Learner Autonomy Revisited

Learner autonomy revisited

va Ills

This article explores whether the perception of learner autonomy that is promoted in language pedagogy is suitable for preparing students to perform successfully in the changed circumstances of the use of English. Recent developments, which include the growing role of English as a lingua franca and computer-mediated communication (CMC), give rise to fluid and emergent contexts in which speakers from a variety of language and cultural backgrounds interact. It is argued that the current training-oriented view of learner autonomy in ELT, with its focus on learning processes, should be amended to enable learners to cope with the challenges of communication in the twenty-first century. In this article, an approach that shifts the attention to language use is suggested, where autonomy is developed through tasks and activities that engage learners on their own terms and allow them to effectively exploit their linguistic resources in online negotiation of meaning.

The past decade has seen considerable changes in the use of English that present new challenges for ELT as well. One of the most important developments in this regard is the global spread of English and the fact that English has become an international language that is shared and shaped by all its speakers, be they native or non-native users (Seidlhofer 2005). In international contexts of use, English often functions as a lingua franca between speakers from a wide variety of linguistic and cultural backgrounds. In this diverse environment, the rules of engagement are fluid and relative: users of English have to negotiate meaning and work out what is appropriate in reference to the unique circumstances of a particular speech event. The use of English in international settings also requires participants to be open, to expect and accept otherness, and to accommodate to other interlocutors. In English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) contexts, speakers of English may resort to innovative or idiosyncratic ways of making meaning in order to achieve communicative ends with the linguistic or other resources available to them. For example, resourcefulness enabled a Hungarian tourist using very limited English to explain to an Egyptian doctor that his friend had kidney stones. He pointed to his kidneys and by making reference to Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones, he managed to get his message across successfully (personal communication).

The other major development that has redefined the way we perceive communication is computer-assisted technology. New modes of

Introduction

ELT Journal Volume 66/4 Special issue October 2012; doi:10.1093/elt/ccs044 505 The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.

at Aksaray U

niversity on September 25, 2013

http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

at A

ksaray University on Septem

ber 25, 2013http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

at Aksaray U



ownloaded from

at A



Dow

nloaded from

at Aksaray U



ownloaded from

at A



Dow

nloaded from

at Aksaray U



ownloaded from

at A



Dow

nloaded from

at Aksaray U



ownloaded from

interaction have established themselves overnight and, as a result, different forms of computer-mediated communication (CMC) have become part of our everyday life. One implication for language learning is that the lack of exposure to the target language has been replaced with the problem of plenty. The internet provides unlimited access to materials in English and so many opportunities to practise the language that the question nowadays is not how to find materials but how to make informed choices. By making it possible for speakers of English to communicate across borders and time zones, CMC and the internet in particular have further widened the sphere of ELF use.

Given the demands of communication in English and the fact that learners cannot rely on fixed reference points such as the idealized norms of idealized native speakers that ELT still offers, students have to become competent language users and autonomous agents who are capable of independent thinking and action. The task of language education is then to help learners develop self-reliance and autonomy, which will enable them to communicate successfully in international settings. Learner autonomy is therefore one of the issues that needs to be addressed when the focus is on the learner in present dayELT.

Learner autonomy has received considerable attention over the past decades. Although this multifaceted notion has been widely debated and there are various trends and perceptions of it in the specialist literature (Benson 2007; Smith 2008), this article is concerned with interpretations that have filtered through from research to language pedagogy and target practitioners rather than experts of this particular field. The aim is to explore the relevance of the concept to current contexts of use of English and investigate whether the suggested approaches to the promotion of learner autonomy in ELT are suitable for preparing learners to cope with the challenges the use of English presents nowadays. Throughout, the discussion will therefore have a practical slant and a strong emphasis on the implications for classroom practice.

The most widely evoked definition conceives of learner autonomy as learners ability to take charge of their own learning (Benson ibid.). In more practical terms, this entails students taking responsibility for various aspects and stages of the learning process, including setting goals, determining content, selecting resources and techniques, as well as assessing progress (Cotterall 2000). In this framework, the autonomous learner is a decision maker (Chan 2003)who exercises varying degrees of control at the levels of learning management, learning content, and cognitive processes (Benson op. cit.). More recent definitions of learner autonomy include not only independence but interdependence as well:

Viewed as an educational goal, learner autonomy implies a particular kind of socialization involving the development of attributes and values that will permit individuals to play active, participatory roles in a democratic society. (ibid.:31)

Since they have to function in areas that need some explicit knowledge of language learning, autonomous learners have to be trained.

Learner autonomy

506 va Ills

This training is usually an add-on to language courses because the acquisition of metacognition and metalanguage necessary for exerting control over learning requires a deliberate effort and conscious reflection (Little 2009: 224)on the part of learners and their teachers. Without being equipped with the necessary background knowledge and language, it may prove difficult for learners to understand concepts and terminology or verbalize their language learning experiences in the target language.

There is a wide range of methods to promote learner autonomy. These include self-access facilities and involving learners in decision making regarding such pedagogic matters as choosing topics, materials, and activities among other things. Encouraging self-assessment and peer evaluation as well as group and pair work can also contribute to developing autonomy (Chan op. cit.). Another tool for supporting the implementation of language learner autonomy on a large scale (Little op. cit.: 222)is the European Language Portfolio, which provides a framework for developing and assessing various aspects of autonomy. It contains checklists and inventories, in reference to which learners can, for example, monitor their learning progress. By completing the I can list at various stages of their learning career, for instance, students can see what they have achieved and how much they have progressed.

The ideal situation is for the students to take over their own learningin other words, to do it without having to be shown how by the teacher (Harmer 2007: 399). One of the outcomes of autonomy training is therefore the expert learner who can understand and manage their own learning and who possesses particular characteristics, such as high motivation and self-efficacy (Oxford 2003). The tacit assumption throughout seems to be that autonomous learning automatically leads to successful future language use, as learners who have been properly trained in autonomy will be able to transfer the ability to control the learning process to performing successfully in real-life communication outside the classroom. As Little puts it:

they become more autonomous in language learning in proportion as they become more autonomous in language use, and vice versa. (Little op. cit.:223)

However, there are several issues that can be raised regarding the suitability and effectiveness of learner autonomy, especially in the light of the recent changes in the use of English. One such issue is how the notion of autonomy, described in terms of the control of the learning process, makes it possible for learners to become efficient and successful language users; how the ability to take responsibility for their learning enables learners to negotiate meaning and solve problems stemming from the international use of English. Benson raises similar questions but his observation is, by and large, limited to language development, One problem with such models, however, is their assumption that the relationship between the development of autonomy and language proficiency is unproblematic (Benson op. cit.:24).

Learner autonomy revisited 507

A further problem with approaches to learner autonomy in ELT is that breaking up the learning process into components and presenting them as inventories reduces the complexity of the learning process and presents development as consisting of discrete units where the completion of one task leads to the next step. Such a simplistic view of the learning process and ticking I can statements, such as I can use the present continuous to talk about the future or I can construct a business letter using appropriate language and layout (Harmer op. cit.: 397)when reflecting on learning, gives students the false sense of security that a language learners, and, in fact, a language users work can ever be done. In real-life learning and language use, new situations pose new problems and being able to compose a business letter in class does not mean that completing a similar task will be unproblematic for the learner in other contexts. This perception of the learning process does not emphasize the fact that learning is a cyclical process, and is also indicative of the training nature of language and autonomy development. Training, which enables learners to cope with certain clearly defined tasks (Widdowson 1983a: 6), is suitable for developing discrete subskills or performance in specific tasks such as the I can ones above. It cannot, however, account for how the discrete parts relate to each other and form an evolving, complex system. Training can only partially prepare learners for the reality of international communication, which is so diverse that it is often very difficult to predict the course of action within an interaction.

The extensive exposure to English and easy access to information and materials that the widespread use of CMC provides are concerned with the issue of decision making at the content level of autonomy. Although the notion of autonomy entails the concept of choice (Cotterall op. cit.) and encourages learners to take responsibility for the selection of classroom tasks and materials (Little op. cit.), at least some of the considerations of what should be used in the lessons are pedagogic in nature, since autonomy focuses on the learning rather than the communication process. The inclusion of what is pedagogically relevant in autonomy development, however, may result in learners taking responsibility for those aspects of learning that should remain within the remit of teachers. The selection of tasks and materials that aim to facilitate learning requires expert knowledge and expertise that teachers possess. Education cannot function without teacher control. How teachers exercise this control and how much they deem appropriate to relinquish should be their decision, based on the knowledge of their teaching context and their students in particular. Any model of learner autonomy should therefore be adopted only after the careful appraisal of its relevance to a specific educational setting. It is worth noting here, that although the idea of allowing an extreme degree of learner freedom has indeed been criticized in the literature (Benson op. cit; Little op. cit.), the definition of autonomy as the ability to take charge of ones learning, for example, is presented as universally agreed (Little op. cit.: 223), thus encouraging teachers to adopt the practice of uncritical acceptance.

It seems that for learner autonomy to keep abreast of the changed circumstances in which English is used nowadays, the scope of the

508 va Ills

concept has to be expanded and should include the preparation of learners for language use in international contexts as well. As a consequence, the emphasis should shift from the learning process to communication processes, and the main concern should be developing the autonomy of the language user.

Changes in the use of English and the subsequent focus on communication processes imply that learner autonomy should include the ability to cope with the linguistic and schematic diversity, the fluidity, and the increased demand for negotiation that interaction in international contexts of use presents. The aim therefore should be to become competent language users who can successfully cope with the demands of real-life communication under their own initiative. The amended definition should thus expand the scope of autonomy and include the ability to manage and control language use, which should, in return, affect the learningprocess.

As a result, learner autonomy can be defined as the capacity to become competent speakers of the target language who are able to exploit the linguistic and other resources at their disposal effectively and creatively. Autonomous learners are independent language users capable of online problem solving and decision making. Even though this perception of the notion is language use rather than learning driven, aspects of control over the learning process that pertain to learners particular purposes, for example finding materials for a presentation or researching a problem area in grammar or lexis, should be retained. The definition of learner autonomy should, however, exclude responsibility for matters that require pedagogic expertise and have long-term effects.

It is the notion of capacity that ensures that problem solving takes place in actual instances of language use (Widdowson 1983a). Capacity is the creative force that enables language users to exploit the linguistic and other resources available to them for their own purposes. It is employed when problems cannot be clearly identified in advance and are difficult to solve by reference to pre-established formulae. Presenting learners with problems that have no ready-made answers forces them to activate their problem-solving capacity and to work out solutions for themselves. In so doing, students learn how to cope with problems which do not have a ready-made formulaic solution (ibid.: 19)and develop independent thinking. Autonomy in this approach therefore is not an end in itself but a corollary of efficient target language use.

Since the aim is to develop a general capacity to cope with undefined eventualities in the future (Widdowson op. cit.: 6), language use-oriented autonomy is conceived of in educational rather than training terms. The practice of exercising capacity and working out solutions to problems by and for themselves can provide the impetus and the ability for the students to carry on with learning after the language course has finished.

An approach that integrates language use, learning, and autonomy may prove to be more suitable for educational contexts where curriculum and other constraints do not allow for a training-oriented

Amended definition of learner autonomy


development of autonomy in which autonomy is an add-on to the language programme. The concern with general issues of language use also means that the amended definition is devoid of the cultural and political implications some other perceptions of learner autonomy are believed to have (Benson op. cit.), which can facilitate its application in contexts with different educational traditions.

Since autonomy is not an add-on but an integral part of language learning and language use, methods that promote student engagement in processes of communication and trigger problem solving in general can contribute to the development of autonomy as well. It is important, however, that the course tasks learners have to complete present problems to be worked out by the students and that these tasks are challenging enough to make learners activate their capacity to mobilize their linguistic and other resources. Activities that replicate and rehearse real-life communicative tasks (Cotterall op. cit.) are therefore not always suitable for developing autonomy because they provide the learner with someone elses, usually native speakers, solutions to the linguistic and pragmatic problems raised by thetasks.

Apart from developing capacity, to be able to function effectively in English in the twenty-first century, students need to acquire knowledge about the changed circumstances in the worldwide use of English as well. For coping in international contexts of use, knowledge about one standard variety of English therefore barely suffices. Learners have to be mindful of the fact that apart from the many native varieties, English is used by bi- or multilingual speakers both intra- and internationally. Exposure to different varieties of English in the language classroom can improve not only students language skills but can contribute to the learners better understanding of new, lesser known varieties as well as their own English (Matsuda 2003). Language awareness as a separate subject, as proposed by Seidlhofer (2004), could then include teaching not only language and communication strategies but learning about varieties and language use as well.

In order for learners to practise meaning making and the concomitant problem solving by activating their capacity, teachers have to create conditions that force students to go beyond conformity and actively participate in interpretative procedures. Language learning tasks should therefore present challenges that lead learners to make the extra effort to crack the code and find solutions that do not necessarily offer themselves in everyday interactions. Interestingly, two outcasts of ELT seem to fit thebill.

One way of inducing learner engagement is the teaching of literature. Since literature presents a new, alternative reality, usual interpretative and problem-solving strategies and methods do not suffice, and readers are forced to participate in interpretative procedures more actively in order to make sense.

The writer of literature is really in the problem-setting business, and the reader of literature is in the problem-solving business par excellence. And because there is no right solution, such

Developing learner autonomy

510 va Ills

activities provide plenty of scope for discussion. (Widdowson 1983b:32)

The teaching of literature thus creates conditions for participation in problem-solving communication and can promote the development of autonomy. Literature also requires a more intensive and careful engagement in the meaning-making process, a feature that characterizes the use of English in international settings aswell.

The other type of activity that involves active decision making and problem solving and should be reintroduced to language teaching is translation (Cook 2010). Contrary to popular belief, translating from one language to another involves more than exchanging one word in one language for another word in another language. Translation functions at all levels of language use, of which semantic equivalence is only one. In order to translate a tourist brochure into English, for example, it is not enough to find the English words that are closest in meaning to the original ones. The translator also has to consider the context and the audience for whom the translation of the original brochure has been produced. So when learners are given this task, they have to step outside themselves, take a reciprocal perspective, and devise the process of the negotiation of meaning from the viewpoint of their potential readers. Among other things, they will have to consider how much and what type of information the target audience needs in order to compensate for their lack of familiarity with the context locals take for granted. As with literature, it is not enough for students to rely on familiar ways of meaning making here. When translating, learners have to be able to identify and cater for the linguistic, cognitive, and other needs of the target audience. However, the target readersespecially in the case of the translation of a brochure into English, which presents an ELF situationdo not represent a homogeneous group but are made up of speakers of different languages with a variety of cultural backgrounds, which makes accommodating the demands of such a diverse group of people even more difficult. In order to solve this problem, learners have to exploit the wide range of choices translating from one language into another offers, and make informed decisions regarding the selection of the options that they deem most appropriate for their particular target audience.

Apart from literature and translation, computer-assisted language learning (CALL) projects seem to be particularly suitable for providing an integrated approach to the development of autonomy. CALL tasks and projects, such as designing blogs or websites in particular, create conditions for the improvement of language and technical skills as well as the development of autonomy in terms of both learning and language use. The analysis of a language module where a group of university students had to create a website (Blin 2004)has demonstrated how the different stages and levels of activity (collective, individual, or group) can support various aspects of learner autonomy, for example how the formation of a new community of practice can allow learners to exert control over the social structure of their language learning environment. Students were acquiring the target


language, negotiating meaning, and developing independence as well as interdependence simultaneously while working on the task. Asimilar project reported in ELT Journal (Trajtemberg and Yiakoumetti 2011)highlights the benefits of students creating their own weblogs in the language they are learning. Blogs offered a good opportunity for learners not only to learn and use both new technology and the language, but they also allowed students to find their own voice and writing style (ibid.: 443). By encouraging self-expression, blogs and, in fact, other traditional ways of bringing the learners own world into the classroom can help students appropriate English and make it part of their everyday existence and experience.

For CALL and more traditional tasks to work in the long run and lead to lifelong learning, teachers and students should adopt a growth mindset (Mercer 2012), which sees an individuals ability to learn a language not as a fixed and given entity but rather as a complex, ongoing process of multiple developable skills (ibid.: 28). Agrowth mindset, the learners belief that they can advance and develop and, of course, hard work will enable them to become autonomous users of the target language.

The changed needs of English language learners seem to necessitate the reconsideration of learner autonomy in ELT. In ELF and CMC contexts, learners can be considered autonomous only if they can meet the increased problem-solving demands the use of English in international and CMC settings presents. The definition of learner autonomy should therefore include the process of language use and should develop autonomy through the engagement of students in previously undefined contexts where the other participants do not share the conventions and norms learners normally operate with. Two outcasts of communicative language teaching, the teaching of literature and translation, as well as CALL projects appear to be able to provide the conditions that make it possible for learners to meet the new challenges of communication in English.

Conclusion

ReferencesBenson, P. 2007. Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching 40/1: 2140.Blin, F. 2004. CALL and the development of learner autonomy: towards an activity-theoretical perspective. ReCALL 16/2: 37795.Chan, V. 2003. Autonomous language learning: the teachers perspectives. Teaching in Higher Education 8/1: 3354.Cook, G. 2010. Translation in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Cotterall, S. 2000. Promoting learner autonomy through the curriculum: principles for designing language courses. ELT Journal 54/2: 10917.Harmer, J. 2007. The Practice of English Language Teaching (fourth edition). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Little, D. 2009. Language learner autonomy and the European Language Portfolio: two L2 English examples. Language Teaching 42/2: 22233.Matsuda, A. 2003. Incorporating World Englishes in teaching English as an international language. TESOL Quarterly 37/4: 71929.Mercer, S. 2012. Dispelling the myth of the natural-born linguist. ELT Journal 66/1: 229.Oxford, R. L. 2003. Toward a more systematic model of L2 learner autonomy in D. Palfreyman and R. C. Smith (eds.). Learner Autonomy Across Cultures. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Seidlhofer, B. 2004. Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24: 20939.Seidlhofer, B. 2005. English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal 59/4: 33941.

512 va Ills

Smith, R. 2008. Learner autonomy. ELT Journal 62/4: 3957.Trajtemberg, C. and A. Yiakoumetti. 2011. Weblogs: a tool for EFL interaction, expression, and self-evaluation. ELT Journal 65/4: 43745.Widdowson, H. G. 1983a. Learning Purpose and Language Use. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Widdowson, H. G. 1983b. Talking shop: literature and ELT. ELT Journal 37/1: 306.

The authorva Ills teaches in the Department of English Applied Linguistics at Etvs Lornd University, Budapest. She holds a PhD in ESOL from the Institute of Education, University of London. She has a wide range of experience including teaching English in Britain and Hungary. Her current research areas are pragmatics, translation, ELF, and teacher education.Email: [email protected]


Documents

Learner Autonomy Revisited