In the field of research for learner autonomy, it must be accentuated that although there are the cases of positive feedback from learners and instructors on the implementation of
autonomy, these often depended on personal perception or subjective observation from those involved (Benson, 2001). This study aims to explore the influence of learner autonomy in terms of actual language gains, to complement and strengthen what has been undervalued in the past studies. At the same time, it is hoped that this study can demonstrate autonomous listening, taking advantage of existing dominant listening instruction and the application of CALL, has the potential to present a more effective method for second language listening instruction and hence provides a ready access for second language learners and brings the inception and sustainment of practice on autonomous learning.
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Learner Autonomy
2.1.1 What is Learner Autonomy?
The concept of ‘autonomy’ is first attended by Holec (1981) in Council of European Modern Languages Projects. He defines autonomy as ‘the ability to take charge of one’s own learning’ in language learning field. More specifically, learner autonomy entails the learner’s decisions regarding the following aspects: determining their goals, describing the materials and progressions, choosing learning methods and techniques, monitoring the procedure of acquisition, and evaluating their acquirement (p.3).
Many scholars later considered autonomy as the characteristics of individuals on the basis of Holec’s ideas. Little (1990) views autonomy as ‘essentially a matter of the learner’s psychological relation to the process and content of learning’. Thomson (1996) refers learner autonomy to learning in a setting where the learner ‘take responsibility for their own learning’. Lee (1998) suggests that the ability to self-direct learning is one potential
manifestation of learner autonomy. Phil Benson (2001), for a further step, defines autonomy as ‘the capability to take control of one’s own learning’, concretizing the ability or
responsibility which the learner is usually assumed to own. Still some researchers discuss autonomy within the framework of learning environments. As Dickinson (1987) put it, autonomy can be seen as ‘the situation in which the learner is totally responsible for all of the decisions concerned with his learning’. Allwright (1988) argues that autonomy was
concomitant with a fundamental reform of traditional classrooms and language teaching methodology. In short, the concept shared in these descriptions is that the pivotal accountability in language acquisition has swung from the teacher to the learner.
However, there are also a range of misconceptions of learner autonomy. Little in his
book (1990) clarifies what autonomy is NOT: it is not self-instruction, it does not mean the elimination of teacher’s responsibility, and it is never a single teaching method. Two decades later, Dam (2011) also echoes these viewpoints when he concluded his long-term teaching experiences, emphasizing what learner autonomy does not imply by three more dimensions (p.49):
- A do-as-you-like tasks for learners - About learners learning by themselves
- Something teachers do to learners, but something teachers do with learners. (Dam, 1999) Having the core concepts of learner autonomy as a starting point, issues related to learner autonomy or autonomous learning have been associated with a wide range of research like CALL, self-access and sociocultural differences. Firstly it would not be an exaggeration that the advent of computer-assisted language learning (CALL) originates from autonomous learning since it is true that technology [is] in the service of language learning (Garrett, 1991).
According toWarschauer and Healey (1998), the role of CALL experiences three stages:
behavioristic (CALL as a tool for drill and test), communicative (as a tool to achieve non-linguistic or difficult linguistic projects like the use of corpus) and integrative (as a resource for rich both verbal and non-verbal input). The Internet has magnified the strand of interactive CALL for its availability and affordability. All of these are supposed to support the learner in developing language skills and competence as well as growing more
autonomous.
Next, self-access is also one of the most widely explored field in second language
learning. Besides early contributions to numerous independent articles (Little, 1997; Nunan, 1997; Ryan, 1997), an exclusive journal Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal was also launched in 2010. Gardner and Miller’s book (1999) offered a comprehensive introduction to self-access learning. They stress that self-access language learning is neither simply ‘a
collection of materials’ nor ‘a system for organizing resources’, but ‘an integration of a number of elements which combines to provide a unique learning environment’. Though Benson (2001) indicates that self-access does not entail the learner’s ability to manage his or her own learning, the authentic texts provided in self-access centers can ‘develop confidence in the face of the target language’ and ‘accommodate the two-way relation between language learner and language learning’ (Little, 1997), which is of great importance in the development of learner autonomy.
Third, the practice of autonomous learning within the classroom has been discussed as well, which in turn brings the concern for social and cultural influence. The initial
assumption of learner autonomy was learners’ independent learning; then it was followed by a conversion that learner-learner interdependence, teacher-learner cooperation pattern, and scaffolding from important others (Benson, 2001; Dam, 2011, Humphreys & Wyatt, 2013;
Kessler & Bikowski, 2010; Lee, 1998). At the same time, a more recent propensity centers on cultural, social, and even political influence on the fostering of learner autonomy since the interaction of autonomous learning occur not only inside the classroom but also with the world out of campus. For instance, the issue whether learner autonomy is exclusive to western culture is seen as a typical theme that is often debated.
Scollon and Wong Scollon (1994) proposed an astute reflection of students’ expectation for teachers, the authority figure in the classroom,
The Asian focuses on the care, nurture and benevolence (or their absence) of the person in authority while the western tends to focus on the restriction, limitation and
dependence of the person over which the authority is exercised.
Jones (1995) also cautioned that it should not be assumed that ‘autonomy is an interculturally valid objectives’, implying any establishment for fostering autonomy should be adjusted to its own cultural and educational setting rather than being fixed.
To examine whether this particular cultural distinction is a hindrance to autonomy, (Ho
& Crookall, 1995) brought a large-scale simulation in a Chinese classroom setting. In this experiment, they found the learners’ progress in language competence as well as cooperation with peers; moreover, it was testified that through clear instruction and gradual practice Chinese students can also walk on the path towards being autonomous.
Littlewood (1999) further investigated the features of autonomy that might be most deeply-seated in East Asia traditions and their assistance in language learning. In his article, he proposes an insightful distinction between two types of autonomy—proactive autonomy and reactive autonomy. The former is usually the mode recognized in western culture, with which learners are expected to ‘affirm their individuality and set up directions’ themselves.
On the contrary, the latter is the mode which ‘once a direction has been initiated, enables learners to organize their resources autonomously in order to reach their goal’ (ibid: p.75).
In order to discover a more suitable implementation of autonomous learning in East Asian context, he created a questionnaire that based on several hypotheses and predictions which are widely believed to be shared by learners in East Asia. The results showed that those
generalizations are not always true and sometimes even contradictory to what is expected, and that a wide range of individual differences exist as well. He then concluded that educators should consider the ‘collective structure of autonomy’, adjust in-class learning pattern for culturally-specific traits and can thus successfully develop learner autonomy.
2.1.2 Approaches to Foster Learner Autonomy
In the previous section, autonomy is defined as ‘the ability to take control of one’s own learning’, which is a characteristic of the learner, as in contrast to autonomous learning, a certain form of learning setting (Phil Benson, 2001). Although some see autonomy as an attribute of the learner that may not be ‘taught’ or ‘learned’, others consider it can be
‘fostered’. Nunan (1997) argues that every learners can take charge of their own learning; it is just a matter of different degrees. Benson (op. cit.) further categorizes educational
practices planned to promote autonomy into six main types: Resource-based approaches, technology-based approaches, learner-based approaches, classroom-based approaches, curriculum-based approaches, and teacher-based approaches.
In resource-based approaches, it is the utilization of learning materials that are
emphasized. Resource-based learning empowers learners to make their learning plans, to select learning materials, and to evaluate their learning achievement independently. One of the most common manifestation of these approaches is self-access centers. Self-access centers, which appear in a variety of forms according to diversity of cultural and educational environments, can play either a central, equal or peripheral part along with formal classroom instruction (Little, 1997). Littlejohn (1997) also redefines the function of self-access work:
it must help transform the learner from a passive material consumer to a proactive producer to make best use of it. Other resource-based approaches like self-instruction and distance learning are beneficial to some highly-motivated learners as well (Rowsell & Libben, 1994).
However, the effectiveness of these approaches are seldom investigated. Indeed, it seems that the success of resources-based approaches lies in the presumption that ‘the learner already possesses some of the skills associated with autonomy’ (Phil Benson, 2001).
Technology-based approaches share many features with resourced-based approaches, but diverge their focus on the technologies learners use to interact with those resources. Much of the attention nowadays is devoted to computer-assisted language learning (CALL) and the Internet. At the initial development of CALL, it primarily serves as a tutor for individuals, yet later evolves as a tool for integration of language skills for its interactive elements. The Internet is powerful in supplying learner with limitless, or at least abundant sources of
authentic materials. The value of the technology-based approaches, as that in resource-based
ones, is that learners are provided with opportunities to direct their own learning. But still, those benefits can only be realized when the learner has already owned a certain degree of autonomy.
The third type of approaches Benson proposes is learner-based approaches, which put in central place ‘the production of behavioral and psychological changes that will enable
learners to take greater control over their learning’ (p.142). The origin of these approaches came from the idea of learning strategies, strategy training, and learner development. The relationship among use of strategy and learner autonomy is complicated. Cohen (1998) maintained that explicit teaching of strategy use can help learners search for what suits them best and succeed in pursuing better language performance, and during this process, learner autonomy is thus encouraged. In effect, explicit strategy instruction proves to be effective in improving learners’ language performance; nevertheless, rare research has demonstrated evidence in its profound influence on them for becoming more autonomous.
Next come the other three approaches that attend to the decision-making for students within conventional instructional settings: classroom-based approaches, curriculum-based approaches, and teacher-based approaches. All of these are presumed to operate in environments where students support or collaborate with others.
To foster autonomy by classroom-based approaches, learners are given control over classroom activities. In some experiments where learners had a chance to plan or direct their in-class learning procedures and content collaboratively, there was a significant increase in their motivation for language learning (Assinder, 1991; Cotterall, 2000). In addition to designing classroom learning, self-assessment, which involves reflection on goal-setting, goal-achieving and criteria for assessment, is also critical. Accounts of several studies reveal that learners are able to evaluate their own language proficiency under the condition of
sufficient training or support from teachers. In the same way, learners may become capable
to discover appropriate methods and materials for their learning through classroom-base approaches, but this is also confined to the extent to which the content has been
predetermined.
The fifth type to develop learner autonomy is curriculum-based approaches. Unlike classroom-based approaches, curriculum-based approaches expand learners’ control from in-class learning to a widespread arrangement of the holistic curriculum. To illustrate, the process syllabus, in which learners can determine what to learn and how they proceed learning accompanying the negotiation with and the scaffolding from instructors (Breen &
Littlejohn, 2000), embodies these approaches. The strong and weak versions of the process syllabus are distinguished by a different level of the presupposition of curriculum content: the former has no presumed curricular content or method, while the latter are often presented in the form of group projects. The appraisal of the success of curriculum-based approaches usually depends on whether they can endure. So far there exist few examples
well-established. Of these successful cases, once again, the role of the teacher is definitely not ignorable.
Last come teacher-based approaches, which underscore the significance of the professional development of teachers and the training of teachers. To promote learner
autonomy, Voller (1997) listed three basic teacher roles—facilitator, counsellor, and resource.
He states that those roles should be able to support learners technically (e.g. helping learners to plan, implement, and evaluate their own learning) and psycho-socially (e.g. motivating them and raising their awareness with each teacher’s uniqueness). Apart from teacher role, Thavenius (1999) asserts that teacher autonomy is a prerequisite in order to foster learner autonomy because ‘it is not just a matter of changing teaching techniques; it is a matter of changing teacher personality’. Teachers must reflect on their teaching under social and cultural contexts in question. Teacher-based approaches to foster learner autonomy involves
the interaction among the teacher, the learner and the whole learning environment, which makes the learning situation and causes for outcomes rather complex. So far little research has conducted to discover its effectiveness.
2.1.3 Empirical Studies on Learner Autonomy and Language Gains
From previous review we learn that learner autonomy should not be seen as a single method, but rather an ultimate goal to strive for (Wenden, 1987) through environments in which learners can practice learner autonomy or at least trained to practice it. In the meantime, this educational goal is not likely to be accomplished by a single approach.
Learner autonomy may be most successfully fostered by ‘a combination of different
approaches’ (Phil Benson, 2001). To date, most of the empirical studies are concerned with learner motivation increase (Assinder, 1991; Cotterall, 2000), use of materials or resources (Little, 1997; Nunan, 1997; Ryan, 1997), learner-learner interdependence (Kessler &
Bikowski, 2010) or teacher-learner relation/collaboration (Cotterall, 1995; Dam, 2011; Little, 1995) in varied learning settings. Nonetheless, in the framework of language learning and teaching, the acquisition of language knowledge or the performance of language skills are at the core of this research area, but related studies are insufficient to offer strong evidence.
Existent empirical studies that concern autonomy and specific language skills includes listening (Kemp, 2010; Mideros & Carter, 2014), speaking (Cotterall, 2000; Gao, 2009), reading (Cotterall, 2000), and writing (Sullivan & Lindgren, 2002).
Lee (1998) presented a rather comprehensive article that contains discussion about several key themes. A group of Hong Kong college students participated in a course that aimed to nurse their ability to self-organize their own learning. The results showed that it was the more enthusiastic learners that considered themselves making progress. According to the reports collected from the students and teachers and some limitations he noted, he
proposed the following implications: learners would become more autonomous through a systematic training; teachers’ guidance plays an essential part and should be stressed;
adequate supply of authentic materials would enable learners to exercise genuinely with the target language; and lastly cooperative learning would provide a more friendly environment for self-directing learning. In brief, there are a number of factors that are interdependent in the process of helping learners to stay on the path of learning independently of teachers.
Owing to the somewhat disappointing reactions from the participants in Lee’s study, he underscored the importance of supportive systems as a requisite in fostering autonomy. To respond to the call from Richard, Cotterall (2000) and Dam (2011) both proposed the
principles of establishing an autonomous learning classroom based on their practical experiences. Cotterall (2000) described what the principles for planning an autonomous language learning program are and how the practice of these influenced on learner learning experiences and language competency. The principles include that 1) the goals are
determined by students, 2) students are acquainted with a basic language learning theory, 3) course tasks imitate real-world situation, 4) discussion and exercise about strategy use are desirable, and 5) reflection on learning has to be promoted. A more recent study by Dam (2011) examines the principles, practices and results in primary and secondary school contexts. In addition to unambiguous rules for students, a focus shifted from teaching to learning, genuineness of language use, and significance of assessment, Dam emphasized that the existence of choice ‘motivates’ learners, ‘requires reflection’, ‘heightens awareness of learning’, have learners ‘feel responsible’, and support ‘self-esteem’ (p.43). More examples of positive results can also be seen in his and his co-researcher’s previous studies (Dam, 2006;
Dam & Legenhausen, 2010; Legenhausen, 2001). Through questionnaires, interviews and discussion with teachers, Humphreys & Wyatt’s study (2013) also approved of these
generally shared conceptions: that the opportunity for learners to make their own choice on
goal-setting and activities, to collect their retrospective thoughts on learning process. The idea they raised—guided autonomy—also highlights teachers’ role to equip learners with the skills to take charge as well as their responsibility to provide authentic language use that simulate real-life tasks.
The success of autonomous learning from earlier empirical articles was mostly determined by relatively subjective perception of learners or instructors towards language learning, but in the last decade the tendency has altered to the research with more focuses on specific language communicative skills. A qualitative study by Sullivan and Lindgren (2002) investigated the effects of self-evaluation and reflection on writing skills in an EFL context.
Four Swedish adult students were provided with a computer software package that helps to the writers to trace and further analyze the development and revision during their writing process. This served as a reference for the participants, assisting them to monitor their writing habits and strategies. All of the participants agreed that the application of such a technology did lead them to be more autonomous.
With regard to speaking, a study by Gao’s (2008) may provide us an insight. In his research, the operation of ‘English Corner’, a social supporting community in which Chinese learners of different backgrounds gathered and volunteered to meet regularly and practice spoken English, and its impact, were analyzed. Opinions from a group of at least fifty learners’ towards this kind of English club was collected from their natural interaction and response posts on an online forum, lasting more than half a year. The results showed that whether the central organizers or the follower members both found a sense of self-confidence for being in such a friendly, encouraging environment where passionate language users met.
With regard to speaking, a study by Gao’s (2008) may provide us an insight. In his research, the operation of ‘English Corner’, a social supporting community in which Chinese learners of different backgrounds gathered and volunteered to meet regularly and practice spoken English, and its impact, were analyzed. Opinions from a group of at least fifty learners’ towards this kind of English club was collected from their natural interaction and response posts on an online forum, lasting more than half a year. The results showed that whether the central organizers or the follower members both found a sense of self-confidence for being in such a friendly, encouraging environment where passionate language users met.