Autonomy responses (6)

Hello,
greatly enjoyed reading your thoughts on autonomy and hope that we move towards more dialogue rather than me delivering text to you. The module will be much more interesting if you continue to post ... so please feel free to jump in whenever you like.

OK. So I've read what you've said about autonomy and below I've selected some of your comments which provoked me into responding (again, please feel free to do the same).

...cultural background/previous educational experience and a mismatch in S/T expectations of the learning environment has proved to be a huge obstacle to promoting learner autonomy (Anne)

In many cultures, a teacher is still regarded with extreme respect - a person who is always right and knows all the answers. This can pose a serious obstacle to promoting learner autonomy/independent learning in a real teaching context. (Klaus)

As Sam said (and the two sample quotes from you show) the issue of autonomy and culture is a 'biggy'. I think the issue here is very complex indeed and certainly I don't have the answer as such. What I would say though is that I draw a distinction between 'culture bound' and 'culture sensitive'. Viewing students as being products of a particular system (educational, cultural, linguistic, gendered ... whatever you like) inhibits firstly how we view students and more importantly how we behave towards students (and consequently, or in conjunction with, how they behave toward us). If we see students as products of a culture then we can easily forget the extent to which they are individuals with potential to change, develop, be critical etc. It also goes against the intuition that cultures are not sealed off from one another (particularly in the world we now live in). Being culturally sensitive simply assumes that behaviours, attitudes, expectations will originate, to a greater or lesser degree, from past experience. Past experience will be individualised and only partially dependent on cultural factors. I think it is important to try to see students with some sensitivity to culture but also with an open mind as to how far culture will determine their learning in the classroom. How we view students (particularly when we frame them in ways which seem to imply a deficiency model) may turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy (all participants conforming to expectations).

'I found that it was only by starting to explore students' own expectations of learning, the teacher and the learning process (through stem sentence activities and the like) that we were able to discuss the rationale for a less teacher-centred approach and start to put it into practice.' (Sarah)

I also feel they have certain expectations of what a good teacher is and that I do not necessarily conform to that. (Sam)

I think Sarah's and Sam's comments (also others who said pretty much the same) are important for two reasons; firstly, in terms of expectations, and secondly, in terms of dialogue. I think expectations goes back to what I said earlier and also in terms of the semiotics of teaching and learning. By that I mean that all the signs we give to students inform them of 'our' expectations of them. Handbooks, rules, assessments, timetables, layout of the classroom, materials, technology ... how these are configured all inform the students as to how the should behave and might survive an EAP course. We, as teachers, take many of these things for granted and don't even imagine that many of these signs could be altered to better serve learning and autonomy. In my view, a lot of education is about control and controlling learning/students. Expectations are not simply what we say to students. The second point about dialogue is crucial. Engaging in open dialogue with students (and having the time to do so) is important is moving toward a classroom in which understanding is improved as well as trust (as opposed to accountability). We need to understand our students if we are to teach them. A check list of learning styles, needs, background, gender etc. will help ... but not much.

discussing theories always makes me quite tense as they often do not reflect reality (Klaus)

This is a common reaction of teachers to theory. Our profession is littered with tensions between theory and practice (practitioner research has come into fashion in the forms of action research and exploratory practice). However, my view is that we are all guided by theory/ies and the important thing is to make explicit what it is that guides our actions and decisions as teachers. Better we control our actions than act without a full understanding of what we are doing. Theory serves a purpose, it provides reasons for what we do, ultimately it is a praxis. Autonomy grew from practitioners unhappy with traditional language education. It was a response to ideological and learning 'frustrations' about educational systems. In a sense, autonomy is a resistance movement, a broad church of practitioners looking for new ways to teach. The fact that they don't reflect reality could lead to questions of why that's the case. Is the theory inadequate in some way? Is there a better theory? Or why don't my circumstances reflect theory?

I think it all comes down to the individual and how motivated and interested they are, and I don’t think I can promote motivation (does that make sense?) Maybe I am taking this from my own experience as a student, which could be the wrong thing to do, but surely my experience as a student counts for something? (Claire)

Claire makes an interesting point about her own experiences. Yes, how you were as a student will give you a basis for thinking about teaching (a very strong one at that). This is why teacher autonomy is so important for the success of promoting learner autonomy. If institutions such as CELE neglect teacher autonomy and don't provide any room for teachers to engage with autonomy in their lives then it is hardly likely that autonomy will be key in the classroom. Autonomy is something which has to be both understood and experienced if it is to have any chance of flourishing.

A number of explicitly or implicitly claim that the institution, the syllabus, assessments, colleagues' expectations, time and so on inhibit your ability to promote autonomy or act autonomously yourselves. In effect, autonomy is an ideal but often little more than words. I think that many EAP institutions, including CELE, would largely conform to this (though insessional doesn't). As teachers what is the response to this? Give up? Heads down? Forget it? Possibly. But I think that the solution lies in thinking beyond the classroom. Thinking about acting collaboratively and strategically, trying to have some influence over decisions. Strategically it means trying to find an opening where you do have some degree of control ... it might be in the classroom, the design of materials, sitting on a committee, talking to colleagues, making (repeated) suggestions, highlighting contradictions in practice, .... whatever it might be it is a case of trying to influence colleagues, students, course directors. Basically, it requires a kind of philosophy of hope. And it requires others.

That's enough for now. I enjoyed your ideas and hope you respond to mine :-)

The next post from me will move into the area of technology and autonomy.

Alex