2. Theoretical Background I.

2.1 Reasons for promoting autonomy

As we have seen in the previous chapter, to a layman, autonomy may appear to be the natural way human beings and other creatures go about learning; therefore, no other reasons to promote it seem necessary. As will be seen further, however, this amounts to the ideological argument – human beings are free to choose what they will learn. Crabbe presents a concise account of three major reasons for promoting autonomy:

The ideological argument is that the individual has the right to be free to exercise his or her own choices, in learning and other areas, and not become a victim … of choices made by social institutions. … The psychological argument is simply that we learn better when we are in charge of our own learning. … The economic argument is that society does not have the resources to provide the level of personal instruction needed by all its members in every area of learning. (Crabbe 1993: 443)

We see the ideological argument as our second nature; the psychological argument will be dealt with extensively in Chapter 3.2. As for the last of the three, Benson argues that "the economic imperative is often one of meeting complex educational needs at low cost" (Benson 2001: 16) and goes further to report on a number of self-access programs created throughout the world. However, any of these arguments should be sufficient to bring down any out-dated institution of formal learning.

2.2 Attempts to define autonomy

2.2.1 An overview of definitions in the literature

Before one can attempt to carry out any research in the field of learner autonomy, one needs to know what learner autonomy is. Therefore, the first logical step on our way is a survey and analysis of definitions in the relevant literature on the subject. Below, we have listed a number of definitions collected from various sources:

This term describes the situation in which the learner is totally responsible for all of the decisions concerned with his learning and the implementation of those decisions. In full autonomy there is no involvement of a 'teacher' or an institution. And the learner is also independent of specially prepared materials.

(Dickinson 1987: 11)

Autonomy is a capacity – for detachment, critical reflection, decision-making, and independent action … The concept of autonomy … implies that the learner enjoys a high degree of freedom. But it is important to insist that the freedoms conferred by autonomy are never absolute, always conditional and constrained.

(Little 1991: 4-5)

[A learner training course] should take [students] from their states of varying degrees of dependence to the state of the greatest degree of independence or autonomy which is possible in a given set of circumstances.

(Holec 1985: 272)

Independence does not entail autonomy or isolation or exclusion from the classroom; however, it does entail that learners engage actively in the learning process.

(Dickinson 1992: 1)

[Autonomy is] a constantly changing but at any time optimal state of equilibrium between maximal self-development and human interdependence.

(Alwright qtd. in Little 1995: 178)

Autonomy is not just a matter of permitting choice in learning situations, or making pupils responsible for the activities they undertake, but of allowing and encouraging learners, through processes deliberately set up for the purpose, to begin to express who they are, what they think, and what they would like to do, in terms of work they initiate and define for themselves. This is holistic learning and it transcends the subject disciplines.

(Kenny 1993: 440)

Autonomy [is] the capacity to take control of one's own learning.

(Benson 2001: 47)

[Autonomy is] the extent to which learners demonstrate the ability to use a set of tactics for taking control of their learning.

(Cotterall 1995: 195)

The main characteristic of autonomy as an approach to learning is that students take some significant responsibility for their own learning over and above responding to instruction.

(Boud qtd. in Cotterall 1995: 195)

We can define an autonomous person as one who has an independent capacity to make and carry out the choices which govern his or her actions. This capacity depends on two main components – ability and willingness.

(Littlewood 1996: 428)

To say of a learner that he is autonomous is therefore to say that he is capable of taking charge of his own learning and nothing more: all the practical decisions he is going to make regarding his learning can be related to this capacity he possesses but must be distinguished from it.

(Holec qtd. in Benson 2001: 52)

Even this random and largely unorganized selection of definitions shows a great diversity of points of view on what autonomy entails. To add to the confusion, there have been attempts to define autonomy negatively, in terms of what it is not:

It is sometimes thought that learner autonomy necessarily entails total independence – of the teacher, of other learners and of formally approved curricula. But this is not so: total independence is not autonomy but autism.

(Little 1995: 178)

Learner autonomy is not merely a matter of organization, does not entail an abdication of initiative and control on the part of the teacher, is not a teaching method, is not to be equated with a single easily identified behaviour, and is not a steady state attained by a happy band of privileged learners.

(Little 1991: 4)

Before we plunge into an analysis of all the conflicts and mismatches between the aforementioned definitions, let us not let entropy take complete possession of the subject, by attempting to define the common grounds that nearly all of these definitions share.

Firstly, most of them have in common the concept of "responsibility" (Boud), in any of its number of synonyms – "charge" (Holec), "control" (Benson, Cotterall), "choice" (Littlewood), "freedom" (Little), "independence" (Holec, Dickinson), "expression" (Kenny) or "decision-making" (Little). There is a general consensus in that autonomy entails taking responsibility for (control, charge of) one's own learning; that it presupposes a certain measure of freedom or independence. We may dispute the differences in meaning between certain words, and indeed, much paper might be wasted on the subject; however, we believe this would mean taking the analysis a bit too far, way beyond the borders of sane reasoning. Generally, we shall regard these words as near synonyms and assume that they point towards one and the same concept.

Secondly, while some researchers have, over the years, defined autonomy as a finite state and others have not, it is nowadays generally assumed that becoming autonomous is a process rather than a state. In scrutinizing the definitions listed above, this idea is overtly expressed by Holec and Kenny, and others devote large portions of their work to the subject. Dickinson, for instance, presents the term "semi-autonomy", which refers to "the stage at which learners are preparing for autonomy" (Dickinson 1987: 11), and both Dickinson (1992) and Little (1991) stress the importance of learner training in making learners more autonomous.

So far, we have shown that most researchers agree that becoming an autonomous learner is a process that requires the gradual acceptance of responsibility for one's own learning. Sadly enough, this is where our analysis of common grounds ends, for this is all the definitions listed above have in common.