Autonomy and student-centered learning

Phil Benson

Hong Kong Institute of Education

Autonomy and student-centered learning

• What is autonomy - definitions and ‘versions’?

• Why autonomy, why now?

• What kind of autonomy do we want?

Sources for autonomy in language

teaching and learning

Autonomy in language learning

Personal autonomy

Freedom in learning

Self-directed learning

Focus on learner

Con

stru

ctiv

ism

Political p

hilosophy Educational reform

Ad

ult ed

ucatio

n

Language learning

Psy

cho

log

y o

f le

arn

ing

Sources for autonomy

• Political philosophy : Immanuel Kant, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Jean-Paul Sartre, Robert Young, Joseph Raz, Anthony Giddens

• Psychology : Lev Vygotsky, George Kelly, Bruno Bettleheim

• Educational reform : John Dewey, William Kilpatrick, Paolo Freire, Ivan Illich, Carl Rogers

• Adult education : Allen Tough, Malcolm Knowles, Philip Candy, Stephen Brookfield, Jack Mezirow

• Language learning : Learner-centredness, Communicative language teaching, Individual differences, Learning strategies, Sociocultural theory

What is autonomy?Learning situations Learning without a teacher or

on your own

Teaching situations Autonomous classrooms, learning schemes, etc

Methods of learning Self-instruction, use of learning strategies, etc.

Learners’ independent actions

Autonomous ‘events’ and ‘episodes’

Learners’ responsibility Self-directed learning, planning, decision-making,etc.

The right to control one’s own learning

Student power, learner control, learner’s rights.

A capacity that learners possess or acquire

Abilities, attitudes, predispositions, etc.

Definitions that are not definitions

• 100+ competencies associated with autonomy (Candy, 1991)

• Autonomy in learners can “take numerous different forms, depending on their age, how far they have progressed with their learning, what they perceive their immediate learning needs to be, and so on” (Little, 1991, p.4).

• Autonomy is “a multidimensional capacity that will take different forms for different individuals, and even for the same individual in different contexts or at different times” (Benson, 2001: p.47).

Control over learning

• Autonomy is “the capacity to take control of one’s own learning” Benson (2001) – What is a ‘capacity’?– What do we mean by ‘control of

learning’?

What is a ‘capacity’?

Ability

FreedomDesire

AUTONOMY

What is a ‘capacity’?

… just as the ability to drive a motor vehicle does not necessarily mean that whenever one gets into a car one is obliged to take the wheel, similarly the autonomous learner is not automatically obliged to self-direct his learning either totally or even partially. The learner will make use of his ability to do this only if he so wishes and if he is permitted to do so by the material, social and psychological constraints to which he is subjected.

(Holec, 1988: p.8)

Controlling what?

Learning management

Learning contentCognitive processes

AUTONOMY

Controlling what?

• Learning management– (e.g. making a study plan)

• Cognitive processes– (e.g. attention/noticing input)

• Learning content– (e.g. choosing what you learn)

Versions of autonomy(Benson, 1997)

• Technical– Positivism + focus on learning

management

• Psychological– Constructivism + focus on cognitive

processes

• Political– Critical theory + focus on learning

content

Perspectives on autonomyOxford (2003)

• Objected to ‘privileging the political’

• Added Sociocultural I (Vygotskyan) & Sociocultural II (SCT, ‘investment’, situated learning, etc.)

• All perspectives are valid

Proactive and reactive autonomy

• Proactive autonomy – “… regulates the direction of activity as well as the activity

itself….The key words are action words: learners are able to take charge of their own learning, determine their objectives, select methods and techniques and evaluate what has been acquired…”

• Reactive autonomy– “...regulates the activity once the direction has been set…

the kind of autonomy which does not create its own directions but, once a direction has been initiated, enables learners to organize their resources autonomously in order to reach their goal.”

Littlewood (1999)

Versions of autonomy

• ‘Convergence’, ‘divergence–convergence’ and ‘convergence–divergence’ perspectives – Ribé (2003)

• ‘Individual–cognitive’, ‘social–interactive’ and ‘exploratory–participatory’ perspectives - O’Rourke & Schwienhorst’s (2003)

• ‘Native–speakerist’, ‘cultural–relativist’ and ‘social’ approaches – Holliday (2003)

Strong and weak pedagogies

• Weak pedagogies– Assume that students lack autonomy– “…autonomy is seen as a deferred goal and as

a product of instruction rather than as something which students are currently ready to exercise directly.”

• Strong pedagogies– Assume that students are already autonomous– Focus on “co-creating with students optimal

conditions for the exercise of their autonomy”– (Smith, 2003, 130-132)

Arguments for autonomy

Economic

IdeologicalPsychological

AUTONOMY

Arguments for autonomy• Ideological

– “…the individual has the right to be free to exercise his or her own choices, in learning as in other areas, and not become a victim (even an unwitting one) of choices made by social institutions”.

• Psychological– “Learning is more meaningful, more permanent, more focussed

on the processes and schemata of the individual when the individual is in charge.”

• Economic– “… society does not have the resources to provide the level of

personal instruction needed by all its members in every area of learning…individuals must be able to provide for their own learning needs, either individually or cooperatively, if they are to acquire the knowledge and skill they want.

– Crabbe, D. (1993, p.443)

Why autonomy? Why now?

• Globalization and…– The expansion of second language

education– The self as a reflexive project– The self as technology

The expansion of second language education

• More teachers and more learners• Biographical diversity • Diversity of purposes • Migration of learners• Migration of teachers• Diversity within classrooms • Diversity of situations and practices• Autonomy as:

– Sensitivity to diversity– A practical solution to the problems posed by

the complexity of mass education

The self as reflexive project Giddens (1991)

• Traditional vs. late modern cultures• The need to form one’s own identity in late

modern society• The self as a ‘reflexive project’ – ‘narrative

identity’• The role of second language learning in the

formation of ‘new’ identities• Identities are fragmented, contradictory and

dynamic – but ‘falling to pieces’ is pathological…

• What holds our identities together??

The self as technology

• Self-improvement culture“…a range of practices and text-types focusing on the individual and her or his relationships with others, and particularly on the problems of modern personal life. Among the most accessible expressions of this culture are self-help and popular psychology books, and broadcast talk shows of the ‘confessional’ type where people talk about their experiences, problems and feeling, sometimes receiving advice from an expert (a therapist, counsellor or psychologist).” (Cameron, 2002, p.75)

• Emphasis on ‘self-training’ workforce and the importance of ‘communication skills’ in the ‘new economy’.

Autonomy and agency

We believe that learners have to be seen as more than processing devices that convert linguistic input into well-formed (or not so well-formed) outputs. They need to be understood as people, which in turn means we need to appreciate their human agency. As agents, learners actively engage in constructing the terms and conditions of their learning.

(Lantolf & Pavlenko, 2001: p. 145)

Conclusion

• What is autonomy? Or what kind of autonomy do we want?– Autonomy as the production of

‘responsible’, ‘active’, ‘flexible’ and ‘adaptable’ worker-learners?

– Autonomy as ‘agency’ – learners as critically aware individuals capable of authoring the world in which they live?

References• Benson, P. (1997) The philosophy and politics of learner autonomy. In P. Benson & P.

Voller (eds.) Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning. London: Longman, pp. 18-34.

• Benson, P. (2001) Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning. London: Longman.

• Benson, P. (2007) Autonomy in language teaching and learning. State of the Art article. Language Teaching, 42:1.

• Cameron, D. (2002) ‘Globalization and the teaching of communication skills’. In D. Block & D. Cameron (eds.) Globalizaton and Language Teaching. London: Routledge, pp.67-82.

• Candy, P.C. (1991) Self-direction for Lifelong Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.• Crabbe, D. (1993) 'Fostering autonomy from within the classroom: the teacher's

responsibility'. System, 21:4, 443-452. • Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern

Age. Cambridge: Polity.• Holec, H. (1988) 'General presentation, Prospects / Présentation Génerale.

Perspectives'. In H. Holec (ed.) Autonomy and Self-directed Learning: Present Fields of Application. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, pp. 5-18.

• Holliday, A. (2003) Social autonomy: addressing the dangers of culturism in TESOL. In D. Palfreyman & R.C. Smith (eds.) Learner Autonomy across Cultures: Language Education Perspectives, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 110-126.

References• Lantolf , J. P and Pavlenko, A. (2001) (S)econd (L)anguage (A)ctivity theory:

understanding second language learners as people. In Breen, M. (ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research. London: Pearson Education (pp. 141-158).

• Little, D. (1991) Learner Autonomy. 1: Definitions, Issues and Problems. Dublin: Authentik.

• Littlewood, W. (1999) 'Defining and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts'. Applied Linguistics, 20:1, 71-94.

• Oxford, R.L. (2003) Toward a more systematic model of L2 learner autonomy. In D. Palfreyman & R.C. Smith (eds.) Learner Autonomy across Cultures: Language Education Perspectives, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 75-91.

• O’Rourke, B. & K. Schwienhorst (2003). Talking text: Reflections on reflection in computer–mediated communication. In Little, Ridley & Ushioda (eds.), Learner autonomy in foreign language classrooms: Teacher, learner, curriculum and assessment. Dublin: Authentik, pp. 47–62.

• Ribé, R. (2003). Tramas in the foreign language classroom: Autopoietic networks for learner growth. In D. Little, J. Ridley & E. Ushioda (eds.), Learner autonomy in foreign language classrooms: Teacher, learner, curriculum and assessment. Dublin: Authentik, pp. 11–28.

• Smith, R. C. (2003). Pedagogy for autonomy as (becoming–)appropriate methodology. In D. Palfreyman & R.C. Smith (eds.) Learner Autonomy across Cultures: Language Education Perspectives, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 129–146.