Australian Journal of Teacher Education Towards a Classroom Pedagogy for Learner Autonomy: A Framework of Independent Language Learning Skills Hayo Reinders Middlesex University Abstract. In recent years there has been a growing recognition of the importance of learner autonomy and the role of individual learners in directing their own learning process, both inside and outside the classroom (Alford & Pachler, 2007; Benson, 2000; Breen, 2001; Conacher & Kelly-Holmes, 2007). However, in practice it is not always clear how to support learners in this role, and how to ensure they are ready to assume it. This paper explores some of the teaching aspects related to the development of learner autonomy and proposes a framework of skills that could be used by teachers as a guide to increasing learner responsibility. Although this framework was developed in the context of language education, its underlying theories apply to all educational settings. Learner autonomy in language teaching Language teachers have always attempted to find ways to reconcile the collective nature of most teaching environments with the (inevitably) individual aspects of learning. The development of learner autonomy, or learners’ ability to take control over their own learning (Holec 1981), has been one way in which teachers’ have tried to make links with learners at a more individualised level, and to connect classroom learning with out-of-class language use. The theoretical and pedagogical rationale for the implementation of more learner- centred approaches to teaching is well developed and goes back many decades. Starting from the 1950s, and influenced by the work of George Kelly (c.f. Kelly, 1955) and others in psychology, there emerged an increased recognition of the importance of the learner as an active individual who brings previous experiences, beliefs and preferences to the classroom. Rather than seeing the learner as a passive container to be filled with the teacher’s ideas, these humanist approaches considered the learner as someone who actively shapes his or her learning experiences with the purpose of self-development and fulfilment (Stevick 1980, Atkinson 1993). Similarly, constructivism gives a more central stage to the learner by focusing less on the knowledge to be transmitted, and more on the process of constructing, reorganising and sharing that knowledge. In this process, the learner plays a key role. In order to be successful, learners need to be made aware of their own learning and how to manage it. These developments also influenced language education, both through the development of specific teaching methods rooted in these ideas, such as the Silent Way and Suggestopedia (Gattegno, Vol 35, 5, August 2010 40 Australian Journal of Teacher Education 1963; Lozanov, 1978)1 and—perhaps more importantly—through a general influence on language teaching toward a greater focus on the learner. Another influential impetus was the work done in the 1970s and 1980s on identifying the characteristics of the ‘good language learner’ (Naiman et al., 1978). It was found that successful language learners shared a number of characteristics, such as (to give just two examples from a very long list) being proactive in their learning and self-motivated. On the face of it, this seems to provide language teachers with a clear set of objectives for the classroom. For example, if learners can be made more proactive, then they might be expected to learn better. In practice, however, the implications of these studies are not quite so clear-cut. One problem relates to operationalising constructs such as ‘proactivity’ and ‘self-motivation’. There is a great deal of debate around what such concepts mean. And, even if there was a consensus around them, it still would not be clear how learners could be made, for example, to self-motivate; teacher intervention would, perforce, be a form of direction and any resulting motivation could thus not be said to originate from the learner. Another, perhaps more important, problem is related to the question of whether the characteristics of good language learners cause success in language learning, or whether these characterstics are simply correlated with better learning outcomes. It may be possible to be a successful language learner, even without being proactive, for example. It just may happen to be that more successful learners are also, generally speaking, more proactive. In other words, research on the good language learner may not have a great deal of explanatory power. Similar problems surround the concept of learner autonomy, which, although it had been known and used as a political construct for centuries, developed as an educational construct only in the 1980s, being used to refer to the ability of learners to take control over their learning (Holec, 1981). This ability implies many of the characteristics found in the ‘good language learner’. Learners are unlikely to take control over, for example, decisions about what to learn or how, unless they have some degree of motivation to do so, and unless they are proactive in their learning. This also makes the implementation of a pedagogy for developing learner autonomy difficult: for the same reasons it is difficult to identify practical implications of studies into good language learners. In addition to the learning aspect, however, autonomy also includes a more political element, relating to the idea of individual freedom of choice. As applied to education, learners are unable to ‘take control’ or make choices about their learning, unless they are free to do so. At a practical level, this means that economic and other disadvantages of certain groups in the wider population, state-led education policies, school curricula and the prescribed use of textbooks, are all examples of ways in which the development of autonomy may be hindered. Sometimes individual teachers can overcome these constraints, but often they cannot. An additional problem in relation to the concept of autonomy is that is unclear exactly what it means. Although a great deal of theorising has taken place over the years (see Benson, 2007, for an overview), it sometimes seems as if autonomy has become a catch-all term, comprising other concepts such as motivation (Ushioda, 1996), awareness (van Lier, 1996), and interaction (Kohonen, 1992). This lack of specificity may reduce its usefulness and make it difficult to operationalise. Few studies exist that have attempted to quantify autonomy (for some attempts, see Lai, 2001 and Vanijdee, 2007), and some have suggested this should not be attempted, as autonomy is a fundamental educational goal that underlies many other skills 1 Some have argued, however, that these developments were not new at all, and that in fact similar developments had already started in the nineteenth century (van Essen, 2002). Vol 35, 5, August 2010 41 Australian Journal of Teacher Education and therefore cannot be broken down into component parts to be measured. Perhaps as a result, few practical models or comprehensvie frameworks exist that could systematically guide teachers in implementing autonomy in the classroom. More recent developments in education, both as an extension of the work done in the area of autonomy, and separate from it, have seen a greater understanding of the role of the individual in the learning process: [...] most researchers agree that a major shift is taking place […] in education away from the teacher-centred classroom toward a learner-centred system where the learner is in control of the lesson content and the learning process. (Fotos & Browne, 2004, 7) One impetus for this has been the influential work done in the area of ‘individual differences’. This body of work emphasises, among other things, how learners differ in their capacity to process, store, and retrieve information; how they differ in terms of age, intelligence, beliefs about language learning; and how they differ in their approaches to learning. A related area is that of ‘learning styles’, which, based on work done in cogntive psychology and general education, attempts to identify ways in which learners differ in their learning preferences. This information may be used by teachers to match teaching styles with individuals’ learning styles, and to ensure that a range of learning styles is provided for. The realisation that learners approach learning tasks in different ways has also led to an interest in what learners themselves have to say about their learning. The area of ‘learners’ voices’ (Benson & Nunan, 2005), is an example of this interest, and attempts to better understand learners’ motivations, reasons for success, fossilisation or dropping out, and learners choices in how they approach the language learning process. The interest in learners’ voices is an example of a sociocultural perspective on learning. In this view, learners and learning can only be understood with reference to their context: their ‘what’, ‘where’ and ‘how’ (Lantolf and Pavlenko, 2001). Sociocultural views of second language acquisition have had considerable influence on language teaching methodologies in recent years. What all these developments and approaches have in common is that they assume that learners have, or will develop, the ability to manage decisions around lesson content and the learning process (Fotos & Browne 1997), and are able to act on their individual beliefs, experiences, learning styles and preferences. In practice, however, this is not necessarily the case. Students need a great deal of preparation and support before they are comfortable with and able to assume greater responsibility for their learning. Reinders & Cotterall (2000), for example, found from a factor analysis that the most important determinant of success in a self-access centre was the degree of preparation the students had received. The provision of materials for self-study also is not sufficient. Previous studies (for example, Jones, 1993; Reinders & Lewis, 2006) that such materials frequently lack the necessary support structures, such as clear instructions or even answer keys, and do not explicitly encourage students to reflect on the learning process.