BREAKING WITH CHINESE CULTURAL TRADITIONS:LEARNER AUTONOMY IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING
JUDY HO* and DAVID CROOKALLf
*City University of Hong Kong, fUniversite de Technologic de Compiegne
and IUFM de Picardie
Basic thinking regarding certain aspects of learner autonomy is presented as well as certain cultural traits (such as the Chinese concern with face) which may be an obstacle to the promotion of autonomy, especially in the more traditional organization of some classrooms. The use of large-scale simulation can, however, transform the ordinary classroom into a learning environment that powerfully promotes learner autonomy. A concrete example of how this actually happened is discussed in detail, as are the cultural traits that both hinder and encourage autonomy in such a setting. The conclusion is that it is through concrete actions of taking responsibility that autonomy is learned.
THE PATH TO AUTONOMY
The pursuit of learning after the completion of a formal course is now generally recognized as a legitimate need and goal in the field of education. "[B]ecause of the complexity and rapidity of change in our highly technological societies", it is important to help our learners "to develop the attitude that learning is a life-long process and to acquire the skills of self-directed leaming,, (Knowles, 1976: p. 23, cited in Wenden, 1987: p. 9). However, due to the highly complex nature of language and language learning (Dickinson and Carver, 1980), encouraging autonomy in language learners often proves to be a doubly difficult objective. In aiming for such an objective, it is useful to ask the following questions. What is learner autonomy? What kinds of obstacles might be encountered by a teacher in promoting autonomy in a traditional classroom setting? How might these obstacles be overcome? Specifically, how might the classroom be transformed into a learning environment that facilitates the promotion of autonomy?
In this paper we will, first, provide a glimpse of some of the basic thinking regarding certain aspects of autonomy. Next, we will consider how certain aspects of a learner's cultural background may impede the promotion of autonomy. Finally, we will give an account of how a simulation can transform the traditional classroom into a learning environment that is able to deal with the constraints to the promotion of autonomy presented by culture.
ASPECTS OF LEARNER AUTONOMY
Learner autonomy is generally recognized as an important ^pedagogical goal" (Wenden, 1987), a philosophy of learning” (Henner-Stanchina and Riley, 1978: p. 75), “an unavoidable
methodological option” (Narcy, 1994) and as representing "the upper limit of self-directed learning measured on a notional scale from fully directed to fully autonomous leaming,, (Dickinson, 1978). As the terms goal, philosophy, method and notion would suggest, autonomy is not easily defined in a concrete and tangible manner. Nevertheless certain kinds of knowledge, skills and attitudes can be said to characterize and/or lead towards autonomous learning.
First among these is self-knowledge—knowing what one needs to learn and why. This knowledge provides the basis for the exercise of the following skills, considered key to self-directed or autonomous learning (see Dickinson, 1987; Holec, 1981, 1989):
Choosing instructional materials;
Setting learning objectives and prioritizing them;
Determining when and how long to work on each objective;
Assessing progress and achievements; Evaluating the learning programme.
Learners also need skills to manage their time and to cope with stress and other negative affective factors that may interfere with learning. They also require some basic knowledge about the learning process and the nature of language (see Crookall, 1983; Ellis and Sinclair, 1989; Wenden, 1991). Finally, learners should learn to be self-motivated and self-disciplined.
The extent to which a learner will acquire the above skills and knowledge depends on a host of factors. One of these is the learner's and the teacher's views of and actions in regard to their relationship and roles. Fernandes et al. (1990: p. 101) express it clearly:
In their everyday lives adults are required to . . . make choices and decisions regarding their lives, accept responsibility and learn to do things for themselves. However, language learners in the classroom often tend to revert to the traditional role of pupil, who expects to be told what to do .... As a result, some learners have become teacher-dependent and often feel that it is the teacher alone who is responsible for any learning and progress that takes place.
Therefore, it is generally agreed that for learners to become autonomous, they must redefine their views about teacher-learner roles. However, the burden of the responsibility for such a redefinition should not be assigned solely to learners. The teacher also has a role to play in helping learners realize that they, too, must take on responsibility for their learning.
One way in which this can be done is for the teacher to create an environment in which responsibility is shared. While selected and structured by the teacher, such an environment can allow learners to exercise increasing responsibility through decision making that is either done independently of others or in a situation where they choose to be part of a group and, therefore, to be dependent upon it for their learning. As Dickinson (1978: p. 12) points out ufree choice may in fact be a choice to relinquish (the learner's) autonomy over a particular stretch for a particular purpose".
AUTONOMY AND CULTURE
While personal autonomy appears to be a universally desirable and beneficial objective, it is important to remember that learner autonomy is exercised within the context of specific cultures.
Therefore, in choosing the skills and kinds of knowledge to develop and in selecting the procedures or methods that are to be used to help learners develop skills for autonomy, the culturally- constructed nature of the classroom setting needs to be taken into account. We must also consider how certain cultural traits might either facilitate or inhibit the acquisition of these skills and knowledge and, thus, restrain or assist the development of autonomy.
In societies influenced by Chinese culture, one such trait is social relations in the classroom. Both teachers' and learners' views of classroom roles are deeply rooted in the Chinese tradition of seeing oneself as a part of a''relational hierarchy" (Chang and Hoit, 1994: p. 105). Indeed, the importance of "social relations,, and "hierarchy'' in Chinese culture has been observed by a number of scholars (see, e.g. Hsu, 1985; Chu, 1985; Hwang 1987). This hierarchy of human relations sets the general context within which we must understand Chinese students' respect for authority and their view of the teacher as the authority figure. Scollon and Scollon (1994a: p. 21) make insightful observation about fundamental differences in the way Asians and westerners perceive authority.
The Asian focuses on the care, nurture and benevolence (or their absence) of the person in authority while the westerner tends to focus on the restriction, limitation and dependence of the person over which the authority is exercised.
The writers go on to suggest that according to the Asian notion of authority, the teacher is expected to exercise authority, that is, to look after or nurture her students and take charge.
Closely related to Chinese respect for authority is the Chinese pre-occupation with face. The multiple meanings and importance of face to the Chinese have been discussed in many cross-cultural studies (see, e.g. Ho, 1976; Hwang, 1987; Scollon and Scollon, 1994b; Chang and Holt, 1994). In particular, Chang and Holt (1994: p. 115) have made the point that in communicating with another person, one must "protect the other's self-image and feelings, he or she is not confronted directly.” This point explains, at least in part, why many Chinese students will not challenge their teacher's position on a given point (or even indeed authority in general). Chinese students have a great respect for and wish to maintain their teacher's mien-tzu (face). With similar concern for mien-tzu, the teacher is also reluctant to admit any inadequacies on his/her part. It is very difficult for a Chinese teacher to say “I am sorry. I don't know. Lefs work out a solution together?*
Being autonomous often requires that students work independently of the teacher and this may entail shared decision making, as well as presenting opinions that differ from those of the teacher. It is, thus, easy to see why Chinese students would not find autonomy very comfortable, emotionally or indeed intellectually. One might even draw the conclusion that it is impossible for Chinese students to learn to exercise responsibility for their learning in the classroom. This does not necessarily have to be the case, however, as we will show.
SIMULATION: CHANGING THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT
In seeking to create learning environments that will facilitate and enhance the development of learner autonomy teachers need to take into account the obstacles that may impede its development. This includes the barriers that are put up by cultural values and the norms for appropriate classroom behaviour that reflect these values. One methodology that can facilitate the creation of such an environment is simulation/gaming (well known to System readers). In fact, simulations and games are used routinely by countless language teachers the world over. However, they are under�used as a direct means of providing learner training (for examples of such use, see Ellis and Sinclair, 1989; Fernandes et al., 1990).
Here we describe how a large-scale simulation was used to provide learner training in a classroom setting without coming into conflict with cultural values that appear to be diametrically opposed to autonomy. Specifically, one of the main objectives of this learning experience was to provide learners with an opportunity to exercise responsibility for their learning.
Participants and tasks
Twenty-one students enrolled in the first year of the BA in English for Professional Communication at the City University of Hong Kong participated in a large-scale, world-wide, computer-mediated simulation, called Project IDEALS (supported by a major grant from FIPSE, USA). They were one of 27 student teams located in a variety of countries around the world that participated in the simulation. Communication (both asynchronous and real-time) among teams was made possible via the Internet and specialized interactive software. (For more information on the project, see Crookall and Landis, 1992.) Each team of students was assigned the role of a particular nation— the class of students we focus on here was assigned the role of a poor landlocked country called Mountainia, which was very keen on gaining access to the sea. The participants * overall goal was to negotiate with the other country-teams the text of an international treaty on how the world's ocean resources should be managed. To do this, the team had to carry out a series of tasks, such as preparing a two-page policy statement, a 10-page position paper and various drafts of the treaty. This particular simulation was run in February 1993 and lasted for seven weeks, with several weeks preparation and follow-up work.
Simulations and autonomy
We describe below how participation in the simulation provided learners with an opportunity to take responsibility for their learning (i.e. make decisions about their learning, plan, evaluate, monitor and assess). We show how such a methodology can be used to create a learning environment that contributes to the development of autonomy and why it can be considered an important method for learner training.
(1) Deciding to engage in the simulation. Making choices about what one wants to learn or even whether one wants to learn at all is one of the first decisions required of autonomous learners (see, e.g. Logan, 1973; Dickinson, 1978, 1987; Allwright, 1988). Therefore, a learning environment or methodology which intends to help students develop the skills and attitudes that sustain autonomous learning must provide students with an opportunity to make such decisions. In the present case, this meant that the students themselves should be committed to or choose to get involved in the simulation.
To ensure this commitment, the teacher gave students information about the project, the benefits and potential problems. Terms of the learning contract such as the use of English in all activities, both inside and outside classrooms, were also presented. The students were then asked to decide whether or not they would participate in the simulation. Thus, right from the start, students
made an important decision about their own learning and accepted the responsibilities that such a decision would entail. Moreover, to make this decision, it was necessary for them to become aware of their learning needs, interests and abilities—the kind of self-knowledge mentioned earlier.
[if !supportLists](2) [endif]Taking responsibility for the simulation tasks. As ministers of Mountainia, participants (i.e. the students) were expected to work out an international treaty on how the world's ocean resources should be managed. To do so, they were required to take responsibility for the following tasks:
[if !supportLists](a) [endif]Organizing their country. Students had to organize themselves in fundamental ways. They had to take ownership of their country by deciding on their form of government—a democracy, with ministries and a Prime Minister. They then decided on ministry membership, elected a Prime Minister and ministers and allocated other individual specialist responsibilities. All this was accomplished after lengthy debates on what ministries would be the most important and relevant for the type of country they represented. These actions provided further opportunities to take on responsibility and, therefore, to promote autonomy.
[if !supportLists](b) [endif]Policy making and goal setting. Once learners had set up their own sovereign (i.e. autonomous!) country, they had to establish policy—they had to make their country work. Ministers and specialists worked in collaboration with the elected Prime Minister in setting goals for the country team and in drawing up the terms of the policy statement and position paper. This constituted a steep learning curve in terms of taking responsibility and exercising autonomy, but it was to pay off as the simulation progressed and the team quickly began to face real-world tasks and to communicate with other countries. Participants' responsibilities as ministers inevitably involved responsibilities as learners.
[if !supportLists](c) [endif]Weekly meetings to discuss the affairs of state. As ministers, students held formal meetings every week to discuss the business of the state. In these meetings, information was presented, matters discussed, priorities set and decisions made. Learners had to decide what to include in their discussions, how and when to conduct their meetings and what course of action to take. Participants spent much time outside class in preparing such meetings. All of this was achieved in a real-life situation, which was preset by the simulation. In other words, the simulation enabled all these decision-making and responsibility-taking processes to take place in a natural manner.
[if !supportLists](3) [endif]Taking responsibility far the learning and use of skills necessary to the simulation task. In the context of fulfilling their responsibilities as ministers of state, simulation participants (i.e. the students) were also provided with an opportunity to self-direct their learning of the following skills:
[if !supportLists](a) [endif]Conflict resolution skills. Working in groups not only means completing a series of given tasks in time; it also requires that group members work through conflict situations and accommodate different opinions. In the case of Mountainia, students learned how to deal with differences of opinion and personal clashes. In other words, besides providing learners with an opportunity to make decisions to organize and manage their country, the simulation required that learners learn, autonomously, the skills for resolving conflicts amongst themselves. When asked how they solved problems involving opinion differences or emotional conflicts among group members, most learners said they would negotiate and come to a compromise (76%), recognize the existence of conflicts and talk about them honestly with their group members (76%) and state their views and vote (43%). In addition, the majority of respondents felt that, by participating in the project, they had also learned how to understand their classmates (62%) and deal with conflicts in a group (57%). When reflecting on the development of their inter-personal relationships, the majority of participants (76%) thought that the project had brought them closer to their classmates. Again, as in the case of the skills required to organize and manage their country, the conflict-resolution skills were acquired through the exercise of responsibility and on an autonomous basis.
[if !supportLists](b) [endif]Language skills for professional communication. The range of language tasks was wide and included all four skills. Students read writings of different genres: the background readings included academic articles, legal documents and journalistic reports. Learners also dealt with nearly 1750 simulation communications (e.g. editorials, arguments and proposals) of varied lengths that arrived electronically from many other teams and from the Project Director. Several thousand other messages were exchanged during live, real-time teleconferences. From these various sources of written input, learners developed skimming and scanning skills essential to sorting out relevant information for their group; they learned to summarize significant points and prepare for meetings. Soon after decisions were reached in their meetings, Mountainians wrote the necessary and appropriate diplomatic messages to send out to other countries.
[if !supportLists](c) [endif]Time management and contingency planning. The ability to manage one's time and to work out contingency plans are skills that are strong indicators of autonomy. The simulation provided opportunities to exercise these skills as well. The Project Director set very tight schedules, with specific documents due by certain dates. Students could not wait for the teacher to tell them what to do since tutorials were held only twice a week. Students learned to be responsible not only for themselves, but also for their own group (their own country), and ultimately for other teams. In a post-activity questionnaire when learners were asked whether participation in the simulation had any influence on their management styles and learning approaches, the majority pointed out that they had learned how to deal with matters that cropped up suddenly (62%) and how to work under pressures and meet deadlines (57%).
In sum, here we see how a simulation can provide an authentic context for language learning and for promoting learner autonomy. Moreover, in the present case, language tasks were integrated into and became continuous with students* learning how to manage their learning. Participants thus became responsible for both their own country and their own learning.
Simulation, culture and autonomy
How does a simulation contribute to the development of autonomy in students from a cultural background that is almost diametrically opposed to autonomy? Here we will consider two characteristics of the simulation that made it possible for learners to overcome certain cultural constraints to the exercise of autonomy.
First, simulations are unpredictable. There was no way in which the Project Director, let alone the local facilitators, could predict what course the negotiations would take or what their outcome might be. Moreover, it was also observed that when faced with an influx of rapid messages from the telecommunications network, students had to exercise their own discretion and learn to negotiate with other participants as fully responsible state officials. Thus, the precarious nature of the simulation erodes the sense of security to which Chinese students traditionally cling, by relying on the all-nurturing, all-benevolent, all-knowing teacher.
Second, simulations require problem sharing among learners and between learners and teachers. An example was the technical break-downs which occurred in the course of the simulation. Nothing that either the students or their teacher could do would remedy the situation—the teacher allowed herself to be seen as helpless as the students themselves. In a sense, the technical failures tore apart the mien-tzu (face) of the teacher. It allowed the teacher to admit that she did not know how to solve the problem, and by declaring herself to be in the same situation as the participants, initiated a change in the teacher-student relationship. Moreoever, because this occurred within the relatively less threatening context of the simulation, it was easier (than in more threatening, traditional classrooms) for both the teacher and learners to redefine the role of the teacher. By explicitly taking on the role of ^counsellor, lecturer and adviser" (Rogers, 1969: p. 165, cited in Dickinson, 1978: p. 22) and “helper” (Henner-Stanchina and Riley, 1978: p. 75) in the context of the simulation, the teacher was able, relatively easily, to initiate a new type of relationship with her learners. This was then carried over into non-simulation situations. In a word, simulation helps to “declassroom” the classroom (Sharrock and Watson, 1985; Watson and Sharrock, 1990).
Moving a step further, we should note that, whereas some aspects of Chinese culture appear to be impediments to autonomy, it also appears to be the case that other aspects of Chinese culture may actually contribute to the development of autonomy, given the right situation—in this case, the simulation. In other words, it seems that a simulation provides a context that both counters the negative and enhances the positive aspects of Chinese culture. Thus, although certain cultural traits may make autonomy difficult to achieve, other cultural traits actually facilitate its attainment under certain circumstances. We now look at two autonomy-enhancing traits in the context of the simulation.
[if !supportLists](1) [endif]Achievement orientation. Although Chinese children have been frustrated in their "active or exploratory demands" from infancy (Ho, 1986: p. 4), they are, nevertheless, under pressure to achieve educationally (Ho, 1986; Wu, 1994). Both these needs can be satisfied more easily and happily if students are given learning tasks which do not require a fixed examination to assess their comparative success or failure, thus thwarting their exploratory inclinations. In addition, such tasks should provide ample opportunities for them to set concrete goals to assess to what extent they have been achieved by their own standards. A simulated negotiation, such as in project IDEALS, is an example of such a type of task.
By taking part in a project like IDEALS, students can, on the one hand, be active and exploratory and yet on the other, satisfy their culturally-imposed need to be achievers. In the present case, the members of Mountainia did achieve two of the most important objectives that they had set for themselves in their initial position paper—gain access to the sea and fight againist pollution with other countries. Thus, the cultural emphasis on achievement contributed to the carrying out of actions and the accomplishments of tasks, which together moved the learners towards autonomy. From another point of view it may be said that such achievement-motivated actions and tasks actually constituted acts of autonomy. This cultural trait probably would have played a far less prominent role in promoting autonomy in an ordinary (non-simulation) classroom,
[if !supportLists](2) [endif]Inside-outside. Another aspect of Chinese culture which facilitates the promotion of autonomy through simulations is the "inside and outside relationships,, (Scollon and Scollon, 1994b: pp. 16-18). According to Tajfel (1984: p. 699) in such a situation:
[w]hen social groups differ in status and power, strategies aiming to maintain a satisfactory social identity and to achieve positive distinctiveness from other relevant groups on certain relevant dimensions of comparison do undoubtedly continue to play an important role in collective behaviour.
In other words, the fact that students have to work as members of a team puts them in an inside relationship (an ingroup) in which they can bond and express their opinions freely. On the other hand, other teams with whom they have to negotiate are put into an outside relationship (the outgroup). Such a sense of group identity has an intrinsic motivational power. It engages learners in their learning tasks and motivates them to utilize all their resources in defending the interests of the ingroup. That is, the power of ingroup cohesion on members' motivation to enhance their self-image cannot be underestimated. Such motivation impels participants to take responsibility for their sovereign country, to make autonomous decisions and act upon them with a force and conviction that would not be conceivable in an ordinary classroom. This deep involvement, a key to autonomous learning, is poignantly expressed by a student in her reflections on taking part in Project IDEALS.
It was very exciting to be people of one of 27 countries in the world. We enjoyed to be Mountainians. We did our best to keep "'national information" in extremely secret. We would feel worry and angry when our favour was harassed by other countries. We would feel happy if we were successful to grasp our interest. Although we would finish the "'Project Ideals'* in approaching days, we still could not forget we were once the people of peaceful and nature-loving country, Mountainia.
CONCLUSION
Through Project IDEALS, our students took part in an important and memorable experience. They were keenly aware of dealing with people from other cultures; they became critical thinkers; they learned to argue intelligently and to write effectively; they worked collaboratively with others and they made informed decisions. Not least of all, underlying these more practical pursuits, they rose to the challenge and opportunity of taking greater responsibility for their own learning. In addition, they shared in each other's learning; thus while they became autonomous from the teacher, they maintained the important social and collaborative aspect of the learning enterprise. We have also shown how, despite cultural constraints, the simulation project enabled them to develop certain knowledge, skills and attitudes which are characteristic of learner autonomy.
What general lessons can be drawn from this experience? We offer the following. Autonomy cannot be conferred by a teacher, at least not directly. Taking responsibility can only be encouraged, sometimes necessitated, by learner participation in a personally-meaningful, real-world context, such as a simulation. In the end, while it is the role of teachers to engineer situations in which autonomy can be exercised, it is the learner who must actually do the exercising—perhaps with some initial reassurance from the teacher. Indeed, learning to take responsibility is very much like learning to do other things. Only the learner can learn—not the teacher. Moreover, the learner can only learn by doing. In other words, only by taking steps towards autonomy and exercising that autonomy will the learner be and become autonomous.
Acknowledgement—The authors are extremely grateful to Anita Wenden for her tremendous help in writing this article.
REFERENCES
ALLWRIGHT, D. (1988) Autonomy and individualization in whole class instruction. In Individualization and Autonomy in Language Learning. ELT Documents 131. Modem English Publications and the British Council.
CHANG, H. and HOLT, R. (1994) A Chinese perspective on face as inter-relational concern. In Ting-Toomey, S. (ed.), The Challenge of Facework. Albany: State University of New York Press.
CHU, G. (1985) The changing concept of self in contemporary China. In Marsella, A. J. et al. (eds), Culture and Self: Asian and Western Perspectives. London: Tavistock Publications.
CROOKALL, D. and LANDIS, P. (1992) Global network simulation: An environment for global awareness. In Crookall, D. and Arai, K. (eds), Global Interdependence: Simulation and Gaming Perspectives. Tokyo: Springer-Verlag.
CROOKALL, D. (1983) Learner training: A neglected strategy (Parts 1 and 2). Modern English Teacher 11(1), 41-42 and 11(2), 31-33.
DICKINSON, L. (1978) Autonomy, self-directed learning and individualization. In Individualization in Language Learning. ELT Documents 103. British Council, ETIC Publications.
DICKINSON, L. (1987) Self-Instruction in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DICKINSON, L. and CARVER, D. (1980) Learning how to learn: Steps towards self-direction in foreign language learning in schools. English Language Teaching Journal 35(1), October, pp. 1-7.
ELLIS, G. and SINCLAIR, B. (1989) Learning to Learn English: A Course in Learner Training. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
FERNANDES, J., ELLIS, G. and SINCLAIR, B. (1990) Learner training: Learning how to learn. In Crookall, D. and Oxford, R. (eds), Simulation, Gaining and Language Learning. Boston, MA: Newbury House/Heinle and Heinle.
HENNER-STANCHINA, C. and RILEY, P. (1978) Aspects of autonomous learning. In Individualization in Language Learning. ELT Documents 103. British Council, ETIC Publications.
HO, D. (1976) On the concept of face. American Journal of Sociology 81, 867-884.
HO, D. (1986) Chinese patterns of socialization: A critical review. In Bond, M. (ed.), The Psychology of the Chinese People. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
HOLEC, H. (1981) Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
HOLEC, H. (ed.) (1989) Autonomy and Self-Directed Learning: Present Fields of Application. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
HSU, F. (1985) The self in cross-cultural perspectives. In Marsella, A. J. et al. (eds), Culture and Self: Asian and Western Perspectives. London: Tavistock Publications.
HWANG, K, (1987) Face and favour: The Chinese power game. American Journal of Sociology 92(4), January, pp.944-974.
LOGAN. G. E. (1973) Individualized Foreign Language Learning: An Organic Process. Boston: Newbury House. NARCY, J. P, (1994) Autonomie: Evolution ou revolution? Die Neueren Sprachen, October, in press.
SCOLLON, R. and SCOLLON, S. (1994a) The Post Confucian Confusion. Research Report No. 37. Department of English, City Polytechnic of Hong Kong.
SCOLLON, R. and SCOLLON, S. (1994b) Face parameters in east-west discourse. In Ting-Toomey, S. (ed.), The Challenge of Facework. Albany: State University of New York Press.
SHARROCK, W. W. and WATSON, D. R. (1985) Reality construction in L2 simulations. System 13(3), 195-206.
TAJFEL, H. (1984) Intergroup relations, social myths and social justice in social psychology, in Tajfel, H. (ed.), The Social Dimension, Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
WATSON, D. R. and SHARROCK, W. W. (1990) Realities in simulation/gaming. In Crookall, D. and Oxford, R. (eds), Simulation, Gaming and Language Learning. Boston, MA: Newbury House/Heinle and Heinle.
WENDEN, A. (1987) Conceptual background and utility. In Wenden, A. and Rubin, J. (eds), Learner Strategies in Language Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall International.
WENDEN, A. (1991) Learner Strategies for Learner Autonomy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall International.
WU, D. (1994) Childhood Socialization. Paper presented at International Conference on Chinese Psychology, Chinese University of Hong Kong, 31 May-2 June.
Autonomy as an element in Chinese educational reform: a case study of English lessons in a senior high school in Beijing
J. Mark Halstead* and Chuanyan Zhu
School of Education, University of Huddersfield, UK
(Received 1 May 2009; accepted 7 August 2009)
Recent educational reforms in China have emphasized “learner autonomy”, but this differs in crucial respects from the concept of “personal autonomy”, which is a central goal of western liberal education. The many changes that have resulted from the opening up policy in China in the last 30 years include what has been called “regulated individualism”, but moves towards individualism remain balanced by a recognition of interdependence and collectivism. Can autonomy take root in schools in these circumstances? The research reported in this article provides a snapshot of the situation in a senior high school in Beijing. It reveals that learner autonomy is currently hardly a reality at all in the classroom. Students show their desire for autonomy and manage the class activities for which they have responsibility with some degree of autonomy. The teacher also tends to accept the principle of learner autonomy, but finds her hands tied both by her own natural tendency to dominate the learning process (in accordance with traditional Chinese expectations of a teacher) and by the requirements of the University Entrance Examination.
Keywords: autonomy; China; English teaching; learning; New Curriculum Reform
Introduction
In western philosophy, “personal autonomy” implies independence of thought and action, rational self-regulation, and the freedom of the individual to take responsibility for his or her own life. The development of personal and moral autonomy is commonly considered an important goal for education. In China, on the other hand, the traditional emphasis on the acceptance of authority and on collective culture and the one-party political system meant that the independence of the individual was not prioritized and autonomy was not seen as an appropriate goal for education at all. However, since the turn of the new century, “learner autonomy” has featured increasingly in scholarly debate about education and is linked to the New Basic Education Curriculum Reform. This paper explores how autonomy is being developed in the Chinese context, what barriers exist to its development resulting from Chinese cultural traditions, and how far the value of autonomy is being balanced with other educational needs in China.
The paper describes a case study conducted in a Grade 1 class in a senior high school in Beijing that provides a snapshot of the extent to which learner autonomy is actually being implemented in practice in the Chinese classroom. The teacher’s and students’ perceptions and sense of autonomy were probed through semi-structured interviews and through observation of the actual teaching and learning processes in English lessons. Attention was
*Corresponding author. Email: j.m.halstead@hud.ac.uk
ISSN 0218-8791 print/ISSN 1742-6855 online
q 2009 National Institute of Education, Singapore DOI: 10.1080/02188790903308944
focused in particular on three aspects – learning; class management and school activities; and the students’ personal values systems. The results show that students may not demonstrate autonomy equally in all three aspects (since there is comparatively little autonomy in their actual learning); that although students’ autonomy may be limited in the classroom setting, their behaviour in English lessons has no direct link to their personal values and desire for autonomy; and that there are significant differences between individuals in terms of their development of autonomy. Two main obstacles to the development of learner autonomy are identified: the tendency of the teacher to dominate and control the learning process (perhaps in line with traditional Chinese expectations of the teacher) and the overwhelming importance given to the University Entrance Examination. These powerful obstacles seem to be undermining the likelihood of further development of students’ personal autonomy in line with the recent programme of educational reform.
Conceptions of autonomy in China and the West
This section explores the relationship between “personal autonomy”, which is arguably the central value in western liberal education (Levinson, 1999; Morgan, 1996), and “learner autonomy”, which is the main form of autonomy in Chinese education (Ho & Crookall, 1995; Littlewood, 1999).
The term “personal autonomy” is a contested concept even in the West (Foucault calls it a myth; see Marshall, 1996; Olssen, 2005) but in general it refers to the capacity of the individual to make free, informed, rational decisions and thus to take responsibility for his or her own life. Robert Dearden’s famous definition is a useful starting point, though this has sometimes been criticised as too rational, too individualistic, too masculine and too dismissive of the centrality of community and culture (Bonnett & Cuypers, 2003):
A person is autonomous, then, to the degree that what he thinks and does in important areas of his life cannot be explained without reference to his own activity of mind. That is to say, the explanation of why he thinks and acts as he does must include a reference to his own choices, deliberations, decisions, reflections, judgments, planning or reasoning. (Dearden, 1972, p. 453)
The English word “autonomy” derives from the Greek autonomia, which refers to the capacity of a Greek city state to govern itself free from outside interference, and in fact all uses of the word outside a political context are metaphorical. Thus “professional autonomy” refers to the freedom of a profession to regulate itself and set its own rules, “institutional autonomy” refers to an institution’s freedom to develop its own policies without undue external constraint, and “moral autonomy” prevents a person from unthinkingly accepting the moral rules of others. The key conditions for “personal autonomy” are (a) that individuals operate freely and independently and (b) that they make choices and regulate their own lives through rational deliberation and reflection, not through impulse or injudicious desire.
So why is the development of personal autonomy singled out as a goal for western education rather than, say, the virtues of conformity or obedience? A Kantian answer would be that autonomy defines personhood: it is a human characteristic to bind ourselves by moral laws that our own reason has validated (Kant, 1785/1991). For John White (1990), autonomy is a sign of human flourishing. For others such as Mill (1869), it is self- evidently preferable to construct one’s own unique way of life rather than to exist in a perpetual state of conflict or to accept without question “the pronouncements of parents, priests or community leaders” (Kymlicka, 1999, p. 91). Liberal philosophers of education
have therefore been concerned to explore the best way to ensure that children grow up as independent, rational individuals, though western schools do not always find it easy to implement this goal in practice. Initiating children into the skills of rational deliberation and judgment (through a broad and balanced curriculum that is the same for everyone) is seen as more important than teaching them specific moral beliefs and values (see Kohlberg, 1984). Indeed if children are brought up to accept substantive conceptions of the good (to acquire strong political or religious commitments, for example), this can culturally encapsulate them and hinder their growth towards autonomy (see Halstead, 1986, pp. 33 – 44).
China’s growing openness to western ideas, which is seen in the opening up policy of the last 30 years as well as in inescapable trends like globalization and the spread of the mass media (Qi & Tang, 2004, pp. 469 – 470), has been reflected in increasing use of the term “autonomy” in different contexts – in reference to regionalism, university management, the structure of other institutions, and the values of teachers and students, for example – though it is only the last of these that we are concerned with in this article. However, autonomy is not a new word in China, and long before the new curriculum reforms, both moral autonomy (zi lu¨, literally “self-control”) and personal autonomy (zi zhi, literally “self-management”) were already a subject for discussion among Chinese scholars. W. Shen (1991), for example, argues that an individual’s moral actions are determined by his or her mental processes, driven by moral beliefs. It is the sense of social responsibility that motivates the subject to “transform heteronomy to autonomy and to make his action consistent to his intention” (Liu & Xia, 2001, p. 338). The Chinese moral education tradition, which stresses self-control and self-discipline, is built in. However, moral autonomy is not a key goal of moral education at any stage of Chinese schooling. It is found only in university-level moral education textbooks, not in middle schools or primary schools. Personal autonomy was first advocated in China by Tao Xingzhi (1984), a famous Chinese educationist. As a student of Dewey, he was influenced by Dewey’s theory of democracy and education (1916). Tao defined autonomy in terms of the students in a school organizing themselves into a union as a way of learning to manage their own affairs. In his opinion, student autonomy can help students to learn and practise democracy, to develop morality and to improve self-discipline. He put his ideas into practice in the schools he founded and had a significant influence both on his own generation and on educational practitioners even today in China.
However, it is increasingly clear that China is not adopting western terminology
uncritically – there is an awareness, for example, that an autonomous individual can become “isolated and alienated” (see Li, Zhong, Lin, & Zhang, 2004, p. 458) – but rather adapting some concepts to its own particular needs and circumstances, in the light of its own rich heritage. Thus student autonomy has been defined by Yuan as “respecting the students’ subjective status and letting them carry socialist democracy forward to decide the class affairs and manage the class activities self-determinedly” (1992, pp. 434 – 435). From this perspective, the students, under the class teacher’s supervision and instruction, have the right to fulfil their responsibility for class management, whether it is the supervision of students’ attendance, monitoring of students’ acceptance of rules and discipline in school, or the arrangement and conduct of class activities such as cleaning up and decorating the classroom, editing class bulletins, checking students’ homework and organizing class activities. Li, Taylor, and Yang thus write about “a new model of moral education with Chinese characteristics” (2004, p. 419, emphasis added) and Cheung and Pan write about “conditional autonomy for .. . students” (2006, p. 37, emphasis added). By this, they mean that the increase of individual autonomy has been accompanied by “the
increasing means of regulations that serve as the bottom line of individual freedom allowed by the state” (p. 47).
It is “learner autonomy” (zi zhu, literally “self-determination”) that features most strongly in all recent discussions about autonomy in China. Learner autonomy has been defined as “the ability to take charge of one’s own learning” (Holec, 1981, p. 3), which, according to Little, involves the “capacity for detachment, critical reflection, decision- making, and independent action” (1991, p. 4). Learners are thus expected to assume greater responsibility for their own learning. Learner autonomy has been interpreted as freedom from the control of the teacher, from the constraints of the curriculum, even freedom to choose not to learn, and it has been argued that these freedoms must be confronted and discussed in any serious consideration of learner autonomy (Little & Dam, 1998, p. 2). Holec’s and Little’s theory about learner autonomy has been widely quoted and discussed in China at all levels of education from university to primary school, sometimes, perhaps, uncritically (Pang, 2000; H. Shen, 2004; Sun, 2008; Xu & Zhan, 2004; Y. Zhu, 2007; Zhu & Wang, 2002). Indeed, as we note below, learner autonomy has come to be regarded as the foundation and main aim of the new curriculum reform. Recent research by a number of scholars reveals that Chinese students also have a strong desire for learner autonomy (Sun & Liu, 2003; Xu & Zhan, 2004), but it remains an open question how compatible learner autonomy is with Chinese cultural traditions and how far learner autonomy is actually being implemented in practice in the Chinese classroom. These are the main themes of the present article.
Clearly there is some overlap between “personal autonomy” as used in the West and “learner autonomy” as used in China: both involve self-regulation, making informed choices, engaging in rational deliberation and reflection, and taking responsibility for aspects of one’s own life. However, “personal autonomy” is also an educational aspiration, based on western liberal values of individual freedom, the need to subject all beliefs to rigorous rational criticism and the refusal to accept anything merely on authority, whereas “learner autonomy” has the more limited aim of encouraging students to take responsibility for their own learning (Littlewood, 1999, p. 71). This may take a strong form (setting learning goals for oneself, self-education, developing a personal learning agenda) or a weak form (open discussion, independent thinking, using initiative, working independently on tasks in order to achieve the goals set by the teacher). Littlewood calls the former “proactive” autonomy and the latter “reactive” (pp. 75 – 76), and draws attention to the pedagogical impact of these approaches, particularly with reference to language learning (see Ho & Crookall, 1995; Zhang, 2003). It is clear that learner autonomy can be adopted as an underlying principle of classroom practice without any intention of encouraging students to become personally and morally autonomous in the western liberal sense.
Individualism and collectivism in Chinese society and schooling
Prior to the opening up policy, which began in 1978, Chinese society could be described as “closed, conservative, authoritarian and hierarchical” (Qi & Tang, 2004, p. 466). These values have long roots that reach back as far as the Confucian teaching of the “Three Principal Relationships”, according to which the subject should serve the sovereign, the son should serve the father, and the wife should serve the husband (X.S. Wang, 1998,
p. 466). The total obedience and submission that this moral worldview demands of all subjects, sons and wives sounds like the complete antithesis of personal autonomy, though it is also true that Confucianism emphasized self-cultivation and self-evaluation
(F. Wang, 2004, pp. 438 – 439, 442 – 443), and insofar as these practices involve making one’s own judgments and choices, they can be interpreted as the first step towards autonomy. A similar tension can be seen in Chinese society following the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949. On the one hand, the aim of the new republic was to liberate the peasants and to “allow the labouring majority of the country to become ‘masters’ of their own affairs” (Li, Zhong et al., 2004, p. 457), which sounds like a further step towards autonomy. But on the other, the central government saw the need to exercise tight control over the workers in order to maintain unity and improve economic output. New social structures, such as the village commune and the work unit, were put in place and had the effect of emphasizing interdependence over independence and the group over the individual. The control at first was social and political, but gradually became cultural as well. Creativity, free discussion and open thinking were discouraged, and the 10 years of the Cultural Revolution (1966 – 1976) were marked by persecutions, public confessions and the collapse of normal life. In such a context, as Qi and Tang point out, “it is impossible for modern ideas of freedom and independence to be generated .. . not to mention respect for personal dignity and individual interests, or a social atmosphere of tolerance, harmony and democracy” (2004, p. 466).
With the end of the Cultural Revolution and the start of the opening up policy in the
late 1970s, however, the pendulum began to swing the other way, away from a society based on class struggle towards one based on economic reconstruction. China began to play a bigger role internationally. Economic goals became a higher priority than in the past, and there was an increase in private ownership, material consumption and private enterprise as well as in standards of living, lifestyle and quality of life for many Chinese people. Many restrictions have gradually been lifted, and increased contact with the rest of the world has led to changes in the way people think and behave. Especially in the more prosperous urban centres of eastern China, personal interests are starting to be prioritized alongside collective interests, resulting in what Cheung and Pan have called “regulated individualism” (2006, p. 37). The most significant feature of “regulated individualism” in their view is the “conditional adjustment of the state-defined individual-collective relationships in line with the changes of social circumstances”, but always bearing in mind the distinction between “learning useful ideas from the West” and “wholesale westernization” (p. 43). Autonomy, in this view, needs to be balanced with a sense of interdependence or human relatedness if human self-realization is to be achieved. It is recognized that this increased recognition of individual interests and rights may lead not only to greater engagement and civic responsibility but also to more dubious values such as excessive materialism, the loss of traditional family values and deteriorating human relationships. In the words of Qi and Tang, “changes in the economic lifestyle are making people rethink the relationship between morality and utility, the self and others, competition and cooperation, making contributions and making gains”, and “individual rights, interests and values” are increasingly acknowledged and respected (2004, p. 469).
It is hardly surprising that education, too, is changing in line with these economic,
social and political trends. A series of educational reforms, beginning in 1977, put more stress on personal responsibility and the individual’s right to education. The restoration of the University Entrance Examination in 1977 served the dual purpose of making better use of human resources for China’s economic development and increasing equal opportunities, since individuals no longer had to wait for their unit to recommend them for a university place. The introduction of 9 years of compulsory education in 1985 gave every child the right to education. The abolition of the college student assignment policy
in 1993 further increased individual freedom of choice, as did the expansion of enrolment to universities and colleges in 1998. Further reforms in 1999 sought to improve the quality of education at all levels of the education system by encouraging creativity, using discussion in teaching to develop independent thinking, developing health awareness, aesthetic appreciation and practical skills, and developing deyu (political and moral education) from its former emphasis on ideological indoctrination and traditional morality to include new elements such as citizenship, personal development and character education (State Council of P.R. China, 1999). Though the development of learner autonomy had been mentioned in some official documents as early as the 1980s (Lee, 1996, pp. 7 & 9), it was made much more explicit in the Programme for the Reform of the Basic Education Curriculum (Experimental) in 2001: “Teachers should ... cultivate students’ independence and autonomy, guide them to question, investigate, explore and study from the practice, and foster them study actively and in a personalized way under the teacher’s instruction” (Ministry of Education of P.R. China, 2001). The significance of these reforms was not lost on commentators. M. Zhu (2007) pointed out that this programme “involves not only obvious issues, such as content, structures and institutions, but also affects deep-seated cultural issues, including educational concepts and values, and cultural traditions” (p. 226), and Yang (2007) emphasized the extent of the changes:
from a teacher-centred to a student-centred approach, from the delivery of knowledge to the fostering of students’ creative competence, from paying attention to the commonalities of students to paying attention to their individualities, from paying great attention to “good learners” to paying great attention to students with learning difficulties, and from a rigid and examination-oriented type of assessment to a formative and “value-added” assessment system.
These expectations are expressed in the curriculum standards of all subjects for both primary and middle schools. The New Senior English Curriculum Standard, for example, states the principles of the new English curriculum as follows:
[if !supportLists]1. [endif]Build a firm language foundation for students’ future development, for example, their pursuit of higher education, career and lifelong learning;
[if !supportLists]2. [endif]Provide various choices for the students to meet their needs for individual development;
[if !supportLists]3. [endif]Improve students’ approaches to learning and promote their capacity for autonomous learning;
[if !supportLists]4. [endif]Recognize students’ emotions and help them to develop the capacity for independent thinking and decision making, communication, co-operation and cross-cultural under- standing, to acquire an appropriate worldview, set of values and way of thinking about life, to enhance social responsibility and to cultivate humanity through the study of English;
[if !supportLists]5. [endif]Construct a variety of systems to assess students’ performance in order to promote their all- around development, stressing the assessment of the students’ capacity in language usage and their emotions, attitudes and values in learning. (Ministry of Education of P.R. China, 2003)
Both the expectations of the Programme and the principles of the Standard are built into the English textbooks for senior secondary school and teacher training. Though there are more than 10 versions of the English textbook edited by different presses, they all adopt a task-based approach to develop students’ capacity in communication, cooperation and autonomous learning, and they all stress a variety of content to enrich students’ cross- subject knowledge and improve their cross-cultural awareness. In order to help teachers to update their teaching ideas, improve their teaching methods and enhance their capacity to
implement quality education and the curriculum reform, teaching training has been compulsory for all teachers since 2001.
Nevertheless, although the government and policy makers have shown their determination to promote these wide-ranging curriculum reforms (including learner autonomy) and have provided support for pre-service and in-service teacher training, the implementation of the Basic Education Curriculum Reform is still encountering some difficulties in practice. The reform ignores the differences between city and rural education and between majority and minority ethnic students, which means that “many aspects of the curriculum guidelines are ill-defined or vague” (Carney, 2008, p. 42) for some minority ethnic areas. The old assessment system, such as the entrance examinations to senior secondary schools or to universities, becomes an obstacle to the promotion of quality education for students (Research Department of Lanzou No. 1 Middle School, 2009). A common difficulty faced by every teacher is how to foster students’ autonomy instead of simply asking them to complete some superficial tasks in class (Han & Ma, 2005). Ways of improving learner autonomy in the classroom setting have received a lot of attention but the gap between academic debate, policy making and teaching practice in relation to autonomy still remains. This phenomenon generates two questions: Can the western concept of learner autonomy (as defined by Holec, 1981, or Little, 1991, for example) be successfully adapted to fit the Chinese context? And if not, what concept of learner autonomy can be considered as a guideline for implementing the new curriculum reform in the classroom and a foundation for the forthcoming evaluation system? It is clear that any interpretation of learner autonomy should be considered against the backdrop of lessons in the classroom setting with links to the socio-economic context. The present article seeks to provide a snapshot of the current situation at the classroom level, and to capture some of the complexities of combining learner autonomy with other educational goals, such as meeting parents’ (sometimes traditional) expectations, maximizing students’ potential to pass the university entrance exam, and implementing the new curriculum reforms.
Methodology
The original intention of the research was to explore Chinese students’ exposure to (and response to) different cultural values, and the development of autonomy only gradually emerged as an issue of particular interest. An ethnographic case study was conducted during the English lessons of Class 7 in Grade 1 (i.e., the first year) of TS Senior High School in the Haidian District of Beijing. This is the highest achieving class in one of the most famous senior high schools in China and most teachers there have a high level of expertise and competence to implement the new curriculum reform. This school was chosen because it possesses both the general characteristics of a secondary school in mainland China and special characteristics as an experimental base for researchers and textbook editors in secondary English teaching. Its experience in implementing the curriculum reform may be typical of other schools, but its special position as a research school means that it may have an influence on the development of other schools. Students of this age (16 years old or more) were chosen because they are likely to be at Kohlberg’s Stage 5 of moral reasoning development, where they should be aware of values diversity and should be moving towards a degree of personal autonomy. English lessons were chosen because these provide one of the main windows for students to learn about the values in English-speaking countries and become aware of values diversity among different cultures. In addition, English teachers were one of the first groups to introduce
and test the concept of learner autonomy in China. For these reasons, English lessons were likely to present more opportunities for learner autonomy than other subjects. Case study methodology was used because “case studies can establish cause and effect, indeed one of their strengths is that they observe effects in real contexts, recognizing that context is a powerful determinant of both causes and effects” (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007, p. 253).
Twelve English lessons were observed between 6 and 21 March 2008 (only three weeks’ observation was permitted) and recorded using both an MP3 recorder and field notes. Of these, 11 were typical English lessons and one was a special debate. The typical English lessons included one or all of the following procedures: teaching, dialogue practice, listening practice, reading, question and answer, discussion, and quiz. The debate was a mock local council debate in which the students played different roles. The non-participant observation focused on the activities of both teacher and students. The field notes were made in episodic style in chronological order and revised by checking with the recording. Semi-structured interviews were also conducted with
10 randomly selected students and the English teacher. The participants were encouraged to talk freely as the researcher raised a few questions to start the conversation. These methods were chosen rather than surveys and questionnaires to allow for more comprehensive probing of the topic with due attention to the complexity and ambiguity of the findings. The research was carried out in accordance with standard ethical procedures and principles, including informed consent, privacy and confidentiality (pseudonyms have been used throughout), the avoidance of risk, the right of participants to withdraw, and the avoidance of leading questions or undue influence. It was intended that students’ understanding of autonomy should be presented naturally by the participants themselves without any intervention from the researcher, and that the findings should be objectively recorded, analysed and interpreted within the socio-economic context, so that the probable factors influencing the students’ autonomy could be identified.
Findings 1: evidence of developing autonomy
At first glance, there is no dramatic change in the English lessons in terms of teaching and learning. It is still textbook-based and the teacher dominates the process. The teacher explains and illustrates the new words, grammar points and language usage, sets exercises, leads the students to complete the tasks in the textbook, and finishes the unit with a traditional paper-based test to assess the students’ learning. There is hardly any space in the English lessons to promote learner autonomy as defined by Holec (1981) and Little (1991), let alone more western notions of personal autonomy. However, compared to the English lessons before the new curriculum reform, there are more oral English practices and active tasks during English lessons. In each unit, the students are asked to do several dialogue practices, design a bulletin board, do a debate or some other tasks. Although these tasks are from the textbook instead of being chosen by the students, they do appear to promote the students’ autonomy in Littlewood’s sense of “reactive autonomy”, which “does not create its own directions but, once a direction has been initiated, enables learners to organize their resources autonomously in order to reach their goal” (1999, p. 75). In the unit which the researcher observed (dated 12 March 2008), the oral practice task required the students to act as guide or manager of the aquarium to introduce the service to the visitors and answer their questions.
The teacher asks the students: “What question they asked interests you most?” A student answers: “Can we touch the shark?”
The teacher: “Yeah, Can we touch the shark? Very interesting question. Well, this time I have another two minutes for you to raise a question which you think is the most interesting one to ask the group. You can name who you’d like to answer the question. Do you have any question to ask them?” ...
THZ says he’d like to ask the girl SJN and begins his question.
The teacher interrupts him: “No, no, no, not look at your book! Excuse me, Madam. Excuse me, Sir. Right?”
The students burst into laughter. THZ: “Excuse me, manager.” The students laugh again.
THZ goes on: “What’s the food of your shark? human or animal?” SJN: “You can mixture yourself, it’s half human being and ... ” Her answer is interrupted by the students’ laughter.
THZ: “and also, can I kiss your sharks?”
SJN: “Kiss? We have several lady sharks for your choice.” The students laugh and laugh.
The teacher laughs too: “Very interesting questions and very interesting answers. You see. THZ asked if he could kiss the shark. How do you pronounce these two words anyway?”
She writes “kiss” and “keys” on the board. Students: “[KIS]”.
The teacher: “[kis], this one?” Students: “[ki:z]”.
The teacher: “[ki:z]. Yeah. When THZ asked SJN whether or not he could kiss the shark, what about SJN’s answer?”
A girl answers with smile: “We have several lady sharks. You can choose anyone.” The students laugh again ...
The teacher: “So, sit down. Excellent questions and excellent answers! Limited by time, we have not enough time for you to do this kind of dialogue. But I am really interested in finding more time to do this kind of conversation. When you are abroad, I am sure you are no difficult to communicate. No difficult at all. Good! And in this lesson we will come into grammar.”
In this incident, the teacher starts by urging all the students to think creatively, and their ideas are encouraged by the teacher with positive comments. She interrupts once during the students’ conversation to remind them to use the correct form of address before starting a question. The student uses a Chinese style of address, “manager”, instead of the English “Sir” or “Madam” to create a laugh, which shows that the students have cultural awareness of different styles of address. The teacher appears to be implementing the principle of the curriculum reforms in her practice: the students are not taking charge of their own learning, but are encouraged to use their language knowledge and imagination autonomously to carry out the task set by the teacher. The extract shows them taking
the lead in the lesson for a few moments and demonstrating some independence of judgment.
The interviews also provide some hints of developing autonomy, thoughthe next extract is closer to what Yuan (1992) called “student autonomy” than to “learner autonomy”. In an interview, the class teacher expressed the view that it is important to develop the students’ organizational ability, and this was the main reason she provided opportunities for the students to be prefects and share the responsibility for managing their class. The class public relations representative explained that she was in charge of “endless tasks” such as beautifying the classroom, editing the bulletin and producing posters, but at least she could decide how to act and how to organize some students to work together. Both the class monitor and the branch secretary of the Communist Youth League talked about school activities. The students felt they had more autonomy in those activities than in other situations. For example, in the English Film Dubbing Competition, the students chose the actors who represented the class in this competition, chose the film that they wanted to dub, and directed and rehearsed the performance themselves. Here the Communist Youth League secretary describes the students’ freedom to make decisions in some school activities:
Boy 1: ... The school requested each class to compose a class song, which means we have to create a song ourselves, composing the music and writing a poetry. It’s difficult for the ordinary middle school students. However, the song we created is absolutely wonderful .. . What followed was an English Film Dubbing Competition. Each class chose an episode from a film, 5 to 10 minutes, turned off the audio, and dubbed it using our own actors or actresses. The film we chose is High School Music, because it is close to our life ...
Outside the classroom some of the young people felt more freedom to express independent critical judgments of the lesson, as the following two extracts from interviews show, though they would never express such opinions to the teacher directly.
Researcher: What do you think of today’s English lesson?
Boy 2: There was a statement about the debate at the beginning of the lesson, wasn’t there? I think that the statement was not clear. There are three parties in the debate. Each party will argue. I don’t think it’s very good.
Researcher: Why do you think so?
Boy 2: Three parties argue. It must be chaos. Besides, the opinions of the three parties are affirmative, negative and neutral. I think that there’s no point in debating. It is difficult to debate in English, and it is set in such a situation. I think that it will be very chaotic.
Researcher: How about the topic? Is it interesting? Boy 2: No. I don’t think so.
Researcher: Why?
Boy 2: About oil, there must be advantages and disadvantages. Nobody can convince the other no matter how much they argue. All debates are the same, aren’t they? The topic is not so good, I think.
Researcher: What do you think of the teaching style of our English teacher? Girl 1: Er .. .
Researcher: Feel free to present your opinion. Don’t worry! I won’t tell your English teacher.
Girl 1: Because, the first of all, I don’t think much of the English lessons in the school. I treat it as a happy game. I don’t think much of how to learn real knowledge here, for example, real oral English or sometips, because the teaching level of the teacher in senior high school is limited. I am not keen on .. . English lessons are easy for me. It is the easiest course I do in the school.
Researcher: Do you take some other English lessons?
Girl 1: I have private foreign teachers. I talked with them.
Boy 2 actually played an important role in the English debate, and never showed his dislike of the debate in the English lessons. Girl 1 by her own account does not take the English lessons seriously, but improves her English through special training out of school. She is able to attain a higher level of independence and proactive autonomy than the other students because she has private tutors and aims to study at an American university. She is thus not so dependent on the University Entrance Examination in China.
Findings 2: obstacles to developing autonomy
The observations and the interviews also reveal the limitations to the practice of learner autonomy in the classroom setting. The two main obstacles to increasing student autonomy are the fact that the content of the lesson is largely prescribed by the textbook and the teacher, and the fact that the University Entrance Examination dominates everything else in the lessons.
There was no occasion during the English lessons observed where the students had any choice of the content, and most of their work, including topics for dialogue practice, was drawn directly from the textbook. The teacher controlled the whole procedure by her dominant presence and by guiding the pace and content of each activity, the grammar she would like to illustrate, what the students should read or listen to, what topic the students should talk about, and what exercises the students should practise. Although she was patient when the students raised questions or expressed their own opinions, she never encouraged those who raised questions to explore the answers themselves. Also they had no freedom to make a study plan for themselves. And although the teacher claimed in an interview that the students had the right to decide whether or not to learn, this claim was not confirmed by the observations; indeed, she adopted several strategies to get them to learn. First, she criticized a student who did not concentrate on his lesson. Second, she criticized the students who did not finish their assignment or hand in their homework. Third, she asked the students to follow the standard answers for the University Entrance Examination. Fourth, she tended to answer their questions directly instead of encouraging them to explore the issue. In sum, the students had very few opportunities to develop learner autonomy in practice. However, it is not easy for teachers to change from a traditional teacher-centred role to a student-centred style of teaching.
The other main obstacle is the University Entrance Examination, which clearly weighed heavily on the teacher’s mind (though it is two years and three months ahead for the students) and the need to follow the guidelines of this examination is a constant refrain in her explanations of points of grammar and style, as this extract from the field notes (dated 13 March 2008) makes clear:
The teacher asks Boy 3 to read aloud.
Boy 3: “My kid is the most intelligent in his class.” The teacher: “and?”
Boy 3: “My kid is more intelligent than any other student in his class.” The teacher: “I’m sorry! ‘Any other students’.” (she emphasizes [ts]) Boy 3: “OK.”
The teacher: “student, you have ‘any’ here. You could also say ‘other students’. (she emphasizes [ts] again.) You must do that in the examination. But, in fact, English people use ‘any’ and ‘plural’ under many circumstances. However, do remember in the examination, ‘any student’, OK?”
In this situation, the teacher thinks both “any other student” and “any other students” are correct answers, but she reminds the student that only one counts as a correct answer in the entrance examination to universities. For most Chinese students in China, the score in this examination is still the only criterion for entry to higher education. A good score means a good chance to be enrolled in a good university, and in turn a good chance of getting a good job after graduation. The students’ performance in the University Entrance Examination is also the main way for society to judge the quality of the senior middle schools and its teachers. For this reason, the examination places the students, teachers and schools under the same yoke and forces them to follow whatever direction it points to.
Conclusion
Both the teacher and the students show their desire for autonomy to some degree, especially through the independent judgments they make. Their interviews provide evidence in support of Sun and Liu’s (2003) conclusion that Chinese students want autonomy. However, there is a big gap between their desire for autonomy and their practice of autonomy in the classroom setting. But why and how does this gap exist? The teacher’s words and actions provide a clue to the factors at work in the classroom setting. She gives some freedom to the students to manage their class affairs, but hardly any freedom in making choices about what to learn and how to learn. The reason for this difference seems to lie in the different way these two elements are evaluated. There is no specified way to evaluate class management, but in terms of their learning, this is assessed more or less exclusively through the University Entrance Examination. The latter therefore becomes the dynamic force which causes tension between teachers’ practice in the classroom and the goal of enhancing learner autonomy as advocated in the curriculum reform. With the examination in mind, teachers hardly dare risk changing the traditional teaching-learning model. The risk is not only to the students’ future, but to the reputation of the teachers and the schools as well. This explains the common phenomenon where some teachers change their textbooks without changing their teaching methods and others change their teaching methods superficially without changing their dominance of the learning process.
Though this is only a snapshot of practice in a single classroom in a senior secondary school in Beijing, it reveals a common problem facing the Chinese education reform. Learner autonomy is currently hardly a reality at all in the classroom, let alone personal autonomy in the western sense. Students show their desire for autonomy and manage the class activities for which they have responsibility well. The teacher also accepts the principle of learner autonomy to some degree, but finds her hands tied both by her own expectations of the role and by the requirements of the University Entrance Examination. All this generates more questions to explore. As we have seen, autonomy has a different meaning in the Chinese context from its normal western meaning, but does the re-conceptualization of autonomy represent something that is easier to achieve in the Chinese context? Should the assessment of students’ learning and the assessment of the way class affairs are managed be unified in order to maximize opportunities to practise autonomy in the classroom? Should the University Entrance Examination be reformed to allow more scope for learner autonomy, and if so, how? These questions are merely touched on in this paper, but deserve further exploration elsewhere.
References
Bonnett, M., & Cuypers, S. (2003). Autonomy and authenticity in education. In N. Blake,
P. Smeyers, R. Smith, & P. Standish (Eds.), The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of education
(pp. 326 – 340). London: Blackwell.
Carney, S. (2008). Learner-centred pedagogy in Tibet: International education reform in a local context. Comparative Education, 44(1), 39 – 55.
Cheung, K.W., & Pan, S. (2006). Transition of moral education in China: Towards regulated individualism. Citizenship Teaching and Learning, 2(2), 37 – 50.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge.
Dearden, R.F. (1972). Autonomy and education. In R.F. Dearden, P.H. Hirst, & R.S. Peters (Eds.),
Education and the development of reason (pp. 448 – 465). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education.
New York: Macmillan.
Halstead, J.M. (1986). The case for Muslim voluntary-aided schools. Cambridge, UK: Islamic Academy.
Han, L., & Ma, Y. (2005, April 21). Xinkegai zuida wuqu – ketang jiaoxue de xingshihua [The greatest misunderstanding of the new curriculum reform – The formalization of the teaching and learning process in class]. Retrieved November 29, 2008, from http://www.beelink.com.cn/ 20050421/1831515.shtml
Ho, J., & Crookall, D. (1995). Breaking with Chinese cultural traditions: Learner autonomy in English language teaching. System, 23(2), 235 – 243.
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
Kant, I. (1991). The moral law: Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals (H.J. Paton, Trans.).
London: Routledge. (Original work published 1785)
Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on moral development (Vol. 2): The psychology of moral development.
San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Kymlicka, W. (1999). Education for citizenship. In J.M. Halstead & T.H. McLaughlin (Eds.),
Education in morality (pp. 79 – 102). London: Routledge.
Lee, W.O. (1996). Guest editor’s introduction. Chinese Education and Society, 29(4), 5 – 12. Levinson, M. (1999). The demands of liberal education. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Li, M., Taylor, M.J., & Yang, S. (2004). Editorial: Moral education in Chinese societies: Changes and challenges. Journal of Moral Education, 33(4), 405 – 428.
Li, P., Zhong, M., Lin, B., & Zhang, H. (2004). Deyu as moral education in modern China: Ideological functions and transformations. Journal of Moral Education, 33(4), 449 – 464.
Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy 1: Definitions, issues and problems. Dublin, Ireland: Authentik.
Little, D., & Dam, L. (1998). Learner autonomy: What and why. Retrieved April 23, 2009, from http://www.jalt-publications.org/tlt/files/98/oct/littledam.html
Littlewood, W. (1999). Defining and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts. Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 71 – 94.
Liu, T., & Xia, M. (2001). Ethical culture and legal culture: The culture element of quality education for undergraduates in the new century. Nanjing, China: Southeast University Press.
Marshall, J. (1996). Michel Foucault: Personal autonomy and education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Mill, J.S. (1869). On liberty (4th ed.). London: Longman, Roberts & Green.
Ministry of Education of P.R. China. (2001). Jichu jiaoyu kecheng gaige gangyao (shixing) [Programme for the reform of the basic education curriculum (experimental)]. Retrieved February 24, 2009, from http://www.edu.cn/20010926/3002911.shtml
Ministry of Education of P.R. China. (2003). Gaozhong yingyu xinkecheng biaozhun [The new senior English curriculum standard]. Retrieved April 20, 2009, from http://www.mingshi.com/ jxzy/gzyy/jxdg/2009-04-18/23328.html
Morgan, J. (1996). A defence of autonomy as an educational ideal. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 30(2), 239 – 252.
Olssen, M. (2005). Foucault, educational research and the issue of autonomy. Educational philosophy and Theory, 37(3), 365 – 387.
Pang, W. (2000). Review of the foreign research on autonomous learning in 1990s. Journal of Developments in Psychology, 4, 12– 16.
Qi, W., & Tang, H. (2004). The social and cultural background of contemporary moral education in China. Journal of Moral Education, 33(4), 465 – 480.
Research Department of Lanzou No. 1 Middle School. (2009). Xin Zhongguo chenglihou de baci jichu jiaoyu kecheng gaige [Eight basic education curriculum reforms since the foundation of
P.R. China]. Retrieved March 6, 2009, from http://www.lzyz.net/news/ReadNews.asp? NewsID=1005
Shen, H. (2004). How to teach learners autonomy in foreign language teaching. Journal of Harbin University, 25(4), 117 – 122.
Shen, W. (1991). Ideological and moral cultivation for undergraduates. Hangzhou, China: Zhejiang University Press.
State Council of P.R. China. (1999, June 13). Zhonggong zhongyang guowuyuan guanyu shenhua jiaoyu gaige quanmian tuijin suzhi jiaoyu de jueding [Decision on deepening educational reform and promoting quality education]. Retrieved February 24, 2009, from http://www.cycnet.com/ zuzhi/ywdd/files/014.htm
Sun, X. (2008). An experiment of autonomous learning in English teaching practice in a secondary school. Teaching and Management, 9, 138 – 139.
Sun, X., & Liu, H. (2003). Chinese cultural traditions and learner autonomy in foreign language learning. Journal of Taiwan University of Technology (Social Sciences Edition), 21(1), 82 – 84. Tao, X.Z. (1984). Xuesheng zizhi wento zhi yanjiu [Study on students’ autonomy]. In Huazhong Normal University (Ed.), Tao Xingzhi Collection I (pp. 132 – 141). Changsha, China: Hunan
Education Press. (Original work published 1919)
Wang, F. (2004). Confucian thinking in traditional moral education: Key ideas and fundamental features. Journal of Moral Education, 33(4), 429 – 447.
Wang, X.S. (1998). Han Feizi jijie [Explanatory notes on Han Feizi’s books] (Z. Zhong, Ed.).
Beijing, China: Zhonghua Book Company.
White, J. (1990). Education and the good life: Beyond the national curriculum. London: Kogan Page.
Xu, J., & Zhan, X. (2004). Review of national and international learner autonomy research. Foreign Language World, General Serial No. 102, 2 – 9.
Yang, J. (2007). Basic education in China: Challenges and priorities [PowerPoint presentation]. Retrieved February 23, 2009, http://www.michiganedusource.org/conferences/maisa08/ basicedinchina.ppt
Yuan, Z. (1992). Guidance for the class teacher. Jinan, China: Shandong Education Press.
Zhang, L.J. (2003). Research into Chinese EFL learner strategies: Methods, findings and instructional issues. Regional Language Centre Journal, 34(3), 284 – 322.
Zhu, M. (2007). Recent Chinese experiences in curriculum reform. Prospects, 37(2), 223 – 235. Zhu, Y. (2007). Review of learner autonomy in language learning. Foreign Language Research, 138,
137 – 139.
Zhu, Y., & Wang, L. (2002). The important condition of autonomous learning in primary English.
Education Practice and Research, 11, 40 – 41.
网友评论