21Giving voice to the voiceless: Learner Autonomy as a Tool to Enhance Quality in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education in OmanABSTRACT: Research findings suggest that some prevalent beliefs and practices still exist in schools and higher education institutions in Oman albeit the recent educational reform. For example, education is still viewed as a process of transferring information to the learners in a mechanical way in which learners continue to play a passive role. In addition, learning is largely exam-driven and classrooms are teacher-fronted while most learners lack autonomous learning and independent thinking skills. Ideally, teaching should aim to encourage learners to develop a capacity for critical thinking and taking control over their own learning while at the same time assuming responsibility for all the decisions concerning their learning. In other words, it is no longer enough for students to sit and listen, test and forget. Learners of today need to become autonomous learners, thinkers and planners who are able to sustain learning and attain long-term success. Unfortunately, many of the current beliefs and practices in our schools and higher education institutions are not autonomy supportive. Helping learners become autonomous has therefore been globally recognised as a desirable and feasible goal for any reform in educational. This paper problematizes some of these prevalent practices and their underpinning beliefs in education in Oman and argues for a pedagogy for autonomy in higher education which integrates principles of learner autonomy into teaching, learning, assessment practices as well as teacher development plans as an alternative to the existing model, which is largely characterized by spoon-feeding and missing voice of the learner. INTRODUCTIONNowadays we are witnessing unprecedented developments at the economic, social, political and cultural levels (Militaru, Pavel & Zanfir, 2011). There is also the technological revolution which has altered the structure of the world around us. All these changes mandate governments to educate all students to be effective thinkers, problem solvers, and communicators who can participate as productive members of a global economy and technological society (Lachat, 2001). These changes call for a transformation of our educational system to match the realities of contemporary life. Reform and quality enhancement in education have therefore been a major concern to authorities in different parts of the world. Almost every country in the world is reforming its educational system in order to reinforce the social and national identity in its learners and to help them better respond to the economic, technological and political demands of the rapidly changing future. Oman is no exception. However, there exist three major obstacles in the path of any reform which need to be critically addressed. First of all, our ability to predict what the future will look like so as to prepare our learners to cope with its challenges and respond to its demands remains limited. The focus of education should therefore centre on creating environments where learners can develop capacities for autonomous learning. According to Dam (2000), "no school, or even university, can provide its pupils with all the knowledge and all the skills they will need in their active adult lives. What we can do is give our learners an awareness of how they think and how they learn (p.27). Secondly, the linearity in which our educational system is structurally and functionally set up (start here and end there), slows down any attempt of reform and makes the success of that reform act less certain. Thirdly, there also exist certain prevalent beliefs and practices in our schools and higher education institutions which are not easy to change as people have taken them for granted. Therefore, most of the debate on educational reforms is centred more on how to reform rather than on what to reform. Sir Ken Robinson, a world renowned creativity and education expert, at a TED conference in 2010 stressed that reform was no use anymore because that was simply improving a broken model. He emphasised that what was needed nowadays is not an evolution in education, but a revolution which transforms our underpinning assumptions and beliefs as well as practices into something else. He acknowledged, however, that it was challenging to innovate in education as change is difficult because it means challenging what people have taken for granted. This paper therefore proposes learner autonomy as innovative in itself and as a response to the new challenges that are confronting higher education. The discussion is grounded on recent research findings on learner autonomy and educational reform as well as on critical reflection of the author on teaching and learning in Oman for over a decade. It takes the position that it has become insufficient to mechanically train learners on whatever knowledge and skills curriculum planners and teachers alone view essential and that one way to enhance quality in higher education is by helping learners develop the capacity of taking control over their own learning and be responsible for all the decisions concerning all aspects of their learning (Holec, 1981; Lamb & Reinders, 2005; Shen, 2011). In other words, learners of today need to become autonomous learners, thinkers and planners so as to sustain learning and motivation, lessen their dependence on the teacher and attain long-term success (Shen, 2011). According to Wenden (1991), for learners to be successful, they need to have acquired the learning strategies, the knowledge about learning and the attitudes that enable them to function confidently, flexibly, appropriately and independently of a teacher (p.10). It has therefore been widely accepted that autonomy in learning is a valuable asset for achievement and a goal and outcome of higher education (Fazey & Fazey, 2001). ENHANCING QUALITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION: WHY AND HOW?The world has realized that the economic success of the states is directly determined by the quality of their educational systems and that the most effective factor of production is human capital expressed in knowledge, skills, creative abilities and moral qualities of individuals in society. Militaru, Pavel & Zanfir (2011)Specialists consider that in the 21st century the education system has become a priority branch of production, being regarded as an occupational field, and should therefore be viewed as a profitable niche for investment. But for education to play such a critical role, issues such as quality, equity and effectiveness need to be of high profile. For instance, Militaru, Pavel & Zanfir (2011) stress that To function well, the whole education system must be based on a very high quality level Without quality, access to education has no meaning (p.75). This conception concerning the mission of education will dominate the educational policy of most countries in the world in the next period. The above quote then testifies to the importance of improving quality of the educational system. The rationale given is that national and international competition requires a quality approach in higher education and that performance can only be achieved where the quality policy becomes a core element in the university life. Militaru, Pavel & Zanfir (2011) also stress that quality is not an accidental result but rather a result of intelligent process and a continuous improvement activity of the teaching process. They recognize quality education as a combination of characteristics of study programme and its provider through which stakeholders expectations and the quality standards are met, which can be achieved through a process of communication and cooperation between different stakeholders in the entire system. In sum, quality in education is not an optional extra; it is a necessity of the millennium. The purpose of this part is to problematize some of the prevalent beliefs and practices in the Omani education system at various levels. The next part will then draw on such analysis and propose a more humanist and learner-centred approach to teaching and learning in higher education which incorporates principles of learner autonomy in a way to help learners fulfil their potentials and face the challenges of todays diverse world. EXAMPLES OF SOME BELIEFS AND PRACTICES A) Overall structure of the systemIt has been increasingly accepted that part of student alienation and academic failure lie in the way educational systems are structured (Lachat, 2001). Gerald Tirozzi, Executive Director of the National Association of Secondary School Principals in the US (NASSP) warns that High schools must become less like factories and more like learning communities (Lachat, 2001:5). He contends that schools can no longer afford to be successful with only a portion of their students. Tirozzis call was echoed by Sir Ken Robinson in an illuminating talk at TED Conference in 2010 in which he stressed the need to go from what is essentially a manufacturing model in education, that is based on mechanical process, linearity and batching people, to a model which is based more on principles of agriculture for human flourishing is not a mechanical process but an organic one and we have to, like a farmer, create the conditions under which peoples diverse talents and aptitudes will begin to flourish. He further explained that many educational systems are built on the model of fast food where everything is standardized. However, learners have different aptitudes and needs and so quality education needs to be customized to local circumstances and personalized to cater to the needs of individual learners. In the same vein, Salmon, 1995 (cited in Little, 2000) critiques such a view and calls it the market model of education which assumes that knowledge and skills are commodities that can be pre-packed by educational planners and textbook authors and handed over to learners by teachers. The view described above by Robinson and Salmon however tends to be generic and seems to represent most of the educational systems around the world. In Oman such a view of teaching and learning has resulted in rote learning (Goodliffe, 2005) and a less humanist approach to teaching which underestimates the value of the learners contribution to the learning process. This is evident in the role the system ascribes to the teacher with more focus on teaching rather than learning (Al-Issa & Al-Bulushi, 2012; Goodliffe, 2005). B) Control and self-directionWhile major developments have been accomplished at various levels in education in Oman, including the Basic Education System at the school level which characterizes a massive educational reform in recent years, one inescapable fact is that the vast majority of the students in higher education institutions are teacher-dependent and lack self-direction (Al-Issa & Al-Bulushi, 2012; Borg & Al-Busaidi, 2011; Goodliffe, 2005). However, taking control over their own learning is not a major challenge to learners in Oman only. In 1981, Malcolm Cornwall wrote: "After at least eighteen (18) years of life in general and thirteen (13) years of formal education, students are seemingly unable to take any initiative for deciding what and how they will learn and the task remains the sole responsibility of the teacher" (p.199). One of main causes of such behaviour, as seen by Scharle and Szabo (2000), is the learners over reliance on the teacher. It could also be due to the learners assumption that the teacher is in charge of and responsible for everything that happens in the classroom, including learning. Personal experience shows that even when the students are motivated, they still assume a passive role when the teacher is in charge of everything. In fact, students perceptions of their own passive role and of the teachers all-or-nothing role have just been growing profoundly in them over time. The previous schooling has regrettably failed to create responsible and autonomous learners who are willing to take control of their own learning, or, at least, some aspects of their learning. Grow (1991) observes that The goal of the educational process is to produce self-directed, lifelong learners. Many current educational practices in public schools and universities, however, do more to perpetuate dependency than to create self-direction (p.127). Notably, this is not only the view of students but also that of some teachers. Some teachers do believe that the issue of learner responsibility and learner autonomy belongs to theoretical books and that the reality in the classroom suggests that learners cannot and do not know how to learn on their own, and that it is their job to make them do so. Accordingly, these teachers are reluctant to relinquish any of their prescribed roles to the learners. The result is that students continue their over-reliance on their teachers; hence, their autonomy suffers. Thus, classroom practices and discourses of these teachers, as Al-Issa & Al-Bulushi (2012) suggest, are possible indications of the beliefs and images these teachers have constructed about their perceived roles as teachers and the most effective ways of teaching which have persisted over years as students, trainees and later as teachers. In the same vein, Phipps and Borg, 2007 (cited in Borg & Al-Busaidi, 2011) note that teachers beliefs influence their instructional choices and emphasize that such beliefs needs to be an integral part of any initiative that aims to promote change in what teachers do in the classroom. C) Focus on teaching rather than learning The focus of research inquiry has now shifted from teaching to learning (Little, Dam & Timmer, 2000). Traditionally, teachers were (and in fact still up to today) trained on the most effective methods of teaching while there was no an equivalent emphasis on learning. Little (2000), for examples, observes that learning has traditionally been considered subordinate to teaching, something that follows naturally enough provided that teachers employ the right method (p.12). Papert, 1994 (cited in Little, 2000) enquires that while the term pedagogy describes the art of teaching, why is there no lexicon in English that describes the art of learning? Notably, such imbalance is also evident in teacher training programmes where there are more modules on methods of teaching than there are on methods of learning. According to Papert, 1994 (cited in Little, 2000), while teaching has been adopted by academics as a respectable and important field, the art of learning is an academic orphan (p.12). In fact, when we look up the verb to teach, we see that all the definitions describe what the teachers do, with no reference to learning. Salmon (1995) seems to agree with Sir Ken Robinsons view of education (see above) in that it is based on an industrial or market model. Salmon, 1995 (cited in Little, 2000) critiques such a view and calls it the market model of education which assumes that knowledge and skills are commodities that can be pre-packed by educational planners and textbook authors and handed over to learners by teachers. Within such a view of education, Little (2000) draws attention to what most teachers tend to take for granted: they unquestionably plan their courses in terms of teaching time rather than learning time and that they are concerned with the time they will need to cover the units in the textbooks rather than with the time their learners will need in order to develop proficiency in those units. Experience has shown that most in-house materials contain on their initial pages a sort of teaching schedule or pacing schedule rather than a learning schedule, not even a guide for one in the student handbook. Turning to the teaching and learning context in Oman, one can see a lot of teaching in our classrooms but there is little evidence of deep learning taking place. Al-Issa & Al-Bulushi (2012) surveyed the perceptions of 141 freshmen at Sultan Qaboos University about the teachers and curriculum in the Basic Education system and concluded that ELT reform in Oman has changed in theory but has been largely otherwise in practice, and that disparity between theory and practice still exists and persists (p.30). Experience has also shown that even at higher levels of education in Oman, classroom practices are largely teacher-fronted and exam-driven. Goodliffe (2005), for instance, admits that The majority of students in Oman come to higher education with a background of teacher-centred instruction and skills in rote learning (p.5). Despite the massive reform the educational system in Oman has witnessed, and as long as teaching and learning are concerned, part of the teachers do not seem to be teaching communicatively (Moates, 2006, cited in Al-Issa & Al-Bulushi, 2012), they lack reflective skills, adopt transmission-based approach of knowledge when handling content (the market model of education described above), marginalize the role of students as dynamic and active constructors of knowledge and deprive them from any thinking space by encouraging memorization, training students for exam purposes and confining learning to the textbooks (Al-Issa & Al-Bulushi, 2012). With reference to some practices in higher education, Goodliffe (2005) also notes that there is an overemphasis on the product (passing exams or gaining a degree) rather than on the process of learning. Clearly exams still dominate the assessment scene in the Omani educational system and high stakes exams are a prime determiner of students failure or success in such a swim-or-sink situation, a tradition which can affect teachers and learners perceptions and performances. In fact, research findings suggest that many teachers consider exams as a prime yardstick for achievement and progress in learning (Al-Issa & Al-Bulushi, 2012). According to Malcolm (2011), Our view of our students is often shaped by their performance in the immediate classroom setting, their test results and their apparent lack of progress. In this setting, failing students are often characterized as unmotivated, lazy and beyond help, a judgment I have also been guilty of pronouncing (p.199).D) Disparity between teacher agenda and student agendaThe literature on instruction and learning suggests that learners do not always learn what the teacher teaches (Benson, 2011; Nunan, 1995). Research findings show that learners exercise their autonomy of learner thought and follow their own agenda about what to learn rather than the teachers agenda (Block, 1996; Breen 1991, cited in Benson, 2011). Learners tend to learn what they find meaningful and matches their personal needs, i.e., matches their agenda. Crabbe (1993) refers to this learner agenda as a private domain, and contrasts it with the teachers domain which he describes as public. In a language learning context, for instance, research has shown that learners comprehend the most comprehensible input to them. In this regard, Nunan, 1995 (cited in Benson 2011) argues thatthe principal reason for mismatch between teachers and learners, which gives rise to a disparity between what is taught and what is learned, is that there is a mismatch between the pedagogical agenda of the teacher and that of the learner. While the teacher is busily teaching one thing, the learner is very often focusing on something else (p. 80).Similarly, Crabbe (1993) argues that learners and teachers vary in their expectations with regard to how a certain learning activity may be handled. Quite often, there is a disparity between learners needs, expectations and learning style, which he calls private domain and the expectations and mode of delivery of the teacher, which he calls public domain. In the same vein, Reinders (2010) observes that learners individual needs often do not directly inform classroom practice and learners may be forgiven for wondering what the relation is between their learning and the teachers teaching (p.46). Therefore, for learners to achieve ultimate benefit from what they learn, teachers need to be critical about how they set and manage learning activities. Crabbe (1993) suggests that one way to bridge the gap between the public domain and the private domain is either by encouraging learners to initiate their own specific tasks and opportunities for practice or by focusing on certain tasks and activities which are important to themselves. In addition, course objectives, content and assessment methods should also be negotiated with the learners and are gradually made part of their responsibility. Thus, learners increasingly become more involved in and responsible for their own learning. The question remains however is: to what extent our educational system is flexible enough to effectively address such disparity between approaches used by teachers and the varied learning preferences and needs of the learners. E) Deep versus surface learning According to Russell (2004), analyses of teaching and learning in higher education are increasingly being based on a distinction between surface and deep learning. Surface learning places an emphasis on memorizing facts and information as well as the relatively passive reproduction of content. Deep learning, by contrast, involves the intention to understand, the critical assessment of content and relating new information to past knowledge in meaningful ways. According to Oxford Learning Institute, The claim that students adopt deep, surface and achieving approaches to learning has had a significant impact upon the development of approaches to teaching in higher education. While it is a simple and appealing idea, it is also frequently misunderstood (p.1). Russell (2004) concludes that learning could be enhanced by employing deep learning approaches to teaching and learning. In addition, Moore (2010) stresses that students conceptualization of higher education needs to be assessed upon entry so that they are psychologically and academically supported and are ready to cope with the demands of the new learning environment. As a matter of fact, some of the learning habits and teaching practices such as rote memorization and preparing students for exams, which are common in schools and higher education institutions in Oman, result in surface learning, which has serious implications for achieving programmes goals. F) Students beliefs and academic skillsThere is growing literature on the role of learner beliefs (be they positive or negative) in learning and their influence on learning attitudes and behaviour (Cotterall, 1995, 1999; Hozayen, 2009; Moore, 2010; Scharle and Szabo, 2000). Students coming to higher education in Oman hold various beliefs and attitudes about themselves as learners and about the different components of the system. Factors such as previous schooling, curricula (Little, 2000) and social processes (Wenden, 1991) are partly responsible for such beliefs and attitudes. According to Horwitz, 1988 (cited in Benson, 2011), certain beliefs may be enabling while others may be disabling. Researchers such as Moore (2010) stress that learners perceptions and conceptualization of higher education need to be assessed and accounted for at entry to the higher education institutions. On her report on the implementation of the Personal Development Planning programme (PDP) at Caledonian College of Engineering, one of the private university colleges in Oman, Goodliffe (2005) notes that students have a negative attitudes towards new forms of formative assessment such as making presentations, portfolios of work, case studies, project work and peer assessment. All these approaches, she explains, are a new challenge to the students idea of assessment and evaluation as there are no formal examinations (p.6). Students at Caledonian were found to be more comfortable with the face validity of the examination as opposed to other means of formative assessment, an attitude shared by learners in other higher education institutions. However, certain components and capacities such as reflection, self-awareness and to plan ahead are difficult to assess using the traditional pencil and paper tests. Since their previous learning was both teacher-focused and classroom-based, students were also found to experience difficulty with other incidents of learning such as extra-curricular activities, albeit an important component of the PDP. Students in Oman were also found to have little awareness of concepts such as plagiarism and ownership of information and so perceive the Internet as a legitimate source not requiring acknowledgment (Goodliffe, 2005). Another important perception which students bring with them to higher education and one which needs to be addressed earlier at entry time, as stressed by Moore (2010), is to do with their role in failure or success. According to Goodlife (2005), students in Oman perceive grades as something bestowed by the teacher and not a result of students effort. Experience has shown that students with low grades usually approach the teacher to increase their grades rather than to ask why they have got such a low grade and what is it that they need to do in order to get a better grade in future. Such problems can be addressed, as this paper suggests, by creating opportunities for the learners to develop learner autonomy which implies taking greater responsibility of their learning and developing metacognitive knowledge, knowledge about learning (Wenden, 1998, Ellis, 1999). Pedagogically, personal involvement in decision making leads to more effective learning. Dickinson (1995) notes that taking an active, independent attitude to learning and undertaking a learning task independently are beneficial to learning, as personal involvement in decision making leads to more effective learning. In addition, when learners are trained and given the opportunity to set their learning agenda, learning becomes more focused and purposeful, and thus more effective both immediately and in the longer term. Little (1991) stresses that when responsibility for the learning process lies with the learner, the barriers to learning and living that are often found in traditional teacher-led educational structures should not arise (p.8). G) Realization of diverse challenges As there are few opportunities for young Omanis to enter the workplace without sufficient training, it has become mandatory for the government to provide adequate number of places to meet the growing number of school leavers (Goodliffe, 2005). Lamb and Reinders (2005) see that numerous changes have taken place in recent times for which countries have to respond adequately. These changes have taken three main dimensions: the learner, teaching institutions, and the society as a whole. Specific examples of changes include:- the emergence of ICT and its personal, educational and social applications- the unprecedented availability of information- impact of globalisation- political, economic and pedagogical developments world-wide- expansion in student enrolment- changing needs of the work place- responding to new technologies- responding to the changing learner needs- the increasing need for communication between people from different parts of the world. Employability and changing needs of the workplace are also two other important challenges facing todays learners. A representative of a major recruitment agency in the UK attending a conference at the University of Sheffield in the UK in January 2011 was asked to list some of the criteria currently used by recruiting agencies and companies to recruit new graduates. He mentioned about ten. They very much pertain to the characteristics and qualities of the autonomous learner. Among the criteria were effective communication skills, curiosity, thirst for development, team skills, courage and integrity, character and character building and practical experience and knowledge. It was stressed during the session that these qualities and practical skills were regarded as essential in a successful applicant, and that other credentials were regarded as secondary. The aforementioned criteria undoubtedly require higher command of independence, autonomy and metacognitive knowledge on the part of the learner. PROMOTING LEARNER AUTONOMY AS A VEHICLE FOR QUALITY ENHANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION Thinking is key to leaning. While teachers can do many things for their students, there is one inescapable fact, they cannot think for them. Jim Ahern. The first part of the paper has problematized the linearity of our educational system together with some of the prevalent beliefs and practices and their influence on the Omani education system at various levels. It has also presented some of the economic and technological advancements of todays world which directly pertain to training and education. As a response to these problems and challenges, this part proposes a more humanist and learner-centred approach to higher education which incorporates principles of learner autonomy as a desirable and feasible model for the enhancement of quality teaching and learning in higher education in Oman. Definitions of learner autonomy The learner autonomy movement began to take shape in the early 1980s. Autonomy was then defined as the learners ability to take charge of their own learning (Holec, 1981). Little (1991) added cognitive factors to what an autonomous learner could do. These include a capacity for detachment, critical reflection, decision-making, independent action, psychological relation to the process and content of his or her learning and finally transferring what he or she has learned to wider contexts. A further cognitive dimension to the definition of autonomy has been suggested by Sinclair (1999). She defines autonomy as the learners capacity to make informed decisions about their learning. She argues that autonomous leaners are not only able to make choices but also are able to provide rationale for their choices and describe alternative strategies which they could have used. Merits and benefits of learner autonomyRecent research findings confirm that learning becomes more effective when learners take control over their learning and are aware of the learning process and of themselves as learners (Benson, 2011; Benson & Voller, 1997; Cotterall, 1995; Dam, 1995, 2009; Lamb & Reinders, 2008; Little, Ridley & Ushioda, 2002; Little, 1991; Pemberton at al, 1996; Pemberton at al, 2009;). Learner autonomy has come to be viewed as a topic for academic debate, research, and publication over the last decade or so (Benson, 2009). It is clear then that autonomous learning, as reflected in the above definitions, goes beyond the rote memorization of a series of facts (surface learning) to involve active and conscious metacognitive knowledge (knowledge about learning) which will enable learners to exercise some control over the learning process, gradually achieving self-reliance and reducing their dependency on the teacher (deep learning). There is general consensus in the literature that autonomous learners are indeed effective learners (Little, 1991; Benson 2001). They have the following features in common. Generally speaking, autonomous learners are responsible, flexible, and curious; they see the need to learn, hold positive attitude towards learning, set their own objectives (learning agendas), plan their own learning, explore available learning opportunities and resources, use a variety of strategies, interact with others, monitor their progress, reflect on and evaluate their learning, rationalize their actions, are aware of alternative learning strategies, are aware of their cognitive abilities and learning style, transfer what they have learned to wider contexts and, finally, appreciate that their own efforts are crucial to progress in learning and behave accordingly. Mynard and Sorflaten (2002) suggest that learner independence ranges across a continuum, where at one end there are dependent learners who have had little opportunity to develop independent learning skills, and at the other end of the continuum there are learners who are self-directed, self-motivated and capable of learning without a teacher. Successful learners, they propose, would progress gradually along the continuum with the help of peers, teachers and appropriate learning experiences. Such qualities indeed appeal to the challenges described in the first part of this paper which students and educational planners of today are facing. The quote by Jim Ahern above further emphasises the mandate for learners to recognize and practice their responsibility in the process of learning and that their role is not to simply receive information and then passively reproduce it when required. Such a view of the role of the learner has evolved over the past century into the constructivist theory of learning.Learner autonomy is based on and justified by the constructivist theory of teaching and learning (Little, 1991). According to Gray (1995), constructivist teaching is based on the belief that learning occurs because learners are actively involved in a process of meaning and knowledge construction rather than passively receiving information. Learners are the makers of meaning and knowledge. Constructivist teaching fosters critical thinking and creates motivated and independent learners. Grays (1995) research examined constructivist teaching and learning by looking at the distinctive features of a constructivist programme, the qualities of a constructivist teacher, and the organization of a constructivist classroom. He adds that a constructivist teacher and classroom differ from a traditional classroom in the following ways: learning is interactive and student-centred; and the teacher facilitates a process of learning in which students are encouraged to be responsible and autonomous. Pedagogically, personal involvement in decision making leads to more effective learning. Dickinson (1995) notes that taking an active, independent attitude to learning and undertaking a learning task independently are beneficial to learning, as personal involvement in decision making leads to more effective learning. In addition, when learners are trained and given the opportunity to set their learning agenda, learning becomes more focused and purposeful, and thus more effective both immediately and in the longer term. Little (1991) stresses that when responsibility for the learning process lies with the learner, the barriers to learning and living that are often found in traditional teacher-led educational structures should not arise (p.8).Finally, as Littlewood (1999) points out, the fact that learners need to develop the ability to exercise control over learning, i.e., to become autonomous, is also justified by the need to develop the ability to continue learning after their formal education. This view of learner autonomy as an essential aid for lifelong learning is also supported by Cotterall (1995) who stresses that helping learners become autonomous should be regarded as an essential goal of all learning, as no students will have teachers throughout their life. Learner autonomy in actionFor the learners to experience the aforementioned merits and benefits of autonomous learning, practicing teachers and educators may need to realize new roles. Little (2007) points out that learner autonomy is the product of an interactive process in which the teacher gradually enlarges the scope of his or her learners autonomy by gradually allowing them more control of the process and content of their learning. Thus, teachers have a key role to play.To this end, there is a need for specialized workshops and hands-on training sessions for teachers in schools and language institutes to critically reflect on and problematize their current practices, to rationalize the intended move and, finally, to explain in practical terms how teachers and students could change their traditional roles and take on new ones. There are many practical sources for hands-on experiences of autonomy-based teaching able to support this process, including Dam (1995, 2000), Scharle & Szabo (2000), Reinders (2010), or Yang (1998).As a starting point, discussions about the benefits which learner autonomy and learner responsibility bring onboard, should be integrated in the curriculum and constitute a major part of our classroom discourse, as learners, especially at lower levels, are not naturally aware of them. Little (2007) further emphasizes this point and stresses that teachers must learn how to produce and manage the many varieties of target language discourse required by the autonomous classroom (p.26). The systematic and continuous awareness-raising discourses and exercises are seen essential for a smooth transition from a teacher-dominated to learner and learning-centred approach. Dickinson (1987) refers to this first stage as the liberalisation of the classroom to allow for the development of learner independence through providing explicit opportunities for the learner to take on responsibility for learning. Being an autonomous learner, therefore, does not only entail acquiring information as ascribed by programme planners, but also entails developing explicit knowledge about the learning processes involved in the learning process, known as metacognitive knowledge (Ellis, 1999; Sinclair, 1999; Wenden, 1998). Such knowledge includes planning, reflection, selection, self-evaluation, and thinking about alternatives. A number of researchers (Ellis, 1999; Nunan, 1997; OMalley & Chamot, 1990) have reported successful results gained from training learners on metacognitive strategies (learning how to learn). Therefore, one approach to help learners develop greater capacity for autonomous and responsible learning is by developing their metacognitive awareness in specific areas. Ellis (1999), for instance, proposes four interrelated areas which teachers need to develop in their learners. These are language awareness, learning awareness, social awareness and cultural awareness.She suggests the following measures to incorporate metacognitive awareness in classroom management and lesson planning:providing methodical preparation for learners, teaching staff and even parentsplanning lessons that incorporate good staging, timing, pace and signpostinggiving clear instructions and demonstrationsmaintaining class cohesion and attention to maintain learners interest and avoid boredomusing activities that challenge learners and make them thinkinvolving all learners and providing varietyequipping learners with strategies and language for coping with situations where they do not have the appropriate language so they can participate and avoid communication breakdownsbuilding in opportunities for recapping, revising and reviewingAnother approach to promoting metacognitive awareness in learners has been proposed by Sinclair (1999), who emphasizes that the link between the development of metacognitive awareness and learner autonomy is clear and that autonomous learners know about learning and can make informed decisions based on such knowledge. Like Ellis (1999), Sinclair (1999) also stresses the need to develop metacognitive awareness in learners through learner training in three areas: learner him or herself, the subject matter and the learning process.Sinclair proposes a set of questions to be used by teachers to investigate evidence of metacognitive awareness and, therefore, use the data gained to help learners make the move from being largely unaware to transitional stages which she calls becoming aware to the desired state of being largely aware, as shown in Figure 1 below:Figure 1: Sinclairs (1999) stages of metacognitive awarenessAt the end of each task, teachers can use the questions below to discuss the learners work in a way that calls upon their metacognitive knowledge. So typically teachers may ask: Why did you do this piece of work?Why did you choose this particular text/activity? Did you like it? Why? Why not?How did you go about doing this activity?Why did you do it in this way?How well do you think you did?What difficulties/challenges did you have?Why did you have them?What did you do about them? Why?What could you have done alternatively? What is your plan for next week? Why?How will you do it? Why? Similarly, Grow (1991) proposes that teachers should match their teaching style to their learners stage of self-direction in order to be able to help them progress to higher levels of autonomy and self-direction through the following different stages: Figure 2: Grows (1991) stages of self-directionAnother useful framework to encourage learners take control over the learning process was suggested by Scharle and Szabo (2000), who proposed a linear framework of three stages. They suggest that a successful transition towards a full learner responsibility involves awareness raising, attitude changing and finally transferring of roles. However, for teachers to successfully raise the learners awareness of their capabilities as well as the learning process, they need to gather important information about their learners such as their beliefs, attitudes, expectations, and learning styles so that they could then use this information to plan the later stages. It is therefore more useful to view these stages as a cyclical process than a linear one, as teachers would normally need to go back to a previous stage with some of the learners who might not be ready to move to the new stage with the rest of the class. Scharle & Szabo (2000) developed a useful list of classroom activities to be used at each stage. Figure 3 below shows the modified stages of the process:Figure 3: A modified framework of learner autonomy and responsibility based on Scharle & Szabo (2000) Generally, the activities in the three stages (raising awareness, changing attitudes and transferring roles) are designed to help students develop responsibility and autonomy in a systematic and gradual manner. They cover a comprehensive range of skills and attitudes and can be easily integrated into regular lessons. These skills and attitudes include developing learner strategies, monitoring learning process, establishing self-evaluation, promoting motivation and developing co-operation.Finally, Reinders (2010) offers a practical operationalization of learner autonomy and its implementation. He suggests a framework of eight stages for the development of learner autonomy in the classroom with reflection, motivation and interaction providing the cognitive, affective and social background, respectively. Figure 4 below shows the eight stages in a summary form. The middle column, with slight modifications from the original text, shows how each stage is covered in a completely teacher-directed environment (which pertains to the prevalent practices which characterize the teacher-centred classrooms in Oman discussed above) while the right-hand column shows how each stage is covered in a completely learner-directed situation. Reinders (2010) contends that many teaching and learning situations would probably fall somewhere between these two extremes. Figure 4: Stages in the development of learner autonomy, adapted from Reinders (2010)CONCLUSION The thrust of this paper has been on the potential of learner autonomy as a desirable and feasible goal for teaching and learning in higher education in Oman. The rapid advances in various aspects of todays world have resulted in many challenges for todays learners and the way they learn. Traditional methods of teaching and learning which confine teaching to the teacher as the only source of information and learning to textbooks and classrooms are no longer useful to meet the demands of todays diverse world. Learners of today need to develop capacities for critical thinking and autonomous learning while at the same time assume responsibility and ownership of their learning. The mandate for policy makers and practitioners then is to facilitate such capacities in the learners in a learner and learning-centred environment where learners are viewed as active partners in the learning process who are aware of their current and future needs and are capable of contributing to their own learning.It is the contention of this paper that many of the prevalent beliefs and practices described herein are not necessarily research supported and pose a real obstacle to any reform initiatives in education. The merits and benefits of learner autonomy in learning can only be achieved if we challenge our beliefs and practices and open up for new ideas. The models and activities detailed herein for promoting autonomy in the learners are only exemplary to what teachers and learners could do in their own territories. REFERENCESAl-Issa, A. & Al-Bulushi, A. (2012). English language teaching reform in Sultanate of Oman:The case of theory and practice disparity. Educational Research for Policy& Practice, 11 (2). Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning. (Second edition). Harlow: Longman Benson, P. & Voller, P. (1997). Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning. Harlow: London. Borg, S. & Al-Busaidi, A. (2011). Teachers beliefs and practices regarding learner autonomy. ELT Journal, 65, unpaged. Benson, P., (2009). Making sense of autonomy in language learning. In Pembertom, R., Toogood, S., Barfield, A. (2009). Maintaining Control: Autonomy and Language Learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Cotterall, S. (1995). Developing a course strategy for learner autonomy, ELT Journal, 49, 219227.Cotterall, S. (1999). Key variables in language learning: What do learners believe about them, System, 27, 593613.Cornwall, M. (1981). Putting it into practice: promoting independent learning in a traditional institution. In Boud, D. (Ed.) Developing Student Autonomy in Learning, London, UK: Kogan Page. Crabbe, D. (1993). Fostering autonomy from within the Classroom: The teachers responsibility, System, 21, 443-452.Dam, L. (1995). Learner Autonomy 3: from Theory to Classroom Practice. Dublin: Authentik. Dam, L. (2000). Why focus on learning rather than teaching: From theory to practice. In Little, D., Dam, L., Timmer, J. (Eds.) Focus on Learning rather than Teaching: Why & How. Papers from the IATEFL conference on learner independence, CLCS, Dublin: Trinity College Dam, L. (2009). The use of logbooks a tool for developing learner autonomy. In Pembertom, R., Toogood, S., Barfield, A. (eds.) Maintaining Control: Autonomy and Language Learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Dickinson, L. (1987). Self-Instruction in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dickinson, L. (1995). Autonomy and motivation: A literature review. System, 23, 165- 174.Ellis, G. (1999). Developing childrens metacognitive awareness. In Kennedy, C. (Ed.), Innovation and Best Practice in British ELT. Harlow Longman, in association with the British Council. Fazey, D., & Fazey, J. (2001). The potential for autonomy in learning: perceptions of competence, motivation and locus of control in first-year undergraduate students. Studies in Higher Education, 26, 345-361.Goodliffe, T. (2005). Personal development planning: Addressing the skills gap for engineers in Oman. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 2, (unpaged). Gray, A. (1995). The Road to Knowledge is Always under Construction: A Life History Journal to Constructivist Teaching. MA thesis, Saskatoon, Canada: University of SaskatchewanGrow, G. (1991). Teaching learners to be self-directed. Adult Education Quarterly, 41, 125149. Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy in Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon. Hozayen, G. (2009). Are Arab maritime students ready to become autonomous language learners? Proceeding of the International Maritime English Conference, Szczecin, Poland.Lachat, M. (2001). Data-driven High School Reform: The Breaking Ranks Model. South Hampton: Centre for Resource Management, Inc.Lamb, T. and Reinders, H. (2005). Learner independence in language teaching: A concept of change. In Cunningham, D. & Hatoss, A. (Eds.) An International Perspective on Language Policies, Practices and Proficiencies. Belgrave: FIPLV.Little, D. (1991). Learner Autonomy 1: Definitions, Issues and Problems: Dublin: Authentik Little, D. (2000). Why focus on learning rather than teaching. In Little, D., Dam, L., Timmer, J. (Eds.) Focus on Learning rather than Teaching: Why & How, Papers from the IATEFL conference on learner independence, CLCS, Dublin: Trinity College Little, D. (2007). Language learner autonomy: Some fundamental considerations revisited. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1, 14-29. Little, D., Dam, L., Timmer, J. (2000). Focus on Learning rather than Teaching: Why & How, Papers from the IATEFL Conference on Learner Independence, CLCS, Dublin: Trinity College Little, D., Ridley, J., and Ushioda, E. (2002). Towards Greater Learner Autonomy in the Foreign Language Classroom. Dublin: Authentik. Littlewood, W. (1999). Defining and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts. Applied Linguistics, 20, 71-94.Malcolm, (2011). 'Failing to achieve autonomy in English for medical purposes. In Murray, G., Gao, X. & Lamb, T. (Eds.) Identity, Motivation and Autonomy in Language Learning. Bristol: Multilingual MattersMilitaru, C. P. (2011). Policies on Educational Quality Within the European union. Euromentoring Journal, 2, 71-84. Moore, I. (2010). Principles and practice of learner autonomy. In Moore, I., Elfving-Hwang, J., Garnett, K. & corker, C. (Eds.) Case Studies Volume 1, Centre for promoting Learner Autonomy, Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University Mynard, J. and Sorflaten, R. (2002). Independent learning in your classroom, IL Sig, TESOL Arabia. Retrieved from http://ilearn.20m.com/research/zuinde.htm on 9/2/2011. Nunan, D. (1997). Strategy training in the language classroom: An empirical investigation. RELC Journal, 26, 56-81. OMalley, J., and Chamot, A. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oxford Learning Institute, Paper 1: Higher education and higher learning, Oxford: University of Oxford, Retrieved from: http://www.learning.ox.ac.uk/ on 12/1/2011.Pemberton, R., Li, E.S.L, Or, W.W.F. & Pierson, H. (eds.). Taking Control: Autonomy in Language Learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Pembertom, R., Toogood, S., Barfield, A. (2009). Maintaining Control: Autonomy and Language Learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Reinders, H., (2010). Towards a classroom pedagogy for learner autonomy: A framework of independent language learning skills. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35, 40-55. Russell, A. (2004). Zayed university students teaching and learning beliefs and preferences: An analysis based on the surface versus deep learning approach. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 1, (unpaged). Scharle, A. and Szabo, A. (2000). Learner Autonomy: A Guide to Developing Learner Responsibility, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sinclair, B. (1999). More than an act of faith? Evaluating learner autonomy. In C. Kennedy (Ed.) Innovation and Best Practice in British ELT. Harlow Longman, in association with the British Council.Shen, J. (2011). Autonomy in EFL education. Canadian Social Science, 7, unpaged.Wenden, A. (1991). Learner Strategies for Learner Autonomy. London: Prentice Hall international.Wenden, A. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 19, 515-537. Yang, N. (1998). Exploring a new role for teachers: Promoting learner autonomy, System, 26, 127-135. Figure 1: Sinclairs (1999) stages of metacognitive awarenessFigure 2: Grows (1991) stages of self-directionFigure 3: A modified framework of learner autonomy and responsibility based on Scharle & Szabo (2000) LEARNING STAGESTEACHER-DIRECTEDLEARNER-DIRECTEDIdentifying needsTest results, teacherfeedbackDifficulties learners experience in the subject matterSetting goalsDetermined by the course,relatively fixed.Contextually determined,relatively flexiblePlanning learningDetermined by the teacher. Somewhat flexible Contextually determined. VeryflexibleSelecting resourcesProvided by teacherSelf-selected by learnersSelecting learningstrategiesmodelled andinstructed by teacherSelf-selected by learnersPracticeExercises and activitiesprovided by teacherImplementation and experimentationMonitoring progressRegular classroom feedbackand comments onassignments and tasksSelf-monitoring, peer feedbackAssessment and revisionTests, curriculum changesSelf-assessment, reflectionFigure 4: Stages in the development of learner autonomy, adapted from Reinders (2010)