Teaching in Higher Education

Critical Perspectives

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/cthe20

Factors influencing learner autonomy and

autonomy support in a faculty of education

Fatma Basri

To cite this article: Fatma Basri (2023) Factors influencing learner autonomy and autonomy
support in a faculty of education, Teaching in Higher Education, 28:2, 270-285, DOI:
10.1080/13562517.2020.1798921

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1798921

Published online: 29 Jul 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1932

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cthe20
TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION
2023, VOL. 28, NO. 2, 270–285
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1798921

Factors influencing learner autonomy and autonomy support

in a faculty of education
Fatma Basri
Foreign Languages and English Preparatory School, Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta, Cyprus

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Most studies on learner autonomy are in language learning while Received 26 February 2020
those on autonomy support are in secondary schools, and are Accepted 16 July 2020
mainly of quantitative nature conducted with either teachers or
KEYWORDS
learners. However, in-depth qualitative studies focusing on the Learner autonomy; teacher
factors influencing learner autonomy in higher education and support; factors; teacher
autonomy support provided for student teachers by teacher autonomy; perspectives;
educators are scarce. Drawing on data from a qualitative study higher education
carried out in an education faculty, this article focuses on both
teacher educators’ and student teachers’ perceptions of the
factors that limit learner autonomy practice and support. The
findings suggest teacher/learner backgrounds, mismatch between
teacher and learner expectations, spoon-feeding tendencies of
teachers, limited teacher autonomy and large classes are the main
factors. The findings also suggest that there exists a dynamic
interaction between the constructs of learner autonomy, teacher
support and teacher autonomy indicating these need to be
treated together rather than in isolation.

Introduction
The ultimate goal of education is to help learners reach higher levels of autonomy, the
ability to take charge of the learning process (Holec 1981), to help learners not only to
manage their learning but also to become better citizens through taking control of their
own lives (Cooker, 2012). Therefore, in the past few decades, learner autonomy (LA)
has attracted the attention of educators and has appeared in the mission and vision state-
ments of educational institutions. Since the main actor creating the learning atmosphere in
educational settings is the teacher, autonomy support provided by teachers is acknowl-
edged as a facilitator of autonomous behaviours depicted by learners (Borg and Alshumai-
meri 2019; Reeve and Jang 2006; Young-Jones et al. 2019). However, it is not uncommon
to encounter challenges in terms of both autonomy practice and support (Borg and Alshu-
maimeri 2019; Roth, Assor, Kanat-Maymon, & Kaplan, 2007; Nakata 2011; Yasmin and
Sohail 2018; Yuan 2017). This article explores the factors adversely influencing both the
realisation of autonomy and the support teachers provide in attempts to further the man-
agement of learning from the perspective of both teacher educators and student teachers in
a faculty of education. It is presented in five parts. First a discussion on learner autonomy,

CONTACT Fatma Basri fatma.basri@emu.edu.tr

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 271

teacher support for learner autonomy and the limitations encountered in different con-
texts are presented. This is followed by a brief description of the context in which this
study was carried out. Then, the methodology adopted is discussed. The rest of the
paper presents the findings, followed by the conclusion where the key findings on the
factors that influence LA and autonomy support, and the implications of the study are
discussed.

Learner autonomy
Metacognition, control over cognitive processes, has been emphasized as a significant
component of LA (Donker et al. 2014), along with affect (Deci and Ryan 2011; Dörnyei
and Ushioda 2013) and interdependence (Benson 2013). Enabling learners to realise
that there are limitations in learning, metacognition makes them aware that there are
also strategies to rectify the limitations (Năznean 2016). Centring (Tobias and Everson
2009), planning, monitoring and evaluating learning (Donker et al. 2014) through reflec-
tion (Sharifi and Hassaskhah 2011) are some of the metacognitive strategies deployed by
autonomous learners. Control of emotions is another significant aspect of LA; regulating
self-efficacy beliefs (Pintrich 2002), dealing particularly with negative emotions (Dörnyei
and Ushioda 2013) and self-motivation (Deci and Ryan 2011) help learners manage the
affective side of learning. According to socio-constructivist perspective, individuals con-
struct their own meanings through interacting with others and the context (Putnam
and Borko, 2000). Social learning strategies are useful in collaborative meaning making
and attainment of mutual goals, and as such are significant in the regulation of the learning
process (Benson 2013).

Teacher support for learner autonomy

Autonomy is not necessarily an innate ability. It cannot be taught or learnt: it can be
mediated through appropriate assistance (Tan and Chan 1998). Research on autonomy
support, the majority of which is conducted in secondary schools, indicates that in edu-
cational settings where autonomy support is offered by teachers employing pro-autonomy
pedagogy, learners are likely to develop autonomy (Borg and Alshumaimeri 2019; Reeve
and Jang 2006; Young-Jones et al. 2019). Facilitating metacognition (Voller, 1997), nurtur-
ing inner motivational resources, providing explanatory rationales, displaying patience,
using informational language and accepting the expression of negative affect are identified
as autonomy support strategies which help create an atmosphere conducive to LA (Reeve
2009).
Autonomy-supportive teachers inspire an internal locus of causality and a sense of
being able to make informed choices since they encourage learners to act on their own
decisions and preferences. They avoid controlling learners through inducing a conception
of being under external pressure and the manipulation of learner behaviour through the
use of extrinsic incentives (Niemiec and Ryan 2009; Reeve 2009). They provide alterna-
tives. Provision of choice enables learners to make informed decisions about learning
while allowing them to identify and follow their individual interests and needs. Hence,
it occupies a significant place in the facilitation of autonomy (Reeve and Jang 2006).
272 F. BASRI

Limitations to autonomy practice and support

Teachers, even the ones who are real proponents of autonomy support, may experience
challenges that limit the support they provide. Teacher/learner background and disposi-
tions, absence of teacher autonomy, accountability standards, the pressure to follow
uniform teaching, standardised tests and class size are among these limitations (Reeve,
Bolt, and Cai 1999; Roth et al. 2007).
Teachers’ previous autonomus experiences as teachers or learners influence the way
they approach their practice and the autonomous opportunities they provide to their stu-
dents (Borg and Alshumaimeri 2019; Kahraman 2015; Vieira et al. 2008; Yuan 2017).
Teacher dispositions lead them to adopt motivating or controlling teaching styles
(Reeve 2009) and determine the means through which they support LA (Cárdenas 2006).
Similarly, learners’ previous learning experiences and the mind-set they possess about
learning and autonomy influence the extent they can adopt autonomous learning (Borg
and Alshumaimeri 2019). If previously taught by teachers inclined to follow traditional
teaching (Yasmin and Naseem 2019; Alrabai 2017; Nakata 2011) who resist promoting
LA and who prefer psychological controlling strategies in class (Earl et al. 2017), learners
may find it difficult to adopt autonomous learning behaviours when enrolled in higher
education. Learner dispositions also influence teacher endeavours for autonomy
support. Learners resisting autonomy and undermining the chances provided for auton-
omous learning may demotivate teachers to continue their efforts (Chen and Mykletun
2015).
Education system may also act as a limitation. In education systems where emphasis is
placed upon passing exams and traditional teaching approaches rather than furthering
learning, autonomy support is provided in a limited fashion (Yasmin and Sohail 2018).
In contexts where assessment systems have a more decisive force in determining
success than formative assessments, learners are inclined to depend on their teachers.
In such contexts although there may be surface policies for supporting autonomy, in
reality, they disempower the actualisation of the concept (Crossouard 2010).
Limited teacher autonomy (TA) may also result in limited support for LA (Niemiec and
Ryan 2009; Roth et al. 2007). Pressures from administrators and commonly shared prac-
tices within a context lead teachers to adopt a controlling style in their teaching practice
(Pelletier, Séguin-Lévesque, and Legault 2002). In such contexts, teachers are usually
inclined to conform to the regulations, particularly arising from accountability standards,
fixed curriculum and assessment requirements. With the pressure they encounter, they
exert pressure on their learners. Limited TA results in limited LA due to the fact that tea-
chers do not have the freedom to conduct their lessons or support target behaviours as
they want (Borg and Al-Busaidi 2012; Reeve 2009). Class size is another limitation. Lear-
ners have individual differences, needs, preferences and level at which they can tolerate
autonomy, and in overcrowded classrooms, teachers may find it challenging to reach
and assist all learners (Reeve, Bolt, and Cai 1999; Roth et al. 2007).
Building and implementing autonomous behaviours are particularly important in
teacher education programmes. To be able to help their future students develop related
skills, student teachers need to have the background knowledge and first-hand autonomy
experience. Unless their own learning is geared to autonomous learning, preparing them
both psychologically and strategically, it is not realistic to expect student teachers to
 TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 273

nurture autonomy in their future students (Baz, Balcikanli, and Cephe 2018; Vieira et al.
2008). Though there are studies which report findings related to factors influencing learner
autonomy or teacher support for learner autonomy, there are limited studies which focus
on both teacher educators’ (TEs’) and student teachers’ (STs’) perceptions of factors in
education faculties, where participants are familiar with LA, and hence, has the potential
to provide deep insights into LA and autonomy support. Using data from a qualitative
study, this paper investigates, in an in-depth manner, the perceptions of TEs and STs
on the factors that influence the realisation of LA and autonomy support in higher edu-
cation settings.

Methodology
Context
In North Cyprus, the education system in primary/secondary education is highly centra-
lised with a centrally planned curricula (Mertkan, 2011), significantly limiting teacher
autonomy in professional action. Though the Ministry of Education requires that a
learner-centred approach is followed, a learner-centred approach has yet to be effectively
implemented in schools where traditional teaching still dominated by lecturing and ques-
tioning reigns (Aliusta and Ozer 2014; Pilli and Aksu, 2013). Teacher education pro-
grammes in North Cyprus and in Turkey are under the management of the Council of
Higher Education (HEC) and the courses in education faculties are aligned with the
requirements of HEC. Education faculties host student teachers largely form North
Cyprus and Turkey, which have similar education systems and thus encounter similar
educational problems (Baskan and Ayda 2018).
This study was carried out in a faculty of education of a long established university in
North Cyprus where STs are trained in teacher education programmes to be effective tea-
chers. The Faculty of Education of the university in which this study was conducted aims
to offer contemporary and quality education programmes to educate STs to be responsible,
effective and autonomous students/teachers. Two recent studies in the ELT department in
the Faculty of Education report positive outcomes regarding the promotion of autonomy
based on the perceptions of both teachers and students (Baghbankarimi 2014; Farahi 2015).

Method
This case study explores learner autonomy through the perceptions of STs and autonomy
support through the perceptions of TEs to explore the complex interactions between
events, persons and the context with rich and vivid desriptions of particapants’ naturalistic
accounts. 15 TEs, with teaching experience ranging from 4 to 31 years, and 27 STs from
different departments (3 in their first year, 8 in their second year, 9 in their third year and 7
in their final year at university) volunteered to participate in the study. Participants were
made aware that their participation was not compulsory, that they could withdraw
anytime and that all the data collected would be kept confidential and anonymous.
Semi-structured interviews (TEs and STs), retrospective self-reporting diaries (TEs and
STs) and group meetings with STs (where they were given the chance to brainstorm,
discuss and construct their own meaning frameworks around related concepts) were
274 F. BASRI

employed as data collection instruments. Using a framework of reflective questions, these

data gathering methods enabled generating data related to the research focus as well as
allowing interviewees to raise their own topics (Yin 2015). TEs were interviewed at the
beginning of the data collection process. They were asked to keep reflective diaries on
their perceptions of the support they provided for two months along with the factors
influencing the autonomy support they provide. These diary entries were used as
prompts for the second interviews. Three group meetings were held with STs; they
were asked to keep diaries for two months and were interviewed individually or in
focus groups at the end of this period. Each interview lasted around 60 minutes, was
recorded and verbatim transcribed.
Content analysis was utilised to analyse the data collected which was first reduced and
then interrogated into a summary form with the help of a priori codes identified following
an in-depth literature review and emergent codes. Atlas.ti was used throughout the analy-
sis during which additional codes emerged from the actual data collected which led to the
generation of categories following data comparison based on convergence and divergence.
To give an illustrative example initial codes such as prescribed syllabi, standardisation con-
cerns and common evaluation criteria emerged from the data, and were combined to gen-
erate the category ‘teachers limited in professional action’, which was later combined with
the other factors to make up the theme ‘factors influencing autonomy practice and
support’.

Findings and discussion

Findings of the present study suggest teacher/student backgrounds, mismatch between
teacher and student expectations, limited teacher autonomy, spoon-feeding tendencies of
teachers and large classes are the main factors influencing LA and teacher support for LA.

Limiting power of teacher and learner background

Data suggests TEs believe, rather strongly, learners start higher education with beliefs and
learning habits developed throughout their prior education, causing obstacles difficult for
them to overcome while trying to develop autonomous learning behaviours. Talking about
STs, TE5 argues:
When they come to university, it is very hard to change their habits because they come from
teacher-centred classrooms. If you suddenly turn the atmosphere into student-centred, they
start complaining because they want everything ready.

TEs believe it becomes particularly difficult for teachers to convince learners to adopt
autonomous learning behaviours when learners come from an exam-oriented system
where student performance carries more weight than effective learning. TE3 proposes:
The background of our students; they are exam oriented. If you tell them it will come up in
the exam, they are motivated to learn, if not, they put it aside.

This is a point also shared by the majority of participating STs who argue they are not used
to taking active role in their learning primarily because they were not required to do so
when they were in high school. Rather than deciding on the what and the how of learning,
 TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 275

they suggest they were accustomed to receiving information. With the teacher being the
source of knowledge, ‘they learn how to become passive learners’ (TE8). ST26 succinctly
expresses:
That’s how I am used to learn. Teacher gives what is important and I learn. That’s been like
this throughout my education years. Now I expect the same.

Participating TEs confess ‘most of the time teachers try to raise or educate learners in the
way they had been raised or taught’ (TE1). This underlines that previous learning experi-
ences not only influence the learning habits student teachers develop towards learning
before being enrolled in higher education, but is also likely to shape the type of classes
they are likely to conduct, creating a Catch 24 situation.
As significant as it is, data suggests educational background does not pose an obstacle to
learner autonomy in isolation, but does so in combination with cultural and family back-
ground. TE2 underlines:
I think education starts in the family, seeds are planted in family. If children are valued, their
ideas respected at home, they come to you as autonomous. If family is too oppressive, strict,
they may find it difficult. If children are autonomous in their family, if autonomy is developed
at home, this is reflected in their learning.

Similarly, TE8 suggests:

Because they have been dependent on their parents and then on teachers. It is part of their
culture, part of the education system.

Previous research suggests teachers who do not have a background in autonomy in their
experiences either as learners or teachers may find it demanding to support their learners
to develop related capacities (Ahmadzadeh and Zabardast 2014; Demirtaş and Sert 2010;
Kahraman 2015; Nakata 2011; Smith, R. C., & Erdoğan, S., 2008; Yuan 2017). Similarly, if
learner backgrounds did not value or even discouraged autonomy, learners usually find it
difficult to develop the autonomous capacity and resist to be actively involved in taking
responsibility in learning (; McCabe and O’Connor 2014; Trebbi, 2008). This is particu-
larly valid for contexts which prioritise outcome based learning as opposed to process
based learning, which is the common norm in particularly exam oriented contexts (Hock-
ings et al. 2018). All the issues proposed concerning teacher and learner background direct
attention to the role of teacher education programmes since they have a significant part in
shaping the opportunities learners are offered in all educational settings (Borg and Alshu-
maimeri 2019; Yuan 2017).

Mismatch between TE and ST expectations

Data suggests expectations each party holds form the other in the learning process is influ-
ential in autonomy practice and autonomy support. TEs argue learners demand their tea-
chers act as panacea and address all student needs/problems while advocating that they
cannot be a panacea for all learner needs. They consider such learner expectations limit
teacher endeavours. As TE8 advocates:
Imagine a student is studying business and taking a related course, if this student aims to
produce and export something, he needs to develop some other skills but if he doesn’t
aim to produce but to import, he needs some other skills. A course delivered will not be
276 F. BASRI

addressing all the needs of those who study business. Teacher gives general knowledge, the
book gives general knowledge but the students, to improve in a specific area, need to do
research in line with their needs outside what is given by the teacher or the book.

There are STs who suggest each learner is a unique individual and expect teachers to cater
for individual needs and be a panacea, proposing just the opposite of TE suggestions, as is
reflected in the following excerpt:
I believe each learner differs from others and a teacher needs to consider these differences and
adapt their teaching accordingly to address each and every learner. (ST5)

TE4 proposes sometimes teachers tend to do more than they should which ruins learners’
autonomy. They also complain about passive learner roles and argue that learners at
higher education level need to be capable of regulating their learning and their dispositions
towards learning without expecting external motivators:
These are adults and they need to be putting more effort than the teacher. They need to be
taking more responsibility because they are studying to gain expertise in their chosen fields.
(TE8)

TEs suggest students expect learning to be guided by the teacher with learners being
passive recipients, which is also reflected in student data. TE7 suggests when they give
responsibility to learners, learners complain:
They tell me: ‘what kind of teaching is this? It is us doing everything’.

This is a point supported by ST data as articulated by ST7:

I know I have responsibilities but teaching is the teacher’s responsibility.

According to TEs there are students who expect to be provided with guidelines to follow to
avoid taking risks. TEs claim learners do not make attempts to be original and thus do not
actively construct knowledge, but rather they tend to reiterate information encountered.
As TE15 exemplifies:
Last semester I gave them a documentary to watch. And I asked questions. Most of them
wrote what we discussed in the classroom, in the same way, with the same words. Very
few wrote variety, looked from various angles.

Data suggests adverse learner beliefs and dispositions regarding learning is a limitation for
both the development and the support of autonomy (Borg and Al-Busaidi 2012). With
learners who have a misconception that learning is a task to be completed rather than
an active process of constructing and reconstructing knowledge, it is challenging for tea-
chers to support learners (Benson 2013; Cotterall 1999). Therefore, if learners are not
motivated to develop autonomy and resist despite repeated teacher endeavours, teachers
may give up their efforts and return to traditional learning/teaching (Reeve 2009; Reeve,
Bolt, and Cai 1999; Reeve and Jang 2006). The findings suggest there are circumstances
where students perceive themselves as passive recipients and put the whole responsibility
for the teaching process on the shoulders of teachers. Such ambivalent attitudes towards
teacher roles demotivate teachers and limit their LA support (Chan 2001). On the con-
trary, positive learner motivation has the power to lead to positive teacher behaviour
with regards to autonomy support, with teachers of intrinsically motivated learners
 TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 277

tending to be more autonomy supportive (Pelletier, Séguin-Lévesque, and Legault 2002). It

is also reasonable to suggest that TEs have an internalised view of what learners need to do
to be autonomous but they do not have an established view on how they can help their
students gain autonomous skills since they expect learners to act autonomously rather
than viewing it as part of their role to develop it with concrete supportive task design.

Teachers limited in professional action

Almost all participating TEs refer to the limitations they encounter in terms of determin-
ing the content and pace of courses, and argue they find their hands tied because of the
fixed syllabus, particularly when they are teaching the same course with other TEs. Due
to standardisation concerns, all teachers teaching the same course are expected to
follow the same course outline and the same evaluation criteria which dictate what is to
be covered, restricting the autonomy support they provide as well as the development
of autonomy. TE11 proposes:
If I were the only instructor of the course, free to do whatever I wanted and to cover to the
point I consider ok, I would do differently. There is teacher autonomy for delivering the
lesson in the way I want but because of prescribed syllabi, it doesn’t function. We need to
keep a standard so that we do not receive complaints.

STs who are in their fourth year at university share the same concerns and suggest they can
relate to their teachers. They argue the pressure of the fixed syllabus acts as a limiting
factor forcing teachers to ignore learner needs and expectations, making teachers feel
obliged to present the content rather than using other more effective teaching strategies
with the potential to help build autonomy.
When teachers are empowered with autonomy, this is reflected in the development of
greater autonomy in students (Borg and Al-Busaidi 2012; Camilleri 1999; Hui 2010; Roth
et al. 2007). Majority of the participating TEs express their criticism of the limited auton-
omy they are empowered with, mainly due to accountability standards, reflecting previous
literature (Borg and Al-Busaidi 2012; Halstead and Zhu 2009; Pelletier, Séguin-Lévesque,
and Legault 2002; Reeve 2009; Reeve, Bolt, and Cai 1999). They suggest they are restricted
particularly in autonomy in professional action with little or no manoeuvrability in the
curriculum and assessment (Nguyen and Walkinshaw 2018; Tian and Wu 2019; Yuan
2017) which in this context are dictated by HEC. Particularly in cases where there are
several teachers teaching the same course, it is in the university regulations that they
have to follow a strict course outline. This makes covering certain topics their main
concern while ignoring student needs and interests, resulting in a more teacher-directed
approach with limited TA leading to limited LA (Borg and Al-Busaidi 2012; Reeve
2009). In such contexts where teachers have to follow a fixed course outline, there is
the risk that learners create a mind-set of learning as covering topics set by others
rather than learning as following intrinsic motivations and individual needs, and they
develop and display passive learning roles.
On the contrary, teachers autonomous in their profession act as models, conveying the
message that it is learning that matters. Doing so, they inspire their learners to develop
autonomous behaviours. Moreover, since autonomously motivated teachers are aptly
informed about content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge ‘they can provide
their students with convincing explanations and examples for the value and relevance of
278 F. BASRI

those subjects and for their methods of teaching’ which leads to greater autonomy support
consequently resulting in greater autonomy in learners (Roth et al. 2007, 764).
Hence, in the light of the findings, it is reasonable to suggest TEs have a tendency to
support reactive autonomy rather than proactive autonomy due to the limited autonomy
they are empowered with (Littlewood 1999). Participating TEs suggest they encourage
their learners to take responsibility for their learning, manage resources, practise reflection
and identify weaknesses, make decisions on who to work with and the topic they want to
work on usually from a list of alternatives. However, taking decisions on significant issues
such as identifying their learning needs and interests in order to regulate the learning
process is not encouraged due to the fact that teachers themselves are restricted in their
decisions regarding their practice. It is possible that in their core beliefs TEs identify sup-
porting proactive autonomy as significant, but considering their given context and limit-
ations, they are in a position to support reactive autonomy more in their actual practice.

Spoon-feeding tendencies of teachers

Both TEs and STs agree the tendency to provide learners as much information and gui-
dance as possible is a limiting factor for the realisation of autonomy. The policy in the
faculty is to offer eight or nine courses in a semester and the data suggests the high
number of courses offered has two main implications for the regulation of learner behav-
iour. First, learners tend to limit their learning to the content offered since courses cover,
to a large extent, the key topics related to their fields. Second, because they feel obliged to
focus on the requirements imposed, students ignore their own individual differences. TE14
succinctly expresses:
We are applying European credit system. We have 3 credit courses, 4 hours in class but we do
not consider how much time students should spend on this course outside the class. And our
students are taking 8 or 9 courses in one semester. How do you expect learner autonomy
here? How do you expect the learner to go and learn something on their own? We think
the more we give, the better the students will be. NO. The more we give the worse they’ll
be. Because they will not be creative. We are killing their creativity.

STs also criticise the overload they experience due to the number of courses they have to
take. Having to deal with a high number of courses, each with its own requirements, stu-
dents argue they tend to put the least possible effort, which undoubtedly influence how
and how well they learn. ST4 suggests:
I took nine courses this semester; it means nine projects, homework, readings for each, too
much to do, no time to devote to other issues such as thinking about what to do to learn
better or more. I try to save the day.

TEs claim when coupled with large classes, the system in favour of delivering the most
possible ready-made content to students discourages and impedes their efforts for auton-
omy support. TE8 criticises the policy at the institution by suggesting:
I teach the course, I tutor the students, I follow everything. There are 50 students in class, no
teaching assistants, no tutors, not enough materials in the library. And I teach 5 different courses.

TEs suggest the overload they experience and the limitations of accountability standards
oftentimes force them to opt for lecturing. Besides bombarding learners with great
 TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 279

amounts of ready-made information to be learnt, lecturing gives learners negative mess-

ages regarding their learning and prospective teaching practice, an issue also reflected by
STs. TE8 suggests:
They are observing me doing teacher-centred education so how can I expect them to practise
student-centred teaching in school? The message I give is: learn it, keep it in mind and if you
find the opportunity with a small group of students, you can go back to theory and try it.

Through lecturing, teachers provide direct information/guidance to learners, encourage

them to go over and learn lecture notes instead of encouraging learners to create their
own meaning frameworks. This deters efforts regarding both autonomy practice and
autonomy support. According to TE13:
Some teachers give a list of resources, websites, books, slides; spoon-feeding, this is our fault,
and they expect the same from me. We are supposed to promote but we are the ones who kill
autonomy.

TEs argue the spoon-feeding tendency of some teachers in the context puts pressure on
other teachers to follow similar practices alongside influencing learner expectations
from the teacher and the course. TEs suggest it is common practice to share MS Power-
Point presentation slides with students which forces other teachers who would not be
willing to distribute slides to do the same. Regarding this limitation, both TEs and STs
suggest established policies have the potential to strengthen the realisation of autonomy
rather than each teacher following their own route based on their own principles and
beliefs. TE13 explains:
There are some other teachers who think like me. If we are teaching partners, I observe that
student quality changes.

Similarly STs suggest it would have been more productive if such efforts had started earlier
in their previous education and if they had more teachers with similar efforts.
Autonomous learning is based on the premise that learners need to be guided to develop
autonomous learning habits so that they can manage their learning instead of expecting gui-
dance in each and every step. Supportive teachers refrain from providing ready-made input,
rather they encourage learners to research and evaluate themes for themselves (Samah,
Jusoff, and Silong 2009). Similarly, it is not the number of courses offered that fosters
achievement in academic life but the development of a mind-set that views learning as a life-
long process (Wirth & Perkins, 2008) where learners themselves address their needs and
pursue their interests. Hence, it is not the quantity but the quality of support that
matters. It is suggested that rather than focusing on the number of courses offered, the
target should be the inspiration of a culture in which learners value learning for its own
sake and acknowledge their own efforts in learning since assistance on issues learners them-
selves can manage inhibits the development of autonomy (Samah, Jusoff, and Silong 2009).
It can be suggested that unless the curriculum is aligned with the principles of LA, it is
difficult to actualise its realisation (Hockings et al. 2018; Tanyeli and Kuter 2013). The
findings also suggest that LA cannot be supported through individual attempts: there
should be an institutional policy to lift the pressures on the teacher and allow more
freedom to both teachers and learners in a climate where there is room for ‘flexibility,
risk taking, adjustment, experimentation and decision-making’ (Camillieri 1999, 33).
280 F. BASRI

TEs suggest the established norms in contexts, such as sharing with learners course sum-
maries/notes in the form of MS PowerPoint presentation slides instead of letting them find
and use their own notes/sources, put pressure on teachers to follow similar procedures
even if they do not approve them which draws attention to the role of collaborative
efforts or institutional endeavours in the creation of an optimal atmosphere (Reeve
2009; Roth et al. 2007; Jääskelä, Häkkinen, and Rasku-Puttonen 2017).

Learner differences in large classes

Although acknowledging they cannot be a panacea for all learner needs and differences,
participating TEs and STs consider the high number of students in classes is a significant
factor adversely influencing their efforts. TEs suggest the large number of learners in
classes make it difficult for them to identify individual learner needs and monitor their
learning. TE7 talks about the restrictions teachers experience in terms of monitoring
and assessing learners in large classes:
There are limits to what you can do with 47 students. There are limits to how well you can
assess them, limits to how well you can monitor their learning. I love providing as much feed-
back as possible so that I can monitor and give them formative feedback but I cannot monitor
independently one by one every single of those students. I cannot give them continuous feed-
back. So I cannot follow how well my students are learning and what kind of support they
need during the process.

STs strongly believe large classes result in a lot of group work, which they argue causes
inconveniences for learners. ST23 clarifies this issue as:
Because of the class size, we are encouraged to work in groups of at least four, meaning we
have to work with others most of the time, sometimes with people we may not work well
with … really demotivating.

Previous research suggests large class size is a restriction significantly limiting autonomy
(Reeve, Bolt, and Cai 1999; Roth et al. 2007). However, although the findings suggest large
classes hinder the development of autonomy and the support provided to learners, it
should be kept in mind that learners know themselves and their individual needs
better, and the challenges arising from large classes and student overload are indeed the
exact reasons learners need to be autonomous and should be the motivating factor for sup-
porting LA.

Conclusion and implications

Learner autonomy is an educational goal and teacher roles have been recognised as signifi-
cant in the promotion of autonomy (Su and Reeve 2011; Young-Jones, Cara, and Lev-
esque-Bristol 2014). Yet, the limiting factors teachers encounter in their actual teaching
contexts need to be identified and addressed if LA is to be actualised. This is particularly
significant in education faculties which form the basis of STs’ construction of mind-frame-
works that greatly influence their future practice and help shape future generations (Yuan
2017). This study investigated both TE and ST perceptions of the factors that limit LA
efforts and autonomy support using data from a qualitative study. Participating TEs
and STs suggest teacher/learner backgrounds, mismatch between student and teacher
 TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 281

expectations, absence of teacher autonomy, spoon-feeding tendencies of teachers and large

classes are the main limiting factors.
The findings of the study suggest it is significant to address the underlying beliefs of
teachers as well as of students which constitute the basis of their actions (Öz 2005)
since ‘the pedagogy for autonomy dream will only come true when it becomes the tea-
chers’ dream’ (Vieira 2009). Creating a forum where both teachers and students are
encouraged to critically reflect on and scrutinise their views on teacher and learner
roles and learning process in general and to identify their core beliefs so as to be able
to make adaptations to the way they approach learning/teaching would prove to be
useful as autonomy can be realised when teachers and learners work together and
nurture a pro-autonomy culture (Chan 2003; Yuan 2017). To this end, besides appropriate
support in teacher education programmes, training through regular workshops and semi-
nars in contexts aiming to promote LA with the integration of actual classroom practices
would be helpful. Action research, focusing on skills and application, also has the potential
to help stakeholders build theoretical knowledge, internalise and personally experience
target behaviours (Stroupe, Rundle, and Tomita 2016; Wang and Wang 2016).
Support is significant in promoting autonomy. It is argued that minimal guidance is
ineffective (Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark 2006), yet, the amount and the nature of auton-
omy support need to be considered to avoid spoon-feeding (Samah, Jusoff, and Silong
2009). Instead of providing ready-made solutions, it is significant to encourage learners
to persist on their own and generate their own solutions, and intervene only in cases of
real barriers (Jacobson et al. 2015) to avoid dependency on teachers.
The dynamic interaction between the constructs of LA, teacher support for LA and TA
has been highlighted by the present study. Results suggest these constructs need to be
treated together and not in isolation in order to build a complete picture. The responsibil-
ity to cover the syllabus so as not to deprive learners of the opportunity to be exposed to
the components of the curriculum and feeling secure about the fact that there is a standard
among all those taking the same course/level lead teachers to focus on expectations and
ignore other significant elements that would enhance the learning process (Borg and
Alshumaimeri 2019; Yuan 2017). Since TA is a significant factor influencing the actualisa-
tion of LA, institutions should create a conducive atmosphere where teachers are allowed
and encouraged to exercise autonomy in their practice so that they pose as models to their
students and are able to foster autonomy in their students, particularly in teacher edu-
cation programmes that train prospective teachers for their future careers.
Capacity, responsibility and motivation are significant aspects in TA (Aoki 2002).
However, even if teachers are capable, responsible and motivated but do not have the
freedom to design their lessons according to their own initiatives and learner needs,
they are limited in the support they can provide to their learners. Limited teacher auton-
omy then results in limited autonomy support, which in turn impedes the development of
LA. Similarly, the disengaged learner manners and learner reluctance towards autonomy
may be demotivating for teachers to continue their autonomy support efforts, limiting the
actualisation of LA (Pelletier, Séguin-Lévesque, and Legault 2002). This dynamic inter-
action between and among the concepts of TA, teacher support and LA clarifies the
fact that the realisation of one enables or restricts the realisation of others. Therefore,
there is a pressing need that institutions consider the factors adversely influencing LA
282 F. BASRI

and autonomy support, and develop and insist on their policies on both teacher and
learner autonomy.
Besides the impact the two constructs of LA and TA have on each other, the context
also influences teachers’ practice. Data suggests other teachers/students in the context
have an influence on what teachers/students do. Pressure from above and from below is
influential in the support teachers provide to their learners so this needs consideration
by researchers as well as institutions wishing to promote LA (Pelletier, Séguin-Lévesque,
and Legault 2002).
All the factors influencing both the practice and the support for autonomy pose them-
selves as limitations to the actualisation of the concept, yet, it must be kept in mind that
most of the problems can be overcome through approaching teaching in a different per-
spective: if LA is embedded into teaching with teachers modifying the teaching methods
they use instead of viewing it as something else to be taught or supported, there is no
reason it cannot be promoted (Benson 2013).
Findings of the present study underline learner preparedness as a factor determining
the extent LA is implemented and supported, drawing attention to the need for an in-
depth exploration of LA practice and autonomy support in primary and secondary edu-
cation in North Cyprus as well as in contexts which aim to attain LA.

Limitations
In the current study, qualitative interviews and retrospective diaries which were self-
reports were employed as data collection instruments with the consideration that obser-
vations would need to be carried out for a long period of time to be able to catch the incon-
spicuous features which was not practical or possible given the need for extended consent
of so many participants. Therefore, the data mainly relies on reflections and descriptions
of participants’ perceptions of experiences. However, a number of observations would be
helpful in triangulating the data collected. In future research, observations can be inte-
grated into the study design.
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public,
commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID
Fatma Basri http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5870-9192

References
Ahmadzadeh, R., and S. Zabardast. 2014. “Learner Autonomy in Practice.” International Journal on
New Trends in Education and Their Implications 5 (4): 54–55.
Aliusta, G. O., and B. Ozer. 2014. “The Barriers That Hinder the Use of Student-Centred Learning
in Schools in North Cyprus.” Educational Sciences and Practice 13 (25): 1–21.
 TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 283

Alrabai, F. 2017. “From Teacher Dependency to Learner Independence: A Study of Saudi Learners’
Readiness for Autonomous Learning of English as a Foreign Language.” Learning and Teaching
in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives 14 (1): 1–28.
Aoki, N. 2002. “Aspects of Teacher Autonomy: Capacity, Freedom and Responsibility.” In Learner
Autonomy 7, Challenges to Reseach and Practice, edited by P. Benson, and S. Toogood, 110–124.
Dublin: Authentik.
Baghbankarimi, M. 2014. Learner Autonomy in Skill-Based Language Improvement Courses in an
Undergraduate ELT Program. Famagusta: Eastern Mediterranean University (EMU)-Doğu
Akdeniz Üniversitesi (DAÜ).
Baskan, G. A., and N. K. Ayda. 2018. “A Case Study on the Problems of Teacher Training System
Based on the Opinions of Faculty Members, School Administrators, Teachers, and Unionists in
North Cyprus.” Education Sciences 8 (3): 127.
Baz, E. H., C. Balcikanli, and P. T. Cephe. 2018. “Relationship Between Teacher Stories and
Encouragement of Learner Autonomy.” Issues in Educational Research 28 (3): 613.
Benson, P. 2013. Teaching and Researching: Autonomy in Language Learning. London and New
York: Routledge.
Borg, S., and S. Al-Busaidi. 2012. “Learner Autonomy: English Language Teachers’ Beliefs and
Practices.” British Council ELT 213: 1–45.
Borg, S., and Y. Alshumaimeri. 2019. “Language Learner Autonomy in a Tertiary Context:
Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices.” Language Teaching Research 23 (1): 9–38.
Camilleri, G. 1999. Introducing Learner Autonomy in Teacher Education. Graz: Council of Europe.
Camillieri, G. 1999. Learner Autonomy: The Teachers’ Views. Graz: Council of Europe.
Cárdenas, R. 2006. “Considerations on the Role of Teacher Autonomy.” Colombian Applied
Linguistics Journal 8 (9): 183–201.
Chan, V. 2001. “Learning Autonomously: The Learners’ Perspectives.” Journal of Further and
Higher Education 25 (3): 285–300.
Chan, V. 2003. “Autonomous Language Learning: The Teachers’ Perspectives.” Teaching in Higher
Education 8 (1): 33–54.
Chen, S. P., and R. J. Mykletun. 2015. “Beyond Post-Downsizing Organisational Injustice and
Counterproductive Work Behaviours: Antecedents and Consequences of Learnt Helplessness.”
International Journal of Business and Management 10 (6): 1.
Cooker, L. 2012. Formative (self-) assessment as autonomous language learning (Doctoral disser-
tation, University of Nottingham).
Cotterall, S. 1999. “Key Variables in Language Learning: What do Learners Believe About Them?”
System 27 (4): 493–513.
Crossouard, B. 2010. “Reforms to Higher Education Assessment Reporting: Opportunities and
Challenges.” Teaching in Higher Education 15 (3): 247–258.
Deci, E. L., and R. M. Ryan. 2011. Self-determination Theory. Handbook of Theories of Social
Psychology (Vol. 1). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Demirtaş, İ, and N. Sert. 2010. “English Education at University Level: Who is at the Centre of the
Learning Process.” Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language) 4 (2): 159–172.
Donker, A., H. De Boer, D. Kostons, C. Dignath van Ewijk, and M. Van der Werf. 2014.
“Effectiveness of Learning Strategy Instruction on Academic Performance: A Meta-Analysis.”
Educational Research Review 11: 1–26.
Dörnyei, Z., and E. Ushioda. 2013. Teaching and Researching: Motivation. London and New York:
Routledge.
Earl, S. R., I. M. Taylor, C. Meijen, and L. Passfield. 2017. “Autonomy and Competence Frustration
in Young Adolescent Classrooms: Different Associations with Active and Passive
Disengagement.” Learning and Instruction 49: 32–40.
Farahi, P. 2015. Teachers’ and Students’ Perceptions of Learner Autonomy in the ELT Department at
Eastern Mediterranean University. Famagusta: Eastern Mediterranean University (EMU)-Doğu
Akdeniz Üniversitesi (DAÜ).
284 F. BASRI

Halstead, J. M., and C. Zhu. 2009. “Autonomy as an Element in Chinese Educational Reform: A
Case Study of English Lessons in a Senior High School in Beijing.” Asia Pacific Journal of
Education 29 (4): 443–456.
Hockings, C., L. Thomas, J. Ottaway, and R. Jones. 2018. “Independent Learning–What We do
When You’re Not There.” Teaching in Higher Education 23 (2): 145–161.
Holec, H. 1981. Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon press.
Hui, Y. 2010. “Teacher-Learner Autonomy in Second Language Acquisition.” Canadian Social
Science 6 (1): 66–69.
Jääskelä, P., P. Häkkinen, and H. Rasku-Puttonen. 2017. “Supporting and Constraining Factors in
the Development of University Teaching Experienced by Teachers.” Teaching in Higher
Education 22 (6): 655–671.
Jacobson, M. J., B. Kim, S. Pathak, and B. Zhang. 2015. “To Guide or Not to Guide: Issues in the
Sequencing of Pedagogical Structure in Computational Model-Based Learning.” Interactive
Learning Environments 23 (6): 715–730.
Kahraman, S. 2015. “An Evaluation of an English Language Teaching Education Program in Terms
of Teacher Autonomy.” International Online Journal of Education and Teaching/ISSN: 2148-
225X 2 (2): 53–66.
Kirschner, P. A., J. Sweller, and R. E. Clark. 2006. “Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction
Does not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based,
Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching.” Educational Psychologist 41 (2): 75–86.
Littlewood, W. 1999. “Defining and Developing Autonomy in East Asian Contexts.” Applied
Linguistics 20 (1): 71–94.
McCabe, A., and U. O’Connor. 2014. “Student-centred Learning: The Role and Responsibility of the
Lecturer.” Teaching in Higher Education 19 (4): 350–359.
Mertkan, S. 2011. “Tensions in leadership development: head teachers’ experience in North
Cyprus.” School leadership and management 31 (1): 79–90.
Nakata, Y. 2011. “Teachers’ Readiness for Promoting Learner Autonomy: A Study of Japanese EFL
High School Teachers.” Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (5): 900–910.
Năznean, A. 2016. “Metacognition and language learning.” Proceedings of the European Integration-
Between Tradition and Modernity Congress. Targu-Mureş: Editura University.
Nguyen, X. N. C. M., and I. Walkinshaw. 2018. “Autonomy in Teaching Practice: Insights From
Vietnamese English Language Teachers Trained in Inner-Circle Countries.” Teaching and
Teacher Education 69: 21–32.
Niemiec, C. P., and R. M. Ryan. 2009. “Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness in the Classroom:
Applying Self-Determination Theory to Educational Practice.” Theory and Research in Education
7 (2): 133–144.
Öz, H. 2005. “Metacognition in Foreign/Second Language Learning and Teaching (Yabanci/ikinci dil
öğrenİmİ ve öğretİmİnde bilişötesi).” Hacettepe Universitesi Journal of Education 29: 147–156.
Pelletier, L. G., C. Séguin-Lévesque, and L. Legault. 2002. “Pressure From Above and Pressure From
Below as Determinants of Teachers’ Motivation and Teaching Behaviors.” Journal of Educational
Psychology 94 (1): 186.
Pilli, O., and M. Aksu. 2013. “The Effects of Computer-Assisted Instruction on the Achievement,
Attitudes and Retention of Fourth Grade Mathematics Students in North Cyprus.” Computers
& Education 62: 62–71.
Pintrich, P. R. 2002. “The Role of Metacognitive Knowledge in Learning, Teaching, and Assessing.”
Theory Into Practice 41 (4): 219–225.
Putnam, R. T., and H. Borko. 2000. “What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say
about research on teacher learning?” Educational researcher 29 (1): 4–15.
Reeve, J. 2009. “Why Teachers Adopt a Controlling Motivating Style Toward Students and How
They can Become More Autonomy Supportive.” Educational Psychologist 44 (3): 159–175.
Reeve, J., E. Bolt, and Y. Cai. 1999. “Autonomy-supportive Teachers: How They Teach and
Motivate Students.” Journal of Educational Psychology 91 (3): 537.
Reeve, J., and H. Jang. 2006. “What Teachers Say and Do to Support Students’ Autonomy During a
Learning Activity.” Journal of Educational Psychology 98 (1): 209.
 TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 285

Roth, G., A. Assor, Y. Kanat-Maymon, and H. Kaplan. 2007. “Autonomous Motivation for
Teaching: How Self-Determined Teaching May Lead to Self-Determined Learning.” Journal of
Educational Psychology 99 (4): 761.
Samah, S. A. A., H. K. Jusoff, and A. D. Silong. 2009. “Does Spoon-Feeding Impede Independent
Learning?” Canadian Social Science 5 (3): 82.
Sharifi, A., and J. Hassaskhah. 2011. “The Role of Portfolio Assessment and Reflection on Process
Writing.” Asian EFL Journal 13 (1): 192–229.
Smith, R. C., and S. Erdoğan. 2008. “Teacher-learner autonomy: Programme goals and student-
teacher constructs.” In Learner and teacher autonomy; Concepts, realities, and responses,
edited by T. Lamb and H. Reinders, 83–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Stroupe, R., C. Rundle, and K. Tomita. 2016. “Developing Autonomous Learners in Japan: Working
with Teachers Through Professional Development.” Language Learner Autonomy: Teachers’
Beliefs and Practices in Asian Contexts 5 (2): 43–61.
Su, Y.-L., and J. Reeve. 2011. “A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Intervention Programs
Designed to Support Autonomy.” Educational Psychology Review 23 (1): 159–188.
Tan, F., and H. Chan. 1998. “Managing Self-Instructed Learning Within the IS Curriculum:
Teaching Learners to Learn.” InformingSciJ 1: 1–7.
Tanyeli, N., and S. Kuter. 2013. “Examining Learner Autonomy in Foreign Language Learning and
Instruction.” Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 53: 19–36.
Tian, L., and Y. Wu. 2019. “Classroom Choice-Making for Chinese Master’s Students: Choice,
Motivation and Learning Contexts.” Teaching in Higher Education 24 (7): 850–879.
Tobias, S., and H. T. Everson. 2009. “The Importance of Knowing What you Know: A Knowledge
Monitoring Framework for Studying Metacognition in Education.” In The Educational
Psychology Series. Handbook of Metacognition in Education, edited by D. J. Hacker, J.
Dunlosky, and A. C. Graesser, 107–127. New York: Routledge.
Trebbi, T. 2008. “Freedom–a prerequisite for learner autonomy? Classroom innovation and
language teacher education.” In Learner and teacher autonomy: Concepts, realities, and responses,
edited by T. Lamb and H. Reinders, 33–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing.
Vieira, F. 2009. “Enhancing Pedagogy for Autonomy Through Learning Communities: Making Our
Dream Come True?” Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 3 (3): 269–282.
Vieira, I., I. Barbosa, M. Paiva, and I. Fernandes. 2008. “Teacher Education Towards Teacher (and
Learner) Autonomy.” In Learner and teacher autonomy: Concepts, realities and responses, edited
by T. Lamb and H. Reinders, 217–235. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company.
Voller, P. 1997. “Does the teacher have a role in autonomous language learning.” In Autonomy and
independence in language learning, edited by P. Benson and P. Voller, 98–113. London:
Longman.
Wang, Y., and M.-X. Wang. 2016. “Developing Learner Autonomy: Chinese University EFL
Teachers’ Perceptions and Practices.” Language Learner Autonomy: Teachers’ Beliefs and
Practices in Asian Contexts 5 (2): 23–42.
Wirth, K. R., and D. Perkins. 2008. Learning to Learn. Retrieved from http://geology.wwu.edu/dept/
faculty/hirschd/courses/2012/winter/306/handouts/learning.pdf
Yasmin, M., and F. Naseem. 2019. “Collaborative Learning and Learner Autonomy: Beliefs,
Practices and Prospects in Pakistani Engineering Universities.” IEEE Access 7: 71493–71499.
Yasmin, M., and A. Sohail. 2018. “Socio-cultural Barriers in Promoting Learner Autonomy in
Pakistani Universities: English Teachers’ Beliefs.” Cogent Education 5 (1): 1501888.
Yin, R. 2015. Qualitative Research From Start to Finish. New York: Guilford Publications.
Young-Jones, A., K. C. Cara, and C. Levesque-Bristol. 2014. “Verbal and Behavioral Cues: Creating
an Autonomy-Supportive Classroom.” Teaching in Higher Education 19 (5): 497–509.
Young-Jones, A., C. Levesque, S. Fursa, and J. McCain. 2019. “Autonomy-Supportive Language in
the Syllabus: Supporting Students From the First Day.” Teaching in Higher Education 1–16.
doi:10.1080/13562517.2019.1661375.
Yuan, E. R. 2017. “Exploring University-Based Teacher Educators’ Teaching Beliefs and Practice: a
Hong Kong Study.” Teaching in Higher Education 22 (3): 259–273.