learning - Academic Conferences Limited

Yin Ha Vivian Chan et al.
What is shared by these interchangeable terms is the concept of autonomy. Researchers generally
agree that that there should be a certain degree of autonomy which learners enjoy or acquire in their
learning that these terms describe. Unfortunately, to define what autonomy in learning means is equally
difficult. Among the many different definitions of autonomy in learning, there are two primary schools of
thought: one maintains that the term should describe the “capacity of the learner”, inspired by Holec
(1981: 5), while the other (Riley and Zoppis 1985; Dickinson 1987) refers to autonomy as more of a
situational context. Researchers on autonomy are aware that this situational definition goes against the
fact that learners who are forced to study in isolation do not necessarily develop autonomy. Instead,
autonomy should entail some interdependence (Kohonen 1992), and collaboration (Little 1996) as the
learner works with others toward shared goals, following a more communicative approach to learning.
When autonomy is seen as the capacity to take control of one’s own learning, the question arises of how
much control being referred to? Holec (1981: 3) draws an almost ideal picture of an autonomous learner
by saying that he “is himself capable of making all these decisions concerning the learning with which
he is or wishes to be involved.” These decisions include determining the objectives, defining the
contents and progress, selecting methods and techniques, and monitoring and evaluating any progress
and achievements. Benson (2001: 103) adds that autonomy without control over content is actually an
inauthentic form of autonomy. Few would refuse this tempting image of the ideal autonomous learner.
The question is this: Is it realistic to expect to have such an ideal autonomous learner in any present
education system? If this type of ideal learners do exist, what is the proportion of them at an university?
When education has become more and more an industry focused on accommodating thousands of
students, does such an individualistic concept of learning have a place? How can this individual control
over one’s learning be possible in collective education practices? Benson (1966: 33) in an earlier paper
argued that: “[c]ontrol is a question of collective decision-making rather than individual choice.”
However, in reality, perhaps such absolute control over one’s learning is theoretical and may serve as
more of an ultimate goal to pursue.
Although there is still no concrete agreement of what learner autonomy means, there are some
common basic beliefs. Benson (2001: 183) summarises three hypotheses: first, autonomy is available
to all; second, learners who lack autonomy are capable of developing it; and third, autonomous learning
is more effective than non-autonomous learning. The first two are less disputable after the paradigm
shift of a genuine belief in students' ability and responsibility occurred several decades ago. Yet the
third hypothesis remains debatable. Researchers try to argue for its validity but invariably admit that it is
difficult to measure the effectiveness of autonomous learning. Some research collects positive
feedback for self-access centres as a means to prove this effectiveness, but unfortunately the success
of a self-access centre does not guarantee the enhancement of learner autonomy. Nor does the
improvement of learner autonomy necessarily result in more effective learning. On the contrary, some
research findings even work against learner autonomy. Ferugson and Tryjankowski (2009) conducted a
study comparing online and face-to-face learning in Master’s-level courses. The research looked at
whether these two modes of the same course resulted in two equivalent groups of MA students
achieving the same level of learning success. Results did not show this to be the case. In fact, students
in the face-to-face courses did better than those in the online courses. This was especially the case
when students were struggling academically.
The setting up of independent learning centres when funding is abundant may illustrate foresight and is
often ambitious. However, in the case of Hong Kong, the higher education system is in the process of
returning to a four-year undergraduate curriculum and funding is tight, so the major concern of the
funding authorities right now is whether these centres can share the increased face-to-face teaching
load in a more economical way with an emphasis on providing online resources for students.
2. Autonomous learning in Hong Kong higher education
The concept of autonomy in learning can be traced back as early as to the education philosophy of
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) and John Dewey (1859–1952). However, the concept did not
enter into the field of language learning until the late 1960s. Early interest in autonomy in language
learning is said to have been part of a response to the social and ideological changes of the time. A
respect for the individual in society (Holec, 1981), an emphasis on the meaning and value of personal
experience (Gremmo and Riley, 1995), and the notion of student power (Cockburn and Blackburn,
1970) all have informed the research and practice of autonomy in the field. Self-access resource
centres that encourage self-directed learning have proliferated over the last three decades in higher
education throughout the world. It is also understandable that autonomy arouses interest in the field of
118