See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/295558315

DEVELOPMENT OF A SCALE FOR THE MEASUREMENT OF

AUTONOMOUS LEARNING

Article in Pakistan Journal of Statistics · December 2014

CITATION READS

1 1,539

1 author:

Aysel Deregözü
Inonu University
20 PUBLICATIONS 33 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Aysel Deregözü on 11 April 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Pak. J. Statist.
2014 Vol. 30(6), 1187-1196

DEVELOPMENT OF A SCALE FOR THE MEASUREMENT

OF AUTONOMOUS LEARNING1

Aysel Deregözü
Department of German Language Teaching, Istanbul University,
Istanbul, Turkey. Email: aysel.deregozu@istanbul.edu.tr

ABSTRACT
The major objective of this study is to develop a scale to measure learner autonomy in
view of learning process. As prior studies have primarily focused on terminological and
conceptual issues of learner autonomy, far too little attention has been paid to the
development of scales to measure autonomous learning. In order to develop such a scale
the study was conducted on prospective teachers’ of a university in the western part of
Turkey. The groups were determined by the random sampling method. A draft scale
composed of 21 items was compiled for use in this study. Exploratory factor analysis
(EFA) was applied to evaluate the factor structure of this scale. Item analysis was used to
evaluate the consistency of each item within the entire scale and the distinctive quality of
each item. The reliability of the scale was calculated by Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for
internal consistency. As a result of EFA, a three-factored structure composed of 14 items,
which have factor load values above .30 and above was finalized. The scale’s internal
consistency coefficient, which was .78, indicated high reliability. The study results
showed that this scale was an appropriate instrument to evaluate learners’ autonomy
within the autonomous learning process.

KEYWORDS
Learner Autonomy; Autonomous Learning Scale; Learning Habits.

1. INTRODUCTION
Today’s rapidly changing world is not just a challenge for economic and social life,
but also for educational systems. They are confronted with the expectation to educate
citizens with high qualities and abilities, allowing them to respond immediately to current
needs. Thus a great amount of studies have been carried out to find out to what extent
institutionalized learning could contribute to the development of such qualities. Key
terms like active participation and student-centeredness were major issues in these studies
(Benson, 2001, p.16). Learner autonomy has received considerable attention within this
scope. Despite the fact that institutionalized learning and autonomous learning seemed to
be controversial, it was a much disputed subject within the field of institutionalized
learning. It was first defined by Holec (1981) as “learners’ ability to take charge of their

1
This study was presented at the Ist International Eurasian Educational Research Congress
in Istanbul, Turkey, 24-26 April 2014, the scale is a part of the researcher’s master thesis.

© 2014 Pakistan Journal of Statistics 1187

1188 Development of a Scale for the Measurement of Autonomous Learning

own learning” (p.3). As one of the most frequent cited definition of learner autonomy it is
related to learners’ responsibility for decisions concerning all aspects of learning. These
aspects include decisions to determine objectives, define contents and progressions,
selecting methods and techniques to be used in the learning process, monitoring the
procedure of acquisition and evaluating what has been acquired (Holec, 1981, p.4). This
definition reveals that learner autonomy is related to learners’ decisions in the learning
process. Thus it is considered as a “vital part of learning process” (Tanyeli & Kuter,
2013, p.29). However in literature learner autonomy has been defined within different
context. Hence the term is used to determine situations in which learners study entirely
on their own, for a set of skills which can be learned and applied in self-directed learning,
an inborn capacity which is suppressed by institutional education, the exercise of learners'
responsibility for their own learning and the right of learners to determine the direction of
their own learning (Thanasoulas, 2000). Further it is defined as “…acquiring learning
strategies for language education and the ways of using these strategies” (Mutlu & Eröz-
Tuğa, 2013, p.109). Thus there does not appear to be a single consensual definition of
what is meant by autonomous learning (Macaskill & Taylor, 2010, p.3).On the other hand
Benson (2007) points out that the variations of autonomy definitions are on the basis
related to Holec’s (1981) first definition. That is that the key element of autonomy
description of this kind is the idea that autonomy is an attribute of learners, rather than
learning situations (p.22). Accepted as an attribute of learners it is of great importance to
identify personality characteristics of autonomous learners. Due the fact that there is no
consensual definition of autonomy, it is hard to determine to what extent learners are
acting autonomously. Therefore terminological confusions have to be clarified and
confined to ascertain the measurement of learners’ autonomy level. Benson (2006) draws
our attention to various autonomy models by which means learners’ autonomy level can
be identified (p.23). It is evident that these models are based on different autonomy
concepts. Thus it has to be specified, which autonomy definition to accept as the basis for
empirical studies. It is just to that extent possible to support learners to be autonomous, if
there is a conceptual agreement. Assumed as ability, it has to be questioned to what
extent the learners are acting autonomously. As abilities are reflections of learners’
personality characteristics, attitudes and habits, it is required to identify these
characteristics, attitudes and habits in view of autonomous learning. Holec (1981) relates
learner autonomy to learner responsibilities in the learning process (p.3). Thus the
reflections of these responsibilities may be evident in learning habits. Even though
learner autonomy has been debated under certain aspects like personal autonomy and
autonomy in learning (Benson, 2011, p.29), it has to be searched for primarily in the
learning process. As “We take our first step towards developing the ability to take charge
of our own learning when we accept full responsibility for the learning process,
acknowledging that success in learning depends crucially on ourselves rather than on
other people.” (Little, 2006, p.1). Therefore it can be said that “Learners who are able to
play the kind of active role in their own learning (…) could be said to be autonomous.”
(Nunan, 2003, p. 22). Thus it is essential to determine the level of active participation in
the learning process.
Out of the studies on autonomy it is apparent that a great amount of them have been
carried out to define learner autonomy, but still there are insufficient studies about how to
measure it. For instance in many studies (Benson 2011; Little 2000; Little 2009;
Aysel Deregözü 1189

Littlewood 1999; Holec 2009) the debate takes place on how to foster learner autonomy
rather than on how to measure. To date far too little attention has been paid to this issue.
Therefore studies on learner autonomy have been criticized for not having adequate
instruments to measure it (Macaskill & Taylor, 2010, p.10). Efforts are made to develop
such instruments. The most widely used Self-directed Learning Readiness Scale
developed by Guglielmino to measure learner autonomy consists of self-management,
desire for learning and self-control subscales. It has been criticized for its construct
validity and some short-comings. So it is recommended to discontinue using this scale for
the measurement of autonomy (Macaskill & Taylor, 2010, p. 4). A further scale
developed to measure learner autonomy is Self-directed Learning Readiness Scale for
Nursing Education (Fisher, King & Tague 2001). It is composed of self-management,
desire for learning and self-control subscales as like in the scale of Guglielmino.
Macaskill and Taylor (2010) criticize this scale as it contains various variables to
measure. Thus it is pointed out that this scale is not constructed specifically for the
measurement of autonomous learning (p.4).Due to the above mentioned deficiencies
Macaskill and Taylor (2010) developed a scale specifically to measure autonomous
learning. It consists of two subscales: First measures learners’ independence of learning,
the second study habits. The underlying autonomy concept of this scale is, that learner
autonomy can be measured by defining autonomous learning habits. Yet the scale items
vary from motivational aspects, to emotional. When the items are analyzed in detail they
seem to be weak to represent learning habits with respect of autonomous learning
process. Thus it has to be clarified, which habits to accept as appropriate for the
measurement of autonomous learning. In this regard the qualitative studies of Martinez
(2010) and Tassinari (2010) give useful clues to define and confine autonomous learning
habits. Martinez (2010) study reveals, that learner autonomy is related more to content
and process of learning, than to personality characteristics (p.305).Thus learning habits
differ from those who are not by means of acting and participating actively in the
learning process. Tassinari (2010) emphasizes the concept of autonomous learning and
the process of learning. The learning process itself consists of stages, within these stages
the learner takes action and determines what and how to learn. It is a process where the
components of learning are related to each other in a dynamic way. Therefore it has to be
defined to what extent the learners are acting actively in this process. As pointed out the
components of autonomous learning are the components of learning, thus to define the
stages of the learning process, it is crucial to define equivalent autonomous learning
habits. To determine the level of autonomous learning Tassinari (2010) has prepared a
can-do list with autonomous learning habits. But as she points out, this model may be
adapted to develop scales (p.277). Taking Tassinari’s (2010) and Martinez’ (2010)
studies into consideration Macaskill and Taylors’ (2010) scale items seem to be weak to
define learners’ learning habits with regard to the learning process. Drawing upon the
stands of research into autonomous learning and learner autonomy, this study attempts to
develop a scale measuring learning autonomy in respect of learning process and learning
habits. This scale is partly based on Tassinari’s (2009) autonomous learning model and
descriptors and mainly on autonomy definitions in literature (Benson 2009; Holec 2009;
Little 1997; Little 2009).
1190 Development of a Scale for the Measurement of Autonomous Learning

2. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHOD

2.1 Aim
The current study aimed to develop a Scale for Autonomous Learning taking the
stages in the learning process into account.
2.2 Research Sample
The study was conducted in a university in the western part of Turkey. The study
group consists of students who were chosen by a random sampling method among
students of the 2013-2014 academic years. Of these students 43 (25.9 %) were male and
123 (74.1 %) were female. The number of participants is 166.
2.3 Research Instruments and Procedure
The following procedures were performed in order to develop the draft scale:
(i) Studies and scales concerning autonomous learning were examined (Macaskill 2010;
Tassinari 2010; Holec 1981; Little 2009; Benson 2009). (ii) Interviews were conducted
with three experts regarding autonomous learning. (iii) A draft scale consisting of 27
items was developed. Items are rated on a five point Likert scale from 1 (never) to 5
(always) with higher scores indicating higher levels of autonomous learning. Learning
habits in the autonomous learning process were taken into account while determining the
items in the draft scale. These were habits in the planning, performing and evaluating
stages of learning. (iv) Experts from the Turkish Language Teaching and of the
educational sciences were asked for their opinion on the conformity of items for the draft
scale in terms of language and expression. The opinions of four lecturers from the foreign
language teaching department and two lecturers from the educational programs were
consulted for the content validity of the items (Büyüköztürk, 2002). Expert opinions
revealed that 21 items were appropriate for the measurement of autonomous learning.
Accordingly, the items approved by the experts were included in the draft scale form.
2.4 Data Analysis
The data was analyzed by using PASW 18.0 statistical package program. In order to
evaluate the structural validity and to identify the underlying factor structure of the scale
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was applied. The consistency of the data with EFA and
the sample size adequacy was determined by using Kaiser-Meyer Olkin (KMO) test and
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (Canbazoğlu Bilici, Yamak, Kavak & Guzey, 2013, p.44).
Principal component analysis and Varimax rotation technique was performed for EFA. In
choosing the items, the criterion was a minimum factor load of .30 (Büyüköztürk, 2002;
Tabachnik & Fidel, 2007). The factor number was determined by using Kaiser Criterion,
Catell’s Scree Test and Monte Carlo Parallel Analysis (Hayton, Allen & Scarpello 2004).
Factors with eigenvalues above 1 were considered as factors for further analyses.

3. RESULT
3.1 Validity of the ALS
EFA results: The KMO value, which shows the sample adequacy level of the scale,
was found to be .88 and the result of the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity, which determines
the scale’s factorability capacity, was statistically significant as required (Tabachnick &
Fidell 2007). Accordingly, it was concluded that the data was perfectly sufficient to apply
EFA. The initial analysis produced six components with eigenvalues above 1. To
Aysel Deregözü 1191

determine final components Catell’s Scree Test was applied. The analysis of the scatter
plot revealed that a four factor structure is evident. To finalize the number of the factors
Monte Carlo Parallel analysis was performed. As shown in Table 1, only three of the
observed eigenvalues were greater than the corresponding criterion values generated from
with 100 randomly generated data samples of the same size. To the remaining items
Varimax rotation was applied. Factor load values items below .30 were excluded. After
excluding the items below the load values, EFA was conducted on the remaining items. A
three-factored structure consisting of 14 items was finalized. The factor analysis results
are presented in table 2.The items matching the factors were given names after examining
their contents. The factors were given the following names: Planning (PL), Performing
(PE) and Evaluating (E). The factor analysis results of the ALS are presented in Table 2.
Correlation distribution was between .32 and .89 among the factors. The result of the
correlation analysis of the factors implies that there is a highly significant correlation
among the factors, which implies a high internal correlation between factors and items.
The correlation value implies a high level correlation. According to this results it may
concluded that the correlation between the factors of the scale are significant.
3.2 Reliability of the ALS
The reliability of the ALS was calculated by Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient
for internal consistency. After altering the items with low reliability coefficients and low
item-subscale correlations, the Cronbach’s alpha for the entire scale and the subscales
were calculated. The factors internal consistency coefficients obtained values between .62
and .77. The subscale with the lowest coefficient was planning with .62, while the
subscale with the highest coefficient was evaluating with .77. The coefficient of the
subscale performing was .68. The internal consistency coefficient for the entire scale was
.80. These coefficients show that the scale has a high internal consistency.

4. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

There is much terminological and conceptual confusion and little empirical evidence
about autonomy (De Florio- Hansen, 2006, p.31). The conceptual confusion is also
evident in the scales developed for the measurement of autonomy. As learner autonomy
has different dimensions, the scales identify learner autonomy in a broad sense. This
study attempted to develop a scale to measure learners’ autonomous learning level with
respect to the stages in the learning process. It is mainly based on autonomous learning
habits defined in literature (Holec 1981; Martinez 2010; Tassinari 2010). In this context
analyseswere made for the reliability and validity of the ALS. The total variance
explained by these factors was found to be 50.7%. As a result of Varimax rotation the
factor loads were above .3. The reliability of the scale in total was found to be .80. The
results of EFA showed that the scale validity and reliability was on a sufficient level. As
Usuki (2002) emphasizes that “Learner development aims to raise learners' awareness of
their own learning processes through planning, monitoring, and evaluation” (p.2), the
sub-scales were named planning, performing, and evaluating sub-scales. The first factor,
planning, explains 29.5% of the total variance. It consists of six items. These items define
learners’ learning habits in the planning stage. In this stage learners identify their
objectives and determine how they will achieve those (Thanasoulas, 2000). Thus in the
planning scale it is questioned to what extent learners determine their learning objectives,
1192 Development of a Scale for the Measurement of Autonomous Learning

needs, learning order etc. Items like “I decide on my learning needs”, “I decide on what
and how to learn” and “I decide on the order of my learning” are in this scale included.
As planning may also occur during the performing stage as learners reconsider their
learning and change the way they learn (Thanasoulas, 2000), learning habits in the
planning stage may also be obvious in the evaluating stage. At the first sight the item “I
prepare a list of learning objectives” seems to be miss-ordered under the performing
stage, but accepted as a dynamic process, autonomous learning habits are related to each
other. Therefore it was decided not to remove the item from the evaluating stage. The
second factor that was named performing subscale, explains 11.3% of the total variance.
It consists of three items. In this scale it is questioned to what extent learners perform
their learning. The usage of various sources and materials are essential for autonomous
learning. Items are in this scale “I use sources that support my learning”, “I use various
sources to learn” and “I try to find appropriate material for my learning”. The item “I use
various methods to learn” was first supposed to be in the performing stage. But
considering that this habit may also occur in the evaluating stage, as learners monitor
their learning and may change the method they use. It was decided to keep the item in the
evaluating scale in accordance with EFA. The third factor, evaluating subscale, explains
9.8% of the total variance. It consists of seven items. These items identify learners
learning habits in view of evaluating how learning was performed. Items included in the
scale are “I evaluate my learning”, “I evaluate my materials I used to learn”. As
mentioned before autonomous learning has to be accepted as a “dynamic process”
(Tassinari, 2010).Therefore the item “I evaluate during my learning what and how I
learn” seems to fit more into a monitoring stage as described by Tassinari (2010).It can
be concluded that the items of the scale are in accordance with the autonomous learning
concept as described by Holec (1981, p.3). Therefore it can be said that the items
represent learners’ learning habits in view of autonomous learning. However the scale
based on a three-stage model of learning, mentioned before as planning-performing-
evaluating, may be developed by adding further stages or items of autonomous learning.
It has to be considered that learning as a complex process consists of more than just three
stages (Tassinari, 2010). But as the main aim of this scale was to determine learner
autonomy with respect of autonomous learning, extended scales may reconsider the
learning concept of autonomous learning. Empirical evidences obtained by using this
scale may have further implications for autonomous learning and teaching.
Aysel Deregözü 1193

Table 1
Comparison of Eigenvalues from Factor Analysis and the
Corresponding Values Obtained from Parallel Analysis
Eigenvalue from Criterion Value from
Component Decision
Factor Analysis Parallel Analysis
1 5.195 1.701 accepted
2 2.127 1.568 accepted
3 1.646 1.473 accepted
4 1.236 1.387 rejected

Table 2
Factor Analysis Results of the ALS
Factor Name Scale Item No. Item No. Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
Planning 1 10 .57
2 12 .68
3 15 .68
4 19 .57
5 20 .65
6 21 .65
Performing 9 4 .58
10 5 .55
11 9 .70
12 11 .65
13 14 .49
Evaluating 19 16 .75
20 17 .67
21 18 .82
Eigenvalue 4.13 1.59 1.37
%of variance 19 15.64 15.36

% total variance 50.7

explained

Table 3
Correlations between Factors
N=166 2 3 4
1.A. learning total .72* .61* .89*
2. Planning .32* .44
3. Performing .32*
* p˂ .000
1194 Development of a Scale for the Measurement of Autonomous Learning

REFERENCES
1. Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching. Autonomy in language learning.
England: Longman.
2. Benson, P. (2007). Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching,
40, 21-40.
3. Benson, P. (2011). Autonomy in language learning, learning and life.29-39. Retrieved
15.05.2014 from http://gerflint.fr/Base/France9/benson.pdf
4. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2002). Faktöranalizi: Temel kavramlar ve ölçek geliştirmede
kullanımı. Kuramve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 32, 470-483.
5. Canbazoğlu Bilici, S., Yamak, H., Kavak, N. and Guzey, S.S. (2013). Technological
pedagogical content knowledge self-efficacy scale (TPACK-SeS) for preservice
science teachers: Construction, validation and reliability. Eğitim Araştirmalari-
Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 52, 37-60.
6. De Florio- Hansen, I. (2006). How to become successful language learner learner
autonomy, styles and strategies revisited. Dil Dergisi, 133(3), 29-60.
7. Fisher, M. King, J. and Tague, G. (2001). Development of a self-directed learning
readiness scale for nursing education. Nurse Education Today, 21, 516-525.
8. Hayton, J.C., Allen, D.G. and Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention decisions in
exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research
Methods, 7(2), 191-205.
9. Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy in Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
10. Holec, H. (2009). Autonomy in language learning: A single pedagogical paradigm or
two. In F. Kjisik, P. Voller, N. Aoki & Y. Nakata (Eds.), Mapping the terrain of
learnerautonomy: Learning environments, learning communities and identities
(pp.21-47). Tampere: Tampere University Press.
11. Little, D. (1997). Autonomy and self-access in second language learning: some
fundamental issues in theory and practice. In Neues lernen selbstgesteuert autonom.
München: Michael Müller-Verweyen.
12. Little, D. (2000). We’re all in it together: Exploring the interdependence of teacher
and learner autonomy. Paper presented at Autonomy 2000, University of Helsinki
Language Centre, 7-9 September 2000. In Newsletter of the IATEFL PL Autonomous
Learning SIG 4. Retrieved from 04.07.2013 http://www.iatefl.org.pl/sig/al/al1.html
13. Little, D. (2009). Language learner autonomy and the European language portfolio:
Two L2 English examples. Language teaching, 42(2), 222-233.
14. Little, D. (2006). Learner autonomy: drawing together the threads of self-assessment,
goal-setting and reflection. Retrieved 10.02.2014
fromhttp://archive.ecml.at/mtp2/Elp_tt/Results/DM_layout/00_10/06/06%20Supplem
entay%20text.pdf
15. Littlewood, W. (1999). Defining and developing autonomy in east asian contexts.
Applied Linguistics, 20(1),71-94.
16. Nunan, D. (2003). Nine steps to learner autonomy. Keynote presentation,
International Association of Teachers of Swedish as a Foreign Language. Stockholm:
Sweden. Retrieved 18.02.2014 from http://www.andrasprak.su.se/polopoly_fs/1.
84007.1333707257!/menu/standard/file/203_11_Nunan_eng.pdf
17. Macaskill, A. and Taylor, E. (2010). The development of a brief measure of learner
autonomy in university students. Studies in Higher Education, 35(3), 351-359.
Aysel Deregözü 1195

18. Martinez, H. (2008). Lernerautonomie und Sprachenlernverständnis. Eine qualitative

Untersuchung bei zukünftigen Lehrerinnen und Lehrern romanischer Sprachen.
Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
19. Mutlu, A. and Eröz-Tuğa, B. (2013). The role of computer-assisted language learning
(CALL) in promoting learner autonomy. Eğitim Araştirmalari-Eurasian Journal of
Educational Research, 51, 107-122.
20. Tanyeli, N. and Kuter, S. (2013). Examining learner autonomy in foreign language
learning and instruction. Eğitim Araştirmalari-Eurasian Journal of Educational
Research, 53/A, 19-36.
21. Tassinari, M.G. (2010). Autonomes Fremdsprachenlernen: Komponenten,
Kompetenzen, Strategien. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag.
22. Thanasoulas, D. (2000). What is learner autonomy and how can it be fostered?
The internet TESL journal, 4 (11). Retrieved 03.09.2013 from
http://iteslj.org/Articles/Thanasoulas Autonomy.html
23. Usuki, M. (2002). Learner autonomy: learning from the student’s voice. CLCS
Occasional Paper. ERIC, Dublin: Trinity College, 1-28.
1196 Development of a Scale for the Measurement of Autonomous Learning

APPENDIX

Autonomous Learning Scale (ALS)

1. I identify my learning needs.

2. I decide on the order of my learning.

Planning
3. I decide on my own what to learn.

4. I arrange my learning environment according to my learning.

5. I use sources that support my learning.

Performing 6. I find out appropriate material for my learning.

7. I use various sources, when my learning isn’t as desired.

8. I prepare a list of my learning objectives.

9. I use different methods during my learning process.

10. I evaluate what and how I learn during my learning process.

Evaluating 11. I evaluate the time of my learning.

12. I evaluate my own learning.

13. I evaluate to what extent I’ve reached my learning objectives.

14. I evaluate to what extent my learning materials have
supported my learning.
 Copyright of Pakistan Journal of Statistics is the property of Pakistan Journal of Statistics and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.

View publication stats