Autonomy in Second Language Learning: Managing the Resources PDF

Second Language Learning and Teaching Mirosław Pawlak Anna Mystkowska-Wiertelak Jakub Bielak Editors Autonomy in Second Language Learning: Managing the Resources Second Language Learning and Teaching Series editor Mirosław Pawlak, Kalisz, Poland About the Series The series brings together volumes dealing with different aspects of learning and teaching second and foreign languages. The titles included are both monographs and edited collections focusing on a variety of topics ranging from the processes underlying second language acquisition, through various aspects of language learning in instructed and non-instructed settings, to different facets of the teaching process, including syllabus choice, materials design, classroom practices and evaluation. The publications reflect state-of-the-art developments in those areas, they adopt a wide range of theoretical perspectives and follow diverse research paradigms. The intended audience are all those who are interested in naturalistic and classroom second language acquisition, including researchers, methodologists, curriculum and materials designers, teachers and undergraduate and graduate students undertaking empirical investigations of how second languages are learnt and taught. More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/10129 Mirosław Pawlak Anna Mystkowska-Wiertelak Jakub Bielak Editors Autonomy in Second Language Learning: Managing the Resources 123 Editors Mirosław Pawlak Jakub Bielak Zakład Filologii Angielskiej, Wydział Zakład Filologii Angielskiej, Wydział Pedagogiczno-Artystyczny Pedagogiczno-Artystyczny Adam Mickiewicz University Adam Mickiewicz University Kalisz, Wielkopolskie Kalisz, Wielkopolskie Poland Poland Anna Mystkowska-Wiertelak Zakład Filologii Angielskiej, Wydział Pedagogiczno-Artystyczny Adam Mickiewicz University Kalisz, Wielkopolskie Poland ISSN 2193-7648 ISSN 2193-7656 (electronic) Second Language Learning and Teaching ISBN 978-3-319-07763-5 ISBN 978-3-319-07764-2 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-07764-2 Library of Congress Control Number: 2016953647 © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, speciﬁcally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microﬁlms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a speciﬁc statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. Printed on acid-free paper This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Contents Introduction................................................. xi Part I Developing Learner Autonomy The Role of Autonomy in Learning and Teaching Foreign Language Grammar.......................................... 3 Mirosław Pawlak A Goal-Setting Logbook as an Instrument Fostering Learner Autonomy.................................................. 21 Anna Klimas Simulation as a Strategy for Enhancing Learner Autonomy in Developing Communicative Competence in ESP................. 35 Zdeňka Schormová Developing Learners’ Intercultural Competence Through Autonomous Learning........................................ 51 Paweł Sobkowiak Educating Towards Learner Autonomy in Early Education.......... 67 Magdalena Wawrzyniak-Śliwska Learner Autonomy: The Role of Educational Materials in Fostering Self-evaluation.................................... 85 Halina Wiśniewska Student-Generated Vocabulary Tests as a Way of Fostering Autonomy.................................................. 99 Aleksandra Jankowska and Michał Jankowski v vi Contents Part II Language Learning Strategies Exploring the Relationship Between Intelligence and the Use of Language Learning Strategies................................ 121 Larysa Grzegorzewska Fostering Learner Autonomy Through Vocabulary Strategy Training............................................ 141 Maria Pilar Agustín-Llach and Andrés Canga Alonso Part III Teacher Autonomy Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of Teacher Autonomy............. 161 Danuta Gabryś-Barker Possible Selves and Student Teachers’ Autonomous Identity.......... 179 Dorota Werbińska Linguistic Autonomy with Recourse to the Concept of Critical Language Awareness: A Practical Proposal for Evaluating Students’ Political Autonomy in Foreign Language Learning......... 197 Hadrian Lankiewicz Editors and Contributors About the Editors Mirosław Pawlak is Professor of English in the English Department, Faculty of Pedagogy and Fine Arts of Adam Mickiewicz University, Kalisz, Poland, and Department of Research on Language Learning and Teaching, Faculty of Philology, State University of Applied Sciences, Konin, Poland. His main areas of interest are SLA theory and research, form-focused instruction, pronunciation teaching, class- room discourse, learner autonomy, communication and learning strategies, gram- mar learning strategies, motivation and willingness to communicate. His recent publications include Error correction in the foreign language classroom. Reconsidering the issues (2015, Springer) and several edited collections on learner autonomy, language policies of the Council of Europe, form-focused instruction, speaking in a foreign language, classroom-oriented research and individual learner differences. He is Editor of the journals Studies in Second language Learning and Teaching (www.ssllt.amu.edu.pl) and Konin Language Studies (http://www.ksj. pwsz.konin.edu.pl/?page_id=466&lang=en), as well as the book series Second Language Learning and Teaching, published by Springer (http://www.springer. com/series/10129). E-mail: [email protected] Anna Mystkowska-Wiertelak, Ph.D., is a teacher and teacher trainer working at the Department of English Studies, Faculty of Pedagogy and Fine Arts of Adam Mickiewicz University, Kalisz, Poland as well as Faculty of Philology, State University of Applied Sciences, Konin, Poland. Her main interests comprise, apart from teacher education, second language acquisition theory and research, language learning strategies, learner autonomy, form-focused instruction, willingness to communicate and motivation. E-mail: [email protected] Jakub Bielak holds a Ph.D. in Linguistics obtained from the School of English of Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland. He is Assistant Professor at the Department of English Studies of the Faculty of Pedagogy and Fine Arts at Kalisz, Adam Mickiewicz University, and Senior Lecturer at the State University of vii viii Editors and Contributors Applied Sciences in Konin, Poland. His research activity has been centered around cognitive linguistics, form-focused instruction and individual variation in language learning. He has co-authored one book, authored and co-authored several articles in journals and edited volumes, and co-edited one edited volume. E-mail: [email protected] Contributors Andrés Canga Alonso (Ph.D. in English Philology, University of Oviedo) is Lecturer at the University of La Rioja. His Ph.D. thesis on learner autonomy received an award from the Spanish Ministry of Education. His research focuses on the development of learner autonomy and vocabulary acquisition based on e-mail tandem exchanges. He is a member of GLAUR research group and CRAL (Center for Research in the Applications of Language). E-mail: [email protected] Danuta Gabryś-Barker is Professor of English at the University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland, where she lectures and supervises MA and Ph.D. theses in applied linguistics, psycholinguistics and especially in second language acquisition. Her main areas of interest are multilingualism and applied psycholinguistics. As a teacher trainer she lectures on research methods in second/multiple language acquisition and TEFL projects. Prof. Gabryś-Barker has published over a hundred articles nationally and internationally, as well as the books Aspects of multilingual storage, processing and retrieval (2005) and Reflectivity in pre-service teacher education (2012). She has edited ten volumes, among others for Multilingual Matters, Springer and the University of Silesia Press. She is Editor-in-Chief (to- gether with Eva Vetter) of International Journal of Multilingualism (Taylor & Francis/Routledge) and the journal Theory and Practice of Second Language Acquisition (University of Silesia Press). E-mail: [email protected] Larysa Grzegorzewska completed her MA at Mińsk State Linguistic University. She teaches English for Speciﬁc Purposes at Pope John Paul II State School of Higher Education in Biała Podlaska and is a doctoral student at the University of Warsaw. Her research interest lies in the psychology of the language learner, with a special focus on individual differences and language learning strategies. Her Ph.D. thesis explores the relationship between intelligence and the use of language learning strategies. E-mail: [email protected] Aleksandra Jankowska, Ph.D., is Head of the Centre for English Teacher Training at the Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań. For 20 years (1992–2012) she was Head of the Teacher Training College at AMU and from 1994 to 2008 Leader of the Wielkopolska Region of INSETT, the national in-service teacher training program run by the Centre for Teacher Development in Warsaw. She is an experienced EFL teacher and teacher trainer. Her interests include teacher education, foreign language teaching at the advanced level, task-based teaching, Editors and Contributors ix classroom interaction, vocabulary acquisition and the place of culture in the process of foreign language learning. E-mail: [email protected] Michał Jankowski works as Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, where he has taught advanced EFL courses for over 30 years, specializing in teaching pronunciation. His research interests include practical lexicography, computational linguistics and lexical data mining. Among the subjects that he also teaches are information technology and statistics for lan- guage studies and applications of software tools in quantitative linguistic analyses. E-mail: [email protected] Anna Klimas, Ph.D., is an academic teacher and a teacher trainer. She obtained her doctoral degree from the University of Wroclaw in 2010. Her research interests in applied linguistics and language teaching methodology are in the areas of learner and teacher motivation and autonomy as well as the research methods used in classroom-based studies. E-mail: [email protected] Hadrian Lankiewicz, Ph.D., received his doctoral and postdoctoral degree from the University of Gdańsk, where he is currently Associate Professor in the Department of Applied Linguistics and Translation Studies. His scientiﬁc interests oscillate between history, American literature and applied linguistics with the pri- mary focus on language acquisition and foreign language teaching methodology. In recent years, his research has concentrated on an ecological metaphor in language learning and critical language awareness. E-mail: [email protected] Maria Pilar Agustín-Llach (Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics, Universidad de La Rioja, MPhil Spanish Applied Linguistics, Universidad Antonio de Nebrija) is Lecturer at the University of La Rioja. Her main research interests are second and foreign langÎuage acquisition, particularly vocabulary acquisition in a foreign language and factors that influence this process. The variables she has attended to are L1 influence, age, L2 proﬁciency, gender or L2 learning context (CLIL vs. non-CLIL). She is a member of the research group on Applied Linguistics GLAUR. E-mail: [email protected] Zdeňka Schormová, Ph.D., has been teaching English to secondary and tertiary learners. She specializes in English for speciﬁc purposes, particularly medical English (teaching Traumateam of the Czech Republic) and she has carried out research on the development of communicative competence and learner autonomy via simulation. She teaches academic writing and presenting in English to doctoral students and university lecturers. She runs international projects which support active learning in realistic settings and promote close cooperation between language teachers in ESP, teachers of specialized subjects and hospital specialists in the preparation of realistic teaching materials. E-mail: [email protected] Paweł Sobkowiak, Ph.D., is Senior Lecturer at the School of Law and Administration, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, where he teaches business English and communication to students of management. His main research interests x Editors and Contributors include different aspects of teaching ESP, mainly business English, professional development of language teachers as well as, more recently, the development of learners’ intercultural competence and intercultural teaching and learning. E-mail: [email protected] Magdalena Wawrzyniak-Śliwska, Ph.D., is Senior Lecturer at the Institute of English and American Studies, Gdańsk University. She holds an MA in Linguistics and Ph.D. in Pedagogy. One of her interests is learner individualization. She is a certiﬁed tutor and has conducted a number of tutorials since 2014. Her current research interests include learner autonomy, teaching English to young learners and very young learners, PRESETT and INSETT teacher training, discourse analysis and some aspects of e-learning in language teaching and learning. E-mail: [email protected] Dorota Werbińska, Ph.D., works at the Institute of Modern Languages at Pomeranian Academy in Słupsk, Poland. She received her doctoral degree from Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland. She has taught in schools and worked as a foreign language teacher adviser. Her research interests lie in the area of language teacher qualitative studies, with a focus on language teacher cognition, teacher identity, reflexivity and change. She is the author/editor of three books, two edited collections, and over ﬁfty articles and book chapters published in Poland and internationally. E-mail: [email protected] Halina Wiśniewska works at Koźminski University in Warsaw, Poland. She teaches business studies and intercultural business communication. She is the author of content-led ESP textbooks as well as articles on ESP methodology, ESP materials development, and various business communication issues. E-mail: [email protected] Introduction It is hard to take issue with the assumption that autonomy is a much sought-after attribute in both foreign language learners and their teachers. In the case of the former, it is perhaps a dream of most teachers, at least those who are truly dedicated to their jobs, to be able to work with students who are ready to go beyond what is required of them in the course, devote time to learning the target language out of school, be capable of identifying their strengths and weaknesses, eagerly look for additional materials and practice opportunities, and draw on suitable learning strategies, as all of this would greatly enhance their chances of success. As regards the latter, while much depends on how motivated students are, many of them would surely opt for teachers who do not conﬁne themselves to following the coursebook closely according to the guidelines given in the teacher’s manual, beam with cre- ativity, are constantly on the lookout for inspiring topics and tasks, and are adept at infecting learners with their enthusiasm. Unfortunately, both learners and teachers of this kind are difﬁcult to come by, irrespective of the context in which foreign language instruction takes place. This is because, confronted with heavy teaching loads, administrative duties, curricular goals, examination requirements, parents’ expectations as well as scant classroom time, many practitioners choose to play it safe and focus on the material to be covered. In such a situation, a very similar approach is adopted by most learners who are also weighed down with numerous obligations, with the prospect of ﬁnal exams looming on the horizon not being conducive to manifesting independence, particularly if a foreign language is not their ﬁrst priority. In light of such realities, it is fully warranted to consider steps, however modest they might be, that could be taken to ensure that autonomy is at least to some extent fostered in the language classroom and that teachers become convinced of its value for both students and themselves, as it is clear that the former is unlikely to happen without the latter. This is the rationale behind the present volume which brings together papers dealing with the development of both learner and teacher auton- omy. The book has been divided into three parts, each including articles which deal with a different aspect of autonomy in foreign language learning and teaching. Part I, Developing Learner Autonomy, contains seven papers, focusing on the xi xii Introduction various techniques, tasks and resources that can be employed to enhance learner independence, both in general, with reference to target language subsystem and with respect to evaluation. Part II, Language Learning Strategies, is made up of only two contributions dealing with the relationship between strategy use and intelligence as well as the beneﬁts of strategies-based instruction in the realm of vocabulary. Finally, Part III, Teacher Autonomy, includes papers dedicated to pre-service teachers, focusing on their perceptions of autonomy, the development of autonomous identities and the link between autonomy and the concept of critical language awareness. We are conﬁdent that the papers included in this edited col- lection will serve as a source of inspiration and reflection for researchers exploring different facets of autonomy in foreign language instruction, students working on theses dealing with autonomous learning, and practitioners wishing to devise ways to foster some degree of learner independence in their classrooms. Mirosław Pawlak Anna Mystkowska-Wiertelak Jakub Bielak Part I Developing Learner Autonomy The Role of Autonomy in Learning and Teaching Foreign Language Grammar Mirosław Pawlak Abstract As is the case with the learning of other language skills and subsystems, success in learning foreign language grammar entails taking charge of one’s own learning and going beyond the requirements speciﬁed by the teacher. This is par- ticularly important if it is acknowledged that complete mastery of this subsystem is by no means conﬁned to the familiarity with rules and the ability to apply them in traditional, controlled exercises, but also involves the capacity for employing par- ticular structures in spontaneous communication. In other words, it is necessary for the learner to develop both explicit and implicit command of the grammatical items taught, or at least to automatize his or her declarative knowledge to such an extent that the language features can be effectively employed in real time. If such a goal is to be attained, however, learners have to work on grammar in their own time, and it is also necessary for the teacher to encourage autonomous behaviors in this area. The aim of this paper is to outline the ways in which learner autonomy in learning grammar can be exercised as well as the steps that can be taken to foster an autonomous approach to learning this subsystem. 1 Introduction Despite the fact that there is general consensus at present that grammar teaching, or form-focused instruction (FFI), is facilitative of second or foreign language learn- ing, or that it may even be indispensable in some contexts (cf. Ellis, 2008; Loewen, 2014, 2015; Nassaji & Fotos, 2011; Pawlak, 2006, 2013a, 2014), the beneﬁts of this kind of pedagogic intervention are by no means guaranteed and hinge on a number of factors. On the one hand, a crucial role is played by the instructional techniques and procedures applied (see below for a brief overview), the effectiveness of which M. Pawlak (&) State University of Applied Sciences, Konin, Poland e-mail: [email protected] M. Pawlak Adam Mickiewicz University, Kalisz, Poland © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017 3 M. Pawlak et al. (eds.), Autonomy in Second Language Learning: Managing the Resources, Second Language Learning and Teaching, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-07764-2_1 4 M. Pawlak is mediated by individual (e.g., working memory, learning style), linguistic (e.g., the complexity of a linguistic feature) and contextual (e.g., overall educational context, the nature of classroom interaction) variables (cf. Ellis, 2010a; Pawlak, 2014).1 On the other hand, equally, if not more important, particularly in situations of limited in- and out-of-class exposure to the target language (TL), which tran- spires in foreign language contexts, is the extent to which learners are able and willing to take responsibility for studying and gaining greater control of grammar, or exercise autonomy with respect to learning this subsystem (cf. Benson, 2011). Such involvement on the part of learners and their readiness to go beyond what may be required by the teacher, course or program become even more vital if we consider the fact that the mastery of grammar structures is by no means conﬁned to the ability to use correct forms in controlled exercises or on pen-and-paper tests, and also involves the knowledge of the meaning and use of these structures as well as the skill in using them accurately, meaningfully and appropriately in sponta- neous, real-time communication. Surely, these goals cannot possibly be achieved only in the classroom where instruction comprises three or four hours a week and numerous objectives have to be pursued, even in cases when it is augmented to some extent by out-of-school tutoring. With this in mind, the present paper aims to demonstrate how autonomy can be manifested in learning grammar and how such an autonomous approach can be fostered. In the ﬁrst part, emphasis is placed on the nature of grammar, the learning and teaching of this TL subsystem, as well as the techniques and procedures that teachers have at their disposal. This is followed by the justiﬁcation of the necessity of developing autonomy in learning TL grammar, consideration of the ways in which learner independence in this area can be pro- moted, and tentative implications for everyday foreign language learning and teaching, together with caveats that should be carefully considered by practitioners. What also needs to be stressed at the very outset is that the main thrust here is not on explicating the different interpretations of the concept of autonomy, focused on in so many of the chapters included in this edited collection, but, rather, an illus- tration of how it can be applied to the mastery of grammatical structures. 2 Grammar, Grammar Learning and Grammar Teaching Before embarking on the discussion of autonomy in learning foreign language grammar, it seems ﬁtting to devote some space to confronting some common myths with respect to grammar, providing a deﬁnition of this subsystem, explaining what the knowledge of grammar involves, and, ﬁnally, illustrating the techniques and procedures that teachers can fall back upon in order to introduce grammar structures 1 Although this framework was proposed with respect to corrective feedback and aimed to illustrate the different foci of research into its effectiveness, it can be extended to grammar instruction in its entirety, of which error correction constitutes an inherent part. The Role of Autonomy in Learning and Teaching … 5 and later provide students with ample practice opportunities. As superbly demon- strated by Larsen-Freeman (2003), a number of unfounded beliefs, or myths, concerning grammar can be identiﬁed among language teachers, which to a greater or lesser extent negatively impinge on their instructional practices. They are reflected, among others, in the assumption that this subsystem constitutes yet another area of knowledge, the temptation to equate grammaticality with accuracy, the perception of grammar in terms of a set of rules, the conviction that grammar rules are arbitrary, the belief that there always exists one correct answer, or the notion that grammar operates only at the level of the sentence. Although there is without doubt some truth in each of these assumptions because, after all, grammar can be associated to some extent with correctness, rules or isolated sentences, they can be regarded as myths because they represent gross oversimpliﬁcations, thereby being extremely misleading. For example, while learners may be explicitly taught facts about grammar (e.g., irregular verbs) or speciﬁc rules (e.g., those for the formation of the passive), the ultimate goal is for them to use this knowledge to attain communicative goals, the use of grammar has to be not only accurate but also meaningful and appropriate, and there is inherent logic to the way in which the system of grammar is constructed in any given language. In addition, the choice of a speciﬁc structure in a particular situation is a function of a number of individual and contextual variables (e.g., when asked to use the verb to go in a sentence ending in yesterday, the learner might opt for I went, I was going, I had gone, I was about to go or even I would have gone, depending on his or her intentions), while the choice of the grammatical tense in the ﬁrst sentence of a story is bound to affect choices made several paragraphs later (see Larsen-Freeman, 2003). One way to avoid such unhelpful overgeneralizations and to minimize their deleterious consequences is to offer a comprehensive deﬁnition of grammar, such that would be applicable to any language, highlight its most salient characteristics and explain what the mastery of this subsystem entails. Insightfully arguing that “(…) a description of the system is an essential starting point for proper pedagogy” and stressing the need “(…) to accommodate both traditional and newer approaches (…)”, Larsen-Freeman (2010, p. 521) deﬁnes grammar as “(…) a system of meaningful structures and patterns that are governed by particular pragmatic con- straints”. She goes on to explain that those structures and patterns can refer to morphemes (e.g., third person -s), function words (e.g., is), phrases (e.g., the verb depend has to be followed by on), clauses (e.g., the canonical word order, such as S-V-DO-IO in English), clausal formulas (e.g., I am really sorry to hear that…), discourse-level patterns (e.g., theme-rheme organization in English) or typological patterns (e.g., the subject prominence in English) (Larsen-Freeman, 2010, pp. 521– 522). Swan (2013, p. 558) adopts a somewhat narrower view by stating that, in order to deal with the need to group words in a meaningful way, languages avail themselves of “(…) the devices that we call ‘syntax’ and ‘morphology’, supple- menting purely lexical information by establishing ordering and movement con- ventions, changing the forms of words, and using function words (like English may or not)”. Irrespective of a particular deﬁnition that can be employed as a point of reference, it should be emphasized that grammar is complex and multidimensional, 6 M. Pawlak not least because it is sometimes difﬁcult to draw a line between vocabulary and grammar due to the interdependence of the two (i.e., hence the term lexicogram- mar), the distinctiveness of spoken and written grammar, or the role of grammatical choices is structuring discourse (cf. Larsen-Freeman & DeCarrico, 2010). As underscored by Larsen-Freeman (2001, 2003, 2010), grammar is also dynamic and should be viewed not only as a product, reflective of static rules as well as the prescriptions and proscriptions they bring with them, but also, or perhaps even primarily, as a process, indicative of the choices language users constantly have to make as they participate in ongoing communication, try to position themselves in it and adjust their messages to contextual influences (cf. Batstone, 1994). Larsen-Freeman (2002, p. 26) explains: “Language users must constantly be scanning the environment, observing their interlocutors and interpreting what they are hearing/seeing, in order to make decisions about how to respond in accurate, meaningful and appropriate ways, and then carry out their decisions ‘online’, i.e. they must then somehow activate what they have decided upon. This clearly entails a dynamic process”. For this reason, she suggests using the term grammaring, which stresses the fact that grammar should be viewed as a skill rather than a body of knowledge and refers to the ability to use linguistic features accurately, mean- ingfully and appropriately. Obviously, being able to use grammar as a dynamic tool to respond to the ever-changing exigencies of a particular communicative event involves possessing appropriate resources and having the capacity to access these resources in real time. According to Larsen-Freeman (2001, 2003), the knowledge of a speciﬁc gram- matical structure has three dimensions which refer to (1) form (i.e., how this grammatical feature is constructed, which involves the use of appropriate pho- nemes, graphemes, grammatical morphemes as well as syntactic patterns), (2) meaning (i.e., semantic information related to lexical and grammatical mean- ings, derivational morphemes or lexical phrases) and (3) use (i.e., pragmatic con- siderations which need to be taken into account when the structure is employed such as power relationships, preceding discourse, the nature of the communicative event). Thus, for example, in the case of the English passive voice, it would be necessary for learners, at the most basic level, to know that it is formed with the use of the right form of the auxiliary be and the past participle, it confers a different status on the performer of the action and the entity affected by it, and it is used to deemphasize the agent. Larsen-Freeman (2003) also stresses the interdependence between the three aspects of grammatical knowledge, with a change in one of them triggering modiﬁcations in the other two. What also needs to be kept in mind, however, is that, despite the considerable value of the framework, familiarity with all this information can only come in handy when the learner is capable of using a TL feature accurately, meaningfully and appropriately in real time. In other words, it is clearly insufﬁcient to develop only explicit knowledge of these three dimen- sions, which is conscious, declarative and can be accessed only when learners have sufﬁcient time at their disposal. It is also necessary to cater to the development of implicit knowledge, which is intuitive, procedural and can be used in real-time processing required by ongoing communication (see Ellis, 2007), or at least The Role of Autonomy in Learning and Teaching … 7 automatize explicit knowledge to such an extent that it becomes accessible when attentional resources have to be directed to other aspects of communication (cf. DeKeyser, 2010; Pawlak, 2012a, 2013a). This means that learners may know how to construct passive voice utterances, what they mean and why they should be used in speciﬁc circumstances, but, without the requisite type of linguistic knowledge, they will not be able to deploy these resources in on-line processing, thus making errors or using the passive where it is unnecessary. Finally, it should be pointed out that different aspects of grammar are learned differently as are the explicit and implicit dimensions of grammatical knowledge, which has far-reaching ramiﬁca- tions for effective instruction. Larsen-Freeman and DeCarrico (2010), for example, make the point that while learning the structure of a TL feature or lexical phrases in which it is used may require meaningful repetition, the meaning dimension might call for establishing form-function mappings, and issues related to use might necessitate appreciating the potential effect of the linguistic choices made in a speciﬁc context. As regards explicit knowledge, it is not constrained by orders and sequences of acquisition and therefore it can be acquired at any age with the help of cognitive operations deliberately employed in learning any other content, such as history or math, beneﬁting from explanations or conscious practice. By contrast, implicit knowledge is developmentally constrained as well as age-dependent, with its mastery requiring a considerable degree of mastery of syntactic operations. This means that acquisition requires engagement in real-time interaction and meaningful practice, a condition that is also indispensable for the attainment of the more modest goal of a high level of automaticity of explicit knowledge (see DeKeyser, 2007, 2010; Ellis, 2007; Pawlak, 2013a). In light of these issues, of vital importance is the choice of the techniques and procedures that are employed with the purpose of introducing and practicing grammar structures as well as their adept integration so that they can contribute to the development of explicit and implicit knowledge, or at least sufﬁcient automa- tization of the former. The instructional options that teachers can draw on in this respect have been classiﬁed in different ways, with much depending on whether the pedagogical intervention is viewed in terms of a focus on forms, where the struc- tural syllabus is a point of reference and the PPP (presentation – practice – pro- duction) sequence is broadly followed, or a focus on form, where learners’ attention is drawn to speciﬁc features as they are engaged in genuine communication (e.g., Celce-Murcia, 2015; Ellis, 1997, 1998, 2005, 2010b; Loewen, 2011; Nassaji & Fotos, 2011; Pawlak, 2004; Williams, 2005; see Pawlak, 2006, 2014, for over- views). For the purposes of the present paper, instructional options in grammar teaching will be categorized following the classiﬁcation put forward by Ellis (1997) and subsequently amended by Pawlak (2004, 2006), which is based on the dis- tinction between learner-performance options and feedback options. The former include focused communication tasks, which necessitate productive or receptive use of a given feature for successful completion (e.g., the Present Progressive to describe a scene in the park in a spot-the-difference task), and feature-focused activities, where learners are expected to attend to a speciﬁc form much more deliberately. The latter are subdivided into consciousness-raising tasks, employed 8 M. Pawlak with the purpose of developing explicit knowledge, as is the case when introducing grammar structures by means of deduction (i.e., rule provision and explanation) or induction (i.e., rule discovery), or various practice tasks, which can take the form of output-oriented (i.e., forming a continuum from those entirely controlled to rela- tively free) or input-based (i.e., those that do not require immediate production of the targeted item, as the case might be with input enhancement; see Mystkowska-Wiertelak & Pawlak, 2012, for discussion of such options) activities. As regards feedback options, they are related to error correction, with crucial dis- tinctions between explicit and implicit corrective feedback (i.e., such of which the learners may be more or less cognizant), and output-prompting and input-providing corrective feedback (i.e., such that does or does not entail a requirement for self-repair) (see Pawlak, 2014; Sheen & Ellis, 2011). Clearly, the job of the teacher is to combine the different instructional options in such a way that instruction becomes most beneﬁcial in a speciﬁc situation, taking into consideration the realities of a particular context (e.g., access to the target language outside the classroom), learners’ characteristics (e.g., their age or learning styles) and needs (e.g., their concern with grammar), the nature of the targeted linguistic feature (e.g., its difﬁculty in terms of explicit and implicit knowledge), and what Larsen-Freeman (2003) calls the learning challenge, or the dimension of grammar knowledge that is most in need of pedagogic intervention. What should also be kept in mind is that teachers’ choices with respect to predominant instructional options, which, quite logically, are bound to translate into techniques used for assessment purposes, are bound to have a major bearing on the ways in which learners go about studying and practicing grammar structures (cf. Pawlak, 2009). This, in turn, may have consequences for the extent to which those learners may be able or willing to exercise autonomy in this area, an issue which is the focus of the remainder of this paper. 3 The Need for Autonomy in Learning Foreign Language Grammar As mentioned in the introduction, while the author is fully aware of the complexity of the concept of autonomy, the diverse ways in which it is understood, the different forms that it can assume and the various levels at which it can be manifested (see e.g., Benson, 2007, 2011; Benson & Voller, 2013), such issues will not be elab- orated upon in the present paper, since its main concern is demonstrating how learner independence can be exhibited in the task of trying to master foreign lan- guage grammar. With this in mind, following Holec (1981, p. 3), autonomy is simply understood here as the “(…) ability to take charge of one’s own learning” and entails taking “the responsibility for all the decisions concerning all aspects of this learning”. As such, it is evident, among other things, in setting proximal and distal goals in the process of language learning, choosing resources and strategies The Role of Autonomy in Learning and Teaching … 9 intended to facilitate the attainment of these goals, effectively managing the available time, both in and out of the classroom, engaging in objective self-evaluation, or demonstrating awareness of one’s own needs, objectives and preferences (cf. Hedge, 2000; Pawlak, Marciniak, Lis, & Bartczak, 2006). Two important qualiﬁcations need to be made at this juncture. First, it is recognized that autonomy in language learning involves both a capacity for adopting the approach outlined above and a willingness to do so, as it is obvious that although learners may be able to manifest self-direction, they may refuse to do so for a number of reasons (cf. Littlewood, 1996). Second, the discussion is based on the assumption that while the ultimate goal might be proactive autonomy, in which learners are fully independent in their choices, which “afﬁrms their individuality and sets up directions in a world which they themselves have partially created”, perhaps a more realistic goal in most cases of institutionalized foreign language education may be reactive autonomy, or “the kind which does not create its own directions but, once a direction has been initiated, enables learners to organize their resources autono- mously in order to reach their goal” (Littlewood, 1999, p. 75). While admittedly more modest, such an aim is much more tangible and much easier to achieve, also when it comes to learning foreign language grammar. A question that arises at this point is why teachers should go to the trouble of promoting in their learners an autonomous approach to learning grammar struc- tures, a task that is likely to pose major challenges, not least because the available classroom time is typically limited, thus constituting a precious commodity. On the one hand, it could simply be argued that, as is the case with all the other TL skills and subsystems, success in developing mastery of grammar depends upon the extent to which learners choose to take charge of their learning and are prepared to go beyond the requirements speciﬁed by teachers. After all, whatever the area of the TL, three or four language classes a week, which is perhaps the norm for most learners at different educational levels in foreign language contexts, are blatantly insufﬁcient to guarantee discernable progress if they are not accompanied by regular practice outside school, not so much in the course of additional instruction but, rather, in the home. On the other hand, given what has been said about the com- plexity and multidimensionality of grammar as well as the intricate processes involved in its learning, it would appear that adopting an autonomous approach is of particular signiﬁcance in the case of this aspect of TL systemic competence. For one thing, the place of grammar instruction in language education has always aroused major controversy, with teachers and learners, mainly due to their previous experiences, often adopting extreme attitudes towards it and favoring quite dis- parate classroom practices. For this reason, the ability to display autonomy might prove to be invaluable both for students who, on account of their instructors’ preferences, are deprived of the opportunity to improve their command of grammar even though they need it for academic or vocational purposes, and for those who may be discontent with the manner in which TL features are taught, either because instruction excessively focuses on the product (e.g., stressing rules, accuracy or formal practice), or, on the contrary, is too innovative, being conﬁned to items that are problematic (e.g., corrective feedback after the performance of a communicative 10 M. Pawlak task). Secondly, the need for autonomy is justiﬁed by the fact that the teaching of grammar can only be fully effective if it takes account of the varying proﬁciency levels, the place on the interlanguage continuum (i.e., orders and sequences of acquisition), often disparate goals and needs, as well as a wide array of individual learner differences, ranging from various components of aptitude (e.g., working memory), through self-concept (e.g., self-evaluation of grammar competence), to fluctuating motivation (e.g., involvement in some grammar tasks but not in others) (see e.g., Dörnyei, 2005; Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015; Williams, Mercer, & Ryan, 2015). It is clear that accommodating all of these variables during a language lesson is simply not feasible and only learners themselves can ensure the occurrence of optimal conditions and environments in their own time on condition that they are equipped with the right tools and have the necessary mindset. Thirdly, indepen- dence and self-direction are important for the development of both explicit and implicit knowledge, although perhaps not to the same degree. In the case of the former, an autonomous approach is useful because it will aid learners in better grasping the relevant rules, identifying problem areas that may be in need of attention, seeking out resources that can be instruments in overcoming difﬁculties, or going beyond the homework assignments set by the teacher by doing additional exercises involving speciﬁc TL features. However, in the case of the development of implicit knowledge, or accomplishing a high degree of automaticity of explicit knowledge, the ability and readiness to manifest autonomy seems to be a necessary condition for the reason that such a goal is clearly unattainable in the severely limited classroom time where numerous objectives need to be pursued. The steps that can be taken to foster autonomy in learning grammar are outlined in the following section. 4 Ways of Promoting Autonomy in Teaching Foreign Language Grammar An autonomous approach to learning grammar can be encouraged in a number of ways, many of which mirror the techniques that can be applied to foster autonomy in the process of foreign language learning in its entirety (see e.g., Benson, 2011; Komorowska, 2003; Pawlak et al., 2006). Since a thorough consideration of all of these actions is beyond the scope of this paper and would in all likelihood require a book of its own, in the subsections that follow, some basic ways of fostering autonomy in this respect will ﬁrst be briefly outlined and subsequently three areas will be singled out for a more in-depth discussion, that is raising learners’ aware- ness of issues involved in learning and teaching grammar, acquainting them with grammar learning strategies, and promoting the use of information and computer technology (ICT) in the study of TL grammar. Obviously, the application of these techniques has to be carefully premediated taking into account the speciﬁcity of a The Role of Autonomy in Learning and Teaching … 11 given learner group, with the effect that not all of them will be effective or suitable under all circumstances. 4.1 Necessary Steps Towards Fostering Autonomy in Learning Grammar When it comes to some rudimentary, one could even say necessary, steps that should be resorted to in order to instill in learners an autonomous approach to learning grammar, they are closely linked with the way grammar is introduced and practiced in the classroom, which recognizes the impact of predominant instruc- tional procedures on the choice of learning strategies. These steps can be sum- marized as follows: 1) encouraging a discovery approach to learning grammar, which entails greater emphasis on different forms of induction; however, this should not be inter- preted as meaning that getting learners to discover rules should be the default mode of introducing grammar, as the character of a speciﬁc TL feature, learner characteristics or the available amount of time can dictate otherwise (see Pawlak, 2006); 2) setting up tasks enabling collaborative construction of grammatical knowledge, where, in line with the claims of sociocultural theory (Lantolf, 2006), learners engage in what is referred to as collaborative dialog (Swain, 2000) or lan- guaging (Swain, 2006), reflecting on the use of the target language; one example of such a task is a dictogloss activity, where students listen to a text containing a lot of instances of the targeted feature, read twice at normal speed, take notes and then have to come up with a text as close to the original as possible; 3) creating opportunities to use the structures taught in communication, as this is needed to trigger the development of implicit knowledge or at least bring about automatization of explicit knowledge, without which real-time use of grammar is impossible; this can be attained through frequent reliance on focused com- munication tasks (see above), or the use of corrective feedback in response to a particular category of errors in the course of communicative activities (e.g., the passive in descriptions of famous landmarks); 4) encouraging experimentation with new language forms, which, yet again, calls for tasks that require learners to use those forms for message conveyance in speaking or in writing (e.g., making up a story in which the Past Continuous has to be employed or describing houses or apartments, which calls for the use of prepositions); 5) familiarizing learners with additional resources for the learning of grammar, such as dictionaries in which they can ﬁnd information about how speciﬁc parts of speech are used, or reference books, which provide detailed information about all the dimensions of a speciﬁc structure; 12 M. Pawlak 6) providing appropriate training in the use of such resources, which can ensure skillful and effective application thereof in different situations; this might involve, for instance, explaining to students what the codes included in the dictionary mean or asking them to seek out forms meeting speciﬁed criteria; 7) encouraging productive and receptive use of the target language outside the classroom, a goal that may not be easy to achieve in the case of students coming from families with limited ﬁnancial resources, residing in places where access to the TL is hard to come by or having difﬁculty in accessing the Internet; even under unpropitious circumstances, though, teachers can advise learners to attend to the use of the grammar structures that have recently been taught as they watch movies, read books or journals, and, when such oppor- tunities present themselves, to actually use them when interacting with for- eigners face to face or by means of the computer; 8) asking students to create their own exercises and tasks in which the grammar structures that have recently been taught have to be used; these activities can primarily serve the purpose of establishing and gaining control over explicit knowledge but they could also foster the automatization of such knowledge or the growth of the implicit representation; students could, for example, design exercises requiring application of narrative tenses or ﬁnd a set of pictures or drawings which, when divided between group members, could provide opportunities for the use of these TL features in spontaneous communication; 9) raising learners’ awareness of grammar-related issues, which could, for instance, take the form of getting learners to confront the myths discussed earlier in the present paper, making them cognizant of the complexity of this TL subsystem, familiarizing them with the three dimensions of grammatical knowledge, or explaining and exemplifying the notion of orders and sequences of acquisition; 10) raising learners’ awareness of their own use of grammar, which boils down to honing the skills of monitoring and self-evaluation with the purpose of attending to and noticing potential problems with the use of grammar; learners could be asked, for example, to audio-record their descriptions of famous places with the use of the passive voice and then listen to them in order to identify or correct their errors; another possibility is asking students to act in the capacity of observers in focused communication tasks, jot down errors in the use of the targeted structure and then discuss them with their peers. 4.2 Raising Awareness of Learning and Teaching Grammar Although sensitizing students to the complexity of grammar, mentioned in the previous section, plays an important role, even more useful in shaping their autonomy is likely to be raising their awareness about the process of learning and teaching of this TL subsystem. This aim could be accomplished, among other The Role of Autonomy in Learning and Teaching … 13 things, by asking students to express their preferences concerning the study of grammar in a whole-class mode, initiating small-group discussion about the most efﬁcacious ways of learning and teaching grammar, perhaps using narratives describing speciﬁc learner proﬁles in this respect as a point of reference. Students could also be encouraged to keep a diary about the difﬁculties they encounter in learning grammar and the ways in which they deal with them, or to self-assess their use of grammar structures in different tasks, for example with the help of audio-recordings of oral and written output, an idea mentioned above, analysis of the errors they committed that were noted down by the teacher, or speciﬁcally designed self-assessment grids completed immediately after the completion of a given activity. Since, due to insufﬁcient knowledge, learners may experience dif- ﬁculty in identifying pivotal issues on their own, what might be particularly enlightening is administering questionnaires related to various aspects of form-focused instruction, and then discussing their outcomes. Questionnaires of this kind, such as the one designed by Pawlak (2011, 2013b), could, for example, tap into learners’ opinions concerning overall importance of FFI, also with respect to speciﬁc language skills, the choice of syllabus (e.g., structural vs. task-based), the way in which lessons devoted to teaching grammar are constructed (e.g., the degree to which FFI is integrated into communicative tasks or happens in isolation), the manner in which grammar structures are introduced (e.g. deduction vs. induction), the approaches to practicing structures with which students have been familiarized (controlled vs. communicative activities), and ways of responding to grammar errors (e.g., timing, source, the degree of explicitness, the requirement for self-correction) (see also Loewen et al., 2009; Spada & Lightbown, 2008). To give an example, awareness about introducing TL features could be enhanced with the use of the following Likert-scale items: “It is best to discover grammar rules together with other students”, “I like to discover grammar rules by myself”, “I prefer to read or listen to texts containing new structures rather than be given rules”, “It is best when the teacher explains grammar rules”, “I ﬁnd it helpful when the teacher uses my mother tongue to explain grammar”, “I am convinced that the use of terminology is important in teaching grammar”, or “It helps me when demon- stration is used in teaching grammar”. Of course, items included in questionnaires would need in most cases to be formulated in learners’ ﬁrst language and worded without recourse to complex terminology in order to ensure ample understanding. Also, when open-ended questions are included, students should be allowed to provide responses in the language of their choosing. 4.3 Familiarizing Learners with Grammar Learning Strategies An integral part of any long-term program aimed to develop autonomy with respect to learning foreign language grammar should be encouraging students to fall back 14 M. Pawlak upon grammar learning strategies (GLS), an area that has been conspicuously neglected by researchers (Cohen, 2011; Oxford, Rang Lee, & Park, 2007; Pawlak, 2009, 2012b). Strategies of this kind can be deﬁned as “deliberate thoughts and actions students employ for learning and getting better control over the use of grammar structures” (Cohen & Pinilla-Herrera, 2009, p. 64), which implies that successful application of such strategic devices stimulates the growth of explicit knowledge of rules and the ability to employ them in real-time processing. Pawlak (2012b), basing on general taxonomies of language learning strategies, catego- rizations of instructional options that can be employed in FFI and previous research ﬁndings, proposed a division of GLS into four groups, namely: (1) metacognitive GLS, used to plan, monitor and evaluate the learning process (e.g., previewing grammar structures to be covered in a lesson, having speciﬁc objectives in learning grammar), (2) affective GLS, drawn upon to deal with the feelings and emotions involved in the process of grammar learning (e.g., relaxing when experiencing problems in understanding or using grammar features, encouraging oneself to engage in additional practice), (3) social GLS, which involve cooperation with others when studying or practicing grammar structures (e.g., asking the teacher to repeat or explain a grammar point which has not been understood, practicing grammar structures with other students), and (4) cognitive GLS, which are applied directly in activities focusing on grammar structures. While the ﬁrst three groups are equally applicable to learning all aspects of the TL, the last one takes account of the speciﬁcity of learning and gaining greater control of the different dimensions of grammar, with the effect that it deserves more thorough treatment at this point. Pawlak (2012b) subdivides such strategies into four groups, namely: (1) cognitive GLS used in communicative tasks (e.g. trying to use speciﬁc grammar structures in communication, reading for pleasure or watching television to improve grammar, noticing and remembering TL features that cause problems with getting messages across), (2) cognitive GLS for developing explicit knowledge (e.g., paying attention to the rules provided by the teacher or course- book, grouping grammar structures to remember them better, trying to discover grammar rules by analyzing examples), (3) cognitive GLS for developing implicit knowledge (e.g., listening to and reading texts containing many examples of the targeted structure, comparing the way in which grammar is used with the learner’s own language production, trying to use grammar rules in a meaningful context), and (4) cognitive GLS related to error correction (e.g., listening for any feedback that the teacher gives, trying to notice and self-correct errors in the use of grammar, monitoring one’s spoken and written output with respect to the use of the TL features taught). Obviously, extensive training in the use of these strategies is needed following one of the models proposed in the literature (e.g., Chamot, 2005), with the main principles of such strategy-based instruction (SBI) being that it should start with metacognitive GLS, be comprehensive, direct and explicit, begin early in foreign language education, involve numerous practice opportunities, and rely, if need be, on the use of learners’ mother tongue (see Chamot, 2004). Since such training would necessarily be time-consuming and in many cases needs to be The Role of Autonomy in Learning and Teaching … 15 reconciled with SBI in other areas, its nature and extent need to be adjusted to the speciﬁcity of a particular course or program. 4.4 Promoting the Use of ICT in Learning Grammar A powerful tool in developing an autonomous approach to learning foreign grammar is without doubt ICT, which provides learners with copious opportunities to develop both their explicit and implicit knowledge with respect to all the dimensions listed by Larsen-Freeman (2003), that is form, meaning and use, such that could never be provided during language lessons. In addition, the fact that these resources are easily accessible at any time and space, and that they can be selected in accordance with learners’ goals, needs, learning styles and strategies makes them particularly conducive to fostering autonomy, not only in learning grammar but all the efforts invested in learning the target language. What needs to be emphasized, however, is that it would perhaps be wishful thinking to assume that learners will avail of such opportunities of their own accord or that just recommending the use of technology will be sufﬁcient. In fact, students have to be actively encouraged to engage in the use of ICT in learning grammar and this could involve, among other things: demonstrating to students how they can capitalize on the opportunities offered by word processors and presentation software (the use of grammar checkers but also enhancing awareness of their limitations, including feedback in texts pro- duced by other learners, creating presentations devoted to grammar for self-instruction purposes); training students in effective use of electronic dictionaries, whether those available on DVDs, smartphones or online (e.g., understanding grammatical information which they provide, taking advantage of examples of authentic use of the targeted structures, performing activities on grammar that some dic- tionaries contain); familiarizing students with the beneﬁts of using corpora, or “(…) large collec- tions of both spoken and written natural texts” (Reppen & Simpson-Vlach, 2010, p. 89), and the related tools in the classroom and outside (e.g., discovering and checking typical patterns, using popular search engines for the same pur- pose); this has to involve copious practice opportunities so that learners can develop the necessary skills; promoting the use of educational software which is easily available on the market and demonstrating how such software can be used for the beneﬁt of enhancing grammatical knowledge, whether explicit or implicit; even when such programs primarily rely upon traditional exercises, their strength is the availability of immediate, sometimes student-tailored feedback, and access to useful reference tools; 16 M. Pawlak demonstrating how Internet-based resources can aid the learning of grammar, both in relation to generic websites, where authentic written and spoken texts can be found, enabling investigation of grammar items, and dedicated ones, speciﬁcally intended for language learning and typically containing elements assisting the study of grammar; encouraging the use of Internet communicators or virtual worlds, since syn- chronous computer-mediated communication of this kind can allow the use of the targeted items in real time and, if it is conducted with native-speakers or advanced language users, can be a valuable source of corrective feedback; this has the potential beneﬁt of enhancing implicit knowledge in conditions when more attentional resources are available for processing form-meaning mappings. 5 Implications and Caveats As elucidated in the present paper, the complexity and multidimensionality of grammar dictate that there is an obvious need to take actions intended to promote autonomy in learning this target language subsystem. Encouraging such an autonomous approach is also warranted in view of the fact that the degree to which learners need to know and use grammar structures is bound to vary and the effectiveness of the learning process is mediated by individual difference variables which can best be accommodated by learners themselves. This said, it should be emphasized that the ways in which this goal can and should be achieved will vary from one class, program or even individual to another. It seems clear, for example, that autonomy in this respect is of pivotal importance for students in foreign lan- guages departments who are expected to master difﬁcult grammar structures and use them effectively in communication. On the other end of the spectrum, it is difﬁcult to take issue with the assumption that an autonomous approach in this area will be of little signiﬁcance for individuals who sign up for language courses with a view to developing a basic command of the target language in order to get by in everyday situations. It should also be stressed that the amount of autonomy is a matter of degree, different levels of this attribute may be manifested by different learners, and some of them, due to the beliefs they hold, may refuse to exercise self-direction in this area, with all of this indicating that the goals of independence in learning grammar should be realistic and compatible with the characteristics of a speciﬁc context. The last caveat is that an autonomous approach to learning TL grammar is by no means intended to entirely replace more traditional form-focused instruction which is delivered by the teacher, but, rather, to complement it, thus enhancing its effectiveness and supporting the use of grammar in communication. This is because, while the teacher may at the end of the day be the ultimate authority for most school learners when it comes to explaining the rules of grammar and deciding about the ways in which grammar structures can be practiced, it is only by going beyond classroom and homework assignments, taking advantage of the right The Role of Autonomy in Learning and Teaching … 17 resources and applying appropriate learning strategies that students can fully develop explicit knowledge and automatize it to such an extent that it can be effortlessly used in spontaneous communication. References Batstone, R. (1994). Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Benson, P. (2007). Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 40, 21–40. Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and researching autonomy (2nd ed.). London: Pearson Education. Benson, P., & Voller, P. (Eds.). (2013). Autonomy and independence in language learning. London and New York: Routledge. Celce-Murcia, M. (2015). An overview of teaching grammar in ELT. In M. A. Christison, D. Christian, P. A. Duff, & N. Spada (Eds.), Teaching and learning English grammar: Research ﬁndings and future directions (pp. 3–18). New York and London: Routledge. Chamot, A. U. (2004). Issues in language learning strategy research and teaching. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 1, 14–26. Chamot, A. U. (2005). The cognitive academic language learning approach (CALLA): An update. In P. A. Richard-Amato & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Academic success for English language learners: Strategies for K-12 mainstream teachers (pp. 87–101). White Plains, NY: Longman. Cohen, A. D., & Pinilla-Herrera, A. (2009). Communicating grammatically: Constructing a learner strategies website for Spanish. In T. Kao & Y. Lin (Eds.), A new look at language teaching and testing: English as subject and vehicle (pp. 63–83). Taipei, Taiwan: The Language Training and Testing Center. Cohen, A. D. (2011). Strategies in learning and suing a second language. London and New York: Routledge. DeKeyser, R. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 97–113). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. DeKeyser, R. (2010). Cognitive-psychological process in second language learning. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 119–138). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner. Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. New York and London: Routledge. Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (1998). Teaching and research: Options in grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 39–60. Ellis, R. (2005). Instructed language learning and task-based teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 713–728). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ellis, R. (2007). Implicit and explicit learning, knowledge, and instruction. In R. Ellis, S. Loewen, C. Elder, J. Philp, H. Reinders, & R. Erlam (Eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching (pp. 3–25). Bristol, Buffalo, Toronto: Multilingual Matters. Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2010a). Epilogue: A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 335–349. Ellis, R. (2010b). Explicit form-focused instruction and second language acquisition. In B. Spolsky & F. M. Hult (Eds.), The handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 437–455). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 18 M. Pawlak Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy in foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Komorowska, H. (2003). Metodyka nauczania języków obcych [Methodology of foreign language teaching]. Warszawa: Fraszka Edukacyjna. Lantolf, J. P. (2006). Sociocultural theory and L2: State of the art. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 67–109. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2001). Teaching grammar. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed., pp. 251–266). Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002). Understanding language. In A. Pulverness, A. (Ed.), IATEFL 2002: York conference selections (pp. 23–31). Whitstable: IATEFL. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Toronto: Thomson and Heinle. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2010). Teaching and testing grammar. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 518–542). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Larsen-Freeman, D., & DeCarrico, J. (2010). Grammar. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics (pp. 18–33). London: Hodder Education. Littlewood, W. (1996). ‘Autonomy’: An anatomy and a framework. System, 24, 427–435. Littlewood, W. (1999). Deﬁning and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts. Applied Linguistics, 20, 71–94. Loewen, S. (2011). Focus on form. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. II, pp. 577–592). New York and London: Routledge. Loewen, S. (2014). The role of feedback. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 24–40). London and New York. Routledge. Loewen, S. (2015). Introduction to instructed second language acquisition. London and New York: Routledge. Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thompson, A., Nakatsukasa, K., Ahn, S., & Chen, X. (2009). L2 learners’ beliefs about grammar instruction and error correction. Modern Language Journal, 93, 91–104. Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A., & Pawlak, M. (2012). Production-oriented and comprehension-based grammar teaching in the foreign language classroom. Heidelberg, New York: Springer. Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context. New York and London: Routledge. Oxford, R. L., Rang Lee, K., & Park, G. (2007). L2 grammar strategies: The second Cinderella and beyond. In A. D. Cohen & E. Macaro (Eds.), Language learner strategies (pp. 117–139). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pawlak, M. (2004). On the effectiveness of options in grammar teaching: Translating theory and research into classroom practice. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 40, 269–287. Pawlak, M. (2006). The place of form-focused instruction in the foreign language classroom. Poznań, Kalisz: Adam Mickiewicz University Press. Pawlak, M. (2009). Grammar learning strategies and language attainment: Seeking a relationship. Research in Language, 7, 43–60. Pawlak, M. (2011). Cultural differences in perceptions of form-focused instruction: The case of advanced Polish and Italian learners. In A. Wojtaszek & J. Arabski, J. (Eds.), Aspects of culture in second language acquisition and foreign language learning (pp. 77–94). Heidelberg, New York: Springer. Pawlak, M. (2012a). Variability in the use of implicit knowledge: The effect of task, level and linguistic form. In E. Piechurska-Kuciel & L. Piasecka (Eds.), Variability and stability in foreign and second language learning contexts (pp. 279–298). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Pawlak, M. (2012b). Grammar learning strategies: State of the art. In L. Pedrazzini & A. Nava (Eds.), Learning and teaching English: Insights from research (pp. 69–90). Monza-Milano: Polimetrica. The Role of Autonomy in Learning and Teaching … 19 Pawlak, M. (2013a). Principles of instructed language learning revisited: Guidelines for effective grammar teaching in the foreign language classroom. In K. Droździał-Szelest & M. Pawlak (Eds.), Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives on second language learning and teaching: Studies in honor if Waldemar Marton (pp. 199–220). Heidelberg, New York: Springer. Pawlak, M. (2013b). Comparing learners’ and teachers’ beliefs about form-focused instruction. In D. Gabryś-Barker, E. Piechurska-Kuciel, & J. Zybert (Eds.), Investigations in teaching and learning languages: Studies in honor of Hanna Komorowska (pp. 109–131). Heidelberg, New York: Springer. Pawlak, M. (2014). Error correction in the foreign language classroom: Reconsidering the issues. Heidelberg, New York: Springer. Pawlak, M., Marciniak, I., Lis, Z., & Bartczak, E. (2006). Jak samodzielnie poznawać języki i kultury? Przewodnik metodyczny dla nauczycieli do Europejskiego portfolio językowego dla uczniów szkół ponadgimnazjalnych i studentów [How to independently get to know languages and cultures. A guide to the European language portfolio for senior high school students and language learners in institutions of higher education]. Warszawa: Centralny Ośrodek Doskonalenia Nauczycieli. Reppen, R., & Simpson-Vlach, R. (2010). Corpus linguistics. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics (pp. 89–105). London: Hodder Education. Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. II, pp. 593–610). New York and London: Routledge. Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated? TESOL Quarterly, 42, 181–207. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97– 114). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proﬁciency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London: Continuum. Swan, M. (2013). Grammar. In E. Simpson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 557–570). London and New York: Routledge. Williams, J. (2005). Form-focused instruction. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 671–691). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Williams, M., Mercer, S., & Ryan, S. (2015). Exploring psychology for language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. A Goal-Setting Logbook as an Instrument Fostering Learner Autonomy Anna Klimas Abstract Learner autonomy is a multifaceted concept and as such it is problematic when we want to implement and propagate its premises among students. If autonomy is advocated to be a goal of language education, it is implied that teachers and educational institutions should attempt to foster autonomy among learners. The focus of the article is on a goal-setting logbook as an instrument that develops students’ positive attitudes towards autonomy. The instrument was originally used in a longitudinal study that aimed at observing its influence on upper secondary students’ motivation to learn English as a foreign language. Since motivation and autonomy are closely related concepts, it has been also discovered that there seems to be a strong connection between goal-setting and autonomy. Some positive consequences of using the logbook were observed, such as, for example, greater effort invested in achieving the set goals, responsibility shared between the teacher and students, the development of metacognitive skills, and more efﬁcient learning. The analysis of students’ goal-setting logbooks led to developing a classiﬁcation of possible strategies of goal-attainment. It comprises four groups of different activities ranging from controlling behavior through cooperating with others and using various resources to employing cognitive skills. 1 Introduction It is widely acknowledged that autonomous learners understand the purpose of their learning, accept the responsibility for how and when they learn, and participate in all kinds of learning activities, such as setting goals, planning, performing tasks, and reflecting on and evaluating the learning process. Although the ability to regulate learning seems to be natural, formal education may inhibit its development. The greatest obstacle in encouraging students to take some responsibility for their own learning appears to be inadequate preparation as well as unfavorable attitudes A. Klimas (&) “Edukacja” College of Management, Wrocław, Poland e-mail: [email protected] © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017 21 M. Pawlak et al. (eds.), Autonomy in Second Language Learning: Managing the Resources, Second Language Learning and Teaching, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-07764-2_2 22 A. Klimas and beliefs concerning the perceived value of such practices represented by teachers themselves. Consequently, the issue of fostering learner autonomy in foreign lan- guage classrooms still requires some consideration. Language teachers can utilize a number of tools that may prove useful in pro- moting learner autonomy, such as self-reports and diaries (Litzler, 2014), project-based work (Errey & Schollaert, 2005) or new technologies (Hafner & Miller, 2011), to mention just a few. Raising students’ awareness and allowing them to take greater control over their learning are the main beneﬁts that these practices bring. Thus, it seems interesting to examine whether such resources are also effective for Polish learners of English as a foreign language. The purpose of the present paper is twofold. Firstly, it provides a brief theoretical overview of autonomy, focusing on the role of goals and goal processes. More speciﬁcally, it considers goals as essential elements of learner autonomy in the classroom context. Interaction between autonomy and motivation, in turn, is one of the main reasons for encouraging learners to be more autonomous. Obviously, developing autonomy in formal situations cannot take place without the teacher’s engagement and this issue is also addressed. Considering all the above-mentioned issues is helpful in providing the rationale for the second important aim of the paper, which is to present a goal-setting logbook as an instrument that may be used to foster autonomy in a formal learning context. The paper also draws on the partial results of a study during which the tool was implemented. 2 Goals Within the Framework of Learner Autonomy Since autonomy is a widely discussed concept, it seems that we know quite a lot about it from both theoretical and practical perspectives. It is clear, for example, what attributes are associated with autonomous learners. There are also a number of deﬁnitions of this concept, but most researchers concerned with this issue refer to Holec’s (1981, p. 3) conceptualization of autonomy as “the ability to take charge of one’s own learning”. This deﬁnition indicates that an autonomous learner needs to decide independently or in collaboration with others about all areas of learning, that is, selecting objectives, determining materials, tasks, methods as well as criteria of evaluation. Little (2007) makes the point that Holec’s deﬁnition has a number of important implications, which are also relevant to the present study. Firstly, the development of autonomy can be initiated when learners explicitly acknowledge the fact that the full responsibility for the learning process rests with them. Secondly, autonomous learners consciously make use of reflection, analysis and evaluation skills; in addition, they are also able and willing to make use of their knowledge and skills in situations different from learning itself. What is more, Little (2007) points out that there is an affective dimension to autonomy, which means that motivation is a powerful factor determining actual autonomous behaviors. We are not able to fully understand autonomy if we fail to admit that there is a natural A Goal-Setting Logbook as an Instrument … 23 bond between an individual’s degree of independence and the desire to act in this way, the level of persistence, and positive attitudes. It is widely recognized that motivation is a goal-directed activity (cf. Gardner, 2010; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Goals are basic deﬁning attributes of human actions and they constitute an answer to the question of why an individual wants to learn. Goals as such are complex and varied, so there are many ambiguities about the properties of goals and the way in which they are mentally represented. In the ﬁeld of psychology, the impact of goals on people’s performance and achievement can be determined by taking into account the very nature of goals. For example, as Lee, Locke, and Latham (1989) claim, goals have two primary attributes, content and intensity, which are not always easy to separate. Goal content refers to what should be achieved. Thus, goals can be described in terms of four properties: speciﬁcity (clear and speciﬁc goals are associated with generating higher levels of performance and fostering positive attitudes towards the activity), difﬁculty (goals which are too difﬁcult and unreachable are often abandoned), complexity (goals are hierarchically organized), and conflict (there are various reasons for goal conflict, e.g., time and ability constraints, and discrepancy between personal and assigned goals). Goal intensity, in turn, represents the process of setting and accomplishing the goal, and it is analyzed along such dimensions as commitment, perception of the goal’s importance, and the cognitive processes involved in goal attainment. Additionally, other goal characteristics have been proposed: goal proximity (short-term and long-term goals), the level of abstraction (concrete and symbolic/abstract goals), and goal source (self-set and assigned goals). Benson (2011) also draws our attention to the place of goals in autonomous learning. Students may control their learning at three interdependent levels. The ﬁrst level, control over learning management, should be understood in terms of strategies that students employ in order to plan, organize and evaluate their learning. Goals are reference points in all these activities. At this level, control over learning is most directly observable, but stating what learners should be able to do is not enough; this is how the next level of control becomes important. Thus, control over cognitive processes is concerned with the psychology of learning, that is, particular mental processes associated with the idea of control. The areas that have been emphasized to play a crucial role here are attention (the learner’s active intellectual engagement with incoming information), reflection (exploring one’s experiences) and metacognitive knowledge (awareness of how to learn). The last element of learner control, that is, control over learning content, implies a capacity as well as the right to set and evaluate one’s own learning goals. In fact, this assumption is not new as it was Wang and Peverly (1986) who observed that a characteristic feature of autonomous learners is the ability to identify goals, for- mulate their own objectives, and change aims to suit their own learning interests and needs. Hence, learner control over the content seems to be fundamental to autonomy (Benson, 2011). Everything a student wants to achieve is done in relation to speciﬁc goals, and if they are self-determined, the learning process becomes an authentic and dynamic experience, because it is the learner’s own. 24 A. Klimas 3 Interaction Between Autonomy and Motivation The relationship between autonomy and motivation is well established as both concepts share some features, such as learner independence, responsibility, choice, decision-making, or critical reflection (Dam, 2003; Dickinson, 1995; Spratt, 2002; Ushioda, 2003). The interaction between autonomy and motivation becomes readily visible when we take into account the fact that learners have to harmonize multiple goals which, according to Ushioda (2003), include personal needs, teacher requirements, cur- ricular demands, and essential social relations with peers. The last aspect of the classroom environment may pose a considerable threat to teenage learners as the influence of social goals on academic achievements is substantial (Wentzel, 1999). In other words, in a typical classroom there is a variety of conflicting goals which may interfere with the development of motivation and simultaneously suppress the exercise of autonomy. If individual, interpersonal, and pedagogical goals are sup- posed to be coordinated, “learners must be brought to address the issue of moti- vation and to negotiate a framework for classroom learning that they can collectively and individually endorse. In short, there must be scope for autonomy” (Ushioda, 2003, p. 95). This interdependence of both concepts is also well explained by the theory of self-determination (Deci & Ryan, 2002). It states that three basic needs underlie our functioning, and particularly our intrinsic motivation. These are the need for competence (developing and using skills to be efﬁcient in interaction with others, tasks, and the environment), the need for autonomy (independence in deciding what to do and how to do it), and the need for relatedness (a sense of belonging). Hence self-determination is felt when an individual has a choice in the initiation and regulation of his or her actions. Understandably, self-regulation is important for most people; that is why we look for optimal stimulation and challenging activities. The question arises whether anything can be done to preserve and strengthen the link between motivation and the sense of autonomy in the classroom. Individual involvement in decision-making seems to offer a solution (Ushioda, 2003). Thus, providing learners with opportunities to establish personal goals should not be undervalued. When students are engaged in setting short-term goals, they gain a clearer perception of themselves as competent agents. This belief, called efﬁcacy expectation, is seen as the major determinant of goal-setting, activity choice, effort, and persistence (Bandura & Locke, 2003). The goals, however, cannot be too demanding so as not to undermine intrinsic motivation. Moreover, Ushioda (2003) argues that learners will accept the assigned goals if their autonomy is supported, that is, there is some room for negotiation, and their need for self-determination is recognized. In other words, learners should understand that the most important source of motivation is inside them. A Goal-Setting Logbook as an Instrument … 25 4 Autonomy in the Classroom Context Apart from theoretical considerations, it is essential to take into account the ped- agogical perspective on learner autonomy. As Little (e.g., 1999, 2004, 2007) has repeatedly argued, the development of autonomy should be guided by three uni- versal principles. The ﬁrst of them refers to learner involvement or empowerment. It is done by encouraging students to become personally and collectively responsible as well as by creating appropriate conditions for students so that they are more involved. Such actions prove to be successful depending on the time invested and the learning skills developed by learners. The second principle, which is related to metacognitive skills, is called learner reflection. Students should be stimulated to apply critical thinking to planning, monitoring and evaluating their learning. The key element here is self-assessment, with the emphasis laid on identifying weak and strong points. Finally, the third principle, appropriate target language use, reminds us about the necessity of using the target language as the preferred medium of classroom communication. In other words, teachers must direct interaction among students in such a way so as to exploit their language potential. This, in turn, will foster autonomy in language use. Little (2004) indicates that all three principles are clearly interdependent. In other words, learners will not adopt a responsible attitude unless their thinking is guided by deep and critical reflection, and, what is more, students will be positive about language learning on condition that they have the chance to use the target language in a meaningful way. Discussing autonomy from a practical perspective also necessitates a description of the teacher’s responsibilities in this respect. The development of learner autonomy is a gradual and long-lasting process, so it takes some perseverance and skills to reach the ﬁnal stage of this process. Although the change of thinking and attitudes takes place within a learner, it would not be possible without the teacher’s guidance. Consequently, Dam (2003) indicates that the teacher occupies a pivotal role in promoting autonomy in foreign language classrooms. When it comes to teachers’ responsibilities, it seems reasonable to expect that they will be involved in a number of activities (Dam, 2003). First of all, teachers are responsible for com- municating expectations, such as curricular objectives or task requirements, in a clear way. Learners should also be provided with appropriate activities and given choice in organizing work, which will enable them to reach previously assigned goals as well as their personal goals. Secondly, teachers are expected to document learners’ choices by means of special instruments (e.g., logbooks or portfolios), which also fulﬁll the useful function of self-assessment. Finally, teachers should raise learners’ awareness of all the elements of the learning process, and the best way to do it is by initiating and encouraging discussions among learners as well as between the teacher and students. This list of the teacher’s responsibilities is probably not exhaustive; however, it constitutes an important point of reference since it is formulated in agreement with the three pedagogical principles (cf. Little, 2004). 26 A. Klimas 5 The Study 5.1 Objectives Goals seem to be important ingredients of the teaching-learning process. However, they do not function at the level of students’ consciousness because learners are simply not aware of the usefulness of such practices (Klimas, 2010). An average secondary school student has some problems with articulating his or her own goals. Noticing and understanding the teacher’s and peers’ objectives is even more problematic. In addition, learners often fail to consider short-term goals as vital reference points in the language learning process. Originally, this study tried to clarify if the awareness of learning goals that students are required to pursue has a beneﬁcial effect on their motivation and achievement. However, as there is a strong connection between motivation and autonomy, it was observed that some positive attitudes towards autonomous language learning were adopted by the students who participated in the goal-setting procedure. Therefore, it seemed justiﬁed to explore the issue in more detail. Consequently, the major focus in this study was on the link between goal-setting and learner autonomy. The following research questions were addressed: 1. Does the goal-setting procedure have any influence on shaping students’ posi- tive attitudes towards autonomous language learning? 2. How does the goal-setting procedure foster autonomy among upper secondary school students? 5.2 Participants The participants were 30 students (19 females and 11 males) in two classes in one of the upper-secondary schools in Wrocław. They were all in the second grade (17– 18 years of age). English was a compulsory school subject for them, with three hours of instruction a week. Their level of language proﬁciency was pre-intermediate. 5.3 Instrument The instrument employed in the research project was a goal-setting logbook (see the Appendix). It was developed speciﬁcally for the purpose of the study investigating the effectiveness of the goal-setting procedure; hence, all the instructions as well as the content of the logbook were in Polish to ensure that the instrument was reliable. A Goal-Setting Logbook as an Instrument … 27 The logbook was divided into two parts, one of which was to be completed at the beginning of the week. The other one was to be ﬁlled in after the period assigned for goal pursuit. It was designed in the form of a chart divided into six columns. In the ﬁrst one, the subjects could see the goals speciﬁed for one week of study. This part was completed by the teacher on the basis of syllabus requirements. Additionally, the students were regularly and strongly encouraged to suggest and write down their own goals. The remaining columns in the ﬁrst part were ﬁlled in by the participants of the study with the following information: the importance they attach to particular goals (on the scale from 5 [very important] to 1 [irrelevant]), actions they were going to take in order to achieve the goals, possible obstacles that might occur on the way towards the goal and methods that could be employed to deal with them. The second part of the instrument contained an evaluation com- ponent of the logbook. Hence, the participants were asked to assess the goal-setting process by indicating the degree of goal achievement, which was expressed as percentages, and making comments on what happened during the whole week. The logbook is thus a kind of a semi-structured instrument whose main aims are to keep learners informed of what was happening in the classroom, share some responsi- bility with them and develop their reflective thinking skills. 5.4 Procedure The goal-setting procedure was based on the belief that goal-setting is a powerful method of arousing and, what seems to be even more important, sustaining stu- dents’ motivation to learn English in the school context. This assumption, in turn, was to be ensured by a longitudinal character of the research. The participants were asked to hold goal-setting as well as goal evaluation sessions on a regular basis, that is once a week, throughout the whole school year. All the goals included in the procedure were determined on the basis of the syllabus, so they included various language learning objectives. What is more, certain goal features were essential to the successful completion of the project. Consequently, the goals were carefully selected and described as short-term (one week assigned for reaching the goals), concrete (referring to speciﬁc skills), realistic (adjusted to students’ level and abilities) and reachable (representing an optimal challenge). Providing properly deﬁned goals, however, is not enough to guarantee that they are achieved. For this reason, once the initial goal-setting was done and the goals were introduced, the participants were asked to develop a plan of action. They did it individually by completing the third column in their goal-setting logbooks. The data collected in this way were analyzed in terms of strategies the participants employed and which helped them become more engaged in their own learning process. 28 A. Klimas 5.5 Results and Comments As the main study was designed to obtain the data on motivational influences of the goal-setting procedure, it was necessary to carry out supplementary qualitative analysis of the initial results in order to tap into the processes associated with autonomy. For the purpose of this paper, only those data are taken into account. In this section, the results concerning the stage of goal implementation will be pre- sented and analyzed. First of all, the degree of goal acceptance was assessed by calculating the mean results for goal importance (the second column in the logbook). Goals were rated unfavorably in very few cases, and the mean value of goal acceptance (M = 4.26) indicates that the students acknowledged the suggested objectives. Nevertheless, at the beginning of the study, it turned out that the students had problems with establishing the procedures for goal implementation because they lacked certain cognitive and metacognitive skills. In other words, they needed to reflect on their learning more deeply. The role of the teacher was thus to clarify how it could be done. Brainstorming students’ ideas proved very useful as it allowed them to invent and verbalize some possible ways of pursuing their goals. In the course of time, the participants were given an option not to complete this part of the logbook since they were becoming increasingly familiar with the planning stage. Hence, the frequen- cies of particular actions cannot be reported. Having analyzed the logbooks, it was possible to distinguish 39 different actions that could lead to goal attainment. On this basis, certain g

Autonomy in Second Language Learning: Managing the Resources PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue