Preface
This blog post is a teaser to a forthcoming article in which I will revisit this topic of autonomy in greater detail, replete with citations from a variety of psychology and neuroscience literature. This current article/post, in the meantime, is written in a somewhat more casual tone and is meant to provide a basic rationale for and understanding of autonomy for teachers and possibly students (DeepL may be helpful for learners of English who are interested in the content). This article should provide basic context and understanding for what autonomy is (and what it isn’t), why it is important, and how we can develop it, especially in language learning. Stay tuned for a more complete, academic article near the end of the semester!
Introduction
Many people believe there is a single correct way for students to do something, or that there is one most correct way to learn something. However, this does not reflect reality, in which we see much more variety than could be reflected in some monolithic “best way” of pursuing learning. There are many “best ways,” “best resources,” “best strategies,” and “best methods” for many different people. Individual differences can account for a wide range of diversity in learner goals, as well as a range of optimal resources, strategies, study methods, ways of practice, and application of language. Finding what works and doesn’t work for you is your best chance to find long-term success in language learning (or in anything else). Finding what fits us helps us to develop and feel psychological autonomy, and eventually helps us develop into autonomous learners, who can regulate and manage our own learning effectively.
Conceptualizations of Autonomy (the What)
Views of autonomy in language learning and education have changed and developed over time, and some of the conceptualizations are still used in tandem. We must first question what autonomy is. Is it something we are? Or something we do? Or something we feel? In fact, it is a term that has been used at various times for each of these things, with some nuance in each view.
Early conceptions
Learners who can regulate themselves well and manage their own learning effectively are often called autonomous learners. Autonomous learners have been identified as being able to manage their own study and learning, including which resources to use, how to use those resources, how to learn new things, how to practice what they learn, how to manage their time and energy, and how to manage their motivation and affect. They generally boast well developed skills and strategies for the cognitive and metacognitive, affective and meta-affective, and socio-interactive domains of the learning process, as noted by Rebecca Oxford. This helps us understand the what in part (what an autonomous learner is), but not the how (how do we become autonomous learners?). Linguist and language educator, Ema Ushioda, noted that the how lies in the psychological understanding of autonomy.
Numerous turns
Conceptualizations of autonomy in learning have taken several shapes over the years as our understanding continues to develop. It has gone from being used in the strictest sense of “being able to do something without outside assistance,” which parallels how autonomy is often used as a term in other areas of life. This is likely why autonomous learning is often conflated with the term independent learning, which is currently not seen to be the most useful organizing principle around which to structure autonomy development.
Over time, we saw a turn toward a more cognitive perspective that focused on autonomy as the idea of choice. This understanding of autonomy still had its sights on the outcomes of learners being able to function independently, but as an organizing principle, identified that choice that allowing freedom and choice was the best way to do this, rather than pushing a “best way”.
A social turn came next, at which point it became increasingly understood that autonomy doesn’t always mean independent, and that certain kinds of interaction can support learners’ growth to becoming effective, autonomous learners (also that groups can have autonomy). This view of autonomy still maintains the focus on choice and capacities for effectance for our choices, but also realizes the choice can be among groups and that groups can serve certain motivational or regulatory purposes (like studying with a dependibili-buddy [a buddy/partner one can depend on]). This view laid the groundwork for the necessity of opportunities to meet others and engage in with various communities within self-access.
More recent and helpful in mechanistic understandings of autonomy development, motivation, and high-quality outcomes is the psychological turn in learner autonomy. This is what Ushioda terms autonomy 1 as it has actually been around longer than more recent conceptions of learner autonomy. The major contributor to this from psychology is self-determination theory, which has been noted in some conferences to be the most important psychological theory of our generation, and which was formalized as a theory in 1978. It was likely often missed or ignored because too many people simply operated within the silo of their local field. When compared with earlier conceptions of autonomy, it provides the base and mechanisms for the rest of the necessary capacities for becoming an autonomous learner (learner autonomy in the tradition of the language learning fields to that time being called autonomy 2 by Ushioda).
From autonomous learners to learners’ autonomy
Self-determination theory (SDT) is a psychological theory of human motivation related to positive learning and performance outcomes and well-being. While it took a long time to gain purchase in language education (perhaps on account of our often neglecting things outside of our immediate field), SDT boasts nearly 45 years of robust research across many domains, including education, business, performance, sport, healthcare, gaming, and others. Prime among SDT’s mini theories is the basic psychological needs theory (BPNT), which posits that there are three basic needs that must be fulfilled for effective motivation and well-being. These three needs are autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Autonomy in this psychological sense is a feeling of volition or self-endorsement of one’s own actions. That means we need to understand and agree with whatever action we are undertaking. We tend to endorse more strongly the things we feel fit us or that we feel effective in doing (so it is also in part connected to self-efficacy). As this psychological need is satisfied, the ability to effectively manage our own learning tends to emerge naturally over time, and additionally, it is more sustainable in the motivational sense. Thus, developing this psychological autonomy is an antecedent to becoming a sustainable autonomous learner in the traditional sense. It is nigh impossible for people to have sustainable and effective learner autonomy without psychological autonomy in their learning. This all means that finding fit and focusing on the development of psychological autonomy is both a necessary and effective starting point from which to develop learner autonomy.
Autonomy and motivation, sustainability
You have likely heard of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation before. People generally understand that extrinsic motivation comes from rewards (or punishments) from outside of us, while intrinsic motivation comes from within. While this understanding isn’t exactly incorrect, it is far from complete. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are terms that came from SDT, and they are related to degrees of autonomy in motivation. In the psychological sense, autonomy sits opposite of control.
Figure 1: Controlled vs. Autonomous Motivation Continuum
One of the first things to observe from this continuum is that SDT has determined there is not only a difference between types of motivation, but that, in fact, there are differences in the quality of motivation, in terms of learning, performance, well-being, and sustainability of motivation. The right side of the Figure 1 shows varying degrees of intrinsic motivation (up to being fully intrinsic), and the left side illustrates degrees of external regulation (to the point of amotivation, at which point there is neither interest nor external control). Controlled and external motivation is associated with poorer outcomes overall, particularly in the long term.
Figure 2, below, offers easy to understand descriptions that can help us to identify levels of autonomy in our daily tasks.
Figure 2: Continuum of Controlled to Autonomous Motivation with Everyday Descriptors (figure from MetriFit in reference to Deci & Ryan, 2017)
Autonomy’s Effects (the Why)
By understanding the effects of autonomy as a basic psychological need, its importance becomes immediately obvious. It is related to quality and sustainability of motivation, cognition (attention, focus, memory, recall), learning, performance, skill development and performance, physical health, psychological health, and overall subjective well-being.
Obviating stress
Autonomous action has been shown to produce less stress response than controlling motivators at the endocrinological (hormonal) level than action at the behest of controlling motivators, resulting in lower cortisol levels (a sign of physiological stress) than activities motivated by external controls. Hormonal changes due to stress can then affect physical well-being (all-cause inflammation, physical hunger and resultant stress eating/overeating, raised insulin levels, lower quality sleep, and difficulty waking in the morning). Autonomy is also associated with more positive physical (and psychological) health outcomes and well-being.
Cognition
In conjunction with physiological and psychological stress, attention appears to suffer with a lack of autonomy. Controlling motivators are associated with increased ego-depletion, which is essentially just a fancy way of saying willpower (our ability to exert our will over ourselves reflects our ego, so to speak). Willpower and self-regulation are resultant of work in the prefrontal cortex, which is also responsible for many other things, including strategic planning, deliberate focus, and working memory. Tapping this part of the brain and taxing it for the willpower necessary to push through externally motivated activities happens at the detriment of this focus and attention, strategic planning, and working memory. These are all necessary components of high-quality learning and practice, which means it is more difficult to achieve our goal of high-quality language learning and practice under external, controlling motivators, particularly in the long term. Autonomy is additionally associated with better memory imprinting, potentiation, and recall, as well as improved personal valuation of outcomes (people tend to value an outcome more highly, even when it was the same actual outcome, when their mode of pursuit afforded more autonomy).
Sustainability and skill development
Autonomous motivation has an energizing effect. As highlighted above, there is less requirement for willpower and it is thus less taxing on the pre-frontal cortex, which, in addition to providing bandwidth for its other crucial functions, means tasks and work are likely to feel less exhausting. In addition to higher quality practice with improved attention, we can sustain larger quantities of practice. This quality and quantity of practice are both essential for the effective automatization that happens as we transition what we have learned from knowledge to skill.
Performance
Autonomy has been identified as a keystone of high performance. This is due to the dual reasons of improved, sustainable practice (both quality and quantity) and cognitive boons around attention and focus, strategic planning, and working memory which mediate performance itself. Creativity, including creative problem solving as part of performing a task, has been shown to be far greater when autonomously motivated (controlling motivators tend to encourage avoiding mistakes rather than seeking out new solutions, narrowing the focus of our mental viewfinders, so to speak). If people are to be assessed on some performance vector or another, it is rarely a strict measurement of our knowledge and the outcomes often depend on other performance factors. Naturally, it would behoove us all to give some attention to how to prepare to perform well.
The much sought-after flow state results in exceptional or optimal performance. Though long-thought to be primarily dependent upon an optimal challenge (just at the edge of one’s abilities), more recent research has shown that optimal challenge in the absence of autonomy is unlikely to produce flow states. Steven Kotler’s work with extreme sports athletes, teams, and other high performing groups confirms that autonomy is a necessary antecedent and strong trigger for flow states. In his work, he also noted studies in business contexts that showed more than 500% increases in productivity and substantial gains in creative problem solving.
Ways to Support and Develop Autonomy (the How)
Though I mentioned, there are a couple of contemporary views of autonomy, with one view looking at learner efficacy and self-direction, and then the other view concerning itself with the psychological perspective of autonomy, it’s fortunate for us that there is considerable overlap of the two within language learning. Focusing on developing autonomy in the psychological sense tends to lead to the development of the other capacities for self-regulation and efficacy in the long run. There are several ways we can gravitate toward autonomy ourselves and support its satisfaction and development in others. A key concept to remember in considering how to do this is the reality that there is a great deal of individual difference in learner preferences, functioning, and personality. This means the observable, optimal activities may be very different for two different learners, despite them both being autonomous and effective (and they may not be autonomous and effective if they swapped activities because they could lose that fit).
Meaningful choice
Choice tends to be autonomy supportive, allowing the selection of a task or approach with greater fit to an individual. However, importantly, choice is only autonomy supportive to the extent that it is a meaningful choice (the choice is meant to engender better task/strategy fit and endorsement). Learners tend to want to be effective and use good resources, but if they don’t have well-developed inner criteria for selecting materials, it can be difficult to find a useful resource. We can help to put things on learners’ radar, so to speak, so as to make them aware of several options. An overwhelming amount of choice can also be debilitating for novice learners or those without either a clear understanding of self and preferences or inner criteria for preferred resources. In these cases, a bounded set of choices can be helpful. In particular, rationale as to why other peers previously enjoyed or preferred one resource over another can be useful, as this can give the learner at hand a basis for making a meaningful choice of their own. As such, peer and near-peer recommendations with rationale can be useful both in self-access contexts and in classrooms.
Reflection
Due to the reality of individual differences among learners, the “best ways” to learn, study, and practice are likely to have variation (and sometimes be vastly different) for different people. A feeling of fit is autonomy-supportive—we are more likely to endorse what is effective for us and “feels right,” even if there is a task we need to do. Finding that fit, especially given variety and variation, requires some trial and error and reflection. This style of reflection can be done alone, though it is difficult to see our own blind spots. Many learners have success sharing and reflecting in groups, or working with a learning advisor, who is trained to scaffold their reflection and help them to notice previously unseen blind spots.
Through experience and reflection on experience, learners can think about what worked well for them and why they think so; what didn’t work well for them and why they thought that; or what sort of worked, what was a little off with it, and how they might change it. Over time, they develop substantial self-knowledge and an understanding of what is effective for them, what isn’t, and why. When they can use this knowledge to choose tasks, activities, and approaches where they feel they are acting in ways that fit them well, the autonomy as a BPN is more satisfied. Further, they are more effective in their outcomes, and motivation and energy tend to be more sustainable.
It may be important to point out this trial-and-error reflective process to learners in the first place, and that everybody’s best resources, learning strategies, motivational strategies, time and energy management strategies, study environments, times and duration of study, et cetera are likely to be different. Without this understanding, students often hold a number of limiting beliefs and blame themselves when something doesn’t work well, predominantly in unproductive ways, assuming there is simply one best way to do it and they are bad students. The reality is likely that they may not be doing something in a way that is effective for them. Learners should be tuned in (with teacher/advisor help) to the idea that the process of reflection is a trial-and-error process of finding what does and doesn’t work for them, and the destination is likely to be much different than the start. This also means that consistent reflection over time (for example, every week) can be more helpful than occasional extensive reflection, as it gives shorter periods between the signposts at which we might alter our respective courses.
Awareness raising
As trying to select strategies, resources, and other elements of our learning and practice that fit requires us to have some knowledge about those things and ourselves, awareness raising through activities, reflection, or examples can be useful. For example, a student trying to study their way to a high skill and ability in speaking may represent a mismatch with the reality of skill development, which requires practice and not simply study alone. Understanding this concept can help learners to better align themselves and their chosen strategies in a way that fits their task or goal at hand. Similarly, there are many learners convinced there is a particular way to do something even though it is not at all successful for them. For these learners, understanding about individual differences opens them up to the possibility of exploration and reflection in a way that they may otherwise not be if they remained convinced there was simply one way to approach their learning. Worse, without this awareness, if they remain unsuccessful in trying to employ approaches and materials that don’t fit them, they may hold the false belief they are simply a poor student or incapable learner. From more than six years of full-time advising and thousands of instances of advising, I can say this is almost never the case. Often, students who struggle are not incapable so much as it is that prevailing approaches simply don’t fit them. Helping them to understand this can open them up to the possibility of finding, piece by piece, what DOES work for them. Concepts around learning, skill development, self-regulation, reflection, and individual difference can be freeing and empowering. These are areas advisors may often have experience in, but it can be helpful for teachers to be interested in such things as well.
Advising
Working with a trained learning advisor is one of the prime ways that a learner can expedite developing their autonomy (both in terms of satisfaction and in terms of fit and efficacy). Within the field of learning advising in self-access learning contexts, “advising” may be somewhat of a misnomer, as learning advisors rarely give direct advice. Contemporary trends in the field contend that the goal of an advisor, as opposed to a tutor, is to scaffold reflection to support learners’ development of autonomous capacities. This development of autonomy, both in the psychological/motivational sense and in the learner autonomy/efficacious self-regulated learner sense, aligns with APU’s stated goal of developing lifelong learners (recent developments in learner development circles also note the importance of life-wide learning, indicating that the developed capacities are not limited to academic contexts and can have positive effects in other areas of a person’s life). Modern advising approaches for advising in language learning focus mainly on this learner development side of the picture, engendering more sustainable motivation and increased efficacy in study and practice of a language. Skill development tends to work itself out from learners’ own efforts when their autonomy is satisfied and as they develop as learners and people.
Rationale, explanations, and buy-in (being reasonable)
As mentioned, autonomy in the psychological sense is satisfied when our action feels volitional, when we endorse our own action or activity. This doesn’t mean that action always needs to be self-generated. We can be doing things that we need to do, but so long as we agree with what we are doing, it can satisfy our autonomy as a BPN. This means that if there are things we have to do in our courses, it is the teacher’s job to explain why we are doing certain things and how they are helpful. The degree of buy-in can make a substantial difference in autonomy satisfaction and thus, motivation, attention, learning, and performance outcomes among the students (and the same is true for teachers).
There are limits to the real ability to build buy-in, though, and advocating for activities that are left wanting may come off to learners as disingenuous and be perceived as a breach of trust, undermining future opportunities to convince those learners of the value in an activity. In these cases, it might be better to appeal to the reason, and acknowledge the unfortunate necessity of completing the task for controlling motivators (grades), with the teacher letting the learners know that they will try to help them through it as best they can instead of pretending to support as meaningful an activity the teacher does not in fact believe to be meaningful. We are trying to appeal to learners’ reason for buy-in, not some misplaced notion of authority and power (which is controlling, antithetical to autonomy support). In these situations, this honesty does not engender what would have been the best possible outcome, but within the constraints and requirements of work that may not be particularly meaningful, this is the least bad outcome. Disingenuously supporting such activities might seem beneficial in the short term, but it can undermine the relationship and erode the trust we rely on in the long run, with a teacher, program, or institution.
Understanding the above, within formal learning programs, including language learning programs, there is a certain responsibility on an institution’s side to develop a reasonable curriculum so that teachers do not come across as snake oil salesmen, trying to sell something actually devoid of actual value. It is easy to convince learners of the value of curricula and activities which have real value and for which that value and rationale can be clearly expressed, whereas it might be more difficult to convince them of the value of meritricious activities that exist only for the sake of filling time or showing how hard [but ineffectively] they are working (note that SDT identifies this same concept within business more widely, too, not just in education). Teachers should not be placed in such a position as a shock absorber with institutional pressure to act in ways incongruent with their beliefs as educators (which would be thwarting of teachers’ autonomy; and we know teacher autonomy is positively correlated with learner autonomy). In such a position, required to try and provide rationale for something for which there may not be a good rationale may end up potentially still burning the bridge of trust with the learners, even whilst trying to toe the line with administrative demands. Thus, it is not only up to the teachers to build buy in to support their learners' autonomy, but there are responsibilities that fall to the institution and effects from the curricula and activities within a program.
A well-reasoned task makes it easy to build buy-in among learners, whereas the opposite puts teachers in a precarious position with few good outcomes. Further, if the institution believes it has developed a well-reasoned curriculum, it is their responsibility to explain the rationale and value to the teachers in terms that can be then passed on to the students. Opaque policy and decision making comprise the metaphorical place that psychological autonomy goes to die (because everything visible then simply reflects power structures and control, where decisions appear to be based on hierarchy and power structure rather than reason and rationality). Transparency and rationale that build buy-in are innately autonomy-supportive in nature.
Acknowledging individual difference
If we accept that there is a range of individual difference among learners, developing a program with a reasonable rationale for which we can build buy-in and support means constructing curricula and tasks in ways in which those individual differences can be acknowledged. If we want to focus on vocabulary development within a topic, for example, because we want students to be able to communicate about that topic in dicussion, it might be useful to have students generate or find their own sets of words that they need to communicate what they want to about that topic. This means that learners’ vocabulary lists would be different, and yet more personalized. An added benefit from a curriculum standpoint is that even if a student repeats a course, they can gain more benefit and vocabulary development as they retake it, rather than rehashing the same things (simply repeating work already done for no real benefit other than the focus on a grade lies fully in the realm of controlled motivation).
One popular mode of assessment for competencies that allow for individual difference and variation while supporting autonomy and deep exploration of a topic is portfolio-based assessment. In this mode of assessment, it is up to students to produce and highlight artifacts that illustrate completion of competencies or other goals they were supposed to meet. Such modes of assessment allow for individual differences, varying interests within a class or topic, and personal exploration of topics and ideas, while assuring development of key competencies. It also offers more roads to continuous and meaningful development even for learners who may be repeating a course.
Other teacher behaviors that promote autonomous motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2017, p.368)
- listening to students
- making time for students’ independent work
- giving students an opportunity to talk
- acknowledging signs of improvement and mastery
- encouraging students’ effort
- offering progress-enabling hints when students are stuck
- being responsive to students’ comments and questions
- acknowledging students’ experiences and perspectives
Teacher behaviors that promote controlled motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2017, p.368)
- monopolizing the learning materials
- providing too little time to work independently on solving problems
- telling student answers without giving them an opportunity to formulate them
- making demands and directives
- using controlling words as should and have to
- using directed questions as a way of controlling the flow of the conversation
Closing: Where to Learn More about Autonomy
If this article felt a bit difficult to digest, it might be easier to get started down the autonomy rabbit hole by listening to me here, in a presentation I gave as an invited speaker last year on advising and autonomy (to inform classroom application) for JASAL and Kyoto JALT.
I’m also always happy to chat about autonomy or try my best to answer any questions you might have, and you can get ahold of me at edlin85@apu.ac.jp
Advising and Autonomy For books on advising that are a bit older (drawing more predominantly on definitions around cognitive and social turns in autonomy):
Advising in Language Learning: Dialogue, Tools and Context, by Jo Mynard and Luke Carson
Reflective Dialogue, by Satoko Kato and Jo Mynard A series of autonomous language learning books (relatively cheap) by Candlin & Mynard Publishing
Self-determination theory (SDT)
Much is available about Self-Determination Theory (SDT) for free at http://selfdeterminationtheory.org/
The most complete (and affordable) tome on the topic:
Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness And a recent book by colleagues in Japan, Jo Mynard and Scott Shelton-Strong: Autonomy Support Beyond the Language Learning Classroom: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective
Research institute, education, and tools
A variety of things available through the Research Institute for Learner Autonomy Education (RILAE) at Kanda University of International Studies here: https://kuis.kandagaigo.ac.jp/rilae/ *This is a great resource that includes advisor training courses, research repository, research tools, and free-to-attend regular mini-conferences called LAbs (Learner Autonomy Sessions) Journals (open-access)
Relay Journal (on learner autonomy) here: https://kuis.kandagaigo.ac.jp/relayjournal/
Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal (SiSAL) here: https://sisaljournal.org/
Professional associations
The Japan Association for Self-Access Learning (free to join!) here: https://jasalorg.com/
JALT Learner Development SIG: LD SIG
Language Advisor
Curtis Edlin