Autonomy, new technologies and EAP (3)

Hiya,

the posts continue ... covering these two points:
1. Define autonomy;
2. Explore some of the major issues in defining autonomy;

if you prefer to download this post as a pdf - click here

Define Autonomy

Autonomy, judging from the quantity of publications, would appear to be of growing interest and importance to foreign/second language teachers and researchers (Click here for a list of recent publications and click here for a comprehensive list of publications relating to autonomy). Articles concerning autonomy have appeared in many journals such as System and ELT Journal. International conferences on autonomy have been organised e.g. Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy: Future Directions at Nottingham University, April 1998; Autonomy 2000: The Independent Learning Associtaion Conferences). There is an international newsletter (Newsletter of the AILA Scientific Commission on Learner Autonomy) and an electronic discussion forum with over three hundred subscribers (AUTO-L).

Growing interest in autonomy should not be taken to mean that the concept of autonomy and promotion of learner autonomy are unproblematic (Benson and Voller, 1997: 1), nor should it be taken to mean that promoting learner autonomy has entered into mainstream language education practices (Little, 1999; 12). In fact, there is some debate as to whether autonomy has become central to pedagogical thinking or is a maginal interest. In addition, there is also debate as to whether autonomy has lost its radical edge and has become mainstream (and whether this is a good thing or not!)

Definitions

Henri Holec provided the first definition of learner autonomy in language teaching. He defined autonomy as the 'ability to take charge of one's own learning'. For Holec to take charge of one's own learning is to

‘…have, and to hold, the responsibility for all the decisions concerning all aspects of this learning, i.e.
determining the objectives;
defining the contents and progressions;
selecting methods and techniques to be used;
monitoring the procedure of acquisition properly speaking (rhythm, time, place, etc.
evaluating what has been acquired.
The autonomous learner is himself capable of making all these decisions concerning the learning with which he is or wishes to be involved.’
Holec, 1981: 3.

The importance of Holec's definition lies in his conception of learner autonomy as being an individual learner capacity to direct and control his/her learning. Although much has been written on autonomy since then, it is true to say that Holec’s definition remains the most cited and, indeed, most of the literature accepts Holec’s assumption that autonomy is an individual capacity to direct learning. Holec’s definition brings to light the importance of learners being able to manage their learning.

Over the years there have been a number of additions to Holec’s definition of autonomy. The three most notable additions are:

1. Dam (1995: 1) builds on Holec's definition by adding a social dimension to autonomy, claiming that autonomy also 'entails a capacity to act ... in co-operation with others, as a socially responsible person'.
2. Sheerin (1997: 57) and Littlewood (1997: 82) expand on Holec's definition of autonomy by claiming that the exercise of autonomy depends on both the learners' willingness or disposition and ability to do so.
3. Little (1991) has developed Holec's definition of management of learning by emphasising the importance of psychological and cognitive management of learning in determining the ability to learn autonomously.

The picture to emerge is that Holec’s definition (although basically uncontested) has expanded to include collaboration, willingness to take responsibility to manage learning, and an increased emphasis on the cognitive processes that support learning. However, there remains a number of issues around autonomy that remain unresolved.

Problems of Definitions

The literature on autonomy in language teaching can be characterised by widespread confusion at to the definition of autonomy.

There are two main problems:

1. confusion and profusion of terms (e.g. ‘autonomy’, ‘independence’, ‘empowerment’, and ‘self-directed learning’) demonstrates the complexity of issues involved in promoting autonomy.
2. autonomy can be understood as a ‘movement’ (Crabbe, 1999:3) which contains 'concepts in transition' (Benson & Voller, 1997: 12) therefore it is perhaps not surprising that there are different interpretations and versions of autonomy. This means that autonomy can be understood as a 'broad church' with many different ideological, practical, and pedagogical motivations for supporting learner autonomy. Although versions compete, there is general acceptance that autonomy is a multifaceted term open to multiple interpretations (see Sinclair, B. (2000). Learner autonomy: The next phase. In B. Sinclair, et al (Ed.), Learner autonomy, teacher autonomy: Future directions (15-23). London: Longman. and Oxford, R. L. (2003). Toward a more systematic model of L2 learner autonomy. In D. Palfreyman & R. C. Smith (Eds.), Learner autonomy across cultures: Language education perspectives (75-91). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan for more on incorporating versions of autonomy into a comprehensive multifaceted theory).

There is widespread agreement in the literature that terminology concerning autonomy is confusing. The confusion and profusion of terms can be seen as demonstrating the complexity of issues involved in promoting autonomy. Pemberton (1996: 1) outlines two terminological problems; firstly, a single term is understood in different ways; and secondly, two terms are used to mean the same thing. The major terminological problems concern the following terms: independence; autonomy; counsellor; self-direction, and empowerment. Each of these terms will be discussed briefly in the paragraphs below.

Although autonomy is the most used term in the literature its meaning has been interpreted differently by a number of writers. For Holec autonomy refers to 'the ability to take charge of one's own learning' (Holec, 1981:3) and self-direction refers to learning which takes place outside of the classroom context and learners exercise total responsibility over all aspects of learning. Dickinson (1987:11), on the other hand, inverts these terms so that autonomy refers to situations in which learners are responsible for all of the decisions concerning their learning (and the implementation of these decisions). Self-direction refers to learners' attitudes towards taking charge of their own learning. Although in close agreement with Holec on the definition of autonomy both Sheerin (1997) and Littlewood (1997) similarly claim that autonomy refers not only to the ability to take charge of one's own learning but also to the disposition (Sheerin, 1997: 57) or willingness (Littlewood, 1997: 82) of learners to do so.

Independence appears in the literature as a synonym of autonomy (Farmer, 1994; Sheerin, 1997), as an ideological construct of freedom from constraints (Sturtridge, 1999), as a stage in becoming autonomous (Gardner and Miller, 1999:8), and, finally, as an isolated mode of study (Tudor, 1996: 27). It should be clear that despite justified criticisms of definitions of autonomy, independence as an alternative suffers from at least as much confusion.

Learner centredness is perceived as leading to learner empowerment not autonomy (Tudor (1996). Autonomy is 'avoided because of the ambiguities which surround its use in the literature' (Tudor, 1996: 27). Tudor defines empowerment as follows;

'Learner empowerment is the result and practical realisation of language education. It relates to learners ability to assume an active and informed role in their language study and, ultimately, to pursue those of their life-goals which pertain to language use and learning in a self-directed manner.'
Tudor, 1996: 28.

The definition he gives of empowerment could easily be given to autonomy. It is difficult to see what advantages and clarifications there are in adopting the term empowerment rather than autonomy.

Terminological confusion manifests itself in an acute manner concerning the role(s) of teachers in fostering autonomy. Fostering learner autonomy involves reconsidering the roles of both learners and teachers. Part of the attempts to capture the new roles of teachers has involved renaming 'teacher' in order to find a term which more closely resembles the skills, attitudes and roles which teachers need to adopt in order to foster learner autonomy. In the literature one can find a number of competing terms for teacher each of which carries (slightly) different visions of the roles of teachers:
'facilitator' (Brookfield, 1986; Knowles, 1975; Sheerin, 1991; Hammond and Collins, 1991), 'animator' (Boud and Miller, 1998),
'co-ordinator' (Nunan, 1989),
'helper' (Tough, 1971; Dickinson, 1987; Strutridge, 1982),
'advisor' (Strutridge, 1992),
and 'counsellor' (Riley, 1997; Gardner and Miller, 1999, Kelly, 1996; Tudor, 1993; Bloor and Bloor, 1988).
'model', 'mentor', 'consultant', and 'guide' as examples of new terms for teachers given by Voller (1997: 99).

The most common term in the literature is counsellor. The term counsellor presents a number of problems. In the literature counselling (and learner training) objectives are to 'decondition' learners (Ma 1994: 142), to 'make them adopt different behaviour and shift attitudes towards language learning' (Abé, 1994: 109), within the context of a 'therapeutic dialogue ... that enables an individual to manage a problem' (Kelly, 1996: 94). Counselling would appear to redefine teachers' roles in a confused manner in that the adoption of the terms 'deconditioning' and 'therapeutic dialogue' come from very different psychological schools. Conditioning is a widely used term in Pavlovian behaviourism involving deliberate and systematic attempts to control aspects of human behaviour. This implies an attempt on the part of the counsellor to make learners unlearn certain attitudes and aspects of their behaviour towards learning. Therapeutic dialogue belongs very much to the Rogerean humanistic psychology tradition. Given the very different views of behaviourism and Rogerean therapy it is very difficult to imagine how they could be coherently and usefully combined.

Crabbe (1999:3) describes autonomy as a 'movement' and as a 'flag for change' (Crabbe, 1999:6). If autonomy is understood as a broad movement which contains 'concepts in transition' (Benson and Voller, 1997: 12) then it is perhaps not surprising - though unfortunate - that there have been different interpretations of the same terms and different terms used to express the same concepts.
I have referred to a wide range of sources so far. I haven’t referenced them all– you can get the full references from:
http://www.autonomybibliography.info/