Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning in a Virtual Learning Environment

Miranda Hamilton

• Publisher: Bloomsbury Academic
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9781472589767
• eBook ISBN: 9781441189806
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Digitalised learning with its promise of autonomy, enhanced learner choice, independence and freedom, is an intuitive and appealing construct but closer examination reveals it to be a rather simplistic proposition, raising the following questions. -What do we mean by autonomy? -What are we implying about the role of the teacher, the classroom, and interaction between learners? -What do we understand about the impact of technology on the ecology of the learning environment? This book describes the use of a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) by a group of advanced English language learners in Mexico, comparing what students thought and what they did in response to the technology. The theoretical aim of the book is to work towards the construction of a theory of the development of autonomy and virtual learning in an EFL context. Enhanced understanding about the relationship between autonomy and technology has the potential to inform academics, software designers, materials writers, teacher educators, and teachers and to help learners in
their quest to acquire a foreign language.

1

Paradox and Promise: Autonomy, Foreign Language Learning and Technology

Assumptions about autonomy and technology

. . . educational technology demonstrates its effectiveness as a purveyor of learner autonomy. (Murray 1999:296)

One obvious benefit of technology for language learning is the creation of opportunities for students to use language in authentic contexts. Such activities encourage students to strive for autonomy in the target language. (Kessler 2009:79)

These are indeed bold suggestions, expressed with some certainty. But how can we be so sure? Are we beguiled by the promises for our brave new digital classroom, in danger of being blinded by style over substance?

Though published ten years apart, these two observations convey a common sentiment, which is that the introduction of technology into a context for learning can provide opportunities for learners to exploit their capacity for independent learner and language behaviour beyond the constraints of their traditional learning environment. Autonomy lies at the heart of this book although it is an elusive construct to pin down and often confused with independence. The construct as I have interpreted it corresponds with the distinction made by Deci and Flaste (1996:89):

Independence means to do for yourself, to not rely on others for personal nourishment and support. Autonomy, in contrast, means to act freely, with a sense of volition and choice. It is thus possible for a person to be independent and autonomous (i.e., to freely not rely on others), or to be independent and controlled (i.e., to feel forced not to rely on others).

I am interested in examining the sense with which the learner feels capable of acting of his own volition and choice but that this might be enhanced within a technological learning context by the nourishment and support received from his environment.

This book contextualizes the examination of the nature of the relationship between autonomy and technology through the teaching and learning of a foreign language. Perhaps more than any other academic discipline, the aim for foreign language teachers is to support their learners to take ownership of the target language so they can set their sights beyond the remit of the classroom and use the language freely and spontaneously. The foreign language in the context I describe in this book is English, but this is not to say that the insights about autonomy and technology that emerge in this book bear no relation to learning other foreign languages. But why English? I taught English as a foreign language for many years so it is a learning environment I am familiar with. But significantly English has become the lingua franca of the internet and we are living through the global explosion of online communication which means that there is a need identified around the world to be able to use English online. Technology creates hitherto inaccessible opportunities for real-world, meaningful interaction and engagement in the socially constructed setting of the classroom. The teaching of English as a foreign language is therefore well placed to harness the energy of technology, shedding insights into notions of autonomy and taking us beyond technological wizardry and towards well-grounded pedagogical practice that might then be usefully extrapolated and applied not only to other languages and but also to other academic disciplines.

Despite indications to suggest that we are living through a digital revolution, and the conceptual complexities of the notion of autonomy, we continue to read that the ‘obvious benefit’ (Kessler 2009:79) of technology lies in its capacity to ‘[purvey] learner autonomy’ (Murray 1999:296) do we understand the nature of this relationship and the basis upon which is it founded? Embedded within these references is the problematic implication that the conventions of traditional language learning make it difficult for students to behave autonomously, with the suggestion that they are otherwise ‘thwarted by institutional choices’ (Ciekanski 2007:112), which overlooks the possibility that it is possible to be autonomous in the classroom. This sentiment is compounded by the suggestion that technology creates hitherto unheralded opportunities for communicative independence in the target language.

Consider the following broad interpretation of an autonomous individual:

A person charts his own course through life by self consciously choosing projects and assuming commitments from a wide range of eligible alternatives, and making something out of his life according to his own understanding of what is valuable and worth doing. (Wall 2003:307/8)

It could be argued that technological functionality has the potential to enhance the learner’s freedom to choose by presenting an extensive ‘range of eligible alternatives’ (ibid.) with which to engage, according to a personally held criterion of ‘what is valuable and worth doing’(ibid.).

The suggested relationship between autonomy and technology has widespread appeal, but Hawisher and Selfe (2000:56) caution against the ‘uncritical enthusiasm’ of technology and Lamy and Hampel (2007c:82) argue that ‘for many of the positive aspects [. . .] there is a corresponding negative impact’. The union is more complex than it might at first seem. The aim of this book is to examine the nature of the relationship, because in so doing, this might offer some insights into the reasons why, despite great optimism and promise, the ESRC (Economic and Social Research Council) research group, PACCIT (People at the Centre of Communication and Information Technologies) (2005:3) have expressed concerns that ‘huge technological developments [. . .] have not always delivered their intended benefits to end-users’, with this sentiment reflected in PACCIT’s research objectives:

To develop a greater understanding of the psychological, social and organisational characteristics of individuals and groups as they relate to, and interact with, information technologies and to feed this knowledge back to the evaluation and design of more effective IT systems and products.¹

The problem: Understanding the nature of the relationship between autonomy, language learning and technology

Autonomy has been identified as a pedagogical ideal, such that it has achieved ‘buzzword status’ (Pemberton 1996:2), and with the increasingly ubiquitous presence of computers in education, it has been affiliated to technology. Yet burgeoning popularity has given rise to some ambiguity, which Pemberton (ibid.) suggests becomes apparent when one considers how many terms referring to the notion of autonomy are used to describe the same phenomenon, and that a single term is often used to describe different phenomena. In light of the complexities associated with what it means to be autonomous and how it might therefore be applied to learning with technology, it is helpful to consider the two conditions proposed by Holec (1981:7) which are that in order for the learner to behave autonomously.

Box 1.1 Two conditions necessary for autonomy (Holec 1981:7)

First, the learner must have the ability to take charge of his learning, that is he must know how to make the decisions which this involves.

Secondly, there must be a learning structure in which control over the learning can be exercised by.the learner, that is in which the learner has the possibility of exercising his ability to take charge.

Holec’s two conditions indicated in Box 1.1 point to the relationship between the internal and external dimensions of autonomy, reflecting the view held by Little that ‘as social beings our independence is always balanced by dependence, our essential condition is one of interdependence’ (Little 1990:7).

Esch (2009:31) reflects that the integration of autonomy into educational practice appears to have been successful but she argues that in the processes of ‘mainstreaming’ (ibid.) there has been some distortion in the interpretation of what it means to be autonomous, and considers two misconceptions identified by Little (1991:3, cited in Esch 2009:31) that prevail: autonomy equates to self-instruction and that by implication teacher input is detrimental to the development of autonomous behaviour.

Critically these misconceptions fail to observe the element of ‘interdependence’ (Little 1990:7) between the individual and the learning structure that bring Holec’s two conditions for autonomy (Box 1.1) together. These misapprehensions can be seen in the multiplicity of computer programmes designed so that students can learn independently of the classroom and the teacher. As an approach, this diminishes what it means to be autonomous by overlooking language and learning as socially situated constructs, where students are the ‘creative products of their social context’ (Esch 2009:43). Technology may have failed to deliver intended benefits when, by design, digital grammar games and exercises offer little in the way of meaningful feedback, and autonomous learning mediated by technology has been confused with learning in isolation and individualization. But the relationship between autonomy and technology is more complex than this. More recently, the provision of virtual space has the potential to bring learners and teachers together, with the promise and pedagogical value of online L2 interaction, yet Mason (2001:69) found that, despite the apparent potential, ‘simply providing an environment in which students and teachers could interact did not guarantee successful engagement,’ because of the need for the stimulus of human interaction. A virtual environment is simply an empty space because as Hutchby (2001:20) says, ‘there are no inherent or necessary features of technological artefacts which lead to determinate social consequences.’

Concerns expressed by PACCIT (2005:3) indicate that technological developments have not lived up to expectation, and the group’s research objectives highlight the need to understand more about the design of technology to maximize the benefits to the learner. In the context of this book the suggestion could be interpreted to mean that improved design might encourage autonomous learner behaviour. Although Kern and Warschauer (2000:2) reflect on the significance of the context within which the technology is used and Ganem Gutierrez (2006:244) considers that the success of an activity cannot be attributed to the medium of implementation, much of the debate has been focused on the connection between the learner, the technology and pedagogical outcomes, whether this is in terms of the computer-as-tutor, task-based learning or promoting authentic L2 interaction.

The search for understanding

If we are to understand something more of the nature of the relationship between autonomy and technology, while consideration should be afforded to its internal and external dimensions, the notion of interdependence should include the wider implications of introducing technology into the learning environment. I am therefore interested in the ecological approach where context is ‘at the heart of the matter’ (van Lier 2004:5). But what of the context that lies at the heart of this book?

Context, autonomy and language learning in Mexico

The work represented in this book was conducted in the context of a university in Mexico, an educational setting that lends itself very well to our search for understanding, through an examination of assumptions, theories and current thinking about the nature of the relationship between technology and the development of autonomy. The teaching of languages in Mexico has been going through a period of pedagogical transition over a period of years. Not only have different traditions of autonomous learning evolved but they exist in tension with one another.

The voices of the students who appear in this book were advanced learners of English enrolled on a full-time English language learning programme at a university in Mexico, an educational setting that lent itself very well to our search for insights into the nature of the relationship between technology and autonomy in the context of foreign language learning. In recent years, the teaching of languages in Mexico has been going through a period of pedagogical transition with autonomous learning identified as a priority. These students straddled the ‘fault line’ between one era and another, therefore offering a unique opportunity to research notions of autonomy, new classroom methodologies and technologically mediated learning opportunities.

Background to the Mexican context

In the state sector in Mexico, the pedagogical approach to teaching English as a foreign language has evolved from the classic tradition of grammar-translation (Manteca Aguirre et al. 2006:10). Historically, the ability to manipulate the written word has been more highly valued than communication through the spoken word. By way of contrast, privately run British, American and Australian language schools in Mexico adopt a different pedagogical approach with communicative language teaching (ibid.). New language education policy in 1993 recommended a realignment of priorities so that rather than focusing exclusively on formal aspects of language and translation, students should work towards becoming competent users of the language. Such a paradigm shift in the conceptualization of language and basic language education (ibid.) has proved more difficult to achieve in practice. An exploratory study conducted across more than 100 secondary schools in 2001–2 revealed that students were still leaving secondary school with poor language skills and unable to communicate in the target language.

Fostering autonomous learning in Mexico: The British Council approach

Following consultation with the British Council, Mexico has seen significant public investment in the development of centres for self-directed foreign language learning at universities (Hernández Cuevas 2004). The British Council website² advocates that teachers should ‘attempt to foster autonomy through practices in EFL classroom’. The role of the teacher is identified as central to promoting autonomous learning, with the classroom as the environment where students can explore and develop the necessary skills and strategies through classroom activities, working towards becoming more self-reliant and motivated lifelong learners. Many educational institutions in Mexico have adopted a British Council approach to self-directed learning as a component of classroom learning. The self-access centre complements and supports classroom teaching, as a means of promoting independent learning. Learners are guided towards a less dependent culture for learning, as educational institutions provide students with structured self-access learning pathways that are formally integrated into the syllabus, using the students’ course-book as a guide, and adapting commercially available materials. However, self-access centres have largely been run by busy teaching staff with limited training in self-directed learning and have been found to be underutilized by students (Groult Bois: no date³).

This mode of self-directed learning is ultimately managed by the institution, so that the learners’ potential for autonomy is determined and controlled by their context for learning and their teacher. Arguably, this runs contrary to the notion of autonomy posited by Benson and Voller (1997:4) as ‘freedom from external control’ and is remote from the more expanded notion of learner autonomy suggested by the wider literature.

Fostering autonomous learning in Mexico: The CRAPEL approach

An alternative approach towards self-directed language learning in Mexico is offered to students at the Centro de Enseñanza de Lenguas Extranjeras (CELE) at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM). In 1995, CELE opened its centre for self-access language learning set up following the guidelines for self-directed learning proposed by CRAPEL and founded on the premise of creating opportunities and extending language education to non-specialists. Central to this approach is the notion of self-directed learn...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Series
• 1 Paradox and Promise: Autonomy, Foreign Language Learning and Technology
• 2 Understanding Autonomy: An Overview
• 3 Technology: Virtual Promise or Virtual Reality – the Pedagogical Challenge
• 4 Shadow Dancing: Autonomy in Action
• 5 Learner Reflections about Learning English as a Foreign Language and the Role of Technology
• 6 Perceptions and Reality 1: Students’ Response to Using a VLE in Computer Room Lessons
• 7 Perceptions and Reality 2: Beyond the Classroom – Students’ Free Time Use of the VLE
• 8 An Ecological Perspective of Autonomy, Foreign Language Learning and Technology
• 9 Looking Back, Thinking Forwards
• Bibliography
• Index