3. Theoretical Background II. Aspects of autonomous learning – an overview of theory and research

In this section, we shall take a closer look at certain aspects of learner autonomy that have undergone extensive scrutiny in the literature and that we find important, not only with respect to our research, but also in relation to the concept of autonomy itself. These will include the theory of personal constructs, the issues of motivation, learner/teacher roles, learning strategies, learner beliefs and a survey of attempts to measure autonomy. Due to the constraints of our study, our treatment of the various aspects will amount to a brief summary.

3.1 Theories of motivation

Even in purely layman's terms, motivation may well be the key factor in accomplishing any learning goal, as Corder notes: "Given motivation, anyone can learn a language" (Corder qtd. in Skehan 1989: 49). The truth is, all of us have probably heard stories of people who managed to persevere in the face of tremendous difficulties, only to be rewarded with success that was the result of little more than their persistence. What, for instance, made the Slovenian Martin Strel³ succeed in swimming down the entire length of the Amazon River? If skill and strategy use were the only decisive factors, then Michael Phelps may have done the job equally well, if not better.

However, in educational theory, motivation is a much more complicated issue, as we often need to research how and to what ends learners are motivated, as well as what possible sources their different motivations might have. In the following sections, we will address a few theories of motivation. Also, we shall see how and to what extent the issue of motivation is linked with learner autonomy.

3.1.1 Integrative-instrumental and intrinsic-extrinsic theories of motivation.

Certainly the most influential theory of motivation in the sphere of language learning in the recent three decades has been the product of the cooperation between Gardner and Lambert. They hypothesize two basic orientations in language learning – integrative orientation, where the learners want to identify with the speakers of the language and their culture, and instrumental orientation, which is "based on the advantages that can accrue when the language is known, e.g. professional advancement; capacity to do one's job well; ability to read useful material in the target language; potential to exploit members of the foreign culture etc." (Skehan 1989: 53). It is assumed that integrative orientation is more long-lasting, while instrumental orientation is not, as it is based on ever-changing external factors and conditioned by the short-term goals that originated it. Skehan (Ibid: 54) reports on an extensive body of research that is at times favorable, at other times less than favorable in support of the hypothesis.

The uniqueness of the integrative/instrumental distinction is that it produces a theory of motivation solely for the purposes of second language acquisition; and indeed, the researchers went so far as to postulate that second language learning is categorically different from any other learning; that it is not an educational phenomenon. Dickinson (1995: 168) gives evidence of theories that run contrary to this notion, emphasizing the similarities rather than the differences between language learning and the learning of other subjects. However, Gardner's notion has found its way into some contemporary studies on learner beliefs and learner autonomy, as we can see in Cotterall (1995) and Horwitz (1999).

We may dispute the theory by claiming that it does not cover influences such as "the use of materials and activities with greater inherent interest, or the involvement of more inspiring and stimulating teachers" (Skehan 1989: 50). Also, we may argue that the integrative orientation may be more long-lasting simply because it covers learning goals that are unquestioningly more far-reaching that those that are incorporated in the instrumental orientation, and therefore, it need not bear any relation to the learner's personality.

Luckily, we can interpret Gardner and Lambert's theory into the more general theories of cognitive motivation. Dickinson (1995) reports on the work of Deci and Ryan who distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The former incorporates doing an activity "for its own sake rather than because of external pressure or reward for doing it" (Dickinson 1995: 169). The latter, on the other hand, includes all other conceivable sources of motivation. Wu (2003: 502-503) reports on studies that problematize the issue, breaking up intrinsic motivation into three types – IM-Knowledge (that includes the enjoyment connected with exploring new ideas), IM-Accomplishment (that reflects the learner's striving for accomplishment and the positive effects of learning success) and IM-Stimulation (that comprises the value of stimulation in the learning task or environment)⁴.

The theories described by Dickinson and Wu seem least controversial, and therefore suitable for our study. However, as we will see further, the implications offered by comparing the concepts of motivation and autonomy call for a revised approach to motivation, where we would need to distinguish between factors that are internal and external to the learner – for the IM-Stimulation type of intrinsic motivation covers factors that are external, easily changeable and the learner has little influence over them (stimulating tasks, stimulating teachers, a stimulating group of learners); and therefore, they do not, in themselves, contribute to the development of learner autonomy. However, this is a material for another study.