Anna Turula

Pedagogical University, Krakw

Poland

How social is digital learner autonomy? The case of ITALKI

Palfreyman (2006) argues that one needs to always look at learner autonomy in
the context of learning. Such contexts frame learning also by providing learning
resources, both material and social. With such a point of departure, this chapter
argues that the contemporary concept of language learner autonomy, with its
social dimension (Dam 1995, Little 2004, Murray 2014), may be both very
different from and quite similar to the original idea of self-accessed learning
(Holec 1981). As before, learner autonomy is about reaching out towards the
resources of both kind, based on the learners means to transcend the barriers
between learning and living (Little 1995: 175). Living has certainly changed: the
learners means are now networked and highly influenced by the ways of Web
2.0. As a result, social or interactive (Hauck et al. 2012) resources prevail over
the material ones. At the same time, however, as long as these interactive
resources are only resources, we have not gone very far from the individualistic
pursuit of personal goals that drove the autonomous learner as theorized in the
past. A true shift in the quality of autonomous learning would require new
practices combined with new learner attitudes. In other words, the contemporary
autonomous learner will utilize interactive resources to satisfy her individual
learning needs as well as to reach out to the other; to transcend the barriers
between learning and living but also communicative / cultural boundaries; to
utilize what others offer and to be a resource herself in establishing different
communities of learning. Are we indeed witnessing such a shift?
The answer to this question was sought in a small-scale exploratory study carried
out in March-May 2015 on ITALKI, a social language learning network designed for
formal and informal tandem learning of various world languages. The chapter
presents the results of the authors first-hand / user investigation of the platform
as well as the results of interviews with 10 other users, autonomous learners of
different languages. During the interviews special attention was paid to the
criteria the interviewees used for language partner selection as well as the two
aspects of their attitudes: personal and social.

References:
Dam, L. (1995), Learner Autonomy 3: From Theory to Classroom Practice. Dublin:
Authentik.
Hauck, M., Fuchs, C. and Mller-Hartmann, A. (2012), Promoting learner
autonomy through multiliteracy skills development in cross-institutional
exchanges. Language Learning and Technology 16(3), 82-102.
Holec, R. (1981), Autonomy in foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Little, D. (1995), Learning as dialogue. The dependence of learner autonomy on
teacher autonomy. System 23(2), 175-181.

Little, D. (2004). Constructing a theory of learner autonomy: some steps along

the way. In K. Mkinen, P. Kaikkonen, & V. Kohonen (Eds.), Future
Perspectives in Foreign Language Education (pp. 15 25). Oulu: Oulu
University Press.
Murray, G. (ed.) (2014), Social Dimensions of Autonomy in Language Learning.
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Palfreyman, D. (2006), Social context and resources for language learning.
System 34(3), 352-370.
Richardson, W. and Mancabelli, R. (2011), Personal Learning Networks. Using the
Power of Connections to Transform Education. Bloomington: . Solution Tree
Press.

Authors Bio
Anna Turula is a professor with the English Studies Department of the
Pedagogical University in Krakw, Poland. Her academic interests include:
cognitive and affective domains in distance / blended learning; intercultural
online exchanges in language teacher training; online tutoring.

Notes
Murray (ed.) 2014
http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/doifinder/view/10.1057/9781137290243.000
1

Autonomy as a social construct: Ushioda 2008, Kohonen 2010, Benson and

Cooker 2013, Cooker 2013
in what way is autonomy socially medieted, constituted and constrained? (5)
Is autonomy emergent? (ecological and complexity theory)
Is autonomy distributed?
What are social dimensions of LA?
Three dimensions intertwined with the social: emotional, spatial, political
A shift in LA from a concept of independence to the concept of interdependence
Originally, learners learned alone, taking responsibility for goal setting, material
selection, activity and strategy implementation, progress monitoring and
outcome assessment as a result, autonomy confused with individualism
(Benson and Cooker 2013)
Dam 1995, Miller 2007: autonomy developed through interdependence

Little 1991 the first to note that autonomy does not mean learning in isolation
Kohonen 2010: proceding from other-regulatin to self-regulation
Two dimensions individual / cognitive and social/interactive need to be involved
Holec 1981: 3 LA = the ability to take charge of ones own learning
Benson 2011: 58 LA = the capacity to control ones own learning
Huang and Benson 2013: the capacity = the ability (skills and knowledge
required to learn a language) + the desire (intention) + freedom
Control = having the power to decide and act upon the choices (Huang and
Benson 2013: 9)
Desire = emotional dimension
Freedom = political dimension
Context = spatial dimension
Plus ability (Vygotsky 1978) acquired through social interaction; desires are
shaped by social and cultural influences; there is no freedom without the social
context
Learners respond to social and cultural influence (italki = part of social
economy)
The desire can be socially motivated but not necessarily socially
directed
Benson 2013: in our persuits of the social dimensions of autonomy we cannot
forget it serves the development of the individual
Benson (2013: 89)

Lewis (ch. 3): the importance of showing empathy and respect to the autonomy
of others.
Yashima (ch 4): autonomous dependency on the trusted others Jacek

SDT: a growing sense of competence and the reliance on the trusted others leads
to self-regulation
Murray et al. (Ch 5): shaping the learning space
Murphy (ch 7) crossing the spatial boundaries in online learning thin-walled
class
Sade (ch 9): online learning contributes to social change

Palfreyman (ch 10) autonomy = a variety to use different online resources

Confucian learning with and learning from others some italki people
only learn from?

O'LEARY, Christine TC (2014). Developing autonomous language learners in HE :

a social constructivist perspective. In: MURRAY, Garold, (ed.) Social Dimensions of
Autonomy in Language Learning. London, Palgrave Macmillan, 15-36.

+Autonomy may be an individual capacity; but its developed socially

The emotional and relational processes of learning
Oxford 2003 2 types of socio-cultural learning: I. individual learning in a group,
all learning situated in space and time, in context; II. Group learning,
communities of practice.
The development of autonomy is both situated in terms of the institutional and
cultural context and dependent on learner goals and personality traits. The
interaction of these internal and situational factors will determine the degree of
autonomy demonstrated by the learner (Nunan 1996, Benson 2001) (17)
The learner, the context and the learning experience cannot be separated (18)
Benson 2001: prerequisites of autonomy: attention (as in Schmidt); reflection (the
ability to see the relationship between actions and outsomes); metacognition
(understaning oneself as a learner and learning as a process)
Revised:
-

Critical thinking
The willingness to take responsibility
The ability to monitor own and others emotions and act upon the outcomes
The willingness to take responsibility for the affective dimension of learning
The ability to cooperate with others
The willingness to take responsibility for ones own conduct in social
context
pp. 20-21, based on Little 2000, Kohonen 1992, Ushioda 1996 and Salovey
and Meyer 1990

Little, D. 2004. Constructing a theory of learner autonomy: some steps along the way. In
K. Mkinen, P. Kaikkonen & V. Kohonen (Eds.) Future Perspectives in Foreign
Language Education. Oulun yliopiston kasvatustieteiden tiedekunnan tutkimuksia
101/2004, 15 25.
Holec 1981: 3:
Learner autonomy = the ability to take charge of ones own learning = to have
and hold responsibility for the following aspects of learning:
-

Determining the objectives

Defiing the contents and progressions
Selecting methods and techniques to be used
Monitoring and evaluating progress

What Little learned from Leni Dam:

-

Autonomy is not reserved for adults

Autonomy may involve collaboration
Autonomy in language learning and autonomy in language use are not
separate but two sides of the same coin
Autonomous learners may choose different activities to become good
communicators

Vygotskys model of the development of speech (social egocentric inner)

shows how our psychological autonomy derives from social interdependence
(20)
Vygotskys ZPD model for developing autonomy (from other regulation to selfregulation) learning presence
Littles 3 pedagogical principles
-

Learner empowerment requiring learners to assume responsibility for

their own learning, giving them control; this happens in ZPD (the amount
of control they can assume is determined by what they have already
learned); teacher role: initiate, support, direct
Learner reflection helping learners think about learning a language on
the macro and micro levels; it is impossible to accept responsibility for
learning without thinking about it; control, goal setting and making
choices is not enough autonomous learners also need to reflect upon the
outcomes, evaluate, identify their strengths and weaknesses; like
empowerment, its a continuous process in which teacher role: initiate,
support, direct
Appreciation of target language use = the communicative classroom;
teacher scaffolds utterences

Cited by Little: Dam, L. 1995. Learner autonomy 3: from theory to classroom practice. Dublin:
Authentik

Wang, P. 2011. Constructivism and Learner Autonomy in Foreign Language

Teaching and Learning: To what Extent does Theory Inform Practice? Theory and
Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 273-277
Murray, G. (2014). The social dimensions of learner autonomy and self-regulated
learning. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 5
(4), 320-341.
Learner autonomy and self-regulated learning can be related if we look at their social dimension
Definitions:
Autonomy Holec 1981, Benson 2001
Self-regulation:
Zimmermans (1989) description of the self-regulated learner: Students can be
described as self regulated to the degree that they are metacognitively, motivationally, and
behaviorally active participants in their own learning process (p. 329)
Pintrich (2000) offers insight into what it means to be an active participant in
ones own learning when he writes that in academic contexts self - regulation can
be understood as a process whereby learners set goals for their learning and
then attempt to monitor, regulate, and control their cognition, motivation, and
behavior, guided and constrained by their goals and the contextual features in
the environment (p. 453).
What LA and SRL have in common are concerns with goal - setting, monitoring
learning, and control (322)
Difference: learner autonomy can be both an individual characteristic and the
characteristic of a learning context; SRL is the former only
Littlewood 1999: proactive and reactive learner autonomy
Huang and Benson 2013 three aspects of the capacity to control ones learning:
ability (I can), desire (I want to) and freedom (Im allowed to)
Self-regulation the realm of ability (Murray)
The tasks that pupils can do on their own are within their area of self regulation. The development in the zone thus proceeds from other - regulation to
self - regulation, towards increased autonomy
(Kohonen, 2010, p. 6).
In self - regulated learning, the social dimension is currently being explored under
the labels of co-regulation and socially shared regulation. Hadwin and Oshige
(2011) define co-regulation as a transitional process in a learners acquisition of
self - regulated learning, within which learners and others share a common
problem - solving plan, and SRL is gradually appropriated by the individual
learner through interactions (p. 247). (327)
Hadwin and Oshige (2011) go on to say that through dialogue and interaction,
individuals learn to engage and control their own self-regulatory strategies,
evaluations, and processes by observing, requesting, prompting, or
experimenting with self-regulation with a supportive other (p. 248).
Three aspects of both

1) The emotional dimension

In his later cyclical model (see Zimmerman 2013 for a discussion) emotion
figures in an early phase of the learning process through self-motivation and
resurfaces in the self-reflection phase through self-reaction which focuses
on satisfaction or dissatisfaction with ones performance