Pergamon

PII:

SO346-251X(96)00039-5

Sysrm.
Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 427435,
1996
Copyright 0 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0346-251X/96
$15.00 + 0.00

AUTONOMY: AN ANATOMY AND A FRAMEWORK

WILLIAM

LITTLEWOOD

Depurtment of English, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Horn, Kowloon.

Hong Kong

This article examines the components that make up autonomy in language

learning. At the core of the notion of autonomy are the learners ability and
willingness to make choices independently. In foreign language learning contexts, we are concerned mainly with helping learners to make and carry out
choices in three domains: communication, learning and (by processes of transfer)
their personal life. In this article, these components and domains of autonomy
serve as the basis of a conceptual framework for coordinating our strategies
for helping learners to develop autonomy. Since the goal of language teaching
(and indeed all education) is to develop independent capacities in relevant
domains, this framework can also be seen as underlying our overall teaching
methodology. Copyright 0 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd

INTRODUCTION
For many years now, autonomy has been a popular focus for discussion in foreign
language teaching (e.g. Brookes and Grundy, 1988; Dam, 1988; Dickinson, 1987; Holec,
1981; Little, 1991; Dickinson and Wenden, 1995). This popularity is not surprising, since
the concept accords well with several of our central pedagogical preoccupations, notably
our view that language learning requires the active involvement of learners; our attempts
to introduce learner-centred methods; and our goal of helping learners to become
independent from their teachers in their learning and use of language. It is also supported from outside language teaching by a general educational concern to help students
become more independent in how they think, learn and behave (cf. Boud, 1988;
Hammond and Collins, 1991).
The concept has served a valuable function in focusing our attention on these issues and
encouraging us to explore them with greater rigour. It has also served a valuable purpose
in linking discussions about language teaching with discussions in the wider educational
context. It may be, however, that the use of the term has now reached the stage which
communicative and authentic had reached by the end of the 1980s and which has
recently been reached by task-based and learner-centred: as central articles of language-teaching faith, few people would wish (or dare) to disagree with them, but they
allow so many differences of interpretation that their value in discussion has diminished.
421

428

WILLIAM

LITTLEWOOD

These remarks are not intended to diminish the important role that the concept of
autonomy has played in bringing these issues more sharply into focus and moving the
language teaching debate forwards. As with the other terms mentioned, however, it is
important to stand back from time to time and consider what we mean by it. This is
what the first part of the present article will attempt to do. It will then look at the
different domains of activity in which we, as language teachers, can seek to develop
different aspects of autonomy. The overall conclusion will be that, since the over-arching
goal of all teaching is to help learners act more independently within a chosen range of
domains, an appropriate methodology in language teaching is also, by definition, a
methodology for furthering autonomy.
Here a note about terminology is necessary. In many discussions about autonomy in
language learning, the term autonomy is understood to refer to one particular kind of
autonomy, namely, learner autonomy. This is the case, for example, in the introduction to Dickinson and Wenden (1995) and several papers in the same collection. The present paper does not follow this restricted usage. Here the term may refer to a capacity
for thinking and acting independently that may occur in any kind of situation (including,
of course, a situation where the focus is on learning).

COMPONENTS

OF AUTONOMY

We can define an autonomous person as one who has an independent capacity to make
and carry out the choices which govern his or her actions. This capacity depends on two
main components: ability and willingness. Thus, a person may have the ability to make
independent choices but feel no willingness to do so (e.g. because such behaviour is not
perceived as appropriate to his or her role in a particular situation). Conversely, a person
may be willing to exercise independent choices but not have the necessary ability to do so.
Ability and willingness can themselves each be divided into two components. Ability
depends on possessing both knowledge about the alternatives from which choices have to
be made and the necessary skills for carrying out whatever choices seem most appropriate. Willingness depends on having both the motivation and the confidence to take
responsibility for the choices required. If a person is to be successful in acting autonomously, all of these four components need to be present together. For example, a person may feel highly motivated to learn outside class but lack the necessary knowledge or
skills to organise his or her time effectively; a person may have ample opportunities to
develop knowledge and skills for organising learning, but not wish to do so because he
or she sees this as the teachers role (as for example in the case described in Riley, 1988);
a student who is accustomed to a high degree of teacher control and support may lack
the confidence to carry out whatever skills he or she is taught.
In order to develop a strategy for developing autonomy, it is useful to distinguish these
components. In practice, however, they are closely linked. Thus, the more knowledge
and skills the students possess, the more confident they are likely to feel when asked to
perform independently; the more confident they feel, the more they are likely to be able
to mobilise their knowledge and skills in order to perform effectively; and so on.

AUTONOMY

GENERAL

IN LANGUAGE

AND TASK-SPECIFIC

LEARNlNG

429

ASPECTS OF AUTONOMY

In studying the influence of self-esteem and anxiety on language learning, researchers

sometimes distinguish between learners general level of self-esteem (or anxiety) and their
self-esteem (or anxiety) with regard to specific tasks (cf. Allwright and Bailey, 1991;
Skehan, 1989). A similar distinction is useful in discussing the nature of autonomy. We
may look at a persons general capacity for independence across the range of situations
which he or she encounters. Alternatively, we may look at an individuals capacity to act
autonomously in performing specific tasks, e.g. a profession or learning activity. With
regard to education, Candy (1988) captures this distinction through the terms autonomous
individuals and autonomous students. He argues that one of the superordinate goals
of education is to produce autonomous individuals; it is by producing autonomous
students within its own specific domain that each subject contributes to this overall
goal.
In foreign language teaching, the central domain of task-specific autonomy that concerns
us is communication through language, i.e. autonomy as a communicator. This was
highlighted by Rivers (1975) in her use of the term autonomous communication to
describe the goal of foreign language teaching. A further domain, which has received
increasing attention in recent years (e.g. Ellis and Sinclair, 1989; Cotterall, 1995;
Dickinson and Wenden, 1995), is the process of learning how to use language for communication, i.e. autonomy as a learner. Since the abilities to communicate and learn
independently are major factors in enabling a person to make choices in life, they also
contribute to each learners autonomy as an individual.

LEVELS OF AUTONOMY
To complete this analysis of what we mean by autonomy, we need to consider one
further factor, namely, the level of behaviour at which a person makes independent
choices.
The choices which govern a persons behaviour operate within a hierarchy of different
levels. This corresponds to the same hierarchy that governs all aspects of skilled
behaviour (cf. Levelt, 1978; Littlewood, 1992). At the bottom of the hierarchy are lowlevel choices which control the specific operations through which the activity is carried
out. At the top are high-level choices which control the overall activity - whether to
perform it at all, its overall direction, and so on. In between, we can distinguish any
number of levels, depending on how detailed we want our description to be. For example, increasing autonomy in using and learning language could involve a progression
such as the following:
.

learners are able to make their own choices in grammar and vocabulary (e.g. in
controlled role-plays and simple tasks involving information exchange). This is the
initial step towards autonomous communication;
learners choose the meanings they want to express and the communication strategies they will use in order to achieve their communicative goals;

430

.
.
.
.

WILLIAM

LITTLEWOOD

learners are able to make more far-reaching decisions about goals, meanings and
strategies (e.g. in creative role-playing, problem-solving and discussion);
learners begin to choose and shape their own learning contexts, e.g. in self-directed
learning and project work;
learners become able to make decisions in domains which have traditionally
belonged to the teacher, e.g. about materials and learning tasks;
learners participate in determining the nature and progression of their own syllabus
(cf. Budd and Wright, 1992);
learners are able to use language (for communication and learning) independently
in situations of their choice outside the classroom.

We can manipulate this progression systematically so that learners gradually increase the
scope of their independent choices.

SUMMARY:

COMPONENTS,

DOMAINS

AND LEVELS OF AUTONOMY

The main components and domains of autonomy with which we are concerned in foreign
language learning can now be summarised in the diagram in Fig. 1.
At the centre of the diagram are the basic components of autonomy (ability and willingness to make choices) and the two broad types of autonomy (task-specific and general).

MOTIVATION,
CONFIDENCE

KNOWLEDGE,

>

\L

I/
WILLINGNESS

<->

ABILITY
TO

MAKE AND

CARRY

OUT CHOICES

IN
SPECIFIC

AUTONOMY
AS
COMMUNICATORS

TASKS

<->

<

AUTONOMY
AS
LEARNERS

>

LIFE

<->

IN

GENERAL

AUTONOMY
AS
PERSONS

Fig. 1. Components and domains of autonomy in foreign language learning.

AUTONOMY

IN LANGUAGE

LEARNING

431

The boxes at the top of the diagram show the more specific elements that make up willingness (= motivation and confidence) and ability (= knowledge and skills). The boxes
at the bottom show the three domains in which we aim to develop autonomy in and
through foreign language learning, with varying emphasis depending on our situation:
communication, learning and (by transfer) other domains of life. The arrows linking the boxes
indicate the high degree of interdependence between the domains. For example, as a student
develops more autonomy as a communicator, so he or she can make better use of learning
opportunities which arise inside and outside the classroom; a students general autonomy
as a person will affect the specific domains of communication and learning; and so on.
The feature of autonomy that the diagram does not illustrate is that the choices that constitute it can be made at different levels and that, consequently, there are different levels
of autonomy within each domain. One of our tasks as language educators is to develop
strategies for helping learners to make choices at ever higher levels in the domains of
communication, learning and personal life. Taken together, these strategies will constitute our methodology for developing autonomy in and through foreign language learning. It is to this aspect of the topic that we now turn.

A FRAMEWORK

FOR DEVELOPING AUTONOMY IN AND THROUGH

FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNING

As a basis for developing practical strategies, the three broad domains of autonomy can
usefully be broken down further into more specific areas:
.

autonomy as a communicator depends on (a) the ability to use the language cre-

atively; and (b) the ability to use appropriate strategies for communicating meanings in specific situations;
autonomy as a learner depends on (a) the ability to engage in independent work
(e.g. self-directed learning); and (b) the ability to use appropriate learning strategies, both inside and outside the classroom;
autonomy as a person depends (in the foreign language learning context) on (a) the
ability to express personal meanings; and (b) the ability to create personal learning
contexts, e.g through interacting outside the classroom.

In Fig. 2, I have represented the three main domains of autonomy (communication,

learning and personal life) as linked areas around a circle. I have included the more
specific areas within the same circle by placing each one next to the domain with which it
is most closely associated. At the centre of the circle I have placed the four main components of autonomy: motivation, confidence, knowledge and skills.
The circular layout of Fig. 2 illustrates how the domains and areas of autonomy overlap.
For example:
.

linguistic creativity is most obviously associated with a persons autonomy as a

communicator. However, since it facilitates the expression of personal meanings, it
also contributes directly to his or her autonomy as a person;

432

WILLIAM

Communication
strategies

LITTLEWOOD

Learning
strategies

1.

Autonomy
as a
Learner

Autonomy
as a
Communicator

\
/

Motivation
Confidence
Knowledge
Skills

Linguistic
creativity

Independent
work

Creation
learning

Expression
of
personal
meanings

I
Fig. 2. A framework

for developing

Person
autonomy

of

personal
contexts

I
in foreign

language

learning

communication strategies, too, are most obviously associated with a persons autonomy as a communicator. However, since they enable a student to deal more
independently with texts and social situations, they also contribute to his or her
autonomy as a learner;
learning strategies are most obviously associated with a persons autonomy as a
learner. However, since they enable learners to extend their communicative repertoire, they also contribute to their autonomy as communicators;
independent work includes the creation of personal learning contexts, e.g. obtaining foreign newspapers or joining groups of native-speakers, and thus contributes
to a students autonomy as a person.

A COORDINATED

STRATEGY

FOR DEVELOPING

AUTONOMY

We can now take the six areas of autonomy which are placed around the circle in Fig. 2
and consider teaching methods for helping learners to develop autonomy within each of
them. Any particular method may focus on one of these areas but, because they are all
linked in the ways just described, will also have a spill-over effect on the other areas.

AUTONOMY

IN LANGUAGE

LEARNING

433

The crucial components of autonomy in each domain are placed at the centre of the circle. We may sometimes focus on just one or two of the components placed in the centre
of the circle, as when we concentrate on the knowledge and skills involved in carrying
out a particular learning strategy. At other times we may focus globally on all four elements, as when a sequence of role-plays aims to maintain and enhance learners
confidence and motivation by starting with familiar controlled work and moving by
gradual steps towards the skills involved in more creative expression. Here are further
examples from the six areas placed around the circle in Fig. 2:
In the area of independent work, we may wish to increase students ability and
willingness to engage in self-directed work. Amongst other things, we need to
consider:
(a) students motivation for such work, e.g. by clarifying its relationship to their
own needs and objectives;
(b) their confidence, e.g. by beginning with limited, structured tasks and gradually raising the level at which students need to make choices;
(c) a systematic approach to familiarising students with the knowledge and skills
involved in controlling their own learning (cf. Dickinson, 1987).
In the area of communication strategies, we may wish to develop students willingness and ability to focus on communication rather than accuracy. We need to
explore:
(a) ways of encouraging learners to be ready to take risks and make errors in
communication, e.g. by creating a non-threatening atmosphere and involving
them in small-group interactions;
ways
of increasing students confidence in their ability to communicate suc(b)
cessfully even with their present linguistic knowledge, e.g. by giving positive
feedback which makes them aware of their successes rather than their failures;
(c) ways of making students aware of specific strategies for compensating for
gaps in their linguistic knowledge; techniques for creating situations (e.g. information exchange) in which students can practise using these strategies.
The gradual and planned development of students ability to use their individual
learning strategies has formed the basis for detailed practical handbooks such as
those of Ellis and Sinclair (1989) or Oxford (1990).
The students willingness and ability to create personal learning contexts may be
fostered in class through the use of various forms of experiential learning, notably
project work (cf. Legutke and Thomas, 1991; Ribe and Vidal, 1993) or, outside
class, through the systematic use of the wider community as a context for learning.
In helping students to express personal meanings, we are well served by the techniques that have been developed for personalising controlled language practice
by relating it to students own concerns (e.g. Harmer, 1983) and gradually creating
contexts in which students can engage their own personalities and express their
own meanings (e.g. Campbell and Kryszewska, 1992).

434

WILLIAM

LITTLEWOOD

Finally, techniques for furthering learners ability to use language creatively for the
communication of meanings have been a prominent component in most of the
approaches to language teaching which have been recommended to teachers in
recent decades (cf. Harmer, 1983; Littlewood, 1981).

6.

In this way the framework presented in Fig. 2 can form the basis of a coordinated strategy for providing students with opportunities to develop the motivation, confidence,
knowledge and skills for autonomy in relevant domains and thus helping them to become
increasingly independent as communicators, learners and individuals.

CONCLUSION
At the beginning of the article I referred to terms such as communicative and taskbased, which have all served useful focusing and integrating functions but, largely
through the multiplicity of their usage, have lost much of the clarity of their meaning.
One could say, indeed, that the very process of analysis which they have encouraged has
revealed their complexity and ambiguity.
The
tion
also
pose

notion of autonomy has served similarly important functions. It has focused attenon a key dimension which permeates all aspects of our work. By doing this, it can
help us to link and integrate these aspects and thus increase the coherence of purwith which we approach our work.

Since the goal of all education is to help people to think, act and learn independently in
relevant areas of their lives, our methodology for developing autonomy (in its various
aspects) is indistinguishable, in the last resort, from our general teaching methodology.
The framework presented in Fig. 2 could therefore be viewed not only as a framework
for developing autonomy but also as a framework for language teaching. In this respect,
a strategy for developing autonomy serves the main aims of all aspects of our language teaching, namely, to increase students competence as communicators, learners
and individuals.

REFERENCES
ALLWRIGHT,
D. and BAILEY,
K. M. (1991) Focus on the Language
Classroom Research for Language Teachers. Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
BOUD,

D. (Ed.) (1988) Developing Student Autonomy

BROOKES,
Documents

in Learning. London:

Classroom:
Press.

Kogan

A. and GRUNDY,
P. (Eds) (1988) Individualization and Autonomy
131. London: Modem English Publications
and British Council.

An Introduction

to

Page.
in Language Learning.

ELT

BUDD, R. and WRIGHT,

T. (1992) Putting a process syllabus into practice. In Nunan, D. (ed.), Collaborative
Language Learning and Teaching, pp. 208-229. Cambridge:
Cambridge
University Press.
CAMPBELL,
CANDY,
Autonomy

COTTERALL,
DAM,

C. and KRYSZEWSKA,

H. (1992) Learner-based

P. (1988) On the attainment

of subject-matter
in Learning, pp. 59-76. London: Kogan Page.
S. (1995) Developing

L. (1988) Developing

autonomy

a course

strategy

in schools:

Teaching. Oxford:

autonomy.

for learner

In Boud,

autonomy.

Oxford

University

D. (ed.), Developing

ELT Journal 49, 219-227.

why and how. Language Teacher 1, 22-33.

Press.
Student

AUTONOMY

IN LANGUAGE

L. (1987) Self-Instruction in Language Leurning. Cambridge:

DICKINSON.

DICKINSON,
L. and WENDEN,
A. (eds) (1995) Autonomy,
Teaching and Learning. Special issue of Sysfem 23, 2.
ELLIS, G. and SINCLAIR,
Cambridge
University Press.
HAMMOND.
HARMER,
HOLEC.

LEVELT,

M. and

H. (1991)

W. J. M. (1978) Skill theory

LITTLEWOOD,

RIBE.

in Foreign Language Learning. Oxford:

THOMAS,

W. (1981)

and language

teaching.

Communicative

Language

R. and VIDAL,

SKEHAN,

Cambridge:

Kogan

Cluxrroom. London:

Studies in Second Lunguuge Acqui.rition 1. 53-70.

Teaching:

Authentik.

An Introduc/ion.

Cambridge:

Cambridge
Blackwell.

Who1 Every Teucher Should Knolc,. New York:

N. (1993) Project Work. Oxford:

Page.

Press.

in /he Lunguuge

W. (1992) Teaching Oral Communicution: A Merhodologicul Framebbxork. Oxford:

R. (1990) Language Learning Strategies:

Press.
in Language

Longman.

Pergamon

Process and Eyprience

Newbury

Heinemann.

RILEY, P. (1988) The ethnography

of autonomy.
In Brookes.
Autonomy
in Language Learning, pp. 12-34. London: Modern
RIVERS.

University

and Self Access

R. (1991) Se!f-Directed Learning: Critical Pruciice. London:

D, (1991) Learner Autonomy; Definirions. Issues and Prohlemx Dublin:

LITTLEWOOD,
University Press.

OXFORD.
House.

Cambridge

B. (1989) Learning /o Leurn English; A Course in Leurner Tram@.

M. and COLLINS,

H. (198 I) Au/onomy

135

Self-Direction

J. (1983) The Practice of English Language Teuching. London:

LEGUTKE.
Longman.

LITTLE,

LEARNING

A. and Grundy, P. (eds), Individualization

English Publications
and British Council.

W. M. (1975) A Pructical Guide 10 the Teaching ofFrench. New York: Oxford

P. (1989) Individual Differences in Second-Language

Learning. London:

University

Edward

Arnold.

Press.

and