An Investigation into Learners’ Disposition and Perceived Ability to Learn Independently in the Centre for Independent Language Learning

2. Literature Review

This literature review looks at research into independent language learning in the following areas: definitions; the importance of IL; the importance of LT; orientation, deconditioning, learner development and training; learner culture; learners’ self-assessment of their work; ranges and stages of autonomy; and learners’ attitudes towards IL.

2.1 Definitions

Independent Learning is defined by Jeffries (1990) as:

Contrasting independent learning with other terms used to describe related ideas such as autonomous learning and self-directed learning can be problematic. For example, Pemberton (1997: 2 - 3) discusses the wide range of terms which different writers have used in relation to the independent / autonomous language learning field. Holec (1981: 3), defines autonomy as "the ability to take charge of one’s learning" and as "an ability or a capacity that needs to be acquired", rather than a process. Self-directed learning he defines as, "learning that may take place when autonomy is being or has been acquired". Dickinson disagrees, defining ‘self-direction’ as the potential, and ‘autonomy’ as the action of carrying out the responsibility for learning. Little disagrees with this definition of autonomy, saying that it is an ideal state, and as such rarely realised. Others, for example Farmer & Sweeney (1994: 139) point out that autonomy is not a "steady state" because it can vary with time and task.

The confusion about definitions has been addressed by Benson and Voller (1997: 13) who say:

Holec (1981: 7) highlights that in autonomous learning "the learner should want to take charge of his learning." One of the aims of this investigation is to identify the disposition towards independent language learning of CILL students, and see if they really want to take charge of their learning. This issue is addressed in the questionnaire and the interviews.

Holec also argues that the desire to take charge of one’s learning is part of the ability to do so. He says that, "in an actual learning context, desire cannot be put into effect without ability and experience shows that ability cannot be acquired without desire." (Holec 1981: 7). The second aim of this investigation is to identify the perceived ability in independent language learning of these students, so disposition and perceived ability are linked. The data from the questionnaire, supported by analysis of the interviews will show if there is a link between disposition and perceived ability.

Disposition is defined by The Collins Cobuild Dictionary (1995 :477) as "Someone’s disposition is the way they tend to behave or feel" and " a willingness to do it".

For the purposes of this investigation, ‘disposition’ is defined as ‘the learners’ opinions and beliefs about independent language learning’.

Perceived ability in this investigation is defined as the CILL students’ own judgement of their ability to learn independently. This investigation looks at students perceptions of their own ability, rather than an external assessment, in accordance with Holec’s (1980: 32 - 4) opinion that, in self-directed learning, the learner should decide the level of competence aimed for.

Learner training and development are defined following Sheerin (1997: 60), who draws a distinction between learner training and learner development. She says learner training is training in self-study skills, for example in using a dictionary and a grammar reference. She contrasts this with learner development, which she says is, "cognitive and affective development involving increasing awareness of oneself as a learner and an increasing willingness and ability to manage one’s learning." This is a useful distinction because her definition of learner development mirrors the ideas of IL philosophy as distinct from language learning practicalities. For the sake of brevity, LT in this text means ‘learner training and development’.

2.2 The Importance of Independent Learning

The philosophy of independent learning rose to prominence with new views of the role of education. Holec (1981: 1) describes a change since the 1960’s from a view of man as a ‘product of his society’ to man as a ‘producer of his society’, and the role of adult education as having the objectives of equal opportunities, responsible autonomy, personal fulfilment and the democratisation of education.

Holec (1980: 32-4) also discusses learner needs, saying that in self-directed learning the learner has the choice of knowledge to be acquired, the level of competence aimed for, and the times, places, methodologies and learning techniques used. Sturtridge (1997: 68) is among many (Holec 1980 & 1981; Brindley 1989; Miller: 1992; Benson & Voller 1997; Ryan 1997; Sheerin 1997) who believe that learners need LT to help them make these choices, for example by making learners aware of what choices are available, by guiding learners to experience these choices and by encouraging learners to make these choices independently.

Sheerin (1997: 56) also describes a general belief among educators (eg. Nunan: 1997, Pemberton et al.: 1997, Littlewood: 1981, Ur: 1988 ) that "learning is more effective when learners are active in the learning process, assuming responsibility for their learning and participating in the decisions that affect it", because proactive learners "enter into learning more purposefully and with greater motivation. They also tend to retrain and make use of what they learn better than reactive learners." (Knowles 1975: 143, cited in Sheerin 1997: 56.)

2.3 The Importance of Learner Training

Sturtridge (1997: 67) summarises the research on learner training by concluding that, "We now accept that few learners learn well by themselves without language awareness and learning awareness development programmes". She believes that one factor which may cause a centre to ‘fail’ is insufficient LT. In her analysis of the factors that lead to the ‘failure’ of self-access centres she says that the worst kind of training consists purely of orientation, but "a successful centre will attempt to make learner development an ongoing cycle of action and reflection and to offer a development program that keeps pace with the learners as they work." (1997: 71). In CILL it is possible for a student, after doing the orientation, to do no further focused learner training or development. It may also be the case that individualised and on-demand learner training advice may be more suitable in the CILL context given the varying times students attend and their different levels of ability. This investigation uses an adaptation Sheerin’s (1997: 59) model to investigate the issue of whether students are well-disposed towards independent language learning and satisfied with their ability to study independently, and in the interview students will be asked what LT resources they have accessed.

2.4 Orientation, Deconditioning, Learner Development and Training

For the purposes of this study ‘orientation’ is defined as the process of familiarising learners with the facilities available in a self-access or IL centre. Deconditioning, a process that moves learners away from prejudices about their role in learning languages (Holec 1981: 22), is seen as a part of the LT process.

The need for deconditioning is highlighted by Holec (1981: 22), who says that autonomy has to be acquired, both by acquiring the "know-how" from LT, and by deconditioning. This includes, firstly, the student freeing "himself from the notion that there is one ideal method", and secondly, "that teachers possess that method". Thirdly the learner should be deconditioned from the idea "that his mother tongue is of no use to him for learning a second language". Fourthly Holec recommends that the learner should get rid of the idea "that his experience as a learner of other subjects, other know-how, cannot be transferred, even partially". Fifthly he recommends that the learner break away from the idea that he is "incapable of making any valid assessment of his performance", which Hong Kong students may find difficult. (See Section 2.5 below). He discusses how this is done at the Centre de Recherches et d’Applications Pedagogiques en Langues (CRAPEL) in his 1980 article.

There is general agreement in the literature that learners need instruction about independent or autonomous learning (Holec 1980 & 1981; Brindley 1989; Miller: 1992; Benson & Voller 1997; Ryan 1997; Sheerin 1997; Sturtridge 1997). As Miller (1992: 43) points out about Self-access Centres (SACs), "Establishing a SAC does not automatically create independent learners." Learners need to know what is available in a self-access centre through orientation, and how to use the facilities to promote their language learning skills through learner training and development. They can also be taught what non-SAC resources, such as English-language television and films, can be exploited for language learning (Ryan 1997: 217 - 218).

The importance of LT is emphasised by Benson & Voller (1997: 9) when they suggest that, "it appears that learners who are forced into self-instructional modes of learning without adequate support will tend to rely all the more on the directive elements of the materials that they use." CILL learners are not ‘forced’ into self-instructional modes of learning as use of the centre is voluntary, and support is provided by a range of resources from the on-line materials about independent language learning to e-mail access to a tutor. Utilisation of these resources is investigated in the interviews and the diaries.

2.5 Learner Culture

Independence and autonomy are sometimes seen as Western ideals that may not be appropriate for the Hong Kong Chinese context (discussed in Farmer & Sweeney 1994: 138, Pierson 1996: 52 and Ho & Crookall 1995: 237). If so, this may dispose CILL students less favourably to the ideals of independent language learning.

However, there are arguments against this, based on sayings of ancient Chinese scholars, and on modern research in Hong Kong (HK). Pierson (1996: 49) quotes Chu Hsi (1130 - 1200 A.D.), who states, "If you are in doubt, think it out for yourself. Do not depend on others for explanations. Suppose there was no-one you could ask, should you stop learning? If you could get rid of the habit of being dependent on others, you will make your advancement in your study."

Littlewood (1996:138) describes Asian students as having a high level of proactive autonomy in collaboration and communication when they are amongst equals, but not when they are in a hierarchical educational context, where they "lose this proactive autonomy and become the "passive" students they are so often described as being." In CILL students can work in groups without a tutor, and so the beneficial non-hierarchical situation can be achieved.

Gardner and Miller (1997) surveyed 541 self-access centre users in Hong Kong. Their results indicated that the majority of users "believed Chinese learners had no difficulty with self-access learning and that it was an effective methodology for Chinese learners." (Gardner & Miller 1997: 44) For details, see Table 2.1 below.

Table 2.1: Users’ Perceptions of the Appropriateness of Self-access language Learning for Chinese Learners (Gardner & Miller 1997: 44)

Gardner and Miller point out that the high proportion (over 20%) of "Don’t Know" answers in Questions C26 and C29 make these results unreliable. The 20% figure is also nearly reached in Question C28. This high percentage may be because these questions are asking the students to comment on the opinions of all Chinese students, which students will not know, rather than asking for individual opinions. However, the high percentage of students agreeing or strongly agreeing to Question C28 suggests that self-access language learning may be appropriate for the HK Chinese context.

The applicability of Gardner & Miller’s results to the CILL context is, however, open to question. CILL had not been set up when the study was started, and so is not included in the study. Results from other Hong Kong self-access centres may not be applicable to CILL due to the different contexts and teaching methods of the centres. For example, the ELSC, which took part in the survey, has small-group teaching for all its students, but students in CILL tend to come individually. Therefore, due to these caveats, this issue is investigated in the first question of the interviews in this study.

Another example of how IL can be suitable for Chinese learners can be found in Ho & Crookall’s (1995: 235 - 243) report on how HK students can successfully engage in autonomous learning with a task-type that does not conflict with their culture - negotiation simulations. Simulations involve unpredictability, which erodes the "sense of security to which Chinese students traditionally cling", and require problem sharing among learners and between learners and teachers. Ho & Crookall also suggest that simulations can take advantage of positive aspects of Chinese culture to develop autonomy. They cite achievement orientation as teams in the simulation compete, and "inside - outside" relationships as students work together as a team. They say that:

2.6 Learners’ Self-assessment of their Work

The ability to take charge of one’s learning includes the ability to assess that learning, both to evaluate it’s effectiveness, and as a guide to further study. As Holec (1980: 33) says, "The learner does not define his needs a priori, but works them out empirically as he goes along." Among the aims of this investigation is the aim of finding out whether students are satisfied with their abilities in independent language learning. This involves the students evaluating the effectiveness of their learning.

The effectiveness of self-assessment is discussed by Nunan (1996: 21), who states that, based on findings from his own teaching, "Autonomy is enhanced when learners are encouraged to self-monitor and self-assess."

Brindley (1989: 60) says that self-assessment has five purposes. Firstly, learners have greater responsibility for assessment of their proficiency and progress; secondly it lets them diagnose their strong and weak areas; thirdly it lets them compare their present level with the level they wish to obtain; fourthly it helps them become more motivated; and lastly it helps them to develop their own criteria for monitoring their progress.

However, Brindley (1989: 61) also points out that there are objections to self-assessment. "The idea that learners can be reliable judges of their own performance is by no means universally accepted." Therefore self-assessment is a skill that has to be learned. Brindley (1989: 83) divides this learning into technical training and psychological training. Technical training is to help the students judge their own performance, and consists of self-monitoring of language use, development of criteria, definition of objectives, and knowledge about language learning. The psychological training involves changing the learner’s view of his role in the language learning process to one where they see assessment as the responsibility of the learner.

There is evidence that self-assessment in IL may be problematic in the HK context, where it is a rare feature of the education system, and learners are therefore probably unfamiliar with it. The subjects of a study by Thomson (1996: 77 - 92) in Australia, in which 35 out of 98 learners were Chinese, and the majority of these were from Hong Kong, showed that the overall rating of attitude to the self-assessment project for these Chinese students was 3.0 out of 4 for male students and 2.84 for female students, where 4 was the highest rating agreeing with the statement "I would like to have had more guidance on the self-assessment project. In fact one female Chinese student wrote "I hate rating myself". Thomson (1996: 85) mentions that there are several problems to overcome. They are: students’ conditioning by traditional school culture which does not promote student responsibility in assessment, the idea that assessment is the responsibility of the teacher, a desire for a high level of support and guidance from the teacher in self-assessment, few or inappropriate strategies for self-assessment, and lack of self-esteem, especially among female Chinese students, in overall rating rather than criterion-referenced assessment. These problems may affect the results of the questionnaire, although the questions are phrased to ask about how satisfied the students are with their ability, rather than directly asking about ability.

Students’ conditioning by a traditional school culture which did not promote student responsibility in assessment, and which assumed that assessment was the responsibility of the teacher, may be an obstacle to self-assessment. It may mean that students are not only reluctant to assess their own performance, they may also be reluctant to take part in LT about self-assessment if they do not see it as their role.

2.7 Ranges and Stages of Autonomy

There is general agreement in the literature that learners may be at different stages of becoming independent or autonomous learners (Farmer & Sweeney: 1994; Sheerin: 1997; Nunan: 1997). In a paper on self-access in the HK context, Farmer & Sweeney (1994: 139) say, "autonomy is not an absolute but a relative term, and the degree of autonomy may vary from one context to another". Whether LT in CILL reconditions students to a higher level of independence is investigated in both the questionnaire (the penultimate statement in both sections) and Question Six in the interviews.

This range in degrees of autonomy is analysed by Sheerin (1997: 57), who gives a model of activities involved in IL that illustrates the range of factors from dependence to independence. (See Table 2.2 below.)

Table 2.2: Sheerin’s (1997: 57) model of activities involved in independent learning.

David Nunan (1997: 195) sets out a scheme proposing five levels for developing learner autonomy in relationship to use of learning materials. (See Table 2.3 below.)

Table 2.3 Nunan’s (1997: 195) model ‘Autonomy: levels of implementation.’

2.8 Learners’ Attitudes towards Independent Learning

Sheerin (1997: 59) links her model of activities involved in IL (see Table 2.2 above) with a suggestion for a framework for learners’ analysis of their disposition towards IL. (See Table 2.4 below.)

Table 2.4 A comparison of Sheerin’s (1997: 57) model of ‘Activities involved in independent learning’ (on the left) with her (1997: 59) ‘Attitudinal statements on independent learning’.

These models were modified into the questionnaire for this investigation, as detailed in section 3.2 below.

Another factor affecting the attitude to IL of HKPU students is the heavy workload. The effect of this on IL and deep, surface and achieving approaches were researched by Gow & Kember (1990). These approaches are defined in Table 2.5 below.

Table 2.5 Definitions of Surface, Deep and Achieving Approaches (Gow & Kember 1990: 309)

Their research "illustrated the overwhelming effect of information overload on the way students study." Gow & Kember (1990: 317). Their results suggest that, "there is a decrease in the use of deep approach from first to third year in a course, suggesting that education at this tertiary institution does not promote independent learning." Gow & Kember (1990:307).

The increased level of learner responsibility in independent language learning may be off-putting for some learners. With less help from a teacher to analyse their own strengths, weaknesses, and language needs; set achievable targets and overall objectives, plan a programme of work to achieve the objectives set; exercise choice, select materials and activities; and evaluate their progress, students will have to do more work. In a cramped timetable, students may decide that doing LT to learn these unfamiliar skills, and then putting them into practice, takes up too much time, and therefore they may not be motivated towards independent language learning. It may also discourage students from undergoing Nunan’s (1997: 195) fifth process in the development of an autonomous learner, where students become researchers and teachers. (See Table 2.3 above.)

Link to Part: Intro, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, Bib, Appx

Last revised on Tuesday, September 24, 2002

If you have any comments, please contact Andy Morrall at ecandym@polyu.edu.hk