Student - Teachers’ self-assessment of their autonomy

70 Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University – No. 2(14) 2015 – June/2015 
STUDENT - TEACHERS’ SELF-ASSESSMENT OF THEIR AUTONOMY 
Phan Thi Thu Nga 
Ho Chi Minh City Open University 
Email: swan1071@gmail.com 
(Received: 24/02/2015; Revised: 12/05/2015; Accepted: 19/05/2015) 
ABSTRACT 
The pilot study presented aims at investigating how student- teachers self-assessed the 
influence of the portfolio on their autonomy. About 120 student-teachers participated in the 
portfolio, but only 94 took part in self-assessing their autonomy at the end of the testing and 
assessment approaches/methods course. The questionnaire of 30 items covering five subthemes 
like self-awareness, subject matter awareness, testing process awareness, independence of 
learning and study habits was used as a tool for self-assessment and instrument to collect data. 
The data were collected after the students submitted their portfolio. The findings indicate that 
although student-teachers did not highly evaluate the ways the portfolio helped them to become 
autonomous and their independence of learning, they were very positive in the portfolio process 
(the mean scores are ranged from 2.8 to 3.8 out of 5). Some suggestions for further research and 
the application of the portfolio are recommended at the end of this article. 
Keywords: autonomous, autonomy, independent learning, self-assess (ment), portfolio. 
1. Introduction 
The issue ‘autonomy’ or ‘independent 
learning’ is not new in the field of language 
education in all over the world. In Vietnam, 
this matter has greatly been paid attention 
since 2007 when the Ministry of Education 
and Training issued Decree 43, which 
requested the application of the credit-based 
training system in all universities. One of the 
most important requirements of this training 
system is encouraging students to study 
independently after class, which means that 
the time for official class meeting in 
comparison with that of the term- based 
training system is reduced and the students’ 
study time out of class is increased. According 
to Lâm Quang Thiệp (2011), in the classroom, 
the instructor only teaches them basic 
knowledge and for relevant advanced 
knowledge, students should work on their 
own. In addition, their learning outcome 
should be assessed by different methods such 
as midterm assessment, continuous 
assessment, and final term assessment by a 
formal test which includes both basic and 
advanced knowledge. 
This training system has been applied in 
Ho Chi Minh City Open University 
(HCMCOU) since the academic year 2009-
2010. Some lecturers already conducted 
studies on students’ autonomy; however, there 
have not been many studies on how to assess 
students’ autonomy. In the conference held by 
Saigon University in 2010, many researchers 
pointed out a lot of problems of the credit-
based training system, especially the 
ineffectiveness of students’ independent 
learning after class, and several difficulties 
such as how to manage students’ learning 
time, how to manage what students learn and 
how to assess their self-studying were 
mentioned. At the faculty of foreign languages 
of HCMCOU, there have been two relevant 
studies on learner autonomy since 2009. The 
findings of Nguyen Thanh Tung (2010) 
indicated that in comparison with students in 
 Student - Teachers’ Self-Assessment Of Their Autonomy 71 
the term - based training system, those in the 
credit-based training system were independent 
in their learning in four out of five research 
contents, but this difference was only 
significant in one third of five subjects in the 
first academic year. The results of the study 
conducted by Phan Thi Thu Nga (2014) 
revealed that 90% of the participants did not 
spend enough time on autonomous learning 
activities such as finding materials to design a 
lesson, carrying out the lesson and reading 
books for advanced knowledge. Students did 
not highly self-assess their responsibility in 
their learning, which is in line with the 
instructor’s observation in class. From these 
findings, it can be seen that there have not 
been many studies on how to enhance student-
teachers’ autonomy and how to assess it. In the 
world, there have been many research studies 
on using porfolios to encourage student-
teachers’ autonomy conducted by different 
authors such as Cakir and Balcikanli (2012), 
Yildirim (2013), and Hakki Mirici and 
Herguner (2015). However, all of these studies 
were conducted in the English Language 
Teaching Methodology course; as a result, the 
researcher wished to examine if the use of the 
portfolio could help student- teachers to 
develop their autonomy in English Language 
Testing and Assessment Approaches course. 
The main objective of this pilot study is to 
encourage student-teachers’ autonomy by 
using the portfolio and to let them self-assess 
their autonomy at the level of awareness, and 
the presented study investigates the answers to 
the following research questions: 
- How does the use of the portfolio help 
student- teachers become autonomous? 
- How do student- teachers self-assess their 
autonomy? 
2. Review of Related Literature 
Autonomy and Self-directed learning 
Autonomy is “your capacity to take 
responsibility for, and control of your own 
learning, either in an institutional context, or 
completely independent of a teacher or 
institution; and it is also called self-directed 
learning (Thornbury, 2006:22).” As cited by 
Cavana and Luisa (2012), “in its broadest 
meaning, self- directed learning describes a 
process in which individuals take initiative, 
with or without the help of the others, in 
diagnosing their learning needs, formulating 
learning goals, identifying human and material 
resources for learning, choosing and 
implementing appropriate learning strategies 
and evaluating learning outcomes, (Knowles, 
1975:18)”. 
There are many well-known definitions 
of autonomy according to different authors. 
Benson (2006) cited different definitions such 
as Holec (1981),“the ability to take charge of 
one's own learning”; Dickinson (1987), “a 
situation in which the learner is totally 
responsible for all the decisions concerned with 
his [or her] learning and the implementation of 
those decisions” and Little (1991), “essentially 
a matter of the learner's psychological relation 
to the process and content of learning.” In the 
state-of -the-art article, Benson (2006) argues 
that autonomy is a recognition of the rights of 
learners within educational systems. Among 
these definitions, Holec’s remains the most 
widely cited in the field of language education. 
Although there are variations on Holec’s 
definition, the key element in his definitions is 
that autonomy is an attribute of learners rather 
than learning situations; this view is based on 
the assumption that learners do not develop the 
ability to self-direct their learning simply by 
being placed in situations where they have no 
option, which is one of the most significant 
developments in the definition of learner 
autonomy over the past 30 years (Benson, 
2006). 
In spite of being popularly cited, the 
above definitions have not been supported by 
many experts in language education and their 
question is: “What exactly are the most 
important components of autonomy in 
language learning?” As cited by Benson 
(2006), the answer to this question is still 
inconclusive, and according to many authors, 
the difficulty in defining learner autonomy in 
terms of its most important components has 
been expressed in two assumptions have 
achieved widespread consensus. One of the 
assumptions is that there are ‘five degrees of 
autonomy’ according to Nunan (1997: 192); 
and the other is that autonomous learners ‘can 
72 Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University – No. 2(14) 2015 – June/2015 
take numerous different forms, depending their 
age, how far they have progressed with their 
learning, what they perceive their immediate 
learning needs to be, and so on’ (Benson, 
2006:23). 
Nunan (1997) proposes five levels 
including awareness, involvement, 
intervention, creation and transcendence for 
encouraging learner autonomy. At the 
awareness level, learners are made aware of 
the pedagogical goals and content of the 
materials they are using, and they identify 
strategy implications of pedagogical tasks and 
identify their own preferred learning 
styles/strategies. At the involvement level, 
learners are involved in selecting their own 
goals from a range of alternatives on offer. 
Particularly, they make choice among a range 
of options. At the intervention level, learners 
are involved in modifying and adapting the 
goals and content of the learning programme; 
that is, they modify and/or adapt tasks. At the 
creation level, learners create their own goals 
and objectives, which means that they create 
their own tasks. At the transcendence level, 
learners go beyond the classroom and make 
links between the content of the classroom 
learning and the world beyond so that they can 
become teachers and researchers (Nunan, 
1997: 195). 
According to Littlewood (1997), 
autonomous learners possess both willingness 
and ability to act independently. More 
specifically, learners’ willingness to work 
independently depends on the level of their 
motivation and confidence; also their level of 
knowledge and skills positively affect their 
ability to act independently (Littlewood, 1997: 
82). Ivan Moore 
1
suggests that conceptualizing 
learner autonomy involves two factors: (1) an 
autonomous learner has developed the 
capacity to take at least some control over their 
learning; and (2) the learning environment 
provides opportunities for the learner to take 
control of their learning. In order to develop 
1
 Ivan Moore is the Director of Center for promoting 
Learner Autonomy at Sheffield Hallam University in 
the UK. The cited information is available at 
print.html 
this capacity, autonomous learners are 
required to have a set of personal qualities like 
confidence, motivation, taking and accepting 
responsibility, and ability to take initiative; 
and this capacity also involves a set of skills 
including academic, intellectual, personal and 
interpersonal. According to Mascaskill and 
Taylor (2010), elements of responsibility for 
learning, openness to experience, intrinsic 
motivation with an element of self-confidence 
in tackling new activities are core components 
of autonomous learning or independence of 
learning. 
Reinders and Balcikanli (2011) 
recommended that in order to study 
successfully, autonomous learners should 
spend eight stages, all of which form a cycle 
and they always impact learners’ reflection, 
motivation and interaction with the language 
and other learners. One of the stages of the 
autonomous learning cycle (in Figure 1) is 
planning learning, and it can be supposed that 
effective learners should know how to 
organize their learning, which is line with Ivan 
Moore’s suggestion. That is, autonomous 
learners can organize their learning to prove 
their responsibility for their own learning. In 
addition, Mascaskill and Taylor (2010) argue 
that autonomous learners should own good 
learning habits such as effective time 
management and positive attitudes towards 
lone working. Also, autonomous learners 
must be able to self-assess their learning 
outcome; however, it is wondered whether or 
not learners’ self-assessment is reliable. In the 
following part of this article, the matter self-
assessment of learner autonomy will deeply be 
examined. 
Self-assessment 
According to Spratt and others (2011), 
the process during which learners decide 
themselves how good they think their progress 
or language use is called self-assessment or 
informal assessment. Brown (2004) classified 
five categories of self-assessment: (1) 
assessment of [a specific] performance, (2) 
indirect assessment of [general] competence, 
(3) metacognitive assessment [for setting 
goals], (4) socioaffective assessment, and (5) 
students’ generated tests. 
 Student - Teachers’ Self-Assessment Of Their Autonomy 73 
Figure 1. The cycle of the interactive self-directed learning process 
Reinders and Balcikanli (2011:20) 
In the first category of self-assessment, a 
student typically monitors him or herself- in 
either oral or written production- and renders 
some kind of evaluation of performance. The 
evaluation takes place immediately or very 
soon after the performance, and peer editing is 
an excellent example of direct assessment of 
specific performance (Brown, 2004: 271). The 
objective of the second category of self- or 
peer assessment is to evaluate general 
competence and ignore minor, nonrepeating 
performance flaws, and this form of 
assessment may encompass a lesson over 
several days, a module, or even a whole term 
of course work (Brown, 2004: 271). The third 
category, metacognitive assessment [for goal 
setting], is more strategic in nature. The 
purpose of this kind of assessment is setting 
goal as personal goal- setting has the 
advantage of fostering intrinsic motivation 
(Brown, 2004: 272). Therefore, it is absolutely 
necessary to have short, medium and long term 
goal to learn any skill. Another type of self-
and peer- assessment comes in the form of 
methods examining affective factors in 
learning. Such assessment requires looking at 
oneself through a psychological lens and may 
not differ greatly from self-assessment across a 
number of subject - matter areas or for any set 
of personal skills (Brown, 2004: 274). The 
final type of assessment that is not usually 
classified strictly as self-or peer-assessment is 
the technique of engaging students in the 
process of constructing tests themselves. 
According to Brown (2004: 276), the 
traditional view of what a test is would never 
allow students to engage in test construction, 
but student –generated tests can be productive 
and foster intrinsic motivation, which helps 
learners become autonomous. 
Reasons for self-assessment of autonomy 
According to Little (1991), Nunan 
(1997) and Benson (2001) (cited by O’Leary, 
2007), the assessment of learner autonomy is 
problematic because autonomy is a 
multidimensional construct; in spite of the 
difficulty in measuring autonomy, Benson 
(2001) suggests that the measurement of 
autonomy should be attempted (cited by 
O’Leary, 2007). As cited by Tassinari (2012), 
“in the literature there is no consensus on the 
question of whether or not learner autonomy 
should be assessed, Benson, 2010).” Tassinari 
(2012) suggests that self-assessment should be 
integrated in a more general approach to the 
evaluation of learner autonomy, and his 
suggestion was supported by many authors. 
 In Holec (1981)’s popular definition, 
Planning 
learnin ... peaking, reading, and writing). The mean 
score of this item is highest among four items 
(3.7 out of 5 in column 1). Also when working 
independently out of the official class 
meetings, students had opportunities to 
connect theory with practice, and this item was 
awarded 3.6 out of 5. The other two items, i.e. 
the portfolio assessment helped students to 
connect their previous knowledge with new 
knowledge and develop knowledge about 
language testing and assessment were 
similarly scored 3.3 out of 5. As a result, it can 
be concluded that the portfolio positively 
affected student-teachers’ subject matter 
awareness, which is one of important 
conditions of becoming autonomous in the 
learning process. 
The last type of awareness which a 
future language teacher needs is the testing 
process awareness, and students’ responses to 
this subtheme can be seen in chart 3. As 
presented, students strongly believed that the 
portfolio could help them raise awareness of 
the teacher roles and behavior, and the mean 
score of this item is 3.8 out of 5, the highest 
score among the other three items. Moreover, 
when judging how the portfolio helped them 
become familiar with the testing process, these 
student-teachers’ mean score was 3.6 out of 5. 
The lowest mean score in this chart is 3.3 out 
of 5, or the portfolio encouraged these student-
teachers to develop their own approach to 
language testing. Therefore, it can be said that 
these student teachers have become aware of 
how and what to test their learners after they 
fulfilled this testing and assessment course in 
which the portfolio was used as one of the 
major tools to assess their learning outcome. 
Besides being encouraged to self-assess 
how the portfolio helped them become 
autonomous, these student-teachers had a 
chance to self-assess their independence of 
learning and study habits. As presented in 
chart 4, all of the results of students’ self-
assessment of their independence are not very 
high but above average (ranged from 3 to 3.6 
out of 5) . For example, the highest mean score 
 Student - Teachers’ Self-Assessment Of Their Autonomy 79 
can be seen is 3.6 out of 5 in columns 2 and 6. 
That means students’ responses to items about 
their responsibility for learning and openness 
to experience were very positive. Columns 3, 4 
and 7 which stand for self-confidence, 
openness and motivation show the same score 
3.4 out of 5. Another column standing for self-
confidence is 3.1 out of 5. The lowest score in 
this chart is 3 out of 5 presented in column 1 
representing for motivation. 
Chart 3. Student-teacher’s testing process awareness 
Testing Process Awareness 
1. Becoming familiar with the testing 
process 
2. Raising awareness of the teacher 
roles and behavior 
3. Developing of one’s approach to 
testing 
Chart 4. Students’ independence of learning 
Independence of learning 
1. I enjoy finding information about 
new topics of my own. 
2. I am open to new ways of doing 
familiar things. 
3. Even when tasks are difficult I try to 
stick with them. 
4. I enjoy new learning experiences. 
5. I enjoy being set a challenge. 
6. I take responsibility for my learning 
experiences. 
7. I tend to be motivated to work by 
assessment deadlines. 
As presented in the literature review, for 
self-directed learning successfully, students 
should have study habits including effective 
time management and positive attitudes 
towards working independently, so the data 
presented in chart 5 reveals these habits. The 
score for effective planning is 3.5 out of 5 and 
time management is 3 out of 5. However, 
students did not highly evaluate their ability to 
meet deadlines (only 2.9 out of 5). Students’ 
attitude towards independent learning is 3.3 
out of 5. Especially in column 4, the mean 
score of procrastination is 2.2 out of 5 (below 
average), which is positive because the lower 
the score is, the better habit students have in 
learning. 
 Chart 5. Students’ study habits 
Study habits 
1. My time management is good. 
2. I am good at meeting deadlines. 
3. I plan my time for study 
effectively. 
4. I frequently find excuses for not 
getting down to work. 
5. I am happy working on my own. 
80 Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University – No. 2(14) 2015 – June/2015 
4. Discussion, conclusion and recommendation 
Research question 1: How does the use 
of portfolio help student teachers become 
autonomous? 
The findings presented in charts 1, 2 and 
3 reveal the answer to this research question. 
In fact, an autonomous learner should have 
important personal qualities such as 
responsibility, motivation and self-confidence, 
and the findings in chart 1 can prove this. That 
means the use of the portfolio as a tool to 
assess student- teachers’ learning outcome 
could increase their responsibility (3.7/5), self-
confidence (3.2/5) and motivation (3.4/5) 
which helped them become autonomous 
learners. Therefore, it can be concluded that 
although the results of students ‘self-
assessment were not very high, these student- 
teachers had very positive attitudes towards 
the portfolio process that they went through. 
This finding is in line with Cakir and 
Balcikanli’s (2012 Yildirim’s (2013). 
Research question 2: How do student 
teachers self-assess their autonomy ? 
 The answer to this question can be seen 
in charts 4 and 5. As presented in literature, 
autonomous learners should own two factors: 
independence of learning and study habits 
(Macaskill and Taylor 2010). Although 
students did not give very high scores for their 
independence of learning (ranged from 3 to 3.6 
out of 5; above average) and study habits 
(ranged from 2.9 to 3.5), these scores have 
revealed a positive indication of students’ 
ability to work independently out of the 
classroom. In column 4 (in chart 5), the mean 
score is below average (2.2 out of 5). Because 
this item was negatively worded to help 
prevent response bias in the participants, the 
lower the score is, the more reliable other 
scores are, and the better habit participants 
have. As a result, it can be said that when 
examining the students’ self-measurement of 
their independence of learning, the results are 
nearly similar to those of the effectiveness of 
the portfolio in helping them to study 
independently. 
By contrasting the findings in chart 1 
and those in chart 4, some more interesting 
findings can be figured out. First, as presented 
in chart 1, the portfolio process helped 
students to raise their awareness of 
responsibility with the mean score is 3.7 out of 
5 (the highest score), which is nearly the same 
as the score given by the students for their 
independence of learning in term of 
responsibility in chart 4 (3.6 out of 5). Second, 
students’ mean score for self-confidence in 
chart 1 is 3.2 (in column 6) whereas students’ 
mean scores for self-confidence in dealing 
with difficult tasks and being challenged are 
3.4 and 3.1 out of 5 (in column 3 and 5 in chart 
4), and these scores seem nearly similar. Third, 
the scores of students ‘motivation in chart 1 
(column7) and in chart 4 (column 7) are the 
same (3.4 out of 5). 
From these numbers, it can be concluded 
that the use of the portfolio was very effective 
in developing student-teachers willingness to 
act independently because according to many 
authors (as presented in the literature), 
responsibility, self-confidence and motivation 
are very important personal qualities of an 
autonomous learner. In other words, the use of 
the portfolio is very effective in helping 
student teachers becoming autonomous 
learners, and being able to study independently 
is one of the requirements for students in the 
credit - based training system. Therefore, it 
can be stated that the conclusion of this pilot 
study, despites being conducted on a small 
scale, is considered a new finding and a very 
significant one in the field of English language 
teacher education. The result of this study can 
encourage teacher trainers in the faculty of 
foreign languages of HCMCOU to continue 
using the portfolio not only as a tool for 
continuous assessment of students’ learning 
outcome but also as a way to develop students’ 
willingness to work independently while they 
are still studying at university and when they 
work as teachers in the future. 
In spite of many interesting findings, 
several limitations existed in this pilot study 
during the portfolio process. One of the most 
remarkable problems is that students’ self-
assessment was only investigated at the level 
of awareness, and they did not have a chance 
to self-assess their ability to work 
independently in writing tests of English. Also, 
 Student - Teachers’ Self-Assessment Of Their Autonomy 81 
they only based on the instructor’s feedback 
and peer feedback to revised or/and improve 
their tests. Another disadvantage is that the 
results of students’ self-assessment and the 
instructor’s assessment were not compared in 
order to increase the reliability of the students’ 
self-assessment. The last limitation is the 
difficulty of the instructor during the course 
because of being overworked. 
To overcome the above problems, there 
are two suggested solutions: one for further 
research on this issue and the other for the 
application of the portfolio. First, further 
studies on this topic should be conducted in 
the coming days. In order to increase the 
reliability of students’ self-assessment, the 
results of their self-assessment should be 
contrasted with those of the instructor. Second, 
this solution can be for both researchers and 
instructors. That means a checklist with clear 
criteria should be established in order to help 
students to self-evaluate their products or their 
tests in the portfolio and to self-assess their 
ability to write tests of English. This way can 
help the instructors to reduce work, e.g. giving 
feedback after each task and the researchers to 
have an opportunity to evaluate student- 
teachers ‘autonomy at more advanced levels 
and/or different stages. 
REFERENCES 
Benson, P. & P. Voller (eds.) (1997). Autonomy and Independence in language learning. 
The United Kingdom: Longman. 
Benson, P. (2006). “Autonomy in language teaching and learning”. In P. Benson, Language 
Teaching,Vol. 40 (1), pp. 21-40. The United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 
Available at  (Retrieved on July 2
nd
, 2013). 
Brown, H.D. (2004) Language Assessment: principles and classroom practice. The United 
States: Pearson Education. 
Cardoso, W.C. (2010). Learner autonomy and self-assessment: indispensable tools for successful 
learning. New Routes® Disal. Available at 
https://authenticteaching.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/new-routes-learner-autonomy-and-
self-assessment.pdf. Retrieved on February 4
th
, 2015. 
Cakir, A. & Balcikanli, C. (2012). The Use of the EPOSTL to Foster Teacher Autonomy: ELT 
Student Teacher’s and Teacher Trainers’ View. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 
37(3). Available at  Retrieved on July 10, 2013. 
Cavana, P. and Luisa (2012). Autonomy and self-assessment of individual learning style using 
the European Language Portfolio (ELP). Language Learning in Higher education. Journal 
of the European Confederation Language Centers in Higher Education (CercleS), 1(1) pp. 
211-228. Available at  Retrieved October 
16, 2013. 
Gardner, D. (2000). Self-assessment for autonomous language learners. Links and Letters (7) 49-
60. Available at  
Retrieved on July 20
th
, 2013. 
Hakki Mirici, I. and Herguner, S. (2015). A digital European self-assessment tool for student 
teachers of foreign languages: THE EPOSTL. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational 
Technology, Vol 14(1). Available at  
Retrieved on February 10
th
 , 2015.
82 Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University – No. 2(14) 2015 – June/2015 
Harris, M. (1997). Self-assessment of language learning in formal setting. ELT Journal, Vol.51 
(1). Oxford University Press. Retrieved on July 10, 2013. 
Lâm, Quang Thiệp (2011). Về phương pháp dạy, học và đánh giá thành quả học tập trong học 
chế tín chỉ.Available at www.tnu.edu.vn. Retrieved on September 08,/2012. 
Littlewood, W. (1997). Self-assess: why do we want it and what can it do? In Benson and Voller 
(eds), 79-91. 
Macaskill, A. and Taylor, E. (2010). The development of a brief measure of learner autonomy in 
university students. Studies in higher education, 35(3), 315-359. Available at 
 Retrieved on November12
th
 2012. 
Moore, I. (2015). What is learner autonomy? Available at 
 Retrieved on April 27
th
 , 2014. 
Munoz, A. and Alvarez M.E. (2007). Students’ Objectivity and Perception of Self-Assessment in 
an EFL Classroom. The Journal of Asia TEFL, Vol 4 (2) pp.1-25. Available at 
 Retrieved on February 7
th
, 2015. 
Nguyen Thanh Tung, (2010) Tính tự chủ của người học trong đào tạo tín chỉ tại Khoa Ngoại 
Ngữ- Trường ĐH Mở Tp. HCM. Đề tài NCKH cấp Trường. 
Nunan, D. (1997). Designing and adapting materials to encourage learner autonomy. In Benson 
& Voller (eds.), 192-203. Longman. 
O’Leary, C. (2007). Should learner autonomy be assessed? Proceedings of the Independent Learning 
Association 2007 Japan Conference: Exploring theory, enhancing practice Autonomy across 
the disciplines. Kanda University of International Studies; Chiba, Japan. Available at 
 (ISSN 2073-7513). (Retrieved on May 3
rd
, 2013) 
Phan Thi Thu Nga (2014) Students’independence in the course of English Language Teaching 
Methods/Approaches (Part I) in the credit-based training system. Trường ĐH Mở Tp. 
HCM. Đề tài NCKH cấp Trường. 
Rao, Zhenhui (2015). Helping Chinese EFL students develop learner autonomy through 
portfolios. Reflections in English Language Teaching, Vol 5(2) pp. 113-122. Available at 
 Retrieved on February 5
th
, 2015. 
Reinders, H. & Balcikanli, C. (2011). Learning to foster autonomy: the roles of teacher education 
materials. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, Vol. 2(1), 15-25. Available at 
 Retrieved on July 1
st
, 2013. 
Sheerin, S. (1997). An exploration of the relationship between self-access and independent 
learning. In Benson & Voller (eds.), 54-65. Longman. 
Spratt, M., Pulverness, A. and Williams, M. (2011). The TKT Course: Module 1, 2 and 3. 2
nd
Edition. The United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 
Tassinari, M.G. (2012). Evaluating learner autonomy: A dynamic model with descriptors. 
Studies in Self-access Learning Journal, 3(1), 24-40. (Retrieved on November 9
th
, 2012) 
Thornbury, S. (2006) An A-Z of ELT: A dictionary of terms and concepts used in English 
Language Teaching. Thailand: Macmillan Education. 
Yildirim, N. (2013). The Portfolio Effects: Enhancing Turkish ELT Student - Teachers’ 
Autonomy,Vol 38 (8). Australian Journal of Teacher Education. Available at 
 Retrieved on July 10
th
, 2014.