1.               Introduction

In today’s rapidly developing world, instant decision-making is necessary for a successful functioning. In the foreign language educational setting, helping learners become independent decision makers is a direct way for maximizing their chances for success in life. The concept of "learning autonomy" (LA) has emerged under the heading of communicative approach for promoting the role of the learner as the key agent in the language learning process, and the shift from the teacher-centered classroom towards a learner-centered system. In the Algerian higher education context, the License, Master Doctorate (LMD) system, which was implemented in 2004, seeks to develop learner autonomy as one of the major goals of university teaching. Under this system, teachers are required to support their learners through developing the skills that allow them to control and take responsibility of their learning. With reference to the fact that teachers’ beliefs are of great effect on their teaching practices, this study aims to explore the beliefs of a group of Algerian EFL teachers about LA and their teaching practices to promote it.

1.1Emergence of Learning Autonomy

Since the 1970s, the word autonomy, which means law in Greek, has entered the vocabulary of language research and taken a growing importance in the field of language learning.  Galileo was among the first to hint to the importance of autonomy with his famous saying: “You cannot teach a man anything; you can help him find it within himself” (Galileo Galilei, in Benson, 2001, p.23). This notion was largely associated with individual's independency in all aspects of his daily life. Then, in the early 1980’s, the idea of autonomy first appeared in language teaching and learning thanks to Holec (1981), the pioneering figure in LA, contributed to the development of autonomy in the field of language learning. His work is an initiation to implementing LA in language teaching and learning, which aimed at providing the learner with opportunities and skills for lifelong learning. Furthermore, Holec (1981) took leadership of “Centre de Recherches et d’ Applications en Langues” (CRAPEL), at the university of Nancy, France, which emphasized the application of the theory of autonomy in adult education (Benson, 2001, p. 9). The publications and works of CRAPEL paved the way for autonomy to prosper and be integrated in the field of education and research. New researchers and educators have benefited a lot from CRAPEL and used its ideology and documents to further research in the area and experiment the notion of autonomy in learning, which resulted in a considerable amount of works around autonomy in relation to different aspects of learning and its huge importance in language learning.

1.2Definition of Learner Autonomy

When it comes to the field of education, autonomy has acquired specific interpretations as related to the teaching and learning process. In this respect, Holec (1981) defines autonomy as “the ability to take charge of one’s own learning”, which he then explains as the ability “to have, and to hold, the responsibility for all the decisions concerning all aspects of this learning” (p.3). Trebbi (1996) adds that “taking charge of one's own learning' is a tautology and a prerequisite as no learning occurs unless the learner is in charge” (p.290). In this respect, Crabbe (1993, p.443) argues that the essence of learner autonomy lies in the learners’ rights to exercise his or her own choices in learning and freedom from the choices imposed by social institutions.  From these definitions, we understand that autonomy is related to being independent. However, “Independence […] is not the absence of guidance, but the outcome of a process of learning that enables learners to work with such guidance […] getting their needs considerable insightful planning and action.” (Knight, 1996, p.35). According to Aktas (2015, p.2), autonomy is not context-free: the extent to which it can be practiced is influenced by a number of factors such as learners’ personality, motivation, learning needs and the educational environment, within which learning is taking place. In addition, autonomy is not a steady state achieved by learners, for autonomous learners might be autonomous in one situation, but not in another, and they may need teacher’s guidance and direction at certain level in their learning process.

1.3Definition of Learning Autonomy in Language Learning

When it comes to the more specific concept of language learning autonomy, Macaro (2008, p.59-60) defines autonomy of language learning as learner’s decisions about their own language learning as the language learner or user taking control of the language being learnt and the goal and purpose of that learning. This type of autonomy entails being able to say what you want rather than producing the language of others, because the ultimate objective of foreign language learning is not the acquisition of ready-made given knowledge, but the ability to say what one wants to say in a different language. Sinclair (1999) adds that "that autonomy in language learning is principally concerned with providing learners with situations and opportunities for exercising a degree of independence" (p.310). In other words, these kinds of situations and opportunities might range from activities in the classroom, which provide students with chances to choose what they want to learn, to allowing them to participate in out-of-class project work and cooperative learning.  

Furthermore, according to Benson and Voller (1997, p.2),the term language learning autonomy can be used in five ways:

Ø      for a situation in which learners study entirely on their own;

Ø      for a set of skills which can be learned and applied in self-directed learning;

Ø      for an inborn capacity which is suppressed by institutional education;

Ø      for the exercise of learners' responsibility for their own learning;

Ø      and for the right of learners to determine the direction of their own learning.

Similarly, Oxford (2003) proposed a comprehensive definition of learning autonomy which:

Integrates four perspectives: a technical one focused on the physical situation, a psychological one focused on characteristics of learners, a socio-cultural one focused on mediated learning and a political-critical perspective focused on ideologies, access, and power structures (cited in Martinez, 2008, p.106)

The technical aspect of learner autonomy includes the technical skills such as learning strategies and task completion, which are easy to be promoted in education. The psychological aspect of learner autonomy refers to innate capacity and the cognitive attitudes and beliefs affecting learning. The socio cultural aspect entails knowing how to make use of others as interlocutors and source of information within cultural context. The political version of autonomy refers to control over learning content in relation to power in learning and teaching.

Overall, since its emergence to the present time, autonomy has proven its positive impact on the learning process with the teacher as the key element for the successful implementation of autonomy in EFL classroom. In this respect, the field of autonomy is not a separated field but a social and mental system, which is open to changes, developments and various stages, and cannot be developed without the support and guidance of an instructor.

1.4Teachers’ Beliefs

Learner autonomy is related not only to the learner, “but also to the teachers’ own learning and teaching experiences and their beliefs about autonomy” (Lamb 2009, p. 1). Teachers’ beliefs are those “beliefs that they have about education, teaching, and learning which conduct their actions and behaviors as teachers” (Salimi & Ansari, 2015, p. 1108). The importance of teachers’ beliefs is highlighted by Tobin, Tippins, and Gallard (1994), who say that:

future research should seek to enhance our understanding of the relationships between teacher beliefs and education reform […] Many studies reviewed suggest that teacher beliefs are a critical ingredient in the factors that determine what happens in classrooms (cited in Tarman, 2012, p.1965)

In this respect,the belief teachers have about LA is a determinative component of their teaching behaviours and practices, which in turn affect their willingness to adopt new teaching methods or strategies relevant to LA. Therefore, understanding teachers’ beliefs about LA helps designing appropriate language activities that target the promotion of autonomous learning within EFL learners.

1.5            Previous Studies on Teachers’ Beliefs on Learner Autonomy

Recently, teachers’ beliefs have been the subject of inquiry to clarify how beliefs affect teachers’ practices. Many studies are conducted to uncover the beliefs and practices of teachers in relation to LA. To start with,Balcikanli (2010) explores teachers’ beliefs about LA in 112Turkish EFL teachers in Gazi University. The results reveal that teachers have positive beliefs about LA principles. They feel the need to include students in decision-making process (e.g., objectives of course, classroom management, homework task and selecting materials). However, they are cautious and reluctant about including students in decision making of time, place and textbook of course. Another study by Borg & Al Busaidi (2012), exploring the beliefs and practices of LA of 61EFL teachers at Sultan Qaboos University in Oman, indicate that teachers hold a range of different positive beliefs about LA. The latter is mostly perceived as involving learners to have freedom and ability to make choices and decisions about how they learn. Besides, teachers have different beliefs about the degree of LA, which is perceived to be low and does not reflect the level of university learners, who are supposed to have high degree of LA. On the other hand, teachers agree that LA has positive effect on EFL learning. In addition, teachers are more positive about the desirability of involving learners in language course decisions and less positive about its feasibility. This latter is more salient in relation to selecting materials, topics and activities in contrast with objectives and assessment. Another finding entails that teachers feel they promote LA through different activities and strategies; and that they face challenges in promoting LA. All of these findings make teachers theoretically positive and practically cautious.

Al- Asmari (2013) tries to explore the beliefs of 60teachers from different countries about LA. The results reveal that teachers expect learners to work independently and to be involved in taking decisions about language learning. It is also stressed by the researcher that teachers show willingness to promote autonomous learning and should be provided with appropriate training for the application of LA principles. The study of Duong (2014) aims to investigate teachers’ beliefs of the promotion of LA and teaching practices in 30EFL teachers at Thai University. The findings indicate that teachers are aware of the concept of LA and teacher’s role in autonomous language learning. However, they report encountering some difficulties in promoting LA due to the gap between their beliefs of LA and its practical implementation in the classroom. A further study by Salimi & Ansari (2015) explores LA beliefs of 35Iranian EFL teachers. The results indicate that teachers have positive beliefs of LA and its effect on EFL success; and that teachers should help their learners develop autonomy. Promoting LA is perceived to be achieved through working alone at the library and inside and outside classroom using the internet, making decision about learning materials, activities, and assessment. Alibakhshi (2015), through in-depth interviews, investigates the challenges faced by 23Iranian EFL teachers when trying to promote LA. The results reveal the existence of three areas of challenges. First, institution-related challenges, such as the fact that the ministry of education makes all decisions and teachers are forced to follow the prescribed policies with no room for teachers or learners to make changes in objectives, types of materials used and the method of evaluation. Second, learners-related challenges, such as students’ de-motivation and total dependence on the teacher, poor language level within crowded classrooms. Finally, teacher-related challenges, such as the lack of relevant sources, lack of teacher autonomy, lack of experience with implementing LA and the fear of losing authority while promoting LA.

Alhaysony (2016) duplicates the study of Borg & Al- Busaidi (2012). She explores the beliefs of 77EFL teachers about LA at Saudi Arabia. The results indicate teachers’ positive beliefs about LA and its importance for language learning. Participants report that learning autonomy means responsibility, control, choice, motivation and decision. However, there exists a gap between LA desirability and feasibility, as teachers were negative about the extent to which learner autonomy can practically be promoted. Teachers claim that students should be given opportunities to set goals, objectives and choose topics and activities. They differ in their beliefs about learners degrees of autonomy. Some teachers think that their learners are autonomous as they are aware of their strengths and weaknesses and have the right to comment on their learning; others think that their learners are not autonomous because they lack motivation, rely on teacher, are unaware of strengths and weaknesses, unwilling to take responsibility of learning and lack of motivation. Another study by Meisani & Rambet (2017) explores the belief of one Indonesian teacher about LA and the practices that the teacher used to enhance it. The results of the questionnaire reveal that LA is perceived as both teachers and learners sharing responsibility with, teachers being responsible for supporting and promoting LA. This latter is claimed to be promoted through giving learners opportunities to work on projects inside and outside the classroom and choose learning methods, materials and assessment procedures.

Similarly, many other studies have been conducted to explore teachers’ beliefs and practices of LA and they all share the major findings and conclusions with slight differences in relation to cultural differences (Joshi, 2011; Yoldirim, 2012; Duong & Seepho, 2014; Al-Zeebaree & Yavuz, 2016; Cakici, 2017; Harati, 2017). Despite the existence of this intensive research about the topic, very few studies have tackled teachers’ beliefs and practices within the Algerian higher education context (Ghout, 2015). Therefore, this study comes to bridge the gap by further exploring Algerian EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices towards LA.

1.6Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study is to explore EFL teachers’ beliefs of learner autonomy and to identify the desirability and feasibility of implementing learner autonomy within teaching practices. In addition, it aims to determine the extent to which Algerian EFL teachers are practically implementing LA principles while teaching.

2. Methodology

2.1Research Questions

This study aims to answer the following questions:

1-                       What does ‘learner autonomy’ mean to EFL teachers at Mohamed Lamine Debaghine University?

2-                       What are teachers’ beliefs of the desirability and feasibility of promoting learner autonomy?

3-                       To what extent do teachers believe their learners are autonomous?

4-                       To what extent do teachers believe they actually promote learner autonomy in their EFL classes?

2.2Participants

This study was conducted with 33teachers from the department of English language and literature at Mohammed Lamine Debaghine University, Setif2, Algeria.  They are 28females and 5males with teaching experience that varies between 1to 25years and educational qualification that ranges from License to Doctorate.

2.3            Instrument

The instrument used for data collection is an adapted questionnaire from Borg & Al-Busaidi (2012) with some modifications. The modifications are: 1) omitting “statement 21” of the second section about “Learner autonomy is promoted by independent work in a self-access centre”, since this latter is not available at the target’s population university; 2) reordering the numbering of sections; 3) and omitting irrelevant questions to the present study. The final version of the questionnaire consists of four major sections (cf. Appendix). The first one is about the background information of participants. It contains 4statements about age, gender, highest qualifications and teaching experience respectively. The second section is about different beliefs of LA. It consists of 36statements that can be measured on a five point Likert-scale, structured as “strongly disagree, disagree, unsure, agree, and strongly agree”. The 36statements are derived according to the following constructs:

1.                       Different belief on learner autonomy [Technical (2-6-31), Psychological (11-28-31-33-36), Social (3-16-19-24-29), and Political (4-7-14-21-26)].

2.                       The role of the teacher in promoting learner autonomy (34-18-23-8).

3.                       The effect of cultural contexts on learner autonomy (13-22).

4.                       The effect of age on learner autonomy (1-20-10).

5.                       The effect of proficiency on learner autonomy (9-25-33).

6.                       The effect of learner-centered methodology and learner autonomy (27-15-17).

7.                       The benefits of learner autonomy for language learning (35-12-5).

The third section aims to elicit teachers’ beliefs about both desirability and feasibility of including learners in different language course decisions (e.g. deciding about assessment or setting objectives), and developing in learners certain LA skills and abilities (e.g. identifying their own strengths or weaknesses). It consists of 14statements in the form of Likert-scale items.

                   Section four consists of two questions concerning the extent to which teachers think their learners are autonomous and whether they try to promote LA through their teaching practices. For both questions, teachers were asked to explain and exemplify to support their answers. The internal reliability of the questionnaire calculated by Cronbach’s alpha was at α =.80that is superior to .70, which means that the tool is reliable in terms of its consistency over time.

2.4Procedure

The data for the study was collected in November 2017. The participants of the study all participated in the research voluntarily. A total of 45questionnaires were handed to teachers or sent to them via email attachment. Due to the participants’ busy timetable, the questionnaires were collected a week later. Thirty (33) teachers completed the questionnaire.

For data analysis, the close-ended questions of the collected questionnaires were analyzed quantitatively using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS .22) to calculate the descriptive statistics (e.g. mean, frequency and percentages). The answers to the open-ended questions were analyzed qualitatively through thematic analysis in which common themes are identified and categorized.

3.  Results and Discussion

The findings were analyzed under four main sub-headings related to the four research questions: teachers’ understanding of learner autonomy, teachers’ beliefs of the desirability and feasibility of promoting learner autonomy, teachers’ beliefs of the autonomy of their learners and teachers’ beliefs of their practices in promoting learner autonomy.

3.1            Teachers’ Understanding of Learner Autonomy    

This section is to provide the answer to the first research question about teachers’ understanding of learner autonomy. For better understanding, the data will be presented in subsections corresponding to seven constructs in accordance with the ten constructs of LA suggested by Borg & Al-Busaidi (2012, p.10). The first construct in the current research includes the first four constructs of the original study.

3.1.1Different beliefs on learner autonomy

                    This subsection comprises four main constructs about LA: technical, social, psychological and political. The overall results of teachers’ beliefs are presented in figure1.

Figure1. Mean levels of support for four orientations to learner autonomy.

Figure 1reveals teachers’ significant support of all the four orientations. The psychological orientation comes first with a mean value of 4.15, followed by the social and technical orientations with mean values of 3.88and 3.87respectively; while the political orientation comes last with mean value of 3.75. Next, a detailed presentation of the results will be revealed.

3.1.1.1   Psychological orientations on learner autonomy

Table 1. Mean levels of support for the psychological orientations to learner autonomy.

This psychological orientation is the most supported by teachers. The results indicate that the majority of teachers agree upon the statement “Motivated language learners are more likely to develop learner autonomy than learners who are not motivated” and “Learning how to learn is a key to develop learner autonomy”. The mean values for these statements are 4.30and 4.21respectively; followed by the statements about the ability to evaluate learning, being confident learner and the ability to monitor learning as the major psychological attributes for being autonomous. This finding confirms the findings of Duong (2014), Duong & Seepho (2014) Salimi & Ansari (2015), Alhaysony (2016) and Meisani & Rambet (2017). In general, teachers agree that motivated, self-confident students are more likely to develop LA when equipped by study skills and strategies for monitoring and evaluating their learning.

3.1.1.2   Social orientations on learner autonomy

Table 2. Mean levels of support for the social orientations to learner autonomy

Teachers agree that LA is a matter of knowing when and how to learn alone or with others. They favor the statements of “Learner autonomy is promoted through activities which give learners opportunities to learn from each other” and “Learning to work alone is central to the development of learner autonomy” with mean value of 4.06and 3.97respectively. Teachers believe that giving students opportunities to learn cooperatively or to complete tasks alone are both central to the development of LA. Similar findings are reported by Al Asmari (2013), Duong (2014) Ghout (2015) Salimi & Ansari (2015), Alhaysony (2016), Alzeebaree & Yavuz (2016) and Meisani & Rambet (2017), and refuted by Borg & Al-Busaidi (2012), whose participants are unsure about the importance of cooperative group work in promoting LA.

3.1.1.3   Technical orientations on learner autonomy

Table 3. Mean levels of support for the technical orientations to learner autonomy.

The results for this orientation indicate that the statement of “independent study at the library is an activity which develops learner autonomy” is the most supported by teachers, with a mean value of 4.15. It is followed by the statements of “out of class tasks which require learners to use the internet promote learner autonomy”, and “autonomy can develop most effectively through learning outside the classroom”, with mean values of 3.79and 3.67respectively.  The majority of the participants agree upon the fact that learning autonomy is about learning outside the classroom through independent study at the library or doing out of class tasks using the internet. This finding supports the previous research of Borg & Al-Busaidi (2012), Duong (2014), Salimi & Ansari (2015) and Alhaysony (2016).

3.1.1.4   Political orientations on learner autonomy

Table 4. Mean levels of support for the political orientations to learner autonomy.

This political orientation of LA scores as the least favored by teachers with mean value of 3.75.  The results indicate that though teachers are cautious, they agree that students should be involved in decision making about their learning and be given opportunities to make choices about the learning materials, the kinds of activities and to a less extent the learning assessment. This finding is supported by results of Borg &Al-Busaidi (2012) Salimi & Ansari (2015) and Alhaysoni (2016).

3.1.2        The Role of the teacher in promoting learning autonomy

   In this subsection, teachers’ beliefs about the role of the teacher in promoting learner autonomy are revealed. Table 5presents the major finding in this area.

Table 5. The role of the teacher in promoting learner autonomy

From table 5, it is noticed that the total mean value of teachers’ answers indicates 2.74, which makes teachers unsure and reluctant about their roles in enhancing LA. They disagree upon the statements of “Learner autonomy requires the learner to be totally independent of the teacher” and “The teacher has no important role to play in supporting learner autonomy”, with mean value of 2.72and 2, respectively, which entails that, teachers admit the important role of the teacher in promoting LA with cautious beliefs of that role. They are unsure about the extent of their roles in helping students become autonomous. From their answers, it can be deduced that learners should be given some independence and not be dependent on the teacher, who plays the role of a guide. This finding is different from the ones of Joshi (2011), Al Asmari (2013),Duong (2014), Duong & Seepho (2014) Ghout (2015), Salimi & Ansari (2015)and Alhaysony (2016) Alzeebaree & Yavuz (2016), which rev-eal that the majority of teachers had a clear understanding of the important role they play in promoting learner autonomy.

3.1.3        The effect of cultural contexts on learning autonomy

   In this subsection, teachers’ beliefs about cultural universality of LA are revealed.

Table 6.The effect of cultural contexts on learner autonomy

As displayed in table 6, the mean value of teachers’ responses indicates 2.89. This means that teachers are not sure about the cultural universality of LA. They cannot confirm whether Algerian learners, with their Algerian cultural background, can achieve LA or not, for the latter might be considered to belong to Western culture. This finding contradicts the findings of Salimi & Ansari (2015), Alhaysony (2016), and is similar to Borg & Al-Busaidi’s (2012).

3.1.4The effect of age on learning autonomy

   In order to uncover teachers’ beliefs about the relation between age and developing LA, items 1, 10and 20were employed to elicit teachers’ beliefs in this area.

Table 7.The effect of age on learner autonomy

Table 7summarizes teachers’ beliefs of the relation of age to developing LA. Teachers favored the statement about “It is possible to promote learner autonomy with both young language learners and with adults” with mean score of 3.81, followed by “Language learners of all ages can develop learning autonomy” and “Learner autonomy is only possible with adult learners” with mean values of 3.12and 2.27respectively. From these data, teachers believe that age has no significant influence on learners’ ability to develop autonomy. For the majority of teachers, learners of all ages, young or adults, have the potential to develop LA. This finding is identical to the results from Borg & Al Busaidi (2012), Salimi & Ansari (2015), Alhaysony (2016) and Meisani & Rambet (2017).

3.1.5The effect of language proficiency on learning autonomy

   In this subsection, teachers’ beliefs of the potential effect of language proficiency of the learner on his ability to develop LA are gauged.

Table 8.The effect of language proficiency on learner autonomy

As displayed in table 8, most teachers agree with the statement about “The proficiency of language learner does not affect their ability to develop autonomy”, followed by “Promoting autonomy is easier with beginning language learners than with more proficient learners” and “It is harder to promote learner autonomy with proficient language learners than it is with beginners” respectively. From these responses, it is clear that teachers do not perceive any connection between learner language proficiency and learning autonomy for they think that all language learners, beginners or proficient, have the ability to develop LA. This finding is identical to Borg & Al Busaidi (2012) and Alhaysony (2016).

3.1.6The effect of learner-centeredness methodology and learning autonomy

   The following table summarizes teachers’ beliefs of the effect of learner centeredness on promoting learner autonomy.

Table 9.The effect of learner-centeredness methodology and learner autonomy

When it comes to teachers responses in relation to learner-centeredness and LA, the majority of teachers agree with the statements of “Learner centered classrooms provide ideal conditions for developing learner autonomy” and “Learner autonomy cannot be promoted in teacher-centered classroom” with high mean values of 4.15and 4.12respectively. This means that teachers perceive the importance of the learner-centered classroom for the promotion of LA, since the traditional teacher-led and centered classrooms are not helpful and should be rejected for better and easier LA promotion. This result is in line with previous research including Balcikanli (2010), Borg & Al Busaidi (2012), Alhaysony (2016) Alzeebaree & Yavuz (2016) and Meisani & Rambet (2017).

3.1.7The benefits of learning autonomy for language learning

   This subsection is devoted to the last part to answer the first research question. It uncovers teachers’ beliefs of the importance of learner autonomy for language learning.

Table 10. The benefits of learner autonomy for language learning

Table 10presents the results about teachers’ beliefs of the benefits brought to language learning by LA. It is clear that the mean value for teachers’ responses range from 3.39to 4.30. It is a strong indication to teachers’ agreement on the great contribution of LA to the field of language learning. They believe that learning autonomy is a key element to a more effective and successful language learning. This finding supports the ones of Balcikanli (2010), Borg & Al Busaidi (2012), Salimi & Ansari (2015), Ghout (2015), Alhaysony (2016) and Alzeebaree & Yavuz (2016).

3.2Teachers’ Beliefs of the Desirability and Feasibility of Promoting Learner Autonomy

   In this section, the second research question, -What are teachers beliefs of the desirability and feasibility of promoting learner autonomy? - will be addressed. This question covers two main areas. First, teachers’ beliefs about the desirability and feasibility of involving students in decision making about language learning (e.g., the objectives of the course, the materials used, the learning assessment). Second, teachers’ beliefs of the desirability and feasibility of developing “learning to learn” skills in students for better autonomous learning (e.g., identifying their strengths and weaknesses, monitoring their learning, learning cooperatively).

3.2.1        Desirability and Feasibility of Student Involvement in Decision Making

   Table 11summarizes the main findings regarding teachers’ beliefs of the desirability and feasibility of students’ involvement in decision-making.

Table 11. Desirability and feasibility of students’ involvement in decision- making

QD:Quite desirable; VD:Very desirable; SD:Slitghtly desirable; SF:Slightly Feasible;

QF:Quite Feasible

The findings in table 11indicate that in all cases, teachers are more positive about the desirability of involving students in decision making than they are about its feasibility. On one hand, students’ involvement in decision-making is perceived to be most desirable about the topics discussed, the kinds of tasks and materials used and least desirable with the teaching method, the objective of the course, classroom management and learning assessment respectively. This finding is identical to the ones of Yildirim (2012) and Alhaysony (2016). On the other hand, students’ involvement in decision-making is seen to be most feasible with the topics, the activities and materials used and least feasible with the objective of the course and the assessment of learning. This finding supports Borg & Al-Busadi (2012), Yildirim (2012), Duong(2014), Duong & Seepho (2014),  Salimi & Ansari(2015), Ghout (2015), Alhaysoni(2016) findings, but contradicts Balcikanli (2010), Cakici(2017) and Harati(2017) who claim that teachers are positive about involving students in decisions about the objectives of the lesson, teaching methodology and classroom management.

3.2.2        Desirability and feasibility of “Learning to Learn” Skills in Students

Table 12summarizes the main findings regarding teachers’ beliefs of the desirability and feasibility of students’ “learning to learn” skills.

Table 12.Desirability and feasibility of “learning to learn” skills in students