Jiao learner autonomy 2

AN INVESTIGATION OF LEARNER AUTONOMY AND STRATEGIES FOR
COPING WITH SPEAKING PROBLEMS IN RELATION TO SUCCESS IN
ENGLISH SPEAKING CLASSES
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
OF
MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
BY
BURCU GÖKGÖZ
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR
THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS
IN
THE DEPARTMENT OF
ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING
AUGUST 2008

Approval of the Graduate School of Social Sciences
___________________
Prof. Dr. Sencer AYATA
Director
I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of
Master of Arts.
_____________________
Prof. Dr. Wolf KÖNIG
Head of Department
This is to certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully
adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Arts.
_____________________
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Gölge SEFEROĞLU
Supervisor
Examining Committee Members
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ahmet Ok (METU, ELT) _____________________
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Gölge Seferoğlu (METU, EDS) _____________________
Dr. Perihan Savaş (METU, ELT) _____________________

iii
I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and
presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare
that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced
all material and results that are not original to this work.
Name, Last Name : Burcu Gökgöz
Signature

iv
ABSTRACT
AN INVESTIGATION OF LEARNER AUTONOMY AND STRATEGIES FOR
COPING WITH SPEAKING PROBLEMS IN RELATION TO SUCCESS IN
ENGLISH SPEAKING CLASSES
Gökgöz, Burcu
M.A., Department of English Language Teaching
Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Gölge Seferoğlu
August 2008, 114 pages
The present study was conducted at Dumlupinar University, Department of Foreign
Languages Preparatory Classes to investigate the relationship between degrees of
learner autonomy, use of strategies for coping with speaking problems and success in
speaking class of the participants.
To determine the degree of correlation among degree of learner autonomy, use of
strategies for coping with speaking problems and success in speaking class, 102
participants were distributed a questionnaire. The questionnaire asked the
participants to self report the strategies they use when they have problems during
speaking English and also to report their degree of learner autonomy as an English
language learner by choosing one of the items on the questionnaire. Following the
completion of the questionnaire the quantitative data analysis method was performed
via SPSS (Statistical Package of Social Sciences) 13.0 by conducting ANOVA and
MANOVA tests and some descriptive statistics.

v
As a result, the results of the study revealed that learners with low speaking grades
are worse than learners with high speaking grades during the use of strategies for
coping with speaking problems on the whole. Similarly, learners with low speaking
grades also reported themselves as less autonomous when compared to high
proficiency learners of English, although the difference is not significant between the
group of learners in average speaking grade level and high grade level.
Keywords: Learner Autonomy, Strategies for Coping with Speaking Problems in
English

vi
ÖZ
ÖĞRENEN ÖZERKLĐĞĐNĐN VE KONUŞMADA YAŞANAN GÜÇLÜKLERLE
BAŞA ÇIKMA STRATEJĐLERĐNĐN ĐNGĐLĐZCE KONUŞMA DERSLERĐNDEKĐ
BAŞARIYLA ĐLĐŞKĐLĐ OLARAK ĐNCELENMESĐ
Gökgöz, Burcu
Yüksek Lisans, Đngiliz Dili Öğretimi Bölümü
Tez Yöneticisi: Doç. Dr. Gölge Seferoğlu
Ağustos 2008, 114 sayfa
Bu çalışma Dumlupinar Üniversitesi Yabancı Diller Bölümü Hazırlık sınıflarında,
katılımcıların öğrenen özerkliğinin derecesi, konuşmada yaşanan güçlüklerle başa
çıkma stratejilerinin kullanımı ve konuşma dersinde aldıkları notlar arasındaki
ilişkileri araştırmak amacıyla uygulanmıştır.
Öğrenen özerkliğinin derecesi, konuşmada yaşanan güçlüklerle başa çıkma
stratejilerinin kullanımı ve konuşma dersinde aldıkları notlar arasındaki ilişkilerin
derecesini ölçmek için 102 katılımcının bir anket doldurması istenmiştir. Anket
katılımcıların Đngilizceyi konuşmada güçlük yaşadıklarında kullandıkları stratejileri
ve Đngilizce öğrenen bir kişi olarak özerklik derecelerini anketteki maddelerden birini
seçerek belirtmeleri istenmiştir. Anketin tamamlanmasından sonra, ANOVA;
MANOVA testleri ile SPSS 13.0 (Sosyal Bilimler için Đstatistiksel Paket Programlar)
kullanılarak yapılmıştır.

vii
Sonuç olarak, çalışmanın sonuçları konuşma notu düşük olan öğrenci grubunun,
konuşma notu yüksek olan öğrenci grubuna göre konuşmada yaşanan güçlüklerle
başa çıkma stratejilerinin kullanımında da düşük değerler verdiği gözlenmiştir.
Benzer şekilde, ankete verilen cevaplardan notu düşük olan öğrenci grubunun aynı
zamanda konuşma notu yüksek olan öğrenci grubuna göre kendilerini daha az
otonom (özerk) olarak ifade ettikleri sonucu çıkmıştır. Bununla beraber, bu farklılık,
konuşma notu orta derecede olan grupla konuşma notu yüksek olan öğrenci grubu
arasında aynı derecede önemli çıkmamıştır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Öğrenen özerkliği, Đngilizce konuşmada yaşanan güçlüklerle baş
etme stratejileri

viii
To my parents and my beloved Can

ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor Assoc. Prof. Dr. Gölge
Seferoğlu for her guidance, advice, criticism, encouragements and insight throughout
the research process. I am grateful to her because she was much more than a
supervisor, with her endless support, warmth and motivation that she gave me during
the long and depressing times of writing my thesis.
I would also like to thank Research Assistants Đhsan Genç and Emre Özel for their
endless patience and their help with statistical calculations.
Besides, I would also like to thank Instructor Suzan Yıldırım for helping me with the
administration of the questionnaires.
My beloved friends Nükhet Ergün and Zeynep Şengül have always increased my
personal courage all along the process of the writing of my thesis.
The students who had participated in the study also deserve appreciation for allotting
their times.
It is a duty to thank my invaluable family members Kadriye, Bünyamin and Yücel
Gökgöz for their continuous support and belief in me.
Finally, my beloved husband, Can Kurt, was always caring and considerate. I owe
each and every word of this thesis to him for his never ending tolerance, help,
kindness and understanding throughout writing my thesis.

x
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PLAGIARISM........................................................................................................... iii
ABSTRACT............................................................................................................... iv
ÖZ...............................................................................................................................vi
DEDICATION..........................................................................................................viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................................x
LIST OF TABLES.....................................................................................................xiv
LIST OF FIGURES...................................................................................................xvi
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION
1.0. Presentation…......................................................................................................1
1.1. Background to the Study……………………......................................................1
1.2. Purpose of the Study............................................................................................2
1.3. Research Questions……………………………………………………………..3
1.4. Significance of the Study.....................................................................................3
1.5. Definition of key terms……………..…………………………………………..3
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.0. Presentation............................................................................................................5
2.1. Autonomy Concept and Strategy Use in a Framework of Language

xi
Teaching and Learning…………………………………….............................5
2.1.1. Definitions of Learner Autonomy…………………………………….5
2.1.2. Descriptions of Autonomous Learner………………………………...8
2.2. Autonomy Concept within a Broader Framework: Past & Present …….....….11
2.3. Fostering Autonomy in Language Classrooms………………………..……...15
2.3.1. Reasons for Learner Autonomy in Language Classrooms………….15
2.3.2. Conditions for Learner Autonomy in Language Classrooms……….17
2.3.3. Approaches to Fostering Autonomy in Language Classrooms……..18
2.3.3.1. Resource-based Approaches………………………………..19
2.3.3.2. Technology-based Approaches……………………………..19
2.3.3.3. Teacher-based approaches………………………………….20
2.3.3.4. Classroom-based approaches……………………………….21
2.3.3.5. Curriculum-based approaches……………………………...22
2.3.3.6. Learner-based approaches………………………………….23
2.4. Strategy Use in Language Learning …………………………………..………..24
2.4.1 Definitions of Language Learning Strategies…………………....…25
2.4.2. Foreign Language Learning and Use Strategies……………….…..28
2.4.3. Communication Strategies………………………………………...29
2.5. Summary of Literature Review ………………………………………………..35
III. METHOD
3.0. Presentation…………………………………………………………………37
3.1. Overall Design of the Study………………………………………………...37
3.2. Participants………………………………………………………………….38

xii
3.3. Research Questions…...…………………………………………………….42
3.4. Instruments………………………………………………………………….42
3.4.1. Pilot Study…………………………………………………….45
3.4.1.1. Oral Communication Strategy Inventory………...…45
3.4.1.2. Questionnaire on Learner Autonomy………………46
3.5. Data Collection Procedure………………………………………………….48
3.6. Data Analysis……………………………………………………………….49
3.7. Limitations of the Study……………………………………………………49
IV. RESULTS
4.0. Presentation………………………………………………………………...50
4.1. Data Analysis- Oral Communication Strategy Inventory
Strategies for Coping with Speaking Problems……………………………….50
4.1.1. Relationship between OCSI-Strategies for Coping with
Speaking Problems and the Speaking Grade Level……..……..50
4.1.2. Statistical Differences between Different Groups of
Speaking Grade Level……………………………………….....56
4.1.3. Analysis of Questionnaire Items………………..……………...58
4.2. Data Analysis - Questionnaire on Learner Autonomy…….……………....66
4.2.1 Relationship between Reported Degree of Learner Autonomy
and Speaking Grade Level of the Students….…………………66
4.2.2. Analysis of the Questionnaire Items…………..………………68
4.3. Discussion of the Results……………………………………………………….81
V. CONCLUSION
5.0. Presentation………………………………………………………………..85

xiii
5.1. Summary of the Study…………………………………………………….85
5.2. Summary of the Findings……………………………………………….…87
5.3. Implications for ELT…………………………………………………...…87
5.4. Suggestion for Further Research………………………………………….89
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………...90
APPENDICES
A. QUESTIONNAIRE TO INVESTIGATE THE LEARNER AUTONOMY
OF THE SUBJECTS……………………………………………………………95
B. ORAL COMMUNICATION STRATEGY INVENTORY
QUESTIONS OF THE SURVEY-SPEAKING PART ……...…………….……98
C. THE RESEARCH TOOL-BEFORE PILOTING………………………………..99
D. THE RESEARCH TOOL-AFTER PILOTING………………………………..105
E. MULTIPLE COMPARISONS OF DEPENDENT VARIABLE OF
THE SCORES OF OCSI-SPEAKING PART OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE….110
F. MULTIPLE COMPARISONS TEST OF QUESTIONNAIRE ON LEARNER
AUTONOMY……………………………………………………………………...113

xiv
LIST OF TABLES
TABLES
Table 2.1 Definitions of Language Learning Strategies…………………………….25
Table 3.1 Distribution of the percentages of the courses in the calculation of
the final grade…………………………………………….……………....40
Table 3.2 Percentages of Speaking and Listening Course Evaluation……………...40
Table 3.3 Correlation between the SILL and the OCSI…………………………….44
Table 4.1 Mean Scores of Questionnaire Items for Each Speaking Grade Level ….51
Table 4.2 Results of Multivariate Analysis Tests for OCSI
Speaking Part…………………………………………………………….57
Table 4.3 Results of Test of Between-Subjects Effects …………………….…..…..58
Table 4.4 Results of Homogenous Subsets Test for questionnaire
item Q1……...……………………………………………………………59
Table 4.5. Results of Homogenous Subsets Test for questionnaire items
Q3 Q4, Q8, Q9, Q10, Q15, Q16 and Q25……………………………….61
Table 4.6 Results of Homogenous Subsets Test for Questionnaire item Q5…….…63
Table 4.7 Results of Homogenous Subsets Test for Questionnaire items
Q7, Q11, Q 14, Q 19, Q 20, Q 24, and Q 26. …………………….….…64
Table 4.8 ANOVA Results for Questionnaire on Learner Autonomy……………...67
Table 4.9 Homogenous Subsets Results for questionnaire item Q1…………….….68
Table 4.10 Homogenous Subsets Results for questionnaire item Q2………………69

xv
Table 4.13 Homogenous Subsets Results for questionnaire item Q9 ……………...72
Table 4.14 Homogenous Subset for Questionnaire Item Q3……………………….77
Table 4.15 Homogenous Subset for Questionnaire Item Q5……………….………78
Table 4.16 Homogenous Subset for Questionnaire Item Q6……………………….78
Table 4.17 Homogenous Subset for Questionnaire Item Q15……………………...79
Table 4.18 Homogenous Subset for Questionnaire Item Q17……………………...80
Table 4.19 Factors and codes of corresponding questionnaire items in
the current study…………………………….……………………………….83

xvi
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Major influences on the theory of autonomy in language learning……...12
Figure 2.2 Autonomy in language learning and related areas of practice…………..18
Figure 3.1 Visual Illustration of Gender Distribution………………………………38
Figure 3.2 Visual Illustration of Age Group Distribution…………………………..39
Figure 3.3 Descriptions of Speaking & Listening Final Course Grade…………….41
Figure 4.1 Mean plots for Questionnaire Item Q12 ………………………………..73
Figure 4.2 Mean plots for Questionnaire Item Q16………………..……………….74
Figure 4.3 Mean plots for Questionnaire Item Q18………………………………...75
Figure 4.4 Mean plots for Questionnaire Item Q21………………………………...76

1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.0. Presentation
This chapter starts with the background information to the study carried out, together
with the purpose of the study. It also states the research questions and points out the
significance of the study in addition to limitations of the study. Finally, definitions of
the terms used in the study are supplied.
1.1. Background to the study
The dynamic field of language learning and teaching has been taking many steps
forward in accordance with the pivotal advancements in technology and economical
and political situations on the world. Theories, strategies and practices of language
teaching and learning in the recent decades are subject to change in a way to focus
more on the communicative, functional and individual aspect of language. The thing
that matters in the current trend is the individual so; the teacher and the learner roles
seem to be reassigned. (Little, 1991, Benson & Voller, 1997 as cited in Thanasoulas,
2000) All these novelties have their roots in Communicative Approach
(Communicative Language Teaching). As communicative language teaching (CLT)
suggests, in communicative activities there is supposed to be a desire to
communicate, a communicative purpose, no teacher intervention, and no materials
control. The level of teacher intervention is kept at minimum level during
communicative activities however the teacher is to promote the use of
communicative language by giving immediate answers to the students in the

2
relatively uncontrolled conversations (Harmer, 2001). As is seen, to a certain extent
similar theories and practices in the classroom go hand in hand in the recent decades,
supporting each other to a certain extent. Learner autonomy is one of those relatively
recent and much debated concepts as scholars have difficulty in defining and
applying it. The difficulty of the concept is actually correlated with the difficulty of
breaking habits. Teachers as well as learners are having difficulty in reassigning the
roles of actors in a classroom. When we consider the fact that much of the learning
takes place outside the formal setting, then it can be stated that the learners are not
accustomed to be in the center of their own learning. Therefore, at this very point,
there arises a problem to be solved. To what extent the students in the classroom are
aware of the role of autonomy and strategy use while they speak in English.
1.2. Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study in question is to find out the degree of autonomy of the
participants as language learners and correlate them with the results of the use of the
strategies applied by the students while coping with the speaking problems they face
in the foreign language they learn. In addition to that, students’ cumulative grades in
their speaking exams throughout the year will be correlated with the variables
mentioned. Therefore, the relationship between speaking coping strategies, degree of
autonomy, and speaking grade levels will be investigated. The result will
demonstrate us whether there is a direct relationship between those variables. Basic
purposes of the study may be shortened as follows:
1. Understanding the students’ level of autonomy and strategies they apply
while coping with speaking problems.
2. Enlightening teachers and other scholars about the degree of relationship
between speaking grade levels of the students with their reported degree of autonomy
and coping strategy use during speaking.

3
1.3. Research Questions
The study investigates the following research questions:
1. Is there a correlation between reported use of strategies for coping with speaking
problems, reported degree of autonomy and the speaking class grade levels of the
students?
1. a Is there a correlation between reported degree of autonomy and speaking
grade levels of the students?
1. b Is there a correlation between reported use of strategies for coping with
speaking problems and speaking grade levels of the students?
2. To what extent do reported degree of autonomy and reported use of strategies for
coping with speaking problems explain speaking grade levels of the students?
1.4. Significance of the study
The study bears importance in that there have not been many studies conducted
evaluating autonomy, coping strategies in speaking and success in English speaking
classes of the student at the same time. With a need to investigate these two factors a
questionnaire was designed. The results of the study may offer new insights to
teachers and other scholars in evaluating many aspects of language learning and
teaching indifferent ways and inspire them to widen the spectrum of language
learning areas.
1.5. Definition of key terms
Learner Autonomy: The ability to take charge of one's own learning, which is
specified as to have, and to hold, the responsibility for all the decisions concerning
all aspects of this learning (Holec, 1981, p. 3).

4
Oral Communication Strategy Inventory (OCSI): A two-part questionnaire which
was developed by Nakatani (2006) for measuring the strategy use of the participants
for coping with speaking and listening problems while communicating in English.
Strategies for Coping with Speaking Problems: The strategies speakers apply
when they encounter some difficulties during speaking. Using gestures and facial
expressions when speakers cannot communicate the message, giving more examples
to clarify themselves can be counted as examples (Nakatani, 2006).
Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL): An inventory investigating the
strategy use of the respondents during learning languages (Oxford, 1990).

5
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.0. Presentation
In this chapter, literature relevant to the study in question will be presented. First, the
concept of autonomy will be defined and described. Then, before ways of fostering
autonomy were discussed, the concept will be handled within a historical framework.
Finally, the learner autonomy concept will be discussed in increasing the use of
strategies for coping wit speaking problems.
2.1. Autonomy Concept and Strategy Use in a Framework of Language
Teaching and Learning
2.1.1. Definitions of Learner Autonomy
The field of language learning and teaching is subject to change itself in accordance
with the changes especially in the world politics and economics as these two issues
act as the main decision-making mechanisms in people’s daily lives. Therefore, as
Gremmo and Riley (1995) puts it, the first interest in the concept of autonomy in
language education is partially a response to ideals and prospects which came out as
a result of political tumult in Europe in 1960s (as cited in Benson, 2001; p. 7).
According to Holec (1981), at those times Western countries had taken a long way in
industrialization and they were being characterized by “social progress” rather than
the amount of materials they produce. Therefore, the focus was more on increasing
the standards of living, which would inevitably bring about respect for human beings

6
and individualization (p. 1, as cited in Benson, 2001; p. 8). The concept came into
being through the Council of Europe’s Modern Languages Project, which was first
formed in 1971. Its initial purpose was more related to adult learners and lifelong
learning. Additionally, the project was specifically affected by self-directed learning,
which was receiving greater attention every other day. Within the area of self-
directed learning, autonomy made its way as “the capacity to take charge of one’s
own learning” as in the highly popular definition of Holec’s (1981, p. 3 as cited in
Lee, 1998). Actually it was regarded as an accepted product of the practice of self-
directed learning, or as type of learning where the objectives, progress and evaluation
are monitored by the learners themselves (ibid, p. 8). To Trebbi (1996), this
definition of “taking charge of one’s own learning” is noting but “a tautology as no
learning takes place unless the learner is in charge; it is a prerequisite of learning”
(cited in Fenner, 2000, p. 79). In addition to that, similar to the definition of Holec
1981), Pemberton (1996) defines the term self-directed learning as “the techniques
used in order to direct one’s own learning” (p. 3, as cited in Lee, 1998). However, he
points out that although Holec (1981) and himself describes the term autonomy as
“the ability to take charge of one’s own learning” (p. 3, as cited in Lee, 1998) it is
sometimes used interchangeably with self direction by some scholars.
Additionally, Pemberton is on the same terms with Holec’s definition which means
that the word autonomy is a capacity, while self-directed learning is a way of
organizing learning (p. 3, as cited in Lee, 1998). However, the word “capacity” and
its definition need further explanation at this very point. As Holec (1981) puts it,
there are three key components in this definition. The first and the to-the-point one is
that there is “a dual emphasis on the ability to carry out autonomous learning and on
the learning structures that allow the possibility of developing and exercising that
ability” (p. 6 as cited in Benson 1996, p. 29). This explanation demonstrates that
what are emphasized here is the ability and the possibility. In other words, the learner
is not necessarily expected to have but rather expected, or supposed to have the
capacity to play an autonomous role in the classroom in order to improve himself or

7
herself. As is suggested, the capacity and readiness of the learners to undertake such
responsibility is not innate and also this is not something which should be fostered
and gained through formal learning environments (Holec, 1981, cited in Chan, 2001,
p. 506). Although the second component is more about the ways of fostering
autonomy, the third component Holec (1985) talks about is that there is “a principle
of full control by learners over decisions relating to their own learning and a concept
of teaching or counseling as support” (ibid, p. 29).
In other words, the concept of autonomy signifies learner’s expansive approach to
the learning process rather than a specified style of teaching or learning (Benson,
2001, p. 1). Benson and Voller (1997) specify these processes where learner
autonomy is used. Claiming that the term is used at least in five ways in language
education, they list these ways in which autonomy concept is used, as follows:
1. situations in which learners study entirely on their own;
2. a set of skills which can be learned and applied in self-directed learning;
3. an inborn capacity which is suppressed by institutional education;
4. exercise of learners’ responsibility for their own learning;
5. the right of learners to determine the direction of their own learning. (p. 2)
As Benson and Voller (1997) argue the term is used at least in five different ways in
the field of language learning alone. As the term has its connection with more and
more concepts even in language learning, the literature of autonomy is abundant of
countless definitions and synonyms “such as ‘independence’ (Sherin, 1991),
‘language awareness’ (Lier, 1996; James & Garett, 1991), ‘self-direction’ (Candy,
1991), ‘andragogy’ (Knowles, 1980; 1983 etc.) which testifies the importance
attached to it by scholars” (cited in Thanasoulas, 2000). However, Little (1990, as
cited in Benson, 2001, p. 48) states that there are several terms used by some to refer
to autonomy term in a wrong way. He states these misinterpretations as in the
following:

8
• Autonomy is not a synonym for self-instruction; in other words,
Autonomy is not limited to learning without a teacher.
• In the classroom context, autonomy does not entail an abdication of
responsibility on the part of the teacher; it is not a matter of letting the learners
get on with things as best they can.
• On the other hand, autonomy is not something that teachers do to
learners, that is, it is not another teaching method.
• Autonomy is not a single, easily described behavior.
• Autonomy is not a steady state achieved by learners.
As is stated, autonomy is a term which is difficult to come to an agreement among
scholars even in the field of language learning and teaching. This is not an excuse, of
course, for teachers to motivate the learners to develop this ability of learning how to
learn independently. In other words, having become the buzzword within the context
of ELT, more and more teachers are dwelling upon their students’ capability to
develop autonomy in their process of language learning (Jiao, 2005, p. 27). This will
provide them with a life-long experience of autonomous learning affecting not only
their educational life in formal setting but also their life where they have to learn and
decide at each and every second. Therefore, it would be appropriate to learn more
about those people whom we can call as autonomous learners.
2.1.2. Descriptions of Autonomous Learner
As the main participants of the term autonomy, the learners are ascribed the control
in an autonomous environment. However, how can it be possible? Can the traditional
way putting the teacher in the centre of the learning process collapse suddenly? Of
course, it cannot. Thanasoulas (2000) claims that this change does not occur in

9
vacuum, because it is “a result of concatenation of changes to the curriculum itself
towards a more learner centered kind of learning”. Autonomous learners can
understand the purpose of their learning program, unequivocally recognize the
conscientiousness for their learning; divide the set of learning objectives, take
initiatives in planning and implementing learning activities, and regularly review
their learning and evaluate its effectiveness (Little 1991, as cited in Little 2003).
Nunan (1996) supports the idea that the autonomous learner is the one who is able to
create their own learning objectives by stating it as a concluding sentence (as cited in
Pemberton et al. 1996). Arguing that autonomous learner is the one who is successful
in finding the best strategy to learn and to be successful. According to Wenden
(1991, pp. 41-42) there are seven characteristics of successful language learners, in
question, which she has concluded from the interviews she has conducted. These
attributes are summarized as follows:
Successful language learners:
1. have insight into their own language learning styles and preferences as
well as the nature of the task itself.
2. take an active approach to learning task. They select learning objectives for
themselves and deliberately involve themselves in the language they are learning.
3. are willing to take risks. These students accept their status as ‘linguistic
toddlers’. They are willing to appear foolish sometimes in order to communicate,
using any means at their disposal to convey meaning.
4. are good guessers. They use clues effectively and make legitimate
inferences.
5. are prepared to attend to form as well as to content.
6. actively attempt to develop the target language into a separate reference
system and try to think in the target language as soon as possible.
7. have a tolerant and outgoing approach to the target language.

10
In addition to Wenden’s (1991) descriptions many other researchers made attempts
to come up with other characteristics to specify the profile of the autonomous
learner. One of those scholars is Candy (1991), who has brought together a list
consisted of more than 100 competencies linked with successful autonomous
learning in general (as cited in Benson, 2001, p. 84). However, as we would like to
put it more specifically, like autonomy in language learning, Breen and Mann (1997)
puts forward some attributes of autonomous learners (ibid, pp. 84-85). According to
their evaluation, autonomous learners know the content and the strategy to learn it.
They are able to evaluate their progress, make changes when necessary according to
the needs and objectives of their own learning. To Benson (2001), these attributes
demonstrate that they do not simply shape apparent learning deeds but the capacity
in question is not only related to learning management. It is related to the factors of
personality and attitude (p. 86). The autonomous learner is like somebody whose
“life has a consistency that drives from a coherent set of beliefs, values and
principles” and also who “engages in a still-continuing process of criticism and re-
evaluation” (Thanasoulas, 2000). At this point, it would be appropriate to pave the
way for the learners’ view of learner autonomy.
Chan (2001) interviewed a number of learners and concluded some attributes of
autonomous learners according to learners’ own evaluation. These participants were
20 language major students in Hong Kong. During the interviews accepting and
claiming the prominence of learner autonomy, they described autonomous learner as
“highly motivated, goal-oriented, having an inquisitive mind, well-organized,
hardworking, curious about language, interested and enthusiastic about what is
learnt, active, having initiative, making use of every opportunity to improve one’s
standard and flexible” (Chan, 2001, p. 513). These descriptions do not have one-to-
one correspondence at the first sight; however, most of the characteristics seem to
overlap. To a certain extent, it looks as if the students restate the definitions of
scholars and simplify them. However, it should be noted that these descriptions of
students are not necessarily true. Whether the autonomous learner can really be

11
named “hardworking” or not, is discussable. Similarly, Hedge (2000) supplies us
with some non-scholar descriptions of autonomous learners, which he had in 1970s
when there were a very few publications specifically on learner autonomy (p. 76).
Surprisingly enough, English Language teachers from around the world were very
successful in defining the term “self-directed learners” although they were not that
much familiar with the concept than the teachers in the twentieth century. They
defined self-directed learners as learners who “know their objectives, know how to
use resources in an independent way, learn both inside and outside the classroom”,
who “needs and work productively with teachers towards the achievement”, or who
“do not think the teacher is god who can give them ability to master language”
(Hedge, 2000, p. 76). Just like the definitions of the students, these definitions
demonstrate that some teachers as well as learners are aware of the fact that
autonomy can be very “beneficial” both for the students and for the teachers when it
is handled in “the best” way. Very few teachers and students would oppose the idea
when they once get a hold of the idea and use of autonomy not to give it up again in
their classrooms because as Rousseau (1762) claims that the “autonomous learner is
obedient to a law that he prescribes to himself” (cited in Thanasoulas, 2000).
Although within the context of education it has many other attributes, more or the
less the underlying idea seems to be rooted in this basic idea. However, among all
those definitions and descriptions in the field of education, it should be born in mind
that one should not become autonomous but work towards autonomy as autonomy is
a process rather than a product (id.).
2.2. Autonomy Concept within a Broader Framework: Past & Present
Being under several deeper influences, autonomy term is much more rooted than it
seems to be. It does not just mean the responsibility that the learner has in his or her
learning process. As may be guessed, it is not “originally and primarily a language
learning concept” (Benson, 2001, p. 22). Even in 1560s, Galileo (1564-1642)

12
suggested that “you cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it
within himself” (ibid., p. 23). Apart from Galileo, many other thinkers in the
following centuries supported and described the term autonomy without naming it as
“autonomy”. Similar quotations prove that autonomy concept is inevitably under the
influence of many other fields. According to Benson (2001), if autonomy in language
learning is regarded as being in the centre, a number of interactive factors such as
political reform in connection with educational reform, adult education in connection
are just some of the factors involved.
Political Philosophy Educational Reform
Psychology of Learning Adult Education
Language Learning
Figure 2.1: Major influences on the theory of autonomy in language learning
Source: Benson, 2001, p. 22
As is demonstrated in the figure, there are many factors interrelated with the concept
of autonomy in language learning and teaching. Among those factors self-directed
learning is documented to be involved in learning outside the context of formal
Personal Freedom
autonomy in learning
Autonomy in language learning
Constructivism Self-directed
Learning
Focus on Learner

13
education, and described by Knowles (1975, p. 75, as cited in Benson, 2001) as
follows:
In its broadest meaning, self-directed learning describes a process in which
individuals take the initiative, with or without the help of others, in
diagnosing their learning needs, formulating learning goal, identifying human
and material resources for learning, choosing and implementing appropriate
learning strategies, and evaluating learning outcomes. (p. 33)
On the other hand, when we evaluate the current literature, it is obvious that the term
self-directed learning has turned out to be “an umbrella concept embracing both self-
instructional processes and the psychological characteristics of the learner that
support them” (Benson, 2001, p. 33). At this point, the distinction between autonomy
and self-direction is to be discussed. Benson raise this issue and claims that in the
field of language learning autonomy concept identifies the wide field of query and
the universal capacity to exercise control over one’s own learning. Self-directed
learning in contrast, tends to pass on purely learning that is carried out under the
learner’s own direction, rather than under the direction of others. To put it
differently, while the first one is a characteristic of the learner the latter is a mode of
learning (ibid, p. 34).
Following the short discussion of self-directed learning and autonomy, it would be
appropriate to bring the influences into the discussion. These influences on learner
autonomy in language concept underpin the broad perspective to give a deeper
insight with respect to the roots of language learning in all fields. However, to put it
more specifically, a different approach will be adopted here, which will draw a neat
picture of basic effective philosophies, theories, approaches and understandings of
learner autonomy in language learning. Several ones such as positivism,
constructivism, liberal humanist theory, socio-cultural theory (SCT), and more
specifically communicative language teaching will be touched upon to the extent that
they are in relation with the term learner autonomy.

14
First one of them is positivism which was high in power in the twentieth century. It
assumes that knowledge reflects objective reality. If teachers are regarded to hold
this, then learning can occur only “in the transmissions of knowledge from one
individual to another. (Benson and Voller, 1997, p. 20; as cited in Thanasoulas,
2000) In that sense, a positivist view of knowledge consider teacher as fundamental
to fill in the empty container of the students, that is, their minds. Apart from that,
positivism supports the hypothesis testing model to discover new knowledge;
therefore knowledge is discovered rather than taught. In Positivism, language
concepts are direct representations of objective reality so while positivist conceptions
hold the basic framework for structural, drill and pattern practice approaches which
are more descriptive they also supply a framework for more communicative or
inductive methodologies if final objective is to practice the given linguistic input and
therefore to communicate (Benson & Voller, 1997, pp. 20-21).
The second underlying concept autonomy is constructivism. According to this,
people try to get a meaning out of the world they live in. As Kelly (1953) claims “a
person’s processes are psychologically channelized by the ways in which they
anticipate events” (cited in Fenner, 2000). Moreover, Kelly adds that people
anticipate those events “by construing their replications” (id.), which in simpler
terms, meaning that, we interpret them so that they assume meaning. Kelly explains
it as in the following: “In themselves they carry no meaning; meaning is applied by
the individual who interprets. We differ from each other in the way we construct
events and we have different approaches to our anticipation of the same events”
(Kelly, 1953, p. 50-55; as cited in Fenner, 2000).
All these demonstrate that learning processes are individual and may be observed by
the learners themselves. In addition to this basic idea, there are a number of
important implications of constructivism for learning according to several
‘constructivist’ pedagogues such as Borich & Tombari (1997), Brooks & Brooks

15
(1993), Driscoll (1994), Eggen and Kauchak (1997), Jonassen, (1991) (as cited in
Esch & St.John, p. 20). Some of these implications are reported by Esch and St.John
(2003) as follows:
1. Authenticity, complexity, reality, relevance and richness on the
learning environment are essential characteristics. There is a definite need
for learning activities which are related to realistic problems, embedded
in relevant contexts and approached from multiple perspectives.
2. The prior knowledge, experiences and beliefs of the learner are the
departure points of learning process. There is a need for learner-centered
instruction. […]
3. Learning is viewed as a social event: learning needs to be
embedded in social experiences, instructional goals, objectives and
content should be negotiated and not imposed; learners should work
primarily in groups and most of the learning outcomes result from
cooperation.
4. The learner is the ‘owner’ of his learning process: he has to be in
control of and responsible for that process, so he needs to have a voice in
deciding what to learn and how to learn it.
5. Assessment and evaluation are continually interwoven with
teaching and learning; self evaluation and peer evaluation are important
aspects and facilitated by using tools like journals and portfolios.
Continuous feedback on errors is given for the purpose of increasing
learners’ understanding and awareness of their progress. (p. 20)
As is demonstrated, the learner takes charge of his or her own learning process in the
constructivist view of learning. Although socialization is necessary, learner
centeredness is still the focus of the learning.
2.3. Fostering Autonomy in Language Classrooms
2.3.1. Reasons for Learner Autonomy in Language Classrooms
It is difficult fully to supply an answer to the question of “why learner autonomy
should be promoted in language classrooms?” since the reasons for that are

16
abundant. First of all, learner autonomy increases motivation, which will bring about
more effective learning. This occurs because the learner is the decision-maker in the
classroom in contrast to traditional classrooms where teacher is the only wielder of
power. Therefore, the learners feel more independent rather than teacher-dependent
(Jiao, 2005).
Another reason for fostering autonomy is that an autonomous learner will have many
more opportunities for the use of target language especially in non-native
environment (id.). Therefore, fostering autonomy will not only be a remedy for
learners’ improving their language skills but also enable them to create and make use
of all the opportunities to communicate their message even in EFL setting. van Esch
(2003) supports this idea stating that the learner has many chances on the Internet,
and other multimedia sources so helping the “learners’ equip themselves with tools
and strategies will empower them to take advantage of the opportunities offered by
their extended ‘classroom’”(p. 18).
The third reason is that learner autonomy “caters to the individual needs of learners
at all levels” as Jiao (2005) claims. If a learner is an autonomous one, then learning
will get out of the classroom and every occasion will turn out to be a chance for
learning the language. In other words, “some degree of autonomy is essential to
successful language learning” (Scharle & Szabó, 2000). The time the learners spend
inside the classroom may differ however, ‘practice’ is essential for actual learning to
take place. This can only be gained through helping the learners become more
autonomous (ibid, p. 4). After they once become autonomous, they will have
acquired a skill to last all along their lives, which is the habit of independent thinking
(Jiao, 2005). The following excerpt from McGarry (1995, as cited in Jiao, 2005)
summarizes the attributes of autonomous learners by supplying us the rationale for
fostering autonomy as follows:

17
Students who are encouraged to take responsibility for their own work by
being given some control over what, how and when they learn are more
likely to be able to set realistic goals, plan programs of work, develop
strategies for coping with a new and unforeseen situations, evaluate and
assess their own work and generally to learn how to learn from their own
successes and failures, in ways which will help them to be more efficient
learners in the future
To sum up, learners are reflectively engaged in planning, monitoring and evaluating
their own learning themselves. Therefore, this will bring about success as the
learning process was basically focused on the learning process they experience. As a
result, learners will use this “reflective engagement” (Little, 2000) in carrying the
skills and knowledge of the language learnt in the classroom, outside the classroom,
which is real world (id.).
2.3.2. Conditions for Learner Autonomy in Language Classrooms
As the reasons for autonomy have explained, helping learners to develop a sense of
responsibility and autonomy is of great importance. However learner autonomy
should not be thought regardless of the conditions, as they may restrict development
of autonomy to a certain extent. Learners’ cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies,
relatively average motivation and positive attitudes towards learning a language,
knowledge and self-esteem about language learning (Thanasoulas, 2000),
voluntariness, flexible environment, teacher support, and peer support (Lee, 1998)
are just a few factors which will facilitate the development of autonomy in language
learners. On the other hand, to Scharle and Szabo (2000), three basic conditions for
the development of autonomy are as follows:
• Raising awareness
• Changing attitudes
• Transferring roles
(p. 9)

18
In addition to the fact that in the existence of some of these conditions, fostering and
developing would be easier, it is also possible that some of these factors may develop
at the end of the autonomous learning experience. These will not be discussed in
detail but as is obvious the level of autonomy promoted will definitely differ in
accordance with the contexts in which the learning takes place.
2.3.3. Approaches to Fostering Autonomy in Language Classrooms
There are profusion of ways for promoting learner autonomy in language classrooms
however, the categorization taken by Benson (2001) will be applied here as it seems
to be the most comprehensive one (pp. 107-178). The figure below displays the
practice associated with the development of autonomy in language classroom and
will be mentioned briefly hereafter.
AUTONOMY
fc
Figure 2.2: Autonomy in language learning and related areas of practice
Source: Benson, 2001, p. 112
LEARNER-BASED
APPROACHES
Development of
autonomous learning skills
CURRICULUM-
BASED APPROACHES
Control over curriculum
decisions
CLASSROOM-BASED
APPROACHES
Control over classroom
decisions TEACHER-BASED
APPROACHES
Focus on teacher roles
and teacher education
RESOURCE-BASED
APPROACHES
Independent use of
learning resources
TECHNOLOGY-BASED
APPROACHES
Independent use of
learning technologies

19
2.3.3.1. Resource-based Approaches
Self-access, which is defined as “a way of describing materials that are designed and
organized in such a way that students can select and work on their own” (Sheerin,
1991, p147, as cited in Benson, 2001, p. 113). These materials give learners
responsibility of deciding the extent of the materials together with the ways to make
use of the materials (Edge & Wharton, 1998). Additionally, self-access centres
operate in a variety of cultural and educational environments and they appear in
various forms as facilities in institutions, parts of libraries, or language or computer
laboratories (id.).
Other key concepts are self-instruction and distance learning (Benson, 2001, p. 131).
When we consider autonomy, these ways of learning come to foreground. However,
as Benson puts it, these two ways seem to be a good way of promoting autonomy;
they need a certain degree of autonomy to work properly, though.
As is briefly described, self-access learning, distance and self-instruction all seem to
give students some kinds chances for independent study, however the question arises
at this point; whether they are sufficient in practice to promote autonomy? Gardner
and Miller (1999) claim that self-access learning, self-instruction and distance
learning may be autonomous learning methods however they make little progress in
terms of autonomy and language learning (cited in Benson, 2001, p. 132). This is
partially due to the lack of sufficient support or direction for the use of resources.
2.3.3.2. Technology-based Approaches
Computer assisted language learning comes to mind when we say technology-based
approach. There is a lot of research done in the area with respect to the benefits of
computer assisted language learning and the use of internet in language classrooms
(Little, 1996; Milton et al., 1996; Milton, 1997; Schweinhorst, 2003 etc.). They

20
support learner autonomy in that they help learners self-direct their learning and
control the process to the extent learners do. Benson claims that it differs from self-
access learning with respect to its chances for collaboration and increased motivation
to learn new technologies adding that more empirical data is to be collected on the
type of language used and the effectiveness of CALL environment for language
improvement (2001, pp. 141-142).
2.3.3.3. Teacher-based approaches
Teacher autonomy has come to be regarded as inevitable for learner autonomy. It
seems to be difficult to specify the boundaries of the definition of teacher autonomy
but Barfield et al. (2002) defines teacher autonomy as follows:
Characterized by recognition that teaching is always contextually
situated, teacher autonomy is a continual process of inquiry into how
teaching can best promote autonomous learning for learners. It involves
understanding and making explicit the different constraints that a teacher
may face, so that teachers can work collaboratively towards confronting
constraints and transforming them into opportunities for change. The
collaboration that teacher autonomy requires suggests that outside the
classroom teachers need to develop institutional knowledge and flexibility
in dealing with external constraints. It also suggests that teacher
autonomy can be strengthened by collaborative support and networking
both within the institution and beyond. Negotiation thus forms an integral
part of the process of developing teacher autonomy. (p. 218)
To this definition, they also add some qualities of autonomous teachers. They
propose that teacher autonomy involve “negotiation skills; institutional knowledge in
order to start to address effectively constraints on teaching and learning; willingness
to confront institutional barriers in socially appropriate ways to turn constraints into
opportunities for change; readiness to engage in lifelong learning to the best of an
individual’s capacity; reflection on the teaching process and environment;
commitment to promoting learner autonomy” (id.).

21
Sharing the ideas of Barfield et al. on the interwoven nature of teacher and learner
autonomy, McGrath (2000) claims that the first step to be an autonomous teacher
occurs when the teacher adopts “an evaluative stance towards elements of the
teaching and learning context over which she has a degree of control” (cited in
Benson, 2001, p. 174) Thavenius (1999, as cited in Benson, 2001) maintains this idea
and states that
Developing learner autonomy involves a lot more for the teacher role than
most teachers realize. Although they may be ambitious and even eager to
start helping their students developing autonomy and awareness of
language learning process, they may still be ignorant of what this means
for the teacher role. It is not just a matter of changing teaching
techniques; it is a matter of changing teacher personality. (p. 174)
Therefore, these demonstrate that language teachers should receive professional
knowledge on how to develop and how to encourage fostering autonomy in students,
which would make it necessary for them to have the necessary education and
professionalism to act teacher’s role of initiator.
2.3.3.4. Classroom-based approaches
This type of approach to fostering autonomy is more related to what is going on
inside the classroom as may be predicted. Classroom based-approaches to learner
autonomy give emphasis to changes in the relationships between learners and
teachers inside the classroom (Benson, 2001, p. 151). Learner will have a
collaborative and supportive environment by the teacher if it is benefited in a good
way. Therefore, it is apparent that learner autonomy will be promoted in such
classrooms where learners are a part of the decision-making process about the
learning process.

22
Another point to be mentioned is that through classroom-based approaches the
learners have also the chance of monitoring their own learning process (Benson,
2001, p. 155). This will enable learners to manage the effectiveness of their learning,
evaluate their own progress, thus granting them with control over the content,
cognitive, and evaluative aspects of their own learning procedure (ibid, p. 161).
2.3.3.5. Curriculum-based approaches
In this respect, Benson (2001) argues that curriculum based approaches to autonomy
broadens the principle of learner control over the management of learning to the
curriculum as a whole. Similarly, while mentioning the places of teachers and
learners in curriculum, Brown (1995) lists some “concepts with which the curriculum
will be related to their preferences”. They are
1. Learning approaches
2. Attitudes toward learning
3. Learning styles
4. Strategies used in learning
5. Learning Activities
6. Patterns of interaction
7. Degree of learner control over their own learning
8. What constitutes effective teaching
9. The nature of effective learning
(p. 187)
As is seen involving learners into the development of curriculum in several ways
would foster autonomy because the learners will feel that their choices and decisions
are valued. In addition to that they would be motivated to take place voluntarily in
the learning process and the curriculum they have partially created.

23
2.3.3.6. Learner-based approaches
Approaches taking learner as a source of fostering autonomy put emphasis on the
production of behavioural and psychological changes in learners who will be taking
control (Benson, 2001, p. 143). These types of approaches mainly focus on learner
development, learner training and strategy training. To Benson (2001) “the primary
goal of all approaches is to help learners become ‘better’ language learners” (p. 142).
The current approaches tend to regard the development of autonomy as an
indispensable part of this primary goal (id.). Similarly, Cohen (1998, p. 67, as cited
in Benson, 2001) argues that:
Strategy training, i.e. explicitly teaching students how to apply language
learning and language use strategies, can enhance students’ efforts to
reach language program goals because it encourages students to find their
own pathways to success, and thus it promotes learner autonomy and self-
direction. (p. 144)
This explanation displays how learner-based approaches to fostering autonomy and
strategy use are interrelated. While Cohen (1998) further discusses the idea that
“language learning will be facilitated if students become more aware of the range of
possible strategies that can consciously select during language learning and language
use”, Rees-Miller (1993) opposes strategy training by supplying the reader with four
main reasons for that (id.). They can be summarized as the lack of empirical
evidence pertaining the relationship between success in language learning and
strategy use; some of the strategies may not be teachable and may be valid; the
results of successful language learners’ strategy use should not be starting point for
better language learning process because these successful learners do not necessarily
use recommended strategies and may be using non-recommended strategies (ibid, p.
145).

24
Chamot and Rubin (1994; as cited in Benson, 2001, p. 145) opposes these claims of
Rees-Miller (1993) by developing counter-arguments and concludes by supporting
the statement of Cohen (1998) that “the most efficient way for learner awareness to
be heightened is by having teachers provide strategies-based instruction to students
as part of the foreign language curriculum.” (as cited in Benson, 2001, p. 146).
Wenden (1998) highlights the importance of learner autonomy and strategy training
by claiming that the more learners are involved in the process of effective strategy
use in learning process the more independently they will learn, which will bring
about the autonomous learner with the following statement:
In effect, “successful” or “expert” or “intelligent” learners have learnt
how to learn. They have acquired the learning strategies, the knowledge
about learning, and the attitudes that enable them to use these skills and
knowledge confidently, flexibly, appropriately and independently of a
teacher. Therefore, they are autonomous. The literature also argued,
implicitly or explicitly, for the need to provide learning training,
especially for those who may not be as varied and flexible in their use of
learning strategies as their successful classmates. (p. 15)
As is seen, learner based approaches to fostering learner autonomy is controversial to
a certain extent but still plays a crucial role in language learning. Therefore, in the
following section strategy use especially, speaking skills per se will be mentioned.
2.4. Strategy Use in Language Learning
An old proverb stating “Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him how to
fish and he eats for a life time.” (Wenden, 1985) actually outlines the intimate
relationship between autonomy and strategy use. After we delved into the theory
autonomy concept and classroom applications of it, the second stage of the present
study is related to reported strategy use of the participants. Therefore, bearing in

25
mind the previous points related to autonomy, now we will briefly explore the
strategy use in speaking skills.
2.4.1 Definitions of Language Learning Strategies (LLS)
Language Learning Strategies concept was defined and described in various ways by
various researchers. There has always been a debate concerning the definition of
LLS which has resulted in a great number of perspectives on the definition of the
concept. Huang (2004) has provided us various definitions for language learning
strategies (cited in Atik, 2006, pp. 15-16) as is listed in Table 2.1 below.
Table 2.1: Definitions of Language Learning Strategies
Researcher(s) Definition of LLS
Bialystok (1978) “optimal means for exploring available information to
improve competence in a second language” (p. 71).
Stern (1983)
“… strategy is … for general tendencies or overall
characteristics of the approach employed by the
language learner, leaving techniques as …. Particular
forms of observable learning behaviour” (Ellis, 1994,
p. 531).
Tarone (1983) “an attempt to develop linguistic and sociolinguistic
competence in the target language – to incorporate
these into one’s interlanguage competence” (p. 67).

26
Table 2.1 (continued)
Seliger (1984) Strategies – “basic abstract categories of processing
by which information perceived in the outside world
is organized and categorized into cognitive structures
as part of a conceptual network” (p. 4). Tactics – “
variable and idiosyncratic learning activities, which
learners use to organize a learning situation, respond
to the learning environment, or cope with input and
output demands” (Ellis, 1994, p. 532).
Weinstein & Mayer
(1986)
“behaviours and thoughts that a learner engages in
during learning” which are “intended to influence the
learner’s encoding process” (p. 315).
Mayer (1988) “behaviours of a learner that are intended to influence
how the learner processes information” (p. 11).
Chamot (1987) “techniques, approaches, or deliberate actions that
students take in order to facilitate the learning and
recall of both linguistic and content area information”
(p. 71).
Rubin (1987) “strategies which contribute to the development of the
language system which the learner constructs and
affects learning directly” (p. 22).
Wenden & Rubin
(1987)
“… any sets of operations, steps, plans, routines used
by the learner to facilitate the obtaining, storage,
retrieval, and use of information” (p. 19).
Oxford (1989) “behaviours or actions which learners use to make
language learning more successful, self-directed and
enjoyable” (p. 235).

27
Oxford (1992/1993) “specific actions, behaviours, steps, or techniques that
students (often intentionally) use to improve their
progress in developing L2 skills. These strategies can
facilitate the internalization, storage, retrieval, or use
of the new language. Strategies are tools for the self-
directed involvement necessary for developing
communicative ability” (p. 18).
Oxford (1990) “specific actions taken by the learner to make learning
easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed,
more effective, and more transferable to new
situations” (p. 8).
O’Malley & Chamot
(1990)
“the special thoughts or behaviours that individuals
use to help them comprehend, learn, or retain new
information” (p. 1)
Carrell, et al. (1989) “the kinds of cognitive, metacognitive, social, and
affective strategies that learners employ” (p. 3).
Richards & Platt
(1992)
“intentional behavior or thoughts used by learners
during learning so as to better help them understand,
learn, or remember new information” (p. 209).
Stern (1992) “broadly conceived intentional directions and learning
techniques”(p. 261).
Green & Oxford
(1995)“
“specific actions or techniques that (learners) use,
often intentionally, to improve their progress in
developing L2 skills” (p. 262).
Weaver & Cohen
(1997)
“specific behaviours, steps and actions taken to
enhance one’s own learning, through the storage,
retention, and use of new information about the target
language. They are conscious thoughts and
behaviours used by the learners with the explicit goals
of improving their knowledge and understanding of a
target language.” (p. vi).

28
Cohen (2002) “learners’ conscious and semi-conscious thoughts and
behaviours, having the explicit goal of improving the
learner’s knowledge and understanding of the second
language (i.e. language learning strategies), as well as
strategies for using the language that has been learned
or for getting around gaps in language proficiency
(i.e., language use strategies)” (p. 51)
Source: Atik, 2006, pp. 15-16
2.4.2. Foreign Language Learning and Use Strategies
Language learning and use strategies consists of the steps and actions chosen by the
learners to take one step further in learning of the foreign language. (Cohen et al.
1996, p. 3)
In order to facilitate the tasks provided by the instructor the students use several
strategies which would personalize the learning process. These language learning
strategies have been differentiated into four main categories (Cohen et al. 1996) and
they are described as follows:
1- Cognitive strategies usually involve the identification, retention,
storage, retrieval of words, phrases, and other elements of the target
language (e.g. using prior knowledge to comprehend new language
material, applying grammar rule to a new context, or classifying
vocabulary according to topic).
2. Metacognitive strategies deal with pre-planning and self-assessment,
online planning, monitoring and evaluation, as well as post evaluation of
language learning activities. (e.g. previewing the language materials for
the day’s lesson, organizing one’ thoughts before speaking, or reflecting
on one’s performance)

29
3. Social strategies include the action that learner select for interacting
with other learner, a teacher, or with native speakers (e.g. asking
questions for clarification, helping a fellow student complete a task, or
cooperating with others)
4. Affective strategies serve to regulate learner motivation, emotions, and
attitude (e.g. strategies for reducing anxiety, for self-encouragement and
for self-reward). (p. 4)
As for language use strategies, they consist of language performance and
communication strategies. Performance strategies are strategies for rehearsing target
language structures, through form-focused practice for instance. As opposed to
performance strategies, in case of communication strategies the spotlight is on
communicating the message in the target language despite gaps in target language
knowledge. As opposed to performance strategies, communication strategies are
used to communicate an idea (Cohen et.al. 1996, p. 4).
2.4.3. Communication Strategies
Selinker (1972) was the first to introduce the notion of communication strategy (p.
229), not in detail, though. Dörnyei (1995) summarizes the historical development of
the term communication strategies as follows:
In the 1970s, four studies prepared the ground for the study of
communication strategies (CSs), a new area of research within applied
linguistics: Selinker’s (1972) classic article on interlanguage introduced the
notion of strategies of L2 communication. Varadi (1973, but published in
1980) and Tarone (1977; also Tarone, Cohen, & Dumas, 1976) elaborated
on Selinker’s notion by providing a systematic analysis of CS introducing
many of the categories and terms used in subsequent CS research. Savignon
(1972) reported on a pioneering language teaching experiment involving a
communicative approach, which, for the first time, included student
training in CSs (or, as she termed them, coping strategies). Since these
early studies, much research has been done to identify and classify CSs (for
reviews, see Bialystok, 1990; Cook, 1993; Poulisse, 1987); however, far le
attention has been paid to the question of whether these strategies could be
integrated […]. (p. 55)

30
As is summarized, there has not been a consensus on the definition of the term
communication strategy but a variety of definitions was written. However, it is a fact
that non-native and native speakers of a given language may struggle to find the right
expression or grammatical construction when attempting to communicate their
message from time to time (Faucette, 2001). Faucette describes communication
strategy as “the ways in which an individual speaker manages to compensate for this
gap between what she wishes to communicate and her immediately available
linguistic resources are known as communication strategies (CS)” (2001, p. 2) by
also adding that “[a]lthough researchers are still not in complete agreement, one
widely accepted definition is “communication strategies are potentially conscious
plans for solving what to an individual presents itself as a problem in reaching a
particular communicative goal” (Færch & Kasper, 1983a, p. 36, as cited in Faucette,
2001). In addition to these definitions the following definitions were also made by
also various researchers which were compiled by Rababah (2002):
• conscious communication strategies are used by an individual to
overcome the crisis which occurs when language structures are inadequate to
convey the individual’s thought (Tarone, 1977, p. 195).
• they are systematic techniques employed by a speaker to express
his meaning when faced with some difficulty (Corder, 1981, 1983, pp. 103-
16)
• communication strategies are potentially conscious plans for
solving what to an individual presents itself as a problem in reaching a
particular communicative goal (Faerch & Kasper, 1983a, p. 36).
• communication strategies predetermine the verbal planning, they
serve the function of adjusting the plan to the situation, i.e. each individual
utterance is to be seen as strategic. What is specific for IL users is that plans
of action cannot be directly converted into verbal plans, because of gaps in
the speaker’s (and hearer’s) linguistic repertoire. The primary function of
function of communication strategies in the speech of IL users is to
compensate for this deficit (Wagner, 1983, p. 167).

31
• communication strategies, i.e., techniques of coping with difficulties
in communicating in an imperfectly known second language (Stern, 1983, p.
1983).
• [….] all attempts to manipulate a limited linguistic system in order
to promote communication. Should learning result from the exercise, the
strategy has also functioned as a learning strategy, but there is no inherent
feature of the strategy itself which can determine which of these roles it will
serve (Bialystok, 1983, pp. 102-103).
• compensatory strategies are strategies which a language user
employs in order to achieve his intended meaning on becoming aware of
problems arising during the planning phase of an utterance due to his own
linguistic shortcomings (Poulisse, 1990, p. 88).
• communication strategies (CS) have generally been defined as
means that speakers use to solve their communicative problems; (Paribakht,
1985, p. 132).
• the means used by a speaker to overcome a difficulty encountered
whilst attempting to communicate in the foreign language (Towell, 1987, p.
97).
• the conscious employment by verbal or non-verbal mechanisms for
communicating an idea when precise linguistic forms are for some reasons
not available to the learner at that point in communication (Brown, 1987,
p.180).
After Rababah (2001) cites these definitions, it is also stated in the article that “the
key defining criteria for [communication strategies] are “problemacity” and
“consciousness”. All the previously mentioned definitions support the claim that CSs
are employed when L2 learners encounter a problem in communication. These
“problems” and “difficulties” are various. The speakers may not communicate the
message due to lack of second or foreign language linguistic knowledge which
would lead the speaker to apply different strategies to compensate it. Another
problem might be that the speech may not be clear and intelligible enough. At this
point, the speakers have to make themselves understood which requires use of
alternate strategies while speaking. These and similar problems lead speakers to use
various ways to express themselves during establishing a communication. These

32
strategies may vary when they are evaluated under the name of communication
strategies. For instance, Tarone (1977) suggests some strategies like paraphrasing,
conscious transfer, avoidance while Dornyei and Scott (1997) suggests strategies like
message abandonment, message reduction, message replacement, circumlocution,
use of all-purpose words, word-coinage, restructuring, literal translation, code
switching, use of similar sounding words, mumbling, and omission. In addition to
those, self-rephrasing, and self-repair, use of fillers and repetitions are suggested to
be applied during speaking.
With regard to the necessity of the strategies, Bialystok (1990) mentions a number of
definitions of communication strategies in which communication strategies are stated
as being applied when the speaker face a “difficulty” (Corder, 1977, as cited in
Bialystok, 1990, p. 3), “a problem” (Faerch & Kasper, 1983a, as cited in Bialystok,
1990, p. 3) or a difficulty to be coped with (Stern, 1983, as cited in Bialystok, 1990,
p. 3). As communication strategies are claimed to be used to cope with these
problems or difficulties in question, it can be claimed that studies conducted in the
area also investigate the applicability of any kind of strategy during coping with
problems of speaking in a foreign or second language. A number of studies were
conducted to establish a direct association between apparent use of learner strategies
and second language proficiency (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1996) As
Oxford (1996) claims that students with advanced language proficiency have
reported higher levels of overall strategy use and frequent use of a greater number of
categories of strategies.
Another similar study was conducted by Zhang (2007) with an aim to investigate the
reasons and solutions concerning the inefficiency of the students’ while they
communicate in English. The study was conducted at a Chinese Secondary
Vocational School and Zhang (2007) describes the student profile as follows: “most
students have no intention of communicating in English, nor do they feel the need to
do so. Even though English is a key course for students in Hotel Management and

33
Tour Guiding, teachers can seldom find them speaking in English on campus or even
in classrooms. The reason for this may contribute to their limited acquisition of the
language and their limited interest in it. […] A large majority of students have no
idea about how to cope themselves when they are confronted with some words they
do not know” (p. 44) by also pointing out structural differences of two languages,
Chinese and English. With an aim to investigate the problems those EFL learners
face, Zhang (2007) concludes that EFL teachers instruct learners communication
strategies so as to value English language learning more meaningful and influential.
In addition to that an English-speaking environment needs to be created to the largest
extent, because by continual exposure to natural conversation students may learn
through opportunities both to hear more of the target language and to produce new
utterances to test their knowledge (Wenden & Rubin, 1987, p. 26, as cited in Zhang,
2007).
With regard to autonomy and use of strategies, Simmons (1996) starts conducting a
study in 1991 via Independent Language Program as apart of the government-funded
Adult Migrant English Program. There were 18 participants and they expressed their
willingness to work independently. During the first week it was founded that most of
the participants were unsuccessful in negotiating their own learning contract, which
was signed, in an effective way. Instead, they wanted the teacher to direct them to
apply the contract and handle with their studies. It was a longitudinal study where
diaries as well as questionnaires were conducted in order to find out the
corresponding learning activities in relation to strategies used. Following the training
sessions, an increase in the use of strategies was recorded. At the end of the study, it
was concluded that the aim of the study, which was whether strategy training would
be able to help the student to be more independent owners of their own learning
process and their programs, was realized in that the students proved to manage their
of learning by applying the strategies that suited them the best(as cited in Pemberton
et al., 1996).

34
A more specific and to-the point study conducted in the area belongs to Voller and
Pickard (1996). The study was conducted at the University of Hong Kong following
the decision to set up a self-access centre. The students were encouraged to register
for the conversation exchange program in which the students coming from nearly
eight different language background. They would meet several times a week to speak
English. However, important point here is that the partners could not speak the
native language of the other partner. This ensures that English would be only
medium for communication. Another point deserving attention is that the students
are just directed at the initial stage of helping them to meet. They are given a
conversation exchange form to create a record of all students’ profile and the
consultation desk find a partner in accordance with the priorities and the profile of
the students. To put it differently, apart from the helping the students to find the best
partner to practice, self access center leaves each and every other details of meetings
and practice hours at the students’ own discretion. At this very point, the difference
between autonomous learners and the others became more obvious. The researcher
concludes that the conversion exchange program had been successful in proving that
“autonomous learning is possible and is already being practiced by some” (as cited in
Pemberton, et al., 1996, p.126). The study demonstrates that learner autonomy and
speaking skills have a mutual development sequence. When one develops the other
one shows a similar development, as well.
Language learning strategies and use issue is not easy to handle with a few headings.
There are many aspects of the concept, however, in the present study, learner
autonomy and strategies for coping with speaking problems are handled to melt in
the same pot. Therefore, the researcher only dealt with the related points by
establishing the dynamic relevance.
The learner who is aware of the best way he or he can learn would most probably be
more autonomous, which would lead to students who are more successful and aware
of their own learning process. Faucette (2001) summarizes the relationship between

35
communication strategy instruction and learner autonomy as follows “The
connection between a learner autonomy approach and communication strategy
instruction should be clear. Using the common metaphor of ‘bridge’, Færch and
Kasper (1983a) argue that “by learning how to use communication strategies
appropriately, learners will be more able to bridge the gap between pedagogic and
non-pedagogic communicative situations” (p. 56, as cited in Faucette, 2001). by also
adding that “learner autonomy can be thought of as the ability to bridge that gap,
instruction can be thought of as the means to develop that ability” (id.). As is
highlighted, communication strategies and learner autonomy are interrelated so
acquiring our students with communication strategies would promote learner
autonomy in students. Faucette (2001) supports this view by summarizing the issue
in the best way:
If one of the goals of language teaching is to produce independent, skillful
L2 strategy users, and if we think it is important for our learners to be able
to participate in real communication outside the classroom, then how can
we ignore communication strategies in our L2 lessons? Perhaps learner
autonomy is one of the most significant goals of communication strategy
training. The two approaches go hand in hand and would help teachers
develop independent, strategically competent language learners. (p. 10)
As is summed up briefly, teaching coping strategies in establishing communication
in a foreign language would be of great benefit for the students.
2.5. Summary of Literature Review
In this chapter, the literature on the theory of learner autonomy and speaking skills
coping strategies were reviewed. The definitions of learner autonomy and various
perspectives on the understanding of the concept together with the applicability of it
were discussed. Additionally, some studies related to learner autonomy and strategy
use while coping with speaking problems were mentioned briefly. In short,

36
autonomy and strategy use were aimed to be described as being highly related rather
than being totally intact concepts.
The next chapter will be concerning the method used in the present study, including
participants, instruments, data collection and data analysis procedures.

37
CHAPTER III
METHOD
3.0. Presentation
This chapter presents the overall design of the study, the participants, and the
research questions, the data collection instruments along with data collection
procedure and data analysis.
3.1. Overall Design of the Study
The present study seeks to investigate the correlation among reported degree of
learner autonomy of the students, strategies they used while coping with speaking
problems, and their speaking grade levels. The data has been collected via
quantitative instruments.
The study investigating relationship between autonomy, strategy use and proficiency
level was administrated at Kütahya Dumlupinar University at the Department of
Foreign Languages with the participation of 6 preparatory classes of 102 EFL
learners. In order to reach the answers of the research questions a questionnaire was
administered and the results of the questionnaire were compared with the grade
levels displaying the speaking proficiency level of the students.

38
3.2. Participants
Participants of the present study consisted of 102 pre-intermediate and beginner level
preparatory class EFL learners of English at Kütahya Dumlupinar University. Apart
from those, 20 other preparatory class students also participated in the pilot trial of
the questionnaire. The students participating in the study were at the first year of
their study at Dumlupinar University and preparatory class is not compulsory and is
also not a prerequisite for the continuation of the undergraduate study. Following the
completion of the one-year study at preparatory class, the students take several
courses in English in their subject area at their departments. Therefore, this is to bear
in mind that they themselves chose to study English during one-year. The actual
departments of the students that they would continue the following year are business
administration, economics, electrics and electronics engineering, chemistry and
physics.
The demographic information of students regarding their age and gender of the
participants is demonstrated in the Figures 3.1 and 3.2.
Figure 3.1: Visual Illustration of Gender Distribution
1-Male
2-Female
3-Not stated
0
100
Figure 3.1 Visual Illustration of
Gender Distribution
Seri 1 50 51 1
1 2 3

39
As Figure 3.1 illustrates, there is an equal distribution among the respondents in
terms of gender. While a half (50 %) of the respondents is female, the remaining 49
% are male participants meaning that a homogenous sample regarding gender was
achieved. Therefore means that it would cause no hindrance for the results of the
survey in terms of gender differences.
Figure 3.2: Visual Illustration of Age Group Distribution
As Figure 3.2 demonstrates, 88 % of the population has got an age range between 18
and 20, while just 11 % is from the 21-25 age groups. Additionally, not stated refers
to the number of students whose information is missing. This figure would be helpful
in evaluating the results of the survey as there is not a great range of age group
difference as the students are at their first year at the university.
At the time of the implementation of the questionnaire, only one class of students
was of upper intermediate proficiency but the other five classes were a combination
of intermediate and lower intermediate students. It should be noted that this
distribution of students was not taken into consideration during the study but rather
they were graded according to their speaking grades as speaking grade levels were
Figure 3.2 Visual Illustration of
Age Group Distribution
88%
19-20
Ages
11%,
21-25
Ages
1% Not
stated

40
counted as a variable in the study, not the English proficiency level. As for their
courses, the students get separate grades for each class, taking main course, reading,
writing, listening and speaking classes. The distribution of each course in the
curriculum is as in the table:
Table 3.1: Distribution of the percentages of the courses in the calculation of the
final grade
Course Percentage No of hours a week
Main Course 40 % 18 hours
Reading 20 % 4 hours
Writing 20 % 4 hours
Speaking and Listening 20 % 4 hours
When the evaluation process of the speaking and listening class taken under scrutiny,
it is observed that the instructors grade the students in two ways. The course is
divided into two in itself and the evaluation process is done accordingly. Below is
the table demonstrating the evaluation process of the course:
Table 3.2: Percentages of Speaking and Listening Course Evaluation
Speaking & Listening Course Evaluation Percentage
Speaking Exams 50 %
Listening Exams 50 %
As for the grading, first of all, they take their written exam for listening
simultaneously, and on the same day each student is interviewed and evaluated
according to her or his performance on speaking out of 50 as in the listening exam.
Apart from that, the instructors have small quizzes inside the classes on various days
as pop-up quizzes.

41
Below is described the assessment for the speaking and listening course at the
preparatory classes at Dumlupinar University.
LISTENING AND SPEAKING COURSE
LISTENING 50% SPEAKING 50%
3 Mid-term exams 3 Mid-term exams
1 Final exam 1 Final exam
Quizzes Quizzes
SPEAKING & LISTENING COURSE GRADE
Figure 3.3: Descriptions of Speaking & Listening Final Course Grade
It should be pointed out that there were 2 separate instructors of English, each
teaching speaking & listening class but apart from the quizzes they were both
present during the oral exams the students took throughout the year. Most of the time
the main course classroom instructors of each class also participated in these oral
exams for the sake of the students but the grading rubric for each class was the same
and was done by these two speaking instructors in a random fashion. It should also
be added that listening exams were supplied by the teacher’s book, but the format
content and the assessment of all speaking exams were developed in accordance with
the content of the speaking course book, which is a separate from the listening book.

42
As for the speaking quizzes, they are developed by the teacher in accordance with
the topics included in the book or taken from the teacher’s book.
3.3. Research questions
The study investigates the following research questions:
1. Is there a correlation between reported use of strategies for coping with speaking
problems, reported degree of autonomy and the speaking class grade levels of the
students?
1. a Is there a correlation between reported degree of autonomy and speaking
grade levels of the students?
1. b Is there a correlation between reported use of strategies for coping with
speaking problems and speaking grade levels of the students?
2. To what extent do reported degree of autonomy and reported use of strategies for
coping with speaking problems explain speaking grade levels of the students?
3.4. Instruments
Investigating the reported level of autonomy of the students does not mean that the
students’ autonomy is declared with that questionnaire. However, the students will
have a statement of their own view of autonomy while learning a foreign language.
Apart from that speaking strategies used by the students would also reflect the
answers supplied by the students. To cut it short, the study made use of three parts
using two different questionnaires to collect data.
Questionnaire to investigate the Learner autonomy of the subjects: Claimed
to have high reliability, the questionnaire was administrated by Deng Dafei, in a
study titled “An Exploration of the Relationship between Learner Autonomy and
English Proficiency” (2007). The article was published in Asian EFL Journal and in

43
the article it is stated that the questionnaire was originally designed by Zhang & Li
(2004, p. 23). The original instrument is composed of three main parts: 21 close
ended items with multiple choice and Likert scale options and 5 open ended
questions for teachers (see Appendix A). The close ended statements used a scale
from A to E corresponding to Likert scale together with some multiple choice
questions However, the researcher chose to administer just the first part of the
questionnaire as interviewing with two teachers would not be noteworthy for the
well-documentation of the current study. The reasons for opting out this
questionnaire for the study are various. First of all, as is known learner autonomy is
not something that one may measure at once. Therefore, the number of
questionnaires measuring it would be comparatively few. As the administration of
the survey was in the middle of the term, it was not preferable to work on a
longitudinal study. Among the ones that measure the current perspective of the
students about their degree of autonomy while teaching English, this questionnaire
seemed to be the most appropriate one. Another reason for the researcher to choose
the present questionnaire was that it was stated that the items compromising the
questionnaire “were revised and predicted on the basis of the learning strategies
classified by Oxford (1990, p. 17), Wenden (1998, p. 34-52) and O’Malley and
Chamot (1990)” (as cited in Dafei, 2007) as the second part of the study would
include the coping strategies applied by the students while establishing oral
communication (id.).
Oral Communication Strategy Inventory: In order to form the second main
part of the questionnaire, the researcher used the questionnaire raised in a study titled
“Developing an Oral Communication Strategy Inventory” by Yasuo Nakatani (2006)
which was published in The Modern Language Journal. Likert scale was used in this
questionnaire. The researcher used a two-part questionnaire investigating the oral
communication strategies of the participants. However, having two separate parts as
listening and speaking coping strategies, the questionnaire seemed to be out of the
scope of the present study, therefore the second part of the questionnaire was

44
eliminated. Only the first part asking questions about coping strategies of students
during production of language was used by the researcher. (see Appendix B)
The questionnaire in question was formed after longitudinal pilot studies
administered in Japan on various students. Before the actual study was conducted,
during the piloting process, the researcher also had a correlation between Oral
Communication Strategy Inventory and Strategy Inventory for Language Learning
(SILL) (Oxford, 1990) as in the Table 3.1. The reason for this to be taken into
consideration was that Strategy Inventory for Language Learning is accepted as an
inventory in the literature of language teaching. Therefore, supplying a correlation of
those two inventories would just help to evaluate the current inventory in comparison
with an acceptable inventory, SILL.
Table 3.3: Correlation between the SILL and the OCSI
Source: Nakatani, 2006
As the Table 3.1 demonstrates there is significant positive correlations in the
speaking part for the following categories: social affective strategies, fluency-

45
oriented strategies, negotiation for meaning while speaking strategies, accuracy-
oriented strategies, message reduction and alteration strategies, nonverbal strategies
while speaking, and attempt to think in English strategies (Nakatani, 2006). Apart
from that it should also be pointed out that while SILL consists of more of so-called
good language learner strategies, for OCSI it is not the case. OCSI tries to measure
the use of all kinds of strategies during communication tasks. Therefore, it is not
surprising to come across with some discrepancies during evaluation as these two
inventories were not developed for exactly the same reason (id.). In addition to that
as a result of the study conducted by Nakatani (2006) students reported frequent use
of the SILL items tended to report frequent use of the OCSI items. This proves why
the current OCSI is to be recognized. However, it should be noted here that in the
current study, the factors would not be taken into consideration as the main focus in
not directly related to factor analyses of the items. Following the determination of the
two separate questionnaires, the researcher decided to pilot them to see the reliability
rate of each item (see Appendix C).
3.4.1. Pilot study
The participants of the pilot study included 20 students from the same
population but they didn’t participate in the actual study. They were in the same
class, which consisted of 20 students in total. The class was a representative of the
rest of the participants in the present study in that only one class among all classes
only one was of a different proficiency group than the sample for piloting.
3.4.1.1 Oral Communication Strategy Inventory
Total number of items on the questionnaire was 29 in the original version. Reliability
of the items was calculated on a sample of 20 students representing the total number
of participants. They were selected at random fashion. One of the classes containing

46
students from all grade levels was selected. Cronbach’s Alpha value was found to be
as low as .542 with 29 questionnaire items on the research tool.
Likewise Inter Item Correlation values proved that some items on the questionnaire
seemed to be totally insignificant with the other items on the questionnaire.
Following the deletion of the specified items on the questionnaire in accordance with
the calculation of the program SPSS, the questionnaire reached a higher value of
reliability. The questionnaire items that were deleted were Q2, Q6, Q12, Q22, Q23,
Q27, Q28, Q29. As a result of this change in the content as well as design of the
questionnaire, 21 items remained in the final draft with a Cronbach’ Alpha value of
.847. According to Nakatani (2006) Oral Communication Strategy Inventory has
good internal consistency, with a Cronbach’ Alpha coefficient reported of .86. In the
current study, Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient, with a few corrected and changed items
was .847 with 21 questionnaire items in the end.
3.4.1.2 Questionnaire on Learner Autonomy
As the second part of the whole survey questions were structured by questionnaire on
learner autonomy, reliability calculation and item deletion procedures would be
applied for the present questionnaire, as well. In the original study (Dafei, 2007;
Zhang and Li, 2004) the reliability and content validity of the questionnaire is
mentioned as “high” (Dafei, 2007, p. 10), however, with respect to this
questionnaire, it should be noted that the sample of participants would change so, to
make sure, Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient was also calculated like in the previous
questionnaire. Reliability statistics demonstrated that the items on the questionnaire
were of low reliability according to the results of the pilot study statistics.
Cronbach’s Alpha value was found to be of .512 having 21 questionnaire items.

47
Therefore, having 21 items, the questionnaire would have higher Cronbach’s Alpha
coefficient if some items indicated by statistical calculations were deleted. Therefore,
Q7, Q10, Q11, Q13, Q14, Q19, Q20 were deleted from the questionnaire to reach
Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of .709 with remaining 14 questionnaire items.
The present part of the study seemed to be less reliable when compared to the
previous questionnaire. For such reasons, following the reliability test, some items
were excluded from the questionnaire. As a result of the piloting studies both of the
questionnaires reached an acceptable Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient value. For now,
suffice it to say that the calculations proved that the study is sufficiently ready to be
administered.
In addition to these separate reliability calculations both of the questionnaires (OCSI-
Speaking Part and Learner Autonomy Questionnaire) were combined in order to
check the overall coefficient value. The outcome value was again as high as .828
with a total 35 items. These statistical findings for reliability statistics prove these
tools to be acceptable.
Following the piloting studies, the necessary data to redesign the study was collected
and necessary modifications were made in accordance with the results before the
actual study took place. However, it should be pointed out that in order to facilitate
the interpretation and the comparison of the questionnaire items and the original
studies, each questionnaire item was assigned the numbers they had at the initial
stage of piloting. Like, if the questionnaire item Q1 is deleted during piloting data
analysis, the code assigned to question two would remained as Q2 (see Appendix D)
to facilitate comparisons and contrasts.

48
3.5. Data Collection Procedure
The questionnaire on learner autonomy and the oral communication strategy
inventory were redesigned in accordance with the objectives of the present study. As
some small changes were made on the design of the questionnaires and they were
translated into Turkish, there may be some need to check the reliability of the
questionnaire. To eliminate these shadows over the study, the researcher back
translated each item in the questionnaire. Following this, each part of the
questionnaire was piloted in order to avoid possible misinterpretations and similar
problems. As Dörnyei (2007) points out, “just like theatre performances, a research
study also needs a dress rehearsal to ensure the high quality (in terms of reliability
and validity) of the outcomes in the specific context” (p. 75). After the pilot study
was administered, the data was analysed via SPSS 13.0 and some items on each
questionnaire was decided to be removed to design the final draft of the
questionnaire.
After the pilot study was administered on 20 students before the actual study was
administered. The students’ grade level of speaking consisted of all levels.
Participants from six different classes supplied responses for the questions towards
the end of the term as the students would have developed some kind of strategy
towards speaking coping strategies then. Following the administration of the
questionnaire, some students commented on the necessity of such kind of studies.
As the final part of the study, at the end of the term the speaking portion of their
speaking and listening class was calculated for 102 students and the data was put into
analysis.

49
3.6. Data Analysis
After all the data were collected, in order to analyze the quantitative data, the
Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) was used. Especially descriptive and
statistical procedures were used to present the data and draw conclusions. As for the
questionnaires, the items on the five-point Likert scale were assessed as values
ranging from 1 to 5. ANOVA and MANOVA tests were used to show the differences
among grade levels with regard to the answers each grade level group supplied for
the questionnaire items. In addition to that, Tukey’s HSD test was used for post hoc
analysis in order to find out the exact spot of differentiation where significant results
were indicated in the ANOVA and MANOVA tests. Before all of these analyses
were conducted a piloting has been carried out.
3.7. Limitations of the Study
The present study investigates the correlation between learner autonomy, ue of
strategies for coping with speaking problems and the speaking grade levels of the
students. However, the study is not devoid of limitations.
There are two limitations that need to be acknowledged and addressed regarding the
present study. The first one of these is the limited number of research tools assessing
learners’ degree of present autonomy. It created difficulties in specifying the degree
of autonomy the students have at the time of the administration of the questionnaire.
The second limitation has to do with the extent to which the findings can be
generalized beyond the case studied. The small sample of study is obviously a
constraint which makes the interpretation of the results limited. The results obtained
in this study may not be sufficient enough to account for the general tendencies as
the number of participants is too small for broad generalizations; however the
findings still reflect some aspects of the issue in question.

50
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
4.0. Presentation
This chapter presents the analyses of the results of the two-part questionnaires on
learner autonomy and speaking part of Oral Communication Strategy Inventory.
The data was interpreted in relation to the research questions formulated for the
study and the aim in this chapter was to investigate the answers for these questions.
4.1. Data Analysis-Oral Communication Strategy Inventory-Strategies for
Coping with Speaking Problems
4.1.1 Relationship between OCSI-Strategies for Coping with Speaking
Problems and the Speaking Grade Level
The data related to the first part of the whole study were analysed with several
measurement methods and tools. First of all, the proficiency groups were grouped
according to their cumulative speaking grades at the end of the term. According to
this, the students who had an average 0-69, 70-79, and 80-100 were grouped as low
proficient, intermediate, and high proficient. The grouping was done by taking the
grading and passing system of the preparatory classes. Following the grouping, mean
value for the answers of each question was calculated for each grade level. The
results demonstrate that there are significant differences among different speaking
grade levels (Table 4.1).

51
Table 4.1 Mean Scores of Questionnaire Items for Each Speaking Grade Level
QUESTION CODE Low
proficiency
N=37
M
Intermediate
N=36
M
High
proficiency
N=29
M
Q1: I think first of what I want to
say in my native language and then
construct the English sentence.
4.08 3.83 3.89
Q3: I use words which are familiar
to me.
3.21 4.11 4.03
Q4: I reduce the message and use
simple expressions.
3.29 4.13 4.03
Q5: I replace the original message
with another message because of
feeling incapable of executing my
original intent.
3.02 3.33 3.68
Q7: I pay attention to grammar and
word order during conversation.
3.32 3.63 3.89
Q8: I try to emphasize the subject
and verb of the sentence.
2.78 3.08 2.82
Q9: I change my way of saying
things according to the context.
3.24 3.38 3.58
Q10: I take my time to express
what I want to say.
3.16 3.36 3.78
Q11: I pay attention to my
pronunciation.
3.35 4.05 4.13
Q13: I pay attention to my rhythm
and intonation.
2.54 3.00 2.9
Q14: I pay attention to the
conversation flow.
3.18 3.58 3.82

52
Q15: I try to make eye-contact
when I am talking.
3.75 4.08 4
Q16: I use gestures and facial
expressions if I can’t communicate
how to express myself.
3.97 3.75 3.79
Q17: I correct myself when I notice
that I have made a mistake.
3.75 4.08 4.27
Q18: I notice myself using an
expression which fits a rule that I
have learned.
2.91 3.86 3.58
Q19: While speaking, I pay
attention to the listener’s reaction to
my speech.
3.62 4.44 4.44
Q20: I give examples if the listener
doesn’t understand what I am saying.
3.45 3.77 4.10
Q21: I repeat what I want to say
until the listener understands.
3.08 3.02 3.41
Q24: I try to give a good
impression to the listener.
3.64 4.16 4.00
Q25: I don’t mind taking risks even
though I might make mistakes.
3.56 3.63 3.31
Q26: I try to enjoy the conversation 2.91 3.61 3.37
The results in Table 4.1 illustrate very different aspects of reported use of strategies
for coping with speaking problems. Each question will be handled in identical
groups.
The mean values for the following statements prove that there is a difference
between the mean values of low proficiency and high proficiency groups. However,

53
the responses of the intermediate group seem to be a bit unstable. These statements
are listed below.
Q7 ( I pay attention to grammar and word order during conversation),
Q9 (I change my way of saying things according to the context),
Q10 (I take my time to express what I want to say),
Q11 (I pay attention to my pronunciation),
Q14 ( I pay attention to the conversation flow),
Q15 (I try to make eye-contact when I am talking),
Q17 ( I correct myself when I notice that I have made a mistake),
Q18 (I notice myself using an expression which fits a rule that I have
learned),
Q19 ( While speaking, I pay attention to the listener’s reaction to my speech),
Q20 (I give examples if the listener doesn’t understand what I am saying),
Q21 (I repeat what I want to say until the listener understands),
Q24 (I try to give a good impression to the listener),
Q3 (I use words which are familiar to me),
Q4 (I reduce the message and use simple expressions)
Q5 (I replace the original message with another message because of feeling
incapable of executing my original intent),
Q26 (I try to enjoy the conversation).
Although there mean values differ for the statements mentioned, the difference
between the intermediate group and high proficiency group is not significant
meaning that they did nearly the same on most of the statements on these
questionnaire items.
On the other hand, the statements below are also worth mentioning because the mean
value for all proficiency levels is nearly the same and even higher for low

54
proficiency group or intermediate group for some of the items. These statements are
listed below.
Q1 ( I think first of what I want to say in my native language and then construct
the English sentence),
Q8 ( I try to emphasize the subject and verb of the sentence),
Q13 (I pay attention to my rhythm and intonation),
Q16 ( I use gestures and facial expressions if I can’t communicate how to
express myself),
Q25 ( I don’t mind taking risks even though I might make mistakes) are
This shows us that there is not a regular or expected significant difference among the
answers of the students from different proficiency groups. These items of the
questionnaire will be investigated further to see the reasons behind the insignificance
through some statistical calculations.
The questionnaire item Q1 (I think first of what I want to say in my native language
and then construct the English sentence) is contradictory with regard to the literature.
According to current language teaching methodologies, the students are encouraged
first to think in their target language instead of building up sentences in the native
language and then translate it in the mind and then speak out. Such an approach to
speaking is taken for granted in EFL teaching circles. According to Wenden, for
instance, (1991, pp. 41-42) successful language learners “actively attempt to develop
the target language into a separate reference system and try to think in the target
language as soon as possible” meaning that this kind of a strategy may not be
appreciated in all circles. Therefore, the high mean value of low proficiency group is
not a sign of lack of successful strategy use for the other two groups rather such an
output of the study supports the claim that high proficiency groups are better
speakers because they apply the best methods competently. As thinking in native
language is not much favored in the current pedagogy, low proficiency group lacks

55
such kind of strategy training. Actually, Nakatani’s following words explain the
reasons for this result to be recorded. “as already mentioned the SILL consists
mainly of so-called good language learner strategies. On the other hand, the OCSI
aims to measure all kinds of strategies for oral communication tasks. Because these
two scales were developed for slightly different purposes, it is reasonable to find a
little discrepancy between self-reported strategy use on these two scales.” (2006, p.
159).
As for item Q8 (I try to emphasize the subject and verb of the sentence), it is
observed that while there is not a significant difference between low and high
proficiency groups, intermediate group seems to score higher. This may be
interpreted as lack of knowledge of structure for low proficiency group because they
try to survive while speaking let alone stressing some patterns of speech. As for high
proficiency group, they try to speak fluently so conversation flow (Q14) and being
clear (Q20) are more important for them than emphasizing the subject or paying
attention to rhythm and intonation (Q13). This may also be due to the lack of
awareness in pronunciation training of the students.
Another question type is Q16 (I use gestures and facial expressions if I can’t
communicate how to express myself). What makes the question worthy of mentioning
is that the highest for low proficiency group. This highlights the fact that among 102
participants low proficient speakers of English tend to use facial expressions more
often than other group of speakers. The reason for this may be their feeling of
insufficiency in expressing themselves. Therefore, they use gestures and facial
expressions to bridge a stronger communication channel with the listener. However,
this may also be interpreted in a different way, because more successful speakers
may be sometimes the ones who are competent at using facial expression
appropriately.

56
Although questionnaire item Q25 (I don’t mind taking risks even though I might
make mistakes) does not seem to make sense when it is compared to the results of the
original study and the current situations as well because usually the students with
high speaking grade level seem to be risk takers in the classroom as they behave in a
more self-confident way. However, the sample of students suggest that even though
it is not very significant, intermediate group of learners and low proficient speakers
seem to take risks more often than high proficient group of speakers. This may be
due to the fact that they are more aware and conscious of the rule within the
language. This result may again be due to the fact that the questionnaire does not
measure the use of just strategies of successful language learners but all of the
strategies that can be used.
To conclude, the results of these investigations highlight that majority of the
questions (76 %) proves that there is a difference between high and low proficiency
groups with respect to the use of strategies for coping with speaking problems but
there are still some questions which make no difference. This result supports the
hypothesis that “the students who did better in the speaking class turn out to report
themselves as better in applying strategies. However, this difference is not significant
for the comparisons of intermediate group and there are still some questions which
do not support the hypothesis (24 %) as is demonstrated in Table 4.1. However, these
are just mathematical calculations, so statistical calculation will tell us whether these
levels of significance are enough to make generalizations.
4.1.2. Statistical Differences between Different Groups of Speaking
Grade Level
As there are three main groups of speaking grade levels and 21 questionnaire items
on the questionnaire, in order to find out whether there are significant differences
which are recorded among groups of speakers on a linear combination of the
dependent variables, MANOVA test was used. Before passing on the discussion of

57
each item on the questionnaire, the significant difference among different speaking
proficiency group of learners would be evaluated. In order to investigate this, a
multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted. The results are
demonstrated in the following table.
Table 4.2: Results of Multivariate Analysis Tests for OCSI-Speaking Part
As is seen in Table 4.2 between groups a multivariate analysis of variance was
performed to investigate differences in use of reported use of strategies for coping
with speaking problems. 21 dependent variables were used that are questionnaire
items on the questionnaire. The independent variables were the speaking proficiency
groups of EFL learners which was referred to as “notgrup” in the third left row of the
Table 4.2. It should be affirmed that preliminary assumption testing was conducted
to check linearity and no violations noted.
There was a significant difference among speaking proficiency groups with a Sig.
value of .009, .015, .005, and .000 for Wilks' Lambda, Pillai's Trace, Hotelling's
Trace, Roy's Largest Root, respectively. As a result of “Test of between Subjects
Effects”, an inspection of mean scores indicated that some of the items on the

58
questionnaire reported higher significance value in explaining the differences among
groups which will be analyzed and discussed in the following section.
4.1.3. Analysis of Questionnaire Items.
As significant results on the MANOVA test of significance was obtained, each of the
questionnaire items was to be investigated further in relation to each dependent
variable. The Test of between Subjects Effects output box was used to find out the
relationship among each questionnaire item and their distribution among speaking
proficiency groups. The df., F and Sig. values for each item are displayed below.
Table 4.3: Results of Test of Between-Subjects Effects
As is seen in the Sig. column of Table 4.3 any values that are less than 0.17 is
searched for because in the Test of Between-Subjects Effects, the number of
dependent variables in this study is three therefore the researcher would divide .05
value by three giving new Alpha level of .017. In other words, the results will be

59
significant only if the probability value (Sig.) is less than .017. In the Sig. column,
those values belong to questionnaire items Q5, Q7, Q11, Q14, Q17, Q18, Q19, Q20,
Q24 and Q26. These questions are different from the rest of the questions with
regard to the level of significance which will be discussed in detail.
In addition to the results of MANOVA tests calculations, Post Hoc comparisons
using Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean difference is significant in the same
questions (see Appendix E) supporting the following calculations of Homogenous
Subsets using Tukey and Duncan Tests.
To start with, Table 4.4 reveals some values concerning item Q1 in the questionnaire.
Table 4.4: Results of Homogenous Subsets Test for questionnaire item Q1
“I think first of what I want to say in my native language and then construct the
English sentence.”
Table 4.4 demonstrates the subsets with “notgrup” referring to each group of
speaking of proficiency. Value 2.00 refers to intermediate, value 3.00 refers to high
proficiency and 1.00 refers to low proficiency group of English speakers. As Tukey
HSD and Duncan tests suggest, the answers to the questionnaire among groups is not
significant enough to constitute two or more different subsets. The case is the same
for items Q3, Q4, Q8, Q9, Q10, Q15, Q16 and Q25. The following table belongs to

60
these items on the questionnaire and the point they have in common can be seen
when the mean score of Tukey’s HSD and Duncan tests were compared and
contrasted for each group.
Table 4.5: Results of Homogenous Subsets Test for questionnaire items Q3 Q4, Q8,
Q9, Q10, Q15, Q16 and Q25

62
Some of the questions observed in the table are the ones that we have mentioned
during mathematical calculations. However, those calculations were just to show
even the slightest difference while statistical calculations regard differences among
groups that are only significant. As a result, in addition to Q1, Q8, Q13, Q16 and
Q25, questionnaire items Q3, Q4, Q9, Q10, Q15, and Q21 were also observed to
create no significant difference that would be enough to form separate subsets.
With regard to the rest of the questionnaire items it can be stated that they all form
two subsets. To begin with Table 4.6, it demonstrates that there is a significant
difference between the mean scores of two groups, value 3.00 referring to high and
1.00 referring to low proficiency group of speakers. As is seen below the mean score
for low proficiency group is 3.0541 while the mean score for high proficiency group
I 3.6897 meaning that there is a difference between total of the answers of the
participants with low and high grade levels.

63
Table 4.6: Results of Homogenous Subsets Test for Questionnaire item Q5
“I replace the original message with another message because of feeling incapable
of executing my original intent.”
The case is more or the less the same for Q7, Q11, Q 14, Q 19, Q 20, Q 24, and
Q 26.

64
Table 4.7: Results of Homogenous Subsets Test for Questionnaire items Q7, Q11, Q
14, Q 19, Q 20, Q 24, and Q 26
“I pay attention to grammar and word order during conversation” “I pay attention to the conversation flow”
“I take my time to express what I want to say” “I correct myself when I notice that I have made a mistake”
“I notice myself using an expression which fits a rule that “I give examples if the listener doesn’t understand what I
I have learned” am saying”

65
“While speaking, I pay attention to the listener’s reaction “I try to give a good impression to the listener”
to my speech”
“I try to enjoy the conversation”
As is demonstrated in Table 4.7 two subsets for each item mean that there is a
significant difference among the answers of the two groups. These results were
acquired via Duncan and Tukey HSD tests and all these statistical calculations
support the previous mathematical calculations (see Table 4.1) with a slight
difference, as in Table 4.1 even slightest significance values among group were
regarded to count as a difference however, the current values reveals the statistical
approach to the issue. However, still suffice it to say that all prove that the speaking

66
proficiency of the participants is significantly correlated with the strategies they self-
reported in the questionnaire.
4.2. Data Analysis - Questionnaire on Learner Autonomy
4.2.1 Relationship between Reported Degree of Learner Autonomy and
Speaking Grade Level of the Students.
In the second part of the data analysis, the answers of the students to the learner
autonomy questionnaire and the speaking grade levels of the students were compared
in order to look for some kind a link between them.
As there are more than two groups whose mean scores to be compared, One-way
analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed (See Table 4.8). The results of the
analysis, which would be discussed in detail further on, demonstrates that the
questionnaire item with an F value of greater than 2.76 and with Sig. value of less
than .05 is considered to be significantly different, meaning that effects are real. It
should be also be noted that preliminary assumption testing was conducted to check
linearity and no violations noted.
As overall ANOVA results suggest that there is a significant difference, Multiple
Comparisons Data Output Box tells us exactly where these differences among groups
occur. When we look at the columns labeled Mean Difference (Appendix F), some
asterisks (*) next to values are listed. The value with asterisk means that the two
groups being compared are significantly different from one another at the p < .05
level. In order to see the larger picture, below are the results of ANOVA test of
questionnaire on learner autonomy.

67
Table 4.8: ANOVA Results for Questionnaire on Learner Autonomy
As is observed in Table 4.8, the answers supplied by different groups of speaking
proficiency creates significant differences in questionnaire items Q1, Q2, Q4, Q8,
Q9, Q12, Q16, Q18 and Q21. For the rest of the items, there is no significant
difference recorded. In other words, although the answers of different groups vary
this variance is not significant enough as the mean scores are so close to each other.

68
Out of 14 items on the questionnaire 9 items prove that there is a positive correlation
between reported degree of autonomy and speaking grade levels of the students. The
questions leading to this interpretation together with the ones which does not support
this view would be investigated in detail.
4.2.2. Analysis of the Questionnaire Items
To be able to evaluate each and every item, Homogenous subsets test will be utilized.
The results on this test would give the researcher the chance to assess the subsets
formed in detail.
To begin with, the answers of the participants to Q1 (I think I have the ability to
learn English well.) underpins the significant difference between low proficiency
group and high proficiency group of speakers as Table 4.9 suggests.
Table 4.9: Homogenous Subsets Results for questionnaire item Q1
“I think I have the ability to learn English well”
As is demonstrated in the table, the mean score for low proficiency group of speakers
is 3.0811 while this score is 4.0690 for high proficiency group, referring that the
answers given to the questionnaire makes difference with regard to groups of
speakers from different grade levels Furthermore, the reason for the subsets’ not

69
forming three groups is obvious. When we look at the mean score of grade level 2.00
(3.6944), there seems to be no significance between grade levels 3.00. and 2.00
meaning that the participants of those groups regard themselves nearly the same with
respect to their degree of autonomy. The low proficiency group of speakers does not
believe that they have the ability to learn English well as high proficiency group of
learners do in the current study.
The second item on the questionnaire is labeled as Q2 and the illustrative table for it
is supplied below.
“I make good use of my free time in English study”
Table 4.10 shows the results for the question “I make good use of my free time in
English study” just like in the previous question, the answers of the students prove
that the participants actually know themselves and they are aware of the fact that
they are wasting or making use of their times while studying. The low proficiency
group of speakers states that they are not good at make the most of their time while
studying.

70
To pass on another questionnaire item Q4, it can be stated that the significance
between the answers of high and low proficiency groups is again significant. Table
4.11 demonstrates this obviously.
“I find I can finish my task in time”
The students from low speaking grade level stated that they are not good at finishing
a task in time, while participants from intermediate and high speaking grade level do
as Tukey HSD and Duncan Tests demonstrate. Even the grade level 2.00 is the best
in finishing the tasks in time according to the statistical calculations.
The next item is Q8 having a slightly different nature when compared to the items
described up to now. The difference is seen in the following table.

71
“I attend out-class activities to practice and learn the language.”
The subsets are formed due to the significant difference between the answers of low
and high proficient speakers but this time the mean score of participants with average
grades is different. It is closer to the mean score of low proficiency group meaning
that intermediate speakers and low proficient speakers attend out-class activities to
practice and learn the language less often than speakers from high speaking grade
levels. This may be interpreted as a very good explanation for students’ success in
the speaking classes. These students from high grade level know how to take charge
of their own speaking development by creating chances for themselves, thus they can
make use of strategies more competently and get higher grades. These factors are
interraelated.
The following questionnaire item is Q9 (During the class, I try to catch chances to
take part in activities such as pair/group discussion, role-play, etc.). This item is
very much related to the speaking skills development of the students as well as their
learner autonomy. Table 4.13 summarizes the results.

72
“During the class, I try to catch chances to take part in activities such as pair /
group discussion, role-play, etc”.
As Table 4.13 shows the higher the grades of the students, the more the student takes
part in class activities or vice versa. It proves the idea that the students should be
encouraged to take part in classroom activities to develop their communication skills
in a foreign language. Similarly, autonomous language learning encourages learners
participating in classroom activities, group discussion as the teacher is more in the
position of a guide rather than the “teacher” of some subjects.
The questionnaire item Q12 is not much different with regard to the subsets it formed
however; the item differs in that it is a multiple choice sentence completion. The
statement and the choices are as follows:
“I study English here due to:
A. my parents' demand
B. curiosity
C. getting a good job, help to my major
D. interest of English culture, such as film, sports, music, etc.
E. C and D”

73
The items are again evaluated according to Likert scale calculations, according to the
answers of the student groups. The following graph demonstrates the differences in
mean score of each grade level.
Figure 4.1: Mean plots for Questionnaire Item Q12
As is seen above, the mean score for grade level 1.00 is below 2.50 while it is nearly
3.5 for grade level 2.00 and 3.00. Here, grade level 2.00 is recorded as more
autonomous than grade level 3.00 but the difference is not significant.
As for questionnaire items Q16 and Q18 it is seen that the difference between grade
level 1.00 and 3.00 (2.00, as well) is more significant as is illustrated in the following
graphs.

74
This figure illustrates the results of the answers were given to the following
statement and its choices:
When the teacher asks questions for us to answer, I would mostly like to:
A. wait for others' answers
B. think and ready to answer
C. look up books, dictionaries
D. clarify questions with teachers
E. join a pair/group discussion
The more a student autonomous the more he or she participates in classroom
activities and this result suggests the following statement of Esch and St.John (2003)
concerning constructivist learning of languages with regard to learner autonomy.
According to them, “Learning is viewed as a social event: learning needs to be
embedded in social experiences, instructional goals, objectives and content should be
negotiated and not imposed; learners should work primarily in groups and most of
the learning outcomes result from cooperation” (p. 20).This statement also support
supports the results of the analysis.

75
As for the results of the item Q18, which is recorded in the questionnaire as in the
following, they are not different in comparison with the item Q16.
When I make mistakes in study, I'd usually like the following ones to correct them:
A. let them be
B. teachers
C. classmates
D. others
E. books or dictionaries
The figure demonstrating the mean slot is as follows:
Here, the thing is that the participant students who have scored higher (grade level
2.00 and 3.00) are less dependent on their teacher and other students. Rather it seems
that they have already developed their sense of responsibility for their own learning
by referring books and other resources more often than the students from the grade
level 1.00.

76
As for the item Q21 it is not surprising that the grade level 1.00 and 3.00 scored
nearly the same but not the grade level 2.00 because the statement and its choices
was as in the following:
I usually use materials selected:
A. only by teachers
B. mostly by teachers
C. by teachers and by myself
D. mostly by myself
E. only by myself
The Figure 4.4 illustrates the mean scores by striking attention to the score of grade
level 2.00.
What makes this distribution striking is that while grade level 1.00 and 3.00 scored
nearly the same on the questionnaire item concerning the selection of materials,
intermediate group of speakers scored relatively high on that. The reason may be due
to the nature of the study as there is directly not a correlation between speaking grade
levels of the students and materials selection. The reasons for the low score of the

77
high proficient speakers may be various but the results may also be specific to the
sample of participants.
Up to now, the questionnaire items on which the groups scored in a significantly
different way were discussed. And now, the questionnaire items which revealed no
significant difference among the answers of the grade levels will be considered.
To start with, item Q3 and Q5 did not make difference in creating separate subsets.
The following tables show the means for each group.
Table 4.14: Homogenous Subset for Questionnaire Item Q3
“I preview before the class”

78
“I keep a record of my study, such as keeping a diary, writing review etc.”
As is obvious previewing before class and keeping a learning diary kind of studies
are not favored much by Turkish EFL learners. Regardless of their grade level of
speaking English, they do not choose to study in those specific ways
It is not surprising that the answers given to the questionnaire item Q6 did not create
any significance among grade levels. The reason is hidden in the statement:
“I make self-exam with the exam papers chosen by myself”

79
To tell the truth, this is not a common thing most of the students do during their
studies. For further research, this statement may be replaced with something like “On
my own, I prepare some questions to check myself in order to study for the exam”.
However, this might still not make any difference due to students’ finding it
unnecessary.
The last two items on the questionnaire are Q15 and Q17 and their mean scores and
subsets are shown in the following tables.
Whether students should design the teaching plan together with teachers
or not, my opinion is:
A. strongly agree
B. agree
C. neutral
D. oppose
E. strongly oppose

80
As is noticed the question is a bit contrary to the Turkish traditional education system
which is “to oppose” the plan the teacher offers. Viewed in this light, the mean
scores of each group and the insignificant values are not surprising.
When I meet a word I don't know, I mainly:
A. let it go
B. ask others
C. guess the meaning
D. B and E
E. look up the dictionary
For this questionnaire item (Table 4.18), the students agreed that they do not let the
unknown words go but rather they try to learn it in a way and all of the ways are
appropriate for them as the mean score suggests and the grade levels do not make
any difference in that by also eliminating the differences in the reported degree of
autonomy.

81
To conclude, one way-between group analysis of variance was conducted to explore
the impact of grade levels in speaking classes of the participants on their degree of
learner autonomy. There was statistically significant difference in questionnaire
items Q1, Q2, Q4, Q8, Q9, Q12, Q16, Q18 and Q21 among different grade levels. In
addition to reaching statistical significance the actual difference in mean scores
between the grade levels was also high. The Post Hoc comparisons using the Tukey
HSD test also indicated that the mean scores were also different for the same items
on the questionnaire (see Table 4.18).
As the majority of the questionnaire items (9 out of 14) proves there is a high
positive correlation between the speaking grade levels of the students and their
reported degree of learner autonomy.
When the results of data analysis belonging to the use of strategies for coping with
speaking problems and the results of this data analysis were combined it is not
difficult to see the linkage between those two variables. On the whole, the students
from high speaking grade level scored high on the first part of the research tool as
well as they scored high on the second part. Likewise, the case is the same for the
students from low speaking grade level as they scored worse on both of the
questionnaires. All of these data which were investigated proves that there is a
mutual and direct correlation among those three variables: speaking grade level,
learner autonomy and use of strategies for coping with speaking problems.
4.3. Discussion of the Results
Statistical calculations demonstrate that there is a positive correlation between
speaking grade levels of the students and reported degree of autonomy and use of
coping strategies while speaking English. This is a sign of the fact that the students,
who are good at using the strategies in question, reported themselves as autonomous
in comparison with the other groups, as well. The correlation is again positive for

82
low proficiency speakers of English. However, with intermediate speakers, the
correlation is not obvious as there is no significant difference between the answers of
the high proficiency students and them. Therefore, as is obvious, the more the
students report themselves as autonomous and competent in the use of strategies in
question; the higher grades they have speaking class. Actually, the results gained on
both questionnaires support both of the results in the original studies (Dafei, 2007;
Nakatani, 2006).
Although in the study of Dafei, the researcher investigated the relationship between
learner autonomy and English proficiency, the findings were similar to the ones
found in the current study as it confirms the conclusion of Dafei (2006) that “the
students’ English proficiency was significantly and positively related to their learner
autonomy, and there are no significant differences among the students’ learner
autonomy when their English proficiency is not significantly different. But there are
significant differences among the students’ learner autonomy when their English
proficiency is significantly different. These findings imply that the more autonomous
a learner becomes, the more likely he/she achieves high language proficiency.”
These findings are very much like the findings that the current study comes up with
but with an exception, which is the aspect of strategy use results of the participants.
As for the Strategies for Coping with Speaking Problems Questionnaire (Nakatani,
2006), it is observed that in the original study, the researcher categorized the items
on the questionnaire into factors and among those factors only in 3 factors out of 8
factors noted as significantly different with regard to the answers of low proficiency
and high proficiency groups. The researcher summarizes this as “Regarding the
speaking part, the high oral proficiency group reported more use of the following
three categories than the low oral proficiency group: social affective strategies,
fluency-oriented strategies, and negotiation for meaning while speaking strategies.
The results indicate that students who recognized their use of these three types of

83
strategies were judged as higher level speakers of English” (Nakatani, 2006).
However, in order to interpret these results in comparison with the results of the
current study, it is necessary to know the corresponding questionnaire item of these
three factors. It is listed in the following table.
Table 4.19: Factors and codes of corresponding questionnaire items in the current
study
CATEGORY CORRESPONDING
QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS
1. Social Affective Strategies Q24, Q25, Q26
2. Fluency Oriented Strategies Q9, Q10, Q11, Q12, Q13, Q14
3. Negotiation for meaning while
speaking
Q19, Q20, Q21
Out of these questionnaire items that belong to three factors, which are found to
create significant difference among the answers of the grade levels, six items
corresponds to the original study with regard to the results. In other words, under the
category of Social Affective Strategies, the answers of the participant of the current
study to items Q24 and Q26 created significant difference among grade levels.
As for the second factor, on only two items Q11, Q14 a significant difference was
observed with respect to the answers supplied by the participants.
Finally, the answers of the students to the statements Q19, Q20 demonstrated that
there occurs a significant difference and these items correspond to the factor
negotiation for meaning while speaking.

84
As is obvious, the findings of each separate questionnaire support each other and the
previous results found out by the original studies themselves.
The study also provided some useful insights with regard to the weak points of the
research tool itself in order to be used in further research studies which will be
carried out.

85
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION
5.0. Presentation
The chapter presents the summary of the study, and then discusses the results
analyzed in the previous chapter. Then, the chapter ends up with implications for
English language teaching and suggestions for further research.
5.1. Summary of the Study
There were two basic foci of the study as it was designed with an aim to unfold the
relationship between learner autonomy, use of strategies for coping with speaking
problems and the success in English speaking class, which will be the classified
speaking grade levels. Up to now, a great number of studies were conducted on
various aspects of strategies for coping with speaking problems use and learner
autonomy. However, there are nearly no studies carried out combining these two
variables in relation to success. With a need to investigate these two factors a
questionnaire was designed. The questionnaire consisted of four parts, and in the first
part, some questions about the participants were asked. The data which would be
supplied in this part were necessary to make calculations of gender and age
distribution together with the specification of the cumulative speaking grades of the
participants. The second part was an adaptation of the questionnaire which is
originally called Oral Communication Strategy Inventory by Nakatani (2006).
However, it is should be noted that the original study consisted of two parts, first for
speaking and second for listening strategies. In the present study, only speaking part
was utilized (see Appendix B).

86
Upon completion of the first part, second part of the current study was to be
designed. The questionnaire on learner autonomy was adapted from Dafei (2007) and
Zhang and Li (2004)’s study (see Appendix A). The original study consisted of three
subsections. The first and second sub sections of original questionnaire consisting of
multiple choice and Likert scale items were utilized. Therefore, these two
subsections formed the third and fourth part of the current research tool with an aim
to assess the degree of learner autonomy of the participants. Then a piloting session
was performed on 20 students within a sample of the same group of participants. The
reliability statistics were calculated for each part of the questionnaire. For the first
part assessing the use of strategies for coping with speaking problems and the second
part which is assessing the degree of autonomy the Cronbach’s Alpha value raised
from .459 to 845 and from .512 to .709, respectively. In addition to that, a
reliability calculation was conducted on the whole questionnaire in a combined
version following the piloting studies and the Cronsbach’s Alpha coefficient was
found to be .828.
Following the design of the final draft of the research tool, the actual study was
conducted on 102 participants. The participants were preparatory class students from
various departments such as economics, business administration, electrics and
electronics engineering and chemistry at Dumlupinar University in Kutahya. After
the administration of the study, the data were analyzed via MANOVA and ANOVA
tests.
As a result, the relationship between learner autonomy and the use of strategies for
coping with speaking problems and speaking proficiency of the participants were
calculated.

87
5.2. Summary of the Findings
As a result of statistical calculations, it was found that there is a positive correlation
between speaking grade levels of the students and their reported degree of autonomy
and use of coping strategies while speaking English. This proves that the students,
who are good at using the strategies in question, reported themselves as autonomous
in comparison with the other groups, as well. Likewise, the students from low
speaking grade level also turned out to score low in reporting their degree of
autonomy and use of strategies for coping with speaking problems. However, with
intermediate speakers, the correlation is not obvious as there is no significant
difference between the answers of the high proficiency students and them. Therefore,
as is obvious, the more the students report themselves as autonomous and competent
in the use of strategies in question; the higher grades they have speaking class.
5.3. Implications for ELT
The purpose of the study was roughly to investigate the relationship among
autonomy, strategy use and speaking grade level. The results supported that there is a
positive correlation among those factors.
Therefore, the first desirable endpoint should be some kind of modification on the
curriculum of language teaching in terms of development of learner autonomy. More
chances for student’s developing autonomy should be given so that they would get
used to it and be more successful in communication skills. The first step is to have
some modification not only in the teacher training but also in the language teaching
curriculum design because, it may not be enough just to define autonomy in theory
without any application. To achieve this aim, in the language teaching curriculum
there should be more communication involved rather then mere structure teaching.
When the students take part in group and pair work discussions they develop their
autonomy. More peer feedback and peer evaluation in addition to self-assessment

88
should be promoted in the language classes. However, it deserves attention that
group and pair work study increases individualization as each student should have a
saying during these studies, leading to development of autonomy. The current
primary school curriculum of Ministry of National Education supports learner
autonomy with the theory and applications inside the classes. Main departure point is
constructivism and the classroom applications also prove it. Project- based learning,
students portfolios, promoting inquiry methods and more group and pair work are
some of thee applications. The role of the teacher seems to be more passive and the
role of the student is more active, teacher being the guide rather than “being the
person who teaches”.
The findings of the study also seem to endorse the integration of strategies for coping
with speaking problems use into the curriculum of the language teaching and
learning. However, such an approach calls for training of the teachers of English
with respect to conveying the use of strategies while speaking. Without this, strategy
use can never go beyond being in theory rather than becoming an integral part of the
speaking classes. The students should not only be asked to speak but also be trained
how to speak in the most competent way. Thus, they would be able to combine the
knowledge of language and structure they have in their minds and knowledge of
strategies for coping with speaking problems use. As a result, they would cope with
the problems they face during the communication. In order this to happen, a similar
modification in the teacher training curriculum and language teaching curriculum
should be carried out. More including more strategy training would solve the
problem when it is combined with elements of developing autonomy in language
learner. For instance, teacher should be equipped with more ways to train their
students in using various speaking strategies, and how to use them appropriately and
effectively both outside and inside the classroom.
The desirable endpoint is not just the success but rather “classrooms” and “teachers”
compatible with and supportive of learner autonomy and strategy use and training.

89
In order all these and more to be integrated into the curriculum, a change both in the
teacher training curriculum and language teaching curriculum is appreciated.
Therefore, both students and the teacher would have more freedom inside the classes,
a freedom paving the way for better learning experiences.
5.4. Suggestion for Further Research
As a result of the findings from the research reported on here, and as a consequence
of the limitations of the study, there are several suggestions which are worth
considering for future research.
The study may be replicated on a larger sample of students on a longitudinal basis,
that is, each questionnaire can be administrated in a pre and post test manner by
supplying some tasks on developing students’ degree of autonomy together with
speaking coping strategies training. At the end of the term, some post tests may be
administered in order to measure the difference.
In addition to that, not only strategies for coping with speaking problems use but also
correlation between degree of reported autonomy and other language skills may also
be analyzed.

90
REFERENCES
Barfield, A., Ashwell, T., Carroll, M., Collins, K., Cowie, N., Critchley, M., Head,
E., Nix, M., Obermeier, A. & Robertson, M.C. (2002) ‘Exploring and
defining teacher autonomy: a collaborative discussion’. In A.S. Mackenzie &
E. McCafferty (eds.) Developing Autonomy. Proceedings of the JALT CUE
Conference 2001, Tokyo: The Japan Association for Language Teaching
College and University Educators Special Interest Group, pp. 217-222.
Benson, Phil (1996) “Concepts of Autonomy in Language Learning” In R.
Pemberton et al. (Eds), Taking Control: Autonomy in Language Learning pp.
27-34 Hong Kong, Hong Kong University Press.
Benson, P. and Voller, P. (eds.) (1997) Autonomy and Independence in Language
Learning, London: Longman.
Benson, P. (2001) Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language
Learning. London: Longman.
Bialystok, E.. 1990. Communication Strategies: A Psychological Analysis of Second
Language Use[M]. London: Blackwell.
Brown, J.D. (1995) The Elements of Language Curriculum: a Systematic approach
to Program Development. Heinle & Heinle Publishing, Boston.
Chan, V. (2001) “Readiness for learner autonomy: What do our learners tell us?”
Teaching in Higher Education, Vol: 6, No. 4. 505-519.
Dafei, D. (2007) “An Exploration of the Relationship Between Learner Autonomy
and English Proficiency” Asian EFL Journal. Professional Teaching Articles.
November 2007 2-23.

91
Dörnyei, Z. (1995). “On the teachability of communication strategies”. TESOL
Quarterly, 29, 55-85.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative,
qualitative and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dörnyei, Z., & Scott, M.L. (1997) Dörnyei, Z., & Scott, M.L. (1997). Review
Article: “Communication strategies in a second language: Definitions and
taxonomies”. Language Learning, 47,1,173-210.
Edge, J. & Wharton, S. (1998) “Autonomy and development: living in the materials
world”. In Tomlinson, B. (ed.) Materials Development in Language
Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 295-310.
Faucette, P. (2001). “A pedagogical perspective on communication strategies:
Benefits of training and an analysis of English language teaching materials”.
Second Language Studies, 19, 2, 1-40.
Fenner, A-B. (2000) “Learner Autonomy” in A-B Fenner & D. Newby (2000)
Approaches to Materials Design in European Textbooks: Implementing
Principles of Authenticity, Learner Autonomy, Cultural Awareness.
Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
Harmer, J. (2001) The practice of English Language Teaching, Longman Pearson
Education Ltd. 3rd edition. England
Hedge, Tricia (2000) Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford
University Press, China
Jiao, L. (2005) “Promoting EFL Learner Autonomy”, May 2005, Volume 2, No.5
(Serial No.17). Sino-US English Teaching Learning. London: Longman.
Færch & Kasper, (1983a) Færch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983a). Plans and strategies in
foreign language communication. In C. Færch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in
interlanguage communication (pp. 20-60). London: Longman. In Faucette, P.
(2001). “A pedagogical perspective on communication strategies: Benefits of

92
training and an analysis of English language teaching materials”. Second
Language Studies, 19, 2, 1-40.
Lee, I. (1998). “Supporting greater autonomy in language learning” ELT Journal, 52
(4), 282-290.
Little, D. (1996) “Freedom to learn and compulsion to interact: promoting learner
autonomy through the use of information systems and information
technologies”. In R. Pemberton, et al. (eds.) Taking Control: Autonomy in
Language Learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, pp. 203-218.
Little, D. (2001) “We're all in it together: exploring the interdependence of teacher
and learner autonomy”. In L. Karlsson, F. Kjisik & J. Nordlund (eds.), All
Together Now (Papers from the 7th Nordic Conference and Workshop on
Autonomous Language Learning, Helsinki, September 2000), University of
Helsinki Language Centre, pp. 45-56.
Little, D. (2002) “Learner autonomy and second/foreign language learning”. In The
Guide to Good Practice for learning and teaching in Languages, Linguistics
and Area Studies. LTSN Subject Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area
Studies, University of Southampton. Retrieval date: 01, February, 2008.
Available at :
http://www.llas.ac.uk/resources/goodpractice.aspx?resourceid=1409
Milton, J., Smallwood, I. & Purchase, J. (1996) `From word processing to text
processing'. In R. Pemberton, et al. (eds.) Taking Control: Autonomy in
Language Learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, pp. 233-248.
Milton, J. (1997) 'Providing computerized self-access opportunities for the
development of writing skills'. In P. Benson & P. Voller (eds.) Autonomy and
Independence in Language Learning. London: Longman, pp. 237-248.
Nakatani, Y. (2006) “Developing an Oral Communication Strategy Inventory” The
Modern Language Journal, 90, ii, 0026-7902/06/151–168.

93
Nunan, D. (1996). “Towards autonomous learning: some theoretical, empirical and
practical issues”. In R. Pemberton et al. (Eds), Taking Control: Autonomy in
Language Learning. pp. 14-15. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language
acquisition.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should
know. New York: Newbury House.
Oxford, R. L. (1996). Employing a questionnaire to assess the use of language
learning strategies. Applied Language Learning, 7, 25-45.
Rababah, G. (2002). “Second language communication strategies: Definitions,
taxonomies, Data Elicitation Methodology and Teachability Issues”. A
review article. Retrieval date: 02, June, 2008. Retrieved from:
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b
/80/1a/bc/3a.pdf
Scharle, Á. & Szabó, A. (2000) Learner Autonomy: A Guide to Developing Learner
Responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schwienhorst, K. (2003) ‘Neither here nor there? learner autonomy and intercultural
factors in CALL environments’. In D. Palfreyman & R.C. Smith (eds.)
Learner Autonomy across Cultures: Language Education Perspectives,
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 164-179.
Selinker, L.(1972). “Interlanguage”. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10,
209-230.
Simmons, D. (1996) “A study of strategy use in independent learners” In R.
Pemberton, et al. (eds.) Taking Control: Autonomy in Language Learning.
Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, pp. 61-75
Tarone, E. (1977). Conscious communication strategies in interlanguage: A progress
report. In H. D. Brown, C.A. Yorio& R.C. Crymes (Eds.) TESOL (pp.

94
194-203). Washington: TESOL
Thanasoulas, D. (2000). “What is learner autonomy and how can it be fostered?”
Internet TESL Journal, 6, 1-11.
van Esch, K. & St.John, O. (eds) (2003) A Framework for Freedom: Learner
Autonomy in Foreign Language Teacher Education. Frankfurt am Main:
Peter Lang.
Voller and Pickard (1996) “Conversation exchange” In R. Pemberton et al. (Eds),
Taking Control: Autonomy in Language Learning. pp. 14-15. Hong Kong:
Hong Kong University Press.
Wenden, A. L. (1985). Learners strategies, TESOL Newsletter, 19,5, 1-7.
Wenden, A. (1991). Learner Strategies for Learner Autonomy. Hertfordshire:
Prentice Hall International Ltd.
Zhang Ya-ni ( 2007) “Communication Strategies and Foreign Language Learning”
US- China Foreign Language, Apr. 2007, Volume 5, No.4 (Serial No.43)
ISSN1539-8080, USA
Zhang, L.X. & Li X.X. (2004). A comparative study on learner autonomy between
Chinese students and west European students. Foreign Language World, 4,
15-23.

95
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRE TO INVESTIGATE THE LEARNER AUTONOMY OF
THE SUBJECTS
ORIGINAL QUESTIONNAIRE

98
APPENDIX B
ORAL COMMUNICATION STRATEGY INVENTORY
QUESTIONS OF THE SURVEY-SPEAKING PART
ORIGINAL QUESTIONNAIRE

99
APPENDIX C
THE RESEARCH TOOL-BEFORE PILOTING
YABANCI DĐL ÖĞRENĐMĐNDE ÖZERK ÖĞRENME, KONUŞMADA YAŞANAN
ZORLUKLARLA BAŞA ÇIKMA STRATEJĐLERĐ VE BAŞARININ ĐLĐŞKĐSĐ
Sayın Katılımcı,
Bu anket okulumuzdaki öğrencilerin Đngilizce öğrenirken üstlendikleri
sorumlulukları, ders dışındaki Đngilizce faaliyetlerine katılımlarını, otonomluklarını
(özerkliklerini), konuşurken karşılaştıkları zorluklarla baş ederken ne gibi stratejiler
kullandıklarını, ölçmek için araştırma aracı olarak hazırlanmıştır. Vereceğiniz doğru
cevaplar ile elde edilen bilgiler okulumuzdaki Đngilizce öğretim etkinliklerine de
verimli bir şekilde yansıyacaktır. Bu nedenle her bir soruyu dikkatle okuyarak
eksiksiz yanıtlamaya ve atlanmış soru bırakmamaya özen gösteriniz. Ankete
verdiğiniz bilgiler araştırmacı tarafından kesinlikle GĐZLĐ tutulacaktır.
KATILIMINIZ VE SABRINIZ ĐÇĐN ŞĐMDĐDEN TEŞEKKÜR EDERĐM.
Burcu GÖKGÖZ
burcugokgozz@yahoo.com
BÖLÜM I
Bu bölümde vereceğiniz cevaplar çalışmanın için gereklidir. Bu bilgi sadece
notlarınıza ulaşabilmek amacıyla kullanılacaktır. Bilgiler kesinlikle GĐZLĐ
tutulacaktır. Notunuza hiçbir etki etmeyecektir.
Kişisel Bilgiler
Soyad:
Okul No:
Sınıf No:
Yaş:
Cinsiyet

100
BÖLÜM II
Lütfen aşağıdaki ifadelerden size uygun cevabı yuvarlak içine alarak
işaretleyiniz.
1. Asla / hemen hemen hiç
2. Nadiren
3 Bazen
4. Çoğu zaman
5. Her zaman/ hemen hemen her zaman
Kullanım sıklığı
Asla
/
heme
n
heme
n hiç
1
Nadir
en
2
Baze
n
3
Çoğu
zama
n
4
Her
zaman/
Hemen
hemen
her
zaman
5
1. Konuşurken, ifade etmek istediğim
şeyleri önce anadilimde düşünürüm
sonra Đngilizcesini kurarım.
1 2 3 4 5
2. Konuşurken, önce bildiğim bir
Đngilizce cümleyi düşünürüm sonra onu
o andaki duruma uyacak şekilde
değiştiririm.
1 2 3 4 5
3. Konuşurken, kulağıma tanıdık gelen
kelimeleri kullanırım.
1 2 3 4 5
4. Anlatacaklarımı kısaca ve basit
ifadelerle anlatırım.
1 2 3 4 5
5. Anlatmak istediğimi anlatamadığımı
hissettiğim zaman kendimi başka
sözlerle yeniden ifade ederim.
1 2 3 4 5
6. Ne söyleyeceğimi bilemediğim
zaman planladığım konuşmayı
uygulamaktan vazgeçip sadece birkaç
söz söylerim.
1 2 3 4 5
7. Konuşurken dilbilgisi ve cümle
öğelerinin dizilişine dikkat ederim.
1 2 3 4 5
8. Konuşurken cümlenin özne ve 1 2 3 4 5

101
yüklemini vurgulamaya çalışırım
9. Konuşurken bulunduğum ortam ve
koşullara göre ifade şeklimi
değiştiririm.
1 2 3 4 5
10. Söyleyeceğim şeyi acele etmeden
ifade ederim.
1 2 3 4 5
11. Telaffuzuma dikkat ederim 1 2 3 4 5
12. Sesimi duyurabilmek için açık ve
yüksek sesle konuşurum.
1 2 3 4 5
13. Konuşurken ritim ve tonlamama
dikkat ederim.
1 2 3 4 5
14. Karşılıklı konuşmanın akışına
dikkat ederim.
1 2 3 4 5
15. Konuşurken karşımdakilerle göz
teması kurmaya dikkat ederim.
1 2 3 4 5
16. Konuşurken kendimi ifade
edemediğimde jest ve mimikler
kullanırım.
1 2 3 4 5
17. Konuşurken hata yaptığımı fark
edince kendimi düzeltirim
1 2 3 4 5
18. Konuşurken kendim, yeni
öğrendiğim bir kurala uyan bir yapıyı
kullandığımı fark ederim.
1 2 3 4 5
19. Konuşurken dinleyicinin benim
konuşmama tepkisine dikkat ederim.
1 2 3 4 5
20. Dinleyici söylediklerimi anlamazsa
örnekler veririm.
1 2 3 4 5
21. Dinleyici anlayana kadar
söylediklerimi yinelerim.
1 2 3 4 5
22. Konuşurken söyleyeceğim şey
aklıma gelmeyince, Türkçe’de “ee”,
“yani” gibi kelimelerin karşılığı
olabilecek Đngilizce ifadeler kullanırım.
(örn. well, I know, vb)
1 2 3 4 5
23. Dili kullanmada zorluklar 1 2 3 4 5

102
yaşayınca söyleyeceklerimi yarım
bırakırım.
24.. Dinleyicide iyi bir izlenim
bırakmaya çalışırım
1 2 3 4 5
25. Konuşurken hata yapsam da risk
almaktan çekinmem. 1 2 3 4 5
26. Karşılıklı konuşmaları yaparken
konuşmanın tadını çıkarmaya çalışırım
1 2 3 4 5
27. Đngilizce konuşurken, ana dili
Đngilizce olanların konuştuğu gibi
konuşmaya çalışırım
1 2 3 4 5
28. Konuşurken, iyi bir iletişim
kuramadığımda başkalarının yardımını
isterim.
1 2 3 4 5
edemediğimde pes ederim.
1 2 3 4 5
BÖLÜM III
a. Bu bölümde aşağıdaki ifadeleri okuyup sizin durumunuza en uygun olanları
yuvarlak içine alınız.
A. Asla
B. Nadiren
C. Bazen
D. Çoğu kez
E. Her zaman
Asla
A
Nadiren
B
Bazen
C
Çoğu
kez
D
Her
zaman
E
1. Đngilizce’yi iyi öğrenebilme yeteneğine
sahip olduğumu düşünürüm.
Asla
A
Nadiren
B
Bazen
C
Çoğu
kez
D
Her
zaman
E
2. Đngilizce çalışırken zamanımı iyi kullanırım Asla
A
Nadiren
B
Bazen
C
Çoğu
kez
D
Her
zaman
E
3. Derse gelmeden once o gün işleneceklere
bakarım.
Asla
A
Nadiren
B
Bazen
C
Çoğu
kez
D
Her
zaman
E
4. Sınıf içinde bir verilen bir görevleri
zamanından önce bitirebildiğimi fark ederim.
Asla
A
Nadiren
B
Bazen
C
Çoğu
kez
D
Her
zaman
E
5. Çalışmalarımı, günlük yazarak veya o
günün değerlendirmesini yazarak o günün bir
Asla Nadiren Bazen Çoğu
kez
Her
zaman

103
kaydını tutarım. A B C D E
6. Kendi kendime seçtiğim sınav kağıtlarıyla
kendimi sınav yaparım.
Asla
A
Nadiren
B
Bazen
C
Çoğu
kez
D
Her
zaman
E
7. Đlerleme kaydettiğimde kendimi (alışveriş
vb.) bir şeyle (alışveriş, oyun vb.)
ödüllendiririm.
Asla
A
Nadiren
B
Bazen
C
Çoğu
kez
D
Her
zaman
E
8. Pratik yapmak ve dili öğrenmek için sınıf
dışı faaliyetlerde bulunurum.
Asla
A
Nadiren
B
Bazen
C
Çoğu
kez
D
Her
zaman
E
9. Ders esnasında, ikili/grup çalışması veya rol
alıp yapılan canlandırma gibi aktivitelerde yer
almaya çalışırım.
Asla
A
Nadiren
B
Bazen
C
Çoğu
kez
D
Her
zaman
E
10. Đngilizce çalışırken güçlü olduğum ve
zayıf olduğum noktaları bilirim.
Asla
A
Nadiren
B
Bazen
C
Çoğu
kez
D
Her
zaman
E
11. Ne çok zor ne çok kolay, kendi seviyeme
uyan kitapları seçerim.
Asla
A
Nadiren
B
Bazen
C
Çoğu
kez
D
Her
zaman
E
b. Bu son bölümde, Sizin için en uygun olan şıkkı seçiniz
12. Đngilizceyi ___________________ öğreniyorum.
A. ailemin istediği için
B. merakım olduğu için
C. iyi bir iş sahibi olayım ve okuduğum bölüme katkısı olsun diye
D. film, müzik, spor gibi, Đngilizce kültürüne olan ilgimden ötürü
E. C ve D de belirtilen sebeplerden ötürü
13. Bence öğretmen-öğrenci ilişkisi, _____________ ilişkisine benzer.
A. alıcı ile verici
B. ham madde satıcı ile üretici
C. müşteri ve mağaza sahibi
D. partnerlerin
E. keşfeden ile yönlendiren
14. Bence Đngilizcedeki başarım veya başarısızlığım temelde _______ bağlıdır.
A. şans / talihe
B. Đngilizce çalıştığım çevreye
C. çalışmalarımı destekleyen donanıma
D. öğretmenlere
E. kendime
15. Öğrencilerin çalışma planını öğretmenlerle beraber hazırlaması yönündeki düşünceye
A. kesinlikle katılıyorum
B. katılıyorum
C. ne katılıyorum ne katılmıyorum
D. karşı çıkıyorum

104
E. Kesinlikle karşı çıkıyorum
16. Öğretmen cevaplamamız için soru sorduğunda ben büyük ihtimalle,
A. diğerlerinin cevaplarını beklemek isterim
B. düşünüp hazır olarak cevap vermek isterim
C. kitap ve sözlükten bir şeylere bakmak isterim
D. öğretmenle beraber soruyu açık hale getirmek isterim
E. ikili veya grup tartışmalarına, konuşmalarına katılmak iterim
17. Bilmediğim bir kelime çıktığında
A. okuyup geçerim
B. başkalarına sorarım
C. anlamını tahmin ederim
D. B ve E
E. Sözlükten bakarım
18. Hata yaptığımda _____________ .
A. olmalarına izin veririm
B. öğretmenlerin beni düzeltmesini isterim
C. sınıf arkadaşlarımın beni düzeltmesini isterim
D. başkalarının beni düzeltmesini isterim
E. kitap ve sözlüklerin beni düzeltmesini isterim.
19. Daha önce kullanmadığım bir teknolojiyi kullanmam istendiğinde (örn. internette
konuşma, internette tartışma yapma)
A. genellikle yeni beceriler edinmeye çalışırım
B. başkalarını izleyerek öğrenirim
C. endişeli hissederim ama önemli değil.
D. ertelerim ve kaçınmaya çalışırım
E. kullanmamak için direnirim
20. Đngilizce öğrenirken benim için en etkili yol…
A. not alarak öğrenmedir
B. mekanik ezber yapmadır.
C. dilbilgisi, kelime ve çeviri alıştırmaları yapmamdır.
D. sınıflandırma, karşılaştırma ve gruplandırmadır.
E. grup tartışmalarıdır.
21. Çalışmalarımda, genellikle ________ tarafından seçilen materyalleri (çalışma kâğıdı,
kitap vs.) kullanırım.
A. sadece öğretmenler
B. çoğunlukla öğretmenler
C. öğretmenler ve benim
D. çoğunlukla ben
E. sadece benim
KATILIMINIZ ĐÇĐN
TEŞEKKÜRLER
Bilgi ve sorularınız için

105
APPENDIX D
THE RESEARCH TOOL-AFTER PILOTING
YABANCI DĐL ÖĞRENĐMĐNDE ÖZERK ÖĞRENME, KONUŞMADA YAŞANAN
ZORLUKLARLA BAŞA ÇIKMA STRATEJĐLERĐ VE BAŞARININ ĐLĐŞKĐSĐ
Sayın Katılımcı,
Bu anket okulumuzdaki öğrencilerin Đngilizce öğrenirken üstlendikleri
sorumlulukları, ders dışındaki Đngilizce faaliyetlerine katılımlarını, otonomluklarını
(özerkliklerini), konuşurken karşılaştıkları zorluklarla baş ederken ne gibi stratejiler
kullandıklarını, ölçmek için araştırma aracı olarak hazırlanmıştır. Vereceğiniz doğru
cevaplar ile elde edilen bilgiler okulumuzdaki Đngilizce öğretim etkinliklerine de
verimli bir şekilde yansıyacaktır. Bu nedenle her bir soruyu dikkatle okuyarak
eksiksiz yanıtlamaya ve atlanmış soru bırakmamaya özen gösteriniz. Ankete
verdiğiniz bilgiler araştırmacı tarafından kesinlikle GĐZLĐ tutulacaktır.
KATILIMINIZ VE SABRINIZ ĐÇĐN ŞĐMDĐDEN TEŞEKKÜR EDERĐM.
Burcu GÖKGÖZ
BÖLÜM I
Bu bölümde vereceğiniz cevaplar çalışmanın için gereklidir. Bu bilgi sadece
notlarınıza ulaşabilmek amacıyla kullanılacaktır. Bilgiler kesinlikle GĐZLĐ
tutulacaktır. Notunuza hiçbir etki etmeyecektir.
Kişisel Bilgiler
Soyad:
Okul No:
Sınıf No:
Yaş:
Cinsiyet

106
BÖLÜM II
Lütfen aşağıdaki ifadelerden size uygun cevabı yuvarlak içine alarak
işaretleyiniz.
1. Asla / hemen hemen hiç
2. Nadiren
3 Bazen
4. Çoğu zaman
5. Her zaman/ hemen hemen her zaman
Kullanım sıklığı
Asla
/
hemen
hemen
hiç
1
Nadire
n
2
Bazen
3
Çoğu
zama
n
4
Her
zaman/
Hemen
hemen
her
zaman
5
1. Konuşurken, ifade etmek istediğim
şeyleri önce anadilimde düşünürüm sonra
Đngilizcesini kurarım.
1 2 3 4 5
3. Konuşurken, kulağıma tanıdık gelen
kelimeleri kullanırım.
1 2 3 4 5
4. Anlatacaklarımı kısaca ve basit ifadelerle
anlatırım.
1 2 3 4 5
5. Anlatmak istediğimi anlatamadığımı
hissettiğim zaman kendimi başka sözlerle
yeniden ifade ederim.
1 2 3 4 5
7. Konuşurken dilbilgisi ve cümle
öğelerinin dizilişine dikkat ederim.
1 2 3 4 5
8. Konuşurken cümlenin özne ve yüklemini
vurgulamaya çalışırım
1 2 3 4 5
9. Konuşurken bulunduğum ortam ve
koşullara göre ifade şeklimi değiştiririm.
1 2 3 4 5
10. Söyleyeceğim şeyi acele etmeden ifade
ederim.
1 2 3 4 5
11. Telaffuzuma dikkat ederim 1 2 3 4 5
13. Konuşurken ritim ve tonlamama dikkat
ederim.
1 2 3 4 5

107
14. Karşılıklı konuşmanın akışına dikkat
ederim.
1 2 3 4 5
15. Konuşurken karşımdakilerle göz teması
kurmaya dikkat ederim.
1 2 3 4 5
edemediğimde jest ve mimikler kullanırım.
1 2 3 4 5
17. Konuşurken hata yaptığımı fark edince
kendimi düzeltirim
1 2 3 4 5
18. Konuşurken kendim, yeni öğrendiğim
bir kurala uyan bir yapıyı kullandığımı fark
ederim.
1 2 3 4 5
19. Konuşurken dinleyicinin benim
konuşmama tepkisine dikkat ederim.
1 2 3 4 5
20. Dinleyici söylediklerimi anlamazsa
örnekler veririm.
1 2 3 4 5
21. Dinleyici anlayana kadar söylediklerimi
tekrar ederim.
1 2 3 4 5
24. Dinleyicide iyi bir izlenim bırakmaya
çalışırım
1 2 3 4 5
25. Konuşurken hata yapsam da risk
almaktan çekinmem. 1 2 3 4 5
26. Karşılıklı konuşmaları yaparken
konuşmanın tadını çıkarmaya çalışırım
1 2 3 4 5
BÖLÜM III
a. Bu bölümde aşağıdaki ifadeleri okuyup sizin durumunuza en uygun olanları
yuvarlak içine alınız.
A. Asla
B. Nadiren
C. Bazen
D. Çoğu kez
E. Her zaman
Asla
A
Nadiren
B
Bazen
C
Çoğu
kez
D
Her
zaman
E

108
1. Đngilizce’yi iyi öğrenebilme yeteneğine
sahip olduğumu düşünürüm.
Asla
A
Nadiren
B
Bazen
C
Çoğu
kez
D
Her
zaman
E
2. Đngilizce çalışırken zamanımı iyi kullanırım Asla
A
Nadiren
B
Bazen
C
Çoğu
kez
D
Her
zaman
E
3. Derse gelmeden önce o gün işleneceklere
bakarım.
Asla
A
Nadiren
B
Bazen
C
Çoğu
kez
D
Her
zaman
E
4. Sınıf içinde bir verilen bir görevleri
zamanından önce bitirebildiğimi fark ederim.
Asla
A
Nadiren
B
Bazen
C
Çoğu
kez
D
Her
zaman
E
5. Çalışmalarımı, günlük yazarak veya o
günün değerlendirmesini yazarak o günün bir
kaydını tutarım.
Asla
A
Nadiren
B
Bazen
C
Çoğu
kez
D
Her
zaman
E
6. Kendi kendime seçtiğim sınav kağıtlarıyla
kendimi sınav yaparım.
Asla
A
Nadiren
B
Bazen
C
Çoğu
kez
D
Her
zaman
E
8. Pratik yapmak ve dili öğrenmek için sınıf
dışı faaliyetlerde bulunurum.
Asla
A
Nadiren
B
Bazen
C
Çoğu
kez
D
Her
zaman
E
9. Ders esnasında, ikili/grup çalışması veya rol
alıp yapılan canlandırma gibi aktivitelerde yer
almaya çalışırım.
Asla
A
Nadiren
B
Bazen
C
Çoğu
kez
D
Her
zaman
E
b. Bu son bölümde, Sizin için en uygun olan şıkkı seçiniz
12. Đngilizceyi ___________________ öğreniyorum.
A. ailemin istediği için
B. merakım olduğu için
C. iyi bir iş sahibi olayım ve okuduğum bölüme katkısı olsun diye
D. film, müzik, spor gibi, Đngilizce kültürüne olan ilgimden ötürü
E. C ve D de belirtilen sebeplerden ötürü
15. Öğrencilerin çalışma planını öğretmenlerle beraber hazırlaması yönündeki düşünceye
A. kesinlikle katılıyorum
B. katılıyorum
C. ne katılıyorum ne katılmıyorum
D. karşı çıkıyorum
E. Kesinlikle karşı çıkıyorum
16. Öğretmen cevaplamamız için soru sorduğunda ben büyük ihtimalle,
A. diğerlerinin cevaplarını beklemek isterim
B. düşünüp hazır olarak cevap vermek isterim
C. kitap ve sözlükten bir şeylere bakmak isterim
D. öğretmenle beraber soruyu açık hale getirmek isterim

109
E. ikili veya grup tartışmalarına, konuşmalarına katılmak iterim
17. Bilmediğim bir kelime çıktığında
A. okuyup geçerim
B. başkalarına sorarım
C. anlamını tahmin ederim
D. B ve E
E. Sözlükten bakarım
18. Hata yaptığımda _____________ .
A. olmalarına izin veririm
B. öğretmenlerin beni düzeltmesini isterim
C. sınıf arkadaşlarımın beni düzeltmesini isterim
D. başkalarının beni düzeltmesini isterim
E. kitap ve sözlüklerin beni düzeltmesini isterim.
21. Çalışmalarımda, genellikle ________ tarafından seçilen materyalleri (çalışma kâğıdı,
kitap vs.) kullanırım.
A. sadece öğretmenler
B. çoğunlukla öğretmenler
C. öğretmenler ve benim
D. çoğunlukla benim
E. sadece benim
KATILIMINIZ ĐÇĐN
TEŞEKKÜRLER
Bilgi ve sorularınız için

110
APPENDIX E
MULTIPLE COMPARISONS OF DEPENDENT VARIABLE OF THE
SCORES OF OCSI-SPEAKING PART QUESTIONNAIRE

113
APPENDIX F
MULTIPLE COMPARISONS TEST OF QUESTIONNAIRE ON LEARNER
AUTONOMY

Jiao learner autonomy 2

More Related Content

What's hot (6)

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to Jiao learner autonomy 2 (6)

More from syazalinah (17)

Recently uploaded (20)

Jiao learner autonomy 2