Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants

Marc Prensky Digital Natives Digital Immigrants ©2001 Marc Prensky

Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants

By Marc Prensky

From On the Horizon (MCB University Press, Vol. 9 No. 5, October 2001)

© 2001 Marc Prensky

It is amazing to me how in all the hoopla and debate these days about the decline of education in the US we ignore the most fundamental of its causes. Our students have changed radically. Today’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach.

Today‟s students have not just changed incrementally from those of the past, nor simply changed their slang, clothes, body adornments, or styles, as has happened between generations previously. A really big discontinuity has taken place. One might even call it a “singularity” – an event which changes things so fundamentally that there is absolutely no going back. This so-called “singularity” is the arrival and rapid dissemination of digital technology in the last decades of the 20th century.

Today‟s students – K through college – represent the first generations to grow up with this new technology. They have spent their entire lives surrounded by and using computers, videogames, digital music players, video cams, cell phones, and all the other toys and tools of the digital age. Today‟s average college grads have spent less than 5,000 hours of their lives reading, but over 10,000 hours playing video games (not to mention 20,000 hours watching TV). Computer games, email, the Internet, cell phones and instant messaging are integral parts of their lives.

It is now clear that as a result of this ubiquitous environment and the sheer volume of their interaction with it, today‟s students think and process information fundamentally differently from their predecessors. These differences go far further and deeper than most educators suspect or realize. “Different kinds of experiences lead to different brain structures, “ says Dr. Bruce D. Perry of Baylor College of Medicine. As we shall see in the next installment, it is very likely that our students’ brains have physically changed – and are different from ours – as a result of how they grew up. But whether or not this is literally true, we can say with certainty that their thinking patterns have changed. I will get to how they have changed in a minute.

What should we call these “new” students of today? Some refer to them as the N-[for Net]-gen or D-[for digital]-gen. But the most useful designation I have found for them is Digital Natives. Our students today are all “native speakers” of the digital language of computers, video games and the Internet.

So what does that make the rest of us? Those of us who were not born into the digital world but have, at some later point in our lives, become fascinated by and adopted many Marc Prensky Digital Natives Digital Immigrants ©2001 Marc Prensky. or most aspects of the new technology are, and always will be compared to them.

Digital Immigrants.

The importance of the distinction is this: As Digital Immigrants learn – like all immigrants, some better than others – to adapt to their environment, they always retain, to some degree, their "accent," that is, their foot in the past. The “digital immigrant accent” can be seen in such things as turning to the Internet for information second rather than first, or in reading the manual for a program rather than assuming that the program itself will teach us to use it. Today‟s older folk were "socialized" differently from their kids, and are now in the process of learning a new language. And a language learned later in life, scientists tell us, goes into a different part of the brain.

There are hundreds of examples of the digital immigrant accent. They include printing out your email (or having your secretary print it out for you – an even “thicker” accent); needing to print out a document written on the computer in order to edit it (rather than just editing on the screen); and bringing people physically into your office to see an interesting web site (rather than just sending them the URL). I‟m sure you can think of one or two examples of your own without much effort. My own favorite example is the “Did you get my email?” phone call. Those of us who are Digital Immigrants can, and should, laugh at ourselves and our “accent.”

But this is not just a joke. It‟s very serious, because the single biggest problem facing education today is that our Digital Immigrant instructors, who speak an outdated language (that of the pre-digital age), are struggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely new language.

This is obvious to the Digital Natives – school often feels pretty much as if we‟ve brought in a population of heavily accented, unintelligible foreigners to lecture them. They often can‟t understand what the Immigrants are saying. What does “dial” a number mean, anyway?

Lest this perspective appear radical, rather than just descriptive, let me highlight some of the issues. Digital Natives are used to receiving information really fast. They like to parallel process and multi-task. They prefer their graphics before their text rather than the opposite. They prefer random access (like hypertext). They function best when networked. They thrive on instant gratification and frequent rewards. They prefer games to “serious” work. (Does any of this sound familiar?)

But Digital Immigrants typically have very little appreciation for these new skills that the Natives have acquired and perfected through years of interaction and practice. These skills are almost totally foreign to the Immigrants, who themselves learned – and so choose to teach – slowly, step-by-step, one thing at a time, individually, and above all, seriously. “My students just don‟t _____ like they used to,” Digital Immigrant educators grouse. I can‟t get them to ____ or to ____. They have no appreciation for _____ or _____ . (Fill in the blanks, there are a wide variety of choices.) Marc Prensky Digital Natives Digital Immigrants ©2001 Marc Prensky.

Digital Immigrants don‟t believe their students can learn successfully while watching TV or listening to music, because they (the Immigrants) can‟t. Of course not – they didn‟t practice this skill constantly for all of their formative years. Digital Immigrants think learning can‟t (or shouldn‟t) be fun. Why should they – they didn‟t spend their formative years learning with Sesame Street.

Unfortunately for our Digital Immigrant teachers, the people sitting in their classes grew up on the “twitch speed” of video games and MTV. They are used to the instantaneity of hypertext, downloaded music, phones in their pockets, a library on their laptops, beamed messages and instant messaging. They‟ve been networked most or all of their lives. They have little patience for lectures, step-by-step logic, and “tell-test” instruction.

Digital Immigrant teachers assume that learners are the same as they have always been, and that the same methods that worked for the teachers when they were students will work for their students now. But that assumption is no longer valid. Today‟s learners are different. “Www.hungry.com” said a kindergarten student recently at lunchtime. “Every time I go to school I have to power down,” complains a high-school student. Is it that Digital Natives can’t pay attention, or that they choose not to? Often from the Natives‟ point of view their Digital Immigrant instructors make their education not worth paying attention to compared to everything else they experience – and then they blame them for not paying attention!

And, more and more, they won‟t take it. “I went to a highly ranked college where all the professors came from MIT,” says a former student. “But all they did was read from their textbooks. I quit.” In the giddy internet bubble of a only a short while ago – when jobs were plentiful, especially in the areas where school offered little help – this was a real possibility. But the dot-com dropouts are now returning to school. They will have to confront once again the Immigrant/Native divide, and have even more trouble given their recent experiences. And that will make it even harder to teach them – and all the Digital Natives already in the system – in the traditional fashion.

So what should happen? Should the Digital Native students learn the old ways, or should their Digital Immigrant educators learn the new? Unfortunately, no matter how much the Immigrants may wish it, it is highly unlikely the Digital Natives will go backwards. In the first place, it may be impossible – their brains may already be different. It also flies in the face of everything we know about cultural migration. Kids born into any new culture learn the new language easily, and forcefully resist using the old. Smart adult immigrants accept that they don‟t know about their new world and take advantage of their kids to help them learn and integrate. Not-so-smart (or not-so-flexible) immigrants spend most of their time grousing about how good things were in the “old country.”

So unless we want to just forget about educating Digital Natives until they grow up and do it themselves, we had better confront this issue. And in so doing we need to reconsider both our methodology and our content. Marc Prensky Digital Natives Digital Immigrants ©2001 Marc Prensky.

First, our methodology. Today‟s teachers have to learn to communicate in the language and style of their students. This doesn’t mean changing the meaning of what is important, or of good thinking skills. But it does mean going faster, less step-by step, more in parallel, with more random access, among other things. Educators might ask “But how do we teach logic in this fashion?” While it‟s not immediately clear, we do need to figure it out.

Second, our content. It seems to me that after the digital “singularity” there are now two kinds of content: “Legacy” content (to borrow the computer term for old systems) and “Future” content.

“Legacy” content includes reading, writing, arithmetic, logical thinking, understanding the writings and ideas of the past, etc – all of our “traditional” curriculum. It is of course still important, but it is from a different era. Some of it (such as logical thinking) will continue to be important, but some (perhaps like Euclidean geometry) will become less so, as did Latin and Greek.

“Future” content is to a large extent, not surprisingly, digital and technological. But while it includes software, hardware, robotics, nanotechnology, genomics, etc. it also includes the ethics, politics, sociology, languages and other things that go with them. This “Future” content is extremely interesting to today‟s students. But how many Digital Immigrants are prepared to teach it? Someone once suggested to me that kids should only be allowed to use computers in school that they have built themselves. It‟s a brilliant idea that is very doable from the point of view of the students‟ capabilities. But who could teach it?

As educators, we need to be thinking about how to teach both Legacy and Future content in the language of the Digital Natives. The first involves a major translation and change of methodology; the second involves all that PLUS new content and thinking. It‟s not actually clear to me which is harder – “learning new stuff” or “learning new ways to do old stuff.” I suspect it‟s the latter.

So we have to invent, but not necessarily from scratch. Adapting materials to the language of Digital Natives has already been done successfully. My own preference for teaching Digital Natives is to invent computer games to do the job, even for the most serious content. After all, it‟s an idiom with which most of them are totally familiar.

Not long ago a group of professors showed up at my company with new computer-aided design (CAD) software they had developed for mechanical engineers. Their creation was so much better than what people were currently using that they had assumed the entire engineering world would quickly adopt it. But instead they encountered a lot of resistance, due in large part to the product‟s extremely steep learning curve – the software contained hundreds of new buttons, options and approaches to master. Marc Prensky Digital Natives Digital Immigrants ©2001 Marc Prensky.

Their marketers, however, had a brilliant idea. Observing that the users of CAD software were almost exclusively male engineers between 20 and 30, they said “Why not make the learning into a video game!” So we invented and created for them a computer game in the “first person shooter” style of the consumer games Doom and Quake, called The Monkey Wrench Conspiracy. Its player becomes an intergalactic secret agent who has to save a space station from an attack by the evil Dr. Monkey Wrench. The only way to defeat him is to use the CAD software, which the learner must employ to build tools, fix weapons, and defeat booby traps. There is one hour of game time, plus 30 “tasks,” which can take from 15 minutes to several hours depending on one‟s experience level.

Monkey Wrench has been phenomenally successful in getting young people interested in learning the software. It is widely used by engineering students around the world, with over 1 million copies of the game in print in several languages. But while the game was easy for my Digital Native staff to invent, creating the content turned out to be more difficult for the professors, who were used to teaching courses that started with “Lesson 1 – the Interface.” We asked them instead to create a series of graded tasks into which the skills to be learned were embedded. The professors had made 5-10 minute movies to illustrate key concepts; we asked them to cut them to under 30 seconds. The professors insisted that the learners to do all the tasks in order; we asked them to allow random access. They wanted a slow academic pace, we wanted speed and urgency (we hired a Hollywood script writer to provide this.) They wanted written instructions; we wanted computer movies. They wanted the traditional pedagogical language of “learning objectives,” “mastery”, etc. (e.g. “in this exercise you will learn…”); our goal was to completely eliminate any language that even smacked of education.

In the end the professors and their staff came through brilliantly, but because of the large mind-shift required it took them twice as long as we had expected. As they saw the approach working, though, the new “Digital Native” methodology became their model for more and more teaching – both in and out of games – and their development speed increased dramatically.

Similar rethinking needs to be applied to all subjects at all levels. Although most attempts at “edutainment” to date have essentially failed from both the education and entertainment perspective, we can – and will, I predict – do much better.

In math, for example, the debate must no longer be about whether to use calculators and computers – they are a part of the Digital Natives‟ world – but rather how to use them to instill the things that are useful to have internalized, from key skills and concepts to the multiplication tables. We should be focusing on “future math” – approximation, statistics, binary thinking.

In geography – which is all but ignored these days – there is no reason that a generation that can memorize over 100 Pokémon characters with all their characteristics, history and evolution can‟t learn the names, populations, capitals and relationships of all the 101 nations in the world. It just depends on how it is presented. Marc Prensky Digital Natives Digital Immigrants ©2001 Marc Prensky .

We need to invent Digital Native methodologies for all subjects, at all levels, using our students to guide us. The process has already begun – I know college professors inventing games for teaching subjects ranging from math to engineering to the Spanish Inquisition. We need to find ways of publicizing and spreading their successes.

A frequent objection I hear from Digital Immigrant educators is “this approach is great for facts, but it wouldn‟t work for „my subject.‟” Nonsense. This is just rationalization and lack of imagination. In my talks I now include “thought experiments” where I invite professors and teachers to suggest a subject or topic, and I attempt– on the spot – to invent a game or other Digital Native method for learning it. Classical philosophy? Create a game in which the philosophers debate and the learners have to pick out what each would say. The Holocaust? Create a simulation where students role-play the meeting at Wannsee, or one where they can experience the true horror of the camps, as opposed to the films like Schindler’s List. It‟s just dumb (and lazy) of educators – not to mention ineffective – to presume that (despite their traditions) the Digital Immigrant way is the only way to teach, and that the Digital Natives‟ “language” is not as capable as their own of encompassing any and every idea.

So if Digital Immigrant educators really want to reach Digital Natives – i.e. all their students – they will have to change. It‟s high time for them to stop their grousing, and as the Nike motto of the Digital Native generation says, “Just do it!” They will succeed in the long run – and their successes will come that much sooner if their administrators support them.

See also: Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 2: The scientific evidence behind the Digital Native’s thinking changes, and the evidence that Digital Native-style learning works!

Marc Prensky is an internationally acclaimed thought leader, speaker, writer, consultant, and game designer in the critical areas of education and learning. He is the author of Digital Game-Based Learning (McGraw-Hill, 2001), founder and CEO of Games2train, a game-based learning company, and founder of The Digital Multiplier, an organization dedicated to eliminating the digital divide in learning worldwide. He is also the creator of the sites <www.SocialImpactGames.com>, <www.DoDGameCommunity.com> and <www.GamesParentsTeachers.com> . Marc holds an MBA from Harvard and a Masters in Teaching from Yale. More of his writings can be found at <www.marcprensky.com/writing/default.asp>. Contact Marc at marc@games2train.com.

The Advantages and Disadvantages of Computer Technology in Second Language Acquisition

DOCTORAL FORUM NATIONAL JOURNAL FOR PUBLISHING AND MENTORING DOCTORAL STUDENT RESEARCH VOLUME 3 NUMBER 1, 2006

The Advantages and Disadvantages of Computer Technology in Second Language Acquisition

Cheng-Chieh Lai

PhD Student in Educational Leadership Prairie View A&M University College of Education

William Allan Kritsonis, PhD Professor PhD Program in Educational Leadership Prairie View A&M University Member of the Texas A&M University System Visiting Lecturer (2005) Oxford Round Table University of Oxford, Oxford, England Distinguished Alumnus (2004) Central Washington University College of Education and Professional Studies

ABSTRACT                                                                         

The purpose of this article is to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of computer technology for second language learning. Research findings indicate that the use of computer has a positive effect on the achievement levels of second language learners, but it still has its limitations and weaknesses, such as financial, isolated, and knowledge required issues. The authors emphasize that we must recognize both the advantages and disadvantages of using computers so we can get the maximum effectiveness of technology to enhance second language learning.

Inspired by the rapid development of technology from the 1980s, computer has now become an influential component of second language learning pedagogy. Educators recognize that utilizing computer technology and its attached language learning programs can be convenient to create both independent and collaborative learning environments and provide students with language experiences as they move through the various stages of second language acquisition (Kung, 2002).

The purpose of this article is to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of

1DOCTORAL FORUM NATIONAL JOURNAL FOR PUBLISHING AND MENTORING DOCTORAL STUDENT RESEARCH 2_________________________________________________________________________________

computer technology applied in current second Language instruction. In second language acquisition domain, Perrett (1995) has mentioned that if students are provided with the opportunities to use language and learning strategies in the second language, and some training or explanation in their application, they can develop these strategies through exposure to and experience in the second language.” Therefore, explaining the advantages and disadvantages of computer technology to teachers and students seems to be necessary. Only after guiding, do teachers and students realize the benefits of computer technology for second language acquisition, then they can apply computer appropriately and join those computer assisted language learning programs by their own wills.

Advantages of CALL Programs

Educators (Jonassen, 1996; Salaberry, 1999; Rost, 2002) indicate that the current computer technology has many advantages for second language learning. Computer and its attached language learning programs could provide second language learners more independence from classrooms and allowing learners the option to work on their learning material at any time of the day. Once implemented, it can be expected that the cost for computer technology is considerably lower than for face-to-face classroom teaching, and when used in conjunction with traditional second language classroom study, students can study more independently, leaving the teacher more time to concentrate effort on those parts of second language teaching that are still hard or impossible by the computer, such as pronunciation, work on spoken dialogue, training for essay writing and presentation (Roger, 1996).

Lee (2000) further stated that the reasons why we should apply computer technology in second language instruction, include computer and its attached language learning programs can (a) prove practices for students through the experiential learning, (b) offer students more the learning motivation, (c) enhance student achievement, (d) increase authentic materials for study, (e) encourage greater interaction between teachers and students and students and peers, (f) emphasize the individual needs, (g) regard independence from a single source of information, and (h) enlarge global understanding. Taylor (1980) also expressed that computer assisted language learning programs can be wonderful stimuli for second language learning. Currently, computer technology can provide a lot of fun games and communicative activities, reduce the learning stresses and anxieties, and provide repeated lessons as often as necessary. Those abilities will promote second language learners’ learning motivation. Through various communicative and interactive activities, computer technology can help second language learners strengthen their linguistic skills, affect their learning attitude, and build their self-instruction strategies and self-confidence. According to Robertson et al. observation (1987), the participants who joined computer-assisted language learning programs also had significantly higher self-esteem ratings than regular students.

Today, with the high development of computer technology, computers can capture, analyze, and present data on second language students’ performances during the learning

CHENG-CHIEH LAI AND WILLIAM ALLAN KRITSONIS ____________________________________________________________________________________3

process. As we know, observing and checking students’ learning progress are very important activities to help students achieve their second language acquisition. When teachers attempt to assess students’ learning progress, they can get the essential information from a well-designed computer language learning programs and then offer feedback tailored to students’ learning needs (Taylor & Gitsaki, 2003). In addition, Students can get various authentic reading materials either at school or from home by connecting to the Internet. And, those materials can be accessed 24 hours a day. In a word, computer technology also provides the interdisciplinary and multicultural learning opportunities for students to carry out their independent studies.

For learning interaction, Warchauer (2004) indicated that the random access to Web pages would break the linear flow of instruction. By sending E-mail and joining newsgroups, second language learners can also communicate with people they never met before and interact with their own teachers or classmates. Shy or inhibited learners can be greatly benefited through the individualized technology-learning environment, and studious learners can also proceed at their own pace to achieve higher levels.

In particular, many concepts and cognitions are abstract and difficult to express through language the language teaching area. It seems that computers can make up for this shortage by using the image showing on the screen. Nunan (1999) reported that “interactive visual media which computers provided seem to have a unique instructional capability for topics that involve social situations or problem solving, such as interpersonal solving, foreign language or second language learning” (p.26).

Both cognitive theorists and humanists all pointed out that practice experience is a very important factor for people’s learning. Experiential theory educators believe that learning is about making sense of information, extracting meaning and relating information to everyday life and that learning is about understanding the world through reinterpreting knowledge (Ormrod, 1999). When computer technology combines with Internet, it creates a channel for students to obtain a huge amount of human experience and guide students to enter the “Global Community”. In this way, students not only can extend their personal view, thought, and experience, but also can learning to live in the real world. They become the creators not just the receivers of knowledge. And, “as the way information is presented is not linear, second language learners can still develop thinking skills and choose what to explore” (Lee, 2000).

Disadvantages of CALL Programs

First, although there are many advantages of computer, the application of current computer technology still has its limitations and disadvantages. Gips, DiMattia, & Gips (2004) indicated that the first disadvantage of computer and its attached language learning programs is that they will increase educational costs and harm the equity of education. When computers become a basic requirement for student to purchase, low budget schools and low-income students usually cannot afford a computer. It will cause unfair educational conditions for those poor schools and students. On the other hand, expensive hardware and software also becomes the big obligations for schools and

DOCTORAL FORUM NATIONAL JOURNAL FOR PUBLISHING AND MENTORING DOCTORAL STUDENT RESEARCH 4_________________________________________________________________________________

parents. Second, it is necessary that both teachers and learners should have basic

technology knowledge before they apply computer technology to assist second language teaching and learning. No student can utilize computer if he or she lacks training in the uses of computer technology.           Unfortunately, most teachers today do not have sufficient technological training to guide their students exploring computer and its assisted language learning programs. Therefore, the benefits of computer technology for those students who are not familiar with computer are inexistent (Roblyer, 2003).

Third, the software of computer assisted language learning programs is still imperfect. Current computer technology mainly deals with reading, listening, and writing skills. Even though some speaking programs have been developed recently, their functions are still limited. Warschauer (2004) pointed out that a program should ideally be able to understand a user’s “spoken” input and evaluate it not just for correctness but also or “appropriateness”. It should be able to diagnose a student’s problems with pronunciation, syntax, or usage and then intelligently decide among a range of options.

Fourth, computers cannot handle unexpected situations. Second language learners’ learning situations are various and ever changing. Due to the limitations of computer’s artificial intelligence, computer technology is unable to deal with learners’ unexpected learning problems and response to learners’ question immediately as teachers do. The reasons for the computer’ inability to interact effectively can be traced back to a fundamental difference in the way humans and computers utilize information (Dent, 2001). Blin (1994) also expressed that computer technology with that degree of intelligence do not exist, and are not expected to exist for quite a long time. In a word, today’s computer technology and its attached language learning programs are not yet intelligent enough to be truly interactive. People still need to put effort in developing and improving computer technology in order to assist second language learners.

Concluding Remarks

In conclusion, the purpose of this article was to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of CALL programs for applying in current ESL classrooms. With the modern technology development, although the application of CALL programs has become a new trend in recently global second language learning instructions, computer technology still has its limitations and weakness. Therefore, when we try to apply CALL programs to enhance their teaching or to help student learning, we should realize what the advantages and disadvantages are in current CALL programs in order to avoid for misemploying CALL programs and get its maximum benefits for our ESL teaching and learning.

CHENG-CHIEH LAI AND WILLIAM ALLAN KRITSONIS ____________________________________________________________________________________5

References

Blin, F. (1999). CALL and the Development of Learner autonomy. In R. Debski and M. Levy (eds.), WorldCALL: Global perspectives on computer-assisted language learning, lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger, pp.133-147.

Dent, C. (2001). Studer: classification v. categorization. Retrieved June 28, 2006, from http://www.burningchrome.com:8000/~cdent/fiaarts/docs/1005018884:23962.html.

Gips, A., DiMattia, P., & Gips, J. (2004) The effect of assistive technology on educational costs: Two case studies. In K. Miesenberger, J. Klaus, W. Zagler, D. Burger (eds.), Computers Helping People with Special Needs, Springer, 2004, pp. 206-213.

Jonassen, D.H. (1996). Computers in the classroom. Englewood cliffs, NJ: Merrill. Kung, S. C. (2002). A framework for successful key-pal programs in language learning,

CALL-EJ Online, 3 (2). Retrieved June, 20, 2006, from

http://www.clec.ritsumei.ac.jp/english/callejonline/6-2/SCKung.htm Lee, K.W. (2000). English teachers’ barriers to the use of computer assisted language

learning, The Internet TESL Journal. Retrieved June, 25, 2006, from

http://www.4english.cn/englishstudy/xz/thesis/barrir Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching & learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle

Publishers. Ormrod, J.E. (1999). Human Learning (3rd Edition). Upper Sadle River, NJ: Merrill

Prentice Hall. Perrett, G. (1995), August Communicative language teaching and second language

acquisition theory. Paper delivered at 1993 MLTA Conference. Published in MLTAQ

Inc. Newsletter No. 101. Robertson, E. B.; Ladewig, B. H.; Strickland, M. P., & Boschung, M. D. (1987).

Enhancement of self-esteem through the use of computer-assisted instruction.

Journal of Educational Research, 80 (5), 314-316. Roblyer, M. (2003). Integrating educational technology into teaching. Columbus, Ohio:

Person Education Rost, M. (2002). New technologies in language education: Opportunities for professional

growth. Retrieved June 28, 2006, from

http://www.longman.com/ae/multimedia/pdf/MikeRost_PDF.pdf Salaberry, R. (1999). CALL in the year 2000: Still developing the research agenda.

Language Learning and Technology, 3 (1), 104-107. Taylor, R. (1980). The computer in the school: Tutor, tool, and tutee. New York: Teachers

College Press. Taylor, R. & Gitsaki, C. (2003) Teaching well and loving it. In Fotos & Browne (Ed.),

New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms (pp. 131-147). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

DOCTORAL FORUM NATIONAL JOURNAL FOR PUBLISHING AND MENTORING DOCTORAL STUDENT RESEARCH 6_________________________________________________________________________________

Underwood, J. (1984). Linguistics, computers, and the language teacher: A communicative approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Warschauer, M. (2004). Technological change and the future of CALL. In Fotos & Browne (Ed.), New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms (pp. 15-26). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Formatted by Dr. Mary Alice Kritsonis, National Research and Manuscript Preparation Editor, NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS, Houston, Texas. www.nationalforum.com

What is Learner Autonomy and How Can It Be Fostered?

What is Learner Autonomy and How Can It Be Fostered?

Dimitrios Thanasoulas
akasa74 [at] hotmail.com

1. Introduction

Over the last two decades, the concepts of learner autonomy and independence have gained momentum, the former becoming a 'buzz-word' within the context of language learning (Little, 1991: 2). It is a truism that one of the most important spin-offs of more communicatively oriented language learning and teaching has been the premium placed on the role of the learner in the language learning process (see Wenden, 1998: xi). It goes without saying, of course, that this shift of responsibility from teachers to learners does not exist in a vacuum, but is the result of a concatenation of changes to the curriculum itself towards a more learner-centred kind of learning. What is more, this reshaping, so to speak, of teacher and learner roles has been conducive to a radical change in the age-old distribution of power and authority that used to plague the traditional classroom. Cast in a new perspective and regarded as having the 'capacity for detachment, critical reflection, decision-making, and independent action' (Little, 1991: 4), learners, autonomous learners, that is, are expected to assume greater responsibility for, and take charge of, their own learning. However, learner autonomy does not mean that the teacher becomes redundant, abdicating his/her control over what is transpiring in the language learning process. In the present study, it will be shown that learner autonomy is a perennial dynamic process amenable to 'educational interventions' (Candy, 1991), rather than a static product, a state, which is reached once and for all. Besides, what permeates this study is the belief that 'in order to help learners to assume greater control over their own learning it is important to help them to become aware of and identify the strategies that they already use or could potentially use' (Holmes & Ramos, 1991, cited in James & Garrett, 1991: 198). At any rate, individual learners differ in their learning habits, interests, needs, and motivation, and develop varying degrees of independence throughout their lives (Tumposky, 1982).

2. What is Autonomy?

For a definition of autonomy, we might quote Holec (1981: 3, cited in Benson & Voller, 1997: 1) who describes it as 'the ability to take charge of one's learning'. On a general note, the term autonomy has come to be used in at least five ways (see Benson & Voller, 1997: 2):

• for situations in which learners study entirely on their own;
• for a set of skills which can be learned and applied in self-directed learning;
• for an inborn capacity which is suppressed by institutional education;
• for the exercise of learners' responsibility for their own learning;
• for the right of learners to determine the direction of their own learning.

It is noteworthy that autonomy can be thought of in terms of a departure from education as a social process, as well as in terms of redistribution of power attending the construction of knowledge and the roles of the participants in the learning process. The relevant literature is riddled with innumerable definitions of autonomy and other synonyms for it, such as 'independence' (Sheerin, 1991), 'language awareness' (Lier, 1996;James & Garrett, 1991), 'self-direction' (Candy, 1991), 'andragogy' (Knowles, 1980; 1983 etc., which testifies to the importance attached to it by scholars. Let us review some of these definitions and try to gain insights into what learner autonomy means and consists of. As has been intimated so far, the term autonomy has sparked considerable controversy, inasmuch as linguists and educationalists have failed to reach a consensus as to what autonomy really is. For example, in David Little's terms, learner autonomy is 'essentially a matter of the learner's psychological relation to the process and content of learning--a capacity for detachment, critical reflection, decision-making, and independent action' (Little, 1991: 4). It is not something done to learners; therefore, it is far from being another teaching method (ibid.). In the same vein, Leni Dam (1990, cited in Gathercole, 1990: 16), drawing upon Holec (1983), defines autonomy in terms of the learner's willingness and capacity to control or oversee her own learning. More specifically, she, like Holec, holds that someone qualifies as an autonomous learner when he independently chooses aims and purposes and sets goals; chooses materials, methods and tasks; exercises choice and purpose in organising and carrying out the chosen tasks; and chooses criteria for evaluation.

To all intents and purposes, the autonomous learner takes a (pro-) active role in the learning process, generating ideas and availing himself of learning opportunities, rather than simply reacting to various stimuli of the teacher (Boud, 1988; Kohonen, 1992; Knowles, 1975). As we shall see, this line of reasoning operates within, and is congruent with, the theory of constructivism. For Rathbone (1971: 100, 104, cited in Candy, 1991: 271), the autonomous learner is a self-activated maker of meaning, an active agent in his own learning process. He is not one to whom things merely happen; he is the one who, by his own volition, causes things to happen. Learning is seen as the result of his own self-initiated interaction with the world.

Within such a conception, learning is not simply a matter of rote memorisation; 'it is a constructive process that involves actively seeking meaning from (or even imposing meaning on) events' (Candy, 1991: 271).

Such "inventories" of characteristics evinced by the putative autonomous learner abound, and some would say that they amount to nothing more than a romantic ideal which does not square with reality. This stands to reason, for most of the characteristics imputed to the "autonomous learner" encapsulate a wide range of attributes not commonly associated with learners. For instance, Benn (1976, cited in Candy, 1991: 102) likens the autonomous learner to one '[w]hose life has a consistency that derives from a coherent set of beliefs, values, and principles--[and who engages in a] still-continuing process of criticism and re-evaluation', while Rousseau ([1762] 1911, cited in Candy, 1991: 102) regards the autonomous learner as someone who 'is obedient to a law that he prescribes to himself'. Within the context of education, though, there seem to be seven main attributes characterising autonomous learners (see Omaggio, 1978, cited in Wenden, 1998: 41-42):

1. Autonomous learners have insights into their learning styles and strategies;
2. take an active approach to the learning task at hand;
3. are willing to take risks, i.e., to communicate in the target language at all costs;
4. are good guessers;
5. attend to form as well as to content, that is, place importance on accuracy as well as appropriacy;
6. develop the target language into a separate reference system and are willing to revise and reject hypotheses and rules that do not apply; and
7. have a tolerant and outgoing approach to the target language.

Here, some comments with respect to the preceding list are called for. The points briefly touched upon above are necessary but not sufficient conditions for the development of learner autonomy, and many more factors such as learner needs, motivation, learning strategies, and language awareness have to be taken into consideration. For example, the first point hinges upon a metalanguage that learners have to master in order to be regarded as autonomous, while points 4) and 7) pertain to learner motivation. In view of this, an attempt will be made, in subsequent sections, to shed some light on some of the parameters affecting, and interfering with, learners' self-image as well as their capacity and will to learn. It is of consequence to note that autonomy is a process, not a product. One does not become autonomous; one only works towards autonomy. One corollary of viewing autonomy in this way is the belief that there are some things to be achieved by the learner, as well as some ways of achieving these things, and that autonomy 'is learned at least partly through educational experiences [and interventions]' (Candy, 1991: 115). But prior to sifting through the literature and discussing learning strategies, motivation, and attitudes entertained by learners, it would be pertinent to cast learner autonomy in relation to dominant philosophical approaches to learning. The assumption is that what is dubbed as learner autonomy and the extent to which it is a permissible and viable educational goal are all too often 'based on [and thus constrained by] particular conceptions of the constitution of knowledge itself' (Benson, 1997, cited in Benson & Voller, 1997: 20).

3. Learner Autonomy and Dominant Philosophies of Learning

In this section, three dominant approaches to knowledge and learning will be briefly discussed, with a view to examining how each of them connects up with learner autonomy. Positivism, which reigned supreme in the twentieth century, is premised upon the assumption that knowledge reflects objective reality. Therefore, if teachers can be said to hold this "objective reality," learning can only 'consist--in the transmission of knowledge from one individual to another' (Benson & Voller, 1997: 20). Congruent with this view, of course, is the maintenance and enhancement of the "traditional classroom," where teachers are the purveyors of knowledge and wielders of power, and learners are seen as 'container[s] to be filled with the knowledge held by teachers' (ibid.). On the other hand, positivism also lends support to the widespread notion that knowledge is attained by dint of the 'hypothesis-testing' model, and that it is more effectively acquired when 'it is discovered rather than taught' (ibid.) (my italics). It takes little perspicacity to realise that positivism is incongruent with, and even runs counter to, the development of learner autonomy, as the latter refers to a gradual but radical divorce from conventions and restrictions and is inextricably related to self-direction and self-evaluation.

Constructivism is an elusive concept and, within applied linguistics, is strongly associated with Halliday (1979, cited in Benson & Voller, 1997: 21). As Candy (1991: 254) observes, '[o]ne of the central tenets of constructivism is that individuals try to give meaning to, or construe, the perplexing maelstrom of events and ideas in which they find themselves caught up'. In contrast to positivism, constructivism posits the view that, rather than internalising or discovering objective knowledge (whatever that might mean), individuals reorganise and restructure their experience. In Candy's terms (Candy, 1991: 270), constructivism 'leads directly to the proposition that knowledge cannot be taught but only learned (that is, constructed)', because knowledge is something 'built up by the learner' (von Glasersfeld & Smock, 1974: xvi, cited in Candy, 1991: 270). By the same token, language learning does not involve internalising sets of rules, structures and forms; each learner brings her own experience and world knowledge to bear on the target language or task at hand. Apparently, constructivism supports, and extends to cover, psychological versions of autonomy that appertain to learners' behaviour, attitudes, motivation, and self-concept (see Benson & Voller, 1997: 23). As a result, constructivist approaches encourage and promote self-directed learning as a necessary condition for learner autonomy.

Finally, critical theory, an approach within the humanities and language studies, shares with constructivism the view that knowledge is constructed rather than discovered or learned. Moreover, it argues that knowledge does not reflect reality, but rather comprises 'competing ideological versions of that reality expressing the interests of different social groups' (Benson & Voller, 1997: 22). Within this approach, learning concerns issues of power and ideology and is seen as a process of interaction with social context, which can bring about social change. What is more, linguistic forms are bound up with the social meanings they convey, in so far as language is power, and vice versa. Certainly, learner autonomy assumes a more social and political character within critical theory. As learners become aware of the social context in which their learning is embedded and the constraints the latter implies, they gradually become independent, dispel myths, disabuse themselves of preconceived ideas, and can be thought of as 'authors of their own worlds' (ibid.: 53).

4. Conditions for Learner Autonomy

The concern of the present study has so far been with outlining the general characteristics of autonomy. At this juncture, it should be reiterated that autonomy is not an article of faith, a product ready made for use or merely a personal quality or trait. Rather, it should be clarified that autonomous learning is achieved when certain conditions obtain: cognitive and metacognitive strategies on the part of the learner, motivation, attitudes, and knowledge about language learning, i.e., a kind of metalanguage. To acknowledge, however, that learners have to follow certain paths to attain autonomy is tantamount to asserting that there has to be a teacher on whom it will be incumbent to show the way. In other words, autonomous learning is by no means "teacherless learning." As Sheerin (1997, cited in Benson & Voller, 1997: 63) succinctly puts it, '[t]eachers--have a crucial role to play in launching learners into self-access and in lending them a regular helping hand to stay afloat' (my italics).

Probably, giving students a "helping hand" may put paid to learner autonomy, and this is mainly because teachers are ill-prepared or reluctant to 'wean [students]--away from teacher dependence' (Sheerin, 1997, cited in Benson & Voller, 1997: 63). After all, 'it is not easy for teachers to change their role from purveyor of information to counsellor and manager of learning resources--And it is not easy for teachers to let learners solve problems for themselves' (Little, 1990, cited in Gathercole, 1990: 11). Such a transition from teacher-control to learner-control is fraught with difficulties but it is mainly in relation to the former (no matter how unpalatable this may sound) that the latter finds its expression. At any rate, learner-control--which is ancillary to autonomy--'is not a single, unitary concept, but rather a continuum along which various instructional situations may be placed' (Candy, 1991: 205). It is to these 'instructional situations' that we will turn in the next section. In this section, it is of utmost importance to gain insights into the strategies learners use in grappling with the object of enquiry, i.e., the target language, as well as their motivation and attitude towards language learning in general. A question germane to the discussion is, what does it mean to be an autonomous learner in a language learning environment?

4.1. Learning Strategies

A central research project on learning strategies is the one surveyed in O'Malley and Chamot (1990). According to them, learning strategies are 'the special thoughts or behaviors that individuals use to help them comprehend, learn, or retain new information' (O'Malley and Chamot, 1990: 1, cited in Cook, 1993: 113)--a definition in keeping with the one provided in Wenden (1998: 18): 'Learning strategies are mental steps or operations that learners use to learn a new language and to regulate their efforts to do so'. To a greater or lesser degree, the strategies and learning styles that someone adopts 'may partly reflect personal preference rather than innate endowment' (Skehan, 1998: 237). We will only briefly discuss some of the main learning strategies, refraining from mentioning communication or compensatory strategies (see Cook, 1993 for more details).

4.1.1. Cognitive Strategies

According to O'Malley and Chamot (1990: 44), cognitive strategies 'operate directly on incoming information, manipulating it in ways that enhance learning'. Learners may use any or all of the following cognitive strategies (see Cook, 1993: 114-115):

• repetition, when imitating others' speech;
• resourcing, i.e., having recourse to dictionaries and other materials;
• translation, that is, using their mother tongue as a basis for understanding and/or producing the target language;
• note-taking;
• deduction, i.e., conscious application of L2 rules;
• contextualisation, when embedding a word or phrase in a meaningful sequence;
• transfer, that is, using knowledge acquired in the L1 to remember and understand facts and sequences in the L2;
• inferencing, when matching an unfamiliar word against available information (a new word etc);
• question for clarification, when asking the teacher to explain, etc.

There are many more cognitive strategies in the relevant literature. O'Malley and Chamot (1990) recognise 16.

4.1.2. Metacognitive Strategies

According to Wenden (1998: 34), 'metacognitive knowledge includes all facts learners acquire about their own cognitive processes as they are applied and used to gain knowledge and acquire skills in varied situations'. In a sense, metacognitive strategies are skills used for planning, monitoring, and evaluating the learning activity; 'they are strategies about learning rather than learning strategies themselves' (Cook, 1993: 114). Let us see some of these strategies:

• directed attention, when deciding in advance to concentrate on general aspects of a task;
• selective attention, paying attention to specific aspects of a task;
• self-monitoring, i.e., checking one's performance as one speaks;
• self-evaluation, i.e., appraising one's performance in relation to one's own standards;
• self-reinforcement, rewarding oneself for success.

At the planning stage, also known as pre-planning (see Wenden, 1998: 27), learners identify their objectives and determine how they will achieve them. Planning, however, may also go on while a task is being performed. This is called planning-in-action. Here, learners may change their objectives and reconsider the ways in which they will go about achieving them. At the monitoring stage, language learners act as 'participant observers or overseers of their language learning' (ibid.), asking themselves, "How am I doing? Am I having difficulties with this task?", and so on. Finally, when learners evaluate, they do so in terms of the outcome of their attempt to use a certain strategy. According to Wenden (1998: 28), evaluating involves three steps: 1) learners examine the outcome of their attempts to learn; 2) they access the criteria they will use to judge it; and 3) they apply it.

4.2. Learner Attitudes and Motivation

Language learning is not merely a cognitive task. Learners do not only reflect on their learning in terms of the language input to which they are exposed, or the optimal strategies they need in order to achieve the goals they set. Rather, the success of a learning activity is, to some extent, contingent upon learners' stance towards the world and the learning activity in particular, their sense of self, and their desire to learn (see Benson & Voller, 1997: 134-136). As Candy (1991: 295-296) says, 'the how and the what of learning are intimately interwoven--[T]he overall approach a learner adopts will significantly influence the shape of his or her learning outcomes' (my italics). In other words, language learning--as well as learning, in general--has also an affective component. 'Meeting and interiorising the grammar of a foreign language is not simply an intelligent, cognitive act. It is a highly affective one too--' (Rinvolucri, 1984: 5, cited in James & Garrett, 1991: 13). Gardner and MacIntyre (1993: 1, cited in Graham, 1997: 92) define 'affective variables' as the 'emotionally relevant characteristics of the individual that influence how she/he will respond to any situation'. Other scholars, such as Shumann (1978) and Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991) attach less importance to learners' emotions, claiming that 'social and psychological factors' give a more suitable description for students' reactions to the learning process. Amongst the social and affective variables at work, self-esteem and desire to learn are deemed to be the most crucial factors 'in the learner's ability to overcome occasional setbacks or minor mistakes in the process of learning a second [or foreign] language' (Tarone & Yule, 1989: 139). In this light, it is necessary to shed some light on learner attitudes and motivation.

Wenden (1998: 52) defines attitudes as 'learned motivations, valued beliefs, evaluations, what one believes is acceptable, or responses oriented towards approaching or avoiding'. For her, two kinds of attitudes are crucial: attitudes learners hold about their role in the learning process, and their capability as learners (ibid.: 53). In a sense, attitudes are a form of metacognitive knowledge. At any rate, 'learner beliefs about their role and capability as learners will be shaped and maintained--by other beliefs they hold about themselves as learners' (ibid.: 54). For example, if learners believe that certain personality types cannot learn a foreign language and they believe that they are that type of person, then they will think that they are fighting a "losing battle," as far as learning the foreign language is concerned. Furthermore, if learners labour under the misconception that learning is successful only within the context of the "traditional classroom," where the teacher directs, instructs, and manages the learning activity, and students must follow in the teacher's footsteps, they are likely to be impervious or resistant to learner-centred strategies aiming at autonomy, and success is likely to be undermined.

In a way, attitudes are 'part of one's perception of self, of others, and of the culture in which one is living [or the culture of the target language]' (Brown, 1987: 126), and it seems clear that positive attitudes are conducive to increased motivation, while negative attitudes have the opposite effect. But let us examine the role of motivation.

Although the term 'motivation' is frequently used in educational contexts, there is little agreement among experts as to its exact meaning. What most scholars seem to agree on, though, is that motivation is 'one of the key factors that influence the rate and success of second or foreign language (L2) learning. Motivation provides the primary impetus to initiate learning the L2 and later the driving force to sustain the long and often tedious learning process' (Dornyei, 1998: 117). According to Gardner and MacIntyre (1993: 3), motivation is comprised of three components: 'desire to achieve a goal, effort extended in this direction, and satisfaction with the task'.

It is manifest that in language learning, people are motivated in different ways and to different degrees. Some learners like doing grammar and memorising; others want to speak and role-play; others prefer reading and writing, while avoiding speaking. Furthermore, since '[the learning of a foreign language] involves an alteration in self-image, the adoption of new social and cultural behaviours and ways of being, and therefore has a significant impact on the social nature of the learner' (Williams, 1994: 77, cited in Dornyei, 1998:122), an important distinction should be made between instrumental and integrative motivation. Learners with an instrumental orientation view the foreign language as a means of finding a good job or pursuing a lucrative career; in other words, the target language acts as a 'monetary incentive' (Gardner & MacIntyre, 1993: 3). On the other hand, learners with an integrative orientation are interested in the culture of the target language; they want to acquaint themselves with the target community and become integral parts of it. Of course, this approach to motivation has certain limitations (see Cookes and Schmidt, 1991, cited in Lier, 1996: 104-105), but an in-depth analysis is not within the purview of this study. The bottom line is that motivation is 'a central mediator in the prediction of language achievement' (Gardner & MacIntyre, 1993: 3), as various studies have shown (see Kraemer, 1990; Machnick and Wolfe, 1982; et al.).

4.3. Self-esteem

Closely related to attitudes and motivation is the concept of self-esteem, that is, the evaluation the learner makes of herself with regard to the target language or learning in general. '[S]elf-esteem is a personal judgement of worthiness that is expressed in the attitudes that the individual holds towards himself' (Coopersmith, 1967: 4-5, cited in Brown, 1987: 101-102). If the learner has a 'robust sense of self', to quote Breen and Mann (1997, cited in Benson & Voller, 1997: 134), his relationship to himself as a learner is unlikely to be marred by any negative assessments by the teacher. Conversely, a lack of self-esteem is likely to lead to negative attitudes towards his capability as a learner, and to 'a deterioration in cognitive performance', thus confirming his view of himself as incapable of learning (Diener and Dweck, 1978, 1980, cited in Wenden, 1998: 57).

Now that we have examined some of the factors that may enhance, or even militate against, the learner's willingness to take charge of her own learning and her confidence in her ability as a learner, it is of consequence to consider possible ways of promoting learner autonomy. To say, though, that learner autonomy can be fostered is not to reduce it to a set of skills that need to be acquired. Rather, it is taken to mean that the teacher and the learner can work towards autonomy by creating a friendly atmosphere characterised by 'low threat, unconditional positive regard, honest and open feedback, respect for the ideas and opinions of others, approval of self-improvement as a goal, collaboration rather than competition' (Candy, 1991: 337). In the next section, some general guidelines for promoting learner autonomy will be given, on the assumption that the latter does not mean leaving learners to their own devices or learning in isolation.

5. How Can Learner Autonomy be Promoted?

To posit ways of fostering learner autonomy is certainly to posit ways of fostering teacher autonomy, as '[t]eachers' autonomy permeates into [learners'] autonomy' (Johnson, Pardesi and Paine, 1990, cited in Gathercole, 1990: 51). Nevertheless, our main focus will be on what the learner can do in order to attain a considerable degree of autonomy, even though the success of the learner is, to a great extent, determined--alas! vitiated--by the educational system and the requisite role of the teacher.

5.1. Self-reports

According to Wenden (1998: 79-95), a good way of collecting information on how students go about a learning task and helping them become aware of their own strategies is to assign a task and have them report what they are thinking while they are performing it. This self-report is called introspective, as learners are asked to introspect on their learning. In this case, 'the [introspective] self-report is a verbalization of one's stream of consciousness' (Wenden, 1998: 81). Introspective reports are assumed to provide information on the strategies learners are using at the time of the report. However, this method suffers from one limitation: '[t]he concentration put on thinking aloud might detract from [learners'] ability to do the task efficiently' (ibid.: 83), thus rendering the outcome of the report spurious and tentative.

Another type of self-report is what has been dubbed as retrospective self-report, since learners are asked to think back or retrospect on their learning. Retrospective self-reports are quite open ended, in that there is no limit put on what students say in response to a question or statement that points to a topic in a general way. There are two kinds of retrospective self-reports: semi-structured interviews and structured questionnaires. A semi-structured interview may focus on a specific skill with a view to extracting information about learners' feelings towards particular skills (reading, listening, etc.), problems encountered, techniques resorted to in order to tackle these problems, and learners' views on optimal strategies or ways of acquiring specific skills or dealing with learning tasks. A structured questionnaire seeks the same information but in a different way: by dint of explicit questions and statements, and then asking learners to agree or disagree, write true or false, and so forth.

It could be argued that self-reports can be a means of raising awareness of learners' strategies and the need for constant evaluation of techniques, goals, and outcomes. As Wenden (1998: 90) observes, 'without awareness [learners] will remain trapped in their old patterns of beliefs and behaviors and never be fully autonomous'.

5.2. Diaries and Evaluation Sheets

Perhaps one of the principal goals of education is to alter learners' beliefs about themselves by showing them that their putative failures or shortcomings can be ascribed to a lack of effective strategies rather than to a lack of potential. After all, according to Vygotsky (1978), learning is an internalised form of a formerly social activity, and 'a learner can realize [his] potential interactively--through the guidance of supportive other persons such as parents, teachers, and peers' (Wenden, 1998: 107). Herein lies the role of diaries and evaluation sheets, which offer students the possibility to plan, monitor, and evaluate their learning, identifying any problems they run into and suggesting solutions. Let us have a look at the following diaries based on authentic student accounts of their language learning:

A.
Dear Diary,
These first few days have been terrible. I studied English for eight years·just think, eight years, but I only learned a lot of grammar. I can't speak a word. I don't dare. I can't express myself in the right way, so I am afraid to speak.
The other day I started watching TV, so I could get accustomed to the sound. I don't understand TV news very well·only a few words. I can't get the main point. In school it's easy to understand, but I can't understand the people in the stores.
What can I do?
Yours Truly,
Impatient
(from Wenden, 1998: 102)

B.
Dear Diary,
I read the New York Times every day. Every day I learn many new expressions-a lot of vocabulary. But I can't use this vocabulary in conversation. The same thing happens with what I learn at school. I can't use it when I want to talk to Americans or even with my own Spanish friends.
I need some help.
Yours Truly,
Confused
(from Wenden, 1998: 102)

Alongside diaries, students can also benefit from putting pen to paper and writing on their expectations of a course at the beginning of the term, and then filling in evaluation sheets, or reporting on the outcomes of a course, at the end of the term. These activities are bound to help learners put things into perspective and manage their learning more effectively. Let us consider two such reports:

1.
What do I want to do this year?
"I want to speak more English and I'd like to spell better that I do now. I would like to work with another boy or girl who is willing to speak English with me and make some activities in English. Materials: Challenge to think and crosswords.
I would like to get a more varied language and I would like to be better at spelling, especially the words used in everyday situations. How: I will prepare Îtwo minutes' talk' for every lesson, I will write down new words five times and practise pronouncing them. I will get someone or myself to correct it. I will read at least two books÷difficult ones÷and make book-reviews.ä
(Beginning of term÷4th year of English
[from Dam, 1990, cited in Gathercole,
1990: 30])

2.
What do you feel you know now that you didn't know before?
"I think that we have grown better at planning our own time. We know more about what we need to do and how to go about it. We try all the time to extend our vocabulary and to get an active language. Evaluation also helped us. It is like going through things again.ä End of term÷4th year of English [from Dam, 1990, cited in Gathercole,1990: 32])

So far, one of the assumptions underlying this discussion on learner autonomy has been that the teacher has not relinquished his "authority"; rather, that he has committed himself to providing the learners with the opportunity to experiment, make hypotheses, and improvise, in their attempt to master the target language and, along with it, to learn how to learn in their own, individual, holistic way (see Papaconstantinou, 1997). It may be the case that learner autonomy is best achieved when, among other things, the teacher acts as a facilitator of learning, a counsellor, and as a resource (see Voller, 1997, cited in Benson and Voller, 1997: 99-106). In other words, when she lies somewhere along a continuum between what Barnes (1976, cited in Benson and Voller, 1997: 99) calls transmission and interpretation teachers. As Wright (1987: 62, cited in Benson and Voller, 1997: 100) notes, transmission teachers believe in subject disciplines and boundaries between them, in content, in standards of performance laid down by these disciplines that can be objectively evaluated--that learners will find it hard to meet the standards; interpretation teachers believe that knowledge is the ability to organize thought, interpret and act on facts; that learners are intrinsically interested and naturally inclined to explore their worlds--that learners already know a great deal and have the ability to refashion that knowledge.

The interpretation teacher respects learners' needs and is 'more likely to follow a fraternal-permissive model' (emphasis added) (Stevick, 1976: 91-93, cited in Benson and Voller, 1997: 100). It is with this type of teacher that the role of persuasive communication is most congruent.

5.3. Persuasive Communication as a Means of Altering Learner Beliefs and Attitudes

Inasmuch as the success of learning and the extent to which learners tap into their potential resources in order to overcome difficulties and achieve autonomy are determined by such factors as learners' motivation, their desire to learn, and the beliefs they hold about themselves as learners and learning per se, it is manifest that changing some negative beliefs and attitudes is bound to facilitate learning. 'Attitude change [is assumed to] be brought about through exposure to a persuasive communication [between the teacher and the learners]' (Wenden, 1998: 126). According to the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) of attitude change developed by Petty and Cacciopo (1986, cited in Wenden, 1998: 126), there are several ways of bringing about this change, however, our concern will only be with persuasive communication.

A persuasive communication is a discussion presenting information and arguments to change a learner's evaluation of a topic, situation, task, and so on. These arguments could be either explicit or implicit, especially when the topic is deemed of importance. If, for instance, a deeply ingrained fear or belief precludes the learner from engaging in the learning process, persuasive communication purports to help bring these facts to light and identify the causes that underlie them. It should be noted, though, that no arguments to influence students' views are given. Rather, the communication comprises facts that show what learners can do to attain autonomy and that learners who do so are successful (see Wenden, 1998: 126). This approach is based on the assumption that when learners are faced with convincing information about a situation, 'they can be led to re-examine existing evaluations they hold about it and revise or change them completely' (ibid.: 127).

6. Conclusion

This study is far from comprehensive, as we have only skimmed the surface of the subject and the puzzle called learner autonomy. Many more pieces are missing. For instance, no mention has been made of the role of the curriculum in promoting learner autonomy, despite the debate on the relationship between classroom practice and ideological encoding (Littlejohn, 1997, cited in Benson and Voller, 1997: 181-182). At any rate, the main point of departure for this study has been the notion that there are degrees of learner autonomy and that it is not an absolute concept. It would be nothing short of ludicrous to assert that learners come into the learning situation with the knowledge and skills to plan, monitor, and evaluate their learning, or to make decisions on content or objectives. Nevertheless, learner autonomy is an ideal, so to speak, that can, and should, be realised, if we want self-sufficient learners and citizens capable of evaluating every single situation they find themselves in and drawing the line at any inconsistencies or shortcomings in institutions and society at large. Certainly, though, autonomous learning is not akin to "unbridled learning." There has to be a teacher who will adapt resources, materials, and methods to the learners' needs and even abandon all this if need be. Learner autonomy consists in becoming aware of, and identifying, one's strategies, needs, and goals as a learner, and having the opportunity to reconsider and refashion approaches and procedures for optimal learning. But even if learner autonomy is amenable to educational interventions, it should be recognised that it 'takes a long time to develop, and--simply removing the barriers to a person's ability to think and behave in certain ways may not allow him or her to break away from old habits or old ways of thinking' (Candy, 1991: 124). As Holyoake (1892, vol. 1, p. 4) succinctly put it, '[k]nowledge lies everywhere to hand for those who observe and think'.

References

• Barnes, D. 1976. From Communication to Curriculum. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
• Benn, S. I. 1976. 'Freedom, Autonomy and the Concept of the Person'. In Aristotelian Society Proceedings, new series, pp. 109-130.
• Benson, P. & Voller, P. 1997. Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning. London: Longman.
• Boud, D. (ed.). 1988. Developing Student Autonomy in Learning. New York: Kogan Press.
• Brown, H. D. 1987. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Englewood Cliffs, JC: Prentice Hall.
• Candy, 1991. Self-direction for Lifelong Learning. California: Jossey-Bass.
• Cook, V. 1993. Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. London: Macmillan.
• Coopersmith, S. 1967. The Antecedents of Self-Esteem. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Company.
• Crookes, G. & Schmidt, R. 1991. Motivation: Reopening the research agenda. Language Learning. 41: 469-512.
• Dam, L. 1990. Learner Autonomy in Practice. In Gathercole, I. (ed.). 1990, p. 16. CILT. Great Britain: Bourne Press.
• Dornyei, Z. 1998. Motivation in Second and Foreign Language Learning. CILT: CUP.
• Gardner, R. C. and MacIntyre, P. D. 1993. A Student's Contributions to Second-language Learning. Part II: Affective variables. Language Teaching 26, 1-11.
• Graham, S. 1997. Effective Language Learning. Great Britain: WBC.
• Halliday, M.A.K. 1979. Language as Social Semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.
• Holec, H. 1981. Autonomy in Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: OUP.
• Holmes, J. L. and Ramos, R. 1991. Talking about learning: establishing a framework for discussing and changing learning processes. In James, C. and Garrett, P. (eds.). Language Awareness in the Classroom. 1991: 198-212).
• Holyoake, J. 1892. Sixty Years of An Agitator's Life. (2 vols.). London: Unwin.
• Johnson, Pardesi, and Paine. 1990. Autonomy in Our Primary School. In Gathercole, I. 1990. Autonomy in Language Learning. CILT: Bourne Press.
• Knowles, M. S. 1975. Self-directed Learning. New York: Association Press.
• Knowles, M. S. 1980. The Modern Practice of Adult Education: From Pedagogy to Andragogy. Chicago: Follett.
• Knowles, M. S. 1983a. 'Andragogy: An Emerging Technology for Adult Learning. In M. Tight (ed.), Adult Learning and Education. London: Croom Helm.
• Kohonen, V. 1992. Experiential language learning: second language learning as cooperative learner education. In Nunan, D. (Ed.), Collaborative Language Learning and Teaching, pp. 14-39.
• Larsen-Freeman, D. and Long, M. H. 1991. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. London: Longman.
• Lier, van L. 1996. Interaction in the Language Curriculum. Awareness, Autonomy and Authenticity. USA: Longman.
• Little, D. 1991. Learner Autonomy. 1: Definitions, Issues and Problems. Dublin: Authentik.
• Littlejohn, A. 1997. Self-access work and curriculum ideologies. In Benson, P. and Voller, P. (eds.). Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning. London: Longman.
• Muchnick, A. G. and Wolfe, D. E. 1982. Attitudes and motivations of American students of Spanish. The Canadian Modern Language Review. 38, 262-281.
• Omaggio, A. 1978. 'Successful language learners: What do we know about them?', ERIC / CLL News Bulletin, May, 2-3.
• O'Malley, J. M. and Chamot, A. V. 1990. Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. London: Macmillan.
• Papaconstantinou, A. 1997. Creating the Whole Person in New Age. Athens: Kardamitsa.
• Petty, R. E. and Cacioppo, J. T. 1986. Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer- Verlag.
• Rathbone, C. H. 1971. Open Education: The Informal Classroom. New York: Citation Press.
• Rinvolucri, M. 1984. Grammar Games: Cognitive, Affective, and Drama Activatiobn for EFL Students. Cambridge: CUP.
• Rousseau, J. J. [1762], 1911. Emile. London: Dent.
• Schumann, J. H. 1978. Social and Psychological Factors in Second Language Acquisition. In J. C. Richards (ed.). Understanding Second and Foreign Language Learning. pp. 163-178. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
• Sheerin, S. 1991. 'State of the art: self-access', Language Teaching, 24: 3, pp. 153-157.
• Sheerin, S. 1997. An Exploration of the Relationship between Self-access and Independent Learning. In Benson, P. and Voller, P. (eds.). 1997. Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning. London: Longman.
• Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: OUP.
• Tarone, E. and Yule, G. 1989. Focus on the Language Learner. Oxford: OUP.
• Tumposky, N. 1982. 'The learner on his own'. In M. Geddes and G. Sturtridge (eds.). Individualisation. London: Modern English Publications, pp. 4-7.
• Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society. USA: Harvard.
• Wenden, A. 1998. Learner Strategies for Learner Autonomy. Great Britain: Prentice Hall.
• Williams, M. 1994. Motivation in Foreign and Second Language Learning: An Interactive Perspective. Educational and Child Psychology, 11, 17-84