Learner autonomy revisited

va Ills

Introduction

The past decade has seen considerable changes in the use of English
that present new challenges for ELT as well. One of the most important
developments in this regard is the global spread of English and the fact
that English has become an international language that is shared and
shaped by all its speakers, be they native or non-native users (Seidlhofer
2005). In international contexts of use, English often functions as
a lingua franca between speakers from a wide variety of linguistic
and cultural backgrounds. In this diverse environment, the rules of
engagement are fluid and relative: users of English have to negotiate
meaning and work out what is appropriate in reference to the unique
circumstances of a particular speech event. The use of English in
international settings also requires participants to be open, to expect
and accept otherness, and to accommodate to other interlocutors. In
English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) contexts, speakers of English may
resort to innovative or idiosyncratic ways of making meaning in order
to achieve communicative ends with the linguistic or other resources
available to them. For example, resourcefulness enabled a Hungarian
tourist using very limited English to explain to an Egyptian doctor that
his friend had kidney stones. He pointed to his kidneys and by making
reference to Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones, he managed to get his
message across successfully (personal communication).
The other major development that has redefined the way we perceive
communication is computer-assisted technology. New modes of
ELT Journal Volume 66/4 Special issue October 2012; doi:10.1093/elt/ccs044 
The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.

505

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Aksaray University on September 25, 2013

This article explores whether the perception of learner autonomy that is

promoted in language pedagogy is suitable for preparing students to perform
successfully in the changed circumstances of the use of English. Recent
developments, which include the growing role of English as a lingua franca
and computer-mediated communication (CMC), give rise to fluid and
emergent contexts in which speakers from a variety of language and cultural
backgrounds interact. It is argued that the current training-oriented view
of learner autonomy in ELT, with its focus on learning processes, should be
amended to enable learners to cope with the challenges of communication in
the twenty-first century. In this article, an approach that shifts the attention
to language use is suggested, where autonomy is developed through tasks
and activities that engage learners on their own terms and allow them to
effectively exploit their linguistic resources in online negotiation of meaning.

interaction have established themselves overnight and, as a result,

different forms of computer-mediated communication (CMC) have
become part of our everyday life. One implication for language learning
is that the lack of exposure to the target language has been replaced
with the problem of plenty. The internet provides unlimited access to
materials in English and so many opportunities to practise the language
that the question nowadays is not how to find materials but how to
make informed choices. By making it possible for speakers of English
to communicate across borders and time zones, CMC and the internet
in particular have further widened the sphere of ELF use.
Given the demands of communication in English and the fact that
learners cannot rely on fixed reference points such as the idealized
norms of idealized native speakers that ELT still offers, students have
to become competent language users and autonomous agents who
are capable of independent thinking and action. The task of language
education is then to help learners develop self-reliance and autonomy,
which will enable them to communicate successfully in international
settings. Learner autonomy is therefore one of the issues that needs to
be addressed when the focus is on the learner in present dayELT.
Learner autonomy has received considerable attention over the past
decades. Although this multifaceted notion has been widely debated and
there are various trends and perceptions of it in the specialist literature
(Benson 2007; Smith 2008), this article is concerned with interpretations
that have filtered through from research to language pedagogy and target
practitioners rather than experts of this particular field. The aim is to
explore the relevance of the concept to current contexts of use of English
and investigate whether the suggested approaches to the promotion of
learner autonomy in ELT are suitable for preparing learners to cope with
the challenges the use of English presents nowadays. Throughout, the
discussion will therefore have a practical slant and a strong emphasis on
the implications for classroom practice.

Learnerautonomy

The most widely evoked definition conceives of learner autonomy as

learners ability to take charge of their own learning (Benson ibid.).
In more practical terms, this entails students taking responsibility for
various aspects and stages of the learning process, including setting
goals, determining content, selecting resources and techniques, as well as
assessing progress (Cotterall 2000). In this framework, the autonomous
learner is a decision maker (Chan 2003)who exercises varying degrees
of control at the levels of learning management, learning content, and
cognitive processes (Benson op. cit.). More recent definitions of learner
autonomy include not only independence but interdependence as well:
Viewed as an educational goal, learner autonomy implies a particular
kind of socialization involving the development of attributes and
values that will permit individuals to play active, participatory roles in
a democratic society. (ibid.:31)
Since they have to function in areas that need some explicit knowledge
of language learning, autonomous learners have to be trained.

506

va Ills

This training is usually an add-on to language courses because the

acquisition of metacognition and metalanguage necessary for exerting
control over learning requires a deliberate effort and conscious
reflection (Little 2009: 224)on the part of learners and their teachers.
Without being equipped with the necessary background knowledge
and language, it may prove difficult for learners to understand concepts
and terminology or verbalize their language learning experiences in the
target language.
There is a wide range of methods to promote learner autonomy. These
include self-access facilities and involving learners in decision making
regarding such pedagogic matters as choosing topics, materials,
and activities among other things. Encouraging self-assessment and
peer evaluation as well as group and pair work can also contribute to
developing autonomy (Chan op. cit.). Another tool for supporting the
implementation of language learner autonomy on a large scale (Little
op. cit.: 222)is the European Language Portfolio, which provides a
framework for developing and assessing various aspects of autonomy.
It contains checklists and inventories, in reference to which learners
can, for example, monitor their learning progress. By completing
the I can list at various stages of their learning career, for instance,
students can see what they have achieved and how much they have
progressed.
The ideal situation is for the students to take over their own learning
in other words, to do it without having to be shown how by the teacher
(Harmer 2007: 399). One of the outcomes of autonomy training is
therefore the expert learner who can understand and manage their
own learning and who possesses particular characteristics, such as
high motivation and self-efficacy (Oxford 2003). The tacit assumption
throughout seems to be that autonomous learning automatically leads
to successful future language use, as learners who have been properly
trained in autonomy will be able to transfer the ability to control the
learning process to performing successfully in real-life communication
outside the classroom. As Little puts it:
they become more autonomous in language learning in proportion
as they become more autonomous in language use, and vice versa.
(Little op. cit.:223)
However, there are several issues that can be raised regarding the
suitability and effectiveness of learner autonomy, especially in the
light of the recent changes in the use of English. One such issue is
how the notion of autonomy, described in terms of the control of the
learning process, makes it possible for learners to become efficient and
successful language users; how the ability to take responsibility for their
learning enables learners to negotiate meaning and solve problems
stemming from the international use of English. Benson raises similar
questions but his observation is, by and large, limited to language
development, One problem with such models, however, is their
assumption that the relationship between the development of autonomy
and language proficiency is unproblematic (Benson op. cit.:24).

Learner autonomy revisited

507

A further problem with approaches to learner autonomy in ELT is that

breaking up the learning process into components and presenting
them as inventories reduces the complexity of the learning process
and presents development as consisting of discrete units where the
completion of one task leads to the next step. Such a simplistic view of
the learning process and ticking I can statements, such as I can use the
present continuous to talk about the future or I can construct a business
letter using appropriate language and layout (Harmer op. cit.: 397)when
reflecting on learning, gives students the false sense of security that a
language learners, and, in fact, a language users work can ever be done.
In real-life learning and language use, new situations pose new problems
and being able to compose a business letter in class does not mean that
completing a similar task will be unproblematic for the learner in other
contexts. This perception of the learning process does not emphasize the
fact that learning is a cyclical process, and is also indicative of the training
nature of language and autonomy development. Training, which enables
learners to cope with certain clearly defined tasks (Widdowson 1983a: 6),
is suitable for developing discrete subskills or performance in specific
tasks such as the I can ones above. It cannot, however, account for how
the discrete parts relate to each other and form an evolving, complex
system. Training can only partially prepare learners for the reality of
international communication, which is so diverse that it is often very
difficult to predict the course of action within an interaction.
The extensive exposure to English and easy access to information and
materials that the widespread use of CMC provides are concerned with
the issue of decision making at the content level of autonomy. Although
the notion of autonomy entails the concept of choice (Cotterall op. cit.)
and encourages learners to take responsibility for the selection of
classroom tasks and materials (Little op. cit.), at least some of the
considerations of what should be used in the lessons are pedagogic
in nature, since autonomy focuses on the learning rather than the
communication process. The inclusion of what is pedagogically relevant
in autonomy development, however, may result in learners taking
responsibility for those aspects of learning that should remain within
the remit of teachers. The selection of tasks and materials that aim to
facilitate learning requires expert knowledge and expertise that teachers
possess. Education cannot function without teacher control. How
teachers exercise this control and how much they deem appropriate to
relinquish should be their decision, based on the knowledge of their
teaching context and their students in particular. Any model of learner
autonomy should therefore be adopted only after the careful appraisal
of its relevance to a specific educational setting. It is worth noting here,
that although the idea of allowing an extreme degree of learner freedom
has indeed been criticized in the literature (Benson op. cit; Little op.
cit.), the definition of autonomy as the ability to take charge of ones
learning, for example, is presented as universally agreed (Little op.
cit.: 223), thus encouraging teachers to adopt the practice of uncritical
acceptance.
It seems that for learner autonomy to keep abreast of the changed
circumstances in which English is used nowadays, the scope of the
508

va Ills

concept has to be expanded and should include the preparation

of learners for language use in international contexts as well. As a
consequence, the emphasis should shift from the learning process to
communication processes, and the main concern should be developing
the autonomy of the language user.

Amended definition
of learnerautonomy

Changes in the use of English and the subsequent focus on

communication processes imply that learner autonomy should include
the ability to cope with the linguistic and schematic diversity, the
fluidity, and the increased demand for negotiation that interaction in
international contexts of use presents. The aim therefore should be to
become competent language users who can successfully cope with the
demands of real-life communication under their own initiative. The
amended definition should thus expand the scope of autonomy and
include the ability to manage and control language use, which should,
in return, affect the learningprocess.
As a result, learner autonomy can be defined as the capacity to become
competent speakers of the target language who are able to exploit the
linguistic and other resources at their disposal effectively and creatively.
Autonomous learners are independent language users capable of online
problem solving and decision making. Even though this perception of
the notion is language use rather than learning driven, aspects of control
over the learning process that pertain to learners particular purposes, for
example finding materials for a presentation or researching a problem
area in grammar or lexis, should be retained. The definition of learner
autonomy should, however, exclude responsibility for matters that
require pedagogic expertise and have long-term effects.
It is the notion of capacity that ensures that problem solving takes place
in actual instances of language use (Widdowson 1983a). Capacity is the
creative force that enables language users to exploit the linguistic and
other resources available to them for their own purposes. It is employed
when problems cannot be clearly identified in advance and are difficult
to solve by reference to pre-established formulae. Presenting learners
with problems that have no ready-made answers forces them to activate
their problem-solving capacity and to work out solutions for themselves.
In so doing, students learn how to cope with problems which do
not have a ready-made formulaic solution (ibid.: 19)and develop
independent thinking. Autonomy in this approach therefore is not an
end in itself but a corollary of efficient target language use.
Since the aim is to develop a general capacity to cope with undefined
eventualities in the future (Widdowson op. cit.: 6), language
use-oriented autonomy is conceived of in educational rather than
training terms. The practice of exercising capacity and working out
solutions to problems by and for themselves can provide the impetus
and the ability for the students to carry on with learning after the
language course has finished.
An approach that integrates language use, learning, and autonomy
may prove to be more suitable for educational contexts where
curriculum and other constraints do not allow for a training-oriented

Learner autonomy revisited

509

development of autonomy in which autonomy is an add-on to the

language programme. The concern with general issues of language use
also means that the amended definition is devoid of the cultural and
political implications some other perceptions of learner autonomy are
believed to have (Benson op. cit.), which can facilitate its application in
contexts with different educational traditions.

Developing
learnerautonomy

Since autonomy is not an add-on but an integral part of language

learning and language use, methods that promote student engagement
in processes of communication and trigger problem solving in general
can contribute to the development of autonomy as well. It is important,
however, that the course tasks learners have to complete present
problems to be worked out by the students and that these tasks are
challenging enough to make learners activate their capacity to mobilize
their linguistic and other resources. Activities that replicate and
rehearse real-life communicative tasks (Cotterall op. cit.) are therefore
not always suitable for developing autonomy because they provide the
learner with someone elses, usually native speakers, solutions to the
linguistic and pragmatic problems raised by thetasks.
Apart from developing capacity, to be able to function effectively in
English in the twenty-first century, students need to acquire knowledge
about the changed circumstances in the worldwide use of English as
well. For coping in international contexts of use, knowledge about one
standard variety of English therefore barely suffices. Learners have to
be mindful of the fact that apart from the many native varieties, English
is used by bi- or multilingual speakers both intra- and internationally.
Exposure to different varieties of English in the language classroom
can improve not only students language skills but can contribute to the
learners better understanding of new, lesser known varieties as well as
their own English (Matsuda 2003). Language awareness as a separate
subject, as proposed by Seidlhofer (2004), could then include teaching
not only language and communication strategies but learning about
varieties and language use as well.
In order for learners to practise meaning making and the concomitant
problem solving by activating their capacity, teachers have to create
conditions that force students to go beyond conformity and actively
participate in interpretative procedures. Language learning tasks should
therefore present challenges that lead learners to make the extra
effort to crack the code and find solutions that do not necessarily offer
themselves in everyday interactions. Interestingly, two outcasts of ELT
seem to fit thebill.
One way of inducing learner engagement is the teaching of literature.
Since literature presents a new, alternative reality, usual interpretative
and problem-solving strategies and methods do not suffice, and readers
are forced to participate in interpretative procedures more actively in
order to make sense.
The writer of literature is really in the problem-setting business,
and the reader of literature is in the problem-solving business
par excellence. And because there is no right solution, such

510

va Ills

activities provide plenty of scope for discussion. (Widdowson

1983b:32)
The teaching of literature thus creates conditions for participation in
problem-solving communication and can promote the development
of autonomy. Literature also requires a more intensive and careful
engagement in the meaning-making process, a feature that
characterizes the use of English in international settings aswell.
The other type of activity that involves active decision making and
problem solving and should be reintroduced to language teaching is
translation (Cook 2010). Contrary to popular belief, translating from one
language to another involves more than exchanging one word in one
language for another word in another language. Translation functions
at all levels of language use, of which semantic equivalence is only one.
In order to translate a tourist brochure into English, for example, it is
not enough to find the English words that are closest in meaning to the
original ones. The translator also has to consider the context and the
audience for whom the translation of the original brochure has been
produced. So when learners are given this task, they have to step outside
themselves, take a reciprocal perspective, and devise the process of the
negotiation of meaning from the viewpoint of their potential readers.
Among other things, they will have to consider how much and what
type of information the target audience needs in order to compensate
for their lack of familiarity with the context locals take for granted. As
with literature, it is not enough for students to rely on familiar ways of
meaning making here. When translating, learners have to be able to
identify and cater for the linguistic, cognitive, and other needs of the
target audience. However, the target readersespecially in the case
of the translation of a brochure into English, which presents an ELF
situationdo not represent a homogeneous group but are made up of
speakers of different languages with a variety of cultural backgrounds,
which makes accommodating the demands of such a diverse group of
people even more difficult. In order to solve this problem, learners have
to exploit the wide range of choices translating from one language into
another offers, and make informed decisions regarding the selection of
the options that they deem most appropriate for their particular target
audience.
Apart from literature and translation, computer-assisted language
learning (CALL) projects seem to be particularly suitable for providing
an integrated approach to the development of autonomy. CALL tasks
and projects, such as designing blogs or websites in particular, create
conditions for the improvement of language and technical skills
as well as the development of autonomy in terms of both learning
and language use. The analysis of a language module where a
group of university students had to create a website (Blin 2004)has
demonstrated how the different stages and levels of activity (collective,
individual, or group) can support various aspects of learner autonomy,
for example how the formation of a new community of practice
can allow learners to exert control over the social structure of their
language learning environment. Students were acquiring the target

Learner autonomy revisited

511

language, negotiating meaning, and developing independence as

well as interdependence simultaneously while working on the task.
Asimilar project reported in ELT Journal (Trajtemberg and Yiakoumetti
2011)highlights the benefits of students creating their own weblogs
in the language they are learning. Blogs offered a good opportunity
for learners not only to learn and use both new technology and the
language, but they also allowed students to find their own voice and
writing style (ibid.: 443). By encouraging self-expression, blogs and, in
fact, other traditional ways of bringing the learners own world into the
classroom can help students appropriate English and make it part of
their everyday existence and experience.
For CALL and more traditional tasks to work in the long run and lead
to lifelong learning, teachers and students should adopt a growth
mindset (Mercer 2012), which sees an individuals ability to learn
a language not as a fixed and given entity but rather as a complex,
ongoing process of multiple developable skills (ibid.: 28). Agrowth
mindset, the learners belief that they can advance and develop and, of
course, hard work will enable them to become autonomous users of
the target language.

Conclusion

The changed needs of English language learners seem to necessitate the

reconsideration of learner autonomy in ELT. In ELF and CMC contexts,
learners can be considered autonomous only if they can meet the
increased problem-solving demands the use of English in international
and CMC settings presents. The definition of learner autonomy should
therefore include the process of language use and should develop
autonomy through the engagement of students in previously undefined
contexts where the other participants do not share the conventions and
norms learners normally operate with. Two outcasts of communicative
language teaching, the teaching of literature and translation, as well as
CALL projects appear to be able to provide the conditions that make it
possible for learners to meet the new challenges of communication in
English.

References
Benson, P. 2007. Autonomy in language teaching
and learning. Language Teaching 40/1: 2140.
Blin, F. 2004. CALL and the development of
learner autonomy: towards an activity-theoretical
perspective. ReCALL 16/2: 37795.
Chan, V. 2003. Autonomous language learning:
the teachers perspectives. Teaching in Higher
Education 8/1: 3354.
Cook, G. 2010. Translation in Language Teaching.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cotterall, S. 2000. Promoting learner autonomy
through the curriculum: principles for designing
language courses. ELT Journal 54/2: 10917.
Harmer, J. 2007. The Practice of English Language
Teaching (fourth edition). Harlow: Pearson
Education Limited.
512

va Ills

Little, D. 2009. Language learner autonomy and

the European Language Portfolio: two L2 English
examples. Language Teaching 42/2: 22233.
Matsuda, A. 2003. Incorporating World
Englishes in teaching English as an international
language. TESOL Quarterly 37/4: 71929.
Mercer, S. 2012. Dispelling the myth of the
natural-born linguist. ELT Journal 66/1: 229.
Oxford, R. L. 2003. Toward a more systematic
model of L2 learner autonomy in D. Palfreyman
and R. C. Smith (eds.). Learner Autonomy Across
Cultures. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Seidlhofer, B. 2004. Research perspectives on
teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics 24: 20939.
Seidlhofer, B. 2005. English as a lingua franca.
ELT Journal 59/4: 33941.

Smith, R. 2008. Learner autonomy. ELT Journal

62/4: 3957.
Trajtemberg, C. and A. Yiakoumetti. 2011.
Weblogs: a tool for EFL interaction,
expression, and self-evaluation. ELT Journal
65/4: 43745.
Widdowson, H. G. 1983a. Learning Purpose and
Language Use. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Widdowson, H. G. 1983b. Talking shop: literature
and ELT. ELT Journal 37/1: 306.

Learner autonomy revisited

The author
va Ills teaches in the Department of English
Applied Linguistics at Etvs Lornd University,
Budapest. She holds a PhD in ESOL from the
Institute of Education, University of London. She
has a wide range of experience including teaching
English in Britain and Hungary. Her current
research areas are pragmatics, translation, ELF,
and teacher education.
Email: evailles@hotmail.com

513