Perceptions of Autonomy

by Rachel Wall

Last year, I embarked on a series of research projects which led me on a merry dance through the avenues and rabbit holes of autonomy. They led me to question my own practice and the precarious balance of appropriate scaffolding; dive into the baffling world of Legitimation Code Theory (LCT); experiment with coding; observe the language choices of my fellow tutors; design surveys and observation instruments and fundamentally left me wondering if autonomy can ever really exist. I’m not going to lie: the process ‘flawed’ me on many occasions – in both senses of the homophone – and forced me to rethink my own approach to life, as both a tutor and a citizen of this luscious planet.

So, what is Autonomy?

Holec (1981) is often cited as being the first to coin the term ‘learner autonomy’, yet it is hardly a new concept. In fact, being able to act ‘autonomously’ most likely played a key role in human evolution, but don’t quote me on that.

When I started my research projects last year, autonomy, one of the Centre for Academic Language and Development (CALD)’s principles, seemed like a good place to begin my investigations. This was largely as establishing that LA (learner autonomy) is something that develops, rather than being directly taught. Most teachers will have noticed that students with a higher level of learner autonomy tend to do better, but the question remains: how can we help those who struggle and feel more reliant on teacher input and pre-set samples, models, or frameworks? What does it even mean to be autonomous?

LA itself, is commonly accepted as having the ability to take charge of one’s own learning, including making decisions and taking responsibility for self-directed learning (Little, 2007), but what this means in practice can remain unclear. Rather than fixating on definitions, I first chose to explore the perceptions of autonomy of both teachers and students on the summer pre-sessional programme at CALD, to work out if there was any agreement. By isolating any differences in opinion, I figured, I would be better able to grasp how to help students develop their own ability to function with a degree of autonomy.

With this in mind, my first project set out to investigate this potential mismatch between student and teacher perceptions on the summer pre-sessional course by asking:

• Is there a conflict between student and teacher perceptions of learner autonomy in EAP?
• How can learner autonomy be developed?

To achieve this, I designed two surveys, which mirrored each other: one for teachers and one for students. My research led me to identify five factors which influence autonomy: Motivation, Culture, Teacher Role, Responsibility and Choice & Reflection. This was based on my readings of Benson (2007), Little (2022), Hyland (2006), van Lier (1996), Cotterall (2000) and Holec (1981).

I obtained 108 responses from pre-sessional students and 15 from pre-sessional teachers.

 

So, what did I find out?

Is there a conflict between student and teacher perceptions of LA in EAP?

Although the research identified differences in perspectives on LA in terms of definitions, when it came to motivation, culture, and personal responsibility, there was no overriding conflict between teacher and student perceptions. A consensus on the basic meaning of an autonomous learner was shown, but teacher focus shifted from highlighting the importance of taking responsibility for one’s own learning and being able to work independently, to placing more emphasis on self-directed learning and the ability to develop and apply learning strategies, whilst students emphasized the need for independent learning. Neither group placed focus on collaboration or reflexivity, which Benson (2013) views as essential aspects of LA. In fact, only three students (0.027%) referred to reflexivity, and only one teacher (6%) offered a response which could be deemed to include reflection. Some of the student responses are shown in the word cloud below (Figure 1).

 

So, how can LA be developed?

Consistent with Benson’s assertion that there is ‘no single best method of fostering autonomy’ (2001:14), this research shows that many methods exist.

Suggested activities include:

• Reflection
• Peer Sharing
• Project-based learning (PBL)
• Reading/listening circles
• Independent research
• Portfolios with presentations

Students found these activities beneficial on the pre-sessional. Overall, tasks that provide opportunities for taking ownership of learning and engaging in self-directed learning are key. That said, Holec (1981) stipulated that an autonomous learner should have the capacity to make ALL the decisions regarding their learning, which is clearly impossible on a short EAP course with specific outcomes.

In addition, it is vital to be mindful of the five factors considered in the research.

Factor 1: Motivation, considered by van Lier (1996:98) as ‘the most important factor in language learning’, is seen as the interchange between intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. According to Benson (2007), the connection between autonomy and motivation could be considered self-evident; therefore, understanding what motivates our learners and how self-motivation is attained is extremely useful.

The survey revealed an interesting mismatch between students’ and teachers’ extrinsic perceptions on motivations for study. This contrast suggests that teachers underestimate students’ passion for study. The fact that 82% of students reward themselves for task completion indicates how important motivation is. Furthermore, Ushioda (cited in Benson, 2007:29) argues for ‘‘a social environment that supports
learners’ sense of autonomy and intrinsic motivation to pursue optimal challenges through the zone of proximal development’’, which supports the idea that multiple factors contribute to increased LA.

Factor 2: Learner culture

With a high proportion of Chinese participants in our pre-sessional courses, it was not possible to observe correlation between distinct cultures and perceptions. Nevertheless, both teachers and students tended to attribute a lack of autonomy to cultural/school history, which indicates that prior learning is believed to have a considerable impact. Interestingly, 44% of teachers also named ‘influence of previous of previous learning’ as the biggest barrier to LA, second to ‘reliance on the teacher’. Harmer (2015) claims differing educational cultures often impact students’ take on autonomous learning, which supports the teachers’ response, but teacher assumptions about students’ prior reflection experience indicates a discrepancy. Are teachers too quick to make assumptions about previous learning experiences? Of the teachers I surveyed 50% agreed with the statement ‘cultural background seems to have an impact on autonomy’, while 25% disagreed. 44% of teachers also named ‘influence of previous of previous learning’ as the biggest barrier to LA.

Indeed, Benson (2007) indicated that there are various approaches worldwide, so it may be that a needs analysis of learner autonomy might aid teacher understanding of individual group needs.

Factor 3: Teacher role

In different educational institutions worldwide, learners will have experienced different interpretations of the teacher role concept. This can, however, lead to mismatch between the teacher and learner perceptions of the teacher’s role. (Hyland, 2006). In the survey, 40% of students agreed with the statement ‘my teacher should tell me what to do’ and 66.6% agreed with ‘all my mistakes should be corrected’. 35.2% agreed with ‘teachers should set learning goals’ against 37.1% who disagreed. Finally, 66.7% agreed that they need substantial guidance from teachers.

Teachers were divided on setting learning goals with 18.8% agreeing, 37.6% disagreeing and 43.8% with no opinion. 43% indicated that students get frustrated when not given exact answers, although 31.3 % disagreed. Reliance on teachers was deemed the biggest barrier to LA by 48% of teachers, which is linked to 56.3% of them agreeing that exact instructions are often needed.

Factor 4: Responsibility and choice (student role)

Van Lier (1996) argued that choice and responsibility are central to autonomy as teaching is merely a means of encouraging or guiding learning and cannot be forced. For Cotterall (2000), the concept of choice is central to LA. Being able to make informed choices in education, such as strategy adoption or awareness of different processes, is vital to successful LA.

Despite this, there were contradictions when it came to responsibility in the survey results. Although 95.3% of student participants agreed that ‘I am responsible for my success on this course’, 40% believed they should be told what to do and 60% that everything should be corrected. This suggests that although students know they need LA, strong teacher reliance prevails. Furthermore, 35.2% agreed that learner goals should be set for them, yet 95.3% agreed that setting their own had been helpful, which further indicates that although reluctance persists, there is strong recognition that taking ownership of learning is beneficial. Jamil (2010) highlights the need for EAP learners to be able to gain insight into their own learning processes by being aware of learner options and their consequences. The survey results concluded that reflection on the pre-sessional courses was helpful.

 Factor 5: Reflection

The survey indicated that 31.3% of teachers believed students had previous experience of reflection on learning with 31.3% disagreeing and 12.5% strongly agreeing. For comparison, 75% of students indicated that they had previous reflection experience with only 8.3% saying they did not. 97.3% of students agreed with ‘I think about how I learn and try to overcome challenges’.

The survey data indicates that reflection strategies used on the pre-sessional courses contribute to LA development. Amongst students, 91% stated the pre-sessional course helped development as an autonomous learner. Teachers were less sure, with 75% of participants agreeing.

Reflection is increasingly common in universities, but the concept itself may be alien to some students. By developing an understanding of the reasons and processes behind learning points, students can better understand their individual learning process and therefore be able to personally select suitable strategies, which can lead to better motivation and a sense of ownership (Benson, 2013).

 

Conclusion

Increased awareness of the barriers to autonomy for individual learners will help teachers create a supportive environment. Furthermore, it is fundamentally important that teachers take time to understand how the five factors (motivation, learner culture, teacher role, responsibility & choice/student role, and reflection) can constrain students’ ability to progress, even when motivation to succeed exists. As humans, we are all wired differently, have had different experiences and, as a result, may respond differently in varying scenarios. Encouraging more of the activities mentioned above, such as reflection, could promote LA. As the pre-sessional already contains such activities, I suggest that teachers do awareness training in the five factors. Empowering students to be autonomous learners is not just about equipping them with the short-term ability to pass assessments, but the ability to be life-long, informed learners and citizens of the world. Interestingly, although autonomy is one of CALD’s guiding principles, this research has led me to the conclusion that true autonomy in this context does not actually exist, but that we can endeavour to steer students towards the empowerment that LA can bring.

In a world where we are influenced by so many varied factors, surely pure autonomy is inherently impossible. Furthermore, as we have seen, collaborative processes, including peer review and collaborative task based learning (TBL), are tremendously important in learner development, as we are empowered in a group. My own development on this journey has been a lonely one, so I look forward to more collaboration in future. We are a social species, programmed to function together to survive.

In part 2, I will delve into the world of Karl Maton’s Legitimation Code Theory and investigate to what extent our teacher talk ‘waves’ during class and how an awareness of this might be helpful for teacher and materials development. And yes … it is connected to boosting learner autonomy too!

 

References

Benson, P., 2001. Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. Harlow, England: Longman.

Benson, P., 2007. Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 40(1), pp.21-40.

Benson, P., 2013. Teaching and researching: Autonomy in language learning. Routledge.

Cotterall, S., 2000. Promoting learner autonomy through the curriculum: Principles for designing language courses. ELT journal, 54(2), pp.109-117.

Harmer, J., 2015. The Practice of English Language Teaching. 5th edn. Pearson Longman.

Holec, H., 1981. Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.

Hyland, K., 2006. English for Academic Purposes: An Advanced Resource Book. London: Routledge.

Jamil, M.G., 2010. Promoting learner autonomy on a university course of English for academic purposes: A BRAC university case study. BRAC University Journal, 7(1 & 2), 43–52.

Little, D., 2007. Language learner autonomy: Some fundamental considerations revisited. International Journal of Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), pp.14- 29.

Little, D., 2022. Language learner autonomy: Rethinking language teaching. Language Teaching, 55(1), pp.64-73.

Maton, K., 2013. Making semantic waves: A key to cumulative knowledge-building. Linguistics and education, 24(1), pp.8-22.

Van Lier, L., 1996. Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy, and authenticity. Abingdon: Routledge.