Social Dimensions of Autonomy in Language Learning

G. Murray

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781137290243
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

This book examines how autonomy in language learning is fostered and constrained in social settings through interaction with others and various contextual features. With theoretical grounding, the authors discuss the implications for practice in classrooms, distance education, self-access centres, as well as virtual and social learning spaces.

Part I

The Emotional Dimension

2

Developing Autonomous Language Learners in HE: A Social Constructivist Perspective

Christine O’Leary

Introduction

Developing learners who are able to take responsibility for their own learning, both independently and in collaboration with others, is regarded as a key feature of UK Higher Education in the 21st century (Dearing 1997). A fast moving global environment means graduates will need to learn to learn in order to adapt and be employable (Baume 1994; Dearing 1997). This change in the public and government expectations has prompted a shift towards more student-centred approaches to teaching and learning over the past decade, in British and North American Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in particular (Silver 1999). In addition, there is a growing recognition within current educational literature that student engagement and motivation are essential to successful learning (for example, Fielding 2004; Bryson and Hand 2007; Lambert 2009). Cognitive and more particularly constructivist views of student learning suggest that learners’ active and independent/interdependent involvement in their own learning increases motivation to learn (Dickinson 1995; Ushioda 1996; Raya and Lamb 2008). Furthermore, the ability to influence one’s own learning has been associated with improved academic performance (Bandura 1977, 1986; Findley and Cooper 1993; Feuerstein, Klein, and Tannenbaum 1991).

Within the field of language learning, learner autonomy is most commonly defined as learners’ ability to take charge or control of their own learning (Holec 1981; Little 1990; Benson 2001, 2011). However, the development of a learner’s capacity for autonomy does not happen in isolation but through social interactions involving both peers and teachers (Little 2000b). Within formal educational settings, fostering autonomy implies a shift in the balance of power between teachers and their learners, leading ultimately to partnership (Raya and Lamb 2008) and the co-creation of a learning environment which promotes conversational interaction, collaboration and reflection (Raya et al. 2008). The aim of this chapter is to explore how learner autonomy might be identified and developed in practice, within a formal education environment, based on the revised definition of autonomy which emerged from Phase One of my PhD study (O’Leary 2010).

The research is based on a case study of a final year foreign language undergraduate programme, in a large university in the UK. After a brief exploration of relevant literature and previous research, I will describe the context of the study and discuss the outcome of the analysis of the reflective logs and peer feedback of 40 students between 2007 and 2010, using the revised construct which includes both affective and socio-affective dimensions of autonomy, as well as with my own diary reflections as a practitioner–researcher and their teacher. The chapter will conclude by considering possible implications for curriculum design and the development of a pedagogy for autonomy within formal institutional settings.

The notion of autonomy within a formal educational setting

The concept of autonomy in an educational context is predicated on the student’s innate capacity and desire to take control of their learning (Benson 2011; Little 1990). However, the exercise of autonomy does not happen in isolation but within communities, involving collective as well as individual decision-making and choice (Williams and Burden 1997; Benson 2001, 2011). Social interactions are therefore essential to the development of autonomy (Little 1996; Raya and Lamb 2008). Whilst more student-centred learning implies pedagogic approaches which put learners at the centre of the learning process (Nunan 1988), teachers retain an important role in the learning process, acting as both partners (Voller 1997; Raya and Lamb 2008) and interdependent learner–practitioners through engaging in ‘learning conversations’ with their students (Pask 1976) in addition to assessing their work.

The socio-cultural and affective dimensions of the concept of autonomy

The emotional and relational aspect of the learning process has been a much neglected dimension in adult language teaching and learning theories (MacIntyre 2002). A number of studies such as Oxford (2003) and Ushioda (2003, 2006) stress the development of autonomy through ‘interdependent’ and ‘socially mediated’ learning processes. Ushioda (1996) also emphasizes the importance of self-motivation which she describes as the action of taking charge of the ‘affective dimension of the learning experience’ (Ushioda 1996: 39) in order to counteract potentially demotivating experiences within formal institutionalized contexts. Oxford (2003: 86) identifies two versions of autonomy within a socio-cultural perspective: ‘Socio-cultural I’, focusing on individual learning within a group, which purports that all learning is socially and culturally situated within a particular setting, at a given point in time and with specific individuals; and ‘Socio-cultural II’ focusing on community/group learning and development, which is based on work relating to situated learning and communities of practice such as Wenger (1998). As is the case for cognition, exercising control over the affective dimension suggests the need to develop ‘meta’ affective knowledge and strategies alongside metacognitive and cognitive knowledge and strategies. Salovey and Mayer’s (1990) concept of emotional intelligence defined as ‘a type of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use the information to guide one’s thinking and actions’ (Salovey and Mayer 1990: 189) is therefore an important part of learner development. Kohonen develops this notion further to include ‘the ability to cooperate with others and solve conflicts in a constructive way’ (Kohonen 1992: 19). Oxford’s (1990) taxonomy of social and affective strategies such as ‘empathizing with others’ or ‘lowering your anxiety’ also seemed a useful tool to operationalize the concept of ‘meta’ affect, in the context of this study.

Researching autonomy within a formal educational context

The development of a pedagogy for autonomy within mainstream education relies on empirically-grounded research on learner and teacher development such as the one conducted by Raya, Lamb, and Vieira (2008) as part of a European-funded project. The development of autonomy is both situated in terms of the institutional and cultural context, and dependent on learner goals as well as personality traits. The interaction of these internal and situational factors will determine the degree of autonomy demonstrated by the learner (Nunan 1996; Benson 2001). It is therefore important to consider the concept holistically and ‘in situ’ (Benson 2007a). The learner and the context of the learning experience cannot be separated. Drawing on Vygotsky (1978) and Feuerstein et al.’s (1991) social interactionist theories of learning, relating in particular to the role of significant others, Williams and Burden (1997: 43–5) propose a dynamic social constructivist model of the teaching and learning process where ‘the learner(s), the teacher, the task and the context interact with and affect each other’ (Williams and Burden 1997: 46). This model is useful in conceptualizing the social dimension of autonomy within a formal educational context and I will return to this concept later on in this chapter.

Within a classroom environment, the teacher–learner partnership plays a vital role in supporting the development of autonomous language learners as well as enhancing the practices that will make this development possible (Raya and Lamb 2008). Practitioner research is therefore key to the operationalization of the learner autonomy construct, and the development of associated practices, within formal educational structures.

The case study presented in this chapter is based on practitioner research. It explores the development of advanced specialist and non-specialist foreign language learners and their teacher as a learner practitioner–researcher, within the context of a large higher education institution in England.

Developing a conceptual framework

I based the theoretical framework used in this study on the revised definition of learner autonomy developed as a result of my PhD research (O’Leary 2010). Building on existing conceptualizations of learner autonomy within the field of language learning as well as previous empirical research, my thesis was divided into two distinct phases:

•Phase One of the research was designed to access the learners’ voices. As such, it focused on the learners’ construction of learning and how they saw their role in the process. The findings were then compared to existing literature, leading to a revised definition of autonomy and further development of the construct;

•Phase Two was concerned with using the revised definition as a theoretical framework to the analysis of the learners’ research diaries and self-evaluation reports for evidence of autonomy in practice.

The main themes emerging from Phase One’s empirical data (O’Leary 2006, 2010) were: the importance of affect; the centrality of the teacher; the high expectations of the teacher/tutor’s subject expertise; the recognition that effective learning depends on the ability and motivation to work independently, including the use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies; and an awareness of the benefits of collaboration and peer-support.

In the light of these findings, I reviewed the initial construct of autonomy based on the statements from my students’ focus groups and a critical appraisal of the literature associated with the above themes, with a view to developing a conceptual framework for the development of autonomy within the advanced University Language Scheme (ULS) curriculum, which was grounded in our students’ constructions. This review led to a revised definition of autonomy which integrated both the social and individual dimensions of autonomy as outlined below.

Benson’s (2001) framework and model

Following Phase One of my thesis, I initially examined current definitions and concepts of learner autonomy in order to find a conceptual framework which would reflect the Phase One findings, particularly the importance of affect and the relational dimension of the development of autonomy within a social context.

Based on his wide review of studies relating to autonomy in language learning over the last twenty years (Benson 2001: xi) including associated theoretical literature, Benson (2001: 87) suggests that control over cognitive processes may be ‘the most fundamental level’, in relation to measuring and/or assessing autonomy because it precedes observable learning management behaviour. Furthermore, the notion of control over cognitive processes could be described and operationalized through the use of a small number of categories (ibid.). In this context, he identifies three key psychological categories of autonomy namely: attention, reflection and metacognitive knowledge, as offering ‘the possibility of a concise account of the psychological factors underpinning control over learning behaviour’ (ibid.).

The above ‘sub’ constructs are defined as follows:

•attention which Benson broadly defined, after Schmidt’s (1990) ‘noticing hypothesis’, as the learner’s active mental engagement with linguistic input through conscious apprehension and awareness (Benson 2001: 87–90);

•reflection as per Candy’s (1991) definition which stresses the link between reflection and autonomy within a social context, ‘If people are to develop a sense of personal control, they need to recognize a contingent relationship between the strategies they use and their learning outcomes, and this may well involve having learners maintaining learning journals, analysing their own approaches to learning, and discussing their beliefs and approaches to learning in groups or with a facilitator or counsellor’ (Candy 1991: 389 as cited in Benson 2001: 93);

•metacognitive knowledge based on Wenden’s (1995) definition which describes it as ‘the stable, statable and sometimes fallible knowledge learners acquire about themselves as learners, and the learning process’ (Wenden 1995: 185).

Control over these key categories, as evidenced from the content of my students’ self-evaluation reports and their learner diaries seemed a good start to the development of a framework/model which would enable me to code and analyse the data contained in the above-mentioned reports and diaries. However, the focus on metacognition of Benson’s (2001) model did not reflect the importance of affect or of the social dimension which had emerged from the students’ ‘voices’ in my study, suggesting the need for some revision.

Revising Benson’s (2001) definition

Drawing from the findings and the literature, the following revised definition gave a more prominent place to ‘meta’ affect and put more emphasis on the social dimension of the concept than Benson’s original definition.

Autonomy in language learning, within a formal institutional context, depends on the development of learners’ psychological and emotional capacity to control their own learning through independent action, both w...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Introduction
• Part I  The Emotional Dimension
• Part II  The Spatial Dimension
• Part III  The Political Dimension
• Conclusion
• References
• Index