A summary of Phil Benson’s Making sense of autonomy in language learning

In the introduction part Benson recalls a gathering about „autonomy” at the University
of Cambridge back in 1976. As he was reading a mimeographed collection of it, he realized
that the issues concerning autonomy are still relevant to this day. On the other hand, the
questions of autonomy in language learning have altered. With this chapter he is addressing
the question of the difficulty of coming to terms when defining the term autonomy itself, how
we can “make sense of” the idea of it and how it relates to the broader context of the world’s
growing interest in autonomy in language learning.
The first section of this chapter is the problem of definition. The 21 st century has
brought a significant change in autonomy in language teaching and learning. Benson recalls
his previous study on the subject and states that in the last 25 years the literature on autonomy
has multiplied. However, with its growing recognition, the theory leaves us with two major
issues. One is the meanings attached to autonomy. According to researchers, autonomy is
most likely the capacity to take charge (Holec, 1981) or control (Benson, 2001) someone’s
learning process, but this “capacity” is hard to be defined. Benson declares in an earlier study
that autonomy is “a multidimensional capacity that will take different forms for different
individuals, and even for the same individual in different contexts or at different times”
(Benson, 2001, p. 47). The other issue is that those who are involved in the topic are to find
out why it became so popular globally recently. The people working on the idea of autonomy
do not mind the sudden interest but are certain that the essence of understanding autonomy is
getting lost in the process.
The second section discusses the origins of autonomy. It is a borrowed non-linguistic
concept introduced to language teaching from political philosophy. It is believed that in the
late 70’s educators were familiar with autonomy they just did not think it was relevant to
language education. In the 60’s autonomy was borrowed from psychology to understand the
learner’s role in the language learning process. Nowadays, the phenomenon that is the idea of
autonomy is probably because it is associated with language learning practices e.g. distance
learning, self-instruction, etc. The reason that led to the popularity of autonomy today is the
comeback of language classrooms with its learner-focused practice dated back to the 70’s and
80’s.
In the third section Benson introduces the strategies for making sense of autonomy.
Firstly, the kaleidoscopic strategy is about the concept of shaking up components of
autonomy capability, until they fall into something meaningfully organized pattern. What
crucial in this strategy is that it approves on the legitimacy of all definitions. Secondly, the
exegetical strategy includes going back to a previous source in the sense of autonomy,
interpreting it and claiming that this interpretation is the main essence of autonomy. The
interpretation of his own concept is that autonomy was primarily linked to the idea of control
over learning within context and that emerged around the idea of autonomy in language
learning. Thirdly, the quintessential strategy mainly means the discovery of what is essential
to autonomy. Autonomy’s 'quintessence' rests not so much in psychology as in the capacity
and independence to determine your learning content.
The fourth section is titled with the questions “why autonomy?” and “why now?”.
This section is divided into three parts, each for answering the title questions. The first one is
about the global expansion of second language learning. This expansion can be seen in a
bigger biographical diversity; the number of migrations in order to attain a language or teach a
language; individuality of learners in the classroom; etc. Benson describes two possible ways
explaining the growing interest in autonomy: 1. Every individual has a different background
and purpose for second language learning.; 2. A realistic approach to the issues that mass
second language education can have, in which students are responsible for their learning
process.
The second one sheds light on the self as a reflexive project. This project focuses on the
individual’s self-growth in second language learning through the ever-changing cultural
frameworks we are in now. Second language learners tend to be the most vulnerable in
globalisation, as studying languages means an attempt to reconcile the identities of the first
and second languages. The last one proposes the technologization of the self. Benson explains
Cameron’s (2002, p. 75) views on the subject that are connected to self-improvement via
books, tv shows and self-maintenance including sports and beauty, also communication skills
seems to be important in the new globalised world. Benson argues that these factors are more
in connection with the previous paragraph, reflexive project stating that it is the learner’s
responsibility to adapt to the new world.
Finally, the fifth section examines the ambiguity of autonomy. The idea here is
examining what autonomy should mean not what it means. Two publications are mentioned
here; one is Nation’s explanation of autonomy that is “autonomous learners take control and
responsibility for their own learning” (2001, p. 394). The other is from Scharle and Szabó
(2000, p. 4), who have a somewhat similar definition in their handbook, which also discusses
learner’s responsibility. Furthermore, in this paragraph Benson agrees with Smith’s (2003)
theory that for many learners, autonomy is suppressed by the educational system and as a
result of this, people appear to like this certain autonomy, the one required by schools and
society. Lantolf and Pavlenko’s (2001, p. 145) idea that “learners are people” seems to please
the writer even though they do not use the term, autonomy. In his very last argument, he
points out the significance of the role of teachers in second language learners’ lives.
In the conclusion, Benson mentions the two problems and his aim with the chapter that
were the problem of defining autonomy and the present interest in it and how he tried to prove
that these problems affect one another. Autonomy has many definitions and they may all be
equally correct. One cannot say. What really matters here is whether one believes in the need
to comply or they believe in themselves and their control over self-improvement.

References

Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning. Harlow:

Longman.
Cameron, D. (2002). Globalization and the teaching of communication skills. In Globalization
and Language Teaching, eds. D. Block & D. Cameron. 67–82. London: Routledge.
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Lantolf, J. P. & A. Pavlenko. (2001). (S)econd (L)anguage (A)ctivity theory: Understanding
second language learners as people. In Learner Contributions to Language Learning: New
directions in research, ed. M. Breen. 141–58. London: Pearson Education.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Scharle, Á. & A. Szabó. (2000). Learner Autonomy: A guide to developing learner
responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, R. C. (2003). Pedagogy for autonomy as (becoming-)appropriate methodology. In
Learner Autonomy Across Cultures: Language education perspectives, eds. D. Palfreyman &
R. C. Smith. 129–46. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.