CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW: AUTONOMY (CONTINUED)
Previous Pages on Autonomy

3.2.1.3.3. Autonomy In The Classroom
If we accept Bruner's definition of instruction as "a provisional state that has as its objective to make the learner or problem solver self-sufficient" (1966b:53), then all learners need to learn to be independent of the teacher (Dickinson 1992:2), whose role it is to facilitate this. Allwright (1988a:35), suggests that the "seeds" of autonomy and individualisation already exist in the language classroom, and that teachers can therefore identify and encourage the autonomous classroom behaviour of their students. He points to the fact that the individual learning agenda that all learners bring to the classroom (Allwright 1984b) is a form of individualisation of the learning experience, and that all learners' errors and questions can be seen as (autonomous) moves that have the potential of individualising instruction (Allwright 1988b:37). Nunan also sees the language classroom as the best place for encouraging learners to move towards autonomy (Nunan, 1997:201), and agrees with Dickinson (1987:2) that this is a slow process: 

I have found that it is usually well into a course before learners are in a position to make informed choices about what they want to learn and how they want to learn, and it is not uncommon that learners are in such a position only at the end of the course. (Nunan, 1996:15)

Wenden (1991b) offers a checklist of questions teachers should ask when preparing their students for autonomy (table X, below):

TABLE X: LIST OF QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE PROMOTION OF LEARNER AUTONOMY IN THE CLASSROOM (WENDEN 1991B:3). 

Little (1995:176) and Dickinson (1987) point out that learners do not automatically accept responsibility in formal contexts and do not necessarily find it easy to reflect on the learning process. Teachers must therefore first provide them with appropriate tools and with opportunities to practise using them. Dickinson (1987) sees the first stage in this process as the liberalisation of the classroom to allow the development of learner independence, through providing explicit opportunities for the learner to take on responsibility for learning, while Nunan (1991a) recommends incorporating two sets of complementary goals into language programmes ( i) language content goals; ii) learning process goals), and proposes five levels for encouraging learner autonomy, some of which are more readily incorporated into teaching materials than others (Nunan, 1997:195) (table XI, below). Level 2 (Involvement) and level 3 (Intervention) in this table involve the learner in designing the course of study, and Bloor & Bloor (1988) describe the beneficial effects of such syllabus negotiation: i) it increases students' understanding of the nature of language in use and of the learning process; ii) it helps them to become aware of the facilities available in the immediate context of the university and in the wider context of society; iii) it improves their ability to formulate their learning goals; and iv) it enables them to begin to take control of their own learning (Bloor & Bloor 1988:73). The authors also point out that "for many students, the initial impact of negotiation is disturbing and possibly slightly demotivating" (Bloor & Bloor (1988:72), though they state that students quickly perceive the benefits of taking a measure of control, and that once this has happened, negotiation inevitably becomes an ongoing process: "It is thus that the foundations of autonomy are laid" (Bloor & Bloor 1988:73).

TABLE XI: LEVELS FOR ENCOURAGING LEARNER AUTONOMY (NUNAN, 1997:195). 

Oxford (1990b) seeks to bridge the gap between theory and practice with a detailed step-by-step guide for teachers interested in developing learner-centred activities in their institutions, and Dickinson (1992) identifies six ways "in which the teacher can promote greater learner independence":

1.  legitimizing independence in learning by showing that we, as teachers, approve, and by encouraging the students to be more independent;
2.  convincing learners that they are capable of greater independence in learning - give them successful experiences of independent learning;
3.  giving learners opportunities to exercise their independence;
4.  helping learners to develop learning techniques (learning strategies) so that they can exercise their independence;
5.  helping learners to become more aware of language as a system so that they can understand many of the learning techniques available and learn sufficient grammar to understand simple reference books;
6.  sharing with learners something of what we know about language learning so that they have a greater awareness of what to expect from the language learning task and how  they should react to problems that erect barriers to learning. (Dickinson 1992:2)

Ellis & Sinclair (1989) show that it is possible to organise learner-training courses systematically, on the assumption that this will produce students who are better aware of the learning process and of the various techniques available for language learning. However, Esch warns that if such courses allow teacher-control to return "through the back door", language learning gains will tend to be short-term, and will not help learners "reap the benefits of taking charge of their own learning" (1996b:175; cf. Chamot et al. 1999). Indeed, Esch claims that there are no "autonomous language learning skills" to be trained and that the word "training", with its connotations of automatic behaviour and its associations with "drills"  "seems to sit particularly unhappily next to autonomous learning." (1996b:165). Littlewood, defining the goal of all education as "to help people to think, act and learn independently in relevant areas of their lives" (1996:434), proposes a framework for developing autonomy in foreign language learning, based on the need to develop autonomy as a communicator, as a learner, and as a person (figure 7, below; cf. figure 5). Littlewood sees the methodology for developing autonomy (in its various aspects) as indistinguishable from a general teaching methodology, so that this framework (figure 7, below) can be viewed as a framework for language teaching. 

FIGURE 7: A FRAMEWORK FOR DEVELOPING AUTONOMY IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING (LITTLEWOOD 1996:432).

Cotterall (2000) directly addresses the issue of incorporating autonomy into language courses, and proposes five principles which help students and teachers attempt the transfer of responsibility for decision-making which promotes autonomous learning:

1.  The course reflects learners' goals in its language tasks, and strategies.
2.  Course tasks are explicitly linked to a simplified model of the language learning process.
3.  Course tasks either replicate real-world communicative tasks or provide rehearsal for such tasks.
4.  The course incorporates discussion and practice with strategies known to facilitate task performance.
5. The course promotes reflection on learning (Cotterall 2000:111-112)

3.2.1.3.4. Materials for the Autonomous Learner
Much of the discussion on self-directed and autonomous learning has focused on learner training and self-assessment (Allwright 1981; Blue 1988; 1994; Dickinson 1988; Blanche & Merino 1989: Ellis & Sinclair 1989; Oscarson 1990; 1997; O'Malley & Chamot 1990; Cram 1997; Harris 1997), with the design of self-directed/autonomous learning materials receiving relatively little attention (Allwright 1981; Frankel 1982; Hill 1982; Hughes 1982; Sturtridge 1982; Dickinson 1987; Sheerin 1989; 1991; Block 1991; Sinclair 1996; Nunan, 1997). Empirical studies on what makes autonomous learning materials effective are scarce (Lee 1996:167, cf. Wenden 1987b, 1991a; Ellis & Sinclair 1989; Oxford 1990b), despite the finding that continuing interest in learning depends to a large extent on whether learners find the materials they use interesting and useful (Frankel 1982; Hughes 1982). Nunan (1997:203) points to "emerging signs" that commercially available materials are beginning to incorporate ideas about learner autonomy (e.g. O'Malley & Chamot 1990; Oxford 1990b; Oxford & Scarcella 1993; NCELTR 1994; Nunan 1995a; Finch & Hyun 2000c), but Dickinson does not see the "ready supply" of available materials as offering "a complete solution to providing materials for self-instruction" (1987:69), since the reality behind the claim of suitability for self-instruction often consists of little more than the addition of an answer key, and perhaps some notes on the answers. Written more that twelve years ago, Dickinson's comments are still surprisingly accurate, and despite various recommendations that learner autonomy be included as an objective of language programmes (e.g. Abé, et al. 1975; Hosenfeld 1976; Stanchina 1976; Trim 1976; Moulden 1978; 1980; Dickinson & Carver 1980; Holec 1981; Sinclair & Ellis 1985; Dickinson 1987; Wenden & Rubin 1987; Cohen 1990; O'Malley & Chamot 1990; Oxford 1990b), Sinclair & Ellis (1992) observe that activities aiming to promote autonomy in English course books are "often presented in an unprincipled and unexplicit way", concluding that materials writers are probably overwhelmed by the necessity to include many other learning goals (cf. Sinclair 1996:149).

One answer to this lack of appropriate materials is to make in-house materials (cf. section 7.3), which "have the advantage that they are relevant to the needs of the learners for whom they are written and that they are specifically designed for self-instruction" (Dickinson 1987:79). Cross (1980:115) reports that this is encouragingly easy, in contrast to Else Lange (describing the British Council Circle Model, and cited in Dickinson 1987) who states that the preparatory work is "immense". Another approach is to adapt existing materials, and Nunan (1997:202) states that most commercial materials can be modified and adapted in ways which are likely to enhance learner autonomy. Whether original or adopted, research has highlighted the need for explicit learner training in such materials (Brown et al. 1983; Duffy et al. 1986), though Sinclair raises questions on the extent to which this is possible in English language materials, what is meant by explicit, and what it is that we should be explicit about (1996:149). Dickinson requires self-instructional materials to have "all the features good language teaching materials have - interest, variety, clarity and so on", as well as: i) a clear statement of objectives; ii) meaningful language input; iii) exercise materials and activities; iv) flexibility of materials; v) learning instructions; vi) language learning advice; vii) feedback and tests; viii) advice about record keeping; ix) reference materials; x) indexing; xi) motivational factors; and xii) advice about progression (1987:80).

Continue reading this literature review ...