3.7 Summary

While Chapter 2 concentrated on a survey of the different approaches one can take to defining autonomy and describing an autonomous learner, and a number of different characteristics has been listed, this chapter focused on a few issues that, in our view, lie at the heart of the concept of autonomy. Firstly, we dealt with the integrative/instrumental, intrinsic/extrinsic and attribution theories of motivation. Our conclusion stated that even if the concepts of autonomy and intrinsic motivation were not synonymous, autonomy necessarily influences motivation, and vice versa. The next chapter focused on personal construct theory. Not only did it justify autonomy on psychological grounds; it also gave it a very personal dimension. The survey of learner/teacher roles in the following chapter worked towards two ends – to show the complexity of role relationships in modern communicative approaches and to portray the scope of control that may be transferred from the teacher to the learner. In the next chapter, the survey of learning strategies revealed a number of problems one may encounter in the course of a research into the issue; it also showed that learning strategies are often only behaviors that give evidence of certain attitudes towards learning. Logically, the following chapter dealt with a survey of research into learner beliefs, preferences and attitudes. It worked towards identifying problems in the research and categorizing clusters of beliefs with respect to learner autonomy. The final chapter amounted to a detailed critique of available research into measuring autonomy.

4. Research

4.1 Research background

Our research focused on a number of students who took part in the Masaryk University Internationalization Project. Smíšková describes the project and its participants as follows:

The project […] was launched in October 2003, when regular English courses for non-academic staff at Masaryk University were introduced, with a view to raising the general standard of foreign language communication skills. By the year 2008, some 400 members of staff are expected to reach a level of proficiency reasonably appropriate to their professional position at the university.

(Smíšková 2005: 227)

In our view, the project offered the non-academic staff a great opportunity to attain a level of communicative competence in a foreign language, but it also had a number of principal drawbacks. First of all, the course was imposed on the university staff, and a number of allusions regarding their job security in the event of their failure to comply with the requirements of the course have been made. This rendered autonomous learning, as portrayed in previous chapters, virtually impossible. And indeed, a number of teachers and teacher trainers described the first reactions to the course as, mildly speaking, dramatic.

Secondly, the target level was, in the case of each participant, determined by his/her position in the institutional hierarchy rather than by the language requirements of his/her particular position. This elitist notion was categorically wrong; it meant that, for instance, the head of the study department received better and more prolonged language training than her subordinates, who made contact with foreign students on a daily basis (not to mention the receptionists, cooks and the canteen staff, who probably received no training at all). In effect, this may have meant that some of the students did not perceive the course as personally relevant while others got less training than they required. Again, this runs counter to the notion of autonomous learning as a type of learning which is perceived as personal, self-controlled and directed by one's own needs.

However, in a language classroom, the dinosaur of institutional hierarchy is usually left waiting patiently outside, in the corridor. Prior to the research, we had collaborated with the program intimately for two years, facilitating the learning of two groups of students and seeing them turn from complete strangers into dynamic learning groups. Even then, however, we observed certain mismatches between ours and the students' agendas. Smíšková reached a similar conclusion:

As students, these people encountered a totally alien learning environment, in many ways denying all they had ever experienced in language education, running counter to their expectations and beliefs about language teaching and learning and about learning in general. The principles of the communicative approach inherently require a certain degree of independence (autonomy) on the part of the learner, who can no longer expect the teacher to have tight control over the learning process at all times.

(Smíšková 2005: 228)

In our two groups, certain learners also displayed attitudes and behaviors that opposed the notion of learner autonomy. The following table summarizes our observations:

students showing a relatively low degree of autonomy	students showing a relatively high degree of autonomy
relied heavily on and/or demanded translation, be it in instructions, reading tasks or grammar presentation	learned to cope with the foreign language environment in all the situations listed
often ‘fell back’ on L1, in the course of speaking tasks, as well as in other situations in the lesson	were able to do without L1 throughout the lesson
had to be motivated to proceed in activities	found intrinsic motivation to do every activity
responded negatively to challenge	responded positively to challenge
deliberately avoided certain metacognitive strategies even after strategy training	learnt to use metacognitive strategies
found it difficult to cooperate on tasks	learnt to cooperate on tasks
did not seem to find benefit in learning from others	seemed to benefit from learning from others
refused to make intelligent guesses and/or live with uncertainty	learnt to make intelligent guesses and live with uncertainty
found it difficult to try out new ways of learning	were happy to try out new ways of learning
did not seem to work on their English outside the classroom	seemed to work on their English outside the classroom

As Smíšková's (2005) work provides only anecdotal evidence, and as our findings and her conclusions seemed to complement each other, we concluded that further research into the issue was needed. However, such research would not only provide valuable feedback on the Internationalization Program; it would also give us opportunity to study learner's beliefs and attitudes in a unique environment where a progress towards greater autonomy might have been perceived as alien, but where, at the same time, the students had been subjected to this notion for a prolonged period of time prior to our study.