Definitions of Learner Autonomy

Apart from the political implications of autonomy which is the liberty of a country from whatsoever form of colonialism, imperialism, or occupation, autonomy is etymologically derived from the Greek word autonomia which means the condition or quality of self- governance or self-direction within a broader community (Castle, 2006: 1096). In this sense, an individual becomes increasingly autonomous the more he is able to determine the different aspects of his life with minimal or no influence or interference from external powers or authorities. This individual autonomy is inseparable from the whole social autonomy and it ebbs and flows according to the extent to which it is tolerated in a community. From the viewpoint of lexicographers, Hornby (2004: 70) argues that a person is autonomous the more he is "able to do things and make decisions without help from anyone else".

However, I think the argument of Hornby that an autonomous person should not ask for help expresses an idealistic viewpoint that may not exist in reality. It is extremely rare to find someone who is able to go through all aspects of life – including learning – with total independence and consistent enthusiasm for achieving personal goals. There are situations in which people are autonomous but still need guidance for taking correct decisions. In this case, taking independent decisions is conditioned not only by awareness of potential benefits but also by external constraints that influence one‘s decisions, and it is by no means against autonomy to request help when the shortage of knowledge exists.

From educational perspectives, Holec‘s (1981) definition of autonomy still presents a generic basis in understanding identity of this construct, and how autonomous learners are expected to behave in disciplines of SLL. Smith (2003: 255) claims that Holec‘s definition "retains its validity as a common reference point" because it construes autonomy as "the ability to take charge of one‘s own learning" (Holec, 1981: 3). For Holec, this ability is not innate but can be promoted by naturalistic means or by formal learning via systematic, deliberate ways. In this sense, autonomy is not a learnt activity but "a power or capacity to do something; [that is] a potential capacity to act in a given situation ... and not the actual behaviour of an individual in that situation" (ibid: 3).

As argued by Holec (1981: 9-19), the ability to take charge of language learning is closely related to application of different levels of strategies and practical modalities of decision- making. According to his model, an autonomous learner should be able to fix his objectives and adapt them to evolving and emerging difficulties. The more short-term goals are achieved, the more long-term goals are likely to be accomplished. He also should be able to define the contents and progressions of learning by having enough knowledge of learning content, available resources, and stages of improving language skills. In addition, he should be aware of effective methods and techniques for engaging in an activity or improving language skills. Moreover, he should monitor the procedures of acquisition through self and peer-assessment. In this stage, he can modify the learning content or techniques if they proved less effective. An autonomous learner furthermore should be able to evaluate what has been acquired and check whether personal goals are achieved or a new cycle of processing is necessary to progress. However, Holec (1981: 22) implies that not all learners have the same aptitude to go through these stages with full independence because besides the ability to take decisions, an autonomous learner is expected to show immediacy and agency in taking decisions and effectiveness in using strategies.

Similarly, Littlewood (1996: 428) correlates autonomy with "capacity of thinking and acting independently that may occur in any kind of situation including, of course, a situation where the focus is on learning". This psychological stance sets autonomy within any context and any learner given that he is able to take independent decisions and hold responsibility for learning. However, Littlewood does not consider learner independence as the only element that determines level of autonomy; he believes that this capacity is multi-faceted and the degree of autonomy a learner manifests is influenced by many factors. In his anatomy of autonomy, Littlewood claims that this capacity includes both ability and willingness to engage in independent learning activities. These components are inseparable because some learners may have the ability to take decisions but are not willing to do so and vice versa. Littlewood divides each of these components into two more parts where learners‘ ability includes "knowledge about the alternatives from which choices have to be made and the necessary skills for carrying out whatever choices seem more appropriate" (ibid: 428). In addition, he finds that learners‘ willingness to initiate independent learning "depends on having both the motivation and the confidence to take responsibility of the choices required" (ibid: 428). By focusing on this psychological stance, Littlewood puts motivation and agency in the core practice of autonomy and the elements that decide its degree. Dickinson (1991: 11) asserts this argument where the implementation of learning decisions is not less important than the ability to take them further.

Based on the framework of Littlewood and the argument of Holec about autonomy, it can be noted that the definitions explicated above construe autonomy as a capacity learners hold and manifest in situations where learning occurs. It can be expressed inside or outside classrooms and learners may (not) reveal it in the presence of their teachers (Holliday, 2003). Hence,

learner autonomy is not synonymous with individualised learning or self-instruction as explained by Holec.

"Individualisation is similar to autonomy in that it largely takes into account the specific nature of each learner. But there the similarity ends: the educational attitude that inspires individualisation, the role assigned to knowledge and the teaching of knowledge on which it is founded, and above all the role which it assigns to the learner make it a process very different, if not altogether different, from the process that leads to the autonomisation of learning (Holec, 1981: 6)".

Similarly, Jones (1998: 378) claims that self-instruction, akin to individualisation, is a long- term learning project initiated, planned, and carried out by the learner alone without the direct control of the teacher, and in some cases, it can be controlled by a teacher who may, without being physically present, take all the key decisions about what will be learnt. For Jones, these modes of learning do not necessarily lead to greater autonomy or better learning because the individual may receive much input but lacks the streams in which he can practise what has been taught.