Learner and Teacher Autonomy: Concepts, realities, and responses (AILA Applied Linguistics Series, Volume 1)

Learner and Teacher Autonomy

AILA Applied Linguistics Series (AALS) The AILA Applied Linguistics Series (AALS) provides a forum for scholars in any area of Applied Linguistics. The series aims at representing the field in its diversity. It covers different topics in applied linguistics from a multidisciplinary approach and it aims at including different theoretical and methodological perspectives. As an official publication of AILA the series will include contributors from different geographical and linguistic backgrounds. The volumes in the series should be of high quality, they should break new ground and stimulate further research in Applied Linguistics.

Editor Jasone Cenoz

University of the Basque Country, Spain

Editorial Board Jean-Marc Dewaele

Rosa Manchón

Gabrielle Hogan-Brun

Anne Pakir

University of London, UK University of Bristol, UK

University of Murcia, Spain National University of Singapore, Singapore

Nancy Horberger

University of Pennsylvania, US

Volume 1 Learner and Teacher Autonomy. Concepts, realities, and responses Edited by Terry Lamb and Hayo Reinders

Learner and Teacher Autonomy Concepts, realities, and responses

Edited by

Terry Lamb University of Sheffield

Hayo Reinders University of Hawaii

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Learner and teacher autonomy : concepts, realities, and responses / edited by Terry Lamb, Hayo Reinders. p. cm. (AILA Applied Linguistics Series, issn 1875-1113 ; v. 1) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-272-0517-9 (hb : alk. paper) 1. Language and languages--Study and teaching. 2. Learner autonomy. 3. Teaching, Freedom of. I. Lamb, Terry (Terry E.) II. Reinders, Hayo. P53.457.L43    2008 418.0071--dc22 isbn 978 90 272 0517 9 (Hb; alk. paper)

2007042370

© 2008 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

Table of contents Preface

vii

Part 1. Introduction Foreword Henri Holec

3

Introduction to this volume Terry Lamb

5

Part 2. Concepts Teachers’ and learners’ perspectives on autonomy Phil Benson Freedom – a prerequisite for learner autonomy?: Classroom innovation and language teacher education Turid Trebbi

15

33

The shifting dimensions of language learner autonomy Ernesto Macaro

47

Learner autonomy – teacher autonomy: Interrelating and the will to empower William La Ganza

63

Part 3. Realities Teacher-learner autonomy: Programme goals and student-teacher constructs Richard Smith and Sultan Erdoğan The subjective theories of student teachers: Implications for teacher education and research on learner autonomy Hélène Martinez Learners talking: From problem to solution Sara Cotterall and David Crabbe

83

103

125



Learner and Teacher Autonomy

Roles learners believe they have in the development of their language learning – autonomy included? Christine Siqueira Nicolaides

141

Autonomous teachers, autonomous cognition: Developing personal theories through reflection in language teacher education 161 Penny Hacker and Gary Barkhuizen Part 4. Responses Teachers working together: What do we talk about when we talk about autonomy? Jonathan Shaw Materials evaluation and teacher autonomy Hayo Reinders and Marilyn Lewis Teacher education towards teacher (and learner) autonomy: What can be learnt from teacher development practices? Flávia Vieira, Isabel Barbosa, Madalena Paiva, Isabel Sandra Fernandes Multiple voices: Negotiating pathways towards teacher and learner autonomy Barbara Sinclair

187

205

217

237

Part 5. Epilogue Learner autonomy and teacher autonomy: Synthesising an agenda Terry Lamb

269

Index

285

Preface It is a great pleasure to present the first volume of the new AILA Applied Linguistics Series (AALS). This new series is an official publication of AILA, the International Association of Applied Linguistics (www.aila.info) and as such it provides a forum for scholars in any area of Applied Linguistics. The AILA Applied Linguistics Series aims at representing the field in its diversity and covers different topics in applied linguistics from a multidisciplinary approach. As an official publication of AILA, the AILA Applied Linguistics Series will have contributors from diverse geographical and linguistic backgrounds. AALS includes edited books as well as monographs. The volumes will focus on practical problems of language and communication analysed by using different theoretical and methodological frameworks. The approach adopted in the volumes of this series will often be multidisciplinary combining linguistic, psycholinguistic, sociolinguistic and educational perspectives. The series aims at being a major contribution to the field of applied linguistics by publishing volumes on cutting-edge work on new and perennially important topics that can advance the knowledge of the field. The first volume in this series is ‘Learner and Teacher Autonomy: Concepts, realities, and responses’ edited by Terry Lamb and Hayo Reinders. The volume focuses on the issue of autonomy in language learning but goes beyond other publications by combining learner and teacher perspectives in a critical way. I would like to thank the editors and contributors of this volume for all their work as well as the external referees for their critical comments that have improved the quality of this volume. I would also like to thank the editorial board of the series and Kees Vaes of John Benjamins Publishing Company for their creative input throughout the preparation of this series. Jasone Cenoz Donostia-San Sebastian, October 2007

part 1

Introduction

Foreword Henri Holec

Since its inception over three decades ago, the autonomy approach in language learning/teaching has fostered a powerful investigation drive that has led to the questioning and the revision of an ever increasing number of pedagogical tenets, assumptions and evidences at all levels of the learning/teaching process. Combined with the concomitant challenging of prior theories and practices brought about by the fundamental shifts in pedagogical foci from linguistic to communicative competence, from behaviouristic to cognitive descriptions of the acquisition process, from priority to teaching and the teacher to priority to learning and the learner, this on-going investigation drive has progressively allowed the learning/ teaching community to conceptualise and in some environments to put into practice an entirely new, incomplete and imperfect though it still may be, pedagogical paradigm. What had started as a limited variation in practice empirically put together to loosen the constraints of teacher-directed group learning has now become a fully-fledged alternative outlook on language learning and teaching based on alternative definitions of the relationships between teaching and learning and between learning and acquisition and in which theory and practice are concerned both with the development of learning competence and the provision of self-directed learning environments. Over time, numerous issues have been raised, dealt with, and provisionally settled after coherent sets of concepts have been delineated and translated into operational terms: does self-direction simply mean that the learner will here do what the teacher does in traditional other-directed learning environments? What new roles for teachers are defined in the approach? What should materials suitable for self-directed learning look like? How can learners be adequately trained to achieve learning competence? How can teachers be trained to adequately play their roles? What are the defining parameters of self-evaluation? What are the appropriate representations on language and language learning that both learners and teachers should base their actions on? Other issues have not yet gathered sufficient consensual agreement and consequently remain open and require further investigation, as is the case with those



Henri Holec

addressed in some of the contributions assembled in this book. Still others have not even been clearly spelled out yet, so that attention must first be brought on their clarification, if only to make sure future propositions answer the right questions: this is what other articles included here endeavour to achieve. And on the implementation, developmental side of the autonomy approach, new pedagogical procedures, new materials and new learning layouts have to be continuously thought out, tested and implemented, as is also reported on in one section of this book. On a more general and programmatic level, what is likely to become the driving force behind future research and development work in the autonomy approach to language learning/teaching is the fully assuming and the systematic exploration of the fundamental plurality and variability of all pedagogical endeavours. There is no one single answer to the question of the relationship between learning competence and self-directed learning, no single answer to the status to be ‘officially’ given to self-evaluation, no single set of language learning objectives to be achieved, no single “best” pedagogical procedure, etc. At all levels of investigation into the autonomy approach care will have to be taken to avoid looking for monolithic and stable answers. Instead, conditions of plurality and parameters of variability will be sought after, then brought to play in the analyses carried out and finally accommodated in the theories and/or the practices provisionally set up. This will probably mean revising a great proportion of our present certainties, thus contributing, as this book already does, to the perennial enforcement of Boileau’s (1636–1711) famous injunction: “Vingt fois sur le métier remettez votre ouvrage” (“Twenty times must your work be put back on the loom”).

Introduction to this volume Terry Lamb

University of Sheffield, UK

This book contains a collection of chapters commissioned in 2004 by the AILA Scientific Commission on Learner Autonomy in Language Learning (now an AILA Research Network), with the aim of exploring the concepts of learner autonomy and teacher autonomy, and, in particular, the relationships between the two. The chapters are the result of an innovative approach to research and publication by the Scientific Commission, and of a desire to explore the issues and develop the book in an inclusive way. In preparation for the Commission’s symposium at the AILA World Congress in Singapore in 2002, papers were called for and, after a strict peer review process, a selection of them were chosen to be presented. Short versions of these papers were then placed on the Commission’s website and discussed by the members of its online mailing list (AUTO-L), moderated by the authors. During the symposium itself summaries of the research were presented together with questions both from and for the audience. Following the symposium, electronic discussions (again using AUTO-L) were facilitated in 2003 by the authors, focusing on their papers and the discussions in Singapore. This book is the result of this process. It consists of chapters based on the symposium papers, reworked and refined on the basis of the face-to-face and electronic discussions. Additional chapters have been written by people involved either in the review or the discussion of the papers, or, in some cases, by people unable to attend the conference. As such, the book reflects a truly international perspective on the topic, enriched by the input of a broader range of people than could have attended the conference. Aims and scope The theme of the 2002 symposium, and consequently of this book, was identified by the Learner Autonomy in Language Learning research community itself at the previous AILA Scientific Commission Business Meeting in Tokyo in 1999. At that



Terry Lamb

time, it was recognised that the worldwide increase in various types of independent learning, the increased interest in fostering autonomous learning, and new forms of language support in out-of-class settings had serious implications for teachers and others involved in language support, many of whom were constrained by their own lack of personal experience of these developments or by perceived constraints emanating from policy. However, despite the increase in academic activity around learner autonomy, discussion around its implications for teacher development and, in particular, for teachers’ own experiences of autonomy (both in terms of their freedom to innovate and the nature of their own language learning histories and their identities as autonomous learners) had not been developed in any sustained and critical way, most collections of chapters focusing primarily on learner autonomy. The issues explored in this book were therefore considered to be of primary concern and in need of in-depth focus, since the only existing work to focus primarily on this area was the publication which was at that time forthcoming and which was the result of the Nottingham Colloquium on learner autonomy and teacher autonomy held in 1998 (Sinclair, McGrath and Lamb 2000). This publication had been unique in combining the two perspectives of autonomy in one book; nevertheless, it did so in two discrete sections, and did not have as a goal the exploration of the interplays between the two. The present publication was designed to build on that book by exploring further the two concepts and, where appropriate, focusing on the relationships between the two. The resultant contributions therefore represent a wide-ranging spectrum of perspectives, some learner-focused, some teacher-focused, and some arguing very strongly that it is impossible to consider the one without the other. They are located in a wealth of contexts, including classrooms, out-of-school settings, self-access centres, and pre-service and in-service teacher education courses. In addition, they are rooted in a range of different paradigms, with the authors approaching their subjects through a variety of theoretical frameworks and research methodologies and methods. What shines through the chapters most significantly, however, are the experiences and voices of teachers and learners from around the world. The outcome is a rich and illuminating source of empirical data, and significant analysis of and theorizing on the issues, with a strong focus on practical application. Structure of the book The book is divided into five parts. Following this introduction to the volume and a foreword by Henri Holec, the second part addresses the themes mainly from a conceptual angle. Firstly, Benson draws on the concept of personal autonomy, in



Introduction to this volume

order to suggest that we need to move beyond situational conceptualisations of autonomy as well as those influenced by teacher perspectives aiming to develop the capacity for autonomy, towards a more complex one which embraces the notion of autonomy in life, in which individuals are free to direct the course of their lives. Benson argues the need to view autonomy from the learner’s perspective rather than from the more prevalent teacher perspective, in order to understand the conditions which are conducive to its realization. In doing so, he draws on his own experience as a learner of Cantonese in Hong Kong. The concept of freedom and its relationship to autonomy is also addressed by Trebbi, who argues that we are never free from constraints. Drawing on data from her research in a number of educational settings in Norway, she identifies some of these constraints, including external (in the form of institutional and curricular constraints), internal (such as teacher attitudes and beliefs), and supportive constraints (such as those which offer new experiences and encourage critical reflection on existing representations of teaching and learning). She ends by outlining the ways in which an innovative teacher education programme nurtured the development of a new consciousness amongst her student teachers, and enabled them to see the potential of developing their learners’ autonomy. In his chapter, Macaro usefully reminds us that our central business is the development of language learners. He therefore describes a model of autonomous language learning which consists of three dimensions: autonomy of language competence; autonomy of language learning competence; and autonomy of learner choice. His focus is primarily on the young language learner, though in considering the nature of autonomy in each dimension he also addresses the role of the teacher in promoting such autonomy. This section then concludes with La Ganza’s chapter, in which he defines both learner and teacher autonomy as interrelational constructs, and explores them through his theoretical framework of the Dynamic Interrelational Space, developed in his doctoral research in Australia. Thus, in the traditional teaching-learning context, learner autonomy can only develop in an atmosphere in which both teachers and learners are sensitive to the mutual influences at play. Similarly, the development of teacher autonomy within the institution is also dependent on awareness of the dynamic nature of such mutual influences, in this case, between teachers, course coordinators and directors. In entitling the third part of the book ‘Realities’, there was no intention to suggest that these chapters were the only ones in the book to address reality. However, together these chapters offer a rich source of data on teachers’ and learners’ perspectives on teaching and learning, and thus provide us with a series of ‘realities’ which impact on the development of autonomy for both teachers and learners. The voices expressed in this section enable us to consider the perspectives of the actors





Terry Lamb

involved in language learning and teaching, and the challenges which face any pedagogical shift. Smith and Erdoğan open this section with a focus on the student teacher, though the teacher is simultaneously defined as a learner (of teaching) in the construct of ‘teacher-learner autonomy’, which involves the teacher in taking responsibility for his/her own professional development. Contextualised within a preservice teacher education course in the UK, designed to develop teacher-learner autonomy, the voices we hear are those of the student teachers, accessed by means of repertory-grid and follow-up interviews. This is then followed by a chapter by Martinez, in which she draws on the language learning histories of two student teachers in Germany in order to identify the ways in which they conceptualise learner autonomy. The intention is to explore the potential of using such subjective theories as material in their teacher education course, as a way of offering alternative perspectives and stimulating the reappraisal of existing theories of teaching and learning through tapping into the perspectives of (themselves as) the learners. Cotterall and Crabbe’s chapter is set in the Language Advisory Service at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. It reports research into the problems faced by students as accessed through dialogues between learners and advisors. As well as describing the dynamics of the student-advisor dialogue, the chapter also suggests the advantages of developing a data-base of such problems and solutions. One of the benefits of this is to offer support to learners in identifying and solving their own language learning problems, thus enabling them to become more independent in their learning. A further benefit is that it can be used by teachers in developing their awareness of the nature of discourse which encourages learners to think for themselves. In Nicolaides’ chapter, we gain the perspectives of future teachers of English in Brazil on their language learning during the course. We see that there is a marked difference between the way in which they construe their role in the learning context of the classroom and their role in learning outside the classroom. The research indicates that these particular students see a relationship between knowledge and power, with knowledge meaning not only the content of learning but also knowledge about the best way of learning. As such, they believe that the teacher should take control in the classroom, whereas they should make their own decisions about what happens in out-of-class learning (such as in the self-access centre). The implication is that students would benefit from reflecting on the relationships between their learning in these two contexts in order to become more critically aware of their own ‘knowledge’ and how it might be applied in the classroom. It is to be hoped that this enhanced self-awareness will also encourage them to reflect on



Introduction to this volume

their own role as future language teachers, in order that they may eventually build a sense of responsibility amongst their own learners. Language teachers’ personal theories of language teaching are the focus of the last chapter in this section, by Hacker and Barkhuizen, situated in the postgraduate language teacher education programme at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. The specific focus here, however, is on teacher autonomy, and in particular its relationship to the development of personal theories. Hacker and Barkhuizen relate the concept of teacher autonomy to the capacity to self-direct one’s own professional development and, in turn, argue that this is firstly dependent on a sense of awareness of and confidence in one’s own personal theories, and, through making them explicit, on the development of reflectivity to enable them to reflect on and develop them further. In their conclusion they also suggest that greater awareness of one’s own autonomy as a teacher can potentially lead to more positive attitudes towards learner autonomy. The fourth part of this book (Responses) consists of four chapters which focus on practical interventions to develop more autonomous ways of working. In the first chapter, Shaw, in Thailand, describes how a group of teachers together found their autonomy by deciding to remove the constraint of the timetable, and develop learning opportunities for their learners on an ongoing basis, according to what they considered to be most suitable for their needs at the time. Collaboratively they set out to establish what these needs were, and collaboratively they determined what was fit for purpose. In his argument, Shaw suggests that learner autonomy as a goal is itself a constraint on teacher autonomy, as it prevents the teacher from responding flexibly and professionally to circumstances. Instead, he argues that teacher autonomy should take precedence in certain contexts, but that this can only be achieved by teachers working together, since only through dialogue can they be stimulated to operate in new and different ways. Teacher autonomy is also the theme of the chapter by Reinders and Lewis. Here, however, it is related to the notions of choice and involvement, whereby a strategy is introduced to enable staff in the self access centre at the University of Auckland, New Zealand, to evaluate the materials available for learning. The chapter also connects with learner autonomy in two ways: firstly, the evaluation questions being trialled focus on the suitability of the materials as stand-alone resources, i.e. how easily they lend themselves to autonomous use; secondly, it is argued that by becoming more familiar with the potential of the resources for autonomous learning, the more effectively will staff be able to advise students on their use. The authors of the next chapter describe their work on a pre-service teacher education programme in Portugal. Vieira, Barbosa, Paiva and Fernandes present three case studies of student teacher development practices (lesson observation, supervisory discourse and student teachers’ journal writing), and analyse them in





Terry Lamb

terms of their potential contribution to the development of teacher autonomy, which is “seen as a corollary of critical reflectivity and can be broadly defined as willingness and ability to manage constraints within a vision of education as liberation and empowerment”. The chapter is underpinned by the authors’ commitment to a pedagogy for autonomy, in which learner and teacher autonomy develop in tandem, and which can only be achieved by unleashing the transformative potential of inquiry and reflection to support teachers in envisioning possibilities. Autonomy as an ideological construct thus suggests a common project, in which teacher-centredness and learner-centredness are interrelated, forming two sides of the same coin. The final chapter in this section, by Sinclair, considers how the design and delivery of a Masters level programme in ‘Learner Autonomy’ for overseas teachers of English at the University of Nottingham in the UK has been informed, through negotiation, by the ‘voices’ of the various participants, namely the course lecturer, the course participants and the participants’ own language learners. The chapter once again brings together the themes of learner autonomy, teacher education, professional development, voice, constraints, control, negotiation, collaboration and reflection which have occurred throughout the book, and demonstrate how constraints can be turned to advantage if used as a source of reflection, offering a way of empowering the learner(-teacher) through the creation of new opportunities for at least some control. It also reminds us again that, as well as working with learners, teachers are at the same time learners themselves, able to learn from their learners (who, in turn, thus become teachers). Finally, in the epilogue, Lamb looks back over the chapters of the book and goes in search of the themes of learner autonomy and teacher autonomy, synthesising the different foci of the chapters and looking at future research imperatives and pedagogical needs. The main purpose of the chapter is to explore where and how, if at all, the concepts of learner autonomy and teacher autonomy relate to each other. Given that some focus more on the one than on the other, the chapter is structured around the concepts of learner autonomy (and the teacher role), teacher autonomy (including ways in which they can be construed as learners themselves), and finally the interrelationships between the two concepts. He ends by presenting arguments which closely relate the notion of autonomy to the distribution of power, and, as such, suggests that it involves a struggle between transformation (towards a more just society) and the status quo. The development of autonomy is an attempt to (re-)establish democratic processes in teaching and learning and, as such, entails a commitment to negotiation and power sharing in this common pursuit. This epilogue also reminds us that language teachers are themselves learners – language-learners and teaching-learners – charged with the task of teaching



Introduction to this volume

their own learners (and learning from them). The centrality of reflection which is emphasized throughout this volume forms the cement which binds the twin experiences of teaching and learning; in other words, if we take a political view of autonomy, to be autonomous as a teacher involves reflection both on the opportunities which exist (or which can be created) for developing their learners’ autonomy, and on the processes involved in gaining, maintaining, or extending their own autonomy as a learner. Where the focus shifts to the teacher’s teaching role, the notion of teacher autonomy comes into play; if this is construed as freedom from constraints, then there is no necessary connection with learner autonomy; where it is a political, ideological project with empowerment of the self at its heart, however, then this must go hand in hand with the empowerment of the learner, which means the development of learner autonomy. It will be seen then that the interrelationships between teacher and learner autonomy depend very much on the way in which these concepts are construed and the contexts in which they are situated. The chapters in this book therefore do not lead to the emergence of a grand theory of teacher and learner autonomy. What they do, however, is illustrate a wide range of representations and manifestations of both teacher and learner autonomy in different contexts, providing us with a stimulus for critical reflection on our own contexts and, with that, the opportunity to deconstruct and reconstruct our own teaching and learning environments. References Sinclair, B., McGrath, I. & Lamb, T.E. (eds). 2000. Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy: Future Directions. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman.



part 2

Concepts

Teachers’ and learners’ perspectives on autonomy Phil Benson

Hong Kong Institute of Education

In the literature on language teaching and learning, there are many variations upon the basic idea of autonomy. The problem is to explain how these different ways of representing autonomy and putting it into practice may be linked to broader political, ideological or philosophical outlooks. In previous work, for example, I have suggested that we might speak of ‘technical’, ‘psychological’ and ‘political’ versions of autonomy linked to ‘positivistic’, ‘constructivist’ and ‘critical’ outlooks (Benson, 1997). In this chapter, I want to explore this issue from a somewhat different point of view, by asking how the idea of autonomy may appear differently when viewed from a teacher’s or learner’s perspective and how this basic difference of perspective may be related to the three versions of autonomy mentioned above. The basic idea that I want to develop here is that of ‘perspective’, a term I use to refer to a way of viewing a phenomenon that is conditioned both by an individual’s position in a power-inflected role relationship (in this case the teacher-student relationship) and by the experience that the individual acquires within this relationship. The underlying assumption is that teachers and students view the processes in which they are mutually engaged from very different perspectives and that this is likely to influence the ways in which they make sense of a notion such as autonomy. My argument is that, from the teachers’ perspective, autonomy is primarily concerned with institutional and classroom learning arrangements within established curricula. In other words, from the teachers’ perspective, autonomy tends to imply the learner taking control of arrangements whose underlying legitimacy is unquestioned. From the learners’ perspective (which I view as tangential to, rather than opposed to, the teachers’ perspective) autonomy is primarily concerned with learning, in a much broader sense, and its relationship to their lives beyond the classroom. I will illustrate this argument with a theoretical model and empirical data. In conclusion, I will also discuss its relevance to important issues in our field, such as learner resistance to autonomy and the concept of teacher autonomy.



Phil Benson

Introduction The idea of autonomy in language learning is often represented as a radically learner-centred idea. It has evolved over the past thirty years or so, however, within a literature largely written by and for teachers. The aim of this chapter is to explore the sense in which our understanding of this idea represents, in consequence of this history, a ‘teacher’s perspective’ on the relevance of autonomy to second language learning. I also want to inquire into the possibility of understanding the idea of autonomy in language learning, somewhat differently, from a ‘learner’s perspective’. The basic premise of my argument is that the idea of ‘autonomy in learning’, which takes a subject specific form in the idea of ‘autonomy in language learning’, is essentially a construal of the relevance of broader ideas of ‘autonomy in life’ to issues of teaching and learning. The concept of autonomy is currently at issue in a number of fields of inquiry – perhaps more so today than ever before.1 In this chapter, I will focus on the liberal concept of ‘personal autonomy’ as it is currently understood in the field of moral and political philosophy. This concept has been critiqued from a number of angles, and I have argued elsewhere that we should take these critiques more seriously than we do at present.2 For the purposes of the present discussion, however, I want to take the liberal view of personal autonomy at its face value and assume that most individuals share a capacity and desire for personal autonomy as liberal philosophers have described it. I also want to assume that this shared interest in personal autonomy gives both teachers and learners an interest in autonomy in language learning. These assumptions may, of course, be invalid, but they are necessary in order to create a space for the argument I want to develop. And one of the outcomes of this argument will be a suggestion that we need to investigate the empirical validity of these assumptions by exploring teachers’ and learners’ interests in autonomy in greater depth.

1. Apart from the second language education literature, there are substantial bodies of literature on autonomy in several fields, including moral and political philosophy, the philosophy of education, legal philosophy, feminist studies, moral psychology, the psychology of learning and bioethics. 2. See Benson (1996, 1997, 2001). For critical discussions of the liberal-humanist conception of personal autonomy from communitarian and feminist perspectives, see Clarke (1999), Heller, et al. (1986) and Mackenzie and Stoljar (2000). For critical discussions of the liberal-humanist grounding of the concept of autonomy in language learning, see also Pennycook (1997) and Schmenk (2005).



Teachers’ and learners’ perspectives on autonomy 

Personal autonomy The concept of personal autonomy has a long history within the field of western political philosophy, where it has characteristically served as a focal point for the critique of deterministic accounts of human action. According to liberal philosophers, because we are capable of acting for reasons, and because we are capable of reflecting upon the reasons for our actions, we attach a particular value to “the free choice of goals and relations as an essential ingredient of individual well-being” (Raz 1986: 369). As such, the concept of autonomy defines the senses in which a liberal society should value and protect individual freedom. According to Wall (2003: 307–308), for example, a meaningful conception of freedom must be based on the idea of autonomy as a characteristic of individual lives: An autonomous life is one in which a person charts his own course through life, fashioning his character by self-consciously choosing projects and assuming commitments from a wide range of eligible alternatives, and making something out of his life according to his own understanding of what is valuable and worth doing. So described, autonomy is a distinctive ideal. It applies to a person’s whole life or to large stretches of it.3

Autonomy does not, therefore, imply freedom of action on any given occasion, but rather a more general idea that the individual should “freely direct the course of his or her own life” (Young 1986: 19). There is also an assumption that autonomy must be achieved and maintained over the course of the individual’s life. But what exactly is required for an individual to lead an autonomous life? For Wall (2003: 308): To realize autonomy, one needs several things. One needs at least (1) the capacity to form complex intentions and to sustain commitments, (2) the independence necessary to chart one’s own course through life and to develop one’s own understanding of what is valuable and worth doing, (3) the self-consciousness and vigor necessary to take control of one’s affairs, and (4) access to an environment that provides one with a wide range of valuable options. Elements (1) and (3) refer to mental capacities and virtues. Element (2) refers to one’s relations with other persons who could exercise power over one. Element (4) refers to the environment in which one lives.

This description is one of many variations on the theme that autonomy requires some degree of freedom from two basic kinds of constraints: internal and external. In regard to internal constraints, individuals must acquire certain psychological 3. Although Wall’s (2003) description of autonomy is not necessarily authoritative, it is broadly representative of the liberal position in the philosophical literature (e.g., Lindley 1986: 6–7; Raz 1986: 372; Young 1986: 1) and the philosophy of education (e.g., Boud 1981; Dearden 1972; Gibbs 1979).



Phil Benson

capacities (Elements 1 and 3). In regard to external constraints, there must be some degree of freedom from other-direction (Element 2) and an environment in which meaningful options are made available (Element 4). Personal autonomy is, in this sense, an attribute of the socially-constituted individual. Individuals must strive to lead autonomous lives and society must strive to respect the freedoms that such lives require. From a liberal perspective, a good society is one in which individuals strive both for their own autonomy and the autonomy of others. In Kantian terms, it is a society in which individuals treat themselves and others as ends, and never as means towards their own ends or those of society as a whole (however ‘good’ those ends may be) (Guyer 2003). This conception of personal autonomy constitutes, I believe, the fundamental ground for the idea of ‘autonomy in learning’. The liberal-humanist view strongly implies that we must learn to be autonomous, but it does not specify the kind of learning required. Wall (2003: 308), for example, argues that, because the state “is generally not an effective instrument for cultivating mental capacities and virtues”, an autonomy-supportive state should primarily be concerned with the protection of its subjects’ independence. But to this he adds a somewhat ambiguous footnote. There are a few things that the state can effectively do in this regard. For example, it can do its best to ensure that all children receive an adequate education. But even here there are serious limits to what the state can do. Whether a child receives the kind of education that he needs to live an autonomous life depends more on what his parents do than what his state does.

Presumably, an “adequate education” is one that leaves individuals with the capacities they need in order to lead autonomous lives. But if the state is not an effective instrument for their cultivation, under what educational conditions are they best developed? Can they, in fact, be developed within state-sponsored educational institutions, or are they better developed naturally, as Rousseau suggested, through processes of self-directed investigation and discovery? 4Assuming educational institutions do have a role to play, what is the appropriate balance between training (developing appropriate capacities) and situational freedom (absence of other-direction in the learning process)? And assuming that ‘learners’ lack competence in regard to the content of their learning, almost by definition, to what extent can other direction be justified in the interests of their autonomy in the longer term? Elsewhere, I have suggested that the liberal conception of autonomy provides rather weak support for the protection of freedom within the learning process, because the principle of respect for autonomy is often hedged by considerations of paternalism (Benson 2000). Lindley (1986: 117–139), however, has presented an 4. The reference here is to Rousseau’s Émile (Boyd 1956), discussed in Benson (2001: 23–25).



Teachers’ and learners’ perspectives on autonomy 

argument that accommodates the paternalistic standpoint, in the context of a discussion of autonomy as it applies to children. Lindley argues that compulsory schooling and the various compulsions imposed upon children within schools clearly violate their autonomy. He also points to a received view that this is acceptable, because “restrictions on children are necessary for their own good in general, and specifically to enable them to develop their potential as adults” (p.119). Lindley argues, however, that it is difficult to maintain a difference of principle in this regard between adults and children above the age of 10 (the age at which individuals are held to be responsible for their actions in United Kingdom criminal law). Both must be regarded as “persons” whose autonomy deserves respect. Lindley thus argues that the violations of autonomy involved in compulsory schooling can only be justified through the paternalistic principle, which holds that an individual’s freedom of action is justifiably constrained only if there is good reason to believe that the individual would agree at a later date that this constraint was in the interests of his longer term autonomy (for an exposition of this principle, see Young 1986: 76). If this principle holds, Lindley argues, “compulsory schooling should be judged according to whether or not it promotes the overall autonomy interests of children through time” (p.135). He then goes on to suggest that, an educational system which was geared to promote widespread autonomy amongst its pupils would provide an environment which stimulated critical selfawareness, a desire to question received wisdom, and self-directedness; and most schools are unable to provide this (p.136).

If Lindley’s view of modern educational systems is a reasonable one, we must conclude that many individuals do not receive an adequate education in respect to the development of a capacity for autonomy. Moreover, to the extent that their educations are inadequate in this respect, the constraints imposed upon them by educational institutions may even violate their autonomy. From this point of view, we have good reason to enquire into the kinds of educational arrangements that are most supportive of personal autonomy in respect both to the development of appropriate capacities and the necessity for freedom in learning. Autonomy in learning: teachers’ and learners’ perspectives The concept of personal autonomy allows us to establish a context and a broader purpose for the theory of autonomy in learning. The processes by which we come to lead autonomous lives involve processes of learning. A society that values autonomy should therefore strive to facilitate the kinds of learning that lead to autonomy. Assuming that the theory of autonomy in language learning draws its



Phil Benson

meaning for the term ‘autonomy’ from the concept of personal autonomy, the major question that this theory needs to address can be put as follows: (A) What kinds of learning best lead towards the goal of personal autonomy?

This question does not presuppose that the kinds of learning in question should take place in educational institutions. It seems to me, however, that the theory of autonomy in learning often addresses a much narrower question: (A1) What can teachers do to help learners move towards the goal of personal autonomy?

Although it is reasonable to suppose that educational institutions will be somehow involved in learning for autonomy, this question virtually excludes the possibility that in some circumstances they will not. Question A1 is, in effect, a reformulation of Question A from the teacher’s perspective, one that presupposes a central role for educational institutions teachers in learning for autonomy. This becomes clearer, perhaps, if Question A is reformulated in a different way: (A2) What can learners do to help themselves move towards the goal of personal autonomy?

In the context of second language learning, it is entirely possible, in my view, to address Question A2 as one that has nothing to do with teachers or educational institutions (as we might, for example, in a study of adults who opt for self-instruction). It can also be addressed as a question concerned with both institutional and non-institutional settings for learning (as it might be, for example, in a retrospective study of a person’s language learning career). In both cases, we would be addressing Question A from the learner’s perspective. But in practice we rarely do address Question A in these ways. The bulk of the literature on autonomy in language learning is concerned with institutional settings and pays very little attention to non-institutional learning. This literature is written from the teacher’s perspective in the specific sense that it largely addresses teachers’ concerns with the content and organization of teaching and learning, rather than learners’ concerns with the organization of learning in the contexts of their lives. The teacher’s perspective The teacher’s perspective is manifested in a number of ways in the literature on autonomy in learning. Here I want to focus on the ways in which we conceptualize autonomy in learning in terms of dimensions of capacity and situational freedom. In saying that people are autonomous, we imply that they are both capable of lead-



Teachers’ and learners’ perspectives on autonomy 

ing autonomous lives and free to do so.5 We often find, however, that the term ‘autonomy’ is used to refer either to a person’s capacity to lead such a life or to some condition of situational freedom that facilitates the exercise of this capacity. If we say that one person is ‘more autonomous’ than another, for example, it is likely that we refer to their relative capacities for autonomy. If we say that a person’s autonomy has been ‘violated’, on the other hand, it is likely that we refer to some constraint upon their freedom in a situation that has bearing upon their autonomy. This terminological point becomes important, when we come to consider the meaning of autonomy from the teacher’s perspective. In an early paper that has had a considerable influence on recent thinking on autonomy in the field of second language education,6 Boud (1981: 30) asks about the nature of autonomy as a goal of education: “Is it to produce an autonomous person – a product-oriented approach – or is it to introduce activities which require students to act autonomously – a process-oriented approach?” Using the word ‘autonomous’ in the two different senses I have referred to, Boud introduces what has become the classic dilemma of autonomy in learning from the teacher’s point of view. Do we work on the learners’ capacity for autonomy and sacrifice their situational freedom? Or do we give them situational freedom and leave the 5. This is an uncontroversial view in the field of educational philosophy, where ideas of autonomy in learning are closely allied to the liberal idea of personal autonomy. See, for example, Gibbs (1979: 119): … an autonomous individual must have both independence from external authority and mastery of himself and his powers. He must be free from the dictates and interference of other people, and free also from disabling conflicts or lack of coordination between the elements of his own personality. He must have the freedom to act and work as he chooses, and he must be capable of formulating and following a rule, pattern or policy of acting and working. Arguably, in saying that a person is autonomous, we also imply that the person is actually leading an autonomous life: A person is autonomous to the degree, and it is very much a matter of degree, that what he thinks and does, at least in important areas of his life, are determined by himself (Dearden 1972: 22) From this point of view, persons who have a capacity for autonomy, but lack the freedom to exercise it (because, for example, they have been arbitrarily imprisoned for the remainder of their lives) do not count as autonomous persons. 6. To the best of my knowledge, it is from Boud (1981) that we have taken terms and ideas such as ‘fostering autonomy’, ‘autonomy as interdependence’ and ‘teacher autonomy’. The significance of Boud’s paper here is that, whereas previous influential studies had been carried out in the field of informal adult education, Boud was one of the first to systematically address issues of autonomy from the perspective of teachers working in more formal institutionalized contexts of higher education.



Phil Benson

development of the capacity for autonomy to chance? This is in many ways a false dilemma, if we view learning as a part of life. I will return to this question at the end of this section, but first I want to consider how the theory of autonomy in language learning has responded to Boud’s dilemma. In early discussions of autonomy in language learning, there was often a clear emphasis on situational freedom within the learning process. In this sense, Holec’s (1981: 3) widely quoted definition of autonomy as the “ability” to take charge of one’s own learning ran somewhat against the grain of the times. Describing work at the CRAPEL (University of Nancy, France), for example, Stanchina (1975, cited in Dickinson 1977: 15) wrote: Autonomy is an experiment in how learning can be freed from the bounds of any institution, and in how the individual can reclaim control of and responsibility for his or her own education, while investigating the opportunities to learn from a variety of authentic sources.

In a similar vein, Dickinson (1977) described autonomy as the upper limit of selfdirected learning and later defined it as follows: This term describes 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)

Was Dickinson right or wrong to define autonomy in learning in situational terms? As I have described it, personal autonomy involves a clear situational dimension and the same may be true of autonomy in learning. If learning is viewed as a part of life, and not as a preparation for it, it seems reasonable to suggest that autonomy should be understood similarly in both contexts. Autonomous learners should, in other words, be seen as persons who possess both the capacity and the freedom to steer their own learning in the direction of personal autonomy. Although it does not form part of his definition of autonomy, Dickinson was aware of a need to train learners for “full autonomy” – he simply assumed that learners would not take total responsibility for their learning if they were not capable of doing so. Where Dickinson’s distinction clearly does fall down, however, is in its implication that autonomous learning must necessarily be independent of teachers and institutions. The fact that we have no strong reason to suppose that autonomous learning requires teachers and institutions, does not mean that it must proceed independently of them. If Dickinson’s (1987) definition of autonomy in learning overemphasized situational freedom, the pendulum has now swung in the direction of the capacity for



Teachers’ and learners’ perspectives on autonomy 

autonomy. Smith (2003b) has succinctly described the changing character of discussions on autonomy in language learning in recent years: ‘The teacher’ seems to be making more and more of an appearance in such discussions, partly as a corrective to earlier misconceptions that ‘learner autonomy’ refers to a situation: that of learning without a teacher (at home, with a computer, in a self-access centre, etc.), and/or that it does away with the need for a teacher. Instead, it has been emphasised (e.g. by Little 1991) that learner autonomy needs to be seen as a capacity (for taking control of learning) which can be developed and deployed in a number of ways and situations, including in the classroom. Nowadays, more and more reports are appearing of classroom-based approaches to the development of learner autonomy, partly as a result of the incorporation of autonomy as a goal in national curricula in European countries and elsewhere.

As I have noted above, however, Holec (1981) and others had already recognized that the learners’ capacity for autonomy could not be taken for granted. The conceptual change that Smith refers to can perhaps best be understood, therefore, as one in which the emphasis on situational freedom has diminished within a construct that was previously, if somewhat incoherently, understood to require both an internal capacity and situational freedom. Little (1990: 7), for example, began his widely quoted account of ‘what autonomy is not’ by stating that “autonomy is not a synonym for self-instruction”, “it is not limited to learning without a teacher”, “it does not entail an abdication of responsibility on the part of the teacher” and “it is not a matter of letting the learners get on with things as best they can”. The problem that these statements addressed was, I think, a practical one for many teachers. How can a theory of autonomy in learning that views classroom teaching as a constraint upon the situational freedom required for autonomy be relevant to classroom teachers? What we have witnessed in recent years, then, is the development of more ‘usable’ accounts of autonomy from the teacher’s perspective – accounts that are based on the assumption that autonomy is a capacity that can be developed in the classroom, without any strong implication of a need for situational freedom in the learning process. One of the more interesting developments in this context is the idea that there are perhaps different kinds of learner autonomy. In Benson (1997), for example, I discussed three different “versions” of autonomy in learning (technical, psychological and political) and, in Benson (2001), these were related to a focus on one of three “levels of control” over learning (concerned with learning management, cognitive processing and the content of learning). Littlewood (1999: 75) has proposed a distinction between “proactive” and “reactive” autonomy based on two levels of self-regulation, the first of which “regulates the direction of activity as well as the activity itself ”, while the second “regulates the activity once the direction has been set”. Smith (2003a: 130–132), meanwhile, has made a corresponding distinction



Phil Benson

between “strong” and “weak” pedagogies for autonomy. Strong pedagogies, he argues, are based on the assumption that students are already autonomous, while weak versions are based on the assumption that they lack autonomy. While strong pedagogies focus on “co-creating with students optimal conditions for the exercise of their autonomy”, in weak pedagogies “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”. Littlewood (1999: 75) also comments that, although proactive autonomy is for many writers the only kind that counts, the concept of reactive autonomy is useful in educational contexts to mark off a capacity that “once a direction has been initiated, enables learners to organize their resources autonomously in order to reach their goal”. Elsewhere, I have suggested that proactive autonomy might be understood as control over the methods and content of learning, while reactive autonomy involves control over methods alone (Benson 2001: 99). Setting the direction for one’s learning is, in other words, very much a matter of determining one’s own learning objectives and the content of learning. Learner control over learning objectives and content can be particularly problematic for classroom teachers, however, as they are often far more accountable to others in this regard than they are in regard to methods of learning. In this sense, Littlewood’s “reactive autonomy” encodes the form in which the concept of autonomy in learning has proved to be most usable from the perspective of the teacher in the classroom. Smith’s “weak pedagogies” for autonomy can be understood, in similar terms, as aiming towards reactive autonomy. The assumption within these pedagogies that the learners lack autonomy perhaps serves the purpose of deferring the issue of proactive autonomy, and the problematic question of who should determine objectives and content of learning, to a later date. The point I wish to make here, however, is not that these “weak pedagogies” for autonomy are necessarily invalid. It is rather that, as a consequence of systematic thinking on the question of what can be achieved from the teacher’s perspective, we are in danger of losing sight of the major question at issue: What kinds of learning best lead towards the goal of personal autonomy? In order to illustrate this point, I want to refer to the opening lines of a recent resource book of activities to promote autonomy in classroom contexts: Most language teachers have experienced the frustration of investing endless amounts of energy in their students and getting very little response. We have all had groups who never did their homework, who were reluctant to use the target language in pair or group work, who did not learn from their mistakes, who did not listen to each other, who did not use opportunities to learn outside the classroom, and so on. Such behaviour often stems from one common cause: the learners’ over-reliance on the teacher. Even otherwise motivated learners may assume



Teachers’ and learners’ perspectives on autonomy 

a passive role if they feel the teacher should be in charge of everything that happens in the classroom. (Scharle and Szabó 2000: 1)

This passage attracted my attention for two reasons: first, for its focus on teacher dependence and second for its assumption that teacher dependence is the root cause of a host of undesirable student behaviours in and around the classroom. The issue that concerns me here is that we seem to have come to a point where autonomy in learning is associated with desirable classroom behaviours, such as doing one’s homework, actively using the target language in pair or group work, learning from one’s mistakes, listening to each other, and using opportunities to learn outside the classroom. While I would accept that autonomous learners will probably possess a capacity to act responsibly and independently of the teacher’s direction in the classroom, I am less convinced of the relationship between this capacity and the development of personal autonomy. The theory of autonomy in language learning has seemingly resolved Boud’s (1981) dilemma by focusing on the learner’s capacity for autonomy at the expense of a focus on freedom in learning. I have described this as a false dilemma, however, because both may be required for the achievement of personal autonomy. Certainly, if we view learning as an integral part of life, it is difficult to see how people can lead autonomous lives without being autonomous in respect to their learning in more or less the same ways that they are autonomous in respect to their lives. I also suspect that the separation of the two makes little sense from the learner’s perspective. What I find problematic, then, is the sense in which the weaker, classroom-oriented conceptions of autonomy are connected to the idea of personal autonomy. Returning to Littlewood’s (1999) distinction, for example, the link is clear in the case of proactive autonomy. By setting their own directions for learning – determining its objectives and content – proactively autonomous learners are already ‘charting their own course through life’ (Wall, 2003). But in the case of reactive autonomy, it seems that, in as much as others determine the direction of learning, they also determine the direction of the learners’ lives. This is not to say that the abilities associated with reactive autonomy lack value. It is simply that they are disconnected from the broader contexts of the learners’ lives. This disconnection is justifiable, moreover, only from the perspective of teachers, who seek to foster the learners’ autonomy within the limits of the possibilities that they see within the classroom. The learner’s perspective I have suggested that the learner’s perspective on autonomy in learning is related to the question: What can learners do to help themselves move towards the goal of per-



Phil Benson

sonal autonomy? This question can also be addressed from the teacher’s perspective, but here I want to consider it as a question that learners might reasonably ask of themselves. My assumption is that learners, as people, generally wish to lead their lives autonomously and that they have an interest in the contribution that their learning makes to their personal autonomy. I also assume that, in order to view the question as one that learners may ask of themselves, we need to rephrase it as follows: What can I do in my learning to help myself towards the goal of personal autonomy? Put in this way the question may seem strange, because personal autonomy is often a condition for the achievement of life goals, rather than an explicit goal in its own right. We might say that learners are typically more concerned with learning what they need to learn for the achievement of these life goals, than they are with learning to be autonomous. This simply implies however, that learners’ perspectives on autonomy are always contextualized within particular experiences of learning and life. In order to explore this issue further, I want to examine a language learning experience of my own. This experience took place several years ago and the notes below were written at that time. For the past year, I have been attending classes in Cantonese twice weekly at my university. This experience allows me to view myself as a learner and, although I would readily acknowledge that I am by no means a ‘typical’ learner, I believe that it also allows me to make some comments on the way in which issues of autonomy have been relevant to my learning. Viewing myself as a learner, I am able to see, for example, that the behaviours Scharle and Szabó (2000) associate with autonomy are desirable if I want to get the most out of the class I have elected to attend. I also see them as desirable in a more general sense. When I or others fail to act responsibly, I feel that the value of our collective learning experience is diminished. I would therefore view them as desirable even in a class that I was obliged to attend. I find it difficult to see, however, how these behaviours are related to my own autonomy or to the autonomy of my classmates. Several of us regularly fail to complete our homework tasks, for example, and most of us fail to take advantage of opportunities to practice out of class. In the first case, the explanation probably lies in the fact that we are busy people, who lack time management skills and self-discipline. Occasionally, I skip homework, because I feel that it is not a good use of the time I have available, and spend my time working on some other aspect of the language. In the second case, the reasons are more complex and, for me, associated with a certain anxiety in speaking Cantonese to native speakers. Whatever the real reasons for these behaviours, teacher dependence does not seem to be among them. Although I may be teacher-dependent in the sense that I do not learn much Cantonese beyond what our teacher presents, neither/nor my classmates are, in my view, teacher-dependent in the sense that Scharle and Szabó intend.



Teachers’ and learners’ perspectives on autonomy 

It could be objected to this that we are adult learners attending a voluntary fee-paying class. As adults, we are perhaps already autonomous to a considerable degree and our classroom behaviours should not, therefore, be interpreted in the same way as those of younger or less-experienced learners. However, I also want to suggest that my own classroom behaviours are related to my autonomy in quite a different way. Having lived in Hong Kong for 14 years, I have tried to learn Cantonese in the past and on each occasion I have given up without getting very far. This is a familiar experience for long-term foreign residents in Hong Kong and at least two of my current classmates have similar experiences, having lived in Hong Kong for more than 20 years. My motivation for attempting to learn Cantonese again at this point in time is complex and connected in a rather diffuse way to my sense of identity as a Hong Kong resident and as a language professional who, in principle, should to be able to learn Cantonese. In brief, I would at least like to be able to say that I have made a serious effort to learn the language and made some progress with it. This goal is, I believe, very much related to my personal autonomy. If I achieve it, I feel that I will be more of a ‘person’, that more options will be open to me, and that I would, in a general sense, be more in control of my life in the setting in which I live and work. In the context of this broad purpose, my decision to register for a classroombased course was also related to my autonomy. When I first came to Hong Kong, I attended the same Cantonese class, but by the end of the year I felt that I was still somewhere around ‘beginner’ level. In the following year, I gave up the class and soon found that I had forgotten most of what I had learned. In other language learning situations, I have tended to avoid classroom instruction in preference for self-instruction, and over the past few years I have made several attempts to revive my Cantonese through self-instruction. These have been largely unsuccessful, however, and by the time I re-registered for the class, I had reached a point where I had begun to feel that if I was to get anywhere with my learning, I would have to make some kind of long-term commitment to it. My decision to attend classes for a year was, in this sense, a symbol of commitment. My previous experience led me to expect very little from the class, which I viewed as the focal point for a programme of renewed self-instruction. I hoped, in other words, that the class would act as a constant reminder that I was, in fact, learning Cantonese. The class has, in fact, worked well in this respect. I have found, for example, that I tend to feel lost when I return to the class after missing one or two sessions, which acts as a stimulus for me to catch up on my own. I have also found that the class is making more of a contribution to my learning than I expected. I appreciate the teacher, my classmates and the general atmosphere in the lessons. Although I did not plan to do so, I am also using the course textbook to organize my learning. The learning I do outside the classroom is largely focused on the language in the



Phil Benson

unit we are covering and, as the teacher is the author of the textbook, I am clearly dependent on her in regard to the content of my learning – far more dependent than I expected to be at the beginning of the course. This is, however, largely a matter of the trust that I have developed in her abilities over time. At the same time, I retain a strong sense that I am in charge of the overall process of my learning. As the class is voluntary, I feel that I choose to attend each lesson and I am also aware that I need to do more than make this choice if I am to keep up. I also need to focus my attention in the classroom and to study regularly in between classes. Autonomy is thus at issue in my learning of Cantonese in two major ways. First, I see the process and potential outcomes of my learning as supportive of my personal autonomy. Making an effort to learn Cantonese and becoming a person who knows Cantonese to some degree, are things that I value because they impinge upon my sense of self as a fully competent person in the context of the life that I am currently leading. This is, I think, fairly typical of adult learning projects, in which the learners do not simply learn something for the sake of learning it, but because they feel that the abilities they acquire will help them to lead more autonomous lives. Second, I feel that I am autonomous in respect to the overall direction of my learning – that most of what I do in the learning process is a consequence of choices and decisions that I make myself. These two aspects of autonomy also appear to correspond to the dimensions of capacity and situational freedom discussed in this chapter. I have come to understand that knowledge of Cantonese would enhance my capacity to lead an autonomous life in my current circumstances. But because I have chosen to learn Cantonese in order to enhance my personal autonomy, it is also important to me that the choices and decisions that I make within the learning process are made freely. In other words, because I view my learning as an integral part of my life, it is important to me that I am able to conduct my learning in much the same way as I wish to conduct my life. More problematic from my perspective as a learner is the sense of autonomy in learning that is typically in focus from the teacher’s perspective. In particular, I appear to lack autonomy in regard to my dependence on my teacher for the content of my learning. It seems important to me, however, that I have more or less willingly accepted this dependence for a particular reason. Learning Cantonese is by no means the only, or most important, activity in my life. In fact, creating the time to attend classes and study out of class is one the most difficult aspects of the learning process from my point of view. In these circumstances, I am happy to accept a degree of other direction if it helps me learn the language. In this respect, it is clear that I am failing to use my capacity for autonomy to the full and that I am giving up some of my situational freedom. In brief, I am learning what my teacher thinks I should learn, and giving up my prerogative to determine the content of my learning. But in doing so, I do not believe that my autonomy is impaired. This



Teachers’ and learners’ perspectives on autonomy 

contradicts my earlier arguments about the importance of control over the content of Learning. But my perspective as a learner in this particular case, I feel that the overall sense that I am in control of my learning overrides the lack of control that I have over its content. In this context, I want to revive an argument discussed in some detail by Dickinson (1977: 17), in which he proposed that autonomy could be understood as the upper limit of self-directed learning. As part of this argument, he wrote: If I wish to become a competent carpenter, I may choose to read books and practise on my own, or I may choose to join a class in carpentry. In my view, both are examples of self-directed learning. The vital factors are the individual specification of functional aims, and the free choice of means of achieving those aims. The process of achieving learning objectives is not one of making an initial decision – self-direction or other direction and then progressing linearly; it is rather a progression along a path which has frequent forks – some many pronged. The defining characteristic of self-directed learning in my view, is that the learner makes a free choice at each of these forks. This free choice may in fact be to relinquish his/ her autonomy over a particular stretch for a particular purpose.

In my view, Dickinson makes an important point here, although I find his use of the term ‘autonomy’ in the final sentence somewhat misleading. What exactly does a person relinquish by choosing to take a class on carpentry, rather than study carpentry through self-instruction? Is it autonomy or situational freedom? I would argue that it must be the latter, unless the choice is the product of an undeveloped or impaired capacity for autonomy, or unless it prevents the would-be carpenter from leading an otherwise autonomous life. This point of view, I would argue, allows us to see the importance of viewing autonomy in learning from the learner’s perspective. As Dickinson (1977: 18) goes on to argue: Thus, even though a student – a school child for example – may be externally directed to learn English, or French (hereafter X), there is still scope for self-direction within the learning programme. Alternatively, though another student may make a self-directed decision to study X he may, for example, choose to relinquish his autonomy in particular areas, in varying degrees.

Again I would argue that this student relinquishes his situational freedom rather than his autonomy. The important point that Dickinson makes here is, however, that learning situations and behaviours have no intrinsic relationship to personal autonomy. They are neither supportive of, nor inimical to, autonomy in any direct or predictable sense. My own experience suggests that it is their relationship to the overall development of the individual’s autonomy that counts, and this is some-



Phil Benson

thing that can only be grasped through an attempt to understand specific processes of learning in context and from the perspective of those who are engaged in them. Conclusion In this chapter, I have argued that, because the concept of ‘autonomy in learning’ draws its meaning from the concept of ‘personal autonomy’, it is centrally concerned with the kinds of learning that best help people to lead autonomous lives. The theory of autonomy in language learning, however, is increasingly informed by the perspective of the teacher in the classroom, leading to a focus on the development of the internal capacity for autonomy at the expense of external freedom in the learning process. This does not necessarily imply that we should revert to earlier models of autonomy in learning, which prioritized situational autonomy. Instead, we should work towards a more complex view of the requirements for autonomy and of the relationship between autonomy in learning and autonomy in life. I have suggested that we might approach this more complex view of autonomy by paying greater attention to learners’ perspectives. In this chapter, I have focused on my own recent experiences as a second language learner, because I have a particular kind of access to them. Reflecting upon these experiences has given me some insight into the complexity of learners’ perspectives on autonomy, although I would not wish to claim that this insight goes much beyond an understanding that these perspectives are complex! Recent research into the ways in which learners direct longer-term learning processes across settings and contexts also indicates a possible way forward for research on autonomy in language learning (see, for example, Benson et al. 2003; Benson and Nunan 2002, 2005). I also see an important role in this respect for research in the area of teacher autonomy. Breen and Mann (1997: 140), for example, ask whether it might be possible that “the current interest by teachers in the autonomy of learners is an expression of a growing personal uncertainty and a feeling of powerlessness” in many modern educational settings. The suggestion here is that the teacher’s perspective on autonomy may involve a degree of self-deception, in which concerns for our own autonomy may find expression in concerns for the autonomy of our learners. Clarifying the nature of our own interests, as teachers, in autonomy in learning may thus be an important component of the research agenda I have in mind. Lastly, I feel that it is important to reiterate that my argument is based on an assumption that the idea of autonomy in learning is grounded in the liberal-humanist conception of personal autonomy. I believe, however, that this argument is likely to hold independently of any particular conception of autonomy, as it de-



Teachers’ and learners’ perspectives on autonomy

pends only upon an acceptance of the idea that a meaningful concept of ‘autonomy in learning’ must make reference to some broader concept of ‘autonomy in life’. I am, in fact, inclined to look beyond liberal-humanist philosophy for such a concept. The theory of autonomy in language learning has tended to be rather inwardlooking in this respect, and I therefore want to conclude this chapter with the suggestion that we should perhaps pay more attention to the literature on autonomy beyond our field in order to refine and make explicit the underlying conceptions of autonomy with which we work. References Benson, P. 1996. Concepts of autonomy in language learning. In Taking Control: Autonomy in Language Learning, R. Pemberton, E.S.L. Li, W.F. Or & H.D. Pierson (eds), 27–34. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Benson, P. 1997. The philosophy and politics of learner autonomy. In Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning, P. Benson & P. Voller (eds), 18–34. London: Longman. Benson, P. 2000. Autonomy as a learners’ and teachers’ right. In Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy: Future Directions, B. Sinclair, I. McGrath & T.E. Lamb (eds), 111–117. London: Longman. Benson, P. 2001. Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning. London: Longman. Benson, P., Chik, A. & Lim, H-Y. 2003. Becoming autonomous in an Asian context: Autonomy as a sociocultural process. In Learner Autonomy across Cultures: Language Education Perspectives, D. Palfreyman & R.C. Smith (eds), 23–40. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Benson, P. & Nunan, D. (eds). 2002. The Experience of Language Learning. Special issue of The Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics 7 (2). Benson, P. & Nunan, D. (eds). 2005. Learners’ Stories: Difference and Diversity in Language Learning. Cambridge: CUP. Boud, D. 1981. Towards student responsibility for learning. In Developing Student Autonomy in Learning, D. Boud (ed.), 21–38. London: Kogan Page. Boyd, W. (ed.). 1956. Émile for Today: The Émile of Jean Jacques Rousseau. London: Heinemann. Breen, M.P. & Mann, S. 1997. Shooting arrows at the sun: Perspectives on a pedagogy for Autonomy. In Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning, P. Benson & P. Voller (eds), 132–149. London: Longman. Clarke, P.B. 1999. Autonomy Unbound. Aldershot: Ashgate. Dearden, R.F. 1972. Autonomy and education. In Education and the Development of Reason, D.F. Dearden, P.F. Hirst & R.S. Peters (eds), 448–465. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Dickinson, L. 1977. Autonomy, self-directed learning and individualized instruction. In Self Directed Learning and Autonomy, Report of a Seminar held at Cambridge, 13–15 December 1976, E.M. Harding-Esch (ed.), 12–34. Cambridge: Department of Linguistics and CRAPEL. Dickinson, L. 1987. Self-instruction in Language Learning. Cambridge: CUP. Gibbs, B. 1979. Autonomy and authority in education. Journal of Philosophy of Education 13: 119–132.





Phil Benson Guyer, P. 2003. Kant on the theory and practice of autonomy. In Autonomy, E.F. Paul et al. (eds), 70–98. Cambridge: CUP. Heller, T.C., Sosna, M. & Wellbery, D.E. (eds). 1986. Reconstructing Individualism: Autonomy, Individuality, and the Self in Western Thought. California CA: Stanford University Press. Holec, H. 1981. Autonomy in Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon. Lindley, R. 1986. Autonomy. London: Macmillan. Little, D. 1990. Autonomy in language learning. In Autonomy in Language Learning, I. Gathercole (ed.), 7–15. London: CILT. 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. Mackenzie, C. & Stoljar, N. (eds). 2000. Relational Autonomy: Feminist Perspectives on Autonomy, Agency, and the Social Self. Oxford: OUP. Pennycook, A. 1997. Cultural alternatives and autonomy. In Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning, P. Benson & P. Voller (eds), 35–53. London: Longman. Raz, J. 1986. The Morality of Freedom. Oxford: OUP. Scharle, Á. & Szabó, A. 2000. Learner Autonomy: A Guide to Developing Learner Responsibility. Cambridge: CUP. Schmenk, B. 2005. Globalizing learner autonomy. TESOL Quarterly 39(1): 107–118. Smith, R.C. 2003a. Pedagogy for autonomy as (becoming-)appropriate methodology. In Learner Autonomy across Cultures: Language Education Perspectives, D. Palfreyman & R.C. Smith (eds), 129–146. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Smith, R.C. 2003b. Teacher education for teacher-learner autonomy. In Symposium for Language Teacher Educators: Papers from Three IALS Symposia, J. Gollin et al. (eds). Edinburgh: IALS, University of Edinburgh. (CD-ROM) Stanchina, C. 1975. The logic of autonomy as a strategy for adult learners. Paper presented at the AILA Conference, University of Nancy, CRAPEL. Mimeo. Wall, S. 2003. Freedom as a political ideal. In Autonomy, E.F. Paul et al. (eds), 307–334. Cambridge: CUP. Young, R. 1986. Personal Autonomy: Beyond Negative and Positive Liberty. London: Croom Helm.

Freedom – a prerequisite for learner autonomy? Classroom innovation and language teacher education Turid Trebbi

University of Bergen, Norway

Freedom is frequently referred to as an inherent aspect of learner autonomy and is seemingly accepted as a matter of course, presumably because there is semantic overlap between the word autonomy and the concept of freedom. However, this may turn out to be a simplistic view of both freedom and learner autonomy. The aim of this article is to examine the relationship between the two. After having considered the definition of learner autonomy, the first part poses the issue of learner autonomy and freedom in an institutional context. It then goes on to relate findings from two research projects and concludes by presenting the need for an alternative definition of freedom as related to the concept of learner autonomy.

Introduction Among several issues that underpin the task of putting learner autonomy into action, the relation between learner autonomy and freedom seems to be one of crucial importance. Learner autonomy is commonly associated with the idea of freedom as a central component of the concept. The semantic neighbourhood of ‘freedom’ so to speak contaminates the word ‘autonomy’; inevitably the term carries a flavour of ”being free”. This is not surprising considering the definition of the concept ’learner autonomy’ according to which learner autonomy is the capacity to take charge of one’s own learning (Holec 1981), a capacity which is translated into a certain learner behaviour labelled ’self-directive’ in contrast to the classic ’hetero-directive’ learner behaviour (Holec 1992). Self-directiveness involves decision making related to learning objectives, choice of learning activities and selfassessment according to students’ own definitions of learning goals. Unsurprisingly,



Turid Trebbi

interpretations of ’self-directive’, ’decision making’ and ’choice’ are strongly associated with freedom. This affects the attitude of many teachers and teacher educators, to whom learner autonomy, which was developed as a didactic theory within flexible adult educational systems, seems unrealistic in an institutional context. Learners at primary, secondary and university levels have to submit to officially established curricula and exams. Loss of control, chaos and inefficient learning are threatening and presumed implications of learner autonomy. This seems to be one of the major reasons why teachers are reluctant to introduce learner autonomy in their classrooms. However, there is evidence from many countries that learner autonomy appears to be functional even within the constraints of institutional contexts. This might lead to the contention that freedom can not be included in the concept of learner autonomy. On the other hand, how can learners be autonomous and make choices without being free? Is the idea of learner autonomy a contradiction or at least a paradox? In order to grasp the concept of learner autonomy it is necessary to examine the semantics of the word freedom and then explore how it relates to learner autonomy. In doing so I will first look at freedom in general terms interrogating the issue of freedom from an ontological angle. More fundamentally, we have to ask whether we as human beings are in a position to make free decisions and free choices at all. Secondly, and informed by the semantic investigation, I reexamine the question of freedom from a didactic perspective by addressing the question in relation to self-directedness; in other words what learner autonomy looks like in the language classroom. A salient question is whether learner autonomy means freedom of action and absence of control. After having discussed what I would call misunderstandings of what freedom means when related to learner autonomy and self-directiveness, I proceed to a discussion of what kind of implications this may have for language teacher education. The discussion will draw on findings from two research projects, one focusing on innovation in the French language classroom at lower secondary level and one focusing on innovation in initial language teacher education at postgraduate university level. I conclude by highlighting the need for and the benefits of an interrelationship between the new teacher and learner roles within an alternative definition of freedom. What does freedom mean? The semantic field of the term may be examined from both a political and philosophical angle. From the outset freedom is not an absolute concept. A group of 14 years old Norwegian beginners of French were asked by a group of French students what freedom meant to them. These students participated in the first period



Freedom – a prerequisite for learner autonomy 

of a research project on developing learner autonomy that took place at lower secondary school from 1986 to 1991. One component of the project consisted of exchange of written texts with French students whose texts were produced during their mother tongue classes (Trebbi 1995). The project is reported in more detail in the second part of this article. An underlying assumption of the question posed by the French students was that the word freedom may have different references in different cultures. The answers show even individual diversity of references: – to me freedom is justice – to me freedom is to have friends and to have enough to eat every day – to me freedom is the right to go to school – to me freedom is not to have to go to school – to me freedom is to play football when I want – to me freedom is to live in peace, to express myself, democracy – to me freedom is to decide for myself The slogan from the French revolution, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, as well as Human Rights are resonating in the answers. The young students are evoking freedom as relative to constraints, and the constraints are differentiated on a scale of degrees of oppression. Furthermore, they perceive the notion of constraints as something imposed from the outside and from which they want to be free. This type of constraints, which can be labelled ’external constraints’, are placed on a continuum spanning from tyranny on one extreme to obstacles to personal satisfaction of well-being on the other. Freedom is seen as absence of external constraints. However, does total absence of constraints exist? From a philosophical point of view human beings are never free from constraints simply by the fact that we are social beings. The question of freedom is relative to the socio-cultural contexts we live with. The philosopher Paul Ricoeur claims that we are victims of our history and socio-cultural context which is translated into the mental heritage of every human being. The mental heritage embraces phenomena such as attitudes, beliefs, insights. The closest we can get to freedom is to be informed by the ’otherness’ carrying another history and thus become aware of one’s own heritage (Ricoeur 1995: 77). The question is not whether we are free or not, but rather whether we are victims of constraints or not. The only way out of the dilemma of freedom is consciousness raising about the external and internal conditions we are living with. Following Husserl, awareness is intentional and can be oriented in multiple ways towards perception, imagination, will and apprehension of values (Ricoeur 1995: 17–18). This leads to the conclusion that from an ontological point of view, human beings are not free in an absolute sense. We are bound to both external and internal



Turid Trebbi

constraints. Furthermore, and seemingly paradoxically, deliberate human action can not be conceived without taking constraints into consideration. At this point it might be suitable to change the term ’constraint’ into ’condition’. Actions are built on considerations of external and internal conditions. In other words, external and internal constraints constitute a framework for action. It is not our purpose to go deeper into the ontological aspects of the complex question of freedom. However, having established this dual point of view, we possess an instrument that may help us clarify how learner autonomy relates to freedom. We will keep in mind that constraints, external and internal, are modalities of different grades on a continuum from one extreme to the other where one is a discordance of constraints linked to oppression and the other is constraints seen as supportive frameworks for different practices. This takes us to the didactic perspective. What kind of relationship exists between learner autonomy and freedom? We are now able to reformulate the initial question about freedom as a prerequisite of learner autonomy into a new question: How does learner autonomy relate to the continuum of different grades of both external and internal constraints that we have designated above? To approach this question we turn to constraints as prompted by institutionalised systems. Educational systems in many societies put constraints on the teacher and learner that are not likely to promote learner autonomy. Some of these can be acted upon and sometimes teachers have to act in the face of constraints. In the following I will draw on findings from a classroom research project mentioned in the first part of this article, which aimed at strengthening the position of the optional second foreign language (French, German or Spanish) by making the learning of these languages accessible to all learners at lower secondary level (Trebbi 1995, Gjørven & Trebbi 1997). The background of the project was a considerable deficit of students at this level opting for a second foreign language in addition to compulsory English. A large majority of students found these languages too difficult and opted for more “practical” subjects (Grunnskolerådet/The National Schoolboard 1988, 1991). This reaction among the students is attributed to traditional methods dating back to the 18th century that still prove to be prevailing in the second foreign language classroom. This view is confirmed in a report made by an Expert Group of the Council of Europe that contributed to an evaluation of the teaching and learning of foreign languages at school level, which was undertaken in Norway in 2003. The expert group noted that “at school level, (-) (languages) are often taught in traditional ways which do not easily appeal to academically weaker pupils” (Experts’ Report: Norway 2003).



Freedom – a prerequisite for learner autonomy 

The project was designed as action research introducing innovative approaches to the learning of French in a classroom of 27 beginners at the age of 14. The hypothesis was that the development of learner autonomy was a potential for making the learning of French accessible to all learners, learner autonomy being seen as more consistent with constructivist learning theories than traditional approaches. The main research question was how learner autonomy and self-directed learning can be put into practice at the very beginning of a language course, and next to this, what is the potential of learner autonomy for the accessability of language learning. Innovative learning situations, labelled ‘open situations’ were introduced, which required a provision of a wide range of language material that the students could choose from. The working time was organized in “learning to learn phases” in which the students reflected on their learning behaviours and learned to use the open learning situations for their own learning, and “French learning phases” were the teacher acted as a counsellor. A complete self-directed learning scheme was developed in collaboration by the teacher and the students, which induced a new student and teacher role. The data collected from the project consist of students’ language performance, diaries, evaluations, interviews and descriptions of procedures, learning resources, classroom organization and organization of the time aspect. Findings The most noticeable finding relating to the question of freedom was that the process of developing learner autonomy seems to rely on a firmly structured framework that supports – awareness-raising about the nature of languages, cultures and language learning – reflective experience-based learning – learner initiatives and exploration of the target language – relevant choices of learning activities – learning to learn activities. Generally speaking, data from the first phase of the project demonstrate that when the learners were exposed to open learning situations of “free” choice, they became confused because they lacked experiences to build on. The students could only think of choices linked to topics of personal interest and learning activities they were already familiar with. In the long run, arbitrary choices proved to be unproductive for learning. In the second phase, meta-cognitive procedures were introduced. The focal point was the relevance of chosen activities and topics to learning outcomes. The



Turid Trebbi

students realized a contradiction between what they were doing and what they wanted to obtain. On this basis a third phase took place, dealing with deconstruction and reconstruction of classroom structures as a joint endeavour of the students and the teacher. Traditional structures imposed by the school culture were challenged and replaced by alternative structures and procedures appropriate for supporting this new way of learning French. These alternative structures were labelled ”supportive constraints”. Examples are learning programmes negotiated by the individual student and the teacher, procedures for sharing of information, selfassessment, regular presentation of textproductions, flexible classroom organisation, group and plenary work at regular intervals, procedures for sharing learning materials, tutorials, the use of portfolio as a source for learner-learner and learnerteacher dialogue and keeping track of learning processes and agreements on time frames. New routines for exploring, experimenting, producing, publishing and evaluating were established and “good old” activities like translation and drill were given new meaning through the students’ own decisions. We concluded that freedom of control does not exist, but the nature of control changes from teacher’s direct control, for instance of homework, to indirect control seen as an intrinsic component of the process of learning itself, language acquisition being the consequence of learning activities. Students themselves evaluate the level of consistency between actions and their consequences. From this final phase of the project, data confirm that internal constraints, i.e. cemented learner attitudes and beliefs, may turn into productive mental conditions along with new learning experiences. This lead to the assumption that one way of supporting teachers in changing their practice might be to provide appropriate curricula guidelines. In 1997 the experience of this project had a noticeable impact on the construction of a new curriculum within the Norwegian national reform. A new curriculum In institutionalised educational systems the curriculum is seen as one instance of external constraint. Historically the curriculum of a language subject used to describe in detail both objectives, content, methodology and specific learning outcomes. This was true for school systems all over the world and still is in many countries. A widely seen view is that learner autonomy and self-directed learning approaches can not possibly develop within institutionalised systems unless learner autonomy is an expressed objective. The curriculum at lower secondary level of French and German in the 1997 Norwegian school reform presents an interesting example in not defining learner autonomy as an explicit objective although it takes



Freedom – a prerequisite for learner autonomy 

as a premise that all students are able to learn French and German if they are offered appropriate learning opportunities in which self-directed learning is seen as potentially. This is illustrated in the following three abstracts from ”Second foreign language, French”, L97 (KUF 1997). Extract 1 Approaches to the study of French The approaches are designed to make the subject accessible to all pupils. Pupils should be allowed room to bring many sides of their personalities to bear and to use their own approaches. Pupils may acquire elements of language in different sequences, and what they learn of the language may also differ. In cooperation with teachers and fellow pupils, they will gain experience of shaping their own language learning. The learning task will be both practical and theoretical, enabling pupils to discover and explore the language, to use it right from the start, and through their own use of it gradually systematise their discoveries and try out their knowledge of the language. It is emphasised that pupils are to work also with texts that were not specially designed for language training (authentic texts). Such texts bring pupils into contact with the living language they will encounter in French-speaking areas. The language course emphasises creative work, in which drama and music are among the natural components. Pupils will use the language to create their own oral and written texts, which can also be shared with others. Texts in this broad sense involve both oral and written use of the language. Attention will be paid to the aesthetic qualities not only of the learning material that pupils will encounter, but also of the material they create themselves. When pupils concentrate on the relation between form and content and discover that diversity of meaning offers a number of paths to understanding and insight, they may find the space they need to express themselves with and in the language, questioning, interpreting and using their imagination. Errors can often be seen as signs of learning. Particular attention should therefore be paid to the process whereby pupils develop their own texts. The pupils’ evaluation of their own texts, and of the actual work process, helps them gain insight into their own language learning. With regard to opportunities for all pupils to learn French, information technology is creating a new situation. It enables pupils to gain immediate and realistic experience of the language in a motivating and efficient way. It can make it possible for pupils to participate in real language communities by talking to people in nearly all parts of the world and communicating with people whose first language is French. Such direct contact with the language is also an invitation to independent learning.



Turid Trebbi

Extract 2 One of three general aims for the subject is: – to promote the pupils' insight into what it is to learn French and their capacity to take charge of their own learning, so that all pupils are given good opportunities to learn the language and lay foundations for further learning of French and of learning other languages. Extract 3 The study area linked to this general aim is “Knowledge of French language and culture, and of one’s own learning” and the objectives related to the latter are the following: Pupils shall – help to create good learning situations and working methods, make their own choices, discuss their efforts to learn the language and discuss how to provide the whole group with the best possible conditions for French language learning (grade 8) – define their own learning needs, set up learning targets, and assess their own efforts and progress (grade 9) – learn to use a broad range of aids to solve the problems they encounter in their study of the language, and increase their insight into how useful information can be stored, organized and made available manually or electronically in the classroom and the library – talk about and evaluate learning material and approaches in relation to the aims of the language course, and make choices that will benefit their own learning of French (grade 10) (For more details see Trebbi 2003a) Conforming to widely accepted views on language learning emerging from the policies of the Council of Europe and the European Union, the L97 curriculum is designed as a supportive framework for the development of self-directed learning. It describes learning in terms of “shall do” instead of knowledge items that the students shall acquire. Learning activities combined with awareness raising activities are conceived within a cognitive paradigm, asserting a close relationship between cognition and action. According to this relationship, the choice of action in the classroom is motivated by the learners’ level of understanding of what they are doing. The fundamental idea is that the curriculum should bring about new experiences in the classroom with a potential to offer new insights about language and language learning and how learners can act to acquire the target language.



Freedom – a prerequisite for learner autonomy 

Shortly after the new curriculum was made public, a study was made in order to consider the potential impact of the new curriculum on classroom practice. The study is reported in Gjørven (2000: 145–155, in Ribé 2000). The corpus consists of language teachers’ comments on the main changes in the new curriculum in a hearing undertaken by the Ministry for Church, Education and Research in 1996. 175 schools or school administrations from all parts of Norway contributed to the hearing. Generally speaking, the teachers did not respond positively to the change of approach designed by the reform. The most typical viewpoints expressed in the inquiry claimed that it is unproductive for students to make decisions about learning objectives, that it makes teaching difficult because the students learn different things, that students at this age are immature and unable to benefit from this kind of approach, that authentic texts are too difficult for beginners, that the curriculum puts too much responsibility on the learners and that students can not learn without being taught. Teachers also complained that sequenced grammar items were left out and that learning outcomes were not defined. The view of language teaching and learning as transmission of knowledge and the view that French and German are elitist subjects still prevail in teachers’ discourse as stated in the Experts’ Report refered to above (Experts’ Report: Norway 2003), although in many respects change of practice is taking place in terms of learner centred teaching. However, this turns out to be mere modifications of cemented practices, which can be summarized as differentiated teaching based on teachers’ estimation of students’ learning capacities. The fact that most teachers do not believe that all students are able to learn a second foreign language is also stated in the Experts’Report: ”[-] many German and French teachers do not consider their subject suitable for all pupils” (ibid: 9). This attitude seems inconsistent with the democratic values on which the national education system is founded. The importance of learning languages as a means of democratic participation and development of citizenship in a globalised world is widely agreed on as formulated by the Expert group: “The view that language learning is for an educated, “cultured” elite [-] is no longer adequate, if it ever was.” Furthermore “the emphasis is upon valuing and developing the ability of all individuals to learn and use several languages [-] the purpose of which is the creation of linguistic tolerance as a basis for democratic citizenship” (ibid: 4–5). All pupils should have the opportunity to succeed in learning foreign languages. What also attracts our attention in the study made by Gjørven (2000) is the seemingly firm opinion of many of the language teachers who participated in the inquiry that the L97 curriculum is just another manifestation of institutionalised directiveness. What have been conceived as supportive constraints are perceived as obstacles to teachers’ “pedagogical freedom”. It is my contention that there is an underlying misconception of the concept of freedom which includes the conviction



Turid Trebbi

that one should be free to go on as usual, regardless of educational consequences; this is paradoxical if we take Paul Ricoeur’s consideration about freedom into account. One possible interpretation is that teachers’ internal constraints, i.e. attitudes and beliefs, prove to be greater obstacles to innovation than current external constraints. The L97 teaching and learning guidelines did not overcome the established mental heritage. This confirms the assumption that curricula can not bring about changes unless teachers’ experiences also change and leads us to the next section which reports findings from the research project INVITIS (Innovation with ICT in initial language teacher education) addressing the gap between didactic theory and classroom practice (Trebbi 2003b and http://www.itu.uio.no). Implications for teacher education The one-year teacher education course in Norway consists of theoretical studies and periods of classroom practice with tutoring. The discrepancy between theory and practice as stated above confirms the supposition that students continue to teach the way they themselves have been taught, in spite of new pedagogical theories and research findings. Theorising that is not congruent with former practice experiences has limited impact on behaviour. Therefore, and based on the assumption that reflection combined with provision of new experiences might bridge the gap, INVITIS attempted to identify and address student teachers’ representations about teaching and learning languages and provide new experiences to reflect on. The project was based on the hypothesis that the sharing of experiences and reflective negotiation of meaning in digital environments both offer powerful indications of students’ representations and constitute resources for knowledge building. The underlying rationale builds on theories of textbased collaborate learning mediated by the usage of the new technology (Jopp 2001) with a focal point on meta-cognition as an emancipatory potential. In teacher education, collaborative knowledge building has both a text related and an action related aspect. The former appears when knowledge is verbally formulated and the latter appears in concrete actions undertaken in the classroom. Knowledge is interpreted as a manifestation of cognitive intentional representations and as such probably constitutes a premise for classroom practice. The research was designed on the assumption that reflective verbalising of knowledge is a central constituent of teacher education because of its potential for uncovering intentionality as a component of concrete actions, an assumption which is underpinned by cognitive research (Dortier 2003). The transparency of digital learning environments was seen as a unique opportunity for student teachers and teacher educators to investigate experience-based knowledge building. The focal point was



Freedom – a prerequisite for learner autonomy 

the relationship between discourse and action, between theory and practice. A first step towards investigating the nature of this relationship was to externalize representations about teaching and learning of languages. A second step was to reflect on these representations. Provision of alternative learning experiences was an integrated part of the research design. According to this action plan the project adopted a triple focus: a. creation of an adequate framework of supportive constraints to provide students with open learning space b. development of learner autonomy as an approach to teacher education in order to provide alternative learning experiences c. study activities on campus that offer new learning experiences through open learning space The framework consisted of compulsory participation in face-to-face and digital synchronous and asynchronous forums and compulsory contributions to digital portfolios. Tasks were oral and written reports from classroom observations and reflection on students’ own learning experiences together with a certain amount of reading. The final examination consisted of an essay and portfolio-based theorising on practical experiences. The activities were organised in time frames. Within this framework, the students experienced learner autonomy, constructing their own learning programmes, making decisions about relevant issues, making choices of classroom research during practice periods and selecting readings according to individual priorities. Study activities on campus were individual publications of reflective notes in digital portfolios and texts produced collaboratively in synchronic and asynchronic forums. This constituted a corpus of critical issues that were discussed and reflected on in student-teacher dialogues. Tutorials were offered during the whole study year both in public in digital forums and in private through e-mailing and in face-to-face meetings. With regard to the question of freedom, data from the very first asynchronic forum discussion on the concept of learner autonomy and self-directed learning are particularly illustrative of the relationship between freedom and learner autonomy. This specific research activity investigated potential changes in the students’ views on teaching with regard to potentially emerging understandings of learner autonomy as related to the specific type of learning situation. The learning situation can be described as dual, combining a focus on activity modality with activity topic, in other words the “how” and the “what” of the activity. This was based on the assumption that congruence between the learning approach and the topic itself might offer space for new learning experiences, congruence meaning that the activity procedure itself becomes part of what the learning is about. The participants were 12 students from the universities of Bergen, Oslo and Yaounde 1



Turid Trebbi

in Cameroon. Together with one teacher educator from each university we had invited an experienced teacher from Strasbourg who had developed learner autonomy in her classrooms. Participation was compulsory for two weeks with a minimum of three contributions, either questions or comments. The discussion was recorded by the computer and sent by e-mail to the participants. Afterwards the students had to publish a reflective text in their digital portfolio that was based on the discussion. Findings Students in general are resistant to the learner autonomy approach at the beginning of the course, and during their classroom practice, they rarely experience how learner autonomy can be operationalised. By questioning issues related to self-directed learning the students expressed both fascination and apprehension. Some of their questions were – How can we control what they learn when 30 pupils have chosen different activities? – How can the teacher guarantee the quality of their learning? – When pupils work autonomously, how can they possibly learn everything they should? – Isn’t self-direction too much work for slow learners? The students got involved and the discussion went on for another two weeks. The recorded discussion turned out to be an extremely challenging text for reflection and didactic theorising. In the light of experiences with learner autonomy as realised in their own learning of didactics, the questions which addressed learner autonomy in the language classroom were reformulated. One example is the transformation of the question about how the teacher can guarantee the quality of learning into “Can the teacher guarantee the quality of learning?” The transformation illustrates processes of knowledge building anchored in personal experiences, and the fact that this was followed by some interesting student initiatives during the classroom practice, may be understood as an indicator of a transformation of representations that took place and of the close relationship between representations, knowledge and action. Student evaluations underlined the importance of self-awareness. They claimed that experiences with learner autonomy during the course helped them to understand the concept and how it may be put into practice. They also expressed a will to change their view on teaching and learning, claiming that traditional approaches are no longer an alternative. So far the experiment proved to be successful.



Freedom – a prerequisite for learner autonomy 

However, the evaluation of the effects of the experiment is limited to the practice period and the results of the final exams. We need longitudinal studies to find out whether new representations are sufficient to change practice in the long run when the students become teachers in their own classes. However, this is not our concern in this article; rather we are concerned with the question of balance between an imposed framework and the students’ learning space as related to the concept of freedom. One answer to this, based on the findings from the related activity, is that space for individual initiative and choice, framed within certain external constraints, may offer new learning experiences that prove to be fruitful for awareness raising and knowledge building. Supportive constraints seemed to have the potential for emancipation. Conclusion From this background, we are able to draw some conclusions about the meaning of freedom in relation to learner autonomy. The selected data and findings seem to support the initial assumption that freedom understood as absolute freedom from constraints is not a component of the concept of learner autonomy. However, the conclusion that freedom should be excluded from the concept is not satisfactory and is therefore seen only as a preliminary conclusion. The examination of the findings indicates a clear relationship between deliberate supportive constraints and the development of learner autonomy. This takes the argument a step further and leads to an alternative proposition, namely that freedom is a prerequisite of learner autonomy when interpreted as consciousness about external and, in particular, internal constraints, following the argument of Paul Ricoeur. This point of view turns constraints into necessity on the one hand and opportunities or possibilities on the other. The potential for innovation seems to depend on this insight. Accordingly, a significant change of the meaning of freedom has taken place, freedom being understood as the capacity for identifying and taking into consideration the dual relationship of necessity and possibility. In this sense we may conclude that freedom is enhanced through knowledge and consciousness and is as such, a noticeable prerequisite for the development of learner autonomy. It is my contention that this has to do with self-awareness and consciousness raising about the nature of languages and what it is to learn a language. Freedom is to be able to handle constraints without becoming victims. If we want learner autonomy to be viable, we have to draft a concept, which is both informed by practice and which can help us understand practice. Rather than being eliminated from the scene, the teacher takes on an even more important role in this alternative approach to language learning, recognising the teacher’s new task, which



Turid Trebbi

is to promote consciousness-raising, a process which seems to rely thoroughly on teacher support. This may shed new light on the concept of freedom for language teachers who want to develop their practices in the direction of learner autonomy. References Dortier, J-F. 2003. Le cerveau et la pensée. Paris: Editions Sciences Humaines. Experts’ Report: Norway 2003. Languages, Diversity, Citizenship. Language Education Policy Profile. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Gjørven, R. 2000. Learner autonomy in the curriculum guidelines, (how) will it work? In Developing Learner Autonomy in Foreign Language Learning, R. Ribé (ed.), 145–155. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. Gjørven, R. & Trebbi, T. 1997. Apprendre à apprendre une langue en contexte institutionnel: Deux exemples norvégiens. In L’autonomie de l’apprenant en langues vivantes.  Recherches et  développement, H. Holec & I. Huttonen (eds), 191–207. Strasbourg: Editions du Conseil de l’Europe. Grunnskolerådet (The National Schoolboard). 1988. Det andre fremmedspråket i norsk  skole. Status og perspektiver. Oslo: Kirke og undervisningsdepartementet. Grunnskolerådet (The national Schoolboard). 1991. Valgfagene i ungdomsskolen. Oslo: Kirke og undervisningsdepartementet. Holec, H. 1981. Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning, London: Pergamon Press. Holec, H. 1992. Apprendre à apprendre et apprentissage hétérodirigé.  In Le Français   dans le Monde. Paris: Hachette, février-mars. Jopp, C. 2001. IKT og læring i humanistisk perspektiv, Oslo: Cappelen. KUF 1997. L97 Tilvalgsspråk fransk. In Læreplanverket for den 10-årige  grunnskolen,  Det kongelige kirke-, utdannings- og forskningsdepartement, Oslo:1996 (L97 Compulsory additional subjects. A second foreign language, French. In National Curriculum Guidelines, Ministry for Church, Education and Research). Ricoeur, P. 1995. Réflexion faite. Paris: Editions Esprit. Trebbi, T. 1995. Apprentissage auto-dirigé et enseignement secondaire: un centre de ressources au collège. Mélanges, 22: 169–193. Nancy: CRAPEL, Université Nancy 2. Trebbi, T. 2003a. Curriculum development and learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom: constraints and possibilities. In Learner Autonomy in the Foreign Language Classroom:Teacher, Learner, Curriculum and Assessment, D. Little, J. Ridley & E. Ushioda (eds). Dublin: Authentik. Trebbi, T. 2003b. Innovasjon med IKT I språklærerutdanningen.PLUTO-prosjekt 01.01.2000–31.12.2003. Sluttrapport. Bergen: Institutt for praktisk pedagogikk, Universitetet I Bergen.

The shifting dimensions of language learner autonomy Ernesto Macaro

University of Oxford, UK

Second language (L2) learning in the 21st century, perhaps more than in the last, will see shifting perspectives, priorities and tendencies. Whereas the late 20th century saw the rise to pre-eminence of English as the international language of communication, the decades to come may chronicle a challenge to that dominance as other world languages, such as Chinese and Spanish, jostle for supremacy. New technologies may accelerate the injection of alternative ways of delivering a second language curriculum. The profile of the L2 learner, already a complex and diverse one, may undergo fundamental changes as new societal, cultural, political and professional demands are imposed on the individual. Within all these developments the concept of the autonomous language learner may also shift, indeed it is shifting already. Yet it would seem to me important to safeguard a number of constants, particularly those regarding the right of self-determination of the individual. With this in mind, this chapter elaborates on a model of autonomy first proposed in Macaro (1997). The model proposed 3 dimensions of L2 autonomy: autonomy of language competence; autonomy of language learning competence; autonomy of learner choice. In returning to this theme more than ten years later I find I still have in mind an L2 learner who is young and not that far advanced on his or her L2 learning path. This is not only because my professional experience lies with this group of learners but also because this group is still under-represented, perhaps even disenfranchised, in the second language acquisition and L2 pedagogy literature. I will examine each of these dimensions in turn and then try to pull them together in the concluding remarks.

Autonomy of language competence Before we can discuss a notion of autonomy of language competence we have to examine the notion of language competence itself.



Ernesto Macaro

A number of theoreticians have attempted to establish criteria for language competence. For example, there is the seminal paper by Canale and Swain (1980) which proposes that competence consists of grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence and strategic competence. One question that has always arisen for me in reaction to this definition is: against what standard are these dimensions of competence being proposed? Let us explore this a little further. How grammatically competent do L2 learners need to be? Who judges this grammatical competence: the native speaker whose country the learner is in?; the interlocutor with whom the learner is effecting a transaction?; the examiner in the home country marking the learner’s written or oral output? These questions are rarely tackled in the literature let alone answered. How sociolinguistically aware does the learner need to be? Do they need to know virtually every aspect of the target language’s pragmatics? Why? So that they can pass off as native speakers? Do they need to know it so as not to upset their interlocutors? In this respect we should perhaps ask ourselves exactly who is responsible for the failure of speech acts and the reasons for which they fail. Sixty years ago, in a developed country such as the UK, the blame for the failure of a speech act would have been placed fairly and squarely on the L2 speaker. This was because of the power relationships between developed and developing countries. Today, with our growing intercultural awareness, it might equally be placed on the native speaker listener. With that awareness comes a growing recognition that there is a shared responsibility for pragmatic success in interaction. Transfer the pragmatic communication situation to an English L1 speaker in a non-developed country at both time periods and the whole issue of sociolinguistic competence starts getting quite interesting! How much more responsible for pragmatic success does the educated monolingual Englishman or woman feel in, say, India in 2005 than they did in 1945? Consequently what is the level of sociolinguistic competence that they might expect in their Indian interlocutors? In other words, sociolinguistic competence is a socio-political construct which is in a state of flux according to its position on a matrix made up of power-relationships along one axis and locus of interaction on the other. How strategically competent does the learner need to be? Indeed, after 30 years of research on learner strategies, are we any nearer to being able to answer this question? I examine this in greater detail in the next section. For the moment, however, we should simply note that there is still considerable debate as to what a strategy is and what being strategic in L2 learning and use might actually mean (Dörnyei and Skehan 2003). Another perspective on language competence is detected in the theory of interlanguage, first proposed by Selinker (1972) and then developed through clusters of studies such as the morpheme studies (Bailey, Madden and Krashen 1974;



The shifting dimensions of language learner autonomy 

Milon 1974), Pienemann’s teachability hypothesis (Pienemann 1984) and the modifications to that hypothesis in the form of systematic variability (Ellis 1985; Tarone 1988) and developmental readiness (Mackey and Philp 1998; Spada and Lightbown 1999; Zobl 1985). What is proposed in this whole area of research is that every L2 learner at every stage of their language learning has a grammar book in their heads. The facts in this book might not all be correct but they are, nevertheless, relatively systematic. The learner doesn’t make grammatical mistakes because s/he is stupid or careless, but because s/he has a developing set of rules in his/ her head (influenced both by L1 transfer and L2 over-extension) which s/he tests as hypotheses against “positive” input and “negative” feedback. These theories have stood the test of time not only because there is some fairly robust evidence supporting them but also because they appear positive and liberating for both learners and teachers. They still do not help us, however, to establish where we might set the line for L2 competence, because the two ends of the interlanguage continuum are still the L1 and native speaker L2. Further attempts at establishing language competence have come with the notion of “threshold”. We have a notion of threshold in: 1. The ability to communicate appropriately in a particular L2 situation (i.e. rather than in a country or a community); 2. The level at which the learner considers himself/herself to be bilingual; 3. The level at which the learner can transfer L1 strategies to L2 tasks (for example in reading); 4. The level at which the learner can generate their own sentences or utterances; 5. The idea of a mutually agreed threshold of language competence (e.g. the measures used in the European threshold, cf. for example, van Ek 1976). I want to explore further number 4 of the above as this was the one that I proposed in 1997 as being an important dimension of learner autonomy. Interestingly, since then, developments have made this notion worth exploring further. There has been, for example, the work of Florence Myles and associates on the transition in young-beginners from formulaic phrases to the first hesitant steps at unpacking these formulas (Myles, Hooper, and Mitchell 1998; Myles, Mitchell and Hooper 1999). What was particularly worrying about what this body of work revealed was that after a year of language learning, many students (of French) did not have the competence to transfer personal pronouns from one verb to another and from one part of speech to another. Nor did they have the competence to generate question forms. Thus to rely purely on associative memory for the expression of meaning or the function of “asking” would appear to undermine the notion of autonomy of language competence. If every time a learner wants to say something they have to rely on (essentially) recalling a set phrase against a situation in which it was learnt,



Ernesto Macaro

then the total number of utterances that the learner can generate is going to be restricted to the input. Given that this input (in input-poor environments) will come essentially from the teacher, the lack of autonomy and the dependence on the teacher is reinforced. A fundamental precept of autonomy of language competence, therefore, should be that the learner move gradually towards the competence to generate their own utterances. There are, however, two major complications to this idea. The first is a psycholinguistic one. Current research evidence does not suggest that L2 learners simply shake off the shackles of formulaic phrases in order to bask in the freedom of generated sentences (Weinert 1995; Towell et al. 1996). The process is much more uneven and recursive than that. Just as interlanguage has variability, in that a learner may hold more than one version of a rule in his/her head, so does this form of progression have its own variability. There is the possibility for the co-existence of language formulas and generated utterances to be mapped against the same function. This logically has to be the case because of the interaction of working memory limitations (Baddeley 1997) and the principle of economy (Ellis 1985). On the one hand the brain can only process a limited amount of information at any one time, thus making utterance generation onerous, on the other hand there appears to be a natural tendency to economise on long-term memory resources by pattern-matching and the generation of rule-systems rather than constantly repeated associations. Thus, the fluent language speaker is probably constantly making (essentially) subconscious selections regarding formulas and utterance generation. Indeed, research has detected u-shaped learning behaviour (McLaughlin 1990) whereby formulas begin to be unpacked for the presence of underlying rules but are then returned to in order to make production more efficient. Although the formulas at each tip of the u-shaped curve appear to be the same, they are qualitatively different in that the second one has the potential for analysis and the first does not. Perhaps it is at this point in the progression that we might say that (in a particular and restricted area of morphosyntax), a learner has autonomy of language competence. The second major complication to the idea (and linked to the first) is a pedagogical and policy-related one. Many people in the L2 teaching business associate grammatical accuracy with the development of grammar: “If it’s written right they’ve improved”. However, if we accept the above arguments on competence, interlanguage and u-shaped behaviour, then this is a fundamental misconception of what is happening in psycholinguistic progression and this misconception hampers learner autonomy. Picture the following scenario with young-beginners. The teacher exposes the learner to a number of phrases in a topic both via association with visual stimuli and through their introduction in short written and recorded texts. Let us say that these phrases contain the grammatical element “je



The shifting dimensions of language learner autonomy

peux” (French modal verb – I can). These phrases are then practised in controlled oral interaction – the teacher decides how much divergence from the set phrase will be allowed. They are then practised in controlled written exercises – the worksheet or textbook decides how much divergence from the set phrase will be permitted. It is at this point that we will allow the scenario itself to diverge: Teacher 1 tells the students to write a brief description on the topic area. S/he tells them that they don’t need to worry because all the phrases they will need are either on the worksheet s/he has given them or somewhere in the textbook. S/he tells them to stick to the topic and not try to be too ambitious. The students follow the teacher’s instructions, produce nice neat canonical sentences with a high degree of accuracy. The teacher feels very pleased at what the students have produced. S/he doesn’t have to spend hours covering their pages of writing with red ink. S/he feels that the students have learnt the modal verb “pouvoir”, at least sufficiently to be able to use it to communicate some meaning. S/he moves on to another topic. Teacher 2 tells the students to write a fairly brief description on the topic area but if they want to write more they can. S/he tells them to take some risks and say what they want to say. S/he says they can use the worksheets phrases if they want but s/he will react better in his/her feedback if they use at least some sentences of their own where they have had to pull apart the phrases or put together some phrases themselves using a dictionary. S/he asks them, however, to indicate in some way which phrases they have lifted from the worksheet and which they have made up themselves. The students follow the teacher’s instructions. The teacher feels very pleased with what the students produce. There are some really neat and correct phrases. The teacher pays little attention to these. There are some incredible “howlers”. It is particularly these that the teacher is pleased with and tells the students. In these scenarios it is clearly the students in teacher 2’s class who are likely to develop autonomy of language competence. It is they who are moving gradually away from the language of others to the language of the self. But how will the teacher move them away from constantly reproducing the “howlers”? This will be examined in the first part of the next section. Autonomy of language learning competence Autonomy of language learning competence (ALLC) is the ability to deploy a range and combination of cognitive and metacognitive strategies such that task achievement or more general learning can occur either in complementary fashion with the teacher’s approaches and techniques, or independently of (or indeed in contradiction to) the teacher’s approaches and techniques.





Ernesto Macaro

In the scenario involving writing above, ALLC refers to the issue of whether the learner-writer has the learning environment and the potential to develop a strategic approach. Firstly, has s/he the potential to develop the knowledge and awareness that a certain number of strategies exist for the “formulation” of L2 writing? Some further explanation of this is needed. By formulation we mean the stage where an idea about what one wants to write first begins to take some linguistic form in working memory. The most used formulation strategies, research tells us, are the ones listed immediately below. Most importantly, in effective writers they are used in cleverly orchestrated combinations (Macaro 2001, 2003a). I. The simple production of formulas, either non-manipulated or (more likely) re-combinations. When writers adopt this strategy there is no analysis or manipulation of the function words inside the formula. Formulas are merely recombined like a set of dominos. II. Restructuring, is a strategy through which the writer attempts to change one or more of the function words inside the formula in some way in order to express a different meaning. III. Generating, is when the writer does not start with a formula at all but tries to piece together a sentence word for word (and in some instances morpheme by morpheme) either via translation from L1 or by remembering individual L2 words and morphemes and the (in effect, his/her interlanguage) rules that govern them. IV. Avoidance is a strategy used when, as a result of the application of a metacognitive evaluation, the writer decides not to write what they originally intended to write. Avoidance can either take the form of avoiding the original idea, or avoiding the formulation contours offered by any of the three preceding cognitive strategies. In other words, the writer puts across the same idea but in a different way. Secondly, ALLC refers to the issue of whether the learner has the learning environment and the potential to develop the experience, the confidence and the systematic application of metacognitive awareness. That is, how to combine these formulation strategies in an effective cluster mapped against the demands of a particular writing task. This cluster of strategies can then be linked to another cluster of strategies, for example all those involved in looking up unknown L2 words in a bilingual dictionary. Thirdly, ALLC refers to the issue of whether the learner has the opportunity to experience the transfer of this strategy cluster or clusters to other writing situations or tasks, whereby development in the writing skill more generally can occur.



The shifting dimensions of language learner autonomy 

We note immediately, that this autonomy of language learning competence is, once again, going to be greatly facilitated by teacher 2’s approach. This approach, working in harmony with the learner’s strategic behaviour, is what creates the potential for development, the circumstances to “eradicate the howlers”. Once these circumstances have been created, the teacher’s role is not to provide feedback on the quality of the product (the final piece of writing, or even a draft of the writing), but on the processes involved in that writing. For example, a teacher might comment on whether, for that writing task, too little generating of sentences was attempted and too many avoidance strategies deployed resulting in a limited and incoherent work, albeit accurate. In Macaro (2003b), I provided a number of suggestions about how teachers can involve themselves more in the way each student goes about learning and developing skills. In the example just given, a teacher would have to ask the learners to provide information about the formulation stage of their writing in a particular task and match what the student has reported against writing success. A similar approach is advocated by Creswell (2000). In his study he asked the students to initiate the feedback on their strategy use by asking them to write annotations in the margins about problems they were experiencing during formulation. Autonomy, when seen from this perspective, is far from being a withdrawal by the teacher but an active dialogue between teacher and learner about how to improve. It is through helping the learner map a pathway to improvement that autonomy of both language competence and language learning competence is developed. There is other, more general, autonomy of language learning competence that can be developed through what we might call “strategic plans”. These are whole sets of strategy clusters which are tried and tested over time and which become part of the learner’s repertoire of strategic behaviour. In order to illustrate the development of these more general strategic plans, let us switch skills and look at listening. A learner who over time carries out a number of listening tasks at home, and with the possibility of free-rewind on the text might deploy and evaluate a number of strategies linked to the skill of listening and to the specific task in hand (Laviosa 2000; Vandergrift 1998, 2003). These might include: relative deployment of prior knowledge of the topic; prediction of what might come up in the text; segmentation of the incoming input; listening out for key words linked to prediction; listening out for words/phrases which might disconfirm prediction; confirmation of the suitability of prior knowledge; inferring unknown words from their sound; visualizing sound units in order to disentangle words; listening out for prosodic features for clues to mood, and so on. They might also look up a number of “visualized” unknown words in the dictionary to see if they indeed exist.



Ernesto Macaro

With these strategies in mind, let us now briefly describe some different types of listening examinations: I. An exam where the teacher/invigilator plays the tape twice and the student has multiple choice questions to answer on the text. Questions are available from the beginning. II. An exam where the teacher/invigilator plays the tape twice and the student has multiple choice questions to answer on the text. Questions are available after the first listening. III. An exam where the teacher/invigilator plays the tape twice and the student has to recall as many ideas contained in the text as possible and write them down. IV. An exam where the student has free-rewind on an individual recording and where a bilingual dictionary is available for consultation. V. An exam where the student has free-rewind on an individual recording and where a monolingual dictionary is available for consultation. VI. An exam where the student has free-rewind on an individual recording and where a dictionary is not available for consultation. Clearly each of these exams tasks requires very different combinations of listening strategies, although some will be constant. It is not within the scope of this chapter to list them here nor their interdependence. The point that I wish to make is that if ALLC has developed to a truly sophisticated degree, the student will not only have fully developed and evaluated each strategy cluster against each listening task, but they will be able to switch with relative ease between listening-type tasks. Additionally in preparation for the exam, the autonomous student will have thought about ways of preparing himself/herself for the strategic demands of the tasks likely to be encountered. In other words a complex strategic plan will have developed. Autonomy of language learning competence, then, is having the awareness, the knowledge, and the experience of strategy use, together with the metacognition to evaluate the effectiveness not only of individual strategies, not only specific clusters against a task, but also how all these map onto a much broader canvas of language learning over time. It is this cumulative knowledge that Rubin (2001) refers to as general knowledge and beliefs about language learning and that she divides into the categories of: task knowledge; self knowledge; strategic knowledge; background knowledge. It is this relationship between strategic action in limited and specific tasks, and strategic action in the wider perspective of language learning and language use, that those researchers in the field of language learning



The shifting dimensions of language learner autonomy 

strategies (including myself) have not yet resolved (see above comment in the introduction). The concepts of autonomy and self-determination provide a valuable framework in which to examine this relationship in a much more thorough way. It is at this point that autonomy of language learning competence intersects with language learning motivation (For an overview of motivation theory see, Dörnyei 1998; Gardner 1985; Weiner 1992). Cognitive and metacognitive strategic behaviour appears devoid of affect and is aimless if it is not framed by motivation. Early theories of motivation, for example Gardner’s simple continuum between integrative and instrumental motivation, have in recent years been superseded by more complex models which go beyond simply ascertaining whether a learner was motivated by the desire to get to know the culture of the target country or whether they were limiting themselves to wanting to do well in exams. These more complex models argue for an interaction of motivational components. The first of these components is generated by expectation theory (Pintrich and Schunk 1996; Palmer and Goetz 1988; Weiner 1992). Although human beings seem to possess an innate desire for knowledge, this force is mediated by the individual’s relative expectation of success against a task or set of tasks. This expectation of success or otherwise will have been established on the basis of at least two sets of personal information: previous attributions of success or failure (Weiner 1992); personal estimates of how “good” a learner is at a task or tasks, usually referred to as self-efficacy (Bandura 1993; Palmer and Goetz 1988). Some learners develop erroneous beliefs, or misconceptions, about themselves as learners (Victori and Lockhart 1995) attributing too much importance to external factors rather than seeing themselves as the agents of their own learning. In a study by Chan (1996), higher achieving students reached higher levels of personal control over learning through attributing their success to effort and use of strategies, rather than to ability or luck. Graham (2004) found that year 11 students of French attributed relative success to ability, whereas year 13 students attributed it more to degrees of effort. Interestingly, Graham’s data do not show major shifts in terms of these two cohorts’ explanation of ability or effort. For example, Year 13 students did not claim any more than year 11s did that they used “good techniques and strategies” (Graham 2004: 180) in relation to success. In other words, although their attributions were different at a more global level, they did not appear to have developed the self-knowledge to unpack these higher order constructs. ALLC requires learners to be able to carry out this much deeper level of self-analysis of motivational constructs. Tremblay and Gardener (1995: 507) describe self-efficacy as “an individual’s belief that he or she has the capacity to achieve a certain level of performance”. The question, however, is: performance in what, and in what context? The issue of the different types of performances and contexts is rarely addressed in the literature. It



Ernesto Macaro

is generally accepted that tasks are hierarchical. At the lowest level in a language learning hierarchy might be something like the following task: solve an immediate listening comprehension problem (when the listener is failing to decode an input string). There is a huge gulf between the self-efficacy that could be elicited from this learner at this level of task performance, and the self-efficacy that could be elicited from the same learner about L2 listening in general, let alone L2 learning as a whole. In other words, research is sadly lacking in the way that learners transfer attribution and self-efficacy from day to day, from task to task and between performance levels in hierarchies. This brings us back to the discussion of selfknowledge, initiated above, with respect to exam types. With task hierarchies too, the learner has to deploy metacognition in order to evaluate whether success or failure is task specific or whether it has a structural effect within the hierarchy. Autonomy of language learning competence includes an understanding of task demands and of task purposes within much larger purposes. Task demands and task purposes bring us to the additional motivational dimension of value, or “valence” (Weiner 1992). This dimension recognises the innate desire to expand one’s knowledge and skills. However, this dimension takes into account whether the task is worth doing in the first place; its cost, usually measured in terms of the amount of time it takes to perform, and the level of difficulty perceived in it. In sum, expectancy-value theory provides the affective framework which interacts with the strategic framework of cognitive behaviour such that the individual can demonstrate relative levels of autonomy and self-determination, a capacity or otherwise to be in control of the entire language learning situation. This selfdetermination, however, inevitably comes into conflict with external constraints and pressures. Autonomy of choice Human action is considered to be directed by purpose and dependent on the pursuance of goals (Locke 1996). According to Locke, for goals to be effective motivators for action, they: (a) have to be established through the free choice and commitment of the individual; (b) must be specific and explicit; (c) they have to appear attainable. Specific and difficult goals lead to higher achievement than vague goals or specific but easy goals. Particularly important is goal commitment. Commitment to a goal influences performance by (a) directing attention and effort towards goal relevant tasks; (b) adjusting the effort to the level of difficulty required by the task; (c) encouraging persistence until the task is achieved; (d) supporting the development of appropriate action plans and strategies. Goals also provide the standards



The shifting dimensions of language learner autonomy 

for the evaluation of one’s performance, and attainable goals have an important function in the development of self-efficacy. Given the importance of goal theory in language learning, let us consider the extent to which adolescent language learners in a formal school setting are likely to match up with the above. Jessica and Imran are both learning German in year 8 in an English secondary school. Both were allocated to a German “half of the school” in year 7 but promised the opportunity to study French in year 9. Jessica has monolingual parents but the family frequently go to Portugal for their holidays. Imran speaks Urdu at home with his parents. Trips abroad are, usually, to Pakistan to visit relatives, and occasionally France for short breaks. The goals of learning German for these two students may well seem hazy to them. They are certainly not established through free choice and commitment, but are imposed by an educational system. Indeed the National Curriculum for Modern Foreign Languages in England (DES 1991) is silent as to the reason why French and German are the most frequently studied languages by beginner learners, other than that they are EU languages. Even if Jessica and Imran decide to accept the improbability of them being able to study their language of choice, to what extent are the goals of learning any second or foreign language made specific and explicit? According to the National Curriculum two of the prime purposes for studying a foreign language are: to develop the ability to use the language effectively for purposes of practical communication; to offer insights into the culture and civilization of the countries where the language is spoken. What do these goals actually mean? How will Jessica and Imran know when they can use German effectively for practical communication? And, even supposing that the goal of cultural understanding was being addressed in English schools, is it indeed attainable? How will Jessica and Imran know when they have insights into German culture? One of the difficulties for both these young students and for curriculum planners is that, when it comes down to it, the goal of language learning is still conceptualized through the native speaker model, as I have already asserted in a different context above. Most L2 text books in the UK are peopled by native speakers demonstrating what should be Jessica’s and Imran’s ultimate (but probably impossible) linguistic and inter-cultural attainment. This situation is largely brought about by a lack of a theoretical shift in second language acquisition research. As Cook (2001: 194 – citing others) points out: “paradoxical as it may seem, second language acquisition researchers seem to have neglected the fact that the goal of SLA is bilingualism”. In the context above it is clear that there is a lack of prestige attributed to the status of bilingualism and too much attributed to L2 learning as a goal in itself, too much emphasis on “becoming” rather than “being”. Imran, already a bilingual, is labelled a language learner. For how long should he wear this label? It is unclear



Ernesto Macaro

at what point our two young learners stop being simply learners and become young language users. For these reasons Cook’s (2001) theory of multicompetence sits very comfortably in an overall model of learner autonomy. It argues that L2 users are not the same as monolingual native speakers because their knowledge of the L2 is not the same, because their knowledge of the first language will have been influenced by exposure to a second language, and because they actually think in different ways. Autonomy of choice results from this perspective in that the bilingual can view himself or herself as s/he chooses with respect to the different levels in both languages and their interaction and effects on each other. The individual can begin to carve out his or her own goals for language learning, for language use and for language maintenance. This applies to advanced bilinguals, to advanced bilinguals learning a third language, as well as to beginner bilinguals, as in the case of Jessica. The contexts may be different but the desire for a measure of autonomy of choice should be the same. Let us now consider a further aspect of humans as users of a second language, that of language maintenance in naturalistic contexts. Multicompetence impacts on how we view language maintenance and its opposite, attrition. An individual may have reached high levels of fluency in a second language by the time s/he is 25. Without frequent use that language will begin to deteriorate. Similarly, in many immigrant communities, attrition sets in because of a lack of variety of use of the language, it being restricted to certain communicative (usually domestic) domains. However, as Jessner (2003) argues, second language acquisition has operated a reductionist model of language competence, basing itself on linear and continuous growth rather than “biological growth, which has to be seen as a dynamic process characterized by the interplay of the systems involved” (op cit.: 235). A bilingual seen against the latter perspective is an autonomous user of languages directed by both circumstances and free choice, and not prone to feelings of guilt about language loss. The implications of autonomy of choice, as posited in both the instructed and naturalistic contexts above, are profound and may not be at all palatable to certain people and certain institutions. One implication is that the whole thrust of integrative orientation is cast aside for personal and instrumental goals. Young people in developing countries formerly colonised by English speaking powers may not be at all interested in becoming familiar with the culture of their former colonisers. Yet, they may see a need to learn English because it is currently an international language. Language users of English may become increasingly self-assertive about the kind of proficiency that they wish to attain. If they perceive that communication is advanced by a different variety of English they may well shift their language learning goals from those of traditional language curricula. If they perceive that they can communicate effectively though codeswitching in certain communities, or in par-



The shifting dimensions of language learner autonomy 

ticular commercial situations, they may want to develop a competence in that particular style of communication. These goals, generated through free choice, are likely to be much more specific and explicit, appear to be much more attainable and are likely to influence performance much more decisively. However, they are likely to have profound educational implications. For example, if the goal of language learning shifts from attaining communicative competence in one foreign language to being able to interact with another person who shares the same two languages as the self, the issue of the use of first language in the classroom takes on a whole new dimension. It will mean that teachers and policy makers will need to harness a better understanding of codeswitching constraints (Romaine 1989) as well as the impact of codeswitching on multicompetence development so that it can be effectively integrated into classroom teaching. This implies a seismic shift in the way that teachers of second languages view the use of the L1 in the classroom. Having a choice in their own language learning means the language learner or user taking control not only of the language being learnt, but also of the goal and the purpose of that learning. This autonomy of choice also influences the extent to which the learner has an input into the content and modality of the language curriculum once selected. In this new scenario, no longer would decisions about content be made on the basis of language planners’ preferences or the realia available to the textbook writer. Learners of English in North-Eastern China may well prefer to read texts about Chinese life in Guangdong, where the language and customs are both different and distant, rather than accounts of bonfire night in Britain. Equally important is the autonomy of modality of learning. In Macaro (1997: 219) I provided a list of 23 things that a teacher might choose and decide upon when planning a lesson, everything from choosing a topic, through deciding how the classroom will be organized, to evaluating a unit of work and the teaching of that work. I also invited readers to ponder on which of these 23 items could be left to a young learner to decide. In workshops with student-teachers, the answer has always been very positive – pupils could make decisions on a number of these aspects of a lesson. In actual foreign language classrooms, I have rarely seen this happen, and I see no prospect of this changing in the immediate future, in the England context at least. Conclusion This chapter has attempted to provide additional support for a model of autonomy based on the three dimensions of language competence, language learning competence, and learner choice. I now attempt to draw the different strands of these dimensions together.

 Ernesto Macaro

I have proposed that in this new century we need to move towards new interpretations of language competence. These interpretations are more likely to be predicated on individual cognitive and metacognitive behaviour than on the notion of creating categories of groups of language learners against a defined standard. The individual’s competence, it is proposed, is in a dynamic between their first and second language, between formulaic and generated expression, and between language learning as a tool for operating across language communities and a tool for operating within language communities. Autonomy then resides in being able to make strategic decisions cognisant of these forces that are at play; essentially between psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic factors. More specifically, I have argued that autonomy resides in being able to say what you want to say rather than producing the language of others. Saying what you want to say, however, involves risk of both error and incomprehensibility. That risk, in formal instructional settings, is minimised by two procedures requiring a constant re-examining of personal roles. The first is the learner’s strategic behaviour against a hierarchy of tasks, the constant search for the best orchestration of strategies against a task’s difficulty and for principled transfer of strategies between tasks. The second is the teacher’s effort in facilitating the widest range and orchestration of strategies in order to minimise risk. The teacher’s additional role is in helping the learner reflect critically on their strategic behaviour. We have examined how strategic behaviour intersects with aspects of motivation. After all, strategic behaviour both in scope and in evaluation of its effectiveness, entails a great deal of cognitive effort. It is therefore difficult to see how a teacher can pass a judgement on an individual’s effort and motivation without having an insight into the learner’s strategic behaviour. As I have tried to show, albeit briefly, learners’ products often mask the real effort that is being expended and hence the motivational force behind the task. Throughout this model of autonomy runs the notion of self-determination. There is no getting away from the fact that individual choice is constrained by society and its institutions. In the case of schools, a measure of an institution’s success might be the degree to which it is able to assign choice to its individuals. Thus, choice underpins the whole notion of language learner autonomy from the smallest classroom task to a lifelong attitude and motivation for language learning. References Baddeley, A. 1997. Human Memory: Theory and Practice. Hove: Psychology Press. Bailey, N., Madden, C. & Krashen, S. 1974. Is there a natural sequence in adult second language learning? Language Learning 21: 235–243.



The shifting dimensions of language learner autonomy 

Bandura, A. 1993. Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist 28: 117–148. Canale, M. & Swain, M. 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1: 1–47. Chan, L.K.S. 1996. Motivational orientations and metacognitve abilities of intellectually gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly 40(4): 184–193. (Cited in Graham 2004). Cook, V.J. 2001. Second Language Learning and Language Teaching. London: Arnold. Creswell, A. 2000. Self-monitoring in student writing: Developing learner responsibility. ELT Journal 54(3): 235–44. DES, 1991. Modern Foreign Languages in the National Curriculum. London: HMSO. Dörnyei, Z. & Skehan, P. 2003. Individual differences in second language learning. In The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, C.J. Doughty & M.H. Long (eds), 589–630. Oxford: Blackwell. Dörnyei, Z. 1998. Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language Teaching 31: 117–135. Ellis, R. 1985. Sources of variability in interlanguage. Applied Linguistics 6(2): 118–131. Gardner, R.C. 1985. Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation. London: Edward Arnold. Graham, S. 2004. Giving up on modern foreign languages? Students’ perceptions of learning French. The Modern Language Journal 88(2): 171–191. Jessner, U. 2003. A dynamic approach to language attrition in multilingual systems. In Effects of the Second Language on the First, V.J. Cook (ed.), 234–246. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Laviosa, F. 2000. The listening comprehension processes and strategies of learners of Italian: A case study. Rassegna Italiana di Linguistica Applicata 2: 129–159. Locke, E.A. 1996. Motivation through conscious goal setting. Applied and Preventive Psychology 5: 117–124. Macaro, E. 1997. Target Language, Collaborative Learning and Autonomy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Macaro, E. 2001. Learning Strategies in Foreign and Second Language Classrooms. London: Continuum. Macaro, E. 2003a. Teaching and Learning a Second Language: A Guide to Current Research and its Applications. London: Continuum. Macaro, E. 2003b. Second language teachers as second language classroom researchers. Language Learning Journal 27: 4–12. Mackey, A. & Philp, J. 1998. Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses and red-herrings? The Modern Language Journal 82: 283–324. McLaughlin, B. 1990. Restructuring. Applied Linguistics 11(2): 113–128. Milon, J.P. 1974. The development of negation in English by a second language learner. TESOL Quarterly 8(2): 137–143. Myles, F., Hooper, J. & Mitchell, R. 1998. Rote or rule? Exploring the role of formulaic language in classroom foreign language learning. Language Learning 48(3): 323–363. Myles, F., Mitchell, R. & Hooper, J. 1999. Interrogative chunks in French L2: A basis for creative construction? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21: 149–80. Palmer, D.J. & Goetz, E.T. 1988. Selection and use of study strategies: The role of the studier’s beliefs about self and strategies. In Learning and Study Strategies: Issues in Assessment, In-



Ernesto Macaro struction, and Evaluation. C.E. Weinstein, E.T. Goetz & P.A. Alexander (eds). San Diego CA: Academic Press. Pienemann, M. 1984. Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 6: 186–214. Pintrich, P.L. & Schunk, D.H. 1996. Motivation in Education: Theory, Research, and Applications. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall. Romaine, S. 1989. Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell. Rubin, J. 2001. Language learner self-management. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 1(1): 25–37. Selinker, L. 1972. Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10(3): 209–231. Spada, N. & Lightbown, P.M. 1999. Instruction, first language influence, and developmental readiness in second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal 83(1): 1–22. Tarone, E. 1988. Variation in Interlanguage. London: Edward Arnold. Towell, R., Hawkins, R. & Bazergui, N. (1996). The development of fluency in advanced learners of French. Applied Linguistics 17(1): 84–119. Tremblay, P.F. & Gardener, R.C. 1995. Expanding the motivations construct in language learning. The Modern Language Journal 79(4): 505–520. Vandergrift, L. 1998. Metacognition and listening comprehension in a second language. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 1: 83–105. Vandergrift, L. 2003. Orchestrating strategy use: Toward a model of the skilled second language listener. Language Learning 53(3): 463–496. Van Ek, J. 1976. The Threshold Level of Modern Language Learning in Schools. London: Longman/Council of Europe. Victori, M. & Lockhart, W. 1995. Enhancing metacognition in self-directed language learning. System 23(2): 223–234. Weiner, B. 1992. Human Motivation: Metaphors, Theories and Research. London: Sage. Weinert, R. 1995. The role of formulaic language in second language acquisition: A review. Applied Linguistics 16(2): 180–205. Zobl, H. 1985. Grammars in search of input and intake. In Input and Second Language Acquisition, S. Gass & C. Madden (eds), 329–344. Rowley MA: Newbury House.

Learner autonomy – teacher autonomy Interrelating and the will to empower William La Ganza

Australian Centre for Educational Studies, Macquarie University, Australia

This paper aims to explore the constructs of learner autonomy and teacher autonomy in the context of classroom-based language teaching: particularly, interrelational considerations that might inform pedagogical decisions. The concept of interrelating – implying affective engagement and connection where the term interacting does not – is central to the present paper’s focus on the interpersonal dynamics of the teacher-learner context, especially in so far as these dynamics might influence a learner’s capacity to be autonomous. In defining learner autonomy and related terms, the paper presents theory emerging from the author’s recent research into teachers’ and learners’ perceptions of learner autonomy and the teacher-learner relationship, which conceives of the traditional teaching-learning context as a Dynamic Interrelational Space. It is argued that developing a learner’s capacity to be autonomous is meaningful only in terms of interrelational dynamics: i.e., that learner autonomy depends upon the capacity of the learner and the teacher to generate and maintain a particular interrelational climate defined in terms of influence or restraint from influence. Factors that might precipitate the breakdown of the teacher-learner relationship, and thus the educative quality of the learning process, are discussed. The paper reviews the implications of the Dynamic Interrelational Space for both the learner’s and teacher’s creating an interrelational climate conducive to the development and maintenance of learner autonomy, and for the teacher’s seeking to generate an interrelational climate conducive to his or her autonomy as a teacher within institutional and bureaucratic constraints. The author’s research shows that, similarly to teachers and learners, teachers and their course coordinators or directors create interrelational climates that are also characterized by changing tensions involving influence and restraint from influence. An appreciation of these dynamics, and of the capacities that appear to underpin the will to empower, can help teachers in ensuring both their learners’ autonomy and their own.



William La Ganza

Introduction This article builds upon the notion of learner autonomy in language learning as a teacher-learner interrelational construct (La Ganza 2001; 2002; 2004), developing the implications of this notion in terms of teacher autonomy. Beyond the psychosocial context of the teacher-learner relationship, the teacher might also have professional relationships with other individuals within the teaching or bureaucratic institution, whom the teacher perceives to have influence over his or her teaching. In the teaching institution, these individuals might include a course coordinator and/or language centre director, part of whose work is to reflect the socio-cultural priorities of the institution. The quality of the teacher-supervising teacher – or “teacher-institution” – dynamics could be expected to influence the teacher’s perceptions of his or her autonomy within the institution, and data from a recent study in the area (La Ganza 2004) will be discussed. The purpose of the research was to explore teachers’ and learners’ perceptions of learner autonomy in the language classroom, within a major university-based language school in Sydney. Teachers of English for Speakers of Other Languages, adult learners, and the coordinator of language courses were interviewed as part of this research. Beyond the institution in which the teacher is employed, he or she might have established relationships with individuals in other institutions or bureaucracies such as government departments whom he or she might perceive as being able to influence his or her autonomy as a teacher. This paper argues that just as the teacher-learner relationship underpinned by a capacity for concern1 is central to the development and maintenance of learner autonomy, the teacher might create, with individuals perceived to influence his or her teaching within his or her institution, or within other external institutions or bureaucracies, interrelational climates conducive to the development and maintenance of teacher autonomy. Indeed, the model of the teacher-learner relationship as a Dynamic Interrelational Space (DIS) (La Ganza 2004), along with a particular reading of Nietzsche ([1901] 1968) and Winnicott (1971), suggests that the development of the capacity for concern can lead individuals in power to perceive the need to restrain from influencing the Other, to create a “safe space” in which the Other can feel free to live creatively – that can subvert the will to power by leading the powerful to experience and manifest the will to empower.

1. Winnicott (1965) pointed to the importance of the capacity for concern in forming and maintaining relationships.



Learner autonomy – teacher autonomy 

Learner autonomy: a teacher-learner interrelational construct The traditional classroom context is comprised of a social grouping including a teacher and learners, who are working on a task. Since the 1960s, in the area of education generally (e.g., Candy 1991; Rogers 1961), and language learning specifically (e.g., Benson 2001; Holec 1979; Kenny 1993; Little 1991; Wenden, 1987), ideas have been developing concerning the notion of learner autonomy in the classroom and what this phenomenon implies. Some writers have highlighted the political dimension of learner autonomy, focusing on the notion of learners’ “taking control” of their learning (Benson, 1997; Pemberton et al. 1996). Other writers have focused on the more liberal progressive notion of learners’ “taking responsibility” for their learning (Holec 1979; Kohonen 1992); on the behavioural notion of learners’ developing systematic “strategies” to help their independence in their learning (Wenden 1987; Dickinson 1992); and on the humanistic notion of learners’ “self-direction” and “self-initiation” of their learning (Rogers 1961,: 292; see also Kenny 1993; Savage and Storer 1992) as part of a process of “experimentation and discovery” (Saddington 1992: 41). While these approaches have emphasised the learner’s role in learner autonomy, some writers, such as Little (e.g. 1995; 1998), have focused on the psycho-social capacities of the learner. Other writers such as Breen and Mann (1997) have pointed to the importance of observing how teachers and learners interact in the classroom, in terms of the variations in dependence and independence that learners might display. These writers, and others, who have highlighted the importance of the social dimension of learner autonomy in the construction of knowledge, can be set apart ontologically from those educators who focus on individual, incremental, or systematic progressions toward autonomy. With many writers approaching learner autonomy from various, and at times conflicting, perspectives, the present author undertook an in-depth study of teachers’ and learners’ perceptions of learner autonomy and the teacher-learner relationship in order to look more closely at any interpersonal dynamics that might affect learner autonomy (La Ganza 2004). The findings of this study led to a theory of the teacher-learner relationship as a Dynamic Interrelational Space (DIS), which conceptualizes learner autonomy as an interrelational construct, whose realization depends as much on the capacities of the teacher as on capacities of the learner. This theory suggests that it is not sufficient to define learner autonomy as the learner’s taking control, or taking responsibility, or knowing how to exercise learning strategies, or being self-directed: the extent to which the learner can realize these achievements depends upon his or her relationship with the teacher. Learner autonomy is an achievement, attained interrelationally between the learner and the teacher. It depends upon how the teacher and the learner relate to



William La Ganza

each other: on their capacities to develop their relationship in ways conducive to learner autonomy. Learner autonomy is constantly being negotiated within the teacher-learner relationship. Indeed, as the learner initiates and progresses a piece of work, learner autonomy depends upon the capacity of the teacher and the learner to develop and maintain an interrelational climate characterized by the teacher’s holding back from influencing the learner, and the learner’s holding back from seeking the teacher’s influence. Apart from developing a capacity for restraint, the learner must develop a capacity for persistence in using resources and the teacher as a resource, and the teacher must develop a capacity for communicating to the learner that he or she is concerned for the learner’s educative well-being during the learning process: that he or she has the learner “in mind”. In this way, the teacher “holds” the context together, reassuring the learner who is struggling with the anxieties associated with initiating and progressing his or her own work. The teacher also has to develop the capacity to cope with his or her own anxieties associated with facilitating the learning process while fostering the learner’s autonomy, such as worry about when or not, and, if so, how, to offer help to the learner should the learner not seek the teacher’s influence. The learner’s failure to complete the task would also feel like a failure for the teacher. The teacher-learner DIS is thus unstable in terms of the creation of interrelational climates conducive to learner autonomy, and there is a danger that the educative process might suffer should the teacher-learner relationship begin to reach its limits of cohesion. The teacher-learner relationship as a Dynamic Interrelational Space (DIS) Figure 1 presents the salient features of the Dynamic Interrelational Space model (La Ganza 2004), which include inner dualities and tensions, interrelational climates, and the Critical In-Mind Boundary (CIB). Inner dualities: tensions within the Dynamic Interrelational Space The model presents two forms of tension which operate within the DIS: the X Duality: T+/T– and the Y Duality: L+/L–. T+ indicates a cognitive-affective phase in which the teacher is seeking to influence the learner’s work or learning experience in some way; T– indicates a cognitive-affective phase in which the teacher is actively in restraint from seeking to influence the learner’s work or learning experience. L+ indicates a cognitive-affective phase in which the learner is seeking the teacher’s influence concerning the learner’s work or learning experience; L– indicates a cognitive-affective phase in which the learner is rejecting (or actively in restraint from seeking) the teacher’s influence. These tensions appear to be



Learner autonomy – teacher autonomy 

constantly in play both within and between participants in the classroom language-learning context under study in La Ganza (2004). This constant interplay constitutes a dynamic system. While Teacher-Learner interrelational climates continually change during the course of a lesson, and the variety of possible climates is infinite, four distinguishable forms arise from this meeting of dualities. Each is represented by a quadrant in the model. The legend in Figure 1 describes these forms of dynamic interrelational climate. Interrelational climates When the teacher in a particular cognitive-affective phase between T+ and T– interrelates with the learner in a particular cognitive-affective phase between L+ and L-the resulting Cartesian dualities give rise to four types of interrelational climate, which are explained in the legend in Figure 1: – Q1: T+L+ – Q2: T–L+ – Q3: T–L– – Q4: T+L– The Q3 climate and Q3 capacity In the language classroom, the teacher’s and learner’s constructing, within their relationship, the necessary conditions for the learner’s expression of autonomy, implies a predominantly Q3 interrelational climate. A Q3 climate, in which both the teacher and learner are in cognitive-affective phases of restraint, is notable for the fears and anxiety that are experienced by both the teacher and the learner. In La Ganza (2004: 197), Teacher A says, I’m not sure if they need me. I think they want me there – I hope they feel that I’m supporting them.

Similarly, in Q3, the learner struggles while working on the task at hand. He or she endures doubt and uncertainty, making mistakes, reaching impasses, working alone, perhaps consulting peers, at times using the teacher as a resource, while trying to restrain from using the teacher as an agent capable of ‘putting everything right’. As Learner A2 said, When I prepare for the presentation, I think I needn’t any help from teacher – I just want to do it by myself – just do it my own way (La Ganza 2004: 343)



William La Ganza

Y Duality: learner’s seeking / rejecting teacher's influence (L+/L-) L+

Quadrant 1 (Q1)

Quadrant 2 (Q2)

T+

TInterrelating in danger of breaking down

X Duality: teacher’s seeking/being in restraint from seeking to influence the learner (T+/T-) Quadrant 4 (Q4)

Quadrant 3 (Q3) L-

Critical In-Mind (Relational) Boundary (CIB) Q1

T+: Teacher seeks to influence the learning experience and/or to assist the Learner. L+: Learner accepts Teacher’s influence on the learning experience and the assistance offered, or seeks Teacher’s assistance.

Q2

T-: Teacher restraint: encourages Learner to initiate and/or define his or her work and/or define the learning experience. L+: Learner seeks Teacher’s assistance concerning work to be done or some clarification of the learning experience.

Q3

T-: Teacher restraint: encourages/allows Learner to initiate and/or define his or her work and/or define the learning experience. L-: Learner seeks empowerment: indicates to Teacher that he or she would like to struggle alone to initiate and/or define his or her own work and/or define the learning experience.

Q4

T+: Teacher seeks to influence the learning experience and/or or to assist the Learner. L-: Learner seeks empowerment: indicates to Teacher that he or she would like to struggle alone to initiate and/or define his or her own work and/or define the learning experience. Source: Adapted from La Ganza (2004)

Figure 1.  The Dynamic Interrelational Space (DIS) model



Learner autonomy – teacher autonomy 

In the DIS of the classroom, all four interrelational climates can be expected to occur within each teacher-learner relationship in each lesson, even when the teacher is consciously trying to encourage learner autonomy, and therefore a predominantly Q3 interrelational climate (La Ganza 2004: 344). (Examples of interrelational climates of type Q1, Q2, and Q4 are given below in the context of the discussion of teacher autonomy). The DIS model shows that a learner might be more capable of generating and maintaining an interrelational climate conducive to his or her autonomy with one teacher than with another. Accordingly, learner autonomy is only meaningful in its psycho-social context: it becomes a meaningful capacity of the learner only as the learner and the teacher interrelate. The term ‘learner autonomy’ itself is therefore problematic, as it emphasises only one side of the dynamic relationship within which learner autonomy might be achieved, and implies a notion of self-governance in isolation from external factors. The paradox of learner autonomy is that the learner is able to be autonomous while in a facilitating relationship with the teacher, who may either be “present” externally or, after satisfactory experiences of autonomy, internally. The term ‘learner autonomy’ might be rephrased as ‘the capacity of a learner to sustain a predominantly third-quadrant interrelational climate in his or her learning experience’ – or a ‘Q3 capacity’. Critical In-Mind Boundary (CIB) Figure 1 shows a line extending from Q2 through Q3 to Q4. This line, the Critical In-Mind Boundary (CIB), marks a hypothetical position beyond which teacher/ learner interrelating risks breaking down due to a lack of vitality. The lack of vitality would come about due to a breaking down of cohesion in the teacher-learner relationship, arising from a waning of the teacher’s concern for the learner’s wellbeing in the learning process, and a waning in the learner’s concern for the ongoing learning process facilitated by the teacher. The CIB is largely a Q3 phenomenon: in the three other interrelational climates, the teacher or the learners are seeking to interrelate in terms of content, structure, or other features of the learning experience. In Q3, if both the teacher and the learner are exercising restraint at the level of content as well as in regard to other aspects of the learning experience, interrelating might be reduced to a minimum. Beyond the CIB, the learner self-directing his or her learning on an autonomous basis risks succumbing to fears of isolation, hopelessness, and lack of social identity; here, the teacher and learner together have failed to maintain a quality of interrelating that fosters productive learning. In Q3, beyond the CIB, the teacher might him/herself feel the teaching/learning experience has become futile: despite



William La Ganza

one’s best efforts at encouraging learner autonomy, the relationship with learner(s) appears to be breaking down. The key to preventing breakdown in Q3 would appear to lie in continually being aware of and working on the quality of the teacher-learner relationship. Particularly, through “in-mind” teaching, as outlined in the next section, the teacher could “hold” the learner – without compromising the learner’s independence – by communicating more clearly, when necessary, his or her concern for the learner’s educative well-being. The learner, even as he or she risks moving toward greater independence, might also seek signs of the teacher’s concern as a source of reassurance. Both the teacher and the learner can be expected to be anxious about failure as the teacher and learner construct interrelational climates conducive to the learner’s greater independence. The teacher needs to remain “present” for the learner, so that the learner can feel supported by the teacher, and the learner needs to develop the capacity to reach out to the teacher as a resource, in order to maintain an interrelational climate conducive to the learner’s desired independence in the learning experience. It can be assumed that the position of the Critical In-mind Boundary (CIB) would be different for each teacher–learner relationship and would thus be relevant primarily at an individual level. Prior to crossing the CIB with an individual learner, the teacher might receive strong indications from the learner that the relationship was breaking down. If not, the teacher might recognise a ‘loss of touch’ feeling with regard to one learner or to the learners generally. Otherwise, the teacher might unwittingly ‘lose touch’ with some learners, who may or may not have given an indication that the CIB was being approached. The learner might drop out without a word as a reaction to the threatened or actual breakdown of the relationship and its protection from isolation, hopelessness, and lack of identity as part of the class. In-Mind teaching The more the teacher and learner are in restraint, the more important is the teacher’s capacity to “hold” the context together through “in-mind” teaching, in which the teacher communicates to the learner, either overtly or implicitly, that he or she has the learner’s educative well-being in mind. This is called “in-mind” teaching. In-mind teaching is important to the learner’s sense of the teacher’s “presence”, and is a key to the teacher’s “holding” (c.f. Winnicott, as cited in Rodman 1987: xxxi) the teaching-learning context together, while the teacher and learner are generating interrelational climates of restraint. In-mind teaching includes notions of the teacher as being – a “perceptive” resource, with the learner’s work in mind;



Learner autonomy – teacher autonomy 

– a participant-observer in the learning process, keeping in mind what is meaningful for the learner in the learner’s educative development; and – supportive of each learner’s individuality, so that it might be voiced through the learning process. The paradox of learner autonomy is that the learner can be most autonomous while the relationship with the teacher, either actual or internalized, is strong, characterized by the teacher’s concern for the learner’s educative well-being, and by the learner’s concern that the relationship, and the learning experience facilitated by that relationship, should be maintained. Accordingly, learner autonomy is an interrelational achievement, made possible by a teacher-learner interrelationship characterized at the same time by the teacher’s and learner’s restraint and concern. The learner, after a relationship with a teacher that has fostered his or her autonomy, might continue an internal dialogue with that teacher long after the learning experience has ended (La Ganza 2004: 304). In this way, the learner can learn “alone”, outside any formal learning structure, held or supported in his or her independence by the “presence” of past teachers or mentors, who have fostered the learner’s autonomy, and with whom the learner engages in internal dialogue. Teacher autonomy: a construct of four Dynamic Interrelational Spaces (4 DIS) The present paper will now explore teacher autonomy in terms of the teacher’s relationships with others who might influence the teaching process; particularly, his or her freedom to be creative (Winnicott 1971: 62) as a teacher, to develop and practise ideas, and to pursue his or her ideals. An analysis of data generated during an interview with the coordinating teacher in the major Sydney language school providing the context for the study reported in La Ganza (2004) suggests that the teacher-supervisor relationship might also constitute a Dynamic Interrelational Space. Building upon the above discussion, it would be reasonable to assume that teacher autonomy should have several dynamic dimensions, principally as follows: – autonomy in relation to the teacher’s own internal dialectics with teachers, mentors, or significant others who, in their continuing “presence”, might or might not support his or her freedom to be creative as a teacher and foster the autonomy of learners; – autonomy in relation to learners, who might support the teacher’s freedom to be creative as a teacher, including, should it be the case, his or her attempts to encourage their autonomy; – autonomy in relation to those, in the institution in which he or she is teaching, who could potentially make decisions influencing the teacher’s freedom to be



William La Ganza

creative as a teacher, to develop and practise ideas, and to pursue his or her ideals; and – autonomy in relation to those, in the institutions and bureaucracies of society at large, external to the institution where the teacher is employed, who could potentially make decisions influencing the teacher’s freedom to be creative as a teacher, to develop and practise ideas, and to pursue his or her ideals. This interrelational construct of teacher autonomy thus comprises four main spheres of dynamic interrelationship (see Figure 2), all of which are interconnected socially and culturally, as part of the same society, and psychologically, through the common element of the teacher. The model suggests that from the microcosm of the teacher’s internalized relationships, to the macrocosm of the teacher’s relationships within society at large, the teacher’s perceptions of his or her autonomy as a teacher are affected by interrelational dynamics. Many of the questions raised by the DIS model in regard to current understandings of learner autonomy are relevant to considerations of teacher autonomy. The conception of learner autonomy as an interrelational construct developed within the dynamic interrelational space of the teacher-learner relationship questions the assumptions underpinning learner- or teacher-focused non-dynamic understandings of learner autonomy, as well as social interactionist perspectives that do not emphasize the inner dialectic tensions within the teacher and the learner that appear to characterize teacher-learner interrelating. Similarly, the notion of teacher autonomy as an interrelational construct created within four main kinds of relationship adds a dynamic understanding to current teacher-focused notions of teacher autonomy, such as “freedom from control by others”, or “[t] eacher autonomy as self-directed professional development” (McGrath (2000: 100–101). The present paper argues that a discussion of these perspectives in terms of their possible dynamic dimensions might identify certain interrelational conditions within which self-direction or freedom from control by others might arise.

T+ / T-; B+ / BT+ / T-; L+ / LT+ / T-; TI+ / TI-

T+ / T-; I+ / I-

TeacherLearner Teacher-Internal Teacher

TeacherInstitution

DIS 2: DIS 1:

DIS 3:

TeacherBureaucracy

Learner autonomy – teacher autonomy 

DIS 4:



Figure 2.  The 4 DIS model of Teacher Autonomy: The four Dynamic Interrelational Space types are interconnected socially and culturally, as part of the same society, and psychologically, through the common element of the teacher



William La Ganza

Teacher autonomy: teacher-internal teacher relationships Teachers’ ongoing inner dialectics with past teachers, mentors, or significant others (La Ganza 2004) would suggest that their experience of autonomy as teachers might be affected by the quality of their relationships with these internalized teachers, or internalized mentors or significant others. Indeed, these relationships could be liberating or constraining to the teacher’s autonomy, in that they could affect the teacher’s capacity to generate interrelational climates conducive to their being “free to be creative” (Winnicott 1971: 62) and self-directed – conducive to their living creatively and having a hand in their destiny, rather than feeling a need for “compliance” (p. 76) –, which “makes the individual feel that life is worth living” (p. 76). Data generated for the study reported in La Ganza (2004) revealed that Teacher D thought often of one former teacher as she struggled with developing her own approach to teaching and learning: I … admire him, because he’s very curious, he’s 80 years old, and we used to meet once a month and speak only Portuguese, or Spanish … He was retired, but he was still, you know, a Professor Emeritus forever – always learning … So, that … idea … you should always be reading in a language – that’s … how I continue my own learning. … Because he’s a real encourager. … now … it’s just a phase, because I was a little frustrated with where I am in my job. … so he always looks at the positive side … you’ve just always got someone who’s … rooting for you.

Another example from the same study is Teacher A, who had in her mind a former English teacher who helped her transcend herself in terms of being courageous in her learning and finding excitement in new ideas. She found it valuable that this teacher was Challenging. Um, pushing us to a new thought – or, pushing me to a new thought, pushing me to – to do something that I hadn’t been brave enough to do before. Or hadn’t – well, nobody had asked me to do it before, in the case of giving a presentation. Um, exposing me to new material.

Some internalized teachers, however, might threaten to constrain the person’s freedom and confidence in the present. Teacher D suffered during her institutional experiences of learning a language from her teachers’ lack of confidence in her ability. She says that, I learned very little language in the classroom. Almost every thing I learned about – I was considered the hopeless language learner

Now, when she teaches, she appears to gain strength from her inner dialectic with these voices, resolving to “do pretty much everything my teachers didn’t do.” This



Learner autonomy – teacher autonomy 

seems to have led to her interest in encouraging learner autonomy and authentic discourse, reflected in her endeavour to “make it real for them.” A DIS representing this kind of interrelational struggle in the inner experience of the learner, in which the internalized teachers or mentors seem to seek to influence, or restrain from influencing, the teacher, and the teacher either seeks the influence of, or rejects the influence of, internal teachers or mentors, would have the axes T+ / T-; TI+ / TI-, with the small I in “TI” standing for “internal teacher/mentor”. Teacher autonomy: teacher-learner relationships Just as a learner might feel more able to work on an autonomous basis within his or her relationship with some teachers more than with others, teachers could be expected to feel more free in their relationship with some learners than with others. Perhaps the learner’s communication of concern for continuing the learning process as facilitated by the teacher might help the teacher to overcome his or her fears and anxieties related to encouraging learner autonomy. Due to the learner’s concern, the teacher could be expected to feel more “held” or supported by the relationship and thus more able to be autonomous or “free to be creative” (Winnicott 1971: p. 62). A DIS representing this kind of relationship, as discussed above, would have the axes T+ / T-; L+ / L-. Teacher autonomy: teacher-institution relationships Data generated for the study reported in La Ganza (2004) show that teachers perceive their autonomy to be affected by their supervising or coordinating teachers. A DIS representing this kind of relationship would have the axes T+ / T-; I+ / I-, with the I standing for “member of the institution who could make decisions potentially influencing the teacher’s freedom to be creative as a teacher, to develop and practise ideas, and to pursue his or her ideals”. Just as the Teacher-Learner DIS would be different for each teacher-learner relationship, so the Learner-Institution DIS would be different for each separate person in the institution who is perceived by the teacher to be able to influence, in any way, his or her autonomy as a teacher. Within the teacher-supervisor relationship, the data reveals both the teachers’ and supervisor’s inner tension. Teachers struggle between wanting the supervising teacher to guide them and wanting to work autonomously; the supervisor struggles between wanting to influence the teachers’ work, or restraining from influencing the teacher’s work and allowing the teacher to do as he or she pleases. At times this inner struggle might not be evident, with one or the other, or both, polarized in their position. In this case, such as when the supervisor seeks a high level of



William La Ganza

influence and the teacher seeks a high level of independence, the interrelational climate could be pushed beyond the Critical In-Mind Boundary. The relationship would then risk breaking down, unless both parties were concerned enough about their relationship to negotiate a solution. Teacher-Supervisor interrelational dynamics are evidenced in the data when the course “co-ordinator”, or supervisor, attempts to influence Teacher A, encouraging her to direct her students to constructively criticize one another’s work. Teacher A refuses, and the Supervisor backs down. The Supervisor says, I don’t think she gets the students to peer criticize, does she? … Because that’s something I think I do. And I’ve always done that. And I find it very, very valuable. I have said that to [Teacher A], but she says it doesn’t suit her personality.

In terms of DIS theory, the Supervising teacher appears to be describing an interrelational climate of T- – I+, with the Supervisor (I) seeking to influence the Teacher (T) and the Teacher’s being in restraint, rejecting the Supervisor’s attempt to influence her. This climate shifts to T- – I- -, when the Supervisor holds back from seeking to influence the Teacher. At other times, in a different cognitive-affective phase, the Supervisor seems to imply that she is most often in restraint, saying that, … because most of my teachers have been here a fair amount of time, I would give almost complete autonomy to them, because I feel they know what they are doing as well as I do. It’s not really up to me to tell them how to do it …

While Teacher A seems to be maintaining an interrelational climate of mutual restraint with her Supervising teacher, at times she admits that she would draw upon her Supervisor’s experience. Concerning the type of feedback to give to her learners, Teacher A appears to be maintaining a T- – I- interrelational climate in saying, I think [Supervisor] and I disagree – well, we haven’t really had a – an argument or anything on this, but I think that [Supervisor] tends to write down what they said and she hopes that they’ll look at their video and analyze it and then decide what it should have been.

Nevertheless, in some situations, Teacher A appears to be reporting the creation of a T+ – I+ interrelational climate with her supervisor, in saying that she agrees with her that sometimes feedback might usefully be oral as well as written: we’ve tended to just give written feedback from the teacher to the student. Now, um, I like that, but I don’t find out really how they feel, um, whether that works well for them … And this was suggested by my co-ordinator.



Learner autonomy – teacher autonomy 

Teacher autonomy: teacher-bureaucracy relationships It is reasonable to assume that teacher autonomy could be affected by bureaucracies, institutions, and even powerful individuals beyond a teacher’s teaching Institution. A DIS representing this kind of relationship would have the axes T+ / T-; B+ / B-, with the B standing for “member of the bureaucracy or institution in society at large who could make decisions potentially influencing the teacher’s freedom to be creative as a teacher, to develop and practise ideas, and to pursue his or her ideals.” The DIS model shows that for the teacher to be able to create an interrelational climate conducive to the development and maintenance of his or her autonomy, the other party in the relationship would have to exercise his or her capacity for restraint. The DIS model suggests that the pro-active way of subverting discourses of influence or power is to seek to engender restraint in the Other, which implies engendering in the Other a capacity for concern. The Powerful Bureaucratic Other (PBO) might therefore compromise his or her “will to power” (Nietzsche ([1901] 1968) if he or she is concerned with the growth of the teacher toward his or her creative potential as an educator. The PBO, however, might feel that his or her own freedom is compromised through empowering others. Nietzsche ([1901] 1968: 383–384) says that, for many individuals, their “happiness” lies in the attainment of power, that “[t]he most fearful and fundamental desire in man, his drive for power … is called ‘freedom’.”2 Accordingly, the PBO might only exercise restraint if his or her concern is focused on his or her own professional advancement toward a position of enhanced power. Teachers’ demonstrations have in the past inspired bureaucrats to action. However, in stating that “[e]verything that man does in the service of the state is contrary to his nature”, Nietzsche ([1901] 1968: 383) seems to point to the moral compromise that might be the Achilles heel of the will to power: that freedom concomitant with our nature lies in something other than ruthlessness. According to Nietzsche ([1901] 1968), one of the “disguised forms of the will to power” is the “desire for freedom, independence … equilibrium, peace, and co-ordination” (p. 406; original italics). Note the desire for freedom – and peace. Freedom through ruthless domination could hardly be conducive to peace. Could the desire for both freedom and peace, perhaps, reflect a duality in Nietzsche’s concept of the will to power? Could this also imply that, within the “will to struggle”, that “tremendous shaping, form-creating force working from within which utilizes and exploits” ([1901] 1968: 344, original italics), could be a need, or a longing, for concern? 2. This desire for power/freedom, which would affect the other DIS’s mentioned in this paper, may be subverted in the case of the teacher’s perceiving his or her own power as being in constructing an interrelational climate conducive to the development of autonomy/freedom in the other rather than conformity: the teacher’s having a will to empower.



William La Ganza

Conclusion This paper has discussed the concept of the teacher-learner relationship as a Dynamic Interrelational Space (DIS), and drawn upon the DIS model to explore how teacher autonomy, like learner autonomy, might be understood as an interrelational construct. It is hoped that concepts such as interrelational climates, in-mind teaching, and the critical in-mind boundary, might be useful to teachers in their pedagogy, and that the concept of the DIS, with its implications for teacher autonomy, might aid teachers in this particularly vital area. Through their will to struggle in engaging with social forces, both external and internal, teachers can grow through subverting compliance. They can bring both themselves and the Other “alive” through the particular quality of their interrelating in their teaching as well as their politics: through developing their capacity for concern, appealing to this capacity in the Other, and expressing their will to power so as to be free, themselves, to empower. References Benson, P. 1997. The philosophy and politics of learner autonomy. In Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning, P. Benson & P. Voller (eds), 1–12. London: Longman. Benson, P. 2001. Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning. London: Longman. Breen, M. P., & Mann, S. J. 1997. Shooting arrows at the sun: Perspectives on a pedagogy for autonomy. In Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning, P. Benson & P. Voller (eds), 132–149. London: Longman. Candy, P. C. 1991. Self-direction for Lifelong Learning. San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass. Dickinson, L. 1992. Learner Autonomy 2: Learner Training for Language Learning. Dublin: Authentik. Holec, H. 1979. Autonomy in Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon. Kenny, B. 1993. For more autonomy. System 21(4): 431-­442. Kohonen, V. 1992. Experiential language learning: Second language learning as cooperative learner education. In Collaborative Language Learning and Teaching, D. Nunan (ed.), 14–39. Cambridge: CUP. La Ganza, W.T. 2001. Out of sight – not out of mind: Learner autonomy and interrelating in online teaching. Information technology, Education and Society 2(2): 27–46. La Ganza, W.T. 2002. Maintaining learner autonomy online: The teacher’s role. [CD-ROM]. In Meeting the Challenges of Research and Practice, L. Mak, S. Chang, P. Foo, J. Hunter, M. Keung, J. Lee, M. Wa & N. Noakes (eds). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. La Ganza, W. T. 2004. Learner Autonomy in the Language Classroom. PhD dissertation, Macquarie University. Little, D. 1991. Learner Autonomy, 1: Definitions, Issues and Problems. Dublin: Authentik.



Learner autonomy – teacher autonomy  Little, D. 1995. Learning as dialogue: The dependence of learner autonomy on teacher autonomy. System 23(2): 175–182. Little, D. 1998. Why focus on learning rather than teaching? In Focus on Learning Rather ThanTteaching: Why and How? D. Little, L. Dam & J. Timmer (eds). Dublin: CLCS, Trinity College. McGrath, I. 2000. Teacher autonomy. In Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy: Future Directions, B. Sinclair, I. McGrath & T. Lamb (eds). Harlow: Pearson. Nietzsche, F. [1901] 1968. The Will to Power. New York NY: Vintage. Pemberton, R., Li, E.S.L., Or, W.W.F. & Pierson, H.D. (eds). 1996. Taking Control: Autonomy in Language Learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Rodman, F.R. (ed.). 1987. The Spontaneous Gesture: Selected Letters of D. W. Winnicott. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Rogers, C. R. 1961. On Becoming a Person: A Therapist’s View of Psychotherapy. London: Constable. Saddington, J.A. 1992. Learner experience: A rich resource for learning. In Empowerment through Experiential Learning: Explorations of Good Practice, J. Mulligan & C. Griffin (eds). 37–49. London: Kogan Page. Savage, W. & Storer, G. 1992. An emergent language program framework: Actively involving learners in needs analysis. System 20: 187–199. Wenden, A. 1987. Conceptual background and utility. In Learner Strategies in Language Learning, A. Wenden & J. Rubin (eds), 159–168. London: Prentice Hall. Winnicott, D. W. 1971. Playing and Reality. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

part 3

Realities

Teacher-learner autonomy Programme goals and student-teacher constructs Richard Smith and Sultan Erdoğan

Centre for English Language Teacher Education, The Language Centre, University of Warwick, UK

Responding to needs for clarity of definition in the area of ‘teacher autonomy’, the first, relatively theoretical, part of this paper discusses different dimensions of this notion. It then argues for the goal within initial teacher education of enhancing ‘teacher-learner autonomy’, defined here as ‘the ability to develop appropriate skills, knowledge and attitudes for oneself as a teacher, in cooperation with others’. A brief description of one approach to working towards this goal within pre-service teacher education then follows, together with a summary of evaluations of the approach to date. The second part of the paper reports on a more innovative investigation (employing repertory-grid interviews) of students’ personal constructs in relation to particular elements of the course design. The findings are discussed in relation to the theory of teacher autonomy and the design of appropriate interventions. Finally, we highlight the potential wider value of repertory-grid and follow-up interviews for eliciting students’ personal learning theories with minimum interviewer bias.

Defining and developing teacher autonomy (Richard Smith) Dimensions of teacher autonomy The concept of ‘teacher autonomy’ has been frequently referred to within the literature on language learner autonomy in recent years, but there have been relatively few attempts to clarify the meaning, or meanings of this term. This seems to be unsatisfactory for a number of reasons: – If we are to debate the theoretical importance or otherwise of teacher autonomy within our own discourse community, we need some kind of shared understanding regarding what it means, or what we intend it to mean; – If teacher autonomy is important to us, then it needs not only to be argued for at a theoretical level but also promoted within teacher education programmes,



Richard Smith and Sultan Erdoğan

and innovations in this area need to be carefully reported on. But such actions require clear definitions of goals and outcomes. – If our views on teacher and learner autonomy are to be taken seriously beyond our own discourse community, we should engage in “more than an act of faith” (Sinclair 1999); in other words, alongside theoretical speculation and practical innovation, we need to adopt a self-critical and evaluative approach, involving clear clarification of our values and goals as educators, and research into their achievement or otherwise. In a previous paper (Smith 2003) I argued that rather than being easily reducible to one definition, the concept of ‘teacher autonomy’ can be seen to have several dimensions. Two dimensions were previously identified by McGrath (2000) as (1) self-directed professional action (p. 109) or development (p. 100), and (2) freedom from control by others (p. 101). While useful as a starting-point, this bipolar distinction requires further unpacking, for the following reasons: – Professional action (i.e. teaching) and development (‘teacher-learning’) need to be distinguished, since they are not necessarily the same thing: however self-directed we may be in our teaching, we do not necessarily learn in a selfdirected way; conversely, we may learn as teachers from many sources, not just teaching itself. – A distinction needs to be made, and generally is made in relation to learning in the learner autonomy literature, between capacity for and/or willingness to self-direct one’s learning (or teaching) and actual self-directed learning (or teaching) behaviour, with the term ‘autonomy’ being reserved for the former. On the basis of these further distinctions, the following might serve to clarify the different dimensions of teacher autonomy as this term is being used nowadays in the domain of second language education, influenced as this domain is by ideas relating to learner autonomy: Table 1.  Dimensions of teacher autonomy In relation to professional action: A. Self-directed professional action

i.e. ‘Self-directed teaching’

B. Capacity for self-directed professional action

i.e. ‘Teacher autonomy (capacity to self-direct one’s teaching)’

C. Freedom from control over professional action

i.e. ‘Teacher autonomy (freedom to self-direct one’s teaching)’



Teacher-learner autonomy 

In relation to professional development: D. Self-directed professional development E. Capacity for self-directed professional development

i.e. ‘Self-directed teacher-learning’ i.e. ‘Teacher-learner autonomy (capacity to selfdirect one’s learning as a teacher)’

F. Freedom from control over professional development

i.e. ‘Teacher-learner autonomy (freedom to selfdirect one’s learning as a teacher)’

On the left above are possible dimensions of teacher autonomy which emerge from the foregoing discussion; on the right are mutually distinctive alternative expressions which might be useful when we need to clarify which dimension(s) we are referring to. Teacher education for the promotion of learner autonomy The above might help to shed light on ways in which teacher autonomy and the promotion of pedagogy for learner autonomy are related. The conviction that such a relationship exists seems to have motivated current use of the term ‘teacher autonomy’ in the second language education field, and is made explicit in the title of this volume, but, as we can now see, different dimensions of teacher autonomy have tended to be highlighted by different authors. Thus, in order to promote learner autonomy, teachers may need to have: – Teacher autonomy as capacity to self-direct one’s teaching (Little 2000; McGrath 2000, Thavenius 1999; Vieira e.g. 1999, 2000); – Teacher autonomy as freedom to self-direct one’s teaching (Benson 2000: 115­–116; also, Breen and Mann 1997; Lamb 2000); – Teacher-learner autonomy as capacity to self-direct one’s learning as a teacher (Little 2000; see also Smith 2000). Within our field ‘teacher autonomy’ sometimes seems to be used rather loosely as a synonym for the ‘capacity to promote learner autonomy’. However, this kind of capacity is not exactly the same thing as any, or all of the dimensions identified above. Rather, different authors have argued that particular dimensions of teacher autonomy might be necessary as conditions for the promotion of learner autonomy. This leaves open the question of what kinds of knowledge, know-how and attitude are (additionally) necessary. Defining this kind of knowledge base for the preparation of autonomy-oriented teachers is an important enterprise, but limiting it from the outset, in an a priori fashion, to the notion of ‘teacher autonomy’ does not seem likely to provide the necessary answers. We do not yet know enough



Richard Smith and Sultan Erdoğan

about the reasons why teachers begin to engage in pedagogy for autonomy, or the support mechanisms which enable them to do so to generalize confidently in this area (for some indications of the kind of knowledge basis that will be required, see, however, Holec 1979: 24–26; 1981: 16–18; Breen and Mann 1997). Nevertheless, on the basis of previous discussions and (the few) reports of teacher education experience in this field, it does seem possible to propose certain general precepts for ‘teacher education for the promotion of learner autonomy’ which relate to the development of teachers’ or student-teachers’ own autonomy (see also Smith 2003). For example: – Attempting to convince teachers of the value of learner autonomy in the abstract can be argued to be insufficient. In addition, or as a basis, it seems necessary to tap into or focus on the development of teachers’ own autonomy, in some or all of the dimensions identified above. – Enabling teachers and student-teachers to actually experience ways of promoting learner autonomy appears to be particularly powerful, the more so when (as in the work of Flávia Vieira and her colleagues in Portugal) such experience is explicitly linked to an action research orientation and/or when there is an effective support network of teachers similarly engaged. – Preparing teachers to engage in such experiences is another matter, however, and there are likely to be various possible approaches (one of which will be described below). – In contexts which are divorced from real classroom teaching situations, it might be most appropriate for teacher educators to concentrate on developing a general willingness and capacity for self-directed teaching and teacher-learning, linked to induction into a pedagogy for learner autonomy, while acknowledging and as far as possible preparing teachers to address the constraints which might operate in practice on their actual freedom in these areas. Teacher-learner autonomy as a goal in its own right It should be noted that, independently of any advocacy of autonomy in language learning, there are powerful arguments for promoting teacher autonomy and teacher-learner autonomy as capacities to self-direct one’s teaching and teacherlearning, respectively, in any teacher education setting. Indeed, the idea that teacher education programmes should promote these capacities is recognized, in theory at least, in many contexts, under the influence of notions of ‘reflective practice’



Teacher-learner autonomy 

(Schön 1983) and related conceptions of the ‘teacher-as-researcher’. As Widdowson (1993: 25) put it, more than a decade ago: [The] view of the dependent teacher has been challenged over recent years. It has been argued that [...] effective pedagogy is necessarily a reflective and researchoriented activity, that the role of practitioner does not preclude that of theorist, and that the professional status of teachers as mediators depends on the justification of an appropriate expertise of their own.

Experiences of critical reflection on materials (as described by McGrath 2000) or, indeed, reflection by student-teachers or teachers on any aspect of teaching have been promoted for some time now as means for developing teacher autonomy, viewed as the general capacity to self-direct one’s own teaching. What has not been so frequently discussed within the literature on teacher education is, more specifically, how to develop teachers’ capacities to self-direct their own learning, involving the ability to identify when, where, how and from what sources they (can and should) learn, including but not confined to the learning they can achieve via teaching (see Barfield and Smith 1999 on appropriate conference design for the promotion of teacher-learning, for example, and Smith 2000 for insights into the learning of languages by teachers). In order for teachers to gain better abilities and a greater willingness to learn for themselves in developing “an appropriate expertise of their own” – whether or not this is tied to the promotion of learner autonomy with students – engagement in and reflection on self-directed teacher-learning, not only self-directed teaching, can be seen to be essential. In sum, while something akin to ‘teacher-learner autonomy’ has been seen as one of the privileged conditions for the promotion of pedagogy for autonomy with language learners (Little 1995, 2000; Vieira 1997, 1999), it can also be seen as an important goal in its own right (Barfield and Smith 1999; Smith 2000, 2003), being the engine which powers career-long professional development. It is particularly in this area of teacher-learning, I would suggest, that insights from research into language learner autonomy might have something new to contribute to the field of general teacher education, including with regard to how to implement a pedagogy for (teacher-)learner autonomy in teacher education programmes. Developing teacher-learner autonomy in practice: An innovation and its ongoing evaluation In the light of the above discussion, teacher educators may need to adopt their own pedagogy for (teacher-)learner autonomy, as one component in appropriately preparing teachers to engage in a pedagogy for autonomy with language learners; but,



Richard Smith and Sultan Erdoğan

as I have also argued, there are wider justifications for such an approach, relating to needs to prepare teachers for career-long professional development. In my own pre-service teacher education work, with students working towards their MA in English Language Studies and Methods at the University of Warwick, I have been engaged in developing a set of practices which have increasingly been intended explicitly to promote teacher-learner autonomy, viewed as the capacity to self-direct one’s own learning as a teacher. Thus, borrowing from and adapting the Bergen definition of learner autonomy (Trebbi 1990), my colleagues and I have set as a major goal the promotion of an “ability to develop appropriate skills, knowledge and attitudes for oneself as a teacher, in cooperation with others”. Our current assumptions and practice in this area can be described briefly as follows. The students we are working with, who come from a variety of countries, enter this MA programme with little or no substantial teaching experience. In Term One of the programme, we offer a core Introduction to ELT course which relies heavily on reflection by students on their own prior learning experience. Students are encouraged to identify positive as well as less beneficial aspects of this experience, and to build their own theories of language teaching on this basis, with a view to the development of appropriate methodology for their own future teaching contexts. Students are introduced to ideas current in ‘central’ ELT discourse, including the concept of learner autonomy and associated practices, but we tend to place great emphasis on the importance of their developing a critical viewpoint on these ideas. By the end of Term One, students are in a position to plan lessons and to justify their plans in relation both to current theory and to contextual considerations. The core Term Two Professional Practice module which will be focused on in this paper provides students with an opportunity to try out their lesson plans in a peer-teaching situation. Beyond this, however, the course is designed, according to an action research model, to develop students’ abilities to evaluate their teaching and to engage in largely self-directed investigations (interviewing other teachers, observing lessons and analysing a transcript of their peer-teaching, as well as reading in an area of particular relevance to their own self-improvement), with a view to preparing for a second peer-teaching / self-evaluation experience towards the end of the ten-week term. The Professional Practice course has developed year by year on the basis of our own action research, some of which has been previously reported (Smith, Alagöz, Brown and Içmez 2003; Smith 2006; Brown, Smith and Ushioda 2007). We have seen, in broad terms, that there are difficulties as well as benefits involved in the course, but that the benefits outweigh the problems, from students’ perspectives (Smith et al. 2003). We have also become more conscious and explicit in our goal of developing students’ autonomy as learners of teaching, partly as a consequence of students themselves seeing this as an outcome of the course. We have also ac-



Teacher-learner autonomy 

knowledged and succeeded in identifying some of the particular difficulties of the transition to relatively self-directed ways of working, and have increased our efforts to ease this transition. In 2002 we began to evaluate the development in students’ perceptions more systematically than before, using questionnaires with items derived from individual students’ reflective writing (Smith 2006). Repetition of the questionnaire in the middle and at the end of the course enabled us to discern overall changes in attitudes (from negative to positive), and signs of increasing autonomy were also identified. The focus of our own action research has, then, moved towards identifying how students perceive the course at different stages overall, and towards clarifying better both our own goals and the extent to which the course is meeting these goals. As a consequence, we feel that we have become more confident and skilled than before in predicting possible confrontations between students’ and our own expectations, and so in easing the transition to autonomy. One direction we have felt a need to move in is to refine the means we use to access individual students’ perceptions, in order better to support these or future, similar students. We perceive a need, in other words, not just to collect aggregate data but to access individuals’ perspectives more effectively. To some extent, reflective writing by students and tutorials with them can provide such individual insights. But one disadvantage is that students may tend to write and tell us what they think we want to hear. In this connection, the insights provided below by Sultan Erdoğan, who engaged in in-depth ‘repertory-grid’ and follow-up interviews with selected students in 2002, seem to show a new way forward. Student-teachers’ constructs (Sultan Erdoğan) Background In 2001–2, I was seeking a context to practise repertory-grid interviews, which I had decided to use as a means for eliciting experienced teachers’ constructs for my doctoral research in Turkey. I was given the opportunity at this point to interview selected participants in the Professional Practice course described above. I describe below the theoretical framework within which I was working and my research design, together with relevant findings. Theoretical framework George Kelly’s theory of personal constructs (often referred to as ‘personal construct psychology’, or ‘PCP’) is articulated in its fundamental postulate as

 Richard Smith and Sultan Erdoğan

follows: “a person’s processes are psychologically channelized by the ways in which he anticipates events” (1955: 46, italics in original). ‘Construct’ is the term used by Kelly (ibid.) to refer to the way a person anticipates events and so makes sense and takes control of the world surrounding him or her. A construct can be defined in simple terms as “a way in which two or more things are alike and thereby different from a third or more things” (Fransella and Bannister 1977: 5, italics in original). In other words, constructs are bi-polar structures and people do not affirm something without simultaneously rejecting something else. For example, if I say “Mr. White is my boss”, I might also implicitly be saying that “Mr. White is not my enemy” or “Mr. White is not my husband.” According to Kelly, then, we construe the ‘elements’ of the world around us in a bi-polar way. Likeness and contrast are important features of constructs that must be taken into account if we are to understand how people make sense of the world. In these respects, focusing on the elicitation of ‘constructs’ rather than the ‘knowledge’ or ‘beliefs’ which are commonly focused on by researchers, has definite advantages in providing in-depth insights into teacher, student-teacher, or, indeed, learner thinking. Pajares (1992) states that differentiating between teacher knowledge and beliefs is difficult because these terms have been used without much consideration of their meaning and application. Woods (1996: 71–72), in his discussion of teacher belief systems, states that even when beliefs are explicitly stated, they must be seen as hypotheses because they may not match what the speaker really believes, but rather may reflect what the speaker wants listeners to think, since individuals construct their beliefs according to the rules of the society they live in. As Benson and Lor (1999: 464) suggest, there is similarly value in distinguishing learners’ beliefs about learning (what they think is true about learning) from their conceptions of learning (what they perceive learning to be). The latter govern their actual learning, whereas the former may or may not do so. This corresponds with Roberts’ (1999: 122) suggestion that the usefulness of PCP applied to language teaching lies in uncovering the nature of learners’ and teachers’ personal theories about language, learning and other aspects of their educational culture. Its particular strengths lie in providing detailed representations of how learners and teachers perceive specific contexts and relationships. Constructs, then, are the ways we actually anticipate events. We can think of them as coloured lenses. If we place blue ones in front of our eyes, we see the world in blue. If we do not know that we see the world as blue because of the lenses we are wearing, then we ‘believe’ the world is blue. However, there are alternatives and they are provisional. If we do not like the way we see the world, and are aware of alternatives, we can replace the lenses with pink or green ones. This highlights another important aspect of constructs – the way they can be altered – since ‘all of



Teacher-learner autonomy 

our present interpretations of the universe are subject to revision or replacement’ (Kelly 1955: 15, italics in original): We take the stand that there are always some alternative constructions available to choose among in dealing with the world. No one needs to paint himself into a corner; no one needs to be completely hemmed in by circumstances; no one needs to be the victim of his biography. We call this position constructive alternativism. (Kelly (ibid.), italics in original)

Thus, whereas the notion of ‘belief ’ is a somewhat static one, constructs can be seen as relatively open to change. Zeichner, Tabachnik and Densmore (1987: 28) comment that “preservice programs are not very powerful interventions” with regard to student-teachers’ beliefs because these beliefs tend to remain inflexible, but Kagan (1992: 150) responds to this by saying that the assumed inflexibility of student-teachers’ beliefs might be illusory; rather it might be that the training programmes in which they are engaged fail to help them to reconstruct their beliefs. Indeed, Cabaroğlu and Roberts (2000) identified change in constructs during a pre-service training course which engaged students in extensive reflection. In Kellyan terms, professional development can be enhanced by showing teachers alternative ways of anticipating events, and it is important to try to understand how student-teachers and teachers can be encouraged to experiment with different constructs. Kelly’s (1955) theory also provides as its methodological component the repertory-grid (henceforth, ‘rep-grid’) interview technique for investigating personal construct systems. As Pope and Keen (1981: 2) suggest, rep-grids “allow both the researcher/teacher and participant subject/learner a means of monitoring and reflecting on the idiosyncratic frames of reference which the learner evolves”. Furthermore, they are a means for eliciting constructs with minimum interviewer bias, for the reason that during a rep-grid interview there are no pre-set questions to ask to the interviewee. This minimises the widely acknowledged risk of interviewer bias (Kvale 1996) by enabling the researcher to keep his/her own assumptions and constructs private to him/herself. Research design The interviews I shall report on were carried out with three participants in the 2002 Professional Practice course described above whom I had previously met and talked to in social situations and was therefore comfortable approaching. Although the course tutors were aware that I had asked these students to be interviewed, I guaranteed to participants that tutors would not have access to the data until after the



Richard Smith and Sultan Erdoğan

students had safely graduated, and then only with participants’ full consent (subsequently granted) and under conditions of complete anonymity in any publication. The overall aim of the interviews, as agreed with course tutors, was to investigate the degree of correspondence or lack of correspondence between tutor goals in the area of ‘teacher-learner autonomy’ and participants’ own perceptions at a point near the end of the course. I also hoped to gain insights into the usefulness and difficulties of the course, as perceived by participants. Thus, the research question which guided the first, rep-grid interview was “How do participants construe the ‘difficulty’ and ‘usefulness’ of different elements of the course design?” The general procedure of each rep-grid interview was as follows: 1. Elements discussed in the interviews were clearly identifiable activities within the course design (see Appendix for a full list), and understanding of these was carefully checked at the outset of the interview. At the time of the interview all these activities had already been experienced by participants. 2. Participants were asked to construe a triad of selected elements in terms of their usefulness or (in the second half of the interview) their difficulty. 3. They then were asked in what meaningful way two of the elements in a triad were similar and thereby different from the third element. 4. The construct thus elicited was noted down, and the procedure repeated with different triads of elements. One week later I additionally carried out a semi-structured follow-up interview with each participant. In this interview, I asked general questions about the overall benefits and difficulties of the course for participants, how the benefits could be increased and the difficulties lessened, whether their perceptions of usefulness and difficulty had changed during the course, and what each participant’s current perception of self as teacher was. I also returned to some of the constructs elicited from participants during the rep-grid interview, and attempted to ‘ladder up’ further (Kelly 1955) to reach core constructs by asking questions such as “In what way is it meaningful to you being [e.g.] self-directed?”. Having transcribed the interviews from audio-recordings and after repeated re-reading of these transcripts, I wrote the vignettes below to represent my main findings. Findings All three participants interviewed in 2002 saw value in the course in ways which can be related to the goal of teacher-learner autonomy as defined in the first half of this paper. However, there were subtle variations in the three participants’ perceptions, as I shall now attempt to show.



Teacher-learner autonomy 

Antonia: “It was a kind of self-discovery experience” Antonia’s overall perception of herself as a teacher by the end of the course (at the time of the follow-up interview) was that she was “much better prepared to be more effective, to be more successful in relation to my students’ learning and to my teaching as well”, because she was now “more aware of […] methods and ways of how to develop myself ”. She considered that the course had been “practical, enabling you to put into practice all the theories, discovering and improving yourself and your teaching style and learning how to manage the evaluation of improvement”. As she also said of the overall benefits of the course, The fact that we became aware of our own teaching is beneficial. It was a kind of self-discovery experience. It encourages reflection/reflective teaching. I think they are all factors that will lead to improvement, to some development of yourself in teaching in practice.

Antonia had appeared to place particular importance on “self-awareness” and (to a lesser, though still significant extent) “reflection” and “self-development” in repgrid interviews. On this basis I asked her, during the follow-up interview, “In what way is it meaningful to you being self-aware?” She confirmed that, for her, “It is very important because it is the starting point of an improvement. When you become more aware of yourself, you recognize there is a problem and then you can investigate and overcome this problem.” She acknowledged, though, that she had found it difficult at first to understand the philosophy of the course, and that the tutors’ guidance had been necessary in enabling her to now feel “more self-aware, making my own decisions”. Antonia referred several times to the usefulness of the particular kind of general “help and guidance” provided by tutors during the course, relating this to her own tendency to be dependent on teachers: “I like to be supported but they gave general support. I am used to being dependent on the teacher. I expected much more, but I see [what they gave] was more helpful for self-awareness.” A second, related construct elicited in the rep-grid interview with Antonia concerned the freedom to make one’s own decisions, independently of course tutors. Thus, in discussing different course elements, she referred to the way they enabled or did not enable her to “choose what I want” or (in another case) “give me the chance to act independently of the teacher(s)”. As she said in relation to one triad of elements, The usefulness is that I choose what I want, what I am interested in, to get what I want […] I had a focus. It’s important to be more self-aware of your own problems. In the beginning I thought I was going to rely on teachers’ feedback. The biggest thing I learnt from this course is making your own decisions, investigating them, reflecting and planning improvements.



Richard Smith and Sultan Erdoğan

However, the same construct (related to freedom of decision-making) had also been elicited when Antonia was talking about difficulties of particular course activities. When I later ‘laddered up’ (that is, attempted to ‘get to the heart of ’) this construct, asking in what way it was meaningful to her as a learner to make her own decisions, Antonia replied positively, as follows: As a learner you have to monitor your learning and make appropriate decisions of what you improve in your learning, what to prioritise from the input of the teacher. And this leads to autonomy, and awareness of your learning and to intrinsic motivation which will definitely lead to better learning if all these things are done.

It turned out, however, that the “prioritising” mentioned both here and frequently at other points in the two interviews was particularly difficult for Antonia. When I laddered up this third construct (prioritising as opposed to not prioritising), she claimed that “it’s very important you have a clear idea of what to prioritise because this is linked to decision-making. It is important because it helps you to do something more thoroughly, deeper.” But this was not always an easy process: It was [sometimes] difficult to see the improvements made. You needed some more guidance, somebody to tell you that this is a good thing [about your teaching]. Because there were many bad things I saw everything in black. I couldn’t see the good things. It was hard to have the will to go on researching.

As she also put it, “We can only see [our] main weaknesses if we are good at targeting.” Antonia, then, conceived of the learning benefits and difficulties of the course in terms relating especially to the development of self-awareness and an ability to manage self-improvement, freedom of decision-making and the need to prioritise. Beth: “I can research, and find out help from various sources” Beth, the second interviewee, volunteered the idea that she “became more autonomous as a result of this course. I can do my own self-evaluation and try to improve myself in the future.” Similarly to Antonia, Beth stated that there was guidance [from tutors], but we did everything ourselves. We read the books, we did the research. They were there to provide support and to clarify the things that we did not understand. They offered us choices. They never told us “you should do this, you should do that activity.” We chose the activities that we liked doing.

While Antonia emphasized that for her the principal outcome of the course was heightened self-awareness, Beth seemed to place particular value on the way it had enabled her to construct her own knowledge of teaching through collaboration with peers as well as support and guidance from tutors. This related to her original



Teacher-learner autonomy 

motivation for undertaking the MA programme: “My aim was to gain knowledge and ideas about teaching as much as possible when I came here. The course offered me exactly this.” She noted both that “we [students] mingled with each other in class more than we used to; we were not this close before; we learned each other’s ideas” and that the “tutors’ guidance and demonstration were very helpful”. Beth’s constructs in this area included “I produce/contribute with my own knowledge” as opposed to “I have other people.” As she explained, “Producing something oneself is more useful”, but this was counterbalanced for her by the difficulty of doing so. Related constructs, this time elicited when Beth was discussing the difficulties of the course, were: “I have to contribute for myself ” (seen as difficult) as opposed to “I don’t have to produce” (less difficult), and ‘I have to understand individually/using my own capacity” (difficult) as opposed to “I can consult others” (less difficult). As in the case of Antonia, it is clear that Beth valued highly the opportunity to decide for herself on areas for self-improvement, although in her case the contributions of peer and tutor support within this process were more consistently referred to. For example, in discussing the three elements of ‘Transcribing my lesson’ (7), ‘Discussing my work/problems with tutors’ (8) and ‘Identifying points for improvement and investigation’ (9), she remarked that (7) and (8) are less useful, [although] they are useful because they help you to decide for yourself. (9) is more useful. Eventually I make my own decision. I say “I am going to improve these points.” As a result of (7) and (8) you decide for yourself about which points to improve. It is more useful to decide for myself because it is going to determine the development of my next step.

When I ‘laddered up’ her construct relating to independent decision-making, Beth replied that: It is meaningful to be able to develop myself as a teacher in the following years, to discover my problems and to look for the solutions to them. You have to be selfdirected and know your context yourself more than anyone else. Then you can ask other people’s help, if you know yourself. Also, you can always learn new things while looking for a solution to a problem” [emphasis added].

Christophe: “You need to have a goal, be independent, self-directed” Christophe gave the impression of someone who was already very independent and focused as a learner when he started the course. Like both Antonia and Beth, he acknowledged its benefits, but while they conceived of these in terms of the development of self-awareness and ability to manage self-improvement or the ability to construct one’s own knowledge, respectively, for Christophe it was much more a question of leaving behind an initial assumption that the course would not be useful (due to the difference between peer-teaching and ‘real teaching’ back home), and moving to an acceptance that he was learning new skills as a



Richard Smith and Sultan Erdoğan

teacher-researcher: “I now know that the principle is that you learn something new. You try out the ability to do […] classroom research.” Indeed, his perception of self as teacher seems to have changed quite dramatically. From seeing himself “as the one who teaches language. Very simple: as you can speak [English], you can teach”, he began to see teaching as “more complicated” and came to identify himself firmly as a “teacher as a researcher”: I [now] see myself as a teacher as a researcher. How you think effectively is important and you have to understand the mentality of the students more than before. Teacher as a researcher... You can be a teacher for one year. No problem. For twenty to thirty years it will be boring. It has to be meaningful to you. It [being a “teacher as a researcher”] makes your teaching relate to yourself and be more interesting. Also, to change for students’ good learning we must research. We teach for students.

For Christophe, even more so than for Antonia and Beth, being self-directed and making decisions for one’s own self-improvement was perceived as important: You learn to be self-directed, which is important for you. It is important because it relates to your self-development directly. If you’re a professional who has the habit of reflecting on your own practice to improve yourself, then you’re stronger and you develop more.

Christophe had a clear picture in mind of his future teaching context, and of the difficulties as well as benefits of engaging in ongoing self-development in that context. Thus, in response to my question “In what way is it meaningful to you being self-directed?,” he replied: Then you can handle long years of teaching successfully, meaningfully to students’ learning. It is useful in circumstances where it is unfavourable to innovation, indifferent to the teachers, no group collaboration (there can be other people tired of teaching). You need to have a goal, be independent, self-directed. It’s a big classroom. Many students are facing you. They need to be taught! You’ll be in a very passive situation if you’re not [self-directed]. Students do not like people very passive. They like to have enthusiastic teachers who show enthusiasm for teaching and students.

Unlike Beth’s, Christophe’s conception of self-directed teacher-learning was, on the surface, quite an individualistic one. Thus, in relation to the usefulness of one course element (‘reading about my area of investigation’), he volunteered the following comments: “It can be done by the individual. You don’t need a partner. You can always do it yourself. It is very useful to be [for being?] self-directed.” He contrasted this with ‘Discussing my work/problems with classmates’ and ‘Observing [other] teachers’ lessons’, where “Always you need someone. If this does not exist, you lose



Teacher-learner autonomy 

your source of help. You cannot be dependent on this.” Christophe’s comments relating to the usefulness of different triads of elements often resolved themselves into distinctions between “dependence” (whether on the tutors, classmates or other resources) and (more useful) “independence”, and this was clearly a core construct for him. However, it is possible that Christophe’s apparent individualism was due to his clear focus on his future teaching context, where, as we have seen, he predicted he would be very much on his own, without access to the kinds of support available during the course itself. It is in this sense, perhaps, and in relation to his conception of his new-found vocation of “teacher as a researcher” that he assumed “It’s always good to be prepared to work alone.” Somewhat like Beth, also, he anticipated that “People will help you if you have done a lot of work yourself.” While Christophe clearly conceived of making decisions for himself as useful, this also constituted one of two major sources of relative difficulty, or “challenge” for him. The other source of challenge frequently mentioned by him during the rep-grid interview was “finding a focus” or “being selective”. This was strongly reminiscent of Antonia’s comments on the difficulties of “prioritising”. Overall discussion and conclusions The first half of this paper argued for the goal within teacher education of ‘teacherlearner autonomy’ (that is, the kind of autonomy which might be exercised by teachers or student-teachers in relation to their professional development). In the second half of the paper, the value or otherwise of this notion was explored in relation to student-teachers’ own perspectives, in the context of a course which deliberately set out to promote the “ability to develop appropriate skills, knowledge and attitudes for oneself as a teacher, in cooperation with others”. The overall ‘construct validity’ of the notion of teacher-learner autonomy seems to have been confirmed by the interview findings reported above. The presentation of findings is admittedly selective in that those statements by participants which appeared to be related to the area of teacher-learner autonomy, as pre-defined in the first part of the paper, were particularly focused upon in the vignettes. However, all three participants volunteered various statements (without being asked leading questions) which revealed that the development of a capacity to self-direct their own teacher-learning was a salient notion for them. Further than this, even, they all – in different ways and with qualifications which will be discussed below – revealed that the development of their capacities in this area had value for them (thus confirming findings across the whole cohort which were derived from repeated reflective writing and questionnaires, as reported in Smith 2006).



Richard Smith and Sultan Erdoğan

‘Teacher-learner autonomy’ is, however, a theoretical construct, and the three participants – naturally enough – did not use this term itself. Indeed, rep-grid interviews were of great use in revealing the ways these participants construed their own development in different ways, and in their own terms (cf. Benson, this volume). Antonia particularly valued the development of her self-awareness as a teacher and the way this contributed to her ability to manage self-improvement; Beth highlighted the way she was developing an ability to produce something herself in collaboration with others; and Christophe emphasised the importance of learning to make one’s own decisions independently, as a “teacher as a researcher”. If this research has confirmed that ‘teacher-learner autonomy’ is valid and potentially valuable as a general theoretical notion, the ‘flesh’ placed on it by the statements of just these three participants indicates, also, a need to confront complexity. Complexity is apparent not only in the highly individual ways participants might find value in a pedagogy for teacher-learner autonomy but also in the difficulties they experience and the ways these, too, are related to their individual construct systems. It is interesting in this respect that the difficulties highlighted by these participants were so related to the particular benefits they also emphasised: prioritising when one becomes self-aware in Antonia’s case, for example; producing something oneself for Beth; and making decisions for Christophe. Thus, although an apparent overall congruence between the overall goal of the course and these participants’ developing perceptions has been highlighted above, the research study also provided insights into the very individual nature of the difficulties student-teachers experience in the context of a ‘pedagogy for teacher-learner autonomy’ (and the same is likely to be true of learners engaged in other forms of self-directed activity, including language learning). The course tutors in this particular context are aware of such difficulties in broad terms (see Smith et al. 2003, Smith 2006, Brown, Smith and Ushioda 2007), and have developed ways of providing targeted, and, to a degree, individualized support, as was commented on favourably in some of the vignettes above. As these also imply, however, it seems likely that only the ‘tip of the iceberg’ of student difficulties (and achievements) can be seen by teacher educators, teachers and learning counsellors in the normal course of their work, however much they may attempt to elicit student perspectives and provide targeted support. This brings us to some suggestions regarding directions for further inquiry, and appropriate research design. As Benson (2001) has indicated, in the field of learner autonomy there appear to be particular needs for research into the effectiveness of different pedagogical approaches, and for research-based accounts of teacher education programmes which aim to develop teacher autonomy, or the capacity to promote learner autonomy (as indicated earlier, the two are not necessarily the same thing). But the question still remains: how can learning counsel-



Teacher-learner autonomy 

lors, teachers and teacher educators evaluate their practices in a flexible and learner-centred manner, moving beyond their own preconceptions to access learners’ developing perspectives? In relation to this question, concerns might be expressed about the relatively blunt nature of typical research instruments, given the requirements autonomy practitioners may wish to establish for differentiating among individual learners and for taking account of unpredicted learning outcomes. In this connection, we would like to highlight the potential wider value of rep-grid and follow-up interviews. Rep-grid interviews undertaken by a ‘semioutsider’ researcher with just three course participants generated, in our case, rich insights which would otherwise have been unavailable to the course tutors. Although such interviews can be time-consuming and require prior (self-)training, they seem to have a potential wider value for investigating language learner autonomy in an in-depth fashion, from learners’ own perspectives and with minimum interviewer bias. Additionally, there are various statistical techniques (not engaged in here) which can be applied to data from repeated rep-grid interviews, and which can potentially enable researchers, teachers and counsellors to track and evaluate change in learners’ (or, in this case, teacher-learners’) constructs. In future research we hope it will be possible to look more carefully at change in constructs over time, asking participants for their collaboration in confirming and reflecting upon ‘construct maps’ elicited at different points (cf. Sendan 1995), with potential additional benefit to themselves. Finally, with regard to implications for appropriate course design, the interview findings discussed above confirm that self-directed activity needs to be balanced with effective support (as valued highly by two of the three participants). There may be diverse individual concerns in the minds of student-teachers which are not catered for in teacher educators’ perceptions, but which need to be taken into account in the transition to greater autonomy. Efforts need to be continuously made to bridge gaps between ‘theoretical’ course goals and – on the basis of ongoing investigation – student-teachers’ own, individually varied constructs. References Barfield, A. & Smith, R.C. 1999. Teacher-learner autonomy: The role of conference and workshop design. In Proceedings of the TDTR [Teachers Develop Teachers Research] Conference, September 2–4, 1999 (CD-ROM), B. De Decker & M. Vanderheiden (eds). Leuven: Centrum voor Levende Talen/Whitstable, Kent: IATEFL. Also available online: http://iatefl.org. pl/tdal/n6confer.htm (accessed 1 May 2006). Benson, P. 2000. Autonomy as a learners’ and teachers’ right. In Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy: Future Directions, B. Sinclair, I. McGrath & T. Lamb (eds). Harlow: Longman. Benson, P. 2001. Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning. Harlow: Longman.

 Richard Smith and Sultan Erdoğan Benson, P. & Lor, W. 1999. Conceptions of language and language learning. System 27(4): 459–472. Breen, M.P. & Mann, S. 1997. Shooting arrows at the sun: Perspectives on a pedagogy for autonomy. In Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning, P. Benson & P. Voller (eds). London: Longman. Brown, P., Smith, R.C. & Ushioda, E. 2007. Responding to resistance. In Reconstructing Autonomy in Language Education: Inquiry and Innovation, A. Barfield & S. Brown (eds). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Cabaroğlu, N. & Roberts, J. 2000. Development in student teachers’ pre-existing beliefs during a 1-year PGCE programme. System 28(3): 387–402. Fransella, F. & Bannister, D. 1977. A Manual for Repertory Grid Technique. London: Academic Press. Holec, H. 1979. Autonomie et Apprentissage des Langues Etrangères. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Holec, H. 1981. A propos de l’autonomie: Quelques éléments de réflexion. Etudes de Linguistique Appliquée 41: 6–22. Kagan, D. 1992. Professional growth among pre-service and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research 62(2): 129–169. Kelly, G.A. 1955. The Psychology of Personal Constructs: A Theory of Personality, 2 Vols. New York NY: Norton. Kvale, S. 1996. InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research. London: Sage. Lamb, T. 2000. Finding a voice: Learner autonomy and teacher education in an urban context. In Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy: Future Directions, B. Sinclair, I. McGrath & T. Lamb (eds). Harlow: Longman. Little, D. 1995. Learning as dialogue: The dependence of learner autonomy on teacher autonomy. System 23(2): 175–182. Little, D. 2000. We’re all in it together: Exploring the interdependence of teacher and learner autonomy. Paper presented at Autonomy 2000, University of Helsinki Language Centre, 7–9 September 2000. Newsletter of the IATEFL PL Autonomous Learning SIG 4. Available via: http://www.iatefl.org.pl/tdal/news.html (Accessed 1 May 2006). McGrath, I. 2000. Teacher autonomy. In Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy: Future Directions, B. Sinclair, I. McGrath & T. Lamb (eds). Harlow: Longman. Pajares, M.F. 1992. Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research 62(3): 307–332. Pope, M.L. & Keen, T. 1981. Personal Construct Psychology and Education. London: Academic Press. Roberts, J. 1999. Personal construct psychology as a framework for research into teacher and learner thinking. Language Teaching Research 3(2): 117–144. Schön, D.A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. London: Basic Books. Sendan, F. 1995. Patterns of Development in EFL Student Teachers’ Personal Theories: A Constructivist Approach. PhD dissertation, University of Reading. Sinclair, B. 1999. More than an act of faith: Evaluating learner autonomy. In Innovation and Best Practice, C. Kennedy (ed.). Harlow: Longman.



Teacher-learner autonomy  Smith, R.C. 2000. Starting with ourselves: Teacher-learner autonomy in language learning. In Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy: Future Directions, B. Sinclair, I. McGrath & T. Lamb (eds). Harlow: Longman. Smith, R.C. 2003. Teacher education for teacher-learner autonomy. In Symposium for Language Teacher Educators: Papers from Three IALS Symposia (CD-ROM), J. Gollin, G. Ferguson & H. Trappes-Lomax (eds). Edinburgh: IALS, University of Edinburgh. Also available online: www.warwick.ac.uk/~elsdr/Teacher_autonomy.pdf (Accessed 1 May 2006). Smith, R.C. 2006. Developing teacher-learner autonomy: Constraints and opportunities in preservice training. In Proceedings of The Canarian Conference on Developing Autonomy in the FL Classroom 2003, L. Bobb-Wolff & J.L. Vera Batista (eds). La Laguna: University of La Laguna. Smith, R.C., Alagöz, S., Brown, P. & Îçmez, S. 2003. Faute de mieux? Simulated action research, from participant perspectives. In TDTR 5: [Proceedings of] Teachers Develop Teachers Research (CD-ROM), D. Hancioğlu (ed.). Ankara: Middle Eastern Technical University. Also available online: http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~elsdr/Simulated_action_research.pdf [Accessed 1 May 2006]. Thavenius, C. 1999. Teacher autonomy for learner autonomy. In Learner Autonomy in Language Learning: Defining the Field and Effecting Change, S. Cotterall & D. Crabbe (eds). Frankfurt: Lang. Trebbi, T. (ed.). 1990. Third Nordic Workshop on Developing Autonomous Learning in the FL Classroom. Bergen: Institutt for Pratisk Pedagogik. Vieira, F. 1997. Pedagogy for autonomy: Exploratory answers to questions any teacher should ask. In Neues Lernen, Selbstgesteuert, Autonom, Müller-Verweyen, M. (ed.). Munich: Goethe Institut. Vieira, F. 1999. Pedagogy for autonomy: Teacher development and pedagogical experimentation – an in-service teacher training project. In Learner Autonomy in Language Learning: Defining the Field and Effecting Change, S. Cotterall & D. Crabbe (eds). Frankfurt: Lang. Vieira, F. 2000. Teacher development towards a pedagogy for autonomy in the foreign language classroom. In Developing Learner Autonomy in Foreign Language Learning, R. Ribé (ed.). Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. Widdowson, H.G. 1993. Innovation in teacher development. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 13: 260–75. Woods, D. 1996. Teacher Cognition in Language Teaching. Cambridge: CUP. Zeichner, K.M., Tabachnik, B.R. & Densmore, K. 1987. Individual, instructional, and cultural influences on the development of teachers’ craft knowledge. In Exploring Teachers’ Thinking, J. Calderhead (ed.). London: Cassel.

 Richard Smith and Sultan Erdoğan

Appendix: Rep-grid interview elements 1. Planning my lesson 2. Teaching my lesson 3. Reading students’ feedback 4. Discussing my work/problems with classmates 5. Observing [other] teachers’ lessons 6. Reading about my area for investigation 7. Transcribing my lesson 8. Discussing my work/problems with tutors 9. Identifying points for improvement and investigation 10. Hearing from tutors (in class) about teaching/classroom research 11. Writing my lesson plan rationale (Part A of the draft) 12. Writing my lesson report (Part B of the draft)

The subjective theories of student teachers Implications for teacher education and research on learner autonomy Hélène Martinez University of Göttingen, Germany

This article aims to explore to what extent the analysis of subjective theories of student teachers about learner autonomy and their experience as learners and student teachers can help us to re-examine professional scientific theories of learner autonomy and approaches to teacher education. Emphasis is placed on empirical data collected from semi-structured interviews conducted with two groups of student teachers, with special attention to the analysis and interpretation of the verbal data. The study is based on the assumption that the validity of learner autonomy depends on our ability to ground it in empirical research. Thus, qualitative and interpretative research can contribute to protect the concept from narrow interpretations deprived of validity and relevance to language education. Subjective theories are discussed as a means of conceptualising how student teachers view learner autonomy and how these subjective views can be integrated into pre-service teacher training programs. This article suggests that more qualitative and interpretative research should be done in order to foster learner autonomy in the language classroom.

Introduction and theoretical background Although L2 learner autonomy has benefited from many contributions made by international experts, it runs the risk – also in Germany – of being considered as a highly unrealistic and unachievable educational goal or of being reduced to an issue principally of individual development, learning strategies or learning in cognitive isolation (e.g. Barbot and Camatarri 1999; Palfreyman 2003a; Pennycook 1997; Sinclair 2000). This fact has led many authors to criticise the lack of coherence of the theoretical framework of learner autonomy, which “is still beset by conflicting ideologies, rolling inconsistencies, and fragmentary theories” (Oxford 2003: 75) and to develop more systematic models of learner autonomy (e.g. Benson

 Hélène Martinez

1997; Martinez 2001, 2005; Oxford 2003) or to formulate alternative definitions. Thus, trying to clarify the stage we have reached, Sinclair (2000) formulates a broader definition in which she includes thirteen aspects of learner autonomy and pleads for a concept accommodating varied and even partly contradictory interpretations thereof. As she stresses in the following quotation, the teacher’s ability to foster learner autonomy depends on his level of knowledge and awareness with regard to conceptualisations pertaining to that field: This new and broader view of autonomy provides a stronger basis from which the profession can examine critically what it does, for it is vital that teachers have a clear picture of the implications that their choices have for the learners, academically, personally, culturally and politically. (Sinclair 2000: 13)

In addition, Breen and Mann (1997: 145) suggest that “an essential precondition for the teacher to be able to foster autonomous learning is an explicit awareness of the teacher’s own self as a learner.” This awareness includes a critical sense of when he is able to act autonomously and when he is not able to do so. He must know what beliefs he holds about teaching and learning; moreover, he needs to be aware of how his own biography as a learner and as a teacher has shaped his current assumptions, perceptions and practices in the classroom. In the last 10 years foreign language teachers have been increasingly confronted with the challenge of putting the principles of autonomous learning into practice. Since this challenge will continue to play a role for teachers, pre-service teacher training should always address the principles of learner autonomy: “(…) the promotion of learner autonomy depends [in fact] on the promotion of teacher autonomy” (Little 1995: 179). Little (1995: 180) has suggested that “language teachers are more likely to succeed in promoting learner autonomy if their own education has encouraged them to be autonomous”, while Vieira (1997) has observed that teachers become more reflective as learners become more autonomous and vice-versa. In the present paper I will discuss the importance of giving the student-teachers a voice by listening to what they say about language learning and language learning autonomy. The purpose is to re-examine professional theories of learner autonomy and approaches to teacher education. It is my aim to provide an insight into two fundamental issues which form the core of my (doctoral) research: How do student-teachers conceptualise language learning and how do they interpret learner as well as teacher autonomy? To what extent can their verbal accounts of their views on learner autonomy and their experience, both as learners and student-teachers, help us to re-examine our understanding of autonomy and its underlying theories as well as their implications with regard to teacher education?



The subjective theories of student teachers 

As with Breen and Mann (1997) emphasis is placed on the subjective views of student-teachers in their role as language learners rather than on their views with regard to their future role as teachers. Most research, in contrast, concentrates on the latter aspect. In the chapter, I will describe two extreme examples of the student-teachers’ cases that I have analysed. I will then explore the meaning of the case studies in order to re-investigate the theoretical construct of learner autonomy. According to Benson (2001), the validity of autonomy as a theoretical construct – if autonomy is not to be an abstract ideal – depends upon our ability to base it on empirical research. Finally, I will provide input which could lead to new insights with regard to teacher development and the fostering of autonomy. Learner autonomy as a theoretical construct (‘scientific’ theories) Although most of the authors define learner autonomy in accordance with Holec’s (1980) original definition of learner autonomy, which is seen as a “capacity [for the learner] to take charge of his own learning”, his definition leaves room for a good deal of interpretation. As mentioned previously, the theoretical framework of learner autonomy in our field is far from coherent (e.g. Oxford, 2003) and attempts to define it or to make it more concrete usually lead to “the mainstreaming of the notion of autonomy” (Pennycook 1997: 40) or to conceptual contradictions which are seen as “false assumptions about what autonomy is and what it entails” (Little 1991: 3), e.g., assumptions that deprive the concept of autonomy of its validity and relevance to language education.1 In Germany there is also a risk of trivializing and narrowing the construct of autonomy by essentially combining it with the radical constructivist theory or learner training, which “inevitably involves an implicit moulding of the learner to approved patterns of behaviour” (Benson 1995; for a discussion in Germany see Martinez 2005). In fact, it is not easy to grasp the notion of autonomy since it is a “semantic neologism” with old and new dimensions (Holtzer 1995: 6). While old dimensions refer to ongoing discussions in philosophy and pedagogy, new dimensions have not been investigated sufficiently.

1. For similar definitions or so-called misconceptions see also Aoki and Smith (1999) and Esch (1997).

 Hélène Martinez

Building on Benson’s model (1997),2 Oxford (2003) proposes a more systematic and comprehensive theoretical model of learner autonomy which integrates four perspectives: a technical one focused on the physical situation, a psychological one focused on characteristics of learners, a socio-cultural one focused on mediated learning and a political-critical perspective focused on ideologies, access, and power structures. Obviously, Oxford distances herself from a narrow construct of autonomy which is only focused on a single perspective (cf. Benson 1997); instead, she pleads for an integrative model in which the four are interdependent: “No single perspective should be considered antithetical to any other perspective, although some theorists would have us believe that antagonism is inevitable.” (Oxford 2003: 90; see also Martinez 2005). Thus, learner autonomy appears to refer to a concept of “the capacity to take control of one’s learning as one that establishes a space in which differences of emphasis can co-exist” (Benson 2001: 50). Common to all and fundamental to grasping this notion is the psychological relationship which the learner has to the process and the content of language learning (e.g. Little 1991: 4) and which is considered to be “constructivist,3 in the sense that the learner should become a critical consumer and a creative producer of knowledge” (e.g. Vieira 1997: 57): “L’autonomie s’est développée comme notion didactique, axée […] sur la relation de l’apprenant au savoir, au detriment de la dimension educative, priorité du EP [Education Permanente].” (Holtzer 1995: 96). Language student-teachers’ subjective theories and learner autonomy Subjective theories which are sometimes described as ‘implicit’, ‘naïve’, ‘private’ or ‘everyday’ are, in fact, very complex cognitive structures; they are highly individual, relatively stable, and relatively enduring. In psychology and in education science it has been demonstrated that subjective theories are an important tool in explaining and predicting human action and thinking since learners and teachers interpret any new information and any new approach in the foreign language classroom on the basis of deep-seated subjective theories on learning and teaching. As Bromme (1984: 45) emphasizes, the term ‘theory’ can be understood as a metaphor used “to explicate analogies (…) between the knowledge of everyday man which is relevant for his actions on the one hand, and scientific theories on 2. Benson was the first person whose tried to systematise learner autonomy (for more details see, for example, Benson (1996, 1997). 3. The opposite would be ‘transmissive’ (cf. Wright, 1987; see also Albéro 2000 and Vieira 2003).



The subjective theories of student teachers 

the other hand.” With respect to language learning, Christmann and Groeben (1996: 51) maintain that “there are good reasons to assume that individuals have knowledge with regard to factors that are relevant to learning processes, which is partially parallel to objective theories (…)”. A special methodology used in their investigation was developed in Germany: the so-called ‘Research Programme Subjective Theories’. This approach is intended to reconstruct the subjective (learning or teaching) theory in dialogue with the subject of the research and thus make ‘implicit theory’ explicit. The reconstruction of subjective theories is based on verbal report data, providing explanations of L2 acquisition (see Groeben et al. 1988; Grotjahn 1991 for details, i.e. differences between a narrow4 and a broad conception of subjective theories). The research on beliefs about SLA should be viewed within the context of a broad conception of subjective theories since it is an attempt to shed light on intrinsic, i.e. inner views of language learning (for a critical review of the notion of belief and research on beliefs see Barcelos 2003; Benson and Lor 1999; Grotjahn 1991 or Kajala and Barcelos 2003). In the context of learner autonomy most of the studies suggest that beliefs about SLA influence students’ language learning approaches and refer to beliefs as metacognitive knowledge. According to Barcelos (2003: 14) many of them employ a deficit theory model where learners beliefs are usually described as erroneous or counterproductive. Learners are viewed, compared and judged according to an ideal view of a good or an autonomous learner.

As a consequence, beliefs are seen as obstacles to the implementation of learner autonomy. According to Riley (1997: 152) the point is not ‘the truth’ but the subjective reality of the students: ‘their truth’. The assumption here is that the investigation of student-teachers’ subjective theories of teaching and learning can provide us – and the student-teachers – with other important insights which can be productively used in the promotion of learner and teacher autonomy. Methodology General remarks This study was conceived within a broad concept of subjective theory and thus within an exploratory-interpretative paradigm (Grotjahn 2003; Caspari et al. 2003) 4. “According to the narrow conception of subjective theories, the researcher has to establish an explicit consensus with the agent in order to be able to ascertain that the motives and beliefs have been adequately understood and reconstructed” (Grotjahn 1991: 193).

 Hélène Martinez

which is intended to generate hypotheses rather than to verify theories. Within this framework, knowledge is not seen as an objective reality which the researcher describes scientifically; instead the personally constructed nature of all knowledge – and its subjectivity – is assumed. Furthermore, a specific preconceived image of the research subject is central to the exploratory-interpretative paradigm: the epistemological model of a human being. This model stands in contrast to the so-called behavioural model and “conceptualises the human being as (fundamentally) capable of language, communication, and action, and as an autonomous and potentially rational subject” (Christmann and Groeben 1996: 48).5 The potential of an epistemological model of the human being and, in particular, of the communicative ability of the research partner is integrated into and used in the investigations. Context and participants The research participants were participants in two didactic seminars on learner autonomy, which ran over a sixteen-week semester with two course hours per week. The aim of the seminars was to sensitise student-teachers to the theoretical construct of learner autonomy and to approaches fostering learner autonomy. In order to develop within the student-teachers a reflective and critical attitude to autonomous language learning, they were confronted with a mixture of theory and practical application. In the long term they should ideally develop an understanding of reflective teaching. The sixteen research participants were all student-teachers of French, Spanish, or Italian as a foreign language. They were at different stages in their studies. Data collection and analysis The data corpus used here was collected in the course of my doctoral research by reconstructing the subjective learning theories of the student-teachers after entering into dialogue with each research subject. The data were collected from a series of semi-structured interviews conducted with the two groups of student-teachers on the basis of a questionnaire (about learner autonomy and language learning) administered at the beginning of the didactic seminar.6 The questionnaires served as a stimulus for verbal report data, i.e. as a stimulus to verbalize and to make inherently implicit thoughts explicit. The respondents were asked to read the questionnaire and 5. The epistemological model of human being is an extension of the model of “man as scientist” developed by Kelly (1955). 6. The point of departure of the seminars is the participants’ reality. The data were gathered before the teacher students were introduced into the theoretical construct of learner autonomy.



The subjective theories of student teachers 

to provide a retrospective verbal report by making additional comments about thoughts which occurred to them while reading their own responses. They were also asked to elicit and verbalize thoughts with the help of questions asked by the researcher, i.e. “you have mentioned … Could you please explain what you mean?”, etc. This procedure made it possible for me to enter into dialogue with each research subject and to establish an explicit consensus with each individual. Findings were supported by triangulating these data with other data gathered during each seminar using questionnaires about specific tasks (like learning strategies, learner beliefs, etc.), through group discussions (about learning style, etc.) and in a final (retrospective) interview. All verbal data were collected in German. They were later transcribed and extracts have been translated into English. The analysis and interpretation of transcribed data took place in two steps: a within-case analysis and a cross-case analysis (cf. Miles and Huberman 1994). First I attempt to reconstruct the subjective theories of each student-teacher by identifying the most salient aspects of what student-teachers have said.7 The findings are presented in individual case studies which emphasize the language learning history, the conception of learning and the conceptualisation of learner autonomy of each student-teacher. To analyse student-teachers’ subjective theories I adopted the rating system proposed by Benson and Lor (1999) who base their work on phenomenology (cf. Marton and Säljö 1976; Marton et al. 1997; Watkins 1996) and who distinguish between a “quantitative” conception of learning based on a surface approach to learning in which learning is perceived as being on the receiving end of knowledge, and a “qualitative” conception of learning based on a deep approach, in which learning is seen as an active process involving a sense of responsibility (see also Little et al., 2002: 110 ff.). After the case studies were reconstructed (and each case was considered as a whole entity), I then turned to a comparison of the analyses of the cases looking for themes and patterns that cut across cases and that refer to the conception of learner autonomy. Findings: Case studies Case Study: Claudia Claudia, a student-teacher, studies French and German at the University of Kassel in Kassel, Germany. She is 26 and has just completed one year of teaching as a 7. To determine the most salient aspects of what student teachers have said, I carefully read the transcribed data repeatedly and formulated questions. The questions which emerged from the data provided a framework for the analysis and for the presentation of the case studies.

 Hélène Martinez

language assistant at a French school. English, French and Spanish are the languages she learned at school. Her language learning history: Learning at school and at the university Claudia began to learn French at secondary school (grades 7–10) in a conventional way. Her language classes were characterized by a sequence of predictable steps focusing on correctness in language reproduction. The experience she had as a language learner at this school did not enable her to develop any practical language competence at all. In grades 11–13, however, she was exposed to learnercentred teaching with which she continually felt uncomfortable as she had no previous exposure to this approach, and no preparation for it. The way she is now expected to approach languages in the Department of French Studies at the university is entirely different again. She no longer attends classes; she learns more “unconsciously”,8 e.g., by reading French texts, watching French films or TV programs. As a result she has gained the impression that she is not really learning and progressing and she therefore feels helpless. Her sense of helplessness stems from the fact that she is used to learning in “a systematic way”, i.e., by going through a textbook. Yet, university instructors do not provide any individual didactic support. She now appears to have difficulty in continuing on with French because she did not learn to self-direct her learning process (learning to learn) while she was at school. Claudia’s subjective learning theory Her subjective learning theory is influenced by various key beliefs based on her own school experience: – Learning means extending one’s vocabulary. – There is no progress without hard work. – Correctness in language reproduction is the ultimate goal. She describes language learning as a linear process that revolves around acquiring as much vocabulary as possible and mastering grammar structures. The foreign language itself is viewed as a “study object”, not as a means of communication. For Claudia, it is only possible to reach the ultimate goal and be proficient in a foreign language through consistent hard work. Her conceptualisation of learner autonomy Her conception of autonomy stems from varied sources which, as we shall see, are partly contradictory. Claudia’s attitude towards this concept can be characterized 8. Quotes from dissertation in progress.



The subjective theories of student teachers 

in a few interview excerpts. By attending several subject-related didactic seminars for student-teachers, she has become familiar with the (theoretical) concept of learner autonomy and has developed a positive attitude towards it. When I asked her what she found so interesting about the topic, she replied that it was “an approach to teaching” she had not experienced at school, but definitely approved of: “Suddenly, you hear something and you think: yes, that’s exactly the way it is!” A theoretical approach She has a certain theoretical knowledge of the concept of learner autonomy. Following Holec (1980), she defines autonomy as the capacity to take charge of one’s own learning. Her understanding of learning autonomy is similar to psychological versions thereof which define this concept as a “construct of capacity – attitudes and ability – that allows learners to take more responsibility for their own learning” (Benson 1997: 19) and which strongly focus on the individual learner’s responsibility for their progress. She is also aware of the fact that learner autonomy is likely to bring about a change in the teacher-learner relationship and thus in the teacher’s role. When I asked her how she would define an autonomous learner, she replied that he/she is the individual who emerges following a true autonomous learning experience and learner training. Her definition contains a hidden danger in the form of an “implicit moulding of the learner to an approved pattern of behaviour” as Benson (1995: 2) criticised. For her, the autonomous learner epitomizes the ideal which should be pursued in schools. While her statement emphasizes the process-oriented nature of the concept, it also bears the risk of presenting learner autonomy as an ultimate goal, a final state, which has little chance of being realized (cf. Barbot and Camatarri 1999: 8–9). Furthermore, there is an additional risk that learner autonomy training could be reduced to a “series of techniques to train language learning skills leading to the display of ‘autonomous behaviour’”. (Esch 1997: 165) An approach based on previous experience As mentioned, in grades 11–13 she was involved in the teaching process. Based on her newly acquired theoretical knowledge, she now feels, on the one hand, “quite positive” about her school experience. On the other hand, she maintains that it was an awkward and uncomfortable situation, for she found the learner-oriented teaching and learning method demanding and partly contradictory to her conception of the teacher’s role. She viewed the teacher’s behaviour as a transgression from the principle according to which the teacher is omniscient and an attack on the representation of the learner, of the learner/teacher relation-

 Hélène Martinez

ship and of the relationship between learner und mediated knowledge9 (André 1992: 69–70; translation HM).

An approach based on her perception of her own autonomy When I asked whether she regarded herself as an autonomous learner, she gave the following answer: CL: Am I truly an autonomous learner? No, I don’t think so. Still, considering the fact that I am able to plan my own schedule, that I manage to be organized and that I am also aware of how I proceed whenever I have a university paper to write … For that kind of task, I always have my own way of proceeding, my own view on how it should work. And, then, I tend to stick to it time and again. (...) But, to be a truly autonomous learner, I just think I am too lazy. (laughter) HM: (laughter) CL: I don’t know. I think, I have a higher expectation of what it should ideally be, i.e., that one really sits down and learns vocabulary regularly or... I always mean to do so and then... or just do one grammar exercise per day, but... in fact, I know pretty well what I actually have to do and what I want to do, but unfortunately, in the end I often don’t do it.

She proceeds with the description of the “ideal learner”: “… the autonomous learner appears to be a particular kind of person rather than a person who possesses particular cognitive skills or abilities that can be acquired” (Benson 2001: 86). As already mentioned, her conception of autonomy stems from various but partly contradictory sources of knowledge; nevertheless, the whole concept in itself seems to be fairly coherent and corresponds with her rather ‘reproductive’ conception of language learning (cf. Benson and Lor 1999; Marton et al. 1997). Since she has a theoretical understanding of autonomy and approves of the concept, she continues to look at learning and learner autonomy from the teacher’s point of view considering learner autonomy as an alternative approach to teaching (see above). Obviously, she has not integrated the essential aspect of the pedagogical approach which forms the basis of the ‘learner autonomy’ concept, namely that the learner and the learning process are at the heart of all considerations (see Vieira 1997, 1999 for insights into a pedagogy for autonomy).

9. « une transgression du principe selon lequel l’enseignant est détenteur du ‘savoir’ et de la ‘parole’ et une atteinte à la représentation de l’apprenant, de la relation enseigné/enseignant et de la relation enseigné/savoir médiatisé par un enseignant »



The subjective theories of student teachers 

Case study: Marie Marie’s language learning biography Marie is a different type of learner. She comes from the Ukraine and studies Russian and Spanish at the University of Gießen in Gießen, Germany. Her mother tongues are Russian and Ukrainian. She had English as a subject while in school in the Ukraine; however, since she did not have any opportunity to use and practice speaking English in school or elsewhere, she feels totally incompetent. In fact she views her English instruction as a waste of time. After finishing school, she began to teach herself Turkish and Polish, motivated by her need to communicate with native speakers of both languages.10 After coming to Germany she learned German by attending adult education classes and by interacting in a German speaking environment. Of the languages she currently speaks, German is her favourite language. It is also the mother tongue of her husband. At the university she is currently taking Spanish language courses. Marie has had first hand experiences with various forms of teacher-directed and learner-directed learning situations in acquiring foreign language competence. Her main source of motivation remains her desire to communicate directly with speakers of the target languages. This personal desire is reflected in her responses whenever she is asked about her role as a language learner: “For me it is vital, because I must communicate with the people when I live here.” Her approach to language learning As mentioned above, Marie initiates and manages her own language learning both within and outside the context of formal instruction since she is aware of the limits of language instruction. With reference to Spanish, she claims, for example: We have lessons in Spanish twice a week but we do not speak a lot. We answer some questions or we read some answers from the exercises, but this is not really ‘speaking’. That’s why I want to fly to Spain and take a crash course during the holidays; I want to be able to speak Spanish.

For Maria, choosing to follow a course of formal instruction seems to be a “rational decision within a plan of learning that is self-directed overall” (Benson 2001: 63): Maria is able to assess her own needs, desires, interests and preferred ways of working and she can step back from what she is learning and reflect upon this, in order to make decisions about what to learn. When I asked whether she was aware of her learning strategies, she answered “No, I think I do it unconsciously. Sometimes I suddenly notice: ‘Aha, that is my weak point’. Therefore, it is logical that I work on it.” 10. Her boyfriend was a Turk.

 Hélène Martinez

She studies best in the kitchen, her favourite room; consequently, she spends a lot of time there. She has a big table where she can ‘spread out’. She likes to cook and also studies while cooking by looking at the grammar diagrams or vocabulary lists that she has posted here and there. Sometimes she does her shopping at Turkish shops because it offers her an occasion to speak and to continue learning Turkish. Marie’s subjective learning theory Three basic assumptions characterize her subjective learning theory: – Language learning implies active involvement on the part of the learner, i.e., that each individual actively deals with the subject matter on her/his own. – Interaction with others is essential to second language acquisition. – Language learning has to be meaningful (the learner sees a sense in what he/ she is doing). For Marie, language learning is based on a combination of instruction and exposure to and interaction with the target language. Within this context, learning is a matter of structuring newly acquired knowledge so that it can be integrated into one’s continually expanding pool of knowledge. It is the learner who plays the active role. Her conceptualisation of autonomy Marie did not have theoretical knowledge about the concept of autonomy before she attended the seminar; however, she did have an active and intrinsically motivated approach to the learning tasks and a genuine desire to learn particular languages. Her experience with language learning has led her to view autonomy as an individual means of processing information and then integrating new knowledge into her own system of meaning. Moreover, she is aware of the fact that as someone who has learned several languages, she is able to learn other languages more easily because she has acquired a lot of relevant – linguistic and metacognitive – knowledge. From the point of view of Breen and Mann (1997) and Candy (1991) she displays qualities that characterize autonomous learners. In addition, her subjective learning theory can also be viewed as constructivist or qualitative in the sense that learning is seen as an active process and associated with deep approaches to learning (e.g. Benson and Lor 1999; Little et al. 2002: 111ff.; see also Marton et al. 1993; Vieira 1997: 58–59). Both subjects, Claudia and Marie, are at opposite poles on a scale ranging from autonomous to non-autonomous learners. Between these two poles, a variety of profiles and conceptualisations of learning and learner autonomy can be depicted.



The subjective theories of student teachers 

What do the case studies tell us? Implications for the conceptualisation of learner autonomy Student-teachers’ conceptualisations of learner autonomy Most of the student-teachers seem to consider learner autonomy important and to ascribe positive connotations to it. Their interpretations of autonomy reflect a subjective understanding of learner autonomy (and teacher autonomy) based on their own language learner biographies. Since they have little – or no – theoretical knowledge, they seem to conceptualise learner autonomy on the basis of their own experience as language learners. In most cases they define it in stark contrast to their own experience in school. In their narratives, conceptions of learner autonomy come explicitly and implicitly to light; these can be summarized in the form of four statements. 1. Autonomy is an alternative and a new (teaching and learning) methodology which is supposed to improve the language learning process in the classroom. 2. Autonomy is often equated with individualization or differentiation. Autonomy is not primarily seen as relating to attitudes and capacities in learners. Their interpretations emphasize a technical view, focusing on the roles of the teacher. They display views of learner autonomy which seem to be cemented in a “logic of instruction” rather than in a “logic of learning” (cf. Holec 1980), e.g., it is the learner who remains the one receiving instruction – also instruction in learner strategies – from the teacher, and the teacher the one who teaches. In these interpretations, there is a risk that the role of the language teacher will be newly defined: “Instead of transmitting a body of facts about the target language, the teacher’s role is now to transmit a body of facts about the most efficient ways (according to expert linguists) to learn a language.” (Voller 1997: 107) For Albéro (2000), who analyses the role of counsellors and tutors in self-access-centres, the decisive reversal of the traditional pedagogic perspective (from a transmissive to a constructivist pole) is highly problematic in the teaching or learning process, because it requires the learner and teacher to make a variety of changes in their value systems and frames of reference which have to be seen as a change of paradigm. 3. Autonomy is treated as an absolute. It seems to be a highly unachievable educational goal which can not be realised within the institution of the school. The autonomous learner tends to be an ideal, a model of self-control and selfdiscipline which is not attainable. 4. Autonomy is an ambiguous notion which implicitly has to do with learning in isolation – without a teacher.

 Hélène Martinez

These interpretations display a view of learner autonomy that is more desirable but less practical. Thus learner autonomy is a utopian goal or a form of independence and it runs the risk of remaining unachievable. Such interpretations are, of course, influenced by the language learning history of each individual student. They reflect each biography. Very few individuals have ever experienced learner-centred approaches at school and, those who have, probably failed to understand what the teacher was aiming at (compare for example Claudia’s interpretations of her school experiences in grades 11–13; See also Caspari 2003; Burk et al. 2001). There seems to be a large gap between a well established theory about learner autonomy and the actual classroom setting. Characteristics of the autonomous learner: Empirical research and its implications with regard to the conceptualisations of learner autonomy. The contentions of those student-teachers who can be characterized as autonomous learners (for example, Marie) draw our attention to aspects of autonomy which are widely ignored in the Western European discussion of the concept11 but which can contribute to a means of countering any simplification or narrowing of the autonomy concept and can also provide impulses for its implementation. Such data provide empirical evidence for aspects of autonomy that have been discussed by many experts in recent years (e.g. Benson 2001; Benson and Toogood 2002; Palfreyman and Smith 2003; Sinclair et al. 2000) Thus, the analysis of case studies gives us the opportunity to question interpretations and theories of autonomy and to refine concepts of L2 learner autonomy as defined by Oxford (see above). These aspects emerge from the cross-case analyses and can be summarized in the form of the following statements. Each statement implies a relation between the learner and the language or language learning process which, with reference to Deci and Ryan (1985, 1993), can be characterized as “self-determined”: 1. Autonomy and communication, e.g. interaction, belong together. The autonomous learner has an authentic approach to language which is considered to be a means of communication. As Little (1997b) says, we must always think of learner autonomy in terms of both learning and applying the target language. In practice, learner training has, for the most part, focused on the teaching of strategies. In using this instructional approach, one runs the risk of forgetting the underlying purpose of all learning 11. Compare the representation of autonomy in ‘The Common European Framework’ (Europarat 2001); for a critique of the predominance of the technical version of autonomy among TESOL professionals in Turkey see Palfreyman (2003b).



The subjective theories of student teachers 

situations: communicative proficiency. In Marie’s case we see that her effort to meet her communicative needs by using the target language, gradually produces learning as well as learning autonomy. Language is at once both the medium and the content of language learning and learner autonomisation: As Little (1997a: 99) claims with regard to the truly autonomous learner, each occasion of language use is an occasion of language learning, and vice versa. Proficiency use of the spoken language requires the gradual development of language awareness in the sense that knowledge about the target language provides the indispensable basis for critical reflection and analysis.

Although one of the most challenging developments with respect to the theory of autonomy in the past 10 years has been the idea that autonomy implies interdependence, it (autonomy) has often been interpreted as a synonym for learning in isolation. In Marie’s case, the conception and beliefs about language learning correspond to Little’s concept of learner autonomy focusing on interdependence and not on independence: “Learner autonomy does not arise spontaneously from within the learner but develops out of the learner’s dialogue with the world to which he or she belongs.” (1994: 431). Her need to communicate with people reminds us of Little’s radical assertion concerning the “freedom to learn and [the] compulsion to interact”. (1996). 2. Autonomy has an emotional as well as a cognitive dimension: The autonomous learner has an intrinsically motivated, a ‘self-determined’ approach to language and language learning. Marie provides evidence that L2 motivation and learner autonomy go hand in hand (cf. Dickinson 1995; Ushioda 1996). She is intrinsically motivated and she can control not only the learning process but also her motivation. With regard to Ryan (1991: 210) it can be said that she experiences herself as an agent of her own behaviour. Thus, autonomy has to do with personal involvement and personal authenticity. Learner success leads to enhanced motivation and simultaneously increases the learner’s willingness to accept responsibility for his own learning experience (Martinez 2004). 3. Autonomy has to do with deep approaches to language learning: The autonomous learner has an expert approach to language learning based on the previous knowledge acquired while learning other languages. Marie is able to learn other languages easily since she has acquired a lot of relevant knowledge, both linguistic and metacognitive. The multilingual learner seems to be a more effective learner in the sense that he can apply his multi-language awareness and knowledge to new language learning situations. These results correlate

 Hélène Martinez

with results in the multilingual acquisition research or cross-linguistic research which demonstrate that multilingual learning or intercomprehensive languages learning leads to more autonomy (Meißner 2004, 2005). What do the case studies teach us? Implications for teacher education By assessing subjective learning theories by means of the dialogic method of reconstruction, the reflexivity of the research subjects is taken into consideration in a more comprehensive manner. As a consequence, the complexity of the learners’ thinking about language learning can be better examined. In addition, as Christmann and Groeben (1996) emphasize, the reconstruction of the subjective knowledge of the student-teacher provides a basis for an interaction between subjective and objective theories, which could lead to a fitting change of the paradigm and to an educationally constructive alternative to traditional training programs (cf. also Scheele and Groeben 1998). It therefore appears that subjective learning theories can be used as a starting point in teacher education. They can help to develop a. metacognitive awareness of the self as a learner, b. metacognitive awareness of the language learning process, and c. learning to learn competence. a.

Metacognitive awareness-raising through verbalizations during the research process

The process and results of research on subjective theories are a suitable medium for raising awareness of one’s own cognition and that of others, which is so important in the construction of new concepts. As Benson and Lor (1998: 14) state: “Learner discourse on language learning may be understood as a part of a process in which conceptions and beliefs interact and are transformed into usable theories of learning.” The dynamics of making the implicit inherently explicit can lead to a partial modification of the conceptions of themselves as language learners and of one’s own language learning process. Increased awareness of one’s own beliefs about language learning and of one’s own understanding of learner autonomy can be considered a prerequisite to fostering learner autonomy (see Breen and Mann as cited). As Bondi (1999) suggests, each learner should, ideally, become a researcher into his own learning process. Student-teachers’ development of a research-based attitude towards language and towards language learning – i.e. metacognitive awareness raising of the learner him/herself as a learner, of the subject matter, and of the learning process (cf. Sinclair 1999: 102) – should foster reflective practice



The subjective theories of student teachers 

and thus contribute to the implementation of a reflective teaching approach leading to the development of learner autonomy (see also Vieira 1999, 2003). b.

Metacognitive awareness-raising through the integration of verbal reports in pre-service training

The student-teachers’ reports can serve as sources of information we can use to develop a more learner-centred curriculum for teacher training. By encouraging student-teachers to talk about their subjective views of learning and learner autonomy, the teacher trainer is able to collect a wide variety of such subjective views. After selecting and reordering, he can, for example, integrate the informants’ verbal reports, i.e., interview transcriptions, questionnaires, diary excerpts, etc., into the pre-service training period and confront the student-teachers with them. Being confronted with the subjective conceptions of peers can help the individual student-teacher become more aware of his/her own conceptions, including strengths and weaknesses. c.

Fostering competence in “Learning to Learn”

The new challenge for the teacher of autonomous learners can only be properly faced if teachers and student-teachers develop a “Learning (to Learn) Competence” (LLC), which would make it possible to continually keep their teaching or learning approaches abreast of new findings made in the field of applied linguistics (cf. Leupold 2000). This LLC requires a willingness on the part of teachers to utilize new findings from that field and to subsequently re-examine their knowledge and their own subjective conceptions of, as well as their personal approaches to teaching. LLC could, in fact, be considered the basis of reflective teaching and action research. It can lead to creative reflection which can, in turn, actually be applied to reshape the teaching process (Vieira 1997; 1999). With respect to the student-teachers, it would enable them to bring their knowledge up to date through exposure to new findings regarding learner autonomy and then to apply it to their own learning language process. They can thereby acquire proficiency in learning how to learn at the university12 (cf. Meißner 2002).

12. cf. Claudia, who has difficulty in carrying on with French because she did not learn to selfdirect her learning process – learning to learn – while she was at school.

 Hélène Martinez

Conclusion In this paper I have discussed subjective theories as a means for conceptualising how student-teachers view learner autonomy and how these subjective views could be integrated into pre-service teacher training programs. The results of my research have provided some empirical evidence with regard to recent developments in the theory of learner autonomy (see above) which may encourage us to pursue more qualitative and interpretative research. Doing so could result in insights whose application could foster learner autonomy in the classroom. By giving the student-teachers a voice and by listening to what they say about language learning and language learning autonomy, we researchers must shift from an external to an inner perspective, seeing things through the eyes of the learner. Doing interpretative research can help us – the researcher and the learner – to question our personal theories; doing so can also contribute to that change of paradigm which is the prerequisite for learner autonomy. Reconstructing subjective learning theories can thus lead to new perspectives and thereby give rise to questions which have not yet been asked. References Albéro, B. 2000. L’autoformation en contexte institutionnel. Du paradigme de l’instruction au paradigme de l’autonomie. Paris: L’Harmattan. André, B. 1992. De l’autonomisation à l’autonomie en didactique des langues non maternelles. In Les auto-apprentissages, L. Porcher (ed.), 66–74. Paris: Hachette. Aoki, N. & Smith, R. C. 1999. Learner autonomy is more than a western construct. In Learner Autonomy in Language Learning: Defining the Field and Effective Change, S. Cotterall & D. Crabbe (eds), 11–18. Frankfurt: Lang. Barbot, M.-J. & Camatarri, G. 1999. Autonomie et apprentissage. Innovation dans la formation. Paris: Presse Universitaire de France (PUF). Barcelos, A.M.F. 2003. Researching beliefs about SLA: A critical review. In Beliefs about SAL. New Research Approach, P. Kajala & A.M.F. Barcelos (eds), 7–33. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Benson, P. 1995. A critical view of learner training. Learning Learning: JALT Learner Development N-SIG Forum 2(2): 2–6. Benson, P. 1996. Concepts of autonomy in language learning. In Taking Control: Autonomy in Language Learning, R. Pemberton, E.S.L. Li, W.W.F. Or & H.D. Pierson (eds), 27–34. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Benson, P. 1997. The philosophy and politics of learner autonomy. In Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning, P. Benson & P. Voller (eds), 18–34. London: Longman. Benson, P. 2001. Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning. London: Longman.



The subjective theories of student teachers  Benson, P. & Lor, W. 1998. Making Sense of Autonomous Language Learning – Conceptions of Learning and Readiness for Autonomy [English Centre Monograph No 2]. Hong Kong: Universisty of Hong Kong. Benson, P. & Lor, W. 1999. Conceptions of language and language learning. System 27(4): 459–472. Benson, P. & Toogood, S. (eds). 2002. Learner Autonomy 7: Challenges to Research and Practice. Dublin: Authentik Language learning Resources. Bondi, M. 1999. Language awareness and EFL teacher education. In English Teacher Education in Europe. New trends and Developments, P. Faber, W. Gewehr, R.M. Jiménez & A.J. Peck (eds), 91–107. Frankfurt: Lang. Breen, M.P. and Mann, S.J. 1997. Shooting arrows at the sun: Perspectives on a pedagogy for autonomy. In Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning, P. Benson & P. Voller (eds), 132–149. London: Longman. Bromme, R. 1984. On the limitations of the theory metaphor for the study of teachers’ expert knowledge. In Teacher Thinking: A New Perspective on Persisting Problems in Education, R. Halkes & J.K. Olson (eds), 43–57. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger. Burk, H., Meißner, F.-J., Müller, A., Sippel, V. & Wehmer, S. 2001. Was Studierende über ihre Schulsprachen denken: ein Beispiel quantitativer Lernforschung. In Mehrsprachiges Europa. Festschrift für Michael Wendt, D. Abendroth-Timmer & G. Bach (eds), 111–129. Tübingen: Narr. Candy, P. 1991. Self-direction for Lifelong Learning. San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass. Caspari, D. 2003. Fremdsprachenlehrerinnen und Fremdsprachenlehrer. Studien zu ihrem beruflichen Selbstverständnis. Tübingen: Narr. Caspari, D., Helbig, B. & Schmelter, L. 2003. Forschungsmethoden: Explorativ-interpretatives Forschen. In Handbuch Fremdsprachenunterricht, K.-R. Bausch, H. Christ & H.-J. Krumm (eds), 499–505. Tübingen: Franke. Christmann, U. & Groeben, N. 1996. Reflexivity and learning: Problems, perspectives, and solutions. In The Structure of Learning Processes, J. Valsiner & H.-G. Voss (eds), 45–85. Norwood: Ablex. Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R. M. 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human Behavior. New York NY: Plenum. Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R. M. 1993. Die Selbstbestimmungstheorie der Motivation und ihre Bedeutung für die Pädagogik. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik 39(2): 223–238. Dickinson, L. 1995. Autonomy and motivation: a literature review. System 23(2): 165–174. Esch, E.M. 1997. Learner training for autonomous language learning. In Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning, P. Benson & P. Voller (eds), 164–175. London: Longman. Europarat (ed.). 2001. Gemeinsamer europäischer Referenzrahmen für Sprachen: Lernen, lehren, beurteilen. Berlin: Langenscheidt. Groeben, N., Wahl, D., Schlee, J. & Scheele, B. 1988. Das Forschungsprogramm Subjektive Theorien: Eine Einführung in die Psychologie des reflexiven Subjekts. Tübingen: Francke. Grotjahn, R. 1991. The research programme subjective theories: A new approach in second language research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13: 187–214. Grotjahn, R. 2003. Konzepte für die Erforschung des Lehrens und Lernens fremder Sprachen: Forschungsmethodologischer Überblick. In Handbuch Fremdsprachenunterricht, K.-R. Bausch, H. Christ & H.-J. Krumm (eds), 493–499. Tübingen: Franke. Holec, H. 1980. Autonomie et apprentissage des langues étrangères. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

 Hélène Martinez Holtzer, G. 1995. Autonomie et didactique des langues: Le conseil de l’Europe et les langues étrangères (1970–1990) [Annales Littéraires de l’Université de Besançon numéro 568]. Besançon: Université de Besançon. Kajala, P. & Barcelos, A. M. F. (eds). 2003. Beliefs about SLA. New Research Approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Kelly, G. A. 1955. The Psychology of Personal Constructs, Vol. I/II. New York NY: Norton. Leupold, E. 2000. ‘Ich weiß etwas, was du nicht weißt…’: Lehrkompetenz als Schlüssel zu einem innovativen Fremdsprachenunterricht. In Konstruktion statt Instruktion: Neue Zugänge zu Sprache und Kultur im Fremdsprachenunterricht, M. Wendt (ed.), 175–186. Frankfurt: Lang. Little, D. 1991. Learner Autonomy: Definitions, Issues and Problems. Dublin: Authentik Language learning Resources Ltd. Little, D. 1994. Learner autonomy: A theoretical construct and its practical application. Die Neueren Sprachen 93 (5): 430–442. Little, D. 1995. Learning as dialogue: the dependence of learner autonomy on teacher autonomy. System 23(2): 175–182. Little, D. 1996. Freedom to learn and compulsion to interact: promoting learner autonomy through the use of information systems and information technologies. In Taking Control. Autonomy in Language Learning, R. Pemberton, E.S.L. Li, W.W.F. Or & H.D. Pierson (eds), 203–218. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Little, D. 1997a. Language awareness and the autonomous language learner. Language Awareness 6(2/3): 93–104. Little, D. 1997b. Learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom: Theoretical foundations and some essentials of pedagogical practice. Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung 8(2): 227–244. Little, D., Ridley, J. & Ushioda, E. 2002. Towards a Greater Learner Autonomy in the Foreign Language Classroom. Report on a Research-and-Development Pproject (1997–2001). Dublin: Authentik Language Learning Resources. Martinez, H. 2001. L‘autonomie de l‘apprenant: Une question d‘interdépendance entre apprenants et enseignants. Les Langues Modernes 1: 26–33. Martinez, H. 2004. L’autonomie en question(s): Les rôles respectifs de l’apprenant et de l’enseignant dans l’autonomisation. Französisch heute 35(1): 58–71. Martinez, H. 2005. Lernerautonomie: Ein konzeptuelles Rahmenmodell für den Fremdsprachenunterricht … und für die Fremdsprachenlehr- und -lernforschung. Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen 34: 65–82. Marton, F. & Säljö, R. 1976. On qualitative differences in learning – 1. Outcomes and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology 46: 4–11. Marton, F., Dall’Alba, G. & Beaty, E. 1993. Conceptions of learning. International Journal of Educational Research 19: 277–300. Marton, F., Watkins, D. & Tang, C. 1997. Discontinuities and continuities in the experience of learning: An interview study of high-school students in Hong Kong. Learning and Instruction 7(1): 21–48. Meißner, F.-J. 2002. Qualitätssicherung der sprachpraktischen Ausbildung in den Studiengängen fremdsprachlicher Fächer. In Perspektiven für die zukünftigen Fremdsprachendidaktik, C. Neveling (ed.), 103–122. Tübingen: Narr.



The subjective theories of student teachers  Meißner, F.-J. 2004. Modelling multilingual processing and language growth between intercomprehensive languages. In Translation in der globalen Welt und neue Wege in der Sprach- und Übersetzerausbildung, L. N. Zybatow, (ed.), 225–241. Frankfurt: Lang. Meißner, F.-J. 2005. Vorläufige Erfahrungen mit autonomen Lernen qua Mehrsprachenunterricht. In Gesamtsprachencurriculum – Integrierte Sprachendidaktik – Common Curriculum. Theoretische Überlegungen und Beispiele der Umsetzung, B. Hufeisen & M. Lutjeharms (eds), 129–135. Tübingen: Narr. Miles, M. & Huberman, A. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Oxford, R.L. 2003. Toward a more Systematic Model of L2 Learner Autonomy. In Learner Autonomy Across Cultures: Language Education Perspectives, D. Palfreyman & R. Smith (eds), 75–91. Houndmills: Palgrave. Palfreyman, D. 2003a. Expanding the discourse on learner development: A reply to Anita Wenden. Applied Linguistics 24(2): 243–248. Palfreyman, D. 2003b. The representation of learner autonomy and learner independence in organizational culture. In Learner Autonomy Across Cultures: Language Education Perspectives, D. Palfreyman & R. Smith (eds), 183–200. Houndmills: Palgrave. Palfreyman, D. & Smith, R. (eds). 2003. Learner Autonomy Across Cultures: Language Education Perspectives. Houndmills: Palgrave. Pennycook, A. 1997. Cultural alternatives and autonomy. In Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning, P. Benson & P. Voller (eds), 35–53. London: Longman. Riley, P. 1997 ‘BATs’ and ‘BALLs’: Beliefs about talk and beliefs about language learning. In Autonomy 2000: The Development of Learning Independence in Language Learning. Proceedings of the international conference organised by: King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Thonburi und the British Council Thailand, 151–168. Thailand: Bangkok. Ryan, R.M. 1991. The nature of the self in autonomy and relatedness. In The Self: Interdisciplinary Approaches, J. Strauss & G.R. Goethals (eds), 208–238. New York NY: Springer. Scheele, B. & Groeben, N. 1998. Das Forschungsprogramm Subjektive Theorien. Theoretische und methodologische Grundzüge in ihrer Relevanz für den Fremdsprachenunterricht. Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen 27: 12–32. Sinclair, B. 1999. More than a fact of faith? Evaluating learner autonomy. In: Innovation and Best Practice, C. Kennedy (ed.), 96–107. Harlow: Longman. Sinclair, B. 2000. Learner autonomy: The next phase? In Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy: Future Directions, B. Sinclair, I. McGrath & T. Lamb (eds), 4–14. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman. Sinclair, B., McGrath, I. & Lamb, T. (eds) 2000. Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy: Future Directions. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman. Ushioda, E. 1996. Learner Autonomy: The Role of Motivation. Dublin: Authentik Language Learning Resources. Vieira, F.I. 1997. Pedagogy for autonomy: Exploratory answers to questions any teacher should ask. In Neues Lernen – Selbstgesteuert – Autonom, M. Müller-Verweyen (ed.), 53–72. München: Goethe-Institut München. Vieira, F.I. 1999. Pedagogy for autonomy: Teacher development and pedagogical experimentation – An in-service teacher training project. In Learner Autonomy in Language Learning: Defining the Field and Effective Change, S. Cotterall & D. Crabbe (eds), 149–158. Frankfurt: Lang.

 Hélène Martinez Vieira, F. I. 2003. Addressing constraints on autonomy in school contexts: Lesson from working with teachers. In Learner Autonomy Across Cultures: Language Education Perspectives, D, Palfreyman & R. Smith (eds), 201–220. Houndmills: Palgrave. Voller, P. 1997. Does the teacher have a role in autonomous language learning? In Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning, P. Benson & P. Voller (eds), 98–113. London: Longman. Watkins, D. 1996. Learning theories and approaches to research: A cross-cultural perspective. In The Chinese Learner: Cultural, Psychological and Contextual Influences, D. Watkins & J. Biggs (eds), 3–24. Hong-Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre/Melbourne: The Australian Council for Educational Research. Wright, T. 1987. Roles of Teachers and Learners. Oxford: OUP.

Learners talking From problem to solution Sara Cotterall and David Crabbe

Akita International University, Japan Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

To understand the relationship between teacher and learner autonomy, we propose that three areas of enquiry should be undertaken. The first is to understand better the kind of goals and constraints with which learners operate in particular teaching-learning contexts and the consequent strategic behaviour they adopt. The second is to evaluate the apparent effectiveness of the learner’s goals and strategic behaviour in those contexts. The third is to re-examine the role of the teacher in managing the learning opportunities for the learner in the light of the information gathered. The outcome of these three areas of enquiry should be an understanding that provides a better empirical basis for clarifying and potentially changing teacher and learner roles in context. This chapter draws on learner interview data relating to the first of these areas and shows how it might be used by teachers to better understand the constraints on autonomy.

Teacher and learner autonomy The autonomy movement has gone to great lengths to define, or re-define, the role of the teacher and the learner in relation to their common task: an advance in language proficiency for the learner (see for example Little 1995, Riley 1997 and Sinclair, McGrath & Lamb 2000). To make any sense of the notion of teacher autonomy and its relationship with learner autonomy, we need to begin to talk of specific beliefs, understandings and actions that define teacher and learner roles. We believe that the connection between learner and teacher autonomy lies primarily in the expertise surrounding the learning of a second language. The traditional view of teachers and learners is that the teacher is the expert in the language and the learner is the novice. However, we can easily extend that view to incorporate the teacher as expert also in language learning, with the learner as novice. In reality the roles are unlikely to be so polarised. Teachers have been successful in

 Sara Cotterall and David Crabbe

learning a language but only in their own way. Learners are finding their way to learn a language, partly through following the teacher’s directions, but also through a process of discovery that is personal and only accessible by teachers to the extent that they encourage learners to articulate what they are doing. This chapter is concerned with the nature of the dialogue that might uncover the diversity of learners’ experiences of the task of learning a language. If teachers are to play any role at all in facilitating, advising and modelling learning behaviour, then they need to understand not only the more universal conditions required for learning to occur, but also the variety of individual human approaches to the task and the difficulties that are experienced. In other words, teachers need to build up a database of experience of actual learning, not only of their own learning (which may be an idiosyncratic reflection of their own way of doing things) but also of their learners’ experiences. From talking with their learners they can become familiar with the paths their learners follow, the obstacles they encounter and the feelings that underlie their efforts at learning. Dialogue by its very nature is free ranging; dialogue with learners about learning can cover any number of problems, beliefs, feelings and expectations. The conversations we are reporting on here, however, were of a particular type. They were all initiated by learners who were experiencing some difficulty in learning a foreign language. In other words, there was a problematic core to the dialogues that enabled us to view them all in a problem-solution frame. The learners we spoke with would typically present an experience of a problem and want advice on what to do about it. A problem-solution framework is helpful in several ways. It enables teachers and learners to share problem-solving by explicitly exploring and discovering possible solutions to specific learning difficulties. This approach is compatible with learner autonomy and does not over-privilege the teacher’s knowledge of how to do things. In such an approach, a lot of effort goes into trying to work out with the learner exactly what the problem is – to represent it in as much detail as possible – and then to raise possible strategies to address the difficulty. Rather than a onemethod-suits-all stance, a more open attitude to specific methods, techniques and strategies is adopted. At the same time, we are not suggesting that every learner’s experience is unique. There will be important generalisations to make, commonalities of experience that will enable a teacher to draw parallels, to identify similar difficulties, to suggest solutions that have worked for some in the past, or that research indicates are theoretically justified. In summary, we need to be open to whatever the learner is describing, and at the same time be looking for helpful patterns of behaviour that suggest particular strategies based on collective experience.



Learners talking 

A problem-solution framework for dealing with difficulties in the task of learning a language Figure 1 presents the problem-solution framework underlying our participation in the interviews with the language learners. The diagram represents the identifiable components of these problem-solution dialogues. It is divided vertically with the problem on the left and the solution on the right. This broad dichotomy represents two clearly identifiable functions of the interviews with the learners. In representing the problem (the left hand side of Figure 1), the starting point is almost always an expression of difficulty. In most of our interviews the learners did not perceive in detail what the nature of the problem was: rather, their comments tended to reflect a general sense of not learning, of not making progress, or of being about to fail the course, rather than a representation of why. This indicates a key responsibility of the teacher or advisor – to prompt the learner to analyse in more detail the difficulties they have perceived – to prompt for more information, to raise awareness of the nature of the difficulty, whether it is to do with learning or performance. Examples of prompts used to unpack the problem are: An open-ended prompt When you feel you can’t express your ideas, what, do you think, it is that you don’t have, that would enable you to express these ideas? A leading prompt How much of it is a … problem of not wanting to appear to be the one who knows least in the class? The second function of the dialogue concerns exploration of a solution (the right hand side of Figure 1). In exploring a solution, there are a number of elements to deal with simultaneously. From a curriculum point of view, one might be tempted to work through this as a step by step, reductionist process: analyse the difficulty or need, form a learning goal that covers the difficulty, find the strategy to achieve the goal and apply it. But in fact the mind does not always work in such a clear-cut programmed way and nor should a dialogue. The process is more one of exploration: taking into account a number of elements simultaneously and making a judgement on the best fit.

 Sara Cotterall and David Crabbe

Representing the problem

Sensing a difficulty

Exploring a solution

Clarifying goals: what learning is needed to address the difficulty? How can this be expressed as a realistic goal?

Analysing the difficulty: what is the nature of the difficulty? What might be causing it? Is it really a problem? Resources for learning Identifying strategies to deal with the difficulty as represented, applying and evaluating them.

Constraints

Figure 1.  A problem-solution framework for talking about language learning

Starting, then, with the problem as represented by the learner, we feel the conversation between learner and teacher/adviser needs to cover the following points: Clarify and assess perceived difficulty – look at how the problem relates to the learner’s overall needs and goals: does it relate to the passing of an exam, to developing long term automaticity or comprehensibility, to achieving confidence in using the language? – decide whether the difficulty is really a difficulty – does it prevent learners from achieving their goals? Is complete accuracy important for those aiming at fluent communication, for those passing a grammar based test, for those writing academic assignments? Can the difficulty be re-prioritised in relation to other more serious issues?



Learners talking 

Identify strategies for evaluation – Clarify the learning that needs to be achieved in the form of goals. – Identify potential strategies to address the problem or difficulty, discussing and taking into account the resources available and constraints operating on the strategy identified. – Suggest how such strategies might be evaluated when tried out. Figure 1 highlights elements and outcomes of the advising process – adequate problem representation must take place in order for appropriate solutions to be sought. However, as with all abstract models, the simplicity of the framework belies the complexity of working through the process. For example, appropriately analysing a language learning problem requires a degree of expert knowledge which few language learners possess. By way of illustration – many language learners express difficulty understanding fluent native speakers when they are speaking in the target language. What makes this difficult for learners? Some of the reasons experts have suggested are: the pace of delivery, the accents of the speakers, the need to “chunk” fluent speech into appropriate sense groups, the use of unfamiliar vocabulary and grammatical structures and the need to attend to form and meaning simultaneously. Clearly, most language learners are likely to need help in identifying the various factors that might make the task difficult and in deciding which one(s) to focus their energies on in attempting to develop their proficiency further. The experience of using this problem-solution framework in conversations about learning difficulties also allowed us to identify more generic problem types and patterns of strategic behaviour aimed at addressing those problems. The way in which these generic problem and solution categories emerged from the data is discussed in the next section. Using the interview data to develop general categories of problem and solution The problem-solution framework discussed in the previous section was adopted in conducting interviews over a period of a year during which we worked as advisers in a Language Advisory Service offered to all students enrolled in language courses at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. We interviewed approximately 20 learners of various languages for at least 20 minutes each, always with a view to establishing future action to address the perceived difficulty. Most advising sessions began with the learner articulating a problem. Often their initial statement of the problem was accompanied by a statement of negative feelings relating to the problem. In some instances the learner also suggested a possible

 Sara Cotterall and David Crabbe

reason for the problem, and occasionally he or she asked explicitly for advice of a certain kind. The interviews initially gave us the opportunity to gather information on specific problems and specific solutions. Further analysis of the interview data allowed us to generate a database of problems classified under types, and a smaller and less developed database of suggested solutions. The latter is not just a bank of discrete disconnected strategies, but rather a database that maintains the links between the initial problem and the potential responses to the problem. This, we believe, has the potential to allow teachers and learners to work from an experience base of actual problems that arise and actual responses that have been made to them. Categories of problem In this section of the paper, we classify the problems learners discussed in the interviews into five categories on the basis of the central language learning activity or component they relate to: remembering, hearing, writing, speaking and feedback. We decided to use category names based on the learners’ own descriptions of the problems, since the categories must eventually be used by and useful for learners. The majority of problems fell into the first category – problems associated with remembering. This is not surprising when one considers the central role of memory in fluent foreign language use, and the nature of formal language learning tasks. Many problems were articulated by more than one learner; however we were more interested in documenting the range of problems articulated by the learners than recording their relative frequency. Remembering The first category of learner problems was that of remembering. Three different types of difficulty associated with remembering were identified in the learner interviews: 1. Remembering discrete linguistic items 2. Remembering grammatical patterns 3. Remembering fixed routines The first type was the most common in the data set. Learners complained, for example, about their difficulty in remembering discrete vocabulary items, the gender of nouns, function words such as prepositions and pronouns and also, remember-



Learners talking 

ing written forms such as Kanji when learning Japanese. A typical example occurred with the following learner:

K: I’m also really bad at like I mean at remembering prepositions

The second type – remembering grammatical patterns – also contained a large number of items. It included problems with remembering important patterns in the language such as past tense endings in Spanish, irregular verbs in German, the declension of nouns in German and the rules determining which case follows prepositions in German. For example, one of the learners reported:

J: there’s just learning the verbs and then learning the different um … the different people that you put connect them with.. and … the different types of verbs … the different tenses like past present future and stuff like that all trying to remember them

The third type of problem in this category – remembering fixed routines – included only two items, both of which related to learners’ experience of trying to memorise extended stretches of the target language. In both cases a speech or dialogue had to be memorised as part of an assessment task. For one learner, this somewhat unnatural task caused considerable stress:

N: we’re having er an oral test, we have to prepare … like a dialogue … been going through and trying to read out some of the words cause we have to learn them perfectly for the thing but some of them are quite difficult to say

In some of the advising sessions, learners volunteered a potential explanation for the difficulty they were experiencing. Three such explanations were advanced. The first hypothesis was that the course required them to remember things in a way which was not meaningful. One of the learners, a drama student, contrasted her relative ease at memorising speeches for a play in which she was appearing with her difficulty memorising material for her language course:

R: I think I’ve done a lot of time with just pointless learning like … I’ve got a really good memory retention I can remember a two thousand [word] play I know when to come in what speech I know everyone else’s speeches … and I can’t learn a word sixty words it’s like and I’m thinking what’s happening there I’ve got this wonderful memory retention and it’s not happening

 Sara Cotterall and David Crabbe

The second potential explanation learners offered foreign language material was that it was easy to learn new items and then forget them if there was no opportunity to use the new items. One learner complained:

K: I’ve also got rules about which (preposition) takes which case which is fine and I can remember those rules but then like I forget them quite soon because I don’t use them

The third reason that some learners claimed to find remembering items difficult was because of memory overload. Referring to the tutor’s introduction of new items in the language class, one of the learners commented:

N: what gets me totally confused at the moment is that he’s introduced in the last three weeks two different tenses and we already had like I was just getting onto the first one … and then we got this big rush one week and then the next week another tense on top of it and it was like oh no … and we’ve got like four or five different types of pronouns

This learner’s experience had led her to equate language learning with the act of memorising, largely because of the nature of the material and activities presented in her language classes. All three explanations can be seen as artefacts of the courses in which the learners were enrolled but also as an indication that learners are not managing the learning for themselves. While natural language learning experiences may at times require learners to learn the form of items in a way that is divorced from meaning and to learn items at a time and place removed from opportunities to use them, such experiences are far more likely to arise in instructional language learning opportunities. The final distinction occurring in the way learners represented their ‘remembering’ problems involved learners ‘pre-selecting’ the type of advice they were seeking. On one occasion, after identifying his problem as trying to remember various language items, one learner explicitly asked for strategic advice, saying:

P: how do I remember all this vocab and … the prepositions?

In this case the learner appeared not only to have identified his difficulty, but also to have hypothesised its cause – in this case, ignorance of appropriate strategies. His question to the adviser therefore targeted information on vocabulary learning strategies as a solution to the perceived problem.



Learners talking 

Hearing The second category of difficulty identified by the learners related to the way they heard others and themselves use the target language. This category included a smaller total number of items which we further divided into the following types: 1. Hearing individual sounds 2. Hearing differences in accent The first type included difficulties the learners reported with distinguishing particular sounds in the target language. One learner of Italian said:

N: I noticed I had a problem with [in Italian] ‘i’ and [in Italian] ‘gli’ so I obviously don’t listen properly

The second type of perceived hearing problem – hearing differences in accent – involved learners’ difficulties in making sense of particular individuals’ pronunciation. One learner explained:

M: my dictation a few days ago … I have a feeling that I have a lot of mistakes ... I need to get used to somebody’s pronunciation and it’s very difficult

In the first of these examples the learner attributed her problem in distinguishing sounds to her own failure to listen “properly”. In the second example, the learner implied that she needed to spend a certain period of time familiarising herself with a speaker’s pronunciation before she could listen to it with understanding. Writing The third category of learner problems was that of Writing. Interestingly, there were fewer problems in this category than in Remembering, perhaps reflecting the fact that the courses in which the learners were enrolled emphasised grammatical exercises rather than the production of original texts in the target language. The kinds of writing problems raised by the learners were divided into two types: those relating to accuracy and those concerning broader composition issues. The majority of the writing problems discussed by the learners related to their difficulty in achieving accuracy when using the written form of the target language. Some of the problems related to general grammatical accuracy, but this type also included one example of a learner concerned with her inability to spell accurately. She noticed this problem when attempting to complete dictation activities for her

 Sara Cotterall and David Crabbe

course. A typical example of a learner’s general concern with the grammatical accuracy of his written work in the target language occurred as follows:

L: it seems to be a impossible task for me to write an a formal letter without mistakes

Learners’ sensitivity to their grammatical problems may have been exacerbated by courses which identified formal accuracy as a major course goal. The other type of writing problem involved global composition difficulties such as knowing how to organise and compose a text, and knowing how to elaborate on an idea. One learner complained:

S: I think essays essays I don’t seem to do well in them and I get all these structures and you know it’s just putting them all together I mean I’m not very good at writing essays in English anyway I can’t sort of string an essay together very well or I can’t like I’ve got an idea for something but I and you know it’s properly expressed but I don’t know how to expand on it to make it bigger

While such statements describe the problem, they are not accompanied by explanations of possible causes. In other words, there was no evidence of learners being able to elaborate on the likely cause of their writing difficulties, or of the constraints which may have inhibited their ability to achieve their writing goals. One goal of the advising session is therefore to help the learners gain a better understanding of what the causes of their difficulties might be. Speaking The fourth category of difficulty identified by the learners – Speaking – included a large number of examples. Once again, we subdivided problems in this category into firstly, those which related to accuracy, and secondly, those which related to fluency. Most of the speaking accuracy problems raised by the learners related to pronunciation. A number of the learners reported having difficulty pronouncing individual sounds, or knowing where to put the stress on individual words:

N: but I think the biggest problem is between “a’s” and “e’s” because um what is it “a’s”, “e’s” and “i’s” it yeah all together

In one case the perceived difficulty was with overall pronunciation. A German learner was dissatisfied when hearing himself (on tape) speaking English. He commented:

L: I sound absolutely German and that’s sort of disappointing.



Learners talking 

The learner proposed no explanation, but alluded to the negative feelings which hearing himself speak English aroused. Presumably this reaction related to the learner’s expectation that with time and practice he would begin to sound like a native speaker of the target language. This is a common misconception amongst many adult language learners and one which a language adviser may help to address, in addition to considering which elements of pronunciation might be worth focussing on. As in the Writing category, the other type of Speaking accuracy problem related to difficulty the learners had in producing grammatically accurate utterances in the target language. One learner saw using the grammar accurately as a way of making her communication more “effective”:

J: … I can communicate now but do it like more effectively would be to like use my tenses properly and my verbs properly and get those lit- those incy bitsy things and just make it sound more (flying?)

Analysis of the transcripts also revealed a concern with fluency. One learner expressed her difficulty like this:

H: I just can’t think it fast enough to be able to express it

Some learners’ statements of the problem included an implicit comparison with their perceived ability in other areas of performance. For example, one learner spoke of the discrepancy between her ability to understand the target language and her ability to produce it:

H: When someone talks at me in Spanish, they can talk for half an hour and I’ll understand it, I can understand it, I just can’t seem to respond to it

This sort of ‘problem’ may not be a problem at all but represent a natural lag between comprehension and production (see, for example Krashen 1985 on the ‘silent period’) There are many problems where reassurance rather than a learning solution might well be sufficient. Feedback The final category of difficulty we identified in the learner transcripts related to Feedback, though in this case, the term ‘feedback’ was not used by the learners. All three examples belonging to this category reflected the learners’ desire for feedback on their language ‘errors’. In each instance, the learners stated or implied that they were unable to detect their own errors, and that they needed assistance from

 Sara Cotterall and David Crabbe

a teacher or native speaker of the target language. In the following example, the learner complained of a lack of feedback in the course she was attending:

R: I couldn’t hear my mistakes that’s the only thing at university nobody tells you because there’s a hundred and fifty of you.. but nobody actually sits down and go [learner’s name] do you realise you’re doing the English ‘a’

One of the other examples in the interview data related to feedback on writing; in this case the learner identified the importance of feedback and claimed she needed a tutor or a reader to provide this for her:

Q: without your help it’s no point me writing something if nobody corrects it and helps me to find better ways of writing.

Summary of problem types When considered as a whole, this small corpus of learner interviews reveals a number of recurrent problem types, which reflect the normal range of learner differences in terms of confidence, motivation, goals and attributions of success and failure. This set of recurring difficulties has the potential therefore to serve as a starting point for dialogue with learners about appropriate solutions. A summary of the categories emerging from the interview data is presented in Figure 2. It is expected that with further data, this set of categories would expand. Main category of problem

Types of difficulty

Remembering

Remembering discrete linguistic items Remembering grammatical patterns Remembering fixed routines Hearing individual sounds Hearing differences in accent Achieving accuracy Organising and composing a text Achieving accuracy Achieving fluency Getting feedback on language errors

Hearing Writing Speaking Feedback

Figure 2.  Problem categories emerging from the interview data

The interviews also demonstrate a familiar pattern of interview discourse: a problem statement, followed by an attempted elaboration of the problem and an exploration of possible solutions. In the next section we discuss ways in which this set of



Learners talking 

problems and the broader problem-solution framework might prove useful to language learners and language teachers. How does a problem-solution perspective help the teacher? The basic task of a language teacher is not only to provide learning opportunities for learners but also to facilitate the use of those opportunities. Second language acquisition research indicates which opportunities are likely to be effective (see Crabbe 2003 for an overview): opportunities to process input, to interact with people on communicative tasks and to consciously understand the patterns of language are all considered useful. Other, more linguistic, types of research reveal new facts about language and how it is structured and used. Materials, including multi-media materials, are becoming more and more sophisticated in the way in which they present and contextualise information about language. Thus the management of learning is a complex task, drawing on multiple perspectives and involving action on a number of fronts. The task of language teachers is to facilitate the management of learning by helping learners understand and manage learning opportunities. A teacher, by their regular training, is aware of the range of language learning opportunities. Through dialogues with learners they are able to better understand the individual’s processes of take-up of those opportunities. That is, by working with learners who see themselves as having difficulties of some kind, we can begin to see why some learners are not using the opportunities in the most effective way. By recording the details of our conversations with learners such as these, and storing them as a database of problems and solutions, we enrich our understanding of the range and nature of possible problems and typical solutions. Such a database has several practical outcomes. Firstly, by being able to refer to a database of problem types with a range of actual exemplars, a learner’s difficulty can be acknowledged as common to all learners, rather than as an idiosyncratic difficulty. This may well impact positively on the learners’ confidence, reassuring them that they are not alone in experiencing this problem. The database is also useful for the teacher in that it has the potential to extend his or her expertise. Many language teachers initially entered the profession because of a personal talent for learning foreign languages. This may mean that many of the problems encountered by their learners are not ones they have experienced themselves. The database of problem types is able, therefore, to complement their personal language learning experience by providing a useful checklist of the range of possible difficulties.

 Sara Cotterall and David Crabbe

The database is also useful in helping learners and teachers refine the language learning problem. While it is natural for learners to initially state the difficulty they are facing in vague terms, this makes it difficult to know what action to take. The database can be useful in providing access to a more specific set of categories to be used in interrogating the problem. Similarly, a database of problem and solution types can facilitate the dialogue the teacher has with the learner, by allowing them to explore a number of options with reference to actual learners’ previous experiences. This is less likely to occur without the teacher’s prompting. Finally, the database is helpful once the learner is ready to explore ways of taking action to solve the problem. Considering examples of solutions matched with actual problems may prompt the learner to consider similar or alternative suggestions for action. It may also extend the range of options available to a learner who needs to work for an extended period of time on a particular language learning difficulty. As for the teacher, the database suggestions can complement the strategies which are immediately available to the teacher and which, naturally, reflect his or her personal learning style and preferences. This goes some way to correcting the natural learning bias of the teacher. A summary of these advantages appears in Figure 3. Usefulness of databases

Advantage to the learner

Teacher

Acknowledging the difficulty

A learner does not always know that a difficulty is one shared with other learners. A database indicates that a difficulty is common.

Refining the problem

A vague difficulty is difficult to deal with. A database offers a more specific set of categories to select from.

Choosing a response to the problem

A well represented problem can suggest a solution. A database of solutions matched with difficulties provides suggestions for action that can be taken.

A teacher’s experience in learning is not always typical. Personalities and conditions vary. A database provides a useful checklist of the range of difficulties. Similarly a database enables a dialogue with a learner to explore a number of options to describe the difficulty – something the learner might not be able to do without prompting. A wider range of strategies is available, some of which might be beyond the teacher’s experience or personal style of learning.

Figure 3.  The usefulness of a database of problems and solutions



Learners talking 

Implications for teacher education The implications for teacher education are clear. An orientation towards individual problem-solving in addition to general classroom activities is probably the key component of a teacher education programme that prepares teachers for fostering problem-solving dialogue about learning. Such an orientation requires transparency of purpose for all learning activities and encouragement of talk about learning. Developing the expertise for problem-solving dialogue comes through observation, experimentation, discussion and reflection. There are a number of ways in which these processes might be encouraged in teacher education: – Engaging in peer-assisted problem-solving about one’s own language learning. Reflecting on personal experience of problematic language learning and then experimenting with strategic responses will provide invaluable insight into some of the cognitive and affective demands of learning. – Working with case studies of learners, and particularly with data (preferably video-recorded) of the type included in this paper. Data should demonstrate the ways in which problems can be elicited and elaborated before a strategic response is found. – Exploring ways in which classes might be organised for personally beneficial problem-solving about language learning. There are many possibilities, including personal journals, regular dialogue in groups, dialogue with the teacher (depending on class size) and modelling problem solving/strategic behaviour with the whole class by eliciting difficulties. Conclusion We believe that a problem-solution framework is a powerful resource for dialogue. It enables teachers to accumulate experience of how learner-perceived difficulties might be variably represented, reveals patterns of difficulties as they are perceived by a number of learners and documents extensive experience of valid strategic responses to the difficulties. Understanding the learning endeavours of others seems a necessary prerequisite for a teacher who wishes to work with individual learners in becoming more autonomous. The mark of autonomous learners is their ability to generate meaningful activities to support the acquisition of forms, and to engineer opportunities to use language items which have to be learned. But many learners need considerable support both in taking advantage of the opportunities they have for developing language proficiency, and, more fundamentally, in understanding the nature and complexity of the task in which they are engaged.

 Sara Cotterall and David Crabbe

How we represent the complex task of second language learning governs the way in which we try to manage it. Clearly the simpler the representation the better, as long as it leads to effective learning. Representing language learning as extensive exposure leads us in one direction. Representing it as conscious understanding of grammar leads us in another. Neither of these polarised representations leave much room for learner exploration of the task, for exploration of how to undertake it. For this reason, we prefer to start with an open problem-solution frame for discussing language learning. If we can represent the language learning task in a particular context, for a particular learner, taking account of particular constraints and resources, then we avoid a one-method-suits-all approach and adopt a more honest professional position. This requires that dialogue about learning be an integral part of the classroom discourse: teacher-class dialogue, teacher-learner dialogue, learner-learner dialogue and learner dialogues with themselves through journals and other reflective activities. References Crabbe, D. 2003. The quality of language learning opportunities. TESOL Quarterly 37(1): 9–34. Krashen, S. 1985. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. Beverly Hills CA: Laredo. Little, D. 1995. Learning as dialogue: The dependence of learner autonomy on teacher autonomy. System 23(2): 175–181. Riley, P. 1997. The guru and the conjurer: Aspects of counselling for self-access. In Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning, P. Benson & P. Voller (eds), 114–131. London: Longman. Sinclair, B., McGrath, I. & Lamb, T. (eds). 2000. Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy: Future Directions. Harlow: Pearson Education.

Roles learners believe they have in the development of their language learning – autonomy included?* Christine Siqueira Nicolaides

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Through data generated in an ethnographic research project, which studies language learners (future English teachers), it was possible to observe that learners voice the importance of being in control of their own learning. Nevertheless, in the academic context, it seems they have an imaginary territory, where they can or cannot exercise autonomy. In the classroom, they agree that the one who owns the knowledge (teacher) should be in charge of class management, which includes the determination of content, duration of the activities etc. From the learners’ perspective, besides being the one who knows the content, the teacher is the one that knows the best way to learn too. Outside the classroom, though, the situation changes: they feel freer to act according to their own learning beliefs and empowered to make their own decisions. All these data have been collected during a whole school year, at Catholic University of Pelotas – Brazil, when the researcher tried to construct an emic view with her participants using a range of research methods.

Introduction Taking into account that, for this research, autonomy consists not only of being able to work independently, but also of being conscious of one’s role in the environment in which one is learning, then, after explaining the methodology procedures, I will try to show how learners here analyzed their behavior in this context. Secondly, I will show whether or not these same participants developed autonomy, and changed or not in particular aspects of their beliefs.

* I am particularly grateful to my colleague Vera Fernandes, whose suggestions have enriched this article.

 Christine Siqueira Nicolaides

Out of the nine participants studied, only data from Otávio and Antônia were used to illustrate the questions raised in this research (although some general data is also included). The reason why I chose them was because, in some way, each one’s set of features seemed to represent a larger universe. Otávio was selected because of his peculiarities. He is considered a rebel towards the academic system and, this way, shows some difficulties in adapting to the university environment; he acquired his knowledge of English on his own, without having previous contact with a formal way of learning the language; for this reason, I thought it would be interesting to analyze him in terms of autonomous learning. Next, I chose Antônia for being a learner that, despite all her difficulties while learning the language, is admirable for her drive to achieve her own aims. She is older than the other students, stopped studying for many years and shows her frustration, when she cannot adapt to the methodology proposed by the teacher. Methodology Data for this research were mainly generated at the self-access center – CAAL, located at the graduation Language Course of Catholic University of Pelotas – Brazil. There, students are being prepared to become English teachers. These data come from the following: – Six counseling meetings held individually with each of the participants and me (as a counselor), which were audiotaped and transcribed for later analysis. During these meetings, tests about past experiences, learning styles and strategy use were applied, to provoke reflection on beliefs and attitudes towards the students’ learning; – Filming and observation of three English classes where these participants were enrolled – the objective of this observation was to check how the students accepted the opportunity to have a more active role in the learning process; – Viewing sessions with the participants about their own classes so as to try to construct an emic view of what was happening there; – Meeting with the participants’ English teacher to get her perspective about how the learners took responsibility over their learning in class; – Writing a diary in which I wrote the history of the research, enriched with my impressions about the reactions of the learners, their teacher, the tutors at CAAL and my own, concerning the development of autonomous learning during this period. Taking into account the five metacognitive strategies presented by Rubin (2001: 27–29) concerning self-management (planning, monitoring, evaluation, problem



Roles learners believe they have in the development of their language learning 

solving and implementation), Holec’s (1981) conception of autonomy as well as the technical, psychological and political perspectives proposed by Benson (1997), I selected six aspects to be examined. They are: – How they define their aims in the course. – How they conceive their roles as learners. – How they try to reach their aims. – How learners prefer to work: in pairs, in groups or alone. – Whether they detect their difficulties as learners. – Whether they are capable of looking for solutions for their difficulties and problems. – How they deal with opportunities to make decisions over their learning. Autonomy and context In order to analyze the context in which the participants of this research are working, it is necessary to verify some specific factors. Firstly, examining their aims in the course. Secondly, looking at their roles in the pedagogical act – who should decide the content to be developed; with which depth; how it should happen; how long activities should take; how they should be evaluated, both in the classroom and out of it. Finally, analyzing how they deal with the opportunities offered by the context to exercise autonomy in their language learning. Learners’ aims in the course When the participants were asked to reflect on their aim in the Language Course, all of them, except for Otávio, knew how to define it right from the beginning of the semester. These students aim to master the English language, especially in terms of oral production: Transcription 41: meeting 1- Aug. 27, 20011 Researcher: What is your aim until the end of your graduation course?2 Antônia: To speak English perfectly. Transcription 42: meeting 5 – Nov. 18, 2001 Antônia: Ok, but I think that if I speak it perfectly, I think everything will be, yes, a consequence. I will teach perfectly, I will be able to pass. I 1. All transcriptions were taken from my PhD research and were originally produced in Portuguese. 2. All translations in this chapter are the author’s responsibility.

 Christine Siqueira Nicolaides

think I am going to be a great teacher. If I don’t, I am wasting my time here. And money, right?

Related to oral production, it is relevant to bring along some reflections proposed by Benson (2002), who makes the link between autonomy and communication. In one of his studies, developed at the Hong Kong University, Benson says that to explain this relationship it is necessary to show that “control over language learning does, in fact, depend upon the development of a psychological relation to the target language involving communication, creativity, and expression of personal meanings.” (Benson 2002: 18). Among the important conclusions in Benson’s study is the fact that learners get to a stage in which they report English as being a means of communication and not only a subject taught in school. Besides this, the author states that these students often get to a process he sees as self-directed, which can be considered independent from the educational institution. For Benson (2002: 28) “the exercise of autonomy in the context of language learning thus implies that autonomy also becomes, through communication, an attribute to situations and social contexts in which it is exercised”. Transferring this point of view not only to Antônia, but also to the great majority of the participants, the initial aim – to be able to communicate in the target language – seems to fit into the case mentioned by Benson. From the students’ perspective, taking control of their learning is related to their capacity to use English out of the classroom, in other words, being able to communicate in other learning contexts. What differs, otherwise, when comparing Hong Kong students to those in Brazil, is that despite all the resistance to the use of English in Hong Kong, there are more favorable conditions with regard to opportunities to practice the language, largely because of the presence of many foreigners living there, and also in working and academic environments. Students in Brazil, such as Antônia, seldom get the chance of achieving oral fluency. Their metacognitive awareness leads them to believe that this is the main objective in the Language Course, but every time they find obstacles, they feel frustrated and unmotivated. Such students believe that they will acquire competence in the target language without reasonable previous knowledge, and most of the time without any active participation in their own learning. When learning does not happen, they start to discredit the whole course. This causes even greater frustration and discomfort. This way, I think that if students, or at least some of them, come with the expectation, like Antônia for example, “to speak English perfectly”, it is necessary to reflect with them about the real conditions needed to achieve this goal. If we assume that what Benson concludes is true (that autonomy is related to their capacity to communicate in the target language), and that is also the case in Brazil (especially



Roles learners believe they have in the development of their language learning 

from the students’ perspective), it seems that our teaching and learning conditions need to be revaluated. Although a student such as Antônia has partly overcome her difficulties by the end of the year, we risk having to deal with moments like the ones faced by this learner, when she does not see her aim being achieved: she is full of anxiety, and the chances of giving up her studies are much greater: Transcription 57: meetings 4 and 5 – Nov. 18, 2001 Antônia: Oh, Roberta speaks well because she has studied in a course out of the university, you know? She knows, she has..., uh, Otávio, but to speak up facing everybody is not easy. I go, try, speak, not always right, you know, but I panic. Because I know it is necessary. I mean if I don’t speak, only writing is not enough. Researcher: Of course. Antônia: I … because… it is easy for me, there are words I have never seen, but if you say them I can write them perfectly in English. I don’t know where I got that from, right? But when I have to speak (sigh) I panic. It is more difficult, right?

In the middle of the semester, the participants were asked whether they had changed their aims and their attitudes towards achieving them or not. From the interviews, it was possible to notice that only Otávio had changed his initial aim. He entered the Language Course mainly because of the aptitude he thought he had in the English language. At that time, he had not defined his professional future. He had learned English outside a formal learning environment and independently, due to circumstantial matters in his personal life. Therefore, Otávio had been acquiring his knowledge only for pleasure, through songs, films and, most of the time, alone. Living in an academic environment, Otávio had the chance to share his previous knowledge of the target language with his colleagues, realizing his vocation to teach. Transcription 21: meeting 1 – Aug. 13, 2001 Researcher: What is your position today? What is your main objective in the Language Course? What is your aim? Until the end of the course. What are your perspectives? Otávio: Oh, professionally? Oh, sincerely I don’t have it... Researcher: It can be personal too, if not professional. Otávio: Yes, but I don’t have anything planned like that. But I am in the course because I am good in English and everything and oh, I have to explore my strong points, right? Researcher: Huh, huh.

 Christine Siqueira Nicolaides

Later on, by the end of the semester, Otávio demonstrates he has changed, as far as his initial aim is concerned: Transcription 22: meeting 5 – Nov. 11, 2001 Otávio: Right, it is because I came to the conclusion that I will be a good teacher, because honestly this research thing is not me. Because like this, I like to read, but I am a guy who reads only for pleasure, it doesn’t change – English, Portuguese, any language, I cannot read if not for pleasure. Transcription 23: meeting 6 – Dec. 05, 2001 Researcher: Do you face English today as a profession? Otávio: Huh, huh. But, it is difficult to explain, because I know English I had the impression everybody did too. That my presence wasn’t necessary. Then I realized it wasn’t like that.

I consider it highly favorable for the development of learner autonomy that learners have mostly defined their aims since the beginning of the course. As teachers, we should provide them with the opportunity to reflect upon their beliefs, brought from and built into other educational contexts, so they can decide whether they are appropriate to their objectives or not. On the one hand, we can observe some difficulties, due to the fact that we are dealing with adults and, consequently, with rooted beliefs which are more difficult to be transformed. On the other hand, we have the advantage of dealing with learners whose aims are defined. This advantage is especially important when comparing with adolescents, for example, who usually do not know or understand the real reasons for learning a foreign language, making them more vulnerable to lack of motivation and autonomy in their own learning. The learners’ role in their own learning In terms of roles in their own learning, there seems to be different behaviors among the analyzed participants. Here it is important to refer to some general results about the whole initial group studied. Regarding the way they conceive their role as learners, I present, in the following chart, summarized answers from the participants, accessed during one of the counseling meetings, in which I questioned them about who should be in charge of the various aspects of learning. In the following chart, I classify the answers into three types: – teacher – answers which suggest that students think the teacher should be responsible for specific aspects of teaching and learning;



Roles learners believe they have in the development of their language learning 

– student – answers which suggest they believe the student should determine that aspect; – negotiation – answers which suggest that participants believe there should be a negotiation among teacher and students. Table 1.  Participants’ answers about who should be in charge of each aspect of the pedagogical act Learner

Content

Depth

Form

Duration

Evaluation

Extra-class activities**

Roberta Otávio

* teacher

* teacher

* * * negotiation  negotiation  *

Luisa

negotiation  negotiation  negotiation  teacher

varied

learner

Victoria

teacher

teacher

negotiation  teacher

varied

learner

* learner

Rodrigo

*

*

*

*

*

*

Joana  

teacher

teacher

negotiation

teacher

varied

Maura

negotiation

teacher

negotiation

negotiation

Rafael

negotiation

teacher

negotiation  teacher

varied, selfevaluation, group’s and teacher’s evaluation Opposition to tests

teacher proposes learner decides *

Antônia

negotiation

negotiation

negotiation  negotiation  *

teacher proposes learner decides learner

Data not available either because the participant did not answer the item, because there were problems with the transcriptions or because the interview did not take place. ** Extra-class activities performed at home or at CAAL. *

Through the data shown, it is possible to observe that, although there is some diversity in their answers about who should be responsible for each aspect of what, how much, how, how long and how to evaluate, the teacher is seen as having most responsibility for the teaching and learning process. This position is especially highlighted in the items depth and duration. It seems that the motivation for this has to do with the fact that participants believe that the one who possesses more knowledge and experience about the matter to be learned is the one most suited to determine those aspects. Regarding the determination of the content and the time

 Christine Siqueira Nicolaides

spent on each stage, there is a division of opinions on how they should happen. Half of them think that the teacher should be in charge, while the other half thinks there should be negotiation. Here there is a discourse practice that has been mushrooming in the national scenario – one that encourages learners’ interests and preferences to be taken into account. Therefore, I suggest that it is necessary to analyze data more deeply so as to discover whether this is a belief put into practice or simply a discourse borrowed from some pedagogical theories. It is also important to remember what Freire (1970) tells us about critical pedagogy, that real change in the individual’s life that can only happen through critical reflection and collective action. Auerbach (2000) complements this, by saying that it is not only through attending to learners’ wishes during teaching practice that efficient learning can be achieved, but through providing them with opportunities for reflection to enable them to perceive which ones are the best paths to be taken. Ignoring the teacher’s or the institution’s role in this process is an equivocated idea, which can bring unfavorable consequences to learning, such as the student quitting his/her course, because he/she feels incapable or too lonely to go on. Auerbach’s reflection makes us believe that autonomy development does not only take place as a result of what the learner thinks, but that it should be the result of some negotiation between the two partners (learners and teacher). Learner’s beliefs should be the basis of reflection, stimulated by the teacher. Regarding evaluation, although not all participants have expressed it in an explicit way, the suggestion is that the teacher is the one who should evaluate the learner. Maybe because of the general form in which the question was asked by the researcher, only one participant mentions self-evaluation, teacher evaluation, and group evaluation as a whole. For this reason, I suggest that the belief that the teacher should be in charge of the evaluation is implicit. However, the participants make it very clear that they think evaluation should always be varied, so that different aspects can be appreciated, and also that it should be done through a range of instruments, not only through an exam, for example. With regard to learning outside the classroom, Barcelos’ (2001) contextual approach is relevant here. It consists in combining different methods, so that an emic view can be co-constructed. In this line of thought, while analyzing English learners, future language teachers, I tried to observe the influence of their previous language learning experience, not only through their beliefs, but also through their actions in a certain context. Therefore, as well as the classroom context, I examined how they behave in our self-access center, CAAL (Centro de Aprendizagem Autônoma de Línguas). One important conclusion of this study is that there seems to be a very strong demarcation of territories, in which learners feel they should exercise autonomy. Otávio, for example, demonstrated that he thinks it is only important to take charge of



Roles learners believe they have in the development of their language learning 

learning out of the classroom. Therefore, with regard to who outside the classroom should determine the content and duration of an activity and with which depth and which method, he is clear that the learner should be in charge. On the chart presented previously, it can be observed that six participants mentioned the student as responsible for what happens outside the classroom. Only two of them mentioned the possibility of the teacher suggesting what can be done outside the classroom, but even then, the one who makes the final decision is the learner. Here there is a territory demarcation, metaphorically speaking, in the classroom the teacher is the boss, out of it the learner is the one empowered to make decisions about his/her own learning. Students appear to think that the one who has the power (the knowledge) is the one who should determine what ought to happen during the pedagogical act, and that this changes in different contexts. Again, a demarcation shows up, now in terms of knowledge, between the one who knows less and the one who knows more (according to the learners’ perspective) outside the classroom. As an example, this can be perceived in the following extract transcribed from one of the interviews: Transcription 29: interview 2 – Aug. 29, 2001 Researcher: Well, who do you think should determine the content, in the classroom, that should be taught? Otávio: The teacher. Researcher: The teacher should determine that. Otávio: Yes. Researcher: Why do you think that? Otávio: Because the student doesn’t have...the student doesn’t know anything. Most of them get here knowing zero. Researcher: Huh, huh. Otávio : So the student has no way, the students can’t determine the knowledge without … huh, which is the content of the classroom, if he’s got no knowledge … … Researcher: OK. And at home? Who should determine? Otávio: uh, the student. Researcher: Then the student should be free? Otávio: Yes. Researcher: What to study, for how long, how, with what depth? Otávio: Huh, huh. It is not usual, though. Researcher : Excuse me? Otávio : It is difficult to happen. Researcher: It did with you.

 Christine Siqueira Nicolaides

Otávio:



Yes, but in my case it was different. I was flooded with English since I was a small child. Researcher : Flooded by whom? Otávio: By the TV. It’s a long story… My father worked for Bayer and the company gave him a VCR as a bonus. It was around 1973, a time when... Researcher: Very few people had VCRs. Otávio: Yes, and then my uncle opened a video rental shop…. and, since I was a child … let me see … from 5 to 16, I spent my whole time watching films.

So, according to the previous extract, Otávio, although having a different history in terms of language learning (exposure to a lot of input), advocates the idea that the teacher should be in charge of the decisions in the classroom, due to the fact that he has the knowledge. Nevertheless, even when the students have the opportunity to take the stand, because they have the right conditions (or knowledge), they do not do it, as I will mention later. I believe this is a significant finding in terms of autonomy, especially for those who think that learners do outside the classroom whatever the teacher tells them to. Even if, occasionally, the learner executes that which has been established by the teacher, it is possible to observe from data generated here that participants do not believe that this is how it should happen. According to them, decisions made outside the classroom are their responsibility; this idea can be seen both in the chart and in the extract above. The idea that the learner is only responsible for decisions outside the classroom context and only acquires the right to speak up after achieving a certain level of knowledge could be considered fine according to some researchers. The classic concept, proposed by Holec (1981), in which autonomy is defined as the ability to take charge, or as Benson (2001) prefers, to control one’s own ability, assumes that a completely autonomous student would also be responsible for his learning in the classroom. On the other hand, authors in the field do not mention that a learner must necessarily be responsible for all or part of his or her learning. So, if we consider the idea that the learner determines or thinks he/she should decide what should be done out of the classroom, we already have a step forward in terms of autonomy. Another positive aspect is that in a socio-interactive perspective, in which learning takes place first at the social level and afterwards at the individual one, it is important that the learner looks for other ways to learn interactively. In the case of the participants in this study, some try to achieve their aims by exposing themselves to input in the English language through movies, songs and group studies at



Roles learners believe they have in the development of their language learning 

CAAL, as well as through classes outside the university context and grammar studies. I also found suggestions from some of the participants, such as Internet chats, reading in the educational area, in-service studies in English language teaching, general reading in the target language, repetition drills, textbook exercises, research with the dictionary and interaction with other people who speak English. However, what is important is that being outside the classroom encourages students to interact in distinctive ways, which provides them with wider chances of learning than if they only experienced what happens in the classroom. Their opportunities to exercise autonomy Looking at extracts from the interviews, it was possible to observe that six out of nine participants state that there are opportunities to make decisions about planning, execution and evaluation of their learning. Only two of them declared that there is little space and one (Antônia) that there is no space to be in charge of their learning. Despite this, it is important to highlight that only four of them knew or remembered concrete situations in which there was space to make their own decisions. Another fact that could be perceived is that eight of them stated that they participate in such decisions whenever the opportunity is offered, even though they could not recall any such situations. At first glance, it might seem that the pedagogical praxis adopted here is ideal, offering spaces where teacher and students negotiate according to the preferences, styles, and learning strategies of the learners. When we analyze the observations made by the researcher during both the classes and the viewing sessions with students, the perspective tends to change, though. Transcription 64: meeting 3 – Sept. 10, 2001 Researcher: And Antônia, in terms of classroom decisions? Do you think students have the opportunity to make decisions or take part in the decisions that happen in the teaching and learning process? Antônia : No, this is obvious. I’ve said that before. We don’t take any part. Researcher: You don’t think so. Antônia : No, I don’t think so. Researcher : Isn’t there space? Antônia: No, no. Researcher: Or maybe there is and you don’t take it? Antônia: I don’t know. Here? Researcher : In the English class. Antônia: No, I know. Well, I think we speak, speak and little changes.

 Christine Siqueira Nicolaides

Transcription 20: viewing session 1 – Sept. 09, 2001 – class 2 Aug. 07, 20001 Rafael3: It is really difficult. Saying something you are not sure so to (______)4you, if you are not obligated, you will get stuck. Roberta: We have to feel obliged to speak. Rafael : Yes, even in the Portuguese class. For example, the, the initial tendency when I was asked was not to speak. When you are not sure you don’t even speak in Portuguese, for example.

Learners’ statements, their comments about their attitudes during classes (viewing sessions) and my class observations coincide to reveal that, where space is provided for them so that they can have an active role in their own learning, it is not taken up. This can be detected through the fact that the learners use little target language as a means of communication and rarely take turns during the pedagogical act, even in their mother tongue, Portuguese. They take turns, usually, only when requested by the teacher. A reason for this incoherence between the discourse and the practice of these learners could be that the activities proposed are not motivating enough to stimulate participation in a more active way. Another possibility is that the space offered by the teacher is only pro forma; in other words, due to habit or in order to make believe there is a democratic environment, the teacher asks the students what they think about a certain matter, but the teacher’s voice prevails most of the times, or possibly she simply does not give enough time for them to take turns. This is a significant fact that should be taken into account when the development of autonomous learning is the aim. As Candlin (1997: xi-xii) states, “autonomy cannot be legislated, independence can not be wished in the curriculum as anywhere else in the social polity”. Theoretically, Candlin says it is not sufficient to agree on or desire some space for autonomy in the educational context alone. Combined efforts are necessary so that it takes place not only in educational institutions, but also in teacher and educational policy legislation in the best interest of the learners; it is important to rethink the role of each of these social actors in the learning context and to take all points of view into consideration, so that the parties involved reach a common understanding. Obviously, this is a very complex path; especially when there is opportunity for more voices to speak up (besides the teacher’s or the institution’s), in this case, also the learners’, the possibility for conflicts to happen are greater. On the other hand, I believe that those conflicts are part of real learning, in which we will be, as Littlewood (1996: 429) proposes, “producing autonomous individuals through the production of autonomous students”. 3. Although data from the participants Rafael and Roberta were used here to illustrate the situation, this article focuses mainly on data from Otávio and Antônia. 4. Inaudible



Roles learners believe they have in the development of their language learning 

In this approach, we will be also supporting the learner in personal life, providing him/her the opportunity to become a person more capable of making choices and more prepared to face new times. In this sense, Antônia seems to be a fundamental participant in the setting here analyzed, due to her drive to reach her objective – to be fluent in the English language and her way of questioning the changes that take place in the social environment in which she is placed. Her interference causes negotiation between teacher and students in terms of learning, as I will be showing later on. Autonomy development This section aims to show the possible change of beliefs and, consequently, attitudes of the participants involved. In fact, such change is already observed by Kalaja (1995, in Barcelos 2001: 75) in which according to the author “beliefs can change from one student to another, from one time to another one, and from one context to another, or even within the same context and occasion”. This conclusion will be illustrated here through some examples related to the autonomy development of some of the participants, when conditions are favorable. Before moving onto these examples, however, it is worth taking a look at Barcelos (2001: 83) again, who makes a distinction between normative, metacognitive and contextual difference related to groups of beliefs under investigation: While in the normative approach beliefs are generally defined as misconceptions and are investigated out of the context, in the metacognitive approach beliefs are investigated through interviews, providing students more chances of using their own words and telling their own stories. Nevertheless, both normative and metacognitive approaches consider beliefs as a mental feature.... That does not mean that beliefs do not have a cognitive component, but it should not be forgotten that beliefs, as knowledge, are also inserted in a context. A definition of beliefs that take into account the context would be essential in understanding the role that beliefs play in language learning experience of students.

As it was said before, this research proposes an analysis of the beliefs and attitudes of learners within a contextualized approach. In other words, it tries to understand in which ways beliefs are reflected in the attitudes of learners inside and outside the classroom context. According to Barcelos (2001: 87), a study about beliefs should analyze: – learners’ experiences and actions; – their interpretations of these experiences; – the social context and how they adapt their experiences.

 Christine Siqueira Nicolaides

Transferring this idea to this study, questionnaires were applied, and the results generated data as input for the interviews. During these interviews, questions were raised concerning students’ responsibility over their own learning. These same learners were observed in the classroom and also took part in viewing sessions, in which they interpreted their actions as learners in the classroom. Finally, I tried to relate their beliefs to their actions and analyze the context in which they were working, verifying whether participants believed they had opportunities to exercise autonomy, whether they used such space, and whether this context was favorable to the development of autonomy, regarding their experiences and actions, and whether or not there were any changes. When we examine some examples in terms of beliefs, Otávio could be classified as an autonomous learner, if we consider autonomy the same as independence, since he acquired his knowledge of the English language without any support from a formal environment. However, if we take into consideration how autonomy is conceived here, the learner should be aware of his social role in the group, and also adapt himself to the requirements he has to comply with in the academic environment, which might change this view. There are two points to be taken into account. The first one is that although he had learned English by himself, this fact is not enough to consider Otávio an autonomous learner. Actually, he demonstrated great difficulty in getting organized, in accomplishing the tasks that were required, and also in interacting in the activities that happened in the classroom. Whether Otávio behaved like this simply because he did not want to get engaged in the activities due to lack of motivation or whether he simply could not do it, the reality was that he argued that he only did what was necessary to get a positive evaluation in his English classes. He did not show any social responsibility within the classroom group. In the technical and psychological versions of autonomy, proposed by Benson (1997), maybe these arguments would be enough to consider Otávio autonomous, since the context in these cases is not relevant. On the other hand, under a political view this can be seen as a disadvantage in terms of autonomy development since Otávio cannot adapt to a learning context and also does not seem to make efforts to exercise his most important right – the right of learning also in the classroom (although he learns out of it). Another point to consider about Otávio, however, is positive in terms of autonomy development. While in contact with his colleagues, he discovers teaching as a possible direction for him. Taking into account the concept of interdependence, which involves responsibility and collaboration among learners, it is possible that in Otávio’s case it was simply a matter of experience; because he was an only child, his only option was to learn by himself (watching movies, as he has mentioned before). But in his life as an adult, when he discovers the pleasures of shar-



Roles learners believe they have in the development of their language learning 

ing his knowledge, he changes his mind concerning his professional future. In this aspect, we could say there was progress in terms of autonomy. It is also interesting to note that Otávio went through a transformation only outside the classroom context. In class, from the teacher’s perspective, he is considered not very interactive and not cooperative. Otávio is quite aware of this attitude and continues with this behavior all semester long. Nevertheless, out of the classroom, he is thought to be a classmate who helps his colleagues, and he seems to be happy about this. The trigger to Otávio’s transformation was not the class itself, but the people who were part of the context. This fact reinforces the concept of interdependence and the importance of analyzing the wider context, so that we can understand the complexity of this process. What happened to Otávio leads us to believe that autonomy is also a matter of opportunity. At first glance, every human being is autonomous, so that he/she is capable of learning thousands of tasks in his/her lifetime, and can end up performing them without help. In language learning, it should not be different; it happens through social interaction, as long as there is opportunity for that to occur. When this option does not exist, however, as happened with Otávio, learning can still happen in another way. In this case, living in an academic environment was fundamental for a change: there he faced the chance to verify that he could be useful in teaching English to his colleagues (See Transcription 22: meeting 5 – Nov. 11, 2001). This emphasizes the role of the educational institution. In summary, Otávio’s examples show us that autonomy, besides being related to the context we are referring to, can be developed more in one context than in another one by the same learner. Here a complex chain of feelings is involved, ranging from personality factors to learners’ motivation to search for knowledge, and to share with other(s), according to circumstances. Another example to be examined is Antônia’s. Through generated data, this learner, right at the beginning of the semester, and also at the end, demonstrated changes in her beliefs, in terms of teacher’s and student’s responsibility for learning. Having to face a conflict in the classroom when she does not adapt to the methodology proposed by the teacher, Antônia questions her own belief that the teacher should be in charge of the determination of the content. She refers more specifically to two problems: lack of sequence in the activities (for example the fact that the teacher does not follow all the textbook exercises), and lack of explicit grammar studies. Transcription 53: meeting 3 – September 10, 2001 Antônia: No, I think there are too many assignments that don’t apply, too much. I think it should be demanded from us in class, you know.

 Christine Siqueira Nicolaides

But things which are relevant to that lesson we are learning. You know? You can’t be delirious, making up something, look at that antenna, you know? Oh, you could, ok, you see that antenna, you know? I think that... ... Antônia :

Oh, it’s important of course, we learned new words, but it is a waste of time, we go downstairs and we have to film, you know? I think it is better to stay in the classroom and try to study or review what we don’t know or continue the content, following the Atlas (the textbook), if we are following the Atlas it has to be that way. You cannot move like this, changing according to the wind. That’s what I think.

Transcription 61: viewing session Nov. 11, 2001 – class 2 – September 24, 2001 Researcher: What did you think about this class? Rodrigo: Oh, I liked it. I thought it was nice, it was stimulating, this kind of assignment. Antônia: Any kind of assignment which we can speak... Researcher: In a general way, do you think this class is better? Antônia: Well, of course, there were conflicts, but that happens, right? ... Antônia: Class management changed a lot. Researcher: Would you say this is the kind of class you are having today? Antônia: Oh, yes... it is much better. ... Antônia: I think the teacher, she interacts more with us now. Maura: There is more understanding. Antônia: And if we don’t know the question, the pronunciation, she repeats again. She seems to be more available... you know? Because in the other semester if I asked something I was wasting my time and now she is convinced, with this group it has to be different. Researcher: Do you think you came to an agreement? Antônia: Yes, of course. I think that, yes, there were efforts from both parts. Students realized... If it continues like that the tendency is to get better, we hope, right?

This transformation, more specifically on the teacher’s attitude, was caused by the conflict that happened in the classroom; on the other hand, I believe that also the interview influenced Antônia’s thinking. For almost a year during these meetings



Roles learners believe they have in the development of their language learning 

and also her attendance at CAAL, the participant showed a change in her beliefs and actions. As can be seen, in her second interview, she said: Transcription 43: meeting 2 – Aug. 27, 2001. Researcher: The content to be learned? Should it be decided by whom? The topics? Like family, best friends, jobs? Or whether should it be grammar, who should make the decision about what ought to be taught, learned? Antônia : Wow! This question has been asked before, hasn’t it? Researcher : Yes. Antônia: Ok. And I answered it should be the teacher, right? Researcher: Do you still think like this? Antônia: To be honest, I don’t know anymore. Researcher: Are you questioning? Antônia: Yes, I am. I think that (_______) because if not, the same thing is going to happen. The same difficulty we had the other semester. Researcher: Do you believe who is deciding the topics is the teacher, not you? (the students) Antônia: It’s like this … Yesterday, for example, it was very stressful.

It seems she realized that determining the content, for example, cannot be restricted to the teacher. According to her point of view, what was happening in the classroom was not appropriate to her learning style and after some reflection she ended up modifying her social environment in such a way that both parties (teacher and learners) could come to an agreement through negotiation. My opinion, as a researcher, about the way we analyze beliefs, especially when dealing with adults, can once more be enriched by Benson’s thought, already mentioned (Benson 2002). According to his study, there is a transformation throughout learners’ lives with regard to their orientations in relation to the learning content and process. In both of these, learners seem to go through a first stage, in which they are little aware of the importance of the target language, and believe that learning English is a question of learning what the teacher teaches. In the next stage, learners report that English starts to be part of their lives as a means of communication and they conceive learning the target language as self-directed and independent from the educational system. Even considering that in the case of our learners, not all of them get to the point where English is a part of their lives and a means of communication in order for them to achieve an ideal level of autonomy in relation to language learning, the fact that they go through transformations needs to be taken into account. If during a semester it is possible for a learner to display modifications in his/her way of thinking, it seems coherent to believe that an adult learner could have experienced

 Christine Siqueira Nicolaides

changes throughout life. Furthermore, the learner is, in fact, an individual who brings with him/her a significant quantity and quality of learning experiences that should be considered. Denying the existence of these beliefs does not favor autonomy development. Furthermore, and just as important, not considering teacher’s beliefs (which may be the same of the students’ or not) may cause a rupture in the pedagogical praxis, blocking learning. Final remarks From data generated in this research, I realized that learners generally produce a discourse about the relevance of discovering knowledge on their own. I believe this is a result of what has been preached in the educational scenario with regard to the importance of learner autonomy. Participants seem to conform to this regarding what happens outside the classroom. In class, however, there is a general agreement that the one who owns the knowledge (the teacher) is the one who should be responsible for managing the pedagogical act, including content determination, duration of activities, depth of content and evaluation. When I refer to knowledge I am not only talking about content, but also concerning experiences about learning itself. From the participants’ perspective, besides being the one who knows the content, the teacher is also the one who knows the best way to learn. Only at home, or in any other environment outside the classroom, is the student empowered to make decisions. Therefore, although they admit it is important to discover their own knowledge, they do not get involved in pedagogical matters and organizational and academic structures. These are topics which should concern the teacher only. Then again, all their aims are well defined. Except for Otávio, all of them, right in the beginning of the semester state their main objective to be linguistic competence in English, especially in terms of oral production. Moreover, they want to be teachers of the language. Therefore, as a rule the good teacher is one who manages to go through all the topics, teaching all the content in the syllabi, and helping his/her students to achieve pre-determined goals (usually set by the teacher). Unfortunately, relevant items like motivation, learning involvement, responsibility, creativity, ability to learn and produce knowledge through social interaction and aptitude to transform one’s own reality are very rarely included as evaluation criteria. The former are frequently the most highly considered. Finally, many educators talk about autonomy and agree about its relevance; nevertheless few have in fact reflected about its real implications, especially the political ones, in terms of autonomous learning. Within the political view of



Roles learners believe they have in the development of their language learning 

autonomy proposed by Benson (1997), every choice made in terms of teaching has political implications. In practical terms, those who try to implement this, both teachers and learners, are often restricted by an educational system which little favors the development of learner autonomy. One factor in this is the economic, a factor which, in a country like Brazil, with little resources for education, blocks technology, from specialized software and hardware to investment in staff who could look into new paths for implementation of autonomous learning. There is an urgent need to discuss the educational area, especially in language teaching, with regard to the best ways of facilitating autonomy in learners, without harming principles particular to their cultural contexts, which would result in autonomous learning failure. There will be need for years of study, both at an international and a national level, so that new paths are designed and tried in terms of autonomous learning development. I emphasize that, for this reason, teachers, learners and everyone involved in education should be willing to rethink their responsibility for learning. As Dickinson (1994) affirms, autonomy is not synonymous with total freedom; whatever context we are referring to, educational or otherwise, it is not viable to act only according to our own interests. There is a whole social structure that imposes rules and restrictions so that society can be self-organized. This does not mean that we should not stimulate our learners to adapt within these constrictions; it is also necessary to encourage a constant critical reflection on their own beliefs and attitudes as far as they affect their learning, and on how they can modify their environment. Learners’ awareness that they can also modify their social environment is fundamental, and it can happen with the support of the educational system. This whole process of reflection needs to be constant and profound, and to be developed over time. More important, however, as Crabbe (1993) suggests, an individual needs to be free to make his/her own choices. It is society’s role to provide all of its members with the opportunity, according to their peculiarities, to search for knowledge the best way it suits them within the possibilities offered by the context, always with the chance of extrapolating them, without jeopardizing their neighbors, so that as human being they are able to achieve their aims towards a happier life. To finish I quote Freire (1996: 66–67) Respect for each one’s autonomy and dignity is an ethic imperative and not a favor we can grant or not to others... The knowledge that I owe respect to autonomy and to the identity of the learner demands from me a practice in every way coherent with this knowledge.

 Christine Siqueira Nicolaides

References Auerbach, Elza. R. 2000. Creating participatory learning communities: Paradoxes and possibilities. In The Sociopolitics of English Language Teaching, J.K. Hall & W.G. Eggington (eds), 143–164. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Barcelos, A.M.F. 2001. Metodologia de pesquisa das crenças sobre aprendizagem de línguas: estado da arte. Revista Brasileira de Lingüística Aplicada 1(1): 71–92. Benson, P. 1997. The philosophy and politics of learner autonomy. In Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning, P. Benson & P. Voller (eds), 13–34. London: Longman. Benson, P. 2001. Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning. Harlow: Pearson Education. Benson, P. 2002. Autonomy and communication. In Learner Autonomy – Challenges to Research and Practice, P. Benson & S. Toogood (eds), 10–28. Dublin: Authentik. Candlin, C. 1997. General Editor’s Preface. In Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning, P. Benson & P. Voller (eds). London: Longman. Crabbe, D. 1993. Fostering autonomy from within the classroom: The teacher’s responsibility. System 21(4): 443–52. Dickinson, L. 1994. Towards autonomy: The integration of learner-controlled strategies into the teaching event. In Autonomy in Language Learning, V. Leffa (ed.), 2–12. Porto Alegre: UFRGS. Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogia do Oprimido. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra. Freire, P. 1996. A Pedagogia da Autonomia – Saberes Necessários à Prática Educativa. São Paulo: Paz e Terra. Holec, H. 1981. Autonomy in Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon. Littlewood, W. 1996. Autonomy: An anatomy and a framework. In System 24 (4): 427–435. Rubin, J. 2001. Language learner self-management. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 1 (1): 25–37.

Autonomous teachers, autonomous cognition Developing personal theories through reflection in language teacher education Penny Hacker and Gary Barkhuizen University of Auckland, New Zealand

In order for language teachers to meet the challenges of autonomy, we claim it is essential that they know what they believe about teaching and learning. Language teacher education programmes, therefore, should create opportunities for participants to examine and develop their personal theories of teaching. This conclusion was reached through conducting a study in which an inductive qualitative approach, based on a constructionist perspective of knowledge and learning, was used to investigate the personal theories of 20 language teachers. We wanted to discover how their experience over one course in their programme of education may have influenced their cognition. To do this we examined their own analyses of a series of personal reflective journal entries each of them had written during the course. Through inductive analysis we were able to identify a number of salient categories; that is, individual articulations yet one collective articulation of the teachers’ experiences. The articulations revealed that over the course the vast majority of teachers gained further understanding of their personal theories, that the reflective process was central to their experience and that engaging in reflection itself generated confidence for many teachers toward their personal cognition. Furthermore, their articulations support our belief that reflection continues to play a valuable role in teacher education, particularly as it pertains to teachers’ developing personal theories. The teachers’ analyses also reveal that confidence in their own theories may be gained directly from engaging in reflection. We conclude that the mental space afforded teachers in courses of education promotes such reflection and thus prepares them to be effective autonomous teachers.

Introduction In contrast to the established transmission-based philosophy of teaching which has largely informed teacher education, the relatively recent shift has been towards

 Penny Hacker and Gary Barkhuizen

“constructivist, process-oriented theories of learning, teaching, and teacher learning” (Crandall 2000: 35). Kumaravadivelu (2001: 541) reflects this in his view of teachers as “autonomous individuals” who “construct their own context-sensitive pedagogic knowledge”. Similarly, Borg (2003: 81) has described teachers as, “active, thinking decision-makers who make instructional choices by drawing on complex, practically-oriented, personalised, and context-sensitive networks of knowledge, thoughts, and beliefs”. This concept of the uniquely personal cognitive quality of teaching has been extensively discussed (Pajares 1992; Verloop, Van Driel and Meijer 2001) and variously named (Borg 2003; Burns 1992; Richards 1998; Woods 1996). Among its proposed terms are “teachers’ personal theories”, “teacher cognition” and “teachers’ mental lives”. Regardless of the terms used however, it is essential to recognise that research in this area (see, for example, Almarza 1996; Woods 1996) indicates the integral place that the concept has in teachers’ professional development, and that its influence cannot be underestimated (Richards 1998). This being so, we claim that it is essential for teachers to know what they believe about teaching and learning in order for them to develop as effective autonomous teachers. We work with the idea that an autonomous teacher, as McGrath (2000) suggests, is one who has control over their own life by engaging in “self-directed professional development” (p. 100) and who operates with “freedom from control by others” (p. 101) (see also Barfield et al 2001; Benson 2000; Diorio 1982; Usuki 2001). We were therefore interested to understand the development of language teachers’ personal theories of language teaching during a course in the postgraduate language teacher education programme at the University of Auckland and how the findings may relate to teacher autonomy. Language teachers’ personal theories and teacher education A comprehensive review of both the conceptual and research literature on teacher knowledge and learning to teach is Freeman’s (2002) article focusing on “the hidden side of teaching” (p. 1) namely, teachers’ mental lives. His commentary provides an historical background to the present topic area as he traces the changing views of teacher cognition across both general education and English language teaching contexts. He does this to answer the question, “How have we come to understand the learning and the knowledge that go into making teachers’ mental lives?” In forming a response, Freeman (p. 3) uses four themes, also posited as questions: – How do teachers learn content and teaching practices? – How are teachers’ mental processes conceived? – What is the role of prior knowledge in learning to teach? – What is the role of social and institutional context in learning to teach?



Autonomous teachers, autonomous cognition 

He seeks answers to these questions in each of three time frames: the period leading up to 1975, naming it “The status quo ante” (p. 3), when teaching was in its transmission mode; “The decade of change” from 1980 to 1990 (p. 5) and which Elbaz (1991) sums up as a time when teachers themselves were given the “right to speak for and about teaching” (p. 10); and “The [following] decade of ‘Consolidation’”, when changes of the 80s were firmly established (Freeman 2002: 8). This final time frame was inspired by the post-modern stance; a perspective asserting that “any knowledge depends on a plurality of views, reflects a relativity of position in establishing those views, and can be promoted or ‘silenced’ depending on how power is used” (p. 8). During the 90s, then, postmodernism influenced the view of how teachers learn content and teaching practices. These two previously quite distinct features were now seen as one connected entity (Freeman 2002: 9). Additionally, in this perspective it is teachers’ social identities that impact their mental processes; their thinking is relative to their entire social experience. And this “positionality of knowing” depends, of course, on past as well as present and anticipated experience so that a teacher’s previous knowledge “becomes one more position from which to know” (p. 9). Also, the post-modern concept of context changed the idea that it is merely everything that surrounds an event. Context took on an inclusive characteristic; that teachers may also base their ‘public’ classroom responses and action on a multiplicity of different yet interrelated personal meanings derived from their varied histories and knowledge bases; a notion that Cazden (1988: 27) names “contexts in the mind”. Freeman (2002), in concluding, offers several insights that group together what he believes are important educational implications. Most importantly for our study is that “The aim of teacher education must be to understand experience” (p. 11). This ongoing process is central to teachers making meaning of their work. And to facilitate this, he argues for teachers to learn the skills of reflectivity, as Stanley proposed in her (1998) study. Reviews of the sizable body of related, purely general teacher education research include those by Calderhead (1996), Carter (1990), Fang (1996), Fenstermacher (1994), and Verloop, Van Driel, and Meijer (2001). Most recently, and of particular relevance here, is Borg’s (2003) review article. He selects and analyses a wide range of research projects on teacher cognition, solely within the language teaching field. Among them are several involving “Teacher cognition and teacher education” (pp. 88–91). One way to look at the studies we include in this group is to consider them in light of the central themes that appear across their findings and methodologies. Borg (p. 91) identifies four, all of them relating to the impact of education on language teacher cognition: “variable outcomes and individual developmental pathways”; behavioural and cognitive changes; the content,

 Penny Hacker and Gary Barkhuizen

structure and processes of cognitive change; and the range of data types that evidence cognition and its change. Richards, Ho and Giblin in their (1996) study of five trainee language teachers in Hong Kong contribute to the decade-old debate that teacher education impacts teacher cognition. They found that a course of study did impact the trainees’ mental lives, although each of them interpreted it differently as they deconstructed it “in light of their teaching experiences and reconstructed it drawing on their own beliefs and assumptions about themselves, about teachers, about teaching, and about learners” (p. 258). This study illustrates the notions of variable outcomes and individual developmental pathways. Almarza’s (1996) research highlights similarly variable outcomes but between behavioural and cognitive changes. Her four foreign language teacher participants all demonstrated behavioural changes in their teaching practice in response to the course content, “yet the degree of [cognitive] acceptance was subject to a great deal of variation” (p. 71). They also left the course with “different kinds of knowledge about the dynamics of teaching and learning languages” (p. 72), due largely to the influence of their individual pre-course theories. Dissatisfied with findings of previous studies that indicated teacher education has little impact on teachers’ cognition, mainly because they apparently focused on the content of participants’ thinking, Sendan and Roberts (1998: 2) considered how one student teacher’s (Orhan) personal theories changed over fifteen months. They based the study on Kelly’s (1955) personal construct psychology and discovered that whilst the content of Orhan’s personal theories did not change markedly, their hierarchical structure definitely did, and this was through complex “cycles of deconstruction and reconstruction in his theories” (p. 1). Processes of cognitive development, rather than its content were the focus of Cabaroglu and Robert’s (2000) research. Their data, transcriptions of in-depth interviews with twenty PGCE Modern Languages students, revealed “a set of change process categories” (p. 387). The study demonstrates both the flexibility of teachers’ beliefs and that changes do occur during teacher education, particularly when process rather than content is evaluated. A variety of data types is used in the studies on the impact of teacher education on teachers’ personal theories. Typically they are tools of qualitative research, although two quantitative questionnaire-based studies, examining changes in the content of teachers’ cognitions, have recently appeared (MacDonald, Badger & White 2001; Peacock 2001). Among the various forms of data used in the qualitative studies four employed reflective writing as data bases and only two, Bailey et al.  (1996) and Numrich (1996) examined participants’ own analyses of their reflections. Bailey et al. (1996) emphasise the personal value of analysing their own reflective writing. In turn, this



Autonomous teachers, autonomous cognition 

ownership means that “the author is the only person who can analyse these … [personal] experiences and turn them into a resource for his or her own professional development” (p. 27). We concluded that participants’ analyses of their own reflective writing may be an excellent means to capture elements of teachers’ personal theories of language teaching during a teacher education course. The purpose of the study, then, was to understand something about the way the teachers interpret their experiences while engaging in the course and how this impacts their mental lives. And, “in order to understand, we are obliged to hear the multiplicity of meanings given to what is done by the people who undertake teaching and learning” (Breen 1991: 232). Our purpose was purely to listen and to attempt to hear what teachers say about their world in a particular education context. To guide us towards achieving this, we asked the following questions: 1. What do the teachers say about their own personal theories of language teaching over the course? 2. What do the teachers say about the relationship between their theories and the course? The next section addresses the study’s methodology and describes how we set about answering these questions. Methodology “As with all research traditions”, Ellis & Barkhuizen (2005: 254) declare, “there is no one way of doing qualitative research”. Where the main interest of researchers is to understand a particular phenomenon, Merriam (2002) identifies several core options within the qualitative paradigm: “grounded theory, phenomenology, narrative, ethnography, case study or … a basic interpretive study” (p. 37). The phenomenon we wished to explore was that of teachers’ developing personal theories in relation to a course of postgraduate education and we deemed Merriam’s final interpretive qualitative research option, an approach informed by constructionism, phenomenology and symbolic interactionism, as most appropriate for our study (Edge & Richards 1998). Context and participants The course, entitled “Second language course design and teaching methodology”, ran over a twelve-week semester with one two-hour lecture each week. Students were assessed through two written assignments, one relating to the content in the first half of the course and the other to the whole course. The 20 research

 Penny Hacker and Gary Barkhuizen

participants from a range of language backgrounds were all professional language teachers and varied in teaching experience from 6 months to 24 years. Some had been practising teachers prior to the course, others were teaching at the time of the study, and a range of languages taught were represented in the group. Each teacher was given a pseudonym to preserve their identity. Data collection Data collection procedures included two sets of semi-structured interviews, carried out mid-way through the course and at its conclusion; our own observations of each course lecture recorded as either written notes or audio-taped accounts; and documents in the form of the lecturers’ course notes and the two course assignment rubrics. Additionally, and central to the study, were two other forms of document analysis; participants’ written journal entries and their analyses of these entries. Although “journal writing has been around in the world of language teacher education for some time” (Barkhuizen 1995: 22), it is still widely accepted, particularly as a medium for reflection (Freeman 2002; Orem 2001; Reagan & Osborn 2002; Richards 1998; Tsui 2003; Wallace 1999). However, as Wallace (1999: 183) points out, there are “multiple interpretations of reflection”. It is beyond the scope of this discussion to consider the notion of reflection in depth, except to note three important points: it may be valuable as an agent of change (Reagan & Osborn 2002; Wallace 1999), as a tool for teachers to explore their personal theories of teaching (Wallace 1999) and for them to effectively reveal their interpretation of experience (Reagan & Osborn 2002); in this case, during an advanced course of education. Also pertinent is Dewey’s (1933) view of reflection; that it may occur only when a problem exists to be solved. The participants, in analyzing their journal entries may be seen to be addressing an actual problem; that of discovering their personal theories of language teaching. In this way, the analyses can be viewed as genuinely reflective and thus reveal a depth of teachers’ insight that would be lost if the journal entries were interpreted by someone else (Bailey et al. 1996). Numrich (1996) adds that an analysis of the writers’ analyses by another person may highlight possible common themes across a group of writers. For these reasons we chose to use teachers’ analyses of their own reflective writing as the primary data. The journal entries themselves formed our secondary data whilst the other data sets were supplementary. Using their own journal entries as primary data for analysis, the students were to write their final assignments towards the end of the course. However, we assumed that there would be some class members who were unfamiliar with the genre of reflective journal writing (see Barkhuizen 1995). We therefore introduced the practice during a short workshop at the beginning of the course and, for the



Autonomous teachers, autonomous cognition 

journal writing to have a purpose, the students were given their second assignment topic and a guide to the first of five journal entries (JE.1) they would generate over the course. For each subsequent JE, the teachers received a single-page guide. Other than for the first entry, we attempted to be non-prescriptive, mainly suggesting that teachers reflect on recent course content. Our main concern was to encourage participation in the reflective process yet give the teachers freedom in their choice of course-related content. It is important to note that, although journal writing and subsequent analysis were integral to the assessment for the course, they were not made compulsory. The literature indicates that for some people, journal writing is not a preferred or successful form of reflection (for example, Barkhuizen 1995). All class members were therefore offered an alternative final assignment task of an equivalent work load, yet, interestingly, no one chose this option. Consent to contribute to the research was also gained from the participants. Data analysis To determine the most salient aspects (Davis 1995; Ellis & Barkhuizen 2005) of what the teachers were saying, the corpora of teachers’ final assignments, journal entries, and some supplementary data were coded (Miles & Huberman 1994; Ryan & Bernard 2000) using “chunks of text that reflect a single theme” as the unit of analysis (Ryan and Bernard 2000: 75). This stage of the analysis, allocating thematic tags, began deductively by working on the first JEs as a top-down exercise with the coding growing more inductively bottom-up as additional themes became evident in the texts themselves (Ellis & Barkhuizen 2005). From more than 120 themes, central concepts or categories that answered the research questions were identified. In the next section we present these categories as we discuss the results of the study. Findings Using the process of data analysis as described, we identified three salient categories that contribute to the understanding we sought: ‘progression’, ‘reflectivity’ and ‘confidence’. Each category represents different teachers’ voices, and for this reason we drew them together as a single entity; ‘articulation’. It is the articulation, the participants’ expression in words about their personal theories, that we present and discuss here. The categories themselves may also be perceived as individual articulations and we sometimes use this term when speaking of these concepts. The articulations, then, form a response to the research questions.

 Penny Hacker and Gary Barkhuizen

What do the teachers say about their personal theories of language teaching over the course? This question guided us to listen particularly for perceptions teachers may have of any development in their own personal language teaching theories during the course. It was based on the assumption that teachers who explicitly considered, in their analyses, their personal theories at the start of the course were more likely to provide a fuller perspective on their development across the course than those who did not. Over half the participants met this criterion and it was to these whom we initially listened. The articulation subsequently recognised and named in the primary data was that of progression.

1.

Progression Progression may be defined as “a gradual movement or development towards a destination or a more advanced state” (Pearsall 2001), or again as “the process of moving forward or developing, especially in stages or gradually” (Hornby 1995). The concept fits well, we believe, both with the constructionist approach to the present study and with the teachers’ perceptions. The idea of movement, albeit gradual and maybe in stages, nevertheless suggests a dynamic process rather than a static position and, furthermore, represents the movement towards a destination; in this case, the advanced or more complete state of knowing. Among the teachers who say something about their theories prior to or towards the beginning of the course, we make two broad distinctions; those who recognise that their cognitions were essentially implicit and those who convey some level of tentativeness toward the notion of a personal theory. We consider examples from both groups and then look at one teacher whose analysis is an apparent exception to either group. Of those teachers whose initial cognitions were essentially implicit, Satomi remarks that “my personal theory of language teaching was … only a nebulous thought at the beginning of the study”. “To be honest,” she told us in the second interview, I don’t think I was aware that I did have a [personal theory]. That was a major surprise. Looking back on the journal I didn’t expect to find much … I was quite surprised to find that I actually did have a language teaching theory. At the beginning it seemed to be just like a nebulous idea.

Satomi appears to have been unaware of her developing theory whilst writing her journal entries. It was in her reflective writing analysis that “I sort of saw at the end of that [second] assignment that it was formulated. It was … it appeared. Almost out of



Autonomous teachers, autonomous cognition 

nowhere”. Thus, from a hazy, cloudy understanding at the start of the course, Satomi’s theory becomes surprisingly evident to her as she analyses her journal entries. In her journal entry (JE) analysis Yoko explains how “as I learned more (through lectures and my reading)” she was making connections between this “new knowledge and myself (my experience, my previous theory, if I had any)”. As she interacted with the lectures and literature, everything I heard or read became more personal and more relevant to my situation … I realised that I had a set of beliefs concerning teaching and learning and that they were being reinforced or modified.

Later in her analysis Yoko recalls her previous teaching experience. She was dissatisfied with what was happening in her classroom: But I failed to articulate exactly what I did … or what my theory was. However, as I tried [during the course] to remember, I realized I did have certain beliefs and theories about teaching/learning.

Yoko goes on to say, “I had felt constrained by the tightly set syllabus and boring, meaningless drills, but that attitude was tantamount to dependence”. However, “now I understand why I felt so constrained”. It is as though, as Yoko looks back to her practice and describes what was happening, she realises why it was that way, and, given the same situation again, would be able to create a more positive learning environment. She writes, “I started to think ‘I could have done’ this and that”. Other teachers were tentative about the notion of a personal theory. Ikumi registers her uncertainty when she says, “At the beginning of the course … I had doubts if I had even had my own personal theory of language teaching”. She also records that, I had probably never been aware of what I had been doing in my teaching, examined it critically and thought about it systematically in relation to the established theories of language teaching.

An extract from Ikumi’s journal supports her statement: “I hardly ever stopped to think about labels of methodology or approaches of any kind that I could put onto my own teaching”. She sums up her JE analysis with equal honesty: I still cannot say that I have reformulated my teaching theory, because I think I have just realized the fact that I have a theory. This is only a starting point for me to develop my personal theory of teaching in the future.

 Penny Hacker and Gary Barkhuizen

Paul also conveys tentativeness at the start of the course. He remarks that “I initially felt nervous about developing a personal theory”. It seems to be the connotation of ‘theory’ that creates his sense of apprehension, for in his journal he writes, At first I was somewhat nervous talking about my theory of language teaching and learning. Chomsky talks about theory. Krashen talks about theory. Long talks about theory. [Smith’s] theory of Language Learning seemed a little pretentious and a little beyond me. Then I realised that it doesn’t have to be a theory, it can just be a theory.

With the realisation that every theory is not necessarily a ‘grand theory’, Paul begins to acknowledge his own personal theory. In his analysis he refers to several JE extracts to illustrate the movement: … my personal theory did develop from early entries to later entries, it moved from being a largely implicit, belief-based theory (JE. 1) to being a more explicit, knowledge-based theory (JEs. 3;4) before showing signs of the beginning of a synthesis of both of these aspects into a coherent whole (JE. 5).

In contrast to the teachers who articulated progression either from an implicit to a more explicit personal theory or from a tentative state to being more assured in their theories only two teachers appeared to be explicitly aware of their cognition at the start of the course. One teacher perceived a progression in her personal theory. The other teacher, however, detected virtually no change in her cognition during the course and in this respect is an exception to either group mentioned so far. Claire writes in her analysis: “… the personal theory that I stated three years ago is almost identical to the theory I feel I have discussed in this paper”. In the second interview, after the course, she told us: I was disappointed and shocked … because I just thought that, surely after one year of real teaching and one semester of more learning that maybe something had changed a little. And really, it was so similar.

Claire was prompted to talk more about this perception and she responded by mentioning some ideas she had gained from the course: The ideas are more, like, tasks. Not really theories. I don’t deal … I don’t work in theories. I actually have a problem with the whole idea of a theory. I mean, I think everyone has a theory, sure. And it’s probably a good thing to explore a theory, your theory or other people’s theories. But I think you do it anyway without having to formally do it. Okay you teach this way and I teach this way and that’s your theory.

Here, Claire states that “the whole idea of a theory” is difficult for her to accept, although she believes every teacher has a theory and it may be “a good thing to explore”. She believes, though, that this is an inevitably natural occurrence, that



Autonomous teachers, autonomous cognition 

“you do it anyway”, for example, when talking over activities with colleagues, making a ‘formal’ exploration unnecessary. Claire mentions how she tends to act without really thinking about the activities in which she engages her students, and that, for her, the outcomes are what they are. A central tenet of the study is that knowledge is constructed through the hard mental work of making meaning of experience (Freeman 2002; Reagan & Osborn 2002). This premise, when applied to the issue of developing personal theories of language teaching, highlights the importance of teachers paying particular attention to the reasons for their actions in order to make sense of their practices. For example, Yoko’s experience of looking back at her previous teaching situation and explicitly articulating what she did and why, helps her both to recognise her theory and to be able to detect the changes it undergoes. We suggest that this principle may be connected with Claire’s apparently unchanging cognition, and will be discussed further in a subsequent section. There is evidence, then, among the teachers in this study of cognitive rather than behavioural change, and it is the process rather than the content or structure of cognitive changes that become evident in the articulation of ‘progression’. Borg’s (2003) notion of “variable outcomes and individual developmental pathways” is apparent in the teachers’ cognitions as they respond to the course of teacher education (2003: 91). A glance through the summary of findings above offers examples, no less sharply evident than between Satomi’s, Paul’s and Claire’s ‘progression’. In addressing Freeman’s (2002) second question of how teachers’ mental processes are conceived, the majority of the teachers convey not only how important it is for them to understand what they do and why but also to personally validate these cognitions in order to make on-going meaning of their teaching. Thus awareness and validation are apparently vital constituents in teachers’ mental processes. We now move on to address the second research question. What do the teachers say about the relationship between their theories and the course? One salient articulation in response to this question did not initially seem to fit neatly into our interpretation of ‘the course of study’. The reflective writing process itself was not an obvious course component, yet it was an integral part of the teachers’ experience and thus very much part of the course. The second articulation we perceived was that of confidence.

2.

Reflectivity “Reflective thought”, proposed Dewey (1933: 9), is “active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the

 Penny Hacker and Gary Barkhuizen

grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it tends”. It is the teachers’ articulations concerning reflectivity, the process of reflection, including writing journal entries and their subsequent analyses, which we now consider. We detected four aspects of reflectivity in the teachers’ comments. Many participants speak of their initial response to journal writing, while a great number express the benefits of reflectivity. Some teachers recognise difficulties connected with the reflective process and two participants recognise their non-reflective approach to journal writing. Among the many teachers who articulate their initial response to journal writing there are some for whom the idea of journal writing was a completely new experience. For example, Elaine writes: “My one and only experience of reflective journal writing [was] undertaken during this course”. Further on she comments that “I was suddenly struck by just how useful a technique the journal writing had been. My own journey of discovery [was] charted in my journal …” Elaine’s voyaging metaphor reveals the exploratory nature of the process; her journey to understanding mapped in her reflective writing. We suggest, then, that even though teachers may be new to a particular tool for reflection they may still use it to effectively understand and make meaning of their worlds. Other teachers, like Beth who says, “I am dubious”, seemed to be unconvinced about the idea, while another teacher, Joan, “had some difficulty in getting started”. Yoko represents others who were unenthusiastic: “At first I was a reluctant writer. I had no idea what it would lead to. I felt pressured and was constantly worried [about] what I could write next time”. Those who were initially unconvinced about the potential value of journal writing nevertheless willingly engaged in the activity. Beth remarks, “I’m glad I’ve had the opportunity to journal again. I’m not a naturally reflective person and the discipline is a very useful one”. Joan, although struggling to begin, “became more and more interested in this process [of reflection]”. The reluctant writers also recognise the value in reflection. Yoko, having felt pressured and anxious writes: However, as I learned more (through lectures and my reading), I realized that the pressure forced (or enabled?) me to make a connection between the new knowledge and myself … I started journal writing reluctantly, but in the end it enabled me to see where I am and where I want to go.

Given that at the start of the process, for whatever reasons, many participants were less than positive about reflective writing, it is notable that they all persisted. Not only this, they also speak of the subsequent personal value of journal writing. These teachers’ stories may therefore serve to encourage other skeptical, struggling or unenthusiastic journal writers to at least trial the activity.



Autonomous teachers, autonomous cognition 

Other teachers speak about the benefits of reflectivity. For example, having presented her changing personal theory over the course, Holly remarks: I can say that journal writing ... has pedagogic value in helping make explicit, implicit theories of teaching. My question to myself is why haven’t I taken this journey before?

Tracy explains that, “the journal has served as a reflective, self-discovery process through which I have been developing my own language teaching theories as a second language teacher”. She continues: “It provided me with tangible evidence of the mental process ... It also enabled me to articulate connections between new information and what I already knew”. Through reflective writing, Tracy makes connections between her own experience and new information. She describes how the process enables her to ‘see’ her own thoughts and in this way express these connections. The benefits of reflectivity are central in Paul’s experience of the language teaching course. He notes that “in some ways this journal project can be seen as a personal experiment in reflective practice”, and goes on to explain: Perhaps more important than actual changes to my personal theory itself, was the understanding of what is involved in uncovering my personal theory of language learning that began to develop ... The realisation that developing reflective practices can help me close the gap between theory and teaching in a personal way is arguably the most important theme to arise from this journal project.

Paul perceives his developed understanding of the reflective process as more significant than specific changes he observes in his personal theory, illustrating the view that “the primary concern of teachers … should be the depth of critical thinking rather than the breadth of content knowledge” (Kumaravadivelu 2003: 20). It is reflectivity as a tool for bringing together multiple aspects of his teaching experience, and its vital provision of the “impetus to change” (Wallace 1999: 182) that benefits Paul the most. Yet, although the participants articulate many advantages of reflectivity, certain difficulties are also highlighted. Phoebe speaks of the challenge involved in producing “an objective critique of one’s own entries. What is needed” she says, “is a collaborative effort among teachers in a reciprocal critique to share knowledge and values”. Indeed, mutual critique among language teachers may be one way to gain objectivity and exchange ideas (Bailey et al. 1996; Farrell 1998). Claire, Jitto and Rita mention the problem of time constraints. Claire comments that “the idea of reflective journal writing is a good one, but I think in practice it is just not practical because it is so time consuming”. Jitto points out that “demands on [teachers’] time leaves little time for reflection and writing, which

 Penny Hacker and Gary Barkhuizen

leaves theorists to develop the theories”, and the prospect of journal writing seems intimidating to Rita who can see “the amount of time and energy that would be required from me”. Jitto reaches beyond pragmatism. She highlights what she sees is an inevitable outcome of the requirements on teachers’ time that prevent reflectivity; and laments the monopoly a few experts have on theories. Somewhat differently, Rita seems to see the reflective process itself stealing her time and energy. Time, then, may influence the reflective process practically (see Stanley 1998), politically (see Clarke 1994) and personally (see Nieto 2003). Claire and Rita are teachers who come to realise that they may have taken a nonreflective approach to journal writing. “I began to question whether I was really being reflective in my journal entries”, writes Claire, referring to Richards and Ho (1998) who state that, “the mere fact of writing about teaching does not necessarily involve critical reflection” (p. 162). Rita describes her experience: “… after reviewing my five journals, I did not find many traces of self-reflection. I must admit that I had not moved beyond description to a more reflective mode of writing”. Consequently, she had little useful data to analyse for evidence of her personal theory of teaching. Yet both teachers examine their data critically enough to recognise this non-reflective tendency and we suggest that the experience may itself contribute to their growing ability to be reflective in the manner they come to identify as truly reflective. However, it is useful to examine Claire’s experiences a little further. In her articulation of ‘progression’ she is shocked to discover that her personal theory of teaching had not changed over the course; indeed, over the previous three years. Giving an explanation for her journal writing not always being reflective, she comments: I think this was due to my lack of experience with reflective writing. It is something that I have found takes a lot of time, thought and energy to really attempt to reflect critically on your teaching and learning.

As we noted above, Claire finds time constraints to be a central issue in reflectivity. Here, she adds lack of experience in reflective writing and the amount of thought and energy needed for the exercise. Previously it was apparent that Claire favours a relaxed, informal approach to both theorising and teaching. Gilpin (1999) states that to be a reflective teacher “is not a soft option, but one that demands intellectual rigor” (p. 114) and Kumaravadivelu (2003: 20) speaks of “the intellectual activity (i.e., the thought process) needed to theorize”. From an interpretive constructionist perspective, an involvement in the tough process of reflective thought is essential in order to develop theory. This would seem to be borne out by the many teachers’ articulations of progression as presented in the previous section. Reflectivity is definitely a challenging undertaking and “not as simple as it may seem” (Stanley 1998: 586). Yet, we suggest that if teachers are to develop their



Autonomous teachers, autonomous cognition 

personal theories, they would do well to engage in the demanding exercise of reflection, giving rigorous, time-consuming and energy-demanding interpretive thought to their practice and learning experiences. Not to reflect is likely to return minimal understanding of experience and thus limited development of personal theory. This may be one explanation for Claire’s perceived lack of change in her personal theory of language teaching. We now consider a further articulation in response to this research question; that of confidence. Confidence Hornby (1995) defines confidence as “trust in one’s own ability”, and ‘trust’ as “the belief or willingness to believe that one can rely on the ability of somebody”. We choose, then, to explain the notion as the belief, or willingness to believe, that one can rely on one’s own ability. The teachers articulate confidence as a quality they have gained, or that increases, over the course of study with regard to a variety of areas. But our focus here is on the confidence teachers express concerning their personal theories of language teaching as they relate to the course of study and it is noticeable that by far the most frequently perceived channel through which confidence develops is that of reflectivity. Having just realised that she has a theory, Ikumi explains: “This [discovery] is only a starting point for me to develop my personal theory of teaching in the future”, allowing Ancker’s (2001: 2) words to “inspire [her] to do so”. She includes the author’s advice that, “it is essential for teachers to keep ‘attitudes of inquiry’, that is, [among other things] … to not be afraid to experiment”. That Ikumi is inspired not to entertain fear illustrates rather nicely the ‘willingness to believe’ that may be involved in the notion of confidence. We suggest she is willing to believe that she can rely on her own ability to develop her personal theory of language teaching through the attitude of inquiring thought that she has engaged in over the course. Katrine exemplifies the teachers who attribute their confidence directly to the tool of journal writing. She comments: “I think the journal writing process was … a valuable one right from the start.” A theme running through Katrine’s analysis is of her “becoming more confident about expressing [herself] because of the process of journal writing” and includes “expressing my new knowledge” and “express[ing] my ‘theories’ in a professional manner and not to doubt them in the language teaching classroom”. This growing confidence to express herself also gives her “the confidence to question the theorists’ theories they put forward”. Holly describes how, During this reflective journey, I discovered that my ideas of teachers were really theories and had value to be analysed, talked about and shared. Knowing that my

 Penny Hacker and Gary Barkhuizen

ideas had status, my writing reflects my growing confidence to engage critically with the issues of the course both as content and process.

Her discovery, through reflection, that her ideas are actually valuable theories gives Holly the growing confidence to address issues raised in the course and becomes evident to her as she reads her critical discourse (see Pennycook 1999). Similarly, as Phoebe re-reads her JEs she gains confidence. Through revisiting her reflections she now believes that she can rely on her own opinions, or cognition, as she operates in her teaching context. In her analysis she notes that, … by Journal Entry 3, I evaluate personal theories as valid in terms of their relevance. The professional and yet also personal approach of lecturers encouraged me to see personal theory as a working guide; in re-reading my entries I felt more confident that my opinions are also relevant to my current teaching situation.

Conclusion Our understanding of the findings may be summed up in a simple statement: Through listening to their voices, we hear that the majority of teachers perceive a progression in their personal theories of language teaching. Progression occurs through the personal meanings teachers make of their experiences during the course of study. They do this largely through reflectivity and, as a result, many teachers gain confidence to express, utilise and further develop their personal theories of language teaching. We believe that listening to the teachers’ voices, particularly as they interpreted their experiences through analysing their own reflective writing, has led us to understand something about teachers’ developing theories of language teaching in a particular educational environment. This understanding focuses on two main ideas. One is the central place of reflectivity in the teachers’ process of developing their personal theories of language teaching and the other is the confidence regarding personal theories generated through the process of reflection. Figure 1 displays a conceptual representation of these conclusions.



Autonomous teachers, autonomous cognition 

Teacher Education t Reading t Lectures t Peer discussion

Confidence Progression

Implicit personal theories

Teaching contexts

Reflectivity

Figure 1.  The centrality of reflectivity in the development of language teachers’ cognition

Central to the teachers’ process of personal theory development is their engagement in reflection. The small circle in Figure 1 stands for the teachers’ cognitive experience prior to entering the course; all were familiar with teaching contexts and had operated with an implicit theory of teaching. This cycle could be seen as their modus operandi; until they began to engage in the reflective process where they gained fresh understanding of their teaching contexts, as represented by the larger circle. Indeed, the teachers’ voices seem to resound with confirmation that reflection is not only important but vital to them developing their mental lives (see Wallace, 1999). For example, the articulation of ‘progression’ revealed that engaging in the reflective process enabled teachers such as Satomi and Holly to make explicit their implicit theories; and others, like Ikumi, Paul and Phoebe, to validate their own theories. Many teachers further developed their cognition. Tracy, for instance, made connections through reflectivity between new information she had discovered or was introduced to on the course, and her own experiences. In other words, such reflection provided new perspectives for teachers on their teaching contexts, displayed as the ellipse in Figure 1. Furthermore, reflectivity was evidently a dynamic process. We suggest that it occurred in several directions and planes. Figure 1 shows the two-way ‘horizontal’ movement between reflection and the teachers’ familiar mode of operation on one hand, and teacher education on the other. This could be seen as the activity of in-

 Penny Hacker and Gary Barkhuizen

terpreting experience, or meaning making. This movement is not consistently sustained, however. Various factors, not least the problem of time constraints that Claire, Jitto and Rita raised, impact the degree of focus with which the teachers engaged in this level of reflection and is represented in the model by flexible twoway connections. Through this reflective endeavour, as so many teachers described, progression in personal theory evolved and confidence grew; an upward, emergent movement in the model. This new knowledge of personal theory may be taken, in a circular direction, into teaching contexts; whether applied to past, present, or anticipated future situations. Teachers spoke of all these applications. The large black arrowheads convey this ‘carrying forward’, and it is interesting to note that, through the connections of reflection, constructed understandings from the modus operandi cycle, the teacher education experience and the process of reflection itself were all available for teachers to apply in their teaching contexts. The applications then became available as new experience to be reflected on again; depicted in Figure 1 by the white arrowheads pointing backwards. Yet this was never a ‘backward step’; the teachers’ overwhelming support of reflection clearly demonstrates this. Viewed globally, the whole model may be seen to move forward as one arrowhead with the teachers’ contexts at its apex. Indeed, any consideration of teachers’ theories must be related to context; yet we also believe it is advantageous for teachers to gain distance from their teaching in order to reflect on their cognition. Holly, in wondering why she had not engaged in the process sooner, seems to echo this sentiment. The dynamic nature of reflectivity, as revealed by the teachers’ articulations, also resembles Reagan and Osborn’s (2002) on-going spiral path of reflection for, in and on practice (Schön 1987), while the centrality of reflectivity is reinforced by Kumaravadivelu (2003). In spite of the suggested shortcomings (Kumaravadivelu, 2003) of the concept of teachers as reflective practitioners (Johnson 1999; Richards & Lockhart 1994; Wallace 1997) and a move towards viewing teachers as “transformative intellectuals” (Kumaravadivelu 2003), the place of reflectivity remains central. We believe the present study confirms that fostering the process of reflection is a necessary component of any language teacher education programme, not least because reflectivity in itself appears to foster teacher confidence, a phenomenon that we suggest is central to the development of teacher autonomy. Remembering that the notion of confidence may be defined as the belief, or willingness to believe, that one can rely on one’s own ability, it is significant that so many teachers articulated reaching this place of self-assurance. It follows that, at the start of the course, the teachers would have been somewhat insecure about their personal theoretical positions as teachers. Through exploring their mental lives, they were subsequently able to say that they were more confident about own-



Autonomous teachers, autonomous cognition 

ing their theories, continuing to explore them, expressing them and using them to challenge other established theories. There are obvious similarities here with McGrath’s (2000) complementary perspectives of self-directed professional development and the freedom from control by others that characterise teacher autonomy. Interestingly, however, McGrath argues that “we cannot assume a readiness [on the part of teachers] to exercise autonomy in these ways” (p. 110). He states openly that risk, effort and alternative ways of thinking are inevitable challenges. Indeed, the teachers in this study faced these very hurdles. They also, to a greater or lesser extent, overcame them. And this, they clearly say, through gaining confidence. Furthermore, several teachers attribute this growth in confidence directly to the reflective process. As far as we are aware, there is little mention in the literature of the confidence that teachers may gain concerning their personal theories of language teaching through engaging in reflectivity. However, Kumaravadivelu (2003) does advise that developing a personal theory of teaching involves: … patience and perseverance. It does not develop instantly before your eyes, as film develops in a Polaroid camera. It evolves over time, through determined effort. It involves the development of a level of knowledge, skill, attitude, and autonomy that is necessary to give you the confidence and competence to embrace a self-directed pedagogy. (p. 317).

He seems to be saying that in order to develop a personal theory, a teacher must also develop knowledge, skill, attitude and autonomy and it is these elements that engender confidence to “embrace a self-directed pedagogy”. We cannot argue with this. Yet we can add that teachers in the study clearly say that the reflective process itself has given them confidence to own, express, utilise and further develop their personal theories of language teaching. Neither can we argue with this. We believe the teachers’ articulation of confidence is worthy of attention and suggest it strengthens our claim that reflectivity is central in the process of teachers developing their personal theories of language teaching and inevitably cultivates their autonomy. These conclusions lead us to consider some implications of the study. Implications of the study Firstly, very few teachers entered the course with any awareness or understanding of their personal theories of language teaching. Given that explicit knowledge of teachers’ personal cognition is vital to their professional development, as assumed and subsequently confirmed in this study, it seems essential that language teacher education programmes offer participants the opportunity to actively explore this concept.

 Penny Hacker and Gary Barkhuizen

Secondly, the present research revealed that reflectivity is central to teachers developing their personal theories and we suggest therefore that serious consideration be given to designing and implementing courses that call for teachers to engage in the reflective process. However, it was also apparent that several teachers were unfamiliar with the concept and in light of this we also advocate teaching the skills of reflection. Journal writing and subsequent analysis proved to be an effective tool of reflectivity and Phoebe’s suggestion of collaboratively analysing journal entries is a modification that may also be considered. Wallace (1999) sees the need for “devising new techniques for developing reflection” (p. 187) and this may offer interesting challenges for course developers. Another implication of the study relates to learner autonomy. We suggested at the start of this chapter that it is important for teachers to know what they believe about teaching and learning in order for them to develop as effective autonomous teachers. Little (1995) argues that teachers who are familiar with approaches to autonomous teaching are in a more sympathetic position to engage in the kind of pedagogical dialogue needed to foster learner autonomy. Teacher autonomy, in other words, potentially leads to learner autonomy. Finally, the confidence associated with personal theory development that teachers gained directly from engaging in the process of reflection can be seen as an important outcome of the study. The importance, developmentally, of making personal theories of teaching explicit has already been discussed. Yet we suggest that confidence as an essentially affective benefit has encouragingly positive implications for language teacher education. From the teachers’ point of view, the selfassurance surrounding teachers’ cognition and related autonomy fostered through reflection is in itself another good reason to facilitate the teaching and implementation of reflectivity. However, for educators to be aware of this possible, even probable, outcome among teachers may offer them encouragement to approach an area of teacher education that we have detected as being a place where some would rather not go. As Trappes-Lomax and McGrath (1999: 1) remark, “Theory is a problem. Not everyone is keen on theory, and some teachers say they would like to have as little to do with it as possible”. Knowing that teachers may gain confidence from one aspect of ‘doing theory’, may give such educators renewed enthusiasm for this subject area. References Almarza, G. 1996. Student foreign language teachers’ growth. In Teacher Learning in Language Teaching, D. Freeman & J. Richards (eds), 50–78. Cambridge: CUP.



Autonomous teachers, autonomous cognition  Ancker, W. 2001. The joy of watching others learn: An interview with Diane Larsen-Freeman. English Teaching Forum 39(4): 2. Bailey, K., Berthold, B., Braunstein, B., Jagodzinski Fleischman, N., Holbrook, M., Tuman, J., Waissbluth, X. & Zambo, L. 1996. The language learner’s autobiography: Examining the apprenticeship of observation. In Teacher Learning in Language Teaching, D. Freeman & J. Richards (eds). Cambridge: CUP. Barfield, A., Ashwell, T., Carroll, M., Collins, K., Cowie, N., Critchley, M., Head, E., Nix, M., Obermeier, A. & Robertson, M. 2001. Exploring and defining teacher autonomy: A collaborative discussion. Paper presented at the College and University Educators’ Conference, Shizuoka, Japan. Barkhuizen, G. 1995. Dialogue journals in teacher education revisited. College ESL 5(1): 22–35. Benson, P. 2000. Autonomy as a learners’ and teachers’ right. In Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy: Future Directions, B. Sinclair, I. McGrath & T. Lamb (eds), 111–17. Harlow: Pearson Education. Borg, S. 2003. Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe and do. Language Teaching 36: 81–109. Breen, M. 1991. Understanding the language teacher. In Foreign/Second Language Pedagogy Research, R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith & M. Swain (eds), 213–33. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Burns, A. 1992. Teacher beliefs and their influence on classroom practice. Prospect 7(3): 56–66. Cabaroglu, N. & Roberts, J. 2000. Development in students teachers’ pre-existing beliefs during a 1-Year PGCE programme. System 28(3): 378–402. Calderhead, J. 1996. Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In Handbook of Educational Psychology, D. Berliner & R. Calfee (eds), 709–25. New York NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. Carter, K. 1990. Teachers’ knowledge and learning to teach. In Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, W. Houston, M. Haberman & J. Sikula (eds), 291–310. New York NY: Macmillan. Cazden, C. 1988. Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning. Portsmouth NH: Heinemann. Clarke, M. 1994. The dysfunctions of the theory/practice discourse. TESOL Quarterly 28(1): 9–26. Crandall, J. 2000. Language teacher education. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 20: 34–55. Davis, K. 1995. Qualitative theory and methods in applied linguistics research. TESOL Quarterly 29(3): 427–53. Dewey, J. 1933. How We Think. Boston: D.C. Heath & Co. Diorio, J. A. 1982. Knowledge, autonomy, and the practice of teaching. Curriculum Enquiry 12(3): 257–82. Edge, J. & Richards, K. 1998. May I see your warrant, please?: Justifying outcomes in qualitative research. Applied Linguistics 19(3): 334–56. Elbaz, F. 1991. Research on teachers’ knowledge: The evolution of a discourse. Journal of Curriculum Studies 23(1): 1–19. Ellis, R. & Barkhuizen, G. 2005. Analysing Learner Language. Oxford: OUP. Fang, Z. 1996. A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research 38(1): 47–65. Farrell, T. 1998. Reflective teaching: The principles and practices. English Teaching Forum 36(4).

 Penny Hacker and Gary Barkhuizen Fenstermacher, G. 1994. The knower and the known: The nature of knowledge on research on teaching. In Review of Research in Education, L. Darling-Hammond (ed.), 3–56. Washington DC: American Educational Research Association. Freeman, D. 2002. The hidden side of the work: Teacher knowledge and learning to teach. A perspective from north American educational research on teacher education in English language teaching. Language Teaching 35: 1–13. Gilpin, A. 1999. A framework for teaching reflection. In Theory in Language Teaching Education, H. Trappes-Lomax & I. McGrath (eds), 109–18. London: Longman. Hornby, A. 1995. Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current English. 5th edn. Oxford: OUP. Johnson, K. 1999. Understanding Language Teaching. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Kelly, G. 1955. The psychology of personal constructs: A theory of personality. New York NY: W.W. Norton. Kumaravadivelu, B. 2001. Towards a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly 35(4): 537–60. Kumaravadivelu, B. 2003. Beyond Methods: Macrostrategies for Language Teaching. New Haven CT: Yale University. Little, D. 1995. Learning as dialogue: The dependence of learner autonomy on teacher autonomy. System 23(2): 175–81. MacDonald, M., Badger, R. & White, G. 2001. Changing values: What use are theories of language learning and teaching? Teaching and Teacher Education 17(8): 949–63. McGrath, I. 2000. Teacher autonomy. In Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy: Future Directions, B. Sinclair, I. McGrath & T. Lamb (eds), 100–110. Harlow: Pearson Education. Merriam, S. 2002. Qualitative Research in Practice: Examples for Discussion and Analysis. San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass. Miles, M. & Huberman, A. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Nieto, S. 2003. What Keeps Teachers Going? New York NY: Teachers College Press. Numrich, C. 1996. On becoming a language teacher: Insights from diary studies. TESOL Quarterly 30(1): 131–51. Orem, R. 2001. Journal writing in adult ESL: Improving practice through reflective writing. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 90: 69–77. Pajeres, M. 1992. Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research 62(3): 307–32. Peacock, M. 2001. Pre-service ESL teachers’ beliefs about second language learning: A longitudinal study. System 29: 177–95. Pearsall, J. (ed.). 2001. The concise Oxford dictionary. 10th edn. Oxford: OUP. Pennycook, A. 1999. Introduction: Critical approaches to TESOL. TESOL Quarterly 33(3): 329–48. Reagan, T. & Osborn, T. 2002. The Foreign Language Educator in Society: Towards a Critical Pedagogy. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Richards, J. & Lockhart, C. 1994. Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms. Cambridge: CUP. Richards, J., Ho, B. & Giblin, K. 1996. Learning how to teach in the RSA Cert. In Teacher Learning in Language Teaching, D. Freeman & J. Richards (eds). Cambridge: CUP. Richards, J. & Ho, B. 1998. Reflective thinking through journal writing. In Beyond Training: Perspectives on Language Teacher Education, J. Richards (ed.), 153–70. Cambridge: CUP.



Autonomous teachers, autonomous cognition  Richards, J. (ed.). 1998. Beyond training: Perspectives on language teacher education. Cambridge: CUP. Ryan, G. & Bernard, H.R. 2000. Data management and analysis methods. In The Handbook of Qualitative Research, N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (eds), 769–802. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Schön, D. 1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass. Sendan, F. & Roberts, J. 1998. Orhan: A Case Study in the Development of a Student Teacher’s Personal Theories. Centre for Applied Language Studies, University of Reading, UK, [cited 15 April 2003]. Available from http://www.rdg.ac.uk/AcaDepts/cl/slals/orhan.htm Stanley, C. 1998. A framework for teacher reflectivity. TESOL Quarterly 32(3): 584–91. Trappes-Lomax, H. & McGrath, I. (eds). 1999. Theory in Language Teacher Education. London: Longman. Tsui, A. 2003. Understanding Expertise in Teaching: Case Studies of ESL Teachers. Cambridge: CUP. Usuki, M. 2001. Metacognitive awareness in JSL/JFL teacher education: From learner autonomy towards teacher autonomy. Bulletin of Hokuriku University 25: 251–60. Verloop, N., Van Driel, J. & Meijer, P. 2001. Teacher knowledge and the knowledge base of teaching. International Journal of Educational Research 35(5): 441–61. Wallace, M. 1997. Action Research for Language Teachers. Cambridge: CUP. Wallace, M. 1999. The reflective model revisited. In Theory in Language Teacher Education, H. Trappes-Lomax & I. McGrath (eds), 181–87. London: Longman. Woods, D. 1996. Teacher Cognition in Language Teaching: Beliefs, Decision-making and Classroom Practice. Cambridge: CUP.

part 4

Responses

Teachers working together What do we talk about when we talk about autonomy? Jonathan Shaw Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand

This paper explores the proposition that teacher autonomy might be realized where teachers are empowered by their institutional context to learn about student learning, and act upon that learning. This was something my colleagues and I have talked a lot about during recent years, culminating with their dispensing with a timetable altogether in recent collaborations. The measure of autonomy is then found in the discourse of team teachers, by what they assume, what they question, how they reinvent a course or a program, and how they come to shared understandings of what’s happening, and how they might impact upon those processes. Tasks then are ideally always appropriate to the moment. The approach described in this paper is interpretive, making use of interview data, accounts, documents, and action research methods.

Introduction I’m going to start with some prickly questions upfront. What is the relationship between learner autonomy and teacher autonomy? Is it possible that there is no necessary relationship at all between the two constructs? More provocatively, is it possible that too much stress on realizing learner autonomy may be detrimental to teacher autonomy, which in formal language learning contexts, it is argued here, can be understood as something much more important than learner autonomy. Another question here is also a spiky one: is it possible for teachers working independently of each other to really be autonomous? For these questions to make sense, it is necessary for me to define where I am coming from. A couple of months before AILA 2002, and the Symposium from which this book originates, I met an old friend and colleague, and mentioned to him a nagging dissatisfaction with the constructs of teacher autonomy and learner

 Jonathan Shaw

autonomy. Before I had a chance to elaborate on what I meant, he agreed with me, and went further. The constructs in fact got in the way of talking about what teachers and learners actually do, and it was these prosaic, unsexy things that we needed to talk about, not loftier abstractions such as autonomy. Both of us are fervent believers in the value of learner autonomy. But therein lay a problem: most language teachers nowadays would argue that they believe in learner autonomy in language learning – the issue is actually one about means rather than ends, and whens rather than ifs. We advocates of learner autonomy look for ways of accelerating learner development towards autonomous language learning through diverse curricular approaches, encompassing those that emphasize the development of learner strategies to others that advocate the role of self access centers, to those that start from the awakening of political awareness and Freirean consciençao. Unbelievers and agnostics prefer other curricular approaches and emphasize different approaches, and may move from one day to the next without reflecting on where their learners are heading. That does not mean that they would bind the learners to their status as classroom language learners. In a similar fashion, we might debate issues outside our own field, and passionately disagree about the means of achieving poverty reduction (redistribution or trickle down?) or the promotion of human rights (after economic development or independently of it?) without questioning the value of the goal itself. Like these other irreproachable goals, autonomy has increasingly come to be accepted as a universal moral good, incorporated in national curricular guidelines, and accepted widely and uncritically as what we should be doing. Much of the time it is unquestioned, and increasingly implying a particular set of possible responses from the teacher, with the assumption – implicit or explicit – that curricular options and practices outside that set do not share the same educational goal, or value. The conflation of means and goals leads us to talk lazily about “implementing learner autonomy”, and “putting learner autonomy into practice”, as if it can simply be installed in the classroom, like the next technological solution. The construct of teacher autonomy comes burdened with a quite different set of problems. It is qualitatively different to learner autonomy, in that it cannot be understood, or misunderstood, as an educational value or goal. Instead it appears to be used as a shorthand for the goal of teacher development, incorporating practices of reflective practice and action research, and is itself one way of understanding a reaction to the progressive deskilling of the work done by school teachers, and a call for professionalization and a rejection of the notion of the teacher as classroom technician. Lamb (2000) usefully sets this out in terms of progressive teacher development towards their realization (pace Van Lier 1996) as an intrinsically motivated ‘authentic’ person. So what do we talk about when we talk about autonomy?



Teachers working together 

Within the specific context of this book, I have set myself a rather awkward task, and I’m going to attempt to make that task less awkward by extensive crossreference to papers presented at this symposium. As stated in the abstract, it is my intention to attempt to investigate certain constructs empirically – something that Benson (2002) notes is too rare in our field. One goal of this contribution therefore is to focus the discussion on what exactly we mean when we talk about (teacher) autonomy. Teacher autonomy: definitions and meanings One of the more widely accepted definitions of learner autonomy (LA) is “the capacity to take control of one’s own learning” (Benson 2001: 47). By analogy, a definition of teacher autonomy (TA) would be “the capacity to take control of one’s own teaching”. As with Benson’s definition of LA, the construct of “taking control” is possibly more easily investigated than some others, such as “taking responsibility”, and appears to neatly cover the gist of longer, more detailed definitions such as the Shizuoka Definition (Ashwell et al. 2001). Other important attempts to define TA include those in the fine volume edited by Sinclair, McGrath and Lamb (2000). McGrath frames TA in terms of both selfdirected professional development and in terms of freedom from control by others. For the former, he co-opts various educational traditions, including those of the teacher as researcher (Stenhouse 1975), action research (Kemmis and McTaggart 1988; Nunan 1989; Burns 1999), and the reflective practitioner (Schön 1983, 1988). For the latter, he co-opts Benson’s assertion in the same volume that freedom from control by others implies the capability to act self-directedly. For McGrath, it is “obvious” (p. 102) that the promotion of LA is one of the responsibilities of the autonomous teacher. But we can surely envisage teachers making ethical, autonomous decisions about their classroom without ever framing their efforts in our terms. Despite this assumption, his model of development for the autonomous teacher, building on work by Thavenius (1996), is a useful start, and refrains from defining TA in terms of LA. Lamb (2000) looks at TA in terms of critical reflection, proposing a progressive professional development. His conclusion that it is necessary that “teachers perceive ‘the pupils’ as worth becoming engaged with (Sleeter and Grant 1991: 67), and this requires a fundamental critical review of beliefs and values” (p. 127) suggests the possibility of basing TA on LA. Smith (2000) explores the notion of teacher-learning, defining TA “at least partially in terms of the teacher’s autonomy as a learner” (p. 90). Rather than exploring what this might mean in terms of, say,

 Jonathan Shaw

action research, Smith offers a case study of a collaborative network of English teachers learning Japanese. Benson (2000) suggests that the exercise of TA is possibly constrained by 1. Policy factors (i.e. factors external to the school) 2. Institutional factors (factors internal to the school) 3. Conceptions of language, including dominant conceptions of what the target language is, and ideologies of correct and standard usage 4. Language teaching methodologies, defined in terms of “academic expertise and professional assumptions” (p. 116). Benson effectively posits the (unautonomous) teacher as a conduit for dominant ideologies, and as the innocent charged with explaining and justifying constraints to learners: “From the learners’ perspective, the teacher may appear to be the most important constraint on the exercise of their right to autonomy” (ibid.). This assertion is problematic on two counts: first, it is unintentionally deterministic, in that it denies the possibility that it is the teacher’s own theories (rather than Theory) that might be the constraint, or the enabling factors: in other words, personal agency. Second, as Benson later acknowledges (2002), learners – even when they themselves are teachers – are unlikely to frame their learning in terms of “autonomy”. Returning to the Shizuoka Definition, Ashwell et al. (2001) argue that TA, like LA, is based on the principles of critical reflective inquiry, empowerment and dialogue. TA ultimately involves the autonomous teacher in a continual search for better answers to the different problems inevitably arising in individual teaching and learning situations. This appears to constitute critical reflective enquiry; it is part of my argument here that this is only really possible through dialogue between teachers working together (possibly virtually, such as through the Autonomy Listserv), who enter into that dialogue in a spirit of open enquiry. Finally, in this Symposium, Cotterall and Crabbe (2002) argue that any connection between teacher and learner autonomy lies in expertise surrounding the learning of a language, and see learner-initiated dialogue between learners and teachers methodologically as a means of revealing the diversity of learners’ experience as language learners. TA is not defined, and appears to involve the capacity to engage in dialogue with learners and to enable them to frame their experiences of language learning in terms that can be acted upon by teachers. Possibly because of the two contexts in which these papers appear, most tend to assume that relationships between teacher and learner autonomy is axiomatic. This contribution questions that assumption. As for Cotterall and Crabbe, dialogue is central to my investigation; here I argue that 1. dialogue, adopted in a spirit of open enquiry, is a necessary part of ‘the capacity to take control of one’s own teaching’



Teachers working together 

2. the goal of doing so is not to enable learners to take control of their own learning, which is presumptuous on our part, but to enable them to learn (some aspect of a) language and then to be able to use the language for communicative purposes 3. the construct of learner autonomy, or the overriding goal of enabling learners to take control of their own learning may itself be a constraining factor on a teacher’s freedom to make the right choices for her learners. Context of the study The context of this study is the Asian Institute of Technology, an English languagemedium postgraduate institute of engineering, technology and management. AIT’s 2,000 students are enrolled in a wide variety of fields, from more sociallyoriented specializations like international business and urban environmental management to interdisciplinary fields like construction management, to more technical disciplines such as computer science, telecommunications or mechatronics. The majority of students come from countries in Southeast Asia, with minorities from South Asia and East Asia, and an increasing number from Europe and the Americas. Their ages typically range from the early 20s to late 30s, with most fields preferring to recruit students with several years of relevant work experience. Admissions standards are flexible, with language usually only one of several criteria considered – rightly so, given the capacity-building mandate of the Institute. Students’ language learning goals are invariably instrumental and subordinate to their disciplinary goals, which means that it is usually preferable to attempt to address students’ language needs during pre-masters (‘bridging’) courses. Presently the majority of students taking such courses are from Laos and Cambodia, with smaller numbers from Korea and Vietnam. The scepticism reflected in the opening sections of this chapter stems largely from several years working with such learners. I have come to the conclusion that postgraduate learners’ preferences for certain formal forms of learning have little in common with their capacity to exercise autonomy in their own learning, including language learning. Indeed, as adults – albeit often quite young adults – they usually have strongly held views on learning, what they should be learning, how they need to learn, and what the teacher’s role in that learning should be. Many, if not most, have so far in their lives proved themselves empirically and pragmatically to be successful at learning languages and their professional technical disciplines. Is this learning autonomous? As always, that depends on what we mean, and is probably not the right question. Rather, we need to ask: what does this particular group of students need at this juncture in their academic careers?

 Jonathan Shaw

And how can we best meet those needs? Let me try to elaborate on how these views have emerged. Previous practice The pre-masters bridging courses have superceded Talkbase, one of the three examples of curricular instantiations of autonomy described by Benson (2001). This course was described extensively elsewhere (for example, Hall and Kenny 1988; Kenny 1993a, 1993b; Walter 1998), but it is instructive to work from Benson’s characterization of the nature of the course, which draws heavily on the earlier attempts to understand and situate what teachers were trying to do. Hall and Kenny (1988) asserted that there was “nothing in the way of a traditional timetable”, but that teachers built each week’s inputs from the outputs of the previous week’s work, culminating in an extensive ‘piece of work’ (or project) in the second month. What Benson’s brief description does not mention is the extensive use made of Swales’ (1990) work on journal article introductions, a heuristic which quite rigidly defined the nature of teachers’ inputs during the first month. The first week was defined around investigative research into the meaning of words (such as ‘access’ or ‘drying’) and reporting back to the group. Subsequently the heuristic kicked in: Week 2 was ‘field week’; week 3 was ‘problem week’, and week 4 ‘solution week’, although students frequently sabotaged the neat analysis by talking of solutions in the problem week. Weeks 2, 3 and 4 were structured identically around investigations that started with teacher-led analysis of text in published academic journal articles, and moved to students selecting their own articles for analysis (students were required to find texts relevant to the fields of study they were preparing to enter, but understandably many opted for ease of comprehensibility over the teacher-defined criterion). This was followed by students going out and interviewing students and faculty about their work, with a focus in each week on the relevant element of Swale’s four-move pattern. These interviews were analyzed in class, in sessions usually led by a teacher. Towards the end of the week, students were asked to write, with reference to their own field, with the writing developing during the first month as teachers led students through the heuristic. Week one and the second month of the program eventually came to exemplify the particular notion of learner autonomy espoused by colleagues at AIT, and given clearest definition by Kenny (1993a). Kenny’s thinking is critiqued extensively by Benson (2000: 99–101). Kenny (1993a: 440) defines autonomy thus: Autonomy is not just a matter of permitting choice in learning situations, or making pupils responsible for the activities they undertake, but of allowing and



Teachers working together 

encouraging learners, through processes deliberately set up for the purpose, to begin to express who they are, what they think and what they would like to do, in terms of work they initiate and define for themselves.

According to Kenny, the main issue was how to achieve the ‘structural conditions’ that will enable learners to see the learning process as one of knowledge creation and knowledge ownership as much as knowledge transmission. In the first week, these structures took the form of tasks, with pairs of students being given a word, such as drying, and being told to “go out and find out as much as you can about your word”, and to report back. In the second month, students were given scope to “initiate and define” work of interest to themselves, with teachers initially monitoring closely the emerging proposals, but increasingly allowing students considerable freedom in how they pursued their projects. Over the years, teachers’ approaches varied from attempts to monitor the development of the piece of work through scheduled ‘reportbacks’ to more laissez-faire approaches, in which students had much less formal contact with their teachers. Elsewhere, Kenny (1993b) characterized the work as investigative research, and clearly as an approach to preparing students for academic studies at the graduate level, the approach had much to commend it. My point here is not to diminish the work of Hall and Kenny and our colleagues during the 1980s and 1990s; throughout this period, there was a restless attempt to understand and situate work that most of us found exciting. However, the many published accounts of the course tended to downplay or omit mention of the heavily structured nature of the curriculum, the reliance on the Swales schema of journal article introductions as a template for all academic work, the omission of work on basic language and academic communication skills that did not fit easily into this template (such as description, or analysis of data), and the assumption that all students entering postgraduate studies at the institute were ready to start analyzing research writing in their academic field, because that was what they would soon be doing. It is certainly not the case that the course did not develop and evolve; it did, constantly, largely in response to the spirit of enquiry that characterized the center. This enquiry led us to view the work we were doing through various frames, drawing on a humanistic tradition within education (rather than applied linguistics, the mainstream of which by and large failed to see language learning as an educational process) that connects the writings of John Dewey to Carl Rogers via Lev Vygotsky, anticipating the task-based curriculum and drawing on Legutke and Thomas’s work (1991) before settling on Kenny’s idiosyncratic idealization of autonomy as the concept with the greatest explanatory force for what we were trying to achieve. On a practical level, the course benefited over the years from the integration and adaptation into the course of dialog journals, individual study plans,

 Jonathan Shaw

self assessment, and self access, and the value they added to the center’s practice was extensively explored and improved. Above all, information technology changed the very nature of the program. Whereas before it made sense to ask students to “go out and find out what you can about [drying]”, now all students will turn first to Google, and download pages of detail, which may or may not be read and understood before the next class discussion. Institutionally, the center had a high degree of independence. In all likelihood, there was probably little interest elsewhere at the institute in what was happening during the pre-sessional course, with most faculty and administrators seeming to accept the center’s assertion that the course led to notable increases in confidence and ability. However, various measures of what students actually learned were inconclusive, and attempts to assess gains in autonomy were inconclusive (see Champagne et al. 2001). Above all, were we really doing all we could to prepare students for a demanding two to three year program of postgraduate study? Was the goal to enable the realization of learner autonomy? Or was it more prosaic – were we doing everything within our power, and within a two-month or four-month framework, by equipping them with tools that would enable them to be successful in their studies? The tyranny of the timetable Contrary to assertions at the time (Hall and Kenny 1988), even in the late 1980s, this structure had become reified in the form of a comfortably familiar timetable. This eventually came to be understood by some colleagues as itself being the representation of learner autonomy (Walter 1998), and given the progressive, structured nature of teacher interventions during the first month, this claim was plausible, at least within our own parameters. This reified form was powerful and was hard for teachers to resist – as indeed are timetables everywhere. During the late 1990s, teachers began to react to its form by negotiating the forthcoming course amongst themselves over coffee and a blank matrix. The resulting timetables tended to strongly resemble those used on previous courses, and presumably the schema each of us had internalized, still utilizing the field-problem-solution heuristic and working towards an extended period of time for the ‘piece of work’. The process of reinventing the course was not entirely futile, in that it forced teachers to re-examine the logic of the course, the specific tasks, and how particular resources were utilized. But the extent to which we appeared to be governed by our own structures for enabling learner autonomy led us to question further our approach. The classroom schedule or timetable is an interesting phenomenon. I am not aware of any literature on the ‘tyranny of the timetable’; an internet search reveals



Teachers working together 

13 instances of the term, and no references to any studies on the nature of this tyranny. Most of these instances appear to refer to the way in which the structures of formal educational institutions constrain learning by students, and work done by teacher-researchers to work beyond these structures. None appears to address the ways in which timetables constrain learning by teachers and organizations, and how this happens. A timetable is certainly a far more complex document than we tend to imagine. It represents a particular realization of a curriculum and the decisions made by the curriculum’s planners about goals and objectives, content, the resources available for delivering on that content, and the constraints in action. A measure of the complexity of timetables might be the difficulty most of us experience in putting together a timetable for a new course, and the relief we feel when offering a course for the second time, making small incremental adjustments rather than starting from scratch. A measure of their usefulness is our dependence upon them, as teachers and learners, for making sense of new formal learning contexts, and conversely, the sense of disorientation felt by students when they do not receive a timetable at the beginning of the course. From a sociological perspective, a careful reading of the timetable will likely tell us much of what we think we need to know about the assumptions on which those responsible for the course (not just the teachers themselves) are operating, and the frequently implicit theories on which they base their work. What do we learn about content when each session is taught by the same teacher, or teachers, and what does the converse tell us – when each session is taught by a different teacher? What do we learn if students are expected to spend their evenings in class as well as mornings and afternoons? And what do we learn from starting times? From ‘free’ time? From time for project work? From orientation sessions? At AIT, the timetable frequently reflects the importance of ceremony in this part of the world, with formal openings and closing ceremonies with certificates awarded. How does this affect the culture of the classroom? Present practice Since the turn of the century, there have been many changes to the way that AIT’s Language Center operates. The staffing structure has been comprehensively overhauled, with teachers no longer having faculty status. The system of self assessment, in which students decided whether or not they needed to enroll for in-term language courses, has been replaced by a more formal testing system, with the results dictating how many hours of language support are required for every student.

 Jonathan Shaw

Attendance on the pre-degree bridging course is still largely dependent on whether there are scholarships to support a particular student, rather than on any assessment of actual need. As a consequence, a student is likely to be required to take the bridging course because of her nationality and the source of funding for her masters scholarship, rather than needs. So the individual needs of the 40 students on the present bridging courses are inevitably heterogeneous. The Language Center presently comprises five teachers, who work together in various capacities: as individual teachers responsible for parallel courses within the same program of courses offered to all students during their postgraduate studies; as teachers working on different components of the same course or intensive program (co-teachers); and as colleagues jointly responsible for teaching an entire course or program together (team teachers). The bridging course now has a more hierarchical structure, with a course director, and individual teachers responsible for different sections. Doctoral students are also hired on an hourly basis to teach technical modules relevant to particular students’ fields of study on an asneeded basis. Acquisition and development of necessary IT skills is integrated throughout the course. In the bridging course, as elsewhere, the timetable remains the most important planning document, but is not pre-determined before the beginning of the course. Instead, the first two weeks are worked out in some detail, but the subsequent 14 weeks is left for the most part undefined until teachers meet the students, and start to understand their particular needs, through dialogue with the students and with each other about the students’ needs. There are no pre-determined tasks, and the structure of the course that emerges may be very different each time the course is offered. In this sense, there has been a real attempt to move closer to the ideals of a process curriculum (Breen and Candlin 1980). The characterization of the process syllabus as ‘Negotiated’ (sic) by D. Clarke (1991) has now dated. He compares so-called syllabus types as if they are discrete realities, whereas we now know that what teachers actually did in their classrooms rarely reflected a pure syllabus, be it Formal, Functional, Task-based or Process, and the contrasting of process approaches with an objectives-based approach unnecessarily categorical. His assumption is that the negotiation will be between a teacher and the students. Given the need to ensure that everything is in its right box, it is no surprise that the ‘strong version’, “involving full learner participation, would be unworkable” (p. 13). Clarke’s (1991) use of the term ‘syllabus’ is also instructive, for it appears to limit the scope of the discussion to the course content. In our case, the broader notion of ‘curriculum’ encompasses all aspects of students’ learning experience, and is surely the more appropriate object of the negotiation, although certainly the



Teachers working together 

greater part of critical decision-making will center around course content, and how this is handled and by whom. Here, negotiation can be understood to be multi-directional. It does include an ongoing and open-ended dialogue between teachers (working both in teams and individually) with students, about their learning. These discussions might originate in any of the course fora, such as dialogue journals or discussions on individual study plans (ISPs), and are essential to a form of continuous needs assessment, which provide the necessary inputs to the teachers’ own collective decision-making on the course. It is this shared decision-making and the negotiation between teachers through which it is enacted, that is of interest to me here. The locus of this decision-making is perhaps hard to pin down: formal staff meetings between teachers are infrequent, but informal meetings are frequent. Here, the collegial organization of work and working environment established during the 1980s and 1990s (Hall and Kenny 1995) provides the required structure for ongoing, dynamic negotiation between teachers, and an environment that offers teachers “time to reflect; collaborate; observe other teachers; develop personal theories, curriculum, materials, and so forth... and the resources to experiment with and change their approach to teaching,” (M. Clarke 1994: 23). I think it is easy to take such a structure for granted; now working elsewhere at AIT, I have found it hard to reinvent. What does this mean in practice for teachers working together? In terms of content, it means recognizing “the need to do taboo things”, as one teacher put it, “such as working on parts of speech”. A fully realized timetable might make assumptions about what students knew and what they were ready to do, and might prevent teachers seeing that “à la Vygotsky” (as he put it) “we needed to do work on noun forms and verb endings, because otherwise we wouldn’t be able to fulfill his learning needs”. Formal ways of assessing needs might not give the kind of rich information about students needed for making decisions about needs such as this. We’ve changed how we think about these things. Now we might run a session on naming and recognizing parts of speech, and we might let those that know about parts of speech show off their knowledge. But elsewhere, like in the dialogue journals, another teacher might see that those students were the ones who were not applying what they knew in their writing, and that would come up in our lunchtime meetings. So maybe another teacher, working on individual study plans, might be able to address this with the student or students involved. We really were not aware of how much students differed. (Matthew)

 Jonathan Shaw

Teachers, Matthew claims, are now all working in an integrated skills mode – “nobody ignores what the others are doing”. To facilitate this exchange, materials used are placed in a common folder “that we can all look at once in a while”. This might also involve recycling articles that interest students for different purposes. For example, an article on poverty reduction that had been used for presentations might be used by another teacher for summarizing, or for work on citations and referencing. In practice, the staff room is where much sharing goes on, with teachers reporting back to others over lunch on what texts and material works in their own sessions. The shared file facilitates taking this a step further. Talking about parts of speech with a particular group of students was empowering for that group, working out with them what they as users of the language could control: “it was nice in that sense, playing with suffixes and meanings”. The emerging timetable means that students might end up doing very different things as the course progresses. This meant that often students were working with peers of similar interests and levels One of the assumptions that we used to make on Talkbase was that weaker students could work with stronger ones, and they would learn from each other. But in reality this didn’t happen much – we used to say that students were speaking with more confidence, but we weren’t offering much evidence for this. (Marie-France)

Now, teachers recognize that some of the students in the group might benefit from work on an aspect of language that had previously been considered unimportant or trivial, whereas others need work at a higher level (say, of Bloom’s taxonomy) than had previously been anticipated. A timetable worked out fully in advance leaves only marginal spaces for individually differentiated groupwork of this nature. One result of this approach is that the extended period of group-defined project work has been jettisoned – “we don’t have as much time as we once used to think we had”, one teacher explained. Individual Study Plans (ISPs) were introduced several years ago as a way to address variation, but tended to get squeezed out by all the timetabled activities. “Now, they form a much more important part of what we do”, the course director explained. More flexible ways of staffing the bridging courses also play an important part here. As the course director told me, “we always wanted to show films in the evening, but before it was not possible unless one of us stayed. Now we can pay overtime to an assistant to manage these sessions”. Prosaic and unsexy, but addressing needs. The center’s work no longer appears to be guided by strong ideas, or rather, it is guided most by the question: what are the best actions we can take as teachers for this particular student at this particular



Teachers working together 

moment, based on the information we have now? This was confirmed in discussions with the course director: For me, the approach is very pragmatic. It’s informed by the idea that we are all very different, and students come to us with very different specific backgrounds. My job now is to address those needs. The differences are not always very obvious at the beginning, and it usually takes us some time to understand what each student needs. So there’s a lot of discussion around this table. A lot of it sounds anecdotal but it’s all important for helping us decide what to do.

Constraints and opportunities Consistent with Benson’s understanding of constraints on teachers’ freedom is the representation in Figure 1. Lovat and Smith (1995) explain their understanding of the teacher’s operational decision-making space as a kind of residue – what’s left after everyone else has made their decisions about what needs to happen. Again, this might be a little too deterministic, in denying the possibility that teachers have any agency in defining their own decision-making scope. I like to think that this figure encompasses the four categories of constraints on TA identified by Benson (2000) mentioned above, but goes further by situating where both conceptions of language and language learning/teaching methodologies might lie. Thus for any particular student, standard language learning/teaching ideologies may be imposed by the system, the institution, teacher’s colleagues, other learners’ expectations and preferences, or might form part of the teacher-self. Standard learning/ teaching ideologies are powerful; as Pennycook (1997) has noted: common terms such as ‘communicative competence’, ‘authentic materials’ or ‘student-centred education’ … [have] rapidly achieved a moral status backed by dominant beliefs in liberal, progressive education (p. 39).

This critique was directed specifically at the unquestionability of autonomy. In other words, applied uncritically, enabling students to take control of their language learning becomes yet one more standard language ideology restricting teachers’ freedom to exercise professional judgment in the interests of their students. I hope that this repudiation of learner autonomy in favour of learner language learning is not misunderstood as a form of retreat. Far from it: it is perhaps best understood in terms of TA as freedom not only from control by external factors but principally from control by our own assumptions, beliefs and values – internalized ways of looking at the world in which we work. Freedom from control is heady stuff, and certainly not something to try at home. It represents a point a long way down any road in the direction towards professional development. And this

 Jonathan Shaw

gets to the crux of what this chapter is about. I also don’t believe that it is really possible to cast off controls working if we work individually precisely because it is so hard to question the very constructs that enchain us. Dialogue therefore is needed, with teachers as critical peers, willing to question each others’ assumptions and explore new avenues for questioning, and in the process, reinvent a course or a program continuously, arriving at shared understandings of what’s happening, and how, as teachers, those shared understandings might impact upon those processes. The system The institution Operational The department decision-making The learners space The teacher-self

Figure 1.  Teachers’ operational decision-making sphere (adapted from Lovat and Smith, 1995)

In conclusion This remains work in progress. My present position is that the construct of learner autonomy is highly problematic for university language centers (ULCs), and needs to be approached critically if we wish to avoid an easy slide into complacent liberal-humanist assumptions (Pennycook 1997; Benson 2000). Paradoxically, perhaps, this has led me to suggest that teacher autonomy is the more significant construct for ULCs. The work of Ian McGrath, Terry Lamb and Richard Smith, in Sinclair et al. (2000) has been particularly important in coming to this understanding. What I would like to explore further is the notion that teachers also need to “author their own world”. The particular world that teachers here are authoring is the ULC, through the construction of their own operational decision-making space. This is very much a bounded universe; there isn’t much room here either for “anarchic individuality”. Instead, I think that it involves – A collective engagement with the social, cultural and political environment in which language use occurs (in other words, the university) – our being able to perceive constraints on our work as opportunities – to see our work as a legitimate domain of critical enquiry, and to construct our work as educators (who are therefore more than simply language technicians).



Teachers working together 

I’m still working out for myself where this is going. I am suggesting that there is no necessary connection between student autonomy and teacher autonomy – at least not within the contexts described here. I expect that my students will sooner or later start to work out for themselves solutions that work for the particular problems they face in attempting to get a masters degree using English language. My students will become autonomous users of English, because they have to, but autonomous language learners? Students here don’t have time for that. Who says so – well, they do: are they wrong? The problem here with a ‘principled’ belief in the pervasive rightness of learner autonomy is that solutions based on such a belief are perhaps not always what students need. Paradoxically, such beliefs might be a manifestation of a lack of teacher autonomy. In other words, teachers in ULCs need to be able to decide that what is needed at this particular moment is something that has nothing to do with ‘learner autonomy’ and everything to do with sitting down with students and helping them to find words for the meanings they think they want to express, and the form those words need to take.  Another dimension of this is simply allowing teachers the space to make their own mistakes, and to come to their own conclusions about what kind of languagefocused interventions are necessary at any moment. This goes back to Lamb’s (2000) notion of teacher autonomy as the goal of professional development, a call for professionalism, and ultimately as resistance to hegemonic discourses. References Ashwell, T. et al. 2001. The Shizuoka Definition. Posted by Andy Barfield on Auto-L and excerpted from T. Ashwell et al. Onions, Red Peppers and Teacher Autonomy. Proceedings of the 2001 CUE Conference, Shizuoka, Japan. Benson P. & Voller, P. (eds). 1997. Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman. Benson, P. 2000. Autonomy as a learners’ and teachers’ right. In Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy: Future Directions, B. Sinclair, I. McGrath & T.Lamb (eds), 111–117. Harlow: Pearson Education. Benson, P. 2001. Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning. Harlow: Pearson Education. Benson, P. 2002. ‘Teachers’ and learners’ theories of autonomy. AILA 2002 Symposium on Relationships between learner and teacher autonomy: realities and responses, Singapore, December 2002. Breen, M. & Candlin, C. 1980. The essentials of a communicative curriculum in language teaching. Applied Linguistics 1(2): 89–112. Burns, A. 1999. Collaborative Action Research for English Language Teachers. Cambridge: CUP.

 Jonathan Shaw Champagne, M-F., Clayton, T., Dimmitt, N., Laszewski, M., Savage, W., Shaw, J., Stroupe, R., Thein, M.M. & Walter, P. 2001. The assessment of learner autonomy and language learning. In Learner Autonomy: New Insights [AILA Review 15], L. Dam (ed.), 45–55. Milton Keynes: Catchline/AILA. Clarke, D. 1991. The negotiated syllabus: What it is and how is it likely to work?. Applied Linguistics 12(1): 13–28. Clarke, M. 1994. The dysfunctions of the theory/practice discourse. TESOL Quarterly 28(1): 9–26. Cotterall, S. & Crabbe, D. 2002. Learners talking: Implications for teacher-led autonomy. AILA 2002 Symposium on Relationships between Learner and Teacher Autonomy: Realities and Responses, Singapore, December 2002. Hall, D. & Kenny, B. 1988. An approach to a truly communicative methodology: The AIT presessional course. English for Specific Purposes 7: 19–32. Hall, D. & Kenny, B. 1995. Thailand: evolution of a language centre: Pursuing autonomy in a collegial context. In Spreading English: ELT Projects in International Development, A. Pincas (ed.), 26–42. London: Phoenix ELT. Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. 1988. The Action Research Reader. 3rd edn. Victoria: Deakin University Press. Kenny, B. 1993a. For more autonomy. System 21(4): 431–442. Kenny, B. 1993b. Investigative research: How it changes learner status. TESOL Quarterly 27(2): 217–231. Lamb, T. 2000. Finding a voice: Learner autonomy and teacher autonomy in urban context. In Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy: Future Directions, B. Sinclair et al. (eds), 118–127. Harlow: Pearson Education. Legutke, M. & Thomas, H. 1991. Process and Experience in the Language Classroom. Harlow: Longman. Lovat, T., Smith, D. 1995. Curriculum: Action on Reflection Revisited. Katoomba: Social Science Press. McGrath, I. 2000. Teacher autonomy. In Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy: Future Directions, B. Sinclair et al. (eds). Harlow: Pearson Education. Nunan, D. 1989. Understanding Language Classrooms. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall. Pennycook, A. 1997. Cultural alternatives and autonomy. In Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning, P. Benson & P. Voller (eds), 35–53. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman. Schön, D. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner. New York NY: Basic Books. Schön, D. 1988. Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass. Sinclair, B. McGrath, I. & Lamb, T. (eds). 2000. Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy: Future Directions. Harlow: Pearson Education. Sleeter, C. & Grant, C. 1991. Race, class, gender and disability in current textbooks. In The Politics of the Textbook, M.W. Apple & L.K. Christian-Smith (eds), 78–110. London: Routledge. Smith, R. 2000. Starting with ourselves: Teacher-learner autonomy in language learning. In Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy: Future Directions, B. Sinclair et al.  (eds), 89–99. Harlow: Pearson Education. Stenhouse, L. 1975. An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. London: Heinemann. Swales, J. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: CUP.



Teachers working together  Thavenius, C. 1996. Teacher autonomy for learner autonomy. Paper presented at AILA conference, Finland, August 1996. Van Lier, L. 1996. Interaction in the Language Curriculum: Awareness, Autonomy and Authenticity. London: Longman. Walter P. 1998. Experiential learning in language education: suggestions for TESOL practice. Prospect 13(1).

Materials evaluation and teacher autonomy Hayo Reinders and Marilyn Lewis

Department of Second Language Studies, University of Hawaii / University of Auckland, New Zealand

This chapter investigates the role of materials evaluation in developing teacher autonomy. Staff in a university self-access centre were asked to apply an evaluative framework written by the authors to a random selection of study materials in order to establish how appropriate the materials were for independent study, so that decisions around the adaptation and future purchasing of materials could be made. The teachers’ personal reflections of the evaluation process were also recorded and these showed the positive effects of involving teachers in decisions that had previously been made for them.

Introduction The development of Learner autonomy involves an ongoing emphasis on the student as the centre of the classroom experience. The extent to which materials foster learner autonomy is suggested as one selection criterion when making purchasing decisions. This is usually emphasised in relation to students, as in the following statement: “The activities and materials must be flexible, designed to develop skills and strategies which can be transferred to other texts in other contexts” (Crawford 2002: 86). As Crawford points out, “language learning is largely an individual process” (p. 87). However, learner autonomy is also seen as intricately related to teacher autonomy (cf. Sinclair, McGrath, and Lamb 2000). With the increase in the number of self-access centres (SAC), it seems timely to examine the extent to which SAC staff have autonomy in their role. In some ways SAC teachers have more flexibility and freedom than colleagues working in structured classrooms, where the curriculum is fixed and linked with assessment. On the other hand, SAC students too have flexibility and freedom. They determine the content, amount and pace of their learning. The SAC materials and tools are often chosen by people other than the language advisers, generally a manager, a process which further restricts the autonomy of the staff, sometimes with negative motivational consequences

 Hayo Reinders and Marilyn Lewis

(cf. Reinders, Lewis, and Hacker 2004). Asking staff to participate in the evaluation and selection of materials may go some way to remedying this disempowerment of staff. In this chapter we report the results of a small-scale study in which we asked staff to (1) evaluate a checklist designed for assessing self-access materials, (2) evaluate a selection of materials, and (3) reflect on their experiences. Materials evaluation was found to be a practical and beneficial way to increase staff involvement and, indirectly, control over the self-access environment. This in turn should increase learner autonomy. If the people who best know the students individually, namely the SAC staff, are to encourage autonomy in the learners, then they themselves must be given autonomy in choosing materials. Selecting self-access materials: who and how? One role of staff in Self Access Centres (SACs) is to make decisions about materials. Suggestions about these decisions often emphasise the production of materials rather than their selection from existing publications. Gardner and Miller (1997) in their study of self-access facilities in Hong Kong recommended that “SAC managers must conduct a thorough needs analysis, train their tutors in materials writing, and then develop materials which meet users’ needs and wants” (p. 119). The reality is that while many excellent materials have already been produced, the challenge is to recognise these amongst the plethora of general ESOL resources. Most evaluation suggestions depend on having already bought the materials or, in the case of custom-made resources, on having produced a draft. Littlejohn (1998: 205) recommends “closely analyzing materials so that we can see ‘inside’ them and take more control over their design and use”. Often, though, it is a case of ordering from published or on-line catalogues without the luxury of this close analysis. A number of guidelines suggested for evaluating self access materials were reviewed as part of the present, ongoing project (Reinders and Lewis 2006). However, one obvious mark of a successful evaluative tool is that teachers and SAC staff find it useful/ valuable and actually use it. Materials evaluation as professional development Teacher development and learner autonomy are said to have much in common, since both involve choice (Edge and Wharton 1998). The choice for learners in a SAC is clear. They select from a range of materials and decide how long to spend on each; they also decide whether or not to ask for assistance. It is worth noting, though, that they can choose only from what has already been purchased for them. We might ask



Materials evaluation and teacher autonomy 

where the choice comes in for the individual language advisers when even the buying of materials may be determined by others, such as a manager. One option is to involve staff at the buying stage. By working through a pre-organised checklist, they have the opportunity to reflect on various aspects of the language learning process. The topic of teacher reflection has been given considerable attention, as part of professional development. It has been linked in particular to teachers’ beliefs. Williams and Burden (1997: 55) believe that critical reflection implies “at the very least that teachers should be aware of their belief systems and constantly monitoring how far their actions reflect those beliefs or are in keeping with them.” While this comment, and many others on reflection, is made in relation to classroom teaching, the same could be said of the role of the language advisor in a SAC. What they believe about the way languages are learned (as opposed to taught) will be the background to their evaluation of self-access materials. This ability becomes part of their overall professional proficiency. Tsui (2003: 11) sees the proficient teacher as “engag[ing] in analytical thinking and conscious decisions”. Evaluation of materials and, of an evaluative tool related to these materials, can be seen as promoting this thinking and decision making, yet it is infrequently mentioned in training and development resources. One classroom-based evaluation task offered by Parrott (1993: 78) “aims to develop your awareness of materials and approaches which focus on the processes of learning”. Offering teachers the opportunity to evaluate materials could be seen as another step in the professional development process. This professional development is more than an abstract idea. A recent study of self-access centres (Anderson, Reinders and Jones-Parry 2004) had this to say about centre staff: “While many had considerable experience in a variety of fields including language teaching, there was little evidence of qualifications directly relevant to self-access learning and its management.” (p. 23) In the absence of suitable qualifications, centre staff can be assisted through various forms of professional development, one of which is outlined here. One recommendation for professional development is that it should happen in a group context. Oliphant (2003) believes that working at a task with shared goals is one way of doing this. Method In the university self-access centre where this study was conducted, selection of materials had originally been the responsibility of the director. Recently, though, staff have increasingly been invited to make suggestions, for which catalogues and sample materials have been made available, as well as the time needed for the evaluation process. However, it became clear that the evaluations were highly subjective and did not

 Hayo Reinders and Marilyn Lewis

always allow for a comparison between different staff members’ opinions, making purchasing decisions difficult. It was deemed important to make use of some sort of common framework to increase objectivity, while still allowing individual comments from the evaluators to be included. The framework that was developed and used in this study (Reinders and Lewis 2005a, 2006) was intended to provide a means for a fairly quick and easy evaluation with room for personal comments. The purpose of the study was (1) to evaluate a random selection of 25 materials in terms of their suitability for the self-access context, (2) to assess the suitability of the evaluative checklist for self-access materials, and most importantly, (3) to record staff experiences in conducting the evaluations. Three staff participated in the study and evaluated a total of 25 resources. For the purposes of the study the resources were chosen by the self-access staff members themselves both from materials already available in the Centre as well as from sample materials on loan from the university bookstore. The only recommendation made by the Centre director was to include both book materials and software. Staff were invited to assign a comment of ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘unsure’ for each of the features listed and to provide comments where they wanted. The evaluative framework the staff were asked to use is included below in Table 1. Table 1.  The evaluation checklist. (See Reinders and Lewis 2006) Features Selecting the resource Claims to be suitable for self-access Clearly describes student level Needs to be used sequentially Accessing the parts of the resource An index A table of contents A detailed ‘map’ A glossary Chapter previews or summaries The learning process Information summarised Examples provided for tasks Objectives provided for tasks Keys/answers/criteria for tasks Learning to learn Notes on the learning process Shows how to set goals Other features

Yes/No/ Unsure

Comments



Materials evaluation and teacher autonomy 

The outcomes of the evaluations are discussed in some detail elsewhere (Reinders & Lewis 2005a, 2005b) but are briefly described below. These were obtained by quantitatively analysing the staff ’s answers. In addition, staff comments were analysed qualitatively. The tool itself was assessed in three ways. First we wanted to see how easy it was to use the tool. This was determined by noting the number of items which staff felt they could use without difficulty; in other words by counting the number of ‘yes’ and ‘no’ responses. The comments made in the ‘unsure’ category were then noted. Our next analysis was of the consistency within the same person’s evaluation. Thirdly we asked the staff to comment on the tool in their own words, in writing. This information was augmented by a series of informal interviews conducted in the Centre, in staff development time. These short semi-structured interviews were designed to probe advisors’ experiences with and perceptions of the evaluation process. The interviews were also used to seek clarification on staff their responses on the evaluation forms, and obtain general feedback on the evaluation framework itself. Results and reflections The results from the evaluations brought to light some interesting features of the 25 resources. Most materials included clear descriptions of the intended student level, had a table of contents or other guides to help students access specific parts of the resource. Many also included notes on how to improve learning skills. However, other features particularly relevant in a self-access context were not present in many cases. These included chapter previews or summaries, objectives, task examples, information on goal-setting, and, worryingly, several even did not include answer keys or criteria for assessing task performance. This applies to both general materials and those labelled as suitable for self-access. Features noted of particular interest by the evaluators, both positively and negatively, were authenticity of the materials, the aspect of learner training, and the ‘stand-alone’ nature of the materials (see for more results Reinders & Lewis 2005a). In responding to the second research question about the suitability of the evaluative framework, we first looked at the number and nature of ‘unsure’ reporting. Out of a total of 350 responses (14 questions for each of the 25 evaluations), there were only eight occasions when evaluators marked ‘unsure’ for a feature. One of these was for the comment “Shows how to set goals” and seven were for the item “Claims to be suitable for self-access”. In five of the eight cases there were no teacher annotations to explain the choice of ‘unsure’. In two of the remaining cases the additional notes made by the

 Hayo Reinders and Marilyn Lewis

teachers show the subjectivity involved in assessing whether or not the book made being suitable for self-access claims about it. Teachers quoted words from the texts as possibly suggesting that the materials were intended for independent use: The introduction states “This book can be used... by any students wanting to write better assignments”. Later it states that it can “… help students take responsibility for their own learning…”.

From this result we considered that perhaps the evaluation framework should include some written guidelines and maybe for this particular question one or two examples of materials that make clear assertions on their suitability for self-access. Next we looked for consistency within the evaluations. Examining other annotations led to the conclusion that some responses were contradictory. One teacher who ticked ‘no’ to ‘Chapter previews or summaries’, then wrote that there was “some sort of summary (a checklist) at the end of each chapter” words which seemed to cancel out the ‘no’ choice. In the section ‘the learning process’, a different person answered ‘yes’ to ‘examples provided for tasks but then added in the notes that “This book gives information (not to provide tasks for students to do).” It is difficult to draw conclusions about this sort of inconsistency. Perhaps it should be seen as a strength of the tool, since it shows that one answer on its own is not necessarily reliable. Perhaps some form of double checking should be built in. When they had finished evaluating the materials, the staff members were asked to comment by completing two sentences: The best aspect of the framework was … The most difficult parts were …

In reply to the first question, one staff member pointed out: It was good to analyse to what extent a resource was designed for self-access. Up till now I have tended to take the resources as a “given” and this helped me to think further about the way they are structured.

A follow-up informal interview (see below) revealed that this staff member had not previously thought of the range of materials available in the centre as being subject to her choice or opinion. For that reason she had not critically asked herself if they were suitable. Simply doing the evaluations removed this perceived barrier. Another staff member emphasised the efficiency of the tool itself. It made categorising the resources quicker by providing us with a guideline in evaluation of self study resources and their structure.



Materials evaluation and teacher autonomy 

When asked about her previous experience in evaluating materials, she indicated she had generally relied on intuition only, to make decisions on whether a resource would be useful in a given situation. The third staff member also highlighted the ease of use. It was easy to find the crucial parts of the resource because different subcategories can be identified easily.

There were also some difficulties reported in using the tool. One staff member found it especially difficult to identify self-access resources, because … some resources do not state explicitly whether they are suitable for self-access, nor do they describe the level(s) of students they are intended for. Sometimes they say things like ‘can be used by individual learners’, but it is not always clear what that means.

She went on to say that Another difficult part was “Learning to learn” because strictly speaking, headings like “Usage Clues” in a resource can be considered as something between “Learning to learn” and “Practical usage”.

This shows that care needs to be given to the headings we use in the evaluation tool. Perhaps common synonyms need to be included. Difficulty with the headings were shared by a colleague who suggests including an example. She wrote It was hard to know what you meant by a “map” and in general I feel it would have been good to have followed an example that had been done for me, for example to follow someone else’s analysis of a resource. It was a bit hard going into it cold.

The third evaluator indicated that the subheadings were not always clear when applying the framework to software materials. The most difficult part was actually keeping to the framework as sometimes the parts of the framework are not clearly differentiated in the resource, especially in the case of computer programmes.

The evaluations were followed by brief informal interviews with each of the three staff members. The interviewer took notes during the interview and the quotations below were based on these notes. Where necessary, the staff members were shown the quotations to ensure they agreed that was what they had said. There was remarkable consistency in their answers. When asked, all indicated that the evaluation checklist had been easy to use. Two, however, pointed out that it would have been beneficial to have an example, and also that it would have been useful to conduct evaluations together.

 Hayo Reinders and Marilyn Lewis

I think it would have been good to work together with [name]. Then we can exchange ideas and learn from each other. She may see things that I don’t and vice versa. It also helps to discuss how we can use a book or a CD Rom with the students, instead of just evaluating it in a general way.

All three felt doing the evaluations had been a good experience. Says one: I liked having the time to look closely at the materials. Normally I just quickly look through the table of contents when I help a student […] it is too busy. Now I feel I can get to know our resources more and help our students better.

Another staff member emphasised that it had been a new experience for her, and that it had given her more control than she had previously had as a classroom teacher. As a teacher I always just used what the course required. In the end you get to know the books very well but you never choose them yourself […] maybe if I would have stayed in that job longer they would have let me. Looking at the materials in this way is different as you become very critical.

All three said they would like to continue evaluating materials. One suggested comparing results. We could all do, say, the same 10 resources and then compare what we found. I think we could learn a lot from each other. Conclusion The threefold purpose of the study was to evaluate a selection of materials in one self-access centre, and to assess the suitability of the evaluative tool for materials selection and as a professional development tool. The main findings from the materials evaluation show that many of the resources did not include some of the information and guidelines that could be deemed crucial for stand-alone materials. This applied not only to general, but also to self-access materials. As for the suitability of the evaluative tool, overall the number of cases where the reviewers were unsure about their answers was low. This seems to indicate that the questions generally made sense to them and that the answers could be found in the materials. The small number of contradictory responses is interesting in that apparently sometimes there is uncertainty over the terminology used in the framework. The use of consistent and appropriate terminology is clearly very important, as also shown by the evaluators’ comments in response to the open-ended questions about the framework. It would be interesting to conduct a follow-up study to investigate (1) if different reviewers evaluate the same materials differently (as also suggested



Materials evaluation and teacher autonomy 

by one of the reviewers), and (2) if the same reviewers evaluate the same materials differently on a different occasion. As for the effects of evaluating self-access materials on the staff, we feel that the use of the framework has been positive in the sense that the staff seemed to appreciate the opportunity to have their say about the resources and mentioned learning from the process. Normally there is not much time to get acquainted with the 1,200+ materials in the Centre and new materials are constantly purchased. Setting aside the time to conduct such an evaluation has been positive all-round. One aspect that was not included this time was Oliphant’s suggestion of group cooperation (see above), although staff did discuss their responses informally later. For the next stage of the project we plan to include this element. We also plan to improve the evaluative framework based on the findings from this study, and then invite staff to evaluate all materials in the self-access centre, possibly as a collaborative effort, with several group meetings to discuss and compare findings. It is our aim to have staff draw up a list of recommendations for management on materials to be withdrawn or adapted, and to suggest changes to the evaluative framework, perhaps including further characteristics to be taken into account when making purchasing decisions. We argue that this is crucial in an environment that aims to foster autonomy because by having the freedom to select learner-centred materials teachers are implicitly taking the first step in handing over control to the students. References Anderson, H., Reinders, H. & Jones-Parry, J. 2004. Self-access: Positioning, pedagogy and future directions. Prospect 19(3): 15–26. Crawford, J. 2002. The role of materials in the language classroom: Finding the balance. In Methodology in Language Teaching, J. Richards & W. Renandya (eds), 80–91. Cambridge: CUP. Edge, J. & Wharton, S. 1998. Autonomy and development: Living in the materials world. In Materials Development in Language Teaching, B. Tomlinson (ed.). Cambridge: CUP. Gardner, D. & Miller, L. 1997. A Study of Tertiary Level Self-access Facilities in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong. Littlejohn, A. 1998. The analysis of language teaching materials: Inside the Trojan Horse. In Materials Development in Language Teaching, B. Tomlinson (ed.). Cambridge: CUP. Oliphant, K. 2003. Teacher development groups: Growth through cooperation. In A Practicum in TESOL, G. Cookes (ed.). Cambridge: CUP. Parrott, M. 1993. Tasks for Language Teachers. Cambridge: CUP. Reinders, H., Hacker, P. & Lewis, M. 2004. The language adviser’s role: Identifying and responding to needs. Language Learning Journal 30: 30–35. Reinders, H. & Lewis, M. 2005a. Examining the ‘self ’ in self-access materials. Reflections 7: 46–53. Reinders, H. & Lewis, M. 2005b. How well do self-access call materials support self-directed learning? JALTCALL Journal 1(2).

 Hayo Reinders and Marilyn Lewis Reinders, H. & Lewis, M. 2006. The development of an evaluative checklist for self-access materials. ELT Journal 60(2). Sinclair, B., McGrath, I. & Lamb, T. (eds). 2000. Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy: Future Directions. Harlow: Longman. Tomlinson, B. (ed.). 1998. Materials Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: CUP. Tsui, A. 2003. Understanding Expertise in Teaching. Cambridge: CUP. Williams, M. & Burden, R. 1997. Psychology for Language Teachers. Cambridge: CUP.

Appendix: sample evaluations Sample 1: Listening to New Zealand Evaluator 1) Features

Yes/No/ Unsure

Selecting the resource Claims to be suitable for self-access Clearly describes student level Needs to be used sequentially

Comments Recommends group discussion based on topics relevant to listening activity

Accessing the parts of the resource An index A table of contents A detailed ‘map’ A glossary Chapter previews or summaries

No Yes No No No

The learning process Information summarised Examples provided for tasks Objectives provided for tasks Keys/answers/criteria for tasks

No No Yes Yes

Learning to learn Notes on the learning process Shows how to set get goals

Yes No

Has to be used along with the book for this information

Other features The best aspect of the resource was the naturalness of the activities because it helps the students feel that they are in real life situations and gives practice in listening to native speech. The most difficult aspects was sometimes) the speed of the recordings, because though they are naturally varied in real life, it becomes difficult for the students to understand the words and comprehend the situation without the help of a teacher.



Materials evaluation and teacher autonomy 

Sample 2: Quest Book 3 evaluator 2) Features

Yes/No/ Unsure

Selecting the resource Claims to be suitable for self-access Clearly describes student level Needs to be used sequentially

No Yes No

Accessing the parts of the resource An index A table of contents A detailed ‘map’ A glossary Chapter previews or summaries

No Yes No No Yes

The learning process Information summarised Examples provided for tasks Objectives provided for tasks Keys/answers/criteria for tasks

No Yes No Yes

Learning to learn Notes on the learning process Shows how to set get goals

Yes No

Other features Appendix

Comments

→ This part is very good see “the best aspect” below) Common Irregular verbs

The best part of the resource was ‘Notes on the learning process’ because students can learn the skills for further improving a specific area. The most difficult part was also ‘Notes on the learning process’ because sometimes it is difficult to apply a strategy, without being given an example or the chance to practise it with an opportunity to get feedback from someone more experienced. E.g. on page 51 under “Listening Strategy”, students are recommend: “… you need to be aware of a logical, implicit cause-effect relationship” but are not given tips on identifying this ‘implicit relationship’.

Teacher education towards teacher (and learner) autonomy What can be learnt from teacher development practices? Flávia Vieira, Isabel Barbosa, Madalena Paiva, Isabel Sandra Fernandes University of Minho, Portugal

Teacher education towards teacher and learner autonomy is an ideological, value-laden choice whose purpose and outcomes need to be continuously scrutinised. The authors present three case studies where pre-service student teacher development practices were investigated, and discuss their value and shortcomings as regards their transformative direction. Our experience shows that criticality and role democratisation are difficult to achieve in this context, and that we need to develop further a scholarship of teacher education, as a way to uncover the forces that impinge upon it and to envision new possibilities that best serve the interests of teacher educators, teachers and learners.

Introduction This text emerges from three case studies conducted within a pre-service teacher education project in which teacher and learner autonomy are developed in tandem.1 The project has been running since 1995–96 with foreign language student teachers during their practicum year (the 5th year of their teaching degree) and

1. The project has been developed by a team of supervisors from the Department of Methodologies of Education at the Institute of Education and Psychology in our university (the authors and Maria Alfredo Moreira). Flávia supervised the three case studies, which were conducted in 2000–01 by Isabel (Barbosa 2003), Madalena (Paiva 2004) and Isabel Sandra (Fernandes 2004), as part of their MA dissertations.

 Flávia Vieira, Isabel Barbosa, Madalena Paiva, Isabel Sandra Fernandes

will be briefly described in section two.2 In section one we present some assumptions which highlight the ideological nature of our work as teacher educators. The case studies discussed in section three focus on three teacher development practices – lesson observation, supervisory discourse and student teachers’ journal writing. A comparative analysis of their value and shortcomings will lead us to section four, where we argue for the need to develop further a scholarship of teacher education towards learner autonomy in schools. The reason why we put “learner autonomy” in brackets in the title of this chapter is that, although our approach to teacher education is directly aimed at promoting pedagogy for autonomy in schools, the studies we are about to report focus primarily on teacher development processes rather than on learner development processes. This is a common paradox of research into teacher education, and it certainly limits our ability to understand how teaching and learning relate to each other. The opposite happens with a lot of research on learner autonomy, where issues of teacher development often remain obscured. Integrating both foci into research will certainly enhance our knowledge of what pedagogy for autonomy entails. Promoting teacher and learner autonomy: ideals and possibilities Teaching and teacher education are political and moral endeavours that reproduce and/or challenge the social order at any given historical moment. Our own choice as teacher educators to articulate teacher and learner development into a common framework towards an ideal view of education as liberation and empowerment is meant to be transformative rather than reproductive. This choice is markedly ideological in the sense that we are both limited by the dominant historical and structural forces that impinge upon our personal and professional being and committed to challenging those forces, finding spaces for manoeuvre and making education more rational and just. As Kemmis puts it (1999: 2. Our university offers FL teaching degrees (5 years) with a practicum year (5th year) after which students can become full teachers in lower and upper secondary schools. The practicum takes place in a local school and is supervised by two supervisors (school/university). The university supervisor is a teacher of FL Teaching Methodology (as in our case) or a member of the Languages Department. We supervise students from three language teaching degrees: Portuguese– English, English–German, and Portuguese–German. In these cases, they have four supervisors (two for each subject). School supervisors follow the student teachers’ work on a daily basis, whereas university supervisors have weekly seminars with the student teachers at the university and observe a minimum of three lessons per student during the year. Institutional regulations do not prescribe any particular approach to supervision. Many supervisors have no specialised training in supervision and there is no formal evaluation of supervisory practices, which can vary a lot.



Teacher education towards teacher (and learner) autonomy 

104), our choice has been, together with all those who share a transformative stance towards education, “to affirm our role as creators of human history”, a choice that is fraught with dilemmas and never fully accomplished. There has not been much research on how teacher education can promote a pedagogy for autonomy in the school context (see the review undertaken by Benson 2001). Our experience has shown us, however, that a reflective approach to teacher development offers the possibility of enhancing teacher and learner autonomy as interrelated phenomena, provided that the link is intentionally established (see Vieira et al. 2002, 2004). This means that reflective teacher education should involve teachers in action-based inquiry into the development of pedagogy for autonomy in schools. We are aware of the ambiguities surrounding the word “reflective” and of the different interests it may serve (see Kemmis 1999; Smyth 1997; Tom 1985; Vieira & Marques 2002; Zeichner & Tabachnick 1991). The same is true of the word “autonomy” when this refers to either teachers or learners (see Benson 2001; Sinclair et al.  2000). Within our framework, teacher autonomy is seen as a corollary of critical reflectivity and can be broadly defined as willingness and ability to manage constraints within a vision of education as liberation and empowerment. This view of education requires the development of pedagogy for autonomy in schools, broadly defined as any context-sensitive approach that aims at moving the learner closer to the learning process and content, by enhancing conditions that increase motivation to learn, interdependent relationships, discourse power, ability to learn and to manage learning, and a critical attitude towards teaching and learning (Vieira 2003: 224). Given the social and personal constraints on the development of teacher and learner autonomy, we must emphasise the importance of hope in teacher education and school pedagogy. As Van Manen puts it (1990: 123), “to hope is to believe in possibilities”. In our work with teachers we believe that it is possible to move away from education as reproduction towards education as transformation. However, this transition is never radical or finished, clear or easy. It is rather a neverending, chaotic and highly uncertain process whereby educators resist pressures to conform and try to find a voice in their communities, but still have to respond to various forms of authority, like educational tradition, established norms and routines, institutional requirements and bureaucracy, accountability standards, assessment systems, syllabi and textbooks, time constraints, and so on, not to mention the hegemonic power of political and academic discourses that are often built on the margin of educators’ interests. Therefore, moving towards education as transformation means swimming sometimes (more) with and other times (more) against the tide, without losing sight of the ideal we defend.

 Flávia Vieira, Isabel Barbosa, Madalena Paiva, Isabel Sandra Fernandes

Becoming action researchers and developing a scholarship of teacher education has helped us measure and shorten the distance between possibilities (what education can be at a particular moment) and ideals (what it should be), although there is always the risk of self-delusion in judging the quality of what we do on the basis of our personal histories and conceptual lenses – after all, we may be unable to critically understand and reconstruct our thought and action, and even unaware of our incapacity to do so. Integrating teacher and learner autonomy: a pre-service teacher development project The context Even though our national language education policies include autonomy as a learning goal and there have been promising local initiatives in schools, we might say that the culture of schooling is fraught with conflicting rationalities, and the development of learner autonomy is hardly a reality in Portugal. As one of us wrote elsewhere to sum up the present situation (Vieira 2003: 221), most school practices are not learning-centred and various factors seem to affect teachers’ willingness to experiment with alternative approaches. Among those factors we can point out the following: the weight of a transmissive and individualistic pedagogical tradition, the lack of appropriate teacher development programmes, the government’s top-down approach to innovation, the contradictions between reform principles and the demands of the system, and the increasing amount of bureaucracy associated with accountability in a progressively decentralised school system. As far as pre-service teacher education is concerned, the situation is also problematic: there is a mismatch between practice and political or academic discourses, curricula are still too theoretical and detached from schools, investment in the qualification of supervisors has been scarce, student teachers tend to be socialised into the dominant school culture, and the opportunities for university–school collaboration during the practicum period are largely wasted. Moreover, we are currently undergoing a major curriculum reform in teacher education due to the



Teacher education towards teacher (and learner) autonomy 

Declaration of Bologna, which does not seem very promising in terms of improving the quality of pre-service professional development3. Our main question about pre-service teacher education is, “how far is it preparing teachers to transform rather than reproduce dominant practices, to challenge rather than conform to given situational constraints?” (Vieira 2003: 222). The project and the case studies that we describe below can be interpreted as an attempt to answer this question. The project The assumption that inquiry is at the heart of pedagogy and professional development has greatly inspired our work with student teachers at the University of Minho. As supervisors, we have tried to enhance reflective teacher development through inquiry into pedagogy for autonomy in schools. In doing so, we have also tried to promote our own development through inquiry into our practice as reflective teacher educators. Our project was set up in 1995–96 and it aims at promoting our student teachers’ critical reflectivity by helping them to: (1) problematise the contexts of teaching and teacher development, (2) inquire into pedagogical theories and practices, (3) promote learning-centred pedagogy, and (4) value self-direction and collaboration in professional development. These aims are enacted through small-scale action research projects conducted by the student teachers in one of their classes. Action research was first experimented with by one of our colleagues for her Master’s degree with one group of student teachers (see Moreira 2001), and was incorporated into this project because it enhances an intentional link between teacher and learner centredness. We define it broadly as systematic inquiry into practice so as to improve the quality of teaching and learning, where quality is equated with what makes education (more) rational, just and satisfactory. Parker (1997: 39) points out that action research is “the means by which reflective teaching can become properly critical”, especially because it favours theory-generation rather than theory-application, and is concerned with ends – the value-framework – of education.

3. Pre-service teacher education programmes in Portugal are of two main kinds: integrated (as in our university, where students learn educational subjects from the first year of their teaching degrees) or sequential (where students can do teacher training after completing three years of subject-related education). The teaching practicum can be condensed into the final year (at universities) or dispersed during the programme for shorter periods of time (at schools of education). The current reform will lead to the adoption of a sequential model where teacher education becomes a post-graduate course of two years. The organisation of the practicum in still not clear, but it will be shortened.

 Flávia Vieira, Isabel Barbosa, Madalena Paiva, Isabel Sandra Fernandes

Every year we help student teachers design and implement action research projects, starting from their own pedagogical concerns or interests, which usually arise from a diagnosis of their students’ learning problems. The research projects may focus on particular skills or on broader issues like motivation or indiscipline. Whatever the topic chosen, we focus particularly on how pedagogical choices can foster learning-centredness, a concept we operationalise around four main notions – reflection, experimentation, regulation and negotiation: Reflection – learners should have the opportunity to reflect upon language and language learning processes so as to develop their awareness of how language works and how they can deal with language learning. Reflection should promote linguistic awareness (of formal, pragmatic and sociocultural aspects of language), language processing awareness (of how one reads, writes, interacts, etc.), selfawareness (of learning styles, study habits, personal needs and expectations, etc.), task awareness (of the rationale, goals and procedures involved in language learning tasks), and context awareness (of situational factors that may affect language learning in schools, for example syllabi, textbooks, pedagogical roles and discourse, assessment procedures, etc.). Experimentation – learners should have the opportunity to try out learning strategies (in class and outside class) that help them discover their own learning preferences, identify and solve learning problems, set personal goals, self-evaluate learning processes and outcomes … that is, they should learn how to learn by experiencing a wide range of socio-affective and (meta)cognitive learning strategies. Regulation – learners should have the opportunity to plan, monitor and evaluate their learning so as to develop their willingness and ability to self-direct. Regulation entails both reflection and experimentation (see above). Negotiation – learners should have the opportunity to interact freely, take an active part in the construction of knowledge and pedagogical decision making, develop cooperative attitudes and skills, and create positive interdependence relationships among themselves and with others. These aspects are taken as important dimensions of pedagogy for autonomy and are discussed with our students in the year before the practicum, in the FL Teaching Methodology course. When they get to schools, they are usually willing to explore them in practice, but after a while they tend to lean back towards more traditional stances, mainly due to the socialising force of the school culture and the need to “survive” as novice teachers. Our role is to provide alternatives, guidance and feedback, but most of all we strive to help them uncover and manage constraints, maintain motivation and energy, and recognise the importance of their role as educators. The participation of school supervisors in this process is crucial and we do our best to encourage communication and mutual support. However, time constraints, lack of training in supervision and/or lack of familiarity with our



Teacher education towards teacher (and learner) autonomy 

approach often result in poor co-operation, which is an important hindrance to the accomplishment of our goals. All projects are documented in action research journals where reflective writing plays a major role. Student teachers are encouraged to write regularly about their practice, especially about action research strategies, with a focus on the justifications and implications of their choices. Oral reflection with us takes place mostly during pre-/post-observation ‘conferences’ (sessions) where action research strategies are discussed and lessons are analysed. In these conferences, we try to encourage critical reflection on/for action rather than taking an evaluative stance. This usually means, among other things, that “asking questions” becomes as important as (and sometimes even more important than) “giving answers”. The action research projects are formally evaluated by each student teacher at the end of the year, and we also evaluate the approach on the basis of information collected through lesson observation, questionnaires and the journals. This approach to supervision is not representative of supervisory approaches at our institution. This limits its impact and means that it tends to be resisted by the student teachers initially. Although they eventually acknowledge its benefits and even advocate that it should be extended, they also feel it is unfair that they should go through the demands and difficulties of action research whereas others do not, knowing they have no choice and no guarantee that their effort will be properly rewarded in their final mark as compared with the others. Unlike in inservice teaching situations where action research is teacher-initiated, here it is “supervisor-initiated”, and it takes some time before student teachers acknowledge the value of an inquiry-based approach to pedagogy. It should be clear, though, that our goal is not to train action researchers. Action research, like other strategies, is essentially a means to promote teacher and learner autonomy, and our major goal is that student teachers learn to stand for and explore ideals for education. This goes hand in hand with developing a critical view of educational contexts by uncovering constraints and dilemmas and learning to deal with uncertainty in complex situations. Fundamentally, it entails a commitment to self-questioning and finding one’s position and voice in a world of conflicting values and rationalities. As Barnett (2004) puts it, the major challenge for pedagogy in higher education today “is not one of knowing but of being”. This is certainly true for the pedagogy of teacher education. Going back to our question above, how far is this project preparing teachers to transform rather than reproduce dominant practices, to challenge rather than conform to given situational constraints? Far enough, we should say, because the gains have been quite significant over the years (see Fernandes 2004; Marques et al., 2001; Moreira 1999, 2004; Moreira et al. 1999a, 1999b; Paiva 2004); not far enough, we

 Flávia Vieira, Isabel Barbosa, Madalena Paiva, Isabel Sandra Fernandes

must add, because there is still a lot to be done to shorten the distance between our accomplishments and our ideal. Possibilities still need to be explored … Investigating teacher development practices: lesson observation, supervisory discourse and journal writing Three case studies The three empirical studies we will now briefly present focus on three teacher development practices within the project: lesson observation (Madalena’s study), supervisory discourse in observation conferences (Isabel’s study), and journal writing (Sandra’s study). Why did we decide to investigate these practices? Within our approach to supervision, we have always assumed that they can play a crucial role in supporting student teachers’ efforts to explore pedagogy for autonomy while developing their own critical reflectivity. However, we felt we needed to know more about their value and shortcomings as regards that role. The three studies were carried out in 2000–01 with one group of three student teachers4 and their EFL supervisors. Madalena was the university supervisor, and her student teachers’ action research project was focussed on promoting their students’ autonomy by making them “less dependent on the teacher and more dependent on themselves”. They were thus interested in changing pedagogical roles in the classroom. The studies were developed within an interpretative paradigm and two main sources of evidence were used: participants’ perspectives (through questionnaires, reflective records or interviews) and participants’ discourse (oral or written, analysed with categories defined according to research foci). Table 1 presents the focus, objectives, common gains and methodological limitations of the studies.

4. These student teachers were doing their practicum in English and German at a secondary school. The case studies did nor involve German, as action research was only used for English, as part of our project.



Teacher education towards teacher (and learner) autonomy 

3. Reflective writing

2. Supervisory discourse

1. Lesson observation

Table 1.  Case studies: focus & objectives, gains & limitations Focus & objectives

Main gains & limitations

Collaboration in lesson observation within an AR project aimed at promoting learner autonomy – Develop collaborative observation practices within the STs’ project – Understand the role of collaboration in the (re)construction of personal theories and supervisory roles – Evaluate the impact of the experience on participants’ personal and professional development

Common gains (CS 1,2,3): – Enhancement of collaboration in the (re)construction of supervisory knowledge and action – Better understanding of the value and shortcomings of collaborative observation, supervisory discourse and journal writing in reflective teacher education towards learner autonomy

University S’s discourse reflectivity in conferences within the same AR project – Characterise the university S’s discourse in observation conferences: function (reflective processes), coverage (topics of reflection), and involvement of STs – Compare discourse practices with S and STs’ representations about those practices

– Stimulus for further research and practice: how can these practices better enhance critical reflectivity within our supervision project? – Personal and professional development of the researchers

STs’ discourse criticality in AR journals within their project – Understand STs’ representations of reflection in professional development – Characterise STs’ reflective entries in AR journals: function (reflective processes) and coverage (topics of reflection)

– Limited account of the dynamics of interactive reflection – Problems inherent to participant and non-participant research (subject–object relationship)

Common limitations (CS 1,2,3) – Focus on one local experience – Subjectivity of data analysis

S – supervisor; STs – student teachers; AR – action research; CS – case study

Study 1 – lesson observation The benefits associated with lesson observation in teacher development contexts are widely documented in the literature (see Hopkins 1993; Vieira 1993a, 1993b; Wajnryb 1992; Wragg 1999). As observation brings about reflection, it may act as a stimulus for change and empowerment for both the observed and the observer. However, it can also become a threatening and/or acritical activity where in-built biases and hierarchical power relationships constrain the development of self-discovery, self-esteem, and self-agency. Collaborative observation as a joint commitment to support teacher and learner autonomy should entail a dialogic approach

 Flávia Vieira, Isabel Barbosa, Madalena Paiva, Isabel Sandra Fernandes

to supervision, and we were interested in understanding the extent to which it can enhance role democratisation in a supervisory setting. In this study, Madalena conducted a set of pre/post-observation tasks with her student teachers, based on classroom episodes from their action research project on developing learner autonomy, either through direct observation or through video recordings. She collected information on the student teachers’ views of observation through questionnaires and reflective records, analysed a mid-year postobservation conference with a focus on the participants’ roles in discourse, and asked the school supervisor to write a final evaluative comment on the initiative implemented. Study 2 – supervisory discourse Observation conferences highlight the role of interactive discourse in promoting professional development. There is not much research, however, on how university supervisors’ discourse fosters or hampers the quality of teacher reflection. Since a very significant part of their work with student teachers takes place in these encounters, examining what they say is a way to understand what they do as teacher educators. It is also through discourse that supervisory styles are manifested, and the level of collaboration in discourse will influence the way student teachers develop their sense of professional direction (Glickman et al. 2001; Waite 1995, 1999). The more dialogic the interaction is, the more chances there are for student teachers and supervisors alike to grow. Within her study, Isabel recorded and analysed six observation conferences in Madalena’s work with the student teachers, corresponding to three observation cycles (pre-/post-observation sessions). She focussed on Madalena’s reflectivity in terms of discourse function (reflective processes), coverage (topics of reflection), and involvement of the student teachers in interaction. Information on the participants’ representations of discourse was collected in a final questionnaire and an interview with Madalena. Study 3 – journal writing Written reflection, namely journal writing, can be a powerful tool to enhance professional critical competences in complex situations (see Davis 1996; Fenwick 2001; Holly 1997; Knowles & Cole 2000; Van Manen 1990). However, as in any other approach that envisages transformation rather than resignation, written reflection needs to be constantly scrutinised in terms of what it means in practice, why it should be promoted and for what purposes, how it is done and on behalf of whose interests. Investigating student teachers’ writing in reflective journals can help us understand its personal and social significance, especially the role of



Teacher education towards teacher (and learner) autonomy 

uncertainty and constraints in the reconstruction of personal and professional roles and identities. Sandra collected Madalena’s student teachers’ action research journals and analysed them, focussing on discourse criticality in terms of function (reflective processes) and coverage (topics). Information on the participants’ views on the role of reflection in professional development was collected through questionnaires. The decision to gather all the information in the same setting was never intended to evaluate the quality of the participants’ performance. It was essentially a matter of taking the opportunity to explore the potential of a multi-perspective analysis of the same experience. This strategic decision was soon recognised to be an important step towards a more solid and realistic vision of our work, and although we cannot generalise the findings to other situations, we believe that they illuminate the value and shortcomings of the practices under study and indicate directions for the improvement of the supervisory project as a whole. Value and shortcomings of practices Table 2 presents the perceived value indicators and facilitating factors associated with the practices investigated. Value indicators emerged from the research findings, whereas most factors were identified on the basis of our interpretation of results, informal observation and knowledge of the practicum setting. The same applies to Table 3 below with regard to shortcomings and constraining factors. The value indicators on the left-hand column can be read as both outcomes of and conditions for the transformation of dominant practices of supervision and pedagogy. The three major gains emerging from them – inquiry, participation and growth – seem to be facilitated by a variety of factors (see right-hand column) which refer mostly to our conceptual framework as teacher educators, but also to the student teachers’ commitment to professional development and the positive interpersonal relationships among participants. Although we cannot establish a cause-effect relationship between these three aspects and the value indicators found, we believe that they play a crucial role in the integrated development of teacher and learner autonomy. These results were not a surprise, as they confirmed our previous impressions and expectations. From a critical perspective, finding evidence of shortcomings was more important as it allowed us to re-question practices whose value can be easily taken for granted.

 Flávia Vieira, Isabel Barbosa, Madalena Paiva, Isabel Sandra Fernandes

3. Reflective writing

2. Supervisory discourse

1. Lesson observation

Table 2.  Value of practices, and facilitating factors Indicators of value

Facilitating factors

– – – –

Common factors (CS 1,2,3): – Good interpersonal relationships – AR approach to teaching – Situated/practice-oriented reflection – Supervision framework of reference (reflective teacher development and pedagogy for autonomy) – STs’ commitment to professional development

– – – –

positive atmosphere, team spirit positive attitudes towards observation development of observation skills participation in reflection and decisionmaking creative generation of ideas sense of self-direction involvement of school S reflective stance towards supervision

– reflection about concerns beyond the immediacy of practice – openness to sharing ideas and feelings – co-construction of knowledge – pedagogical innovation focussed on teacher and learner autonomy – reflective stance towards supervision

Other factors: – University S’s commitment to a collaborative approach (CS 1, 2) – Co-operation of school S (CS 1, 2) – Power of writing as inquiry (CS 3)

– inquiry into learner autonomy and teacher development processes – openness to complexity, uncertainty, positive conflict and change – pro-active attitude towards constraints – regulation of feelings and motivations – finding a voice and a meta-language – reflective stance towards supervision

S - supervisor; STs – student teachers; AR – action research; CS – case study

Table 3 summarises the main shortcomings found by each study as well as the factors that seem to explain them. The shortcomings listed in the left-hand column highlight two major limitations of our approach: (not very high) degree of criticality and of role democratisation. These interrelated aspects affect the development of critical reflectivity, which depends on both critical abilities and egalitarian reciprocity in interactive discourse. The constraining factors identified in the right-hand column raise some broader issues that seem to have a particularly erosive effect upon teacher development in supervisory contexts, and also a negative impact on our efforts to promote pedagogy for autonomy in schools.



Teacher education towards teacher (and learner) autonomy 

3. Reflective writing

2.Supervisory discourse

1. Lesson observation

Table 3.  Shortcomings of practices and constraining factors Indicators of shortcomings

Constraining factors

Symmetric participation in collaborative observation is hard to achieve: (a) university S tends to dominate discourse and roles are often unequally distributed; (b) STs’ show different degrees of participation; (c) the school S might play a more determining role in interaction

– Asymmetrical status and background knowledge of participants – Expectations as regards roles – Lack of a collaborative culture – Diversity of supervisory approaches – Personality traits of participants – Time/space – limited contact between university S and STs

Reflective moves rarely reach a high level of criticality: (a) processes of theory and practice reconstruction are often absent; (b) an explicit focus on pedagogical assumptions is scarce; (c) reflection about the contexts of teaching and learning is not frequent

– Partial mismatch between practices and representations (which are more positive) – No systematic regulation of discourse quality – Need to attend to STs’ priorities with a focus on problem-solving – Time constraints (vs. long agendas)

Reflective moves rarely reach a high level of criticality: (a) problematisation of macro-contexts of practice is scarce; (b) assumptions and moral implications of pedagogic options are often absent; (c) no evidence is found of a cyclical and dialogical use of written reflections Problems of expression and personal writing styles sometimes affect clarity and coherence of ideas

– Lack of a culture of (and quality criteria for) written reflection – Limited reflective competences – Limited awareness of the power of writing as inquiry into theories and practices – No systematic feedback from Ss on journal reflectivity – Concerns with assessment, self-image, face, strategic survival – Perception of AR journals as a product (vs. development tool) – Shortage of time to invest in writing

S - supervisor; STs – student teachers; AR – action research

Criticality has been discussed in the literature about levels and dimensions of reflection, and some typologies have been suggested to help teachers and teacher educators expand professional reflection to a critical ‘stage’ (see Jay and Johnson 2002; Ward & McCotter 2004). The problem, however, cannot be reduced to the availability of a typology, no matter how useful it might be in creating a framework for reflection. Even when reflection is valued by supervisors, as in our case, the beginning teachers’ lack of experiential knowledge as teachers usually requires them to focus

 Flávia Vieira, Isabel Barbosa, Madalena Paiva, Isabel Sandra Fernandes

on survival strategies at a rather technical level; moreover, their experiential background as learners often hinders reflective development, for although they start off with a pro-active attitude towards the development of learner autonomy, they are rapidly socialised into reproducing the dominant values and practices they know best, thus adopting a rather passive, low-risk stance. Therefore, both past and present experience (as learners/teachers) can hamper their ability to challenge established practices. If we believe experience to be the touchstone of professional development, then we must acknowledge the huge gap to be bridged between the kind of experience student teachers bring to the training situation, see in schools and tend to reproduce, and the kind of experience that we the supervisors would like them to value and strive for. This we might call the experience dilemma. The quality of supervisory counselling has a determining role here, and can always be improved, but the evaluative function of supervision often undermines criticality in at least two subtle ways: student teachers may not be willing or feel at ease to open up, share dilemmas, reveal weaknesses, and assume their own views (even if they seem to be willing / at ease); or they may feel compelled to respond according to the supervisor’s agenda as a strategy to avoid confrontation and win his/her sympathy (even if they seem to respond from their own choice). These kinds of attitudes are, to a certain extent, legitimate, and the supervisor has no easy way out of what we might call the support-evaluation dilemma. On the other hand, if reflection is constrained by a perceived threat to face, self-esteem and pro-activeness, this means that public reflection (oral or written) may not be a totally reliable source for judging student teachers’ criticality. The above problems necessarily affect role democratisation, also a major topic in the literature on pedagogical supervision. Waite, for example, advocates a dialogic approach whereby “participants are free, indeed encouraged, to question anyone’s assumptions. This is done within a relationship of mutual trust and reciprocity” (1999: 244). There are, however, severe cultural and personal constraints on a balanced distribution of power in supervisory relationships. In reflective environments where equal participation is valued, the supervisors’ position of authoritative power still requires that they adjust their supervisory style to the student teachers’ degree of willingness and ability to assume responsibility. In (too?) many situations, they need to adopt a directive informative style rather than a collaborative one, even though that is not the choice they would ideally make. There is often a tension between the emancipatory goals of teacher education and the student teachers’ readiness to make choices that best serve their students’ interests, or between the tenets of reflective teacher education and the role of the supervisor as someone who is supposed to teach how to teach. As supervisors are expected to be reliable and supportive, student teachers often expect them to provide solutions to urgent problems on the basis of their expertise. In fact, the



Teacher education towards teacher (and learner) autonomy 

supervisor often acts like a model: a model for how you should (not) reason about teaching and learning, a model for what you should (not) value in education, a model for what you should (not) strive for in educational settings. In a nutshell, a model for “the reflective professional”. This implicit modelling is necessary in order to be coherent (“practise what you preach”), but it can also hamper (often unintentionally) the student teachers’ choices by “imposing” a view of education that can hardly be contested but is difficult to understand fully and even more difficult to put into practice. The experience dilemma mentioned above is reinforced by the conceptual gulf between the supervisor and the student teacher, which may generate acritical compliance, fear to frustrate expectations, insecurity, silent resistance or open confrontation, which in turn may result in either a false role democratisation (everyone participates in accordance with the supervisor’s agenda and frame of reference) or role conflict (in this case, passive or adversarial roles are often judged as inappropriate but left unexamined). As regards the two interrelated aspects we have been discussing – criticality and role democratisation – there is certainly a hidden curriculum in teacher education that calls for further investigation. Or perhaps student teachers and supervisors need to keep it hidden in order to preserve their selves and withstand uncertainty, conflict, or psychological pressure. If we compare the facilitating and constraining factors from Tables 2 and 3, a major difference can be signalled: the former derive mainly from our choices as teacher educators, whereas the latter refer mostly to the dominant culture of supervision and teacher development. This takes us back to the ideological nature of the approach we have developed: our action as teacher educators is somewhere between how things can be and how things should be. Envisioning possibilities is the topic of the next section. Envisioning possibilities The exploratory process of striving for our educational ideals and re-finding a “language of possibility” (Aronowitz & Giroux 1993: 149) requires that we see reflective approaches not only as empowerment tools, but also as tools with power to serve multiple and even conflicting ends, depending on how they unfold. Practices that are meant to be powerful tools to enhance democratic and critical development processes need to be subjected to continuous scrutiny as a means to uncover not only how and why those processes are valuable but also by and for whom they are promoted. As reflective teacher educators, we need to adopt an attitude of constant surveillance and even a healthy scepticism about our personal theories and practices, including “a due measure of self-doubt” (Barnett 2004).

 Flávia Vieira, Isabel Barbosa, Madalena Paiva, Isabel Sandra Fernandes

The main limitations of our approach seem to have to do with criticality and role democratisation, which are interdependent phenomena. Our student teachers find themselves in a paradoxical position: they should feel empowered to make decisions, but these are constrained by our agenda to promote autonomy in schools, and by our role as evaluators of their willingness and ability to do so. Moreover, even when they strive to do it, their sense of direction is strongly affected by their sense of powerlessness as regards the school culture and their lack of teaching experience. In our efforts to “teach them how to teach”, we may be imposing a view of education rather than helping them build their own. The struggle between the ideal and the possible seems to point to a clear direction: the urge to develop a culture of significant possibility, which involves the interplay between conceptual frameworks, personal beliefs, (inter)personal will and choices, situational circumstances, and the historical forces of dominant cultures. Our studies represent a step forward in envisioning what might be significantly possible in our working context: to enhance collaboration and discourse as empowering practices. Practical measures to do this have been worked out by the team and include more self-/co-regulation of supervisory discourse, more collaborative work on journal entries, and more co-operation with/from school supervisors. But underneath and beyond practical solutions, which are always contextsensitive and context-bound, lies the most important gain from our inquiry: a heightened awareness of where we stand as regards the direction we take, and also a deeper sense of our responsibility as teacher educators. Developing a scholarship of teacher education towards pedagogy for autonomy If pre-service teacher education is to have a transformative effect upon schools, it is not enough to equip student teachers with vast amounts of specialist and pedagogical knowledge or teaching techniques. Rather, it is urgent to encourage the development of critical competences that enable active participation in the construction of a democratic society, and this will only be possible if student teachers become involved in challenging and reconstructing established practices in schools. We believe that supervisory strategies can support this goal by fostering their willingness and ability to manage constraints, within a vision of education as liberation and empowerment. This vision necessarily entails teacher and learner autonomy as an educational goal. In order to enhance teacher and learner autonomy, we need to develop a scholarship of teacher education that is socially relevant and morally defensible. Two major goals of this scholarship might be (1) uncovering the forces that reduce the scope and impact of teacher education practices, and (2) envisioning ways to con-



Teacher education towards teacher (and learner) autonomy 

struct local practices of significant possibility. The case studies we have presented are just one example of how this kind of scholarship can be promoted, through the multi-perspective analysis of experience, by supervisors who share the same conceptual framework and work in the same team. As we said in the introduction, research in the autonomy field has tended to focus either on the teacher or on the learner. We certainly need to inquire further into how teacher and learner autonomy relate to each other, so as to understand the full meaning of the expression pedagogy for autonomy, where autonomy refers to both participants, and not just to the learner. In this approach, teachers and learners become analysts of their own practice and critical informers of the educational community. A third goal of a scholarship of teacher education would then be (3) supporting teachers and learners in undertaking and disseminating schoolbased inquiry into pedagogy for autonomy. Whatever we do to develop the kind of scholarship we advocate here, it will always face obstacles, especially as teacher education is often undervalued in the academic milieu. Therefore, the direction of teacher education also depends on the way teacher educators position themselves in their working places: how far are they (we) willing and able to transform rather than reproduce dominant practices, to challenge rather than conform to given situational constraints? References Aronowitz, S. & Giroux, H. 1993. Education Still Under Siege. Westchester NY: Bergin and Garvey. Barbosa, I. 2003. O Discurso da Supervisão na Formação Reflexiva de Professores Estagiários. MA dissertation, University of Minho, Braga. Barnett, R. 2004. Re-finding a pedagogy for teacher education. Paper presented at the Conference on Pedagogy at University, University of Minho. Benson, P. 2001. Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning. London: Longman. Davis, N. 1996. Looking in the mirror: Teachers’ use of autobiography and action research to improve practice. Research in Science Education 26(1): 23–32. Fenwick, T. 2001. Responding to journals in a learning process. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 90: 37–47. Fernandes, I.S. 2004. A Reflexão Escrita na Formação Crítica de Professores Estagiários de Inglês – um Estudo de Caso. MA dissertation, University of Minho, Braga. Glickman, C., Gordon, S. & Ross-Gordon, J. 2001. SuperVision and Instructional Leadership. A Developmental Approach. Boston MA: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Holly, M. 1997. Keeping a Professional Journal. Geelong: Deakin University Press. Hopkins, D. 1993. A Teacher’s Guide to Classroom Research. 2nd edn. Buckingham: Open University Press.

 Flávia Vieira, Isabel Barbosa, Madalena Paiva, Isabel Sandra Fernandes Jay, J. & Johnson, K. 2002. Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective practice for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education 18: 73–85. Kemmis, S. 1999. La investigación-acción y la política de la reflexion. In Desarrollo Profesional del Docente – Política, Investigación y Práctica, A. Pérez Gomez, J. Barquín Ruiz & J. Angulo Rasco (eds), 95–118. Madrid: Ediciones Akal. Knowles, J. & Cole, A. 2000. Researching Teaching: Exploring Teacher Development Through Reflexive Inquiry. Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon. Marques, I., Moreira, M.A. & Vieira, F. 2001. A investigação-acção na formação reflexiva de professores – Um projecto de supervisão na Universidade do Minho. In Actas do VI Congresso Galaico-Português de Psicopedagogia, B. Silva & L. Almeida (eds), 619–29. Braga: University of Minho. Moreira, M.A. 1999. A investigação-acção na supervisão de professores de língua: Potencialidades e constrangimentos. In Educação em Línguas Estrangeiras – Investigação, Formação, Ensino, F. Vieira, G. Branco, I. Marques, J. Silva, A. Moreira & M. Silva (eds), 289–302. Braga: University of Minho. Moreira, M. A. 2001. A Investigação-Acção na Formação Reflexiva do Professor Estagiário de Inglês. Lisboa: Instituto de Inovação Educacional. Moreira, M. A. 2004. Certezas e incertezas da investigação-acção em ano de estágio: Uma análise das suas potencialidades e constrangimentos. Paper presented at the 1st National Conference of Language Teacher Education in Higher Education, University of Porto, Portugal. Moreira, M.A, Vieira, F. & Marques, I. 1999a. Investigação-acção e formação inicial de professores – Uma estratégia de supervisão. In Supervisão na formação: contributos inovadores. Actas do I Encontro Nacional de Supervisão na Formação, A. Moreira, I. Sá-Chaves, M.H. Araújo e Sá, M.H.P. Jesus & R. Neves (eds), 137–46. Aveiro: University of Aveiro (CD ROM). Moreira, M.A, Vieira, F. & Marques, I. 1999b. Pre-service teacher development through action research. The Language Teacher 23(12): 15–18. Paiva, M. 2004. A Observação Colaborativa na Formação Reflexiva de Professores Estagiários de Inglês – um Estudo de Caso. MA dissertation, University of Minho, Braga. Parker, S. 1997. Reflective Teaching in the Postmodern World – a Manifesto for Education in Postmodernity. Buckingham: Open University Press. Sinclair, B., McGrath, I. & Lamb, T. (eds). 2000. Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy: Future Directions. London: Longman. Smyth, J. 1997. Teaching and social policy: Images of teaching for democratic change. In International Handbook of Teachers and Teaching, B.J. Biddle, T.L. Good & I.F. Goodson (eds), 1081–1143. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Tom, A. 1985. Inquiring into inquiry oriented teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education 36(5): 35–44. Van Manen, M. 1990. Researching Lived Experience – Human Science for an Action Sensitive Pedagogy. London: State University of New York Press. Vieira, F. 1993a. Observação e supervisão de professores. In Dimensões da Educação das Línguas Estrangeiras, F. Sequeira (ed.), 69–90. Braga: University of Minho. Vieira, F. 1993b. Supervisão – Uma Prática Reflexiva de Formação de Professores. Rio Tinto: Edi­ ções Asa. Vieira, F. 2003. Addressing constraints on autonomy in school contexts – Lessons from working with teachers. In Learner Autonomy Across Cultures – Language Education Perspectives, R. Smith & D. Palfreyman (eds), 220–39. London: Palgrave.



Teacher education towards teacher (and learner) autonomy  Vieira, F. & Marques, I. 2002. Supervising reflective teacher development practices. English Language Teacher Education and Development 6: 1–18. (Available at htpp://www.cels. bham. ac.uk/ELTD/vol6Issue1/issue6.htm). Vieira, F., Moreira, M.A., Barbosa, I. & Paiva, M. (eds). 2002. Pedagogy for Autonomy and English Learning. Braga: University of Minho. Vieira, F., Moreira, M.A., Barbosa, I., Paiva, M. & Fernandes, I. (eds). 2004. Pedagogia para a Autonomia – Resistir e Agir Estrategicamente. Braga: University of Minho (CDRom). Waite, D. 1995. Rethinking Instructional Supervision. Notes on its Language and Culture. London: The Falmer Press. Waite, D. 1999. Towards the democratization of supervision. In Supervisão na Formação: Contributos Inovadores, A. Moreira, I. Sá-Chaves, M.H. Araújo e Sá, M.H.P. Jesus & R. Neves. (eds), 241–51. Aveiro. University of Aveiro (CD ROM). Wajnryb, R. 1992. Observation Classroom Tasks. Cambridge: CUP. Ward, J. & McCotter, S. 2004. Reflection as a visible outcome for preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education 20: 243–57. Wragg, E.C. 1999. An Introduction to Classroom Observation. 2nd edn. London: Routledge. Zeichner, K. & Tabachnick, R. 1991. Reflections on reflective teaching. In Issues and Practices in Inquiry-oriented Teacher Education, R. Tabachnick & K. Zeichner (eds), 9–27. London: The Falmer Press.

Multiple voices Negotiating pathways towards teacher and learner autonomy Barbara Sinclair

Centre for Research into Second and Foreign Language Pedagogy, University of Nottingham, UK

This paper reports an innovative project to develop negotiated, collaborative teaching and learning in higher education as a model for continuing personal and professional development. In foregrounding the ‘voices’ of the various participants in the development of autonomy at three interacting levels, it investigates the design and delivery of a postgraduate programme in ‘Learner Autonomy’ for overseas teachers of English at the University of Nottingham. The paper investigates institutional and contextual constraints, the concept of ‘autonomies’ in in-service teacher education, and the framework and processes of negotiation that evolved. Research data on course participants’ own levels of autonomy were used to uncover and explore issues arising from the personal, cultural and social backgrounds of the course participants, their own students and the module lecturer.

Introduction This paper considers how the ‘voices’ of the various participants in the development of autonomy at three different but interacting levels have informed the design and delivery of a Masters level programme in ‘Learner Autonomy’ for overseas teachers of English at the University of Nottingham in the UK. These different levels relate to the course lecturer, the course participants and the participants’ own language learners, while the ‘voices’ refer to the processes of negotiation at these levels. The latter are concerned with, inter alia, the management of the social, political and bureaucratic constraints imposed by the lecturing context, including those relating to the predominant culture of ‘accountability’ in British higher education, which seem to be antithetical to the development of autonomy. They are also concerned with the expectations, interests, diverse experience and knowledge

 Barbara Sinclair

of the course participants, their own developing capacity for autonomy as students, their developing understanding of the theory and practice of teacher and learner autonomy, their awareness of the constraints of their own teaching contexts and the lifelong learning needs of their own language learners. The paper will firstly consider the context in which the module on ‘Learner Autonomy’ has been developed. It will then explore the concept of different levels of autonomy, or ‘autonomies’, in this in-service teacher education context. It will look at the roles and ‘voices’ of the participants involved and the nature of collaborative learning as it describes the framework and processes of negotiation that evolved in the MA module. It will also show how data resulting from a study to investigate course participants’ own levels of autonomy while studying on the programme were used to uncover and explore issues in autonomy arising from the personal, cultural and social backgrounds of the course participants, their own students and the module lecturer. The paper will conclude by considering how the processes of collaborative course development on the theme of learner autonomy have the potential to provide continuing personal and professional development for all those involved. Context and constraints This paper takes as its context a module on the topic of ‘Learner Autonomy’ offered on the MA in English Language Teaching at the University of Nottingham. The MA is a one-year, full-time programme for qualified teachers of English with a minimum of 2 years’ full-time teaching experience. As is currently common in British universities, approximately 90% of the MA participants are non-native speakers of English from overseas, mainly from China, Taiwan and Japan, with some from Europe and a few from other parts of the world. The programme provides core modules in ‘Applied Linguistics’ and ‘Syllabus Design and Methodology’ in the first semester, and a range of electives in the second semester. The module on ‘Learner Autonomy’ is a popular elective module. It provides 10 face-to-face sessions of 3 hours each over 10 weeks. Students are expected to spend another 30 hours on directed study tasks, and a further 165 hours in self-directed study. The module is assessed through a written assignment of 6,000 words on a topic of the student’s choice. The students are entitled to a group tutorial and at least 2 individual tutorials in preparation for their assignment. In addition to written assignments for each module studied, the students have to submit a dissertation of 12– 15,000 words on a topic of their choice. There are only 3 grades: pass, fail and distinction.



Multiple voices 

The constraints to be managed by a module convenor on the MA programme are imposed by the following: − the teaching context: e.g., University quality assurance procedures and regulations re Masters Courses and assessment; institutionally sanctioned norms and values relating to teaching on masters courses; accountability; − the social, economic and political contexts: e.g., the prevailing post-modernist consumerist approach to education and the utility of knowledge; − learner factors: e.g., cultural norms; beliefs and expectations about education; previous lack of autonomy as students. The teaching context The module on ‘Learner Autonomy’, like all others on the programme, is subject to rigorous university quality assurance procedures. It is worth looking in detail at some of these procedures since they provide the background against which, somewhat paradoxically, a module on “Learner Autonomy” has been developed and the autonomies described in the paper supported. Course and module proposal documents have to follow a format prescribed by the university and be scrutinised by a number of committees before being allowed to run. Details concerning aims, objectives, learning outcomes, transferable skills, content, scheduling, teaching methods, assessment methods, tutors involved and resources required have to be given and shown to conform to the university regulations. During the teaching of the module, each teaching session requires an overview sheet for the participants, stating aims, objectives, content, readings, tasks and bibliography. These, together with all materials used in the session (handouts, presentational material etc.) have to be collected at the end of each session and filed in a central location for the convenience of Subject Review inspectors. Every tutorial with a student has to be recorded in triplicate, with one copy for the tutor’s records, one for central records, and one for the student. E-mail exchanges with students, likewise, have to be kept and filed. Students’ work is assessed by their module convenor and detailed formative feedback given on a specially designed form. If the work is deemed a fail or a distinction, it is passed to a second tutor for blind marking. Finally, a selection of work is sent to an external examiner to ensure quality and consistency of assessment.

 Barbara Sinclair

Examiners’ reports are responded to by the course leader, and all related documents filed for inspection. Evaluation of the module is conducted in various ways: – SETs (Student Evaluation of Teaching) This is a set of statements with a Likert scale and spaces for comments, so that, in theory, each student can assess the quality of teaching provided on the module. The statements are provided by the university’s central management, and include items such as, ‘The lecturer starts the session on time’, and ‘The lecturer is approachable’. The SETs are given to the students at the end of the module, and are collected in and placed in a sealed envelope in front of them. This envelope is sent to an office in the university where the lecturer’s teaching score is calculated. This is then passed to the Head of School, with a copy to the lecturer. Such scores may play a part in future promotion or disciplinary procedures. – SEMs (Student Evaluation of Module): This is also a set of statements with a Likert scale and spaces for comments, so that, in theory, each student can assess the content and organisation of the module. Half of the statements are provided by the university, with half selected from a pool of university approved statements by the school in question. They include items, such as: ‘The pace of the module was just right’ and ‘I have learnt a lot from this module’. The SEMs are also given to the students at the end of the module, and the filled in questionnaires are collected by the module convenor, who then has to summarise them and provide a report for discussion and filing. The report needs to address any criticisms and explain how they will be dealt with. – A Staff/Student Consultative Committee meeting is held once a term, on which each module has a representative, to air any positive or negative feedback from the group on more general aspects of the module, such as facilities, scheduling, assessment deadlines etc. The minutes, together with module convenors’ responses, are filed for inspection and also placed on the internet for easy access by the students. – SECs (Student Evaluation of Courses) This is yet another questionnaire which is given to students after completion of their course of study, when they can look back and evaluate the whole learning experience. Results are collated, discussed at the Postgraduate Taught Courses committee, and relevant minutes and other documents relating to action taken filed.



Multiple voices 

It might be concluded that the framework of regulations within which a university lecturer is required to work may prove antithetical to the development of autonomy in students or lecturer to any useful degree! However, this paper will go on to contend that such a setting may also provide a stimulus for autonomy at a number of levels. In terms of institutional norms and values, the School of Education at the university of Nottingham prides itself on providing a high quality learning experience which is learner-centred, respects individuality and focuses on meaningful professional and personal development. The School expects its academics not only to be first class researchers, but excellent teachers, as well. Such a view is reflected in the MA aims in appendix 1. (It goes without saying that, although staff subscribe fully to such sets of expectations, such expectations do exert their own pressures; it is important to the university for the students to feel they have received value for money.) The social, economic and political context In modernist societies knowledge was perceived as good for its own sake. One learned in order to become educated. In today’s world of consumer capitalism, however, ‘postmodernism’ sees knowledge as functional and there is an emphasis in educational policy on skills and training, on knowledge for future use (a trend which has become epitomised in language education by English for Specific Purposes (ESP) programmes). In ‘postmodernism’ knowledge is characterised by the way in which it is stored and distributed, i.e., usually in computerised forms and, with regard to learner autonomy, this has led to pragmatic approaches to distance education and self-access learning. An academic wishing to convene a module on Learner Autonomy will need to be aware of the demands of the postmodernist institutional structures and the more pragmatic needs of the learners, and reconcile these with his or her beliefs about the rights of humans to a measure of autonomy: the opposing forces of learning as ‘consumer activity’ and learning as development of the self within a society. Learner factors The participants on an MA module on Learner Autonomy bring to the module a variety of experience, knowledge, skills, beliefs and expectations. They may have cultural and social origins which do not encourage independence in learning, and may have little experience of being autonomous in their own learning. On the other hand, the participants in our context are all adult, with life experience, and are motivated to explore issues of autonomy.

 Barbara Sinclair

Autonomy and autonomies in in-service teacher education ‘Autonomy’ is a notoriously difficult concept to define, with different viewpoints arising from different philosophical beliefs. This paper will suggest that both learner and teacher autonomy are relevant to the in-service teacher education context, not only for the teachers (participants), but also the lecturer. In this paper, the concept of ‘learner autonomy’ relates to any person who considers themselves to be in a situation where they are learning, including the trainee teachers (participants), their own learners, and their lecturer in the programme described later in this paper. The concept of ‘learner autonomy’, therefore, provides the foundation for ‘teacher’ autonomy, as discussed here. ‘Teacher autonomy’ relates principally to the trainee teachers on the programme, but is also relevant to any person in a teaching role, such as the course lecturer. Learner autonomy There are a number of different views concerning the nature of learner autonomy. For example, for some, autonomy is a question of learners’ rights or freedom from constraint and represents an opportunity for social transformation (see for example Benson 1997; Pennycook 1997). From a feminist perspective, learner autonomy has been regarded as part of a masculine discourse which distorts social realities (see Griffiths 1992 for a fuller discussion), and in some national contexts, such as Singapore, the promotion of learner autonomy is regarded as a political necessity for economic growth (see for example Goh 1997). With regard to learner autonomy in language learning, one view is that it is principally concerned with providing learners with the strategies and techniques for learning a language without the presence of a teacher, i.e., autonomy results from targeted strategy training (see for example Cohen and Aphek 1980; Cohen et al. 1995; Oxford 1990). Another view is that it is about providing learners with the conditions and opportunities for exercising a degree of independence, e.g., ranging from activities in class which provide learners with opportunities for choice or decision-making about their learning, to independent study in self-access learning centres (Esch 1996), or participation in out-of-class learner-directed project work. In other words, autonomy means being self-directed (see for example, Dam and Gabrielsen 1988; Dam and Legenhausen 1996). Another view is that autonomy is a capacity for making informed decisions about one’s own learning and that this capacity needs to be developed through introspection, reflection and experimentation in the form of ‘learner training’ or some other kind of intervention by a facilitator, such as a teacher or counsellor. Learners may develop this capacity (or knowledge about their learning), but may



Multiple voices 

choose at times not to be self-directed. In other words, autonomy is a capacity for potential individual and group self-directed learning behaviours (see for example, Dickinson 1988, 1992; Holec 1981; Ellis and Sinclair 1989a, 1989b; Sinclair 1994, 1999; Wenden 1991). Yet another view takes the position that such a capacity can best be developed through social and collaborative learning, rather than through teacher intervention (see for example Little 1991, 1996). The concept of ‘learner autonomy’ supported by this paper is as follows: i. Learner autonomy is a construct of capacity which is operationalised when willingness is present. ii. This capacity consists of the development and conscious awareness of a body of specific metacognitive knowledge about: – one’s self as a learner – one’s learning context; – the subject matter to be learnt; – the processes of learning. iii. Intervention is generally needed in order to develop such a capacity in learners. iv. Autonomy entails ‘a capacity and willingness to act independently and in cooperation with others, as a socially responsible person’ (Dam 1995: 1). v. The willingness to be autonomous results from intrinsic motivation and varies from time to time and task to task. Learner autonomy, in this sense, interacts closely with ‘teacher autonomy’ in that part of teacher autonomy is concerned with continuing professional development. In other words, the teacher remains a learner. This role of learner certainly applies when a teacher is engaged in an in-service programme of study, such as an MA. Similarly, if the MA programme lecturer considers that part of their role is to learn from the experience of being involved in education, then ‘learner autonomy’ is crucial for the lecturer’s autonomy, too. Teacher autonomy Following the interest in learner autonomy in applied linguistics, researchers have more recently considered the concept of ‘teacher autonomy’. Teacher autonomy has generally been referred to as ‘teachers’ control (including freedom from external control) over their own teaching’ (Smith 2000: 89). Little (1995) considers that autonomous teachers are those, having a strong sense of personal responsibility for their teaching, exercising via continuous reflection and analysis the highest possible degree of affective and cognitive control of the teaching process, and exploring the freedom that this confers (1995: 179).

 Barbara Sinclair

McGrath (2000) has expanded this view of control in ‘teacher autonomy’ to include the concept of ‘self-directed professional development’, which reflects the notions of the teacher as researcher and as a reflective practitioner. McGrath acknowledges that the impetus for self-directed professional development may come from the outside, and that, as in developing learner autonomy, “being reflective involves risk – there are no right answers – it also requires an effort and ways of thinking which have perhaps not been required in previous educational experiences” (McGrath 2000: 101). It is important also to consider the ‘teacher autonomy’ of the convenor of the module in which the trainee teachers are participating – or what we might call ‘lecturer autonomy’ for the purposes of this discussion. ‘Lecturer autonomy’ has the same theoretical basis as ‘teacher autonomy’, of course, but the ways in which British universities now operate, particularly with regard to quality assurance regulations, means that there are certain responsibilities incumbent upon a lecturer which need careful navigation if they are not to hamper the development of greater autonomy in the course participants. In addition, the balance of power between the lecturer and the course participants can be delicate; on the one hand, the participants may know more than the lecturer about their own learners and teaching contexts, and be encouraged to think critically and to interrogate the theories and practices they encounter during their studies, but, on the other hand, the lecturer is required to assess whether the participants pass their module or not. Perhaps more difficult to deal with is the extent to which the lecturer has a ‘voice’ in the process of delivering a module which has the aim of developing learner autonomy. In other words, should the lecturer simply play a facilitating role in order not to interfere with the development of greater autonomy in the course participants, or does the lecturer also have ‘rights’ with regard to his or her own autonomy, and therefore, the right to ‘have a voice’? It is my contention that teachers and lecturers do have the right to a ‘voice’ and the development of their own autonomy, but ensuring that this is not at the expense of the participants’ rights, is a difficult balance to achieve, particularly within a potentially highly constraining context, such as higher education. The following figure summarises the concepts of ‘teacher/lecturer’ autonomy in the context of a module on the topic of ‘Learner Autonomy’ taught on an inservice MA in English Language Teaching at the University of Nottingham:



Multiple voices 

Figure 1.  Teacher/lecturer autonomy Aspects of Teacher/ Lecturer Autonomy

Role

Actions

control of teaching and teaching context:

manager

understanding and management of own teaching context, its constraints & its resources

control of own professional development:

reflective practitioner:

developing awareness of own learners’ needs and contexts, their willingness & ability to assume responsibility; self-assessment of own knowledge; evaluation of teaching; action research;

reflective learner:

developing awareness of – self as learner – subject matter to be learnt – learning context – learning processes learning from participants/learners; self-directed up-dating of professional knowledge.

Voices If we acknowledge that there are a number of stakeholders involved in the running of the module: the participants, the participants’ own students (less directly) and the lecturer, and that each is entitled to develop greater personal and professional autonomy, then we need to consider how the voices of these players can, collaboratively, influence the design and delivery of the module. Thus, we need to consider the relevance of ‘collaborative learning’ in our MA module. Whereas much has been written concerning the roles of learners in ‘collaborative learning’, on further research, it soon becomes clear that the voice of the teacher, or, in this case, the lecturer, is not considered part of this approach to learning. According to Gokhale (1995: 1), The term “collaborative learning” refers to an instruction method in which students at various performance levels work together in small groups toward a common goal. The students are responsible for one another’s learning as well as their own. Thus, the success of one student helps other students to be successful.

 Barbara Sinclair

It is suggested that collaborative learning, in the social-constructivist tradition, provides participants with the opportunity to discuss, share, develop critical thinking and, thus, take responsibility for their own learning (Totten, Sills, Digby, & Russ 1991). The Vygotskian view is that learners who work socially with others who may be more expert than themselves have the potential for cognitive development in what he calls the ‘zone of proximal development’ (ZPD). Full development during the ZPD depends upon full social interaction, and the range of skill that can be developed with adult guidance or peer collaboration exceeds what can be attained alone (Vygotsky 1978). Although Vygotsky was concerned with children’s learning, in the context of the in-service teacher education programme, it is clear that such collaborative learning can provide the participants with a valuable experience; participants can learn much from each other. But, it is also potentially true that they can learn from the lecturer, as well. Conversely, it would seem appropriate that a lecturer who is open to learning from his or her module participants, should also be part of the collaborative learning, i.e., have a voice. Voices on the MA Module on ‘Learner Autonomy’ How do the various ‘voices’ of the stakeholders in an MA module influence its design and delivery? What are the roles of these ‘voices’ in the development of greater autonomy? The ‘voice’ of the lecturer The voice of the lecturer (course convenor) can be seen to be active in a number of areas: Course and module proposal documentation As already explained, before any new module can be approved by the university, it must first be proposed in the specifically designated format. It is the module convenor’s responsibility (in this case, mine) to devise the documents necessary for the successful approval of the module. This includes lists of aims and objectives for the module, which must be in line with the overarching aims for the MA programme. The dilemma was how to provide aims and objectives specific enough to satisfy the university’s quality assurance requirements, and yet provide the ‘room to manoeuvre’ required for the development of autonomy. Appendix 1 shows how a wording of the aims and objectives has been achieved that enables this dilemma to be addressed.



Multiple voices 

Module content Over 25 years of experience of teacher education on the topic of ‘learner autonomy’ have provided me with some idea of the content that was likely to be required by the module participants. This was listed on the module proposal document as a range of topics from which the participants could select, according to their own needs. I provided a lengthy list of possibilities to cover most eventualities. The introductory session of the module considers the theory and philosophy of learner autonomy, and discussion concerning how the module might work. In my role as lecturer on the module, I suggest to the participants that, as befitting a module on ‘learner autonomy’, they should take responsibility for deciding the content, the sequencing of the sessions. Once the programme has been planned, I take on the roles of facilitator, providing some of the materials for the sessions, and collaborative learner, working with the participants. Assessment As lecturer, it is my responsibility to assess the written work of the participants. Although general themes for assignments are suggested for the participants, they are encouraged to select topics of personal interest and utility, related to their own teaching contexts. The ‘Participants’/Teacher’s voices’ The teachers, or participants, on the module are able to use their voices and exercise their right to control in a number of ways: Negotiation of course content During the first session of the module, the teachers are asked to brainstorm all of the questions on learner autonomy they want to find answers to while on this module. They write individual lists, which I collect, collate, and present to them in session 2 as the basis for negotiation of course content. Appendix 2 shows the list of questions collected from a module group in 2001. It is important to note that every question from every participant was included in the list in order to demonstrate respect for their anxieties. These were then collated under general headings. Thus, it was possible to see which areas of theory and practice appeared the most problematic for the teachers. As in most years, the 2001 group were mostly concerned with the practical matters of promoting greater learner autonomy in their own teaching contexts, as well as issues of learner willingness and motivation to take more responsibility for their learning. The group discussed the schedule for the next 4 weeks of the programme in a collaborative manner. I added my voice to this, suggesting that an important theme

 Barbara Sinclair

was ‘individual differences’ in learners, and explained why. The group accepted my suggestion, and the programme was mapped out. In week 4, we looked again at the list of questions and negotiated the remainder of the programme. The participants’ original questions were looked at again in session 9 to check that the items had been satisfactorily covered, and to decide which areas needed further clarification in the last session. Appendix 3 shows the retrospective module programme for 2001. In this way, the teachers have considerable control over the direction of the programme, and accept my ‘voice’ as being a useful addition. Control of tutorials The teachers are encouraged to select a topic for their written assignment which relates specifically to their own interest and teaching context. Small group tutorials enable the teachers to share and discuss their ideas with each other, and decide the extent to which they might want to work together to collect resources. The teachers are expected to take control of the individual tutorials with their lecturer by initiating contact with her and making an appointment at stages of their assignment preparation when they are ready to discuss progress. Thus, the tutorials are led by the individual teacher, rather than the lecturer. The teachers are also expected to manage their time and study strategies appropriately so as to meet the university’s deadline for submission. A Student Support Officer is available to counsel students with problems in doing so. Participant-led sessions The teachers in the 2001 group agreed that sessions led by themselves relating to learner autonomy in their own teaching contexts would be valuable. Most students volunteered a session. Evaluation and self-assessment In addition to completing the university evaluation requirements of SETs and SEMs at the end of the module, the teachers are asked at the end of each session for their opinions on the course content and direction. Thus, there is a continual reviewing of content and activities, as well as of their own needs. Adjustments are made accordingly as the module progresses. With regard to self-assessment, participants are encouraged to provide peer feedback on session-based activities and task performance. They do not, however, contribute to the formal assessment which is the basis for the MA award, though this might be possible in future, with some tweaking of the regulations!



Multiple voices 

The Learners’ voices One of the aims of the module on ‘learner autonomy’ is to enable the teachers to help their own learners develop the capacity and willingness to take on more responsibility for their own learning and become more efficient language learners. Since the module is designed to be beneficial for the participants’ own learners, how do the voices of these learners contribute to its design? Since the participating teachers are separated from their learners and teaching contexts by thousands of miles, in most cases, the reply is ‘indirectly’. Nevertheless, the needs of the teachers’ own learners are paramount in driving the module design. The teachers generally bring with them a good understanding of their own teaching contexts and the characteristics of their own learners, and this knowledge influences the questions raised in the first session of the module. It should be noted that the experience of the teachers in the module group usually spans the primary, secondary and tertiary sectors of education, so their learners will have strongly differentiated needs. Teachers are also encouraged to contact learners via e-mail or via questionnaires delivered by teachers in their home teaching institutions, and such data from the learners often provide the basis for the written assignments. The teachers are encouraged to place their learners at the centre of their own study and research. To summarise, the design features of the module on ‘Learner Autonomy’ include the following: – sharing of participants’ (including lecturer’s) understanding and experience of learner autonomy; – evaluation of participants’ own knowledge and understanding of autonomy and identification of questions and issues to be covered on the module; – collaborative negotiation of module content: from week 2 & in week 5 – participant-directed research and sharing of information; – participant-led sessions; – individual negotiation of assessment topics; – participant control of tutorials; – ongoing participant evaluation of course content; – participant feedback on teaching (SETs); – participant feedback on module (SEMs); Another important feature of the programme is that participants are given the opportunity to evaluate their own levels of autonomy as learners on the module, through participating in a mini-research study.

 Barbara Sinclair

The Research Study An important part of the module on Learner Autonomy is an exploration of the participants’ own levels of developing autonomy as learners on the programme (learner autonomy) and in self-directed professional development (teacher autonomy). I have devised a questionnaire concerning the participants’ independent and collaborative learning activities. This covers, inter alia, the following issues: – self-directed preparation for module; – handling of readings and study tasks – handling of session materials; – types of class participation; – self-assessment of level of activity in classes; – reasons for lack of participation in class; – self-directed study activity; – time devoted to self-directed study; – self-directed preparation for assignment; – finding and using resources; – dealing with problems on the module. The questionnaire included items to tick, items to rank in terms of ‘always’, ‘usually’, ‘sometimes’, ‘rarely’ and ‘never’, as well as open-ended questions. There were a number or problems with the design of the original questionnaire, piloted in 2001, which have since been amended. Extracts from the research data will be presented later in this paper, and in the appendices. In 2001, the Learner Autonomy module group consisted of 15 participants, mostly from Taiwan and China (Please see appendix 4 for details). The participants filled in the questionnaire at the end of session 7, and I collected them in and collated the results. Appendix 5 provides excerpts from the research data gathered from this particular group. Findings The participants seemed to be taking an active role in deciding which of the articles and resources given out by the tutor to read, indicating a good level of independence (see appendix 5, table 1). In each session they were provided with handouts and a selection of readings to take away, and encouraged to read those that were relevant to their own needs and interests. (Other groups have found this problematic, wanting to be told exactly what to read, or finding the compulsion of wanting to read everything too burdensome.) However, the 2001 group seemed reluctant to discuss the things they had read with other course mates: only 2



Multiple voices 

‘usually’ did this, while 8 did it ‘sometimes’ and 5 ‘rarely’. Similarly, the participants did not form study groups or ‘learning circles’ outside the sessions to discuss readings and tasks. Only 3 did this ‘sometimes’, while another 3 only did it ‘rarely’, and 9 ‘never’ did it. This is interesting, because in the first semester of their MA programme, all participants are encouraged to work in ‘learning circles’ in groups of their own selection. In the core modules, tutors provide discussion tasks for the learning circles in the first few weeks, but gradually leave the participants to select their own issues and provide feedback to their classes. The 2001 group was organised and efficient at filing and keeping their module materials (see appendix 5, table 2), and all but one of the group made an effort to review materials from past sessions as preparation for the next. This indicates that they had a good understanding of the usefulness of the learning strategies of organising their learning regular review. Outside the sessions the 2001 cohort was particularly proactive in using the internet and the library for tracking down relevant resources, but showed reluctance to work collaboratively with course mates, with only 6 of the 15 citing this as an activity they undertook (see appendix 5, table 4). Table 4 in appendix 5 shows an interesting set of data, in that we can clearly see huge differences in the amount of time individual participants had spent on selfdirected study for the module, up to the time of the research. Only 8 participants responded to this question, and some gave figures for an average week, and others provided a total number of hours. The Spanish student spent by far the most time in self-directed study (420 hours +), which, in my experience, is highly unusual. A Mexican student had spent some 140 hours in self-study, but the remaining 6 had an average total of nearly 47 hours, nowhere near the 165 hours expected of them. This indicates, perhaps, either a lack of enthusiasm for self-directed learning, or a lack of familiarity with such methods of working. Perhaps, even, the university regulations are unrealistic! I would, of course, expect the number of hours to increase as the deadline for submitting the module assignment drew closer. Table 5 in appendix 5 indicates, perhaps, more the stage the participants had reached in their assignment preparation, than their desire to be proactive, since the deadline for submission was, at that time, still some 8 weeks later. Table 6 in appendix 5, seems to show a reluctance to try institutional procedures for obtaining elusive resources. Only 5 would make enquiries with the librarian, and only 3 would use the inter-library loan system. Only 8 participants would consider buying a book they needed, despite having been provided with book tokens at the start of their course! In 2001, I was particularly concerned that the learner autonomy group of 15 participants was, with one or two exceptions, rather passive in the module sessions. At times, getting spontaneous contributions to the sessions, as well as

 Barbara Sinclair

feedback from the participants, was hard going, and I wanted to explore the reasons for this. The extract from the questionnaire below asked the participants to describe their contributions to the class sessions.

Never

i

Rarely

h

Sometimes

d e f g

Listen carefully to the tutor and take notes? Listen carefully to your course mates and take notes? Participate actively in pair and group discussions/ tasks? Contribute to class discussions? Raise issues in class for discussion? Ask the tutor questions in class? Feel willing to do an individual student-led presentation? Participate actively in group student-led presentations? Act as spokesperson to give feedback from group or pair activities/discussions?

Usually

a b c

Always

Figure 2.  How did you participate in class sessions? Did you: (n = 14)

12 4 4

2 6 9

0 4 1

0 0 0

0 0 0

3 1 1 0

3 3 2 1

5 6 6 10

3 3 3 3

0 1 2 0

2

5

5

1

1

1

2

8

3

0

It is clear from these data that the participants still regarded listening to the lecturer as the most important activity in a session. Sadly, they were less keen on listening to each others’ contributions. Although they considered themselves to be relatively active in pair and group work discussion tasks, very few were prepared to raise issues or ask questions in class. There was also a degree of reluctance to participate actively in group student-led presentations, although they preferred these to giving individual presentations. The majority of participants were happy to act as spokesperson for their groups at least sometimes. When asked to rate their own levels of participation in the sessions, only 4 participants rated themselves as ‘generally not very active’, and none thought they were ‘generally very passive’, which did not concur with the views of the lecturer! Figure 3.  How would you rate your participation in class sessions? Generally very active

Generally fairly active

Generally not very active

Generally very passive.

2

9

4

0



Multiple voices 

The data from the tables in figures 2 and 3 were further analysed. Each participant was given a ‘perceived participation rating’ by scoring their responses in table 2, as follows: Never = 0; rarely = 1; sometimes = 2; usually = 3; always = 4. This was combined with biographical data and the participants’ own ratings (See Figure4 below). Figure 4.  Self-perception of participation, participation scores, nationality, experience, gender: (n = 15) Rating

Score

Nationality

Experience

Gender

1 2

Generally very active

34 32

Spanish Mexican

6–10 yrs 16+ yrs

F F

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Generally fairly active

25 25 25 24 23 21 18 16 No data

Taiwanese Chinese Japanese Sudanese Turkish Chinese Chinese Taiwanese Taiwanese

2 – 5 yrs 2 – 5 yrs 6 – 19 yrs 2 – 5 yrs 2 – 5 yrs 6 – 10 yrs 2 – 5 yrs 2 – 5 yrs 2 – 5 yrs

F F F F F M F F F

12 13 14 15

Generally not very active

23 21 18 16

Chinese Mexican Taiwanese Taiwanese

11 – 15 yrs 6 – 10 yrs 6 10 yrs 2 – 5 yrs

F F F F

Generally very passive

0

0

0

0

As we can see, those participants who rated themselves as ‘generally very active’ in sessions also obtained the highest participation scores (34 and 32 points, respectively). Interestingly, these participants were from Spain and Mexico and had more teaching experience than the majority of the group. The scores for the 9 participants who rated themselves as ‘generally fairly active’ ranged from 16 to 25 points, and 7 of the 9 participants had Asian cultural backgrounds. There were some interesting findings in the group of 4 participants who rated themselves as being ‘generally not very active’. Their scores ranged from 16 to 23 points, overlapping with the category ‘generally fairly active’. In other words, the ‘not very active’ participants reported themselves to be doing at least as much as 4

 Barbara Sinclair

of the participants in the ‘fairly active’ category. The fact that nobody felt they were ‘generally very passive’ was a surprise to me, as I felt the module group contained at least 6 very passive members! The participants who perceived themselves to be ‘not very active’ or ‘very passive’ were further asked to say why. Figure 5.  If you answered ‘not very active’ or ‘very passive’, please say why: Subject No. Reasons for lack of active participation in class: 12 13

14 15

My personality, but I listen to others actively and use my brain. Just don’t want to say it in front of other students. I guess it’s a personality issue. I’m usually listening and reflecting, asking myself some questions and only when these questions are really hard for me to find an answer, I talk. It’s my personality. I’m not used to talk in public. Because of my personality and learning style, I prefer to have discussion with classmate privately.

It is notable that all of the participants cite ‘personality’ as the reason for their lack of participation in sessions, although participant 13 makes the important point that active participation can take a variety of forms, not all apparent to the lecturer. Implications and utility of the research What does this research actually demonstrate? Firstly, we can say that the design of the questionnaire clearly reflects the beliefs of the researcher about autonomy in a higher education setting, particularly with regard to the issue of participation in module sessions. The data hint at a number of possible causes for the responses given by the participants, including their own beliefs and attitudes about autonomy, their cultural backgrounds, personalities, levels of understanding about autonomy, confidence in the use of English in public, and so on. The actual data, however, tell us very little. The real utility of a small-scale study such as this is not as an indicator of levels of autonomy, but as a tool to engage the participants and lecturer in further reflection on their own development, understandings, and beliefs, to enable them to consider their own roles in the their learner and teacher autonomies. With this is mind, the results of the study were presented to the participants to explore and discuss in a module session. The participants first studied the data in pairs and



Multiple voices 

small groups for 10 minutes. A round-table discussion was then held, in which the following issues were raised and considered: – how the perceptions of the lecturer and the participants concerning classroom participation differed; – the extent to which the differences in perception might arise from cultural differences in the participants and lecturer; – the roles that personality and learning style play in classroom participation; – the different ways in which participants are active in the classroom; – how classroom participation relates to learner autonomy; – expectations of student behaviour in class in a British university setting, and how this may be different in other cultural settings; – individual differences in terms of the amount of self-directed learning the participants undertook and the factors that influenced this; – the lack of motivation to work in learning circles or to discuss subject matter with course mates outside the sessions, and reasons for this; – the relationship between the participants and lecturer – issues of power and status; – issues relating to the design of questionnaires for small-scale research; – issues relating to research in the field of learner and teacher autonomy. I participated in the discussion as a member of the group, rather than as a chair or facilitator, and the discussion was free-flowing, spontaneous and organic in its development. Even the more ‘passive’ of the participants joined in. I felt able to use my ‘voice’ and raise issues in the same way as the participants, but was careful not to dominate. However, when the discussion turned to the participants’ reluctance to work in small learning circles or to discuss subject matter issues with other course mates outside the sessions, it become clear to me that, in the minds of the participants, at least, the role of the lecturer as final arbiter and, thus, an important source of authority, still figured large in the balance of power between us. One participant said, ‘There’s no point in discussing with course mates. We don’t trust our opinions.’ Another responded, “Yes, we need a tutor to tell us if we’re right or wrong.” The participants explained they only felt the learning circles in the first semester had been worthwhile when they had been given a specific discussion task by the lecturer, and had to report back to the larger group later. Once the lecturers had started to give them fewer guidelines, the learning circle meetings began to fall off. They still felt that the ‘voice’ of the lecturer carried more weight than theirs. I expressed my disappointment and we discussed in some depth the usefulness of collaborative learning, and the roles of the different ‘voices’ involved. They all agreed it was important and useful, but the motivation required to do this and

 Barbara Sinclair

overcome organisational obstacles without the prompting of a lecturer, was difficult to find. The small-scale research study thus provided a rich source of reflection and awareness raising, not only for the participants, but also the lecturer. The discussion engaged all of us and provided new insights that contributed to the development of learner and teacher autonomy in us all. Despite the opinions about ‘learning circles’, and the relative apparent passivity of some of the group, the module atmosphere had been one of collaboration and mutual support, with a great deal of sharing of ideas and exchanging of experiences and opinions. Clearly, however, the balance of power between lecturer and teacher-participants in a Masters programme at a British University will never be equal.  Nevertheless, I have learnt from my involvement as lecturer in the Learner Autonomy module over the years that enabling the participants to exercise as much control as is possible within the constraints of the context, can lead to a rich and engaging learning experience for all concerned. This view has been supported by the very positive feedback from the participants on the MA module on Learner Autonomy over the years. Conclusions In conclusion, I would like to suggest that different levels of autonomy, or ‘autonomies’, can co-exist in an in-service teacher education context: ‘learner autonomy’ is of relevance to any person in a learning situation, including the course participants, their own learners, and the course lecturer who is committed to their own continuing personal and professional development. ‘Teacher autonomy’ embodies the principles of ‘learner autonomy’ in its ‘self-directed professional development’ component, and its ‘control of teaching’ component is relevant to both participants (who are in-service teachers) and the lecturers involved in the programme. Furthermore, if we believe in the right of these autonomies to exist, then these should be represented by the ‘voices’ of the participants, their own learners and the lecturer. These voices can successfully interact and collaborate in the processes of learning, despite the inevitable inequalities of power. In addition, I suggest that the notion of ‘collaborative learning’ in higher education postgraduate studies be made more inclusive, to include the voice of the lecturer in as equal a partnership as possible. The final point to make is that, although the context of British higher education may be considered to provide a great number of constraints to the development of learner and teacher autonomy, these constraints, paradoxically, can provide the stimulus for developing the capacity and willingness to manage and take control of one’s learning and teaching situation. The greater the challenge, the greater the reward!



Multiple voices 

References Benson, P. 1997. The philosophy and politics of learner autonomy. In Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning, P. Benson & P. Voller (eds), 18–34. Harlow: Longman. Cohen, A. & Aphek, E. 1980. Retention of second language vocabulary over time: Investigating the role of mnemonic associations. System 8: 221–235 Cohen, A., Weaver, S., & Li, T.Y. 1995. The Impact of Strategies-based Instruction on Speaking a Foreign Language. Minneapolis MN: National Language Resource Center, University of Minnesota. Dam, L. 1995. Learner Autonomy 3: From Theory to Classroom Practice. Dublin: Authentik. Dam, L., & Gabrielsen, G. 1988. Developing learner autonomy in a school context: A six year experiment beginning in the learners’ first year of English. In Autonomy and Self-Directed Learning: present fields of application, H. Holec (ed.), 19–33. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Dam, L., & Legenhausen, L. 1996. The acquisition of vocabulary in an autonomous learning environment – The first months of beginning English. In Taking Control: Autonomy in Language Learning, R. Pemberton, E.S.L. Li, W.W.F. Or & H.D. Pierson (eds), 265–280. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Dickinson, L. 1988. Learner training. In Individualization and Autonomy in Language Learning, A. Brookes & P. Grundy (eds), 45–53. London: Modern English Publications in association with the British Council. Dickinson, L. 1992. Learner Autonomy 2: Learner Training for Language Learning. Dublin: Authentik. Ellis, G., & Sinclair, B. 1989a. Learning to Learn English – A Course in Learner Training – Learners’ Book. Cambridge: CUP. Ellis, G., & Sinclair, B. 1989b. Learning to Learn English – A Course in Learner Training: Teacher’s Book. Cambridge: CUP. Esch, E. 1996. Promoting learner autonomy: criteria for the selection of appropriate methods. In Taking Control: Autonomy in Language Learning, R. Pemberton, E.S.L. Li, W.W.F. Or & H.D. Pierson (eds), 35 – 48. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Goh, C.T. 1997. Shaping our Future: Thinking Schools, Learning Nation. Singapore. Available online: http://www1.moe.edu.sg/Speeches/020697.html, 10.5.99. Gokhale, A.A. 1995. Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology Education 7(1). Available online (01.02.2005) at http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/jtev7n1/gokhale.jte-v7n1.html. Griffiths, M. 1992. Autonomy and the fear of independence. Women’s Studies Int. Forum 15: 351–362. Holec, H. 1981. Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon. Little, D. 1991. Learner Autonomy 1: Definitions, issues and problems. Dublin: Authentik. Little, D. 1995. Learning as dialogue: the dependence of learner autonomy on teacher autonomy. System 23(2): 175–182. Little, D. 1996. Freedom to learn and compulsion to interact: promoting learner autonomy through the use of information systems and information technologies. In Taking control: Autonomy in language learning, R. Pemberton, E.S.L. Li, W.W.F. Or & H.D. Pierson (eds), 203–218. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

 Barbara Sinclair McGrath, I. 2000. Teacher autonomy. In Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy: Future Directions, B. Sinclair, I. McGrath & T. Lamb (eds), 100–110. Harlow: Longman in association with the British Council. Oxford, R. 1990. Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Rowley MA: Newbury House. Pennycook, A. 1997. Cultural alternatives and autonomy. In Autonomy & Independence in Language Learning, P. Benson & P. Voller (eds) 35–53. Harlow: Longman. Sinclair, B. 1994. Learner autonomy and literature teaching. GRETA Journal 2: 17–24. Sinclair, B. 1999. More than an act of faith? Evaluating learner autonomy. In Innovation and Best Practice in British ELT, C. Kennedy (ed.), 96–107. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman. Smith, R. 2000. Starting with ourselves: Teacher-learner autonomy in language learning. In Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy: Future Directions, B. Sinclair, I. McGrath & T. Lamb (eds), 111 – 117. Harlow: Longman in association with the British Council. Totten, S., Sills, T., Digby, A. & Russ, P. 1991. Cooperative Learning: A Guide to Research. New York NY: Garland. Vygotsky, L. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Wenden, A. 1991. Learner Strategies for Learner Autonomy. London: Prentice Hall.

Appendix 1: The MA in English Language Teaching, University of Nottingham. Aims: of the MA in English Language Teaching This programme seeks to provide: − a course which promotes learning, personal development and self-awareness in which students are encouraged to develop reflective, critical and independent thought and action in relation to their studies and to the theory and practice of ELT, and to review their own beliefs and practices in the light of current issues; − high quality teaching and learning that makes use of a variety of approaches, is responsive to students’ professional experience, needs and interests in the field of ELT, and which is informed by staff commitment to personal and professional development and a strong research ethos; Aims of Module on Learner Autonomy: – to increase participants’ critical awareness and understanding of the theories and current practice relating to the concept of learner autonomy; – to enable them to apply this awareness to their own development on the course and beyond; – to develop the knowledge and skills to help their own learners develop the capacity and willingness to take on more responsibility for their own learning and become more efficient language learners;



Multiple voices 

Objectives On completion of this module, participants will have: – developed a critical awareness and understanding of learners’ individual differences and the effects these may have on their language learning; – developed a critical awareness and understanding of the their own unique characteristics, preferences and priorities as learners and teachers of a second language and as participants on a Masters course; – developed a critical awareness and understanding of the range of interpretations and representations of autonomy in language learning and how they relate to various learner and contextual factors; – developed a critical awareness and understanding of current, important issues and topics of debate in the field of autonomy in language learning; – developed the ability to design and carry out activities and programmes of study to help learners in a variety of different learning contexts develop the capacity for more effective and independent language learning; – developed a critical awareness and understanding of current published materials and resources for the promotion of autonomy in language learning.

Appendix 2: Teachers’ understanding of Learner Autonomy – questions Learner Autonomy: Semester 2: 2001. Collated questions from module participants: n = 15 Theoretical/conceptual issues: What is autonomy? What are the theoretical background or origins of learner autonomy? What are the basic essential theories to support the concept of learner autonomy? What is the difference between learner autonomy and self-teaching? What is social autonomy? Promoting learner autonomy: developing the capacity for LA How can I ‘teach’ students to become independent learners? How to implement learner autonomy in the classroom? How to select appropriate materials? How can learner autonomy be linked to creativity? How can a teacher facilitate autonomy to such a degree that the student learns more than what s/he is able to teach? How to teach students at different levels in a class? How to establish a good relationship or interaction between a teacher and learners in a new class? How to apply the whole thing to the second language classroom? How can I apply the theories about learner autonomy in my classroom? Especially in large classes, how can I be successful at developing learner autonomy? What are the differences according to age or level?

 Barbara Sinclair What are the skills/strategies/procedures for how to help students become autonomous? Developing willingness to take on more responsibility: How to arouse students’ interest and help them learn actively? If I want to promote learners’ motivation for learning and give them opportunities to do activities, how can I have a balance between holding a game and controlling the class? Vocational high school students view English as a terrible subject. How can I help them to reestablish their confidence in learning English? Sometimes students come to class quite tired, and parents complain that students don’t have enough time to study. Even if they are interested in language learning, they don’t have much time to concentrate on one subject. So, how can we improve students’ motivation when they’re tired? How to arouse students’ motivation in a mixed ability group? How to help young adult EFL learners to get over the problem of shame (embarrassment? Shyness?) and practise English in their daily life? Teacher’s roles: What is the role of the teacher? What should teachers do with individualised learning? What’s the role of teachers in the dimension f learner autonomy? What do teachers know about learner autonomy? What’s the role of teachers inside and outside the classroom when the idea of learner autonomy is introduced? How does one teacher cope with various needs from various individuals?

Appendix 2: cont… Strategy use and awareness raising: What is the difference between skills and strategies? What strategies do students learn? How do learners develop their learning strategies? How do different individuals use different learning skills and strategies? How to train strategies to students? Cross-cultural aspects: How does culture affect learner autonomy? If the cultural gap is an important issue in SL learning, what is the relationship between learner autonomy and culture? Is it possible in Asia, especially, for teenagers to learn independently and make decisions by themselves? What strategies are suited to Japanese English learners? Self-access learning: How to implement self-access? How self-access can be linked to curricular classes? How to train students to use self-access? Evaluation of learner autonomy:



Multiple voices  Does learner autonomy work well? What are the beneficial and effective learnings? (approaches?) British context: How in-depth, how far does learner autonomy occur in British classrooms with the requirement of the National Curriculum and pressure on teachers to show performance? Is learner autonomy promoted by the government? Learner autonomy and special needs: Could learner autonomy be a way to target students who are excluded from schools? To what extent has learner autonomy been researched with more needy students, i.e, those with dyslexia or hyperactive disorder (ADHD?) Module related: How to write the assignment for this module? Feb 2001.

 Barbara Sinclair

Appendix 3: Negotiated module outline: Learner Autonomy: Agreed programme:

Semester 2: 2001.

Session

Date

Content

1.

7th Feb 2001

Introduction to Learner Autonomy: − theoretical and philosophical bases; − definitions

2.

14th Feb 2001

Individual Differences in Language Learners: − attitudes & motivation; − aptitude; − learning approach.

3.

14th March 2001

Individual Differences in Language Learners: − learning style;

4.

21st March 2001

Learner Strategies: − definitions; − typologies; − learning experiments; instruments for research.

5.

25th April 2001

Introduction to ‘Learner Training’: − definitions; − different approaches; − exploration of tasks & materials. Review & negotiation of module content.

6.

2nd May 2001

Task design for ‘Learner Training’: − product vs. process; − levels of explicitness − task adaptation/design workshop.

7.

9th May 2001

Teacher-led presentations and discussion of LT tasks; Designing LT programmes: − integrating LT into language teaching; − amount; − timing; − resources.

8.

16th May 2001

Self-assessment and its role in promoting autonomy: − types of self-assessment? − purposes of self-assessment − problems and constraints; − supporting learners.



Multiple voices 

Session

Date

Content

9.

23rd May, 2001

8 x teacher-led mini-presentations on self-directed research topics; Issues in self-access language learning.

10.

30th May, 2001

7 x teacher-led mini-presentations on self-directed research topics; Evaluation of module content relating to Questions from Session 1. Module and teaching feedback.

May 2001.

Appendix 4: Learner Autonomy module participants in 2001. Years of teaching

No. of subjects

Nationalities

Gender

2 – 5 years

8

Taiwanese (4) Chinese(2) Sudanese (1) Turkish (1)

All F

6 – 10 years

5

Chinese (1) Japanese (1) Mexican (1) Spanish (1) Taiwanese (1)

M F F F F

11 – 15 years

1

Chinese (1)

F

16 + years

1

Mexican (1)

F

15

15

Total

15

 Barbara Sinclair

Appendix 5: Extracts from Study on Module Participants’ Levels of Autonomy N = 15 (unless otherwise stated)

Usually

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

Select and read only the things that interested you? Discuss the readings/tasks informally with your course mates? Form a study group or learning circle that met regularly to discuss readings and tasks?

Always

Table 1.  How did you deal with the readings and guided study tasks each week during the module? Did you:

8 0

6 2

1 8

0 5

0 0

0

0

3

3

9

Usually

Sometimes

Rarely

Never

File all the material and your notes for future reference? Re-read your materials and notes from the previous session to prepare yourself for the next session?

Always

Table 2.  What did you do with the session materials given to you and your notes? Did you:

13 2

2 4

0 8

0 1

0 0

Table 3.  What did you do to develop your understanding of autonomy in language learning in addition to reading the session readings and carrying out the session study tasks? Did you: Self-study activity: c a b D E

Use the web to search for information on related topics? Check what resources were available in the library? Read books and/or articles on related topics? Arrange to have discussions or self-directed seminars with course mates? Other? What? – Visited other libraries (1) – I linked it with a previous module: Syllabus Design & Methodology (1) – Tried the tasks given in class with other Sudanese friends to share their views and experiences (1)

No. of subjects 15 14 14 6 3



Multiple voices 

Table 4.  How much time have you spent on self-directed study for this module so far? (N.B.: 16 weeks, including Easter and other breaks). (n = 8). Hours of self-study; per day 6–7

Hours of self-study; per week ( x 5 days)

Hours of self-study: total

No. of subjects

30 – 36

420 – 504

1*

10

140

1**

50

2

48

1

45

1

40

1

28

1

2 * Spanish, 6 – 10 yrs, F ** Mexican, 2 – 5 yrs, F

Table 5.  Preparation for the assignment What have you done to prepare yourself for writing your assignment for this module? Have you: No. of subjects f h a g b i e c d j k

Searched for the resources you need? Planned a schedule for researching and writing your assignment? Read the details about assignments and assessment criteria in your Module Guide and Course Handbook? Found the resources you need? Attended a group tutorial? Drafted parts or all of your assignment? Contacted your tutor by e-mail for advice about your assignment? Made an appointment for an individual tutorial? Attended one or more individual tutorials? Asked someone to look at your work and comment? – friends (2) Something else? What? (no data)

15 15 14 14 12 12 8 4 4 3 3

 Barbara Sinclair

Table 6.  Finding resources: If you found it difficult to get a book you want from the library, what did you do? Did you: No. of subjects e a f c j d i b g h k

Ask your course mates if anyone has the book and isn’t using it? Order the book from the librarian? Borrow the book from a course mate? Buy the book yourself? Inform your module representative so that he/she can raise the matter at the staff/student consultative committee? Share the buying of the book between yourself and course mates? Discuss the matter with the librarian? Fill in an inter-library loan form? Ask your tutor if you can borrow her copy? Write down the details of the missing book and give them to your tutor? Other? What?

12 10 10 8 6 5 5 3 3 1 0

part 5

Epilogue

Learner autonomy and teacher autonomy Synthesising an agenda Terry Lamb

University of Sheffield, UK

Despite a shift in the field of learner autonomy towards a consideration of the role of the teacher and ways in which learner autonomy is bound up not only with the learners’ but also the teachers’ own learning and teaching experiences and their beliefs about autonomy, the interrelationships between the concepts are still largely unclear. This is due in part to the relatively short history of work in the field which, despite the emergence of some consensus in defining the concepts, has revealed ever-increasing levels of complexity as the multifarious nature of the contexts, drivers and manifestations of autonomy, both teacher and learner, becomes ever more apparent. The chapters in this book have individually considered either discrete or interrelated elements of learner and teacher autonomy in language learning. The purpose of this concluding chapter is to attempt to draw together the various strands which emerge in the book as a whole, and offer a synthesis of the driving question which the book was intended to address, namely where and how, if at all, the concepts of learner autonomy and teacher autonomy relate to each other. In doing so, the chapter will necessarily clarify what is meant by these two concepts.

Introduction Certainly it is crucial to explore the teacher dimension in this broader field, given the increasing inclusion of particular and variable constructions of learner autonomy in the languages curriculum at school, college and university level around the world, driven by a host of political, economic, social and pedagogical changes (Lamb and Reinders 2005). As one example, the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages includes “raising the learner’s awareness of his or her present state of knowledge; self-setting of feasible and worthwhile objectives; selection of materials; self-assessment” (Council of Europe 2001: section 1.5), and this shift towards learner autonomy is thus reflected in the curricula of many

 Terry Lamb

European countries (Lamb forthcoming a). Similarly fundamental changes can also be perceived in the languages curricula of many countries around the world, such as China, Malaysia, Hong Kong and Japan. Even when learner autonomy is not explicitly expressed as a curriculum objective, the demands of more recent modes of learning (distance learning, flexible learning, blended learning etc.) stimulated by the availability of new technologies require a consideration by the teacher of ways in which learners can assume responsibility for their own learning. The results of a national research project carried out by the School of Education and the Modern Language Teaching Centre of the University of Sheffield, into e-learning in languages, linguistics and area studies programmes in higher education, suggested a number of areas which needed further research, including the following: student experience and the development of autonomy in pedagogic practice; practitioner narratives, focused in particular on ways in which teachers’ pedagogic beliefs articulate with new technologies; the nature of blending in blended learning, to explore the optimum relationship between independent and classroom-based learning; the development of learning communities, and how such development might be fostered; time and time-management; and the role of the e-tutor. (Lamb 2005) Such radical shifts in understandings of the nature and processes of learning provide a new imperative to teachers to come to terms with its meaning and implications for teaching. There can also, of course, be considerable resistance to the development of learner autonomy as a result of any number of contextual constraints (Jiménez Raya, Lamb and Vieira 2007). These issues have hence provided the propelling force in much of what has been called teacher autonomy research. However, whether the extent to which such teacher development for learner autonomy necessarily implies teacher autonomy is not clear. It is for this reason that the decision was taken at the AILA Symposium of the Scientific Commission on Learner Autonomy in Language Learning in Tokyo, 1999, to organise the next symposium (in Singapore in 2002) on the nature of teacher autonomy and its relationships with learner autonomy. It was already envisaged that the teacher needed to be autonomous, either in the sense of being ‘free’ to organise learning in new ways, or in the sense of having experience of the demands of learning autonomously (be it the learning of other languages, the learning of how to teach, or the self-management of one’s own classroom practice), if s/he were to be in a position to facilitate the development of learner autonomy. Building on his earlier considerations of the role of the teacher in learner autonomy, this was pointed out by Little in 2000, when he stated: (…) the development of learner autonomy depends on the development of teacher autonomy. By this I mean two things: (i) that it is unreasonable to expect



Learner autonomy and teacher autonomy 

teachers to foster the growth of autonomy in their learners if they themselves do not know what it is to be an autonomous learner; and (ii) that in determining the initiatives they take in the classrooms, teachers must be able to exploit their professional skills autonomously, applying to their teaching those same reflective and self-managing processes that they apply to their learning. (Little 2000: 45)

However, as papers were submitted for the symposium, it became apparent that the idea that teacher autonomy (whatever it meant) and learner autonomy were closely bound together was contested. Some papers focused more on the role of the teacher in the development of learner autonomy, and some focused more on teacher autonomy as a concept separate and distinct from learner autonomy, whilst some did explore the interrelationships between the two concepts. For this reason, this chapter is structured to reflect these different emphases. It does not represent a historical perspective, or any notion of development from one phase of research activity to another. It simply attempts to map the field as it is reflected in the chapters of this book (and beyond) and as it relates to these particular constructs, highlighting issues for further consideration, in terms of both practice and research. Learner autonomy and the teacher Though there are many ways of defining learner autonomy (e.g. Benson 2001; Gremmo and Riley 1995; Jiménez Raya, Lamb and Vieira; Pennycook 1997; Sinclair 2000), it can be argued that research into learner autonomy in language learning gained impetus in the context of self-directed learning, of which the ultimate manifestation requires no teacher: This term describes 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)

This focus on the learning mode, which can be seen as learner control over the learning environment, a visible, external manifestation of autonomy (sometimes described as independent learning, e.g. Lamb 2006), was, however, complemented by a focus on a more internal, less visible construction of autonomy, in which autonomous learning involves a capacity for taking control, a knowledge of how to learn as well as the motivation to learn. Unlike self-direction as described above, however, this in no way suggests that learning takes place independently of the teacher (though of course it may); what it does suggest is that the teacher may need to refocus his/her teaching, supporting the development of the learners’ autonomy

 Terry Lamb

according to their individual needs, through an encouragement to reflect on their metacognitive knowledge and their beliefs about learning, and through strategy development (ibid.). In other words, whether working independently of the teacher or not, learners need to develop autonomy in this internal sense; indeed it can be argued that learners “need to be autonomous in order to be able to learn independently” (Lamb and Reinders 2005: 226). The role of the teacher in the development of such learner autonomy has thus become an important area of research in this field (e.g. Breen and Mann 1997; Voller 1997). In this volume, for example, there are examples of research into the teacher’s role in the classroom. Macaro explores three dimensions of learner autonomy (autonomy of language competence, autonomy of language learning competence, and autonomy of choice) in order to identify the role played by the teacher in each dimension. Like Little (2007), he usefully reminds us that the ultimate aim of language learning is autonomous language use, which suggests the need to look further at ways in which learner autonomy articulates with theories of second language acquisition and communicative language teaching, linking into and building on research into constructivist understandings of language learning (e.g. van Lier 1996). In the first part of his theory of Dynamic Interrelational Space (DIS), La Ganza in this volume explores the role of the teacher in the development of learner autonomy by analyzing teacher-learner relationships in the classroom. Here, the focus is on the dynamic nature of the relationship which offers scope to both teachers and learners to influence the way in which learning happens (or fails to happen), and offers inspiration to further research in different classroom contexts. In addition, it invites further research into the nature of agency in contexts of conflict as well as consensus, and the processes by which negotiation, compromise, and reflection may lead to collaboration and interdependence (Kohonen 1992). In more independent modes of learning, the teacher may be perceived as a support to the learner who increasingly becomes autonomous (see Lamb and Reinders 2005, for a range of strategies for supporting independence through the development of autonomy). In self-access and distance learning, this has become evident in the role of the advisor or counselor (e.g. Bailly and Ciekanski 2006; Crabbe, Hoffman and Cotterall 2001; Gremmo and Castillo 2006; Kelly 1996; Mozzon-McPherson 2001; Pemberton, Toogood, Ho and Lam 2001; Reinders, Hacker and Lewis 2004; Riley, 1998; Voller, Martyn and Pickard 1999). In this volume, Cotterall and Crabbe describe their attempts to push forward their students’ independence by offering them access to a database of potential solutions to common problems which have been identified through research into advisor interviews. The opportunities provided by new technologies to support learners thus shift the role of the teacher/advisor once again: this can move into the area of



Learner autonomy and teacher autonomy 

supporting language learning through the development of e-environments, e.g. the VELA development in Hong Kong (Toogood and Pemberton 2006) or the development of an Electronic Learning Environment (ELE) at the University of Auckland (Reinders 2006); or it can involve (on-line) support of individual or collaborative e-learning through a gradual exposure of the student to different ways of exploiting its opportunities (Gläsmann 2006; White 2003, 2006). Clearly such forms of learning and learning support will increase exponentially in the future; it is thus crucial that further research explores not only ways of enhancing learning but also sustaining motivation and developing relationships in virtual learning spaces, and the role of the ‘teacher’ in supporting this. Fundamental to the development of learner autonomy are the beliefs about and perspectives on roles and responsibilities in teaching and learning held by both learners and teachers. In his chapter, Benson calls for further research into learners’ perspectives of their own learning and of how they direct it across settings and contexts, both within an institution and out of class. In doing so, he wishes to reconnect learner autonomy to autonomy in life, rather than to specific autonomous behaviours which the teacher may hope for. The significance of this chapter is that it reminds us that learners’ learning can be constrained by the teacher, leading to a lack of authenticity in learning which can disconnect it from real life. This disconnection is also usefully illustrated in this volume by Nicolaides’ chapter on student teachers’ beliefs about who should have control over teaching and learning processes, accessed in counseling sessions as part of their language learning programme. The striking contrast between beliefs about learning in the classroom and learning outside the classroom, suggests the need for learners to reflect on ‘real life’ learning experiences in order to enhance learning in general, and particularly in the formal context. Nicolaides’ example of Otávio in particular illustrates a perspective on knowledge which is unrelated to life when he states that the student ‘doesn’t know anything’, despite later describing how he learned English autonomously at home. These two chapters bring the question of teachers’ beliefs, and how, intentionally or unintentionally, they constrain learner autonomy, into sharp relief. In particular with regard to Otávio, we are forced to ask what kind of teacher he will become unless he reflects on his deep-seated constructions of learning. These chapters also reveal the potential, for both practitioners and researchers, of listening to learners’ voices (see also Benson and Nunan 2002). Clearly they indicate the significance of contextual approaches (Barcelos 2001), not only in terms of how beliefs can only be understood in relation to a given context, but also in terms of how powerful the context is in shaping learners’ perceptions. If the classroom context can disempower learners to the extent that they think they do not know anything, then presumably it can also influence their beliefs in the other

 Terry Lamb

direction, enabling them to develop a sense of responsibility for learning. Given the close links between such beliefs and motivation, and between motivation and the connectedness of institution-based learning to real life (e.g. Lamb forthcoming b), and between motivation and learning, such research has major implications for the way in which teachers may develop their teaching. From the perspective of the chapters included in this section, it could be proposed that the central research question relates to the ways in which the teacher supports or, more than likely unintentionally, constrains the development of autonomous learning practices, both within and outside the classroom. If this is then to influence practice, there is also a need to consider how such research can most effectively be applied in order to support teachers to further develop different elements of learner autonomy. As this is likely to involve teachers in considering their own long-standing beliefs about the nature of learning, and in particular about the roles of teachers and learners, and being prepared to reflect on them critically, it could be argued that a further dimension of this research is to explore how it might support teachers in developing their own autonomy, if we consider teacher autonomy to be a capacity for “escaping from the treadmill” (Lamb and Simpson 2003) of our own unquestioned beliefs about how things should be done. However, this last proposal moves us into the next section of this chapter, namely a focus on teacher autonomy as it manifests itself in this book. Teacher autonomy Research into teacher autonomy in the field of second language education has had a short history. One of the first to discuss it was Little (1995), and in his references to responsibility, control and freedom he drew clear parallels with learner autonomy: Genuinely successful teachers have always been autonomous in the sense of having a strong sense of personal responsibility for their teaching, exercising via continuous reflection and analysis the highest degree of affective and cognitive control of the teaching process, and exploring the freedom that this confers. (Little 1995 :179)

Further early attempts to define teacher autonomy were made by Smith (2000) and McGrath (2000) in the publication entitled Learner autonomy, teacher autonomy: future directions by Sinclair, McGrath and Lamb (2000). It became clear from these contributions to the field that the concept of teacher autonomy would be as challenging as that of learner autonomy. In this volume, Smith and Erdoğan offer an overview of existing dimensions of this concept. Their distinctions between teaching (and teacher autonomy) and



Learner autonomy and teacher autonomy 

teacher-learning (and teacher-learner autonomy), and between capacity and freedom, are significant in clarifying a concept which lacks immediate transparency. The extent to which teachers have the capacity to improve their own teaching through their own efforts (through reflective or research-oriented approaches) clearly indicates one conceptualisation of teacher autonomy. However, the freedom to be able to teach in the way that one wants to teach is also a manifestation of teacher autonomy (see, for example, Webb 2002). One may be autonomous in the sense of being capable of self-direction/self-development, or in the sense of being free of constraints. And both of these interpretations are different from those which relate to the notion of teacher-learning, where the focus is on the capability of making decisions regarding ones own professional learning needs, or indeed the freedom to do so. These dimensions provide fertile ground for further exploration, and indeed build on a long history of generic research into reflective practice, action research, teacher thinking and conditions for successful teaching, including fields such as school improvement and management of change (see, for example, the work of Carr and Kemmis 1986; Day 1999; Hopkins 2001; Schon 1983; Stenhouse 1975). Specific to language learning, however, is an exploration of the constraints which impact on language teachers in particular. In this volume, Trebbi distinguishes between internal and external constraints, with the former equating to teachers’ beliefs about language teaching and learning, and the latter relating to educational systems (the curriculum, examinations, etc). In his chapter, La Ganza explores this framework of constraints further by expanding his theory of Dynamic Interrelational Space (DIS) to include the teacher’s dynamic relationship with his/her own past, with learners and other professionals, and with institutional and bureaucratic factors. Working within a different context, Sinclair (in this volume) examines the institutional constraints on the university lecturer in the UK with its intensive quality assurance regimes. Such constraints can challenge the professionality of the teaching body, reducing it to a technicist enterprise. In terms of language teaching, this can be compounded by the variable status within institutions of language as a curriculum area. Hand-in-hand with the consideration of constraints which exert control over the teacher goes the desirability of exploring ways of understanding the impact of such constraints on the facilitation of learners’ learning, but this is an area of research which is as yet underexplored. Nevertheless, we do find work which attempts to support teachers in overcoming such constraints, whether they be internal or external. Sinclair’s chapter offers a valuable example of a teacher finding her way through the maze of external controls and yet managing to achieve something of what she wishes to achieve. However, though constraints can be evident to the teacher, they may also be hidden from the teacher as a result of the existence of

 Terry Lamb

impenetrable educational or social structures or indeed of the teacher’s own socialization, and internalized in the teacher’s belief system. Here there is resonance with political-critical conceptions of autonomy, with teachers being caught up in hegemonic practices in which power and ideology are embedded in the structures, attitudes, and commonsensical, taken-for-granted social arrangements of schools and other educational institutions (Gramsci 1992, 1994; Lukes 1974). Going even further than that, Foucault’s work suggests that the school is characterised by a “disciplinary technology”, designed to create “a docile body that may be subjected, used, transformed and improved” (Foucault 1977: 198). Drawing a parallel between constraints on learner autonomy and constraints on teacher autonomy in a critical sense leads us to a pressing imperative, as the relationships between autonomy and motivation imply that teachers who perceive themselves as powerless to behave in an autonomous way may become disaffected, possibly leaving the profession (Lamb 2000). Action, in the form of self-empowerment, and further research into the effectiveness of different ways of achieving this, thus form an urgent agenda for exploration (see also Vieira et al. in this volume). Whether beliefs can actually change is a question which needs to be explored further. It is first necessary to find effective ways of accessing them, a methodological question which is addressed in innovative ways by a number of contributors to this volume: Martinez explores what she calls student teachers’ subjective theories by means of a research programme devised in Germany using verbal reports to make implicit theory explicit; Smith and Erdoğan find ways of accessing student-teachers’ constructs through repertory-grid interviews; Hacker and Barhuizen make personal theories explicit to both researcher and teacher by using reflective journal writing. Whether they change or not over time, and what the process of change might be, is explored by Borg (2003) in his review article on teacher cognition described in Hacker and Barkhuizen’s chapter, but clearly there is still a great deal to be learned about these processes and possibilities. It has been argued that internalized constraints, whether their origins are internal or external to the teacher, may possibly be overcome through critical reflection, “an awareness of and an ongoing deconstruction of power relations” which … obliges teachers to consider the origins and contexts of their own personal beliefs, theories and practices, and the implications of these on their relationships with their pupils. Underpinning it is an understanding of conflict and power relations, and a commitment to changing them. It is a difficult process, and as such, it needs to be developed throughout a teacher’s career, in continuing professional development as well as initial teacher education. (Lamb 2000: 125)

This volume contains a number of chapters which offer ways forward in the stimulation of critical reflection. They mostly have in common some form of dialogue or



Learner autonomy and teacher autonomy 

collaboration: where the teacher is already desirous of change, such dialogue or collaboration offers strength and support; where the teacher is still shackled by his/her beliefs, for example in the case of many student teachers undergoing a programme of initial teacher education, such opportunities can expose him or her to contrasting and challenging views of the world. Shaw (in this volume) describes how the ongoing dialogue made possible by regular meetings with colleagues enables them to escape the constraints of the timetable. Trebbi (also in this volume) describes the use of new technologies to allow “the sharing of experiences and reflective negotiation of meaning” in a teacher education course. A further example of a teacher education course specifically designed to challenge assumptions is provided by Smith and Erdoğan. There are also examples of practitioner enquiry (action research, evaluation studies, reflective writing) to bring about change: in some cases these describe research carried out by the author into his/her own practice (e.g. Cotterall and Crabbe; Sinclair; Smith and Erdoğan); in other cases the author is enabling (student-)teachers to carry out systematic professional development (e.g. Hacker and Barkhuizen; Reinders and Lewis). Whether related to learner autonomy or not (and Shaw argues strongly in his chapter that in some contexts the drive towards learner autonomy can itself constrain teachers’ freedom to act in the interests of their learners’ learning), there is clearly a need for further empirical research to add flesh to the theoretical exploration of teacher autonomy in language learning. The chapters in this book offer a glimpse at the nature of this research, and the value of learning about the meanings of teacher autonomy in different contexts and the interventions which might support further professional development. We need to understand better how models of professionality combine the different conceptualizations of teacher autonomy, and for this we can draw on generic work on professional development and teacher education. However, language teaching brings its own specific contexts for teaching, and its own challenges (globalization, English as a world language, motivation, interculturality etc) and these different contexts need to be further explored. Above all, research needs to keep the well-being and development of teachers and learners in its sights, investigating the ways in which teacher autonomy (and interventions designed to enhance teacher autonomy) impact on learning outcomes, motivation and professional satisfaction. Learner autonomy and teacher autonomy Given that work on teacher autonomy within the field of applied linguistics gained impetus from the work on learner autonomy, there has been surprisingly little exploration of the relationships between these two concepts. In some cases, the

 Terry Lamb

two are seen to be inextricably interwoven. Thus, Thavenius (1999: 160) writes that an autonomous teacher by definition is one who promotes learner autonomy: Teacher autonomy can be defined as the teacher’s ability and willingness to help learners take responsibility for their own learning. An autonomous teacher is thus a teacher who reflects on her teacher role and who can change it, who can help her learners become autonomous, and who is independent enough to let her learners become independent.

Little (2000: 45), on the other hand, claims that teachers can only develop learner autonomy if they themselves are autonomous: […] the development of learner autonomy depends on the development of teacher autonomy. By this I mean two things: (i) that it is unreasonable to expect teachers to foster the growth of autonomy in their learners if they themselves do not know what it is to be an autonomous learner; and (ii) that in determining the initiatives they take in the classrooms, teachers must be able to exploit their professional skills autonomously, applying to their teaching those same reflective and self-managing processes that they apply to their learning.

Several chapters in this volume explore ways of supporting teachers in becoming autonomous with a view to enabling them to develop their own learners’ autonomy. Martinez begins by accessing student teachers’ subjective theories about the roles of teachers and learners, with a view to incorporating these perspectives into pre-service teacher education programmes in order to stimulate theoretical reconstruction and the development of new perspectives and, possibly, a commitment to learner autonomy. In their chapter, Smith and Erdoğan argue the need for a knowledge base for ‘teacher education for the promotion of learner autonomy’, and propose that an experiential approach, with teachers learning autonomously themselves, is the most effective way of supporting teachers in the development of a pedagogy for autonomy. Trebbi describes such an approach in Norway, with autonomous learning experiences planned into her course primarily through the construction of a virtual learning environment with open learning spaces. Vieira and her colleagues build on their ideologically driven work in teacher education in Portugal, in which they constantly strive “to articulate teacher and learner development into a common framework towards an ideal view of education as liberation and empowerment”. Experiential approaches, however, can only connect teacher and learner autonomy if fundamental beliefs about teaching and learning are surfaced, analysed and reflected on critically, and if this brings about any shift in these beliefs. Of course the case for critical reflection was also argued in the above section on teacher autonomy, where there was not necessarily any connection with the promotion of learner autonomy. So what is the difference when promoting a pedagogy for autonomy?



Learner autonomy and teacher autonomy 

Zembylas & Lamb (forthcoming) have discussed the concept of personal autonomy in a historical perspective with reference to three views: the rational, the communitarian/feminist, and the critical/postmodern. The first two conceptualisations focus on autonomy as a technical or social action whereas the critical/ postmodern interpretation suggests the political nature of autonomy. In considering the context of power relations, it demands a critical awareness of the complexities, constraints and possibilities manifested in those power relations, and an ideological commitment to deconstructing them and then reconstructing them into a more empowering, democratic environment for teaching and learning. In other words, any consideration of empowerment must embrace not only empowerment of the self but also empowerment of the other. To work towards empowerment of the self without regard for empowerment of the other would entail a reproduction of power structures rather than a radical re-visioning of the world as a more just place. The suggestion, then, is that any relationship between teacher and learner autonomy is essentially political, since it entails both a (re-)claiming of and a shift in power. In other words, it necessarily implies a vision of education which is committed to “(inter)personal empowerment and social transformation” (Jiménez Raya, Lamb and Vieira 2007). Bringing together the different elements of freedom, capacity, reflection and political action which have emerged from the explorations above, it could be argued that there are three key components which are required in any teacher autonomy-learner autonomy relationship: 1. The teacher learns how to (and has, or claims, the freedom to) develop autonomously as a professional, through critical reflection 2. The teacher has a commitment to empowering his/her learners by creating appropriate learning spaces and developing their capacity for autonomy 3. The teacher introduces interventions which support the principles and values which underpin their own and their learners’ autonomy In order to make the link between these components, the teacher needs to reflect on his/her own autonomous learning behaviour and consider its implications for his/her learners’ learning. The teacher’s autonomous learning behaviour can take the form of his/her own language learning or his/her teaching-learning, and this teaching-learning can in part relate specifically to his/her development of his/her learners’ autonomy. This can lead to a cyclical link between teacher autonomy and innovation towards the development of learner autonomy (see figure 1).

 Terry Lamb

Teacher as (critical) reflective practitioner

Teacher as language or teachinglearner

Teacher as innovatorlearner in developing autonomy learner

Figure 1.

The intensity of the relationship between learner autonomy and teacher autonomy as it emerges from this political vision of education is recognized by Jiménez Raya, Lamb and Vieira (2007) in their work on a pedagogy for autonomy, and encapsulated in their insistence on a common definition of the two: The competence to develop as a self-determined, socially responsible and critically aware participant in (and beyond) educational environments, within a vision of education as (inter)personal empowerment and social transformation.

This is no easy definition to operationalise. It represents an ongoing struggle to create educational opportunities which are more socially just, and a necessity to be resilient in the face of opposition and frustration. As a response to stress, risk and adversity, resilience can be conceptualized in various ways, from a reactive to a proactive attribute (Winfield 1991). Wang (1997), for example, defines it as a proactive and assertive attribute: Resilient individuals are characterised in the literature for being proactively engaged in a variety of activities; having well-developed “self-systems”, including a strong locus of control, high self-esteem, a clear sense of purpose, and healthy expectations; having the ability to successfully plan, change their environment, and alter their life circumstances; having strong interpersonal and problem-solving skills; and being capable of achieving learning success. (Wang 1997: 263)



Learner autonomy and teacher autonomy 

Here Wang is writing about inner-city, disenfranchised youth who manage to achieve success in learning. However, such attributes could also be applied to teachers whose “sense of purpose” involves a commitment to a radical vision of education, and all of the tensions which this entails. They will enable the teacher to spot and create opportunities for moving closer towards the vision, “finding the spaces and opportunities for manoeuvre” (Lamb 2000: 127), rather than giving up and falling back into a comfortable conservatism. In other words they will enable the teacher to shorten the gap between reality and ideals. Finding ways of exploring how such a pedagogical project manifests itself in different educational, cultural, national and local contexts, and the impact that such manifestations may have on learning, thus forms the crucial research agenda to push forward our understanding of the (inter)relationships between teacher autonomy and learner autonomy. Clearly there are intimately close connections with much work in areas such as the sociology of education, urban education and teacher education, and such connections must continue to be explored and exploited. However, we must not lose sight of the need to determine what distinguishes the particular language learning and teaching context within this vision of education, where the overall aim is to create an environment in which learners can become not only autonomous language learners but also autonomous language users. Through the continued exploration of appropriate research methodologies and methods, the publication of case studies and other forms of investigation, and the synthesis of the insights provided by these, the impact of different approaches to the facilitation of such pedagogical shifts, be it in pre-service teacher education or continuing professional development, internally or externally driven and managed, will form the agenda of much research in this field in the coming years. References Bailly, S. & Ciekanski, M. 2006. Learning as identity in practice: The role of the learner-advisor relationship in a supported self-directed learning structure. In Supporting Independent Learning: Issues and Interventions, T.E. Lamb & H. Reinders (eds), 3–20. Frankfurt: Lang. Barcelos, A. M. F. 2001. Metodologia de pesquisa das crenças sobre aprendizagem de línguas: estado da arte. Revista Brasileira de Lingüística Aplicada 1(1): 71–92. Benson, P. 2001. Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning. Harlow: Pearson. Benson, P. & Nunan, D. 2002. The Experience of Language Learning: Special Issue of the Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics 7(2). Borg, S. 2003. Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe and do. Language Teaching 36: 81–109. Breen, M.P. & Mann, S.J. 1997. Shooting arrows at the sun: Perspectives on a pedagogy for autonomy. In Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning, P. Benson & P. Voller (eds), 132–149. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman.

 Terry Lamb Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. 1986. Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge and Action Research. Brighton: Falmer Press. Council of Europe 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: CUP. Available at: http://culture2.coe.int/portfolio// documents/0521803136txt.pdf Crabbe, D., Hoffman, A. & Cotterall, S. 2001. Examining the discourse of learner advisory sessions. In Learner Autonomy: New Insights, L. Dam (ed.). AILA Review 15: 2–15. Day, C. 1999. Developing Teachers: The Challenges of Lifelong Learning. London: Falmer Press. Dickinson, L. 1987. Self-instruction in Language Learning. Cambridge: CUP. Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York NY: Pantheon. Gläsmann, S. 2006. Buddy up! Encouraging online collaboration in university language learning. In Supporting Independent Learning: Issues and Interventions, T.E. Lamb & H. Reinders (eds), 201–218. Frankfurt: Lang. Gramsci, A. 1992. Prison Notebooks, Vol. 1. Translated and edited by J.A. Buttigieg. New York NY: Columbia University Press. Gramsci, A. 1994. Prison Notebooks, Vol. 2. Transl. by R. Rosenthal. Ed. by F. Rosengarten. New York NY: Columbia University Press. Gremmo, M.-J. & Castillo, E.D. 2006. Advising in a multilingual setting: New perspectives for the role of the advisor. In Supporting Independent Learning: Issues and Interventions, T.E. Lamb & H. Reinders (eds), 21–35. Frankfurt: Lang. Gremmo, M.-J. & Riley, P. 1995. Autonomy, self-direction and self-access language teaching and learning: The history of an idea. System 23(2): 151–164. Hopkins, D. 2001. School Improvement for Real. London: Routledge Falmer. Jiménez Raya, M. & Lamb, T.E. Forthcoming. Pedagogy for autonomy in language education: Manifestations in the school curriculum. In Pedagogy for Autonomy in Modern Languages Education: Theory, practice, and teacher education, M. Jiménez Raya & T.E. Lamb (eds). Dublin: Authentik. Jiménez Raya, M., Lamb, T.E. & Vieira, F. 2007. Pedagogy for Autonomy in Language Education in Europe: Towards a Framework for Learner and Teacher Development. Dublin: Authentik. Kelly, R. 1996. Language counselling for learner autonomy: The skilled helper in self-access language learning. In Taking Control: Autonomy in Language Learning, R. Pemberton, E.S.L. Li, W.W.F. Or. & H.D. Pierson (eds), 93–114. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Kohonen, V. 1992. Experiential language learning: Second language learning as cooperative learner education. In Collaborative Language Learning and Teaching, D. Nunan (ed.), 14–39. Cambridge: CUP. Lamb, T.E. 2000. Finding a voice – Learner autonomy and teacher education in an urban context. In Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy: Future Directions, B. Sinclair, I. McGrath & T.E. Lamb (eds), 118–127. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman. Lamb, T.E. 2005. Rethinking pedagogical models for e-learning. Paper presented at the 14th World Congress on Applied Linguistics, Madison WI. Lamb, T.E. 2006. Supporting independence: Students’ perceptions of self-management. In Supporting Independent Learning: Issues and Interventions, T.E. Lamb & H. Reinders (eds), 97–124. Frankfurt: Lang.



Learner autonomy and teacher autonomy  Lamb, T.E. Forthcoming a. Learner autonomy in eight European countries: Opportunities and tensions in education reform and language teaching policy. In Pedagogy for Autonomy in Modern Languages Education: Theory, practice, and teacher education, M. Jiménez Raya & T.E. Lamb (eds). Dublin: Authentik. Lamb, T.E. Forthcoming b. Controlling learning: Relationships between motivation and learner autonomy. In Maintaining Control: Autonomy and language Learning, R. Pemberton, S. Toogood & A. Barfield (eds). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Lamb, T.E. & Reinders, H. 2005. Learner independence in language teaching: A concept of change. In An International Perspective on Language Policies, Practices and Proficiencies, D. Cunningham & A. Hatoss (eds), 225–239. Belgrave: FIPLV. Lamb, T.E. & Simpson, M. 2003. Escaping from the treadmill: Practitioner research and professional autonomy. Language Learning Journal 28: 55–63. Little, D. 1995. Learning as dialogue: The dependence of learner autonomy on teacher autonomy. System 23(2): 175–182. Little, D. 2000. We’re all in it together: exploring the interdependence of teacher and learner autonomy. In All Together Now, Papers from the 7th Nordic Conference and Workshop on Autonomous Language Learning, Helsinki, September 2000, L. Karlsson, F. Kjisik & J. Nordlund (eds), 45–56. Helsinki: University of Helsinki language Centre. Little, D. 2007. Language learner autonomy: Some fundamental considerations revisited. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 1(1): 14–29. Lukes, S. 1974. Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan. McGrath, I. 2000. Teacher autonomy. In Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy: Future Directions, B. Sinclair, I. McGrath & T.E. Lamb (eds), 100–110. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman. Mozzon-McPherson, M. 2001. Beyond Language Teaching towards Language Advising. London: CILT. Pemberton, R., Toogood, S., Ho, S. & Lam, J. 2001. Approaches to advising for self-directed language learning. In Learner Autonomy: New Insights, L. Dam (ed.). AILA Review 15: 16–25. Pennycook, A. 1997. Cultural alternatives and autonomy. In Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning, P. Benson & P. Voller (eds), 35–53. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman. Reinders, H. 2006. Supporting independent learning through an electronic learning environment. In Supporting Independent Learning: Issues and Interventions, T.E. Lamb & H. Reinders (eds), 219–235. Frankfurt: Lang. Reinders, H., Hacker, P. & Lewis, M. 2004. The language advisor’s role: Identifying and responding to needs. Language Learning Journal 30: 30–35. Riley, P. 1998. Counsellor training for self-access: Problems, objectives and techniques. Independence 21: 3–11. Schon, D. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. London: Temple Smith. Sinclair, B. 2000. Learner autonomy: the next phase? In Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy: Future Directions, B. Sinclair, I. McGrath & T.E. Lamb (eds), 4–14. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman. Sinclair, B., McGrath, I. & Lamb, T.E. (eds) 2000. Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy: Future Directions. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman. Smith, R.C. 2000. Starting with ourselves: Teacher-learner autonomy in language learning. In Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy: Future Directions, B. Sinclair, I. McGrath & T.E. Lamb (eds), 89–99. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman.

 Terry Lamb Stenhouse, L. 1975. An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. London: Heinemann. Thavenius, C. 1999. Teacher autonomy for learner autonomy. In Learner Autonomy in Language Learning: Defining the Field and Effecting Change, S. Cotterall and D. Crabbe (eds), 159–163. Frankfurt: Lang. Toogood, S. & Pemberton, R. 2006. Scaffolding for self-access language learning and the FTG model. In Supporting Independent Learning: Issues and Interventions, T.E. Lamb & H. Reinders (eds), 169–199. Frankfurt: Lang. Van Lier, L. 1996. Interaction in the Language Curriculum: Awareness, Autonomy and Authenticity. London: Longman. Voller, P. 1997. Does the teacher have a role in autonomous language learning?. In Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning, P. Benson & P. Voller (eds), 98–113. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman. Voller, P., Martyn, E. & Pickard, V. 1999. One-to-one counselling for autonomous learning in a self access centre: final report on an action learning project. In Learner Autonomy in Language Learning: Defining the Field and Effecting Change, S. Cotterall & D. Crabbe (eds), 111–126. Frankfurt: Lang. Wang, M.C. 1997. Next steps in inner-city education: Focusing on resilience development and learning success. Education and Urban Society 29(3): 255–276. Webb, P.T. 2002. Teacher power: The exercise of professional autonomy in an era of strict accountability. Teacher Development 6: 47–61. White, C. 2003. Language Learning in Distance Education. Cambridge: CUP. White, C. 2006. Robinson Crusoe and the challenges of supported distance language learning. In Supporting Independent Learning: Issues and Interventions, T.E. Lamb & H. Reinders (eds), 55–72. Frankfurt: Lang. Winfield, L. 1991. Resilience, schooling and development in African-American youth: A conceptual framework. Education and Urban Society 24(1): 5–14. Zembylas, M. & Lamb, T.E. Forthcoming 2007. Interrogating the notion of autonomy in education: Tensions and possibilities. In Pedagogy for Autonomy in Modern Languages Education: Theory, practice, and teacher education, M. Jiménez Raya & T.E. Lamb (eds). Dublin: Authentik.

Index A Action research  37, 86, 101, 119, 184, 201, 220, 275, 282 Actions  3, 17, 36, 38, 42, 84, 106, 125, 148, 153, 157, 171, 198, 207 Advising  126, 129, 131, 134, 282 Affect  55, 65, 74, 159, 195, 220, 228, 230, 260 Aims  5, 29, 40, 63, 103, 142, 150, 153, 158, 159, 207, 213, 219, 239, 246 Anarchic individuality  200 Anxiety  26, 67, 145 Appropriate methodology  32, 88 Aptitude  145, 158 Associative memory  49 Attrition  58, 61 Avoidance strategies  53 B Beliefs  7, 35, 54, 61, 90, 100, 104, 117, 141, 153, 169, 181, 189, 199, 207, 232, 239, 254, 269, 270 Bilingualism  57, 62 C Capacity  7, 16, 40, 45, 55, 63, 84, 95, 105, 111, 189, 238, 242, 249, 256, 271 Choice  7, 17, 28, 54, 94, 104, 153, 159, 167, 192, 206, 217, 230, 238, 242, 272 Classroom  8, 15, 23, 33, 59, 74, 86, 96, 101, 115, 120, 139, 169, 175, 181, 202, 224, 255, 270 Classroom structures  38 Classroom teaching  23, 59, 86, 207 Cognition  40, 101, 118, 161, 170, 176, 276, 281 Cognitive strategies  52 Cognitive-affective phase  66, 67, 76 Collective engagement  200

Conceptions of language and language learning/teaching methodologies  199 Concern  6, 45, 64, 75, 134, 158, 167, 173 Concerns  20, 25, 30, 99, 127, 222 Confidence  9, 52, 74, 128, 136, 161, 167, 171, 175, 194, 198, 254, 260 Constraints  3, 17, 34, 56, 86, 101, 124, 140, 173, 190, 195, 199, 219, 256, 270, 275 internal  17 Construct validity  97 Construction of knowledge  65, 222 Context  7, 19, 35, 55, 63, 89, 95, 107, 113, 125, 140, 141, 162, 176, 189, 202, 207, 217, 232, 237, 248, 256, 261, 271 Contextual approach  148, 273 Control  8, 15, 22, 34, 38, 44, 56, 65, 72, 79, 84, 90, 106, 115, 141, 150, 162, 179, 189, 198, 206, 212, 243, 256, 271 Counseling meetings  142, 146 CRAPEL, 22, 31, 46 Creativity  144, 158, 259 Critical In-Mind Boundary (CIB)  66, 69 Criticality  217, 227 Curriculum  38, 46, 57, 119, 123, 127, 152, 181, 193, 201, 220, 231, 261, 269, 275, 282 D Destiny  74 Development  3, 19, 37, 50, 63, 71, 77, 84, 103, 117, 141, 152, 162, 175, 193, 202, 205, 237, 254, 270 Dialogue  8, 38, 53, 71, 79, 100, 107, 117, 122, 126, 131, 136, 180, 190, 196, 200, 257, 276, 283 Dialogue journals  181, 197

Difficulties  57, 88, 126, 133, 142, 172, 211, 223 Dynamic Interrelational Space (DIS)  64, 78, 272 E Educative well-being  66, 70 Emic view  141, 148 Ethnographic research  141 Experience  6, 15, 26, 37, 47, 52, 64, 86, 93, 103, 110, 126, 139, 147, 154, 161, 190, 205, 227, 237, 270, 281 Experiences  7, 11, 26, 37, 69, 74, 86, 113, 126, 132, 138, 142, 153, 158, 161, 174, 206, 244, 256, 269, 277 F Failure  48, 55, 66, 70, 133, 159 Feedback  49, 76, 93, 102, 130, 135, 209, 222, 239, 248 Formulaic language  61, 62 Framework for action  36 Freedom  6, 11, 17, 33, 50, 71, 84, 93, 117, 122, 159, 162, 167, 179, 189, 199, 205, 213, 242, 257, 274, Freire, P.  159, 188 G Google  194 Grammatical accuracy  50, 133 Grammatical competence  48 H Hegemonic discourses  201 Holding back  66 I Ideologies  103, 190, 199 Individual study plans  193, 197, 198 In-mind teaching  70, 78 Inner dialectic  72, 74 Institution  7, 22, 60, 64, 71, 115, 144, 148, 152, 155, 199, 223, 271

 Learner and Teacher Autonomy Institutional context  33, 162, 187 Interdependence  54, 100, 117, 154, 222, 272, 283 Interlanguage  48, 61 Internalized teacher  74 Interrelating  63, 69, 78 Interrelationship  34, 71 J Journals  139, 174, 193, 223, 233 K Knowledge  8, 28, 39, 52, 53, 83, 104, 141, 161, 193, 218, 227, 237, 269, 282 L Language competence  7, 47, 59, 110, 272 Language maintenance  58 Language pedagogy  181, 237 Language teacher education  9, 33, 42, 83, 161, 178, 234 Learning environment  3, 11, 42, 52, 145, 169, 257, 271, 278, 283 Learning experience  26, 38, 43, 66, 88, 111, 117, 132, 137, 148, 153, 158, 175, 196, 240, 256, 273 Learning styles  142, 222 Learning to learn  37, 110, 118, 211 Liberal-humanist assumptions  200 Living creatively  74 M Materials  3, 22, 38, 87, 137, 197, 205, 239, 247, 259, 264, 269 Metacognitive awareness  52, 118, 144, 184 Metacognitive strategies  51, 142 Morpheme studies  48 N National Curricula  23, 188 Negotiation  10, 42, 147, 153, 196, 222, 237, 247, 272, 277 Nietzsche  64, 77 O Open learning space  43, 278 Operational decision-making sphere  200 Opportunities  9, 22, 39, 45, 101, 125, 132, 137, 161, 199, 220, 242, 260, 272

P Paternalism  18 Peace  35, 77 Personal construct  83, 89, 100, 122, 164, 183 Personal construct psychology  89, 100, 164 Personal theory  168, 173 Postgraduate learners  191 Power  8, 15, 48, 64, 77, 106, 149, 163, 194, 219, 225, 230, 244, 255, 276, 283 Powerful Bureaucratic Other (PBO)  77 Pre-service teacher education  8, 83, 88, 217, 220, 232, 278 Problem-solution framework  126, 137 Professional development  8, 72, 87, 97, 162, 179, 189, 199, 201, 206, 212, 221, 226, 230, 237, 243, 250, 256, 276, 281 Progression  29, 50, 167, 178 Q Q3  67, 69 Qualitative research  100, 164, 181 R Reflection  7, 10, 42, 87, 117, 126, 139, 148, 157, 161, 189, 207, 222, 235, 242, 243, 254, 272, 274 Reflectivity  9, 163, 167, 171, 184, 219, 228 Remembering  52, 130, 178 Repertory-grid interview  83, 89, 276 Representations  3, 7, 11, 42, 90, 140, 226 Responsibility  8, 22, 31, 41, 48, 61, 65, 109, 117, 127, 142, 147, 189, 207, 230, 243, 260, 270 Restraint  63, 66, 76 Role democratisation  217, 226, 232 Roles  3, 34, 60, 115, 124, 141, 222, 231, 238, 245, 254, 260, 273, 278 S Self-access  6, 23, 115, 140, 148, 205, 241, 260, 272, 282 Self-awareness  8, 19, 44, 93, 94, 95, 98, 222 Self-determination  47, 55, 60, 121

Self-directed learning  3, 22, 29, 37, 84, 213, 243, 251, 271, 281 Self-directed teaching  86 Self-direction  3, 29, 44, 65, 72, 78, 121, 221, 271, 282 Shizuoka definition  189, 201 Sociolinguistic competence  48 Strategic competence  48 Strategic plans  53 Strategies  48, 60, 65, 79, 103, 109, 126, 138, 151, 160, 188, 205, 222, 230, 242, 257, 272 Subvert the will to power  64 Supervision  222 Systematic variability  49 T Take charge of  22, 33, 40, 105, 111, 148 Task  10, 33, 39, 45, 51, 52, 60, 65, 112, 125, 167, 189, 193, 196, 207, 222, 243, 248, 255 Teachability hypothesis  49 Teacher education  6, 34, 42, 83, 97, 118, 139, 161, 171, 177, 217, 230, 237, 242, 256, 276 Teacher-learner autonomy  8, 32, 83, 92, 97, 101, 275 Teacher-learner relationship  63, 69, 111, 272 Teachers as critical peers  200 Technology  39, 78, 123, 159, 187, 191, 194, 257, 276 Tension  66, 75, 230 Theory  3, 11, 19, 30, 42, 48, 55, 63, 76, 83, 100, 105, 114, 120, 165, 190, 202, 221, 238, 247, 257, 272, 282 Tradition  193, 219, 220, 246 V Viewing sessions  151, 154 Voices  6, 74, 152, 167, 176, 237, 245, 255, 273 W Will to empower  63 Will to power  77 Winnicott  64, 70,74, 79 Working memory  50, 52 World Languages  47 Writing  9, 51, 61, 89, 97, 102, 128, 142, 164, 180, 192, 197, 206, 218, 223, 226, 265, 276

In the AILA Applied Linguistics Series the following titles have been published thus far or are scheduled for publication: 3 2 1

Magnan, Sally Sieloff (ed.): Mediating Discourse Online. vii, 355 pp. + index. Expected April 2008 Prinsloo, Mastin and Mike Baynham (eds.): Literacies, Global and Local. vii, 213 pp. + index. Expected April 2008 Lamb, Terry and Hayo Reinders (eds.): Learner and Teacher Autonomy. Concepts, realities, and responses. 2008. vii, 286 pp.