Learner autonomy in the digital era
LEARNER AUTONOMY IN THE DIGITAL ERA
Duong Thi Thuy Uyen, M.A
Abstract
With the rapid development of technology and its strong support for language learning, it is
assumed that learner autonomy will be greatly promoted and enhanced. At universities in
Vietnam in general and at the University of Economics, Ho Chi Minh City (UEH) in particular,
the students can take advantage of modern technology tools and smart libraries while studying,
which is the basis for autonomous learning. However, to have genuine autonomy in language
learning, the students need to have proper guidance and more support from the teachers in
exploiting technology as well as high awareness of this life-long endeavor.
Keywords: learner autonomy, digital era, technology
1. INTRODUCTION
Significant changes have been implemented in language learning and teaching since the
outbreak of the epidemic COVID-19. Teachers and learners all over the world have to adapt to
new working and learning conditions and environments. In Vietnam, they are getting used to
the current situation and students have obviously learnt how to work more independently.
Meanwhile, technology has also had rapid development, providing learners with an array of
means and easy access to uncountable resources for self-study. Therefore, it is assumed that
learner autonomy will be greatly promoted and enhanced in the digital era. However, reality
shows that it is vital for both teachers and students to acquire a profound knowledge of this
concept to be able to apply it efficiently. Besides, teachers need to identify challenges faced
and overcome so that they can provide students with great support to attain the goal of becoming
autonomous learners.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
The concept of learner autonomy can be traced back to the University of Nancy’ s Center for
Research and Application in Language Teaching’s admission of this perception in language
learning in the early 1970s (Benson, 2013). Holec has profound studies on autonomous
education and he defines autonomy as “the ability to take charge of one’s own learning”, and
“… to have, and to hold, the responsibility for all the decisions concerning all aspects of this
learning” (Holec, 1981, p. 3). Having the same concern and research field, Dickinson (1987),
Little (1991), and Dam (1995) respectively highlight the other aspects of autonomy as “learning
without the direct control of a teacher” (p. 5), “a capacity for detachment, critical reflection,
decision making, and independent action” (p. 4), and the qualifications of independently
choosing aims and purposes, setting goals, as well as choosing materials, methods and tasks. A
set of tasks for autonomous learners is specifically identified, comprising “determining the
objectives, defining the contents and progressions, selecting methods and techniques to be used,
monitoring the procedure of acquisition properly speaking (rhythm, time, place, etc.), (and)
evaluating what has been acquired.” (Holec, 1981, p. 3)
Recently, according to Hayo & Cynthia’s study (2016), there has been a reconceptualization of
autonomy due to the influence from other fields such as psychology, teacher development,
motivation and technology. Specifically, autonomy is defined “as a multifaceted construct that
operates on a number of dimensions” (Hayo & Cynthia, 2016, p. 144). In Benson’s
classification (2011), there are four dimensions of autonomy or modalities, including location
(the setting where learning takes place), formality (the degree to which learning is structured
and linked to educational qualifications), pedagogy (type of learning or instruction), and locus
of control (decision-makers about learning).
From Holec’s and other scholars’ definitions, it is clear that learner autonomy is associated with
independent learning and self-determination. Teachers encourage learners to rely on themselves
more, and students are empowered, making their own decisions related to their learning and
becoming highly responsible learners. Freedom but responsibility are the two factors implied
in the concept of learner autonomy. Lamb (2017) points out that learner autonomy is also
subject directly to the context where it is practiced, emphasizing both external and internal
factors relating to endorsing and accepting responsibility. Besides, learner autonomy is
associated with learning strategies which can be metacognitive (planning and evaluating),
affective (motivating oneself and dealing with negative emotions), cognitive (made co-existing
with learners’ awareness, involvement, intervention and creation levels (Nunan, 1997)), and
social-interactive (collaborating and detecting socio-cultural aspects) (Oxford, 2008).
However, teachers’ intervention is completely necessary. In the eyes of Little and Dam (1989),
it is their encouragement and help in learner reflection as well as appropriate target language
use. These roles can be considered as pedagogical principles of promoting learning autonomy.
Through teachers’ intervention, learners can acquire learning strategies as well as widen their
knowledge of learning. Littlewood (1996) emphasizes that “to promote learner autonomy,
interaction, negotiation, collaboration, and teacher support are crucial elements” since they help
to increase higher levels of learning autonomy.
When it comes to learner autonomy and technology, it is assumed that technology is a tool for
fostering and boosting autonomy due to the great benefits it brings to learners. The main
advantage is that learners can have opportunities to access freely and unlimitedly to authentic
materials in the target language. Self-direct learning is promoted and enhanced when learners
are now tech-savvy, making good use of computer-assisted language materials for their own
purposes (O’Reilly, 2005). With the Internet, globalized online spaces (YouTube) and new
mobile technologies (smart phones and tablets), language learners can find and enjoy a greater
richness of resources available to them with which they can share, interact and get support for
learning outside the classroom (Mehran & Mir , 2019). Viorica, (2014) lists technology tools
used to improve learner autonomy, including emails, blogging, site management, collaborative
projects, online tests, socializing networks, games and the creation of learning communities.
One of the ways to approach technology with learner autonomy is approaching it through TAM
– Technology Acceptance Model – which is the famous model to measure the accepting level
of a person to the new approach by technology in any aspect. It is the successor of two famous
theories: TRA and TPB. TRA or Theory of Reasoned Action was founded by Ajzen and
Fishbein in 1967 to explain the intention for any human action. Furthermore, TRA introduces
to the world a new definition: subjective norm. This definition emphasizes that anybody’s
perception can be heavily affected by the surroundings and closed relationships. Later on, these
authors continued to research this theory and designed a new model – TPB or Theory of Planned
Behavior. This theory approaches the feeling of into something by the intention that is affected
by attitude and subjective norm, which come from TRA, and the new attribute: perceived
behavioral control. These antecedences support the birth of TAM considerably. Davis (1989)
inherits the two above-mentioned theories, combining with the technological development
context to invent TAM. TAM comes with many new definitions. The first definition is
perceived usefulness when Davis defines it as “the degree to which a person believes that using
a particular system would enhance his or her job performance” (Davis, 1989). The second one
is the perceived ease of use when defined as “the degree to which a person believes that using
a particular system would be free of effort” (Davis, 1989). These will impact the attitude of the
user, and then the intention to use of customers. These are the two most important attributes of
TAM in applying for learner autonomy. According to Prieto, J. C. S., Migueláñez, S. O., &
García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2014), the two attributes of TAM play an important role in their research
to promote the model of mobile technology acceptance for homework and distance learning of
students in Spain.
Recently, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, learner autonomy has been considered a suitable
method to build up a learning culture. According to Benson (2006) and Joshi (2011), there are
seven ways to build up learner autonomy and two of those are distance learning and CALL –
Computer Assisted in Language Learning. Particularly, distance learning is defined as self-
motivation to participate in learning activities and CALL is defined as the computer-based in-
class activities and individual works for language learning. These have been the common
methods of learning when there is social distancing in the pandemic around the world. Thus,
although having been mentioned earlier, learning autonomy is considered to be suitable with
the current learning contexts worldwide when computer-based and distance learning are now
the main methods of class delivery.
Exploiting technology for learner autonomy is a must now in the digital era. However, it should
be noticed that proper guidance from the teachers plays a crucial role in this aspect because
without their help and advice, it turns out to be more challenging for learners to take advantage
of technology in studying. They are overwhelmed with the information and authentic materials
they get from easy and unlimited access, failing to determine the appropriate tasks and
materials. This might have detrimental effects and even worse, in some cases, “give a false
sense of development to learners” (Gee, 2003 in Mehran & Mir, 2019).
Applied to Vietnam educational environment, learner autonomy needs to have the local
implication, according to Nguyen Van Loi in the book “Language Learner Autonomy:
Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices in Asian Contexts”. This author mentions that there is a
misconception when assuming that students are fully responsible for learner autonomy. In fact,
teachers are those who should be aware and trained about learner autonomy before
implementing it to their students. More and more workshops and seminars should be conducted
to fully acknowledge teachers about this concept. Besides, educational leaders should design
measures to push learner autonomy into the school environment. By the same token, there
should be teacher assessment on learner autonomy to support teachers in enhancing the concept
towards students day by day. Another important point to be mentioned is teachers need to
motivate students to achieve learner autonomy instead of forcing them to this purpose (Nguyen,
2016).
In short, learner autonomy is a complicated concept and it cannot “appear overnight” and should
be cultivated gradually” (Viorica, 2014). It requires commitment from both learners and
teachers, and the combination with the autonomous learning environment. The continual
struggle is needed (Kumaravadivelu, 2003) and “teachers and students should be supportive all
the way on this difficult path” (Viorica, 2014).
3. RECOMMENDATIONS
At UEH, learner autonomy has not been exercised fully and effectively. To foster and encourage
learner autonomy at UEH, the school should carry out the essential tasks.
As far as teachers are concerned, at present, all the English teachers at UEH have had training
concentrating on linguistic and methodological knowledge with M.A. and Ph. D degrees in
Applied Linguistics and TESOL. However, learner autonomy requires an expansion of this
knowledge and calls for changes and more training for this trend in education. Although the
teachers themselves can undoubtedly conduct sound studies on learner autonomy, training in
this field should be provided and included in the teacher’s professional development program.
The training is not only on acknowledging them about the concept of learner autonomy but also
on sharing / exchanging efficient ways of taking advantage of technology to improve the
students’ independent study.
As Kumaravadivelu (2003) proposes, there are three stages to build up students’ autonomy. The
first stage focuses on raising the learners’ awareness of the reasons why the teacher chooses
certain goals, tasks and materials. In the next stage, learners are allowed to choose from a range
of options provided by the teacher. Finally, learners determine their own goals, tasks and
materials. With the experiences the students at UEH have undergone over the last two years
due to the global pandemic, they have had a growing awareness of independent learning. It can
be said that the goal of the first stage seems to be partly achieved, although this is the outcome
of a passive reaction to the changing situation rather than a good result of the first step in a well-
planned program. To perform better in the second stage, the students should be provided with
more options for learning materials, tasks and strategies. With the development of technology,
it seems easier for the teachers and the students to implement this task. However, here comes a
big challenge for both of them. The main reason is that the students are not used to making their
own decisions, especially the ones relating to learning goals, tasks and materials. These things
are expected to be determined by the university (the requirement for English proficiency to
graduate) and class teachers (tasks and materials). In addition, the students’ focus is more on
how to get high scores in the final exam. Therefore, to change this habit and mindset, it needs
time and effort from both the teachers and learners to get out of their comfort zones of just
following what has been conventionally set up and decided. Again, training is needed to solve
this problem. In the last stage, to help the students determine their own goals, tasks and
materials, the teachers are expected to spend more time with the students to support them in
finding their own learning styles. Obstacles arise with a large number of students in their
classes. This requires the teacher’s great passion and dedication for this issue. However, it is a
feasible task for the teachers when making use of Grasha’s model in which the students can be
classified into three pairs of six learning styles: competitive – collaborative, avoidant –
participant, dependent – independent (Grasha, 2002, p. 128). Grasha also concludes that the
teacher should not take students’ preferences for their learning styles as unchangeable.
In learner autonomy, independence and interdependence are both essential, and autonomy
inside and outside the classroom needs to be pondered (Mehran & Mir, 2019). With the present
situation of having more technology tools to be exploited and the more online study conducted
due to the pandemic, the autonomy outside the classroom should get more of the teachers’
attention. At UEH, the modern and smart library with online textbooks and other applications
should be fully taken advantage of. Then, the teachers’ guidance and support on determining
appropriate tasks and materials for self-study are prerequisites. This, again, requires training
conducted and assistance for the teachers from the leaders of the university.
4. CONCLUSION
Learner autonomy is a good tool for language learning. Therefore, right from the very
beginning, teachers should encourage and boost their students to become autonomous learners.
However, with its complicated nature, learner autonomy requires great efforts and commitment
from learners and teachers as well as proper investment to provide autonomous learning
conditions and environment. Advanced technology has helped, to a certain extent, shift
commercial materials used in the classroom to the ones designed for autonomous work. The
students’ awareness of this trend has also been improved. The expectation now is the teachers’
dedication to shoulder the responsibility of providing appropriate guidance and support. To
achieve this, training should be provided and more investment in the library and technology
tools should be made. Then, we can hope to have more autonomous learners at UEH.
REFERENCES
1. Benson, P. (2006). Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Language
2. Benson, P. (2011). Language learning and teaching beyond the classroom: An introduction
to the field. In P. Benson & H. Reinders (Eds.), Beyond the language classroom (pp. 7–16).
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
3. Benson, P. (2013). Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning. London:
Routledge.
4. Dam, L. (1995). Learner Autonomy 3: From Theory to Classroom Practice. Dublin:
Authentik.
5. Davis, F. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of
6. Dickinson, L. (1987). Self-instruction in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
7. Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I., & Hill, R. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An
Introduction to Theory and Research. Contemporary Sociology, 6(2), 244.
8. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy.
9. Grasha, A. F. (2002). Teaching with Style. A Practical Guide to Enhancing Learning by
Understanding Teaching and Learning Styles. Alliance Publishers.
10. Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy in foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
11. Joshi, K. (2011). Learner Perceptions and Teacher Beliefs about Learner Autonomy in
2.6126
12. Kumaravadivelu, B (2003). Beyond Methods: Macrostrategies for Language Teaching.
Yale University Press.
13. Lamb, T.E. (2017). ‘Knowledge about language and learner autonomy’, in Cenoz, J. &
Gorter, D. (Eds.) Language Awareness and Multilingualism. In: Encyclopedia of Language
and Education. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing Switzerland: 173- 186.
l%20rev.pdf.
14. Little, D. (1991). Learner Autonomy 1: Definitions, Issues and Problems, Dublin:
Authentik.
15. Littlewood, W. (1996). Autonomy: an anatomy and a framework. System, 24(4), 427-435.
16. Mehran E. & Mir W. G. (2019). Is Technology Paving the Way for Autonomous
17. Nguyen, V. L. (2016). Chapter 1: Learner Autonomy in Vietnam: Insights from English
Language Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices. In Barnard, R., & Li, J. (Eds.) Language Learner
Autonomy: Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices in Asian Contexts. (pp. 1-22). IDP Education
(Cambodia) Ltd.
18. Nunan, D. (1997). Designing and adapting materials to encourage learner autonomy. In
Benson, P., & Voller, P. (eds) Autonomy & Independence in Language Learning. Harlow:
Addison Wesley Longman Ltd., 192-203.
19. O‟Reilly, T. (2005). What Is Web 2.0? Design patterns and business models for the next
20. Oxford, R. L. (2008). Chapter 3: Hero with a Thousand Faces: Learner Autonomy,
Learning Strategies and Learning Tactics in Independent Language Learning. In Stella Hurd
& Tim Lewis (Eds.), Language Learning Strategies in Independent Settings (pp. 41– 64).
Bristol, Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters. doi: 10.21832/9781847690999-005.
21. Reinders, H., & White, C. (2011). Learner autonomy and new learning environments.
Language Learning & Technology, 15(3), 1-3.
22. Reinders, H., & White, C. (2016). 20 years of autonomy and technology: How far have
we come and where to next? Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 143–154.
23. Sánchez-Prieto, J., Olmos-Migueláñez, S., & García-Peñalvo, F. (2016). Informal tools in
formal contexts: Development of a model to assess the acceptance of mobile technologies
among teachers. Computers in Human Behaviour, 55, 519-528.
24. Viorica, C. (2014). The Use of Technology to Promote Learner Autonomy.
6 trang
19060
Free
Bạn đang xem tài liệu "Learner autonomy in the digital era", để tải tài liệu gốc về máy hãy click vào nút Download ở trên
File đính kèm:
- learner_autonomy_in_the_digital_era.pdf
