Learner autonomy and second/foreign

language learning
Author: David Little
David Little
Abstract
This article defines the autonomous learner; summarises arguments in favour of helping
language learners to become autonomous; briefly considers the process of 'autonomisation' in
language classrooms and self-access learning schemes; identifies some principal lines of
research; and concludes by suggesting that the Council of Europe's European Language Portfolio
may bring 'autonomisation' to much larger numbers of learners than hitherto and in doing so may
provide an important focus for research.
Table of contents
Definitions
Why learner autonomy?
Helping language learners to become autonomous
Research
Bibliography
Definitions
Learner autonomy is a problematic term because it is widely confused with self-instruction. It
is also a slippery concept because it is notoriously difficult to define precisely. The rapidly
expanding literature has debated, for example, whether learner autonomy should be thought of as
capacity or behaviour; whether it is characterised by learner responsibility or learner control;
whether it is a psychological phenomenon with political implications or a political right with
psychological implications; and whether the development of learner autonomy depends on a
complementary teacher autonomy (for a comprehensive survey, see Benson 2001).
There is nevertheless broad agreement that autonomous learners understand the purpose of
their learning programme, explicitly accept responsibility for their learning, share in the setting
of learning goals, take initiatives in planning and executing learning activities, and regularly
review their learning and evaluate its effectiveness (cf. Holec 1981, Little 1991). In other words,
there is a consensus that the practice of learner autonomy requires insight, a positive attitude, a
capacity for reflection, and a readiness to be proactive in self-management and in interaction
with others. This working definition captures the challenge of learner autonomy: a holistic view
of the learner that requires us to engage with the cognitive, metacognitive, affective and social
dimensions of language learning and to worry about how they interact with one another.
Why learner autonomy?
There are two general arguments in favour of trying to make learners autonomous. First, if they
are reflectively engaged with their learning, it is likely to be more efficient and effective, because
more personal and focused, than otherwise; in particular, what is learned in educational contexts
is more likely to serve learners' wider agendas. Second, if learners are proactively committed to
their learning, the problem of motivation is by definition solved; although they may not always
feel entirely positive about all aspects of their learning, autonomous learners have developed the
reflective and attitudinal resources to overcome temporary motivational setbacks.
In the particular case of second and foreign languages there is a third argument. Effective
communication depends on a complex of procedural skills that develop only through use; and if
language learning depends crucially on language use, learners who enjoy a high degree of social
autonomy in their learning environment should find it easier than otherwise to master the full
range of discourse roles on which effective spontaneous communication depends.
Helping language learners to become autonomous
Attempts to theorise the process of 'autonomisation' (e.g., Little 1999, 2000a, 2000b) have been
strongly influenced by neo-Vygotskian psychology, which sees learning as a matter of supported
performance and emphasises the interdependence of the cognitive and social-interactive
dimensions of the learning process. According to this model, the teacher's role is to create and
maintain a learning environment in which learners can be autonomous in order to become more
autonomous. The development of their learning skills is never entirely separable from the
content of their learning, since learning how to learn a second or foreign language is in some
important respects different from learning how to learn maths or history or biology.
Dam's (1995) account of the gradual 'autonomisation' of teenage learners of English in a Danish
middle school provides a classic illustration. Her key techniques are: use of the target language
as the preferred medium of teaching and learning from the very beginning; the gradual
development by the learners of a repertoire of useful learning activities; and ongoing evaluation
of the learning process, achieved by a combination of teacher, peer and self-assessment. Posters
and learner logbooks play a central role in three ways: they help learners to capture much of the
content of learning, support the development of speaking, and provide a focus for assessment.
How to support the development of learner autonomy is also a key issue for self-access language
learning schemes. Where self-access learning is not embedded in a taught course, it is usually
necessary to provide learners with some kind of advisory service: learner counselling is central to
the self-access literature. The most successful self-access projects tend to be those that find
effective and flexible ways of supporting learners; particularly worthy of note is the approach
developed at the University of Helsinki (Karlsson et al. 1997).
Research
It is sometimes assumed that the central research question to be answered is: 'Does learner
autonomy work?' But this is to confuse 'autonomy', which works by definition, with attempts at
'autonomisation', which can take many different forms and may or may not succeed. Similarly
misguided are attempts to measure the development of autonomy in learners as if it could be
detached from the goals and content of learning.
For more than a decade Leni Dam and Lienhard Legenhausen have studied the linguistic
development of Dam's learners using empirical techniques derived from second language
acquisition research. They have provided a wealth of evidence to show how and why Dam's
approach is more successful than mainstream teacher-led approaches (see, e.g., Dam and
Legenhausen 1996, Legenhausen 1999a, 1999b, 1999c). Approaches that equate the process of
'autonomisation' with 'strategy training' have been less successful: the benefits of teaching
learners strategies have still to be demonstrated.
Another important research question has been whether learner autonomy is an exclusively
Western cultural construct and thus alien to learners in other cultures. There is convincing
evidence to support the view that learner autonomy is a psychological phenomenon that can
transcend cultural difference, though learning behaviour is always and inevitably culturally
conditioned (see, e.g., Aoki and Smith 1999, Littlewood 2001).
Current developments and future trends
Despite the ever-expanding literature, learner autonomy remains a minority pursuit, perhaps
because all forms of 'autonomisation' threaten the power structures of educational culture. The
Council of Europe's European Language Portfolio (ELP; Little 2002), however, is a tool that
may bring 'autonomisation' to much larger numbers of learners. The ELP was first launched as a
concept in 1997 and has since been realised in almost 40 different models, all of which conform
to Principles and Guidelines laid down by the Council of Europe
(http://culture.coe.int/portfolio). The ELP has three obligatory components: a language passport,
which summarises the owner's linguistic identity; a language biography, which is designed to
provide a reflective accompaniment to the process of learning and using second and foreign
languages; and a dossier, in which the owner collects evidence of his or her developing
proficiency in second and foreign languages. Perhaps because regular goal setting and self-
assessment are central to its effective use, the ELP has been shown to engage teachers as well as
learners in processes likely to lead to more autonomous learning (see Schrer 2000, Little and
Perclov 2001, Ushioda and Ridley 2002). It seems probable that in the next few years much of
the research relevant to learner autonomy will be prompted by the desire to explore the impact of
the ELP on learners, teachers and educational systems.
Bibliography
Aoki, N. and R. Smith (1999). Learner autonomy in cultural context: the case of Japan. In D.
Crabbe and S. Cotterall (eds), Learner Autonomy in Language Learning: Defining the Field and
Effecting Change, 19-27. Frankfurt: Lang.
Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning. Harlow:
Longman/Pearson Education.
Dam, L. (1995). Learner Autonomy 3: From Theory to Classroom Practice. Dublin: Authentik.
Dam, L. and L. Legenhausen (1996). The acquisition of vocabulary in an autonomous learning
environment - the first months of beginning English. In R. Pemberton et al. (eds), Taking
Control: Autonomy in Language Learning, 265-80. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon. (First
published 1979, Strasbourg: Council of Europe.)
Karlsson, L., F. Kjisik and J. Nordlund (1997). From Here to Autonomy. A Helsinki University
Language Centre Autonomous Learning Project. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.
Legenhausen, L. (1999a). Language acquisition without grammar instruction? The evidence
from an autonomous classroom, Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 38: 63-76.
Legenhausen, L. (1999b). The emergence and use of grammatical structures in conversational
interactions; comparing traditional and autonomous learners. In B. Miler and U. Multhaup
(eds), The Construction of Knowledge, Learner Autonomy and Related Issues in Foreign
Language Learning, 27-40. Tbingen: Stauffenburg.
Legenhausen, L. (1999c). Traditional and autonomous learners compared: the impact of
classroom culture on communicative attitudes and behaviour. In C. Edelhoff and R. Weskamp
(eds), Autonomes Fremdsprachenlernen, 166-82. Munich: Hueber.
Little, D. (1991). Learner Autonomy 1: Definitions, Issues and Problems. Dublin: Authentik.
Little, D. (1999). Developing learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom: a social-
interactive view of learning and three fundamental pedagogical principles, Revista Canaria de
Estudios Ingleses 38: 77-88.
Little, D. (2000a). Learner autonomy and human interdependence: some theoretical and
practical consequences of a social-interactive view of cognition, learning and language. In B.
Sinclair, I. McGrath and T. Lamb (eds), Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy: Future
Directions, 15-23. Harlow: Longman/Pearson Education.
Little, D. (2000b). Learner autonomy: why foreign languages should occupy a central role in the
curriculum. In S. Green (ed.), New Perspectives on Teaching and Learning Modern Languages,
24-45. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Little, D. (2002). The European Language Portfolio: structure, origins, implementation and
challenges, Language Teaching 35.3: 182-9.
Little, D. and R. Perclov (2001). European Language Portfolio: guide for teachers and teacher
trainers. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Also available at: http://culture.coe.int/portfolio
Littlewood, W. (2001). Students' attitudes to classroom English learning: a cross-cultural study.
Language Teaching Research 5.1: 3-28.
Schrer, R. (2000). European Language Portfolio: final report on the pilot project. Strasbourg:
Council of Europe. Also available at: http://culture.coe.int/portfolio
Ushioda, E. and J. Ridley (2002). Working with the European Language Portfolio in Irish post-
primary schools: report on an evaluation project. CLCS Occasional Paper No.61. Dublin:
Trinity College, Centre for Language and Communication Studies.
Referencing this article
Below are the possible formats for citing Good Practice Guide articles. If you are writing for a
journal, please check the author instructions for full details before submitting your article.
MLA style:
Canning, John. "Disability and Residence Abroad". Southampton, 2004. Subject Centre
for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies Guide to Good Practice. 7 October 2008.
http://www.llas.ac.uk/resources/gpg/2241.
Author (Date) style:
Canning, J. (2004). "Disability and residence abroad." Subject Centre for Languages,
Linguistics and Area Studies Good Practice Guide. Retrieved 7 October 2008, from
http://www.llas.ac.uk/resources/gpg/2241.