Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning

Phil Benson,Peter Voller

• Editorial: Routledge
• Año: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781317888079
• Edición: 1
• Categoría: Langues et linguistique
• Categoría: Linguistique

The topics of autonomy and independence play an increasingly important role in language education. They raise issues such as learners' responsibility for their own learning, and their right to determine the direction of their own learning, the skills which can be learned and applied in self-directed learning and capacity for independent learning and the extents to which this can be suppressed by institutional education.This volume offers new insights into the principles of autonomy and independence and the practices associated with them focusing on the area of EFL teaching. The editors' introduction provides the context and outlines the main issues involved in autonomy and independence. Later chapters discuss the social and political implications of autonomy and independence and their effects on educational structures. The consequences for the design of learner-centred materials and methods is discussed, together with an exploration of the practical ways of implementing autonomy and independence in language teaching and learning. Each section of the book opens with an introduction to give structure to the development of ideas and themes, with synopses to highlight salient features in the text and help build upon the material of previous chapters.

1
Introduction: autonomy and independence in language learning

PHIL BENSON AND PETER VOLLER

Aims

Over the last two decades, autonomy and independence have taken on a growing importance in the field of language education. David Little (1991: p.2) has described autonomy as a ‘buzz-word’ of the 1990s, and this is borne out by the number of recent books (Dam, 1995; Dickinson and Wenden, 1995; van Lier, 1995), international conferences (Esch, 1994; Gardner and Miller, 1994; Pemberton et al., 1996) and newsletters (Independence; Learner Autonomy in Language Learning; Learning Learning) connected to the topic. Anita Wenden (1991: p.11) states that ‘few teachers will disagree with the importance of helping language learners become more autonomous as learners’, but concepts with which we can hardly disagree are often those that stand most in need of clarification. In spite of widespread agreement on the importance of autonomy and independence, there remains a good deal of uncertainty about their meanings and applications for language education. It is the aim of this book both to clarify and to problematize these meanings, in order that they might be opened up to wider debate.

For a definition of autonomy, we might turn to Holec (1981: p.3) who describes it as ‘the ability to take charge of one’s learning’. In language education, however, the word has been used in at least five different ways:

1. for situations in which learners study entirely on their own;
2. for a set of skills which can be learned and applied in self-directed learning;
3. for an inborn capacity which is suppressed by institutional education;
4. for the exercise of learners’ responsibility for their own learning;
5. for the right of learners to determine the direction of their own learning.

There are also differences in the extent to which autonomy is seen as a property of individuals or of social groups: it can be thought of in terms of withdrawal from education as a social process (self-instruction), or in terms of redistribution of power among participants in that social process (learner control). There are differences in the place that autonomy occupies in language learning: it can be thought of both as a means to the end of more effective language learning (autonomy for language learning) or as an end of language learning itself (language learning for autonomy). To add to the uncertainty, ‘independence’ is used sometimes as a synonym for ‘autonomy’ (Sheerin, 1991) and sometimes with a distinct sense of its own. Dickinson (1992), for example, associates ‘autonomy’ with the idea of learning alone and ‘independence’ with active responsibility for one’s own learning. There are also questions about whether autonomy and independence are universal or western culture-bound values in education (Riley, 1988a).

It should be emphasized that there is no canon for concepts such as autonomy and independence in the field of applied linguistics. These are problematic concepts because they carry with them meanings from other discourses and from their applications in particular instances of language education. Because different usages relate to different underlying perspectives, it is unlikely that applied linguists will arrive at single agreed definitions of these terms. In spite of this, there has been surprisingly little debate on the fundamentals of autonomy and independence as concepts in the field of applied linguistics. It is almost as if we have skipped over the debate on what autonomy and independence mean in our haste to move more rapidly on to their implementation. But whenever autonomy and independence figure in concrete language education projects, there is always a risk that underlying conceptual differences will emerge in the form of conflicts over the practical steps to be taken.

This lack of concern with theory and the dangers this has for practice is the primary concern of this book. The three parts of the book reflect the major questions that need to be addressed if the gap between theory and practice is to be narrowed. These questions are: What kinds of autonomy or independence are aimed at and how can they best be achieved (Part I: Philosophy and practice)? What changes are envisaged in the roles and relationships of teachers and learners (Part II: Roles and relationships)? What specific methods and materials might best contribute to overall goals (Part III: Methods and materials)? When discussion of goals, rationales, and appropriate methodologies is informed by a deeper understanding of the meaning potential of autonomy and independence for language learning, the chances of successful implementation will be increased.

The aim of this book is to explore the discourses and applications of autonomy and independence for language learning and clarify where the concepts have come from and where they are going. Its overall message is that autonomy and independence are not simply totems whose evocation can automatically produce ‘better language learners’ or ‘better people’ as a result of language learning. It aims to show that there are different versions of autonomy and independence and different ways of implementing them, and that each way leads into fields of debate where widely accepted assumptions about language teaching and language learning are open to question.

The chapters that make up the book are based on their authors’ experiences of autonomous and independent learning projects in a variety of settings. The authors do not always share the same view of autonomy and independence nor do they necessarily agree on the means of achieving it. In some cases, they are critical of methods and approaches with which they are themselves closely associated. The book does not, therefore, simply aim to promote autonomy and independence in language learning (although the editors are certainly committed to that goal), but to hold these concepts up to critical scrutiny at a time when they are entering the mainstream of language education. In this introductory chapter, we would like briefly to map out the terrain so that readers will better understand why autonomy and independence are so important to language education at the present time.

The origins of autonomy and independence in language learning

Although autonomy and independence have deep historical roots in both western and eastern philosophies (see Pierson, 1996, on the concept of autonomy in Chinese thought), it is primarily in their western form that we know of them in language education. Autonomy and independence are keywords of twentieth-century liberal western thought in the fields of philosophy, psychology, politics and education. From the eighteenth century onwards, western discourses on society have increasingly emphasized the responsibility of the individual as social agent. In philosophy and psychology, autonomy and independence have come to be associated with the capacity of the individual to act as a responsible ‘member of society’. The autonomous individual is, in Rogers’s (1969: p.288) words, ‘a fully functioning person’. In education, autonomy and independence are associated with the formation of the individual as the core of a democratic society. In this sense, they are by no means radical educational concepts. As Boud (1988: p. 18) points out: ‘A fundamental purpose of education is assumed to be to develop in individuals the ability to make their own decisions about what they think and do.’ The notion of individual autonomy has a certain ambiguity, however, because it implies both responsibility and freedom from constraint. In Collins COBUILD English Language Dictionary, one definition of autonomy is ‘the ability to make your own decisions about what to do rather than being influenced by someone else or told what to do’, a definition somewhat ominously illustrated by the phrase: These parents see autonomy in their youngsters as a threat. The word independence has a similar ambiguity, implying both individual responsibility (independence in a growing child, for example, denotes doing what the family expects without being told to do so) and freedom from reliance on others (an ‘independent woman’, a person of ‘independent means’).

A second, and older, sense of autonomy is found in the political field, where it denotes freedom from external control. This is the other sense of autonomy defined by Collins COBUILD Dictionary, ‘the control or government of a country, organization, or group by itself rather than by others’ (illustrated even more ominously by the phrase: The proposals include the ending of university autonomy). Unlike individual autonomy, political autonomy and independence are not conditional upon ‘responsibility’. They are rights rather than capacities. As Kwame Nkrumah (late President of Ghana) once argued of political independence: ‘The best way of learning to be an independent sovereign state is to be an independent sovereign state.’ The dictionary example shows that, in the educational context, autonomy is something that institutions may or may not enjoy in relation to governments or other funding institutions. In radical educational theory, autonomy, in the political sense, is a product of socially liberating education. In the work of Illich (1971), for example, the objective is to liberate learning from the restrictions of ‘schooling’. In the work of Freire (1970), it is to help learners develop tools for engagement in social struggle. In these contexts, autonomy has a more radical, social content concerned not only with the psychological autonomy of the individual, but also with the autonomy of individuals as they are constituted within social groups.

Although autonomy and independence in language learning currently tend to be conceived in individual and psychological terms, we should bear in mind that the roots of these concepts are both contradictory and complex. We should bear in mind also that those who have done most to develop and popularize these notions were often inspired by the radical educational ideas of Freire, Illich, Châlon, Dewey, Kilpatrick and others. As John Trim (cited in Holec, 1988: p.6) stated in a report on modern language teaching to the Council of Europe the autonomy approach is both ‘learner-centred’ and ‘anti-authoritarian’. Its implementation is therefore often characterized by ambiguities arising from two basic tensions: on the one hand, between responsibility and freedom from constraint; and on the other, between the individual and the social.

Why language learning? Why now?

The promotion of autonomy in language learning has links to developments elsewhere in the field of education (Boud, 1988; Knowles, 1975; Tough, 1971) and has been sustained and nourished by innovative work in the field of self-directed learning und self-access (for reports, see Dickinson, 1987; Esch, 1994; Gardner and Miller, 1994; Holec, 1988; Little et al, 1989; Riley, 1985; for a historical view of the concept of autonomy in language learning, see Gremmo and Riley, 1995). For the ‘real meaning’ of autonomy and independence there is a tendency to look towards the European tradition represented at CRAPEL (Centre de Recherches et d’Applications Pédagogiques en Langues), Nancy (Riley, 1985), but important as this work has been, we feel that it is also necessary to look at connections between these concepts and wider developments in language education. The most important of these is the fact that there is far more language education taking place, in more varied circumstances and for a wider variety of purposes, than ever before. The languages of the economically developed western world, English especially, account for the largest proportion of this growth, and it is in connection with the teaching of these languages that the concepts of autonomy and independence have established strongest roots. In the face of the growing scale and complexity of language education, they have emerged as keywords for flexible approaches to teaching and learning and responsiveness to diverse needs and circumstances.

At the same time, autonomy and independence have become linked to the growing role of technology in education, a link which has supported the growth of self-access language learning. For language teaching institutions, self-access often appears to represent an economical solution to large-scale language learning needs, a solution which is justified pedagogically by its association with the keywords of autonomy and independence. For advocates of autonomy and independence also, these terms have often been inseparable from the practice of self-access. Yet there is a good deal of ambiguity in this relationship. Self-access language learning can easily lead to dependence on a narrow range of strategies and materials and a narrowing of perspectives. As many of the authors in this collection are at pains to demonstrate, there is no necessary link between learning a language in a self-access facility and the development of autonomy and independence.

Autonomy and independence in language learning are also supported by three related tendencies in language education: individualization, learner-centredness and a growing recognition of the political nature of language learning.

Autonomous language learning has long been associated with individualization (Geddes and Sturtridge, 1982; Brookes and Grundy, 1988), and the notion that learners each have their own preferred learning styles, capacities and needs (Skehan, 1989). Advocates of autonomy and independence have also drawn upon ‘constructivist’ approaches to learning, which suggest that learners construct their own systems of knowledge as experience is filtered through ‘personal construct systems’ (Little, 1991). Proponents of autonomous and independent learning have tended to distance themselves from the implication that they promote individualistic approaches to learning by emphasizing the collective or collaborative nature of effective language learning. Autonomy continues, nevertheless, to be supported by views of learning which emphasize the learner’s individuality. Concepts of autonomy and independence have also been promoted by the general trend in language education towards ‘learner-centredness’ over the last two decades (see, for example, Tarone and Yule, 1989). Learner-centredness is characterized by a movement away from language teaching as the transmission of a body of knowledge (‘the language’) towards language learning as the active production of knowledge. At the same time, there is tendency to focus on methods of learning rather than methods of teaching. Over the last decade, a number of learner-centred approaches to language education have emerged, all of which include autonomy and independence among their aims: the learner-centred curriculum (Nunan, 1988), the negotiated syllabus (Breen and Candlin, 1980; Bloor and Bloor, 1988), learner training (Ellis and Sinclair, 1989; Dickinson, 1992) and strategy training (Oxford, 1990; Wenden, 1991), the project-based syllabus (Legutke and Thomas, 1991), experiential and collaborative learning (Kohonen, 1992, Nunan, 1992), learner-based teaching (Campbell and Kryszewska, 1992), and so on. Autonomy and independence are, therefore, also supported by approaches that emphasize the role of learners as active agents in their own learning.

Lastly, there is the more recent tendency to emphasize the political element in language learning. Terms such as ‘ideology’ and ‘empowerment’ have entered the standard vocabulary of language education theory, and Marxist and post-Marxist theoreticians such as Vygotsky, Bakhtin, Gramsci and Althusser are becoming common figures in applied linguistics bibliographies. Behind this trend is a growing concern with the social implications of language learning and the development of critical approaches to language pedagogy (Pennycook, 1990; Fairclough, 1992b), leading to renewed interest in theories which link language education to social and political liberation. Recent work has also begun to look at the culturally invasive nature of much language education (Phillipson, 1992; Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipson, 1994; Pennycook, 1994), where issues of autonomy and independence are directly raised. In this case, it is not so much the autonomy of learners as individuals that is at issue, as the ways in which language education supports or threatens the autonomy of the social or cultural groups to which learners belong. This tendency to think of learners not only as individuals but as members of socially constituted groups, adds a dimension to concepts of autonomy and independence for language learning which has yet to be fully explored.

Issues of debate

The various tendencies that have combined to produce more than one version of autonomy have also generated a number of areas for debate within the field. Here, we would like briefly to map out some of these areas and how they are addressed in this book. (Readers will find more detailed chapter summaries in the introductions to each of Parts I—III.)

One of the most important issues, arising from the more political approaches to language education, concerns the theoretical basis for autonomy and independence as concepts within the field. As we have observed, these concepts have roots in more than one discourse. In the late 1970s they were propelled by political concerns about the organization of educational systems, but in the 1980s psychological issues appear to have become dominant. In the mid-1990s, growing recognition that language education is a political process at both policy and content levels appears once again to be lending a political coloration to autonomy and independence. One of the key issues that is emerging in the field is how to reconcile psychological and political (and individual and social) perspectives in these concepts. These issues are addressed in several chapters (see especially, Chapters 2, 3, 7, 9, 11 and 12).

A closely related issue is the cultural specificity of autonomy and independence. Since Riley (1988a) first asked whether autonomy was not a peculiarly western concept, the question of whether the promotion of autonomy and independence in non-western settings is culturally intrusive or not has been on the agenda. This question is part of a broader set of issues concerned with the export of ‘modern’ teaching technologies from ‘west’ to ...