Supporting greater autonomy

in language learning
Icy Lee

Learning to be self-directed involves taking responsibility for the objectives

of learning, self-monitoring, self-assessing, and taking an active role in
learning. This article describes the implementation of a self-directed
learning programme for tertiary students in Hong Kong, and evaluates its
outcomes using data from the students and the teacher. It raises issues
concerning the provision of support for such learning, and discusses the
implications for future work in this field.

Background For a long time the typical Hong Kong Chinese learner has been
characterized as passive, dependent, and lacking in initiative (Pierson
1996). A recent longitudinal study conducted with tertiary students in
Hong Kong has indicated that students have little incentive to undertake
learning outside their studies, and tend to limit their work to what is
taught on the course (Balla et al. 1991). Such an attitude is of no benefit
to learning a second or foreign language when success so much depends
on the individual pursuit of opportunities for language use outside the
classroom. Language learning, as Thomson (1996: 78) puts it, is a life-
long endeavour. It is therefore important to help students become
aware of the value of independent learning outside the classroom, so
that they acquire the habit of learning continuously, and maintain it after
they have completed their formal studies.
I often feel that classroom teachers in frequent contact with students are
in an advantageous position to encourage them to undertake indepen-
dent learning outside the classroom, since it is easier to establish rapport,
and hence foster teacher and peer support. When an independent
learning programme is offered by a language centre, on the other hand,
usually only the most motivated learners are attracted. A great deal of
effort is required on such a programme to enlist volunteers, maintain the
teacher-student relationship, and provide peer support. In order to help
students develop independent language learning habits outside the
classroom, I designed a classroom-based self-directed learning pro-
gramme, and incorporated it into a first-year English Communications
Skills component of a Language and Communication course at the Hong
Kong Polytechnic University. The primary objective of the programme
is to help students become more autonomous, so that they will be
equipped with the skills to go about their own learning.
Self-directed learning is defined as the techniques used in order to direct
ones own learning (Pemberton 1996: 3). It refers to learning in which
the learners themselves take responsibility for their own learning

282 ELT Journal Volume 52/4 October 1998 Oxford University Press I998
articles welcome
 (Thomson 1996: 78). Autonomy, which is often used interchangeably
with self-direction, refers to the ability to take charge of ones own
learning (Holec 1981: 3). Autonomy, therefore, is a capacity, while self-
directed learning is a way of organizing learning (Pemberton 1996: 3). In
this article I shall describe the self-directed programme, evaluate its
outcomes, and make recommendations for future work.
Factors for The design of the self-directed learning programme takes into account a
developing number of factors which are crucial to the development of learner
autonomy autonomy:
Voluntariness Voluntariness is a pre-requisite for independent lan-
guage learning. Students who are coerced into joining a self-directed
learning programme may not benefit as much as those who volunteer
(Lee and Ng 1994).
Learner choice Learner choice is essential to autonomous learning.
Holec (1981) states that learner autonomy consists in making decisions
in learning, including setting objectives, defining contents and progres-
sions, selecting methods and techniques, monitoring the procedure, and
evaluating the outcome of learning. Learner choice implies that students
can work at their own pace, deciding on questions of what, when, how,
and how often.
Flexibility Learners need a supportive environment in order to learn to
be more independent. One important criterion for establishing a
supportive environment is flexibility in learning (Esch 1996). Flexibility
in a self-directed learning programme means that students can change
options (e.g. objectives, contents, process of learning) according to their
needs and interests.
Teacher support The teacher plays an important role in facilitating the
process of re-orientation and personal discovery, which is a natural
outcome of self-directed learning (Kelly 1996). It is crucial for the
teacher to establish a good relationship with students, supporting and
guiding them in their learning, e.g. by helping them formulate their goals
more clearly, and providing feedback, encouragement, and reinforce-
ment.
Peer support Learner autonomy is not only individual but also social. It
entails a capacity and willingness to act independently and in co-
operation with others, as a socially responsible person (Dam 1995: 1).
Learning does not take place in a vacuum and that self-direction does
not necessarily imply learning on ones own (Pemberton 1996).
Interaction, negotiation, collaboration, etc., are important factors in
promoting learner autonomy.
Implementing the At the beginning of the academic year, the 15 students on the course
programme were briefed about the aim of the self-directed learning programme, and
told that participation was entirely optional. I gave students a suggested
list of activities (see Appendix 1) and materials (e.g. titles of grammar
and vocabulary books). It was emphasized that students should exercise
their discretion to add to or delete from the suggested list. I gave them a
learner contract (see Appendix 2) and told them that they were

Autonomy in language learning 283

articles welcome
 responsible for setting their own objectives, selecting the contents of
learning, and deciding how much time they wanted to spend on the
programme per week. To help students determine their learning
objectives and complete the contract, I asked them to complete an
awareness-raising self-evaluation task and share their reflections in small
group tutorials. The awareness-raising self-evaluation task asked about
students perceptions of their strengths as learners of English, their
weaknesses as a learner of English, the language skills needed to cope
with the demands of the course, the role of the English teacher, and their
own role in improving their English.
After a weeks deliberation, all the students in the class said they would
like to join the programme. I then signed the learner contract with each
of them individually, asking students to explain to me what they had
chosen, and why, and how much time they could afford to spend on the
programme each week. I told them about several important features of
the programme:
1 They should keep their own learning record, that is they should
monitor their own progress.
2 They could re-negotiate the contract with me at any time. In other
words, they would be responsible for reflecting upon and evaluating
their own learning, and should take the initiative to make changes
when necessary.
3 At the end of the first term, they would evaluate their own progress
and re-design the contract for the second term.
4 They could approach me for help or advice at any time.
Arrangements were made during the course for the students to meet
with the teacher individually, and with their peers, for exchange. I held
individual sessions with students three times: at first contract signing,
second contract signing, and interview at the end of the academic year.
The exchange sessions were arranged for students twice during the
course. In the first session, students mainly shared information about the
progress of their work, and showed each other how they recorded it. In
the second session, students formed small groups and shared some of the
interesting aspects of their work, e.g. a book they had enjoyed reading,
or a good TV programme they had watched.
Before the end of the academic year, I asked students to do a self-
evaluation task similar to the awareness-raising task they had done at
the beginning of the programme. Individual interviews were also
conducted with students to seek their views on the programme.
Evaluating the In this section I shall attempt to evaluate the self-directed learning
programme programme in terms of students involvement, their self-evaluations at
the end of the programme, their views of the programme, the teachers
observations, and the limitations of the programme.

Students The students involvement in the programme can be examined in terms

involvement of the time they spent on it and the learning activities they engaged in.

284 Icy Lee

articles welcome
 The students can be roughly divided into two groups - the more
enthusiastic and the less enthusiastic learners. On average, the more
enthusiastic students spent about 4 to 8 hours on the programme per
week, while the less enthusiastic ones spent about 2 to 3 hours per week
(though they put down more hours in the first-term contract, they
confessed they did not complete the work). The language learning
activities included reading newspapers or magazines, watching English
TV programmes, films or videos, journal writing and writing newspaper
reports or film reviews, and doing grammar exercises. Most of the more
enthusiastic students included writing as one of the focuses of their work,
e.g. journal writing, writing film reviews, and they turned in their work
consistently. The less enthusiastic learners, on the other hand, tended to
focus on watching TV and films, or reading newspapers, and they
showed less interest in writing activities. One reason could be that these
learners were not ready to spend more time on the programme, and
therefore chose the easier things to work on.

Students self- At the end of the programme, the enthusiastic students seemed to
evaluations become more positive about themselves, and about learning in general.
When asked about their own strengths as language learners, two of them
remarked, I can try and make an effort to improve my English in
whatever aspects, and I am persistent in language learning. The less
enthusiastic students, on the other hand, showed a lower self-esteem at
the end of the programme. Two of them put down nil in response to the
question asking about their strengths. When asked about how they could
improve their English, the more enthusiastic learners were very specific
about different means to improve their English, for instance, doing self-
study at the language centre. The less enthusiastic learners, however,
showed an ambivalent attitude towards self-directed learning, as
illustrated in the non-committal remark, Take the initiative to do
extra work, if time is allowed.

Students views of The interview data gathered from the students is mixed. The more
the programme enthusiastic students enjoyed the self-directed learning programme,
thought that it helped them improve their English, and said that they
would continue independent learning on their own after the course. All
of them thought that the teacher had some role to play in supporting
them; however, they did not think that their classmates helped them in
their learning. The less enthusiastic group of learners thought that the
programme was worthwhile, but did not think that they had improved
their English through the programme. Most of them said that they would
probably not continue with the programme after the course, since the
teacher would no longer be there to remind and encourage them to
undertake extra work outside the classroom.
Teachers It appears that students responded to the self-directed learning
observations programme in different ways. Some seemed to benefit more from the
programme, some less. The more enthusiastic and less enthusiastic
learners exhibited some differences in their motivation. The former

Autonomy in language learning 285

articles welcome
 were conscientious and persevering, while the latter were lukewarm to
learning in general. Although all students joined the programme of their
own accord, some lacked determination and self-discipline to carry it
through. It seems that some learners are more efficient in self-directed
learning than others. Candy (1991: 23) describes self-directed learning
in terms of personal autonomy, which is a personal attribute, as well as
self-management, which is the willingness and capacity to conduct ones
own education. These facets of self-directed learning may explain why
some students appeared to be more enthusiastic and successful than
others.
Other factors which may explain the differences between learners are
their expectations of what they can do, and their beliefs and expectations
about the teachers role, and about learning (Wenden 1996). At the
beginning of the programme, the less enthusiastic learners characterized
themselves as lazy and lacking in self-discipline in their self-evaluation.
It seems that they thought from the start that they might not benefit
much from the programme, due to their laziness. By contrast, the more
enthusiastic learners had higher expectations about what they could
achieve. They appeared to have a better idea about what learning in
general entails. For example, a student described herself as a person
who wants to learn new things and practise them in daily life. Carver
and Dickinson (1987: 15) think that being responsible for ones learning
is an attitude of mind. Also, the enthusiastic learners had certain
expectations of the teachers role. During the programme, most of them
sought some kind of help from the teacher - by maintaining regular
contact with her through journal writing, and by getting her feedback on
their written work. As a result, they thought that the teacher played a
definite role in supporting them in their self-directed learning. The less
enthusiastic learners, however, did not seem to have any expectations of
what the teacher could do to help their learning, and did not capitalize
on opportunities to get help from the teacher. The paradox of learner
autonomy seems to be that the more autonomous students (those who
did not seek help and support from the teacher) are less enthusiastic and
motivated.
Limitations of the This self-directed learning programme had a number of limitations,
programme which might have affected students involvement and interest in it. In
particular, students were not provided with adequate resources and
facilities to support their learning. The self-access centre at the
university was only set up towards the end of the programme, which
inevitably imposed constraints on students choice of learning materials.
It also meant that they had to make an extra effort to find suitable
materials, and a suitable place to carry out their self-directed learning.
Another limitation was that students learning in the programme was
primarily individual. Opportunities for collaborative learning were only
provided through the exchange sessions, which were held twice during
the programme. Finally, the support provided by the teacher might not
have been adequate, given the size of the group and the demands
consequently made on the teachers time.
286 Icy Lee
articles welcome
Implications from This self-directed learning programme has demonstrated that self-
the case study directed learning does not guarantee success but may pave the way for
students development of autonomy. In order to implement self-directed
learning more effectively, a number of areas need to be further
addressed.

Learner training Some students are not as ready as others for independent language
learning. The self-directed learning programme turned out to be more
successful with those learners who were already self-sufficient and
demonstrated some degree of autonomy in learning. However, this does
not mean that the less ready or less enthusiastic students are not capable
of autonomy. Nunan (1996: 13) rightly points out that some degree of
autonomy can be fostered in learners regardless of the extent to which
they are naturally predisposed to the notion. The self-directed learning
programme reported here was offered as ancillary to the main language
course. In order to help students become autonomous, it would be more
effective to provide learner training alongside the programme, and make
it an integral part of the course. Learner-training activities (e.g. explicit
learner-training tasks suggested by Sinclair 1996) can be incorporated
systematically in the classroom to help students become more aware of
the learning process, more ready to take charge of their own learning,
and empowered to make their own changes. Through learner training,
learners can be helped to come to terms with their strengths and
weaknesses, to learn a language efficiently in ways which are compatible
with their personalities (Gremmo and Riley 1995: 158). Learner
training would benefit the lazy students, who might feel that they are
doomed to failure in language learning due to their own laziness in the
programme, by increasing their self-confidence and self-esteem.

Teacher counselling Promoting learner autonomy does not mean a reduction of teacher
intervention or initiative. In this self-directed learning programme,
teacher counselling was not systematically integrated, but some students
reported favourably on the role the teacher played in helping and
supporting them. Teacher counselling should be a crucial component of
self-directed learning, and the role of teacher counselling in fostering
learner autonomy should be more widely used and explored.

Providing genuine Providing learners with choice is crucial to the development of learner
choice autonomy. Learner choice should mean genuine choice, with as many
alternatives provided as possible. Unfortunately, students in the
programme were not able to exercise genuine choice due to the lack
of learning materials. Ideally, a self-directed learning programme should
be organized by the classroom teacher, with the support of resources and
facilities provided by a self-access centre: A self-access resource centre
is a good start to provide choice for learners (Esch 1996: 39).

Collaborative Learner autonomy and self-directed learning have increasingly been

learning associated with social and collaborative learning (Benson 1996). The
students in this programme learnt in isolation most of the time, except in
Autonomy in language learning 287
articles welcome
 exchange sessions held twice in the class, where they shared their
progress with each other. Having learners share successful strategies
with their peers is an important part of learner training (Tyacke 1991);
however, the exchange sessions in the programme seemed to have only a
limited impact on the learners. Future work on self-directed learning
should aim at fostering social or collaborative learning through a more
concerted effort, making use of peer negotiations, peer review, or peer
teaching, for instance. This, too, needs systematic support from the
teacher and the programme designer.

Conclusion The aim of self-directed learning is to promote independence in learners

so that they can continue their language development and take
increasing responsibility for their learning. Creating a self-directed
learning programme, however, does not in itself enable learners to
become self-directed. Learner autonomy is promoted through
the provision of circumstances and contexts for language learners
which will make it more likely that they take charge - at least
temporarily - of the whole or part of their language-learning
programme, and which are more likely to help rather than prevent
learners from exercising their autonomy. (Esch 1996: 37)
The results of the case study support the views of Esch. It would seem,
somewhat paradoxically, that teachers and course directors offering
programmes in self-directed learning need to think very carefully about
how the necessary supportive circumstances and contexts can be
provided to help learners develop the necessary capacity and willingness
to take on more responsibility for their own learning.

Received June 1997

288 Icy Lee

articles welcome
References
Balla, J., M. Stokes and K. Stafford. 1991.
Changes in student approaches to study at
CPHK: a three year longitudinal study. AAIR
Conference Refereed Proceedings 7: 31. Mel-
bourne: AAIR.
Benson, P. 1996. Concepts of autonomy in
language learning in Pemberton et al. (eds.).
Candy, P.C. 1991. Self-Direction for Lifelong
Learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Carver, D. and L. Dickinson. 1987. Learning to
be self-directed in M. Geddes and G. Sturtridge
(eds.). Individualisation. Hong Kong: Modern
English Publications.
Dam, L. 1995. Learner Autonomy 3: From Theory
to Classroom Practice. Dublin: Authentik.
Esch, E. 1996. Promoting learner autonomy:
criteria for the selection of appropriate materi-
als in Pemberton et al.
Gremmo, M-J. and P. Riley. 1995. Autonomy,
self-direction and self access in language teach-
ing and learning: the history of an idea. System
23/2: 151-64.
Holec, H. 1981. Autonomy and Foreign Language
Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Kelly, R. 1996. Language counselling for learner
autonomy: the skilled helper in self-access
language learning in Pemberton et al. Taking
Control: Autonomy in Language Learning.
Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Lee, I. and R. Ng. 1994. Self-directed learning:
does it make any difference? Paper presented
at the International Language in Education
Conference, University of Hong Kong, Hong
Kong.
Autonomy in language
Nunan, D. 1996. Towards autonomous learning
in Pemberton et al.
Pemberton, R. 1996. Introduction in Pemberton
et al.
Pemberton R., E.S.L. Li, W.W.F. Or, and H.D.
Pierson (eds.). 1996. Taking Control: Autonomy
in Language Learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong
University Press.
Pierson, H.D. 1996. Learner culture and learner
autonomy in the Hong Kong Chinese context
in Pemberton et al.
Sinclair, B. 1996. Materials design for the
promotion of learner autonomy in Pemberton
et al.
Thomson, C.K. 1996. Self-assessment in self-
directed learning: issues of learner diversity in
Pemberton et al.
Tyacke, M. 1991. Strategies for success: bringing
out the best in a learner. TESL Canada Journal
8/2: 45-56.
Wenden, A.L. 1996. Designing learner training:
the curricular questions. Paper presented at
RELC Seminar, Singapore.
The author
Icy Lee teaches ESL at Douglas College, British
Columbia, Canada. She was previously an Assis-
tant Professor in the English Department of Hong
Kong Polytechnic University. Her research inter-
ests include ESL, reading and writing, learner
autonomy, and teacher development.
E-mail: rkcchan@aicom.com
learning 289
articles welcome
 Appendix 1: Self- Objectives
directed learning The self-directed learning programme is designed with a view to helping you
programme become
- more independent in learning
- more motivated in learning English
- more aware and critical of your needs as a language learner
- more proficient in English.
Contents of the programme
The following gives you an idea about how you can organize the self-directed
learning programme. You are, however, free to add your own ideas.
Reading
English newspapers/magazines ( __ times a week)
Fiction/non-fiction ( __ books a term)
Listening
English TV/radio programmes ( __ times a week)
Films/videos ( __ films/videos a term)
Writing
Journal writing
News reports ( __ times a term)
Film reviews ( __ on films)
Grammar/Vocabulary
Grammar exercises ( __ exercises a week)
Vocabulary exercises ( __ exercises a week)
Speaking
Self-access language work in language lab ( __ times a week/term)
Taped responses to books or films ( __ times a term)
Taped reading aloud ( __ times a term)

Appendix 2: This is an agreement between (name of student)

Learner contract and (name of teacher) in respect of the self-directed learning
programme.
I agree to complete the following in the first/second term of the academic year:
I agree to spend approximately hours a week on the self-directed
learning programme.
I agree to keep a record of my work.
I agree to see (name of teacher) regularly to report on my
progress and to discuss any problems I encounter.
If necessary, I agree to renegotiate this contract with (name of
teacher).

AGREED Signed (Student)

(Teacher)

Date

290 Icy Lee

articles welcome