literature
review, of 61 empirical studies in this field. The results show a rich array of conceptualizations
and numerous operationalizations, in addition to a somewhat limited use of evaluations. We draw
from this a number of implications for research. In particular, we encourage learner autonomy
researchers to make explicit their theoretical frameworks, extend their investigation to the role
of language learning beyond the classroom in promoting learner autonomy, and diversify their
use of research methods.

Keywords
autonomous learning, English language, learner autonomy, scoping review, TESOL

I Introduction
The field of learner autonomy is reaching a stage of maturity. Since its emergence in the
early 1980s it has spawned a greater interest in the roles that learners play in their own
learning and greater recognition of the myriad ways in which learning, both in and

Corresponding author:
Sin Wang Chong, Queen’s University Belfast, University Road, Belfast, BT7 1NN, UK
Email: S.Chong@qub.ac.uk
2 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

outside of the classroom, takes place. In addition, it is intimately connected with the
recent explorations of the psychology of the language learner and the ways in which
learners’ internal experiences significantly shape the learning process and its outcomes.
Given its historical and continued influence, a scoping review is warranted of its theo-
retical underpinnings and the ways these are translated into context-specific operation-
alizations. Furthermore, how the concept is understood in different cultures, with learners
of different ages, and across school types, to name only some variables, is unclear and
has not been systematically investigated.
A feature of the scholarly canon in the field of learner autonomy is that much of the
extensive literature comprises theoretical explorations or descriptions of good practice,
rather than empirical studies. Moreover, although there are a number of frequently-cited
definitions of learner autonomy that conceptualize learner autonomy as learners’ ability
and capacity (e.g. by Benson, 2001; Holec, 1981; Little, 1991; Littlejohn, 1985; Nunan,
1996), distinctions between learner autonomy and related constructs such as self-regu-
lated learning, motivation, self-efficacy, and metacognition remain blurred and concep-
tualizations are often not clearly founded or described. Similarly, operationalizations of
autonomy are mostly unsystematic and frequently not described in detail. This is a sig-
nificant lacuna, as it prevents a comprehensive comparison of the relative effects of dif-
ferent pedagogical practices. Of particular interest in the field is whether, and if so, how
autonomy can be evaluated. Little (2007, 2017) strongly argues that the development of
language proficiency and learner autonomy should not be separated as they are ‘mutually
supporting and fully integrated with each other’ (Little, 2007, p. 14) so attempting to
evaluate learner autonomy is not necessary – or recommended – as the results will speak
for themselves in terms of the development of language proficiency. This convincing
stance goes some way to explain why there are few empirical studies isolating learner
autonomy. In addition, Benson (2011) notes that observations and intuitions made by
teachers with regards to ascertaining the extent to which learners are taking charge of
their learning may be sufficient and further evaluation–often through lengthy systematic
research–is not always necessary. However, other researchers have suggested that it
might be useful to evaluate some aspects of learner autonomy in order to show whether
teaching practices and learning opportunities are effective. It could be argued that
although the capacity for learner autonomy itself cannot be evaluated, observable behav-
iors can be researched and this could be an indication of the degree of autonomy that a
learner possesses. Examples of observable behaviours are, for example, demonstrating
greater awareness and control over one’s self-directed learning (see Curry et al., 2017),
identifying evidence of metacognitive development using a rubric or trajectory (Kato &
Mynard, 2016; Sinclair, 1999), or showing the degree of ownership over learning task
selection and design (Nunan, 1997). It remains unclear whether there is a consensus
either way. It is important to gain a more detailed understanding of the current state of
the field and for this reason this article reports on a scoping review of the literature. This
scoping review focuses on a number of contestable issues in the field, which pertain to
the conceptualization (what conceptual and/or theoretical frameworks are used to under-
stand learner autonomy?), operationalizations (what are some in-class and/or out-of-
class activities designed by English teachers to develop learners’ autonomy?), and
evaluation of learner autonomy (what research instruments or methods are used to inves-
tigate learner autonomy?). The scope of this present review is on English
Chong and Reinders 3

language learners (ELL) rather than learners of other languages because the majority of
the scholarly publications on language learner autonomy focus on ELL (see a compre-
hensive bibliography on learner autonomy compiled by Hayo Reinders1). While there are
a handful of publications on learners of other languages, we decided to confine our syn-
thesis to ELL to maintain ecological validity of our review, which refers to the ‘relation
between real-world phenomena and the investigation of these phenomena in experimen-
tal contexts’ (Schmuckler, 2001, p. 420). A study is considered ecologically valid when
its findings are likely to be used by stakeholders in similar contexts (Ledford et al.,
2016). In other words, by focusing on a particular group of learners (i.e. ELL), we intend
to make our synthesized results more useful and relevant to English teachers and learn-
ers. Another reason for setting a confine to our remit concerns the practicality of con-
ducting a scoping review, which involves some labour-intensive and time-consuming
works because of its inclusive nature (Pham et al., 2014). This warrants synthesists to
explicate a boundary regarding the scope of the review in the form of inclusion and/or
exclusion criteria (Chong & Reinders, 2021) (see Section II.4).

II Methodology
This study is a scoping review, which refers to a type of systematic literature review
which summarizes substantive and methodological features of primary studies on a par-
ticular topic (Chong & Plonsky, 2021a; Visonà & Plonsky, 2019). A scoping review
distinguishes itself from other types of research synthesis (e.g. narrative review) in terms
of its more inclusive and systematic approach to study selection. Because of its more
comprehensive coverage, a scoping review is often used to survey a research landscape
of emerging or vibrant areas of research where published work ‘has not yet been exten-
sively reviewed or is of a complex or heterogeneous nature’ (Tricco et al., 2016, p. 2).
Scoping review can synthesize qualitative and/or quantitative data, which makes it
resemble other types of systematic literature reviews namely qualitative research synthe-
sis (which focuses on synthesis of qualitative data) and meta-analysis (which focuses on
synthesis of quantitative data). For the present study, which adopts a thematic and quali-
tative approach to data synthesis, we draw on a recently developed methodological
framework for conducting qualitative research synthesis in TESOL and Applied
Linguistics (Chong & Plonsky, 2021b) (Figure 1). The rationale for adopting this frame-
work is twofold: First, to the best knowledge of the authors, it is the only framework on
synthesizing research findings in a qualitative, thematic manner in TESOL. Second, this
framework is rather generic and resembles other types of systematic literature reviews
(see Table 1 in Chong & Plonsky, 2021a).

1 Design research questions

This scoping review on autonomy of ELL includes a dual focus on research and practice,
which is reflected in its three research questions:

1. How is ELL autonomy conceptualized?

2. How is ELL autonomy operationalized?
3. How is ELL autonomy evaluated?
4 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Figure 1.  A methodological framework.

Source. Chong & Plonsky, 2021b.

2 Keywords identified for conducting the literature search

The research team agreed on a search string of 20 terms. When finalizing this, we consid-
ered the inclusive nature of a scoping review and the volatility of the notion of learner
autonomy (Dam, 2009). In consultation with two leading scholars in the field of language
learner autonomy, the following search terms were developed, taking into consideration
that studies on learner autonomy do not always use the term ‘learner autonomy’ (see
examples from the online bibliography in Footnote 1). We were fully aware that the use of
other associated terms in our search might result in publications which do not virtually
discuss the key construct of this study. However, adhering to the exploratory and compre-
hensive nature of scoping review (Pham et al., 2014), we decided to conduct a more
holistic search, refining the results using a stringent set of inclusion criteria which ensure
the included studies focus explicitly on ELL’s autonomy (see Table 1, especially the ‘con-
ceptualization’ criterion). The use of a rather exhaustive list of search terms indicates our
position regarding a more inclusive definition of ‘learner autonomy’, considering also its
related concepts. For example, while ‘self-directed (language) learning’ and ‘learner
autonomy’ studies draw on slightly different strands of research and terminologies, they
are related to learners taking ownership of their own learning. Therefore, in this review,
these studies were included. For this review, the following search string was used:

‘adult learning’ OR ‘autonomous learning’ OR ‘extramural learning’ OR ‘good language

learner’ OR ‘independent learning’ OR ‘informal learning’ OR ‘language advising’ OR
‘language counselling’ OR ‘learner autonomy’ OR ‘learning beyond the classroom’ OR
‘learning how to learn’ OR ‘learning in the wild’ OR ‘learning to learn’ OR ‘nonformal language
learning’ OR ‘out-of-class learning’ OR ‘self-access learning’ OR ‘self-directed (language)
learning’ OR ‘self-motivation’ OR ‘self-regulated learning’ OR ‘strategy instruction’
Chong and Reinders 5

Table 1.  Inclusion criteria of the scoping review.

Criteria Description
Time frame Publications available in the public domain prior to the
search conducted in December 2019
Language English
Type of publication Primary studies
Participants of studies English language learners
Conceptualization There should be a section (e.g. literature review/conceptual
framework) which explicitly discusses the construct of
learner autonomy (or its alternative terms).
Quality of studies2 Qualitative studies, quantitative studies and mixed-methods
studies – guidelines from TESOL Quarterly used. For instance,
qualitative studies included should provide descriptions of
theoretical framework and data sources; as for quantitative
studies, justification of the statistical analysis used should be
included. Regarding mixed-methods studies, the specific type
of mixed-methods research design needs to be described.

3 Literature search conducted

Literature was searched in two ways: exploratory and focused. An exploratory search
was performed on electronic research databases. For each keyword, a search was per-
formed on the following databases in December 2019: ERIC (EBSCO), Education
Database (ProQuest), Education Research Complete (EBSCO), Linguistics and Language
Behaviour Abstracts, Open Access Summaries in Language Studies (OASIS), IRIS (dig-
ital repository of instruments and materials for research into second languages). A
focused literature search was performed on two refereed journals, Relay Journal and
Studies in Self-Access Learning, and nine edited volumes on language learner autonomy.
Articles were searched and first-screened by a research assistant who has experience in
conducting systematic literature reviews following the steps outlined in Figure 2.

4 Evaluate literature using inclusion criteria

To conduct a second screening on the included studies, the following inclusion criteria
were developed by the research team (Table 1). In particular, we decided to only focus
on primary studies and exclude theoretical explorations in our corpus because we were
not only interested in the conceptualization of the construct of ELL autonomy but also
how the construct is implemented and evaluated. A second screening was conducted by
a research assistant and was cross-checked by the first author, who is a methodologist of
research synthesis. The two reviewers communicated through emails and on an instant
messaging mobile application, WhatsApp, to discuss and resolve cases of discrepancy.
Ultimately, following Figure 3, 61 studies on ELL autonomy were included in this scop-
ing review.
6 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Figure 2.  Searching and first-screening articles.

5 Extracting and synthesizing data

A data extraction form (Appendix 1 in supplemental material) was created by the research
team which includes items related to the three research questions. Data extraction was
performed by the first author. To ensure the accuracy of the extracted data, the first
author first completed data extraction on five studies; the extracted data were reviewed
and approved by the second author. The first author then finished data extraction on the
remaining studies. Issues and queries raised during the process were relayed to the rest
of the team for comments. The completed 61 data extraction forms (Appendix 2 in sup-
plemental material3) were uploaded to a secure Google Drive folder, and were indepen-
dently reviewed and commented on by the second author.
Chong and Reinders 7

Figure 3.  Flow chart of study selection.

The finalized data extraction forms were imported into NVivo Pro 12 and inductive
coding was performed to develop new themes. Following latest practices in qualitative
research synthesis in TESOL (e.g. Chong & Reinders, 2020), open coding was performed
iteratively through initial, focused, and axial coding to enable constant comparison
between data and consolidation of thematic structures (i.e. the development of themes
and sub-themes). This approach to open coding is informed by seminal work by grounded
theorist, Kathy Charmaz (e.g. Charmaz, 2006). Similar to the data extraction stage, the
synthesized data were shared with the co-author; queries and comments were exchanged
via email. Appendix 3 (in supplemental material) includes a detailed coding scheme of
the three research questions, consisting of three analytical categories, 12 descriptive cat-
egories, and 49 sub-categories.
It was our deliberate decision to reach consensus through written correspondence and
discussions although we are aware that other statistical means are available (e.g. Cohen’s
kappa). We believe that a more reflective and discursive approach to reaching agreement
is more suitable for the present study which focuses on such a complex learner construct
as learner autonomy.

6 An overview of the included studies

The included studies represent an international student population, learning English
mostly as a foreign or second language. Iran, China, and Turkey are the top three loca-
tions ELL autonomy studies were conducted, followed by Taiwan, Japan, Saudi Arabia,
Hong Kong, United States, Colombia, Egypt, Malaysia, France, Greece, Korea, Poland,
Portugal, and Sweden; four studies do not specify their locations4 (Figure 4). It is noted
that the autonomy research seems to be popular in Asian countries. This is partly the
result of the pivotal role played by universities in Hong Kong where an early interest in
self-access learning and autonomy resulted in a great deal of activity. In addition, a num-
ber of professional organizations (e.g. HASALD in Hong Kong and the JALT Learner
Development SIG in Japan) generated a great deal of interest and collaboration. Finally,
a number of highly influential researchers have worked in the region, which has led to a
great deal of research and postgraduate study in this area. The majority of the studies
8 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Figure 4.  Locations of the included studies.

Figure 5.  Settings of the included studies.

Chong and Reinders 9

Figure 6.  Research questions of the included studies.

were conducted in higher education institutions (40), followed by language schools (7),
primary schools (7), secondary schools (5), and vocational schools (3)5 (Figure 5). This
may be due to the fact that autonomous learning behaviours are usually associated with
maturity of learners.
Four types of questions were answered by these studies: Perception and/or experi-
ence, effect of intervention on learner autonomy/related construct or relationship between
two psychological constructs (e.g. Ghahari & Basanjideh, 2017, investigated the rela-
tionship between EFL learners’ awareness of reading strategies and their autonomy),
relationship between learner autonomy and language proficiency/other constructs, and
instrument development and/or validation6 (Figure 6). As far as research designs are
concerned, over half of the included studies employed a (quantitative) survey design,
while the remainder of the selected studies are mixed-methods and (quasi-)experimental
studies respectively. Only four of the studies utilized qualitative research methods
(Figure 7).

III Findings
1 How is ELL autonomy conceptualized?
The included studies employed various conceptual and/or theoretical frameworks to
inform their research. Conceptual frameworks adopted in these studies include self-reg-
ulation (28 studies), learner autonomy (27 studies), other concepts related to learner
psychology (19 studies), autonomy-promoting language teaching and learning practices
10 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Figure 7.  Research designs of included studies.

(nine studies), and language learning strategies (six studies).7 A few of the studies were
underpinned by socio-cultural or social constructivist theories (six studies) and second
language acquisition hypotheses (one study).
‘Self-regulation’ is the conceptual framework most commonly drawn on (28 studies).
In some studies, self-regulation is also referred to as ‘self-regulated learning’ (e.g.
Fukuda, 2018), ‘self-regulated learning strategies’ (e.g. Martirossian & Hartoonian,
2015), ‘self-directed learning’ (e.g. Giveh, 2018), ‘independent learning’ (e.g. Cakici,
2017), or ‘out-of-class learning’ (e.g. Wu, 2012). Although the majority of these studies
perceive self-regulation as an overarching construct, a few studies discuss the notion
more specifically. For instance, self-regulated learning for specific language skills,
including speaking (El-Sakka, 2016), writing (Abadikhah et al., 2018; Bai & Guo, 2018),
and reading (Kavani & Amjadiparvar, 2018); self-regulated learning development
(Barkel, 2018), self-regulated learning readiness (Xuan, Razali & Samad, 2018). Works
frequently cited in these studies include those by Barry Zimmerman (27 studies) (e.g.
Zimmerman, 1998), Paul Pintrich (21 studies) (e.g. Pintrich & Schunk, 1996), and Dale
Schunk (18 studies) (e.g. Schunk, 1996), Philip Candy (8 studies) (e.g. Candy, 1991), D.
Randy Garrison (5 studies) (e.g. Garrison, 1997). Specific frameworks referred to include
classic models such as self-regulated learning strategies framework by Garcia and
Pintrich (1994) (cognitive, metacognitive, and resource management strategies), the
social-cognitive model of self-regulation (Zimmerman, 1989), the four-dimensional self-
regulated learning model by Candy (1991), the three self-regulated learning phases by
Zimmerman (1998) (forethought, performance control, self-reflection), affective-cognitive
Chong and Reinders 11

model of self-regulated learning (Pintrich, 2000), as well as more recent self-regulated

learning models such as the ones by Song (2005) and Thornton (2010).
Not surprisingly, adopted by 27 studies, ‘learner autonomy’ is another prominent con-
ceptual framework in this pool of studies. Prominent works which inform the conceptu-
alizations of learner autonomy in these studies include those by Phil Benson (26 studies)
(e.g. Benson, 2001), Henri Holec (24 studies) (Holec, 1981), David Little (14 studies)
(e.g. Little, 1991), Leslie Dickinson (13 studies) (e.g. Dickinson, 1987), William
Littlewood (10 studies) (e.g. Littlewood, 1999), David Nunan (14 studies) (e.g. Nunan,
1996), Leni Dam (8 studies) (e.g. Dam, 2009), and Andrew Littlejohn (2 studies) (e.g.
Littlejohn, 1985). Conceptualizations of learner autonomy have undergone considerable
transformation. Early works conceptualized autonomy as an ability or capacity. A repre-
sentative example is Holec’s (1981) definition of learner autonomy as ‘the ability to take
charge of one’s own learning’ (p. 3). Later works suggest that such ability or capacity can
be translated into demonstrable learning behaviours inside and outside the classroom.
For example, Little (1991) incorporates other learning facets as part of learner autonomy
including ‘detachment, critical reflection, decision making and an independent action’
(p. 4). Similarly, Nunan’s (1997) learner autonomy model focuses on learners’ actions,
including ‘awareness’, ‘involvement’, ‘ intervention’, ‘creation’, and ‘transcendence’ (p.
195). The models by Littlewood (1997) and Benson (2001) further expand and compart-
mentalize behaviours exhibited by autonomous language learners to include not only the
language learning dimension but also second language acquisition and learning
strategies.
Additionally, some of these learner autonomy studies are framed based on other psy-
chological constructs, namely motivation (eight studies), self-efficacy (four studies),
metacognition (three studies), learner beliefs (two studies), anxiety (one study), and
awareness (one study). Conceptual frameworks vis-à-vis ‘motivation’ employed include
Dörnyei’s (2005) L2 motivational and self system (e.g. Lu & Berg, 2019), Schunk and
Zimmerman’s (2008) motivational regulation strategies (e.g. Teng & Zhang, 2018),
Dörnyei and Ryan’s (2015) dynamic motivation (e.g. Bahari, 2018). ‘Self-efficacy’,
which is generally defined as one’s belief about one’s own ability in completing an action
and achieving a goal (Bandura, 1995), is referred to in four studies, namely Bai and Guo
(2018), Mizumoto (2013), Tabrizi and Saeidi (2015), and Wang et al. (2012). Their con-
ceptual frameworks of self-efficacy are underpinned by works by Bandura (1995),
Graham (2004), Zimmerman (2000), Schunk and Zimmerman (2007), and Pintrich and
Schunk (1996). ‘Metacognition’, or simply put, ‘thinking about thinking’, informs the
conceptualization of three studies (Eissa, 2015; Fukuda, 2018; Huei-Ju, 2018). Despite
the multiple facets of the notion (e.g. metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive experi-
ence, metacognitive strategies), these three studies focus on the dimension of metacogni-
tive strategies, including goal setting (Huei-Ju, 2018), metacognitive reading strategies
(Eissa, 2015), and general metacognitive strategies (Fukuda, 2018). ‘Learner beliefs’ is
used as a conceptual framework in two studies (Benson & Lor, 1998; Wu, 2012). Benson
and Lor (1998), for example, considered learners’ conceptions of language, language
learning, learning context, and self while Wu (2012) focused mainly on learners’ beliefs
of language learning. ‘Anxiety’ and ‘awareness’ are used in one study each. Martirossian
and Hartoonian (2015) discussed language anxiety and more specifically strategies to
12 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

overcome language anxiety when conceptualizing their study. Xuan et al. (2018) under-
scored the importance of learners’ awareness of their own language learning process in
developing self-regulated learning habits, referring to such works as Sinclair’s (1999).
In addition to the aforementioned constructs related to learner psychology, a number
of studies made reference to language education literature, considering autonomy-pro-
moting language teaching and learning practices (nine studies) and language learning
strategies (six studies) as conceptual frameworks. Autonomy-promoting language teach-
ing and learning practices introduced as conceptual frameworks in the 10 studies include
use of technology (technology-mediated autonomous learning in Liu, Huang and Lu,
2018; mobile language learning in Shadiev, Hwang and Liu, 2018; digital games in
Sylvén and Sundqvist, 2012), assessment practices (alternative assessment in Hashemian
and Fadaei, 2013; portfolio assessment in Everhard, 2019), community of practice
(Yamaguchi, 2011), cooperative learning and learner-centered teaching (Ahmed &
Dakhiel, 2019), reflective teaching (Fallah & Abdolrezapour, 2015), and scenario-based
learning (Seker, 2016). Six of the included studies are informed by language learning
strategies research, focusing on reading skills (Karimi & Dastgoshadeh, 2018; Kavani &
Amjadiparvar, 2018), writing skills (Na & Yoon, 2016), vocabulary learning strategies
(Mizumoto, 2013), and general learning strategies (Huang, 2010; Xuan et al., 2018).
Only a handful of the included studies are explicitly informed by theories or theoreti-
cal frameworks. Among the seven which do, six are informed by constructivist theories,
including connectivism (Bedoya, 2014), socio-constructivism (Ahmed & Dakhiel, 2019;
Ciekanski, 2007; Wach, 2012; Yamaguchi, 2011), and sociocultural theory (Sylvén &
Sundqvist, 2012). One study is informed by second language acquisition hypotheses
namely Krashen’s (1982) Input Hypothesis and Long’s (1981) Interaction Hypothesis
(Sylvén & Sundqvist, 2012).

2 How is ELL autonomy operationalized?

Operationalization of ELL autonomy refers to the in-class and/or out-of-class activities
designed by English teachers to cultivate autonomous learning habits of their students.
Interestingly, but perhaps not surprisingly given the controversies related to researching
the concept of learner autonomy mentioned previously in this article, the analysis
revealed that 61% of the included studies (37 studies) did not report or evaluate any
autonomy-promoting interventions while 39% (24 studies) did. In other words, the goal
of the majority of the studies was to gauge ELLs’ perceived autonomy through question-
naires and interviews rather than adopting methods such as recording and evaluating
evidence-based practices i.e. methods associated with other branches of applied linguis-
tics research. (For more details, see Section III.3.) This section presents a synthesis of
autonomy-fostering interventions reported in the 24 studies (Table 2).
13 interventions took place in universities, four in primary schools, four in language
schools, and three in secondary schools. The duration of these interventions ranged
widely, from 30 minutes (Kondo et al., 2012) to five years (Everhard, 2019). The inter-
ventions included both didactic and experiential approaches, took place in the classroom
or outside the classroom; were conducted face-to-face or using technology. Interventions
which took place in the classroom were usually more didactic, namely instruction on
Table 2.  A summary of autonomy-promoting interventions for English language learners (ELLs).

Study Educational level Description of Materials Inside/outside Duration

intervention the classroom
1 Ahmed & Dakhiel (2019) Secondary A learner-centered Tasks which encourage Inside Not specified
education approach learners’ participation and
application
Chong and Reinders

2 Alzubi et al. (2018) Higher education A training programme Materials developed Inside Three weeks
on social strategies based on Oxford’s (1990)
model
3 Bahari (2018) Higher education Instruction based Not specified Inside Not specified
on a non-linear
dynamic motivation
telecollaborative model
4 Barkel (2018) Primary education Self-regulated A student folder Inside 13–17 sessions
strategies development containing teaching
writing instruction materials, self-assessment
tasks, and tools
5 Bazleh & Yarahmadzehi Language schools A series of activities Not specified Inside 20 weeks
(2012) on development of
learning skills
6 Benson & Lor (1998) Higher education An independent Workshop handouts Inside and 16 weeks
learning programme outside
7 Ciekanski (2007) Higher education Individual language Materials focusing on Outside 15 days – four
advising learning how to learn months (each
English rather than session lasts
learning English for 30–60
minutes)
(Continued)
13
Table 2. (Continued)
14

Study Educational level Description of Materials Inside/outside Duration

intervention the classroom
8 Eissa (2015) Secondary A phonological Learning tasks Inside 21 sessions
education awareness intervention
programme on EFL
reading skills
9 El-Sakka (2016) Higher education A self-regulated A textbook Inside Not specified
strategy intervention
10 Everhard (2019) Higher education Student-centered Assessment checklists Inside 2005–2010
assessment activities
11 Fallah & Abdolrezapour A language school Instructions by a Not specified Inside Not specified
(2015) reflective teacher
12 Ferreira, Simao & da Primary education Learning diary Not specified Inside A trimester
Silva (2017)
13 Giveh (2018) Higher education Transformative A textbook Inside 12 sessions
learning and instruction
on self-regulated
learning
14 Hashemian & Fadaei Language schools Portfolio assessment Writing rubrics, learners’ Inside 10 sessions
(2013) writing
15 Huang (2010) Higher education Dynamic assessment Not specified Inside Not specified
16 Karimi & Dastgoshadeh Higher education Instruction on reading Not specified Inside Eight weeks
(2018) strategies
17 Kavani & Amjadiparvar Language schools Instruction on reading A textbook Inside 14 sessions
(2018) strategies

(Continued)
Language Teaching Research 00(0)
Table 2. (Continued)

Study Educational level Description of Materials Inside/outside Duration

intervention the classroom
18 Kondo et al. (2012) Higher education Mobile-assisted Nintendo Inside and Study 1: 30
language learning outside minutes; Study
Chong and Reinders

activities and digital 2: a semester

games
19 Liu, Lan & Ho (2014) Higher education Use of Google Docs Reading texts & Inside Two
vocabulary learning 50-minute
materials workshops
20 Liu, Huang & Xu (2018) Primary education Inquiry-based learning Websites Inside and Seven
tasks outside 45-minute
lessons
21 Na & Yoon (2016) Higher education Timed and untimed Writing tasks Inside and Not specified
writing tasks outside
22 Nazari (2014) Primary education Error noticing tasks A textbook, reading Inside Three days
texts, tasks, and writing
topics
23 Seker (2016) Higher education Scenario-based Presentations of Inside Eight weeks
self-regulated scenarios about language
learning instruction learning difficulties and
tasks
24 Shadiev et al. (2018) Secondary Mobile-assisted A mobile multimedia Inside and Approximately
education language learning learning system outside six weeks
15
16 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

reading strategies (e.g. Karimi & Dastgoshadeh, 2018), instruction on self-regulated

learning (e.g. Giveh, 2018), workshops on independent learning (Benson & Lor, 1998),
some of which were based on a set text (e.g. textbooks). Few of these interventions hap-
pened outside the classroom; these include language advising (Ciekanski, 2007), self-
study using Nintendo (Kondo et al., 2012) and a mobile learning system (Shadiev et al.,
2018). It is worth noting that not only teaching and learning activities were featured in
these studies but also learner-centered assessment activities, including peer assessment,
self-assessment (Barkel, 2018), dynamic assessment (Huang, 2010), and portfolio
assessment (Hashemian & Fadaei, 2013). This shows that formative assessment may
have the potential to develop autonomy of ELL. Technology-mediated interventions usu-
ally involved more active learner participation and/or collaboration using, for instance,
digital games (Kondo et al., 2012), cloud-based learning tools (Liu, Lan & Ho, 2014),
websites (Liu et al., 2018), or mobile learning systems (Shadiev et al., 2018).

3 How is ELL autonomy evaluated?

The number of research tools used in each of the 61 studies to evaluate ELL autonomy
ranged from one to six, with the majority of the included studies using only one to two
(Figure 4). Almost all included studies investigated ELLs’ perceived autonomy using
such tools as questionnaires, scales, interviews, and a modest number of the studies
examined learners’ language performance, usually in the form of tests conducted before
and after an autonomy-enhancing intervention. Evaluation tools which aimed to yield
observational data (e.g. field notes) were rarely featured (Figure 5)8; some examples of
these tools include transcripts of discussions, learning analytics, curriculum materials,
and field notes. Table 3 lists the evaluation tools used in the 61 studies. Figure 8 gives the
number of evaluation tools used and Figure 9 indicates the nature of evaluation of ELL
autonomy.
Among the 59 studies which examined ELLs’ perception of their autonomy, only
three studies did not employ a questionnaire (Benson & Lor, 1998; Ciekanski, 2007;
Yamaguchi, 2011). Three types of questionnaires were used in these studies: existing,
adapted, and original.

•• Existing questionnaires refer to the use of previously developed questionnaires or

scales by other researchers without any modification, e.g. Hashemian & Fadaei’s
(2013) adoption of Kashefian’s (2002) Learner Autonomy Questionnaire;
•• Adapted questionnaires are instruments which are developed based on existing
ones, e.g. El-Sakka’s (2016) speaking anxiety scale;
•• Original questionnaires are those specifically developed by the researchers for
their study, e.g. Teng & Zhang’s (2016) Writing Strategies for Self-Regulated
Learning Questionnaire.

Only 11 of these 59 studies used interviews as a research method to evaluate ELLs’ per-
ceived autonomy (e.g. Arias, 2015; Seker, 2016). Interviews conducted for the studies
included (individual) semi-structured interviews (e.g. Seker, 2016) and unstructured
interviews (Lu & Liu, 2016). Eight perception-focused studies included both question-
Chong and Reinders 17

Table 3.  Types of evaluation tool.

Types of evaluation Nature of evaluation Number of Examples

tool studies
Questionnaires Perceptual 56 Bekleyen and Selimoğlu’s
(2016) adapted questionnaire
on autonomous language
learning; Cheng, Raj and Ai’s
(2018) questionnaire based
on two existing instruments
on measuring motivation and
autonomy
Language Performance-based 19 TOEFL (Bazleh & Yarahmadzehi,
proficiency tests 2012); reading comprehension
test (Eissa, 2015)
Interviews Perceptual 11 Semi-structured interviews
(Seker, 2016); unstructured
interviews (Lu & Liu, 2016)
Tasks Observational 11 Diary (Sylvén & Sundqvist, 2012);
learning analytics on mobile
device usage (Kondo et al., 2012)
Field notes Observational 2 Benson & Lor (1998); Ciekanski
(2007)
Documents Observational 1 Teaching plans (Lu & Liu, 2016);
curriculum materials (Lu & Liu,
2016)

naires and interviews as their research methods to garner both qualitative and quantita-
tive insights (e.g. Lu & Liu, 2016; Na & Yoon, 2016).
For the 25 studies which aimed to evaluate ELLs’ autonomy from the angle of perfor-
mance, 19 employed at least one language test (e.g. the IELTS speaking test used in
El-Sakka, 2016), usually as a pre-test and post-test to determine the effectiveness of an
autonomy-enabling intervention, while the remainder used a range of language tasks
(e.g. online speaking and vocabulary tasks in Ferreira et al., 2017). These studies worked
on the assumption that a higher degree of autonomy will lead to improved language pro-
ficiency. Unlike questionnaires, interviews, and tests, tasks appeared to be a versatile
autonomy evaluation tool. As shown in the above, language tasks could be used to meas-
ure ELLs’ language proficiency before and after an intervention; tasks were also used to
provide observational data to shed light on what happened during the autonomy-enhanc-
ing intervention (e.g. project reports written by learners at the end of an independent
learning programme in Benson and Lor,1998). Alternatively, a task such as completing a
self-report could be used to tap into learners’ perceptions regarding autonomous lan-
guage learning (e.g. Bahari, 2018).
18 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Figure 8.  Number of evaluation tools used.

IV Discussion
Below we review the key findings and offer a number of tentative conclusions and impli-
cations. Regarding conceptualization of learner autonomy, there seems to be a lack of
agreement about what learner autonomy is (as exemplified by the body of frequently
cited works) and the large number of conceptual frameworks used in learner autonomy
studies. This is likely due to its multifaceted nature with seminal publications (Little,
1995) recognizing a psychological, a political and a social component, and its intricate
relationship with other key constructs in language learning, such as motivation (Spratt,
Humphreys & Chan, 2002). However, beyond broad and brief reference, many studies
are not explicit about their theoretical underpinnings.
Another observation is the continuing emphasis on classroom-based studies which are
exemplified by the number of included studies reporting interventions implemented in
the classroom. In Table 2, among the 24 publications which describe pedagogical inter-
ventions, 18 report autonomy-promoting activities which took place inside the class-
room; five reported activities which take place both inside and outside the classroom;
only one reported an intervention which requires learners to complete outside the class-
room (one-on-one language advising, Ciekanski, 2007). Clearly a key driver in auton-
omy research is to investigate how teachers and/or the educational context can help
learners to develop autonomy. With the increased interest in the field of ‘learning beyond
the classroom’ (Reinders, Lai & Sundqvist, 2022) this is somewhat surprising. The vast
majority of the studies reported here used teacher-fronted instructional approaches with-
out exploring how learners craft and experience their own journeys. Related to this issue
Chong and Reinders 19

Figure 9.  Nature of evaluation of English language learners (ELL) autonomy.

is the limited duration of most studies. The development of autonomy involves deep,
even fundamental, changes in learners’ beliefs, identity, and affective realities in learn-
ing. These do not happen overnight and they do not manifest themselves only in a limited
range of contexts, such as the classroom.
Concerning the issues around evaluating autonomy, the range of methods employed
is limited to a single questionnaire or language tests being the most common and the use
of a single or two instruments only. Given the wide adoption of mixed-methods research
(Riazi & Candlin, 2014) and the prominence of qualitative research methods in closely-
related fields (such as learners’ beliefs), this is surprising - as is the virtual absence of
observations. Combined with self-reports, either using questionnaires or journals, these
could yield rich data on changes in learners’ attitudes and behaviours. Additionally, less
than half of the included studies included an intervention, demonstrating there is a lop-
sided focus in the literature to focus on measuring perceived autonomy rather than devel-
oping evidence-based interventions to promote learner autonomy.

V Conclusions and implications

The above discussion leads to a number of conclusions and recommendations. The first
is that despite researchers’ willingness to adopt a plethora of conceptual frameworks,
there appears to be a hesitation to make explicit the theoretical framework of their stud-
ies. This is regrettable. Unless there is both conceptual clarity and an attempt to build on,
improve on and develop new theories, it is difficult for the field to move forward and to
subsequently make connections to other disciplines.
20 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Another challenge to existing research is its continued focus on the classroom.

Although the classroom, obviously, has an important role to play in fostering learner
autonomy, we hope future studies will more extensively investigate learners’ experiences
beyond the classroom so as to better capture both the lifelong and lifewide nature of
autonomous learning.
There are a number of limitations in this research synthesis to acknowledge. The first
of these is the possibility that we may have missed papers because of our scope limited
by our research questions and inclusion criteria. For instance, we focus on primary stud-
ies on learner autonomy which were conducted according to methodological guidelines
of TESOL Quarterly to ensure the methodological rigour of the included studies. The
second is that we limited ourselves to studies on English language learning. The rationale
for this was pragmatic; the vast majority of papers in learner autonomy are on English
learning and of those that are not, a number are published in other languages, which
would have complicated the analysis. Lastly, data in this scoping review were synthe-
sized using an inductive coding method. Like all qualitative research, coding of qualita-
tive data involves a certain degree of interpretation which reflects researchers’
experiences, viewpoints, and sometimes bias. We acknowledge that it is unrealistic to
attempt to remove subjectiveness in qualitative data analysis; however, we endeavoured
to minimize bias, for example, by involving multiple researchers in the analysis process.
Subjectivity in qualitative data analysis may be especially evident in topics on which
there is a less consensual view, namely learner autonomy. For example, in this review,
we adopted a more inclusive definition of ‘language learner autonomy’ to include associ-
ated constructs such as self-regulated learning, motivation, which may not be shared by
all autonomy researchers. Nonetheless, we hope that our synthesis will prove a useful
starting point, giving a clearer picture of where the field of learner autonomy has come,
and where it might head to next. Future synthetic attempts can summarize not only pri-
mary studies but also more broadly conceptual and theoretical pieces on autonomy of
learners of different foreign languages. Since learner autonomy is a vibrant field of
research, an updated review based on our attempt is also useful, for instance, by using the
open data we share in Appendices 2 and 3 in supplemental material.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Prof. Jo Mynard, Kanda University of International Studies, Japan, for her
valuable comments on earlier versions of this review. We would like to thank the editor and the
peer reviewers for devoting their valuable time to give feedback on earlier versions of this
manuscript.

Authors’ Note
Sin Wang Chong is now affiliated to University of St. Andrews, UK; Institute of Education,
University College London, UK.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Chong and Reinders 21

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

ORCID iD
Sin Wang Chong https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4519-0544

Supplemental material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes
1. The online bibliography can be accessed using this link: http://www.autonomybibliography.
org
2. These guidelines can be found on the website of TESOL Quarterly: https://onlinelibrary.
wiley.com/page/journal/15457249/homepage/forauthors.html.
3. Appendix 2 in supplemental material provides access to all 61 data extraction forms and bib-
liographical information of the 61 studies included in the review.
4. The total number in Figure 4 is 62 instead of 61 because one study includes the student popu-
lation from two countries (Arias, 2015).
5. The total number in Figure 5 is 62 instead of 61 because one study includes two educational
contexts (Alrabai, 2017).
6. The total number reported in Figure 6 is 69 instead of 61 because some studies include
research questions with different foci (e.g. Alrabai, 2017; Giveh, 2018).
7. The total number here is 89 instead of 61 because some studies refer to multiple conceptual
frameworks (e.g. Hashemian & Fadaei, 2013; Lu & Berg, 2019).
8. The total number of studies in Figure 5 is 91 instead of 61 because some studies included
more than one evaluation tool (e.g. Benson & Lor, 1998).

References
Notes. Asterisked references are those which are included in the scoping review. For complete
bibliographical information of all 61 studies, refer to Appendix 2 in supplemental material.
*Abadikhah, S., Aliyan, Z., & Talebi, S.H. (2018). EFL students’ attitudes towards self-regulated
learning strategies in academic writing. Issues in Educational Research, 28, 1–18. Available
at http://www.iier.org.au/iier28/abadikhah.pdf (accessed January 2022).
*Ahmed, S.A., & Dakhiel, M.A. (2019). Effectiveness of learner-centered teaching in modifying
attitude towards EFL and developing academic self-motivation among 12th grade students.
English Language Teaching, 12, 139–148.
*Alrabai, F. (2017). Exploring the unknown: The autonomy of Saudi EFL learners. English
Language Teaching, 10(5), 222–233.
*Alzubi, A. A., Kaur, M., & Singh, M. (2018). The impact of social strategies through smart-
phones on the Suai learners’ socio-cultural autonomy in EFL reading context. International
Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 11(1), 31–40.
*Arias, X.P.B. (2015). A comparison of Chinese and Colombian university EFL students regard-
ing learner autonomy. PROFILE Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 17, 35–53.
*Bahari, A. (2018). Learning via formulaic sequences to foster learner autonomy. Teaching
English with Technology, 18, 69–85.
22 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

*Bai, B., & Guo, W. (2018). Influences of self-regulated learning strategy use on self-efficacy in
primary school students’ English writing in Hong Kong. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 34,
523–536.
Bandura, A. (Ed.). (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge University Press.
*Barkel, A.A. (2018). Self-regulated strategy development writing instruction with elementary-
aged students learning English. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Arizona State University,
Tempe, AZ, USA.
*Bazleh, E., & Yarahmadzehi, N. (2012). The effects of applying Bett’s autonomous learner
model on Iranian students. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 3, 310–321. Available
at: https://sisaljournal.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/bazleh-and-yarahmadzehi.pdf (accessed
January 2022).
*Bedoya, P.A. (2014). The exercise of learner autonomy in a virtual EFL course in Colombia.
HOW, A Colombian Journal of Teachers of English, 21, 82–102.
*Bekleyen, N., & Selimoğlu, F. (2016). Learner behaviors and perceptions of autonomous lan-
guage learning. TESL-EJ, 20, 1–20. Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1122803.
pdf (accessed January 2022).
*Benson, P., & Lor, W. (1998). Making sense of autonomous language learning. University of
Hong Kong.
Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. Longman.
Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and researching autonomy. 2nd edition. Pearson Education.
*Cakici, D. (2017). An investigation of learner autonomy in Turkish EFL context. International
Journal of Higher Education, 6, 89–99.
Candy, P.C. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning. Jossey-Bass.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analy-
sis. Sage.
*Cheng, J., Raj, G.S., & Ai, J.T.T. (2018). The correlations among learning motivation, autonomy
and language proficiency in Chinese EFL context. LEARN Journal: Language Education
and Acquisition Research Network Journal, 11, 1–14. Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/
fulltext/EJ1225852.pdf (accessed January 2022).
Chong, S.W., & Plonsky, L. (2021a). A typology of secondary research in Applied Linguistics.
Epub 15 June 2021. DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/msjrh.
Chong, S.W., & Plonsky, L. (2021b). A primer on qualitative research synthesis in TESOL.
TESOL Quarterly, 55, 1024–1034.
Chong, S.W., & Reinders, H. (2020). Technology-mediated task-based language teaching: A
qualitative research synthesis. Language Learning and Technology, 24, 70–86. Available at:
http://hdl.handle.net/10125/44739 (accessed January 2022).
Chong, S. W., & Reinders, H. (2021). A methodological review of qualitative research syntheses
in CALL: The state-of-the-art. System, 103, 102646. DOI: 10.1016/j.system.2021.102646
*Ciekanski, M. (2007). Fostering learner autonomy: Power and reciprocity in the relationship
between language learner and language learning advisor. Cambridge Journal of Education,
37, 111–127.
Curry, N., Mynard, J., Noguchi, J., & Watkins, S. (2017). Evaluating a self-directed language
learning course in a Japanese university. International Journal of Self-Directed Learning,
14, 37–57.
Dam, L. (2009). The use of logbooks - a tool for developing learner autonomy. In Pemberton, R.,
Toogood, S., & A. Barfield (Eds.), Maintaining control: Autonomy and language learning.
(pp. 125–144). Hong Kong University Press.
Dickinson, L. (1987). Self instruction in language learning. Cambridge University Press.
Chong and Reinders 23

Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second
language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. Routledge.
*Eissa, M.A. (2015). The effectiveness of a self-regulated learning-based training program on
improving cognitive and metacognitive EFL reading comprehension of 9th graders with read-
ing disabilities. International Journal of Psycho-Educational Sciences, 4, 50–59. Available
at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED565631.pdf (accessed January 2022).
*El-Sakka, S.M.F. (2016). Self-regulated strategy instruction for developing speaking proficiency
and reducing speaking anxiety of Egyptian university students. English Language Teaching,
9, 22–33.
*Everhard, C.J. (2019). Tiptoeing through the TULIPS: Aiming for autonomy through assessment
in EFL higher education. In Burkert, A., Dam, L., & C. Ludwig (Eds.), The answer is learner
autonomy: Issues in language teaching and learning. Candlin and Mynard ePublishing.
*Fallah, E., & Abdolrezapour, P. (2015). An investigation into the impact of reflective teaching
on EFL learners’ autonomy and intrinsic motivation. Cypriot Journal of Educational Science,
10, 305–315.
*Ferreira, P.C., Simao, A.M.V., & da Silva, A.L. (2017). How and with what accuracy do children
report self-regulated learning in contemporary EFL instructional settings? European Journal
of Psychology of Education, 32, 589–615.
*Fukuda, A. (2018). The Japanese EFL learners’ self-regulated language learning and proficiency.
Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 22, 65–87.
Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P.R. (1994). Regulating motivation and cognition in the classroom: The role
of self-schemas and self-regulatory strategies. In Schunk, D.H., & B.J. Zimmerman (Eds.),
Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 127–
153). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Garrison, D.R. (1997). Self-directed learning: Toward a comprehensive model. Adult Education
Quarterly, 48, 18–33.
*Ghahari, S., & Basanjideh, M. (2017). Psycho-linguistic model of reading strategies awareness in
EFL contexts. Reading Psychology, 38, 125–153.
*Giveh, F. (2018). Self-directed learning via contemplative teaching to promote reading compre-
hension ability. English Language Teaching, 11, 58–76.
Graham, S.J. (2004). Giving up on modern foreign languages? Students’ perceptions of learning
French. The Modern Language Journal, 88, 171–191.
*Hashemian, M., & Fadaei, B. (2013). Fostering EFL learners’ autonomy in light of portfolio
assessment: Exploring the potential impact of gender. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching
Research, 1, 135–151. Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1127429.pdf (accessed
January 2022).
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy in foreign language learning. Pergamon. First published 1979,
Council of Europe.
*Huang, S. (2010). Convergent vs. Divergent assessment: Impact on college EFL students’ moti-
vation and self-regulated learning strategies. Language Testing, 28, 251–271.
*Huei-Ju, S. (2018). Promoting language learners’ awareness of autonomy through goal setting:
An alternative approach of assessing goal setting effects. English Language Teaching, 11,
52–65.
*Karimi, S., & Dastgoshadeh, A. (2018). The effect of strategy-based instruction on EAP students’
reading performance and reading autonomy. Cogent Education, 5, 1527981.
Kashefian, S.N. (2002). An investigation into college EFL learners’ beliefs demonstrating their
predispositions towards learner autonomy. Unpublished master’s thesis, Shiraz University,
Shiraz, Iran.
24 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

Kato, S., & Mynard, J. (2016). Reflective dialogue: Advising in language learning. Routledge.
*Kavani, R., & Amjadiparvar, A. (2018). The effect of strategy-based instruction on motivation,
self-regulated learning, and reading comprehension ability of Iranian EFL learning. Cogent
Education, 5, 1556196.
*Kondo, M., Ishikawa, Y., Smith, C., et al. (2012). Mobile assisted language learning in university
EFL courses in Japan: Developing attitudes and skills for self-regulated learning. ReCALL,
24, 169–187.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon.
Ledford, J.R., Hall, E., Conder, E., & Lane, J.D. (2016). Research for young children with autism
spectrum disorders: Evidence of social and ecological validity. Topics in Early Childhood
Special Education, 35, 223–233.
Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy 1: Definitions, issues and problems. Authentik.
Little, D. (1995). Learning as dialogue: The dependence of learner autonomy on teacher auton-
omy. System, 23, 175–182.
Little, D. (2007). Language learner autonomy: Some fundamental considerations revisited.
Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1, 14–29.
Littlejohn, A. (1985). Learner choice in language study. ELT Journal, 39, 253–261.
Littlewood, W. (1997). Self-access: Why do we want it and what can it do? In Benson, P., & P.
Voller (Eds.), Autonomy and independence in language learning (pp. 79–92). Longman.
Littlewood, W. (1999). Defining and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts. Applied
Linguistics, 20, 71–94.
*Liu, S.H.J., Lan, Y.J., & Ho, C.Y.Y. (2014). Exploring the relationship between self-regulated
vocabulary learning and web-based collaboration. Educational Technology and Society, 17,
404–419. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.17.4.404 (accessed January
2022).
*Liu, M., Huang, Y., & Xu, Y. (2018). Effects of individual versus group work on learner auton-
omy and emotion in digital storytelling. Educational Technology Research and Development,
66, 1009–1028.
Long, M.H. (1981). Input, interaction, and second- language acquisition. Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences, 379, 259–278.
*Lu, Y., & Berg, D.R. (2019). Taiwanese university students ideal L2 selves and autonomy: Does
high school program make a difference? International Journal of Educational Methodology,
5, 564–575.
*Lu, J., & Liu, Y. (2016). Learner autonomy as an element in Chinese education reform: A case of
English language subject. English Language Teaching, 9, 33–48.
*Martirossian, A., & Hartoonian, A. (2015). Lowering foreign language anxiety through self-
regulated learning strategy use. English Language Teaching, 8, 209–222.
*Mizumoto, A. (2013). Effects of self-regulated vocabulary learning process on self-efficacy.
Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 7, 253–265.
*Na, S., & Yoon, H. (2016). Effects of in-class and out-of-class writing assignments on L2 writing
strategy use and writing quality. Asia-Pacific Educational Researcher, 25, 195–205.
*Nazari, N. (2014). The impact of implicit tasks on improving the learners’ writing in terms of
autonomy and grammatical accuracy. International Journal of Instruction, 7(1), 121–134.
Nunan, D. (1996). Towards autonomous learning: Some theoretical, empirical and practical issues.
In Pemberton, R., Li, E.S.L., Or, W.W.F., & H.D. Pierson (Eds.), Taking control: Autonomy
in language learning (pp. 13–26). Hong Kong University Press.
Nunan, D. (1997). Designing and Adapting Materials to Encourage Learner Autonomy. In Benson,
P., & P. Voller (Eds.). Autonomy and independence in language Learning (pp. 192–203).
Longman.
Chong and Reinders 25

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Newbury
House.
Pham, M.T., Rajić, A., Greig, J.D., et al. (2014). A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing
the approach and enhancing the consistency. Research Synthesis Methods, 5, 371–385.
Pintrich, P.R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In Boekaerts, M.,
Pintrich, P.R., & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 452–502). Academic
Press.
Pintrich, P.R., & Schunk, D.H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applica-
tions. Merrill.
Reinders, H., Lai, C., & Sundqvist, P. (Eds.) (2022). The Routledge encyclopedia of language
learning beyond the classroom. Routledge.
Riazi, A.M., & Candlin, C.N. (2014). Mixed-methods research in language teaching and learning:
Opportunities, issues and challenges. Language Teaching, 47, 135–173.
Schmuckler, M.A. (2001). What is ecological validity? A dimensional analysis. Infancy, 2, 419–
436.
Schunk, D.H. (1996). Goal and self-evaluative influences during children’s cognitive skill learn-
ing. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 359–382.
Schunk, D.H., & Zimmerman, B.J. (2007). Influencing children’s self-efficacy and self-regulation
of reading and writing through modeling. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 23, 7–25.
Schunk, D.H., & Zimmerman, B.J. (Eds.). (2008). Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory,
research, and applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
*Seker, M. (2016). Scenario-based instruction design as a tool to promote self-regulated language
learning strategies. SAGE Open, 6, 1–11.
*Shadiev, R., Hwang, W., & Liu, T. (2018). Investigating the effectiveness of a learning activity
supported by a mobile multimedia learning system to enhance autonomous EFL learning in
authentic contexts. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66, 893–912.
Sinclair, B. (1999). More than an act of faith? Evaluating learner autonomy. In Kennedy, C.
(Ed.) Innovation and best practice in British ELT). Longman, in association with the British
Council.
Song, L. (2005). Adult learners’ self-directed learning in online environments: Process, per-
sonal attribute, and context (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). The University of Georgia,
Athens, GA.
Spratt, M., Humphreys, G., & Chan, V. (2002). Autonomy and motivation: Which comes first?
Language Teaching Research, 6, 245–266.
*Sylvén, L.K., & Sundqvist, P. (2012). Gaming as extramural English L2 learning and L2 profi-
ciency among young learners. ReCALL, 24, 302–321.
*Tabrizi, H.M., & Saeidi, M. (2015). The relationship among Iranian EFL learners’ self-efficacy,
autonomy and listening comprehension ability. English Language Teaching, 12, 158–169.
*Teng, L.S., & Zhang, L.J. (2016). A questionnaire-based validation of multidimensional models
of self-regulated learning strategies. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 674–701.
*Teng, L.S., & Zhang, L.J. (2018). Effects of motivational regulation strategies on writing per-
formance: A mediation model of self-regulated learning of writing in English as a second/
foreign language. Metacognition and Learning, 13, 213–240.
Thornton, K. (2010). Supporting self-directed learning: A framework for teachers. Language
Education in Asia, 1(1), 158–170.
Tricco, A.C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., et al. (2016). A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of
scoping reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 16, 15.
Visonà, M.W., & Plonsky, L. (2019). Arabic as a heritage language: A scoping review. International
Journal of Bilingualism, 24, 599–615.
26 Language Teaching Research 00(0)

*Wach, A. (2012). Computer-mediated communication as an autonomy-enhanced tool for

advanced learners of English. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 2, 367–
389. Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1135871.pdf (accessed January 2022).
*Wang, C., Hu, J., Zhang, G., Chang, Y., & Xu, Y. (2012). Chinese college students’ self-regu-
lated learning strategies and self-efficacy beliefs in learning English as a foreign language.
Journal of Research in Education, 22, 103–135. Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/full-
text/EJ1098422.pdf (accessed January 2022).
*Wu, M.M. (2012). Beliefs and out-of-class language learning of Chinese-speaking ESL learners
in Hong Kong. New Horizons in Education, 60, 35–52. Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/
fulltext/EJ974077.pdf (accessed January 2022).
*Xuan, L.Y., Razali, A.B., & Samad, A.A. (2018). Self-directed learning readiness (SDLR)
among foundation students from high and low proficiency levels to learn English language.
Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 15, 55–81. Available at: https://files.eric.
ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1201752.pdf (accessed January 2022).
*Yamaguchi, A. (2011). Fostering learner autonomy as agency: An analysis of narratives of a stu-
dent staff member working at a self-access learning center. Studies in Self-Access Learning
Journal, 2, 268–280. Available at: https://sisaljournal.org/archives/dec11/yamaguchi/
(accessed January 2022).
Zimmerman, B.J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 81, 329–339.
Zimmerman, B.J. (1998). Academic studying and the development of personal skill: A self-regu-
latory perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33, 73–86.
Zimmerman, B.J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 25, 82–91.