benson, 2001, history

8/3/2019 Benson, 2001, History

1/8

l, ,Pli 1 1

1 l history of autonomy inIlnguage 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 conceptSecond language acquisition predates institutionalised learning by manycenturies and even in the modern world millions of individuals continueto learn second and foreign languages without the benefit of formaIinstruction . Although there is much that we can learn from their efforts,however, the theory of autonomy in language learning is essentiallyconcerned 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 parta response to ideals and expectations aroused by the political turmoilin Europe in the late 1960s. Holec (1981: 1) began his report to theCouncil of Europe (see Concept 1.1) with a description of the socialand ideological context within which ideas of autonomy in learningemerged:7

Benson, P. (2001) Teaching and ResearchingAutonomy in Language Learning, England:

Longman.


2/8

f Il fil III NI 1 flNU 1 l ' 01 AI'( IIINl, A" l l iNUM Il 1 f JI" 1 ," Il AI

Concept 1.1 The origins of autonomy in 1 ngud' 1 arningThe concept of autonomy first entered the field of language teachingthrough the Council of Europe's Modern Languages Project, establishedin 1971. One of the outcomes of trus project was the establishment of theCentre de Recherches et d'Applications en Langues (CRAPEL) at the University of Nancy, France, which rapidly became a focal point for researchand practice in the field. Yves Chlon, the founder of CRAPEL, is considered by many to be the father of autonomy in language learning. Chlondied at an early age in 1972 and the leadership of CRAPEL was passedto Henri Holec, who remains a prominent figure within the field of autonomy today. Holec's (1981) project report to the Council of Europe isa key early document on autonomy in language learning. The journalMlanges Pdagogiques, published at CRAPEL, has also played an important role in the dissemination of research on autonomy From 1970 to thepresent day.

The end of the 1960s saw the development in aU so-called industriallyadvanced Western countries of a socio-political tendency characterizedbya definition of social progress, no longer in terms of increasing materialwell-being through an increase in consumer goods and services, but interms of an improvement in the 'quality of life' - an expression that didnot become a slogan until some years later - based on the developmentof a respect for the individual in society.Th e Council of Europe's Modern Languages Project aimed initially toprovide adults with opportunities for lifelong learning. Th e approachdeveloped at CRAPEL was therefore particularly inRuenced by proposaIsfrom the emerging field of adult self-directed learning (2 .2), whichinsisted 'o n the need to develop the individual's freedom by developingthose abilities which will enable him to act more responsibly in runningthe affairs of the society in which he lives' .

Autonomy, or the capacity to take charge of one's own learning, wasseen as a natural product of the practice of self-directed learning, orlearning in which the objectives, progress and evaluation of learningare determned by the learners themselves. Among the key innovationsin the CRAPEL approach to. the provision of opportunities and support for self-directed language learning were the self-access resourcecentre and the idea of learner training. In its early days, the theory andpractice of autonomy in language learnin g also enjoyed an uneasy association with ideas of individualisation.

f\ ll l llNllMY IN I f\Nt tl IM II 11 f\ IININI,11\1 1ll' , \ l l llY UI

l 2 Autonomy and se\f-access. CRAPEL (Riley and

l e learning centres, at 1982).l'he first sel f-acccss a n g u ~ g . f Cambridge (Harding-Esch, ,,oppis, 1985) and t ~ e Umverslty 0 a rich collection of second l a ~ -Were based on the Idea that a1ccess tothe best opportunity for expen-Id ffer earne rs . . f!(uage materials wou .0 d 1 mi n (Quote 1.1). The proVlslOn 0l1\entation with self-directe ea

h. g n authentic materials were also

. .ces and an emp aSlS 0rounselhng se M . h CRAPEL approach.important elements ID t efilTfiifiD Riley an.d Zoppis ORAn t p h E ~ Sound and. .i_i,Wi6i---- Video ltbrary at C .

. ..' to make sure that the Sound and VideoIf one of our Initiai alms was k' \1 its potential users for as longLibrary would actually be able to ta ~ e ~ to be a place where we w ~ u l d as ossible each week, we ~ I s o ~ a n and strategies we firmly behevea p ~ l y some of the pedagoglcal p ~ n C 1 ~ : ~ ~ i P l e of autonomous learning forin. Foremost among these was t ~ : n t s In our view, students who h ~ v e advanced and falrly a d v a n c ~ d h S ~ n improve their Iistening c o m p r e h e n s ~ ? n , reached a certain level ln E n ~ IS . com rehension by regularly wor Ingtheir oral expression or thelr wnttlen p a ~ e d teaching material or ln com-. with adequate Yprein seml-autonomy . , , thentic material.piete autonomy uSlng raw au Riley and Zoppis (1985: 287)

a means of facilitating self-At CRAPEL, self-access was seen as If-access language 1earn-ln t years however, se 1,Iirccted learrung. ~ e c e n d ~ h e oint where 'self-access anguage

illp; centres have prohferate tO o n ~ for self-directed or a u t o n o ~ o u ~ k\\'11ing' is often r : e a t ~ d a : ~ l f - a c c e s s centres have been e s t a b l i s ~ e Irarning. ln many I D S t 1 t u t l O ~ , l tionale and it is often assumed , Wlth-wI thout any strong pedagog1ca rtha mpo'on that self-access work. . i . for e assu, dOllt any strong JUStl catlon . To a lesser extent, the pro ucerswill automatically lead to ~ u t o n 0 1 ~ ~ ' r n i n materials have assumed th atIIf sc1f-instructional and distance f t h e s ~ modes of learrung. On e ofIIIItonomy will be one outcome 0 cl f self-access over the past th rcct he important lessons of the s p r ~ a 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 ' t ton ai l ! I l \ \t:s ofl,;trning 1l1:\y l' l' Il \1\ )t Il. l' Il 111 .\1111 11111\ .1 I I I l l ln ' r I ,l l l \ COIH Iltcll ' 1,I\IIOIl!III1 V :",1\'11 1 Hl,


3/8

la TEAC HIN G AND RESEARCHING AUTONOMY IN LANGUAGE LEARNINGBecause self-access centres have b c l "educationa l technologies, self-access lea: l : 1 U ~ l a s t J . c consumers ofsynonymous with technology b d l g, as a so tended to become- ase earmng Within th fi Id fcomputer-assisted langua el' " e e 0an important issue As ingcl earnmgf, esPlfeclally, autonomy has become. le case 0 se -access ho 1on autonomy emphasise that l h ,wever , researc lersl ' earners w 0 engage i t h 1 bearnmg do not necessarily bec n ec no ogy- ased

CL orne more autonomous l f th ellorts. A great deal depend th as a resu t 0 eu's on e nature of the tecl l d thuse 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 ( D i c ~ egan d as a mechanism to supAt 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 killto 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 whopsychologically prepared for mo 1 e ucatJ.on would also need to beAccording to Holec teachin l re earnler-centred modes of learning.l , ,g arners 10W to c If 'earnmg would be COunter . d ' , arry out se -dlrecteddefinition no Ion er be p ~ o uctJ.ve, S111ce the learning would bythemselves (Quo! 1 2) sAleIfth-dlrechteld. Instead" learners needed to train' . oug earners m h dof counsellors teachers or ocl l thlg t raw on the supportl ' 1er earners e ' th'earner training was that it sI Id b b ' d Important mg aboutd' lO U e ase on th 'flrected learning itself Self d' , e practJ.ce 0 self-

l ' . - lrectJ.on was understo d th kearnmg languages and to learning ho t 1 l 0 as e ey tow 0 earn anguages.

IU@lQ Holee on learner trainingThe basie methodology for learner trainin h Id b 'the learner should diseover, with or w i t h o u ~ 1 etat of dISCOvery;teaehers, the knowledge and the th ' eh' e p 0 other learners orto find thl' cln"w


4/8

1

11

1

'1 III ~ I I 1 \ I I I I I r ~ I I M , Irl 1 1 Il 1, 11 1 1 1 I ~ l l . blill i l lg rr 'Uli1 fll'Ogr,llIllIlt'd ;11ic.:kinson (1987: 11) detined autonomy as 'the situation in which theIt'arner is totally responsible for ail of the decisions concerned with hisIl';lrning and the implementation of iliose decisions' and also used the term'1'1111 autonomy' to describe ilie situation in which the learner is entirelyindependent of teachers, institutions or specially prepared materials,The use of autonomy to describe learning situations, which is stillfound occasionally in the literature, has undoubtedly led to a degree ofmnceptual confusion within the field, Researchers on autonomy were

aware that in order to develop autonomy, learners needed to be freedl'rom ilie direction and control of others, At the same rime, they werewell aware that learners who chose, or were forced by circwnstances,to study languages in isolation from teachers and othe r learners, wouldnot necessarily develop autonomy, However, ilie argument that theopportunity to exercise autonomy through self-directed learning wasa necessary precondition for the development of autonomy was interpreted by critics of autonomy as an argument that it was a sufficientcondition, Moreover, the theory of autonomy had, in a sense, becomeframed within the practice of individualised self-directed learning, andwas seen by many as irrelevant to classroom learning, The use of the tenuindependence as a synonym for autonomy by sorne researchers has also ledcritics to view the field of autonomy as one in which crucial questionsconcerning the social character of learning are avoided (Concept 1.2).The theory and practice of autonomy escaped From this crisis ofidentity largely through the efforts of practitioners who experimentedwith 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:lIionships (II (111\\1'1 ,I!ld cOlltrol Wilhfll dl(' cbssroo/ll, SO/llt' of tlH' !llost

1 1


5/8

" . " " , - , , \ I ~ Il I I I IIINI, 1\ 111 I r ~ I I M I I I ~ 1 Il il Il 11\1 1111 ,

(O lle 'pl 12 Ind p nd nc " d P nel 'fi l'II/Ici 1111 .rdcp( IId IlCIn rccenl ycars, a number of researehers, in the United 1 illgdol11especially, have preferred the term independence lO autonomy, creatingtwo terms for what is essentially the same concept. When independence isused as a synonym of autonomy, its opposite is dependence, which impliesexcessive reliance on the direction of teachers or teaching materials,One problem with the use of this term, however, is that it can also beunderstood as the opposite of interdependence, which implies workingtogether with teachers and other learners towards shared goals. Manyresearchers 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 Da m and he r co1-leagues in Danish secondary schools, where a model of autonomy wasbased on classroom and curriculum negotiation (Dam, 1995), Thiswork has had a considerable influence on later innovations in classroomand curriculum autonomy and has also prompted a shift in the focusof research on autonomy in the 1990s towards issues of collaborationand negotiation,

On e of the most challenging developments in the theory of autonomyin 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 moralnorms, traditions and expectations, Autonomy thus includes the notionof interdependence, that is being responsible for one's own conduct inthe social context: being able to cooperate with others and solve conllictsin constructive ways .

Collaborative decision making within co-operative learning groups isthus a key feature of Kohonen's 'experientiaI' mode! for the development of autonomy, Little (1996: 210) has a1so argued that collaboration is essential to the deveIopment of autonomy as a psychologicalcapa city, stating that 'the development of a capacity for reflection andanalysis, central to the development of learner autonomy, depends ontlle development of an internalization of a capacity to participate fullyand critically in social interactions'. Such statements have provided animportant corrective to the earlier emphasis on the individual workingoutside the conventional classroom, They have also provided a focus

1111 III l' JI il li III 111111 I I ~ 11\11' IlfI'" 1LI\I t l \ I ~ ' , , l ' ,1 111101 !Ill' l'ol1vention:d c1:l"iSIO(l11il ' 'lit' on 1 1e 1e I l )1111 Il, . ,11 ('h :1111 Il''\(: f t om (see Chaptcr l i ' .

1 l ' ' ' l 'l 'mil he d v 'Iopmcnl 0 au on h ybeen dle examina lion 01 the\ '>l'e und ill1porlant developmen,tl as h in the field of sclf-clCCCSS' 1 " l um Whi e researc , d ' , l , 1le \1 IWI"" ml ' ln l le curllCU 'h' l as counsellor of 111 IVIL lI ,l' C the teac er s ro e , 1Il l', Il ' 1111 'd lO ocu on, 7) researchers working 111 c . a s ~ r o 111.

Il 11111'1'" (1 clIy, 1996; R i ~ : , r ~ i : of the teacher in the negotiation oft 111111'\10.; have explored, of the literature, Voller (1997: - : 1 3 ~ Il,, 1 lIIt'iclilum, In a reVle,: h ' the form of three assumptlons

' cl lts of dus researc 1111I1111l\;II'ISeS '1: resu . th development of autonomy:\lllIlIt tl'nthers l'oIes 111 e min is an interpretative process, and that1Ill' firSl is that language lea g 'res a transfer of control to meh to learnmg reqm 'tl mII I ,lIItonomous approac m tour teaching practices, WI 1111 el" Il Il '1'. The second is to ensure a Reet tllese assumptions, by, . ' osed 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 P r o l c ' ~ g S to observe and reRect upon. If onitor our teac 11 , . set1 lhird IS to se -m d h ture of tlle interactIOns we' we use an t e natlH' leaching strategJesd Participate in,"l ' nn 1 1 ddresses t1wh the area of teacher ro es a so a 11 ll' l110s t recent researc 111 '1 ion to the curriculum alHh ' wn autonomy 111 re a . l' . 1Il l' of the teac er s 0 '(L ' ttle 1995a' S111C au' et .l"Ji l education 1 " 111 implications or teac l ~ r , dits implications for teacher an('''(JO), The idea of negotiation, anb f innovative curriculum-bascd1 h . formed a nu m 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 becomeIII thc course of its evolution, t h ~ ~ o a ~ ~ ; P p r a c t i c e within the field ni ,

p.ln of the mainstream .of, r e ~ e a l ~ r t due to the reportecl success ofLIIIg'lIage e d u ~ a t i o n T h ~ s IS l : ~ autonomy and the efforts , hos ,'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 '1Il owever it woul e a mis . ' d dently of SOCIal an( CCO' fie ducation 111 epen h l' 1th , mninstream 0 anguag l . educators and those w () LlIHlIomi . f(1ctors that have made a n ~ a g e ociated with it (Concept l,to the practices ass d ' .1 h t '1hl'ir work more open. a e learning originate 111 l H!

Th e idea of autollomy 111. langui g '1 cl ideological changes (II'e Il'Om t le socla anI)()().., and drcw Slistenanc

,


6/8

Il fI( fllN (, fi NI ' 1[ " fi l (11INc , fl iI I I INI " I ,'v III 1 fi dl ' 1 I l IIIINI ,

Concept 1.3 The economics of autonomyThe argument for autonomy is princi Il 1 .ever, programmes that . pa ya pcc ::lgogl(.;ll


7/8

j I l il Il I I IINI,

, ' 1 ll ', l,IIk-d ' lIl1WIll.lllctl\ nplll., '1lI1 ' 1 1t l ly 01 l ':lrnillg thal is CXIK'ct ' 1 l ' Il ' III Il 1 1111 Il ' ,. l'd !I l l ' qll:111At ' , 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 'Ihl ' . l "are Wl mg to experiment with d f " .... \ll',111 1 1:1\ institutionscontact time, At the ' mo es 0 ~ l 1 s t r u c l l o n that rcducc teacherd

same tlme there IS a .e ucational implications of the r; id b growmg awareness of theand factual knowledge leadi p 0 s o l e s ~ e n c e of task-specific skillsskills. ng to an emphasls on transferable learning. ~ h e .rapid increase in the number of .mstltutlons and the gTOWth f d 1 d p ~ o p l e attendmg educational

th. . 0 a u t e ucatlon h L dau ontIes to search for aI t ' ' ave lOrce educat ional, d' , ' ernatIve means f 'd'm lVIduals with diverse need . ,0 proVI mg education tolearning and distance le ' s, hPportullltleS and preferences. Open. . . arnm g ave grown 'dl dmstltutlons now accommodat d' ,rapi y an traditionalbefore, e a greater Iverslty of students than ever

Th e commercialisation of public ed 'effect on language teaching h' h ' , u c a ~ o n has had a particularl 'th' ,w IC IS mcreasmgly t' ki ,.ro e Wl m educational' ,. . a ng on a serVIce', . , mStitutlOns. Pnvate 1mstItutIons experience student needs in th sector anguage-teachingand pressure to provide a 'd e f o ~ m of consumer demand. Wl e range of learm 'sorne t ~ m e been at the forefront of develo n g , o ~ t I o n s a ~ d have forated Wlth autonomy such as self- p m e ~ t s m mnovauons associ-~ u b l i c institutions are u n d e r s t a n ~ ~ ~ ~ s s l e a n l l ~ g ~ n d learner training.m ~ o v a t i o n s if they have roved th y more mclined to accept suchpnvate sector. p emselves to be cost-effective in theTh e growth of tecl1l10lo in e d u ' .in personal consumer e l e c ~ n i c s ( a ~ ~ ? o n ' , 1 n v e n largely by the boomInternet, has freed student ' 10 , VI eo and computer) and thesm many parts of th Id Lattend classes at predeterIll1' d ' e wor Ifom the need to, , , ne tlmes and 10 ti Lll1stltutIons have long been ent h .' ca ons, anguage-teachingtechnologies and the self-access b u S l a s ~ c consumers of new educational

I ~ p o r t a n t technological develo o ~ m 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 soplllsucatedT" matena s.he mformau on explosion 'cialisation of education and ~ 1 ~ : ~ ; : l l 1 g s t u d ~ n t n u m b ~ r s , the commer-have had a particular impact 1 pments II I educauonal technologynumber of students in educati on 1~ n ~ a g e teaching. No t only has theimportance of language Wl'th,ontha msdututi?ns increased rapidly, but the. h th m e e ucatlon h 1Wl e growth of nternatl' 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. Th e inforll1\llion1 I I \ 1 1 " ~ 1. :IIso IlInd:\lllctlt:\\Iy


8/8

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 conceptof autonomy wiU become assimilated to consumerist approaches tolearning through a shift in focus from the goals and purposes of language learning to the skills and strategies employed by the 'autonomouslearner' (Quo e 1.4).

i!JTfil51' pennycook on the 'psychologisation' of autonomyThe idea of autonomy has therefore moved rapidly from a more marginaland politically engaged concept to one in which questions are less and lesscommonly asked about the larger social or educational aims of autonomy.Broader political concerns about autonomy are increasingly replacedby concerns about how to develop strategies for learner autonomy. Thepolitical has become the psychological.

pennycook (1997: 41)

As the importance of the idea of autonomy grows in the field of language teaching, it is therefore important that we examine its development critically. Aside from the possibility that autonomy will sim plybecome the latest fad in language-teaching methodology, there is the riskthat it will be used for politicaUy ambiguous ends. Placing the responsibility for learning onto the learner should not become a matter ofshifting the economic burden of education from the state to the individual. Learning to learn should not become a matter of shifting theburden of ongoing retraining from those who demand it to those whoneed it in order to keep their jobs. Meeting individual needs should notbecome a matter of dispersing learning communities and privilegingthose who possess 'learning capital' over those who do not.Addressing these concerns, l would argue, does not necessarily implyan explicitly political approach to language teaching. On the other hand,it does imply that political concerns about the goals of learning shouldnot be divorced from the practice of teaching. The fostering of autonomyrequires, above aU, a focus on the learner's perspective in regard to thegoals and processes of learning. As Holec (1985a: 182) argues:

Providjng yourself with the means to undertake yo ur OWIl k :lIl1il1 g' programme presupposes that, allhe very least, yOIl Ihilll il p l l ' , l h l t 10 h

benson, 2001, history

Documents