Autonomy in language learning: a pedagogical revisiting of a pedagogical approach

Professor Henri Holec
CRAPEL, University of Nancy II, France

Henri Holec began by apologising for the repetition of the word ‘pedagogical’ in his title, expaining that his intention in his talk was to focus on the teacher’s viewpoint. He started by clarifying some of the concepts in the field which are often used ambiguously.

Firstly, he noted that when teachers describe a learner as autonomous, they may be referring to an ability/capacity or to the particular way he learns. Holec sticks to the distinction that:

‘autonomy’ refers to a learner’s ability to self-control his learning and an autonomous learner is one who knows how to control his learning, whereas

‘self-directed learning’ refers to the type of learning and a self-directed learner is a learner who learns in a self-directed way.

He went on to point out that there is a similar ambiguity in the meaning attributed to ‘learn’ and ‘learning’. It is often used to include two ideas: that of gaining knowledge or skill and the way this is achieved (by study, practice, being taught). Holec prefers to use the term ‘acquire’ and ‘acquisition’ for the covert, unconscious cognitive process by which one internalises knowledge, while ‘learn and ‘learning’ refers to the overt and conscious behaviour used to acquire knowledge. Learning can also be instructed on non-instructed.

Holec claimed that there are two sets of principles - ‘states’ - which govern the various learning environments often referred to as implementations of ‘autonomy’.

State 1 can be described as instructed learning with a degree of learner participation. The focus is on the development of the self-direction of learning and their autonomy becomes a form of side-effect acquisition. The learners are gradually allowed to take part in the decision-taking process and the end-result is independent but not fully self-directed learners.

State 2 is a much more fundamental shift in perspective than State 1. Language learning here is non-instructed learning which is entirely placed under the control of the learner. Thus the focus is on the decision-taking and not on the ways/activities. The learner decides of his own free will, although not on free options of his own. There are no free options because the needs and objectives always affect the required skills. The focus is on the development of learner autonomy (the ability to self-direct) and the aim is to produce autonomous learners by providing learning conditions which integrate language learning and learning-to-learn environments.

State 2 may come after State 1 or it may be in place from the start. State 1 is more common because it is less demanding and often satisfies institutional demands for more independent language learning.

Holec then went on to describe the particular features and requirements of a State 2 implementation. Primarily, learners need varying degrees of help in order to acquire learning ability. Learning ability Holec defined as involving both knowledge and know-how. Knowledge refers to the internalised representations of language and language learning culture which help the learner when making learning decisions and acting upon them. This knowledge is operationalised into the know-how, ie, the definition of learning objectives, the selection of resources, the setting up of scenarios and the evaluation and management of learning

State 2 also requires specialised teacher training. Holec described a new breed of teacher who has three roles: the role of learner-educator, training learners to be aware of their learning etc; the role of materials provider, using materials that are adaptable but not pre-adapted: the role of manager of change. The teacher has to manage innovation processes at the initiation stage, the implementation stage and the integration stage, in order for the change to remain permanent.

Henri Holec’s talk undoubtedly set many of the teachers at the conference thinking about their own contexts and where their own implementation of ‘autonomy’ stands in relation to the two states he described. As he pointed out, there are many examples around the world of ‘autonomous’ learning – but how often do we stop to think deeply about the concepts and principles that we believe are guiding us?

Professor Tomoko Yashima. Kansai University. Autonomy and willingness to communicate: The development of an English using ideal self

Background
Professor Yashima’s previous work included a focus on Japanese adolescents studying in the US. She has identified a number of ways in which these young people tried different strategies to communicate with L1 speakers revealing their ‘willingness to communicate’ (WTC) as a key reason for facilitating learning.

Professor Yashima then put forward the idea of ‘international posture’ (IP) as a component of WTC. She defined this as a tendency to see oneself as connected to the international community, having concerns about international affairs, and an interest in interacting with people other than Japanese.

The talk then moved to describe two empirical studies of Japanese high school students in which she attempts to create a model of learner WTC and IP and interaction with motivation, proficiency and confidence.

Study One
Professor Yashima described a Model United Nations (MUN) project undertaken in the third year at a Japanese senior high school. Students took part in the MUN with several other schools playing roles as different countries’ representatives. The MUN had a number of features including formulized rules, pairing of students, floor talking rules and so on. In this way an ‘imagined community’ becomes visible and concrete.

Two cohorts of 152 students answered two questionnaires on motivation, IP and WTC and took the TOEFL ITP twice. The results showed that over two and half years TOEFL scores increased significantly, students communicated more frequently, and that IP increased but not significantly. An analysis of student comments showed that English had become a part of many students’ lives and that they had developed a positive attitude towards communicating in English. However, many still found it very difficult to use English.

Study Two
A second study in February 2007 administered questionnaires to 191 students across all three years of the school. The items were about motivation, IP, WTC, frequency of communication, ideal self and ‘self determination’. Results showed that students with higher levels of IP and WTC tend to have self determined types of regulation and tend to visualize English using ideal selves more clearly.

Conclusion
It seems that the MUN is a way in which students can practically use English. It is a particular community of practice of teachers and learners with concrete tasks and ways of doing things. Learners’ self concept as L2 users becomes more concrete and language learning takes place through interaction with others. In turn learners become more autonomous with a clear sense of purpose in learning and using English.

Question/comment
It seems that MUN - the model United Nations - is quite a rare event in Japanese high schools; but many of the learners at the school in Professor Yashima's studies really benefited from taking part in such a course.

I wonder what other kinds of courses and events can give that real-world feel to English communication within Japan so that learners can gain some sense of using English with others in a meaningful way and have a positive image of their idealized self for the future.