Por la facultad de quienes pueden sufragar.

Having revisited the theoretical discussions on defining autonomy, in this section, I will continue the questions raised at the end of the last section. Legenhausen (2007) proposes a wider definition of classroom research in the field of learner autonomy:

This is also why I chose to stay with the term practitioner research instead of classroom research. It is true that when researching autonomy, especially when we play the dual role as teacher-researchers, we become interested in the dynamic process of learning and teaching, and all the factors involved during this process. Therefore, Action Research as a research methodology enables us to systematically study ways of promoting learner autonomy.

As mentioned above (Benson, 2007a, Legenhausen, 2007), we still have a rather modest collection of empirical studies to show us an overview of what kinds of research have been conducted. Most empirical reports on autonomy tend to be published in specially edited volumes of papers produced by various autonomy- related special interest groups or networks (such as the JALT Learner Development SIG, or the Nordic Workshop Group), rather than in independent research journals. Because of this, I intend to look for the studies published in journals, and will summarise four empirical studies (Apple, 2006; Cotterall, 1995; Porto, 2008; Yang, 2003) reporting the actual application in language classrooms. I chose these four to focus on in this report because these four cover a period of time when autonomy had attracted more attention. Moreover, these four reported studies were conducted in different geographical locations, Japan, Taiwan, Chile and New Zealand. As Benson (2007a) suggests, based on contexts of application, the studies can be roughly divided into autonomybeyondthe classroom and autonomywithinthe classroom. The former refers to the self-access learning type of out-of-class learning, while the latter refers to the exercise of autonomy within an educational setting. It is the latter context to which my research belongs; thus, the four I chose all have this same feature. In the following discussion, I will present the studies in a chronological order, starting with Cotterall (1995), Yang (2003), Apple (2006) and Porto (2008).

[I]n the context of learner autonomy it seems wiser to subscribe to a wider sense, which includes characteristics of the learners, teachers, the learning process itself and the broader socio- political context in which classrooms are embedded, in order to facilitate interpretations of the procedures and developmental processes in autonomous classrooms and their learning outcomes. (p. 17)

2.1.2.1 Cotterall (1995)

Cotterall’s study (1995) was first published in ELT Journal and later reprinted in Wallace’s (1998) bookAction Research for Language Teachers. Her study discussed means of promoting learner autonomy in an English language programme designed for international students who wanted to enrol in tertiary intuitions in New Zealand. Her argument is that “learner autonomy is not something which can be ‘clipped on’ to existing learning programmes, but it has implications for the entire curriculum” (Cotterall, 1998, p. 173). This belief and the consequent action conform to the strong

version of pedagogy for autonomy which Smith (2003) proposed. Through

learner/teacher dialogue, classroom tasks and materials, student record booklets, and a self-access centre, various opportunities were created for learners to exercise decision-making on their learning process. She therefore reached the following four conclusions:

1. Autonomy in language learning is desirable.

2. Dialogue is more important to autonomy than structures.

3. The relationship between the learner and the class teacher is central to the fostering of autonomy.

4. Autonomy has implications for the entire curriculum.

5. In sum, her conclusion highlighted the learner-teacher relationship, which echoes Dam’s emphasis on teachers’ responsibilities. In Cotterall’s case, not only teachers but also programme designers share this responsibility in promoting learner autonomy.

2.1.2.2 Yang (2003)

I chose Yang’s studies because they were conducted in a very similar context to my study, language courses offered in a University in Taiwan. In her 1998 article titled ‘Exploring a New Role for Teachers: Promoting Learner Autonomy’ published in System, the same message was highlighted –teachers’ responsibilities and the change of role. In saying that it was a “new” role, Yang argued that teachers used to neglect the potential of learners’ ability in taking charge of their own learning. She also started with three questions:

1. How can language teachers aid their learners in becoming autonomous?

2. How do learning strategies contribute to learner autonomy?

3. How can the promoting of autonomy be incorporated into the teaching and learning of second languages?

From the second question, it shows that she turned to learning strategies as a means of developing learner autonomy in line with Oxford (1990) and Wenden (1991). However, in her 2003 article ‘Integrating Portfolios into Learning Strategy-based Instruction for EFL College Students’, as the title suggests, she included the use of portfolios as a means of raising awareness during the evaluation process. Her studies show that learner autonomy is not a concept that is foreign to English learners in Taiwan. As I mentioned above, when promoting autonomy, it is necessary to consider the cultural background of the learners, and not to interpret autonomy as part of the Western belief system.

2.1.2.3 Apple (2006)

Apple’s study reports his experience in encouraging students to do extensive listening with college students in Japan. I included his study because his study also explores the development of learner autonomy through the listening skill. His study will be elaborated more in 3.4.2 in relation to extensive listening.

2.1.2.4 Porto (2008)

The last practitioner study I would like to review is Porto (2008), who recorded the process of introducing more autonomy into her teaching as part of a larger Action Research project. She is the only one who reflected on her own role in greater depth through the teaching diaries she kept. She first started with a theoretical journal in which she listed several questions for herself to answer, which reveal a strong sense of “I” (p.189).

1. What are my views of autonomy?

2. How do I see my role as a teacher in the foreign language classroom and in education in general?

3. What do the notions of learner responsibility and learner choice entail in my view? 4. How are learner autonomy, responsibility and choice materialised in my classroom?

In order to put her belief of autonomy into practice, the first step she planned was to introduce “a gradual increase of responsibility from learners in the management of their own learning” (p. 194). She started her lesson with a session called “Amazing Facts” in which students voluntarily share something amazing. Along with this, she adopted a process-approach to writing, and introduced activities

students can practice at home. In her findings, she reported the dark side of students’ choice-making. First of all, her own fear of granting more freedom and letting students get out of control led to a still authoritarian way of leading the class. She wrote,

I discovered how inconsistent I had been in my teaching practices…What I said I believed about learner choice and what I did in practice in this respect followed different paths. … It was quite traumatic for me to face the fact that it was me who was unsure about welcoming my learners’ initiatives. My diaries made me see that when learners strayed away from a topic, I tended to view this behaviour as evidence of my loss of control, took direct concrete action to restore order and, if I did not, I wondered about whether to do so in writing (sic). (p. 196)

How Porto struggled between maintaining control or allowing learner the freedom of choice is a typical dilemma for teachers in actual practice, and her narrative provides a very genuine suggestion for other teachers who are interested in trying out the same attempt. In fact, aside from encouraging more evidence-based classroom research in showing that learner autonomy has positive learning outcomes, we also need studies like Porto’s which provide insights into what the journey is like for teachers in learning to learn how to let go.

2.1.3 Factors influencing the development of LA: The roles of collaboration