The Impact of English Autonomously: Students‘ Perceptions

Lenka Zouhar Ludvíková, Czech Republic

Lenka Zouhar Ludvíková studied at the Department of Educational Sciences and Department of English and American Studies of Masaryk University, CELTA. Her work experience includes working for Longman Pearson Education and Masaryk University Language Centre, Brno, Czech Republic. Her fields of interest include autonomy, experiential learning, non-formal learning, intercultural learning. E-mail: ludvikova@phil.muni.cz

Menu

Introduction
Background – course
Background – theoretical framework(s)
Survey and its findings
Conclusion
References
Appendix

Introduction

Supporting autonomy in language learning is not a new concept but in the Czech Republic it is still considered unconventional. Four semesters of experience have shown us that autonomy is a capacity everybody has to a certain extent. We witnessed our students mature during the semester on many different levels, we noticed a change in their learning strategies and we felt that their attitudes transformed in several areas.

This article aims to demonstrate how the students themselves perceive their development and progress some time after finishing the course. Their perceptions and reflections aer naturally subjective and give us a picture of what impact our autonomy supporting course makes on our students. The data collected in the survey indicate the strongest part of our course – individualization. This is evident from the students‘ answers, which give the highest scores to counsellings, support groups and work with learning strategies. The most significant change in attitudes is reported in the area of learning languages, attitude to making mistakes and to the teachers. In short, English Autonomously individualizes the learning process, which is what our students find effective.

Background – course

English Autonomously (EA) is a course organized by the teachers of the Masaryk University Language Centre, Brno, and uses a framework developed by the colleagues of the Language Centre at Helsinki University. Their Autonomous Learning Modules (ALMS) have been a great inspiration and their expertise of several decades provided us with lots of useful insights. In Brno, EA is open to students of all nine faculties at bachelor‘s, master‘s and doctoral programme level. It is an optional, two-credit course (two ECTS) course that the students attend before or after their compulsory foreign (most often) English exam.

Figure 1. This chart shows the proportion of faculties among EA students. So far, we had no students from the Faculty of Education and the Faculty of Sports Studies. The majority of students comes from the Faculty of Arts and Faculty of Social Studies probably because the course is offered under these faculties and is easier to find.

Autonomy in our course is understood as David Little’s metaphor ‘drawing together the threads of self-assessment, goal-setting and reflection’ (Little, 2007, pp.1–3). The course is organized as a framework that on the one hand sets the rules, and on the other gives the students the chance to choose.

The former consist of the following:

• two compulsory introductory sessions where the students learn about the course, about learning, and they also begin to reflect on their own learning (language learning history, learning strategies inventory, metacognition inventory, needs analysis etc.)
• three individual counselling sessions
• two modules of students’ choice
• learning journal/log
• total of 50-hour workload that equals the two credits

The latter is guaranteed by the selection or rather the opportunity to make decisions, which is a crucial principle of autonomy. The students decide and make choices for themselves on many different levels, which guarantees a tailored course to everybody involved. Smith lists the areas in which the autonomous learner could possibly take charge and decide:

• objectives
• contents
• stages
• methods and techniques
• pace, time and place
• evaluation (Smith, 2008, p.395)

These choices are enabled by modularization. The support groups (modules and so-called showers) are organized by the teachers or by the students themselves as DIY support groups. According to Barnett, modularization is one of recommended approaches in higher education under the condition that the informed choices are made not accidentally but based on needs analysis (Barnett, 1997, p.52). In EA the students not only choose the modules according to their needs, they also negotiate the content, pace and time or methods, depending on the module and the teacher. The teachers become facilitators and offer to the students opportunities for selection and individualization within these support groups too. The degree of autonomy depends on both, the teacher and the students, and it is a matter of negotiations.

The individual approach is supported in a set of counsellings that are planned at the beginning of the term, in the midterm and then in the exam period. Engaging the students is also empowered by contracting. On the first counselling session, the students sign an agreement between the counsellor and the individual student, which functions as a study plan. Every student arranges three 20-minute counselling sessions that are held in English, even though the students have a chance to choose their mother tongue. They usually appreciate the opportunity to have 60 minutes of one-to-one conversation in English.

At the same time, the EA students function as a learning community that is rather diverse. Even though they come from different faculties, with different levels of English (ranging from B1 to C1 according to CEFR), with different intentions, they meet at introductory meetings where they are encouraged to work together from the very beginning and they also cooperate in the modules and DIY groups. The students help one another and also inspire and motivate one another in various ways through spontaneous bottom-up collaborative and intercultural learning. This is enabled by the diversity of students coming from different faculties (see Fig.1) and also from all study programmes (see Fig.2).

Figure 2. The proportion of students from different study programmes. The course was initially offered to the students in master programme, however lots of other students from bachelor‘s and doctoral programme began to ask for permission to be enrolled too.

Through the set of individual counsellings and log writing the students are put into a situation when they have to reflect on their own learning both in speaking and writing and this is how reflection is integrated throughout the course. They reflect on the progress of their language skills, learning strategies, modules etc., but they frequently incorporate their personal experiences or even use their log as a personal diary. The student‘s reflective writing is yet another individualizing moment in EA. Even though it might seem to be difficult to write in English in the beginning (for some students), we believe that it is a significant part of the course. The log not only ha a reflective function but also a language learning function. And even though the students in some cases cannot express everything the way they would like to, it is an important tool for practising coherence and developing a storytelling identity in a foreign language (Karlsson and Kjisik, 2009, pp.168–170).

Reflection also plays a crucial part at the end of the course when the students evaluate their performance and justify their evaluation with their portfolio, i.e. the log and samples of work. Based on this, they are (not) given the credits according to their evaluation.

Background – theoretical framework(s)

Different learning theories or philosophies see autonomy from the whole range of perspectives and it is not the aim of this article to list them all. However, some of the theories work as the basis for some aspects and principles of the course itself. This article does not attempt to cover everybody who has influenced us in EA, hence this theoretical background is merely a concise outline with observations that concretely illustrate the course and put theoretical light at what we do.

Even though behaviourism seems to contradict autonomy, it should be mentioned here as one of the most influential theories in pedagogy. Furthermore, some of its aspects are present and relevant in our course. Behaviourism understands learning as a change and focuses on learning a new behaviour. An individual‘s behaviour is acquired through conditioning and we distinguish between classical conditioning and the operant or instrumental conditioning. The former is represented by Ivan Pavlov‘s famous experiments, whereas the latter is described as learning where the resulting behaviour produces the consequence. It works with the connections or associations that the learner makes between a particular behaviour and a consequence, which makes the learning conscious (Jarvis, Holford, Griffin, 2010, p.28).

Reinforcement and punishment come into question here and it is also something we take into consideration in our course. As the students in EA accept responsibility for their learning, they know the framework and their duties from the beginning of the course, they also accept the role of evaluators and motivators. They reward themselves or punish themselves (in case they do) the way they know is the most efficient with them, which enhances their learning. Change or progress only counts when it is measurable and observable. This is represented in EA in the end of the course when the students are asked to present and justify their progress and the time/energy they spent with EA. The survey presented below concentrates on subjective evaluation, beliefs and attitudes the students have about the change that took place as a consequence of the course.

Cognitivism, another influential learning theory, focuses on a way of thinking or learning knowledge. Jean Piaget‘s theory works with four stages of cognitive development. However other cognitivists believe that learning or development is not age dependent. Many of them believe that learning is based on experience and other factors. This is especially relevant in second language acquisition, which is a complex mental process (Atkinson, 2011, pp.1–7). According to Atkinson, cognitivist theory has had a great impact on language learning, arguing that the mind, represented by cognition, is more important than the behaviour.

We work a lot with learning strategies and conscious learning with our students in EA, both in groups and individually. They are asked to reflect on their mental processes, which empowers their metacognitive skills, and to think about different ways of learning, which partly overlaps with a constructivist approach.

Constructivism may be considered to be one of the cognitivistic streams. As in socio-cognitivism, the learner is seen as the agent of learning. However, according to Dewey and others, learning comes from within the learner, not the social environment. Dewey is concerned with reflection, which he defines as: ‘Active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends’ (Dewey, 2007, p.6). Constructivism believes in self-reflection, learning styles, multiple intelligences etc., hence the result is self-directed learning, self-access centres and learner autonomy. Constructivists emphasize creativity as the basis for language learning, together with interaction and engagement, and believe that knowledge, including the target language, is and should be constructed by the learner (Benson, 1997, p.23).

Constructivism in language learning works with engagement, creativity and interaction, which help students to construct and reconstruct their version of the target language (Benson, 1997, p.21). These play a very important role in EA too: students are engaged on many different levels, they are encouraged to find their own way creatively or / and they have to interact with one another, with the teachers. We believe that the students have the capacity to discover the language themselves when we set the conditions appropriately. We assume that all students are autonomous to a certain extent. However, this capacity has been suppressed quite a lot in conventional classes and due to the traditional way of schooling. Our aim is to revive and empower this capacity in them.

Socio-cognitivism concentrates not only on the mental processes but also on the social environment of the learner. The individual is the agent of learning, similarly to constructivist view, while the environment serves as a mediator. Social interaction determines the learning, which EA encourages - a diverse group with more and less advanced students helps them learn. According to Vygotsky stretching the zone of proximal development is how we learn and overcoming challenges moves us towards our goals (Vygotsky, 1978, pp.84–87).

EA students often reflect on their growing comfort zone. Sometimes, we use Vygotsky's term scaffolding to describe the assistance provided to the students and to clarify the role of the intro sessions and support groups and individual counsellings. Apart from the teachers involved, there are also other English teachers, outside the course EA, and there is also the whole learning community of peers who can help. This, we hope, might be the starting point for lifelong learning. If the students develop the habit within the EA framework (no regular classes, using a variety of resources etc.), they should be able to continue after the course ends without the scaffolding the course provides.

Humanism, the last major theory that is relevant for EA, focuses on the individual from a holistic perspective. In this sense, everything matters and the learning process has to be contextualized. The student has not come from nowhere, he /she might have had negative experiences with certain aspects of learning, better and worse days, etc. Furthermore, the idea of humanism also works, apart from reflection and experience, with the concept of democracy, or choice and control according to Rogers (Bertrand, 1998, pp.47–49).

EA gives the teacher/counsellor a chance to work with the student as an individual. Thanks to personalized counsellings and reflective writing, both the teachers and the learners realize what the concerns of a particular student might be. The role of teachers changes and they become counsellors or facilitators, depending on a situation. However, the student and the teacher are seen as partners in EA. With the individual time and approach to the students, we have more insight, we can help the students tailor the course according to their needs and expectations. That is why the students write their language learning history, why we ask about previous learning experience not only in English but also other languages and areas and why we discuss the future plans too.

Apart from the major educational theories, there are also two streams in psychology that are particularly influential for EA: positive psychology and self-determination theory.

Positive psychology concentrates on the areas in life that go well. Thus, a positivist approach in learning is going to focus on one´s strengths, successes and positive experience. In EA, we do not point out the mistakes that the students make, on the contrary we concentrate on the correct use of grammar or pronunciation. When the students focus on their mistakes, these often prevent them from fluency and ability to express themselves. We believe that the teachers should help the students with positive self-concepts, self-efficacy believes, positive motivational goals etc. (Huebner, Gilman, Furlong, 2009, pp.3–12). This way, the students will be more motivated and they will enjoy the learning process, rather than being stressed by English classes.

Another theory in psychology that is rather influential for EA is the self-determination theory (SDT), which, like positivism, studies motivation, or rather determination. The key terms for Deci and Ryan, the founders of SDT, are autonomy, competence and relatedness. These are the human needs that stimulate us to grow. Autonomy represents the capacity or urge to be the agent in one’s own life, competence is a sense of confidence to do something challenging or adequate for one’s skills and capacities and relatedness refers to caring and feeling connected to others, the need to be accepted by others (Deci and Ryan, 2002, pp. 6–8). The three needs in SDT indisputably correspond to language learning. EA does not only work with autonomy, which is apparent, but it also works with competence (e.g. evaluation, metacognition, learning strategies, needs analysis) and relatedness (EA as a community, the relationship with a counsellor etc.). The social dimension is important for the collaborative learning that takes place in the course.

Survey and its findings

The minisurvey inquires about students´ beliefs and it does not intend to illustrate objective progress measured by standardized instruments. Conversely, it concentrates on the students’ subjective reflection. Cotteral argues that before autonomy support begins, learners’ beliefs should be questioned as these determine the success of learning. These beliefs reveal the readiness for fostering autonomy (Cotteral, 1995, pp.195–196). We decided to question the students after they took part in the course to find out what happens when the framework and support ends and to see how the students perceive the impact of EA later, not immediately after finishing the course.

We believe that the perceptions of the students are going to direct the focus of the course and help us concentrate on relevant components of EA. Naturally, the findings are not universal and the adjusments and updates of the course will be discussed among the teachers involved.

During the four semesters (autumn term 2013, spring term 2014, autumn term 2014 and spring term 2015), there were 130 students registered in EA. The questions in the survey presented here are based on course evaluation forms, final reflections and counsellings that took part in the relevant semesters. The questionnaire, designed and administered by google.docs, was sent to all 130 students and 36 replies returned. Two of the respondents have not finished the course successfully (no credits) and one student would not recommend the course to his / her friends, therefore the sample is not only a selection of EA fans.

The questionnaire can be view in the appendix below.

The graphs in Fig. 3. and 4. illustrate the proportion of respondents coming from different faculties and study programmes.

Fig.3. This chart demonstrates the proportion of respondents according to the faculty at which they study.

Fig. 4. The proportion in study programmes among the respondents does not reflect the number of students registered in the course.

Three areas in the questionnaire were explored with a 5-level Likert scale, where the polar levels are not at all and certainly. The charts below summarize the number of answers to each question. They also show the total numbers and scale average per the whole set of questions (horizontal total and average), as well as the total and the weighted arithmetic mean per every question (vertical sum and weighted arithmetic mean).

The first area of questions concentrates on the compulsory components of EA and what their impact on learning was. The total numbers indicate skewedness to the right, i.e. towards the answer certainly. All five items are above the mean (3.0), which identifies positive evaluation. At a closer look at the answers concerning the individual components, the skewedness to the right is the most significant with counselling and selected modules and showers, which also have the highest weighted arithmetic mean of the whole survey. Answers about the intro sessions are also rather skewed to the right. Agreement / contract and completion answers are distributed quite evenly and none of the questions shows skewedness to the left.

Fig. 5. To what extent did the components of EA have impact on you and your learning?

Since English Autonomously is a language course, another aspect explored is language learning. Here, the language skills are the most obvious because they are, naturally, the reason why the students enrol in the course. The questionnaire asks about the individual language skills and strategies but it also specifically asks about the relevant components of EA that develop the particular skills. The total number of all answers again demonstrates skewedness to the right.

Individual questions then show that the impact of counselling on language skills (i.e. the individual time the students spend with their counsellor) does not follow the bell curve probability distribution at all and it grows on the scale. One third of the respondents answered certainly and it was also the most frequent answer to the question. The progress of language skills thanks to the selected modules, the progress in vocabulary and progress in learning strategies score highly too. The improvement in the area of learning strategies possibly score high due to individual approach, which leads us back to counsellings and some support groups where students have a chance to try a variety of learning strategies and techniques. The closest to the Gaussian probability distribution is the progress of metacognition. Log writing has the lowest weighted mean, which demonstrates that the students did not find it particularly useful for their language skills compared to other components of EA. This may be because it ‘only’ concentrates on writing and not many students see writing as their priority in language learning. However, it is still above the mean (3.0) and this suggests a positive interpretation.

Fig. 6. In which areas of language learning did you make progress thanks to EA?

From the evaluation forms and students‘ reflections we know that EA has an impact on many areas of personal development, not only their language skills and learning. Many students mention the change in attitudes that takes place during EA. The third area of questions explores and quantifies the most frequent responses that were collected in the survey.

The highest scores are found with attitude to language learning and attitude to making mistakes. Nevertheless the attitude to English and to teachers also shows significant weighted arithmetic mean. The distribution is either skewed to the right or does not correspond to the bell curve and grows.

Fig.7. To what extent did your attitudes change thanks to EA?

The survey asks at this point which other areas changed thanks to EA and students often specify them as personal development, self-directed learning, motivation, confidence, self-evaluation, time management or stepping out of their comfort zone. As can be seen from the survey, the students‘ answers prove that that language learner autonomy goes hand in hand with communicator autonomy and personal autonomy, or autonomy as a person, which is described in more detail by Littlewood (Littlewood, 1996, p. 432).

Apart from the three sets of questions that work with the scale and some additional information, the survey also asks a question about the rituals and habits initiated by EA. There is a ‘terra incognita’ waiting to be explored in this field and more research has to be conducted in order to answer the questions concerning the impact of EA on lifelong learning, learning after ‘descaffolding’, motivation for learning without the framework, counsellors and support groups. However, the respondents mention the following habits that continue even after the course:

• writing logs in English, logs in other languages
• learning vocabulary
• trying new ways of learning, experimenting
• motivation to learn everyday
• surrounding oneself with English

These open ended questions cannot be quantified or interpreted as some respondents gave no answer and some gave more answers.

The last question inquires whether the students see themselves as better learners thanks to EA and it asks for comment too. The responses are following:

yes – 27 students
no – 4 students
other – 5 students

The survey has unveiled lots of interesting observations that need more investigation and analysis. The findings could be linked to the reflections in students‘ logs, which they kept during the course, and become a source for a qualitative research that could explain the scores and results shown after finishing EA. The students´ progress in language skills could be tested before and after finishing the course to see the impact of the course in this area. Alternatively, the questionnaire could be used on a sample of students attending conventional courses to see what the differences are in students‘ beliefs concerning the impact of a certain course on their learning and attitudes.

For the time being, the survey serves as a pre-research to a dissertation project that aims to cover the shift in learning strategies and metacognition that takes place within the course. The results presented here will be used for updating the course and the teachers involved will be trained in the areas that are the most relevant to the students to make the course more effective for them. The survey has confirmed that EA is not only about the language competences but also, and maybe more importantly, about the development of study skills.

Conclusion

The course that we offer to our students gives them the opportunity to work on their language skills, learning strategies, attitudes and much more. Their reflections show us other areas where they make progress thanks to our course. When they have to make decisions about the content or pace, about the evaluation or activities, they naturally think about them autonomously from the very beginning. The structure of the course keeps them involved and the framework or scaffolding that we provide helps them find their own way.

We believe that the progress that we see and the progress that the students report about themselves both show progress in autonomy too, which requires more research in the field. However, the results of the minisurvey presented in this article show agreement and consonance; the individualized approach that tailors the course to every student's needs and possibilities was the reason why we began with the course two years ago and it is evident that the students appreciate, value and find the most useful the same aspects and components of EA. This type of course enables all of us to learn a lot about ourselves, to develop our skills and to humanize schooling.

References

Atkinson, Dwight (2011). Introduction: Cognitivism and second language acquisition. In: Alternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition. Routledge.

Barnett, Ron (1997). Higher Education: A critical business. Open University Press.

Benson, Phil (1997). The philosophy and politics of learner autonomy. In: Autonomy and Independence in Language learning. Longman.

Bertrand, Yves (1998). Soudobé teorie vzdělávání. Portál.

Cotteral, Sara (1995). Readiness for autonomy investigating, learner beliefs. In: System. Vol. 23, No.2.

Deci, Edward L., Ryan, Richard M., eds. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY. University of Rochester Press.

Dewey, John (2007). How we think. Cosimo, New York.

Huebner, Gilman, Furlong (2009). A conceptual Model for Research in Positive Psychology in Children and Youth. In: Handbook of Positive Psychology in Schools. Routledge.

Jarvis, Peter, Holford, John, Griffin, Colin (2010). The Theory and Practice of Learning. 2nd Edition. Routledge.

Karlsson, Leena, Kjisik, Felicity (2009). Whose story is it anyway? In: Mapping the terrain of learner autonomy: Learning environments, learning communities and identities. Tampere University Press.

Little, David. (2007). Learner Autonomy: Drawing together the threads of self-assessment, goal-setting and reflection. Retrieved August, 2015, from http://archive.ecml.at/mtp2/Elp_tt/Results/DM_layout/00_10/06/06%20Supplementary%20text.pdf

Littlewood, William (1996). “Autonomy” : an anatomy and framework. In: System.Vol.24, No.4.

Smith, Richard (2008). Learner Autonomy. In: ELT Journal. Volume 62/4.

Vygotsky,Leo Semyonovich (1978). Mind in Society. Harvard University Press.

Appendix

This is the questionnaire used to collect responses from EA students who attended the course in previous terms. It was sent to them via the university information system.

When did you take EA? (more options are possible if you retook the course)

• Autumn Term 2013
• Spring Term 2014
• Autumn Term 2014
• Spring Term 2015

Did you complete the course? Were you given the credits?

• yes
• no

Which programme did you study when you took part in EA?

• bachelor
• master
• doctoral

Which is your home faculty?

1. To what extent did the components of EA had impact on you and your learning?
   intro sessions
   1            2            3            4            5
   not at all                                            certainly
2. To what extent did the components of EA had impact on you and your learning? counselling
   1            2            3            4            5
   not at all                                            certainly
3. To what extent did the components of EA had impact on you and your learning?
   log writing
   1            2            3            4            5
   not at all                                            certainly
4. To what extent did the components of EA had impact on you and your learning?
   selected modules / showers
   1            2            3            4            5
   not at all                                            certainly
5. To what extent did the components of EA had impact on you and your learning?
   agreement / contract and completion form
   1            2            3            4            5
   not at all                                            certainly
6. In which areas of language learning did you make progress thanks to EA?
   language skills (reading, writing, listening, speaking) thanks to selected modules
   1            2            3            4            5
   not at all                                            certainly
7. In which areas of language learning did you make progress thanks to EA?
   language skills (speaking, listening) thanks to counsellings
   1            2            3            4            5
   not at all                                            certainly
8. In which areas of language learning did you make progress thanks to EA?
   language skills (writing) thanks to log
   1            2            3            4            5
   not at all                                            certainly
9. In which areas of language learning did you make progress thanks to EA?
   vocabulary
   1            2            3            4            5
   not at all                                            certainly
10. In which areas of language learning did you make progress thanks to EA?
    learning strategies
    1            2            3            4            5
    not at all                                            certainly
11. In which areas of language learning did you make progress thanks to EA?
    metacognition
    1            2            3            4            5
    not at all                                            certainly
12. In which areas of language learning did you make progress thanks to EA?
    other (please specify):
    1            2            3            4            5
    not at all                                            certainly
13. To what extent did your attitudes change thanks to EA?
    attitude to language learning
    1            2            3            4            5
    not at all                                            certainly
14. To what extent did your attitudes change thanks to EA?
    attitude to English
    1            2            3            4            5
    not at all                                            certainly
15. To what extent did your attitudes change thanks to EA?
    attitude to making mistakes
    1            2            3            4            5
    not at all                                            certainly
16. To what extent did your attitudes change thanks to EA?
    attitude to yourself
    1            2            3            4            5
    not at all                                            certainly
17. To what extent did your attitudes change thanks to EA?
    1            2            3            4            5
    not at all                                            certainly
18. To what extent did your attitudes change thanks to EA?
    attitude to teachers
    1            2            3            4            5
    not at all                                            certainly
19. To what extent did your attitudes change thanks to EA?
    other (please specify):
    1            2            3            4            5
    not at all                                            certainly
20. Please identify other areas that were influenced by EA
    • motivation
    • personal development
    • self-evaluation
    • negotiation skills
    • time management
    • learning in other subject (apart from English)
    • self-directed learning
    • other:
21. Were your expectations met?
    1            2            3            4            5
    not at all                                            certainly
22. Has EA started any rituals or habits in learning? If so, please specify:
23. Do you see yourself as a better learner after EA? Do you know how to learn now? Have you noticed any other changes that could have been initiated by EA? Please specify:
24. Did / Would you recommend EA to your friends?
    1            2            3            4            5
    not at all                                            certainly
    Thank you for your time. You can leave any other comment here:

Please check the English Language Improvement for Teachers course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the English Language Improvement for Adults course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the Teaching Advanced Students course at Pilgrims website.