- •Acknowledgements
- •1. Introduction
- •2. Theoretical Background I.
- •2.1 Reasons for promoting autonomy
- •2.2 Attempts to define autonomy
- •2.2.1 An overview of definitions in the literature
- •2.2.2 Conflicting and complementing concepts
- •2.3 Attempts to describe an autonomous learner
- •2.4 A working definition of autonomy
- •2.5 A working description of an autonomous learner
- •2.6 A practical approach to learner autonomy
- •3. Theoretical Background II. Aspects of autonomous learning – an overview of theory and research
- •3.1 Theories of motivation
- •3.1.1 Integrative-instrumental and intrinsic-extrinsic theories of motivation.
- •3.1.2 Attribution theory
- •3.1.3 Relating motivation to success
- •3.1.4 Motivation and autonomy
- •3.2 The theory of personal constructs
- •3.3 Modern communicative approaches and the issue of learner/teacher roles
- •3.4 Research into learning strategies
- •3.5 Research into learner beliefs, preferences and attitudes
- •3.6 "Measuring autonomy" – and overview of research to date
- •3.7 Summary
- •4. Research
- •4.1 Research background
- •4.2 Aims of the research and research questions
- •4.3 Methods, materials, participants
- •4.3.1 Participants in the project
- •4.3.2 Methods
- •4.3.3 Anticipated problems
- •4.3.4 The structure of the interview
- •4.4 Data analysis and interpretation
- •4.4.1 Factors explored in the study
- •4.4.2 Factors revealed by the study
- •4.4.3 Reactions to a more autonomous learning environment
- •4.5 Discussion
- •4.6 Conclusion
- •5. Ideas for further research and Epilogue
- •5.1 Ideas for further research
- •5.2 Epilogue
- •6. References:
- •7. Appendix – a transcription of the interviews
3.1.3 Relating motivation to success
Research in the field of cognitive motivation suggests that "intrinsic motivation leads to more successful learning" (Dickinson 1995: 169). Similarly, as we have seen above, integrative motivation may result in greater persistence and a higher measure of success. This would mean, in very general terms, that motivation precedes success in their causal relationship.
However, Skehan (1989: 64-67) draws on a body of research that is largely conflicting as to whether motivation is the cause or result of success. The research either gives opposite results, or does not support one or the other hypothesis at all. Dickinson proposes a "synergistic relationship" (1995: 166) – motivation leading to success leading to greater motivation leading to yet greater success…into infinity.
Even though we do not feel competent enough to make decisions in the matter, we believe that considering the complexity of the learning process, the question is largely philosophical. For instance, we may imagine learners who, entering the learning process with extrinsic motivation, are later on intrinsically motivated by their success or by the group of learners and proceed in their learning above their immediate goals. Our study might shed some light on the issue.
3.1.4 Motivation and autonomy
In a previous chapter, we have seen that attributing success to changeable factors has a direct link with learner autonomy. However, the magnitude of studies within the realms of cognitive motivation and learner autonomy might lead us to the utterly surprising conclusion that the two concepts might be virtually identical. In her survey of autonomy and motivation, Dickinson quotes Paris and Oka's definition of motivation – "The skill and will to learn" (1995: 168) – which sounds like a snappy copy of Littlewood's (1996) "ability and willingness" definition of autonomy. Moreover, Benson infers, quoting Deci, that "intrinsic motivation implies self-direction" (2001: 69). To add to the point, Dickinson (1995) surveys the results of the Carnegie Project which was aimed to increase the motivation of low-income, black children in St. Louis, USA. In the motivational model for the project, learners were divided into "origins" (learners who had a strong sense of origination of their own actions) and "pawns" (learners who only responded to external causation). Dickinson infers that "the similarities between origins and autonomous learners are so evident as to imply that two different labels are being used to name the same individual learner characteristics" (1995: 173).
It is clear that from certain points of view, the terms "intrinsic motivation" and "autonomy" seem similar, if not totally indistinguishable. This may be the effect of the constant broadening the two concepts, as a result of voluminous and varied research. If nothing else, however, it suggests that in studying autonomy, one should pay special, if not exclusive, attention to studying motivation.
If the two terms are not exactly identical, a number of studies at least show that there is a causal relationship between the two. Garcia and Pintrich's (1996) study focused on college students and aimed to show the effects of an autonomous classroom environment on learners. It concluded that "experiences of classroom autonomy in the college classroom are more closely related to motivational factors than performance" (Garcia and Pintrich 1996: 484). Wu's (2003) study of young language learners also suggested that introducing a more autonomous learning environment led to an increase in the learners' intrinsic motivation.
We have shown that the study of autonomy should go hand in hand with the study of intrinsic motivation and attribution theory. To sum up, let us list the basic characteristics of intrinsically motivated learners, as found in Dickinson:
Intrinsically motivated learners are…
learners who are interested in the learning tasks and the learning outcomes for their own sake
learners who focus on learning outcomes rather than performance outcomes
learners who operate in informational structures and experience informational events rather than controlling events and structures (the basic difference being that information events provide information and choice while controlling events attempt to control the learner's learning from the outside).
(Dickinson 1995: 168-170)