Learner Autonomy in Second Language Pedagogy and Research: Challenges and Issues

Publication information

Published at Smashwords by Candlin & Mynard ePublishing Limited, January 2018

ISBN: 9781370291885

Candlin & Mynard ePublishing Limited, 801, Pacific House, 20, Queen’s Road Central, Hong Kong.

Candlin & Mynard ePublishing was founded by Chris Candlin and Jo Mynard in 2012 and aims to close the gap between research, practice, and publication. http://candlinandmynard.com

Authors of the individual chapters retain copyright over their work.

Originally published as an ebook (ISBN 9781310676451) in 2016 by the IATEFL Learner Autonomy Special Interest Group http://lasig.iatefl.org

Acknowledgements

The editor would like to thank the contributors and reviewers for their patience and great work. I would also like to thank our colleagues from the Learner autonomy SIG, Eleanor Broadbridge from IATEFL head office, and the Leibniz Universität Hannover, Germany, for making the conference and the publication possible. Finally, a big thank you to all conference contributors, attendees, volunteers and student helpers who made this conference very special. A special thank you goes to Laura-Charline Bulat for correction and proof-reading.

About this book

This selection of papers is the result of a two-day conference by the IATEFL Learner autonomy SIG on Learner autonomy in second language pedagogy and research – challenges and issues which was held at the Fachsprachenzentrum, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Germany, from 27-28 September 2013. It was one in a series of local conferences that the LASIG had begun a few years ago, with great success. The four plenary talks at the conference were delivered by four well-known international academics: David Little, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland; Leni Dam, LASIG coordinator, Denmark; Lienhard Legenhausen, University of Münster, Germany; and Elisabet Arnó Macià, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Escola Politècnica Superior d’Enginyeria de Vilanova i la Geltrú (EPSEVG), Spain. In addition, there were over 20 papers and workshops presented at the conference. This volume is the 7th publication in the Autonomy in Language Learning series published by the IATEFL Learner autonomy Special Interest Group.

About the chapters

We open this selection with 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).

David Little opened the conference and also this collection with a comparative view on Language Learner Autonomy Theory (LLAT) and Socio-Cultural Theory (SCT), arguing that SCT assigns a different role than LLAT to learner agency and learner interaction in the classroom and leaves less room for learner initiatives, for example in assessment.

Lienhard Legenhausen argues that the UNESCO guidelines for educational inclusion can best be implemented by bringing them together with principles of learner autonomy. In other words, inclusion works best when learner autonomy forms the basis of teaching and learning; however, he also maintains that as long as segregation and selectivity form the basis of our educational systems, this is difficult to achieve.

Leni Dam focuses on a central challenge that many language professionals are faced with. Can we implement learner autonomy with a textbook, and if so, how? She concludes that implementing learner autonomy is a challenge both to teachers as well as learners and will not necessarily be welcomed by either as it challenges and questions central beliefs on learning. Nevertheless, the benefits are manifold, in spite of the fact that many educational systems do not support learner autonomy.

Carol J. Everhard employs colour continua to examine the nature of learner autonomy theory and practice. She argues that there is much more consensus among theorists and practitioners than has been apparent so far. She goes on to suggest five key components for the promotion of learner autonomy, namely 1) identity, 2) reflection, 3) ownership, 4) self-determination, and 5) authenticity.

Micol Beseghi and Greta Bertolotti report on the implementation of an autonomous learning programme for learners wishing to improve their language learning skills in the language lab by working on reflective diary writing, small group workshops, one-to-one meetings with the advisors and mock exams. The authors analyse feedback from questionnaires and test results to show how learners improved their learning and language skills.

Ilse Born-Lechleitner provides an account of an online learning platform at an Austrian university that she set up to create a learner community where students interact outside the classroom. She particularly focuses on a peer-feedback forum where topic choices for oral reports are discussed, and relates her findings to learner autonomy theory and socio-cultural theory. It clearly emerges that learners need strong support on their path to learner autonomy.

Carmen Denekamp uses an online self-access centre to improve writing skills in tertiary Arab learners. Contrary to other findings, she found that Arab students develop proactive autonomy. She also argues for structured autonomy advisement in an online environment. According to her findings, student academic writing needs to drive autonomy development and both are thus symbiotic.

Isabel Fernandes and Flavia Vieira report on the long term GT-PA collaborative network in teacher education that brings academics and language teachers together. Findings from narratives and interviews suggest that teachers often perceive a tension between normative learner autonomy discourse and local contexts which hampers possibilities for action and change in spite of the perceived importance of its underlying goals.

Stephan Gabel and Jochen Schmidt discuss the implications of learner autonomy in a teacher training programme at Münster University, Germany. Through diagnostic tests, the development of individual work plans and systematic counselling including the use of portfolios, the practical language courses were gradually changed. Comparing data between a learner autonomy and a control group, they show that initial scepticism towards learner autonomy soon gave way to more self-confidence in self-regulated learning. The learner autonomy group also achieve significantly better exam results.

Elena Gallo looks at language teachers as autonomous learning professionals and concludes that many lack the ability to set goals and evaluate themselves. First, many teachers find it difficult to cope with the demands on their profession, second, their ability for self-determined development cannot be taken for granted, and third, professional development seems to rely on a hidden competence that is insufficiently articulated. As a consequence, teacher training needs to focus more on an awareness of the teachers’ personal contribution to their profession and an awareness of their responsibility for professional growth. Here, portfolios are mentioned as an important tool for development.

Borja Manzano Vázquez looks at the contextual, teacher-related, and learner-related obstacles in fostering learner autonomy, analysing data from six foreign language teachers. It appears that teachers’ internal constraints play a major role, as teachers avoid questioning their views on learners’ and teachers’ roles in the classroom. Manzano Vázquez suggests a number of measures to overcome the obstacles: first, more teacher education programmes based on learner and teacher autonomy; second, teacher networks are needed to overcome isolation and promote a supportive community of practice. He emphasises that teachers need help to identify spaces for manoeuvre within the learning and teaching contexts they are involved in.

I hope that you will enjoy this selection of articles on challenges and issues regarding learner autonomy in language learning and teaching. I am sure that many learner autonomy theorists and practitioners will recognise themselves in one or several of these accounts, and I hope that these articles contribute to a better understanding of language learner autonomy and provide an agenda of what needs to be researched further.

Chapter 1

Learner Autonomy: A Personal Note by the Editor

Klaus Schwienhorst

Leibniz Universität Hannover, Germany

schwienhorst@fsz.uni-hannover.de

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

dlittle@tcd.ie

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 factors. From the very beginning learners are required to express themselves in the target language, and strict management of the work cycle ensures that ‘pushed output’ (Swain, 1985) plays a central role (Legenhausen, 2003: 72–73). Inevitably learners make grammatical errors, but they quickly become fluent in the production of text that provides a focus for reflection on linguistic form. What is more, the interactive processes of collaborative learning, especially collaborative writing, tend to focus simultaneously on meaning and form (ibid.: 72, 74). Regular peer-to-peer talk teaches learners how to negotiate meaning in their target language (ibid.: 74–75), while the general approach to learning encourages hypothesis formation and testing (ibid.: 75).

Vygotsky in Language Learner Autonomy Theory

My attempt over many years to develop a theory of language learner autonomy has always been driven by successful classroom practice. The purpose of my work has been not to hypothesize but to explain, in order to derive general pedagogical principles that can be applied to contexts of learning very different from Leni Dam’s Danish Folkeskole – in my own case, extra-curricular foreign language modules for students at Trinity College Dublin (Little & Ushioda, 1998) and intensive English language courses for adult refugees admitted to Ireland (Little, 2009). In the 1980s discussion of learner autonomy necessarily started with Holec’s definition: ‘the ability to take charge of one’s learning’, which entails ‘determining the objectives’, ‘defining the contents and progressions’, ‘selecting methods and techniques’, ‘monitoring the procedure of acquisition’, and ‘evaluating what has been acquired’ (Holec, 1981: 3). Dam’s teenage students did all these things, but as I have already noted, they did them collaboratively. Thus an adequate theory of language learner autonomy must include the social-interactive as well as the individual-cognitive dimension of learning. In 1991 I put the matter thus: 

Because we are social beings our independence is always balanced by dependence; our essential condition is one of interdependence. Total detachment is a principal determining feature not of autonomy but of autism […]. (Little, 1991: 5)

The autonomous learners I had been able to observe were highly motivated. This was in line with self-determination theory, which argues that intrinsic motivation depends on the fulfilment of three needs, for autonomy (feeling ‘volitional in our actions’; Deci, 1996: 66), competence (having the ability to overcome ‘optimal challenges’; ibid.), and relatedness (feeling ‘connected with others in the midst of being effective and autonomous’; ibid.: 88). Important though intrinsic motivation is, however, it cannot be the whole story. As Deci & Ryan (1985: 261) point out, if learners’ motivation is exclusively intrinsic, there is a risk that they will concentrate on what interests them and ignore what does not; whereas education seeks to recruit their interest for areas of knowledge that they might not otherwise encounter or engage with. To this end educational systems impose curricular requirements and use exams and other forms of assessment to determine the extent to which those requirements have been met. Self-determination theory argues that successful learning depends on integrating external constraints and requirements with the learner’s intrinsic motivation, which is thus strengthened and expanded. The so-called ‘social turn’ in the study of second language acquisition (Block, 2003) insists on the essential role played by environmental factors in L2 development and thus moves away from an exclusive focus on individual cognitive processes (see, e.g., Atkinson, 2011). The study of motivation has undergone a similar paradigm shift. As Ushioda puts it, ‘when considering how to enhance the motivation of the individual learner, it seems clear that we must expand the unit of analysis beyond the individual to embrace the interaction between the individual and the social learning setting’ (2003: 92; see also Ushioda, 2006; 2011). This is another reason why, in the autonomy classroom, the interactive processes of pair and group work are fundamental to learning success.

At the beginning of the 1990s I wanted to find a theoretical framework that would support the exploration of how learning took place when learners were working together in the target language to produce target-language texts of various kinds in various media. That brought me to Vygotsky’s concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), which he defined as ‘the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers’ (Vygotsky, 1978: 86). According to this definition the goal of learning is autonomous (independent) task performance, and progress towards that goal comes from the guidance of an adult (or teacher) or from working with other learners. My first-hand experience of classrooms in which learners managed their own group work led me to attribute different but complementary roles to ‘adult guidance’ and ‘collaboration with more capable peers’. The former is provided by the teacher as she exercises the role I described in the previous section when discussing Dam & Legenhausen’s operational principle; this provides a focus and framework for the collaboration, managed by the learners themselves, that produces their learning. In the LAALE Project data, however, although group work sometimes included peer teaching, there was ample evidence that learning could take place without the intervention of a ‘more capable peer’. A similar finding is reported by Zuckerman (2003: 194).

Two further features of Vygotsky’s thinking seemed to me especially relevant to my