Supporting Learner Autonomy in the Context of Epistemic Development

Abstract

For several decades, learner autonomy has been part of a range of important theories of learning; however, despite the significant interest shown by theoreticians and practitioners alike, effective support of learner autonomy remains a permanent challenge. Based on models of epistemic development, we distinguished three dimensions of learner autonomy and aimed to explore: (1) the level of selected aspects of Czech future teachers´ learner autonomy; (2) the mutual relations of the aspects; and (3) the scope of interpersonal variance and the distribution of value combinations among Czech future teachers into profiles. The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) was completed by 129 future teachers from a Czech faculty of teacher education. Descriptive statistics were applied to identify individual scale levels, correlations analysis and explorative factor analysis to explore mutual relations among examined scales and cluster analysis to identify profiles (types) of students in terms of individual level proportions of learner autonomy. The analysis confirmed our assumptions based on previous findings and theoretical conditions of learner autonomy and identified our sample of Czech future teachers as scoring low in critical thinking and in the area of cooperation with peers. Inter-individual differences identified in individual scales were described using three clusters differing in average values of own perspective, cognitive strategies and anxiety scales. Based on all research results, suggestions for differentiated learner autonomy support inspired by the models of epistemic development are made.

Keywords: Learner autonomy, epistemic development, teachers

Introduction

The absence of societal control mechanisms, the differentiation and fragmentation of public space, and the current availability of an abundance of choices connected with uncertainty and the risk of consequences of free decision-making are the basic attributes of life in a postmodern society, as a result of which individuals and entire communities are forced to permanently search for identity, to autonomously manage their own lives, and to spend their whole life learning (Bauman, 1995). Instruction towards autonomy has thus become one of the priorities of today’s education (Winch, 2012).

Defined as “the property or capacity of agents of being self-governing or self-determining” (Stojlar, 2015, p. 314) and as the opposite of functioning under excessive external control (Forbes & Jermier, 2015), learner autonomy has been a vital concept for several decades in theory and research into human growth (Monroe et al., 2016), development (Perez et al., 2015), well-being (Reis et al., 2018) and motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2012), and a desirable goal of tertiary education (Hofer & Sinatra, 2010) corresponding with the idea of lifelong learning and the need to cope with the challenging uncertainties and risks involved as living in a postmodern culture (Bauman, 1995). It has become part of a range of important and widely used theories of learning and motivation, among the most famous being, for example, the self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2012) and models of self-regulated learning (e. g. Boekaerts, 1997; Winne, 2011; Zimmerman, 2013), recognised as an important aspect at all levels of formal education (Little, 1995), but also in the area of lifelong learning (Yurdakul, 2017), e-learning (Lynch a Dembo; 2004) and language learning (Holec, 2009). However, despite the long-term professional interest shown by academics and practitioners in education, effective support of learner autonomy remains a challenge, at least in some areas of education. The Czech Republic belongs among the countries that are behind in this area. Research into Czech university students has so far hinted that during their studies, only a relatively small number of them succeed at functioning autonomously, whereas the majority of them struggle with the management of their own learning, which is related to a number of undesirable consequences, such as a lack of engagement in learning, low scores in critical thinking, a prevalence of reproductive patterns, low self-efficacy, feelings of uncertainty and a lack of readiness, and poor academic results (Juklová, 2019). Similar undesirable findings are known from some other countries (Smith et al., 2018). These findings suggest that a deeper understanding of the circumstances and factors contributing to these adverse results is therefore of key importance with regard to effective support of learner autonomy.

One of the assumed roots of this current state may be a discord between the conditions for autonomy development and value settings and the convictions of the broader educational system. The majority of theoretical models which conceptualise learner autonomy either as a central or a closely related concept have been described using students from the West; however, they may not fully correspond to the conditions in different educational contexts. The presence of certain different cultural patterns could be the reason why in some educational environments, the application of theoretical principles of learner autonomy in educational practice can have less favourable results. Learning motives and behaviour can have different meanings within different cultural contexts, which can complicate students’ development towards learner autonomy. Ma (2022) described some typical patterns embedded and defined in Eastern culture where Asian pupils differ from their Western peers and, for example, found that critical thinking within the context of Asian culture may be considered as disrespecting one’s teacher. Similarly, in the Czech educational environment, one cannot rule out the existence of some deeply rooted, culturally determined beliefs that do not benefit the development of learner autonomy in terms of authority-independence and engagement in self-management. The perception of learner autonomy as a culturally situated phenomenon, and its investigation within the context of the wider conditions of one’s learning environment, therefore seems to be necessary in order to support it. Studies dealing with the learning of Czech university students have so far been largely focused on results, whereas only a few of them have focused on the context of these results within the culture of the broader educational environment. This study is aimed at helping to fill this gap and, relying on theoretical models of epistemic development, looks at learner autonomy as a comprehensive phenomenon that is part of cultural patterns embedded in a broader educational environment.

Literature review

Method

Results

Discussion

Our study investigated (1) selected aspects of learner autonomy; (2) their mutual relations; and (3) the distribution of the combination of their values among future teachers at one faculty in the Czech Republic. Leaning on epistemic-development models, learner autonomy was defined as a specific level of epistemic development based on the ability to accept uncertainty in cognition and adopt one’s own perspective in learning, which is understood as the ability to construct knowledge by evaluating evidence in relation to the context which occurs in collaboration with other people (Moore, 2002). To operationalise this learner autonomy, 13 MSLQ scales (Duncan & McKeachie, 2005) were used.

The mean values of the majority of the monitored scales imply that students assess their strategies related to learner autonomy as slightly above average (M=4.5‒5.3). However, they deviate more significantly from these self-assessments on three scales (Critical Thinking, Extrinsic Goal Orientation, and Peer Learning) that lie in the interval of below-average values (mean values of approximately 3.5). A below-average level of external motivation (Extrinsic Goal Orientation; M=3.5) together with above-average values of internal motivation (Intrinsic Goal Orientation; M=4.8) as well as the values of other intrapersonal-dimension scales (Task Value, Control of Learning Beliefs, and Self-efficacy for Learning and Performance) seem to constitute a favourable development trend towards their readiness to look for their own personal perspective and meaning. However, the students’ efforts are not yet completely successful, as documented by below-average use of critical thinking (Critical Thinking scale; M=3.68) with simultaneous above-average use of memorisation (Rehearsal scale; M=4.5), being related to the reproductive method of learning (Kember, 1997). This implies that students lack strategies for more effective learning yet, and taking into account the below-average values on the Peer Learning scale (M=3.76), implying primary emphasis on the teacher, we can also imply their learning context is not rich in supporting neither appretiating the students´detachment from the teacher’s authority and creation of their own personal meaning. These findings are in accordance with the findings of studies carried out on other groups of Czech university students that used different tools to measure learner autonomy aspects (Juklová, 2019). Similarly to this study, the main findings were the insufficient use of critical thinking and the prevalence of reproductive learning strategies such as memorisation. Cross-cultural research has also reached similar results, especially for the countries, where, with regard to cultural specifics (Hofstede et al., 2010), a teacher-oriented instruction style, can be expected (Yurdakul, 2017).

A correlation analysis showed that all of our 13 monitored scales are significantly mutually related to each other, but they differ in the strength of these relations. From the results it appears that students reliably distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic goal orientation whose relations to the scales focused on control over one’s learning, perceived task value, and self-efficacy, as well as all cognitive-dimension scales, differ in strength. However, except for the Rehearsal scale, students do not make much of a distinction between the cognitive-dimension scales, which may be interpreted, in accordance with the findings of some authors (Marambe et al., 2012; Vermunt et al., 2014), as a non-differentiated approach to choosing strategies and insufficient awareness and utilisation of higher-quality methods. Another interesting finding is the fact that they do not relate the success and control of their own learning (Self-efficacy, Task Value, and Control of Learning Beliefs) to that of their peers, which confirms, as mentioned above, the dominant orientation towards their teacher’s authority.

An exploratory factor analysis further showed that the factor named “own perspective” in learning, which is related to Intrinsic Goal Orientation, Self-efficacy, Task Value and Control of Learning Beliefs, is the most important factor with regard to explaining variance in the data. In terms of the mean scale values of the factor, our sample of students score the highest as a group (M=4.98). The second most significant factor is the one named “cognitive strategies”, which includes Metacognitive Regulation, Elaboration, Organisation, Peer Learning, Critical Thinking, Help Seeking, and Extrinsic Goal Orientation. These findings are in accordance with the theoretical model by King and Baxter Magolda (1996), which postulates the central role of the self and confrontation with the context and one’s peers in constructing one’s own perspective.

The last extracted factor, named “anxiety”, consists of only two scales, namely Test Anxiety and Rehearsal. Its relation to the other two factors is both interesting and somewhat surprising: whereas this factor as a whole does not have a significant relation to the own perspective factor, it is perceived as strengthening in relation to cognitive strategies. When looking at the factor load of cognitive scales on the anxiety factor (see Table 3), however, it is apparent that these results are valid only for some cognitive strategies, whereas we find significant negative correlations with critical thinking and self-efficacy. Students thus consider test anxiety and memorisation to be aspects that contribute somewhat to cognitive activity when using reproductive learning strategies; however, in the case of a prevailing reliance on critical thinking, it is detrimental. The results of correlation analysis and exploratory factor analysis similarly confirm the results of the values achieved on individual scales and are also in accordance with the findings of other authors (Juklová, 2019; Marambe et al., 2012; Vermunt et al., 2014) who similarly discovered factors that do not distinguish between higher- and lower-quality learning strategies used by students in some learning environments.

As for the results of cluster analysis, from a developmenal perspective, the three identified types of students can be viewed as different positions in the development of learner autonomy, to which leaning on the self-authorship model (King & Baxter Magolda, 1996), differential interventions can be recommended. The passively reproductive type can be considered to be the least developed level of learner autonomy, characterised by below-average confidence in one’s own abilities and intrinsic goal orientation together with dominant reliance on non-quality learning strategies. The development of this student group should focus primarily on supporting confidence in one’s own abilities (see validating students’ potential as scholars), be it by assigning manageable tasks of appropriate difficulty, including group work (see defining learning as the mutual construction of meaning), providing formative feedback, or situating learning within a student’s experience. Designing the learning environment that requires accepting responsibility for one’s own learning would also be of benefit for students of this type. The actively reproductive type can be thought of as a transitional position on one’s path towards learner autonomy. This group of students will benefit mainly from support related to the development of more effective learning strategies – by the inclusion of new forms and methods of instruction based more on peer learning and metacognitive reflection as well as tasks provoking higher-order thinking (e.g. dialogic learning, refutational texts or dilemmas, problem solving). Finally, the actively elaborative type can be considered, in accordance with the theory of epistemic development, the most mature position, which will benefit from having more space for one’s own initiative (possibility of choice, individualised instruction) together with a learning environment that encourages further development of one’s own potential and active learning.

With all our findings, it can be stated that our assumptions about the still-persisting patterns of the broader learning context that are not of benefit to the development of learner autonomy were confirmed. In the context of King and Baxter Magolda’s recommendations as to the benefit of (1) validating students’ potential as scholars, (2) situating learning within a student’s experience, and (3) defining learning as the mutual construction of meaning, it is possible to state that the traditional settings of a broader learning contexts and beliefs are of insufficient benefit to learner autonomy. We consider strong beliefs about the usefulness of a highly asymmetrical relationship between the teacher and the student, which keeps the student in a subordinate position and complicates the construction of their own perspective in learning, to be one of the most significant obstacles. Together with long-term used methods of academic assessment, focused primarily on control and remedying errors instead of providing formative and non-judgemental feedback, they can be detrimental to building confidence in a student’s own abilities. In addition, insufficient use of the potential of peer interaction in learning has a similar effect; it is considered to be significant in relation to detaching oneself from the teacher’s authority and to constructing one’s own perspective. Without breaking the dominance of the teacher´s role and shaping a learning environment in which the acceptance of uncertainty in cognition and responsibility for searching one´s own effective strategies is not only tolerated, but also deliberately supported, the development of learner autonomy in the Czech environment cannot be reached.

Our study has several limitations. One of them is a relatively small and non-representative student group based on voluntary participation. The identified student types and other results thus cannot be considered a representative depiction of global reality. Another limitation of the study is the use of the MSLQ, which does not look directly for epistemic characteristics such as accepting uncertainty in cognition or defining learning or the role of the teacher or peers. For more in-depth understanding of learner autonomy, future studies should include measures that would measure directly significant epistemic aspects (e.g. the concept of one’s own learning, the degree of certainty in cognition, methods for substantiating findings, etc.) as well to accompany the self-report scales with objective methods (e. g. observation or monitoring epistemic cognition while learning). At the same time, for verifying the effectiveness and development aspects of identified individual profiles/types, the inclusion of an appropriate level of academic performance measure would be beneficial.

Conclusion

This study investigated learner autonomy on a sample of 129 student teachers at one faculty in the Czech Republic as a desirable objective of contemporary tertiary education. Leaning on epistemic-development models, it conceptualised learner autonomy as a position in the epistemic cognition development characterized by the acceptance of uncertainty in knowing and the ability to adopt one’s own perspective in cognition based on evaluating evidence in relation to context. Analysis of data obtained by selected MSLQ scales revealed favourable as well as problematic aspects of the learner autonomy of Czech future teachers. Results were discussed within the context of cultural specifics of the Czech educational system and became a starting point for practical implications in the area of teacher preparation.

Acknowledgments

The study was supported by the University of Hradec Králové as part of the project: Individual and contextual predictors of the effect of supporting academic autonomy in future teachers (number: 2101) as provided by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic in the years 2021-2023.

References

• Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. Theoretical perspectives, 1–35. https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1572543025572449280

• Bauman, Z. (1995). Úvahy o postmoderní době [Reflections on the postmodern era]. SLON.

• Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2004). Learning partnerships model – a framework for promoting selfauthorship. In M. Baxter Magolda, & P. M. King (Eds.), Learning partnerships (pp. 37–62). Stylus.

• Boekaerts, M. (1997). Self-regulated learning: a new concept embraced by researchers, policy makers, educators, teachers, and students. Learn. Instr., 7, 161–186. DOI:

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• CSI (Czech School Inspectorate). (2018). Quality and effectiveness of education and the educational system in the 2017/2018 school year. Annual report of the Czech School Inspectorate. https://www.csicr.cz/cz/Dokumenty/Vyrocni-zpravy/KVALITA-A-EFEKTIVITA-VZDELAVANI-A-VZDELAVACI-S-(1)CS

• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Self-determination theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (416–436). Sage Publications Ltd. DOI:

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Duncan, T. G., & McKeachie, W. J. (2005). Creation of MSLQ. Educ. Psychol., 40, 117–128. DOI:

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Forbes, L. C., & Jermier, J. M. (2015). Workplace autonomy. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (2nd. ed.; pp. 718-721). Elsevier. DOI:

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Hofer, B. K., & Sinatra, G. M. (2010). Epistemology, metacognition, and self-regulation: Musings on an emerging field. Metacognition and Learning, 5(1), 113–120. DOI:

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. jr., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software for the Mind. (3rd. ed.). McGraw Hill.

• Holec, H. (2009). Autonomy in language learning: A single pedagogical paradigm or two. Mapping the terrain of learner autonomy: Learning environments, learning communities and identities, 21-47.

• Jakesova, J., & Hrbackova, K. (2014). The Czech Adaptation of Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). ASS, 10, 72-89. DOI:

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Juklová, K. (2019). Osobní epistemologie budoucího učitele: Predikce a podpora studijních procesů a výsledků [The personal epistemology of the future teacher: predicting and supporting learning processes and outcomes]. Granada publishing. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11956/122820

• Kegan, R. (1994). In over our Heads: Th e mental demands of modern life. Harvard University Press.

• Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics’ conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7(3), 255–275. DOI:

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• King, P. M., & Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1996). A developmental perspective on learning. Journal of college student development, 37, 163-173.

• Kuhn, D., & Weinstock, M. (2002). What is epistemological thinking and why does it matter? In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology (pp. 121–144). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

• Little, D. (1995). Learning as dialogue: The dependence of learner autonomy on teacher autonomy. System, 23(2), 175-181. DOI:

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Lynch, R., & Dembo, M. (2004). The relationship between self-regulation and online learning in a blended learning context. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 5(2), 1-16. DOI:

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Ma, S. (2022). Teachers’ Changing Roles in Developing Learner Autonomy. Pacific International Journal, 5(2), 78-81.

• Marambe, K. N., Vermunt, J. D., & Boshuizen, H. P. (2012). A cross-cultural comparison of student learning patterns in higher education. Higher Education, 64(3), 299–316. DOI:

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Monroe, A. E., Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2016). Free will evolved for morality and culture. In A. G. Miller (Ed.), The Social Psychology of Good and Evil, 41, 268-283.

• Moore, W. S. (2002). Understanding learning in a postmodern world: Reconsidering the Perry scheme of intellectual and ethical development. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 17–36). Erlbaum.

• Muis, K. R. (2007). The role of epistemic beliefs in self-regulated learning. Educational psychologist, 42(3), 173-190. DOI:

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Panadero, E. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research. Frontiers in psychology, 422-476. DOI:

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Perez, R. J., Shim, W., King, P. M., & Magolda, M. B. B. (2015). Refining King and Baxter Magolda's model of intercultural maturity. Journal of College Student Development, 56(8), 759-776. DOI:

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Perry, W. G. (2013). Cognitive and Ethical Growth: The Making of Meaning. In K. Arndold, & I. C. King (Eds.), College student development and academic life. Routledge, Taylor and Francis.

• Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451-502). Academic Press. DOI:

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. M. (2018). Daily well-being: The role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Relationships, well-being and behaviour (pp. 317-349). Routledge. DOI:

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Smith, R., Kuchah, K., & Lamb, M. (2018). Learner autonomy in developing countries. In A. Chik, N. Aoki, & R. Smith (Eds.), Autonomy in language learning and teaching (pp. 7-27). Palgrave Pivot. DOI:

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Stojlar, N. (2015). Autonomy, Philosophy of. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (2nd. ed., pp. 314-319). Elsevier. DOI:

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Vermunt, J. D., Bronkhorst, L. H., & Martínez-Fernández, J. R. (2014). The dimensionality of student learning patterns in diff erent cultures. In D. Gijbels, V. Donche, J. T. Richardson, & J. D. Vermunt (Eds.), Learning patterns in higher education: Dimensions and research perspectives (pp. 49–71). Routledge.

• Winch, C. (2012). Authority in Education. In Ruth Chadwick (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics (2nd. ed.; pp. 222-228), Elsevier. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-373932-2.00283-0

• Winne, P. H. (2011). A cognitive and metacognitive analysis of self-regulated learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance (pp. 15–32). Routledge.

• Yurdakul, C. (2017). An investigation of the relationship between autonomous learning and lifelong learning. International Journal of Educational research review, 2(1), 15-20. DOI:

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Zimmerman, B. J. (2013). From cognitive modeling to self-regulation: a social cognitive career path. Educ. Psychol., 48, 135–147. DOI:

  Google Scholar

  Crossref