Learner autonomy in students of a second or foreign language
has been in the spotlight of research for decades. Beginning with Holec’s oft-cited definition
involving the ability or capacity of learners to take control of their own
learning (1981), we find many cogent explanations of what such a process, or
manner of learning and thinking, might involve.
Benson (2007) points out two more recent developments in defining
autonomy involving the psychology of it as well as efforts to operationalize
it.
Rather than focus on the procedures or steps necessary for
learners to gain autonomy, Little (2001a) contends that at its foundation,
autonomy rests on “the development and exercise of a capacity for detachment,
critical reflection, decision making and independent action.” Many in the field of English language
education have commandeered the notions of autonomy, critical reflection, and
critical thinking and they are now applied in piecemeal tips and isolated
skills through general objectives and mass-produced textbooks, resulting in
little effect on learning. Given the link between autonomous learning and
critical thinking, language learning provides an excellent venue to practice
both because learning a language, even poorly, induces some basic reflection
(revision of output) and basic autonomy (recognition of preference in learning
activities). It further tends to incite
more introspection because of the affective nature of learning a second
language as an adolescent or adult.
However, to earnestly endeavor to enhance autonomy and critical
thinking, we must educate ourselves, as teachers, in their many definitions,
realizations, and apparent stages; we must learn how best to model such thinking
in our specific context.
Giving students the freedom to choose, an idea elaborated by
Little (1996), is of particular importance in attempts to engender greater
learner autonomy in English language learners.
Nonetheless, there cannot be complete freedom to make decisions at first
since contemporary young adults in particular do not approach education
autonomously, as recent research has shown (Cabrales, Cáceres, & Feria
2010). They may even be resistant to
emerge from a passive learning mode in which they expect the teacher to provide
a detailed set of information that they can memorize and apply without having to think deeply
overmuch. Since there is no easy
solution to infusing autonomy and critical reflection into the curricula, we
have to look for opportunities that work well in the context of a particular
course. It is clear that many teachers
around the world find themselves with limited time and restrictive curricula,
so finding time and appropriate context to build these dynamic forms of thinking
is a major challenge. Methodology from hybrid courses, namely online
discussion, provides immediate context and space to exercises autonomy and
reflection; it is also an ideal medium for directing students’ attention to
particular linguistic and cultural issues.
The potential of online discussion to enhance learner
autonomy has been explored and is considered to be viable (Kaur and Sidhu
2010). Recent research has also clearly
indicated that online discussion forums lend themselves to deeper, more
reflective thinking about cultural assumptions and perspective, allowing
students to become aware and take control of their ethnocentric perspective
(Garrett-Rucks, P. 2013). By adding
an element of hybridization to the typical face-to-face classroom, students
gain experience in managing their own learning, but also have the guidance of
the teacher, and the feeling of security of interacting with a known group of
individuals.
Free web resources, namely nicenet.org,
can readily be set up for online discussion in an educational setting, and the
workshop will include a brief tutorial.
The majority of time will be spent discussing autonomy and critical
reflection, analyzing models of online discussion in language learning, and
developing specific topics and plans for individual contexts, including peer
review.
References
Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J. R., &
Daniels, L. B. (1999). Common misconceptions of critical thinking. Journal
of Curriculum Studies, 31(3), 269-283.
Bailin, S., Case, R., Coombs, J. R., &
Daniels, L. B. (1999). Conceptualizing critical thinking. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 31(3), 285-302.
Bardi, J. (2000, January 1). John Bardi
Thinking Critically About Critical Thinking. Retrieved March 9, 2014, from http://www.personal.psu.edu/jfb9/essay2ThinkingCritically.html
Benson, P. (2007). Autonomy in language
teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 40(01), 21- 40.
Cabrales Vargas, M. D. C., & Cáceres, J.
A. (2013). La dinámica del currículo y la evolución de la autonomía en el
aprendizaje del inglés. Íkala, (18 (1)), 45-60.
Garrett-Rucks, P. (2013). A
discussion-based online approach to fostering deep cultural inquiry in an
introductory language course. Foreign Language Annals, 46(2),
191-212.
Kaur, R., & Sidhu, G. (2010). Learner
autonomy via asynchronous online interactions: a Malaysian perspective. International
Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 6(3), 88-100.
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2012). Critical
thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life (3rd ed.).
Boston: Pearson.
