​Learner Autonomy in Second Language Pedagogy and Research

Challenges and Issues

Klaus Swienhorst

• Publisher: Candlin & Mynard ePublishing Limited
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781370291885
• Topic: Didattica
• Subtopic: Didattica delle lingue

This selection of papers is the result of a two-day conference on "Learner autonomy in second language pedagogy and research - challenges and issues" which was held in Hannover, Germany. The edited volume contains written versions of the three plenaries, followed by Everhard's conceptual look at the various definitions of learner autonomy. We then look at challenges and obstacles of implementing learner autonomy when dealing with learners (Beseghi & Berotolotti; Born-Lechleitner; Denekamp) before turning to those challenges and obstacles we encounter in teacher education and teacher practice (Fernandes & Vieira; Gabel & Schmidt; Gallo; Manzano Vázquez).

Chapter 1

Learner Autonomy: A Personal Note by the Editor

Klaus Schwienhorst

Leibniz Universität Hannover, Germany

[email protected]

 

The conference in Hannover brought together some of the most important figures in learner autonomy. Three of the plenary speakers have been frequent contributors to the LASIG, Leni and Lienhard have been LASIG coordinators for some time. Coincidentally, David, Leni, and Lienhard have also been accompanying my own path to learner autonomy for decades. When still a student of Anglo-Irish Literature at the University of Münster and a student assistant to Lienhard Legenhausen in the late 1980s and early 1990s, I had the chance to explore new technologies like the Internet and discussing “learner autonomy” with both Lienhard and also Leni who came to visit us now and then. I still remember heated debates, especially with Leni, on my (mis)conceptions of learner autonomy. Slowly, and without realizing it, I became infected with the virus of “learner autonomy”.

I remember not being happy with a cloze test result on prepositional phrases and questioning the lecturer’s decision. Leaving the session, I immediately sat down and consulted the London “Times” CD-ROM text corpus which we had just purchased for the Self-Access Centre and searching it with MicroConcord, a concordancer, for results. I spent hours on this, not realizing how much time I spent sorting, then re-sorting my results, categorizing my findings, and finally (and, I must admit, triumphantly) coming up with five results for the supposedly “wrong” item in my test. One week later, I confronted the lecturer, a native speaker, with my results. I did mention that I had found 232 results for “his” solution, but also five for “my” solution, so surely, how could mine be wrong? The lecturer had a detailed look at “my” five results, and had to think long and hard about his answer. Finally, he mentioned that two results came from authors who he knew to be sloppy in their writing. The three other results were actually correct (“I knew it!”), but only in THOSE CONTEXTS (“what?”). The items were “typical of” and “typical for”; an easy mistake for German students growing up with “typisch für”. This incident set in motion learning processes that I only much later began to recognize as central to learner autonomy. I was a learner in control; I learned not because somebody told me but because I wanted to find out; I questioned the authority of native speakers, especially textbooks, and “rules” and looked instead at actual language use; I began to recognize language learning as a dynamic and complex process; I played with and deconstructed language by using computer programs; I negotiated language and language learning explicitly with native speakers and other learners. My result in this test did not change; my view on language and language learning, however, did.

My time as a student assistant with Lienhard eventually came to an end. I finished my Magister (still in Anglo-Irish Literature) in 1995 and half-heartedly started a less-than-adequately funded PhD course, when Lienhard contacted me with the news that a PhD candidate’s position was available at Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland, and whether (with my experience having lived in Ireland while a PAD language assistant) I would be interested. Thus I travelled to Dublin for an interview with David Little. It quickly became clear that I would need to change my topic, switching to something between linguistics and didactics. Not really trusting my instincts, I still said yes, especially as David made it clear that there was no risk if things did not work out for me. Five years later, I received my PhD and became a permanent lecturer in applied linguistics and coordinator of language modules at the Centre for Language and Communication Studies at Trinity College, and afterwards enjoying several more years of working with David in a fantastic environment with great colleagues.

Thus, with David, Lienhard, and Leni agreeing to become plenary speakers at the LASIG 2013 conference in Hannover, I was thrilled to be able to welcome three people who were instrumental in starting me on my own path to learner autonomy, providing opportunities and forcing me to think and make decisions. Our conference theme, “Learner autonomy in second language pedagogy and research – challenges and issues”, focused on a core issue in learner autonomy and language learning. While very few question the benefits of learner autonomy and the usefulness of its goals in general, the practice (and also the theory) of learner autonomy seems to be hampered by a number of challenges and obstacles. Some of these lie within the discussion of the concept of learner autonomy itself (Is it self-access? Does learner autonomy go well with the CEFR? Does learner autonomy mean revolution or reform of our educational systems?). Others lie in the realm of learners and their experiences and beliefs. Other perceived challenges and obstacles lie with teacher education; it is a truism to say that the implementation of learner autonomy can hardly be achieved without teachers who experienced its benefits in their own education as language teaching professionals.

Chapter 2

Language Learner Autonomy, Vygotsky and Sociocultural Theory: Some Theoretical and Pedagogical Reflections

Language Learner Autonomy, Vygotsky and Sociocultural Theory

David Little

Trinity College Dublin, Ireland

[email protected]

Abstract

Vygotsky has long been cited in the literature on language learner autonomy, whereas learner autonomy rarely crops up in the literature on second language acquisition that claims to base itself directly on Vygotsky’s writings. I had already committed myself to exploring this asymmetry in the talk on which this article is based when I read James Lantolf’s chapter – ‘Sociocultural Theory and the dialectics of L2 learner autonomy/agency’ – in The Applied Linguistic Individual (Benson & Cooker, 2013a). At the beginning of his chapter Lantolf declares himself ‘a little concerned by some of the proposals and recommendations made in the name of SCT’, by which he means Vygotsky, or rather his own interpretation of Vygotsky. He explains that his goal is ‘to address some of the concerns I have regarding these matters and to suggest some modifications based on a fuller understanding of Vygotskian theory’ (Lantolf, 2013: 17). Lantolf’s principal source for what he labels ALR (autonomous learner research) is a rather random gathering of my own publications, so his article provided me with a focus and a challenge. My talk explored the relation between language learner autonomy theory (LLAT) and SCT in Lantolf’s limited sense, with close reference to Lantolf’s arguments; the present article does the same in somewhat greater detail.

The concept of learner autonomy has given rise to many different conceptions, so I begin by briefly elaborating my own. I then explain how Vygotsky’s ideas contributed to the development of my thinking and give preliminary consideration to some points of divergence between LLAT and SCT. This prepares the ground for a more detailed consideration of two key Vygotskian notions, inner speech and scientific concepts, on which my views differ significantly from Lantolf’s. Finally, my conclusion briefly recapitulates what seem to me major differences between LLAT and SCT, before suggesting a possible direction for future research focused on language learner autonomy.

Keywords: Language learner autonomy; Vygotsky; sociocultural theory (SCT); inner speech; spontaneous concepts; scientific concepts

Language Learner Autonomy: A Brief Definition

In my experience the most successful language learning environments are those in which, from the beginning, the target language is the principal channel of the learners’ agency: the communicative and metacognitive medium through which, individually and collaboratively, they plan, execute, monitor and evaluate their own learning. Four elements of this definition require brief elaboration. The first comes at the end: ‘plan, execute, monitor and evaluate their own learning’. The idea that autonomous learners are in charge of and responsible for all aspects of their learning is Henri Holec’s starting point in Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning (Holec, 1979; cited here as Holec, 1981), and it is fundamental to all versions of learner autonomy. The second element that requires elaboration is the phrase ‘individually and collaboratively’. In the most successful language learning environments individual learning is embedded in interaction; pursuit of a collaborative learning agenda leads to the fulfilment of individual learning needs and agendas. The third element is not found in all versions of learner autonomy, though it seems to me a precondition for successful learning outcomes: ‘the target language is the principal channel of the learners’ agency’. By this I mean that individually and collaboratively learners make choices, take decisions, implement their decisions, and evaluate learning outcomes in the target language. Finally, because the target language is used in this way its impact on the learning process is metacognitive as well as communicative.

Language learning environments that correspond to this description are governed by three principles (Dam & Legenhausen, 1997; Legenhausen, 2003). The underlying principle is that language learning arises quasi-spontaneously from the learner’s active involvement in target language use – ‘quasi-spontaneously’ because in formal contexts all learning is the product of intentional processes. This yields an operational principle, according to which classroom interactions must be authentic, driven by genuine communicative purposes and not by ‘drill and practice’ or other traditional teaching techniques. This principle redefines the teacher’s role. Instead of seeking to transmit knowledge and skills to her learners she proposes learning activities for them to try out, scaffolds their attempts to use the target language as the medium of their learning, raises their awareness of language as a system, and leads them in reflection on the learning process and evaluation of learning outcomes. According to the procedural principle the work cycle must be strictly managed in order to provide structure and give teacher and learners a sense of security, direction and control of the learning process (a detailed account of the work cycle is provided by Dam, 1995).

This kind of language learning environment is a great deal more than a theoretical construct. Variations have existed in Denmark, other Nordic countries and elsewhere for more than thirty years, and the learning outcomes that have been achieved are beyond dispute. In their LAALE Project (Language Acquisition in an Autonomous Learning Environment), for example, Dam and Legenhausen studied the English L2 development of one particular class over a period of four years, focusing on the acquisition of vocabulary (Dam & Legenhausen, 1996), grammatical structures (Legenhausen, 1999a, 1999b), and the ability to participate spontaneously in conversational interactions (Legenhausen, 2001). The empirical data show conclusively that Dam’s mixed-ability learners achieved greater communicative proficiency and a fuller, more flexible mastery of the underlying target language system than a class of learners at an elite German secondary school (Gymnasium) who were taught English using a ‘communicative’ textbook. Legenhausen (2003) attributes this success to a number of...