The study aims at exploring teachers and students’ perceptions towards learning autonomy, and how the learning autonomy affects their English language proficiency. The understanding of learning autonomy will help teachers apply appropriate pedagogical solutions for their students. The results show that participants seemed to have some aspects of autonomous learning, so they are considered as autonomous learners. Furthermore, learning autonomy correlated with teachers’ objectives and requirements, learning styles and learning strategies significantly. The highest correlation is for the relationship between learning autonomy and teachers’ objectives and requirements, followed closely by the association with learning styles and learning strategies. Hence, it is suggested that, the higher being awareness of understanding teacher’s purposes and requirements and better understanding how to create learning styles and adjust learning strategies students are, the more autonomous they are.

learning autonomy, language learning, language proficiency

1) Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M., & Perry, J. D. (1991). Theory into practice: How do we link? In G. J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, and future. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

2) Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectivities: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.

3) Bower, G. H., & Hilgard, E. R. (1981). Theories of learning (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

4) Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.

5) Clancey, W. J. (1986). Review of Winograd and Flores' understanding computers and cognition: A favorable interpretation. (STAN-CS-87-1173) Palo Alto, CA: Department of Computer Science, Stanford University.

6) Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

7) Denzin, N. K. & Y. S. Lincoln (ed.). (2005b). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage.

8) Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in Second Language Research: Construction, Administration, and Processing. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

9) Dörnyei, Z. & Ryan, S. (2015). The Psychology of Language Leaner Revisited. Routledge. Taylor and Francis. New York.

10) Evans, J. D. (1996). Straightforward statistics for the behavioral sciences. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.

11) Gardner, R.C. and Lambert, W.E. (1972). Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

12) Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.). Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

13) Griffiths, C. (2008). Lessons from Good Language Learners (Ed.). Cambridge University Press. (CUP).

14) Jonassen, D. H. (1991a). Evaluating constructivistic learning. Educational Technology, 31(9), 28-33.

15) Jonassen, D. H. (1991b). Objectivism vs. constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5-14.

16) Jordan, A., Carlile, O., & Stack, A. (2008). Approaches to Learning - A Guide for Teachers. McGraw Hill Open University Press.

17) Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (2001). “Factors Affecting Second Language Learning” In Candlin C. & Mercer N. English Language Teaching in its Social Context London: Routledge pp. 28-43.

18) Lightbown, P.M. & Spada, N. (2013). How Languages are Learned. Oxford University Press.

19) Mayer, R. E. (2002). The promise of educational psychology, Volume 2: Teaching for meaningful learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

20) Mitchell, R. & Myles, F. (2001). Second Language Learning: Key Concepts and Issues. In Candlin C. and Mercer N. English Language Teaching in its Social Context London: Routledge pp. 11-27.

21) Naiman, N., Fröhlich, M. & Stern, H. et. al. (1978). The Good Language Learner. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

22) Petty, G. (2009). Teaching Today - A Practical Guide (4th ed.). Nelson Thornes. Ltd. United Kingdom.

23) Pritchard, A. (2009). Ways of Learning: Learning Theories and Learning Styles (2nd ed.). Routledge, New York.

24) Richards, J.C. (2006). Communicative Language Teaching Today. Cambridge University Press.

25) Rubin, J. (1975). What the ‘Good Language Learner’ Can Teach Us. TESOL Quarterly 9(1), pp. 41-51.

26) Shuell, T. J. (1986). Cognitive conceptions of learning. Review of Educational Research, 56, 411-436.

27) Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (1992). Validation of learning strategy interventions for students with LD: Results of a programmatic research effort. In Y. L. Wong (Ed.), Contemporary intervention research in learning disabilities: An international perspective. New York: Springer-Verlag.

28) Winne, P. H. (1985). Cognitive processing in the classroom. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Education (Vol. 2, pp. 795-808). Oxford: Pergamon.

29) Woodlard, J. (2010). Psychology for the Classroom: Behaviourism. Routledge: New York.

VOlUME 03 ISSUE 08 AUGUST 2020