Healy

Healey’s (2007) article, Theory and Research: Autonomy and Language Learning, begins with multiple terms and definitions that are often used to all refer to learners being in control of their learning in one aspect or another. The definitions are vast and sometimes broad, but I identify most with the “current views of autonomy that have moved away from isolated learning toward social settings and flexible interdependence” (p. 377). When I think of autonomy, student choice immediately comes to mind. One aspect I can imagine is “center” time where the students are able to choose which centers they would like to complete, in what order, and with which peers. I realize that autonomy is so much more than that, but those were my immediate thoughts. Healy focused her article around Oxford’s (2003) technical, psychological, sociocultural, and political-critical perspectives.

When discussing the background issues surrounding autonomous learning, Healy’s section about individual versus group work stood out to me because it brought up the idea of communities of practice which we discussed in the Hubbard article a few weeks ago. Healy stressed the importance of learning from peers and that autonomy does not mean learning in isolation. “The community of practice for a language learner—a learning community—may be other learners, or it may be those who have achieved the level of proficiency or access to which the learner aspires.” She also mentioned how technology enhances the learning process by having access to the Internet.

While we do no call it a ‘community of practice’, our school has a program called Prowl Partners that pairs up language learners with a peer in a higher grade and proficiency level. The partners meet every day for 20 minutes to complete various activities. In the beginning it is all about getting to know each other, so the activities revolve around oral communication in order to establish a relationship with one another. Once a comfortable relationship is formed, the pair may read or write together, or even work on homework. The goal of the program is not only to provide exposure to language for learning purposes, but also to build a support system for the language learning process; the students have someone else to turn to for questions besides an adult or peer of their own age.

When looking at Healy’s table 25-1, Settings for Self-Directed Learning in CALL, and reflecting on my own teaching, I realized that I only utilize cells A (Highly structured learning) and B (Accreditation and training). At the elementary level, I think cells C (contract-based independent study) and D (highly self-directed learning) are more difficult to implement, although not impossible, (especially cell C since webquests fall into that category).

Healy then discussed on the psychological characteristics of learners in reference to motivation and learning preference: self-motivation (learner has control), independent style (know when to ask for help), self-knowledge (need clearly defined goals and feedback), and technology and barriers (unfamiliarity). It is essential to consider these characteristics when planning CALL activities, not only for learners to feel successful, but also in order to reinforce the process of autonomous learning.

Healy’s (2007) chapter reinforced the complexities of learner autonomy by looking at each construct in terms of the CALL environment. Her final paragraph summed it up: “For teachers, being committed to encouraging autonomous learning is more a frame of mind than a technique…As teacher, we cannot create autonomy in learners, but we can do our best to think about the technical, psychological, sociocultural, and political aspects of learning and how CALL can be used to enable and enhance a learning environment conducive to autonomy” (p. 388)