Autonomy Benson2007

State-of-the-art article
Autonomy in language teaching and learning

Phil Benson Hong Kong Institute of Education [email protected]
There has been a remarkable growth of interest in the theory and practice of autonomy in language teaching and learning in recent years. Focusing on work published since the turn of the 20th century, this review examines major trends in the recent literature on autonomy related to the emergence of alternative views of autonomy, new contexts of practice and interaction with concepts such as selfregulation, motivation, sociocultural theory and teacher development. The review also covers relevant developments in the philosophy of autonomy and the role of autonomy in global educational policy and reform. It concludes by discussing possible directions for future research in the eld.
Short summary articles appearing in encyclopedias and handbooks (Little 2000a; Benson 2003, 2006a; Wright 2005) and on the web (Thanasoulas 2000; Little 2002a), including entries on learner autonomy in the online Macmillan English Dictionary (2002) and Wikipedia (2006b). Guides for teachers and learners focusing on autonomy and independent learning (Scharle & Szab o 2000; Fernandez-Toro & Jones 2001; Hurd & Murphy 2005). Chapters on autonomy in general guides to language teaching (Hedge 2000; Harmer 2001; Kumaravadivelu 2003) and in more specialized work, such as Nation (2001) on vocabulary, Thornbury (2005) on speaking, D ornyei (2001a) on motivation, White (2003) on distance learning and Littlemore & Low (2006) on gurative thinking. Papers on autonomy appearing in collections covering topics not directly related to autonomy, including affect (Aoki 1999), communicative language teaching (Schalkwijk et al. 2002), language policy (Lamb 2000b; Lamb & Reinders 2005), CALL (Blin 1999; Healy 1999; Hoven 1999; Wachman 1999; Little 2001; Littlemore 2001), ELT (Holliday 2005) and EAP (Lynch 2001). Holmberg, Shelley & Whites (2005) book on distance language learning and Jim enez Raya & Lambs (2003) book on differentiation both include several chapters on autonomy.
1. Introduction
In Benson (2001), I reviewed the literature on autonomy in language teaching and learning from its origins in the mid-1970s up to the end of the 20th century. Since the turn of the century, however, interest in autonomy has grown considerably. Conferences have been held in Europe, Asia, Australasia and Latin America and at the AILA 2005 World Congress no less than 36 contributions from 18 countries were listed under the heading of autonomy. In terms of sheer quantity, the literature on autonomy published since 2000 exceeds the literature published over the previous 25 years. Focusing on the recent literature, the present review explores how this growing interest in autonomy is inuencing theory and practice, leading to the emergence of new directions in research. Aside from contributions to major journals, recent publications on autonomy in language education include:
More than 20 book length publications on autonomy, including collaborative projects (Little, Ridley & Ushioda 2002, 2003; Bareld & Nix 2003; van Esch & St. John 2003), journal special issues (Victori 2000; Dam 2001), collections from conferences (Karlsson, Kjisik & Nordlund 2000; Rib e 2000; Sinclair, McGrath & Lamb 2000; Benson & Toogood 2002; Mackenzie & McCafferty 2002; Vieira et al. 2002; Reinders et al. 2004; Benson 2006b; Gardner 2006; Lamb & Reinders 2006; Miller 2006) and collections of commissioned papers (MozzonMcPherson & Vismans 2001; Lewis & Walker 2003; Palfreyman & Smith 2003; Lamb & Reinders 2007).
The narrative thread that ties this review together is, therefore, one of a growth of interest in autonomy that has reached a point where it has begun to overow the banks of the specialist literature. Particular concerns include the ways in which conceptions of autonomy are changing within our eld, and the ways in which new conceptions of autonomy t in with broader developments in language teaching
PHIL BENSON is an Associate Professor in English at the Hong Kong Institute of Education and formerly lectured at the University of Hong Kong. He is the author of Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning (Longman, 2001) and has co-edited three books and published numerous papers on autonomy. He has also published work on life history research in language learning and World Englishes. Phil Benson, English Department, Hong Kong Institute of Education, 10 Lo Ping Road, Tai Po, New Territories, Hong Kong. [email protected]
c
Lang. Teach. 40, 2140. doi:10.1017/S0261444806003958 Printed in the United Kingdom
2006 Cambridge University Press
21
http://journals.cambridge.org
Downloaded: 11 Oct 2011
IP address: 137.205.50.42
Phil Benson
and learning theory, educational practice and social thought. The sheer quantity of work on autonomy published since the turn of century calls for a selective approach. Work that ploughs familiar ground is not covered in detail, in order to save space for references from elds that are relevant to, but not directly concerned with autonomy in language education. These include elds of language education research learning strategies and self-regulation, motivation, individual differences and sociocultural approaches, and teacher development as well as the elds of philosophy and education policy. The treatment of work from these elds is even more selective, however, and as far as possible I have cited studies with comprehensive lists of references that will guide readers who wish to dig deeper.
Autonomy could, for example, be recognized in students unpredictable contributions to classroom activities that could temporarily throw the teachers plans off course. In his book on learner training, Dickinson (1992) also argued that learners often acted independently, both cognitively and behaviourally, in the classroom, while Dam (1995) demonstrated how principles of autonomy could be integrated into secondary school classrooms without self-access or formal learner training. This turn towards classroom applications led a second wave of interest in autonomy in the 1990s, with important theoretical implications. Littles (1991) book on learner autonomy, for example, emphasized the psychological attributes of autonomous learners and prioritized interdependence over independence in learning. And in an early paper on teacher autonomy, Little (1995) argued that learner autonomy did not imply any particular mode of practice, but was instead dependent upon the quality of the pedagogical dialogue between teachers and learners. With the proliferation of self-access centres in the 1990s and more recent developments related to computer-based modes of teaching and learning, however, Allwrights (1988) radical restructuring of language pedagogy has become a reality that many language teachers must now come to terms with. The deconstruction of conventional language learning classrooms and courses in many parts of the world is thus a third context for growing interest in autonomy in recent years. Indeed, the tendency has been towards a blurring of the distinction between classroom and out-of-class applications, leading to new and often complex understandings of the role of autonomy in language teaching and learning.
2. The rise of autonomy in language education
2.1 A brief history

The early history of autonomy in language education is well documented (Gremmo & Riley 1995; Little 1991, 2000a; Benson 2001; Holec 2007). In brief, it begins with the Council of Europes Modern Languages Project, which led to the publication of Holecs (1981) seminal report, in which autonomy was dened as the ability to take charge of ones own learning (p. 3). Important work from this period can also be found in early issues of the journal M elanges P edagogiques and in papers presented at a 1976 seminar at the University of Cambridge (Harding-Esch 1977). Early pedagogical experiments related to autonomy were inspired by humanistic expectations aroused by the political turmoil and counter-cultures of late-1960s Europe (Holec 1981; Gremmo & Riley 1995). Practical applications focused on self-directed learning and led to the development of self-access centres and learner training as focal points for experimentation. Although Holec (1981) treated autonomy as an attribute of the learner, the term was also used to describe learning situations. In his book on self-instruction, Dickinson (1987: 11), for example, described autonomy as the situation in which the learner is totally responsible for all of the decisions concerned with his learning and the implementation of those decisions. As Allwright (1988: 35) put it, the idea of learner autonomy was for a long time associated with a radical restructuring of language pedagogy that involved the rejection of the traditional classroom and the introduction of wholly new ways of working. To put this comment in context, many of the early experiments were designed for adults who did not necessarily have the time, inclination or opportunity to attend classroom-based courses. For Allwright, however, autonomy needed to be re-conceptualized if it was to be applied to the classroom. 22
2.2 Denitions
Holecs (1981) denition of learner autonomy has proved remarkably robust and remains the most widely cited denition in the eld. Variations on this denition abound. Ability is often replaced by capacity (a term used by Holec elsewhere), while take charge of is often replaced by take responsibility for or take control of ones own learning (terms also used by Holec). The key element in denitions of this kind is the idea that autonomy is an attribute of learners, rather than learning situations (cf. Dickinson 1987: 11). The strengthening of this view, based on the assumption that learners do not develop the ability to self-direct their learning simply by being placed in situations where they have no other option, is one of the more signicant developments in the denition of learner autonomy over the past 30 years. Many advocates of autonomy argue that some degree of freedom in learning is required if learners are to develop their autonomy. But most accept that freedom in learning is not the same thing as autonomy and this freedom will always
IP address: 137.205.50.42

be constrained, a view expressed most cogently by Little (1996). A second important development has been a growing emphasis on the psychology of learner autonomy. Although Holec frequently discussed the qualities of autonomous learners, his description of what taking charge of ones own learning involves, which emphasized planning, the selection of materials, monitoring learning progress and self-assessment, arguably focused on the mechanics of day-to-day learning management (Holec 1981: 4). In contrast, Little (1991) placed psychology at the heart of learner autonomy. In one interesting recent denition, Little (2000a: 69) combined Holecs denition with his own:
Autonomy in language learning depends on the development and exercise of a capacity for detachment, critical reection, decision making and independent action (see Little 1991: 4); autonomous learners assume responsibility for determining the purpose, content, rhythm and method of their learning, monitoring its progress and evaluating its outcomes. (Holec 1981: 3)
Autonomy
the closely related ideas that there may be different levels of autonomy and different ways of representing autonomy have been explored. The radicalism of the concept of autonomy has also been challenged by a number of writers who have attempted to reconstruct its relevance to language teaching and learning in innovative ways. This deconstruction of the concept of autonomy arises from the assumption that autonomy is both contextually-variable and a matter of degree and from concerns that mainstream views of autonomy pay scant regard to cultural variability within language education on a global scale.
3.1 Levels of autonomy

In the late 1990s a number of writers sought to operationalize the notion that autonomy is a matter of degree. Nunans (1997: 195) attempt involved a model of ve levels of learner action awareness, involvement, intervention, creation and transcendence which could inform the sequencing of learner development activities in language textbooks. These levels also involved dimensions of content and process. At the awareness level, for example, learners would be made aware of the pedagogical goals and content of the materials, identify strategy implications of pedagogical tasks, and identify their own preferred learning styles/strategies. At the transcendence level, learners would make links between the content of classroom learning and the world beyond and become teachers and researchers. While Nunans model remained within the framework of language learning, Littlewoods (1997: 81) three-stage model involved dimensions of language acquisition, learning approach and personal development. In the context of language acquisition, autonomy involved an ability to operate independently with the language and use it to communicate personal meanings in real, unpredictable situations (autonomy as a communicator). In the context of classroom organization, it involved learners ability to take responsibility for their own learning and to apply active, personally relevant strategies (autonomy as a learner). And in a broader context, it involved a higher-level goal of . . . greater generalized autonomy as individuals (autonomy as a person). At around the same time, Macaro (1997: 170172) proposed a somewhat similar three-stage model involving autonomy of language competence, autonomy of language learning competence and autonomy of choice and action. Scharle & Szab os (2000: 1) resource book for the development of autonomy was also informed by a three phase model involving raising awareness, changing attitudes and transferring roles. Littlewood was also responsible for a widelycited distinction between proactive autonomy, which afrms [learners] individuality and sets up 23
Although the relationship between these two aspects of autonomy is not made explicit, the assumption is that the capacity to manage ones own learning depends upon certain underlying psychological capacities. From this perspective, Holec (1981) described the exercise of autonomy, rather than autonomy itself. In other words, although his denition explained what autonomous learners are able to do, it did not explain how they are able to do it. Littles psychological approach also raised a new question. What exactly are the most important components of autonomy in language learning? The recent theoretical literature includes a number of interesting, if inconclusive, attempts to answer this question (Littlewood 1996; Pemberton 1996; Breen & Mann 1997; Sinclair 2000; Benson 2001; Finch 2002; Oxford 2003). The difculty of dening learner autonomy in terms of its most important components has also been expressed in two assumptions that have achieved widespread consensus: that there are degrees of autonomy (Nunan 1997: 192) and that the behaviour of autonomous learners can take numerous different forms, depending on their age, how far they have progressed with their learning, what they perceive their immediate learning needs to be, and so on (Little 1991: 4). Attention has therefore shifted to the range of potential meanings for the idea of learner autonomy and to the different ways in which these meanings are represented in research and practice.
3. Mainstream autonomy and its critics

Theoretical work on the concept of learner autonomy to the mid-1990s aimed to specify what the goal of autonomy entails. In the theoretical literature published over the past ten years or so, however, autonomy appears as a more problematic concept as
IP address: 137.205.50.42
Phil Benson
directions which they themselves have partially created, and reactive autonomy, which does not create its own directions but, once a direction has been initiated, enables learners to organize their resources autonomously in order to reach their goal (Littlewood 1999: 75). My own attempt to model levels of learner autonomy involved dimensions of control over language learning and teaching processes grouped under three main headings learning management, cognitive processing and the content of learning (Benson 2001). Each of these models implies a possible progression from lower to higher levels of autonomy. They may also be related to the movement of the idea of autonomy into mainstream language education and a perceived need to identify spaces at the lower levels, where autonomy might be fostered without radical educational reforms. Nunan (1997: 201), for example, argued that his model illustrated how autonomy can be a normal, everyday addition to regular instruction. How far one wants to go in encouraging autonomy, he suggested, will be dictated by the contexts and environments in which the teaching and learning takes place. Littlewood (1999: 75) also argued that although for many writers proactive autonomy is the only kind that counts, reactive autonomy had its place either as a step towards proactive autonomy, or as a goal in its own right. One problem with such models, however, is their assumption that the relationship between the development of autonomy and language prociency is unproblematic. Kumaravadivelu (2003: 144) has argued, for example, that it would be a mistake to try to correlate the initial, intermediary, and advanced stages of autonomy . . . with the beginning, intermediate, and advanced levels of language prociency, because the stages of autonomy depend more on the linguistic and communicative demands of particular tasks.
has made a more general distinction between weak and strong pedagogies for autonomy, while Kumaravadivelu (2003) makes a similar distinction between narrow and broad views of autonomy. These models are again related to the movement of the idea of autonomy into mainstream language education, as each implies a distinction between mainstream perspectives and more radical, sociallyoriented, alternatives. Smith (2003: 131), for example, associates weak pedagogies with the idea of autonomy as a capacity which students currently lack (and so need training towards). Strong pedagogies on the other hand, are based on the assumption that students are already autonomous to some degree, and focus on co-creating with students optimal conditions for the exercise of their own autonomy. Rib e (2003: 15) similarly associates convergence models of autonomy with a movement towards shared, other-directed curriculum goals, while divergence models are associated with more open approaches to language curricula in which autonomy lies in the wide range of choices around the process affecting almost all levels of control, management and strategic decisions. Most of these models also recognize the legitimacy, in certain contexts, of all of the representations of autonomy they describe. Rib e (2003) argues, for example, that an optimal learning environment probably requires a mixture of the three perspectives he describes. Oxford (2003: 90) also argues that research on autonomy should combine as many perspectives as possible and no single perspective should be considered antithetical to any other (p. 90). But there is usually an implication that the stronger versions are, in fact, more legitimate than the weaker ones. The process of modelling versions of autonomy is, indeed, often a device for critiquing versions perceived as mainstream for their focus on the lower levels of autonomy. Central to this critique is the argument that language learners are far more capable of autonomous action, especially in regard to decisions about the content of learning, than teachers typically suppose. From this perspective a gradualist, step-by-step approach, in which the higher levels of autonomy may never be addressed, may restrict, rather than foster, the development of autonomy.
3.2 Versions of autonomy

To the best of my knowledge, Benson (1997) was the rst paper to introduce the idea of different versions, or ways of representing, the idea of autonomy. The terms technical, psychological and political were used to describe three major versions of autonomy in language education circles. Subsequent writers have cut the cake in different ways and distinctions introduced in the recent literature include Rib es (2003) convergence, divergence-convergence and convergence-divergence positions; ORourke & Schwienhorsts (2003) individual-cognitive, socialinteractive and exploratory-participatory perspectives; Oxfords (2003) expanded version of Bensons model, which recognized technical, psychological, sociocultural, and political-critical perspectives; and Hollidays (2003) native-speakerist, culturalrelativist and social approaches. Smith (2003) 24
3.3 Alternatives to mainstream autonomy

The stronger versions of autonomy identied in the models discussed above tend to fall within the broad conceptual framework of the earlier theoretical work discussed in section 2. Some writers, however, have offered more radical alternatives. Pennycook (1997) rst introduced the idea of mainstream autonomy, identied by its concern with individual learner psychology and learning strategies, into the literature. He replaced this concern with the view that, in
IP address: 137.205.50.42

the context of the global spread of ELT, autonomy was mainly a matter of helping students to nd a voice in English and confront a range of cultural constructions as they learn English (Pennycook 1997: 48). Hollidays (2003: 117) notion of social autonomy, based on the assumption that autonomy resides in the social worlds of the students, which they bring with them from their lives outside the classroom also departs radically from conventional conceptions of autonomy in language learning. Most recently, Schmenk (2005: 112) has argued that the promotion of autonomy as a universal good in language education depends upon a glossing over of questions concerning what autonomy might entail in specic social, cultural, or institutional learning contexts, which leaves the concept devoid of specic characteristics and thus facilitates its homogenization. Schmenk argues that the concept of autonomy has value, nevertheless, provided that language educators admit that autonomy is not a universal and neutral concept and that it encompasses a critical awareness of ones own possibilities and limitations within particular contexts (p. 115). Pennycook, Holliday and Schmenk are especially critical of the purposes to which the idea of autonomy is currently being put in mainstream ELT contexts. For Holliday (2003; 2005), for example, the idea of autonomy is central to dominant ELT discourses which counterpose the active Western student to the passive non-Western Other. While many researchers on autonomy would share this concern, the identication of the concept of autonomy with its mainstream representations is more problematic. As we have seen, the concept of autonomy can be represented in various ways and it is by no means clear that there is, in fact, a single mainstream representation of the concept (see section 4.2 below) within ELT, or that trends within ELT thinking on autonomy are representative of foreign language education more generally. The alternative conceptions of autonomy that these critiques propose are also somewhat vaguely formulated and inadequately motivated in both theoretical and empirical terms.
Autonomy
technology-based approaches to language instruction. This critique illustrates how debates on autonomy and culture are often less concerned with appropriateness of the principle that learners should take more control of their learning than they are with the appropriateness of methods of teaching and learning associated with this principle. Palfreyman & Smiths (2003) recent collection of papers thus represents an important attempt to take the discussion of autonomy and culture beyond discussion of teaching and learning methods. Palfreyman (2003b), for example, discusses the different ways in which various stakeholders involved in attempts to implement autonomy in a Turkish university understood and represented the concept, while Aoki & Hamakawa (2003) attempt to break away from ethnic or national conceptions of culture, by exploring issues of autonomy from a feminist perspective. There has also been a trend in the recent literature to seek harder empirical evidence on responses to the idea of autonomy among students from China (Tang 1999; Gan, Humphrey & HampLyons 2004; Gieve & Clark 2005; Huang 2006a; Ruan 2006), Hong Kong (Littlewood 1999; 2000; Chan, Spratt & Humphrey 2002; Braine 2003) and Japan (Smith 2001; 2003; Nix 2002; Snyder 2002; Tomei 2002). Although the ndings of these studies are mixed, they do show that many Asian students value freedom in language learning and the opportunity to direct their own learning. They also highlight the fact that the cultural appropriateness of autonomy has mainly been addressed in relation to non-Western ELT students. One issue that deserves further attention is the sense in which foreign language study necessarily involves inter-cultural learning (Sercu 2002) and a challenge to culturallyconditioned conceptions of the self (Benson, Chik & Lim 2003; Riley 2003).
4. Contexts of application
The trajectory of autonomy in language education up to the end of the 20th century was characterized by an early focus on self-directed learning in selfaccess centres, followed in the 1990s by a shift toward classroom applications. But the proliferation of self-access centres in 1990s meant that selfaccess remained a central focus of attention. Since the turn of the century, the importance of self-access within the literature on autonomy has diminished somewhat, but this does not mean that the pendulum has decisively switched toward classroom applications. In this section, I will discuss contexts of application for autonomy since the turn of the century under two broad headings beyond and within the classroom although, as we will see, a hard-edged distinction between these two broad contexts is increasingly difcult to maintain. 25
3.4 Autonomy and culture

The idea that autonomy is a Western ideal, emphasizing the positive value of active participation and individualism, is fundamental to the critiques of autonomy discussed above. This idea has also been discussed, however, in a number of papers on autonomy in Asia in the 1990s, which largely argue for group-oriented approaches to the implementation of autonomy in these settings (see reviews in Smith 2001; Palfreyman 2003b). More recently, Sonaiya (2002) has argued that the idea of autonomy is inappropriate to African settings. Sonaiyas argument is, however, mainly directed at individualized,
IP address: 137.205.50.42
Phil Benson
4.1 Autonomy beyond the classroom
The development of applied linguistics in the 20th century was grounded in the institutionalization of language learning and the assumption that languages are normally acquired in classrooms (Benson 2005). In this context, self-access centres were initially viewed as a radical alternative to the classroom. In the 1990s, however, the self-access centre became a standard feature of institutionalized language learning in many parts of the world and other alternatives also emerged to challenge the idea that the classroombased learning is the norm. Each of these modes of practice deserves its own more detailed review. This review focuses on key references and work discussing issues of autonomy.
Self-access. Gardner & Millers (1999) book on self-access is the most comprehensive work in this eld. Since its publication, the difculty of making self-access centres work independently of teachersupport for autonomy has become a prominent theme in the literature. There has also been a shift of attention from the organization of self-access centres to the integration of self-access learning with coursework (Toogood & Pemberton 2002; Fisher, Hafner & Young 2006; Gardner 2006; Kisjick 2006;) and self-access advising as a particular form of teaching (Carter 2001; Clemente 2001; Crabbe, Hoffman & Cotterall 2001; Mozzon-McPherson & Vismans 2001; Pemberton et al. 2001; Bailly & Ciekanski 2006; Hobbs & Jones-Parry 2006; Toogod & Pemberton 2006; Gremmo & Castillo 2007). CALL. With the advent of the Internet, computer technology has played a pervasive role in institutionalized and non-institutionalized language learning. Several recent contributions to the vast literature in this area have emphasized opportunities for learner autonomy within CALL and the importance of attention to autonomy in the development and use of CALL technologies (Blin 1999; Healy 1999; Hoven 1999; Murray 1999; Wachman 1999; Dias 2000; Littlemore 2001; ORourke & Schwienhorst 2003; Schwienhorst 2003; Benson 2004; Corder & Waller 2006). Distance learning. The recent growth of distance language learning has led to a corresponding growth in the literature, in which issues of autonomy are prominent (Hurd, Beaven & Ortega 2001; White & Shelley 2003; Holmberg et al. 2005; Hurd 2005, Murphy 2006; White 2003, 2006a, b; Baumann 2006). Distance learning has also begun to merge with CALL through concepts such as online learning, cyberschools, asynchronous learning networks and telematics, in which issues of autonomy are less frequently discussed (White 2003: 27ff.). Tandem learning. Tandem learning, in which two people who are learning each others language work together to help one another (Lewis 2005: 106), has
a long association with autonomy. Lewis (2005) notes that while it was something of a minority interest before the rise of the Internet, 22 UK universities now offer tandem learning to their students and projects have developed in Europe, Japan, Russia and the USA. Issues of autonomy are often discussed in the growing literature in this eld (M uller-Hartmann 2000; Little 2001; K otter 2002; Lewis & Walker 2003; Lewis 2005). Study abroad. Language learning programmes now frequently incorporate periods in which students spend time in target language communities. These include study abroad visits in North American modern language education (Pellegrino Aveni 2005), immersion visits in many Asian ELT courses (Bodycott & Crew 2001) and longer periods of residence abroad, more characteristic of UK and European university settings (Coleman 2000, 2005; Ife 2000). Although many of these overseas programmes involve classroom instruction, their main purpose is usually for the students to learn independently through interaction with native speakers. Autonomy is clearly relevant to such programmes, although it has not to date played a prominent role in published work. Out-of-class learning. In the recent literature on autonomy, the term out-of-class learning has been used, somewhat narrowly, to refer to the efforts of learners taking classroom-based language courses to nd opportunities for language learning and use outside class (Hyland 2004; M. Lamb 2004; Pearson 2004). Surprisingly, this is a relatively new area in the literature on autonomy. Recent studies suggest that students tend to engage in out-of-class learning activities more frequently than their teachers know, often showing considerable creativity in situations where opportunities for out-of-class learning appear to be limited. Self-instruction. In a narrow sense, self-instruction refers to the use of printed or broadcast self-study materials. In a broader sense, it refers to situations in which learners undertake language study largely or entirely without the aid of teachers. Although it played an important role in the early literature on autonomy, self-instruction in the narrower sense was soon recognized as a particularly other-directed mode of learning (Benson 2001: 62), while its broader sense was largely subsumed within the concept of self-directed learning. In both senses, selfinstruction has received little attention in the language learning literature, although recent contributions by Fern andez-Toro (1999) and Fern andez-Toro & Jones (2001) are worth noting, together with papers on the use of broadcast language learning materials in Japan (Umino 1999, 2005) and papers describing the experiences of entirely self-instructed learners (Murray 2004; Murray & Kojima 2006). This work tends to take a broader view of self-instruction and is sensitive to the importance of the development
26
Downloaded: 11 Oct 2011 IP address: 137.205.50.42

of autonomy for learners who persist in their efforts.
Autonomy
on content and language integration, and Cotterall (2000) on course design for autonomy. A second important development, straddling classroom and non-classroom applications, is renewed attention to the assessment of autonomy (Sinclair 1999; Champagne et al. 2001; Lai 2001; Rivers 2001), of language learning gains in autonomous learning programmes (Dam 2000; Legenhausen 2001; 2003), and appropriate methods of assessment for such programmes, including self-assessment and portfolios (Ektabani & Pierson 2000; Little 2002b, 2003, 2005; Pe naorida 2002; Simonian & Robertson 2002; Small 2002; Salaberri & Appel 2003; Shimo 2003; Morrison 2005). The most signicant development in the eld of classroom autonomy, however, is marked by the appearance of several general books on language teaching and learning with sections on autonomy, including Hedge (2000), Harmer (2001) and Kumaravadivelu (2003) on teaching methodology, Nation (2001) on vocabulary and Thornbury (2005) on speaking. These books provide us with the most striking evidence of the movement of autonomy into mainstream language education, and while it is tempting to view them as examples of the weaker versions of autonomy discussed in section 3, the approaches taken differ from one another. In Harmers (2001) The practice of English language teaching, learner autonomy shares space with teacher development in a chapter added to the end of the 3rd edition of the book. Although the suggestions on learner training, classroom decision-making and out-of-class learning are useful, they also seem to be something of an afterthought in the nal chapter of a book that does not otherwise mention autonomy. Hedges (2000) chapter entitled Learner autonomy and learner training, on the other hand, is one of three introductory chapters (following Learners and learning: classrooms and contexts and The communicative classroom) which frame the approach taken in the book as a whole. Most interesting in this respect is Kumaravadivelus (2003) chapter on autonomy one of ten covering macrostrategies, or guiding principles derived from historical, theoretical, empirical, and experiential insights related to L2 learning and teaching (p. 38). Although it offers practical advice to teachers, the book differs from others in its postmethod assumptions. The post-method condition, Kumaravadivelu argues, signies a search for an alternative to method rather than an alternative method and a principled pragmatism (as opposed to eclecticism) that focuses on how classroom learning can be shaped and reshaped by teachers as a result of self-observation, self-analysis, and self-evaluation (pp. 32f.). As noted above, Kumaravadivelu also makes a distinction between narrow and broad views of autonomy: the narrow view maintains that the chief goal of learner autonomy is to learn to learn 27
The relationship between learning beyond the classroom and autonomy is complex. On the one hand, all the modes of learning discussed above involve autonomous learning as Dickinson (1987) dened it. On the other, they demand a capacity for autonomy as Holec (1981) and others have dened it. The important question is whether engagement in learning beyond the classroom fosters the development of this capacity or not. One of the most prominent themes in the literature on this area is the need for teacher support. This is also recognized in the emerging concept of blended or distributed learning, which refers to various combinations of modes of teaching and learning, most frequently those that combine an electronic learning component with some form of human intervention (Wikipedia 2006a). Although I am aware of only one contribution to the literature on autonomy in language learning directly concerned with blended learning (Stracke 2006), the concept is clearly relevant in the light of increased use of Virtual Learning Environments in the context of self-access and classroom-based courses (Reinders 2007). It should be noted, however, that although the growing literature on non-classroom based modes of learning includes contributions that discuss autonomy, these are greatly outnumbered by contributions of a technical kind that pay little attention to the difculties many learners experience in directing their own learning. There is a perhaps a need for the idea of learning beyond the classroom to be theorized in the same way that classroom learning has been theorized in recent years.
4.2 Autonomy in the classroom

The shift towards classroom applications of autonomy that started in the early 1990s is reected in several recent collections of papers with a strong focus on the classroom (Mackenzie & McCafferty 2002; Bareld & Nix 2003; Little et al. 2003; Palfreyman & Smith 2003; Miller 2006). Small-scale experiments involving group work and cooperative classroom decision-making are prominent in these collections (see also Thomson 1998; Hart 2002; Littlewood 2002; Coyle 2003; Lamb 2003). While this work often treads familiar ground, recent studies of largerscale curriculum-based approaches to autonomy in the classroom (Dam 1995 being the only signicant example from the 1990s) are important additions to the literature. These include Breen & Littlejohns (2000) collection on negotiated learning, Little et al.s (2002) report on a collaborative project with teachers in Irish secondary schools, Lynch (2001) on an innovative learning training programme for EAP at Edinburgh University, Wolff (2003)
IP address: 137.205.50.42
Phil Benson
while the broad view maintains that the goal should be to learn to liberate (p. 133). It would be a mistake, then, to make a simplistic equation between the appearance of autonomy in mainstream literature and the emergence of weaker mainstream views of autonomy. Hedges and Kumaravadivelus contributions, in particular, include substantial reviews of the literature that recognize a range of perspectives. The positioning of their chapters on autonomy also represents an attempt to integrate autonomy within recongured views of the language teaching and learning process, which is often absent from literature focusing on autonomy. Benson (2007) discusses the implications of the rise of classroom autonomy in more detail, arguing that it has led to a re-conceptualization of autonomy as a usable construct for teachers who want to help their learners develop autonomy without necessarily challenging constraints of classroom and curriculum organization to which they are subject. In this sense, the rise of the weaker versions of autonomy discussed in section 3 is associated with the rise of classroom autonomy. But the work on curriculum level applications of autonomy discussed above, together with Hedges (2000) and Kumaravadivelus (2003) contributions to the wider literature point to the possibility of stronger versions of classroom autonomy. The importance of confronting constraints on autonomy in classroom settings is also an important theme in recent work on teacher autonomy (see section 5.4 below). Work on autonomy beyond the classroom, however, is also characterized by weaker and stronger versions of the concept the former often bypassing issues of curriculum and institutional constraint within non-classroom settings. In this respect, Whites (2003) book, which explores issues of the distribution of control in distance learning and related settings and outlines a conception of autonomy based on dimensions of learner involvement and collaborative control, is a welcome contribution to a debate that has until recently been largely conned to classroom applications.
to the practices of learner training, or learner development (Wenden 2002). Among these three terms, learner training has the longer history within the eld of autonomy. From the late 1980s, European writers on learner training began to incorporate insights from North American learning strategy research into their work, while writers on learning strategies also began to incorporate insights from the eld of autonomy (Wenden 1991; Cohen 1998; Macaro 2001; Oxford 2003). In the 1990s, autonomy was more closely allied with learning strategies than it was with any other language education concept, although it has often been argued that learner autonomy involves more than use of learning strategies and that learner training should not be limited to training in strategy use (Little 2000c; Palfreyman 2003a). In preference to the idea of strategy training, Little (2000c: 23) proposed a holistic view of strategic control of language learning and use, which develops in the classroom as a by-product of target language use and active involvement in planning, monitoring and evaluation processes (p. 25). Cohen (1998, 2002) has expressed a similar view within the learning strategy literature and has contributed to courses at the University of Minnesota, which focus on helping learners to be more in touch with (a) their learning style preferences and language strategy choices on specic tasks, and (b) their motivational temperature, rather than strategy instruction (Cohen 2002: 62). Learning strategies, learner training and learner development continue to be a focus of interest in the recent literature on autonomy (Evans 2002; Evans Nachi 2003; Gao 2003; Jim enezRaya & Lamb 2003a; Mizuki 2003; Huang 2006b; Mozzon-McPherson & Dantec 2006). But in the wider literature doubts have been expressed about the centrality of learning strategies to learner development, with increased attention being paid to constructs such as learner beliefs (Mori 1999; Wenden 1999; Kalaja & Barcelos 2003; Usuki 2003), metacognitive knowledge (Wenden 1998), learner self-management (Rubin 2001), and self-regulation (D ornyei 2005). In one of the more trenchant recent critiques of learning strategy research, D ornyei (2005: 170) suggests that language learning research is now lagging behind the eld of educational psychology, which more or less abandoned the notion of learning strategies in the 1990s in favour of the more versatile concept of selfregulation (Schunk & Zimmerman 1998; Bockaerts, Pintrich & Zeidner 2000). Although D ornyei may overstate the case, his argument is an interesting one because self-regulation, understood as the degree to which individuals are active participants in their own learning (D ornyei 2005: 191), comes much closer than learning strategies to the concept of autonomy.
5. Interaction with language education theory

As the idea of autonomy has moved beyond the specialist literature into mainstream language education contexts, it has also begun to interact with other important concepts in the eld. These include learning strategies and self-regulation, motivation, individual differences and sociocultural theory, and teacher development.
5.1 Learning strategies and self-regulation

The concept of learning strategies is directly related to the practice of strategy training and contributes 28
IP address: 137.205.50.42

5.2 Motivation
Although the link between motivation and autonomy is in some ways self-evident both are centrally concerned with learners active involvement in learning it has only been explored systematically within the last decade, in part due to the earlier dominance of Gardners socio-psychological paradigm in L2 motivation research (D ornyei 2001b: 4754). A resurgence of interest in motivation in the 1990s and the exploration of alternative paradigms, notably attribution theory and self-determination theory has introduced elements into L2 motivation theory that are clearly relevant to autonomy. Dickinson (1995) and Ushioda (1996) were among the rst to explore links between autonomy and motivation based on these new paradigms, and subsequent work has developed the idea that enhanced motivation is conditional upon learners taking responsibility for their own learning (Lamb 2001; da Silva 2002; Sakui 2002a; Takagi 2003; Ushioda 2003, 2006). Spratt, Humphrey & Chan (2002), on the other hand, based on survey evidence from university students in Hong Kong, claim that it is motivation that precedes autonomy. Although the correlational evidence in their study actually says little about causality, it does suggest that we should be cautious in assuming that greater responsibility for learning enhances motivation independently of students broader willingness to engage in language learning processes. The idea of autonomy has been introduced into L2 motivation studies mainly through Deci & Ryans (2000) self-determination theory. Their work emphasizes both the power of intrinsic motivation (understood as the vitality, spontaneity, genuineness, and curiosity that is intrinsic to peoples nature) and the importance of a sense of personal autonomy (understood as a feeling that their behaviour is truly chosen by them rather than imposed by some external source) to the development of intrinsic motivation (Deci & Flaste 1995: 30). Understood broadly in this sense, autonomy has begun to play an important role in work on L2 motivation. In D ornyei & Csiz er (1998), for example, promoting learner autonomy appeared as one of ten commandments for motivating learners, while D ornyeis (2001a: 102108) book on motivational strategies included a section on creating learner autonomy, which covered various techniques for enhancing learners sense of control over their learning. Noels and her colleagues have also incorporated self-determination theory into their model of L2 motivation, and their empirical work has suggested relationships between teacher support for student autonomy and students sense of self-determination (Noels, Cl ement & Pelletier 1999; Noels et al. 2000; McIntosh & Noels 2004).
Autonomy
Ushioda has made major contributions to the elds of both autonomy and motivation. Drawing largely on self-determination theory, her earlier work emphasized self-motivation as a crucial factor in autonomy (Ushioda 1996; also, D ornyei 2001a: 109 116), while her more recent work places Deci & Ryans ideas about intrinsic motivation within a Vygotskyan framework in which social mediation and social environment come to the fore (Ushioda 2003, 2006). Ushioda also links motivation to selfregulation, arguing that self-regulated learning can occur only when the ability to control strategic thinking processes is accompanied by the wish to do so (Ushioda 2006: 15). In sociocultural terms, this ability is mediated through processes of taskfocused dialogical interaction involving cognitive and motivational scaffolding. The key to these processes, she argues, is a social environment that supports learners sense of autonomy and intrinsic motivation to pursue optimal challenges through the zone of proximal development (ibid.).
5.3 Individual differences and sociocultural approaches

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, advocates of autonomy in language learning were at pains to distance themselves from the idea that autonomy implies individualism, or learning in isolation. There are some indications, however, of a renewed focus on the individual in work on autonomy, inuenced both by the resurgence of interest in individual differences (Larsen-Freeman 2001; Robinson 2002; D ornyei & Skehan 2003; Ehrman, Leaver & Oxford 2003; Jim enez-Raya & Lamb 2003b; Ellis 2004; D ornyei 2005) and by an emphasis on individual learners in empirical work informed by the sociocultural turn of recent years (Lantolf 2000, 2002; Block 2003; Zuengler & Miller 2006). Although there is a clear conceptual link between autonomy and individual difference the idea of autonomy responds to the fact that individual learners differ from each other and may seek to develop their individuality through divergent learning processes there has been relatively little interaction between the two areas of research. This is in part because discussions of individual differences often work with taxonomies of psychological and social variables (such as age, affect, aptitude, cognitive style, personality, gender, ethnicity, social class and setting for learning) which tend to suppress, rather than highlight, individuality. Individual difference research, in other words, helps us to understand how psychological and social factors may inuence learning processes and outcomes, but not how learners develop individual identities through language learning processes (Benson 2005). Somewhat paradoxically, sociocultural approaches have made a stronger contribution 29
IP address: 137.205.50.42
Phil Benson
in this respect in spite of their emphasis on social dimension of language teaching and learning. The most signicant contribution of Oxfords (2003) revision to Bensons (1997) model of technical, psychological and political versions of autonomy is the addition of two sociocultural perspectives: Sociocultural I, referring to approaches based on Vygotskyan learning theory (Lantolf 2000, Lantolf & Pavlenko 2001), which hold that all learning is situated in a particular social and cultural setting populated by specic individuals at a given historical time (Oxford 2003: 86) and Sociocultural II, referring to work based on theories of situated learning and communities of practice (Lave & Wenger 1991; Wenger 1998; Wenger, McDermott & Snyder 2002), and investment and imagined communities (Norton 2000; 2001). According to Oxford (2003: 87), this work emphasizes the context of autonomy rather than the individual exercising it, which suggests that its main contribution is to counter tendencies toward decontextualization and individualism in the autonomy literature. This is certainly true of its role in Littles (1999, 2000b) and Ushiodas (2003, 2006) work, based largely on Vygotsyan theory, which has elaborated a view of the development of autonomy through interdependent and socially mediated learning processes. But the extent to which sociocultural approaches involve attention to learner individuality is often underplayed. In a recent paper entitled Learner autonomy as agency in sociocultural settings, for example, Toohey & Norton (2003: 65) refer to sociocultural perspectives on L2 learning that focus not so much on individuals as on how practices in specic social, historical, and cultural contexts afford or constrain the access of learners to community activities and thus to learning. The empirical focus of the paper, on the other hand, falls on two individual learners. Individual case studies are, in fact, characteristic of much recent empirical work from sociocultural perspectives, which often provide considerable insight into the interaction between individual differences and autonomy (e.g. Lam 2000; Norton 2000, 2001; Toohey 2000; Lantolf & Pavlenko 2001; Teutsch-Dwyer 2001). The distinctive sociocultural feature of much of this work lies, perhaps, in the way in which individuals are viewed as differentially positioned (Toohey & Norton 2003: 65) within contexts of learning, rather than free, or potentially free, of their inuence. Agency and identity are the key linking concepts between sociocultural theory and the theory of autonomy, although Toohey & Norton (2003) unfortunately miss the opportunity to discuss the relationship of these concepts to autonomy. Although these terms are used in more than one way in the sociocultural literature, agency can perhaps be viewed as a point of origin for the development of 30
autonomy, while identity might be viewed as one of its more important outcomes. Arguing against a dominant view of learners as processing devices within SLA research and for a view of learners as people with human agency, Lantolf & Pavlenko (2001: 145) state that as agents, learners actively engage in constructing the terms and conditions of their own learning. And according to Norton & Toohey (2002: 123), the goal of research on identity and language learning is to develop understandings of learners as both socially constructed and constrained but also as embodied, semiotic and emotional persons who identify themselves, resist identications, and act on their social worlds. Some of my own recent work has explored these perspectives on the development of autonomy as a long-term process through (auto)biographical research (Benson et al. 2003; Benson 2005). Contributions to Benson & Nunan (2002, 2005) also offer insight into relationships between agency, identity and autonomy within lifelong processes of learning (Block 2002; Brown 2002; He 2002; Lim 2002; Sakui 2002b) and shorter term involvements in courses of study (Bareld 2003; Cotterall 2005; Malcolm 2005). One of the more important themes to emerge from these studies is the extent to which the construction of individual identities and the achievement of personal autonomy are often interwoven in stories of long-term language learning experiences.
5.4 Teacher development

Teacher autonomy is one of the most signicant, and problematic, concepts to have emerged from the eld of autonomy in recent years. Several factors have contributed to its development, most notably the involvement of advocates of autonomy in teacher education in the mid-1990s. The idea was introduced into the language teaching literature by Allwright (1990) and later developed by Little (1995). Teacher autonomy appears to be understood some what differently in language teaching and broader educational contexts, where it primarily refers to teachers freedom to exercise discretion in curriculum implementation. In the language teaching literature, there is a much greater emphasis on teacher autonomy as a professional attribute and the link between teacher autonomy and learner autonomy. Early work on autonomy discussed changing teacher roles in new modes of practice such as selfaccess (see, for example, contributions to Benson & Voller 1997). The idea of teacher autonomy, on other hand, was related more to classroom contexts and, in Little (1995), to the idea that learner autonomy develops through pedagogical dialogues in which teachers exercise their own autonomy. Much of the language teaching literature treats teacher autonomy as a professional attribute, involving a capacity for selfdirected professional development (Thavenius 1999;

McGrath 2000; Smith 2001, 2003; Aoki 2002). There is also an understandable reluctance to divorce this attribute from teachers ability and willingness to foster autonomy among their students. Aoki (2002: 111), for example, suggests that teacher autonomy could be dened by analogy with learner autonomy:
If learner autonomy is the capacity, freedom, and/or responsibility to make choices concerning ones own learning . . . teacher autonomy, by analogy, can be dened as the capacity, freedom, and/or responsibility to make choices concerning ones own teaching.
Autonomy
autonomous teachers, there appears to be considerable scope for interaction between work on teacher autonomy and new conceptions of teachers and teaching in the wider literature.
6. Autonomy beyond language education

The remainder of this review discusses work on autonomy beyond the eld of language education, in philosophy, social theory and the philosophy and sociology of education. This work deserves attention for two major reasons. First, our own interest in autonomy as language teachers and researchers is conditioned by a much wider interest in the relevance of autonomy to a variety of domains of social life. Second, issues of debate in the literature on autonomy in language education are also present within a wider, but largely unacknowledged, literature on autonomy, the individual and the self. In other words, there is a great deal to be learned from this literature, both in relation to the theory and practice of autonomy in language learning and in relation to the wider social signicance of our specic interests in autonomy.
She nds this analogy problematic, however, because it does not imply in itself that teacher autonomy has any relevance to teachers capacity to support the development of the autonomy of their learners. In the more recent literature, attention has also been paid to teacher freedom as a component of teacher autonomy. The shift of autonomy to classroom contexts has raised complex issues concerned with the teachers role as mediator between educational authorities and students. Teachers efforts to promote autonomy in the classroom are typically constrained by factors that are only variably subject to their control (Benson 2000; McCasland & Poole 2002; Carroll & Head 2003; Trebbi 2003, 2007; Vieira 2003). Benson (2000) argued that a selfcritical approach to the ways in which teachers mediate these constraints in the classroom is crucial to teacher autonomy. More recent accounts of teacher autonomy have also tended to balance professional attributes and teacher freedom, with the latter often understood as an outcome of self-directed professional development and a willingness to engage in processes of institutional change beyond the walls of ones own classroom (Lamb 2000a; McGrath 2000; Bareld et al. 2002; Mackenzie 2002). The literature on teacher autonomy also includes a number of interesting accounts of teacher education initiatives (Thavenius 1999; van Esch et al. 1999; Aoki 2002; Lamb 2000a; McGrath 2000; Schalkwijk et al. 2002; Aag ard & St. John 2003; Kohonen 2003; Vieira 2003; Hacker & Barkhuizen 2007; Vieira et al. 2007). McGrath (2000) observes a convergence between the idea of teacher autonomy as self-directed professional development and notions such as teacher research, reective practice, action research, and teacher development. But the idea of teacher autonomy comes out of the literature on learner autonomy and has not yet been widely discussed in the teacher education literature. In a recent paper on the sociocultural turn in second language teacher education, however, Johnson (2006: 235) refers to the need for such education to sustain a teaching force of transformative intellectuals who can navigate their professional worlds in ways that enable them to create educationally sound, contextually appropriate, and socially equitable learning opportunities for the students they teach. To the extent that this could reasonably be rephrased as a teaching force of
6.1 The individual in modern society

The idea of learner autonomy is rooted in 18th- and 19th-century European philosophical writings on society and the individual, notably those of Immanuel Kant (17241804) and John Stuart Mill (1806 1873). Although these roots are seldom explicitly referenced, there are at least two senses in which the idea of learner autonomy is related to European conceptions of a democratic society founded on the exercise of individual autonomy and respect for the autonomy of others. Viewed as an educational goal, learner autonomy implies a particular kind of socialization involving the development of attributes and values that will permit individuals to play active, participatory roles in a democratic society. In a second sense, this ideal society also serves as a metaphor for the autonomous classroom or school. In Western contexts at least, the argument that a commitment to autonomy in education pushes democratic societies to take their democratic ideals seriously is a strong one (Benson 2007). On the other hand, as critics such as Pennycook (1997), Holliday (2003, 2005) and Schmenk (2005) have pointed out, the universal relevance of 18th- and 19th-century European philosophical conceptions of the individual and society to diverse educational systems around the world should not be taken for granted. In order to make sense of these issues, it is important to note that interest in the philosophical concept of autonomy has never been as intense in Western contexts as it is at the present time (see, for example, Berofsky 1995; Lehrer 1997; Schneewind 1998; Clarke 1999; Mackenzie & Stoljar 2000a; 31
IP address: 137.205.50.42
Phil Benson
Cuypers 2001; Paul, Miller & Paul 2003; Santoro 2003). This means, perhaps, that we should be less concerned with historical conceptions of autonomy than with ways in which they are currently being appropriated and re-interpreted in contemporary philosophical and social debates. Atkinss (2005) reader is a useful introduction to European Enlightenment philosophies of the individual and their late-twentieth-century post-modern critics (see also, Porter 1997; Badmington 2000). Gergens (1991) work on the psychology of personal identity (discussed in Straub, Zielke & Werbik 2005) is representative of the post-modern critique. It argues that globalization has led to an increase in the direct and indirect relationships among individuals, resulting in social saturation, or the population of the self with the views and orientations of others. Individual identities have thus become multi-layered and characterized by a polyphony of inner voices, imaginary relationships and internal dialogues, to the point that the fully saturated self becomes no self at all (Gergen 1991: 7). From Butlers (1990: 16) feminist perspective, the presumption that identities are self-identical, persisting through time as the same, unied and internally coherent is inherently problematic. Recent feminist work on autonomy has, however, been far more concerned with the ways in which the attributes of the autonomous individual are linked to essentially male values of independence, self-sufciency and separation from others, to the neglect of female values of dependence and care. Mackenzie & Stoljar (2000a: 7), for example, suggest that the problem with autonomy lies in the the prescriptive conclusion that the goal of human life is the realization of self-sufciency and individuality. For Mackenzie & Stoljar, it is important that feminist critiques have never rejected the concept of autonomy outright. This holds out the possibility of a regured conception of relational autonomy, in which notions of the related self are foundational. In this conception, political autonomy, involving essentially public freedoms and rights, receives less emphasis than personal autonomy, involving more private deliberations, decisions and actions. This focus on the private or personal domain leads to an emphasis on autonomy competencies (Meyers 1989) and the ways in which oppressive socialization may impede their development. Mackenzie (2000: 144) also emphasizes the importance of imaginative activities to the development of self-conceptions guided by critical reection on what matters to oneself, and the ways in which the cultural imaginary, or the available images in a society, may impair womens abilities to imagine themselves otherwise. Straub et al. (2005: 326) also reject the association of autonomy with conceptions of the substantive, self-contained individual, arguing that autonomy is necessarily constrained in modern societies: At best, 32
there is autonomy for people whose personal and biographical development is determined by countless contingencies. But in response to Gergen (1991), they also argue that, in the face of the fragmentation of substantive identities, self-determined intentions, decisions and action presuppose knowledge of who one is (has become) and who one wants to be (Straub et al. 2005: 330). Because this knowledge is primarily constructed through self-narratives, they argue, a post-modern theory of autonomous personality depends upon a theory of narrative identity. From this perspective, autonomy is not grounded in substantive individual identities, but in identities that become individual through narratives involving self-reection and self-thematization. The literature discussed in this section represents only the tip of the iceberg of current debates on autonomy, which also include vigorous attempts to rene and strengthen 18th- and 19th-century conceptions of autonomy in the face of recent critiques and discussions of autonomy in domains such as genetics, bioethics and the law (see, for example, contributions to Mackenzie & Stoljar 2000b; Paul et al. 2003). The point I want to draw attention to, however, is simply that growing interest in autonomy in language teaching and learning is situated within a much wider context of concern about the nature and role of individual autonomy in a globalized, postmodern world. In this context, new philosophical conceptions of autonomy are also emerging with the potential to inform the development of autonomy as a language learning concept. There are clear links, for example, between the feminist notion of relational autonomy and approaches to autonomy in language learning that emphasize interdependence over independence. The notion of narrative identity as a ground for individual autonomy also has value for work on the development of autonomy through long-term experiences of language learning.
6.2 Education policy and reform

Renewed interest in autonomy in the philosophy of education has led to several publications that have tended to cover similar ground to the philosophical literature discussed above (e.g. Bridges 1997; Winch 2006). There has also been some interest in autonomy and related issues in the sociology of education in literature related to global and national policy development. In these contexts, the term autonomy most often occurs in discussions of parental choice and the deregulation of schools (Whitty 1997; Berka 2000). Although discussion of school autonomy in market-driven systems goes beyond the scope of this review, it does raise interesting questions about the ways in which control over learning is distributed among a number of stakeholders in schooling: principals, teachers, parents, learners and others.

While the literature on learner autonomy has conventionally prioritized learner control, work on teacher autonomy suggests that teachers also have rights in regard to autonomy, and the same may be true of schools in relation to wider systems. Although there has been little consideration of this dimension of autonomy in language education contexts, Mackenzie (2002) has made a start by encouraging us to view institutions as bodies with the potential to learn from initiatives taken by their teachers. The idea of autonomy has also played a broader role in education reform initiatives around the world. The globalization of educational policy, often involving uncritical transfer of policy from nation to nation, leading to increased homogeneity among national policies, is well-documented (Jarvis 2000; Mundy 2005; Wiseman & Baker 2005; Zajda 2005). Several writers have commented on the centrality of the idea of individuality within globalized educational policy. According to Mundy (2005: 8), for example, educational convergence in the late 20th century helped produce a world culture that embedded such common ideas and institutions as citizenship, equality, individualism and progress in territorially dened nation-states, while Wiseman & Baker (2005: 85) also comment that the Western myth of the individual, where the source of value and change is the individual, provides the model framework for schooling around the world. Although this focus on the individual corresponds to the Western philosophical ideal of autonomy, the forces driving policy change tend to be informed by the economic principle that the education of individuals can inuence national economic growth and has contributed signicantly to the economic development of nations (ibid.). Ecclestone (2002) paints a similar picture, in the context of a discussion of autonomy in UK vocational education, of a policy level interest in lifelong learning driven by the perception that the best chance of economic survival for an economy at risk from forces of globalization lies in investment in the education of individuals. The implications of the globalization of education policy for the theory and practice of autonomy in language learning deserve more attention than they have received to date. Three points can be made here. First, global education reforms form an important part of the context for the growing interest in autonomy that has been a persistent theme in this review. Recent reviews of language education policy in East Asia point to a tendency for increased foreign language teaching provision (especially in ELT) to be accompanied by a shift towards communicative and task-based approaches to classroom learning and the use of self-access and CALL facilities (Nunan 2003; Ho 2004; Poole 2005). The number of contributions from writers working in Asian settings reviewed in this paper are an indication that growing interest in autonomy in language learning has a global
Autonomy
dimension, and in part arises from a need to respond to large-scale educational reform initiatives potentially favouring practices associated with autonomy. Second, the theory and practice of autonomy in language learning has itself been globalized, through conferences, consultancies and publications. Those who question the appropriateness of autonomy to non-Western educational settings are perhaps responding as much to the processes through which autonomy is packaged as universal educational value, as they are to the concept of autonomy itself. Lastly, we must also acknowledge that the initiative in larger scale experiments in learner autonomy can easily slip out of the hands of teachers who are responsible for their day-to-day implementation. In UK higher education, for example, Allwrights (1988: 35) radical restructuring of language pedagogy has become the norm, although not for the reasons that early advocates of autonomy may have wished. The proliferation of self-access centres in the 1990s was motivated by a complex combination of economic, technological and educational concerns and presented both opportunities and dilemmas for teachers favouring autonomy. Hurds (1998: 219) account of the process mentions how many lecturers interpreted the call to push ahead with autonomy as a criticism of current practice and a ploy to reduce teaching staff , while those who saw the potential for fostering autonomy worked under difcult conditions in under-resourced centres where tasks were harnessed to xed assessment goals. In some cases, Hurd notes, there were actually too many students for the available facilities: if some students were not remiss in carrying out their center-based self-access language work, centers would not be able to cope (p. 229). Schalkwijk et al. (2002) paint a somewhat similar picture of a national level attempt in the late 1990s to transform Netherlands secondary schools into independent study houses (Studiehuis), which provoked parental resistance and a student strike in the rst year of implementation. They attribute resistance to the Studiehuis initiative to its top-down implementation and to teachers lack of preparedness and familiarity with the principles of autonomy in learning. Problematic experiments in autonomy such as these, which are probably more frequent than the number of reports in the literature suggests, perhaps indicate that autonomy in language learning works best when it ows from the needs and desires of students and teachers themselves.
7. Conclusion
The reasons behind the growing interest in autonomy in language learning that I have attempted to document in this review are difcult to pin down. The most important underlying factor is clearly the continuing worldwide growth in the language teaching industry, ELT especially, which involves 33
IP address: 137.205.50.42
Phil Benson
both the spread of communicative principles and the deconstruction of conventional classroom processes. While these developments were characteristic of European language teaching in the 1980s and 1990s, they are a relatively recent arrival in many other parts of the world. Indeed, the recent literature on autonomy has an important international dimension, witnessed by many contributions from ELT researchers based in Asia and Latin America. Growing interest in autonomy in European ELT and modern language teaching, on the other hand, probably has more to do with the emergence of critical perspectives on language teaching and learning as a social process, marked also by interest in sociocultural theory. Signicantly, autonomy is yet to have any great impact on North American language education, where sociocultural theory is strongest. Autonomy and sociocultural theory could be viewed as alternative poles of attraction for critical studentcentred research and practice the one focusing on the individual and the other on social context. As we have seen, however, the theory of autonomy does, in fact, view language teaching and learning as a social process, while sociocultural theory pays considerable attention to the individual in empirical work. It is to be hoped, then, that interaction between autonomy and sociocultural theory will develop in years to come. Contrasting the theoretical literature published since the turn of the century with earlier work, we might also point to a tendency to adopt a more distanced perspective on the concept of autonomy. For many years, research on autonomy was a somewhat specialized and self-contained eld, characterized by a tendency towards advocacy. Researchers also tended to view the renement of the concept of autonomy as a defence against the dangers of popularization. In the more recent literature, there is a much greater tendency to view autonomy as a problematic concept that can be represented in a variety of ways. The boundaries of autonomy as a eld have also become more porous as researchers have begun to explore relationships between autonomy and other studentfocused constructs such as self-regulation, selfmotivation, agency and identity. These developments have much to do with the growth of interest in autonomy within language education as a whole. As Hedges (2000) and Kumaravadivelus (2003) contributions to the wider literature indicate, future research may be far more concerned with the development of perspectives on language education in which autonomy is viewed as an important, but not the only important, guiding principle. Lastly, it has to be acknowledged that the empirical knowledge base on autonomy in language learning remains somewhat weak. This is in part due to the tendency in the earlier literature towards advocacy, which led to an overriding concern to produce evidence for the effectiveness of initiatives designed 34
to help learners become more autonomous. In this respect there has been a denite shift towards more critical examination, often qualitative in nature, of the ways in which learners and teachers respond to such initiatives and of the ways in which learner and teacher autonomy develop in the longer term across contexts of teaching and learning. The view that autonomy is a contextually-variable construct provides the ground for such research. The challenge for the future is, perhaps, to move beyond this essentially theoretical proposition towards an empirically-grounded understanding of the ways in which autonomy and the potential for autonomy vary according to factors such as age, gender, cultural context and setting.
References
Aag ard, R. & O. St. John, (2003). Home and horizon. In van Esch & St. John (eds.), 107128. Allwright, D. (1990). Autonomy in language pedagogy. CRILE Working Paper 6. University of Lancaster: Centre for Research in Language Education. Allwright, R. L. (1988). Autonomy and individualization in whole-class instruction. In A. Brookes & P. Grundy (eds.), Individualization and autonomy in language learning. London: Modern English Publications and the British Council, 35 44. Aoki, N. (1999). Affect and the role of teacher in the development of learner autonomy. In J. Arnold (ed.), Affect in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 142154. Aoki, N. (2002). Aspects of teacher autonomy: Capacity, freedom, and responsibility. In Benson & Toogood (eds.), 110124. Aoki, N. & Y. Hamakawa (2003). Asserting our culture: Teacher autonomy from a feminist perspective. In Palfreyman & Smith (eds.), 240253. Atkins, K. (ed.) (2005). Self and subjectivity. Oxford: Blackwell. Badmington, N. (ed.) (2000). Posthumanism. London: Palgrave. Bailly, S. & M. Ciekanski (2006). Learning as identity in practice: The role of the learneradvisor relationship in supported self-directed learning structure. In Lamb & Reinders (eds.), 322. Bareld, A. (2003). Routine reections on developing autonomy? In Bareld & Nix (eds.), 5368. Bareld, A., T. Ashwell, M. Carroll, K. Collins, N. Cowie, M. Critchley, E. Head, M. Nix, A. Obermeier & M. C. Robertson (2002). Exploring and dening teacher autonomy: A collaborative discussion. In Mackenzie & E. McCafferty (eds.), 217222. Bareld, A. & M. Nix (eds.) (2003). Learner and teacher autonomy in Japan 1: Autonomy you ask! Tokyo: Learner Development Special Interest Group of the Japan Association of Language Teachers. Baumann, U. (2006). Developing autonomy and intercultural competence in a distance learning environment. In Gardner (ed.), 93113. Benson, P. (1997). The philosophy and politics of learner autonomy. In Benson & Voller (eds.), 1834. Benson, P. (2000). Autonomy as a learners and teachers right. In Sinclair, McGrath & Lamb (eds.), 111117. Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. London: Longman.

Benson, P. (2003). Learner autonomy in the classroom. In D. Nunan (ed.), Practical English language teaching. New York: McGraw Hill, 289308. Benson, P. (2004). Autonomy and information technology in the educational discourse of the information age. In C. Davison (ed.), Information technology and innovation in language education. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 173192. Benson, P. (2005). (Auto)biography and learner diversity. In Benson & Nunan (eds.), 421. Benson, P. (2006a). Autonomy and its role in learning. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (eds.), The international handbook of English language teaching (vol. 2). Norwell, MA: Springer. Benson, P. (ed.) (2006b). Learner autonomy 8: Insider perspectives on autonomy in language teaching and learning. Dublin: Authentik. Benson, P. (2007). Teachers and learners perspectives on autonomy. In Lamb & Reinders (eds.). Benson, P., A. Chik & HY. Lim (2003). Becoming autonomous in an Asian context: Autonomy as a sociocultural process. In Palfreyman & Smith (eds.), 2340. Benson, P. & D. Nunan (eds.) (2002). The experience of language learning. Special issue of Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics 7.2. Benson, P. & D. Nunan (eds.) (2005). Learners stories: Difference and diversity in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Benson, P. & S. Toogood (eds.) (2001). Learner autonomy 7: Challenges to research and practice. Dublin: Authentik. Benson, P. & P. Voller (eds.) (1997). Autonomy and independence in language learning. London: Longman. Berka, W. (2000). The legal and philosophical meaning of autonomy in education. In W. Berka, J. De Groof & H. Penneman (eds.), Autonomy in education. Yearbook of the European Association for Educational Law and Policy. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 310. Berofsky, B. (1995). Liberation from self: A theory of personal autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blin, F. (1999). CALL and the development of learner autonomy. In Debski & Levy (eds.), 133149. Block, D. (2002). Destabilized identities and cosmopolitanism across language and cultural borders: Two case studies. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics 7.2, 119. Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Bodycott, P. & V. Crew (eds.) (2001). Language and cultural immersion: Perspectives on short term study and residence abroad. Hong Kong: Hong Institute of Education. Boekaerts, M., P. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (eds.) (2000). Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego: Academic Press. Braine, G. (2003). From a teacher-centered to a studentcentered approach: A study of peer feedback in Hong Kong writing classes. Journal of Asia-Pacic Communication 13.2, 269288. Breen, M. P. (ed.) (2001). Learner contributions to language learning: New Directions in Research. London: Longman. Breen, M. P. & A. Littlejohn (eds.) (2000). The process syllabus: Negotiation in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Breen, M. P. & S. Mann (1997). Shooting arrows at the sun: Perspectives on a pedagogy for autonomy. In Benson & Voller (eds.), 132149. Bridges, D. (ed.) (1997). Education, autonomy and democracy citizenship: Philosophy in a changing world. London: Routledge. Brown, T. P. (2002). Auto-communal language learning of Mandarin Chinese and Samoan: A chronicle and comparison. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics 7.2, 122135. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.
Autonomy
Byram, M. (ed.) (2000). Routledge encyclopedia of language teaching and learning. London: Routledge. Carroll, M. & E. Head (2003). Institutional pressures and learner autonomy. In Bareld & Nix (eds.), 6986. Carter, B. A. (2001). From awareness to counseling in learner autonomy. The AILA Review 15, 2633. Chambers, A. & G. Davies (eds.) (2001). ICT and language learning: A European perspective. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger. Champagne, M-F., T. Clayton, N. Dimmitt, M. Laszewski, W. Savage, J. Shaw, R. Sroupe, M. M. Thien & P. Walter (2001). The assessment of learner autonomy and language learning. The AILA Review 15, 4555. Chan, V., M. Spratt & G. Humphreys (2002). Autonomous language learning: Hong Kong tertiary students attitudes and behaviours. Evaluation and Research in Education 16.1, 118. Clarke, P.B. (1999). Autonomy unbound. Aldershot: Ashgate. Clemente, M. de los Angeles (2001). Teachers attitudes within a self-directed learning scheme. System, 29.1, 4567. Cohen, A. D. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. London: Longman. Cohen, A. D. (2002). Preparing teachers for styles- and strategies-based instruction. In V. Crew, C. Davison & B. Mak (eds.), Reecting on language in education. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute of Education, 4969. Coleman, J. A. (2000). Study abroad. In Byram (ed.), 582 584. Coleman, J. A. (2005). Residence abroad. In Coleman & Klapper (eds.), 126132. Coleman, J. A. & J. Klapper (eds.) (2005). Effective learning and teaching in modern languages. London: Routledge. Corder, D. & G. Waller (2006). Using a CALL package as a platform to develop effective language learning strategies and facilitate autonomous learning. In Miller (ed.),726. Cotterall, S. (2000). Promoting learner autonomy through the curriculum: Principles for designing language courses. ELT Journal 54.2, 109117. Cotterall, S. (2005). Its just rules . . . thats all it is at this stage . . . . In Benson & Nunan (eds.), 101119. Cotterall, S. & D. Crabbe (eds.) (1999). Learner autonomy in language learning: Dening the eld and effecting change. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Coyle, D. (2003). Managing the differentiated classroom: Differentiation and learner autonomy. In Jim enez Raya & Lamb (eds.), 165176. Crabbe, D., A. Hoffman & S. Cotterall (2001). Examining the discourse of learner advisory sessions. The AILA Review 15, 215. Crew, V., V. Berry & J. Hung (eds.) (1999). Exploring diversity in the language curriculum. Hong Kong: Hong Institute of Education. Cuypers, S. E. (2001). Self-identity and personal autonomy. Aldershot: Ashgate. Da Silva, D. (2002). Autonomy, motivation and achievement. In Mackenzie & McCafferty (eds.), 6572. Dam, L. (1995). Learner autonomy 3: From theory to classroom practice. Dublin: Authentik. Dam, L. (2000). Evaluating autonomous learning. In Sinclair et al. (eds.), 4859. Dam, L. (2001). Learner autonomy: New insights/Autonomy de lapprenant: Nouvelle pistes. Special issue of The AILA Review 15. Debski, R. & M. Levy (eds.) (1999). WORLDCALL: Global perspectives on computer-assisted language learning. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger. Deci, E. L. & R. Flaste (1995). Why we do what we do: The dynamics of personal autonomy. New York: Grosset/Putnam. Deci, E. L. & R. M. Ryan (eds.) (2000). Handbook of self-determination research: Theoretical and applied issues. Rochester: University of Rochester Press.
35
Phil Benson
Dias, J. (2000). Learner autonomy in Japan: Transforming Help Yourself from threat to invitation. Computer Assisted Language Learning 13.1, 4964. Dickinson, L. (1987). Self-instruction in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dickinson, L. (1992). Learner autonomy 2: Learner training for language learning, Dublin: Authentik. Dickinson, L. (1995). Autonomy and motivation: A literature review. System 23.2, 165174. D ornyei, Z. (2001a). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. D ornyei, Z. (2001b). Teaching and researching motivation. London: Longman. D ornyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. D ornyei, Z. & L. Csiz er (1998). Ten commandments for motivating language learners: Results of an empirical study. Language Teaching Research 2.3, 203229. D ornyei, Z. & P. Skehan (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell, 589630. Ecclestone, K. (2002). Learning autonomy in post16 education: The politics and practice of formative assessment. London: Routledge Falmer. Egbert, J. & E. Hanson-Smith (eds.) (1999). CALL environments: Research, practice and critical issues. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Ehrman, M., B. L. Leaver & R. Oxford (2003). A brief overview of individual differences in second language learning. System 31.4, 313330. Ekbatani, G. & H. Pierson (eds.) (2000). Learner-directed assessment in ESL . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ellis, R. (2004). Individual differences in second language learning. In A. Davies & C. Elder (eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 525551. Evans, H. (2002). Using small group work to awaken individual learning strategies. In Mackenzie & McCafferty (eds.), 191194. Evans Nachi, H. (2003). Self-assessment and learner strategy training in a coordinated program: Using student and teacher feedback to inform curriculum design. In Bareld & Nix (eds.), 157174. Fern andez-Toro, M. (1999). Training learners for self-instruction. London: CILT. Fern andez-Toro, M. & F. R. Jones (2001). DIY techniques for language learners. London: CILT. Finch, A. (2002). Autonomy: Where are we? Where are we going? In Mackenzie & McCafferty (eds.), 1542. Fisher, D., C. Hafner & J. Young (2006). Integrating independent learning: Lessons learned and implications for the classroom. In Gardner (ed.), 3355. Gan, Z., G. Humphrey & L. Hamp-Lyons (2004). Understanding successful and unsuccessful EFL students in Chinese universities. The Modern Language Journal 88.2, 229244. Gao, X. (2003). Changes in Chinese students learner strategy use after arrival in the UK: A qualitative inquiry. In Palfreyman & Smith (eds.), 4157. Gardner, D. (ed.) (2006). Learner autonomy 10: Integration and support. Dublin: Authentik. Gardner, D. & L. Miller (1999). Establishing self-access: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gergen, K. J. (1991). The saturated self: Dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. New York: Basic Books. Gieve, S. & R. Clark (2005). The chinese approach to learning: Cultural trait or situated response? The case of a self-directed learning programme. System 33.2, 261276.
Gremmo, M-J. & D. Castillo (2007). Advising in a Multilingual Setting: New Perspectives for the Role of the Advisor. In Lamb & Reinders (eds.). Gremmo, M-J. & P. Riley (1995). Autonomy, self-direction and self-access in language teaching and learning: The history of an idea. System 23.2, 151164. Hacker, P. & G. Barkhuizen (2007). Autonomous teachers, autonomous cognition: Developing personal theories through reection in language teacher education. In Lamb & Reinders (eds.). Harding-Esch, E. M. (ed.) (1977). Self-directed learning and autonomy. Report of a Seminar held at Cambridge, 1315 December 1976. Ms., University of Cambridge, Department of Linguistics and CRAPEL. <http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/celte/research/ circal/autonomy_archive/esch_1977> accessed 21/9/06. Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching. (3rd edn.). London: Pearson Education. Hart, N. (2002). Intra-group autonomy and authentic materials: A different approach to ELT in Japanese colleges and universities. System 30.1, 3346. He, A-E. (2002). Learning English in different linguistic and sociocultural contexts. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics 7.2, 107121. Healy, D. (1999). Theory and research: Autonomy and language learning. In Egbert & Hanson-Smith (eds.), 391 402. Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ho, W. K. (2004). English language teaching in East Asia today: An overview. In W. H. Kam & R. Y. L. Wong. (eds.) English language teaching in East Asia today: Changing policies and practices. Singapore: Eastern Universities Press. Hobbs, M. & J. Jones-Parry (2006). In thedr eye of the beholder: Student opinions of language advisory services in two Independent Learning Centres. In Gardner (ed.), 127144. Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy in foreign language learning (rst published 1979, Strasbourg: Council of Europe). Oxford: Pergamon. Holec, H. (2007). A brief historical perspective on learner and teacher autonomy. In Lamb & Reinders (eds.). Holliday, A. (2003). Social autonomy: Addressing the dangers of culturism in TESOL. In Palfreyman & Smith (eds.), 110 126. Holliday, A. (2005). The struggle to teach English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Holmberg, B., M. Shelley & C. White. (eds.) (2005). Distance education and languages: Evolution and change. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Hoven, D. (1999). CALLing the learner into focus: Towards a learner-centred model. In Debski & Levy (eds.), 149 168. Huang, J. (2006a). Learner autonomy in the Chinese university classroom: An insider perspective on teacherlearner role relationships. In Benson (ed.), 84103. Huang, J. (2006b). Learner resistance in metacognition training? An exploration of mismatches between learner and teacher agendas. Language Teaching Research 10.1 95 117. Hurd, S. (1998). Autonomy at any price? Issues and concerns from a British HE perspective? Foreign Language Annals 31.2, 219230. Hurd, S. (2005b). Distance learning in Modern Languages. In Coleman & Klapper (eds.), 142147. Hurd, S., T. Beaven & A. Ortega (2001). Developing autonomy in a distance learning context: Issues and dilemmas for course writers. System 29.3, 341355. Hurd, S. & L. Murphy (eds.) (2005). Success with languages. London: Routledge.
36

Hyland, F. (2004). Learning autonomously: Contextualising out-of-class English language learning. Language Awareness 13.3, 180202. Ife, A. (2000). Language learning and residence abroad: How self-directed are language students? Fremdsprachen und Hochschule 60. 4263. Jarvis, P. (2000). Globalisation, the learning society and comparative education. Comparative Education 36.3, 343 345. Jim enez Raya, M. & T. Lamb (2003a). Dealing with diversity in the modern languages class. In Jim enez Raya & Lamb (eds.), 1320. Jim enez Raya, M. & T. Lamb (eds.) (2003b). Differentiation in the modern languages classroom. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Johnson, K. E. (2006). The sociocultural turn and its challenges for second language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 40.1, 235257. Kalaja, P. & A. M. F. Barcelos (eds.) (2003). Beliefs about SLA: New research approaches. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Kaplan, R. B. (ed.) (2002). The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Karlsson, L., F. Kjisik & J. Nordlund (eds.) (2000). All together now (Papers from the 7th Nordic Conference and Workshop on Autonomous Language Learning, Helsinki, September 2000), University of Helsinki Language Centre. Kisjick, F. (2006). Ten years in autonomy: Reections and research on the ALMS programme. In Gardner (ed.), 114 126. Kohonen, V. (2003). Student autonomy and teachers professional growth: Fostering a collegial culture in language teacher education. In Little, Ridley & Ushioda (eds.), 147163. K otter, M. (2002). Tandem learning on the Internet. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. New Haven: Yale University Press. Lai, J. (2001). Towards an analytic approach to assessing learner autonomy. The AILA Review 15, 3444. Lam, W. S. E. (2000). L2 literacy and the design of the self: A case study of a teenager writing on the Internet. TESOL Quarterly, 34.3, 457482. Lamb, M. (2004). It depends on the students themselves: Independent language learning at an Indonesian state school. Language, Culture & Curriculum 17.3, 229245. Lamb, T. E. (2000a). Finding a voice: Learner autonomy and teacher education in an urban context. In Sinclair et al. (eds.), 118127. Lamb, T. E. (2000b). Reconceptualising disaffection issues of power, voice and learner autonomy. In G. Walraven, C. Parsons, D. van Veen & C. Day (eds.), Combating social exclusion through education. Louvain: Garant, 99115. Lamb, T. E. (2001). Metacognition and motivation: Learning to learn. In G. Chambers (ed.), Reections on motivation. London: CILT, 8593. Lamb, T. E. (2003). Individualising learning: Organising a exible learning environment. In Jim enez Raya & Lamb (eds.), 177194. Lamb, T. E. & H. Reinders (2005). Learner independence in language teaching: A concept of change. In D. Cunningham & A. Hatoss (eds.), An international perspective on language policies, practices and prociencies. Belgrave: FIPLV. Lamb, T. E. & H. Reinders. (eds.) (2006). Supporting independent learning: Issues and interventions. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Lamb, T. E. & H. Reinders (eds.) (2007). Learner and teacher autonomy: Concepts, realities and responses. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Autonomy
Lantolf, J. P. (2002). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition. In Kaplan (ed.), 105114. Lantolf, J. P. (ed.) (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lantolf, J. P. & A. Pavlenko (2001). (S)econd (L)anguage (A)ctivity theory: Understanding second language learners as people. In Breen (ed.), 141158. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2001). Individual cognitive/affective learner contributions and differential success in SLA. In Breen (ed.), 1224. Lave, J. & E. Wenger (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Legenhausen, L. (2001). Discourse behaviour in an autonomous learning environment. The AILA Review 15, 5669. Legenhausen, L. (2003). Second language acquisition in an autonomous learning environment. In Little et al. (eds.), 6577. Lehrer, K. (1997). Self-trust: A study of reason, knowledge, and autonomy. New York: Oxford University Press. Lewis, T. & L. Walker (eds.) (2003). Autonomous language learning in tandem. Shefeld: Academic and Electronic Press. Lewis, T. (2005). The effective learning of languages in tandem. In Coleman & Klapper (eds.), 165172. Lim, HY. (2002). The interaction of motivation, perception and environment: One EFL learners experience. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics 7.2, 91106. Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy 1: Denitions, issues and problems. Dublin: Authentik. Little, D. (1995). Learning as dialogue: The dependence of learner autonomy on teacher autonomy. System 23.2, 175 182. Little, D. (1996). Freedom to learn and compulsion to interact: Promoting learner autonomy through the use of information systems and information technologies. In Pemberton et al. (eds.), 203218. Little, D. (1999). Autonomy in second language learning: Some theoretical perspectives and their practical implications. In C. Edelhoff & R. Weskamp (eds.), Autonomes fremdsprachenlernen. Ismaning: Hueber, 2236. Little, D. (2000a). Autonomy and autonomous learners. In Byram (ed.), 6972. Little, D. (2000b). Learner autonomy and human interdependence: Some theoretical and practical consequences of a socialinteractive view of cognition, learning and language. In Sinclair et al. (eds.), 1523. Little, D. (2000c). Strategies, counselling and cultural difference: Why we need an anthropological understanding of learner autonomy. In R. Rib e (ed.), Developing learner autonomy in foreign language learning. Barcelona: University of Barcelona, 1733. Little, D. (2001). Learner autonomy and the challenge of tandem language learning via the Internet. In Chambers & Davies (eds.), 2938. Little, D. (2002a). 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. <http://www.lang.ltsn.ac. uk/resources/guidecontents.aspx> accessed 7/9/2006. Little, D. (2002b). The European Language Portfolio: Structure, origins, implementation and challenges. Language Teaching 35.3, 182189. Little, D. (2003c). Autonomy and public examinations. In Little. et al. (eds.), 223233. Little, D. (2005). The Common European Framework and the European Language Portfolio: Involving learners and their judgements in the assessment process. Language Testing 22.3, 321336.
37
Phil Benson
Little, D., J. Ridley & E. Ushioda (2002). Towards greater learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom. Dublin: Authentik. Little, D., J. Ridley & E. Ushioda (eds.) (2003). Learner autonomy in foreign language classrooms: Teacher, learner, curriculum and assessment. Dublin: Authentik. Littlemore, J. (2001). Learner autonomy, self-instruction and new technologies in language learning: Current theory and practice in higher education in Europe. In Chambers & Davies (eds.), 3952. Littlemore, J. & G. Low (2006). Figurative thinking and foreign language learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Littlewood, W. (1996). Autonomy: An anatomy and a framework. System 24.4, 427435. Littlewood, W. (1997). Self-access: Why do we want it and what can it do? In Benson & Voller (eds.), 7992. Littlewood, W. (1999). Dening and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts. Applied Linguistics 20.1, 7194. Littlewood, W. (2000). Do Asian students really want to listen and obey? ELT Journal 54.1, 3135. Littlewood, W. (2002). Cooperative and collaborative learning tasks as pathways towards autonomous interdependence. In Benson & Toogood (eds.), 2939. Lynch, T. (2001). Promoting EAP learner autonomy in a second language university context. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 390 403. Macaro, E. (1997). Target language, collaborative learning and autonomy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Macaro, E. (2001). Learning strategies in foreign and second language classrooms. London: Continuum. Mackenzie, A. S. (2002). Changing contexts: Connecting teacher autonomy and institutional development. In Mackenzie & McCafferty (eds.), 223232. Mackenzie, A. S. & E. McCafferty (eds.) (2002). Developing autonomy: Proceedings of the JALT CUE Conference 2001. Tokyo: The Japan Association for Language Teaching College & University Educators Special Interest Group. Mackenzie, C. (2000). Imagining oneself otherwise. In Mackenzie & Stoljar (eds.), 124150. Mackenzie, C. & N. Stoljar (2000a). Introduction: Autonomy regured. In Mackenzie & Stoljar (eds.), 331. Mackenzie C. & N. Stoljar (eds.) (2000b). Relational autonomy: Feminist perspectives on autonomy, agency and the social self . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Macmillan English Dictionary (2002). ELT terms: Learner autonomy. <http://www.macmillandictionary.com/ glossaries/learner_autonomy.htm> accessed 7/9/ 2006. Malcolm, D. (2005). An Arabic-speaking English learners path to autonomy through reading. In Benson & Nunan (eds.), 6982. McCasland, P. & B. Poole (2002). Institutional constraints and learner autonomy: Striking a balance. In Mackenzie & McCafferty (eds.), 8388. McGrath, I. (2000). Teacher autonomy. In Sinclair et al (eds.), 100110. McIntosh, C. & K. A. Noels (2004). Self-determined motivation for language learning: The role of need for cognition and language learning strategies. Zeitschrift f ur Interculturellen Fremdsprachwissenschaft 9.2. <http://www. ualberta.ca/german/ejournal/startbei.htm> accessed 7/9/2006. Meyers, D. T. (1989). Self, society and personal choice. New York: Columbia University Press. Miller, L. (ed.) (2006). Learner autonomy 9: Autonomy in the classroom. Dublin: Authentik. Mizuki, P. (2003). Metacognitive strategies, reection, and autonomy in the classroom. In Bareld & Nix (eds.), 143 153.
Mori, Y. (1999). Epistemological beliefs and language learning beliefs: What do language learners believe about their language learning? Language Learning 49.3, 377415. Morrison, B. (2005). Evaluating learning gain in a self-access language learning centre. Language Teaching Research 9.3, 267293. Mozzon-McPherson, M. & C. Dantec (2006). Managing language learning at university: An analysis of a strategy based training programme. In Lamb & Reinders (eds.), 143170. Mozzon-McPherson, M. & R. Vismans, (eds.) (2001). Beyond language teaching: Towards language advising. London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching & Research. M uller-Hartmann, A. (2000). Tandem learning. In Byram (ed.), 595597. Mundy, K. (2005). Globalization and educational change: New policy worlds. In N. Bascia, A. Cumming, A. Datnow, K. Leithwood & D. Livingstone (eds.), International handbook of educational policy. New York: Springer, 317. Murphy, L. (2006). Supporting learner autonomy in a distance learning context. In Gardner (ed.), 7292. Murray, G. (1999). Autonomy and language learning in a simulated environment. System 27.3, 295308. Murray, G. (2004). Two stories of self-directed language learning. In Reinders et al. (eds.), 112120. Murray, G. & M. Kojima (2006). Out-of-class learning: One learners story. In Benson (ed.), 2540. Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Teaching and learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nix, M. (2002). Towards an appropriate model of culture for developing learner autonomy. In Mackenzie & McCafferty (eds.), 4348. Noels, K. A., R. Cl ement & L. G. Pelletier (1999). Perceptions of teacher communicative style and students intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Modern Language Journal 83.1, 2334. Noels, K. A., L. G. Pelletier, R. Cl ement & R. J. Vallerand (2000). Why are you learning a second language? Motivational orientations and self-determination theory. Language Learning 50.1, 5785. Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change. London: Longman. Norton, B. (2001). Non-participation, imagined communities and the language classroom. In Breen (ed.), 159171. Norton, B. & K. Toohey (2002). Identity and language learning. In Kaplan (ed.), 115123. Nunan, D. (1997). Designing and adapting materials to encourage learner autonomy. In Benson & Voller (eds.), 192203. Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and practices in the Asia-Pacic region. TESOL Quarterly 37.4, 589613. ORourke, B. & K. Schwienhorst (2003). Talking text: Reections on reection in computermediated communication. In Little et al. (eds.), 4762. Oxford, R. L. (2003). Toward a more systematic model of L2 learner autonomy. In Palfreyman & Smith (eds.), 7591. Palfreyman, D. (2003a). Expanding the discourse on learner development: A reply to Anita Wenden. Applied Linguistics 24.2, 2438. Palfreyman, D. (2003b). The representation of learner autonomy and learner independence in organizational culture. In Palfreyman & Smith (eds.), 183200. Palfreyman, D. & R. C. Smith (eds.) (2003). Learner autonomy across cultures: Language education perspectives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Paul, E. F., F. D. Miller & J. Paul (eds.) (2003). Autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pearson, N. (2004). The idiosyncracies of out-of-class language learning: A study of mainland Chinese students
38

studying English at tertiary level in New Zealand. In Reinders et al. (eds.), 121133. Pellegrino Aveni, V. A. (2005). Study abroad and second language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pemberton, R. (1996). Introduction. In Pemberton et al. (eds.), 18. Pemberton, R., E. Li, W. Or & H. Pierson (eds.) (2006). Taking control: Autonomy in language learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Pemberton, R., S. Toogood, S. Ho & J. Lam (2001). Approaches to advising for self-directed language learning. The AILA Review 15, 1625. Pe naorida, A. H. (2002). Nontraditional forms of assessment and response to student writing: A step towards learner autonomy. In J. C. Richards & W. Renardya (eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 344353. Pennycook, A. (1997). Cultural alternatives and autonomy. In Benson & Voller (eds.), 3553. Poole, G. S. (2005). Reform of the university English language curriculum in Japan: A case study. In J. S. Eades, R. Goodman & Y. Hada (eds.), The Big Bang in Japanese higher education: The 2004 reforms and the dynamics of change. Melbourne: TransPacic Press, 242273. Porter, R. (ed.) (1997). Rewriting the self: Histories from the Renaissance to the present. London: Routledge. Reinders,, H. (2007). Supporting independent learning through an electronic learning environment. In Lamb & Reinders (eds.), 221240. Reinders, H., H. Anderson, M. Hobbs & J. Jones-Parry (eds.) (2004). Supporting independent learning in the 21st century: Proceedings of the inaugural conference of the Independent Learning Association, Melbourne September 1314 2003. Auckland: Independent Learning Association Oceania. <http://www.independentlearning. org/ila03/ila03_papers.htm>> accessed 7/9/2006. Rib e, R. (2003). Tramas in the foreign language classroom: Autopoietic networks for learner growth. In Little et al. (eds.), 1128. Rib e, R. (ed.) (2000). Developing learner autonomy in foreign language learning. Barcelona: University of Barcelona. Riley, P. (2003). Self-access as access to self : Cultural variation in the notions of self and personhood. In Palfreyman & Smith (eds.), 92109. Rivers, W. P. (2001). Autonomy at all costs: An ethnography of metacognitive self-assessment and self-management among experienced language learners. The Modern Language Journal 85.2, 279290. Robinson, P. (ed.) (2002). Individual differences and instructed language learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ruan, Z. (2006). Learner beliefs about self-regulation: Addressing autonomy in the Chinese ELT context. In Benson (ed.), 6183. Rubin, J. (2001). Language learner self-management. Journal of Asia-Pacic Communication 11.1, 2537. Sakui, K. (2002a). Motivation and autonomy: Japanese teachers perspectives. In Mackenzie & McCafferty (eds.), 7378. Sakui, K. (2002b). Swiss cheese syndrome: Knowing myself as a learner and teacher. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics 7.2, 136151. Salaberri, M. S. & G. Appel (2003). Assessment and diversity: Development of personal identities through portfolios. In Jim enez Raya & Lamb (eds.), 211230. Santoro, E. (2003). Autonomy, freedom and rights: A critique of liberal subjectivity. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Schalkwijk, E., K. van Esch, A. Elsen & W. Setz (2002). Learner autonomy and the education of language teachers: How to practice what is preached and preach what is practiced. In S. J. Savignon (ed.), Interpreting communicative
Autonomy
language teaching: Contexts and concerns in teacher education. New Haven: Yale University Press, 165190. & A. Szab o (2000). Learner autonomy: A guide Scharle, A. to developing learner responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schmenk, B. (2005). Globalizing learner autonomy. TESOL Quarterly 39.1, 107118. Schneewind, J. B. (1998). The invention of autonomy: A history of modern moral philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press. Schunk, D. H. & B. J. Zimmerman (eds.) (1998). Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-regulated practice. New York: Guildford Press. Schwienhorst, K. (2003). Neither here nor there? Learner autonomy and intercultural factors in CALL environments. In Palfreyman & Smith (eds.), 164179. Sercu, L. (2002). Autonomous learning and the acquisition of intercultural communicative competence: Some implications for course development. Language, Culture and Curriculum 15.1, 6174. Shimo, E. (2003). Learners perceptions of portfolio assessment and autonomous learning. In Bareld & Nix (eds.), 175186. Simonian, J. & M. Robertson (2002). Learner empowerment through self-evaluation. In Mackenzie & McCafferty (eds.), 199206. Sinclair, B. (1999). More than an act of faith? Evaluating learner autonomy. In C. Kennedy (ed.), Innovation and best practice in British ELT . London: Longman (in association with the British Council). Sinclair, B. (2000). Learner autonomy: The next phase. In Sinclair et al. (eds.), 1523. Sinclair, B., I. McGrath & T. Lamb (eds.) (2000). Learner autonomy, teacher autonomy: Future directions. London: Longman. Small, J. (2002). Language digestion: Student self-assessment. In Mackenzie & McCafferty (eds.), 195199. Smith, R. C. (2001). Group work for autonomy in Asia. The AILA Review, 15, 7081. Smith, R. C. (2003). Pedagogy for autonomy as (becoming-) appropriate methodology. In Palfreyman & Smith (eds.), 129146. Snyder, S. (2002). An ethical imperative for learner choice. In Mackenzie & McCafferty (eds.), 5564. Sonaiya, R. (2002). Autonomous language learning in Africa: A mismatch of cultural assumptions. Language, Culture and Curriculum 15.2, 106116. Spratt, M., G. Humphrey & V. Chan (2002). Autonomy and motivation: Which comes rst? Language Teaching Research 6.3, 245256. Stracke, E. (2006). Conicting voices: Blended learning in a German university foreign language classroom. In Miller, (ed.), 85102. Straub, J., B. Zielke & H. Werbik (2005). Autonomy, narrative identity, and their critics. In W. Greve, K. Rothermund & D. Wentura. (eds.), The adaptive self: Personal continuity and intentional self-development. Cambridge, MA: Hogrefer & Huber, 323350. Takagi, A. (2003). Learner autonomy and motivation in a cooperative learning class. In Bareld & Nix (eds.), 129 140. Tang, G. (1999). Development of autonomy by New Arrival Children. In Crew et al. (eds.), 247269. Teutsch-Dwyer, M. (2001). (Re)constructing masculinity in a new linguistic reality. In A. Pavlenko, A. Blackledge, I. Piller & M. Teutsch-Dwyer (eds.), Multingualism, second language learning, and gender . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 175198. Thanasoulas, D. (2000). What is learner autonomy and how can it be fostered? The Internet TESL Journal 11.
39
Phil Benson
<http://iteslj.org/Articles/Thanasoulas-Autonomy.html> accessed 7/9/2006. Thavenius, C. (1999). Teacher autonomy for learner autonomy. In Cotterall & Crabbe (eds.), 163166. Thomson, C. K. (1998). Junior teaching internship: Promoting cooperative interaction and learner autonomy in foreign language classrooms. Foreign Language Annals 31.4, 569583. Thornbury, S. (2005). How to teach speaking. London: Longman. Tomei, J. (2002). Best of both worlds: Autonomy as an amalgam. In Mackenzie & McCafferty (eds.), 4954. Toogood, S. & R. Pemberton (2002). Integrating self-access language learning into the curriculum: A case study. In Benson & Toogood (eds.), 85109. Toogood, S. & R. Pemberton (2006). Scaffolding for selfaccess language learning and the FTG model. In Lamb & Reinders (eds.), 171202. Toohey, K. (2000). Learning English at school: Identity, social relations and classroom practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Toohey, K. & B. Norton (2003). Learner autonomy as agency in sociocultural settings. In Palfreyman & Smith (eds.), 58 72. Trebbi, T. (2003). Curriculum development and learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom: Constraints and possibilities. In Little et al. (eds.), 166184. Trebbi, T. (2007). Is freedom a prerequisite for autonomy? Classroom innovation and language teacher education. In Lamb & Reinders (eds.). Umino, T. (1999). The use of self-instructional broadcast materials for L2 learning: An investigation in the Japanese context. System 27.3, 309327. Umino, T. (2005). Learning a second language with broadcast materials at home: Japanese students long-term experiences. In Benson & Nunan (eds.), 134149. Ushioda, E. (1996). Learner autonomy 5: The role of motivation. Dublin: Authentik. Ushioda, E. (2003). Motivation as a socially mediated process. In Little et al. (eds.), 90102. Ushioda, E. (2006). Motivation, autonomy and sociocultural theory. In Benson (ed.), 524. Usuki, M. (2003). Learner beliefs about language learning and learner autonomy: A reconsideration. In Bareld & Nix (eds.), 1124. van Esch, K. & O. St.John (eds.) (2003). A framework for freedom: Learner autonomy in foreign language teacher education. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. van Esch, K., E. Schalkwijk, A. Elsen & W. Setz (1999). Autonomous learning in initial foreign language teacher training. In P. Faber, W. Gewehr, M. Jim enezdr Raya & A. J. Peck (eds.), English teacher education in Europe: New trends and developments. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 15 31. Victori, M. (ed.) (2000). Autonomy in second language learning. Special issue of Links and Letters 7. Barcelona: Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona. Vieira, F. (2003). Addressing constraints on autonomy in school contexts: lessons from working with teachers. In Palfreyman & Smith (eds.), 220239.
Vieira, F., M. A. Moreira, I. Barbosa & M. Paiva (eds.) (2002). Pedagogy for autonomy and English learning. Proceedings of the 1st Conference of the Working Group Pedagogy for Autonomy. Braga: University of Minho. Vieira, F., M. Paiva, I. Marques & I. S. Fernandes (2007). Teaching education towards teacher and learner autonomy: What can be learnt from teacher development practices? In Lamb & Reinders (eds.). Wachman, R. (1999). Classroom practice: Autonomy through authoring software. In Egbert & Hanson-Smith (eds.), 403426. Wenden, A. (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy. London: Prentice Hall International. Wenden, A. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics 19.4, 515537. Wenden, A. (1999). Special issue on metacognitive knowledge and beliefs in language learning. System 27.4. Wenden, A. (2002). Learner development in language learning. Applied Linguistics 23.1, 3255. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E., R. McDermott & W. M. Snyder (2002). Cultivating communities of practice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. White, C. (2003). Language learning in distance education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. White, C. (2006a). Autonomy, independence and control: Mapping the future of distance language learning. In Gardner (ed.), 5671. White, C. (2006b). Robinson Crusoe and the challenges of supported distance language learning. In Lamb & Reinders (eds.), 5774. White, C. & M. Shelley (eds.) (2003). Open learning. Special issue on languages in distance education. The Journal of Open and Distance Learning 18.1. Whitty, G. (1997). School autonomy and parental choice: Consumer rights versus citizen rights in education policy in Britain. In D. Bridges (ed.), Education, autonomy and democracy citizenship. London: Routledge, 8798. Wikipedia (2006a). Blended learning. <http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Blended_learning> accessed 7/9/2006. Wikipedia (2006b). Learner autonomy. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learner_autonomy> accessed 7/9/2006. Winch, C. (2006). Education, autonomy and critical thinking. London: Routledge. Wiseman, A. W. & D. P. Baker (2005). The worldwide explosion of internationalized education policy. In D. P. Baker & A. W. Wiseman (eds.), Global trends in educational policy. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 121. Wolff, D. (2003). Content and language integrated learning: A framework for the development of learner autonomy. In Little et al. (eds.), 211222. Wright, V. (2005). Independent learning. In Coleman & Klapper (eds.), 133141. Zajda, J. (ed.) (2005). International handbook on globalisation, education and policy research: Global pedagogies and policies. Dordrecht: Springer. Zuengler, J. & E. R. Miller (2006). Cognitive and sociocultural perspectives: Two parallel SLA worlds? TESOL Quarterly 40.1, 3558.
40

Autonomy Benson2007

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Autonomy Benson2007

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Autonomy Benson2007

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

State-of-the-art article

Autonomy in language teaching and learning

Lang. Teach. 40, 2140. doi:10.1017/S0261444806003958 Printed in the United Kingdom

2006 Cambridge University Press

Downloaded: 11 Oct 2011

2. The rise of autonomy in language education

2.1 A brief history

3.1 Levels of autonomy

3. Mainstream autonomy and its critics

Downloaded: 11 Oct 2011

3.2 Versions of autonomy

3.3 Alternatives to mainstream autonomy

3.4 Autonomy and culture

Downloaded: 11 Oct 2011

4.2 Autonomy in the classroom

Downloaded: 11 Oct 2011

5. Interaction with language education theory

5.1 Learning strategies and self-regulation

5.3 Individual differences and sociocultural approaches

Downloaded: 11 Oct 2011

5.4 Teacher development

6. Autonomy beyond language education

6.1 The individual in modern society

Downloaded: 11 Oct 2011

6.2 Education policy and reform

Downloaded: 11 Oct 2011

You might also like