|
|
|
|
||
|
|
 |
|
Barbara Sinclair This article discusses the extent to which we may consider the concept of learner autonomy cross-culturally appropriate. It explores how differing interpretations of it around the world may be incorporated into a broader, universal view of learner autonomy. Cross-cultural appropriacyOne of the most regularly raised issues in current discussions of learner autonomy is that of its cross-cultural appropriacy; is learner autonomy a universally applicable goal of education? To what extent can the concept of autonomy in language learning be considered appropriate in different cultural contexts? Does it represent principally Western values? What might be the ethical implications of promoting it in non-western contexts? This short article offers some exploratory thoughts on these matters. As readers will be aware, there has been a wide acceptance of the concept of learner autonomy around the world. We can find evidence of this in published school curricula and syllabuses; autonomy is mentioned or alluded to, for example, in the national curricula of England and Wales, of France, Hong Kong, Singapore and many more countries. In some documents what is meant by autonomy is spelt out in terms of desired learner behaviour. In others, the concept is left unhelpfully fuzzy. Nevertheless, it may be said that the development of learner autonomy, at least to some degree, appears to be almost universally accepted as an important, general educational goal. If we look more closely at the ways in which autonomy is described in different places around the world, however, it becomes clear that more than one interpretation is being used. "The Western Approach"The version of "learner autonomy" with which readers are most likely to be familiar is what we might label "the Western approach". Indeed, it has been suggested by Benson (1996, 1997) and Pennycook (1997) that "autonomy" is widely regarded as having been appropriated by the West and so has become part of its ideological drive towards libertarian, democratic individualism in the broader sense, and its promotion of learner-centred, process-oriented teaching in the field of language education. This offers a narrow interpretation of autonomy which, in Pennycook’s words, "is based very much on developing strategies, techniques or materials (indeed vast and expensive self-access centres) in order to promote individual self-development." (1997,p 45). This is the view of autonomy which can be found in so many published articles and books emanating from the West. Is it ethical to impose such a view of autonomy on cultures which may have their own traditions of autonomy - for example, based on Confucian ethics - which may emphasise different dimensions of autonomy, or on societies which are bound by social, political, cultural and educational values which are different from those of the West? Phillipson (1992), Pennycook (1994), Clarke (1996) and others have brought to the language teaching profession’s attention the notion of linguistic imperialism - here, surely, we are talking about learning imperialism. Different interpretationsSo how can we identify and, thus, acknowledge different interpretations of autonomy? Phil Benson in his recent article (1996:27) discusses the following dimensions of autonomy, which may provide a useful basis for examining these different interpretations: individual - political social - psychological "Individual" autonomy stresses individual learning styles and preferences. In this form of autonomy individual choices take precedence over collaborative learning. In contrast, "social" autonomy recognises that learning takes place through interaction and collaboration, as well as through individual reflection and experimentation. A psychological view of autonomy focuses on the importance of the psychological or "internal" capacities of the learner, such as cognitive and learning styles, motivation, attitudes, aptitude and so on. There is a focus on the learners’ responsibility for their own successes and failures in learning. In contrast, a political view of autonomy has, as its prime goal, a political end, and the learning process is shaped by this. An example of this is the view of autonomy promoted by the Council of Europe in the early seventies. Autonomy was seen as one of those educational innovations which insist on: "...the need to develop the individual’s freedom by developing those abilities which will enable him to act more responsibly in running the affairs of the society in which he lives." (Holec 1981 p.1, cited by Benson 1996, p29). We can now begin to identify the different emphases placed on learner autonomy by different cultures. The Western view of autonomy has become one which focuses on the individual and psychological dimensions of autonomy, whereas the type of autonomy which focuses on social aspects of autonomy is more commonly found in cultures with collectivist or Confucian-based values. (This is an aspect which has been somewhat ignored by Western researchers and practitioners in the field of autonomy in language learning, but is now increasingly being accepted or rediscovered. See, for example, Little 1996.) Versions of autonomy in which the political dimension is emphasised can be observed in certain South East Asian educational contexts where the governments are actively promoting "nation-building" and there is a fierce determination to involve the population in increasing economic growth. The type of autonomy espoused in a particular context will be reflected in the practices employed to promote it and, thus, the roles of the teachers and learners, the design and roles of the materials and the availability and exploitation of learning resources. What is appropriate in one context may not be in another. Instead of assuming that "our" brand of autonomy is the right one, we need a broader view of autonomy, a definition which includes within it the possibility of differing interpretations. Aspects of autonomyDuring the last fifteen years we have witnessed on-going debate on what is meant by "autonomy" in language learning. A survey of these definitions shows agreement by researchers and practitioners in the field on certain aspects of autonomy which add up to a rather more broadly defined concept than has popularly and hitherto been the case. These different aspects of autonomy are summarised, as follows:
This broader view of autonomy can be seen, then, as encompassing all four aspects previously mentioned: social, individual, psychological and political. Thus, autonomy is now a concept which accommodates different interpretations - universally appropriate, rather than based solely on Western, liberal values. Rather than imposing culturally biased beliefs about language learning on students, this broader concept of autonomy requires a form of learner training which includes developing not just a greater awareness of the language and the learning process, but also a more conscious awareness of the social, political and cultural factors which affect an individual’s approach to language learning. Such an approach would need to be handled with the utmost sensitivity and awareness. A non-prescriptive and non-judgmental manner are vital, otherwise, raising cultural, social and, possibly, political awareness in learners, particularly by teachers from a different cultural background could, in itself, constitute an unwelcome imposition. Language teaching professionals who passionately believe that the development of human potential through the promotion of learner autonomy is an important educational goal need to consider carefully the types of autonomy they are actively or even covertly promoting; we need a clear picture of the implications our choices have for the learners, academically, personally, culturally and politically. As Pennycook (1997, p.44) has said so succinctly: "To encourage "learner autonomy" universally, without first becoming acutely aware of the social, cultural and political context in which one is working, may lead at best to inappropriate pedagogies and at worst to cultural impositions." To conclude, if we take a broad, rather than a narrow, "Western", view of the concept of autonomy which respects the fact that different cultures will interpret autonomy in different ways and emphasise different aspects, a concept which recognises the relativity of autonomy, then there need be no cultural barriers to its promotion. It may indeed be regarded as a universal educational goal. We may even reach the point where we stop hearing the cries from irritated teachers at conferences and seminars of, "That wouldn’t work here!" References
|
