Theme: learner-centred approaches to teaching and learner autonomy contents: introduction

Defining Autonomous Learning

All the disciplines discussed above have influenced thinking about language teaching and learning and especially about the role of the language learner in the learning process. The process syllabus (Breen, 1984), the learner-centred approach (Nunan, 1988) and many other approaches and methodologies are a result of this, but more importantly the individual learner now occupies a more central place in the language classroom. Learners are generally encouraged to be more responsible for their own learning both inside and out of the classroom; therefore, there is an increased focus on developing the skills necessary for this. The interest in the development of learner autonomy was not set in a theoretical framework until the late 1970’s, when all these streams of thought found a synthesis in the ideas put forward by Holec (1981). He defined learner autonomy as “the ability to take charge of one’s own learning’ (p.3). This ability includes “a potential capacity to act in a given situation–in our case learning–and not the actual behaviour of an individual in that situation” (p.3). The actual behaviour is autodidaxy. So for Holec learner autonomy is an ability, not an action. Some authors concur. For instance, Little (1991) defines it as “a capacity for detachment, critical reflection, decisionmaking, and independent action” (p.4) [the word capacity may imply variability in its use]. For Little there is a certain amount of awareness (critical reflection) involved whereas for Nunan (1995) the ability is crucial. He believes that “learners who have reached a point where they are able to define their own goals and create their own learning opportunities have, by definition, become autonomous” (p.145). For Huttunen (1986) the act of a certain type of learning is important: “A learner is fully autonomous when he is working individually or in a group, taking responsibility for the planning, monitoring and evaluation of his studies” (p.95).
If we look at the discussed definitions, we find that they focus on autonomy as either an ability or as a particular kind of learning act. These definitions seem to be incomplete. To have an ability to do something but not do it would hardly be useful. For example, a student can have the ability to take charge of his or her learning but still decide to be highly teacher-dependent and take no initiative whatsoever. On the other hand, if autonomy is defined as a student taking responsibility without having the ability to do so, then for example any blind act of randomly choosing materials from a library shelf could be seen as a display of autonomy, which of course it is not.
What seems to be missing in these definitions is an emphasis on the role of consciousness in the learning process. Poor language learners also use learning strategies, but often not the most efficient ones, or they don’t use them in an efficient manner. They may also make choices about what to learn when forced to do so, but these choices are not likely to be the best ones. They are not conscious of some aspects of their way of learning, or their current knowledge, or of the existence of alternative learning strategies. Lai (2001) talks about this when she makes the distinction between learners’ conceptual understanding (metacognitive awareness) of various aspects of self-directed language learning, and their actual ability (methodological techniques) in planning for this kind of learning. The conceptual understanding is important. According to Brookfield (1986):
It may be possible to be a superb technician of self-directed learning in terms of one’s command of goal setting, instructional design or evaluative procedures, and yet to exercise no critical questioning of the validity or worth of one’s intellectual pursuit as compared with competing, alternative possibilities. (p.29)
Chené (1983) believes that “to be resourceful and to be independent do not equal the achievement of autonomy” (as cited in Brookfield, 1986, p.57). Candy (1991) refers to this as the distinction between situational and epistemological autonomy. Clearly, there is more to autonomous language learning than just a certain capability.
It could be said that the perfect language learner (who, of course, does not exist), is at the very least completely conscious of his or her learning, and all aspects related to the learning process. The perfect learner then has the potential to use all the internal and external resources available. Affective and social filters will influence actual performance, but all the available potential skills are employed to the fullest. The perfect language learner, then, would not be the one who is the fastest learner, or the most accurate learner, but is the one who uses all of his or her capacities in the most efficient way, and who handles the social and affective aspects of the learning process to the best advantage through self-regulation and selfmotivation. The fully autonomous language learners in other words are the ones who develop themselves maximally, and represent an idealistic, psychological concept.
There is, however, also a political aspect to autonomy as discussed in the preceding sections. It is this aspect, I believe, to which Holec’s (1981) definition mainly refers. It is the ability to create the possibility of learning when and where and what one wants to learn. It involves control, and that is a political concept. In a way political autonomy precedes psychological autonomy, because political autonomy allows students to use (and develop) their psychological autonomy. Consciousness again plays a role, for political autonomy requires consciousness of the society we live in, and of ourselves, and our role in that society. Figure 3.1 presents all the factors that influence the occurrence of an autonomous act of learning.
On the left hand side are elements related to Control. This refers to the political aspect of autonomy. Learners have to have the opportunity to take responsibility for their learning. However, this alone is not sufficient. They need to be aware of this process and need to actively take responsibility for creating the opportunities that allow them to learn as they see fit. Empowerment is the job of society and its educators. If, and only if, this condition is met the section about External-motivation applies. Selfmotivation refers to the process whereby learners are aware of the need to take responsibility for this affective aspect of their learning. External motivators (including teachers, materials, etc.) can support this.

Figure 3.1. A Model of Autonomous Learning
Other affective and social factors influence what kind of learning, if any, will take place. Classrooms need to remove social and affective barriers. If the learner has the opportunity (political aspect), is motivated, and if no other affective, or social factors prohibit learning from taking place, then the actual act of learning is possible. This requires a degree of consciousness on the part of the learner, as argued above. Awarenessraising, for example as part of a course, can facilitate this aspect. Learners need to have knowledge of their state of mind, the task at hand, their personal goals, and so forth. They also need skills (the ability) to plan, monitor and evaluate their learning based on this information. Education should develop or enhance the necessary knowledge and skills.
It is only if all these conditions are met, that we can speak of an act of autonomous learning. As a definition I thus propose: Autonomous language learning is an act of learning whereby motivated learners consciously make informed decisions about that learning.
It is important to note that it is not possible or necessary during all acts of learning to be able or willing to consciously make decisions. Different learning situations pose different demands. Autonomy is not an either-or concept, but has to be seen as a continuum. One can be more or less autonomous and be so in different learning situations. Autonomy fluctuates over time, between skills and within skills. It is difficult to attain and is not necessarily permanent (once acquired it is not necessarily retained). It is for this reason that the definition speaks of autonomous learning rather than autonomy as a fixed capacity.