Characteristics of autonomous learners

It is not easy to suggest a single definition for autonomous learners. Many researchers associate autonomous learners with “good learners”. Particularly, Hedge (2000) analyses the characteristics of “good learners” and describes them as self-reliant learners, willing to take risks and make guesses during the learning procedure, well-motivated learners, enthusiastic towards learning, ready to look for opportunities to use the target language in and out the classroom context and prepared to take responsibility for their own learning. Autonomous learners are active participants in the learning process and try to find opportunities to discover knowledge in and out of the classroom context.

Dickinson (1993) states that there are four major characteristics that autonomous learners have. First, they can identify course’s syllabus and are able to connect previous knowledge to new knowledge. For example, a learner who studies a new syntactic rule must be able to find the relationship with what has been previously taught. Secondly, autonomous learners set their own learning objectives rather than being the complete pursuer of the teacher. For instance, autonomous language learners try to find opportunities to practice in the target language by reading literature, watching TV programmes or corresponding with native speakers. The third characteristic of autonomous learners is the use of learning strategies to aid acquisition, storage and use of information. O’Malley and Chamot (1990) argue that good

46 learners are effective users of a wide variety of learning strategies (cognitive, meta-cognitive, socio-effective) and state these actions play a dominant role in the enhancement of learner autonomy. Finally, autonomous learners can monitor the learning process and critically reflect on the effectiveness of the use of their strategies.

Candy (1991, pp.459-466) to profile autonomous language learners, listed more than 100 competencies associated with autonomous behavior. These competencies are grouped under 13 heading: According to 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 interpersonal competent - be persistent and responsible

- be venturesome and creative

- show confidence and have a positive self-concept - are independent and self-sufficient

- have developed information seeking and retrieval skills - have knowledge about, and skill at, learning process - develop and use criteria for evaluating.

Benson (2001) argues that most of the studies that attempt systematically to compile a list of autonomous behaviors are mainly concerned with non- observable behavior and encounter the danger of either being incomplete or creating a psychological profile of the ideal learner rather than focus on the cognitive skills need to be acquired to move towards autonomy.

Benson’s classification of autonomy has exerted considerable influence in the literature (Blin, 2005). However, Oxford (2003, p.76) critiqued Benson’s model as “fragmentary”. He also reported that sociocultural perspectives of

47 autonomy are being neglected and there is not a clear correlation among different versions of autonomy in language education and constructs such as context, agency, motivation and learning strategies. Benson (2011, p.62) admitted that his attempt to categorize different versions of autonomy seems to become less helpful because “it often refers to differences within approaches that are typically oriented to learning management, psychological version of cognitive processes and learning context at one and the same time”.

In this section I shall discuss Oxford’s (2003) conceptualization of autonomy since the emphasis on the social perspectives is strongly correlated with the 21st _{century skills and the new concept of social communication and culture} that students need to develop while using social media tools for academic purposes. Although Oxford (2003) tried to ameliorate Benson’s model by adding new dimension-version in the concept of autonomy, it is important to note that, “in real educational setting such perspectives are not black and white alternative” (Holliday, 2003, p.4). Also, a new conceptualization of autonomy will be given based on the high impact and need for digital literacy skills in higher education.

The technical version of autonomy has been described by Benson (2006) as the process of learning a language outside of an educational setting, without the intervention of a teacher. From this perspective, the main concern of the teacher is to equip learners with the skills and techniques to be able to construct knowledge autonomously. This approach can be placed within the framework of positivism, which postulates that the only authentic knowledge is that which is based on actual sense experience (Bryman, 1988).

Sinclair (2006) pointed that Benson’s technical view of autonomy is not an actual version but can be considered as a part of the learner training process, which is necessary for developing the capacity of autonomy. Oxford (2003) argues that to promote learner autonomy or self- regulation outside the educational context, the teacher should first create situational conditions that encourage learners to get greater control over curriculum and access to

48 resources. In this vein learners who access online environments should be equipped with the skills to evaluate and control these environments. Technical knowledge and training are not sufficient to help learners develop autonomy in an online environment. Digital literacy skills are crucial for promoting online autonomy. Although 21st _{century learners are regarded as digital natives they} do not have the inborn ability to find, evaluate and critically synthesize information from the web.

As it has already been mentioned, autonomy is neither a linear process nor an all or nothing process. Learners can only work towards autonomy. There are some fundamental conditions for the development of autonomy. Dam (2000) describes the elements of an autonomous language-learning environment as follows:

I define a learning-centered environment as one in which the teachers’ knowledge about language learning – what to learn and how to learn – is combined with the learners’ knowledge about themselves, their background, their likes and dislikes, their needs, and their preferred learning styles. To me a learning-centered environment is an environment in which the learners are:

• given the possibility of being consciously involved in their own learning;

• expected to be actively engaged in their own learning and thus made aware of the different elements involved in the learning process – an awareness to be made use of in other contexts (Dam, 2000, p.20).

In addition, Dam suggests that students should regularly be given the opportunity to evaluate their progress either via collaborative activities or through journal-diary writing. In the same line Holec (1979) described the conditions that need to be fulfilled to foster autonomous learning in the classroom. First, learners need to acquire knowledge on how to make decisions about their learning. Second, there must be a learning structure on which learners will have the chance to practice on how they can take charge

49 of their learning. These two conditions, knowledge and practice are regarded as crucial elements of autonomous learning environments.

Autonomy is not a linear process. Most scholars (Nunan, 1997; van Lier, 1990; Kohonen, 2001, Littlewood, 1997) would agree that there are various stages/levels that represent learners’ progress towards autonomy. Nunan (1997) provides a five levels model, which is based on the view that language learning is a matter of degree. Autonomy levels in this model are not necessarily developed on a continuum, but can happen simultaneously. During the first stage: awareness, learners become aware of the pedagogical goals and context of class syllabus and can identify their learning strategies. Involvement is the next level where learners are involved in choosing their learning goals from a range of options. Nunan (1997) states that choosing is the most important part of that task. In the intervention level, learners are able to modify learning goals and objectives, while in the creation level students create their own personalized goals and learning objectives. Finally, at the transcendence level, according to Nunan’s Autonomous Language Learning Model (NALLM) learners make use of authentic materials are able to apply knowledge beyond the classroom environment and students become language researchers (2003).

Autonomy and responsibility are apparently very much interrelated (Little, 1991, p.7). Dam (1995) suggests that responsible learners should be able to act independently and in cooperation with others and accept the idea that their own efforts are crucial to progress in learning. Responsible learners can monitor their own progress and are willing to take advantage of the available opportunities to reinforce their learning process (Scharle and Scabo 2000). Finally, responsible learners set up a personal agenda and in the light of this agenda, plan, monitor and evaluate their progress. Responsibility in learning is a capacity that can be transferred to other areas of life and lead to autonomy.

Another condition for the development of learner autonomy is motivation. Most scholars seem to agree that motivation is a necessary precursor of

50 autonomy (Dickinson, 1995, Dorney, 1998, Deci and Ryan, 1985). For instance, Dickinson (1990) concludes that enhanced motivation is strongly related with taking responsibility for learning and affects students’ academic success more than factors that are out of student’ control. Additionally, a link between intrinsic motivation and autonomy appears in the work of Deci and Ryan (1985). Intrinsic motivation refers to motivation to “engage in an activity because the activity is enjoyable and satisfying to do so” (Deci and Ryan, 1985, p.39). Deci and Ryan (1985) concluded that self-determined learners are more likely to demonstrate autonomous behavior and leads to higher academic achievement.

A third factor that is closely linked to the development of learner autonomy is the implementation of metacognitive strategies (Fleming and Walls, 1998). Oxford (1990) supports that metacognitive strategies help language learners not to lose control over their learning. Wenden and Ruby (1987) suggests that metacognitive strategies are directly related to language learning and can be used to oversee, regulate and self-direct the learning process through: planning, setting goals and self-management.

2.2.2 The continuum of autonomy: Action-interaction-reflection