Abstract
The present study aims to investigate English language learning autonomy among EFL student teachers in Turkey. Fifty-seven first year student teachers in the English Language Teaching Program of a Turkish University participated in this case study. Qualitative data were gathered through structured and unstructured class observations, structured and unstructured interviews with students, and document analysis. To strengthen the study design through triangulation, quantitative methods of data collection were also applied for more vigorous interpretation of the students' capacity for self-assessment in autonomous language learning. This was conducted using a Swiss version of the Council of Europe's self-assessment checklists, and one of the past examination papers of FCE (First Certificate in English December 1998). Both qualitative and quantitative data indicate that the students seem to be unable to identify what language to master and how to do so efficiently. Furthermore, results indicate that they lack the capacity for self-assessment in monitoring their own language learning process. Suggestions are put forward to encourage student teachers to become more autonomous. This assumes that increased awareness of autonomous learning and its benefits will enhance their own self-governing capacity which may, in turn, contribute to higher achievement and motivation. As a consequence, it is argued that this development among student teachers may have a positive effect on the development of autonomous learning among their future students.

Key words: EFL, learner autonomy, autonomous language learning, self-assessment.

Introduction
In all of the educational contexts in Turkey (including primary, secondary, and higher education), no significant steps are being undertaken to promote autonomous language learning within and beyond the classroom, and learning is mainly directed and evaluated by the instructors. With the predominance of teacher-led English language instruction in Turkey, learners are seen as passive receivers of new information and are therefore unlikely to develop the skills necessary to learn how to assess and control their own progress. In such cases, learners do not sufficiently develop the skills to perform real-life communicative tasks effectively. Consequently, although Turkish learners are highly motivated to learn English for socio-cultural and economic reasons, teacher feedback and classroom observation at various institutions lead to the conclusion that their proficiency in English is not at the desired level. In such a context, Turkish learners need to develop a critical awareness of language learning and learning communication. These are the main considerations of learner-centred language curricula which promote language learning autonomy as proposed by Brindley (1990), Coleman (1988), the Council of Europe (2001), Hutchinson and Waters (1988), Munby (1991), Nunan (1989, 1990), and Wilkins (1976). The Common European Framework (CEF) (Council of Europe 2001) further elaborates upon the concept of language learning autonomy, describing in a comprehensive way what language learners have to learn to do in order to use a language for communication and what knowledge and skills they have to develop to act effectively as autonomous learners. By providing a common basis for the explicit description of objectives, content and methods, the CEF also promotes international co-operation with different educational systems in the field of modern languages all over the world. In these circumstances, it is worth questioning some aspects of language learning autonomy on the basis of the criteria proposed by the CEF.

In light of these circumstances, this paper will investigate whether EFL student teachers are able to direct and monitor their learning process for autonomous learning. To achieve this goal, it will question whether the student teachers are able to set language learning goals and work towards them through self directive skills, how the tasks and activities used within and beyond the classroom promote autonomous learning, and whether the student teachers' ratings of their language skills through the CEF self-assessment checklist level B2 compare with the scores they get from FCE.

This study firstly provides a short contextual background concerning student teachers of EFL in question. It then gives a definition of the various terms employed in the field of autonomy. The subsequent literature review looks at research conducted in both western and, significantly, eastern educational contexts and attempts to summarise the little research undertaken with Turkish learners. The methodology section provides description of its purpose, its scope, its limitations, and the instruments used in it, and then it analyzes both the qualitative and the quantitative data. Lastly it summarises the existing problems and suggests possible solutions.

Definition of the terms
Since the primary concern of this study is EFL student teachers' autonomy as language learners, definitions of autonomy here refer to both students and teachers' autonomy just as learners. Holec (1981, p.3) defines the term as "the ability to take charge of one's own directed learning". Little (2003) points out more precisely that "the practice of learner autonomy requires insight, a positive attitude, a capacity for reflection, and a readiness to be proactive in self-management and in interaction with others" (cited on line). In this sense, autonomous learners decide what to learn, when and how to learn it by taking responsibility for their learning. This process of personal responsibility in monitoring their own progress entails the use of self-assessment as one of the instruments to determine their level of knowledge and skills (Gardner, 1999). It is seen as one of the pillars of learner autonomy because it helps learners to focus on their own learning (Harris, 1997).

Review of literature
The CEF for advancing student autonomy was piloted in various European countries, and results from those studies indicated how it encouraged reflective learning and learner autonomy (Council of Europe, 2002). Kohonen (2001), in research connected with the CEF conducted under the auspices of the Council of Europe, argued that the language teacher had a significant role as a resource person for autonomous language learning, and the teacher's professional growth was directly connected with language learning, teaching, and evaluation.

Sullivan and Lindgren (2002) investigated the promotion of self-assessment and reflection in the adult second language (L2) classroom in Sweden using a method which provided the students with an opportunity to look into their own writing composition processes, both linguistically and holistically, as they viewed and discussed the reasons behind the different actions during the writing process. Results indicated that after using the method, all writers experienced useful, although different, insights into their own writing behaviors. The self-assessment tools of the CEF were implemented in different contexts in Switzerland, and high correlations were consistently seen between the self-assessments and the standardized tests (Wilson and Lindsey, 1999 cited in Council of Europe 2002) indicating the fact that they were reliable instruments for the learners in assessing themselves. Ross (1998 cited in Council of Europe 2002) concluded after a meta-analysis of 60 reported studies that self-assessment provided robust concurrent validity with criterion variables. Bachman and Palmer (1989) and Blanche (1990) also found high correlations between self-assessment and test results or teacher assessment. However, a closer examination of the process of self-assessment suggested that the degree of experience which learners brought to the self-assessment context influenced the product. "A European Language Portfolio-Pilot Phase 1998-2000" which was coordinated by the Modern Languages Section of the Council of Europe comprised 20 national and trans-national pilot projects which had been carried out in 14 European countries and which concerned all sectors of education - primary, secondary, higher, as well as further education for adults.

Based on the results gathered, it was suspected that learners have a tendency towards overstatement (or understatement) of their proficiency regarding both the concept and practice of learner self-assessment. Therefore, there is common agreement that both learner and teacher training is vital to facilitate and develop learner autonomy (McCarthy, 2000; Scharer, 2000). Spolsky (1992, cited in Council of Europe, 2002) summarizes the situation by saying that it has been shown that learners are able to assess their own language proficiency with reasonable accuracy if two basic conditions are met. Firstly, it is important that there is no special encouragement to give inaccurate answers, as it would induce a tendency to please, to be rewarded or to avoid penalties. Secondly, the responses required must be about aspects of language proficiency which are within the experience of the answerer.

Of important note here is that all of the studies in the above review have been conducted in western countries that have similar educational systems and social environments. However, self-directedness in learning is socio-cultural reflection (Kasworm, and Bing, 1992), and so actual learning and teaching situations gain meaning in their social contexts (Palfreyman, 2003). Harmer (2003, p.288) points out that "the social context in which learning takes place is of vital importance to the success of the educational endeavour". Holliday (1996 and 2003 in Palfreyman and Smith Eds.) further explains the tension between the need for a greater social awareness of local forms of autonomy - termed as "social autonomy" (2003) - and a desire for culture-free professionalism in international English language education while suggesting that all English language educators need to be constantly critical and aware of the social influences and implications of what they do. Dogancay-Aktuna (2005) also outlines how information about intercultural communication that is integrated with methodology training can foster greater awareness of sociocultural relativity in teacher trainees.

To counter this anglo-centricity, this section reviews the studies conducted in eastern cultures where significantly different approaches are adopted to teaching and learning. It is often assumed that such a pedagogical approach in the East does not generally allow or foster students to take responsibility (Biggs, 1994). In this respect, Jones (1995, cited in Littlewood, 1999, p. 72) sees autonomy as "laden with cultural values, especially those of the West" and inappropriate for the traditions of learning and teaching in Cambodia, but later describes how ready his students are for autonomous language learning. Gieve and Clark (2005) compared reflections written by Chinese students with those of European students, finding that the Chinese students actually appreciated the benefits of autonomous study as much as European students, and claimed to make equally good use of the opportunity. Littlewood (2000) compared perceptions of autonomy among students studying in eight East Asian countries with those of the students studying in three European countries, and concluded that Asian students' responses to the items in the questionnaire gave clues to the ways in which they would like to be active and independent similar to European students. He attributed the claimed passive classroom behaviors of the Asian students to the educational contexts provided for them, rather than of any inherent dispositions of the students themselves.

Holden and Usuki (1999) who questioned Japanese students' perceptions of learner autonomy likewise concluded that it was not the learners who were innately passive, but it was the educational system that created an environment which discouraged learner autonomy. The follow-up studies of Usuki (2001; 2002) provided more evidence that Japanese students were aware of their needs as autonomous learners, but a gap between their awareness and their actual behavior seemed to be the main problem because of the negative effect of the educational system. Ho and Crookall (2000), in investigations into learner autonomy in the more traditional organization of classrooms in China, discussed in detail the cultural traits that both hindered and encouraged autonomy in such a setting, concluding that it was through concrete actions of taking responsibility that genuine autonomy was learnt.

This research into Asian learners indicates that both eastern and western educational systems both recognize the importance of more autonomous learning, yet stand perhaps at different points in its historical implementation. With this in mind, it is not unrealistic to expect to achieve autonomous language learning in more teacher-dominant contexts such as Turkey, even though its successful implementation may take longer. The problem remains as to how research can inform teaching practice in this context and, in this regard, studies into autonomous learning remain scarce in Turkey. Broadly viewed, its educational system could be regarded as being similar to those of other eastern countries. Of the few studies conducted, Yumuk (2002) investigated the role of the Internet in promoting a more autonomous view of learning in an academic translation course. In her conclusion it is stated that the impact of an Internet search-based academic translation course on learners was positive, in that they were encouraged to perceive translation as a process requiring more responsibility from the learner rather than a text, a dictionary or the teacher as the source of information. While this action research investigation presented us with a positive point of view on the future of autonomous language learning, other descriptive studies in the Turkish context provide clues about how learner autonomy could be influenced by previous learning experiences (Canbolat, 1997; Keskekci, 1995; ?skendero?lu, 1992; Palfreyman, 2001).

The general impression is that the Turkish educational system is mainly directed and evaluated by the authority and, as a result, has a significant influence on learner autonomy in Turkish context. For example, the majority of the university level students lacked necessary critical thinking and reflection skills to cope with the requirements of academic life such as skills of how to plan, conduct and evaluate research (Karasar, 1984; Buyukozturk, 1996; Buyukozturk, 1999; Karagul, 1996; Koklu and Buyukozturk, 1999). Most importantly, Erdogan's (2003) study into student autonomy at a Turkish secondary school concluded that teacher factors hindered the development of learner autonomy because the teachers themselves had been trained within the same education system, and were unable to change their habits.

Little (1995), McGrath (2000), Smith (2000), and Tort-Moloney, (1997) also provide evidence that teachers who themselves are not autonomous language learners may have a negative influence on the development of autonomy in their students. Stiller and Ryan (1992), and Clemente (2001) likewise suggest that teacher autonomy support and involvement (and parental support for autonomy and involvement) have direct links with students' assimilation of their classroom context and subsequent academic outcomes. Usuki, (2002) attracts attention to teachers' attitudes towards their students which may play a key role in learner autonomy. Probably, those are the reasons why most of the things have stayed the same in Turkish educational system although it has been changed periodically for decades. For example, the last trend is towards the use of the tools of autonomous learning in all the areas of kindergarten through higher education. Yet, traditional approaches to learning and teaching are still being used by the teachers with old beliefs since the beliefs that individuals have play a decisive role in the process of autonomous learning (Cotterall 1995).

There may be some other factors hindering teachers from effectively involving themselves in this process. Firstly, they may be afraid of the students who improve fast independently while the teachers make little or no progress because they are not autonomous learners themselves. Secondly, particularly state schoolteachers can earn money without trying hard, and then they do not strive to learn new things. In that connection, introducing new things to student teachers can be a good starting point. So, this study has targeted student teachers studying in English Language Teaching Program of a Turkish University to lift one of the main barriers in front of the future of autonomous language learning. Although this case study is limited with reference to the small number of the participants and institutional focus, it is hoped that it may help improve the situation in similar contexts by serving as a model for other studies.

Finally, some reference needs to be made to the fact that teaching is often influenced by the "apprenticeship of observation" (Lortie, 1975), i.e. how we teach now is sometimes mirrored by how we were taught ourselves. If we were taught in a teacher-led transmission style, we may be likely to slip into that same mode of delivery despite excellent teacher training into autonomous learning. The problem, as Almarza (1996) indicates, is that teacher training ignores student teachers' own previous learning experiences. This is a teacher's "hidden pedagogy" (Denscombe, 1982) in that it is formed through experiences as a child even and has never been challenged. If that is the case, teacher training which ignores this apprenticeship formed from the pre-training stage is unlikely to be effective in convincing student teachers as to the benefits of autonomy and in dislodging old, embedded methodological beliefs.

Method
This case study aims to reveal whether EFL first year student teachers in the English Language Teaching Program of a Turkish University are able to direct and monitor their language learning process. The following questions are addressed in order to achieve aforementioned aim:

The scope and limitations of the study
Fifty-seven first year students in the English Language Teaching Program of a Turkish University constituted the subject group of this case study. The generalizability of the study was limited due to this institutional focus. The data collection carried out adopted a triangulated approach of qualitative and quantitative methods in order to strengthen both the validity and the reliability of the study design.

The qualitative data on autonomous language learning were gathered through structured/unstructured class observations and structured/unstructured interviews with students. Three courses (Spoken English II, Reading Skills II, and Writing Skills II) were observed for six weeks, and 48 students were interviewed during the office hours from April 1 to May 14, 2004. All related documents such as annual/daily plans, assignments, and projects were also analyzed. In the quantitative approach only the students' capacity for self-assessment for autonomous language learning was considered. They were also observed in the classes and were questioned in the interviews for a more vigorous interpretation. The quantitative data were collected by means of the Swiss version of Council of Europe's self-assessment checklists, and one of the past examination papers of FCE (December 1998). There were two main reasons why FCE was used to measure proficiency level of the students; firstly, it was linked to B2 level of the CEF descriptors; and secondly, the format of this test was broadly familiar to the students since it was accepted for exemption from preparatory classes by the university where this study was carried out. In all, 54 students completed the self-assessment checklists from April 1 to May 21, 2004. Data from the self-assessment checklists were entered into an excel sheet. Although the papers of FCE were concurrently administered to the same students, only 50 of them completed all the papers in the exam. Four students who were not able to complete one or more papers in FCE were removed from the data.

Description of the courses observed
The Program follows the curriculum specified by the Council of Higher Education. Descriptions of the classes observed are as follows:

Speaking Skills II: This course focuses on oral communication skills and strategies. It aims to help students to speak fluently with correct pronunciation, intonation, and at a reasonable speed. Students are encouraged to develop their skills of informal conversation and formal speech through in-class practices and rehearsals of presentations.
Reading Skills II: This class enables students to read unfamiliar, authentic texts accurately and efficiently, focusing on awareness of the relations between vocabulary, structure and meaning.

Writing Skills II: This test develops students' essay writing skills, focusing on example essays, comparison-contrast essays, and cause-effect essays. It improves students' use of linguistic structures at the discourse level, particularly the relation between form and text type. It aims to encourage students to produce compositions which show their awareness of grammar in appropriate context.

Description of the Cambridge First Certificate in English (FCE) Exam
This is an upper intermediate level exam, set at Level B2 of the Council of Europe's CEF. It consists of five subtests. The listening comprehension subtest has audio-taped short extracts and longer monologues from radio programmes, news, features, etc. Students are expected to show understanding of detail and gist, and to deduce meaning. The reading comprehension subtest contains four parts made up of a text and corresponding comprehension tasks assessing the ability of the subjects to read semi-authentic texts of various kinds and to show understanding of gist, detail and text structure, and to deduce meaning. The writing subtest consists of two tasks. It assesses the ability to write non-specialized text types such as letters, articles, reports, compositions and reviews of 120-180 words covering a range of topics and target readers and also set texts. The Speaking Test assesses the ability to interact in conversational English in a range of contexts for which purpose materials such as photographs and drawings are provided for stimulus. The standard test format of the speaking subtest involves two subjects assessed by two examiners. There are multiple choice cloze, open cloze, 'key' word transformations, error correction and word formation task types in the use of English subtest.

The five FCE papers total 200 marks, after weighting. Each paper is weighted to 40 marks. A subject's overall FCE grade is based on the total score gained by the subject in all five papers. The minimum successful performance which a subject requires in order to achieve a Grade C corresponds to about 60 % of the total marks (FCE Handbook, 2001).

Description of the self-assessment check Lists
The CEF specifies language knowledge, skills and use by providing a series of level descriptors. Six broad levels (A1-A2, B1-B2, and C1-C2) are, respectively, upper and lower interpretations of the traditional division into elementary, intermediate and advanced. B2 Level corresponds to the upper intermediate level. The self-assessment checklists based on the CEF are used by the learners to record what they can do in order to evaluate the progress of their communicative proficiency in the different languages. 'Can Do' descriptors are provided for reception, interaction, and production. If a learner has over 80% of the points ticked, they have probably reached Level B2 which corresponds to grade B of FCE (about 80% of the total marks) (Council of Europe, 2002, p. 1).

The documents examined
As part of the overall evaluation, the following documents were analyzed:

Analysis of the qualitative data
Interviews
Only volunteer students (n=48) were interviewed in their mother tongue (Turkish) for about 20-40 minutes during the office hours of the researcher from April 1 to May 14, 2004. The interviews took place in an informal atmosphere, so that the student felt free to express themselves. The researcher took notes during the interviews since the students did not feel comfortable talking on tape. Four main questions constructed for the students are as follows:

All of the students stated that their main objective was to be better in English. However, they failed in identifying either specific language areas which they wanted to emphasize, or their strengths and weaknesses. 46 of the students interviewed stated that they did not have a specific means to evaluate their own progress. Furthermore, they claimed that the person who should undertake this task was the teacher. One even expressed some indignation that he should be responsible for assessing himself:

Nevertheless, all of them stated that they had a self-perception of some improvement in all aspects. Only two of the students claimed that they kept vocabulary note-books to observe their progress.

The students' responses to the third question have been classified and calculated as percentages as indicated in table 1 (n=48). As it is clear from the table, they stated that learning English had a place in their lives in some contexts other than the classroom. However, they did not believe that their attempt was satisfactory.

Table 1 The students' responses to the third question (What materials do you use for independent learning?)

Classroom observations
The researcher constructed an observation form adapted from the criteria proposed by Mynard and Sorflaten (2003) in order to specify the tasks and activities used within and beyond the classroom to promote autonomy of the learners (Table 2). Inasmuch as the feedback was mainly based on impressions, she graded each course according to the frequency of the activities on the observation form on a scale of 1-5 with 5 showing the highest, and 1 showing the lowest frequency of the learning opportunities observed. Besides, she took notes on other points so that she could develop a profile of the lesson. Firstly, each learning opportunity on the observation form was graded for three different courses separately on the scale. Secondly, those three grades given to each opportunity were averaged out to just one grade as it is marked on the table. It was hoped that this technique would illustrate the issue more clearly. The average grade for all courses was found to be '2.2'. Observations also indicated that most of the learning opportunities listed in the observation form below were not created except for pair and group works in all courses, keeping diaries, and, to some extent, peer and self editing in writing courses. On the other hand, the courses had some strong points. Among these was the effect of the semi-circular formation in all classes which allowed the 18 students to interact face-to-face. Also, there was an atmosphere of security and friendship in each lesson, exhibited by the fact that students seemed to be enjoying the activities and willing to participate. The lessons seemed to be well-organized and demonstrated a variety of activities.

Table 2: Learning Opportunities Created by Teaching Situations to Help Learners Promote Independent Learning.

Document analysis
Documentation analyses also made it clear that the language teaching program was not designed to help learners direct their learning efforts towards more autonomous learning and assess their development in the process of learning.

Analysis of the quantitative data
The inter-rater reliability of the oral interview sub-test of FCE (December 1998) was estimated using a random sample of 10 students. It was w = .411. Intra-rater reliability of the writing sub-test was r = 0.90. Other estimated values of the reliability were as follows: ? = .85 for the reading comprehension sub-test, ? = .67 for the use of English sub-test, and ? = .69 for the listening sub-test. Finally, as the required time for FCE is too long (1 hour 15 minutes for the reading sub-test, 40 minutes for the listening sub-test, 1 hour 30 minutes for the writing sub-test, and 1 hour 15 minutes for the use of English sub-test), each part was administered at different times to assure reliability. After all the papers had been administered, the students' scores were converted by computer to provide a mark out 40 for each paper (200 totals). The total scores were also calculated as percentages (Table 3). The points ticked by the students on the self-assessment checklists were analyzed as percentages (Table 3, the last column).

Table 3 (MS Doc)

Correlations between the variables
A low correlation found between FCE and the self-assessment of the students (r=0.183; p>.01) means that these two variables are not related to one another (graph 1).

Graph 1 (MS Doc)

Conclusion
The data gathered by means of the classroom observations, the document analysis, and the interviews indicate that the activities used in the classrooms do not aim at preparing these particular learners under investigation to be aware of their needs and goals, or their strengths and weaknesses as learners. Although there are sufficient opportunities for group and pair work, most of the learner-centered activities specified in the observation form, particularly the ones that promote self directing and self evaluating abilities which can encourage use of the materials beyond the classroom are not used frequently and effectively. As a result, the students struggle, to some extent, to exploit the contexts available in their immediate environment to improve the language they have learnt in the courses. This may indicate that they fail in directing and monitoring their own learning. The correlation of around 0.183 between the self-assessment and FCE also confirms that their ability for reflection, one of the most prominent components of autonomous learning, needs improving (see Graph 1).

In summary, the data suggest that the students seem to be unable to identify what to master and how to master it for efficient language learning since they do not seem to have the capacity for reflection about how to monitor their learning process.

Suggestions
One of the main reasons considered antithetical to autonomous learning in this study is the traditional teaching and learning philosophy that the teachers have adopted despite awareness of autonomous learning. A possible reason for their reticence to cast off old teaching habits may be their beliefs about language teaching and learning acquired during their "apprenticeship of observation" (Lortie, 1975). Cotterall (1995) argues that such embedded beliefs are likely to reflect their readiness for autonomy. On account of this, it is perhaps unrealistic to expect to use the tools of autonomous learning effectively among teachers who have been shaped by this system. Since teachers play a key role in autonomous language learning, it may be more effective to target a gradual change in their beliefs and attitudes. For this purpose, we should conduct more comprehensive studies in similar teacher training institutions. Then, based on ensuing findings, a gradual change in the system that allows both the teachers and the student teachers to accustomize themselves to the new approaches, especially the use of self-assessment tools, may be a reasonable solution to facilitate and develop learner autonomy before bringing its assumptions and tools en masse into the system.

Railton and Watson (2005, p.192) likewise emphasize the significance of guidance in the autonomous learning process:

Indeed, if the teachers who are supposed to teach their students how to take the wheel are not good drivers themselves, the whole system will be at risk. In this respect, the most striking consequence of this situation might be that the student teachers in the study group will probably not be able to enable their future students to take responsibility for their own learning. Therefore, aiding those student teachers to engage in such an approach can have dual value, in that, in one sense, it may enhance their own self-governing capacity and then, in turn, contribute to higher achievement and motivation. Secondly, and perhaps most significantly, in the long-term it could have a worthwhile effect on development of autonomy among their future students.

References
Almarza, G. (1996). Student foreign language teachers' knowledge growth. In Freeman, D. and J. C. Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in language teaching (pp. 50-78), New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bachman, L. & Palmer, A. S. (1989). The construct validation of self-ratings of communicative language ability. Language Testing, 6(1), 14-29.

Biggs, J. (1994). What are effective schools? Lessons from East and West. Australian Educational Researcher, 21(1),
19-59.

Blanche, P. (1990). Using standardised achievement and oral proficiency tests for self-assessment purposes: The DLIFC study. Language Testing. 7(2), 202-229.

Brindley, G. (1990). The role of needs analysis in adult ESL programme design. In R. K.Johnson (Ed.),, The second language curriculum (pp. 63-78). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Buyukozturk, S. (1996 ). Turk yuksekogretiminde arastirma egitimi. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ankara Universtiy, Ankara.

Buyukozturk, S. (1999 ). lko?retim okulu oretmenlerinin arast?rma yeterlikleri. Eitim Yonetimi Dergisi, 18, 257-69.

Canbolat, F. (1995). An ethnographic case study of how a self access centre operates in Turkish higher education. Unpublished MA thesis, Bilkent University, Ankara.

Clemente, A. M. (2001). Teachers' attitudes within a self-directed language learning scheme. System, 29(1), 45-67.

Coleman, H. (1988). Analysis of language needs in large organizations. English for Specific Purposes, 7(3), 155-169.

Council of Europe (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Council of Europe (2002). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Case studies. Retrieved April 2, 2004 from
www.culture2.coe.int-portfolio//documents/case-studies-CEF.doc

Cotterall, S. (1995). Readiness for autonomy: Investigating learner beliefs. System, 23(2),195-205.

Denscombe, M. (1982). The hidden pedagogy and its implications for teacher training: An ecological analysis. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 3, 249 - 265.

Dogancay-Aktuna, S. (2005). Intercultural communication in English language teacher education. ELT Journal, 59(2), 99-107.

Erdoan, S. (2003). Learner training via course books and teacher autonomy: A case of need. Retrieved November 11, 2005 from http://lc.ust.hk/~ailasc/newsletters/onlinepaper/sultan.htm

FCE Report. (1998). Examination Report. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gardner, D. (1999). Self-assessment for autonomous language learners.
Retrieved December 22, 2005 from http://www.bib.uab.es/pub/linksandletters/
11337397n7p49.pdf

Gieve, S. & Clark, R. (2005). The Chinese approach to learning: Cultural trait or situated response? The case of a self-directed learning programme. System, 33(2), 261-276.

Harmer, J. (2003). Popular culture, methods, and context. ELT Journal, 57(3), 288-294.

Harris, M. (1997). Self-assessment of language learning in formal settings. ELT Journal, 51(1), 12-20.

Ho, J. & Crookall, D. (1995). Breaking with Chinese cultural traditions: Learner autonomy in English language teaching. System, 23(2), 235-243.

Holden B. & Usuki, M. (1999). 19. Learner Autonomy in Language Learning: A Preliminary Investigation. Retrieved January 6, 2006 from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/
content_storage_01/0000000b/80/24/fa/37.pdf

Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.

Holliday, A. (1996). Developing a sociological imagination: expanding ethnography in international English language education. Applied Linguistics, 17(2), 234-255.

Holliday, A. (2003). Social autonomy: Addressing the dangers of culturism in TESOL. In Palfreyman, D. and R. C. Smith (Eds.), Learner Autonomy across cultures. (pp. 110-26.) New York: Palgrave.

Hutchinson, T. & Waters, A. (1989). English for specific purposes: A learning centred approach. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Iskenderoglu, Z. (1992). The relation between Turkish university students' educational and social background and their attitude towards self-directed learning and attendance at self-access centres. Unpublished MA thesis, Bilkent University, Ankara.

Karagul, T. (1996). Yuksek ogretim programlari icin gerekli ogrenci yeterlilikleri ve yuksekogretime gecis sureci. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ankara University, Ankara.

Karasar, N. (1984). Turk universitelerinde arastirma egitimi. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ankara University, Ankara.

Kasworm, C. E. and Bing, Y. (1992). The development of adult learner autonomy and self-directedness in distance education. Retrieved January 6, 2006 from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/
content_storage_01/0000000b/80/25/7b/ae.pdf

Keskekci, S. (1995). A case study of an intermediate EFL class following a self-direction program. Unpublished MA thesis, Bilkent Universtiy, Ankara.

Kohonen, V. (2001). Developing the European language portfolio as a pedagogical instrument for advancing student autonomy. Retrieved April 2, 2004 from
www.uta.fi/laitokset/okl/projektit/eks/Kohonen2001.pdf

Koklu, N. ve Buyukozturk, S. (1999). Egitim bilimleri alan?nda ogrenim goren lisans-ustuogrencilerin arastrma yeterlikleri konusunda ogretim uyelerinin gorusleri. Eitim ve Bilim, 23(112), 18-28.

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

Little, D. (2003). Leaner autonomy and second/foreign language learning. Retrieved December 15, 2005. http://www.lang.ltsn.ac.uk/resources/
goodpractice.aspx?resourceid=1409

Littlewood, W. (1999). Defining and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts. Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 71-94.

Littlewood, W. (2000). Do Asian students really want to listen and obey? ELT Journal, 54(1), 31-36.

Lortie, D. (1975). School teacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

McCarthy, C. (2000). Learner training for learner autonomy on summer language courses. Retrieved January 6, 2006 from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2
/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/25/a6/94.pdf

McGrath, I. (2000). Teacher autonomy. In B. Sinclair, I. McGrath and T. Lamb (Eds.), Learner autonomy, teacher autonomy: Future directions (pp. 100-110). London: Longman.

Munby, J. (1991). Communicative syllabus design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mynard, J.& Sorflaten, R. (2003). Independent learning in your classroom. Retrieved April 4,
2004 from http://jomynard.tripod.com/ilyourclass.htm

Nunan, D. (1989). Syllabus design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nunan, D. (1990). The learner centered curriculum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Palfreyman, D. (2001). The socio-cultural construction of learner autonomy and learner independence in a tertiary EFL institution. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bilkent University, Ankara.

Palfreyman, D. (2003). Expanding the discourse on learner development: A reply to Anita Wenden. Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 243-248.

Railton, D. & Watson, P. (2005). Teaching autonomy. Active Learning in Higher Education, 6(3), 182-193.

Scharer, R. (2000). Final Report: A European language portfolio pilot project phase 1998-2000. Retrieved April 4, 2004 from
www.tcd.ie/CLCS/portfolio/ELP-network/DGIV-EDU-LANG-2000-31Erev.doc

Smith, R. C. (2000). Starting with ourselves: Teacher-learner autonomy in language learning. In B. Sinclair, I. McGrath and T. Lamb (Eds.), Learner autonomy, teacher autonomy: Future directions (pp. 89-99). London: Longman.

Stiller, J. D. & Ryan, R. M. (1992). Teachers, parents, and student motivation: The effects of involvement and autonomy support. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/
content_storage_01/0000000b/80/22/02/12.pdf

Sullivan, K. & Lindgren, E. (2002). Self-assessment in autonomous computer-aided second language writing. ELT Journal, 56(3), 258-266.

Tort-Moloney, D. (1997). Teacher autonomy: A Vygotskian theoretical framework. CLCS Occasional Paper No. 48. Retrieved January 6, 2006 from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/
content_storage_01/0000000b/80/22/cd/33.pdf

Usuki, M. (2001). Learner autonomy: Learning from the student's voice. Retrieved January 6, 2006 from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/
content_storage_01/0000000b/80/25/a3/32.pdf

Usuki, M. (2002). 3. Learner autonomy: Learning from the student's voice. CLCS Occasional Paper. Retrieved January 6, 2006 from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/
ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/22/60/9e.pdf

Wilkins, D.A. (1976). Notional syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Yumuk, A. (2002). Letting go of control to the learners: The role of the Internet in promoting a more autonomous view of learning in an academic translation course. Educational Research, 44(2), 141-156.