CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW: AUTONOMY, AFFECT, TASK-BASED SYLLABI

3.1. Introduction

In view of the problems relating to the teaching and learning of English in Korea, as outlined in chapter 2, and in the light of recent research findings and advances in educational theory, the decision was made to design a conversation programme focusing on "language-learning-as-education". Such an emphasis was considered appropriate for the long-term learning needs of the students (chapter 5, "Needs Analysis"), previously sacrificed to the short-term needs of proficiency-tests (Lee 1991:79). Core goals of "Confidence, Motivation and Independence" (CMI) were proposed as effective criteria for developing and assessing this approach, the whole (curricula, syllabi, teacher-training, learner-training, etc.) to be placed in a task-based infrastructure, promoting problem-solving and critical thinking skills. The rationale behind these decisions is derived from and described in the following literature reviews on autonomy, affect, and task-based syllabi.

3.2. Literature Review: Autonomy In Language Learning

3.2.1. Autonomy
3.2.1.1. Introduction
Littlejohn (1983:599) points to the "widespread belief that one has to be taught in order to learn" which consciously (or unconsciously) underlies informed and lay opinion about education. In the field of SLA[1] studies it has been shown that instruction can have a beneficial effect on aspects of learning (Long 1983a, Doughty 1991), but there are questions about the effectiveness and permanency of such learning, and recent research has also highlighted the importance of affective, social, and psychological factors in the acquisition of language. Recognition of these factors has been reflected in the growth of attention to the learner as the central agent in the learning process, and in the recognition that such an approach can promote more effective and efficient learning (Caef 1991:219). Autonomy of learning has thus become a valid goal for educators[2]:

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. (Boud 1988:18)

As Gremmo observes (1995:151), the last 25 years have seen an increasing amount of attention to learner autonomy, self-directed learning, self-access systems and individualized/independent learning in second language learning literature (e.g. Harding-Esch [Ed.] 1976; Altman & James [Eds.] 1980; Holec 1980; 1981; 1987; 1985; 1988; Geddes & Sturtridge 1982; Mason [Ed.] 1984; Riley 1985; 1988; 1996; Dickinson 1978; 1987; 1988; 1992; 1995; Wenden & Rubin [Eds.] 1987; Brookes & Grundy [Eds.] 1988; Ellis & Sinclair 1989; Little 1989; 1991; 1995; Sheerin 1989; 1991; Gathercole [Ed.] 1990; Wenden 1991b; Page 1992; Esch 1994; 1997a; 1997b; Gardner & Miller [Eds.] 1994; Dam 1995; Dickinson & Wenden [Eds.] 1995; Pemberton et al. [Eds.] 1996; Benson & Voller [Eds.] 1997, Cotterall 2000). The general acceptance of these terms in the profession has prompted Little (1991:2) to describe autonomy as the ‘buzz-word'of the 1990s, and Wenden to observe that "few teachers will disagree with the importance of helping language learners become more autonomous as learners" (1991b:11). However, the concepts of learner autonomy (now seen as a legitimate goal of language education), and autonomous learning (now regarded as more or less equivalent to effective learning [cf. Benson & Voller [Eds.] 1997:2; Dickinson 1987:vii; Gremmo 1995:156,158]) lack any theory of autonomous language learning or other applied linguistic base (Benson & Voller 1997:3; Benson 1996:28). Dickinson (writing in 1987) observed that most of the research on the effectiveness of self-instruction in language learning has not been done (though cf. Little 1991; Cotterall 1995a & b; 1999), and that "very few of the present or past methods and techniques for language learning are solidly based on research results. Either the research has not been done for them or the results are inconclusive” (Dickinson 1987:1).

3.2.1.2 Origins
The growth of interest in autonomy as an educational goal can be identified in changes that have occurred in the twentieth century (especially since the second World War, when ideas of autonomy and self-direction came under close scrutiny and analysis) in social sciences, psychology, philosophy, and political science. Pemberton (Pemberton et al.1996:1) cites changes in educational philosophy, language-learning theory, political beliefs, the need to adapt to rapid changes in technology, communications and employment, the recognition that learning to learn is now more important than knowledge, and opportunities provided by technological developments to expand educational provision at the same time as cutting costs. Gremmo (1995) also identifies the following factors:

1.   minority rights movements;
2.  a reaction against behaviourism in medicine, politics, music, poetry, schooling, psychology, education, philosophy, and linguistics;
3.  the emergence of "autonomy” as an educational ideal, with a direct influence on adult education in Europe;
4.  developments in technology contributing to the spread of autonomy and self-access;
5.  rising internationalism since the second World War;
6.  adult learners and different learning needs, resulting in flexible learning programmes with varying degrees of learner-centredness and self-direction;
7.  commercialisation of much language provision, together with the movement to heighten consumer awareness, leading to learners as consumers, making informed choices in the market;
8.  increase in school and university populations, encouraging the development of new educational structures for dealing with large numbers of learners. Some form of self-directed learning with institutional support in the shape of counselling and resource centres, has been found helpful. (Adapted from Gremmo 1995:152)

The concept of individual autonomy has been central to European liberal-democratic and liberal-humanist thought since the 18^th century (Lindley 1986), and was identified by Kant as the foundation of human dignity (Hill, 1991:48). Holec (1980:1) sees an "irreversible" trend in the late 1960s in industrially advanced Western countries to define social progress in terms of improvement in the "quality of life", giving rise to various kinds of social awareness, from ecology to the status of women, the rights of patients, and education:

Adult education ... becomes an instrument for arousing an increasing sense of awareness and liberation in man, and, in some cases, an instrument for changing the environment itself. From the idea of man 'product of his society', one moves to the idea of man 'producer of his society'. (Janne ND[3], cited in Holec 1980:2)

3.2.1.3. Autonomy in Language Learning
In second language learning, this humanistic trend (i.e. towards improving the quality of life of the learner) produced a wide-ranging series of investigations in the 1960s and 1970s, resulting in various socio-linguistic disciplines, such as speech act theory (Austin 1962; Searle 1969; Apel 1976), discourse analysis (Garfinkel 1967; Cicourel 1973), ethnomethodology, ethnolinguistics and the ethnography of communication (Hymes 1966; 1974; Gumperz & Hymes 1972; Saville-Troike 1982), language in education (Labov 1972; Halliday 1973; 1976; Habermas 1979), and the sociology of language (Fishman 1972). These all shared a pragmatic vision of language as "a tool for communication" - the rational for the "Communicative Approach" to language learning and teaching. Another outcome and expression of humanist and cognitive psychology and sociolinguistics was the "deschooling education" movement of the 1970's (Rogers 1969; Illich 1973; Freire 1976). 

A number of learner-centred approaches to language education emerged in the 1980s and 1990s, all of which include autonomy and independence of learning among their aims: the learner-centred curriculum (Nunan 1988c), the negotiated syllabus (Breen & Candlin 1980; Bloor & Bloor 1988), learner training (Ellis & Sinclair 1989; Dickinson 1992), learning-strategy training (Oxford 1990b; Wenden 1991a), the project-based syllabus (Legutke & Thomas 1991), experiential and collaborative learning (Kohonen 1992; Nunan 1992a), and learner-based teaching (Campbell & Kryszewska 1992). These can be seen as growing from early work on learner autonomy (Altman 1971; Disick 1975; Knowles 1975; Harding-Esch 1976; Dickinson 1978), which was developed in the 1980s by (inter alia) Strevens (1980); Holec (1981); Allwright (1982); Geddes & Sturtridge (1982); Dickinson (1987); Wenden & Rubin (1987); Brookes & Grundy (Eds.) (1988); Nunan (1988c); and Little & Singleton (1989).

The autonomy debate has thus become a popular focus of foreign language teaching (Dickinson 1987; Brookes & Grundy 1988; Holec 1981; Little 1991; Dam 1995; Dickinson & Wenden 1995), relating as it does to central pedagogical concerns about "learner-centred” aims and methods (Rogers 1951; 1969; Illich 1973; Barnes 1976; Friere 1976; Trim 1976; Holec 1981; Hunt, Gow & Barnes 1989), and supported by a general educational concern to help students become more independent in how they think, learn and behave (cf. Boud 1988; Hammond & Collins 1991). Such an approach is often characterised by tensions between responsibility and freedom from constraint, between the individual and the social, and between the view of language learning as a means to an end (autonomy for language learning) and as an end in itself (language learning for autonomy) (Benson & Voller 1997:5). This general debate has given rise to two inter-related directions of research. The first of these (mainly in Europe) has concerned itself with the development of learner autonomy as a primary requisite of learning beyond school in democratic societies (Holec 1980; 1988; Dickinson 1987; Kohonen 1987; 1989), while the second (mainly in North America) has focused on solving the "secret” of the good language learner by emphasizing learner strategies and the notion of learning to learn (Wenden & Rubin 1987; Chamot & Kupper 1989; Oxford & Nyikos 1989).

The concept of autonomy in education is based on a belief in a developed self (a self-conscious, rational being able to make independent decisions [cf. Rogers 1951]), and an emphasis on freedom from external constraints (Pennycook 1997:36), expressed in foreign language teaching as: i) autonomy as a communicator (the ability to use the language creatively and to use appropriate strategies for communicating meanings in specific situations [cf. Rivers 1975]); ii) autonomy as a learner (the ability to engage in independent work and to use appropriate learning strategies, both inside and outside the classroom [cf. Ellis & Sinclair 1989; Cotterall 1995a; 1999; Dickinson & Wenden 1995]); and iii) autonomy as a person (the ability to express personal meanings and to create personal learning contexts):

Since the abilities to communicate and learn independently are major factors in enabling a person to make choices in life, they also contribute to each learners'autonomy as an individual. (Littlewood 1996:429)

Littlewood (1996) describes these three components and domains of autonomy (above) in foreign language learning in figure 5 (below), pointing out that there are different levels of autonomy in each domain (cf. figure 7). Nunan (1996) and Dickinson (1987) also see degrees of autonomy, depending on the personality of the learners, their goals, the philosophy of the institution and the cultural context.

FIGURE B-5: COMPONENTS AND DOMAINS OF AUTONOMY IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING. (LITTLEWOOD 1996:430)

3.2.1.3.1. Justifications
A number of justifications for advocating autonomy in language learning have been proposed. Dickinson (1987:19) provides five such reasons for the promotion of self-instruction: i) practical reasons; ii) individual differences among learners; iii) educational aims; iv) motivation; and v) learning how to learn foreign languages; which Cotterall (1995a:219) reclassifies under the headings of philosophical, pedagogical, and practical reasons:

1.      philosophical reasons: the belief that learners have the right to make choices with regard to their learning; the need to prepare learners for a rapidly changing future, in which independence in learning will be vital for effective functioning in society (cf. Knowles 1975);

2.      pedagogical reasons: adults have been shown to learn more effectively when they are consulted about dimensions such as the pace, sequence, mode of instruction and content of what they are studying (cf. Caef 1988:75).

3.      practical reasons: Learners who are involved in making choices and decisions about aspects of the programme are also likely to feel more secure in their learning (cf. Joiner, cited in McCafferty 1981).

Benson & Voller (1997:6) identify three related tendencies in language education, with implications for the advocation of learner autonomy:

1.      individualisation: Autonomous language learning has been associated with individualistion (Geddes & Sturtridge 1982; Brookes & Grundy 1988) and the idea that learners each have their own preferred learning styles, capacities and needs (Reid 1987; Skehan 1989). Recent 'constructivist' approaches to learning suggest that learners construct their own systems of knowledge as experience is filtered through "personal construct systems" (Little 1991). Little (1995:178), Kelly (1963) and Bannister & Fransella (1981) extend this use of construct psychology to make the point that classroom learning involves an encounter between a number of personal construct systems, all of them having some things in common but each at the same time uniquely individual.

2.      learner-centredness: The general trend in language education towards 'learner-centredness' (e.g. Tarone & Yule, 1989);

3.      a growing recognition of the political nature of language learning: Terms such as "idealogy" and "empowerment" have entered the standard vocabulary of language education theory, mirroring the growing concern with the social implications of language learning and the culturally invasive nature of much language education (Phillipson 1992; Pennycook 1994). Riley (1988) and Phillipson (1992:75) see a danger in imported "western values", and question the universality or cultural-relativity of autonomy.

Other justifications for promoting learner-autonomy have been proposed by researchers and authors:

1.      a resulting increase in enthusiasm for learning (Littlejohn 1985);

2.      taking an active, independent attitude to learning and independently undertaking a learning task is beneficial to learning; personal involvement in decision making leads to more effective learning (Dickinson 1995:165);

3.      when the learner sets the agenda, learning is more focused and purposeful, and thus more effective both immediately and in the longer term (cf. Little 1991; Holec 1981; Dickinson 1987);

4.      when responsibility for the learning process lies with the learner, the barriers to learning and living that are often found in traditional teacher-led educational structures need not arise (Little 1991; Holec 1981; Dickinson 1987);

5.      without such barriers, learners should have little difficulty in transferring their capacity for autonomous behaviour to all other areas of their lives, and this should make them more useful members of society and "more effective participants in the democratic process." (Little 1991:8);

6."... much of the significant language learning which individuals, for a variety of reasons, undertake at different stages in their lives, occurs outside classroom walls unassisted - some would state unencumbered - by a classroom teacher" (Altman, cited in Dickinson 1987:vii).

Nunan (1988c:179), however, admits that there is no necessary direct relationship between planning and the actual outcome. Thus he and others (e.g. Dickinson 1988) stress the need for thorough empirical research and a gradualist approach, particularly as autonomous learning often produces unanticipated outcomes (Allwright:1986).

3.2.1.3.2. Definitions
In his essay on "The Culture of Education" (1996a), Jerome Bruner proposes that learning is the creation and re-creation of meaning by the individual. In this process of "joint culture-creating", two subjective worlds overlap, however partially, to form "an intersubjective world, that defines the individual's participation in learning and it is the study of this process which is the object of the ethnography of autonomy" (Riley 1988:33). Hill (1991:43, cited in Pennycook 1997:35-6) quotes Kant's definition of autonomy as "the foundation of human dignity and the source of all morality." Given the lack of theoretical debate on autonomy in linguistics and SLA research (Benson & Voller 1997:3), definitions of autonomy in second language learning have tended to reflect such broader educational and sociopolitical derivations, generally tending to fall into five categories:

1.  situations in which learners study entirely on their own;
2.  a set of skills  which can be learned and applied in self-directed learning;
3.  an inborn capacity  which is suppressed by institutional education;
4.  the exercise of learners'responsibility for their own learning;
5.  the right of learners to determine the direction of their own learning (Benson & Voller 1997:1).

Some of these definitions are presented below in table IX: 

TABLE IX: DEFINITIONS OF AUTONOMY IN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING. 

For Holec (1980; 1981), Little (1991), Legutke & Thomas (1991) and Littlewood (1996),  autonomy is an ability that has to be acquired (learning how to learn) and is separate from the learning that may take place when autonomy has been acquired (which Holec labels self-directed learning). Such acquisition of autonomy (Holec 1980:27) brings two different processes into play. The first of these is a gradual "deconditioning" process which will cause the learner to break away from ideas such as:

1.  there is one ideal method;
2.  the teacher possesses that method;
3.  knowledge of the mother tongue is of no use for learning a second language;
4. experience gained as a learner of other subjects cannot be transferred even partially;
5.  he/she is incapable of making any valid assessment of performance.

The second of Holec's processes consists of acquiring the knowledge and know-how needed in order to assume responsibility for learning. "It is through the parallel operation of these two processes that the learner will gradually proceed from a position of dependence to one of independence, from a non-autonomous state to an autonomous one" (Holec 1980:27). This autonomy, which is rarely, if ever, realised in its "ideal" state (Little 1991:5), is not seen as a steady state (since an autonomous learner has the freedom to choose teacher-direction (Pemberton, in Pemberton et al. 1996:3) and involves taking responsibility for decisions concerning all aspects of learning: i) determining the objectives; ii) defining the contents and progressions; iii) selecting methods and techniques to be used; iv) monitoring the procedure of acquisition (rhythm, time, place, etc.); and evaluating what has been acquired (Holec 1980:4).

Holec (1985) and Little (1991) also see autonomy as a capacity, "autonomization" being "a matter of acquiring those capacities which are necessary to carry out a self-directed learning programme" (Little, 1991:180). Dickinson (1995:167) extends this capacity to include an attitude to learning, implying that it can occur in the classroom setting as well as in self-access learning centres. Most definitions agree on some aspect of responsibility for learning being assumed by the learner, but there are notable shifts in emphasis, such as Allwright's (1990) "optimal state of equilibrium" and Hunt, Gow & Barnes'(1989) "decision-making process." Benson (1996) brings these differences together in three major classifications of learner autonomy for language learning (technical, psychological and political) roughly corresponding to three major approaches to knowledge and learning in the humanities and social sciences (positivism[4], constructivism[5] and critical theory[6]):

1.  technical autonomy: the act of learning a language outside the framework of an educational institution and without the intervention of a teacher;
2.  psychological autonomy: a capacity which allows learners to take more responsibility for their own learning; an internal transformation within the individual that may be supported by situational autonomy without being dependent on it;
3.  Political autonomy: control over the processes and content of learning.

Holec's (1981) definition of autonomy (accepting responsibility for one's own learning) includes planning for learning, taking initiatives in the learning process, and being able to evaluate that learning, thus possessing affective/motivational and metacognitive dimensions, presupposing a positive attitude to the purpose, content and process of learning on the one hand and well-developed metacognitive skills on the other. In this sense, autonomy is a defining characteristic of all sustained learning.

Pemberton (Pemberton et al. 1996:2) and Dickinson (1987) identify various different terms in the literature on autonomy, some of which are used synonymously, and some of which have been ascribed a number of separate meanings:

1.  Self-instruction: learning without a teacher (Little, 1991:3); learning "without the direct control of a teacher” (Dickinson, 1987:5).
2.  Distance learning: a way of organising learners which usually only allows them control over access (Lewis, 1995).
3.  Individualised instruction: designed to meet the needs of individual learners, but the teacher prepares materials, sets objectives and evaluates the learner's ability to perform required skills (Logan, 1980). "... a learning process which (as regards goals content, methodology and pacing) is adapted to a particular individual, taking this individual's characteristics into consideration” (Chaix & O'Neil 1978).
4.  Flexible learning: the teacher or department provides materials and activities; the learner has some choice over what to do and when, but there is usually little negotiation about learning goals or evaluation (Page 1992:83; Evans 1993).
5.  Self-Access learning: learning from materials/facilities that are organised to facilitate learning; self-instruction in using these materials. The term is neutral as to how self-directed or other-directed the learners are (Dickinson 1987:11).
6.  Self-direction: a particular attitude to the learning task, where the learner accepts responsibility for all the decisions concerned with his learning but does not necessarily undertake the implementation of those decisions (Dickinson 1987:11); the process or the techniques used in directing one's own learning (Holec 1980:14); the change of consciousness that is the result of such learning (Brookfield 1985).
7.  Autonomy:  the situation in which the learner is totally responsible for all of the decisions concerned with his learning and the implementation of those decisions. In full autonomy there is no involvement of a "teacher” or an institution, and the learner is also independent of specially prepared materials (Dickinson 1987:11).
8.  Semi-autonomy: the stage at which learners are preparing for autonomy (Dickinson 1987:11).
9.  Self-access materials: materials appropriate to and available for self-instruction (Dickinson 1987:11).

A number of misconceptions about autonomous language learning have arisen, perhaps because of the wealth of such terms and their meanings, but also attributable to the lack of definition by professional authorities and the subsequent tendency for different terms to mean different things to different practitioners. Esch (1996a) explains what autonomy does not mean:

1. autonomy is not self-instruction/learning without a teacher;
2. it does not mean that intervention or initiative on the part of a teacher is banned;
3. it is not something teachers do to learners;
4. it is not a single easily identifiable behaviour;
5. it is not a steady state achieved by learners once and for all. (cf. Esch 1996a:37).

continue reading this literature review ........