3.6 "Measuring autonomy" – and overview of research to date

A lot of the research that is somehow connected with the issue of autonomy takes as its focus the various aspects of the concept, studying them in specific learning contexts, usually by means of qualitative research – observations, interviews, learner/teacher journals etc. (Ho and Crookall 1995; King 1994; White 1999; Hart 2002; Butler 2005; Hargan 1994; Murray 1999). However, relatively little research has been carried out to determine whether (and to what extent) certain students are autonomous or not, thus attempting to "measure" their degree of autonomy, in the most general sense. Benson (2001: 79) quotes two major studies that do undertake the project; as our own study moves in a similar direction, it seems wise to take a closer look at them.

The two studies in question are Guglielmino's SLDRS (or, Self-directed Learning Readiness Scale), developed in 1977 and used extensively throughout North America, and Sarah Cotterall's (1995) study on learners' readiness for autonomy. In addition, Cotterall re-shaped her study and presented it in another paper in 1999. While the research methods in Gugliemino's and Cotterall's studies were different, the outcome was in both cases a questionnaire that should ideally gauge a learner's readiness or capacity for autonomy.

As Benson reports, the SLDRS has been subject to a great deal of criticism that challenged its validity. Sadly enough, the questionnaire is not freely available for our analysis; therefore, we are forced to expand on Cotterall's findings only.

Cotterall identified six factors that, in her view, were related to the issue of learner autonomy – "role of the teacher, role of feedback, learner independence, learner confidence in study ability, experience of language learning and approach to studying" (1995: 196). In her later study, she neglected the last four and substituted them with "the learner's sense of self-efficacy, important strategies, dimensions of strategies-related behavior and the nature of language learning" (1999: 499).

Cotterall's study faces three major problems. Firstly, as we have shown in all the preceding chapters, the concept of learner autonomy is immeasurably more complex and comprises a much larger number of capacities, attitudes and behaviors, some of which are key to understanding the very nature of the term, such as intrinsic motivation, personal involvement, flexibility, interdependent learning etc. Even though Cotterall reduces autonomy to a "set of tactics" (1995: 195), we have given enough evidence that such an approach is impossible. Therefore, an instrument that truly gauges learners' readiness for autonomy needs to take a much wider perspective.

Secondly, the questionnaire items seem to be poorly constructed and their interpretation is often lacking in sane reasoning. For instance, item 32 ("I like the teacher to offer help to me") does not give the respondents a choice of preference; in other words, they need not decide between two possibilities that are polarized. In this way, a learner might respond to an imaginary item, "I like to ask the teacher for help", in much the same way as to item 32. (To give a more light-hearted example, the two following items, "I like it when the milkman comes" and "I like it when the milkman leaves", do not really gauge a respondent's preference of one or the other.) Therefore, Cotterall is categorically wrong in inferring that "learners who agree with these items are not ready to initiate enquiries or seek help" (ibid: 197). Also, some items are almost unbearably general, such as item 17 ("I have been successful in language learning in the past"). Cotterall sometimes infers causal relationships that are simply not inferable from the kind of research she undertakes, such as her interpretation of the relation between items 17 and 11 ("I have my own ways of testing how much I have learned"): "learners who agree with these statements are learners for whom previous experience of language learning has resulted in a degree of awareness about themselves, about language learning and about strategies" (1995: 201). If she uses parapsychological methods in her observation, she does not make it explicit in her research. On the whole, we have shown that in any further research, much more attention needs to be paid to the careful construction and interpretation of questionnaire items.

The last problem lies with the use of language in Cotterall's questionnaires. Item 18a, "I know how to set my own learning goals" (Cotterall 1999: 504) is likely to give the respondent little or no idea about what the researcher is actually trying to find out. Even if I were a teacher who is relatively new to the idea of learner autonomy, I would probably find it difficult to decide what a "learning goal" is. Using the kind of language that is common in the literature on learner autonomy does not necessarily imply that learners will understand it. This may be true for most of the other items in the same cluster of beliefs; not only are they too general, but they also use language that is, mildly speaking, problematic. Furthermore, each item in this cluster is broken down into four dimensions of use, asking the respondents to state whether they know how to, are confident about, are willing to and accept responsibility for adopting this or that particular strategy. This takes the successful and sincere completion of the questionnaire into the realm of fantasy literature, not to mention the fact that apart from linguists, few people will see any difference between "willingness" and "accepting responsibility".

It is clear that the research conducted into learners' readiness for autonomy – at least the research we have had a chance to analyze – is highly suspicious, and better and more conscientious research into the topic needs to be undertaken. In any such research, more attention needs to be paid to a thorough survey of the concept of autonomy, the construction and interpretation of questionnaire items and, last but not least, the use of meaningful language in the process.