Autonomous Learning And Critical Thinking Inspecting The Association Among EFL Learners

The First National Conference on Teaching English, Literature, and Translation (NCTLT)
Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
August 2013, Shiraz, Iran
Available online at: http://www.civilica.com/Paper-TELT01-TELT01_226.html
100
Autonomous Learning and Critical Thinking: Inspecting the Association
Among EFL Learners
Mania Nosratinia1
, Alireza Zaker2
1
Islamic Azad University at Central Tehran, Iran, mania_nosratinia@yahoo.com
2
Islamic Azad University at Central Tehran, Iran, alirezazaker@gmail.com
Abstract
The thrust of the current study was to investigate the relationship between Critical Thinking (CT)
and Autonomy (AU) among EFL learners. To this end, a group of 182 male and female learners,
between 19 and 40 years old, majoring in English Translation and English Literature at Islamic
Azad University at Central Tehran and Roudehen were randomly selected and were given two
questionnaires: a questionnaire of AU by Spratt, Humphreys, and Chan (2002) and a
questionnaire of CT developed by Honey (2000). The relationship between CT and AU was
investigated using Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient. Preliminary analyses were
performed to ensure no violation of the assumptions of normality, linearity and
homoscedasticity. The results of this study indicated that there is a significant and positive
relationship between EFL learners’ CT and AU (r = 0.736, n = 182, p < 0.05). Since a significant
relationship was found between AU and CT, it can be concluded that the obtained results may
help EFL teachers, material developers, and educational policy makers to bear in mind the
benefits of developing their learners’ AU and CT.
Keywords: Autonomy, critical thinking, effective learning, student-centered methodology
1. Introduction
Any implicit or explicit attempt at developing and facilitating the process of learning a new
language calls for a twofold consideration. The first domain of concern is the pedagogy of
teaching and the methodology behind it which mainly focuses on the practice and employed
techniques of teaching. On the other hand, the mental and personal peculiarities of the learners,
the receivers of the instruction, seem to be of paramount importance where we seek to develop a
reliable and well-informed theory of teaching and achieve the crème de la crème out of the
classroom practice (Lightbown & Spada, 2006).
Presently, after the initiation of postmethod, the TEFL profession seems to highly value
context sensitivity and primarily focus on a student-centered methodology in which learner
autonomy is given a great value (Akbari, 2008; Bell, 2003; Benson, 2003). Learners are now
given a meaningful role in pedagogic decision making by being treated as active and autonomous
players (Kumaravadivelu, 2008). Accordingly, the language learners are becoming the focus of

Autonomous Learning and Critical Thinking: Inspecting the Association Among EFL Learners
101
curricula design, and researchers are recognizing the significance of training learners in effective
strategy use and learner autonomy (Yang, 1998).
Autonomy according to Scharle and Szabó (2000) is the freedom and ability to manage
one’s own affairs, which entails the right to make decisions as well. An autonomous person,
according to Paul and Elder (2008), is not dependant on others for the direction and control of
one’s thinking. They assert that it is the self-authorship on one’s beliefs, values, and ways of
thinking. The basis of learner autonomy, according to Chang (2007), is that the learner accepts
responsibility for his/her learning. Little (1995) argues that the pursuit of autonomy in formal
educational context is a matter of both learning and learning how to learn.
A very obvious reason for promoting learner autonomy is that teacher may not always be
available to guide or instruct, and learners should possess the ability to function in the context of
real world. Therefore, according to Nation and Macalister (2010), autonomy proffers the learners
the capability to know “how to learn a language and how to monitor and be aware of their
learning, so that they can become effective and independent language learners” (p. 38).
Considering the effective learning, there seems to be an intimate relationship between autonomy
and effective learning. Put another way, “the development of autonomy implies better language
learning” (Benson, 2001, p. 183).
According to Ku (2009) enrichment of AU in second language classes requires
maximizing learners’ potential for learning through critical reflection. Students must go beyond
absorbing knowledge and learn to heighten skills to judge information, evaluate alternative
evidence, and argue with tenable reasons. In order to develop potential for learning via critical
reflection learners need CT and CT instruction. According to Wagner (1997) no one can develop
expertise in any area without engaging in the effortful processes of thinking. Craik and Lockhart
(as cited in Nation & Macalister, 2010, p. 60) while emphasizing on the importance of deeply
processing an item as thoughtfully as possible and the way this process contributes to learning
argue that “the quantity of learning depends on the quality of mental activity at the moment of
learning”. This is a reason that CT has become recognized as an important competence for
language learners to acquire (Connolly, 2000; Davidson, 1998; Davidson & Dunham, 1997).
Socrates began the tradition of CT as reflectively questioning common beliefs and
expectations, and separating beliefs that are reasonable and logical from those that lack evidence
or rational foundation (Cosgrove, 2009). Reviewing the literature on critical thinking reveals a
host of definitions of critical thinking. According to Kress (1985) CT is a social practice and is
language itself. CT, as a high level of cognitive function, "is a purposeful, self-regulatory
judgement which results in interpretation, analysis evaluation, and inference, as well as
explanations of evidential, conceptual, methodological or contextual consideration upon which
the judgement is based" (Astleitner, 2002, p. 53). Willingham (2008) suggests that CT revolves
around looking at issues from different perspectives that allows evidence to change opinions, and
expects evidence to substantiate claims.

102
Educators have widely argued for the importance of promoting higher-order thinking
skills in ESL and EFL classrooms (Chamot, 1995; Tarvin & Al-Arishi, 1991) and empirical
evidence supports the effectiveness of teaching critical thinking skills along with English as a
second or foreign language (Chapple & Curtis, 2000; Davidson, 1994, 1995), like Freire’s (1970)
concept of the "Pedagogy of Questions". As Kabilan (2000) explains, it requires posing
questions to learners and listening to learners’ questions. This is a practice which forces and
challenges the learners to think creatively and critically and to adopt a critical attitude to the
world.
The put forward points give ample justification for witnessing a growing body of
research in our field that aims at conducting further investigation into the nature of CT and AU
and the way each one promotes learning a new language. However, the question that is raised is
whether the degree of CT is systematically associated with the degree of AU. This issue
intrigued the researchers of this study to investigate the relationship between EFL learners’ CT
and AU. To fulfill the objective of the present study, the following research question was
proposed:
Q1: Is there any significant relationship between EFL learners’ critical thinking
and autonomy?
2. Method
2.1. Participants
The number of the participants in this study was 182 male and female EFL learners, between 19
and 40 years old, who were selected on a cluster random sampling basis from among those who
were majoring in English Translation and English Literature at Islamic Azad University, Central
Tehran and Roudehen.
2.2. Instrumentation
In order to carry through the purpose of the study, the following two instruments were utilized:
1. A questionnaire of CT developed by Honey (2000); &
2. A questionnaire of AU by Spratt, Humphreys, and Chan (2002).
Each of these instruments is thoroughly explained hereunder.
2.2.1. Learner Autonomy Questionnaire

103
To evaluate the participants’ level of autonomy, a questionnaire of autonomy including 52 items
was administered. The questionnaire was designed by Spratt, Humphreys, and Chan (2002) who
state that the questionnaire design is strongly influenced by Holec’s (1981) definition of
autonomy; he defines autonomy as "the ability to take charge of one’s own learning where to
take charge of one’s learning is to have and to hold the responsibility for all the decisions
concerning all aspects of this learning"(as cited in Spratt et al., 2002, p. 249).
Holec according to Spratt et al. (2002) argues that ability and responsibility are
functioning in five principal areas that are: “determining objectives, defining contents, and
progressions, selecting methods and techniques to be used, monitoring the procedure of
acquisition, and evaluating what has happened”(p. 249). All these notions of ability and
responsibility are incorporated in the questionnaire. In this study the Persian version of this
questionnaire that has been translated and validated by Fahim and Behdani (2011) was employed
to make sure of the full comprehension of the questions by the participants. Fahim and Behdani
argue that the validation process of the translated version has happened through collaboration of
some professors at Islamic Azad University.
The instrument has four sections:
 The first section (13 items) focuses on examining the students’ views of their
responsibilities and those of their teachers.
 The second section (11 items) explores the students’ confidence in their ability to operate
autonomously.
 The third section (1 item) aims to measure the levels of student motivation to learn
English.
 The fourth section (27 items) investigates the students’ practice of autonomous learning
in the form of both inside and outside class activities.
Respondents were asked to indicate their answers in 20 minutes in a Likert scale, sequentially
assigning values of 1,2,3,4, and 5 to options of “not at all”, “a little”, “some”, “mainly”, and
“completely”. In section one; counting 1 for “very poor” to 5 for “very good” in section two;
setting 5 to 1 beside the first to the last choices in section three; and attributing values of 1,2,3,
and 4 to options of “never”, “rarely”, “sometimes”, and “often” in section four. In this regard, the
result could vary from 52 to 233. It is self-evident that the higher the mark, the more autonomous
the participant is. In this study, the reliability of the AU questionnaire was estimated to be 0.84
using the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient which demonstrated a good degree of reliability.
2.2.2. Critical Thinking Questionnaire

104
The Critical Thinking Questionnaire intends to explore what a person might or might not do
when thinking critically about a subject. Developed by Honey (2000), the questionnaire aims at
evaluating the three main skills of comprehension, analysis, and evaluation of the participants.
This questionnaire is a Likert-type questionnaire with 30 items which allows researchers to
investigate the learners’ ability in note-taking, summarizing, questioning, paraphrasing,
researching, inferencing, discussing, classifying, outlining, comparing and contrasting,
distinguishing, synthesizing, inductive and deductive reasoning.
The participants were asked to rate the frequency of each category they use on a 5-point
Likert-scale, ranging from never (1 point), seldom (2 points), sometimes (3 points), often (4
points), to always (5 points); therefore, the participants’ scores were calculated by adding the
numbers of the scores. The ultimate score was computed in the possible range of 30 to150. The
participants were allocated 20 minutes to complete the questionnaire. In this study the Persian
version of this questionnaire which has been translated and validated by Naeini (2005) was
employed. In a study conducted by Nosratinia and Abbasi (2013) on EFL learners, the reliability
of this questionnaire was estimated to be 0.79 using the Cronbach’s alpha. In this study the
reliability of this questionnaire was estimated to be 0.81 using the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient
which demonstrated a considerable degree of reliability.
2.3. Procedure
To achieve the purpose of the study and address the questions posed, certain procedures were
pursued which are explained hereunder:
At first, all the classes in which the participants attended were codified; afterwards, one
class was chosen randomly from a number of three classes available. This procedure resulted in
having samples selected on a cluster sampling basis. Before administrating the questionnaires,
the participants were fully briefed on the process of completing the questionnaires; this briefing
was given by one of the researchers in Persian through explaining and exemplifying the process
of choosing answers. The participants were informed that the results of this survey would by no
means exert any influence on their course scores and the results would be handled with
confidentiality. Due to the nature of correlational study, no criterion for establishing
homogeneity was adopted.
Thence, the CT questionnaire and the AU questionnaire were administrated to the
participants. The researchers randomly observed the process of filling out for some individuals to
make sure they were capable to fully understand the questions and responses. It should be added
that 40 minutes from the whole length of class periods were devoted to administrating these
questionnaires; therefore, all of the questionnaires were administered and returned in one session.

105
Subsequently, the administrated questionnaires were scored to specify the participants’
AU ability and degree of CT. This was followed by the statistical analyses which will be
elaborated in due course.
3. Results
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between EFL learners’ CT and AU.
Accordingly, the researchers conducted a series of pertinent calculations and statistical routines
in order to investigate the questions raised and came up with certain results that are elaborated
comprehensively in this part.
The data analysis provided descriptive statistics and inferential statistics as well.
Descriptive statistics like mean, standard deviation, and standard error of the mean were
obtained. Afterwards, to check the normality of distribution, the assumptions of linear correlation
were checked. Considering the inferential statistics, since the distribution of the variables was
normal, the Pearson’s product-moment correlation was used. The reliability of the research
instruments was estimated through Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Thence, the results of the CT
questionnaire were correlated with those of AU to address the research questions.
3.1. Checking the Assumptions of Linear Correlation
To run correlation the following assumptions should be checked:
1. Linear relation between each pair of variables
2. Normality of the distribution of the variables
3. Homoscedasticity
3.1.1. Linear Relation between Variables
To check the linearity of the relations, a scattergram was created which is presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Scattergram Showing the Correlation Between AU and CT

106
The inspection of Figure 1 shows that the existing relationship between the scores on AU and CT
is not non-linear, such as U-shaped or curvilinear distribution. Therefore, it was appropriate to
test for a linear relationship in the data by performing a correlation considering this assumption.
3.1.2. Normality of the Distribution
To check the normality of the distribution, the descriptive statistics of the data were obtained
which is demonstrated in Table 1.
As demonstrated in Table 1, the distribution of data for CT and AU came out to be normal as
both skewness ratios (0.33 for CT and 0.60 for AU) and kurtosis ratios (-0.35 for CT and -0.78
for AU) fell within the range of -1.96 and +1.96 for these distributions. Therefore, parametric
correlation could be run on the participants’ scores obtained from the questionnaires.
3.1.3. Homoscedasticity
To check the assumptions of homoscedasticity, that is, the assumption that the variance of
residuals for every pair of points is equal, the residual plots (Figures 2 and 3) were examined
while inspecting both of the variables in this regard.
Figure 2. Plot of Studentized Figure 3. Plot of Studentized
Residuals for Critical Thinking Residuals for Autonomy
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of the Data
No. Mean
Std. error
mean Sd Skewness
Std. Error
Skwnss
Skwns
Ratio Kurtosis
Std. Error
Kurtss
Kurtss
Ratio
CriticalThinking 182 103.91 .934 12.606 .061 .180 0.33 -.127 .358 -0.354
Autonomy 182 164.25 .990 13.354 .109 .180 0.60 -.279 .358 -0.78

107
As demonstrated by Figure 2 and Figure 3, the cloud of data is scattered randomly across the plot
and thus the variance is homogenous. Since the assumptions of correlation were all observed for
CT and AU, the researchers ran Pearson’s correlation to investigate the questions of the study.
3.2. The Research Question
The normality of distribution for both of the variables provided justification for using Pearson’s
product-moment formula to compute the degree of relationship between the variables. The
outcome of this analysis is demonstrated in Table 2.
Table 2. Pearson Correlation Between Critical Thinking and Autonomy
Correlations
CriticalThinking Autonomy
CriticalThinking Pearson Correlation 1 .736
**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 182 182
Autonomy Pearson Correlation .736
**
1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 182 182
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
As demonstrated in Table 2, the correlation came out to be significant at 0.05 level (r = 0.736, n
= 182, p < 0.05) and high levels of CT were associated with high levels of AU. This signified a
large effect size (Cohen, 1992; Larson-Hall, 2010) supplemented by a very small confidence
interval (0.662 – 0.796). Table 3 reports the R² and confidence interval. Higher power in a study
will result in smaller confidence intervals and more precision in estimating correlation.
Therefore, the large effect size along with the small confidence interval indicated that the
correlation between the variables was highly reliable and precise.
Table 3. Correlation Report
No of cases R Sig (2-tailed) R² 95% Confidence Interval
182 0.736 0.0005 0.542 0.662 – 0.796

108
Finally, although normality of the distributions were checked for correlation in the previous
sections, the residuals table also verified the absence of outstanding outliers as the Cook’s
distance values do not exceed 1 and Mahalanobis distance values do not exceed 10.83 as
demonstrated in Table 4.
Table 4. Regression Output: Residual Statistics
Residuals Statistics
a
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N
Predicted Value 136.24 193.96 164.25 9.833 182
Std. Predicted Value -2.848 3.022 .000 1.000 182
Standard Error of Predicted
Value
.672 2.143 .912 .266 182
Adjusted Predicted Value 136.62 194.02 164.24 9.830 182
Residual -33.900 19.920 .000 9.036 182
Std. Residual -3.741 2.198 .000 .997 182
Stud. Residual -3.760 2.207 .000 1.002 182
Deleted Residual -34.235 20.074 .006 9.129 182
Stud. Deleted Residual -3.906 2.231 -.002 1.012 182
Mahal. Distance .000 9.131 .995 1.354 182
Cook's Distance .000 .070 .005 .009 182
Centered Leverage Value .000 .050 .005 .007 182
a. Dependent Variable: Autonomy
4. Discussion and Conclusion
Based on the results of the data analysis, it was confirmed that there is a significant and positive
relationship between CT and AU. The researchers came up with the conclusion that CT can
reliably predict AU among EFL learners. After investigating the results of present study vis-à-vis
some other similar studies with the same focus, it was revealed that the results are in line with
some previously conducted research (Fahim & Behdani, 2011). The significance of the findings
of this study is discussed hereunder.
The explicit recognition of CT and AU as two important and highly influential mental
abilities gives ample justification for investigating the way they are related to the other mental
and personal factors and the way they can be enriched directly or indirectly. Some educators
such as Benson (2003), Dam (1995), Dickinson (1992), Holec (1981), and Little (1991) attached

109
great importance to the necessity of AU in education. They stated that students who possess a
higher degree of AU are more motivated to learn and have a higher sense of self-efficacy or
confidence in their own learning ability. They also add that those students who depend on
themselves in learning a new language are bound to succeed academically.
Arguing for the growing acknowledgement of AU in learning, Bonnett & Cuypers (2003,
p. 326) make the point that:
In the educational context, this was the sense of freedom celebrated in the early education
of Rousseau’s Emile and in Neill’s Summer hill, both arguing that the learner’s own
thinking has to be respected, that students must always see the point of what they are
learning and be free to pursue their own conceptions of this in their own ways.
In this regard, the findings of the present study can give rise to the process of heightening the
level of AU among EFL learners through the nourishment and amplification of CT.
Learning how to learn autonomously is a very crucial component that English language
teachers and syllabus designers have to take into account. This point calls for an investigation
into the interrelationship between AU and other factors which will provide us with the
opportunity to enrich the level of AU indirectly. On the other hand, educators have also argued
for the importance of promoting higher-order thinking skills in ESL and EFL classrooms
(Chamot, 1995; Tarvin & Al-Arishi, 1991) and empirical evidence supports the effectiveness of
teaching critical thinking skills along with English as a second or foreign language (Chapple &
Curtis, 2000; Davidson, 1994, 1995) In this regard, the integration of CT into the body of
ESL/EFL books not only would bring about the unique advantages of learning and producing
critically, but it would also enhance the level of AU among the learners.
Presently, the concept of CT is highly supported by TEFL/TESOL methodology where
the diversity in tasks and authenticity in outcomes are supported and highly valued. Kabilan
(2000) argues that the now popular communicative approach to language teaching, which
emphasizes the use of language as a communication tool, does not really help students to become
proficient in the target language. He suggests that for learners to be proficient in a language, they
need to be able to think creatively and critically when using the target language. Education,
therefore, should “enable people to generate and implement new ideas and to adapt positively to
different changes in order to survive in the current world” (Craft & Jeffrey, 2001, p. ix.). In this

110
regard, the findings of this study can be an attribute to the process of fostering and enhancing the
level of CT among EFL learners. Considering the fact that a significant relationship was
observed between CT and AU, it seems that utilization of AU strategies and autonomous
language learning would help the learners to be more reflective and critical in learning a foreign
language.
Autonomous language learning is context-specific; it tends to mean many things to many
people. Yet, most definitions have in common three essential components of autonomous
learning that are: structure, control, and responsibility (Murray & Kouritzin, 1997). The view of
Grains and Redman (1986) is that students should be more responsible for their learning and pay
greater attention to individual needs. Schmitt (2000) sees the need to help learners acquire the
strategies necessary to learn on their own. Learner autonomy according to Richards and
Renandya (2002) is a process that enables to recognize and assess their own needs, to choose and
apply their own strategies or styles eventually leading to the effective management of learning.
Autonomous learning is seen by Holec (1981) as a double process. On the one hand, it entails
learning the foreign language; on the other hand, learning how to learn. Considering learning
how to learn, which is a metacognitive process, CT seems to play a major role in heightening the
level of metacognitive processes and affect the level of AU which is in line with the findings of
this study.
The prime suggestion of this study would be directed to syllabus designers and material
developers for writing course books which build in metacognitive tasks which require learners to
reflect on their progress. Also, they need to consider CT as one of the effective elements in both
academic and future career success. American philosopher and educational leader John Dewey
(1916), while holding a broader perspective on thinking skills, argues that a curriculum aimed at
building sophisticated thinking skills would be a benefit not only to the individual learner, but to
the community and to the entire democracy. Therefore, the advantages of integrating CT into the
body of learning/teaching activities seem to go beyond the borders of the classroom, toward a
more sophisticated society.
It is axiomatic that CT and AU can be fostered through direct instruction as well as
indirect promotion. The latter point calls for an investigation into the procedures through which
CT and AU degrees can be heightened by the other elements with which they positively
correlate. Further research is also suggested to investigate the interrelationship between the
variables of this study and different language proficiency levels and age groups. The high degree
of correlation between CT and AU which was revealed in this study makes it possible to use one
of the techniques that are already introduced for fostering either CT or AU and make sure that
both of them will improve. This leaves us with no doubt that CT and AU should be recognized as
important building blocks of the processes of language teaching and learning.

111
The Authors
Mania Nosratinia is Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics at Islamic Azad University,
Central Tehran Branch. She has been teaching at undergraduate and graduate levels in the areas
of English language teaching methodology, language testing, and research methodology in
language studies. She has published in national academic journals and presented in several
national and international seminars.
Alireza Zaker is currently an MA student of TEFL, Islamic Azad University at Central Tehran.
Alongside teaching, he is the Academic Director of Tehran’s PLC Language Center. His specific
areas of ELT research include Language Testing, Research Methodology, Teacher Education,
and Critical Thinking. He has published and presented in several national and international ELT
conferences.
References
Abedi, J. (2002). Standardized achievement tests and English language learners: Psychometrics
issues. Educational Assessment, 8, 231-257.
Akbari, R. (2008). Postmethod discourse and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 42 (4), 641-652.
Astleitner, H. (2002). Teaching critical thinking online, Journal of instructional psychology, 29
(2), 53-77.
Bell, D. M. (2003). Method and postmethod: Are they really so incompatible? TESOL
Quarterly, 37 (2), 325-336.
Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. London:
Longman.
Benson, P. (2003). Learner autonomy in the classroom. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Practical English
language teaching (pp. 289-308). New York: McGraw Hill.
Bonnett, M., & Cuypers, S. (2003). Autonomy and authenticity in education. In N. Blake, P.
Smeyers, R. Smith & P. Standish (Eds.), The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of education
(pp. 326-340). Oxford: Blackwell.
Chamot, A. (1995). Creating a community of thinkers in the ESL/EFL classroom. TESOL
Matters, 5 (5), 1-16.

112
Chang, Y. L. (2007). The influence of group process on learners' autonomous beliefs and
behaviors. System, 35 (3), 322-337.
Chapple, L., & Curtis, A. (2000). Content-based instruction in Hong Kong: Student responses to
film. System, 28 (3), 419-433.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.
Connolly, M. (2000). What we think we know about critical thinking. CELE Journal, 8,
Retrieved April 20, 2003, from http://www.asia-
u.ac.jp/english/cele/articles/Connolly_Critical-Thinking.htm
Cosgrove, R. (2009). Critical thinking in the Oxford tutorial (Master’s thesis, University of
Oxford) Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.org/files/
Critical%20Thinking%20in%20the%20Oxford%20Tutorial.pdf
Dam, L. (1995). Learner autonomy3: From theory to classroom practice. Dublin: Authentik.
Davidson, B. (1994). Critical thinking: A perspective and prescriptions for language teachers.
The Language Teacher, 18 (4), 20-26.
Davidson, B. (1995). Critical thinking education faces the challenge of Japan. Inquiry: Critical
Thinking Across the Disciplines, 14 (3), 41-53.
Davidson, B. (1998). A case for critical thinking in the English language classroom. TESOL
Quarterly, 32 (1), 119-123.
Davidson, B., & Dunham, R. (1997). Assessing EFL student progress in critical thinking with the
Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test. JALT Journal, 19 (1), 43-57.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: McMillian.
Dickinson, L. (1992). Learner autonomy 2: Learner training for language learning. Dublin:
Authentik.
Fahim, M., & Sheikhy B., R. (2011). Critical thinking ability and autonomy of Iranian EFL
learners. American Journal of Scientific Research, Issue 29, 59-72.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: The Seabury Press.
Grains, R., & Redman, S. (1986). Working with words: Aguide to teaching and learning
vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Honey, P. (2000). Critical thinking questionnaire. Retrieved October 8, 2009, from Peter Honey
Learning Website: http:// www.Peter Honey Publications.com

113
Jeffrey, B., & Craft, A. (2001). Introduction: The universalization of creativity. In A. Craft, B.
Jefferey & M. Leibling (Eds.), Creativity in education (pp. 1-16). London: Continuum.
Kabilan, M. K. (2000). Creative and critical thinking in language classrooms. The Internet TESL
Journal, 6 (6). Retrieved November 21, 2005 from http://itselj.org/Techniques/Kabilian-
CriticalThinking.html
Kress, G. (1985). Linguistic processes in sociocultural practice. Victoria: Deakin University.
Ku, Y. L. K. (2009). Assessing students’ critical thinking performance: Urging for measurements
using multi-response format. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4 (1), 70-76.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2008). Understanding language teaching: from method to postmethod.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Larson-Hall, J. (2010). Aguide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. New
York: Routledge.
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned (3rd
ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy 1: Definitions, issues and problems. Dublin: Authentik.
Little, D (1995). Learning as dialogue: The dependence of learner autonomy on teacher
autonomy. System, 23 (2), 175-182.
Murray, G., & Kouritzin, S. (1997). Re-thinking second language instruction, autonomy and
technology: A manifesto. System, 25 (2), 185-96.
Naeini, J. (2005). The effects of collaborative learning on critical thinking of Iranian EFL
learners (Unpublished master’s thesis). Islamic Azad University at Central Tehran, Iran.
Nation, I. S. P., & Macalister, J. (2010). Language curriculum design. New York: Routledge.
Nosratinia, M., & Abbasi, M. (2013). The relationship among critical thinking, autonomy, and
choice of vocabulary learning strategies. Journal of English Language Studies, 2 (1), 59–77.
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2008). Defining critical thinking. Retrieved September 22, 2009, from
http:// www.criticalthinking.org/DefiningCriticalThinking.html
Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in language teaching: an anthology of
current practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scharle, A., & Szabó, A. (2000). Learner autonomy. Aguide to developing learner
responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

114
Spratt, M., Humphreys, G., & Chan, V. (2002). Autonomy and motivation. Which comes first?
Language Teaching Research, 6 (3), 245-266.
Tarvin, W., & Al-Arishi, A. (1991). Rethinking communicative language teaching: Reflection
and the EFL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 25 (1), 9-27.
Wagner, R. K. (1997). Intelligence, training, and employment. American Psychologist, 52 (10),
1059–1069.
Willingham, D, T. (2008). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? Arts Education Policy
Review, 109 (4), 21-29.
Yang, D. N. (1998). Exploring a new role for teachers: Promoting learner autonomy. System, 26
(1), 127-135.

Autonomous Learning And Critical Thinking Inspecting The Association Among EFL Learners

More Related Content

Similar to Autonomous Learning And Critical Thinking Inspecting The Association Among EFL Learners (20)

More from Jennifer Daniel (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Autonomous Learning And Critical Thinking Inspecting The Association Among EFL Learners