l, ,Pli 1 1

1 Il history of autonomy in
Ilnguage learning
III .. "rst six chapters in this section will ...
describe the history of autonomy in language learning and its sources
in the fields of language pedagogy, educational reform, adult educa-
tion, the psychology of learning and political philosophy;
discuss definitions of autonomy and key issues in research;
explain why autonomy is a key issue in language education today.
1.1 Origins of the concept
Second language acquisition predates institutionalised learning by many
centuries and even in the modern world millions of individuals continue
to learn second and foreign languages without the benefit of formaI
instruction. Although there is much that we can learn from their efforts,
however, the theory of autonomy in language learning is essentially
concerned with the organisation of institutionalised learning. As such,
it has a history of approximately three decades.
According to Grerruno and Riley (1995), early interest in the con-
cept of autonomy within the field of language education was in part
a response to ideals and expectations aroused by the political turmoil
in Europe in the late 1960s. Holec (1981: 1) began his report to the
Council of Europe (see Concept 1.1) with a description of the social
and ideological context within which ideas of autonomy in learning
emerged:
7
Benson, P. (2001) Teaching and Researching
Autonomy in Language Learning, England:
Longman.
f Il fil III NI 1 flNU 1 l ' 01 AI' ( III Nl, A" lliNUM Il 1 f JI" 1 ," Il AI
Concept 1.1 The origins of autonomy in 1 ngud' 1 arning
The concept of autonomy first entered the field of language teaching
through the Council of Europe's Modern Languages Project, established
in 1971. One of the outcomes of trus project was the establishment of the
Centre de Recherches et d'Applications en Langues (CRAPEL) at the Univer-
sity of Nancy, France, which rapidly became a focal point for research
and practice in the field. Yves Chlon, the founder of CRAPEL, is con-
sidered by many to be the father of autonomy in language learning. Chlon
died at an early age in 1972 and the leadership of CRAPEL was passed
to Henri Holec, who remains a prominent figure within the field of auto-
nomy today. Holec's (1981) project report to the Council of Europe is
a key early document on autonomy in language learning. The journal
Mlanges Pdagogiques, published at CRAPEL, has also played an import-
ant role in the dissemination of research on autonomy From 1970 to the
present day.
The end of the 1960s saw the development in aU so-called industrially
advanced Western countries of a socio-political tendency characterized
bya definition of social progress, no longer in terms of increasing material
well-being through an increase in consumer goods and services, but in
terms of an improvement in the 'quality of life' - an expression that did
not become a slogan until some years later - based on the development
of a respect for the individual in society.
The Council of Europe's Modern Languages Project aimed initially to
provide adults with opportunities for lifelong learning. The approach
developed at CRAPEL was therefore particularly inRuenced by proposaIs
from the emerging field of adult self-directed learning (2 .2), which
insisted 'on the need to develop the individual's freedom by developing
those abilities which will enable him to act more responsibly in running
the affairs of the society in which he lives' .
Autonomy, or the capacity to take charge of one's own learning, was
seen as a natural product of the practice of self-directed learning, or
learning in which the objectives, progress and evaluation of learning
are determned by the learners themselves. Among the key innovations
in the CRAPEL approach to. the provision of opportunities and sup-
port for self-directed language learning were the self-access resource
centre and the idea of learner training. In its early days, the theory and
practice of autonomy in language learning also enjoyed an uneasy asso-
ciation with ideas of individualisation.
f\
lll llNllMY IN I f\Nt tl IMII 11 f\ IININI,
11\1 1ll ',\ll llY UI
l 2 Autonomy and se\f-access
. CRAPEL (Riley and
l
e learning centres, at 1982)
. l' he first sel f-acccss f Cambridge (Harding-Esch, ,
,oppis, 1985) and Umverslty 0 a rich collection of second
W
ere based on the Idea that a1ccess tothe best opportunity for expen-
I
d ffer earners . . f
!(uage materials wou .0 d 1 min (Quote 1.1). The pro
VlslOn
0
l1\entatio
n
with self-directe ea
h
. g n authentic mate rials were also
. . ces and an emp aSlS 0
rounselhng seM . h CRAPEL approach.
important elements ID t e
filTfiifiD Riley an.d Zoppis ORAn Sound and
.. 1i_i,Wi6i---- Video ltbrary at C .
. ..' to make sure that the Sound and Video
If one of our Initiai alms was k' \1 its potential users for as long
Library would actually be able to ta to be a place where we
as ossible each week, we and strategies we firmly beheve
some of the pedagog
lcal
of autonomous learning for
in. Foremost among these was t In our view, students who
advanced and falrly improve their Iistening
reached a certain level ln IS. com rehension by regularly wor Ing
their oral expression or thelr wnttlen teaching material or ln com-
. with adequate Y pre
in seml-autonomy . , , thentic material.
piete autonomy uSlng raw au Riley and Zoppis (1985: 287)
IJ
a means of facilitating self-
At CRAPEL, self-access was seen as If-access language 1earn-
ln
t years however, se 1
,Iirccted learrung. d oint where 'self-access anguage
illp; centres have prohferate tO for self-directed or
k\\'11ing' is often a centres have been
Irarning. ln many , l tionale and it is often assumed, Wlth-
wI
' thout any strong pedagog
1ca
rtha mpo'on that self-access work
. . fi . for e assu, d
Ollt any strong JUStl catlon . To a lesser extent, the pro ucers
will automatically lead to materials have assumed that
IIf sc1f-instructional and distance f modes of learrung. One of
IIIItonomy will be one outcome 0 cl f self-access over the past thrcc
t
he important lesso
ns
of the 0 lecessary relationship h '\ w 'en
. 1 1 Iherc IS no 1 < l ' .
,kr'Hles howcvcr, IS 1'" l ' \ {)f "lltonomy and \hal, IIIlI CI
' . 1 l ' 1 'Vl' IIp1l1l' n " 1 \ ' ,
sl'If instrll ' tton ail! Il \ \t:s ofl,;trning 1l1:\ y l' l' Il \1\ )t Il
. l' Il 111 .\1111 11111\ .1 IIIlll
n'rI ,lll\ COIH Iltcll' 1
,I\IIOIl!III1V :",1\'11 1 Hl,
la
TEACHING AND RESEARCHING AUTONOMY IN LANGUAGE LEARNING
Because self-access centres have b cl"
educational technologies, self-access lea:l: consumers of
synonymous with technology b d l g, as a so tended to become
- ase earmng Within th fi Id f
computer-assisted langua el' " e e 0
an important issue As ingcl earnm
g
f
, esPlfeclall
y
, autonomy has become
. le case 0 se -access ho 1
on autonomy emphasise that l h ,wever, researc lers
l
' earners w 0 engage i t h 1 b
earnmg do not necessarily bec n ec no ogy- ased
CL orne more autonomous l fth
ellorts. A great deal depend th as a resu t 0 eu'
s on e nature of the tecl l d th
use that is made of it (Chapter 9). mo ogy an e
1.3
Autonomy and learner training
.
Like se1f-access learner trainin b l'
port self-directed learning egan d as a mechanism to sup-
At CRAPEL it was argued th ,son adn arver, 1980; Holec, 1980).
" at 111 or er to c cr '
dIrected learning adult l Id - arry out euectJ.ve self-
, earners wou need t d l kill
to self-management self-nlom't.' d If 0 eve op s s related
, 01 mg an se -assess L -
were accustomed to teacher-centred d ' ment. eamers who
psychologically prepared for mo 1 e ucatJ.on would also need to be
According to Holec teachin l re earnler-centred modes of learning.
l
, ,g earners 10W to c If '
earnmg would be COunter . d' , arry out se -dlrected
definition no Ion er be uctJ.ve, S111ce the learning would by
themselves (Quo! 1 2) sAleIfth-dlrechteld. Instead" learners needed to train
'. oug earners m h d
of counsellors teachers or ocl l th
lg
t raw on the support
l
' 1er earners e' th'
earner training was that it sI Id b b' d Important mg about
d
' lOU e ase on th 'f
lrected learning itself Self d' , e practJ.ce 0 self-
l
' . - lrectJ.on was understo d th k
earnmg languages and to learning ho t 1 l 0 as e ey to
w 0 earn anguages.
IU@lQ Holee on learner training
The basie methodology for learner trainin h Id b '
the learner should diseover, with or 1 etat of dISCO very;
teaehers, the knowledge and the th' eh' e p 0 other learners or
to find thl' cln"w<,r<, 10 tho probl Ich ,he needs as he tries
Ing largt'Iy hy tridI tlild l'rrell Ill' Ildlll" IlIrl1c;clf By proceed
Il,,h (1 '111 1 1 )
THE HISTORY OF AUTONOMY IN LANGUAGE LEARNING
As the practice of learner training became more widespread in the
L 980s and 1990s it increasingly drew upon insights from research on
learning strategies, which has aimed to identify the behaviours and
strategies used by successfullearners and train less successfullearners in
their use. Although the idea of autonomy did not initially have a strong
influence on this research, Wenden (1991) made the link explicit in the
ticle of her book, Leamer Strategies for Learne1' Autonomy. Like self-access,
learner training has also taken on a life of its own in recentyears. While
most practitioners in the field see learner training as leading to greater
autonomy, learner training is no longer confined to self-directed learn-
ing. Dickinson (1992), for example, views learner training as a resource
to help learners to engage more actively in classroom learning, and sorne
of the best learner training materials have been developed for classroom
use (Chapter 10) .
1.4 Autonomy and individualisation
Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, clle concept of autonomy was closely
associated with tl1e concept of individualisation, an association evident
in the rides of collections that linked the two fields (Altman and James,
1980; Brookes and Grundy, 1988; Geddes and Sturtridge, 1982). Brookes
and Grundy (1988: 1), for example, suggested in clle introduction to
their collection that autonomy and individualisation were associated by
a mutuallink to the concept of learner-centredness:
One corollary of learner-centredness is that individualization will assume
greater importance, as will the recognition of the autonomy of the
learner as the ultimate goal.
Individualisation and autonomy overlapped in as mu ch as both were
concerned with meeting clle needs of individual learners. Self-directed
learning as it was practised at CRAPEL was thus in a sense a for111 of
individualisation, in which leamers determined their own needs and acted
UpOI1 thelll. As 1 he prncticc of self-access spread, self-access resource
rentres wen: :dso :IS pcrforming important functions in the indi-
viclll :lli s,l!ioli (lI 11-.1111111'
1 1111 I\'i<l Il,11 1.., .1 1 11111 111111, 1 hl.' l'mm of programl11cd Icarning - a
I1ICHlc ' ,,1 III 11111111111 111 111111 li wI'n' ('\(1(.'('11.'<1 ln work t1ll'ir way,
,II tllIl1 11\\111' ,11 1', dllllli li 111111 ' I Ld ... pll'll.ll('<1 Il\, FIIHII Ih '
111111'1. Il ,' 111111 ' 1 CI 1 l' 1
1
1, 1 tl"cl ILlIII ., III ""IIIII'I ti slt M, If 1111(' 1 1( ' cI
11
1
1
1
1
'1 III Irl 1 1 Il 1
, 1 1 1
blillillg rr'Uli1 fll'Ogr,llIllIlt'd ;11<1/\ "1,, di ,1 l '
Ihill th:ll Ihe l'111er l,ft tl ' , ,',II (' ,IIIIIIIt; 1111 IIlt' grollnds
cl
' 1 1I10S1 1/11 fi 01 1 1111 l, ,',' " 1 '
,le rather than lo the Icarn" l '" t eI.:IS/OIlS fi) earnJ/1g to
tmctlon between teachin t1 k CI. lob: (19,81: 6) also made a dis-
learning that is directed tia es t11C learner l11to consideration and
y e earners themselves:
I? a general way the extent to which the l ' ,
tIon forms no criterion for' d ' earner 1S mto considera-
directed: individuaJjzation te e:;nt, to WhlCh Jearning is self-
needs, rus favourite method f 1 ta ,g mto account the learner's
l
, s 0 earn1l1g rus leveJ ' d 1
earner m the traditional ' , f' ,an so on, eave the
to control rus Iearning
0
dependency and do not allow rum
Riley (1986) similarly argued that r '
ers of the freedom of choi P, leanung deprived learn-
(Quote 1.3), ce essentla to the deve10pment of autonomy
R'/
1 ey on autonomy and individualisation
!ndividualisation Cindividualised lear ' g''' " " ,
Ically least, linked with pro Indlvlduahsed Instruction') is, histor-
behavlounstic psycholo it is earnlng an? on a thoroughly
freedom of choice to practISe?" It leaves very little
tries to adapt his methodol d earner, Rather It IS the teacher who
writing out a prescription, to the learner, like a doctor
made for the learner, not by him' /t e mat
nty
t,he relevant decisions are
at the most efficient use of the 't IS ad Indlvlduallsed TEACHING: it aims
but in terms of what the teach eac er h
and
at the most effective result
er wants t e learner to achieve, '
Riley (1986: 32)
The early association of autonom w'th' d" , ,
largely responsible for the 'd Yd 1 111 lVldualisatlOn may a1so be
th
Wl esprea critici th '
e learner working in isolati Th' at autonomy Implies
COunter since it must be 1 dIS was more difficult to
programmes for self-directed owe ge f Ithat, although collaborative
at CRAPEL and 1 h groups 0 earners have been designed
e sew ere mu ch of th l '
autonomy focussed on the l ' , e ear y work m the field of
, , earner as an l11d' 'd l 'h d' ,
tenst!cs and needs In r h lVJ ua Wlt lSt111ct charac-
, ecent years owe h
have emphasised that th dl' ver, researc ers on autonomy
e eve opment of a t ' ,
collaboration and interde d u onomy necessanly lInplies
pen ence,
1.') Autonomy nd int rd p ndenc
Il i!i l'vident in retrospect that the concept or autonomy in language
"',lIlling had, hy the hHe 1 980s, begun to surrer sorncthing of a crisis of
1111'111 il y, Although llolec (1985a) continued to emphasise that t1le term
""/III/Ollly should be used to describe a capacity of me leamer, others began
III lise il to refer to situations in which Jearners worked under their OWll
direction outside the conventionallanguage-teaching classroom, Riley
,IIHI Zoppis (1985: 287), for example, described learners working in a
"l,If access centre as working in 'serni-autonomy' or 'complete autonomy',
I>ic.:kinson (1987: 11) detined autonomy as 'the situation in which the
It'arner is totally responsible for ail of the decisions concerned with his
Il';lrning and the implementation of iliose decisions' and also used the term
'1'1111 autonomy' to describe ilie situation in which the learner is entirely
independent of teachers, institutions or specially prepared materials,
The use of autonomy to describe learning situations, which is still
found occasionally in the literature, has undoubtedly led to a degree of
mnceptual confusion within the field, Researchers on autonomy were
aware that in order to develop autonomy, learners needed to be freed
l'rom ilie direction and control of others, At the same rime, they were
well aware that learners who chose, or were forced by circwnstances,
to study languages in isolation from teachers and other learners, would
not necessarily develop autonomy, However, ilie argument that the
opportunity to exercise autonomy through self-directed learning was
a necessary precondition for the development of autonomy was inter-
preted by critics of autonomy as an argument that it was a sufficient
condition, Moreover, the theory of autonomy had, in a sense, become
framed within the practice of individualised self-directed learning, and
was seen by many as irrelevant to classroom learning, The use of the tenu
independence as a synonym for autonomy by sorne researchers has also led
critics to view the field of autonomy as one in which crucial questions
concerning the social character of learning are avoided (Concept 1.2).
The theory and practice of autonomy escaped From this crisis of
identity largely through the efforts of practitioners who experimented
with the idea of autonomy in classroom settings, Theil' work was inBu-
enced in part by developing views of the classroom as a 'social context'
for learning tlnd communication (Brecn and Candlin, 1980; Brcen, 1986)
and th, idl';l 111:11 :llltonomy could h' dcvelopcd bY,l shift in r ' l:lIion-
ships (II (111\\1'1 ,I!ld cOlltrol Wilhfll dl(' cbssroo/ll, SO/llt' of tlH' !llost
1 1
" . "",-, Il I I I IIINI, 1\ 111 1 Il il Il 11\1 1111 ,
(Olle 'pl 1,2 Ind p nd nc " d P nel 'fi l'II/Ici 1111 .rdcp( IId IlC
In rccenl ycars, a number of researehers, in the United 1 illgdol11
especially, have preferred the term independence lO autonomy, creating
two terms for what is essentially the same concept. When independence is
used as a synonym of autonomy, its opposite is dependence, which implies
excessive reliance on the direction of teachers or teaching materials,
One problem with the use of this term, however, is that it can also be
understood as the opposite of interdependence, which implies working
together with teachers and other learners towards shared goals. Many
researchers would argue that autonomy does imply interdependence,
For this reason, the tenn independence is avoided in this book.
influentia1 work in this area was carried out by Leni Dam and her co1-
leagues in Danish secondary schools, where a model of .autonomy was
based on classroom and curriculum negotiation (Dam, 1995), This
work has had a considerable influence on later innovations in classroom
and curriculum autonomy and has also prompted a shift in the focus
of research on autonomy in the 1990s towards issues of collaboration
and negotiation,
One of the most challenging developments in the the ory of autonomy
in the 1990s has been the idea that autonomy impIies interdependence,
Kohonen (1992: 19) has argued the point forcefully:
Personal decisions are necessarily made with respect to social and moral
norms, traditions and expectations, Autonomy thus includes the notion
of interdependence, that is being responsible for one's own conduct in
the social context: being able to cooperate with others and solve conllicts
in constructive ways.
Collaborative decision making within co-operative learning groups is
thus a key feature of Kohonen's 'experientiaI' mode! for the develop-
ment of autonomy, Little (1996: 210) has a1so argued that collabora-
tion is essential to the deveIopment of autonomy as a psychological
capa city, stating that 'the development of a capacity for reflection and
analysis, central to the development of learner autonomy, depends on
tlle development of an internalization of a capacity to participate fully
and critically in social interactions'. Such statements have provided an
important corrective to the earlier emphasis on the individual working
outside the conventional classroom, They have also provided a focus
1111 III l' JI il li III 1
11111 11\11' IlfI'" 1 LI\ I
, l ' ,1 111101 !Ill' l'ol1vention:d c1:l"iSI' O(l11i
l ' ' lit' on 1 1e 1 e Il )
1111 Il, .. ,,11 ('h :1111 Il''\(': f t om (see Chaptcr li ' .
1 l '''l'l'mil he d 'v 'Iopmcnl 0 au on h y been dle examina lion 01 the
\ '>l'e und ill1porlan. t developmen,t
l
as h in the field of sclf-clCCCSS
' 1 "lum Whi e researc , d' , l , 1
le \1 IWI"" ml ' ln lle curllCU 'h' l as counsellor of 111 IVIL lI ,l
' C the teac er s ro e , 1
Il l', Il ' 1111 'd lO ocu on, 7) researchers working 111 c 111.
Il 11111'1'" (1 clIy, 1996; of the teacher in the negotiation of
t 111111'\10.; have explored, of the literature, Voller (1997:
Il,, 1 lIIt'icli lum, In a reVle,: h' the form of three assumptlons
' cl lts of dus researc 111
1I1111l\;II'ISeS '1: resu . th development of autonomy:
\lllIlIt tl'nthers l'oIes 111 e
min is an interpretative process, and that
1 Ill' firSl is that language lea g 'res a transfer of control to me
h to learnmg reqm ' tl m
III ,lIItonomous approac m tour teaching practices, WI 1111 e
l" Il Il '1'. The second is to ensure a Reet tllese assumptions, by
, .' posed upon us, re th 1 'S
" Il' lWl l const:ra111ts un of negotiation W1 earner,
l'mllri:1g mat they are based on a to observe and reRect upon
. If onitor our teac 11 , . set
1 lhird IS to se -m d h ture of tlle interactIOns we
' we use an t e na
tlH' leaching strategJes
d
P
articipate in,
"l' nn 1 1 ddresses t1w
h
the area of teacher ro es a so a 1
1 Ill' l11 0st recent researc 111 '1 tion to the curriculum alH
h ' wn autonomy 111 re a . l' . 1
1
Il l' of the teac ers 0 '(L' ttle 1995a' S111C au' et .l"
Ji l education 1" 1
11 implications or teac , dits implications for teacher an(
'''(JO), The idea of negotiation, an
b
f innovative curriculum-bas cd
1 h . formed a num er 0 )
k,lIncr ro es, as 111 1 t of autonomy (Chapter 12 .
Ipproaches to the deve opmen ,
1.
Why autonomy? why .now?
t of autonomy has become
III t hc course of its evolution, within the field ni ,
p.ln of the mainstream .of, due to the reportecl success of
LIII g'lIage IS autonomy and the efforts ,lhos ,'
II l1 merous proJects assoclatecl 1 f d cation to promote thclr ldcas,
\
vho advocate autonomy as a goa 0 e u that autonomy ha enlcrcd
' cl b . take to assume '1
Il owever it woul e a mis . ' d dently of SOCIal an( CCO
' fie education 111 epen h l' 1
th , mninstream 0 anguag l . educators and those w () LlIH
lIomi . f(1ctors that have made ociated with it (Concept l,
to the practices ass d' . 1 h t l'
1 hl'ir work more open. a e learning originate 111 l H!
The idea of autollomy 111. langui g '1 cl ideological changes (II
'e Il'Om t le socla an
II)()().., and drcw Slistenanc
l',
Il fI( fllN(, fi NI ' 1 [ " fi l (11INc , fl iII I INI"I,
'v III 1 fi dl ' 1 Il IIIINI ,
Concept 1.3 The economics of autonomy
The argument for autonomy is princi Il 1 .
ever, programmes that . pa ya pcc ::lgogl(.';ll <1I'gulIlcnt. , low-
b
. a1111 to promo te auton ft
Y socIal and economic factors Th are 0 cn Influenced
f
. . e econonliC Imper ti . ft
o meeting complex educatio 1 d a ve IS 0 en one
Eurocentre have been amongnth
a
nlee d
S
at cost. The Bell School and
th th e ea ers III develop . If
:VI . e commercial sector in the UK In b ments III se ,-access
IlldlVldualneeds of learne ' . " Oth schools, meetl11g the
A th
rs IS an Important )ustifi . fi
t e same time self-acce'd catIon or seJf-access.
th " ss proVl es a foc fi .
deveJopment of autonomy (Sheerin 1997.uOs, or expenmentation in
Migrant Education Programm . A' J" . Dell, 1997). The Adult
'. ' e ln ustra la 1 bL 1 fw
):ct Wlth similar economic priorities On s a pu c y lded pro-
alms to meet the diverse needs of 1 " " e one hand, the progranll11e
other hand it has be . lllglants at reasonable cost. On the
. ' en an Important focus fi .
III autonomous learning O. or a vanety of experiments
d .. pel11ng a conference If d' ,
an III Australia in 1985, the Mini on se - l.earnll1g
Ethnic Affairs the Hon S J W ster for ImmigratIon and
, . .. est summed u th . .
and pedagogical goals are often'. p. e ,:ay III which economic
"one Course for a11" app h . Illterwoven ln hls observation that 'a
ronc IS not only edu ti Il '
exa'emeJy inefficient' (cited ' M ona y unsound but also
111 ason, 1985: vu).
the time. In higher education the notion f'
(Cockburn and Blackburn, 1970) and . student power' was CUITent
tional reforms were l' .la Ically student-centred educa-
(
1969) d th P oposed by Frelre (1970), Illich (1971) R
an 0 ers. Gremmo and Rile (19 ' ogers
autonomy in language learn' y 95) suggest that the rise of
away From consumerism and tCo:7sponded to an ideologicaI shift
meaning and value of personaI e a en,a Ism towards an emphasis on the
dom and minority rights It xIPdenenilcbe, quality of life, personal free-
1
. cou we e argued th th '1
va ues surrounding the l'd f at e IC eological
1 ea 0 autonomy a . 11
anguage educators today. Breen and M (r1e9gespecla y appealing to
ann 7: 140) argue:
A experience among man teach .
SOCletJes 111 recent time is tI y ers 111 western democratic
over their work is shifting le sense that tlle locus of control
instirutions to centralized b themselves and their immediate
, UI eaucraCles Mi h . b .
currcnt Interest by tcacllc ' h . . . g t lt e possible that the
r
' rs ln t e autonOI11 fi '
o a growing pel'sol1:lIUnCCrl 'lil1t 1 0 carners IS ;lll (" pn.'ssioll
many [cachers '1re hc.'gillll ' ' yan!. , <1 feeling of powI' llc "1 1 hal
:, , " Il1g 10 Ih ' , 1 " f ' 1
lll:llltlC.' 'ihllsdf'III\\ Il ' ILII 1 f' l t UIIIIII" .1111 "",1\ ' ,l " I
, l , H' (' Ilc Il 1 H' " / 1 1
1/11'111 \1' 1\1" '1'/111 \( 1'111 / ((111111.1 , 1111 ",,"t/'II ,IIIII'ilII ' \
., 1.11 11'1 '"
,\., Il 'W IV( 1 1110101-\ Il' ., .llld (,()lllIlIl' ll i:tI illlp k;HI ln wh:ll lll:lIly
PI'I'(' ' IV(' ;\S th ' ' dlllllhing dOWIl' or etlll ',\lion and the undermining 0("
Ih(,' inl ,II ' 'tllall1l1thority or th, lea ' her, ilmay be that autonomy serves
,IS ,1 ro 'al point l'or eclucators lO re onccptualise their roles from more
IlIIlllanistic perspectives,
At the same time, the basic ideas of autonomy have also come into
harmony with major innovations in language teacrung theory and
1IIl'lhodology over the last 30 years. At the root of these innovations lies
111 intellectual shift away From the behaviourist assumptions underlying
IIIl1ovations such as audiolingualism and the language laboratory in the
1 W,Os and 1970s, The growth of fields of inquiry such as discourse
lIlalysis, pragmatics and sociolinguistics and the development of
11111 'tional approaches to grammar have supported a sruft towards more
('ommunicative approaches to language teaching oriented towards
ollll11unication in context rather than the acquisition of decontextual-
scd knowledge about the target language (Breen and Cancl1in, 1980;
Littlewood, 1981). The idea that language learning should be a process
ut learning how to communicate also underpins the notion of learner-
" ntredness, which holds that the learner rather than the teacher should
rand at the centre of the process of teaching and learning (Nunan, 1988;
l il rone and Yule, 1989).
Conununicative teaching, learner-centredness and autonomy share a
tocus on the learner as the key agent in the learning process, and several
1 rOl11inent researchers in the fields of communicative language teaching
nd learner-centred practice have incorporated the idea of autonomy
1Ill<> their work (see, for example, Breen and Mann, 1997; Littlewood,
\996,1997; Nunan, 1996, 1997). For Breen and Mann (1997: 133), in
lillling at the goal of autonomy, we may well be engaging in a degree
uf self-delusion, but:
The professional energy which we may devote to aiming towards auto-
nomous languagc learning will almost certainly uncover and achieve an
unanticipated range of new possibilities in language pedagogy.
ln this sense, the current value of the concept of autonomy to language
l'ducators may weil li e in its usefulness as an organising principle for
the broader possibiliti 'S cont,1inecl within a framework of communicat-
iv ' andl 'am '1' ('t'Il\ITd Il 'd:lgogies.
Ilow'ver, if' thl' (011\ ('pt of :llItollOll1y l'an serve as a rallying point
for r 'Si .. t'llH'l' Hl 11I1I1',11I( I.ltlt, (( '( Itllol'l.lli" ilnd commercial prcssur ' S
wllhill 1.1llg1l,II-\" ('11111,1111111 , Il 11111 l ,d"'l1 hl' n'('ognised Ih;1I th 'l'l.' nI( '
Illtitill JI" 1111111 pt 11It! Il 1,, ',11( l.ll('d P',II'I( ' t'S Ih:11 111.11 (' Il
,1111 ,111111 11111111,11111' ,111111111111 \\1I1t 1. ,., l,ttlll,lI .tgl ' llI!.I,
1 /
j I l il Il I I II NI,
, ' 1 Ill', l,IIk-d ' lIl1WIll.lllctl\ nplll., '1lI1 ' 1 1
tlly 01 l ':lrnillg thal is CXIK'ct ' 1 l ' Il' III Il 1 1111 Il ' ,.' l'd !Ill' qll:111
At
' , l:( 0 Sllll ' 1\1' III 1 Il l '
untverslty Icvcl eSl\cciall . -k' 1 ' . ( ,1 l' Il' ( liS qll:llity.
'11' ' t' y, pac C( tlln 't'I hl ' . l "
are Wl mg to experiment with d f " .... l\ll',111 1 1:1\ institutions
contact time, At the ' mo es 0 that rcducc teacher
d
same tlme there IS a .
e ucational implications of the r; id b growmg awareness of the
and factual knowledge leadi p 0 of task-specific skills
skills. ng to an emphasls on transferable learning
. .rapid increase in the number of .
mstltutlons and the gTOWth f d 1 d attendmg educational
th
.. 0 a u t e ucatlon h L d
au ontIes to search for aIt' ' ave lOrce educational
, d' , ' ernatIve means f 'd'
m lVIduals with diverse need . ,0 proVI mg education to
learning and distance le ' s, hPportullltleS and preferences. Open
. . . arnmg ave grown 'dl d
mstltutlons now accommodat d' ,rapi y an traditional
before, e a greater Iverslty of students than ever
The commercialisation of public ed '
effect on language teaching h' h' , has had a particular
l
'th' ,w IC IS mcreasmgly t' ki ,.
ro e Wl m educational' ,. . a ng on a serVIce'
, . , mStitutlOns. Pnvate 1
mstItutIons experience student needs in th sector anguage-teaching
and pressure to provide a 'd e of consumer demand
. Wl e range of learm '
sorne been at the forefront of develo have for
ated Wlth autonomy such as self- m mnovauons associ-
institutions are learner training.
if they have roved th y more mclined to accept such
pnvate sector. p emselves to be cost-effective in the
The growth of tecl1l10lo in edu' .
in personal consumer largely by the boom
Internet, has freed student ' 10, VI eo and computer) and the
sm many parts of th Id L
attend classes at predeterIll1' d ' e wor Ifom the need to
, , , ne tlmes and 10 ti L
ll1stltutIons have long been enth .' ca ons, anguage-teaching
technologies and the self-access b consumers of new educational
technological develo ashbeen largely technology driven.
uonal publishing leading to th p endts ,ave also ta ken place in educa-
If
' " e pro uctlOn of e ' ,
se -mstructlOnal multimedl'a ' 1 ver more soplllsucated
T" matena s.
he mformauon explosion '
cialisation of education and the commer-
have had a particular impact 1 pments III educauonal technology
number of students in educati on 1 teaching. Not only has the
importance of language Wl'th,ontha msdututi?ns increased rapidly, but the
. th th m e e ucatlon h 1
Wl e growth of internatl' 1 l' seCtor as a so increased
. ona trave Mig ti '
nauonalisation of business and ed " ra on, touflsm and the inter-
ucauon are three important factors
,Ill' \\11' Id widl' 'xpallsiol\ 01 1:111 ,,',IW' 1L' :lchil\g. The inforll1\llion
1 .. :IIso IlInd:\lllctlt:\\Iy <1 cOlllll\unication economy, ll1caning that
Il, Il I",JI .. who have contact wilh speakers of od1er languages are likely
h.I\" Llr lI\orc diverse and complex communication needs than at any
h, 1 11111' in the pa st.
",\lIf!, 's within education systems and the practice of language
, arc indicative of more fundamental changes in the functions
1 kllowlctlge in social and economic life and in the ways in which
IlIwkdgc is constrll
cted
and exchanged. In the light of these changes,
\It'l' 'ssful learner is increasingly seen as a person who is able to
III Il'lIct knowledge direcdy From experience of the world, rather dlan
, who responds weIl to instruction. Socio-economic and ideological
, (lre rapidly bringing the notion of the autonomoll
S
learner into
\IIony with dominant ideologies of what it means to be a fuUy func-
member of a modern society. One indication of this harmony
,Ill' parallel that can be drawn between constructs belonging to auto-
,uy in learning and constrUcts belonging to progressive models of
such aS total quality management and transferable skills
uk, 1995b; Marshall, 1996),
7 The two faces of autonomy
hile 1ll3ny of the economic and social developments favourable to the
, l of autonomy in language learning are welcomed by its advocates,
.\150 pose contradictions. Autonomy now increasingly appears among
hroad goals of education as dley are formulated by educational
nhorities, but as Boud (1988: 20) observes, 'as long as alltonomy remains
"hstract concept divorced from any particular situation it can be an
al to which we can aspire but it is not something that we realistic-
n expect to emerge From any given course'. ln particular, educational
nnge is often implemented in climates that are both economically
li politically unfavourable to the fundamental idea of autonomy as a
hift in the balance of power in learning towards the learner. Changes
, 'sip;ncd to give more control to learners are implemented in order to
'hicvc reductions in unit costs and are accompanied by measures that
IISll1'C that litde real power is actually transferred .
Aq.(uably, the C.'urrcnl trend is for education providers to see language
"IIIl':Hion .1S ,1 sen Il'l' 10 :1 p;Iohai economy in which languagc skill s
It' PIT ... l'IH :\ forlll ni t' t 11111111111 l'.Ipili\1. I\s c(\UC(lwrs r 'sponcl 10
Il
20 TEACHING AND RESEARCHING AUTONOMY IN LANGUAGE LEARNING
this trend, there is clearly a risk that autonomy will be viewed simply
' as a matter of consumer choice. There is equaUy a risk that the concept
of autonomy wiU become assimilated to consumerist approaches to
learning through a shift in focus from the goals and purposes of lan-
guage learning to the skills and strategies employed by the 'autonomous
learner' (Quo te 1.4).
i!JTfil51' pennycook on the 'psychologisation' of autonomy
The idea of autonomy has therefore moved rapidly from a more marginal
and politically engaged concept to one in which questions are less and less
commonly asked about the larger social or educational aims of autonomy.
Broader political concerns about autonomy are increasingly replaced
by concerns about how to develop strategies for learner autonomy. The
political has become the psychological.
pennycook (1997: 41)
As the importance of the idea of autonomy grows in the field of lan-
guage teaching, it is therefore important that we examine its develop-
ment critically. Aside from the possibility that autonomy will sim ply
become the latest fad in language-teaching methodology, there is the risk
that it will be used for politicaUy ambiguous ends. Placing the respons-
ibility for learning onto the learner should not become a matter of
shifting the economic burden of education from the state to the indi-
vidual. Learning to learn should not become a matter of shifting the
burden of ongoing retraining from those who demand it to those who
need it in order to keep their jobs. Meeting individual needs should not
become a matter of dispersing learning communities and privileging
those who possess 'learning capital' over those who do not.
Addressing these concerns, l would argue, does not necessarily imply
an explicitly political approach to language teaching. On the other hand,
it do es imply that political concerns about the goals of learning should
not be divorced from the practice of teaching. The fostering of autonomy
requires, above aU, a focus on the learner's perspective in regard to the
goals and processes of learning. As Holec (1985a: 182) argues:
Providjng yourself with the means to undertake your OWIl k :lIl1il1g' pro-
gramme presupposes that, allhe very least, yOIl Ihilll il 10 h<:
bOlh ' prodllc<:r' and 'OIlSIIIIl T'Or such :l ,11111111 1111 , 11111 ', IOllllll' l
10 t1w of or 11111 111I\dl III 11111'01 11111 1 Il ' 1 ' ;
il1d"l'd flll tlll ' Illdilldll ," Il 1111 ' 0111 \ \lItI,,11 \ \\1 111' 1111111 Il III 111111 '\11"1\1,
THE HISTORY OF AUTONOMY IN LANGUAGE LEARNING
since the usual procedure for acquiring 'goods' (in this case competence
in a Foreign language) is not a creative one.
Although the idea of autonomy currently appears to be in harmony
with the need for skiUed language learners within a global economy,
il does not arise from these needs, nor is it dependent upon them.
i\utonomy is fundamentaUy concerned with the interests of learners,
ralher than the interests of those who require their skills.
21