Martina is an English language lecturer at Masaryk University Language Centre in Brno, Czech Republic, she is also a Ph.D. student at the Faculty of Education. She is especially interested in promoting and fostering learner autonomy in various teaching and learning scenarios. Her research project is focusing on investigating the influence of language advising on autonomy development. Besides her roles in the English Autonomously project, she teaches Academic English courses and courses of intercultural communication.
Email: martina.sindelarova@mail.muni.cz

 

Introduction

This text starts with a short, personal story which explains the purpose of the article. Ten years ago, as I was about to come back to full-time teaching after my childcare leave, I had a chance to attend a sharing session organised by our colleagues from University of Helsinki. They were presenting their Autonomous Learning Modules project (ALMS), which gave us a lot of inspiration for how to design a learning scenario that provides a wide range of choices for students and even more space for learning and professional development for us teachers. We started to model our own version of an autonomous learning environment quite soon afterwards and it was a great opportunity for me to re-think what students’ and teachers’ roles are, what assessment should look like, and how various forms of interaction and activities can be organised. It challenged me to reconsider every component of university-based language education.

However, there was quite a lengthy period when I was only relating these considerations to our new project, the English Autonomously course. Only later did I start to implement in my “regular” courses the principles of autonomy that I now realize are crucial. Only after some time did I come to understand that even if my courses have a variety of goals and focus areas—for example, academic skills development or intercultural communication training—it is always relevant, useful, and appreciated to incorporate certain learner autonomy support into language courses for university students.

In this text I will share some viewpoints on why and how learner autonomy should be fostered in every type of university language course. I will offer practical tips to my colleagues who would like to give their students options for learner autonomy development but who work in (more or less) traditional learning scenarios. The tips concern students’ involvement in planning, monitoring, and evaluating their learning. The main idea of the text is that the development of students’ self-regulating skills can be supported gradually and through small steps. Nevertheless, I hope to show that all the time and effort spent on fostering learner autonomy is a great investment for students’ future (not only) language learning. As the saying goes, a stitch in time saves nine.

The following section briefly explains the theoretical background to why these three activities represent the main factors in regulating the learning process.

 

Theories of learner autonomy

The first theoretical framework on what autonomous learning means was created by Holec in 1979. He suggested that learner autonomy, i.e. “the ability to take charge of one’s learning” (1981, p.3), is demonstrated in five different dimensions. The dimensions where autonomous students need to have and hold (some) responsibility include setting goals, planning, finding, and selecting resources and activities, monitoring and self-evaluation.

Little has been further developing the theory of what constitutes learner autonomy and what factors can contribute to its support and development since the 1990s. His basic definition of autonomy is the capacity to self-regulate one’s own learning. He explains that being an autonomous learner means “drawing together the threads of self-assessment, goal-setting and reflection” (Little, 2007). Although he uses different keywords and highlights the psychological dimension of the learner’s attitude to learning, Little builds on Holec’s model. Little’s concept of self-assessment corresponds very much to self-evaluation but goes beyond (language) skills and includes self-assessment also of attitudes and motivation. When Little mentions goal setting, he relates it to planning (which includes selecting resources and activities) too. For Little, reflection (critical thinking about cognitive processes such as learning) is more important than monitoring (keeping track or record) but cannot happen without it.

There exist many other models and definitions that have tried to capture the extremely complex characteristics of learner autonomy. My preferred model was created by Tassinari in 2010. Her model is based on complex dynamic systems theory, which was used to define learner autonomy by Larsen Freeman. Tassinari’s model emphasises the ever-changing interplay of the numerous factors that constitute any complex system—for example, between motivation and goal setting and between goal setting and self-evaluation. The terms she uses in her learner autonomy model are derived from both Holec’s and Little’s theories, but Tassinari further developed the terms into a set of descriptors, i.e. can-do statements for learner autonomy assessment. I consider her descriptors for planning, monitoring, and evaluating learning to be most useful when considering in what areas learner autonomy can be fostered first.

The sections below present tips on how to foster goal setting, monitoring, and evaluating skills, which can be (chrono)logically introduced into any of your courses.

 

Goal setting

Even if it might seem difficult to arrange a curricular course so that students have a say in goal setting, I have found two complementary ways to do so. When introducing the course (its design, organisation, and requirements), I ask the students to consider how they personally want to approach the course. More importantly, I would emphasise that it is perfectly OK if they did not have any specific goal, and if they only wanted “to survive” or “to collect the needed ECTS points with as little effort as possible.” This might have to do with their focus on other courses, their job, their lack of motivation or other factors about which I (usually) do not know. I just want them to fully consider and realise what role the course plays for them. Whatever their attitude or purpose is, I do not criticise or question it, but it is up to them to embrace it (which I believe means taking some goal-setting responsibility).

On the other hand, I try to help those students who want to set a specific personal goal (and might not know how to do it). The students are asked to conduct a simple SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) on their language skills and identify their weak areas (this takes the form of a short writing activity in class). Then, they should pick one skill which they want to focus on in class (they do this in a short group discussion) and one skill they want to focus on outside of class (they write this in a personal note). Usually, we also try to narrow their aims down a bit, by eliciting a model goal-setting process, getting them to go from very general (e.g. “getting better in speaking”) to more specific (e.g. “being more fluent, making more natural pauses, and being able to improvise or self-correct my speaking”). When they decide on what exactly they want to develop, I take notes on their group as well as personal goals. As a result, students have added more specific aims to the general course agenda and we can relate back to them as we proceed, e.g. when introducing various activities or continuous tasks.

If possible, I prefer to organise continuous tasks (homework) in my courses as a collection of elective tasks that follow up in-class activities. Each week students are offered 2–3 tasks (or one task in two different formats) and they can decide whether they want to complete and submit the task or not. When considering their options, students should ideally refer to their personal goals for the course that were mentioned above. For example, the productive tasks (e.g. creating a group work report) can often be submitted as a written text or as an audio recording, and students can choose the format based on the skill they want to practice more. They are required to submit a certain number of continuous tasks of their choice by the end of the semester and regularly reminded of their responsibility for choosing relevant and appropriate tasks. This setting can help them to develop the skills they need to be able to manage their learning, in particular their ability to plan and complete tasks that correspond to their goals.

 

Monitoring learning

As students submit the aforementioned continuous tasks in our university learning management system (LMS), they have a chance to constantly monitor their learning. I also use the LMS to distribute feedback on their tasks. The information on how many tasks they submitted and how many points they received is easy to track. Apart from assigning points, my feedback is not always detailed and individualised (and I believe my colleagues will understand that with multiple courses and seminar groups and dozens of tasks submitted every week this is not possible). Often students receive their points and group feedback or a summary of typical problems that appeared when completing the task. However, I wish to offer them individualised feedback and at the same time to get them involved in monitoring and reflecting on their progress.

That is why I introduced individual 1-1 feedback sessions. I organise the sessions around the middle of the semester (for example, when regular classes cannot happen due to a conference or faculty event). Participation at this session is optional. Students can work on other tasks if they prefer not to attend. Furthermore, the students need to decide what they want to discuss during their feedback session, e.g. on which continuous task they would like to receive more detailed feedback. When I was planning the sessions for the first time and was trying to guess how many time slots would be needed, I expected that not every student would join the feedback, which would make it manageable for me. However, I was surprised to see that only a couple of students requested a session and were able to organize it (i.e., chose a time slot and suggested what to focus on).

This led me to realise that arranging the sessions requires students to activate quite a high degree of learner autonomy. Considering whether I should change the way the feedback sessions are organised, I tried to balance my urge to be fair by providing feedback to every student, practical considerations about timing, and desire to foster learner autonomy. As a result, I decided to keep the condition that students need to get engaged in the planning and monitoring that precedes the feedback session but decided to explain the feedback’s purpose and usefulness more carefully and clearly to the students. In the following semesters, the interest in feedback sessions increased, but it is still only about 10 students (out of 50–60) who attend. Although the monitoring sessions are not so well attended, they still play an important role as a reminder of the course requirements for all students. This can be seen in the fact that after I invite students to check on their continuous work and plan their feedback sessions, more students than usual submit the optional tasks in the following week and thus contribute towards their final assessment.

 

Evaluating learning

Monitoring the learning process is naturally connected to evaluation. When students can trace what and how they were learning, they (ideally) should be able to notice which of these practices were efficient and what they have achieved. One of the continuous tasks that I offer to students is a group work report. This task is a follow-up to a small group project which they work on both in and outside of class. I do not include the group task into the course assessment, as I expect that students’ engagement and contribution will vary. To avoid being unfair when assessing the group, I acknowledge students’ individual work but also encourage them to monitor, reflect and evaluate what they have learnt from the collaborative task. Their reports can be either a written text or a short recording. The reports must go beyond description, i.e. beyond basic information such as “we were three students in the group, and we had 2 meetings”. The report also needs to include their own opinions on what went well and what they could have done differently. In terms of language skills, this is an ideal B2 level task as they need to think about the various advantages and disadvantages of their solutions, consider alternatives, and provide explanations for their ideas.

The group report task has been popular with students as many of them submit this optional continuous task. The popularity of the tasks suggests that they are motivated to share their personal perception of the collaborative learning experience as group work is often something rather new and challenging for them. The reports they submitted (mostly in written form) gave me an insight into what problems they face when collaborating. Based on the reports, I can add more personalised feedback or support to students who were not happy with something, such as the outcome of the group activity. Fortunately, it has not been necessary to deal with any serious group conflicts, but I believe that students might use this task to communicate a problem to me if needed.

Just as with the group work reports, my students can submit a text called “final reflection” as an optional continuous task during the last week of the semester. This text should complement the general course assessment they receive from me, which consists of continuous tasks (50%) and final tasks (50%) and is based on criteria that I share with my colleagues who teach other groups of the same course. In their final reflection students can use their own criteria to evaluate their learning. For some of them the most important issue is their progress in a certain area (e.g., listening comprehension of authentic materials), while some value more a change in their attitude (e.g., becoming less worried about public speaking). The extent to which they feel they accomplished their aims also varies.

It is wonderful to read that some students are happy because they were able to achieve their aims. The following samples show such positive comments:

• Before the start of this semester I felt like I already knew the basics and now all I need is to practise speaking and writing, add new words and phrases and remind myself of what I have learnt years ago. And this was fulfilled.
• What is the most important and useful for me – I learnt how to give good feedback and opinion to someone. And learnt how to evaluate and analyse texts as I have never done it before in English classes.

However, I appreciate it if students can make a fair and mature realisation that they have not succeeded fully and explain why as demonstrated by the comments below.

• The only area I haven’t gotten better at is presentation, but that’s only because I’ve been avoiding it. What I have to admit is that I didn’t put 100% effort into learning and improving my English, but overall, I’m pretty happy with what I’ve accomplished this semester.
• I was not used to so much conversation and full involvement. It was a surprise to me how quickly I got used to working in a group. I still struggle to speak in front of more people, but I feel that my fears of speaking in public are diminishing.

Both groups of statements above serve as clear proof of students’ ability to self-evaluate their learning process.

 

Conclusion

My experience suggests that teachers can introduce activities fostering students’ learner autonomy in any university language course. In my courses, such optional activities work well as chances for students to verbalise their thinking about learning, to produce reflective texts, and thus to practice or develop their language skills. I would recommend planning at least 3 moments during a course/semester when students have a chance to critically consider their language learning in and out of class and to be given support in developing their ability to self-regulate the process. Engaging students in setting specific personal goals, monitoring learning activities during the semester, and evaluating their achievements are all possible even in curriculum-based courses, and the students’ engagement can contribute to making the learning experience more individualised and motivating. Even more importantly, these “stitches” of self-regulated learning are a great investment for the students’ future.

 

References

Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. Harlow: Pearson Education, Applied linguistics in action.

Benson, P. (2007). Autonomy in language teaching and learning: State of the Art. In Language Teaching. 40 (1), 21–40.

Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Larsen-Freeman, D., Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques and Principles in Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Larsen-Freeman, Diane. (2019). On Language Learner Agency: A Complex Dynamic Systems Theory Perspective. In The Modern Language Journal. 103, 61-79.

Little, D. (2015). University language centres, self-access learning and learner autonomy. In Researching and Teaching Languages for Specific Purposes. XXXIV (1).

Little, D. (1991). Learner Autonomy 1: Definitions, Issues and Problems. Dublin: Autentik.

Tassinari, M. G. (2012). Evaluating learner autonomy: A dynamic model with descriptors. In Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 3. (1), 24-40.

 

Please check the Pilgrims f2f courses at Pilgrims website.

Please check the Pilgrims online courses at Pilgrims website.