Home Page

Life brings changes. So it has always been. There are those who thrive on constant alterations and take them in their stride. Some find it difficult to adapt to any modifications in the world around. But changes must come if we want to experience what our SIG stands for – development. To develop means to change. However much we might like what we have, it cannot be the same forever, lest we let ourselves fossilize and die - spiritually and intellectually.

Thus the time of changes has come to our SIG, brought about by our long-time coordinator David French, when he discovered that his own journey has opened up onto another path. He has not left us altogether, remaining a SIG member and we hope he will participate in this year’s weekend conference, the first one organized by the new coordinator Marta Bujakowska and one of our members, Bilal Qashou. I have been sitting here at my computer for hours, trying to find suitable words for this occasion, but somehow they do not come. Lest I fail as the editor of our Newsletter there is only one option left: to say it as simply as I can: David, the TDAL SIG owes you a great deal. You brought it into existence and ran it for the first five years. Many people, me included, are forever in your debt. I guess the only way we can repay it is to let the SIG survive and flourish. I hope enough of us feel the same to make it come true.

David has not only sent a word of farewell to the current Newsletter; he has contributed a piece which will help us understand his decision to step down as the SIG Coordinator.

Marta, our new Coordinator, has promised a word of greeting for the next issue for all of those who will not manage to come to the mini-conference in May, where she will make her first appearance in the new role.

Meanwhile, we offer you the new issue of our Newsletter, and I hope everybody will find something interesting for themselves. Jane Arnold from the University of Seville has a word (or more) on the issue so often overlooked by even the keenest teachers – the role of movement in the learning process. Traditionally desk-bound, both teachers and students benefit every time classroom activities include getting up and moving about. Some students, who might otherwise be unwilling and passive, could surprise you with their input!

Last year in Cieszyn we welcomed two guests from Hungary, Agnes Enyedi and Mariann Rátz. Later Agnes sent us her reminiscences from the visit which you can read in the current Newsletter. It is a fitting occasion to evoke the spirit of our conferences before this year’s event.

As the careful reader recalls, three of our members traveled to Tenerife last year for the Autonomy Conference (I wrote about this memorable trip in the previous issue of the Newsletter). The remaining two Polish participants have edited their presentations for the post-Conference publication, but we are privileged to be able to read them both in the present Newsletter. Hania has given us a valuable overview of the state of Learner Autonomy in Poland throughout the past several years, meriting a place in the archives of the SIG bibliography. Marta’s moving description of truly autonomous practices straight from a living classroom (only it was not a typical classroom, read on!) will undoubtedly inspire future generations of teachers keen on supporting learner autonomy.

And there is more about us! More scientific then my little amateur member survey from a few Newsletter issues back. Now you can read the results of Magda Brchaňová’s (neé Suchoń) research into the mindset and perceptions of two groups of teachers – one representing “us” (aka “teachers trying to promote learner autonomy”) and “them” (in other words, teachers who claim to know nothing about the concept and do not include its ways in their teaching practice).

“The new beginning always starts at the end”. I began by suggesting that changes are indispensable to progress and I close quoting Magda in the conclusion to her research: there is always something to improve, there is always something to learn.

You may be wondering, "What does movement have to do with language learning? After all, what we traditionally consider language comes from the area above our neck and most movement from the neck down. Yet a moment's thought assures us that these two regions are not separate entities, as some views would seem to imply, that the mind-brain influences the body and the body in turn influences the mind. When our mind is engaged in worry, is anxious or stressed, the body is certainly affected: Goleman reports on numerous studies at major medical centers that show "those who tended to be unusually hostile and angry, very anxious, sad, pessimistic, or tense, had double the risk of getting a serious illness (1997:39)" Likewise, when our body is tired or ill, our mind is much less effective. Thus it is wise, both for health reasons and for learning, to be aware of the intimate relationship between the mind and the body. Our body is a giant network that provides our mind with information on which learning is based; the more we take this into account, the more effective the learning process will be.

I'd like to look at two ways in which using movement and taking the body into account can be useful for learners; first, for learning in general, and second, for language learning specifically.

There are many reasons why this is so. One of the benefits of movement for learning is that it increases the flow of oxygen to the brain. Similarly, it strengthens the corpus callosum, the bundle of nerve fibres connecting the right and left hemispheres of the brain, and thus facilitates better integration of the two parts. On a neural level, Hannaford, whose book Smart Moves is subtitled "Why Learning Is Not All In Your Head", explains that "movement, from earliest infancy and throughout our lives, plays an important role in the creation of nerve cell networks which are actually the essence of learning" (1995:96).

So all learners need movement. But learner styles studies (Reid 1995) show that for certain people movement is even more important. Most of us learn most effectively through one primary sensory modality: visual, auditory or kinaesthetic. For the latter, movement in the classroom can be a real necessity. Moreover, Harvard professor Howard Gardner (1983) has rejected the traditional idea of intelligence being measured only verbally and numerically; in his broader theory of 7 multiple intelligences, he includes the bodily-kinaesthetic area.

How, then, can taking the body into account increase our brain power? Perhaps most basically it can raise our positive energy level; movement wakes us up so that our attention may better be directed to the task at hand. And when there is negative energy present, focusing on the body can help to eliminate stress, tension, even anger. Relaxation exercises are being used with greater frequency in the classroom to create a more effective state for learning.

Hannaford's interest in movement in learning developed from her early work with children with learning disabilities. She found that using a series of simple exercises developed by Paul Dennison called Brain Gym could bring about amazing changes in learners with severe problems, such as Downs' Syndrome. With normal learners exercises such as Brain Buttons, Cross Crawl or Hook-ups can optimize learning in all learning situations. Hannaford also stresses that proper nutrition and enough good quality water are essential, not only for physical health but also for learning (Hannaford 1995).

Turning to the second and foreign language learning context, there are numerous ways to incorporate movement into our classrooms. One of the most obvious is in the area of classroom dynamics. In order for class members to get to know each other's names at the beginning of a course, at the same time as they practise exchanging basic information, have learners stand in a circle and throw a sponge ball to a classmate who has to answer the question they ask: What's your name? How old are you? Where do you live?, etc. Using group work can also bring in movement; merely getting up and rearranging desks to form groups can provide a needed break for learners who must sit still for hours in the classroom.

Many activities can be specifically designed to let students move around the room. One example for more advanced learners would be "Paths". Collect 15 or 20 pictures of different paths and put them up on the walls; have learners walk around looking at them and deciding which one they each like best. Remembering the path they have chosen, they return to their seats and visualize where the path comes from and where it goes and what they would see, hear, smell, feel as they walk along it. Then they can write this down to share with a classmate. In this activity, the physical movement of walking around the room at first is reinforced later by the movement in the mental images they visualize. In this sense, visualization exercises involving movement can be very helpful for, as Kosslyn et al. (1995:1341-2) point out, "simply imagining that a limb is moving produces an increas in specific reflexes in that limb, as occurs during actual movement. Moreover, imaging movement produces changes in the cortex like those that occur when one actually executes an action."

TPR, Total PHYSICAL Response, is a method for language teaching that relies very heavily on movement, having learners respond with movement in the early stages of learning when they may not be prepared to speak. Borrowing from TPR, I often use a Listening Action Quiz with commands appropriate for the level and interests of the learners:

Role-play, other drama activities and many games all give students the opportunity to use a

lot of body movement. However, movement need not be very obvious. Small muscle movement is also useful. For example, kinaesthetic learners often take a lot of notes, not because they ever study them, but just because the movement involved in writing helps them to assimilate the material. In this sense activities using drawing can be used very effectively. When practicing the past tense, have learners draw a picture of a moment they remember from their childhood; in pairs they explain their drawings and ask each other questions about that moment. Or to practice language for giving and accepting, in pairs have learners draw a picture of a present they think their partner would like and then they offer their gifts and thank each other.

Movement can be incorporated in many ways when studying grammar. For practice with the formation of interrogative sentences, exercises of the type "Walk around the room and find someone in the class who has two sisters, sings in the shower, etc." are useful.

Movement can be brought in to cooperative story-telling in different ways. The teacher can write the first line of a story on the board and then throw a sponge ball to someone who will continue the story, coming up to the board to write the next sentence. Or many first lines of possible stories can be written on sheets of paper and put up on the walls. Learners can walk around adding lines and reading how others have developed the different stories. Another possibility is to use a story with action in it - Roald Dahl's Revolting Rhymes are good with their "revised versions" of Little Red Riding Hood and The Three Pigs; the class is divided into sections for each of the characters and when the character appears they stand and repeat what the character says or does (huff and puff...).

As language teachers, verbal language is our main concern, but it is also useful to give attention to body language, both in order to be sure our two channels - verbal and body language - are not conveying contradictory messages and also to raise learners' awareness of their own body language. One way to do this is to have about 10 students stand in front of the class; each one thinks of an answer to the question "How do you feel today?". As they ask each other the question in turn, they decide either to match their answer with their body language or to mismatch. For example, if they say "I feel great" but stand with drooping shoulders and their head down, the rest of the class would judge that as a mismatch.

A related exercise (de Porter 1993) to point out the importance of correct body posture for one's emotional state is to have students sit slumped over, with their forehead wrinkled up, frowning and try to feel happy. Then have them sit up, smile, open their eyes widely, tilt their head up and try to feel sad. It both cases they will probably find it difficult.

Humanistic education proposes considering the learner as a whole person. In this context Stevick (1980:197) has stressed the importance of dealing with all aspects of the person in the classroom since the "physical, emotional, and cognitive aspects of the learner cannot in practice be isolated from one another: what is going on in one of the areas inexorably affects what is possible in the other areas". A leading exponent of humanistic language teaching, Mario Rinvolucri (1999) proposes a pronunciation activity called "Passing a word or phrase round the circle", which speaks to all three areas. In this exercise the teacher selects a word or phrase to be worked on. With learners in a circle, she says the word or expression and at the same time passes it thoughtfully with her hands cupped together to the next learner in the circle, who pronounces it and carefully passes it on. If there is a mistake, the teacher picks up the word and passes it on to a learner two or three places before where the mistake was made so that the learner who made the mistake will have the opportunity to hear it correctly before trying to say it again.

One of the founders of humanistic education, Carl Rogers (1975:40) lamented the fact that educational institutions tend to be only concerned with education "from the neck up". But not only does he recommend taking the rest of the learner's body into consideration, he affirms that teachers should also be aware of their own physical condition. He reports on several studies which point to the greater effectiveness of teachers who are physically fit. In one study it was seen that "student teachers with higher levels of physical fitness accepted their students' ideas more often and criticized their students less often than did student teachers with lower levels of physical fitness" (Rogers 1983:214). He summarizes the results of the research he presents:

Time spent in utilizing movement is not time wasted. Quite the contrary, according to Jensen (1995:149-50), who states that

Jensen recommends using stretching and breathing exercises, activities with built-in movement

While the type of learning outlined here might seem strange to us after having ourselves been accustomed as students to sitting in rows of desks hour after hour, year after year, other societies naturally have recognized needs that we are neglecting. If we look back to one of the origins of Western civilization, how did the ancient Greek teachers communicate with their students? They literally "walked their talk" through the agora. Wisely so, for as the body moves, thought is stimulated and new information anchored. In Aboriginal schools in Australia when children feel it necessary, they simply get up and leave the class to go for a "walk about" where they spend time thinking on their own. The Danish public school system, much more in line with what is known about the brain's best way to learn, has a much more holistic approach we might do well to follow, for it recognizes that activities such as music, art and movement are not frills but essential aspects of the learning process.

de Porter, B. 1993. Quantum Learning: Unlease the Genius withing you. London:Piatkus.

Kosslyn, S. M., M. Behrmann and M. Jeannerod. 1995. The cognitive neuroscience of mental imagery. Neuropsychologia, 33, 11, 1335-1344.

Reid, J.(ed). 1995. Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom. New York: Heinle & Heinle.

Rinvolucri, M. (1999). The humanistic exercise in J. Arnold (ed.) Affect in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rogers, C. 1983. Freedom to Learn for the 80s . Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill.

Stevick, E. 1980. Teaching Languages: A Way and Ways. Rowley, MA: Newbury House

We spent the last weekend of April in Cieszyn, Poland: at the conference of the Teacher Development and Learner Independence SIG of IATEFL Poland. Originally it was Rátz Mariann who was invited to give a version of the talk she presented at the Veszprém conference in the autumn of last year; I accompanied her as a co-presenter. Mariann was the official delegate of IATEFL Hungary under the conference exchange scheme. As a guest of IATEFL Poland. Michelle, her guide dog accompanied us. Both of us.

I have been to a number of conferences at home and abroad, but this Cieszyn experience was something quite new. The picturesque town, the great atmosphere and the friendly colleagues were all something I hoped to find. But the intimacy of the event was beyond my expectations: there were about 40 teachers from all levels of education and they were all from real classrooms. There were no publishers, no language schools, no exhibitors or language experts selling their products, their courses or their trips. As David French, the organiser of this event put it “the ELT supermarket” was not there. Just us.

I experienced this “just us” feeling at the very first conferences in this region about twenty years ago, but those lacked the very high professional standard which our colleagues in Cieszyn shared. It really was a pleasure to see how the profession has “grown up”; there were representatives of five countries from the region but there was no “international expert” parachuting in and telling us what to do and how to do it. Once again there was the realization that teachers in Hungary’s neighbouring countries work under very similar conditions, thus they share the problems, the questions, and probaly also share some of the answers. We have a lot to learn from each other and so we did in Cieszyn. All of us.

Of course, we need larger-scale events with several hundred participants, bookfairs, raffles and ELT celebrities, if for nothing else, to make our presence felt and to give a weight to the profession. But we also need small-scale get-togethers, which put the human aspect uppermost. It is just as important to establish meaningful relationships between the participants - moving away from anonymity, making personal links between professionals across frontiers. This goal can be achieved easier at an event like the one in Cieszyn, where the focus of the conference was on learners and teachers. That is, on us.

I am grateful to IATEFL Hungary for making such exchanges possible. The conference exchange scheme is a wonderful invention (and I feel proud of being responsible for setting it up in its first version...) but it has grown into something really functional by now. It is the least expensive way of getting to a conference and the most personal way of making links between teachers and organisations. I hope that IATEFL Hungary members will continue to exploit the advantages that this scheme has to offer.

This year my presentation was about my new professional experience where, as I sensed, autonomy was the only sensible response to my task. The title of my presentation was “Autonomy – how to prepare our students for independence”.

At the Conference on Autonomy in Helsinki in 2000 my talk was titled “Learner Independence – where to start?”. I talked about my own experience of introducing independent learning at primary level. I was then teaching at a state primary school and taught classes of 9 and 10-years-old children. I applied for that job because I needed hands-on experience. I often run in-service courses for teachers and being a pragmatist I was eager to go through the same ‘struggle’ as the teachers I worked with had to go through every day.

I have always taught adults as well but never introduced autonomy to them. They were generally in-company courses for business people with a course book and a workbook. I found it boring so I usually changed many things and asked my students if they found e.g. the reading texts interesting. They did not really understand what I wanted them to say. They never thought about it that way. They thought that if somebody had written a book they had to “do” it with no further discussions.

It made me think that perhaps introducing autonomy should be applied in two different directions. At school with learners and with adults who are learners but often parents too. I started disseminating the idea. At parents’ meetings at my children’s schools, at private gatherings, during my lessons. I understood that as always in life introducing a new idea on the basis of love and understanding is more effective and long lasting. I thought to myself: ‘If I consider myself an autonomous teacher why do I want to force my ways onto somebody, why don’t I simply give information about issues that are new for people and moreover are perceived as dubious education practice or even dangerous for the learning process.’

My recent very challenging task is teaching shop floor in a factory. I took the offer and had very little time to think what to do or rather how to fulfill my commitment. The people I have been teaching since last September have had very little ‘education’. About ten years of school on average. I tried to talk to them, to go through needs analysis. I learned quite a few things from them: they need English for a simple reason. The company is international. They have Italian, Spanish, Swedish, German people there very often. The language of communication is English. They do not want to run away when they have foreign visitors (and they have them a few times a week sometimes). They want to be able to communicate with the servicemen and truck drivers, give instructions and hold a simple conversation in English. They have no or very little resources at home. They are not used to reading or writing. Above all, I thought they have the right to learn and they want to do it. My task seemed so broad and open. Let me reflect a little upon the results of our mutual work on English, teaching and learning process that worked for both parties: students and their teacher.

I had two large groups at ‘elementary’ level, as their manager said. She actually said: “ We have two little groups at elementary level from the production department”. In fact they were true beginners except for a couple of students who’d had some instruction of English here or there.

The time of the first lesson came and I prepared everything in detail. I arrived there only to find out that my preparations were useless. To my surprise there were thirty six people in one group and nineteen in another. My students claimed they knew not a word of English. One of my teacher colleagues said that she would have cried and run away had it happened to her. I did neither. I understood that the only means I have is myself, so all the prepared materials were put aside.

We talked in Polish. I quickly learned about their motivation and reasons for learning English. I asked what they needed and how they wanted to learn. My students stayed dumb for a while. ‘Why the teacher is asking us how to learn? She should know better!’. Soon they realized that I wouldn’t do much more until I made them active. They told me how they did not want to learn. They did not want to learn how to read and write straight from the beginning, they did not need grammar rules, they wanted to learn how to speak, how to say basic things in English and how to understand them. Half of the first lesson was gone, I hope not in vain.

Firstly they wanted to learn how to greet people in English. In the second half of the first lesson we did work in English. We learned how to greet people and how to say something nice to them. The students themselves were a well of information. They were my teaching aid! Naturally many of them knew some phrases. Putting all the information the students had together made a good lesson no 1. They practiced a lot so we could start the next lesson in English.

‘Hi, how are you?’ I said. ‘Fine thanks and you?’ I heard the reply. ‘I like your sweater’ I continued, ‘Thanks’ was the reply. I appreciated it so much. So little language, one may say, but on the other hand so much effort and eagerness on my students’ side.

I felt challenged. A difficult task. We decided together on the syllabus and I suggested some ways of learning. Soon they understood that there are many more sources of knowledge than their teacher . They started looking around reading the labels and notices, explaining difficult parts to one another, looking for examples in their children’s course books. Most of them invested in dictionaries. I did not give them any homework, I sometimes suggested what they could do at home. One day they asked for homework and I asked them to prepare it for the next class. Total confusion! ‘Are students for preparing homework or are they for doing it?’. ‘For both’, I said. It worked wonders. Some of the students took an effort and prepared really good pieces of work. Some did not. I believe they will.

There was the time for assessment. At the very first lesson the students had asked me if I was going to test them and what the test would look like. I came up with a very spontaneous reply not having expected such a question at the first session. I said: ’Me testing? I hate tests!’ I suppose today that many of the students stayed because of this reply of mine! But the time came. Again I asked: how do you want to do it? What do we want to check and assess? And again they were surprised. They decided to test one another in pairs. They tested all the skills, vocabulary and grammar not tearing the language into pieces but treating it as a whole, as the means of communication. They asked each other for translation, spelling and pronunciation of the words and phases they all learned, they asked each other questions and gave points for correct answers. They really enjoyed it. They were able to analyze who still had particular problems. There was not stress involved.

As my students have no or very limited recourses at home I tried to show them where to look for them . They started to be more conscience. They looked around and noticed how much English surrounded them. In their factory (notices are in Polish, English and Italian), in the shops, on the radio and Television. They discovered many things and discussed them in class. I brought two posters once. The students asked me previously that they wanted to learn ‘clothes’. OK. I put the posters on the tables. There were a man and a woman wearing different items of clothing. The poster was partly labeled. ‘What shall we do with it?’ was the question. ‘What shall we do?’ was my reply. They asked me questions, I gave the answers. They new the colours and combined them with pieces of clothing. They decided to describe what they were wearing. It was really funny. Many of them wear uniforms for work: blue, white or black! I put the posters up on the wall in the canteen. Our classes took place in a canteen with many people coming and going or even having ‘working lunches’ there. The great advantage of that fact was that my students experienced ‘English around’ in a miniature version.

The next lesson I brought some paper and markers, put them on the tables and asked my students what use we might make out of them. After short brainstorming they decided to describe some imaginary people. We did it in groups with a lot of my monitoring and helping. They wrote what they really wanted and produced two new, original posters in every group. We put the posters up on the wall so whenever they came to eat in the canteen they could look at them. It gave them a lot of satisfaction when they noticed that managers (Polish and foreign) read their work and even appreciated it.

As I had the lessons one after another between their shifts one could think that they were the same or even identical. I think it is because of my attempt to conduct the sessions in autonomous way, they were never the same. My input was similar, especially when I prepared and brought some material but the course of the two lessons was very different. In order to find out what my students think of our lessons I gave them a questionnaire to fill in. the work was done in Polish for obvious reasons. I translated some of them into English for other teachers to understand. I found some of them very sincere and very mature as far as ‘a learner of a foreign language’ is concerned. Please find them enclosed below.

I am not sure if this way is better or faster, I did not have an intention of breaking records. I wanted my students to learn some English and to start liking it. I succeeded in both cases. They keep asking if we are going to continue next year. I hope we will…

Dam, L. (1998) Learner autonomy 3: From theory to classroom practice; Authentik

Meighan, R (2001) Natural Learning and the natural Curriculum; Educational Heritics Press

Wilczyńska, W (1999) Uczyć się czy być nauczanym? O autonomii w przyswajaniu języka obcego; Wydawnictwo PWN

At the time of the first Polish Conference on Learner Autonomy in Krakow in May 1998 an1998 an opinion was voiced that Poland was not ready for autonomy. Those among us who where then already involved in introducing new concepts in our classrooms shuddered at the injustice of this opinion. In September 1999 2000 The Educational Reform was introduced . introduced. The Reform set the ground for change. The learner now clearly becomes the centre of the educational/ing process.

Since then we have been experiencing the first years of the new National Curriculum. In-service teacher training was faced with the challenge of providing training (the instruction and support?) which would be relevant and respond to immediate needs which emerged as a result of the introduced reformed educational system./changes . The challenge was and still is, enormous. It involves introducing ideas and developing new teaching skills in order to help teachers move from teacher-centred ed to learner–centred teaching. Above all however it is concerned with a change of attitude.

The New Education Act has also activated changes in initial teacher education institutions. Pre- service methodology and language syllabuses needed revising and adapting in order to prepare teacher –trainees for the requirements of the National Curriculum. This paper aims to present the most noticeable changes in the area of EFL teacher education which are rooted in the Reform itself and lead towards an understanding and development of teacher and learner autonomy.

From the point of view which is interesting for the participants of this conference two documents of the Reform appear be of utmost importance.

With the introduction of the Reform teachers- in- practice faced a number of challenges like coping with great administrative and organizational changes, absorbing new or reorganized content encapsulated in freshly prepared syllabuses, adapting methodology to achieve new goals.

The necessity to adapt classroom practice to a new set of requirements and and long term teaching objectives caused teachers to feel that they could not cope.. Learners were expected to leave school knowing how to learn and think independently, knowing how to find and process information, being prepared to manage their own development. Successful communication and active engagement in team work were to be developed on a daily basis. Although English language teachers have probably found the new situation less daunting than teachers of other subjects still uncertainty prevailed. A pressing need for workshops and courses appeared

Innovative practice, teacher training courses, team work and cooperative projects , peer observation , sharing experience by organizing school-based workshops and preparing publications are highly valued.. They are in fact criteria for achieving consecutive stages of promotion. As a result interest in teacher development programmes soared.

The pressure exercised by these demands was enormous and often caused resistance. With time the wash-back effect will hopefully produce a shift in the way teaching is viewed.

The INSETT PROJECT – a national in-service teacher training programme for teachers of English responded to the needs. Training themes which emerged aimed at supporting teachers in the following areas:

Courses and workshops ranged from 2 – 40 contact hours. Some were explicitly aimed at presenting the concepts of learner autonomy; some introduced the idea in a more covert way.. Some were explicitly aimed at presenting the concepts of learner autonomy, some introduced the idea in a more covert way. Participation in the courses and workshops is voluntary . Groups vary in size between 13-30 teachers in workshops and 70 or more in conferences. Participation in the courses and workshops is voluntary. The Post-Graduate Studies accept about 60 teachers each year.

Below is a list of obviously LA oriented training events which took place in different regions of Poland in the last few years:

Creative Teacher (6 day course –personal development and reflective teaching)

Individualizing Language Teaching (40 h course which included topics like: Classroom Learning Centres, Project Work . Work., Learning Styles, Multiple Intelligences; Self-assessment)

The variety of courses offered in connection with the Reform raised teachers’ awareness of learner- centred teaching, active methods and conscious individualization. At the same time learning to write self-development plans , recording case studies and coming to grips with action -research have given teachers insight into the values of professional reflection . The experience might possibly be considered a starting point in the process of changing attitudes towards teaching. Teachers’ clearer perceptions of their roles in the classroom could be a contributing factor in the development of Teacher Autonomy.

. Is this activity of the INSETT trainers bringing results on the level of classroom practice? From the trainer’s perspective from which this text is written the answer is yes. The results are not spectacular but small steps are being taken in schools all over the country. Passwords in Learner Autonomy like learner decision-making, learner-planning and cooperation, responsibility and self -evaluation have come to be understood and used in discussion even if the concepts themselves are not implemented in the classroom

Positive attitudes towards learner autonomy are more immediate and understanding of more open learning environments learner autonomy has increased. Proof of this change taking place may be noticed in teachers’ comments during workshops in the Teachers taking the Post-Graduate Course In ELT Learner Autonomy Module (Post Graduate Studies University of Łódź).

In previous years the most common first reaction to learner autonomy would be expressed by way of negative exclamations: and disbelieving statements:

In in the last two years years teachers tend to formulate positive problem-solving questions when discussing the possibility of introducing an autonomy oriented learning environment. Their questions do no show resistance and are followed by such statements:

As a result of the Post Graduate Studies course about 20 students each year undertake a practical project in the area of learner independence

Independence, cooperation and sharing can be observed in teachers’ activity in different parts of the country. Three examples of such activity could be::

Development and self-help groups like the Warsaw Young Learners Professional Teacher Development Club – a self development and self-help group run by teachers for teachers The animators organized meetings , shared materials , discussed problems , invited speakers and publishers. The club existed for nearly two years

The Teachers’ Forum in Bydgoszcz– where teachers give presentations (also about learner autonomy!) based on their own practice and are awarded a badge of Master Practitioner A publication follows.

IATEFL Poland Teacher Development and Autonomous Learning SIG – which groups active LA teachers and teacher –trainers. The SIG organizes workshops ,workshops, and runs an annual conference with speakers and participants from neighbouring countries. During the traditional ”traditional” winter retreat” participants discuss chosen topics and between sessions unwind engaging in winter sports and creative art activities. There is anis an internet forum and a newsletter.

Today teachers might be doubtful as to the effectiveness of introducing Learner Autonomy , they may not be convinced in terms of achieving exam oriented goals or they might feel insecure about their own role in the process and be reluctant to give up on well known procedures, but they present a much more open attitude and quite often are ready to try out and investigate new ways of working . Is this not a first step in the direction of pedagogy for autonomy?

The teachers of tomorrow are the trainees of today. . Trainees who have experience of autonomy have a greater chance of fostering autonomy in their learners Do training institutions address the issues of LA ? Can tendencies similar to the ones discussed with respect to in-service training be observed?

To sensibly answer the question all the areas of the teacher training curriculum would have to be scrutinized – not only language and EFL methodology but also psychology with pedagogy, and, in fact, any other obligatory courses taken by trainees. The inquiry would concern teaching techniques and assessment procedures, tasks and materials most commonly used. Above all however, attitudes towards learning and teaching would need to be investigated.

Since the Reform syllabuses in teacher training institutions have been updated or completely rewritten as they also, like subject syllabuses in the National Curriculum need to reflect the changes. Topics and procedures put forth in these documents signal an awareness of learner autonomy issues. The presented list of topics presented below was created as a result of a spontaneous and informal survey carried out among colleagues teaching EFL methodology in Teacher Training Colleges and English Departments across Poland . Poland. The results can therefore be treated only as an impressionistic indicator of current tendencies

On a minimal scale, however, some basic questions might yield information. The questions asked concerned specific course content relating to learner autonomy and explicit teaching and assessment procedures which aim at fostering autonomy.

Do methodology syllabuses contain topics directly and indirectly referring to concepts of Learner Autonomy? The following is

A compiled list of topics and procedures included in different methodology courses in 135 Polish Teacher Training colleges /English departments in Poland.

On the one hand the above list might give rise to optimism. On the other it is clear that learning about does not necessarily mean learning how. Nor is it certain that learning by doing is a dominating methodology in all the English Teacher Training institutions in the country. Thus it can not safely be said that trainees are experiencing the benefits and difficulties of learner autonomy. If that is the case these first steps in autonomy in a pre-service context will not bring about any marked changes in future classroom practice. .

To sum up on an optimistic note it is a fact that the number of Diploma Projects dealing with various aspects of LA is increasing every year. Many trainees respond enthusiastically to the ideas of independence and responsibility in language learning AND teaching .teaching.

Finally the general context in Polish education has evolved. Autonomy and related topics are discussed in newspapers and magazines for teachers (“Gazeta Szkolna”), popular psychology magazines (“Charaktery” ) and even on the radio and TV. Academic papers and dissertations on autonomy related topics are being written and published .

Bookshops are full of thought provoking books – world bestsellers in the areas of psychology and pedagogy among them

The biggest national newspaper “Gazeta Wyborcza” has initiated a project called “A Classy School” (meaning good quality), which aims at activating teachers and learners, university students and well known experts motivating them to link school with real life.

Is Poland ready for autonomy? Providing this is an appropriate question in the first place it can safely be said that it is more so so now than in 19989. What can be observed is that on the whole English language teachers demonstrate a keener interest in teacher training and development events, show a greater motivation for getting involved in educational projects. They display a greater awareness of new /or learner –oriented approaches in teaching.

And are more open and interested in how other teachers teach and other schools work

True, not all the results brought about by the Reform are positive, not all changes are going in the described direction and learner autonomy is not becoming the mainstream idea of Polish Education. Far from it. We have our share of violence, narrow-mindedness and stupidity in schools . Traditional teacher and learner roles prevail. Competitiveness and, criticism and punishment are used as tools for motivating students but small steps are necessary before the leap and the jump. And they are satisfying.

The study presented below took place in 2002-2003 and is a loose continuation and a complementation of a project conducted in 2000, which was carried out in terms of the author’s MA thesis. That project aimed at examining the results and effectiveness of training for learner autonomy, and its results suggest that such a training is a necessary precondition of successful self-directed learning. However, as research findings indicate, it appears that different ways of training for autonomy have different results and success. Although the success of training may be determined by learners’ individual variables, yet it seems that the teachers’ beliefs about the nature of learning and about learner autonomy belong to the most important factors that significantly influence the ultimate success of their teaching and training. This study is of a descriptive and exploratory nature and aims at identifying teachers’ perceptions of learner autonomy, their beliefs concerning the importance of cooperation in learning, their assumptions about the nature and role of reflection in learning, and, finally, their teaching practice.

All the teachers who took part in the project were divided – on the basis of their questionnaires – into two groups: (1) teachers who claimed to know quite a lot or a lot about learner autonomy and tried to include elements of self-direction into their teaching, and (2) teachers who stated to know a little or nothing about the notion. Next, both groups were compared with regard to the ideas they had about the concepts of learner autonomy, interaction and cooperation in the process of learning, reflection (individual and in tandem with other learners) and their teaching practice.

The questionnaire for teachers was administered in April-June 2003. The questionnaire aimed at obtaining data concerning teachers was written in English.

The teachers who participated in the study were 128 English teachers mostly from the Silesian Region. Out of the entire number of teachers only 2 groups of 30 respondents were selected to be included in the study. The reason for the selection was to include merely those teachers who either claimed to know a lot about the concept of learner autonomy and tried to teach in a way that facilitated the development of self-direction, or those teachers who stated to know almost nothing about the issue. Thus, the two groups which were created for the purpose of the study were:

teachers who knew a lot about the concept of learner autonomy and tried to promote the development of self-direction;

teachers knew very little or nothing about the concept of learner autonomy and did not include many elements of learning for autonomy into their teaching.

The first group consisted of 19 females and 11 males. About 26.6% of the respondents fell into the age range of 18-25; 16.6% teachers were between 26 and 35 years old; 33.3% belonged to the category of 36-45; 16.6% of the subjects formed the group of 46-55-year-olds; and 13.3% were older than 56 years. Some respondents declared to have more than one place of work, and the numbers are as follows: 16.6% taught at primary schools; 50% worked at secondary schools; 33.3% claimed to work at a college or a university; 3.3% taught English in a company; and 23.3% worked at private language schools.

The group of the ‘non-autonomous’ teachers was composed of 21 females and 9 males. Approximately 26.6% of the teachers fell into the age range of 18-25; 43.3% respondents belonged to the age range of 26-35; 16.6% respondents were 36-45 years old; and 13.3% formed the age group of 46-55-years-olds. In this group, again, a few teachers stated to work in more that just one place: 33.3% were employed at primary schools; 46.6% taught at secondary schools; 23.3% taught English at a college or a university; and 10% worked in the private sector.

Teachers’ ideas concerning learner autonomy were investigated in Questions no. 1, 2, 7, 18 and 24. In Question no. 1 teachers were asked to indicate what, according to their opinion, conditions successful language learning. As far as the ‘autonomous’ respondents are concerned, 10 stated that successful language learning requires the presence of other learners, 10 pointed to the ability of knowing how to learn cooperatively with others, 18 indicated the necessity of knowing how to learn from others, and 16 respondents noted the possibility to choose to learn individually or with others. Among the ‘non-autonomous’ teachers, 3 respondents stressed the presence of other learners, 6 teachers recognized the necessity of knowing how to learn cooperatively with others, 11 answers pointed to knowing how to learn from others, and 13 respondents referred to the possibility to choose to learn individually or with others. As it can be seen from the questionnaire results, contrary to the assumptions the author previously had, it appears that the group of respondents who possesses the knowledge about learner autonomy stresses the importance of cooperation more frequently than the other group of teachers. The ‘autonomous’ group also allotted more importance to learners’ right to determine the direction of their own learning (22 instances), which is not surprising if we consider the assumptions of self-directed learning. In the ‘non-autonomous’ group there were merely 8 respondents who mentioned the area as important in successful language learning. This group, however, put more stress on the presence of the teacher (12 cases), presence of peers of the same language level of proficiency (5 answers), a good textbook (10 responses), and learning on one’s own in most of the learning situations (6 instances). In the ‘autonomous’ group the presence of the teacher was noticed as important only by 6 teachers, the necessity of the presence of peers of the same language level of proficiency and of a good textbook was not recognized at all, and learning on one’s own in most of the learning situations was pointed to as vital by merely 2 teachers. The ‘non-autonomous’ teachers’ preoccupation with teaching learners of different levels of proficiency might indicate their lack of appreciation of the fact that cooperation between learners who are diversely advanced may exist, and that learners actually profit when learning and interacting with peers of a different level of proficiency Learners’ positive attitude to learning was recognized by all the teachers in both groups.

The areas that indicate appreciation of the role of cooperation in learning are marked in orange.

Table 1: Teachers’ beliefs about the conditions of successful learning.

Figure 1: ‘Autonomous’ teachers’ assumptions about the conditions of successful learning.

In the group of the ‘non-autonomous’ teachers there were only 3 respondents who claimed to have never heard of the notion. The majority of the teachers associated learner autonomy with the ability to decide about one’s learning and to carry out necessary steps (22 instances), a situation when the teacher lets learners choose how they want to learn (20 cases), learners’ active involvement in learning (14 affirmative responses), and with learners’ responsibility for learning (10 answers). As far as the ‘autonomous’ group is concerned, similar answers occurred, but the ratio of importance was different. Generally, the association of autonomy with cooperation was more frequently acknowledged by the ‘autonomous’ teachers. None of the ‘autonomous’ teachers associated autonomy with an inborn capacity to learn, and there appeared 2 such answers in the other group. In both groups 6 subjects related learner autonomy to a situation when one learns alone.

Question no. 24 directly defined learner autonomy as working on one’s own, and in this case 12 respondents from the ‘non-autonomous’ group either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement. In comparison, only 3 teachers from the other group consented to the definition. Furthermore, 27 ‘autonomous’ respondents voiced their doubts about the definition, or they openly disagreed with it. In the ‘non-autonomous’ group there were only 11 subjects who had doubts about the statement, and 7 teachers provided ‘I don’t know’ answer.

Question no. 18 was meant to explore teachers’ perceptions of the development of learner autonomy in situations when a learner is left to his own devices and learns alone. It appears that approximately half of the ‘autonomous’ teachers was enthusiastic about learners’ individual abilities to develop into better language learners, whereas the remaining half might have assumed learners needed either some training or the presence of the teacher or learners to facilitate the development of their self-direction. Not surprisingly, the ‘non-autonomous’ respondents were rather more pessimistic about their learners’ individual capability to improve their learning methods without any help from the outside.

When the answers of the two groups are contrasted in terms of quantity, then the ‘autonomous’ respondents provided a greater number of the suggestions (32 as compared to 19 in the ‘non-autonomous’ group). The numbers are rather self-explicable: it is understandable that as the ‘non-autonomous’ teachers knew less about the notion of learner autonomy, and they provided fewer ideas concerning fostering its development. In the process of autonomy development, the ‘non-autonomous’ subjects stressed the need of motivating their learners, whereas the teachers from the other group put the main emphasis on awareness raising and encouraging their learners to take over some responsibility for their learning. It is clear that the group of the ‘non-autonomous’ subjects perceived the lack of motivation as one of the most frequent or maybe most annoying obstacles for learners to become more active in their learning process. Another difference between the two groups was that the ‘non-autonomous’ teachers seemed to put more emphasis on the learners’ part in the process of the development of self-direction, and their typical claim here was that “learners need to be motivated” instead of “the teacher should motivate learners”, as it was the case in the ‘autonomous’ group.

A noticeable difference in the teachers’ beliefs appeared in the area concerning the role of cooperation and its influence on the understanding of the learnt material. In the ‘autonomous’ group 15 teachers agreed that cooperation facilitates deeper understanding of the learnt material, and 15 strongly emphasised the fact. However, in the ‘non-autonomous’ group, 8 respondents gave a negative answer. It is clear that the ‘autonomous’ teachers appreciated cooperation much more than the other group. Perhaps the teachers who are involved in the way of teaching are simply informed of the current assumptions of the trend in teaching and, thus, more aware of the importance of interaction. It may be also possible, that, as ‘autonomous’ respondents seem to be more eager to experiment with different teaching techniques, they gradually come to realise the potential that interaction and cooperation pose.

Figure 5: The impact of cooperation on the understanding of the learnt material

It is assumed that learning occurs when learners are aware of what they are learning and why. When asked whether – in their opinion – the thinking process is facilitated when learners discuss the learnt material with their peers, the ‘autonomous’ teachers generally recognised the significance of the aspect of discussion. In case of the ‘non-autonomous’ respondents, there were 17 who agreed with the importance of discussion, but only 2 stressed it as very important. There were, however, altogether 10 negative answers, and 1 person provided ‘I don’t know’ answer.

Learner autonomy is closely related to interaction and cooperation. It was very interesting to notice that among the ‘autonomous’ respondents, the key role of interaction and cooperation in the development of the learning process was more often acknowledged than in the other group. The subjects from the ‘autonomous’ group also allotted more importance to group work in the process of learner training. Furthermore, merely 3 respondents from the ‘autonomous’ group voiced their doubts about the positive merits of group work; yet there were 9 such answers in the other group.

In the early beginning of the philosophy of learner autonomy the classroom environment was sometimes perceived as irrelevant for the development of learner autonomy. This research seems to indicate that the general understanding of learner autonomy has changed. In the ‘autonomous’ group 13 respondents agreed with the positive impact of learning in the classroom environment, 16 strongly emphasised its beneficial influence, and only 1 subject did not perceive the kind of environment as beneficial. The response in the other group was also largely positive, yet not so assured as in the ‘autonomous’ group.

Reflection constitutes an important element of learning, learner autonomy and learner training. This section analyses the teachers’ perceptions of the importance of reflection in the learning process and their beliefs about the interactive/individual character of reflection.

When asked what can be done to prompt pupils’ reflection over their own learning, the ‘autonomous’ teachers provided a greater number of suggestions where the emphasis was put on the teacher’s role in the process. The suggested ways of the ‘non-autonomous’ group were less numerous and slightly more vague, which may imply that the teachers from this group tend either not to consider reflection as a vital element of learning, or they rarely include it into their teaching. The teachers’ ideas of what facilitates reflection are listed in Figure 9.

As it has been pointed out, the ‘non-autonomous’ teachers’ suggestions were quite imprecise, and, as to say, impersonal. It is possible to argue that a few answers provided by members of both groups were irrelevant, but, again, the author decided to include all of them to yield the full picture of the teachers’ perceptions of fostering reflection. If we compare the responses of the two groups, it appears that in case of the ‘autonomous’ teachers there was more emphasis on action, and almost every suggestion of how to promote reflection contained a verb, e.g. asking questions that provoke learners to reflect or establishing reflection as a regular activity. Such format is much clearer and implies the teacher’s action and involvement. As far as the ‘non-autonomous’ responses are concerned, the answers such as self-assessment or comparison do not necessarily indicate the teacher’s activity.

The two groups of teachers reported marked differences in the factors influencing the choice of activities, and, thus, most probably also the course of learning. In the ‘autonomous’ classrooms in 18 cases it were the teacher and learners’ ideas that both determined the way of learning, and 1 respondent claimed that his learners entirely determine the course of learning. The ‘autonomous’ teachers also noted the impact of the textbook and the syllabus (2 and 9 instances respectively). In the ‘non-autonomous’ classrooms the choice of activities was determined by the teachers alone (15 cases), teachers and learners (13 classrooms), the textbook (14 instances) and the syllabus (13 cases). It was possible to observe that the ‘non-autonomous’ respondents’ decisions concerning teaching were influenced by a number of different factors, out of which learners’ ideas and needs were not of the prime importance.

The ‘autonomous’ teachers, not surprisingly, tend to ask their learners to evaluate their own progress much more frequently than the respondents from the other group.

It appears that the ‘autonomous’ teachers are more enthusiastic about their learners’ knowledge of language learning and about their ability to assess their command of English.

The ‘non-autonomous’ teachers were more doubtful about learners’ abilities in the area.

It was rather interesting to see how the teachers approached the need of learner training. In the ‘autonomous’ group there were 2 teachers who claimed their learners did not need any learner training, because they could easily manage their learning by themselves. 2 answers were irrelevant, and 1 respondent did not provide any answer. The rest of the teachers claimed to incorporate numerous elements of training into their teaching, and their answers could be categorised into the following areas:

Two teachers suggested making learners feel successful, 8 emphasised motivating them, 1 respondent claimed she encouraged her learners to concentrate on their strong points in learning, and there was also 1 subject who claimed to provide motivating materials.

Eight respondents stated they suggested/showed different learner strategies to their learners, and 4 teachers further proposed incorporating the practice of the presented strategies into regular teaching. 7 subjects noted they provided their students with general advice on how to approach learning.

There were 4 instances of encouraging learners to reflect on their learning and on how to improve it, 6 teachers mentioned discussing learners’ ways of learning with the entire class, and 1 respondent reported encouraging her learners to find “new better ways of learning together”.

Two teachers declared to encourage learners to cooperate with more successful peers from their classroom in order to learn good learner strategies from them.

As far as the ‘non-autonomous’ group is concerned, 5 subjects failed to provide any answer, 1 explained his learners did not need any training, and 6 stated they believed that they could do nothing about their learners’ inefficient ways of learning. The remaining responses were more diverse than in the other group, and there seemed to be more emphasis on the traditional teacher-centred approach – there were fewer instances of class discussion, learner involvement and cooperative reflection. The suggested ways of training could be divided into the following categories:

One subject reported to motivate her learners, and 1 stated to provide motivating activities and materials, and 1 teacher noted she patiently encouraged her learners not to give up.

Four respondents asserted to present efficient learning strategies to their learners. Other teachers’ answers were more vague: 6 claimed to present some ways of learning, and 1 declared she gave her learners advice on how to learn. 4 subjects noted they worked with their learners individually and explained how to learn, 1 teacher declared to encourage learners to individually search for the best ways of learning that suit them, and 1 teacher was very explicit, saying he instructed learners “what to do and how to do it”.

One subject mentioned discussing problematic areas with her learners, and 1 reported she drew learners’ attention to their weak points and showed them possible solutions.

There was 1 mention of helping students to learn how to cooperate with their peers.

Three respondents emphasized giving learners extra tasks that address their problems, and 1 suggested providing additional materials for learners to work on their own.

Learners frequently develop better strategies for learning and adopt more desirable attitudes to learning when experimenting with different ways of learning. The teachers’ tasks, then, need to comprise either the provision of various modes of learning or conscious encouragement for learners to try out different techniques of learning. In the ‘autonomous’ group, 6 teachers claimed to very often urge their learners to test different ways of learning, and 20 stated to do so quite often. The numbers for the ‘non-autonomous’ respondents were 4 and 8 respectively. The numbers probably reflect the directives of learning approaches the teachers have adopted: the approach of teaching for learner autonomy puts a strong emphasis on the need of finding the optimal ways of learning for every learner, and acknowledges the role of an individual learner to find the very particular ways of learning that suit him most. On the contrary, in situations where learners are not really expected to be in charge of their own learning, the burden of finding the adequate ways of learning belongs to the teacher’s tasks.

It was interesting to analyse the dependence between the instances of encouraging learners to experiment with different learning strategies and teachers’ willingness to experiment with different teaching methods and different kinds of teaching activities. The ‘autonomous’ teachers tended to encourage their learners more frequently to experiment, and they also reported frequent testing of different teaching methods. On the other hand, only 3 ‘non-autonomous’ subjects reported very frequent testing of new teaching methods or doing so quite often (15 instances).

The area of training for learner autonomy also involves making learners aware that they should take over responsibility for their own learning. The claim that learners are or should be responsible is quite popular among teachers; however, there were marked differences between the two groups in terms of making learners aware of this aspect. Many ‘non-autonomous’ teachers stated that they invest some effort into making their learners aware of the fact that they should take over the responsibility, but provided no examples to be listed here.

Learner training may be conducted in a number of ways and the level of learner involvement is one of the most characteristic facets of training. Sometimes the entire procedure is limited to the teachers telling students how to learn, whereas some teachers try to involve their learners into the process of training by asking them to share, reflect, discuss and find new and more efficient ways of learning. Analysing the preceding paragraphs, it is possible to observe that it is characteristic for the teachers from the ‘non-autonomous’ group to include fewer elements of learner training into their teaching, and that the mentioned techniques of training are more frequently teacher-directed and teacher-centred than it may be observed in case of the other group.

In the previous sections the author noted that ‘non-autonomous’ teachers tended to report more teacher-directed ways of teaching and fewer techniques that incorporate interaction. The data presented in this paragraph also support the claim. When asked about the frequency of encouraging their learners to share the ways of learning that work best for them, again, the positive responses were slightly more frequent in the ‘autonomous’ group.

The teachers were also asked how often they encouraged their learners to reflect on how their learning proceeds, and in this aspect the diversity between the two groups was even more visible. In the ‘autonomous’ group altogether 21 respondents claimed to very often or quite often prompt their learners to think about how they learn. In the other group only 7 teachers reported to quite often encourage reflection in this area.

Figure 15: Encouraging learners to share the ways of learning that work best for them

As pointed out elsewhere, the ‘autonomous’ teachers allot more importance to reflection, and it appears that they also more frequently prompt learners to reflect on the purpose of different activities and even encourage them to adopt a rather critical stance and think what could be improved in their lessons.

The ‘autonomous’ group of respondents also claimed to encourage their learners to think what could be improved or changed in their lessons: this was reported to happen either very often (3 instances) or quite often (20 cases). In the other group such answers occurred only in case of 1 and 12 teachers respectively.

Figure 17: Encouraging learners to think what could be improved or changed in their lessons

The ‘autonomous’ teachers, at least a great part of them, seemed to be more eager to discuss their teaching methods with other teachers.

When asked whether and how often the subjects tried to organise activities in such a way that allows students to learn from each other, the ‘autonomous’ teachers again reported to organise such activities more frequently than their counterparts. Surprisingly, the ‘autonomous’ teachers seem to promote interaction/cooperation in learning more frequently than their ‘traditional’ colleagues.

Figure 19: Frequency of organising activities which prompt learners to learn from each other

It can be observed from the evidence presented in this chapter that there exist marked differences between the two groups of teachers in all four areas of the research. As far as the teachers’ beliefs about the conditions of successful language learning are concerned, the ‘non-autonomous’ teachers stressed mainly (1) motivation, (2) learners’ possession of a set of skills to learn, (3) the possibility to choose to learn individually or in cooperation with others and (4) the presence of the teacher. The teachers’ choice might be generalised into a statement that the ‘non-autonomous’ teachers believe that learners need to be motivated and possess language aptitude, a possibility to choose the mode of learning in the classroom and a teacher who will take care of directing their learning. The ‘autonomous’ teachers also pointed to (1) motivation, and then they listed (2) the learners’ right to determine the direction of their own learning, (3) the ability to learn from others and (4) the possibility to choose to learn individually or in cooperation with others. It is clear that in case of this group there is a greater focus on learners’ possibility of choice, which does not concern merely the choice of learning alone or in cooperation with other learners, but comprises learners’ right to decide about the management of their learning. It is interesting that the ‘autonomous’ teachers rated the ability to learn from others as important for successful learning: this skill actually denotes interaction and learning with others. When other areas pointed to by teachers are contrasted, it is possible to observe that the respondents from the ‘autonomous’ group more often recognised the importance of the aspects which imply interaction in the learning process: the notions such as knowing how to learn cooperatively with others and the presence of other learners were acknowledged as significant in learning more frequently in the group. The same recognition of cooperation reappeared in the teachers’ understanding of learner autonomy: the ‘autonomous’ subjects more often referred autonomy to a situation when learners find the best way of learning together or to knowing how to learn with others, yet these areas were hardly ever mentioned by the other group.

The aspect of cooperation resurfaced also in teachers’ ideas about developing greater autonomy in learners. Although the suggestions provided by the respondents focussed mainly on raising learners’ awareness and fostering their motivation, yet in the ‘autonomous’ group some teachers proposed allowing learners to work with their peers as a means of promoting autonomy, which implies their greater acknowledgement of the role of interaction in the process of one’s personal development.

The ‘autonomous’ teachers also appeared to treat cooperation as an element of teaching and training more often than the teachers from the other group. Firstly, when compared to the other group, the ‘autonomous’ teachers reported to organise much more activities that prompted learners to learn from each other, and they also mentioned to more often encourage learners to help and support each other, which might imply the knowledge of principles of group dynamics as well as an appreciation of the merits of learner cooperation. Secondly, as far as learner training is concerned, the ‘autonomous’ respondents enumerated numerous ways of making their learners aware of their responsibility for learning, and many of the suggestions were based on interaction and cooperation, and they required learners to take an active part in the very process of learner training. The ‘autonomous’ teachers noted, for example, to organise discussions in classes that provoke reflection, ask learners to share experience or ask learners to prepare activities for other learners – during these activities all learners are expected to be active, to learn from one another and to contribute to the learning of the entire class. When these activities were compared to the ways of training of the ‘non-autonomous’ group, e.g. telling learners that they don’t learn for the teacher but for themselves or encouraging them to invest time and effort to study and practice using the target language, it is possible to observe that the ‘non-autonomous’ teachers seem not to be really preoccupied with the inclusion of interaction into their teaching.

The role of interaction/cooperation was also recognised more frequently by the ‘autonomous’ teachers as facilitative in the achievement of academic success, in learning, in the development of learners’ ways of learning, in the development and refining of the learner strategies, and in promoting learners’ individual thinking processes. The group further more readily acknowledged the role of discussion in facilitating learners’ thinking, their improvement in learning and in developing their knowledge of learner strategies. The ‘autonomous’ respondents also allotted more significance to the role of group work in learner training and perceived the classroom environment as vital for the development of learners’ ways of learning, and, thus, their self-direction. Hence, it was not surprising to observe that the ‘autonomous’ subjects more frequently incorporated interaction into their teaching.

Reflection constitutes an indispensable element of learning and of the development of self-direction, as well as it conditions the individual development of every human being. It appears that ‘non-autonomous’ teachers do not see reflection as that significant, and they do not include it in their lessons that often as their counterparts. The role of reflection in the development of language learning knowledge was recognised almost equally by all subjects, but the respondents from the ‘non-autonomous’ group attached more importance to the individual reflection. The ‘autonomous’ teachers assessed collective reflection as more efficient than individual. Another difference between the two groups lied also in the frequency of applying reflection as a means of learner training: it was much lower in the ‘non-autonomous’ classes. The ‘autonomous’ subjects, on the other hand, expected their learners to meditate on their learning and presumed that this self analysis would help learners develop into better language learners. The respondents provided a greater number of suggestions for facilitating reflection, and their proposals were less vague than when compared with the other group.

It might be stated that teaching practices applied by teachers reflect – in most cases – the teaching approaches they had adopted. When the teachers’ beliefs were further examined, it turned out that the ‘autonomous’ teachers rated their learners’ abilities to assess their command of English and to make decisions about their learning more highly than the subjects from the other group. Not surprisingly, the ‘non-autonomous’ teachers were more eager to stress the necessity to direct their students’ learning, but somehow less enthusiastic to provide learner training. This might reflect the assumptions of the traditional modes of teaching, where the teacher continuously orchestrates almost the entire process of learning, and learners are not actually expected to know much about the principles of the process and make any important decisions about the ways they learn. The respondents from the ‘autonomous’ group were more involved in making their learners aware of their responsibility for learning; furthermore, they frequently cooperated with their learners and often expected their learners to be active in the process of learning and the process of knowledge creation. This was demonstrated in the number of cases when learners’ opinions were taken into consideration in the choice of lesson activities, learners’ participation in assessment of the learning process, learners being encouraged to experiment with different learning techniques and to share their experiences.

The ‘autonomous’ teacher also invested much effort into making their learners aware of different aspects of the learning process, and their attempts were often characterised by the inclusion of interaction and reflection – i.e. learners were, again, encouraged to take an active part in the development of their awareness, and there appeared to be only few instances of ‘spoon-feeding’. There was a large number of discussing learner strategies with learners, encouraging them to reflect on their learning and on the purpose of different activities, and to think what could be improved in their lessons. The learners were also prompted to share their ideas and findings with other learners.

It was interesting to compare the two groups in terms of the teachers’ ways of training their learners. The ‘autonomous’ respondents were more optimistic about their learners’ abilities to make decisions about learning and about their insight into the language learning process, yet they were much more involved in training learners than the ‘non-autonomous’ colleagues. When the teachers’ ways of training were compared, both groups put the premium emphasis on the area of learner strategies. The ‘autonomous’ subjects then in great deal declared to foster motivation and reflection, whereas the ‘non-autonomous’ respondents noted to conduct learner training through providing their learners with additional materials.

When compared with the other group, the ‘autonomous’ respondents were also outstandingly eager to experiment with different teaching techniques and to discuss their teaching methods with other teachers. Maybe these behaviours might imply their attitudes to life and teaching – there is always something to improve, there is always something to learn, and one learns through interacting with others.

In 1999 I attended the workshop on learner autonomy organised by Leni Dam in Denmark with other SIG members. During those few days I visited Naestved Friskole, a school modelling itself on Sudbury Valley School in Massachusetts, USA, and then in the early stages of its existence. It now has 55 students and official government accreditation. One of the founders, Tove Hartelius, who had attended learner autonomy workshops run by Leni, told me that she had felt the need to take autonomy further, beyond the confines of language learning. Learner autonomy offered learners a certain degree of autonomy but in a strictly defined setting, not extending beyond, if not the English classroom, then certainly learning English within a school environment. I sensed that Tove felt limited by what learner autonomy in ELT could offer learners – really young people – in terms of real autonomy. This lead to her creating an environment in which young people could grow up and mature, taking meaningful responsibility for their own lives.

Sudbury Valley School, which has spawned several other “Sudbury” schools – in USA, Denmark, Australia (and possibly in Germany in the near future) – bears some resemblance to our own ASSA (Autorska Szkoła Samorozwoju) in Wrocław. Individual autonomy for Sudbury’s students is an everyday reality, affording them a tremendously wide field of influence. It is compulsory to be present in the school for 5 hours a day, and all members of the school; students and staff are subject to its laws and regulations, which they have the right to challenge and attempt to change, according to the democratic principles governing the school. Beyond that young people at Sudbury Valley School are free to spend their time at the school as they see fit. This may mean spending minutes or hours talking with friends or staff, reading alone, playing music, cooking, studying “school” subjects, playing computer games, musical instruments or sports, fishing or doing nothing in particular.

I’m now beginning to sense something of the same frustration I believe Tove felt before she committed herself to founding Naestved Friskole.

I’m an English teacher. It’s how I support myself and my family. I shall probably remain one for several years. But working with learners and aiding them in their efforts to become more responsible for their learning and aware of the processes is becoming less of a fascination than it has been during the last 6 years since I attended the historic conference organised by Leni Dam in Kraków in 1998, which led to the foundation of the SIG.

The other day I had to leave a meeting of the Universe of English (democratic English club) early. The Universe of English is an initiative I set up last summer with a group of teenagers in Cieszyn, were I live. We meet once a week and do things together with English (talking, watching films, talking to guests, listening to songs and working with the lyrics) and run the group in a spirit of democracy. I left a small group of – mostly – teenagers divided into 2 groups. About half of them were engaged in playing a German board game called Siedler, which involves establishing settlements on an island and bartering for raw materials with the other inhabitants. The other half were poring over the songs of Leonard Cohen and translating them into Polish. I had been playing with the Siedler group, and when I asked them during the following meeting if they had continued playing in English or reverted to Polish, the answer was in fact the latter. However, the scene I left was the autonomous teacher’s dream come true. Focussed learners happily engaged in tasks of their own choosing, able to continue working on them without the support of the teacher. The tasks were real-world – a board game, and the authentic lyrics of songs. Not only that, the learners had come to the meeting of the club of their own accord, voluntarily, non-coerced.

Oh, sweet autonomy! But hold on a moment, what’s going on here, what’s the big deal? When young people are out of their lessons, and really have some free time to themselves, you’ll see them going about all sorts of real-world activities, meaningful to them, relying on no adult guidance or supervision. Often “learning is going on”. Well, for heaven’s sake, what did you expect? It’s called life.

This is the sort of thing my 4½ year-old daughter does, what your children do or did, and what all children do. She’ll find something she wants to do, like arranging a complex set-up of her toy animals, their dwelling places, beds and food and spend a focussed half an hour or more on this. The game has its own internal logic and purpose or fun. She is operating autonomously and meaningfully. OK, maybe that’s not really learning, but she’ll do the same with drawing and colouring in, which might be considered more pedagogically meaningful than organising a toy village. But we may discuss that.

Going back to the language classroom, I’ve glowed with satisfaction when I’ve seen students organising their time meaningfully without the need of my help or when they’ve brought in home-made exercises for the rest of us to solve or they’ve put together a beautiful multi-media presentation for our enjoyment. The proof, the demonstration of individual autonomy and creativity, of real-world tasks, the real world in the classroom or language learning extending beyond the four walls of the classroom! The students have aped reality in the artificial trammels of the classroom.

But so what? My wife said to me the other day. “Just put together a lesson and give it to the class. They’ve paid to come to English lessons. They want to learn to speak a bit more confidently than they could before, learn new structures and vocabulary. They’re paying for a product. They don’t necessarily want to be asked to reflect on their language learning, or to become participants of an autonomous learning community.”

This started to make me think more about autonomy in the language classroom. And also about what it means to be a teacher. I don’t intend to fully develop that in this short piece. I observe that many people learn languages in very autonomous ways without the need of a teacher in the formal sense. Eva Hoffman, talking in the book Lost in Translation about her parents, who spoke Polish as their first language, wrote:

‘My mother, who throughout her life has absorbed languages by quick osmosis, and who through the sheer vicissitudes of history has accreted not only Hebrew and Yiddish but also German and Russian and Ukrainian, picks up English from books, conversation, and the general air, and soon she too speaks with an easy fluency.’

‘In the long intervals when nobody comes in, he reads – at first, with an English-Polish dictionary. For some reason, he begins with a thick novel by Faulkner, which he gets through only by consulting the dictionary on every second sentence. Faulkner seems like the most inconvenient writer on whom to learn English, but by this laborious method, my father acquires a large, if heavily accented vocabulary.’

Maria Tolbast, my (our) Estonian friend, who has been living in Cieszyn for the past few years speaks, Russian, Estonian, Polish, English, Cieszyn dialect and Czech – and those are only the languages she speaks fluently. As far as Czech is concerned she told me she learnt by speaking the language with Czechs. She just kept on talking and making mistakes until she had stopped making any more.

On the other hand there are also situations when people will put up with teachers who run they classes in most autocratic un-autonomous ways if it serves a need. Sharon Caldwell, who runs a democratic school in South Africa, observed that her students continued going for lessons to a particular swimming instructor who treated them in a very high-handed, unsympathetic way, because they wanted to learn to swim, and were willing to put up with the teacher’s manner. She commented,

‘At a given moment an individual who has great personal autonomy in their life may choose to be treated as a learner in a very traditional, authoritarian learning relationship, if it serves a purpose at the time.’

…and Jerry Mintz, who founded a free school in the United States and is now the director of the Alternative Education Resource Organisation said,

‘Our table tennis club runs as a democracy and nobody has to take lessons. The way I teach is individualized but has a definite structure concerning form and practice. Yet every time I show up there is a rush to sign up and a long line of students. I can't usually get through in the two hours that I am there. I've always thought this was instructive: There is nothing wrong with a highly structured and disciplined approach to any subject as long as, and particularly if, the students have freely chosen it.’

I’m seeing in the Universe of English how much young people are wedded to the false need to have some adult running things for them. It’s a habit that’s hard to break. I’ve observed that they find it hard to organise themselves in my absence. What’s more, they have a deep-seated resistance or reluctance to speak English. It’s gradually breaking down, but very slowly. To really allow young people to grow up autonomously, you’ve got to remove a lot of things, and it takes time. This would include marks, clocks, timetables, time managers (called teachers), restrictive classrooms, compulsory lessons.

The purpose of writing this brief piece was to juxtapose some seemingly contradictory issues.

That I’ve become fascinated by environments, called free schools or democratic schools, which exist as small worlds within the real world, and allow young people, for the same period of the day they would normally be present in a school, to run their lives, including their ‘learning’ lives – whatever that might mean, as they see fit.

That I’ve been rethinking whether I personally will ever really be able to create autonomous environments in my classrooms.

That people who end up being taught English by me are often much more concerned with being given English lessons that are organised, and have been systematically prepared by me than striving in partnership with me to search for an ideal symbiosis between allowing them space in which to be independent learners and initiators and being led and organised by me. They want a certain product and their time divided up in certain ways, and I, as teacher, am the one with the responsibility to do that.

That many people around the word have learned foreign languages without resorting to the help of a teacher or classes.

That it’s natural for people to organise their own free time in autonomous ways, which could include activities (both group and individual) that could with little difficulty be termed ‘educational’ by the majority of the public. Individuals develop certain interests and become progressively more competent in these areas without the necessity of the presence of a ‘teacher’.

That individuals with a desire to learn a skill where the presence of a teacher or instructor is deemed by them essential will submit themselves to very autocratic learning regimes, and put up with being treated in typical authoritarian teacher-student relationships.

* from Lost in Translation by Eva Hoffman, 1989 Penguin. She writes about her father as follows: In the long intervals when nobody comes in, he reads – at first, with an English-Polish dictionary. For some reason, he begins with a thick novel by Faulkner, which he gets through only by consulting the dictionary on every second sentence. Faulkner seems like the most inconvenient writer on whom to learn English, but by this laborious method, my father acquires a large, if heavily accented vocabulary.

back to the top

All of them approved by my students. The first one (aka Dave's Cafe) contains all sorts of activities plus a forum and interesting self-study facilities. Good for teenage learners. Among the others are websites useful when working with young learners. Most of them offers interactivity, particularly close to the heart of an autonomy-minded teacher.

Some time ago I asked some teacher friends of mine what they think about the issue of cheating in the class (tests and others cases of a typical “school delinquency”, not instances of cheating in the human relationship, obviously). I got two interesting answers.

This isn't mine, but it immediately came to mind. It's from an IATEFL thing in 1999 I think, but I read it reproduced in hlt (humanising language teaching, July 2000 edition). Written by Herbert Puchta, and here's the extract relating to cheating:

"...encountered an unusual pedagogical placebo about a year ago, while working with a group of European secondary teachers from a grammar school-level context. The language teaching standards in the country concerned are rather demanding, and so are the tests that students have to pass. In the seminar, we were discussing different ways of strengthening students' beliefs, and one participant raised the question of what teachers can do if they have a student who they know has studied hard, but who is about to completely lose trust because in spite of studying hard, he or she keeps failing tests. Another participant made the following contribution: he said, "If this happens in my class, if a student really works hard, and yet there is a danger of this student failing yet another test, although he or she has studied intensively for it, then I cheat." We all asked, "What do you mean, you cheat?" "Well," he said, "I take a pen that has the same colour ink as the student used to write his or her test, and I correct some of the mistakes so that the student does not notice, and I can give him or her a positive mark. And then of course I follow this up with a lot of appraisal and support." This teacher claimed that he is very careful about when to use this strategy, but he also claimed that he had learnt it from his father, who was a teacher as well, that it had worked for his father, and that it worked whenever he applied it.

This colleague spent the rest of the seminar defending himself from the attacks of the other teachers in the group, who claimed that what he was doing there was illegal."

“As far as my own experience is concerned, I never cease to be surprised by how blatantly and shamelessly students are prepared to cheat, and how this has almost broken me to the point where I can hardly be bothered to try and stop them any more. I've not taught in Polish state schools but I understand this may have something to do with the tyranny of the dreaded grades. But shouldn't students (be brought to) understand that 100% in a language test is an
unrealistic ideal, and recognise what a test is for (i.e. NOT about giving them a fairly abstract number to take home to their parents)? They need to recognise the benefit to THEMSELVES of an honestly completed test.”

Do other readers have some thoughts on the topic? How does supporting learner autonomy relate to the traditional procedures implemented in such cases? What do you do, fellow members of the SIG, when a student of yours is discovered cheating?

Teachers' beliefs about the conditions of successful language learning
Conditions of successful language learning	‘Autonomous’ teachers	‘Non-autonomous’ teachers
Learners‘ positive attitude to learning	100%	100%
Learners’ right to determine the direction of their own learning	73.3%	26.6%
Knowledge of how to learn from others	60%	36.6%
The possibility to choose to learn individually or in cooperation with others	53.3%	43.3%
Presence of a set of skills to learn	36.6%	53.3%
Presence of other learners	33.3%	10%
Knowledge of how to learn cooperatively with others	33.3%	20%
Presence of the teacher	20%	40%
Learning on one’s own mostly	6.6%	20%
Presence of peers of the same language level	0%	16.6%
A good textbook	0%	33.3%