Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-pztms Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-29T10:27:54.493Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Language learner autonomy: Rethinking language teaching

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 October 2020

David Little
David Little*
Affiliation:
Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
*
Email: dlittle@tcd.ie
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

For me, ‘language learner autonomy’ denotes a teaching/learning dynamic in which learners plan, implement, monitor and evaluate their own learning. From the beginning they do this as far as possible in the target language, which thus becomes a channel of their individual and collaborative agency. By exercising agency in the target language they gradually develop a proficiency that is reflective as well as communicative, and the target language becomes a fully integrated part of their plurilingual repertoire and identity.

Information

Type
First Person Singular
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , January 2022 , pp. 64 - 73
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alexander, R. (2020). A dialogic teaching companion. London, UK/New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
Breen, M. P. (1987). Contemporary paradigms in syllabus design, part II. Language Teaching: Surveys and Studies, 20(3), 157–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Council of Europe. (2020). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Deci, E. L., & Flaste, R. (1996). Why we do what we do: Understanding self-motivation. New York, NY: Penguin.Google Scholar
Dworkin, G. (1988). The theory and practice of autonomy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2019). Towards a modular language curriculum for using tasks. Language Teaching Research, 23(4), 454–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission. (2012). The European survey on language competences. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.Google Scholar
Hanks, J. (2017). Exploratory practice in language teaching: Puzzling about principles and practices. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford, UK: Pergamon. First published 1979, Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
King, A. (1993). From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College Teaching, 41(1), 30–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leaver, B. L., Davidson, D. E., & Campbell, C. (Eds.) (2021). Transformative language learning and teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, D. (1995). Learning as dialogue: The dependence of learner autonomy on teacher autonomy. System, 23(2), 175–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, D. (2009). Learner autonomy in action: Adult immigrants learning English in Ireland. In Kjisik, F., Voller, P., Aoki, N., & Nakata, Y. (Eds.), Mapping the terrain of learner autonomy: Learning environments, learning communities and identities (pp. 51–85). Tampere, Finland: Tampere University Press.Google Scholar
Little, D. (2016). Learner autonomy and telecollaborative language learning. In Jager, S., Kurek, M., & O'Rourke, B. (Eds.), New directions in telecollaborative research and practice: Selected papers from the second conference on telecollaboration in higher education (pp. 44–55). Research-publishing.net.Google Scholar
Little, D., Dam, L., & Legenhausen, L. (2017). Language learner autonomy: Theory, practice and research. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Little, D., & Erickson, G. (2015). Learner identity, learner agency, and the assessment of language proficiency: Some reflections prompted by the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 120–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, D., & Kirwan, D. (2019). Engaging with linguistic diversity: A study of educational inclusion in an Irish primary school. London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, D., & Lazenby Simpson, B. (2009). Teaching immigrants the language of the host community: Two object lessons in the need for continuous policy development. In Alderson, J. C. (Ed.), The politics of language education: Individuals and institutions (pp. 104–124). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Little, D., & Ushioda, E. (1998). Institution-wide language programmes: A research-and-development approach to their design, implementation and evaluation. London, UK: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research.Google Scholar
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mercer, N. (2000). Words & minds: How we use language to think together. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Olson, D. R. (1991). Literacy and metalinguistic activity. In Olson, D. R. & Torrance, N. (Eds.), Literacy and orality (pp. 251–270). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sfard, A. (2015). Why all this talk about talking classrooms? Theorizing the relation between talking and learning. In Resnick, L. B., Asterhan, C. S. C., & Clarke, S. N. (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through academic talk and dialogue (pp. 243–252). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Truscott, J., & Sharwood Smith, M. (2019). Theoretical frameworks in L2 acquisition. In Schwieter, J. W. & Benati, A. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of language learning (pp. 84–107). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ushioda, E. (2011). Why autonomy? Insights from motivation theory and research. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 5(2), 221–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M. (2017). Complex Dynamic Systems Theory and L2 pedagogy: Lessons to be learned. In Ortega, L. & Han, Z. H. (Eds.), Complexity Theory and language development (pp. 143–162). Amsterdam, Netherlands/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar