Learner Autonomy and Learner Training At Tertiary Level In Turkey

Seyit Omer Gok, Turkey

In general, this paper is aiming to discuss the extent and ways in which learners can be trained to learn autonomously in university preparatory school settings in Turkey. This is an effort to help students to take charge of their own learning for the rest of their lives. This paper starts with giving background information about the context. Then, it reviews the literature of autonomy, learning strategies and learner training in language learning, which is followed by the discussion of these issues in relation with the context.

In Turkey, the students who become successful in university entrance exams and receive offers from universities will have to take an English placement test at the very beginning of their first academic year. These placement tests are prepared by every individual university in order to find out whether the students’ language levels meet the requirements of their departments. If the students cannot be successful in these placement tests they are then required to attend an intensive English preparatory course throughout a year. Unfortunately, majority of the students take this preparatory course even though they have been studying English for many years.

At the end of the preparatory course most of the students are able to achieve the required level of English to commence their undergraduate degree, which normally lasts about four years. However, a great majority of the students do not continue learning or improving their English after this period unless their major programmes are totally taught in English. It seems that this is mainly because the students no longer have an English language teacher and English classes. That is to say, since the students have been educated in a predominantly teacher-centred system until that time, they tend to think that they can only continue to learn under a teacher’s disciplined control and in a classroom environment. Consequently, by the end of their undergraduate degree they gradually lose their English. As these students attempt to apply for a job or postgraduate degree after their undergraduate degree, they are asked to prove their English level again. This situation pushes them to enrol in another English course or take private lessons to pass recognised exams such as IELTS and TOEFL.

Autonomy in language learning
Recently, there has been an increasing interest in autonomy in language learning worldwide. As a result, autonomy has taken part in every area of English Language Teaching (ELT) today. It is also widely acknowledged that autonomy should be the ultimate goal of language teaching and learning programmes. For instance, Benson (2001) takes the position that ‘autonomy is a legitimate and desirable goal of language education’. Similarly, Cotterall (2000, 109) writes that autonomy ‘should be seen as an essential goal of all learning’. In addition, Harmer (2007) describes the ideal situation as the one in which students take charge of their own learning without being directed by the teacher. Besides, Cotterall (2000, 109) claims that most of the language teachers are aware of the importance and necessity of adopting principles of learner autonomy. However, although autonomy seems like a good thing in theory, it is very ambitious goal in practice (Benson 2001).
Autonomy as a term

Autonomy first appeared in language teaching in 1971, through Council of Europe’s Modern Language Project and ‘Holec’s (1981) project report to Council of Europe is a key early document on autonomy in language learning’ (Benson 2001, 8). Holec (1981, 3) defines autonomy as ‘the ability to take charge of one’s own learning’ and says:

‘To take charge of one’s own learning is to have, and to hold, the responsibility for all decisions concerning all aspects of this learning, i.e.:

• 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.)

• evaluating what has been acquired.

The autonomous learner is himself capable of making all these decisions concerning the learning with which he is or wishes to be involved.’

Benson (2001, 2) points out that autonomy is neither a method of learning nor a learning situation, ‘but an attribute of the learner’s approach to the learning process’. In addition, Little (1995, 175) says, ‘the basis of learner autonomy is that the learner accepts responsibility for his or her learning.’ Indeed, autonomy is a very complex and flexible term. Although the definitions given previously sound similar, one can find many different descriptions of autonomy as well as parallel or associated terms throughout its history that stem from slight differences in perceptions and views on it. Nevertheless, there is still more to uncover about its meaning and application for language education (Benson and Voller 1997).

William and Burden (1997, 147) define ‘autonomous learner’ as ‘one who is equipped with the appropriate skills and strategies to learn a language in a self-directed way’. Besides, Littlewood (1996, 428) writes, ‘we can define an autonomous person as one who has an independent capacity to make and carry out the choices which govern his or her actions. This capacity depends on two main components – ability and willingness.’ According to Holec (1981), autonomous learner is the person who is capable of taking charge of his own learning and nothing more.

Nunan (2000) gives details about the characteristics of an autonomous learner: ‘Principally, autonomous learners are able to self-determine the overall direction of their learning, become actively involved in the management of the learning process, exercise freedom of choice in relation to learning resources and activities.’ On the other hand, as Benson (2001) emphasises, autonomous learners might know how to control their own learning; however, this does not mean that they will put this knowledge into practice’. This means that, autonomy is a matter of willingness as well as ability or capacity, as Littlewood (1996) mentions in his definition above.

Why autonomy?

Autonomy seems very demanding in practice; however, there are many beneficial reasons to achieve it. For example, Cotterall (1995, 220) points out that there may not always be teacher available to help and learners should therefore be able to know how to learn by themselves. In addition, Dickinson and Carver (1980, 1) claim that it is very rare to see that learners learn everything by the end of a course. No course can transfer all the knowledge and skills that students will need in the future, so a learner should be aware of his skills, environment and capabilities and learn how to think and learn. Also, the students have to practise on their own no matter how much they learn through lessons (Scharle and Szabo 2000, 4). Thus, ‘autonomy has to be promoted to enable learners learn even when they do not have access to teachers’ instruction and that they will learn more effectively if they do not depend on teachers’ help’ (Cotterall 1995:220). Consequently, autonomous learners are likely to be more successful because they already know about themselves, their weaknesses and strengths, their limits, their capacity etc.; which means that they can take charge and control of everything in their life.

Once students develop their own autonomous approach to learning it can be said that they have acquired a life-long learning skill, which will help them even after their formal education. Thus, as educators, one of our major aims is to help learners to understand that learning is a lifelong process and to acquire the skills of self-directed learning(Knowles 1975). Little (1995, 175) claims that ‘in formal educational contexts, genuinely successful learners have always been autonomous. Thus our enterprise is not to promote new kinds of learning, but by pursuing learner autonomy as an explicit goal, to help more learners to succeed.’

In addition, Littlejohn (1985 cited in Cotterall 1995, 219) suggests that one outcome of learners acting more autonomously may be an increase in enthusiasm for learning. In the light of this, we can say that motivation and autonomy influence each other mutually. And finally, Little (1995, 179) claims that ‘the learner's acceptance of responsibility for his or her learning entails the gradual development of a capacity for independent and flexible use of the target language.’ That means that the more a learner takes charge of her learning the more she is likely to involve in the target language and improve.

Learning strategies have been attracting considerable attention in the language learning field because they seem to be very effective in learning languages. According to Wenden (1998: 18, cited in Thanasoulas, 2000) 'learning strategies are mental steps or operations that learners use to learn a new language and to regulate their efforts to do so'. Cohen (1998, 4 cited in Benson 2001, 80) defines learning strategies as ‘learning processes which are consciously selected by the learner.’ Cohen (1998, cited in Benson 2001) stresses the importance of the word ‘choice’ in his definition and he says it is the distinguishing element among the non-strategic processes. This means, learners should be aware of these strategies and choose the most suitable ones for themselves while learning. In order to do that, learners should take charge of their own learning, rather than always acting according to their teachers’ suggestions. ‘Indeed, learning strategies play an important role in language learning because it is likely that ‘learners who acquire the ability to use strategies flexibly, appropriately and independently are, in effect, autonomous’ (Benson 2001, 146). Oxford (2001) indicates that effective use of learning strategies can evidently facilitate language learning, and goes on to say ‘All language learning strategies are related to the features of control, goal-orientedness, autonomy and self-efficacy… Learning strategies help learners become more autonomous.’ It is understood that the learners who are aware of the power of the learning strategies and make use of them for their purposes are likely to be already autonomous and more successful.

Besides, there is a misconception in autonomy that fostering autonomy means learners should be simply left to their own device and they will find their own way to learn. However, learners may need guidance or training in order to become aware of their skills, build strategies or learn about how to learn. Little (1995) states that especially in formal education contexts, students hardly take responsibility for their learning; so teacher must help them by creating opportunities to practise using them. Little (2002) also writes that ‘the teacher's role is to create and maintain a learning environment in which learners can be autonomous in order to become more autonomous.’ However, ‘learners do not develop the ability to self-direct their learning simply by being placed in situations where they have no other option’ (Benson 2006, 22). In other words, ‘learners who chose, or were forced by circumstances, to study languages in isolation from teachers and other learners would not necessarily develop autonomy (Benson 2001, 13)’. Therefore, forcing learners to be autonomous by only setting the physical conditions and moving them into situations which are likely to foster autonomy, e.g. self-access centres (SACs), will not be an effective approach.

Thus, it may be possible to foster autonomy by training the learners as McCarthy (1998) suggests: ‘Learner training in certain explicit areas can broaden the horizons of the learner and may empower him or her to become autonomous in some or all aspects of language learning.’ However, there is a controversy over whether autonomy is something learners lack and can be developed by ‘training’ or autonomy is something already in the learners and they are already able to control over their own learning (Smith 2003, cited in Smith 2008). According to Holec (1981), teaching learners how to maintain autonomy would be meaningless because it is impossible for the learning to be self-directed; so, he believes that learners need to train themselves. However, Wenden (1998, 531 cited in Benson 2001, 96) says, ‘research suggests that learners also need guidance in improving and expanding their knowledge about learning so that they may also become more autonomous in their approach to the learning of their new language.’ In addition, Sinclair (SIG) says that learner training is aiming to improve effectiveness of learning and effective learning is a part of autonomy. That might mean that if we train our learners towards effective learning, autonomy will automatically be fostered. It seems that once integrated into language teaching curriculum, learner training may help learners to be autonomous and life-long language learners.

Besides, students should be presented the available strategies in order to discover the ones that are suitable for them, because ‘learner strategies are useful tools to learn and improve a language’(Scharle and Szabo2000, 4). Based on this, teachers should train the students about how and when to use these strategies explicitly, because, although a student can be aware of useful strategies, she/he may not know how and when to use it. Parallel to this, Scharle and Szabo (2000, 4) writes:

‘Throughout the development process, and especially in the teaching of learning strategies, we recommend that students are taught skills and attitudes explicitly. This is because we believe that awareness and reflection are essential for the development of responsibility. Explicit training may also encourage a collaborative spirit between the teacher and the learner. Finally, in the case of learning strategies of what strategies are applied in a given activity may increase the chances of transfer to other tasks’.

The objective of learner training is to help learners understand the factors affecting their learning and find the appropriate strategies both for their situation and their context, so that they may take charge of their own learning (Sinclair 2000, 66). Similarly, Cohen (1998, 67) explains that ‘strategy training, i.e. explicitly teaching students how to apply language learning and language use strategies, can enhance students’ effort to reach language program goals because it encourages students to find their own pathways to success, and thus it promotes learner autonomy and self-direction.’ Consequently, strategy training seems to develop responsibility considerably, which will, in turn, foster autonomy. Benson (2006, 28) asserts that ‘the concept of learning strategies is directly related to the practice of ‘strategy training’ and contributes to the practices of ‘learner training’, or ‘learner development’. However, there is a trap that learner training and other approaches usually try to fit learners into standard models of the ‘ideal autonomous learner’, which may cause cultural conflict and this situation may ‘lend support to the criticism that autonomy is a western concept,inappropriate for non-western students’ (Smith 2008, 396).

Discussion of autonomy and learner training in relation with the context

Scharleand Szabó (2000) claim that personal traits, beliefs, preferred learning styles and cultural attitudes hinder the development of autonomy. Therefore, it is crucial to adapt autonomy after careful analysis of the context and culture. ‘It is accepted that autonomy is a multidimensional capacity that will take different forms for different individuals, and even for the same individual in different contexts or at different times’ (Benson 2001, 47). This means that autonomy may manifest itself in different forms in different learners and/or in different contexts.

Generally speaking, Turkey’s educational system is not very different from the other eastern countries although it is located between Asia and Europe. ELT is mostly teacher-centred and exam-based, operating through traditional methods. Therefore, there are many overlapping factors such as culture, education culture and habits. Also these factors intertwine with the teacher and learner beliefs, imposed curriculum, strict hierarchy and exams, which hinder development of autonomy. For example, Ustunoglu’s (2009) research reveals that even at university level teachers take on most of the work and, as a result, students do not take charge of their learning at all. Surprisingly, this study also reports that some of the teachers and students are happy with the teacher-dominant situation although they say that autonomy is something useful. However, the invisibility of autonomy in Turkish learners does not necessarily mean that neither the teachers nor the students lack the capacity to be autonomous persons. It is mostly because of the education system and cultural norms that teachers and students have gone through to date.

As it is described earlier, the learners who enter the no-teacher phase after preparatory year either give up studying English or do not study as much as they used to do under a teacher’s supervision. Therefore, together with the context and culture in mind, an effective learner training for life-long learning should be integrated into the language programme to overcome this problem. Teachers’ education might be the starting point for this ambitious goal. Despite the imposed curriculum by the Higher Education Institution and administrators, teachers can play a key role in this change if they themselves adopt autonomy and become autonomous teachers (For teacher autonomy see Thavenius1999, Smith 2000, Smith 2003, McGrath 2000, Little 1995, Aoki 2002). Little (1995, 180) emphasises that, ‘if we are to achieve large-scale progress in the promotion of learner autonomy, we must now bring our focus of concern back to the teacher, and especially to the way in which we organize and mediate teacher education.’ However, it is very difficult to change the role and personality of the teacher in Turkish society, as teachers are seen and held high esteem as the only source of knowledge. Especially in the classroom, teachers have full authority over students; therefore, leaving some responsibility and control to learners may make teachers feel uncomfortable. Therefore, it is likely that, without the teachers’ willingness, autonomy cannot flourish in Turkish education system.

On the learner’s side, it is crucial to address their fossilised beliefs which are impeding autonomy. ‘If these beliefs are not challenged, the learner's progress may be hindered’ (Cotterall 1995, 195). For example, the learners in the given context give up learning English after the course because they believe that they cannot improve without a teacher. Secondly, learners should be trained in the way that take responsibility for their success and/or failure, which is normally seen as the teacher’s success or failure by Turkish society. Thirdly, learners should be introduced to a large variety of language learning strategies both implicitly and explicitly through language tasks both inside and outside the classroom. Fourthly, learners should be trained both to monitor and to evaluate their learning, for example, through European Language Portfolio (ELP). Also, Self-access centres (SAC) can be beneficial to train learners in the way of autonomous learners; however, this option should be handled carefully and SACs should not be the aim, but a tool. Because, making use of SACs does not necessarily mean that learners will turn out to be autonomous. This also requires another kind of continuous training, together with a counsellor.

Conclusion

Autonomy has become the buzzword recently in ELT and it is probably the most desired goal of the language programmes. Research and experience show that autonomous language learners are more successful; thus, researchers have focused on autonomy and tried to understand it in depth. Indeed, autonomy is a very broad area, which still requires more research and study.

Aoki, N. (2002). Aspects of teacher autonomy: Capacity, freedom, and responsibility. In P. Benson and S. Toogood (eds), Learner Autonomy 7: Challenges to Research and Practice. Dublin: Authentik.

Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. London: Longman.

Benson, P. (2006). ‘Autonomy in language teaching and learning’.Language Teaching, 40, 21-40

Benson, P. & P. Voller (eds.) (1997). Autonomy and independence in language learning. London: Longman.

Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. London: Longman.

Cotterall, S. (1995).‘Readiness for autonomy: Investigating learner beliefs’. System, 23(2), 195-206

Cotterall, S. (2000).‘Promoting learner autonomy through the curriculum’: Principles for designing language courses.ELT Journal 54.2, 109–117.

L.,Dickinson andD. J.,Carver (1980).‘Learning how to learn: steps towards self-direction in foreign language learning in schools’, ELT Journal 35: 1-7

Harmer, J. (2007).The practice of English language teaching (4th Edition) Harlow: Pearson Education.

Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy in foreign language learning (first published 1979, Strasbourg: Council of Europe). Oxford: Pergamon.

Knowles, M. S. (1975).Self-Directed Learning. A guide for learners and teachers, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall/Cambridge.

Lee, I. (1998). ‘Supporting greater autonomy in language learning’.ELT Journal, 52 (4), 282-289

Little, D. (1995).‘Learning as dialogue: The dependence of learner autonomy on teacher autonomy’.System 23.2, 175– 182.

Little, D. (2002).‘Learner autonomy and second/foreign language learning’.In The guide to good practice for learning and teaching in languages, linguistics and area studies. University of Southampton: LTSN Subject Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies. (Accessed on 7 May 2011).

Littlejohn, A. (1985).'Learner choice in language study'.ELT Journal 39/4: 253-61.

Littlewood, W. (1996). Autonomy: An anatomy and a framework. System 24.4, 427–435.

McCarthy, C.P. (1998). Learner training for learner autonomy on summer language courses. The Internet TESL Journal. 4 (7 ). Available at http://iteslj.org/Techniques/McCarthy-Autonomy.html (Accessed on 2 May 2011).

McGrath, I. (2000). Teacher autonomy. In B. Sinclair, I. McGrath and T. Lamb (eds), Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy: Future Directions. Harlow: Longman.

Nunan, D. (2000). Autonomy in Language Learning. (Accessed on May 5, 2011 at http://ec.hku.hk/dcnunan/)

Oxford, R.L. (2001). ‘Language learning strategies’ in Carter, R & D. Nunan. (Eds.). The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. UK: Cambridge University Press (pp. 166-72).

Scharle, A .& A. Szabo (2000).Learner autonomy: A guide to developing learner responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Smith, R.C. (2000). Starting with ourselves: Teacher-learner autonomy in language learning. In B. Sinclair, I. McGrath and T. Lamb (eds), Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy: Future Directions. Harlow: Longman.

Smith, R.C. (2003). 'Teacher education for teacher-learner autonomy.' In J. Gollin, et al. (eds), Symposium for Language Teacher Educators: Papers from Three IALS Symposia (CD-ROM). Edinburgh: IALS, University of Edinburgh.

Smith, R. C. (2003). ‘Pedagogy for autonomy as (becoming-) appropriate methodology’. In Palfreyman& Smith (eds.), 129–146.

Smith, R.C. (2008). ‘Learner autonomy (Key concepts in ELT)’.ELT Journal 62/4: 395-397

Thanasoulas, D. (2000). ‘What is learner autonomy and how can it be fostered?’The Internet TESL Journal 11. http://iteslj.org/Articles/Thanasoulas-Autonomy.html (Accessed on 5 May 2011).

Thavenius, C. (1999). Teacher autonomy for learner autonomy. In S. Cotterall and D. Crabbe (eds), Learner Autonomy in Language Learning: Defining the Field and Effecting Change. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.

Thomson, C. K. (1996). ‘Self -assessment in self-directed learning: Issues of learner diversity’. In Pemberton et al (Eds.) Talking control: Autonomy in language learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Ustunoglu, E., (2009). ‘Autonomy in language learning: Do students take responsibility for their learning?’Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 5(2):148-169. http://eku.comu.edu.tr/index/5/2/e_ustunluoglu.pdf. (Accessed on 1 May 2011)

Wenden, A. (1998). Learner Strategies for Learner Autonomy. Great Britain: Prentice Hall.

Williams, M. and Burden, R.L. (1997).Psychology for Language Teachers: A Social Constructivist Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press