2.3 Attempts to describe an autonomous learner

Although we have encountered significant difficulties in obtaining a coherent definition of autonomy from the relevant literature, exploring the different descriptions of an autonomous learner creates notably fewer problems. It is mainly due to the fact that the researchers who do undertake the project scarcely hope to present an all-encompassing description; their observations usually take the form of an open list of characteristics, derived from interviews with learners. Therefore, an eclectic approach may be used here. Due to the limited space for description and interpretation in our study, we chose to present three of such lists and interpret them briefly along the lines of the aspects of autonomy we have already studied, or those that we shall deal with extensively in Theoretical Background II.

Holec describes an autonomous learner as one who is able to take responsibility for "determining his objectives, defining the contents and progressions, selecting methods and techniques to be used, monitoring the procedure and evaluating what has been acquired" (qtd. in Benson 2001: 48). Benson himself, on the other hand, describes an autonomous learner as one who exercises control over "learning management, cognitive processes and learning content" (Benson 2001: 50). Even though these descriptions manage – in their different ways – to break up the most general definition of autonomy into smaller segments, they do not bring us any closer to understanding what precisely an autonomous learner does, how he feels and what his abilities are. For this kind of information, we need to look into a few attempts to "profile" an autonomous learner.

Benson quotes Breen and Mann's study, which presents the following characteristics of autonomous learners:

Autonomous learners…

• see the relationship to what is to be learned, to how they will learn and to the resources available as one in which they are in charge or in control;

• are in authentic relationship to the language they are learning and have a genuine desire to learn that particular language;

• have a robust sense of self that is unlikely to be undermined by any actual or assumed negative assessments of themselves or their work;

• are able to step back from what they are doing and reflect upon it in order to make decisions about what they next need to do and experience;

• are alert to change and able to change in an adaptable, resourceful and opportunistic way;

• have a capacity to learn that is independent of the educational processes in which they are engaged;

• are able to make sense of the environment they find themselves in strategically;

• are able to negotiate between the strategic meeting of their own needs and responding to the needs and desires of other group members.

(Breen and Mann qtd. in Benson 2001: 84)

While still more on the general side, this description already sheds some light on the way autonomous learners may behave. Following is our brief interpretation of each point (in the same order as quoted above) – an interpretation that leads out from the concepts already discovered as well as those that will be addressed further:

• i.e. they are in control of their learning management, learning content and resources (Benson, 2001)

• i.e. they find intrinsic motivation to learn the language (Skehan 1989)

• i.e. they display a significant amount of learning confidence (Cotterall 1995)

• i.e. they are able to reflect on their learning, think ahead and plan

• i.e. are flexible

• i.e. are able to manage their learning independently of formal education (Dickinson 1987)

• i.e. are able to set their aims and procedures independently (Holec qtd. in Benson 2001)

• i.e. perceive learning as interdependent (Alwright qtd. in Little 1995)

Benson's work lists another attempt to profile an autonomous learner, conceived by Candy:

An autonomous learner will…

• be methodical and disciplined

• be logical and analytical

• be reflective and self-aware

• demonstrate curiosity, openness and motivation

• be flexible

• be interdependent and interpersonally competent

• be persistent and responsible

• be venturesome and creative

• show confidence and have positive self-concept

• be independent and self-sufficient

• have developed information seeking and retrieval skills

• have knowledge about, and skills at, learning processes

• develop and use criteria for evaluating.

(Candy qtd. in Benson 2001: 85)

This list shares a lot of the views put forth by Breen and Mann – reflecting on one's learning, interdependence, flexibility, learning confidence and motivation. In addition, it presents a few more points that might be of interest:

• having sufficient metacognitive knowledge (Wenden 1991), that is, knowledge about the learning process

• employing a range of cognitive strategies (Wenden 1991), that is, skills that allow them to go successfully about their learning

• having a number of character qualities (persistence, openness, curiosity, creativity etc.)

However, this list is already on the verge of becoming a psychological profile of a "particular person, rather than a person who possesses particular cognitive skills and abilities", as Benson (2001: 86) notes. Indeed, while compiling such lists, we may run into the danger of identifying learners who are psychologically "fit" for autonomous learning, and others who are not. In other words, we might be saying that people who are uncreative, illogical, impulsive, narrow-minded, unconfident, shy or pessimistic do not have the capacity for autonomous learning, unless they change their personality significantly.

As we are not psychologists, we find it difficult to decide whether and to what extent this approach is erroneous; we may only hypothesize that certain psychological characteristics do provide for more successful learning, or a more active approach towards it. However, we may also reverse the argument and ask whether the abilities, skills and strategies listed above by any chance presuppose a particular kind of personality. If our answer was yes, then all the definitions and descriptions of autonomy would run into the same problem we encountered with personal characteristics. However inspiring this notion is, sadly enough, we do not feel competent to make judgments in this matter.

The last description is connected with the Good Language Learner research, published by Naiman et al. in 1978 and cited in Wenden (1991). Interestingly enough, while this research was carried out to determine the characteristics of successful language learners, all or almost all of the aspects it discovered seem to be closely related to the issue of autonomy. Following is a brief overview of the findings, adapted from Wenden:

Good language learners…

• find a style of learning that suits them (i.e. adapt learning situations to their personal needs and try to get something out of every situation)

• are actively involved in the learning process (i.e. plan other activities outside class to get better practice, try to cope with their problems)

• try to figure out how the language works (i.e. devise techniques to improve their pronunciation etc.)

• know that language is used to communicate (i.e. have good techniques to practice communication and look for opportunities to do so)

• are like good detectives (i.e. look for clues, make guesses, ask questions and ask for corrections)

• learn to think in the language

• realize that language learning is not easy and learn to overcome their feelings of frustration, lack of confidence

(Naiman et al. qtd. in Wenden 1991: 121)

Again, this survey of characteristics complements the lists we have already presented. Not only does it specify, in a number of ways, "active involvement" with learning that rings of Dickinson's (1992) definition (planning activities outside class, devising techniques, looking for clues, guessing, asking questions, identifying and dealing with problems) and is well documented elsewhere (Cotterall 1995; Oxford 1989), but it also introduces the elements of personal identification with learning (to be studied later in connection with the theory of personal constructs) and managing anxiety (Oxford 1989).

Finally, Wenden (1991) attempts to provide a systematic overview of what becoming an autonomous learner involves. She states three types of metacognitive knowledge (that is, knowledge about learning) – person knowledge, strategic knowledge and task knowledge – which help learners in becoming more autonomous. Also, she provides a list of cognitive (selecting, comprehending, storing and retrieving input) and self-management (planning, monitoring, evaluating) strategies.

While her description appears to be highly systematic and almost unbearably detailed, it is by no means complete. It is lacking in a thorough treatment of learner beliefs and attitudes, fails to address issues such as anxiety or personal meaning and does not list any social or affective strategies.

We have shown that attempts to describe an autonomous learner may complement each other to produce a fairly detailed picture of what autonomous learners do and how they feel. Also, it shows how immeasurably vast the landscape of the concept is – and how it could be broken up into almost an infinite number of variables. Any systematic attempts to treat it encounter the danger of being incomplete; any way-too-detailed lists of characteristics come dangerously close to making a psychological profile of an ideal learner. Therefore, our only hope lies in producing an open list of fairly general characteristics and behaviors that, while suiting our purposes, will not run into any of the risks mentioned above.