Reading Reflection # 4

Autonomy in Language Learning

Healey (1999) initiates her discussion on autonomy in language learning with a definition of terms, making a distinction between autonomy, ‘the degree of independence’ learners assume over what and how they want to learn, and ‘self-direction’ the attitude with which learners approach learning designed for them (p. 391).

In my opinion, the trend in education today is toward saddling both horses. Without doubt, learner autonomy is thought to sit higher on the learning totem pole, so most prescribed courses try to give an illusion of autonomy while what they really do is encourage learners to give their best effort at self-directed learning. It is the reason, for instance, for the preliminary questions that greet most learners in the beginning week of most courses: Why did you enroll in this course? What would you like to see in this course? What do you hope to gain from this course?

The new technologies have certainly narrowed the divide between self-controlled learning (learner autonomy) and learning controlled by a provider (learning in which the best outcomes emanate from good self-direction). In most classrooms today, teachers control content, but channel this illusory autonomy through a variety of multimedia, in particular the computer. They allow students to learn and extend their learning through means such as webquests; they allow them to design their own outcomes in electronic portfolios.

Further, when one looks at the preconditions for motivating learning that Healey cites from Good and Brophy (1987), both situations of learner autonomy and prescribed learning aim at the same mix (Healey p. 397). What is significant too is that the computer facilitates all of them: the computer can provide appropriate levels of challenge and difficulty; provide meaningful objectives and variation in teaching methods; it can provide various levels of feedback; and increasingly, with facilities such as open source, barriers to learning have been considerably broken down.

An examination of compulsory schooling shows that educational psychology and cognitive theory are concerned with these identical issues. Of course, teachers still use behaviorist motivators such as marks to enhance learning. However, they know that the drive from within (self-direction) is the most powerful means to meaningful learning. Added to this, metacognitive practices such as reflection through strategies such as journaling are used to inculcate meaningful personal and societal outcomes. Goleman’s emotional intelligence is put alongside Gardner’s multiple intelligence to target humanistic outcomes, enhanced acquisition of knowledge, and critical thinking. The entire mix of EI, MI, and AI is geared toward propelling learner autonomy.

Thus, the aim of the entire combination of educational psychology and cognitive theory is to ensure that whatever is learnt serves the good of both the individual learner and humanity. And so, I am of the view that when one looks at the thrust of prescribed schooling, the intention is no different from the intention of situations of learner autonomy. They both aim at what is usually referred to as ‘life-long learning.’

To argue as I have done, putting both self-direction and learner autonomy on the same plane, is not to diminish either, but to indicate, as I think Healey does, that both have their place in contemporary education. To clinch the point, it may be useful at this juncture to cite David Little’s definition of autonomy as quoted in Schwienhorst (1997):

[A]utonomy is a capacity - for detachment, critical reflection, decision-making, and independent action. It presupposes, but also entails, that the learner will develop a particular kind of psychological relation to the process and content of his learning. The capacity for autonomy will be displayed both in the way the learner learns and in the way he or she transfers what has been learned to wider contexts (Little, 1991:4).

The point is that while learner autonomy gives the learner control over learning, learning is just as much about means as it is about outcomes. I will go even further to say that in all the four points on Healey autonomy/ self-direction quadrant, the same learner means or variables are crucial: (1) degree of self-motivation; (2) preference for an independent style; (3) knowledge of how one learns best; and (4) knowledge of what once needs to learn. These four ingredients determine learning in both situations of self-direction and learner autonomy.

The truth is that the new technologies, in particular the computer, have erased the difference between self-direction and learner autonomy. Online learning adds the benefit of control over pace and time. Improved software and hardware, plus improved understanding of the use to which computer generated output such as email can be put, currently ensure more than mechanical feedback in language learning. For an excellent example of this, see the BBC educational website Primary French evaluated on this blog. In like manner, MOOs and tandem learning can give learners under the guidance of tutors in organized programs, just as much control over ways of learning as learners who seek control over their own programs.

In my view, the computer has certainly brought learner autonomy within the reach of every learning paradigm.

References:
Healey, D. (1999). Theory and research: Autonomy in language learning. In J. Egbert & E. Hanson-Smith Eds.) CALL environments: Research, practice and critical issues (pp. 391-402). Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.

Schwienhorst, K. (1997). Talking on the MOO: Learner autonomy and language learning in tandem. Paper presented at the CALLMOO: Enhancing Language Learning Through Internet Technologies, Bergen, Norway. © Copyright Klaus Schwienhorst 1997.