Mart 2008 Cilt:16 No:1 Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi 277-284

March 2008 Vol:16 No:1 Kastamonu Education Journal

FOSTERING LEARNER AUTONOMY IN EFL CLASSROOMS

Cem BALÇIKANLI
G.U. Gazi Faculty of Education, Department of Foreign Languages, Ankara.
Abstract
This study aims to foster learner autonomy through the activities to be exploited at Preparatory School, Gazi University. In order to attain this goal,
two classes were selected randomly, each of which consists of twenty learners studying English from various faculties at Gazi University, as
experimental and control group. Prior to the implementation phase, Learner Autonomy Questionnaire, made up of three parts, was administered to
both groups so as to reveal possible levels of autonomy they possessed.
Whereas the experimental group was instructed in the autonomy implementation, the control group continued their education without any
modification. After the 12-week implementation process, the same questionnaire was administered to both groups once again. The results from both
groups were gathered and analyzed by the use of student and paired sample t-test to demonstrate whether any change would exist between the
groups. At the end of this process, the statistical results were analyzed and interpreted. The results displayed that the learners in the experimental
group scored higher than those in the control group, and showed a strong tendency towards autonomy than the control group did with a few
exceptions. In the light of these results, syllabuses of the preparatory schools should be redesigned in accordance with the principles of learner
autonomy, the course books to be followed at preparatory schools should be assessed whether they encourage autonomy or not, some in-service
training should be fulfilled and finally self-access rooms should be developed in order that the learners may have the opportunity to study there on
their own far more effectively.
Key Words: Learner Autonomy, EFL, Autonomous Activities, Preparatory School.
İNGİLİZCE’NİN YABANCI DİL OLARAK ÖĞRETİLDİĞİ
SINIFLARDA ÖĞRENEN ÖZERKLİĞİNİ ARTTIRMAK
Özet
Bu çalışmanın amacı aktiviteler kullanılarak Gazi Üniversitesi Hazırlık öğrencilerinde öğrenen özerkliğini arttırmaktır. Bu amaca ulaşmak için
yirmi kişilik deney ve kontrol grubu rasgele seçilen iki sınıftan oluşturulmuştur. Gruplar, Gazi Üniversitesi’nin çeşitli fakültelerinde okuyan ve
İngilizce eğitim alan öğrencilerden oluşmaktadır. Uygulamaya başlamadan önce, üç bölümden oluşan Öğrenen Özerkliği Anketi öğrencilerin olası
özerklik durumlarını belirlemek amacıyla öğrencilere verilmiştir.Deney grubuna özerklik uygulamasıyla eğitim verilirken, kontrol grubu değişiklik
olmaksızın eğitimine devam etmiştir. 12 haftalık uygulamadan sonra, aynı anket öğrencilere bir kez daha verilmiş ve her iki gruptan elde edilen
sonuçlar, gruplar arasında bir farklılığın olup olmadığını belirlemek için çiftli örnek t ve öğrenci t testi kullanılarak incelenmiştir. Bu aşamanın
sonunda, istatistiksel sonuçlar değerlendirilmiş ve yorumlanmıştır. Sonuçlar deney grubundaki öğrencilerin birkaç istisna dışında
kontrol grubundakilerden daha yüksek puanlar aldığını ve kontrol grubundan daha fazla bir özerkliğe sahip olduğunu göstermiştir.Bu sonuçlar
ışığında, İngilizce’nin yabancı dil olarak öğretildiği sınıflarda öğrenen özerkliğini artırmak için, üniversitelerde uygulanan hazırlık müfredatlarının
özerklik ilkelerini temel alarak yeniden düzenlenmesi, okutulmakta olan ders kitaplarının özerkliği destekler nitelikte olup olmadığı konusunda
değerlendirilmesi, üniversitelerde görev yapmakta olan okutmanların öğrenen özerkliği konusunda bilgilendirilmek için hizmet içi eğitime
alınmasının kaçınılmaz olduğu ve öğrencilerin kendi başlarına daha etkili bir şekilde çalışmalarına olanak tanıyacak çalışma odalarının
düzenlenmesi gibi önerilerde bulunulmuştur.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Öğrenen Özerkliği, Yabancı Dil Olarak İngilizce,Özerklik Aktiviteleri,
1. Introduction
It is a fact that adults do not know how to diagnose their own needs for learning, formulate their own learning objectives, identify
learning resources and planning strategies for taking the initiative in using those resources, assess their own learning, and have their
assessments validated (1). Moreover, it is obvious that the learners somehow are not able to perform the learning process as they lack
the knowledge of how to achieve this on their own, which requires some guidance and assistance. It is also recognized that students
arrive at university with different experiential backgrounds and learning achievements, but we know that they have few autonomous
dispositions which higher education requires in learning. As a consequence of this existing situation, learner autonomy is a
prerequisite to higher education. Holec (2) underlines the importance of autonomy by mentioning "insist on the need to develop the
individual's freedom by developing those abilities which will enable him to act more responsibly in running the affairs of the society
in which he lives." As well as Holec, many educators in history attached great importance to the necessity of autonomy in education.
It is by all odds that the concept of “autonomy” has been given an increasing attention because of the way it can promote a situation
where the learners’ ability to learn is improved (3). Therefore, learning how to learn has become a very crucial component that
educators have to take into account in order to keep up with the conditions of the changing world.
While glancing at the pertinent literature on autonomy, one can easily recognize a lot of studies promoting learner autonomy in EFL
settings. Although there are numerous autonomy studies (4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11) conducted in Turkey, one may possibly come across
no experimental studies to develop autonomy in the foreign language classrooms.
In view of the necessity of learner autonomy in foreign language classrooms, the aim of this study is to foster autonomy of EFL
learners by encouraging them to take the responsibility for their own learning within the factors such as teacher and learner roles,
classroom setting, activities, syllabus, and materials.
2. Method
Forty learners, twenty of whom were in the experimental and twenty of whom were in the control group, were chosen as the subjects
of this study. While all the students in the experimental group belonged to the same age category ranging from 18 to 23, the students
in the control group were between from 18 to 26 years old. The majority of the learners graduated from Anatolian High School both
in the experimental and control groups. The learners were studying at various faculties of Gazi University, and many of whom had
prep-class experience.
Data was collected by means of a three-part questionnaire. The first part of the questionnaire was about the general information
regarding the participants. As for the second part, the researcher developed it by focusing on the aspects mentioned in Camileri’s (12)
questionnaire. The original questionnaire is made up of 13 questions concerning learner autonomy, but the researcher developed a
new questionnaire with 15 statements. The relevant questions “How much are you involved in decisions on the methodology of the
course?” and “How much are you encouraged to find out learning strategies by yourself?” were to investigate whether the principles
of autonomy were carried out in the actual classroom. The third part of the questionnaire was developed by Demirel (13). Some
statements were removed and it was compiled by the researcher.
The statements such as “I can learn English grammar on my own/without a teacher” and “If I can not learn English in the classroom, I
can work on my own.” were based on the key components of autonomy. Both questionnaires were designed in form of likert-type
scale, and responses range from ‘1’= “I totally disagree” to ‘5’= “I strongly agree”.
The degree of autonomy was measured via learner autonomy questionnaire before the experimental treatment. Both experimental and
control group had the same education with the same teacher and for the same amount of time. With the experimental group, the
lessons were carried out through the principles of autonomy and activities while the lessons of the control group were conducted via
ordinary teaching methods. During this period, some significant adjustments were carried out in the actual classroom atmosphere of
the experimental group such as the teacher roles, materials, activities, projects, journals, learner logs, learner contract and portfolios.
This implementation process took 12 weeks. The same questionnaire was administered to both the control and experimental groups
following the experimental treatment so as to reveal whether any change would exist between the control and the experimental
groups. The data was analyzed by using the Statistical Program for Windows version 12.0. The total scores were compared by Mann
Whitney U test to find out the difference between the experimental and the control groups in the pre-test. Apart from the Mann
Whitney U test, independent sample t-test, paired-sample t-test and student t-test were utilized to identify whether the experimental
group displayed a tendency towards autonomy.
3. Findings and Interpretation
The Cronbach’s alpha values of the data gathered from the second part of the questionnaire developed by the researcher were
calculated to find out their reliabilities. As a consequence of the calculation, it was revealed that the second part had a high reliability.
The Cronbach’s alpha value of this questionnaire was 0, 88. As to the third part developed by Demirel (13), even though reliability
and validity of this questionnaire had been previously assessed, its reliability was calculated, and the Cronbach’s alpha value was 0,
87, which pointed out that both instruments used in this study were found to have relatively high reliability.
Table 1. The Relation between the Experimental Group in the Post-test in Terms of Previous Preparatory School Attendance
post-test second part post-test third part Mann Whitney U 31,5 30,5 Wilcoxon W 167,5 40,5 Z -0,047 -0,142 P 0,962* 0,887*
*p>0, 05
When the relation between the experimental group and the previous preparatory school attendance is examined, we can state that there
is no meaningful difference both in the second part (p=0,962>0, 05 Mann-Whitney U test) and the third part (p=0,887>0, 05 Mann-
Whitney U test). At the beginning of the study, it was assumed that there would be a relation between the degree of autonomy and the
previous preparatory school attendance as it is widely accepted that the learners with a long history of language learning may display
more autonomy than those with shorter one. However, when the calculation was made, it was observed that it was not the case. The
reason for this finding may be that the learners who had English Prep School attendance previously may not have been instructed in a
way which encourages but hinders autonomy. Table 2. The Relation between the Experimental and Control Group for the
Second Part in the Pre-test second part third part Mann Whitney U 207 1,118 P 000,,,999333777*** 000,,,222777000***
*p>0, 05
As Table 2 displays, the experimental and control group had no difference in terms of how much autonomy they had before the
treatment. It concludes that both groups had the same degree of autonomy when the experimental treatment commenced, which made
the study more meaningful. Table 3. The Relation between the Pre and Post-test in the Control Group Control Group Pair 1
second part -,271 0,789* Pair 2 third part ,859 0,400* *p>0, 05
Table 3 illustrates the results of the control group after three months (p=0,789>0, 05 independent sample t-test) for the second and
third part (p=0,400>0, 05 independent sample t-test). As indicated in the table, the control group who had not been taught through the
autonomy implementation did not undergo much change within three months. The reason why there was no change between the pre
and post-test in terms of control group may be accounted for the importance of the experimental treatment.
Table 4. The Relation between the Experimental and the Control Group in terms of the Post-test Group t p Experimental second
part -7,847 0,001* third part -5,366 0,001* *p<0, 05
As Table 4 shows, a meaningful difference exists between the experimental and the control groups in terms of the post-test, which
signifies that the degree of autonomy in the experimental group was higher than that of autonomy in the control group. This, thus,
concludes that the treatment provided for the experimental group increased the total score and the learners in the experimental group
became more autonomous than those in the control group.
4. Discussion and Result
The experimental group showed significant differences in the mean values of both second and third part through the paired samples t-
tests’ findings. The development of learner autonomy can easily be seen when the pre and post test are statistically compared to one
another. The results compare favorably with the findings of the control group as control group does not display significant differences
in the pre and post-test regarding the promotion of autonomy.
Comparing our results with the results of the study carried out by Lee (14) whose aim was also to promote learner autonomy, we can
state that the experimental treatment did not work efficiently as the period was much shorter than the present study. Unlike the study
of Lee, this study took more than eight weeks, which is more appropriate in the literature. According to the conclusion drawn by Lee,
creating a self-directed learning programme does not in itself enable learners to become self-directed. However, in the present study,
not only a self-directed learning programme was created but also the activities were made during the implementation phase, which
may have helped the learners in the experimental group display more autonomy.
Although the subjects do not share the same features with those in the study carried out by Egel (6), we can compare the results of her
study with the present study. In her study, the subjects were young learners studying at primary school, grades 4 and 5.
Also, the implementation of European Language Portfolio (ELP) was carried out to the experimental group to promote learner
autonomy. As we can conclude from the results of the study, it is stated that the promotion of autonomy has been achieved through
ELP implementation. The present study took twelve weeks to finish, and at the end of the treatment, we can come to a conclusion that
the learners in the experimental group have become more autonomous than the control group. Consequently, the results of the present
study are in harmony with those of Egel’s research. Cotteral (15) identified six important variables in the promotion of learner
autonomy. They are the role of the teacher, the role of feedback, the learners’ sense of self-efficacy, important strategies, dimensions
of strategy-related behavior and the nature of language learning. Some similar factors which may have had an effective impact on the
promotion of autonomy during the implementation stage should be discussed comprehensively.
4.1. Teacher’s counseling integration in a more systematic way
The majority of students are still being taught in ways which promote dependence and leave them ill-equipped to apply their school-
learnt knowledge and skills to the world beyond the classroom (16). From this view, it would be easy to conclude that it is the teacher
who plays the central role to make the learners become more autonomous in the foreign language classrooms. In order for self-access
language learning to be successful, teachers must prepare their students to accept more responsibility for their learning than they may
be accustomed to (17). According to Lee (14), if, as teachers, we are to succeed in promoting learner autonomy, we need to
understand and consider how our learners perceive autonomous learning and their responsibilities in learning. Therefore, it is very
important for the teachers to become aware of their own and their learners’ beliefs and attitudes when they are attempting to promote
learner autonomy.
At this point, the teacher’s role greatly altered with regard to quite a few aspects for the period of the autonomy implementation in the
experimental group. Above all, the teacher attempted to create an atmosphere in which the learners could feel more responsible for
their own learning instead of doing her job in a very traditional manner. The teacher paid more attention to the learners’ needs and
interests. While the classroom rules were formulated, the learners’ ideas were taken into consideration a lot.
Moreover, the learners were involved in decisions on the methodology of the course.
4.2. Portfolios, Learning Logs, Journals, Learner Contract
Portfolio, described as a purposeful collection of a student’s work that provides evidence of the student’s skills, understandings or
attitudes, can provide information about students’ views of their own learning and the strategies they apply (18). Moreover, learners
use their portfolios to collect evidence of their achievements over a period of time and thus present for assessment what they consider
to be the best picture of their abilities (17). What’s more, portfolios may promote student involvement in assessment, responsibility
for selfassessment and for their own learning. In order to benefit from the portfolios in this aspect, the teacher, at the beginning of the
semester, asked their learners to keep portfolios in which the learners would put their writing assignments, exercises, the songs they
listened to, and the poems they tried to translate. Thus, the portfolios which enabled the learners to keep their progress by collecting
what they produced were crucial in promoting learner autonomy since they had the opportunity to assess themselves.
Learning logs are the structured student journals because learning logs include prompts that the student has to complete and the
learner is directed towards critical thinking about his learning process (6). Learners themselves can use their learning logs for self-
assessment, to monitor their progress towards achieving their personal goals or the objectives of other content areas, and to identify
areas of linguistic or non-linguistic difficulty through learner logs (18). These reflective skills, which the learners use while keeping a
learning log, will aid the students’ development of learner autonomy, which helped them to be aware of their learning goals and
improvement. Harmer (19) suggests that many teachers ask students to keep journals or diaries of their learning experiences, in the
hope that their students will then reflect on their lessons, explore their successes and difficulties, and come to a greater understanding
about learning and language. By keeping a written account of their work and their reflection on it, learners gain deeper insights into
their learning processes (17). The study performed in Scandinavia revealed that journals enabled the learners to keep an individual
record of the learning undertaken and assessed how well or badly particular tasks were done, and thanks the journals and more, they
became more autonomous than they were (20). Likewise, journals played a great role in promoting learner autonomy in the
experimental group for the reasons mentioned above.
Learner contract is widely accepted as an important tool in fostering autonomy since learning contracts provide a vehicle for making
the planning of learning experiences a mutual undertaking between a learner and any helper, mentor, or teacher (21). They are
effective in assisting adults in understanding their learning interests, planning learning activities, identifying relevant resources, and
becoming skilled at self-assessment (22). In short, the learners who have no clear idea or objective about learning should be provided
with the learner contract leading them to the correct path. For that reason, an agreement between the teacher and learners was made so
that the learners could recognize their responsibilities very well before the treatment in the experimental group.
4.3. Activities
It is a common belief that what has been stated above may not be adequate for the learners in the experimental group to become more
autonomous than the control group.
In order to achieve that more effectively, some activities designed to foster autonomy with a focus on several aspects were
implemented in the classroom in order that the learners would be encouraged to take their responsibility for their own learning. The
activities carried out in the actual classroom were about the motivation, learner strategies, self-awareness and self-monitoring.
Whereas some were adapted from the earlier products (23, 24), others were created by the researcher himself. It would be possible to
state that the activities did work a lot to promote autonomy in the actual classrooms thanks to the aspects mentioned above.
As an inevitable consequence of what has been mentioned so far, autonomy should be developed at universities for the learners who
have just commenced their academic education since it will lead them to become competent enough to take the responsibility for their
own learning. Learners need metacognitive skills such as power of reflection, decision-making and independent action since learners
are required to take responsibility and find their own methods of gathering, synthesizing and evaluating information called high-order
thinking skills at university. It is an indispensable prerequisite at universities since the learners, when they have become university
students, do not have lots of study skills which will help them in their future career.
Through the autonomy implementation, this situation could be improved so that they might not face any difficulty in doing their
academic career. While we are aiming to foster autonomy at universities, several key points are to be considered.
a) Syllabuses and assessment models of the universities should be redesigned in accordance with the principles of autonomy.
b) The course books to be followed at universities are required to be assessed on the basis of the criterion it encourages.
c) Some in-service training on learner autonomy should be put into practice.
d) Self-access rooms should be developed in order that the learners may have the opportunity to study there on their own far more
effectively.
References
1. Knowles, M. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: from pedagogy to
andragogy. Chicago: Follet.
2. Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy in Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
3. Holden, B. and Usuki, M. (1999). Learner Autonomy in Language Learning: A
Preliminary Investigation. Bulletin of Hokuriku University. 23(2). 191-203
4. Kucuroğlu, Ç. (1997). The Effects of Direct Formative Testing on Learner
Performance and the Development of Learner Autonomy. Unpublished Master’s
thesis. METU, Ankara..
5. Sancar, I. (2001). Learner Autonomy: A Profile of Teacher Trainees in Pre-service
Teacher Education. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Uludağ University, Bursa.
284 Cem BALÇIKANLI
Mart 2008 Cilt:16 No:1 Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi
6. Egel, İ. P. (2003). The Impact of the European Language Portfolio on the Learner
Autonomy of Turkish Primary School Students. Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation. Anadolu University, Eskişehir.
7. Koçak, A. (2003). A Study on Learners’ Readiness for Autonomous Learning of
English as a Foreign Language. Unpublished Master’s thesis, METU, Ankara.
8. Tayar, A. B. (2003). A Survey on Learner Autonomy and Motivation in ESP in a
Turkish context. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Uludağ University, Bursa.
9. Yıldırım, Ö. (2005). ELT Student's Perceptions and Behavior Related to Learner
Autonomy as Learners and Future Teachers. Unpublished Master’s Thesis,
Anadolu University, Eskişehir.
10. Şahin, İ. (2005). The Role of Metacognitive Strategies in Promoting Learner
Autonomy: A Case Study at the ELT Department. Unpublished Master’s Thesis.
Gazi University, Ankara.
11. Özdere, M. (2005). State-supported Provincial University English Language
Instructors’ Attitudes towards Learner Autonomy. Unpublished Master’s thesis.
Bilkent University, Ankara.
12. Camilleri, G. (1997). Learner Autonomy: The Teachers’ View. ww.ecml.at/
documents/pubCamilleriG_E.. (2005, August 23,)
13. Demirel, Ö. (2002). Yabancı Dlde Öğrenen Özerkliği. Milli Eğitim Dergisi. 155-
156, 76-88.
14. Lee, I. (1998). Supporting Greater Autonomy in Language Learning.
http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/52/4/282. (2006, June 21)
15. Cotteral, S. (1999). Key variables in language learning: What do learners believe
about them? System, 2(4), 493-513.
16. McGarry, D. (1995). Learner Autonomy 4: The Role of Authentic Texts. Dublin:
Authentik.
17. Gardner, D and Miller, L. (1999). Establishing Self-Access: from theory to
practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18. Genesee, F. and Upshur, J. A. (1996). Classroom-Based Evaluation in Second
Language Education. UK: Cambridge University Press.
19. Harmer, J. (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching. (3rd Edition).
China: Pearson Education Limited.
20. Little, D. (1990). Autonomy in Language Learning. Autonomy in Language
Learning. I. Gathercole (Ed), (7-15). London: CILT.
21. Hiemstra, R. (1994). Self-directed Learning. The International Encyclopedia of
Education (2nd edition). T. Husen and T. N. Postlethwaite (eds.). Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
22. Wlodkowski, R. J. (1999). Enhancing Adult Motivation to Learn. Jossey-Bass
Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
23. Scharle, A. and Szabo, A. (2000). Learner Autonomy: A Guide to Developing
Learner Responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. Kavaliauskienë, G. (2002). Three activities to promote learner autonomy.
http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Kavaliauskiene-Autonomy.html (2006, August 10)
What is Learner Autonomy and How Can It Be Fostered?
1. Introduction
Over the last two decades, the concepts of learner autonomy and independence have gained momentum, the former becoming a 'buzz-
word' within the context of language learning (Little, 1991: 2). It is a truism that one of the most important spin-offs of more
communicatively oriented language learning and teaching has been the premium placed on the role of the learner in the language
learning process (see Wenden, 1998: xi). It goes without saying, of course, that this shift of responsibility from teachers to learners
does not exist in a vacuum, but is the result of a concatenation of changes to the curriculum itself towards a more learner-centred kind
of learning. What is more, this reshaping, so to speak, of teacher and learner roles has been conducive to a radical change in the age-
old distribution of power and authority that used to plague the traditional classroom. Cast in a new perspective and regarded as having
the 'capacity for detachment, critical reflection, decision-making, and independent action' (Little, 1991: 4), learners, autonomous
learners, that is, are expected to assume greater responsibility for, and take charge of, their own learning. However, learner autonomy
does not mean that the teacher becomes redundant, abdicating his/her control over what is transpiring in the language learning
process. In the present study, it will be shown that learner autonomy is a perennial dynamic process amenable to 'educational
interventions' (Candy, 1991), rather than a static product, a state, which is reached once and for all. Besides, what permeates this study
is the belief that 'in order to help learners to assume greater control over their own learning it is important to help them to become
aware of and identify the strategies that they already use or could potentially use' (Holmes & Ramos, 1991, cited in James & Garrett,
1991: 198). At any rate, individual learners differ in their learning habits, interests, needs, and motivation, and develop varying
degrees of independence throughout their lives (Tumposky, 1982).
2. What is Autonomy?
For a definition of autonomy, we might quote Holec (1981: 3, cited in Benson & Voller, 1997: 1) who describes it as 'the ability to
take charge of one's learning'. On a general note, the term autonomy has come to be used in at least five ways (see Benson & Voller,
1997: 2):
• for situations in which learners study entirely on their own;
• for a set of skills which can be learned and applied in self-directed learning;
• for an inborn capacity which is suppressed by institutional education;
• for the exercise of learners' responsibility for their own learning;
• for the right of learners to determine the direction of their own learning.
It is noteworthy that autonomy can be thought of in terms of a departure from education as a social process, as well as in terms of
redistribution of power attending the construction of knowledge and the roles of the participants in the learning process. The relevant
literature is riddled with innumerable definitions of autonomy and other synonyms for it, such as 'independence' (Sheerin, 1991),
'language awareness' (Lier, 1996;James & Garrett, 1991), 'self-direction' (Candy, 1991), 'andragogy' (Knowles, 1980; 1983 etc., which
testifies to the importance attached to it by scholars. Let us review some of these definitions and try to gain insights into what learner
autonomy means and consists of. As has been intimated so far, the term autonomy has sparked considerable controversy, inasmuch as
linguists and educationalists have failed to reach a consensus as to what autonomy really is. For example, in David Little's terms,
learner autonomy is 'essentially a matter of the learner's psychological relation to the process and content of learning--a capacity for
detachment, critical reflection, decision-making, and independent action' (Little, 1991: 4). It is not something done to learners;
therefore, it is far from being another teaching method (ibid.). In the same vein, Leni Dam (1990, cited in Gathercole, 1990: 16),
drawing upon Holec (1983), defines autonomy in terms of the learner's willingness and capacity to control or oversee her own
learning. More specifically, she, like Holec, holds that someone qualifies as an autonomous learner when he independently chooses
aims and purposes and sets goals; chooses materials, methods and tasks; exercises choice and purpose in organising and carrying out
the chosen tasks; and chooses criteria for evaluation.
To all intents and purposes, the autonomous learner takes a (pro-) active role in the learning process, generating ideas and availing
himself of learning opportunities, rather than simply reacting to various stimuli of the teacher (Boud, 1988; Kohonen, 1992; Knowles,
1975). As we shall see, this line of reasoning operates within, and is congruent with, the theory of constructivism. For Rathbone
(1971: 100, 104, cited in Candy, 1991: 271), the autonomous learner is a self-activated maker of meaning, an active agent in his own
learning process. He is not one to whom things merely happen; he is the one who, by his own volition, causes things to happen.
Learning is seen as the result of his own self-initiated interaction with the world.
Within such a conception, learning is not simply a matter of rote memorisation; 'it is a constructive process that involves actively
seeking meaning from (or even imposing meaning on) events' (Candy, 1991: 271).
Such "inventories" of characteristics evinced by the putative autonomous learner abound, and some would say that they amount to
nothing more than a romantic ideal which does not square with reality. This stands to reason, for most of the characteristics imputed
to the "autonomous learner" encapsulate a wide range of attributes not commonly associated with learners. For instance, Benn (1976,
cited in Candy, 1991: 102) likens the autonomous learner to one '[w]hose life has a consistency that derives from a coherent set of
beliefs, values, and principles--[and who engages in a] still-continuing process of criticism and re-evaluation', while Rousseau ([1762]
1911, cited in Candy, 1991: 102) regards the autonomous learner as someone who 'is obedient to a law that he prescribes to himself'.
Within the context of education, though, there seem to be seven main attributes characterising autonomous learners (see Omaggio,
1978, cited in Wenden, 1998: 41-42):
1. Autonomous learners have insights into their learning styles and strategies;
2. take an active approach to the learning task at hand;
3. are willing to take risks, i.e., to communicate in the target language at all costs;
4. are good guessers;
5. attend to form as well as to content, that is, place importance on accuracy as well as appropriacy;
6. develop the target language into a separate reference system and are willing to revise and reject hypotheses and rules that do
not apply; and
7. have a tolerant and outgoing approach to the target language.
Here, some comments with respect to the preceding list are called for. The points briefly touched upon above are necessary but not
sufficient conditions for the development of learner autonomy, and many more factors such as learner needs, motivation, learning
strategies, and language awareness have to be taken into consideration. For example, the first point hinges upon a metalanguage that
learners have to master in order to be regarded as autonomous, while points 4) and 7) pertain to learner motivation. In view of this, an
attempt will be made, in subsequent sections, to shed some light on some of the parameters affecting, and interfering with, learners'
self-image as well as their capacity and will to learn. It is of consequence to note that autonomy is a process, not a product. One does
not become autonomous; one only works towards autonomy. One corollary of viewing autonomy in this way is the belief that there
are some things to be achieved by the learner, as well as some ways of achieving these things, and that autonomy 'is learned at least
partly through educational experiences [and interventions]' (Candy, 1991: 115). But prior to sifting through the literature and
discussing learning strategies, motivation, and attitudes entertained by learners, it would be pertinent to cast learner autonomy in
relation to dominant philosophical approaches to learning. The assumption is that what is dubbed as learner autonomy and the extent
to which it is a permissible and viable educational goal are all too often 'based on [and thus constrained by] particular conceptions of
the constitution of knowledge itself' (Benson, 1997, cited in Benson & Voller, 1997: 20).
3. Learner Autonomy and Dominant Philosophies of Learning
In this section, three dominant approaches to knowledge and learning will be briefly discussed, with a view to examining how each of
them connects up with learner autonomy. Positivism, which reigned supreme in the twentieth century, is premised upon the
assumption that knowledge reflects objective reality. Therefore, if teachers can be said to hold this "objective reality," learning can
only 'consist--in the transmission of knowledge from one individual to another' (Benson & Voller, 1997: 20). Congruent with this
view, of course, is the maintenance and enhancement of the "traditional classroom," where teachers are the purveyors of knowledge
and wielders of power, and learners are seen as 'container[s] to be filled with the knowledge held by teachers' (ibid.). On the other
hand, positivism also lends support to the widespread notion that knowledge is attained by dint of the 'hypothesis-testing' model, and
that it is more effectively acquired when 'it isdiscovered rather than taught' (ibid.) (my italics). It takes little perspicacity to realise that
positivism is incongruent with, and even runs counter to, the development of learner autonomy, as the latter refers to a gradual but
radical divorce from conventions and restrictions and is inextricably related to self-direction and self-evaluation.
Constructivism is an elusive concept and, within applied linguistics, is strongly associated with Halliday (1979, cited in Benson &
Voller, 1997: 21). As Candy (1991: 254) observes, '[o]ne of the central tenets of constructivism is that individuals try to give meaning
to, or construe, the perplexing maelstrom of events and ideas in which they find themselves caught up'. In contrast to positivism,
constructivism posits the view that, rather than internalising or discovering objective knowledge (whatever that might mean),
individuals reorganise and restructure their experience. In Candy's terms (Candy, 1991: 270), constructivism 'leads directly to the
proposition that knowledge cannot be taught but only learned (that is, constructed)', because knowledge is something 'built up by the
learner' (von Glasersfeld & Smock, 1974: xvi, cited in Candy, 1991: 270). By the same token, language learning does not involve
internalising sets of rules, structures and forms; each learner brings her own experience and world knowledge to bear on the target
language or task at hand. Apparently, constructivism supports, and extends to cover, psychological versions of autonomy that
appertain to learners' behaviour, attitudes, motivation, and self-concept (see Benson & Voller, 1997: 23). As a result, constructivist
approaches encourage and promote self-directed learning as a necessary condition for learner autonomy.
Finally, critical theory, an approach within the humanities and language studies, shares with constructivism the view that knowledge
is constructed rather than discovered or learned. Moreover, it argues that knowledge does not reflect reality, but rather comprises
'competing ideological versions of that reality expressing the interests of different social groups' (Benson & Voller, 1997: 22). Within
this approach, learning concerns issues of power and ideology and is seen as a process of interaction with social context, which can
bring about social change. What is more, linguistic forms are bound up with the social meanings they convey, in so far as language is
power, and vice versa. Certainly, learner autonomy assumes a more social and political character within critical theory. As learners
become aware of the social context in which their learning is embedded and the constraints the latter implies, they gradually become
independent, dispel myths, disabuse themselves of preconceived ideas, and can be thought of as 'authors of their own worlds' (ibid.:
53).
4. Conditions for Learner Autonomy
The concern of the present study has so far been with outlining the general characteristics of autonomy. At this juncture, it should be
reiterated that autonomy is not an article of faith, a product ready made for use or merely a personal quality or trait. Rather, it should
be clarified that autonomous learning is achieved when certain conditions obtain: cognitive and metacognitive strategies on the part of
the learner, motivation, attitudes, and knowledge about language learning, i.e., a kind of metalanguage. To acknowledge, however,
that learners have to follow certain paths to attain autonomy is tantamount to asserting that there has to be a teacher on whom it will
be incumbent to show the way. In other words, autonomous learning is by no means "teacherless learning." As Sheerin (1997, cited in
Benson & Voller, 1997: 63) succinctly puts it, '[t]eachers--have a crucial role to play in launching learners into self-access and in
lending them a regular helping hand tostay afloat' (my italics).
Probably, giving students a "helping hand" may put paid to learner autonomy, and this is mainly because teachers are ill-prepared or
reluctant to 'wean [students]--away from teacher dependence' (Sheerin, 1997, cited in Benson & Voller, 1997: 63). After all, 'it is not
easy for teachers to change their role from purveyor of information to counsellor and manager of learning resources--And it is not
easy for teachers to let learners solve problems for themselves' (Little, 1990, cited in Gathercole, 1990: 11). Such a transition from
teacher-control to learner-control is fraught with difficulties but it is mainly in relation to the former (no matter how unpalatable this
may sound) that the latter finds its expression. At any rate, learner-control--which is ancillary to autonomy--'is not a single, unitary
concept, but rather a continuum along which various instructional situations may be placed' (Candy, 1991: 205). It is to these
'instructional situations' that we will turn in the next section. In this section, it is of utmost importance to gain insights into the
strategies learners use in grappling with the object of enquiry, i.e., the target language, as well as their motivation and attitude towards
language learning in general. A question germane to the discussion is, what does it mean to be an autonomous learner in a language
learning environment?
4.1. Learning Strategies
A central research project on learning strategies is the one surveyed in O'Malley and Chamot (1990). According to them, learning
strategies are 'the special thoughts or behaviors that individuals use to help them comprehend, learn, or retain new information'
(O'Malley and Chamot, 1990: 1, cited in Cook, 1993: 113)--a definition in keeping with the one provided in Wenden (1998: 18):
'Learning strategies are mental steps or operations that learners use to learn a new language and to regulate their efforts to do so'. To a
greater or lesser degree, the strategies and learning styles that someone adopts 'may partly reflect personal preference rather than
innate endowment' (Skehan, 1998: 237). We will only briefly discuss some of the main learning strategies, refraining from mentioning
communication or compensatory strategies (see Cook, 1993 for more details).
4.1.1. Cognitive Strategies
According to O'Malley and Chamot (1990: 44), cognitive strategies 'operate directly on incoming information, manipulating it in
ways that enhance learning'. Learners may use any or all of the following cognitive strategies (see Cook, 1993: 114-115):
• repetition, when imitating others' speech;
• resourcing, i.e., having recourse to dictionaries and other materials;
• translation, that is, using their mother tongue as a basis for understanding and/or producing the target language;
• note-taking;
• deduction, i.e., conscious application of L2 rules;
• contextualisation, when embedding a word or phrase in a meaningful sequence;
• transfer, that is, using knowledge acquired in the L1 to remember and understand facts and sequences in the L2;
• inferencing, when matching an unfamiliar word against available information (a new word etc);
• question for clarification, when asking the teacher to explain, etc.
There are many more cognitive strategies in the relevant literature. O'Malley and Chamot (1990) recognise 16.
4.1.2. Metacognitive Strategies
According to Wenden (1998: 34), 'metacognitive knowledge includes all facts learners acquire about their own cognitive processes as
they are applied and used to gain knowledge and acquire skills in varied situations'. In a sense, metacognitive strategies are skills used
for planning, monitoring, and evaluating the learning activity; 'they are strategies about learning rather than learning strategies
themselves' (Cook, 1993: 114). Let us see some of these strategies:
• directed attention, when deciding in advance to concentrate on general aspects of a task;
• selective attention, paying attention to specific aspects of a task;
• self-monitoring, i.e., checking one's performance as one speaks;
• self-evaluation, i.e., appraising one's performance in relation to one's own standards;
• self-reinforcement, rewarding oneself for success.
At the planning stage, also known as pre-planning (see Wenden, 1998: 27), learners identify their objectives and determine how they
will achieve them. Planning, however, may also go on while a task is being performed. This is called planning-in-action. Here,
learners may change their objectives and reconsider the ways in which they will go about achieving them. At the monitoring stage,
language learners act as 'participant observers or overseers of their language learning' (ibid.), asking themselves, "How am I doing?
Am I having difficulties with this task?", and so on. Finally, when learners evaluate, they do so in terms of the outcome of their
attempt to use a certain strategy. According to Wenden (1998: 28), evaluating involves three steps: 1) learners examine the outcome
of their attempts to learn; 2) they access the criteria they will use to judge it; and 3) they apply it.
4.2. Learner Attitudes and Motivation
Language learning is not merely a cognitive task. Learners do not only reflect on their learning in terms of the language input to
which they are exposed, or the optimal strategies they need in order to achieve the goals they set. Rather, the success of a learning
activity is, to some extent, contingent upon learners' stance towards the world and the learning activity in particular, their sense of self,
and their desire to learn (see Benson & Voller, 1997: 134-136). As Candy (1991: 295-296) says, 'the how and the whatof learning are
intimately interwoven--[T]he overall approach a learner adopts will significantly influence the shape of his or her learning outcomes'
(my italics). In other words, language learning--as well as learning, in general--has also an affective component. 'Meeting and
interiorising the grammar of a foreign language is not simply an intelligent, cognitive act. It is a highly affective one too--'
(Rinvolucri, 1984: 5, cited in James & Garrett, 1991: 13). Gardner and MacIntyre (1993: 1, cited in Graham, 1997: 92) define
'affective variables' as the 'emotionally relevant characteristics of the individual that influence how she/he will respond to any
situation'. Other scholars, such as Shumann (1978) and Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991) attach less importance to learners' emotions,
claiming that 'social and psychological factors' give a more suitable description for students' reactions to the learning process.
Amongst the social and affective variables at work, self-esteem and desire to learn are deemed to be the most crucial factors 'in the
learner's ability to overcome occasional setbacks or minor mistakes in the process of learning a second [or foreign] language' (Tarone
& Yule, 1989: 139). In this light, it is necessary to shed some light on learner attitudes and motivation.
Wenden (1998: 52) defines attitudes as 'learned motivations, valued beliefs, evaluations, what one believes is acceptable, or responses
oriented towards approaching or avoiding'. For her, two kinds of attitudes are crucial: attitudes learners hold about their role in the
learning process, and their capability as learners (ibid.: 53). In a sense, attitudes are a form of metacognitive knowledge. At any rate,
'learner beliefs about their role and capability as learners will be shaped and maintained--by other beliefs they hold about themselves
as learners' (ibid.: 54). For example, if learners believe that certain personality types cannot learn a foreign language and they believe
that they are that type of person, then they will think that they are fighting a "losing battle," as far as learning the foreign language is
concerned. Furthermore, if learners labour under the misconception that learning is successful only within the context of the
"traditional classroom," where the teacher directs, instructs, and manages the learning activity, and students must follow in the
teacher's footsteps, they are likely to be impervious or resistant to learner-centred strategies aiming at autonomy, and success is likely
to be undermined.
In a way, attitudes are 'part of one's perception of self, of others, and of the culture in which one is living [or the culture of the target
language]' (Brown, 1987: 126), and it seems clear that positive attitudes are conducive to increased motivation, while negative
attitudes have the opposite effect. But let us examine the role of motivation.
Although the term 'motivation' is frequently used in educational contexts, there is little agreement among experts as to its exact
meaning. What most scholars seem to agree on, though, is that motivation is 'one of the key factors that influence the rate and success
of second or foreign language (L2) learning. Motivation provides the primary impetus to initiate learning the L2 and later the driving
force to sustain the long and often tedious learning process' (Dornyei, 1998: 117). According to Gardner and MacIntyre (1993: 3),
motivation is comprised of three components: 'desire to achieve a goal, effort extended in this direction, and satisfaction with the task'.
It is manifest that in language learning, people are motivated in different ways and to different degrees. Some learners like doing
grammar and memorising; others want to speak and role-play; others prefer reading and writing, while avoiding speaking.
Furthermore, since '[the learning of a foreign language] involves an alteration in self-image, the adoption of new social and cultural
behaviours and ways of being, and therefore has a significant impact on the social nature of the learner' (Williams, 1994: 77, cited in
Dornyei, 1998:122), an important distinction should be made between instrumental and integrative motivation. Learners with an
instrumental orientation view the foreign language as a means of finding a good job or pursuing a lucrative career; in other words, the
target language acts as a 'monetary incentive' (Gardner & MacIntyre, 1993: 3). On the other hand, learners with an integrative
orientation are interested in the culture of the target language; they want to acquaint themselves with the target community and
become integral parts of it. Of course, this approach to motivation has certain limitations (see Cookes and Schmidt, 1991, cited in
Lier, 1996: 104-105), but an in-depth analysis is not within the purview of this study. The bottom line is that motivation is 'a central
mediator in the prediction of language achievement' (Gardner & MacIntyre, 1993: 3), as various studies have shown (see Kraemer,
1990; Machnick and Wolfe, 1982; et al.).
4.3. Self-esteem
Closely related to attitudes and motivation is the concept of self-esteem, that is, the evaluation the learner makes of herself with regard
to the target language or learning in general. '[S]elf-esteem is a personal judgement of worthiness that is expressed in the attitudes that
the individual holds towards himself' (Coopersmith, 1967: 4-5, cited in Brown, 1987: 101-102). If the learner has a 'robust sense of
self', to quote Breen and Mann (1997, cited in Benson & Voller, 1997: 134), his relationship to himself as a learner is unlikely to be
marred by any negative assessments by the teacher. Conversely, a lack of self-esteem is likely to lead to negative attitudes towards his
capability as a learner, and to 'a deterioration in cognitive performance', thus confirming his view of himself as incapable of learning
(Diener and Dweck, 1978, 1980, cited in Wenden, 1998: 57).
Now that we have examined some of the factors that may enhance, or even militate against, the learner's willingness to take charge of
her own learning and her confidence in her ability as a learner, it is of consequence to consider possible ways of promoting learner
autonomy. To say, though, that learner autonomy can be fostered is not to reduce it to a set of skills that need to be acquired. Rather, it
is taken to mean that the teacher and the learner can work towards autonomy by creating a friendly atmosphere characterised by 'low
threat, unconditional positive regard, honest and open feedback, respect for the ideas and opinions of others, approval of self-
improvement as a goal, collaboration rather than competition' (Candy, 1991: 337). In the next section, some general guidelines for
promoting learner autonomy will be given, on the assumption that the latter does not mean leaving learners to their own devices or
learning in isolation.
5. How Can Learner Autonomy be Promoted?
To posit ways of fostering learner autonomy is certainly to posit ways of fostering teacher autonomy, as '[t]eachers' autonomy
permeates into [learners'] autonomy' (Johnson, Pardesi and Paine, 1990, cited in Gathercole, 1990: 51). Nevertheless, our main focus
will be on what the learner can do in order to attain a considerable degree of autonomy, even though the success of the learner is, to a
great extent, determined--alas! vitiated--by the educational system and the requisite role of the teacher.
5.1. Self-reports
According to Wenden (1998: 79-95), a good way of collecting information on how students go about a learning task and helping them
become aware of their own strategies is to assign a task and have them report what they are thinking while they are performing it. This
self-report is called introspective, as learners are asked to introspect on their learning. In this case, 'the [introspective] self-report is a
verbalization of one's stream of consciousness' (Wenden, 1998: 81). Introspective reports are assumed to provide information on the
strategies learners are using at the time of the report. However, this method suffers from one limitation: '[t]he concentration put on
thinking aloud might detract from [learners'] ability to do the task efficiently' (ibid.: 83), thus rendering the outcome of the report
spurious and tentative.
Another type of self-report is what has been dubbed as retrospective self-report, since learners are asked to think back or retrospect on
their learning. Retrospective self-reports are quite open ended, in that there is no limit put on what students say in response to a
question or statement that points to a topic in a general way. There are two kinds of retrospective self-reports: semi-structured
interviews and structured questionnaires. A semi-structured interview may focus on a specific skill with a view to extracting
information about learners' feelings towards particular skills (reading, listening, etc.), problems encountered, techniques resorted to in
order to tackle these problems, and learners' views on optimal strategies or ways of acquiring specific skills or dealing with learning
tasks. A structured questionnaire seeks the same information but in a different way: by dint of explicit questions and statements, and
then asking learners to agree or disagree, write true or false, and so forth.
It could be argued that self-reports can be a means of raising awareness of learners' strategies and the need for constant evaluation of
techniques, goals, and outcomes. As Wenden (1998: 90) observes, 'without awareness [learners] will remain trapped in their old
patterns of beliefs and behaviors and never be fully autonomous'.
5.2. Diaries and Evaluation Sheets
Perhaps one of the principal goals of education is to alter learners' beliefs about themselves by showing them that their putative
failures or shortcomings can be ascribed to a lack of effective strategies rather than to a lack of potential. After all, according to
Vygotsky (1978), learning is an internalised form of a formerly social activity, and 'a learner can realize [his] potential interactively--
through the guidance of supportive other persons such as parents, teachers, and peers' (Wenden, 1998: 107). Herein lies the role of
diaries and evaluation sheets, which offer students the possibility to plan, monitor, and evaluate their learning, identifying any
problems they run into and suggesting solutions. Let us have a look at the following diaries based on authentic student accounts of
their language learning:
A.
Dear Diary,
These first few days have been terrible. I studied English for eight years•just think, eight years, but I only learned a lot of grammar. I
can't speak a word. I don't dare. I can't express myself in the right way, so I am afraid to speak.
The other day I started watching TV, so I could get accustomed to the sound. I don't understand TV news very well•only a few words.
I can't get the main point. In school it's easy to understand, but I can't understand the people in the stores.
What can I do?
Yours Truly,
Impatient
(from Wenden, 1998: 102)
B.
Dear Diary,
I read the New York Times every day. Every day I learn many new expressions-a lot of vocabulary. But I can't use this vocabulary in
conversation. The same thing happens with what I learn at school. I can't use it when I want to talk to Americans or even with my own
Spanish friends.
I need some help.
Yours Truly,
Confused
(from Wenden, 1998: 102)
Alongside diaries, students can also benefit from putting pen to paper and writing on their expectations of a course at the beginning of
the term, and then filling in evaluation sheets, or reporting on the outcomes of a course, at the end of the term. These activities are
bound to help learners put things into perspective and manage their learning more effectively. Let us consider two such reports:
1.
What do I want to do this year?
"I want to speak more English and I'd like to spell better that I do now. I would like to work with another boy or girl who is willing to
speak English with me and make some activities in English. Materials: Challenge to think and crosswords.
I would like to get a more varied language and I would like to be better at spelling, especially the words used in everyday situations.
How: I will prepare Îtwo minutes' talk' for every lesson, I will write down new words five times and practise pronouncing them. I will
get someone or myself to correct it. I will read at least two books÷difficult ones÷and make book-reviews.ä
(Beginning of term÷4th year of English
[from Dam, 1990, cited in Gathercole,
1990: 30])
2.
What do you feel you know now that you didn't know before?
"I think that we have grown better at planning our own time. We know more about what we need to do and how to go about it. We try
all the time to extend our vocabulary and to get an active language. Evaluation also helped us. It is like going through things again.ä
(End of term÷4th year of English
[from Dam, 1990, cited in Gathercole,
1990: 32])
So far, one of the assumptions underlying this discussion on learner autonomy has been that the teacher has not relinquished his
"authority"; rather, that he has committed himself to providing the learners with the opportunity to experiment, make hypotheses, and
improvise, in their attempt to master the target language and, along with it, to learn how to learn in their own, individual, holistic way
(see Papaconstantinou, 1997). It may be the case that learner autonomy is best achieved when, among other things, the teacher acts as
a facilitator of learning, a counsellor, and as a resource (see Voller, 1997, cited in Benson and Voller, 1997: 99-106). In other words,
when she lies somewhere along a continuum between what Barnes (1976, cited in Benson and Voller, 1997: 99) calls transmission
and interpretation teachers. As Wright (1987: 62, cited in Benson and Voller, 1997: 100) notes, transmission teachers believe in
subject disciplines and boundaries between them, in content, in standards of performance laid down by these disciplines that can be
objectively evaluated--that learners will find it hard to meet the standards; interpretation teachers believe that knowledge is the ability
to organize thought, interpret and act on facts; that learners are intrinsically interested and naturally inclined to explore their worlds--
that learners already know a great deal and have the ability to refashion that knowledge.
The interpretation teacher respects learners' needs and is 'more likely to follow a fraternal-permissive model' (emphasis added)
(Stevick, 1976: 91-93, cited in Benson and Voller, 1997: 100). It is with this type of teacher that the role of persuasive communication
is most congruent.
5.3. Persuasive Communication as a Means of Altering Learner Beliefs and Attitudes
Inasmuch as the success of learning and the extent to which learners tap into their potential resources in order to overcome difficulties
and achieve autonomy are determined by such factors as learners' motivation, their desire to learn, and the beliefs they hold about
themselves as learners and learning per se, it is manifest that changing some negative beliefs and attitudes is bound to facilitate
learning. 'Attitude change [is assumed to] be brought about through exposure to a persuasive communication [between the teacher and
the learners]' (Wenden, 1998: 126). According to the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) of attitude change developed by Petty and
Cacciopo (1986, cited in Wenden, 1998: 126), there are several ways of bringing about this change, however, our concern will only be
with persuasive communication.
A persuasive communication is a discussion presenting information and arguments to change a learner's evaluation of a topic,
situation, task, and so on. These arguments could be either explicit or implicit, especially when the topic is deemed of importance. If,
for instance, a deeply ingrained fear or belief precludes the learner from engaging in the learning process, persuasive communication
purports to help bring these facts to light and identify the causes that underlie them. It should be noted, though, that no arguments to
influence students' views are given. Rather, the communication comprises facts that show what learners can do to attain autonomy and
that learners who do so are successful (see Wenden, 1998: 126). This approach is based on the assumption that when learners are
faced with convincing information about a situation, 'they can be led to re-examine existing evaluations they hold about it and revise
or change them completely' (ibid.: 127).
6. Conclusion
This study is far from comprehensive, as we have only skimmed the surface of the subject and the puzzle called learner autonomy.
Many more pieces are missing. For instance, no mention has been made of the role of the curriculum in promoting learner autonomy,
despite the debate on the relationship between classroom practice and ideological encoding (Littlejohn, 1997, cited in Benson and
Voller, 1997: 181-182). At any rate, the main point of departure for this study has been the notion that there are degrees of learner
autonomy and that it is not an absolute concept. It would be nothing short of ludicrous to assert that learners come into the learning
situation with the knowledge and skills to plan, monitor, and evaluate their learning, or to make decisions on content or objectives.
Nevertheless, learner autonomy is an ideal, so to speak, that can, and should, be realised, if we want self-sufficient learners and
citizens capable of evaluating every single situation they find themselves in and drawing the line at any inconsistencies or
shortcomings in institutions and society at large. Certainly, though, autonomous learning is not akin to "unbridled learning." There has
to be a teacher who will adapt resources, materials, and methods to the learners' needs and even abandon all this if need be. Learner
autonomy consists in becoming aware of, and identifying, one's strategies, needs, and goals as a learner, and having the opportunity to
reconsider and refashion approaches and procedures for optimal learning. But even if learner autonomy is amenable to educational
interventions, it should be recognised that it 'takes a long time to develop, and--simply removing the barriers to a person's ability to
think and behave in certain ways may not allow him or her to break away from old habits or old ways of thinking' (Candy, 1991: 124).
As Holyoake (1892, vol. 1, p. 4) succinctly put it, '[k]nowledge lies everywhere to hand for those who observe and think'.
References
• Barnes, D. 1976. From Communication to Curriculum. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
• Benn, S. I. 1976. 'Freedom, Autonomy and the Concept of the Person'. In Aristotelian Society Proceedings, new series, pp.
109-130.
• Benson, P. & Voller, P. 1997. Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning. London: Longman.
• Boud, D. (ed.). 1988. Developing Student Autonomy in Learning. New York: Kogan Press.
• Brown, H. D. 1987. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Englewood Cliffs, JC: Prentice Hall.
• Candy, 1991. Self-direction for Lifelong Learning. California: Jossey-Bass.
• Cook, V. 1993. Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. London: Macmillan.
• Coopersmith, S. 1967. The Antecedents of Self-Esteem. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Company.
• Crookes, G. & Schmidt, R. 1991. Motivation: Reopening the research agenda. Language Learning. 41: 469-512.
• Dam, L. 1990. Learner Autonomy in Practice. In Gathercole, I. (ed.). 1990, p. 16. CILT. Great Britain: Bourne Press.
• Dornyei, Z. 1998. Motivation in Second and Foreign Language Learning. CILT: CUP.
• Gardner, R. C. and MacIntyre, P. D. 1993. A Student's Contributions to Second-language Learning. Part II: Affective
variables. Language Teaching 26, 1-11.
• Graham, S. 1997. Effective Language Learning. Great Britain: WBC.
• Halliday, M.A.K. 1979. Language as Social Semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.
• Holec, H. 1981. Autonomy in Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: OUP.
• Holmes, J. L. and Ramos, R. 1991. Talking about learning: establishing a framework for discussing and changing learning
processes. In James, C. and Garrett, P. (eds.). Language Awareness in the Classroom. 1991: 198-212).
• Holyoake, J. 1892. Sixty Years of An Agitator's Life. (2 vols.). London: Unwin.
• Johnson, Pardesi, and Paine. 1990. Autonomy in Our Primary School. In Gathercole, I. 1990. Autonomy in Language
Learning. CILT: Bourne Press.
• Knowles, M. S. 1975. Self-directed Learning. New York: Association Press.
• Knowles, M. S. 1980. The Modern Practice of Adult Education: From Pedagogy to Andragogy. Chicago: Follett.
• Knowles, M. S. 1983a. 'Andragogy: An Emerging Technology for Adult Learning. In M. Tight (ed.), Adult Learning and
Education. London: Croom Helm.
• Kohonen, V. 1992. Experiential language learning: second language learning as cooperative learner education. In Nunan, D.
(Ed.), Collaborative Language Learning and Teaching, pp. 14-39.
• Larsen-Freeman, D. and Long, M. H. 1991. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. London: Longman.
• Lier, van L. 1996. Interaction in the Language Curriculum. Awareness, Autonomy and Authenticity. USA: Longman.
• Little, D. 1991. Learner Autonomy. 1: Definitions, Issues and Problems. Dublin: Authentik.
• Littlejohn, A. 1997. Self-access work and curriculum ideologies. In Benson, P. and Voller, P. (eds.). Autonomy and
Independence in Language Learning. London: Longman.
• Muchnick, A. G. and Wolfe, D. E. 1982. Attitudes and motivations of American students of Spanish. The Canadian Modern
Language Review. 38, 262-281.
• Omaggio, A. 1978. 'Successful language learners: What do we know about them?', ERIC / CLL News Bulletin, May, 2-3.
• O'Malley, J. M. and Chamot, A. V. 1990. Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. London: Macmillan.
• Papaconstantinou, A. 1997. Creating the Whole Person in New Age. Athens: Kardamitsa.
• Petty, R. E. and Cacioppo, J. T. 1986. Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change.
New York: Springer- Verlag.
• Rathbone, C. H. 1971. Open Education: The Informal Classroom. New York: Citation Press.
• Rinvolucri, M. 1984. Grammar Games: Cognitive, Affective, and Drama Activatiobn for EFL Students. Cambridge: CUP.
• Rousseau, J. J. [1762], 1911. Emile. London: Dent.
• Schumann, J. H. 1978. Social and Psychological Factors in Second Language Acquisition. In J. C. Richards (ed.).
Understanding Second and Foreign Language Learning. pp. 163-178. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
• Sheerin, S. 1991. 'State of the art: self-access', Language Teaching, 24: 3, pp. 153-157.
• Sheerin, S. 1997. An Exploration of the Relationship between Self-access and Independent Learning. In Benson, P. and
Voller, P. (eds.). 1997. Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning. London: Longman.
• Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: OUP.
• Tarone, E. and Yule, G. 1989. Focus on the Language Learner. Oxford: OUP.
• Tumposky, N. 1982. 'The learner on his own'. In M. Geddes and G. Sturtridge (eds.). Individualisation. London: Modern
English Publications, pp. 4-7.
• Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society. USA: Harvard.
• Wenden, A. 1998. Learner Strategies for Learner Autonomy. Great Britain: Prentice Hall.
• Williams, M. 1994. Motivation in Foreign and Second Language Learning: An Interactive Perspective. Educational and
Child Psychology, 11, 17-84.
________________________________________
The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. VI, No. 11, November 2000
http://iteslj.org/
________________________________________
http://iteslj.org/Articles/Thanasoulas-Autonomy.html
Learner independence: reflecting on experience
Keynote Address
Learner independence: reflecting on experience
Keynote Address
Introduction
What do a graduate course in language teaching methodology, an undergraduate writing course for international students and a series
of foreign language learning advisory sessions have in common? In each setting, the promotion of learner independence is an explicit
goal. In this paper I reflect on my experience in these three contexts and identify common issues and constraints in achieving the goal.
The paper goes on to explore unifying elements in these three seemingly diverse settings and indicates
directions for future practice and research in learner independence.
First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to the conference organisers for giving me this opportunity to reflect on my current
practice as a teacher, and to question how what I may or may not do fosters learner independence. Opportunities to stop and reflect on
one’s practice as a teacher often reveal interesting new insights. This is precisely what happened as I was preparing this presentation.
It helped me to recognise the extent to which one of the contexts in which I work privileges the
opportunities available to the learners to assume control of some of the decisions surrounding their learning. As a result, I have begun
to focus on the other two contexts, seeking ways of enhancing the learning opportunities in those situations.
I plan to talk about learner independence from my perspective as a language teacher, a language learning advis or and a language
teacher educator. Within each of these contexts, the question I intend to explore in this presentation is – In what way can I enhance
my learners’ confidence and willingness to operate independently in their learning? I have deliberately mentioned confidence ahead of
willingness, because I am convinced that affective preparation for assuming control of one’s learning is
an essential first step.
First I will briefly outline the three contexts in which I currently work. Then I will discuss two important issues which influence
attempts to foster learning independence in each setting. Out of this discussion arises my belief that certain elements in the context
can predispose learners to assume control of their learning. Finally, on the basis of this analysis of the opportunities and constraints in
each context, I will make a number of recommendations for future practice and research.
The three contexts
I currently work with learners in three different settings:
1 Academic writing course for international students
2 Advising for language learners
3 Language teaching methodology course for practising teachers
In each setting, an explicit goal of my involvement is to encourage learner willingness and ability to manage their learning for
themselves. The first step in achieving this goal, I believe, is to develop their confidence in their own ability to learn independently. In
this section, I describe the learners in each of the three contexts, identify their learning goals and exp lain how I see my role in each
setting in relationship to learner goals.
Academic writing course
The learners who enrol in the academic writing course are international students from many different (principally Asian) countries,
usually in their first year of study at our university. The vast majority of this year’s intake were from China, but we also had students
from Cambodia, Germany, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines, Sweden and Taiwan. Most students have sat IELTS
within 6- 12 months of enrolling and few have achieved more than a score of 6 for writing.
Students enrol for the academic writing course for a variety of reasons. Some students are required to enrol for the writing course as
part of the Twinning arrangement between their universities and ours. However, most choose to enrol because they believe their
academic English skills are weak and they lack confidence in their ability to write assignments and reports at university. Many
students state that they expect the writing course to help them pass their other subjects. Therefore their objectives are a
combination of language-focused goals and more general academic aspirations. One of the unexpected benefits of participation in the
course for many international students is the opportunity to participate actively in workshops, without the fear of being laughed at by
local students who are usually much quicker to contribute and are often impatient with their international classmates. This contributes
significantly to enhancing learner confidence in participating in class, and eventually in engaging in the writing process.
How then do I see my role as tutor in relation to the learners’ stated goals? While the lecture component of the course carries some of
the responsibility for providing instruction and practice, I see my tutoring role as incorporating the following four aspects:
§ developing learner understanding of academic writing genres and expectations
§ providing instruction, modelling, practice and feedback on composing and editing strategies
§ providing opportunities for learners to practise composing and editing strategies and receive
feedback on them
§ integrating opportunities for reflection with instruction in strategies and process
This is in line with an approach which views the teacher’s role as essentially one of managing learning opportunities. Of these four
aspects, I see the provision of opportunities for reflection as being the most closely linked to the fostering of learner
Learning to teach a language
Advising language learners
Learning to write in a second language independence.
Instruction alone is unlikely to foster independence. However, when opportunities to try out new skills are integrated with
opportunities to receive feedback and, crucially, to reflect on how that experience modifies learner understanding of the task, there is
real potential to foster independence of thought and action.
Language advising
The second context in which I work alongside learners is within the Language Advisory Service offered to all students enrolled in
language courses at Victoria University. Students who want to discuss their language learning progress or seek advice, make a twenty-
minute appointment with an advisor, through the Language Learning Centre. The majority of those who use the Service are native
speakers of English who are learning foreign languages. However some non-native speakers of English
also use the Service to seek advice on learning of other languages or on study strategies to deal with the content of their degree
courses.
Most of the students who use the Language Advisory Service wish to solve an immediate problem they face in their language
learning. Often students book an appointment when a language test is imminent, seeking advice on memorisation strategies or on
ways of understanding grammatical rules. As a consequence, few of the students who make an appointment to see a language advisor
return for a follow-up session. We therefore find it difficult to assess the effectiveness of the sessions.
I see the principal responsibilities of the advisor in this setting as helping the learners to refine the statement of their problem, analyse
its possible causes and identify suitable strategies to solve it. When learners are frustrated with their language learning, or
disappointed with their performance on a test, it can be difficult to accurately pinpoint the nature of their difficulty. Therefore another
important aim for the advisor in these sessions is to boost learner confidence. This is often done by raising awareness of
the language learning process and pointing out those aspects which are working well for the learner. One critical difference between
this setting and the academic writing course is the detachment of the advisory session from opportunities for the learner to exercise the
language skills under discussion.
Language teaching methodology course
The third context in which I have been teaching this year is on a language teaching methodology course for practising teachers. The
learners in this course are native and non-native speakers of English who teach English at primary, secondary and tertiary levels,
either in New Zealand or overseas, but particularly in the South Pacific, China and Japan. Some of the learners have been teaching
English for many years. Many teach within official government-sponsored curricula and others work in the private
sector where they enjoy greater curricular freedom. The goals of the teachers enrolled on the methodology course are reasonably
uniform. Since this is a university-based course which does not include a practicum, and since all are experienced teachers,
their focus is on acquiring knowledge, rather than skills. Therefore, their principal goal is to enhance their understanding of principles
of language teaching methodology, and as a result, to enhance their confidence. For some, the goal may also be articulated in more
specific, pragmatic terms in that they wish to expand their bag of tricks for the language classroom. In such a context, how can the
teachers’ independence as learners be fostered?
In this setting, I see my role as raising awareness of the language learning process and developing problem solving skills. In order to
function independently in the language classroom, teachers need to be able to analyse and address learners’ language learning
problems. In order to achieve this, they need to have a sound understanding of principles of language teaching pedagogy on the one
hand, and the language acquisition process on the other. In my view, all language learning difficulties can be
understood by referring back to a simple model of how language acquisition occurs. Therefore a key role of the tutor in this setting is
to provide opportunities to explore those principles and apply their understanding in discussion tasks and analysis of case studies.
Issues which influence attempts to foster independence
Relationship between learning goals and opportunities to apply new skills Despite the obvious differences between these three
different teaching/learning contexts, each is influenced by two important issues. The first of these centres on the relationship between
the learners’ learning goals and the existence of opportunities to apply their new learning. The second issue relates to the salience of
opportunities to reflect on learning in each of the three contexts.
Let me illustrate the first issue by discussing what happens in the academic writing course. In that context, the learners’ academic and
learning goals are closely aligned with the course goals. For example, many learners enrolling in the academic writing course want to
learn how to use citations appropriately. A substantial amount of time is spent in lectures and workshops raising learner awareness of
the conventions for incorporating citations into academic writing, as well as providing opportunities for learners to practise integrating
citations into their own writing. When learners make some progress in achieving this goal, they are immediately able to apply their
new skills independently in producing assignments and reports for their other university courses. Little (1991: 6) identifies the
application of learning to other aspects of life as a distinguishing feature of learner autonomy: Clearly, the autonomy that Holec wants
to promote is not confined to learning in a more or less formal educational context, but carries over into every other area of life.
The learners enrolled in my academic writing course are highly motivated to acquire the target skills because the stakes are high. The
success of their university studies is on the line. The fact that the learners urgently need to acquire the skills in which the course
provides instruction both enhances their motivation and facilitates the development of their independence.
However the situation is very different for learners who attend language advisory sessions. Most of the learners we meet in the
advisory sessions are learning foreign languages and therefore have few authentic opportunities to apply their learning. Clearly, there
is no opportunity within the language advising session for learners to apply the knowledge they have gained. In many cases the
language advisor is not a speaker of the target language, nor is the advising session, an interview between two native speakers of
English, a natural context for target language use to occur. This implies a disjunction between the advising context and the trying out
of knowledge or understandings gained. If learner independence is best developed as a result of trying out, opportunities for
developing such independence are at one remove from the advisory session. Therefore in the advisory sessions,
independence can only be promoted in general theoretical terms. Opportunities to reflect
The second issue which influences tutor attempts to foster independence is the existence of opportunities to reflect on learning.
Reflection is an essential element in increasing learners’ ability to operate independently. However, the opportunities for learners to
reflect on their learning are not equally salient in all three contexts. This can be illustrated by contrasting the writing course with the
language teaching methodology course.
Reflection is a central component of the academic writ ing course. Opportunities to reflect are provided in discussion tasks, journal
writing, comments on cover sheets attached to writing tasks, peer review sessions and conferences with the tutor. The ways in which
these opportunities contribute to the development of learning independence are captured in learners’ weekly journal writing and
summarised in their end-of-course written reflections. For example, one learner sent the following comment in an e-mail message
shortly after the end of the course: You know, just 20 minutes ago one of my flatmate came to me and told me his teacher told him his
essay has too much problems, I read his essay, gave him some feedback and told him he need to ask his teacher for the problems of
his essay, and he also need to have a plan first before writing … I made a plan for him according to what he said about the ideas ...
This make me think of myself, just few months ago you help me to make my first plan for the essay ... at that time, I had no idea about
writing essay, I didn't even know how to write a plan … but now, I can teach my flatmate about some of the writing skills ... Taking
WRIT 151 is really a good choice, and we are so lucky to have you such a terrific tutor.
In the language teaching methodology course, there is a strong tendency for practice to override reflection. This occurs most probably
because teachers are driven by immediate pragmatic concerns and needs. As a result, they tend to focus on particular tasks, rather than
focusing on the principles underpinning task design or methodology. However when, earlier this year, we designed an assignment in
which reflection on previous learning was central, the teachers responded well and produced thoughtful work of a high standard. The
implication for us as teachers is that reflection can be built into any course. But where reflection is not salient, learners will focus on
more pragmatic, immediate concerns.
Recommendations for practice and research
Reflecting on the influences that operate in these different contexts has highlighted a number of important lessons for my own future
practice, and suggested some valuable directions for future research into learner independence.
Align course goals with ‘real world’ goals
Analysis of these three teaching/learning contexts has highlighted the importance of aligning course goals with real world goals. The
more closely aligned these are, the easier it will be to promote the development of learner independence, and to provide opportunities
for learners to apply their new skills and knowledge in real world settings. Learners are more highly motivated by learning tasks
which resemble those they face in the real world. The most successful assessment task in our most recent teacher education course
was one which required the teachers to produce case studies of current learners facing particular learning problems. The task also
included a substantial component of personal reflection on experience. Ultimately, barriers between the learning situation and the
situation in which the learners apply their learning should be reduced, so that the transition to independence is facilitated.
Promote personalised goals
The second recommendation for future teaching practice is to encourage learners to identify goals which are of personal significance
to them. Experience suggests that learners who are able to set personal goals for themselves are more likely to invest in course
activities, and commit themselves to acquiring the skills they need. One learner in my writing workshop this trimester made a habit of
spelling out highly detailed goals for each piece of writing he worked on. This had the advantage of enhancing his motivation and his
self-directedness while he was completing the task, and providing him with benchmarks by which to measure his progress. Learners
can be encouraged to set personal goals in various ways. Discussing other students’ goal statements, analysing personal needs and
taking part in focused interviews have all proved useful in our writing course.
Encourage reflection
My third recommendation is that teachers should encourage their learners to reflect. In each of the contexts described above,
reflection led to insights which, in turn, led to action. However, the experience of stopping to think about what has been learned or
achieved is not a familiar or comfortable experience for all. Therefore, reflective activities need to be introduced gradually and
modelled extensively. Learners should also be presented with a clear rationale to justify the commitment of classroom time to such
activities. The specific way in which reflection is promoted will vary with the context. The final piece of writing in our academic
writing course is a structured reflection, which elicits learner views on various aspects of the course and on their own writing process.
This is always the most interesting piece of writing produced by course participants. Here is what one of my students this trimester
wrote in his reflection:
I do not think my writing skill was improved during this course, because six month is not long enough to see clear improvement.
However, I realize that my awareness of what a good piece of writing has been improved during the course. Now I am more familiar
with all aspects of writing than before. Therefore, when I write an essay next time, I will be less confused, and I will be able to
complete the essay relatively more efficiently than before. It must be easier to correct errors, because now I know more about
differences between good writing and bad writing.
This text suggests that the leaner gained in awareness and in understanding as a result of the course, and that he is confident about
using that new knowledge in the future. In fact, this learner produced very good pieces of writing throughout the course, but clearly he
had not yet achieved his own personal goals. In this case, as in others observed on the writing course, reflection led to new
understanding, which in turn led to the decision to take action.
Recommendations for research
Having reflected on the opportunities and constraints inherent in each of these contexts, I am now convinced of the need to study the
way in which individual learners gain the confidence, knowledge and skill to begin taking independent decisions in relation to their
learning. Longitudinal studies of foreign and second language learners could identify the experiences and insights which prompt them
to decide for themselves what action to take and why, and could document changes in their learning behaviour. Such studies could
provide responses to questions such as whether advanced language learners gradually assume greater responsibility for their learning,
or whether independence is essentially an idiosyncratic characteristic. It would also be useful to study the learning outcomes which
result from the kinds of reflection recommended in this paper. In particular, to help us better describe independent language learning
in different contexts, it would be useful to explore the links between insights gained through reflection and subsequent action taken.
For example, learners could be invited to explain the reasons behind the decisions they make in relation to materials, strategies and
tasks. Finally, in the field of language teacher education, it would be useful to explore the beliefs which language teachers hold about
language learning, and about how and when to intervene in the language learning process in order to facilitate language development.
This kind of data could then inform the design of teacher education courses, making use of central teacher beliefs to stimulate
discussion around new teaching practices.
Conclusion
By exploring the goals of my learners and my role as tutor in each of my three teaching contexts, I have been able to identify both
similarities and differences. The differences observed lead me to suggest that definitions of learner independence, which are
formulated in terms of universals, are not as useful as descriptions which are contextually determined. If we wish to support our
learners in developing their learning independence, we need to begin with a thorough exploration of the context in which their
learning takes place.
References
Cotterall, S 2000. Promoting learner autonomy through the curriculum: principles for
designing language courses in ELT Journal 54 (2), 109-117
Cotterall, S and D Crabbe 2002. Learners talking: implications for teacher-led autonomy. Paper
presented at the Symposium on Learner Autonomy held at the 13th World Congress of Applied
Linguistics, Singapore, December 2002
Crabbe, D 2003. The quality of language learning opportunities in TESOL Quarterly 37 (1), 9-34
Little, D 1991. Learner autonomy: definitions, issues and problems. Dublin: Authentik
About the author
Sara Cotterall’s publications include articles on second language reading strategies, self-access
language learning course design, learner discourse in language advising, learner beliefs about language
learning and a book on learner autonomy in language learning. Over the past 5 years, Sara has
developed a particular interest in the beliefs learners hold about language learning and has designed
two questionnaires which she used in studies written up in her 1995 and 1999 System papers. She has
recently co-authored a book on learner strategies.