Ten years ago, Benson’s comprehensive review of research into autonomy in language learning and teaching (Benson, 2007) showed that the field was flourishing and outlined several future research directions. The first involved expanding the definition
of autonomy to cater better for social processes. Secondly, Benson also suggested greater exploration of relationships between autonomy and other student-focused constructs such as self-regulation, self-motivation,
agency and identity. Finally, he argued for a stronger base for empirical understanding of the various ways autonomy is actualized in different contexts and settings. These suggestions were proposed in response to the emerging research trends in the field at the time. Since 2007, while the field of autonomy is still flourishing, we have witnessed changing perspectives on language learning and teaching in general. New research agendas are needed.
There are various detailed definitions
of learner
autonomy,
but for this chapter, we will start with the definition of it as ‘the capacity to take control of one’s learning’ (Benson, 2011, 58). Inevitably, questions about who, what, when, where and why emerged. Who is taking control? Taking (or retaking) this control from whom? What types of control? When do the learners exercise control? And in what
places and s
paces do learners take control? Clearly, such questions invite further exploration and thinking about new dimensions of autonomy.
In this volume, the order of chapters to some extent matches the order of these who, what, when, where and why questions. The first chapter addresses the question of how suitable the concept of autonomy is in developing
countries and under-resourced learning and teaching contexts. ‘For whom is it feasible and desirable?’, in other words. Then we see how language teachers and social
censure might impact on conceptualizations of autonomy. Another, less frequently discussed dimension of autonomy is group and group dynamics. The reimagination of
groups in the discourse on learner
autonomy
also brings into question the fundamental nature of interaction and space. In our contemporary world, the most popular spaces for g
roup interaction are certainly digital rather than physical. As we rethink new learning affordances, a discussion of spatial dimensions provides much needed expansion in the field.
Autonomy has been argued to be a Western concept, but Aoki and Smith (1999), Littlewood (1999) and others have disputed this falsely constructed binary with regard to East Asian contexts. Instead, these writers argue, autonomy needs to take into consideration the characteristics and needs of learners in specific contexts, and learners should not be stereotyped. Expanding the discussion further, Smith, Kuchah and Lamb in this volume critically examine the relevance of the concept of autonomy in
developing countries. Rather than viewing autonomy as culturally limited, they propose availability of resources as a critical criterion for engagement of learners and teachers with autonomy. Developing
countries differ in cultural, social, linguistic, religious, political and educational systems, but one commonly shared factor could well be a constraint on resources for language learning and teaching. From this starting point, Smith, Kuchah and Lamb outline various perspectives for understanding of and research into autonomy.
Of course, resources are not the only constraint. Autonomy also involves interdependence between learners and teachers. What happens when teachers feel that they not only have to deal with institutional constraints (e.g. curriculum, public examinations) but also social censure?
Gao, in his chapter, discusses impacts of public scrutiny and censure on teachers’ professional identities and sense of autonomy. Public censure of teachers is increasingly gaining traction in the media, especially in teaching contexts where English is viewed as an important tool for academic and social advancement. In addition, with the ever-prevailing permeation of social media platforms, the general public also appears to have extremely high expectation for language teachers beyond their professional duties. This might have been tended to be true in East Asian contexts, especially in countries where there are clashes between more traditional Confucian expectations and modern education consumerism. Gao provides a detailed discussion with examples drawn from Hong Kong and China and suggests possible ways forward.
Another dimension in autonomy that has raised questions is the role of
groups. By association, autonomy has often been framed as a learner’s lone quest to forge his/her learning journey. The concept of ‘group’ may appear to counter that of autonomy, but in his chapter here, Palfreyman examines different facets of groups, grouping and group dynamics to argue for their benefit in fostering autonomy among learners. This is an especially important issue to consider as contemporary learning theories emphasize that learning does not just happen within the learner. Learning happens from interaction and that requires consideration to be given not only to contexts but also other learners in the learning environment. In addition, institutional learning is still pretty much designed for
groups of learners, not necessarily individually tailored. So the examination of groups in the conceptualization and development of autonomy is essential.
An additional reason for considering the role of groups in autonomous language learning and teaching is that one of the fastest areas of growth for group interaction is certainly in digital space. Historically, work with autonomy has benefited from technological advancement, especially when the technologies were designed for independent use. In more recent times, user-generated Web 2.0 content has certainly enabled greater access to target language communities and learning content (Reinders & White, 2016). Chik’s chapter in this volume adopts an autoethnographic approach to examining the learning on language learning social network sites—the affordances and the constraints. Using an analytical framework for informal language learning on Duolingo, Chik suggests how further empirical knowledge can be acquired regarding how learners autonomously direct their learning pathways while engaging in different digital practices.
While digital spaces might provide new affordances, there is also a new call for rethinking the spatial dimension of learner
autonomy,
taking consideration of the social dimension of learner
autonomy
a step further. On the basis of a case study of a learning
space in a Japanese university language centre, in the final chapter in this volume, Murray argues that new configurations o
f space will create new learning, and, by the same token, new forms of learning call for new kinds of space
. Changes in space
and learning impact social relationships, which in turn impact the conceptualization and exercise of autonomy. To conclude, Murray proposes the adoption of an ecological approach to examining innovations in and symbioses between space
and learning.
The research agendas suggested in these five chapters are not meant to be exhaustive. And, as we deepen our understanding of autonomy and how it is conceptualized and manifested in various learning contexts, these research agendas will themselves be taken into new directions and require renewal.
Acknowledgement
The research agendas presented in this volume began life as moderated discussions on the AILA Research Network for Learner
Autonomy
discussion board, AUTO-L, when we were joint coordinators of the network (2011–2014). They benefitted considerably from feedback at the 2014 AILA Congress in Brisbane, Australia, and subsequent peer review. We thank all those who have helped with their feedback in the process of construction of this volume.
References
Aoki, N., & Smith, R. (1999). Autonomy in cultural context: The case of Japan. In S. Cotterall & D. Crabbe (Eds.), Learner autonomy in language learning: Defining the field and effecting change, Bayreuth contributions to glottodidactics (Vol. 8, pp. 19–28). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.
Benson, P. (2007). Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 40, 21–40.Crossref
Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and researching autonomy (2nd ed.). London: Pearson Longman.
Littlewood, W. (1999). Defining and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts. Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 71–94.Crossref
Reinders, H., & White, C. (2016). 20 years of autonomy and technology: How far have we come and where to next? Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 143–154. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2016/reinderswhite.pdf