Abstract and references

Although the aim of the study was clearly stated, the rationale behind conducting such a study is not well supported. Investigating learners’ perspectives about autonomy seems to be over-researched. If the authors were going to highlight the importance of the topic in the local context, they should have supported the significance of the study.

In the abstract, too much information has been provided for the significance of the study and little information about the methods, data analysis, and results. The authors are recommended to include more information to clarify the mixed design of the study and report more major findings. The author needs to use APA referencing style, both throughout the manuscript and reference list. References within the text were not alphabetically ordered. The authors are recommended to include recent references.

Introduction / Background

Initial sentences in the introduction section should indicated the importance of studying learner autonomy. As well, I suggest authors to add a definition for the construct of learner autonomy. What does this structure mean “the father of learner autonomy”? needs revision. I think the authors need to state the significance of the topic under investigation. Additionally, the authors did no highlight the existing research gaps with referring to the previous studies. Although the literature section seemed to be sufficient, the authors have just summarized previous studies. They are encouraged to included more instances of criticality to depict the contribution of their own study. I suggest the authors to identify main ideas in order to establish the similarities and differences when reviewing the related studies. The authors need to provide a more compelling rationale for conducting a study on Saudi learners’ autonomy. The authors are expected to clearly state why this gap is worth addressing? I think a much more persuasive rationale for the study has to be established. Organizing the literature needs to be considered. For instance, it is unclear why the following subtitle was included: I. Learner autonomy and challenges learners may face

Methods

The authors should clearly state research gap, purpose, and questions before methods section. The methods section was confusing to the readers. Although the authors have claimed they have used mixed-methods design, they did not express why they preferred this design. As well, there were little information about the qualitative aspect of the study. How did the authors collect qualitative data? How did analyze the data? Heading in the method section was also confusing. What was “main study”? Was your study part of a larger research project? The authors need to explain the questionnaire in more detail and state why was the questionnaire suitable for the purpose of the study? Why the authors have merely studied female students? They are encouraged to substantiate. Although the authors have stated this as one of the limitations of their work, I encourage the authors to state how and practicality concerns and laws restricted them to study only female participants (in the participants section).

Results

They authors should avoid redundancy. The readers need interpretation of the statistical information provided in the tables, not repeating them. Authors are expected to present the findings clearly and not leave it to the readers to interpret. In the case of qualitative findings, they could highlight the significant results. I expected to know how the major themes emerged and how the authors identified them after analyzing coded data. This section needs to be reworked a lot more. Tables (Table 9) should follow APA guidelines. Check this issue. Why did the authors used terms such as “analysis” and “collection” in results section? I suggested you to divide results section into two parts; qualitative data analysis and quantitative data analysis.

Discussion / Conclusion

The results are not elaborated in detail from various perspectives. Additionally, they were not properly discussed. It is essential to discuss the findings in great depth. As well, I did not find something new in the discussion section; suggesting that the contributing of this review paper might be limited. The authors could enrich the discussion as well as conclusion section with offering practical implications of the study. I recommend the authors to express how the results can inform EFL teachers.

Final comments

I think the contribution of the study is limited. Some instances of grammatical inaccuracy were found. I think the paper needs editing. The paper did not establish a compelling rationale for investigating learners’ autonomy in the context of Arab countries. The results of the study were not discussed in detail. Some instances of ambiguity and inconsistency were found throughout the manuscript, especially in methods section. I recommend the authors to be critical while reviewing the related literature. Moreover, I think it would be necessary to discuss the findings in relation to the field of TEFL. Regardless of the limited contribution of the study, the authors need to address these major issues. Then, the paper would be acceptable for publication.