Lang. Teach. (2011), 44.2, 266276 doi:10.

1017/S0261444810000443

c Cambridge University Press 2011

Comparative Book Review

Recent literature concerning the support of initiatives promoting language learner autonomy around the world
David Dixon Warwick University, UK david.dixon@warwick.ac.uk
ANDREW BARFIELD & STEPHEN H. Brown (eds.), Reconstructing autonomy in language education: Inquiry and innovation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan (2007). Pp. xvii + 264. ISBN 13: 978-0-230-00173-2 (hardback). DAVID GARDNER (ed.), Learner autonomy 10: Integration and support. Dublin: Authentik (2007). Pp. 155. ISBN 978-1-905275-02-1 (paperback). TERRY LAMB & HAYO REINDERS (eds.), Supporting independent language learning: Issues and interventions. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang (2006). Pp. xii + 277. ISBN 3-631-54131-7 (paperback). RICHARD PEMBERTON, SARAH TOOGOOD & ANDY BARFIELD (eds.), Maintaining control: Autonomy and language learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press (2009). Pp. xi + 292. ISBN 978-962-209-923-4 (hardback). TERRY LAMB & HAYO REINDERS (eds.), Learner and teacher autonomy: Concepts, realities and responses (AILA Applied Linguistics Series No. 1). Amsterdam: John Benjamins (2008). Pp. vii + 286. ISBN 978-90-272-0517-9 (hardback).

Increasing numbers of students and teachers are being exposed to some form of autonomy in teaching or learning in new situations around the world, and, partly for this reason, autonomy continues to stimulate a large quantity of literature. There are many different interpretations of the concept of autonomy; some of these differences can be explained by the route by which it arrived in language teaching from other elds (psychology, pedagogy, politics or philosophy); others are due to paradigm preference. One conception is that of the resourceful and capable learner who is self-sufcient. Another is largely a result of a paradigm shift, often called the social turn, and views autonomy as a fundamentally social phenomenon of interaction. This, in very general terms, is how most of the contributors to these ve volumes would probably describe their stance. Another inuence on autonomy is its increasing popularity, with new interpretations arising in new contexts. With the spread of autonomy it becomes important to ask how best to support it, but the answer to this may be tied to the particular conception of autonomy adopted. The books chosen here will be discussed with particular regard to the question of SUPPORT. They are all collections, and are recent and substantial additions to the eld. The contributors are active practitioners who

DAVID DIXON: SUPPORTING LANGUAGE LEARNER AUTONOMY

267

are trying to foster autonomy among their learners, and all aim to be inclusive by covering a range of contexts from across the world. Pemberton, Toogood & Barelds Maintaining control: Autonomy and language learning is a collection of 11 articles positioned as a sequel to the 1996 collection Taking control: Autonomy in language learning (Pemberton et al. 1996), which contains papers that are still often cited. It features authoritative work by leading theorists and practitioners and considers different types of learner from secondary school to university, from teacher education to curriculum development. With autonomy moving into the mainstream and being increasingly taken up as a goal of language education, this book steps back to consider the changes that have taken place since the publication of the rst volume and how best to adapt and continue. It approaches the eld mainly from a critical socio-cultural perspective that sees autonomy as evolving in specic contexts, not as a set of skills to be learnt. The rst section is an introduction by the editors, followed by the section Theories and discourses of autonomy and language learning, which begins with Bensons paper Making sense of autonomy in language learning, a thought-provoking and well analysed discussion of how autonomy is dened and how it should be interpreted in the context of the growing worldwide interest in autonomy. Esch opposes the idea of individual personal autonomy, preferring critical socially-situated autonomy (p. 27). With the mainstreaming of autonomy she asks whether the radical aspects of the concept of autonomy as proposed by Holec (1981: 3) have been distorted (p. 31). Esch maintains that it is necessary to take into account the political and ideological context. Riley also sees autonomy as situated, explaining in detail why he feels that the promotion of autonomy (and teaching in general) should be handled with cultural sensitivity, but he says that this is difcult, since to avoid unconscious assumptions about what is in the comfort zones of different students it is not enough to have good intentions. He introduces the concept of DISCURSIVE DISSONANCE to express the idea of conicting discourses which consciously or unconsciously challenge the identity of learners. Moving to more practical examples, Section 3, Practices of learner autonomy, begins with Lambs reections on research at a secondary school. He feels that underachievement and low motivation should be seen as a failure not of the learners but of the system. Learning context can inuence the extent to which a learner feels in control of learning and so of motivation. Learners can be taught techniques to help them feel in control, though Lambs research suggests that extrinsic rewards are only acceptable with the long-term goal of developing intrinsic motivation. Metacognition is a key factor and, in her chapter, Cotterall wanted to nd out about the relationship between learners developing metacognitive knowledge of writing and the adoption of writing strategies. She found evidence that metacognitive knowledge about writing can be enhanced by the conditions created during a course, and that the learners became sufciently condent to transfer this knowledge to new contexts. In Section 4 the focus moves to teacher autonomy. Little argues that humans need to be autonomous they want to be able to reect and use language and this ability is built up in dialogue with others, but traditionally schools have incorrectly treated learning as a monologue and this commonly results in alienated rather than autonomous learners. Teaching to develop learner autonomy must involve negotiation, sharing and reection and Little gives three corresponding principles for autonomy: learner involvement, appropriate target language use, and learner reection. I will argue in the Discussion section below that

268 COMPARATIVE BOOK REVIEW

the rst two of these have particular relevance to the notion of support. The next three papers highlight issues around individual autonomy, in which the focus is on the feelings and skills of the individual, versus a group conception of autonomy. Sinclair discusses the development of e-learning exemplar materials for teacher trainees in China to help them see how to support autonomy better in their classes. Sinclair initially surveyed teachers to nd the current situation in China and, based on the results, decided that the e-learning materials should support the areas of metacognitive knowledge and strategies, psychological and methodological preparation for autonomy, and practice in self-direction. Aoki & Kobayashi describe how there is growing awareness in the literature that learners are not passive beings whose learning can be modelled and determined using a limited number of variables. They make the case for rst-person accounts of learners experiences, as they are the best way of providing information vital to the understanding of the complex ways that learners learn, and therefore of how best to support them. Nix & Bareld look at the pitfalls of trying to involve other teachers in a vision for autonomy when they do not fully share that vision. They make the point that they had in effect tried to take away private autonomy and enforce a controlled communal autonomy, and they conclude that the project of collaborative autonomy must always engage with questions of power (p. 238). The nal section is Smith & Ushiodas commentary chapter entitled Autonomy: Under whose control? It is perhaps the most interesting and thought-provoking article in the collection, being a refreshing, timely and well-aimed call for a reassessment of expectations regarding language-learner autonomy in the face of the reality of autonomys popularisation over the last ten years. This collection will be of interest to teachers and student teachers, applied linguistics students and researchers. It is one of the most accessible of the current collections, with an impressive array of notable authors and interesting papers which have been well organised. Reconstructing autonomy in language education: Inquiry and innovation, edited by Bareld & Brown, is a collection of 18 articles with an introduction by David Little. All the authors have a social-constructivist view of autonomy, which is in accordance with the editors concern with the need to hear the voices of all the contributors. This concern led them to produce the book with the help of online discussions and the pairing up of authors in different geographical locations. The chapters in the collection intentionally shuttle between theory and practice and are divided into three sections, each ending with a commentary. In his introduction, Little outlines the standard life cycle of an innovation in teaching, but maintains that autonomy is different because it has not been delivered top-down from theorists to practitioners but, rather, has been developed by practitioners who were at the same time developing it in the real world. Little thinks autonomy can survive as a mass phenomenon, though clearly this chapter reects concerns within the autonomy eld about how it will fare (cf. Esch and Smith & Ushioda in Maintaining Control mentioned above), and I will return to this in connection with support in the Discussion section below. All the authors in Part 1 Teacher and learner education illustrate that working towards learner autonomy is not a smooth and linear process with predictable outcomes. What emerges is that conicts are common, but that they can be turned to opportunities. For example, Akaranthi & Panlay present their research on a common occurrence: the introduction of a new government initiative, in this case a scheme promoting learner-centred

DAVID DIXON: SUPPORTING LANGUAGE LEARNER AUTONOMY

269

teaching in Thailand. The authors conclude that teachers and students should collaborate and hold discussions to solve their problems with the new policy. Alfredo Moreira nds conicts where theoretical beliefs meet the practical empowerment of students while trying to apply democracy in the classroom. Brown, Smith & Ushioda describe how they faced a situation which will be familiar to many teachers, that of learner resistance to autonomy. The authors outline how they gathered data on what learners felt and how they made successful changes to their procedures as a result of student feedback. Part 2 looks at classroom practice, but explores it in a more emotional way than some might expect. Shao & Wu, for example, gathered qualitative data regarding a caring approach to learners deep life concern for the meanings that emerge spontaneously in the pedagogic process (p. 97) which nurtures learners autonomy and depends on happenings of truth. Nicoll is disarmingly frank about his self-doubt in his attempt to be more learner-centred in a course he taught in Japan. He admits to drawbacks, but sees these as the necessary price of co-creating a more truly collaborative learning environment (p. 125). Oxford, Meng, Yalun, Sun & Jain remind us that learners should be able to talk about their problems because this would help them overcome them, and that adversity can be a powerful teacher. Nix believes that learning skills such as note-taking are important for successful autonomous learning, though there are chicken-and-egg questions about the causal links. Part 3 turns the focus to self-access learning and collaboration. The connecting theme seems to be that collaboration within and among the levels from government to learners is the key to the success of autonomy schemes. For example, Darasawang, Singhasiri & Keyuravong report on a government scheme in Thailand to introduce self-access centres. The authors nd there were many problems, stemming from a lack of support for teachers and learners in a top-down scheme, which could be improved by more continuing support, consultation and collaboration. Young, Hafner & Fisher, looking at teachers reactions to the introduction of an independent learning component in courses, also nd that teachers benet from collaborative reection. Collaboration in the form of teamwork among learners continues the theme in Kennedy & Pinters contribution. Over the years they observed that trainee teachers working in teams tend to produce better work than do individuals. They therefore encouraged teamwork, though they found that as this was a new concept to many of the students, it was necessary to establish support systems to help them deal with group processes. In the commentary to Part 3, Mackenzie highlights the fact that programmes which are initiated bottom-up are more likely to succeed than those initiated elsewhere. In this collection, collaboration to build autonomy and how autonomy schemes can and should be initiated and supported again emerge as key themes. It presents much rst-hand experience which may provide useful material for reection. It is without doubt a major contribution to the eld, though of all the books reviewed this is perhaps the most inaccessible for the lay reader, because it is deeply committed to a social-constructivist approach to autonomy. The collection Learner autonomy 10: Integration and support, edited by David Gardner, is an addition to the Learner Autonomy series of pocket-sized books from Authentik dealing with key areas in the language learner autonomy eld. Gardners introduction is followed by seven chapters of research on the integration and support of autonomy in taught courses, distance

270 COMPARATIVE BOOK REVIEW

learning and self-access. In the rst chapter, Gardner examines learners perceptions and self-reports following the introduction of a scheme to integrate a self-access component into an English for specic purposes course, to ascertain whether it can be seen as successful. Fisher, Hafner & Young nd that a key element for the successful introduction of learner independence is to ensure that it is fully integrated into the whole course. Turning to distance learning, Whites chapter addresses the change from a technology-driven view of the future to a more ecological approach, where the learners relationship to their situation and their ability to control it is key. Murphy considers the tutors point of view, and nds that to function effectively, tutors need support in and experience of ways to promote autonomy. Baumann nds that the development of autonomy is constrained by the imposition of learning outcomes. Kjisik nds that it is necessary to treat learners holistically, considering together their linguistic, metacognitive, psychological and social needs. Hobbs & Jones-Parry describe how they developed autonomy-supporting advisory services in their independent learning centres, and how learners reacted to them. All the papers are rmly grounded in practical situations and give a feel of professionals confronting the challenges of promoting autonomy in the real world. The volume provides material upon which readers can reect and draw conclusions, and it will be relevant for anyone with an interest in the practical application and support of autonomy schemes. In the introduction to Supporting independent language learning: Issues and interventions edited by Terry Lamb & Hayo Reinders, the editors tackle the question of what independent language learning is in contrast to autonomous learning, but nd a very large variety of meanings and examples. Judging from the contributions in this volume, investigating independent learning means considering the autonomy of an individual learner who is less embedded than a more traditional student in an immediate supportive social context. Situations such as one-to-one advising, distance learning, self-access centres, or using computers are examined, grouped into two sections, Issues and Interventions. In the rst of the chapters in Part I (Issues), Bailley & Ciekanski investigate the adviser learner relationship in the support of reective independent learning. They studied the interactions between a learner and her adviser, and show how those interactions manifested all the components of a community of practice. Gremmo & Castillo investigate whether advisors in language centres should specialise in one language or deal with many. They nd that plurilingual advising is preferable as it allows exible scheduling, promotes an increased knowledge of resources, and leads to a greater focus on overall language learning methodology. Moving to distance learning, White gives a useful introduction to the eld of distance learner support. Surveying the literature of the eld, she shows that much so far is ad hoc and that the rapid expansion of online learning has overtaken the research. Lamb looks at the perceptions of language learners in a UK secondary school about how they were introduced to and supported in independent learning. Lamb nds learning skills are a key area, and that teachers should listen to students perceptions as this builds condence and allows students more independence. In Part II (Interventions), Jim nez Rayas chapter makes the case for learner journals as a e way to promote metacognition, constructive learning, motivation and positive affect. Echoing Part 3 of Reconstructing autonomy in language education, Mozzon-McPherson & Dantec nd that the success of learner training programmes depends on long term commitment from the

DAVID DIXON: SUPPORTING LANGUAGE LEARNER AUTONOMY

271

learners, teacher/advisers and the institution, and that they should be supported by staff development and informed by research. Toogood & Pemberton present their model for selfaccess language learning, which provides a framework for learners while also allowing them to maintain substantial control through making their own study targets. The nal two chapters of this volume look at aspects of the use of computer technology in learner autonomy. Gl smann a describes autonomy-promoting online learning communities and looks at how creating and maintaining such a community can be facilitated, while Reinders presents a new interactive virtual learning environment which supports students in the self-access centre in a way which leaves responsibility with the learners. Reinders nds that increased support from teaching staff was needed and that human interaction was very important. This collection provides different perspectives on independence in language learning which will be of interest to a variety of readers as it covers a wide range of situations, including learner advising, high schools, self-access centres, online learning, language classes and learner training courses. It will resonate with anyone who has experience in self-access centres. The collection shows that support is a key factor in both independence and autonomy (not only for the learners but also for the staff who support them) and continues the theme that collaboration is essential for autonomy. Finally, Learner and teacher autonomy: Concepts, realities and responses, also edited by Lamb & Reinders, is a collection of 13 articles with a foreword by Henri Holec and an introduction and epilogue both by Terry Lamb. The book is concerned mainly with teacher autonomy and teacher training. Based on presentations from the 2002 AILA World Congress in Singapore, the articles in this volume were written using a process similar to that employed in Reconstructing autonomy in language education. Lamb provides helpful introductory and concluding pieces to orientate and aid the reader. The chapters are organised into three sections: Concepts, Realities and Responses. The focus is on teachers freedom to change their teaching to promote their students self-directed learning, and on how teachers experiences of their own autonomous language learning can inuence their teaching. The Concepts section contains four chapters, of which I think Phil Bensons contribution is the most interesting, as it dives in and addresses the question of what autonomy is. Benson thinks it is necessary to look at the broader area of personal autonomy beyond language learning in order to understand how learners see autonomy. Trebbi maintains that freedom is required for autonomy, but there are different types of freedom and all situations have constraints. Trebbi suggests there are good (supportive) constraints and bad ones, on a continuum. Macaro asks who judges the standards of language competence that are needed for assessing the autonomy of language competence, and decides that it is better not to have dened standards as they can embody oppression. Choice underpins autonomy, and Macaro concludes that the measure of success for a school may be the degree to which it can assign choice. La Ganza maintains that autonomy while involving taking control and responsibility, using learning strategies, and being self-directed is also an interrelational construct where the parties involved can use or refrain from using their inuence to create a learner/teacher-generated Dynamic Interrelational Space conducive to both learner and teacher autonomy. In the Realities section, Martinez analyses the subjective theories of student teachers about their language learning and their learner autonomy. She shows that for teacher education it

272 COMPARATIVE BOOK REVIEW

is necessary to foster metacognitive awareness of the self as a learner, of the language learning process, and of learning to learn. Cotterall & Crabbes research aim was to understand better the relation of teacher autonomy to learner autonomy and so help to clarify, and potentially change, the classic teacher (expert) and learner (novice) roles. They built a really useful-sounding database of problems and suggested solutions (which may perhaps be worth developing and making available online?). Siqueira Nicolaides aim was to examine how learners see their role in their own learning, including the importance of being in control and how they deal with opportunities to exercise autonomy. She found that learners tend to treat decisions made outside the classroom as their responsibility. Hacker & Barkhuizen look at how trainee teachers make their own theories about language learning during a training course. The authors found that trainees explicit knowledge of their personal theories of language teaching was vital to their professional development. The Responses section contains four chapters. Shaw discusses the developing understanding of teacher and learner autonomy at the Asian Institute of Technology, where many students see language as a tool, not an end in itself. Shaw raises a number of challenging points regarding autonomy in practice, of which the following three stand out for me. Firstly, that there is a danger of a dogmatic application of autonomy. Secondly, he advocates a needs-based attention to the support of the individual student which is pragmatic, exible, not worked out in advance, and not based on a philosophy of encouraging autonomy. Shaws third point is that there is a need for disinterested evaluation of student progress, which can too often be based on optimism and marketing considerations. Reinders & Lewis involved teachers in assessing the independent-study value of self-access materials using an evaluative tool. The authors found that the tool helped teachers to develop their own autonomy by encouraging reection, and the staff also appreciated the opportunity to have a say about the self-access centre materials. Vieira, Barbosa, Paiva & Fernandes report on case studies carried out in a pre-service Masters-level course. They found that there is a need for learner autonomy and teacher autonomy to develop in tandem by collaboration. They conclude that it is necessary to identify the factors that hold back autonomy in a given context and create ways to overcome them. Sinclairs chapter reports on a project to develop collaborative teaching and learning, looking at the design and delivery of a Masters-level course in learner autonomy. Her conclusion also favours collaboration, as it provides a rich source of reection and awareness-raising for both participants and lecturer.

The popularisation of autonomy

In the introduction to Reconstructing autonomy in language education (p. 1), Little describes the life cycle of a trend in language teaching. When it becomes popular the original owners of the new idea are often disappointed that the uptake has been at the expense of the integrity of their original ideas. Little points out that autonomy in language learning has mainly been developed by keen supporters who are steeped in theory and ideology as well as practical experience of chalk face teaching; it has therefore not had the common weakness of being imposed, top-down. However, there is a feeling that, with popularisation, control is in a sense being lost to independent parties less steeped in orthodox autonomy. Misgivings at popularisation are expressed in these collections, for example by Esch & Benson in Maintaining control. In the

DAVID DIXON: SUPPORTING LANGUAGE LEARNER AUTONOMY

273

same volume, Smith & Ushioda think that the mainstreaming of learner autonomy means it is now being interpreted by non-specialists in the eld who integrate this new buzz-word into their established schemata and existing teaching. One characterisation (or caricature) of the difference is between autonomy as social empowerment (an orthodox view) and autonomy as assuming personal accountability for ones life (a popular conception). It may be that the social turn has not been integrated into the popular package. Smith & Ushioda describe this recent social trend: autonomy is now seen to develop out of interaction with others: it benets from interdependence (p. 244). However, they also note that this use of the word in specialist autonomy circles may have taken it further away from its common usage. Autonomy as a technical term in the language-learning eld may have led to misunderstandings which have caused people to adapt the word to their own ideas rather than adopting the academic version. The mainstreaming of the concept of autonomy and the different conceptions or denitions assigned to it raise questions about support, since different conceptions require different approaches. A popular conception is that of the resourceful and capable learner who is not dependent on the contingencies of the availability of support to be able to reach his or her goals. The orthodox view, in contrast, emphasises that autonomy must (by denition) occur in a social context and requires social interdependence, as it is only through others that it is possible to be autonomous, and it is only with others that it is possible to learn. In effect, autonomy in this view is mutual support stripped as much as possible of power inequalities. It is clear, then, that support is one of the fundamental areas to be addressed in autonomy.

The support of autonomy

Getting support right can be a key factor in the success or failure of a scheme to promote autonomy. The central importance of support emerges from all the volumes under review here. Support in self-access centres is addressed by, for example, Hobbs & Jones-Parry (in Learner autonomy 10), by Darasawang et al. (in Reconstructing autonomy in language education) and by Reinders (in Supporting independent language learning). The support of teacher autonomy can be found in (to give just a few examples) Sinclairs chapter in Maintaining control, in Young et al. (Reconstructing autonomy in language education) and in Murphy (Learner autonomy 10). However, there is less interest in support for distance learners (Cynthia White in Supporting independent language learning), support for primary school children (none), or support in secondary schools (Lamb in Maintaining control; Macaro in Learner and teacher autonomy), and very little for private language schools (Loewen in Supporting independent language learning). The vast majority of interest is in university-based learning, and much of this involves samples who are trainee language teachers. This perhaps indicates that more representative samples of the majority of language learners need to be researched. There are differing conceptions of support to be found in these volumes. Lamb (in Supporting independent language learning) discovers that learners are able to identify cases of inauthentic choice, and therefore that the teacher should try to create an environment where real choice is part of the support. Similarly Toogood & Pemberton (in Supporting independent language learning and Reconstructing autonomy in language education), looking at support structures for self-

274 COMPARATIVE BOOK REVIEW

access learning, decided to support autonomy by giving learners choices but only the most relevant ones. However, Cotterall (in Maintaining control) found that by building metacognitive knowledge, learners grew in condence and ability and demonstrated a willingness to use diminishing amounts of support. This suggests that achieving autonomy means that learners need less support. The apparent contradiction can be resolved by distinguishing two types of support in these volumes. What I will call Support 1 is where the environment is manipulated: this is, in effect, support from above, as the experts/teachers have the real power. Support 2 is where there is collaboration and mutual support through interdependence among peers. This is more in line with the autonomy model envisaged with the social turn. Where one type of support is lacking or not possible it may be necessary to move to the other: Akaranthi & Panlay, for example (in Reconstructing autonomy in language education), found a lack of Support 1 and had to do it themselves (Support 2). Support 2 should be helped to develop, as can be seen in Kennedy & Pinter and in Mackenzie (both in Reconstructing autonomy in language education), who nd that autonomy programmes which begin collaboratively are more likely to succeed. Viewed in this light, there emerges a recurrent theme amongst the contributions to these volumes, which is that difculties with the provision of Support 1 can trigger the development of Support 2. Nicoll, for example (in Reconstructing autonomy in language education), says It is in the gaps, misunderstandings, and mistakes that we can nd the space to negotiate the curriculum (p. 129). Another example is in Sinclair (in Learner and teacher autonomy), who nds that the constraints of the context can actually provide a stimulus to taking control of ones situation. Also, Brown, Smith & Ushioda (in Reconstructing autonomy in language education) conclude that resistance to teaching for autonomy can be seen as an opportunity for reection by teachers and learners in collaboration. Another example comes from Trebbi (in Learner and teacher autonomy) who notes that Supportive constraints seemed to have the potential for emancipation (p. 45). Following the social/Support 2 model, we can see that administrators need to employ inclusive methods with other stakeholders such as administrators, managers and decision makers in order to obtain their committed support for initiatives promoting autonomy. As mentioned above, the volumes under review cover support for learners and teachers, but (apart from Mackenzies commentary on Part 3 of Reconstructing autonomy in language education) support for other stakeholders is little discussed, though there are frequent mentions of what happens when it is lacking, such as the problems arising from top-down imposition of autonomy schemes as a mandatory policy, of the sort described in Akaranthi & Panlay and by Darasawang et al. (Reconstructing autonomy in language education). Support for other stakeholders is, after all, a way of indirectly supporting teachers and learners. A case in point is Toogood & Pembertons chapter (in Supporting independent language learning) describing an initiative in a self-access centre to support learners, which is looked at again in the same authors chapter in Reconstructing autonomy in language education. The authors conclude the latter by saying that the scheme has now been stopped, not because it failed but for lack of support from above. It seems to me that such schemes, especially when new and not well established, can stand or fall on external factors such as the availability of the dedicated individuals who initiated them and the vagaries of other tactical or strategic inuences in the gift of administrators. This is a key point which is perhaps under-represented in published research dealing with support for autonomy.

DAVID DIXON: SUPPORTING LANGUAGE LEARNER AUTONOMY

275

Schemes need support from superiors in the hierarchy, and for this the ideas within autonomy and the needs of autonomy must be understood by administrators and by stakeholders in general. However, many of the contributions to these volumes will not be understood or will be off-putting for them, especially if they are not already committed to the present orthodox academic view of autonomy. The question becomes how to convince (some) administrators and other important parties who have inuence that autonomy is the best way to achieve their aims and to maintain quality in learning. To provide support one needs to know more and understand better the motives of the other stakeholders. It would be useful to know why administrators and governments are now initiating learner autonomy schemes: is it peer pressure, or because inuential academics are promoting it, or is it a status symbol? Collaboration is also very frequently mentioned in these volumes, and this conrms the central importance of support, as collaboration can be seen as a kind of interactive mutual support. The frequent occurrence of concepts of collaboration or mutual support may partly be a result of accepting the new social model of autonomy and consequently interpreting everything in that light. Those who see autonomy more in the way outlined in relation to Support 1 will see collaboration as a way of increasing learner-centredness and a stage on the way to being self-supporting.

Concluding remarks
The idea that autonomy needs interaction seems to be substantially based on Vygotsky, as he is often cited in this context. For example, Little in Maintaining control (pp. 148 and 150) and Sinclair in Learner and teacher autonomy (p. 246) mention that Vygotsky worked with children, but there is little explanation of the relevance of this as one of the central pillars of the social view of autonomy for ADULT learners; perhaps this point needs to be made more explicitly. Another term that needs more exploration is interaction. If it is established that autonomy develops through interaction, it must also be established how much interaction is needed, how often, in what circumstances, with whom, at what age, and so on. Can, for example, a normal person be autonomous and yet study alone? Also important is the question of whether this type of question can (or should) be answered by denition or by empirical means. To make a decision about what autonomy IS brings in questions not just of who has the right denition of autonomy, but also of who has the right to dene it. Smith & Ushioda (in Maintaining control) see the specialist use of the term learner autonomy as rather esoteric and different from everyday conceptions. They say that it is necessary to negotiate its meaning and not assume the term is widely understood. They feel that those in the academic camp should accept responsibility for not getting their message across and that the eld of autonomy should be more open to interpretations and practices coming from other sources. Shaw (in Learner and teacher autonomy) agrees that autonomy is not a black or white concept. There is much agreement in the literature about the right conception of autonomy as a social construct; perhaps it is time for something new to nudge the orthodoxy, and perhaps the mainstreaming of autonomy will ultimately lead to that. These books may be too far along for those who are still at an early stage of trying to make sense of autonomy for themselves; they are not easy

276 COMPARATIVE BOOK REVIEW

introductory texts for the uncommitted, but are useful and thought-provoking collections for practitioners, scholars and students, and will certainly be much cited in years to come.

References
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Pemberton, R., E. S. L. Li, W. W. F. Or & H. D. Pierson (eds.) (1996). Taking Control: Autonomy in Language Learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. DAVID DIXON is a PhD candidate and former postgraduate research fellow at the Centre for Applied Linguistics at the University of Warwick, UK. His research interests are in the area of the measurement of language learner autonomy. His publications include the book Independent learning schemes: A practical approach (TESOL, 2006) and articles in the publications Independence and Perspectives. His extensive teaching experience includes English language courses in Italy, England, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. He was a Self-Access Centre Coordinator for six years in the Middle East, prior to returning to the UK in 2005.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.