lable at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (2011) 900e910

Contents lists avai

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tate

Teachers’ readiness for promoting learner autonomy: A study of JapaneseEFL high school teachers

Yoshiyuki Nakata*

Department of School Education, Hyogo University of Teacher Education, 942-1, Shimokume, Kato, Hyogo 673-1494, Japan

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 25 March 2010Received in revised form1 March 2011Accepted 7 March 2011

Keywords:EFL teachersAutonomyPerceptionsReadiness

* Tel./fax: þ81 795 44 2077.E-mail address: nakata@hyogo-u.ac.jp.

0742-051X/$ e see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.03.001

a b s t r a c t

The present study aims to investigate teachers’ readiness for promoting learner autonomy. It attempts todo so by exploring the perceived importance of and the use of strategies for promoting learner autonomyamong Japanese high school teachers of English as a foreign language (EFL). The paper reports on theresearch findings from two studies, one quantitative using a closed questionnaire, and the other quali-tative using a focus group interview. Results show that many Japanese EFL high school teachers, whiledisplaying different dimensions of autonomy in different ways, are not fully ready to promote autonomyin their learners.

� 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Now in Japan the importance of autonomy is valued more thanever (The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science andTechnology (MEXT hereafter), MEXT, 2003, 2008, 2009). There isa widespread belief in education that the Japanese are living in thetransitional period from a traditional culture, where the judiciousmind is admired (i.e., “being taught” involving imitation, listening,reading, and remembering), to amodern culture, where the creativemind is highly valued (i.e., “self-teaching” through questioning,considering, searching, and doing) (Esaki, 2002; MEXT, 2008).A decisive factor in making a successful and quick transition, as he(Esaki, 2002, p. 8) reiterates, is the extent to which personalautonomy is granted, because it helps to induce personal motiva-tion, and personal motivation is undoubtedly a key driving force forcreative performance. This leads us to speculate about the outcomeof entrance-exam-driven educational culture (e.g., acting as copycats in the worst case) and the need for autonomy-supportiveeducational culture.

On the grounds that autonomy is deeply woven into the fabric ofthe social/cultural context, however, what autonomy means andhow best one can promote autonomy in learners and teachers, oreven ideal figures of autonomy, are likely to differ in each educa-tional context. The endeavor and expectations for teachers must

All rights reserved.

also be seen through the cultural reality of teachers’ work: thedilemma in school teachers’ lives between ideal and reality (forpromoting autonomy in learners and in themselves), and the gapbetween researchers’ (and teacher educators’) understanding ofand teachers’ own perception of this. Therefore, teacher autonomy,which is conditioned by a complex web of contextual and personalfactors, should neither be assessed from the Western perspectivealone (i.e., European or North American) nor from the EasteWestcomparison perspective alone, but must be assessed in a frame-work that embraces all its various components.

Amidst ongoing globalization and the subsequent growinginterdependence of teacher education research across geographicalboundaries and subjects, understanding the different values ofteacher autonomy along with the problems impeding its develop-ment may perhaps induce teacher educators to make a clean breakfrom hideboundways of thinking (i.e., eitherWestern or EasteWestcomparison) and to advance the quest for what autonomymeans intheir own context. The present paper will illuminate the case ofJapanese EFL high school teachers to this end.

2. Autonomy in language learning and teaching

Autonomy in second/foreign language learning is promoted inthe U.S., many European countries (e.g., England, Finland, France,Ireland, Spain; more or less under the auspices of the Council ofEurope), and other international contexts (East Asian countries inparticular; to some extent under the auspices of the respectiveMinistries of Education). And teacher autonomy as well as learner

Teacher autonomy

Professional autonomy

Teaching autonomy

Fig. 1. Teacher autonomy model: professional autonomy and teaching autonomy.

Y. Nakata / Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (2011) 900e910 901

autonomy has now become a buzzword in the field of foreignlanguage education (e.g., Barfield & Brown, 2007; Benson, 2001;Little, 1991, 1995, 2007; Palfreyman & Smith, 2003). There is infact a growing literature demonstrating that more autonomousteachers and learners have better outcomes in language acquisition(Little, 2009; Little, Ridley, & Ushioda, 2003; Nakata, 2010; Sao &Wu, 2007; Ushioda, 2010). The concept of teacher autonomycame from the discussion of learner autonomy, that is, howteachers can promote autonomy in learners. It is based on thepremise that there is a symbiotic relationship between learnerautonomy and teacher autonomy, but the promotion of learnerautonomy depends on the promotion of teacher autonomy (Aoki,2002; Benson, 2001; Little, 1995; Nakata, 2009; Smith, 2000).

As far as learner autonomy is concerned, several attempts weremade to define this concept (e.g., Benson, 2001; Holec, 1981; Little,1991). At present, there appears to be a general consensus in theliterature that learner autonomy refers to learners’ taking charge oftheir own learning. In other words, learner autonomy refers to“learners’ control over learning,which comprises active involvementin the learning process, responsibility for its control over factors suchas time frequency, pace, settings, methods of learning, and criticalawareness of purposes and goals” (Benson & Lor, 1998, p. 3).

More precisely, learner autonomy can be described at threedifferent levels or dimensions: control over learning behavior,control over psychology of learning, and control over learningsituations and the three dimensions are assumed to be interde-pendent (Benson, 2001). These three dimensions of learnerautonomy are helpful in understanding learners’ readiness towardbecoming autonomous language learners. It is axiomatic that manylearners are more autonomous in one dimension than in others.Likewise, there are both observable and non-observable aspects inlearners’ becoming autonomous language learners (Benson, 2010a).It is therefore, as Benson (2010a, p. 82) warns, unreasonable for usto expect all learners to become able to control every conceivableaspect of their learning and, if not, to regard them as non-auton-omous learners. In short, it is perhaps possible to consider thatlearner autonomy can be assessed by the learner’s degree ofreadiness in the aforementioned three dimensions.

On the assumption that the definition of learner autonomydescribed above precisely captures the concept of such autonomyitself, it would perhaps be reasonable for us to apply it to theconcept of teacher autonomy (i.e., the capacity and degree towhichone takes control over teaching and professional endeavor). Theconcept of teacher autonomy is relatively a new concept embracingboth professional and teaching components, and in the last decadehas been defined in various ways (Aoki, 2003; McGrath, 2000;Smith, 2000).

As it stands, some confusion surrounds the understanding ofwhat teacher autonomymeans and of the relation between teacherautonomy and learner autonomy. The major misconception ofteacher autonomy may lie in assuming that teacher autonomy(confining its meaning solely to “teachers’ capacity of beingautonomous themselves as professionals”) is a precondition for thedevelopment of learner autonomy, without discussing whether it isindeed a sufficient condition for that (Aoki, 2002; Aoki & Nakata,2011). Clearly, teachers need to become autonomous as profes-sionals, but obviously not all of those who achieve this can teachtheir students to become autonomous. This is simply because beingautonomous as professionals does not necessarily help theseteachers to promote autonomy in their learners. For the develop-ment of learner autonomy, teachers need to be able to teach theirstudents autonomy.

McGrath (2000) has highlighted that teacher autonomy requiresa certain level of teacher readiness to adopt ways of thinking andacting as professionals in teaching, which have “perhaps not been

required in previous educational experiences” (p.101). This leads usto infer that there are two types of readiness (i.e., professional andteaching components). The former encompasses self-directedteachers and teacher-initiated professional development towardteacher autonomy including such elements as “becoming self-directed in improving their teaching”, “becoming self-directed inimproving English proficiency”, “learning from colleagues at theschool and those outside the school” (see Table 4 in this paper formore details). According to Little, Hawley, Henrich, and Marsland(2002), the development of teacher autonomy entails a process ofinternalization, in other words, personal agency defined as thesense of personal empowerment, which involves both knowingone’s goals and having what it takes to achieve them. The latterimplies that teachers need to be able to teach their students how totake charge of learning (e.g., “to help learners to identify their ownstrengths and weaknesses”, “to help learners to set up their owngoals”, “to help learners to evaluate their own learning and prog-ress; see Table 4 for more details; also see Chang, 2007; Cotterall1999; Spratt, Humphreys, & Chan, 2002).

Therefore, it is perhaps fair to say that teacher autonomy, for thedevelopment of learner autonomy, embraces teaching autonomy(the act of supporting student autonomy) as well as professionalautonomy (the characteristics of the teacher feeling/acting profes-sionally autonomous). Teacher autonomy then can be defined asconnecting the teacher’s own autonomy to professional autonomyand finally to teaching autonomy. Fig. 1 effectively depicts howteacher, professional, and teaching autonomy are related.

The connections between teacher autonomy, professionalautonomy, and teaching autonomy are worth noting as they relateto the language teacher in particular. Little (2007, p. 27) hasdescribed three salient dimensions of autonomous languageteaching in the followingway: (1) to be an autonomous teacher, onemust be an autonomous learner; (2) professionally, autonomousteachers must be able to apply to their teaching the same reflectiveand self-managing processes that they apply to their learning; (3)autonomous teachers must learn how to produce and manageteaching the many varieties of target language discourse that are tobe found in the language classroom. This offers a cogently distilledexplanation of what language teacher autonomy is, and perhaps isitsmost encompassing definition in the existing literature of learnerand teacher autonomy.

As is the case with learner autonomy, the concept of teacherautonomy I believe could be assessed by three dimensions ofreadiness: behavioral (i.e., the extent to which teachers are inpractice able to use strategies and techniques for promoting learnerautonomy), situational (i.e., the extent to which teachers are awareof how best they can promote autonomy in their learners), andpsychological (i.e., the extent to which teachers are determined toemploy practices of promoting learner autonomy and to beequipped with necessary skills to this end). All this is influenced inone way or another by the social/cultural context (i.e., school,society), which is filtered by teachers’ individual lives (i.e., bothprofessional and personal). For example, some teachers are

Y. Nakata / Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (2011) 900e910902

autonomous in their professional skills, but cannot employ theseskills in the classroom owing to the constraints and limitationsinherent in the educational context to which they belong. Otherteachers may not be able to employ practices for promotingautonomy in accordance with their wishes owing to their lack ofskills or shortage of time available for preparation. Still others donot employ practices for promoting autonomy simply because theybelieve in the effectiveness of one particularmethod for a particularobjective (e.g., entrance exams) and thus have no intention tochange it. The model in Fig. 2 depicts such an idea.

There are sufficient grounds to assume that teacher autonomy inthe field of language education equates to language teachers’readiness in educational practice, professional development, andprofessional life for promoting learner autonomy in a given envi-ronment (with limitations and constraints for promoting learnerautonomy, to a greater or lesser extent).

3. Learner autonomy and teacher autonomy in East Asia

Autonomy has attracted a great deal of attention in recentdiscussion of foreign language education in East Asia as well (e.g.,China, Taiwan, and Japan). It is true to say that the educationalcontext differs in each country (and perhaps at each educationallevel) and thus learner characteristics, in many instances, aredeeply woven into the fabric of culture and context. Therefore, inthe last decade, a substantial amount of evidence on learnerautonomy has accumulated in East Asia (Chan, 2001, 2003; Chang,2007; Littlewood, 1999; Nakata, 2006, 2007; Sao & Wu, 2007),indicating that East Asian learners, whose educational contexts areto a greater or lesser extent influenced by Confucius, are generallyobedient, passive, and teacher-dependent.

According to Littlewood (1999), East Asian learners possessreactive autonomyda form of autonomy that stimulates learners tolearn vocabulary without being pushed, to do past examinationpapers on their own initiative, or to organize themselves into groupsin order to cover the reading for an assignment. This is differentiatedfrom proactive autonomy in the Western worlddthe form ofautonomy where learners are able to take charge of their ownlearning, determine objectives, select methods and techniques, andevaluate what has been acquired. The former learners (with reactiveautonomy) are also autonomous in three dimensions (i.e., learningmanagement, cognitive process, learning content), but such autonomyremains at the level determinedby the educational context (towhichthe learners belong), largely because of their lack of experience ofautonomous learning in general and autonomous language learning.

Helwig (2006) claims that autonomy entails universal psycho-logical needs pertaining to agency and identity formation,expressed in different ways over different developmental periods.This is vividly illustrated by his remark: “As children develop skillsand abilities related to psychological needs for self-expression andcompetence, they will claim areas of autonomy related to theexercise of these abilities, in accordance with the possibilitiesafforded by different cultural environments” (p. 459). It can beextrapolated from this that learners are also likely to be influencedby the wave of globalization. Interestingly, the findings of the large-scale questionnaire survey (Littlewood, 2000) suggest that teachers’preconceptions of East Asian students (e.g., obedient, passive,

Behavioural

Social/cultural Teachers’ professional/ Teacher autonomycontext personal lives

Situational Psychological

Fig. 2. Teacher autonomy: the three dimensions of readiness in the social context.

teacher-dependent) do not reflect what learners really wantdwhether or not this is reflected in their actual behavior in class. Forexample, it was found that Japanese learners of English do notnecessarily see the teacher as an authority figurewho should not bequestioned, do not necessarily want to sit in class passivelyreceiving knowledge, and do not always expect the teacher to beresponsible for evaluating their learning. This is an interesting pieceof evidence to suggest that Esaki’s view of Japanese learnersaforementioned may not necessarily be applicable to the case ofEnglish language learning in Japan.

To date, many of the studies on learner autonomy conducted inAsian countries as yet remain at the university level where teachersare often given a fair amount of freedom in their teaching practice(e.g., Chan, 2001, 2003 for the ones at university level in China;Barfield & Nix, 2003 for the ones at university level in Japan). It istrue to say that the educational context at tertiary level is in manyways different from the secondary school EFL context characterizedby whole-class teaching, a teacher-centered approach, and a focuson the grammar-translation method. Given this importance, it israther surprising how little research on learner autonomy in the EFLschool context we find in the autonomy literature and even moresurprising to see only a few research studies available on teacherautonomy in Asian contexts (Aoki, 2002; Nakata, 2009; Wu, 2004).

Despite the fact that the development of learner autonomy andteacher autonomy is constantly influenced by contextual factors,these factors remain relatively underexplored. Unlike the existingliterature on motivational strategies or strategies for promotinglearner autonomy (e.g., Chang, 2007; Cheng & Dörnyei, 2007;Dörnyei & Csizér, 1998) that targeted teachers of English inawide variety of educational contexts, the present study focuses onJapanese high school teachers of English. It is based on theassumption that teachers’ perceptions of such strategies are likelyto be influenced by the educational context to which they belong,and the teaching experiences they have accumulated; therefore, itis crucially important for such a study to focus on teachers at oneeducational leveldhigh school teachers of English in Japan.

Being fully aware of the lack of a relevant theoretical basis andthe paucity of empirical evidence on this front in the Japanese EFLhigh school context, the present study aims to investigate teachers’readiness to promote learner autonomy. Smith and Vieira (2009)are correct in saying we need to find an answer to the question of“what particular competences and conditions are required forteachers to promote learner autonomy” (p. 215). Moreover, as withlearner autonomy, there must be both observable and non-observable aspects in teachers’ becoming autonomous languageteachers. That is, we need to investigate what teachers do and whatthey believe they should do in the classroom for promoting theirstudents’ autonomy (i.e., strategies for promoting learnerautonomy), and what teachers do and what they believe theyshould do for promoting their own professional autonomy (i.e.,strategies for promoting professional autonomy). Of equallyimportance is to explore the missing aspect of teacher autonomy(i.e., teaching autonomy). Put it in a nutshell, one general researchquestion of this present study is: “Are Japanese EFL high schoolteachers ready for promoting autonomy in their learners?”

4. The study

4.1. Research goals

The present study attempts to explore Japanese high schoolteachers’ readiness with regard to (1) the perceived importance ofand the perceived use of strategies for promoting learner autonomyand professional autonomy by Japanese EFL high school teachers(the questionnaire survey), and (2) these teachers’ perception of

Y. Nakata / Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (2011) 900e910 903

their readiness for promoting learner autonomy (the focus groupinterview).

In order to achieve these research aims, the author adoptsa mixed methods design combining a quantitative questionnairestudy and a qualitative interview study, which is vital in order toprovide a clearer, more complete picture of the research findings.This is an explanatory sequential design as well (i.e., qualitativedata collection and analysis/ follow-up with qualitative datacollection and analysis/ interpretation) (Creswell & Clark, 2011).In fact, the results of the quantitative portion of the study are usedas the basis of discussion for the focus group interview. Therefore, itis plausible to consider the present study an exploratory sequentialmixed method design, where quantitative survey results areexamined through follow-up focus group explanations.

4.2. Participants

4.2.1. Questionnaire subjectsEighty English teachers working in high schools in Japan

participated in this study. They are all native speakers of Japanese,teaching English as a major subject. The participants compriseda convenience sample since they had been asked to voluntarily fillout the questionnaire by their co-workers or colleagues who kindlycooperated in the research. In this, a ‘snowball’ sampling strategy(whereby several key informants were identified and then wereasked to further introduce other potential participants, such astheir colleagues or the members of their study groups) wasimplemented to reach as many teachers of English as possible, andmost of the actual questionnaires were administered by mail oremail or handed directly to the participants. Then, the question-naires collected were subject to careful screening, and therebythose found to be either improperly filled or incomplete wereeliminated from the sample. This left 74 as a final sample. Thedetails of the participants are shown in Table 1 below.

4.2.2. Interview participantsThe participants were selected on the basis of the following

criteria: (1) they agreed to participate the focus group interviewvoluntarily (with their signature on the Ethical Protocol Sheet); (2)they agreed to fill in the same questionnaire before the interviewusing the same procedure as the original survey; (3) they were notparticipants in the questionnaire survey; (4) they were teacherswho had completed an M.A. in English Language Education or werestudying in that program, and thus they could look at issues both aspractitioners and as researchers; (5) they (except D who wasexpected to start her career as an English teacher at high schoolwithin 6 months) had more than 10 years’ teaching experience,each in a different educational context, and thereby could discussmany issues from different angles; (6) they could take a critical lookat the current status of EFL classrooms in Japan (i.e., the gapbetween the ideals and the realities in the EFL school context suchas the constraints and the limitations on their pedagogy)

Table 1Distribution of the participants.

Sex Age Teaching Experience

Males 39 Twenties 8 Less than 2 years 3Females 35 Thirties 17 2e4 years 4

Forties 29 5e9 years 10Fifties 20 10e14 years 6

15e19 years 1720e24 years 1825e29 years 830e34 years 6More than 35 years 2

Total 74

accordingly; and, most of all, (7) there was relatively good rela-tionship between participants (and between the interviewer andthe interviewees) so that they could discuss a variety of issues freelyamongst themselves without feeling much constraint, and therebyget to the root of the problems. It is important to emphasize thispoint, since such a good relationship plays a pivotal role in focusgroup interviews where interviewees are required to reflect uponthemselves and verbalize their reflections. For the same reason it isalso worth pointing out the obvious danger that, if participants arenot acquainted each other and do not have a good relationship, theyas teachers are likely to protect themselves, worrying about publichumiliation, and thus their discussion may remain at the surfacelevel, and fail to address the heart of the matter (e.g., their ownweaknesses, their shared problems). It is for this very reason thatparticipants in this interviewwere not selected from the subjects ofthe questionnaire survey, and thus the questionnaire survey andthe focus group interview need to be handled separately.

The detailed information on the participants in the focus groupinterview is shown in Table 2.

4.3. Data collection and analysis

4.3.1. The questionnaireThe questionnaire was developed after intense discussions with

two secondary school teachers. The instructions accompanying thequestionnaire highlight the purpose of the study, and confidenti-ality and anonymity are assured. Following this, the first sectionasks demographic questions such as gender, age, teaching level, andteaching experience. The other section is a closed questionnairewith 23 items arranged in a 4-point Likert scale format, rangingfrom strongly disagree to strongly agree. A neutral point was notincluded in the scale in order to avoid central tendency bias (i.e.,respondents are likely to use the central category, avoiding extremeones) (see Yu, Albaum, & Swenson, 2003). It must be clearlyacknowledged here that this is a study of teacher perceptions aboutstrategy importance and use.

The first 10 items, adopted from Chang (2007),1 asked theparticipant teachers to rate their perceived importance of certainstrategies for promoting learner autonomy on the 4-point scale inthe left-hand column attached to the questionnaire items, and torate their perceived use of these strategies in their practice in theright-hand column. Among the existing questionnaire instruments(e.g., Cotterall, 1999; Spratt et al., 2002), these 10 items wereconsidered to be the ones which most precisely capture thecommon characteristics of learners’ level of autonomy, in reallysimple terms that respondents ought to be able to understand. Inother words, these items essentially deal with issues of teachingautonomy. In translating them into Japanese, attention was there-fore paid more to whether they succeed in describing the commoncharacteristics of learner autonomy than to whether they correctlyreflect the meaning of the original items.

In a similar vein, the newly developed subsequent 13 items (inthe section on strategies for promoting professional autonomy)asked the participants about how important they perceived certainstrategies for promoting their own professional autonomy to be onthe one hand, and about how frequently they actually made use ofthese strategies in their practice on the other. Among these items,some overlap conceptually with those in the section on strategiesfor promoting leaner autonomy. This is owing to the fact that thecore concept of autonomy itself is inevitably shared in both sections

1 The participants in this study were 387 teachers of English in Taiwan in a widerange of institutional contexts from elementary schools to universities (mostlysecondary school teachers, though).

Table 2Summary of the participants.

Participants A B C D

Gender Male Female Female FemaleCareer Obtained his M.A. (in English

language education) six month agoSecond year ofM.A. program

First year of M.A. Program Second year of M.A. program

Teaching experience 22 years, taught rather high achievers 20 years, taught ratherlow achievers

16 years, taught rather low achieversfor most of her career but in recentyears taught at a school whose focusis more on communicative languageteaching

No teaching experience exceptpracticum or teaching assistant,will start her career as an Englishteacher within six months

Y. Nakata / Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (2011) 900e910904

(e.g., Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and Items 11, 12, 13, 14, 15). Unlike thepreceding section, the focus of this section has also been on whatteachers do (or they believe they should do) to improve both theirEnglish proficiency and teaching (Items 16, 17, 19, 20). On top ofthat, more considerationwas paid to a social-interactive dimensionas well as an individual cognitive dimension (Little, 1995, 1999)(e.g., “exchange opinions about the text with other teachers”,“exchange opinions about the ideal lesson with other teachers”).

The questionnaire was administered in Japanese during theperiod from April, 2008 to June, 2008. On completion of the datacollection, three types of analysis (descriptive statistics, pairedsample t-test, z-scores) were made to understand the importanceand frequency gap of strategy use. First of all, descriptive statisticsexpressing the mean and standard deviations were computed forall the questionnaire items. In addition, in order to find out if thedifference between the means of the importance and of thefrequency is statistically significant, a paired sample t-test wasconducted on the 23 items (see Table 4).

However, with the straightforward means alone, it is difficult tomake comparisons; we do not know whether the score is above orbelow the mean and how far above or below the mean. The thirdanalysis must address this issue. Calculating z-scores is helpful to thisend, since it tells us by how many standard deviations someone’sresponse is aboveorbelow themean. Then, to clarify thegapbetweenstrategies that they considered important for promoting theirlearners’/their own autonomy and those they actually employ, on thebasis of Chen and Dörnyei (2007, p. 164), three different statisticalmeasures were computed to describe the use of the strategies:

(1) The mean frequency of each individual item, which is the moststraightforward manner of deciding the extent to whicha strategy was employed.

(2) The difference between the mean frequency of a strategy andthe mean frequency of all the strategies (for the first section(Items 1e10) and the second section (Items 11e23)). Thismeasure shows the extent to which the use of a specificstrategy is above or below the average frequency of strategyuse (Mean (learner)¼ 2.47; Mean (teacher)¼ 2.86).

Table 3A list of interview questions.

Interview questions

1. What do you think of the differences between the perceived importance anduse of strategies for promoting learner autonomy and of the possible reasonsbehind these? (i.e., the descriptive statistics of Items 1e10 in Table 4)

2. Could you explain the possible reasons for those Items with a more than2-point difference (e.g., 4 and 2) and of those Items with a no-pointdifference (e.g., 2 and 2) between the importance and the frequency?

3. What do you think of the differences between the perceived importance anduse of strategies for promoting teacher autonomy and of the possible reasonsbehind these? (i.e., descriptive statistics of Items 11e23 in Table 4)

4. Could you explain the possible reasons for those Items with a more than2-point difference (e.g., 4 and 2) and of those Items with a no-point difference(e.g., 2 and 2) between importance and frequency?

(3) The difference of the standardized importance and frequencyscores for each strategy (z-diff). I subtracted the importance ofz-scores from the frequency of z-scores so that the resultsindicate whether the relative frequency of a strategy matchesthe relative importance attached to it: a negative figuredemonstrates that a strategy is underutilized relative to itsperceived importance whereas a positive figure means theopposite (see Table 5).

4.3.2. The focus group interviewThe focus group interview was conducted in Japanese (and later

translated into English by the present author) in a quiet butrelaxing environment on October 4th, 2008 and lasted for 90 min.The present author, serving as amoderator, carefully conducted thisfocus group interview and cautiously analyzed the data, payingheed to the possible danger inherent in the focus group interview:“the results cannot be generalized; the emerging group culturemayinterfere with individual expression, and the group may be domi-nated by one person; and ‘groupthink’ is a possible outcome”(Fontana & Frey, 2000, p. 652).

Prior to the focus group interview, the interviewees signed theEthics Protocol Sheet indicating that they understood that they hadvolunteered for the interview, that they had the right to skip andstop the interview if they felt the questions to be inappropriate, andthat the data would be confidential, to be used for researchpurposes only. In this focus group interview, projective techniques(a structured indirect way of investigating the whys of situations)were used, in order to uncover feelings, beliefs, attitudes andmotivation which participants are likely to find difficult to articu-late (Webb, cited in Donoghue, 2000, p. 47): their perceptions ofteacher readiness for autonomy in the behavioral, psychological,and situational dimensions. While paying attention to the baselineof the questions (Table 3) and the research purpose, interviewquestions were directed to interviewees rather flexibly in order todelve deeper into the fundamental issues of the problem.

There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate the safe environmentfor this focus group interview. From a relatively early stage in theinterview, there appeared already a vibrant discussion (i.e., duringthe time from 3 to 10 min from the beginning of the interview: A/

B/ A/ B/ A/ C/ B/ C/ A/ B/ C/ B/ Interviewer/ A/ B/ D/ B/ D/ A/ D). As the interviewwent on, thisbecame more and more clear. The number of words of each inter-viewee (A¼ 8402 words; B¼ 5475 words; C¼ 4774 words;D¼ 2592 words) and that of the interviewer (4983), and thecontent of their speech are the most compelling evidence insupport of the secure environment. Taken as a whole, there wasa good, stable relationship enabling them to speak freely regardlessof age, position, or career.

Once the focus group interview was completed and the dataanalyzed, the author sent a copy of the draft account to theparticipants for comment in order to ensure that the accountaccurately reflected their voices, and a few very minor amend-ments were made accordingly.

Table 4Descriptive statistics.

Item No. Learner/importance Learner/frequency Paired sample

Mean S.D. Mean S.D. t-test

Strategies for promoting learner autonomy1. Help learners to identify their own strengths and weaknesses 3.53 0.55 2.73 0.77 8.40***2. Help learners to set up their own learning goals 3.61 0.57 2.81 0.76 8.69***3. Help learners to decide what to learn outside of the classroom 3.23 0.75 2.51 0.79 7.77***4. Help learners to evaluate their own learning and progress 3.28 0.71 2.52 0.90 7.59***5. Help learners to stimulate their own interest in learning English 3.59 0.62 2.79 0.77 8.04***6. Help learners to learn from peers, not just from the teachers 2.85 0.68 2.23 0.77 6.24***7. Help learners to become more self-directed in their learning 3.65 0.53 2.81 0.72 9.20***8. Give learners chances to offer opinions in their learning 2.38 0.79 1.86 0.85 5.29***9. Help learners to discover knowledge in English on their own rather than

waiting for knowledge from the teacher3.67 0.60 2.56 0.82 9.97***

10. Give learners chances to offer opinions on what to learn in the classroom 2.60 0.83 1.89 0.79 7.09***

Strategies for promoting professional autonomy11. Identify their own strengths and weaknesses 3.81 0.43 3.12 0.90 6.90***12. Set up their own learning goals 3.73 0.53 2.93 0.97 7.40***13. Decide what to learn outside of the classroom 3.36 0.73 2.67 0.97 7.22***14. Evaluate their own learning and progress 3.79 0.41 2.72 0.90 10.29***15. Stimulate their own interest in learning English 3.67 0.55 2.84 0.95 8.54***16. Motivate themselves in improving teaching skills required for English teachers 3.78 0.45 3.05 0.81 7.40***17. Motivate themselves in improving English proficiency required for English teachers 3.80 0.40 3.11 0.81 6.93***18. Learn from colleagues at the school and those outside the school 3.68 0.55 2.74 0.84 9.21***19. Become self-directed in improving their teaching 3.81 0.46 3.04 0.85 8.10***20. Become self-directed in improving English proficiency 3.85 0.40 2.95 0.83 9.06***21. Exchange opinions about the text with other teachers 3.64 0.61 2.91 0.89 8.09***22. Listen to learners’ voices (e.g., questionnaire) and learn from them 3.47 0.80 2.56 1.00 7.20***23. Exchange opinions about the ideal lesson with other teachers 3.62 0.62 2.55 0.83 10.29***

(p< .001***).

Y. Nakata / Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (2011) 900e910 905

5. Results and discussion

5.1. The findings of the questionnaire survey

Several interesting findings were observed from the question-naire survey. Whereas Table 4 offers a general picture of how theparticipants perceive the importance and the use of strategies,

Table 5Frequency statistics of the use of the 10 strategies for promoting learner autonomy and ofand the second section (Items 11e23)): mean frequency; difference between the item’s mfrequency of an item relative to the importance attached to it) and its rank order.

Item No. Strategies for promoting learner autonomy

1. Help learners to identify their own strengths and weaknesses2. Help learners to set up their own learning goals3. Help learners to decide what to learn outside of the classroom4. Help learners to evaluate their own learning and progress5. Help learners to stimulate their own interest in learning English6. Help learners to learn from peers, not just from the teachers7. Help learners to become more self-directed in their learning8. Give learners chances to offer opinions in their learning9. Help learners to discover knowledge in English on their own rather

than waiting for knowledge from the teacher10. Give learners chances to offer opinions on what to learn in the classroom

Item No. Strategies for promoting professional autonomy11. Identify their own strengths and weaknesses12. Set up their own learning goals13. Decide what to learn outside of the classroom14. Evaluate their own learning and progress15. Stimulate their own interest in learning English16. Motivate themselves in improving teaching skills required for English teachers17. Motivate themselves in improving English proficiency required for English teacher18. Learn from colleagues at the school and those outside the school19. Become self-directed in improving their teaching20. Become self-directed in improving English proficiency21. Exchange opinions about the text with other teachers22. Listen to learners’ voices (e.g., questionnaire) and learn from them23. Exchange opinions about the ideal lesson with other teachers

Note. Negative figures indicate underutilization, positive ones overuse relative to the ite

Table 5 gives a more detailed account of to what extent theyperceive the importance and the use of each strategy.

We see from Table 4 that all of the strategies were found to beunderutilized relative to their perceived importance. In fact,statistically significant differences (paired sample t-test) werefound in all items. That is, for some reason they are in practice notemploying strategies as much as they consider important for

the 13 strategies for promoting learner autonomy (for the first section (Items 1e10)ean frequency and the mean frequency of all the items; relative frequency (i.e., the

Mean Mean-diff z-diff (rank order)

2.73 0.26 �1.48994 (7)2.81 0.34 �1.47632 (6)2.51 0.04 �1.29061 (4)2.52 0.05 �1.34905 (5)2.79 0.32 �1.49711 (8)2.23 �0.24 �1.11997 (2)2.81 0.34 �1.58314 (9)1.86 �0.61 �0.89088 (1)2.56 0.09 �2.0072 (10)

1.89 �0.58 �1.27268 (3)

Mean Mean-diff z-diff (rank order)3.12 0.26 �1.2695 (3)2.93 0.07 �1.4254 (7)2.67 �0.19 �1.23 (1)2.72 �0.14 �1.9599 (12)2.84 �0.02 �1.5018 (8)3.05 0.19 �1.3236 (4)

s 3.11 0.25 �1.2596 (2)2.74 �0.12 �1.7309 (11)3.04 0.18 �1.4 (6)2.95 0.09 �1.629 (9)2.91 0.05 �1.3745 (5)2.56 �0.30 �1.666 (10)2.55 �0.31 �1.9599 (13)

m’s importance.

Y. Nakata / Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (2011) 900e910906

promoting their learners’ autonomy and their own teacherautonomy, suggesting that there is a gap between the ideal and thereality inherent in their educational context.

But with this evidence, we are only certain about the fact thatmost teachers, despite the perceived importance of the strategies,did not use them as much as they supported them both withstudents and with themselves. Moreover, we must be aware of theproblem inherent in the Likert scale: the assumption that thedifferences between each response are equal in distance. Consid-ering the nature of this scale, it does not necessarily tell us that.With the mean scores, we can be only sure that people with high-numbered responses aremore in agreement with the questionnaireitems than those with low-numbered responses. Thus, each itemmust be further scrutinized.

In this regard, Table 5 (i.e., calculation of z-scores) offers severalinteresting findings. The most salient item is Item 9 “Help learnersto discover knowledge in English on their own rather than waitingfor knowledge from the teacher”. It is the strategy that appears tobe most underutilized (i.e., has the lowest z-diff score), far from thenext one in the rank order, in the first 10 questions (i.e., forpromoting learner autonomy). In the Japanese EFL classroomcontext where teacher-centered, grammar-translation, andauthoritarian methods are dominant, such a strategy may not befeasible. Herein lies a great dilemma. It seems that teachers cannotemploy this strategy despite their expressedwishes, perhaps owingto the limitations and constraints inherent in the school context(e.g., limited time available, curricular goal, textbook, universityentrance exam).

Another defining characteristic can be observed in Item 10 “Givelearners chances to offer opinions on what to learn in the class-room”, Item 8 “Give learners chances to offer opinions in theirlearning”, and Item 6 “Help learners to learn from peers, not justfrom the teachers”. They had the lowest means in both importanceand frequency, implying that teachers are not ready for providingtheir learners with such opportunities of learning together andtaking responsibility for leaning, partly owing to the teacher-dominated teaching traditions they are familiar with. Little (1995,p. 178) argues that total independence from the teacher, fromother learners, and from formally approved curricula is notautonomy but autism, suggesting the importance of interdepen-dence for the development of learner autonomy. All of these resultsmay partly illustrate a low level of readiness for promoting learnerautonomy (i.e., the lack of teaching autonomy, the lack of a social-interactive dimension).

Of the remaining 13 questions regarding “strategies forpromoting professional autonomy”, some interesting features wereobserved in Item 23“Exchange opinions about the ideal lessonwithother teachers” and Item 14 “Evaluate their own learning andprogress”. They are the strategies that appear to be extremelyunderutilized. This may be partly due to the limited amount of timeavailable (because of, e.g., such commitments as student advising,extracurricular coaching, career guidance, and club activity coach-ing), but is perhaps largely due to teacher isolation or lack ofcollegialityd not exclusively a Japanese phenomenon but a difficultchallenge faced by teachers and teacher educators around theworld (Flinders, 1988; Martinez, 2004; Nakata, 2008; Savonmäki,2007).

Taken as a whole, the gap between teachers’ perceived impor-tance and their actual use of strategies, and several salient featuresof the strategies seem to indicate teachers’ lack of readiness forpromoting leaner autonomy (i.e., the lack of both teachingautonomy and professional autonomy and therefore the lack ofteacher autonomy) in the three dimensions: behavioral, situational,and psychological (see Fig. 2). Though they are aware of theimportance of such strategies for the development of learner

autonomy, they are not determined enough to employ them, do notnecessarily know how to use them, and do not actually make fulluse of them in their practice and in their own professional devel-opment for some reason. The focus group interview thereforeshould delve deeper into the fundamental causes of this reason.

After conducting all this, the analysis of this large group surveywas further used with the focus group participants to compare theresult of the survey and the focus group interview subjects’responses to the questionnaire. Prior to the focus group interview,therefore, they were instructed to fill in the same questionnaire towhich the participant teachers had responded. Having filled in this,theywere finally provided with the descriptive statistics data of thesurvey so that they could compare their own responses with theresults of the survey.

The detailed information on the participants’ responses to thequestionnaire is shown in the Appendix. In relation to the largesample, two general patterns in their responses (a lower level ofperceived importance of and perceived use of strategies forpromoting learner autonomy, and a higher level of professionalautonomy) were observed. However, this should not be consideredas a “finding” of the study to the same degree as the large samplesurvey, since the purpose is to provide their response pattern.Considering their background, these participants are highly likelyto understand more about what it is to be an autonomous languagelearner and be more aware of the difficulty of employing suchstrategies, and thereby may be much more autonomous in thethree dimensions: behavioral, situational, and psychological.

Moreover, Participant D’s responses are clearly different fromthe others (perhaps owing to the lack of her teaching experience)(see Appendix). Therefore, the data of this participant wasexempted from further analysis except for some of her dialogs withthe other participants.

5.2. The findings of the focus group interview

Given the secure environment, the focus group offered manyinsights that have helped us to interpret the responses to thequestionnaire and to understand aspects not uncovered inthe questionnaire survey. Though the interview started from thediscussion of how they interpreted the differences betweenperceived importance and use of learner strategies in the largegroup survey, the findings hereinafter arose mostly out of theextended and vibrant discussion itself beyond that leveldfromthe socio-cultural perspective (i.e., the current state of affairs ofteacher autonomy in the Japanese EFL school context). Accord-ingly, seven themes emerged from the focus group discussion,helping to explain the questionnaire results and highlightinghow Japanese teachers are constrained or limited by the social/cultural context in promoting teacher, professional, and teachingautonomy.

First of all, the focus group interview revealed the factor ofinstitutional constraints (i.e., the realities inherent in the JapaneseEFL high school context). For example, regarding Item 10 “Givelearners chances to offer opinions on what to learn in the class-room”, C argued that students are not ready for this and thus theircomments on this matter in many cases are likely to become merecomplaints that may destroy the whole-classroom atmosphere(C-1). This may to a greater or lesser extent stem from teachers’own lack of true negotiation, as is revealed by the following remarkmade by A:

Two or three teachers get together and discuss the textbook touse for the semester. However, in many instances, we onlynegotiate how we together use it during the semester. Oncedecided, we just follow routinework. There are curriculum goals

Y. Nakata / Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (2011) 900e910 907

we need to achieve until mid-term exam and final exam.Everything seems to be predetermined and unchangeable.(A-27)

This comment suggests that their failure to utilize suchimportant opportunities for negotiation with their students, fordeveloping the curriculum and perhaps for their own self-development may have stemmed in part from their accumu-lated experience in an exam-oriented educational culture. It canbe suggested that these teachers are in the state of reactiveautonomy.

Several of the interviewees seemed to believe that Item 2, “Helplearners to set up their own learning goals”, is unrealistic in theirteaching context. Teachers themselves, they argued, do not havesuch an idea of helping learners to set their own goals, because theyare trapped by the stereotypical view that it is the teacher’s job toset the learners’ goals, not the learners’. All this can be the evidenceto confirm the institutional inflexibility that limits teachers’perceptions of the possibility of actually asking learners to set theirown goals (see Benson, 2010b for similar findings among secondaryschool teachers in Hong Kong). This can be regarded as convincingevidence to support the model (Fig. 2) that the three dimensions ofreadiness are conditioned by the social/cultural context which isfiltered by teachers’ professional/personal lives (including workingconditions). Therefore, reluctance to engage in attempts to promotelearner autonomy should not be simply interpreted as lack ofmotivation to do so.

The second characteristic was entrance-exam constraints.Owing to this, there lies a great dilemma in the pedagogicalapproach teachers employ. It seems to be the reality, as they argue,that more than 80 percent of Japanese high school teacherscontinue to use the grammar-translation method because theybelieve it is the best route to success for their students in theuniversity entrance exam (A-7, B-38, 39, C-10, 11). A’s remark isa good example of struggling with the reality inherent in theJapanese EFL high school context:

Strictly speaking, even if teachers do employ the grammar-translation method, it is okay as long as their students succeedin passing the university entrance exam. In short, the students’entrance exam results are everything. It is the reality. When Iwas young, I was determined to employ the communicativeapproach. But, as far as the university entrance exam was con-cerned, the class employing the grammar-translation methodwas found to be much more successful than my class, and then Iwas criticized for using such an approach. (C: Their parents alsooften say things like that.) As a natural corollary to this, peoplecome to believe that the grammar-translation method is thebest. (A-48)

Subsequent discussions in the interview repeatedly confirm thegap between the ideal and the reality, in other words, their strug-gles in a given context that is full of constraints and limitations.

That being said, I believe we should be cautious in concludingthat the teachers employing the grammar-translation method donot have any of the characteristics of language teacher autonomy,because that method could be the outcome of their self-regulatedthoughts and reflective practices. And admittedly teachers aremotivated by very different goals (perhaps much more thanstudents).

The third issue explored was constraints on the development ofprofessional autonomy, partly due to the nature of school teachingassignments. I found that, triggered by each different impetus, eachindividual’s pathway toward achieving teacher autonomy tends tobe influenced by a myriad of contextual issues. Thus A’s pathwaytoward achieving a high level of teacher autonomy was steady and

sound. In his twenties, he began to pay more attention to theimprovement of his English proficiency, as he recalls: “When Ireturned to Japan (after my study in the U.S.) and started to studyEnglish at an English language school, I became aware of my lack ofEnglish proficiency and thus the necessity of improving it further”(A-73).

However, in his early thirties he experienced a significantturning point in his career: he began to take a greater interest inteaching skills when he observed the professionalism of somecharismatic junior high school teachers with highly developedteaching skills. Having observed this and re-examined his ownteaching objectively, he came to realize the importance of reflectiveteaching: “I came to think I needed to improve not only languageproficiency but also teaching skills so that I could help my studentsto enjoy my lessons. This realization helped constitute who I am”

(A-73). For one thing, Teacher A seems to have achieved profes-sional autonomy (the characteristics of the teacher acting/feelingprofessionally autonomous). For another, in the area of teachingautonomy (the act of supporting student autonomy), this teachermay be more autonomous in the psychological dimension than inthe other dimensions (situational and behavioral). Nevertheless, itis certainly no exaggeration to claim that Teacher A exhibitsa higher level of teacher autonomy as characterized by Little (2007)than the others.

Being at the high school where there was no such pressure orurgent need to achieve a high level of English proficiency as anEnglish teacher, Teacher B, like other teachers of English at thesame school, did not have to use a high level of English in theclassroom. But three or four years on, she started to wonder if thiswas okay and resolved to change herself by attending some teachertraining sessions. Nevertheless, because of the need to conformwith the other teachers, she was not able to change her grammar-translation method.

Working in a difficult and complex situation where studentswalked about, threw things, and ate snacks in the classroom,Teacher C wanted to provide her students with better teaching andthus went through all the process of trial and error in her practice.When she read the theory onmotivational strategy and looked backon what she was doing, she came to understand that the variousmeasures she took were in practice motivational strategies. Thisgave her an impetus to pursue her professional development andmap out concretemeasures to achieve that goaldby studying in theMaster’s program.

Fourth, the interview revealed the fact that the majorimpediment to the development of professional autonomy isteacher isolation and the lack of collegiality (i.e., constraints onthe development of professional autonomy). The followingcomment by C illustrates that there is a hierarchy in theJapanese EFL high school that impedes teachers’ independenceand interdependence.

[In the staff meeting] when one teacher had suggested thatother teachers [who were teaching the same course] shouldadopt the same approach, a senior teacher warned a youngteacher by saying “Are you telling me what to do?” It was sohard for me to see that . because that young teacher had hadno such intention and [at the beginning of the same meeting]the senior teacher had actually said, “We should employ thesame approach.” But that senior teacher also seems to have hadher own pride hurt. It was terrifying to me. After all, we youngteachers have to respect senior teachers and thus it is difficultfor us to tell them what we are doing in our classroom and thatwe are in fact successful . And, from these teachers’ point ofview, a positive response from the students may not always begood; for them, the effectiveness of teaching is measured by the

Y. Nakata / Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (2011) 900e910908

students’ success in the university entrance exam . As Bpointed out, there are teachers who build a wall around them-selves (B said, “Yes, there are indeed”). I concur with what B justsaid, that is, we should build a good and open relationshipwhere no one approach is singled out as being better than otherapproaches. (C-6) (underline, the author)

C’s account resonates with Vieira’s (2003) idea that theconfrontation and negotiation of ideas are as crucially important asindividual reflection, because “professional talk helps to avoidreflective ‘autism’ and turns reflection into a social act that givesvoice to different (something conflicting) rationalities” (p. 231). Infact, the discussion itself during the focus group interview is a goodexample of this. And even more intriguing is the fact that teacherC’s reflection went far beyond that, as illustrated in the underlinedparts above. She seems to have understood the importance ofrespecting difference and diversity in educational practice, and ofcreating a trusting relationship between teachers in the schoolcontext. The findings illustrate how collegiality and professionalautonomy (as part of teacher autonomy) co-exist in the JapaneseEFL high school context, suggesting the importance of harmony inthe school context.

Fifth, I found that teaching autonomy (as well as professionalautonomy) is an indispensable feature of teacher autonomy. This isillustrated by B’s remark in response to a question about whethera reduction in class size would help learners to becomeautonomous:

First and foremost, teachers themselves need to have sucha concept, that is, of becoming autonomous language learners.The reduction in class size would not make much difference. .In order to bring autonomy about, . give teachers some prac-tical demonstrationwhereby they can experience its efficacy forthemselves, and some enthusiastic talk that will persuade themto believe in the possibility that students can make dramaticprogress while still passing the university entrance exam.Merely reading a paper stressing its efficacy does not helpbecause they have already their own stereotypical view on thismatter. (B-77eB-81)

The key to making autonomy a reality in the Japanese EFL highschool context is to help teachers understand the value of thestrategies for promoting learner autonomy and teacher autonomyin a convincing way. In other words, it must be done in a context-sensitive way so that even those not ready for promoting autonomyin their learners can accept its value.

However, this is also in contrast to C’s belief in the potential ofsmall class size in encouraging teachers to employ a number ofpractices for promoting learner autonomy:

When I had 40 students in my classroom, there was no room topay attention to each individual learner. But with the half-sizeclass, I have an opportunity to pay much more attention to eachstudent’s comments [in the reaction paper she asked them toreflect upon themselves] and make my own comments on themin turn. (C-22)

At first sight, these two opinions appear to contradict each other.However, on closer scrutiny, both of their views reflect theirteaching experience accumulated in different educational contexts,implying that any measure for promoting learner autonomy andteacher autonomy must be taken in a context-sensitive, convincingway.

Finally, like C’s remark above, A’s account below is itselfevidence that he was struggling to give an answer at first, but in theend, through discussions with others during the interview, suc-ceeded in framing for himself a compelling answer to the question:

“How can we promote autonomy in learners and teachers in theJapanese EFL context with its constraints and limitations?”:

I always believe that lifelong learners are those who lovelearning English. That is why we need to give English lessonswhich are enjoyable and stimulating to them. Enjoyable, inother words, their sense of achievement . When they findEnglish interesting and stimulating, they naturally come tostudy English.We have to map out concrete measures for thatand act them out. Therefore, in order to cultivate autonomy inlanguage learners, teachers need to reconsider their lesson plansfrom their learner’s perspective on one hand, while making alsosome adjustment to the preparation to university entranceexamination on the other. (A-105)

Judging from the existing literature in learner and teacherautonomy aforementioned and the findings of this study, thereseem to be enough grounds to assume that Teacher A is ready forpromoting autonomy in his learners in an educational context thatis full of limitations and constraints.

6. Conclusion

The purposes of this present study were to explore Japanesehigh school teachers’ readiness with regard to (1) the perceivedimportance of and the perceived use of strategies for promotinglearner autonomy and professional autonomy by Japanese EFL highschool teachers, and (2) these teachers’ perception of their readi-ness for promoting learner autonomy. Whereas items in theimportance column of the questionnaire contribute to uncover thepsychological dimension of teacher autonomy (the first 10 items forteaching autonomy and the remaining 13 items for professionalautonomy), the use column attempts to reveal its behavioraldimension (Fig. 2). The focus group interview inquires into thesituational dimension of teacher autonomy as well as the behav-ioral and psychological dimensions.

Any general conclusions from this study remain tentative andthus must be considered speculative. The sample size of thequestionnaire survey is rather small and the focus group interviewis not free from problems, as pointed out earlier. The interviewstudy also revealed the response bias and concerns inherent ina self-reporting questionnaire: a social desirability bias (Huang,Liao, & Chang, 1989), such that respondents (the participantteachers, in particular) tend to describe their behaviors as betterthan they actually are, which may affect the reliability of the data(e.g., “We teachers tend to mark them as important on the ques-tionnaire and it is difficult for us tomark 2 on these items” (A-13), “Imight have unintentionally overestimated the frequency ofstrategy use on my mark, perhaps because I did not want to hurtmyself” (B-45, 46)). However, this should also be regarded asa compelling evidence in support of the interview’s complemen-tary role vis-à-vis the survey result.

Taken as a whole, the findings drawn from the survey and thefocus group interview provide enough evidence to conclude thatmany Japanese EFL high school teachers, while understanding theimportance of autonomy, are not as yet fully ready for promoting itin their learners and have not achieved the full characteristics oflanguage teacher autonomy to a high degree. The quantitativeanalysis suggested that most teachers realized the importance ofthe strategies, but did not use them as much as they supportedthem both with students and with themselves. The qualitativeanalysis illustrates that the social/cultural context impinges onwhat teachers decide to do to promote their students’ and theirown autonomy, rather indirectly through the filters of “the indi-vidual teachers’ biographies and identities developed from theirprevious experiences of the educational system as learners and

Y. Nakata / Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (2011) 900e910 909

teachers” (Benson, 2010b, p. 273). This leads us to infer that thethree dimensions of readiness (i.e., behavioral, situational, andpsychological in Fig. 2) are conditioned by the social/culturalcontext which is filtered by teachers’ professional/personal lives(including working conditions). Some teachers are more autono-mous than other teachers in one dimension, while others are evenmore so in the other dimensions. As said earlier, we thereforecannot simply assume that teachers who stick to the grammar-translation method are not autonomous in any sense. The findingsalso seem to indicate that, to achieve the full characteristics oflanguage teacher autonomy, one’s professional autonomy(including collegiality) must be integratedwith teaching autonomy,suggesting the interdependence of professional autonomy,teaching autonomy, and teacher autonomy (Fig. 1).

The interview data also provides some evidence to confirm thatthe context of high-stakes exams forced Japanese EFL high schoolteachers to react in a way that focused on goals of test performance(rather than developing autonomous learners), while supportingthe notion of the transitional period and the idea of being ona reactive to proactive continuum, through which Japaneseteachers are, either consciously or unconsciously, struggling orendeavoring to pass. Whereas they demonstrated a more “reactiveautonomy”, they also offered a glimpse of their potential to achievemore than that. If the goal of the system was shifted from examperformance (i.e., short-term goal) to learner autonomy (i.e., a long-term goal for life-long language learning) and, more importantly,the value of this was permeated and shared among teachers andlearners in the educational context, reactive autonomous teacherscould react to it and expedite their efforts to become moreproactive.

All this is perhaps not a phenomenon exclusively pertaining toJapanese teachers but one that characterizes many educationalcontexts in the transitional period. To achieve proactive autonomydesirable in each educational context, therefore, teachers first need

Appendix

Summary of the questionnaire result.

Participants A B C

Learner I* F* I F IQ1 3 2 3 2 3Q2 3 2 4 2 3Q3 2 2 4 3 4Q4 3 2 4 2 3Q5 2 2 4 2 4Q6 4 4 4 2 4Q7 2 2 4 2 4Q8 3 2 3 3 2Q9 2 2 3 2 4Q10 4 4 3 3 3

Teacher I F I F IQ11 3 3 3 3 4Q12 3 3 3 3 4Q13 3 3 4 4 3Q14 4 3 4 3 4Q15 4 4 3 3 4Q16 4 4 4 4 4Q17 4 4 4Q18 4 4 4 4 4Q19 4 4 4 4 4Q20 4 4 4 3 4Q21 4 4 4 4 4Q22 4 4 4 4 4Q23 4 4 4 4 4

*I (importance), F(frequency).**Overall questionnaire results are also included to compare them with the results of th

to understand their learners, to find intrinsic value in promotingtheir own teacher autonomy (both professional and teachingautonomy), to negotiate with the constraints in the educationalcontext for promoting learner autonomy, then to understand eachother, and, by doing so, to become more reflective in their practice.Imperative in the pursuit of this is the context-sensitive, step-by-step approach (e.g., Nakata, 2007, 2010), which may be differentfrom those employed in educational contexts where promotinglearner autonomy is one of the educational goals (e.g., Denmark,Finland, or Ireland).

Thus, the challenge to the teacher education programme willbe for teacher educators, especially those not fully familiar withthe classroom/school context, to support teachers in developingautonomy within constraints while working to remove theconstraints. In this, due consideration must be given to under-standing teachers’ readiness, educational contexts and workingconditions. I have learned from the participants’ responses that,in the focus group interview, they gradually started to reflect onthemselves, to speculate about the meaning of learner andteacher autonomy in their own context, and to consider howthey should promote autonomy in their students and in them-selves. The key to achieving this goal is for teacher educators tocreate a safe space or a supportive environment where teacherscan comfortably discuss such issues with colleagues, reflecton themselves more deeply, and figure out the answer on theirown.

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to editors andanonymous reviewers who offered me insightful advice andteachers who devoted their time to my research project. I also wishto thank Bernard Dot for proofreading this article.

D Overall questionnaireresults**

F I F I F2 3 3.53 2.732 4/3 3.61 2.813 3 3.23 2.512 4 3.28 2.523 3 3.59 2.793 3 2.85 2.233 3 3.65 2.813 3 2.38 1.862 3 3.67 2.563 4 2.6 1.89

F I F I F3 3 3 3.81 3.123 4 2 3.73 2.932 3 2 3.36 2.673 4 3.79 2.722 4 3 3.67 2.844 4 2 3.78 3.054 4 2 3.8 3.113 4 3 3.68 2.743 4 2 3.81 3.042 4 1 3.85 2.952 3 3.64 2.914 4 3 3.47 2.561 4 3.62 2.55

e interview participants.

Y. Nakata / Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (2011) 900e910910

References

Aoki, N. (2002). Aspects of teacher autonomy: capacity, freedom, and responsibility.In P. Benson, & S. Toogood (Eds.), Learner autonomy 7: Challenges to research andpractice. Dublin: Authentik.

Aoki, N. (2003). Expanding space for reflection and collaboration. In A. Barfield, &M. Nix (Eds.), Autonomy you ask! (pp. 189e195). Tokyo: JALT.

Aoki, N., & Nakata, Y. (2011). Gakushuusha autonomy: Nihongo kyouiku to gaikokugokyouiku no mirai no tameni. [Learner autonomy: For the future of Japaneselanguage education and foreign language education]. Tokyo: Hitsuji.

Barfield, A., & Brown, S. (Eds.). (2007). Restructuring autonomy in language educa-tion: Inquiry and innovation. Basinstoke: Palgrave.

Barfield, A., & Nix, M. (Eds.). (2003). Autonomy you ask! Tokyo: JALT.Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. Harlow:

Longman.Benson, P. (2010a). Measuring autonomy: should we put our ability to the test? In

A. Paran, & L. Sercu (Eds.), Testing the untestable in language education (pp.77e97) Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Benson, P. (2010b). Teacher education and teacher autonomy: creating spaces forexperimentation in secondary school English language teaching. LanguageTeaching Research, 14(3), 259e275.

Benson, P., & Lor, L. W. (1998). Making sense of autonomous language learning. InEnglish Center Monograph, No. 2, . Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong.

Chan, V. (2001). Readiness for learner autonomy: what do our learners tell us?Teaching in Higher Education, 6(4), 505e518.

Chan, V. (2003). Autonomous language learning: the teachers’ perspective. Teachingin Higher Education, 8(1), 33e48.

Chang, L. Y.-H. (2007). The influence of group processes on learners’ autonomousbeliefs and behaviors. System, 35(3), 322e337.

Cheng, H.-F., & Dörnyei, Z. (2007). The use of motivational strategies in languageinstruction: the case of EFL teaching in Taiwan. Innovation in Language Learningand Teaching, 1, 153e174.

Cotterall, S. (1999). Key variables in language learning: what do learners believeabout them? System, 27(4), 493e513.

Creswell, J. W., Vicki, L., & Clark, P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methodsresearch (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Donoghue, S. (2000). Projective techniques in consumer research. Journal of FamilyEcology and Consumer Sciences, 28, 47e53.

Dörnyei, Z., & Csizér, K. (1998). Ten commandments for motivating languagelearners: results of an empirical study. Language Teaching Research, 2, 203e229.

Esaki, L. (2002, 16 April). Autonomy, Zen sprit may help foster creativity in youngpeople. The Daily Yomiuri, 8.

Flinders, D. (1988). Teacher isolation and the new reform. Journal of Curriculum andSupervision, 4(1), 17e29.

Fontana, A., & Frey, H. (2000). The interview: from structured questions to nego-tiated text. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research(2nd ed.). (pp. 645e672) Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Helwig, C. C. (2006). The development of personal autonomy throughout cultures.Cognitive Development, 21, 458e473.

Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.Huang, C.-Y., Liao, H.-Y., & Chang, S.-H. (1989). Social desirability and the clinical

self-report inventory: methodological reconsideration. Journal of ClinicalPsychology, 54, 517e528.

Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy 1: Definitions, issues, and problem. Dublin:Authentik.

Little, D. (1995). Learning as dialogue: the dependence of learner autonomy onteacher autonomy. System, 23(2), 175e181.

Little, D. (1999). Developing learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom:a social-interactive view of learning and three fundamental pedagogical prin-ciples. Rivista Canaria de Destudios Ingleses, 38, 77e88.

Little, D. (2007). Language learner autonomy: some fundamental considerationsrevisited. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1, 14e29.

Little, D. (2009). Learner autonomy in action: adult immigrants learning English inIreland. In F. Kjisik, P. Voller., N. Aoki, & Y. Nakata (Eds.), Mapping the terrain of

learner autonomy: Learning environments, learning communities and identities(pp. 50e85). Tampere, Finland: Tampere University Press.

Little, T. D., Hawley, P. H., Henrich, C. C., & Marsland, K. W. (2002). Three views of theagenic self: a developmental synthesis. In E. D. Deci, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.),Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 389e404). Rochester: University ofRochester Press.

Little, D., Ridley, J., & Ushioda, E. (2003). Towards greater learner autonomy in theforeign language classroom. Dublin: Authentik.

Littlewood, W. (1999). Defining and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts.Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 71e94.

Littlewood, W. (2000). Do Asian students really want to listen and obey? ELTJournal, 54, 31e35.

Martinez, M. C. (2004). Teachers working together for school success. Thousand Oaks,CA: Corwin.

McGrath, I. (2000). Teacher autonomy. In B. Sinclair, I. McGrath, & T. Lamb (Eds.),Learner autonomy, teacher autonomy: Future directions (pp. 100e110). Harlow:Longman.

MEXT. (2003). Eigoga-tsukaeru nihonjinn-notameno Koudoukeikaku. [Action planto cultivate “Japanese with English abilities”]. Retrieved from: http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/shingi/chukyo/chukyo3/015/siryo/04042301/011.htm.

MEXT. (2008). Toward future promotion in science and technology. Retrieved from:http://www.mext.go.jp/english/news/2008/03/08021921/001/007.pdf.

MEXT. (2009). Higher education in Japan. Retrieved from: http://www.mext.go.jp/english/koutou/detail/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2009/12/03/1287370_1_1.pdf.

Nakata, Y. (2006). Motivation and experience in foreign language learning. Oxford:Peter Lang.

Nakata, Y. (2007). Social interactive tools for the development of learner autonomy:from reactive autonomy to proactive autonomy. In L. Miller (Ed.), Learnerautonomy 9: Autonomy in the classroom (pp. 46e67). Dublin: Authentik.

Nakata, Y. (2008). Ima naze autonomy ga hitsuyouka. [Why do we need autonomynow?]. The English Teachers’ Magazine, 56(12), 25e27.

Nakata, Y. (2009). Towards learner autonomy and teacher autonomy in the Japaneseschool context. In F. Kajik, P. Voller, N. Aoki, & Y. Nakata (Eds.), Mapping theterrain of learner autonomy: Learning environments, learning communities andidentities (pp. 190e213). Tampere, Finland: Tampere University Press.

Nakata, Y. (2010). Towards a framework for self-regulated language-learning. TESLCanada Journal, 27(2), 1e10.

Palfreyman, D., & Smith, R. C. (2003). Learner autonomy across cultures: Languageeducation perspective. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Sao, H., & Wu, Z. (2007). Nurturing language learner autonomy through caringpedagogic practice. In A. Barfield, & S. Brown (Eds.), Restructuring autonomy inlanguage education: Inquiry and innovation. Basinstoke: Palgrave.

Savonmäki, P. (2007). Collegial collaboration among teachers in polytechnic: Amicropolitical perspective on teachership. University of Jyväskylä, Institute forEducational Research. Research Reports, 23.

Smith, R. (2000). Starting with ourselves: teacher-learner autonomy in languagelearning. In B. Sinclair, I. McGrath, & T. Lamb (Eds.), Learner autonomy, teacherautonomy: Future directions (pp. 89e99). Harlow: Longman.

Smith, R., & Vieira, F. (2009). Teacher education for learner autonomy: buildinga knowledge base. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 3(3),215e220.

Spratt, M., Humphreys, G., & Chan, V. (2002). Autonomy and motivation: whichcomes first? Language Teaching Research, 6(3), 245e266.

Ushioda, E. (2010). Researching growth in autonomy through I-statement anal-ysis. In B. O’Rourke, & L. Carson (Eds.), Language learner autonomy: Policy,curriculum, classroom (A festschrift in honor of David Little) (pp. 45e62).Oxford: Peter Lang.

Vieira, F. (2003). Critical reader response 1. In A. Barfield, & M. Nix (Eds.), Autonomyyou ask! (pp. 230e231). Tokyo: JALT.

Wu, Z. (2004). Being, understanding and naming: teachers’ life and work inharmony. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 307e323.

Yu, J. H., Albaum, G., & Swenson, M. (2003). Is a central tendency error inherent inthe use of semantic differential scales in different cultures? International Journalof Market Research, 45(2), 213e228.