Toward a More Systematic Model of L2 Learner Autonomy

Abstract

The theoretical framework of learner autonomy in our field, and probably in others, is far from coherent. Although L2 learner autonomy has benefited from many expert contributions (e.g. Holec, 1980, 1981, 1988; Dickinson, 1987, 1988, 1992; Little, 1991, 1995; Wenden, 1991; Dam, 1995; Benson and Voller, 1997a; Karlsson et al., 2001), it is still beset by conflicting ideologies, roiling inconsistencies, and fragmentary theories. Even the most basic terminology is full of semantic conflicts. For instance, Dickinson and Holec used different (and reversed) meanings for autonomy and self-direction. For Dickinson (1987), ‘autonomy’ referred to the learning situation in which the individual manifests an attitude of responsibility, and ‘self-direction’ was the attitude of responsibility. In contrast, Holec (1979) defined ‘autonomy’ as the learner’s ability to be responsible for his/her learning and later (1980) referred to autonomy in regard to the learner’s attitude of responsibility, while he used ‘self-direction’ to refer to the learning situation or mode in which the attitude of autonomy is displayed.

Oh! Blessed rage for order, pale Ramon, […] rage to order the words of the sea […] and of ourselves and of our origins.

(Wallace Stevens)