MODERATING INFLUENCE OF CLASSROOM OBSERVATION ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOTIVATION, LEARNER AUTONOMY AND LEARNING OUTCOMES AMONG SAUDI EFL LEARNERS

Fahad S. Alsahli

Department of English, College of Sciences and Humanities, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia.

Keywords:Learner autonomy, Learners’ motivation, Learning outcomes, Classroom observation, EFL classroom, Saudi Arabia.

ARTICLE HISTORY: Received:14 June 2019 Revised:24 July 2019 Accepted:26 August 2019 Published:11 October 2019.

Contribution/ Originality:This study has deliberated to examine classroom observation as novel pedagogical technique, wherein learners share the comments and feedback of classroom observation. The study finds evidence that involving learners in classroom observation develops and sustains leaners’ motivation, learner autonomy and attains best learning outcomes.

1. INTRODUCTION

A strong challenge before the teachers of English language in the preparatory year EFL classrooms in Saudi Arabia universities is to make learners communicate in English as they do not seize opportunities to learn the English  language on their own (Alsaheli, 2019a).  Culturally, learning a foreign language in a L1 dominated nation like Saudi Arabia at university level, particularly in the preparatory year, needs a strong teaching intervention, which could offer a scaffolding support to learners prior to opting their majors with English language as the medium of instruction and assessment.

Alamer (2014) observes that Saudi teachers emphasize upon memorization as the main learning technique. The focus on memorization perhaps originated from the perception that a person who could memorize the Holy Quran could also memorize language lessons as dexterously as the holy verses (Alamer, 2010). This argument was supported by Koura and Al-Hebaishi (2014) who too looked at a cohort in Saudi Arabia and accepted the role of religion shaping language learning, and all learning models within Saudi society should consider the influence of Saudi culture and religion. On the contrary, Reeve and Jang (2006) found that English language teachers should notice key learning characteristics among learners and provide a better level of support to them, rather than holding culture or religion responsible for the weaknesses.

Studies have investigated classroom observation practices in Saudi universities (Keig and Waggoner, 1995; Keig, 2000; Shah and Al Harthi, 2014; Thomas et al., 2014) and also found  faculty qualified and experienced in this technique (Cohen and McKeachie, 1980; Keig, 2000; Harris and Cullen, 2008; Atkinson and Bolt, 2010). Keig (2000) for instance, has also recommended use of classroom observation as a remedial teaching method through formative assessment, praise and constructive criticism of learners’ activities. This suggests classroom observation may also be directed towards attaining learner-centered goals such as learning outcomes. It has been widely argued that students’ learning could improve if instructors work collaboratively to improve teaching (Keig, 2000; Anderson et al., 2005; Donnelly, 2007).

This study originated from a larger research study that focused  on Teachers’ and Saudi EFL learners’ attitude for classroom observations (Alsaheli, 2019a) and another corresponding study (Alsaheli, 2019b) wherein the author shed light on constraints like learners’ anxiety adversely affecting their perception and confidence levels. In both studies, the author pioneered the need for learners’ involvement in classroom observation techniques, in order to improve their communicative competence in the English language . In the current study, the author takes a step forward and examines the moderating effect of classroom observation on learner autonomy, motivation levels and on learning outcomes.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Classroom Observation and Learning Outcomes

So far previous research studies have accepted classroom observation as a process of data collection and analysis of teaching methodology on collaborative basis (Allwright and Bailey, 1991; Bailey, 2006; Nunan and Bailey, 2009). However, no study ever thought to direct this technique as a teaching intervention to attain learning outcomes. Classroom observation only benefited the instructor and not the learners (Alsaheli, 2019b). In this  empirical study in EFL situation, Alsaheli (2019b) argued that classroom observation enhances the confidence levels of learners by reducing their anxiety about their learning, provided the feedback of classroom observation is shared with the learners.. Learners should come to understand about their strengths and weaknesses and are able to make their learning more meaningful. While talking about learning outcomes, the author strongly claimed that classroom observation would help learners to develop their communicative abilities too. A few other studies however contradicted this view and express the  fear that it would be difficult to establish a “congruence” between  the observer and learners in a classroom situation (Herrell and Jordan, 2016). 

Teachers regularly prepare lesson plans to teach their class via whole-group instruction, which could improve the outcomes for all learners (Rogers, 2002). However, Guskey (2007) and others argue that group instruction is not the best practice within regular classes in EFL situation as it cannot meet the range of abilities of all learners. Guskey (2003) and Kennedy (2016) had suggested that data collected from classroom observations could provide a blueprint of learners’ growth and development. Thus, classroom observation provided an opportunity to stretch the instructional experience over to learners within the EFL setting. Van Tassel-Baska et al. (2007) stressed upon the use of classroom observation scales (COS) in order to elevate learning outcomes; though they lamented that no initiatives are taken to introduce COS or similar  measuring tools in classrooms. If introduced, these scales can help measure and improve student involvement in EFL classrooms, develop new motivational techniques, strengthen teacher–student interactions, and help design teaching aids and materials. The COS, if designed, should contain at least six scales including scales of teaching behaviors, curriculum planning and delivery, understanding individual differences, problem-solving strategies, critical thinking, creative thinking strategies and research strategies (Van Tassel-Baska and Brown, 2007). The authors also claimed that COSs are used effectively in several countries with different racial, language and cultural contexts. And therefore it could potentially prove successful in Saudi Arabia too.

2.2. Learner Autonomy and Motivation

Learner autonomy in the field of English Language education is not a new phenomenon (Borg and Al-Busaidi, 2012). People often confuse 'Learner autonomy' with ‘self-regulation’ or ‘self-efficacy’ (Nakata, 2014;2016; Koban and Koc, 2016) mainly because learners in a second language (L2) or a foreign language (FL) scenario, experience heteronomy and tend to become autonomous. Jiménez and Vieira (2015)  argues that both heteronomy and autonomy hint at learners’’ level of maturity dexterously supported by their parents, teachers, and school regulatory authorities. While the heteronomous phase suggests a kind of pressure imposed upon learners, since during this phase rules of learning do not change and are objective; but during the autonomous phase of learning, rules are subjective and changeable. The learners feel more motivated and observe flexibility.
Autonomy, in an educational setting, means the ability of a student to set his educational goals and to take responsibility for his own learning. Little (1991;1995;1999;2004) defines learner autonomy as "the principle that learners should be encouraged to assume a maximum amount of responsibility for what they learn and how they learn it." Meanwhile, Cambridge Dictionary states that autonomy is "the ability to make your own decisions without being controlled by anyone else." Hardy-Gould (2013) says that learner autonomy takes place when the learner takes control and responsibility for their own leaning, both in terms of what they learn and how they learn it. These definitions show that the concept of autonomy is complex and there are various meanings of autonomy both in practice and in theory.

Agustina (2017) and Ahsanu (2017) studied how English teachers looked at learner autonomy in general and how their perceptions about learner autonomy affect classroom practices. The study employed 145 English teachers and almost all respondents felt positive about the concept of autonomy as they expressed their agreement in the questionnaire that learner autonomy contributed to the success of students’ language learning. However it was also revealed that English teachers had various understanding about learner autonomy and thus the way they promoted it in the classroom varied considerably. Agustina (2017) findings also helped to see these differences of understanding and different beliefs and practices in developing learner autonomy in English classrooms. 

Benson and Voller (1997) theory was seen reflected in Agustina (2017) study whose findings proved that autonomy was perceived differently as inborn capacities, as situation when students learned alone, and acquired skills and capability and responsibility to complete the task alone adequately supported by teachers. This study thus revealed that autonomous teachers also played a big role in developing learner autonomy and promoted autonomy in their classrooms. The findings of Agustina (2017) study also reflected the need for teacher’s professional development activities particularly prior to implementing the curriculum which supported the development of learner autonomy. This study shows professional development activities can help teachers to modify their beliefs about autonomy especially those which are not in line with the principles for promoting learner autonomy in classrooms. In the current context, classroom observation could be termed as an opportunity of teachers’ personal development.

Farahian and Rezaee (2012) too, tried to explain how learner independence became a curricular area at the tertiary level preparatory program. This case study, following exploratory- interpretive method, examined the responses of teachers and learners to a kind of independent learning. The researcher investigated attitudes of instructors and learners based on different interpretations of learner autonomy. The findings proposed that learners were assigned passive roles in teachers' discourse and instructors were symbolized as “agents and controllers of education". The study concluded by saying that a rethinking was needed to make autonomy become a practical educational goal.

In the learner-centered atmosphere, motivation plays an important role.  Students are motivated to learn new things with their own efficiency and effort. Unlike teacher-centered classroom, the major role is assigned to learners in order to get direct experience (Lamb and Wedell, 2013). However, it didn't completely discard the importance of the role of the teacher. Compared to teacher-centered classroom, learners' dependence on the teacher is limited. The learner can take the help of teachers to assess his/her needs, to make a safe learning atmosphere. Al Khalidi (2019) also brought to attention the need for motivation in EFL classrooms with no exceptions. Such a study could therefore be applied in the current context too where the relationship of classroom observation is considered in ascertaining what role motivation plays in developing learner autonomy.

To examine the relationship between motivation and learners autonomy with the moderating effect of classroom observation to achieve the desired learning outcomes was among the significant objectives in the present study.

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1. Hypothesis Development and Theoretical Framework

Based on the problem statement of the study and the review of arguments in previous studies, the following research hypotheses were stated and tested in the current study:

1. H1: Learner’s autonomy has a significant direct impact on learning outcomes.
2. H2: Motivation has a significant direct impact on learning outcomes.
3. H3: Classroom observation has a significant direct impact on learning outcomes.
4. H4: Classroom observation moderates the relationship between learner’s autonomy and learning outcomes.
5. H5: Classroom observation moderates the relationship between motivation and learning outcomes.

3.2. Research Design

Research design in empirical research  refers to specific processes comprising a research framework, research questions, hypotheses and selection of research tools for data analyses (Flick, 2014). The present research study is based on a similar research design that addresses the problem stated through research questions and research objectives which have been addressed through hypotheses testing. For hypotheses testing, the dataset was purely quantitative. 

In order to conduct research, usually, two research approaches are employed : deductive approach and inductive approach (Sekaran and Bougie, 2016). The deductive approach considers the testing of existing theory through some hypotheses development (Wiles et al., 2011) followed by specific knowledge as gained through a research process (Kothari, 2004). In this method, existing theories are tested and empirically justified. The inductive approach, on the other hand, moves from specific to general (Bryman and Bell, 2011) and helps to generate new theories. The present research study adopted the deductive approach.

Figure 1 explains the theoretical relationship between independent and dependent variables (Learner autonomy, Motivation and Learning Outcomes) and the moderator (Classroom observation). 

Figure-1. Theoretical framework.

Source: Created for the current research by the researcher. 

3.3. Sampling

This research was conducted in a Saudi university under its preparatory year program The sample size was 150 comprising both male and female EFL learners aspiring to join university programs in different disciplines and are required to acquire a certain level of English proficiency. The purposive sampling method was used in this research which suited the nature of this research.

3.4. Procedure

Data was collected through a pretest and posttest experiment conducted to measure the effect of classroom observation as a pedagogical technique in teaching EFL courses. The tests were administrated both before and after the classroom observation with 30 participants sampled from the EFL classroom of the Preparatory year program of a Saudi university in Riyadh province during a full-length semester. These tests aimed at assessing the extent to which classroom observation contributed to increasing the learners’ motivation and learner autonomy for a better attainment of learning outcomes. A short questionnaire on five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5 with 1 as strongly disagree and 5 as strongly agree adapted from Johnson (2010) with 30 items was also prepared. The questionnaire focused on students’ views about classroom observation and other variables of the study viz., motivation, learner autonomy and learning outcomes. 150 students participated in the questionnaire. The data was collected through quantified results of pre-post tests and the questionnaire and statistical results were obtained with the use of SPSS software.

Table-1. Sub-variables of the study.

Item	No	Sub variables
Classroom observation and learning outcomes	1.	Classroom observation offered more academic freedom.
	2.	Classroom observation allowed more time and attention to individual learning needs.
	3.	Classroom observation helped in better results.
	4.	Classroom observation improved the quality of instruction.
Learners autonomy and  learning outcomes	1	Learners felt less stressful in class participation.
	2	Learners’ academic freedom helped n better understanding of the subject.
	3.	Learners felt more mature ad perfect in learning the curriculum.
Motivation and  learners autonomy	1.	Learners felt self-motivated and developed feeling of self-regulation.
	2	Learners felt stronger and empowered by the motivated environment.
	3	The learner developed the feeling of acceptance and making choice and decision making.

Source: Based on the researcher’s findings.

3.5. Instruments

For the purpose of Pearson analysis, the research study also identified a few sub-variables as shown in Table 1.

3.6. Convergent and Discriminate Validity

A big challenge while performing a construct validity test of an instrument like questionnaire is to find out whether appropriate constructs or items that give a phenomenal explanation have been chosen; or, whether those chosen constructs were appropriately operationalized. Hence, in order to ensure construct validity, a number of procedures can be performed, such as convergent validity, and discriminant validity (Clark and Watson, 1995). The construct validity is supported only when measures exhibit a high correlation among the same construct, by utilizing various methods, and when the measures exhibit low correlations for different constructs. In this context, construct validity can be determined using discriminant and convergent validity.

Convergent validity is defined as a parameter to determine the extent of two variables which are supposed to be related and actually related. The convergent validity shows whether any relation exists among the scaled items and whether the relationship among the same scale factors is high enough to perform the test for discriminant validity. Convergent validity is also required when a set of variables come together in order to estimate a specific concept. Each item loading is assessed and validated requiring all the item loadings to satisfy the recommended level i.e. greater than 0.70.

The convergent validity of the questionnaire used in the present study as presented in Table 2 shows the values for composite reliability and Cronbach alpha. The range of Cronbach alpha came out as 0. 780 to 0.987, whereas the range of composite reliability was 0.881 to  0.956  The range for composite reliability exceeded the recommended value i.e. 0.70, Kerlinger and Lee (2000) which confirms the convergent validity for the outer model. To further ensure the convergent validity, average variance extracted test was also performed.

Table-2. Convergent validity.

Item	Cronbach's alpha	RHO_A	Composite reliability	Average variance extracted (AVE)
LAU	0.870	0.967	0.956	0.650
MOT	0.950	0.950	0.890	0.750
COB	0.987	0.949	0.881	0.820
LOU	0.867	0.968	0.970	0.660

*LAU= Learners’ autonomy; MOT= Motivation; COB= Classroom observation; and LOU= Learning outcomes.

Discriminant validity, likewise, is a test to determine whether the concepts which are supposed to be unrelated are in fact found to be related. It also determines the extent of correlation among variables  examined whether a variable was not actually same as other variables (Byrne, 2010). In other words, it examined how much a specific variable was different from the rest of the variables (Duarte and Raposo, 2010). Thus, higher discriminant validity shows that a variable has some distinctive features as compared to other variables. The square roots of AVE are estimated to confirm discriminant validity, which would be achieved if all the square roots come out to be greater than correlations between the constructs (Chin, 1998).

The discriminant validity existing among the constructs and variables of this study are presented in Table 3

Table-3. Discriminant validity.

Item	LAU	MOT	COB	LOU
LAU	0.825
MOT	0.827	0.894
COB	0.815	0.892	0.911
LOU	0.885	0.723	0.730	0.817

*LAU= Learners’ autonomy; MOT= Motivation; COB= Classroom observation; and LOU= Learning outcomes.

3.7. Data Analysis Methods

For data analysis, the present study applied both descriptive and inferential statistics. Descriptive statistics help to explain the nature of data set in the form of mean, median, mode, standard deviation, and other normality measures (Merchant et al., 2012). All these measures are used for predictors, outcomes, moderator, and control variables of the study. Besides, regression diagnostics were applied to check the normality and reliability of the data such diagnostic tests are very useful as they describe and highlight the hidden issues in data sets.

4. RESULTS ANALYSIS

Further to testing the convergent and discriminate validity, the relationship of classroom observation with its associated variables was tested by Pearson correlation methods.  Correlation was tested between (i) classroom observation and Learning outcomes, (ii) learners autonomy and Learning outcomes, and  (iii) motivation and  learners autonomy.  

1. Table 5 presents the first Pearson correlation measurements between classroom observation and Learning outcomes with sub variables including those related to academic freedom, time allowed for individual learning needs, getting better results, and instruction quality. Each   sub-variable  was measured with the significant values of 0.708, 0.611, 0.609, 0.519 respectively having p < 0.01 significance level. These findings indicate that classroom observation had an influence on learning outcomes in all its aspects represented in sub-variables. The results also indicate a correlation between classroom observation and learning outcomes.

Table-4. Pearson’s correlation coefficients.

Classroom observation influence learning outcomes
	Pearson correlation	Sig. (two-tailed)	n
Classroom observation offered more academic freedom.	0.708*	0.000	150
Classroom observation allowed more time and attention to individual learning needs.	0.611*	0.000	150
Classroom observation helped in better results.	0.609*	0.000	150
Classroom observation improved the quality of instruction.	0.519*	0.000	150

Note: *the significance of correlation measured at 0.01 level (two-tailed).

2. Table 5 illustrates the second Pearson correlation measurements between learner’s autonomy and Learning outcomes with sub variables including those related to stress in class participation, better understanding of the subject by experiencing academic freedom, and feeling of perfection in learning the curriculum. Each   sub variable was measured with the significant values of 0.538, 0.381, 0.045 respectively having p < 0.01 significance level. These findings indicate that learner autonomy had an influence on learning outcomes in all its aspects represented in sub-variables. The results also indicate a correlation between learner autonomy and learning outcomes.

Table-5. Pearson’s correlation coefficients.

Learners autonomy influence learning outcomes
	Pearson correlation	Sig. (two-tailed)	n
Learners felt less stressful in class participation.	0.538	0.000	150
Learners’ academic freedom helped n better understanding of the subject.	0.381	0.000	150
Learners felt more mature and perfect in learning  the curriculum.	0.045	0.000	150

Note: *Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed); **correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).

3. Table 6 exhibits the third Pearson correlation measurements between motivation and  learner autonomy with sub variables including those related to self-motivation and feeling of self-regulation, feeling of empowerment in a motivated environment, and feeling of acceptance and making choice and decision making. Each sub variable was measured with the significant values of 0.788, 0.380, 0.450 respectively having p < 0.01 significance level. There is a weak association between the item “Learners felt stronger and empowered by the motivated environment” The relationship is weak between the two variables since  the value of p is greater than 0.01. These findings indicate that motivation had an influence on learners’ autonomy in all its aspects represented in sub-variables. The results also indicate a correlation between motivation and learners’ autonomy.

Table-6. Pearson’s correlation coefficients.

Motivation influences learning outcomes
	Pearson correlation	Sig. (two-tailed)	n
Learners felt self-motivated and developed feeling of self-regulation.	0.788	0.000	150
Learners felt stronger and empowered by the motivated environment.	0.380	0.011	150
The learner developed the feeling of acceptance and making choice and decision making.	0. 450	0.000	150

Source: Based on researcher’s findings.

As explained earlier, a pre-test and a post-test were conducted to understand the impact of classroom observation on variables of the study. Based on the results of the pre-test, the following descriptive analysis was evident Table 7.

Table-7. Results of pretest data descriptive statistical analysis.

Data	N	Range	Minimum	Maximum	Sum	Mean	Std. deviation	Variance
Pretest	30	30	30	75	1565	57,83	9,960	91,513
Valid N	30

Source: Results of descriptive analysis of pretest data.

Table 7 exhibits that the pretest score of learners’ understanding about classroom observation was 30 at the lowest and the highest score was 75. It was classified as: strongly disagree = 30 - 45, disagree = 46 - 60, neutral = 61 - 70, agree = 71 - 80, strongly agree> = 81. The average score of the pretest was 57.83 showing the level of classroom observation as ‘slightly accepted’ by learners.

After obtaining the results of the pretest, classroom observation as pedagogical technique was introduced in the EFL classrooms of the preparatory year. Learners were too quick in accepting the classroom observation as a teaching technique.  After the completion of one semester, the learners were given a posttest. Data was analyzed by descriptive statistics whose results are shown in Table 8.

Table-8. Results of posttest data descriptive statistics.

Data	N	Range	Minimum	Maximum	Sum	Mean	Std. deviation	Variance
Posttest	30	35	60	95	2445	81,50	9,500	94,741
Valid N	30

Source: Results of descriptive analysis of post test data.

Table 8 illustrates that the score of learners’ acceptance of classroom observation as a teaching technique was 60 at the lowest and 95 at the highest. The score was classified as: strongly disagree = 30 - 45, disagree = 46 - 60, neutral = 61 - 70, agree = 71 - 80, strongly agree> = 81. The average score of the pretest was 81.50 showing the level of classroom observation as at a very good level and ‘strongly accepted’ by learners. At this stage it was necessary to conduct a normality test to find out whether the data obtained was normally distributed and then conduct the paired sample t-test because a requirement to conduct a paired sample t-test is to ensure that the data must be normally distributed. Table 9 illustrates the results of the normality test for both pretest and posttest data.

Table-9. Results of the normality test of pretest and posttest data.

Data	Shapiro-Wilk
	Statistic	Df	Sig.
Pretest	.934	30	.063
Postest	.948	30	.150

The normality test performed on pretest and posttest data as shown in Table 9 with Shapiro-Wilk table section. The significance obtained from the pretest was 0.063 which means > 0.05 and the posttest was 0.150 also > 0.05. Similarity significance obtained was > 0.05, which proves that the pretest and posttest data scores were normally distributed. Subsequently the data was tested by using paired t-test samples to assess the extent of acceptance of classroom observation among the learners of EFL classrooms in the PYP of a Saudi university.

The results of the paired sample t-test are shown in Table 10.

Table-10. Results of the paired sample t-test of learners’ acceptability of classroom observation.

		Paired differences					t	Df	Sig. (2-tailed)
		Mean	Std. deviation	Std. error mean	95% confidence interval of the difference
					Lower	Upper
Pair 1	Pretest – Posttest	-26,667	8,235	1,504	-29,742	-23,592	-17,736	29	,000

Source: Results of statistical data analysis t test samples in pairs.

The results of the paired sample t-test revealed that t value is -17.736 with the significance level of 0.000, which means <0.05. This suggests a significant difference in the learners’ understanding of classroom observation as a teaching technique in pretest and posttest, and this difference is statistically significant. It can be concluded that classroom observation in EFL classrooms proves to be an effective pedagogical technique in the PYP program of a Saudi university. Concurrently, the hypotheses of the study were also tested. For this purpose, a hypothesized structural model was established with path coefficients defined to determine the relationship between each construct and to make decisions about the tested hypotheses. After assessing the structural relationship among variables of the measurement model, the goodness of fit was also checked. The goodness of fit determines whether the model is suitable for testing of hypothesis. Table 11 and Table 12 exhibit the mean, standard deviation and p-values of all hypotheses and also the effect of the moderator variable.

Table-11. Direct relations among hypotheses.

	Original sample (O)	Sample mean (M)	Standard deviation (STDEV)	T statistics (|O/STDEV|)	P values
H1	0.224	0.216	0.068	3.272	0.001
H2	0.263	0.253	0.058	3.356	0.001
H3	0.852	0.854	0.039	3.012	0.000
H4	0.224	0.216	0.068	3.272	0.001
H5	0.974	0.969	0.070	3.839	0.000

 Source: Based on researcher’s findings.

The measurement model was converted to a structural model to examine the relationship between variables. The results for direct hypotheses as stated in Table 11 reveal that all of the direct hypotheses are significantly accepted. All hypotheses are seen significant at 5% showing p-values of less than 0.05, thus indicating the acceptance of the formulated hypotheses. The moderating role of classroom observation is shown in Table 12 whose outcome is also shown significant for p and t values above the threshold level, i.e. less than 0.05 as acceptable. These results of moderation show that the values for p and t are significant for the hypotheses.

Table-12. Indirect resuts (Moderation).

	Original sample (O)	Sample mean (M)	Standard deviation (STDEV)	T Statistics (|O/STDEV|)	P values
Moderating effect	0.052	0.053	0.063	0.825	0.000

Source: Based on researcher’s findings.

5. CONCLUSION

The current study was designed to examine the moderating effect of classroom observation on the relationship between learning autonomy, motivation and leaning outcomes in EFL classrooms of a PYP of a Saudi university. The study employed questionnaire survey-based research design, accompanied with Pearson correlation analysis and pretest and posttest as tools to achieve the objectives of the study.  The SPSS-20 was used to analyze the data collected from the questionnaire. The findings revealed that learners’ level of acceptance of classroom observation increases due to its use as a pedagogical technique as this positive phenomenon was noticed in the increase in the level of motivation, learner autonomy and high learning outcomes. These variables were hypothetically tested and showed positive relationships. Universities in Saudi Arabia currently are facing issues related to teaching methodology in EFL classrooms with mother tongue (L1) interference as a big hurdle in sustaining learning. For this purpose, it is therefore important that universities should adopt and implement classroom observation as a pedagogical technique as recommended in this study. The current study additionally perceives that with the introduction of classroom observation as a pedagogical technique, it will be easier to achieve the educational objectives in line with the nation’s 2020 vision. The stringent policies in terms of teaching methodology must also be made flexible and innovation should be promoted in teaching and learning methods.

Funding: This study received no specific financial support.

Competing Interests: The author declares that there are no conflicts of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

REFERENCES

Agustina, D., 2017. Teachers’ understanding of learner autonomy in indonesian contexts: Findings from high schools and their implications. Language and Language Teaching Journal, 20(2): 127-132.Available at: https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.2017.200206.

Ahsanu, M., 2017. Fostering EFL learner autonomy in Indonesian context. Issues in Applied Linguistics and Language Teaching, 1(1): 12-19.

Al Khalidi, I., 2019. Investigating motivational factors in EFL classroom from the perspectives of students at a tertiary context in Oman. In: Hidri S. (Ed.), English Language Teaching Research in the Middle East and North Africa. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

Alamer, S., 2010. Views of giftedness: The perceptions of teachers and parents regarding the traits of gifted children in Saudi Arabia (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Monash University, Australia.

Alamer, S.M., 2014. Challenges facing gifted students in Saudi Arabia. Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, 4(24): 107-112.

Allwright, D. and K.M. Bailey, 1991. Focus on the language learner. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Alsaheli, F., 2019a. Teacher’s classroom observation: A study of attitudes and best practices. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 5(4): 27-36.

Alsaheli, F., 2019b. Investigating anxiety, perception and Confidence Levels of EFL Learners through Classroom Observation: Evidence from a Preparatory Year Programme in a Saudi University.

Anderson, N.A., M.A. Barksdale and C.E. Hite, 2005. Preservice teachers' observations of cooperating teachers and peers while participating in an early field experience. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(4): 97-117.

Atkinson, D.J. and S.J. Bolt, 2010. Using teaching observations to reflect upon and improve teaching practice in higher education. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2(4): 1-19.

Bailey, K.M., 2006. Language teacher supervision: A case-based approach New York: Cambridge University Press.

Benson, P. and P. Voller, 1997. Introduction: Autonomy and independence in language learning. In BENSON, P. and P. VOLLER. (Eds.), Autonomy and independence in language learning. London-New York: Addison Wesley-Longman Ltd.

Borg, S. and S. Al-Busaidi, 2012. Learner autonomy: English language teachers' beliefs and practices. London: British Council.

Bryman, A. and E. Bell, 2011. Business research methods. 3rd Edn., Oxford: OUP.

Byrne, B.M., 2010. Multivariate applications series. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). New York, NY, US: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Chin, W.W., 1998. The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp: 295-358.

Clark, L.A. and D. Watson, 1995. Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3): 309-319.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037//1040-3590.7.3.309.

Cohen, P.A. and W.J. McKeachie, 1980. The role of colleagues in the evaluation of college teaching. Improving College and University Teaching, 28(4): 147-154.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00193089.1980.10533656.

Donnelly, R., 2007. Perceived impact of peer observation of teaching in higher education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 19(2): 117-129.

Duarte, P. and M. Raposo, 2010. A PLS model to study brand preference: An application to the mobile phone market. From Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and Applications. pp: 449-485.

Farahian, M. and M. Rezaee, 2012. A case study of an EFL teacher's type of questions: An investigation into classroom interaction. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47: 161-167.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.631.

Flick, U., 2014. An introduction to qualitative research. 5th Edn., London: Sage Publications.

Guskey, T.R., 2003. What makes professional development effective? Phi Delta Kappan, 84(10): 748-750.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170308401007.

Guskey, T.R., 2007. Closing achievement gaps: Revisiting Benjamin S. Bloom's “Learning for Mastery”. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(1): 8-31.Available at: https://doi.org/10.4219/jaa-2007-704.

Hardy-Gould, J., 2013. Learner autonomy. Oxford University press English language teaching global blog. Oxford University Press. Available from: oupeltglobalblog.com/2013/01/29/learner-autonomy. [Accessed 3 April 2019].

Harris, M. and R. Cullen, 2008. Learner-centered leadership: An agenda for action. Innovative Higher Education, 33(1): 21-28.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-007-9059-3.

Herrell, A. and M. Jordan, 2016. Fifgty strategies for teaching English language learners 2nd. Ohio: Person.

Jiménez, R.M. and F. Vieira, 2015. Enhancing autonomy in language education: A case-based approach to teacher and learner development New York: Sheep of Gruyter.

Johnson, S.P., 2010. How infants learn about the visual world. Cognitive Science, 34(7): 1158-1184.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01127.x.

Keig, L., 2000. Formative peer review of teaching: Attitudes of faculty at liberal arts colleges toward colleague assessment. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14(1): 67-87.

Keig, L.W. and M.D. Waggoner, 1995. Peer review of teaching: Improving college instruction through formative assessment. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 6(3): 51-83.

Kennedy, M.M., 2016. How does professional development improve teaching? Review of Educational Research, 86(4): 945-980.Available at: https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626800.

Kerlinger, F.N. and H.B. Lee, 2000. Foundations of behavioral research. Orlando, FL: Harcourt College Publishers.

Koban, K.D. and S.E. Koc, 2016. Understanding learner autonomy through cognitive, metacognitive and social strategies used by English language learners in a computer-based classroom. Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 6(2): 58-69.

Kothari, C.R., 2004. Research methodology: Methods and techniques. 2nd Edn., New Delhi: New Age International Publishers.

Koura, A.A. and S.M. Al-Hebaishi, 2014. The Relationship between multiple intelligences, self-efficacy and academic achievement of Saudi gifted and regular intermediate students. Educational Research International, 3(1): 48-70.

Lamb, M. and M. Wedell, 2013. Inspiring English teachers: A comparative study of learner perceptions of inspirational teaching. ELT Research Papers, 13(3): 1-26.

Little, D., 1991. Learner autonomy. Dublin: Authentik.

Little, D., 1995. Learning as dialogue: The dependence of learner autonomy on teacher autonomy. System, 23(2): 175-181. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251x(95)00006-6.

Little, D., 1999. Developing learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom: A social-interactive view of learning and three fundamental pedagogical principles. Canary Magazine Of English Studies, 3(8): 77-88.

Little, D., 2004. Democracy, discourse and learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom. Education & Democracy, 13(3): 105-126. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2006.tb02250.x.

Merchant, R., W.G. Marchal, S.A. Wathen and D.A. Lind, 2012. Basic statistics using excel 2010 for: Statistical techniques in business & economics. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Nakata, Y., 2014. Self-regulation: Why is it important for promoting learner autonomy in the school context? SiSAL Journal, 5(4): 342–356.

Nakata, Y., 2016. Promoting self-regulation through collaborative work: A multiple case study of foreign language learners. EUROSLA Yearb, 16: 59–84. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.16.03nak.

Nunan, D. and K.M. Bailey, 2009. Exploring second langauge classroom research: A comprehensive guide. 1st Edn.: Heinle ELT.

Reeve, J. and H. Jang, 2006. What teachers say and do to support students' autonomy during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1): 209-218.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.209.

Rogers, C., 2002. Voices inside schools–seeing student learning: Teacher change and the role of reflection. Harvard Educational Review, 72(2): 230-253.

Sekaran, U. and R. Bougie, 2016. Research methods for business: A skill-building approach. 7th Edn., Haddington: John Wiley & Sons.

Shah, S.R. and K. Al Harthi, 2014. TESOL classroom observations: A boon or a bane? An exploratory study at a Saudi Arabian University. Theory & Practice In Language Studies, 4(8): 1594-1601.Available at: https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.8.1593-1602.

Thomas, S., Q.T. Chie, M. Abraham, S. Jalarajan Raj and L.-S. Beh, 2014. A qualitative review of literature on peer review of teaching in higher education: An application of the SWOT framework. Review of Educational Research, 84(1): 112-159.Available at: https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313499617.

Van Tassel-Baska, J. and E.F. Brown, 2007. Toward best practice: An analysis of the efficacy of curriculum models in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4): 342-358.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207306323.

Van Tassel-Baska, J., A.X. Feng and B.L. Evans, 2007. Patterns of identification and performance among gifted students identified through performance tasks: A three-year analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(3): 218-231.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207302717.

Wiles, R., P. Helen and C. Graham, 2011. Innovation in qualitative research methods: A narrative review. ESRC National Centre for Research Methods (NCRM), 11(5): 587-604.

Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content.