In recent weeks I’ve been thinking about learner autonomy more and more – learning on your terms. Below are some notes I took on the topic, some of them proimpted by Phil Benson’s excellent Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning.
“The autonomous learner is one that constructs knowledge from direct experience, rather than one who responds to someone’s instruction .”
Since learning is multi-dimensional, we must take an eclectic approach. The individual needs the freedom/empowerment to experiment and discover what works for him, to align his behaviors with his objectives. We are not a replacement for the classroom or for formal teaching, particularly if the learner himself wishes those things. This is why blended learning is effective: it embraces the various modalities and practices to suit the individual.
~
Set methodologies are suspect. Our job is to create learning opportunities, not to impose a method. There’s no one way to learn a language.
~
Learning a language is a subjective process that requires personal decisions and a degree of self-direction. Autonomy is an attitude, self-direction is the practice.
~
Carl Rogers ‘mug and jug theory’ illustrates the old ways. The teacher essentially sees learners as empty mugs (yikes!) while he holds a jug of knowledge. He asks himself: “How can I make the mug hold still, while I fill it with facts from the jug?” By contrast, the teacher as facilitator is more concerned with the learning climate: ‘How can I create a climate in which the child will feel free to be curious, free to make mistakes, free to learn form the environment, from fellow students, from me, from experience?’ Sounds autonomous and multi-dimensional to me.
Comments are welcome.
Ken Carroll
中文 Chinese
RobAnt Says:
May 26th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Ken,
All I know is the only time I managed to achieve 98% on an examination (and so win immediate promotion) was when the tutor made the subject so funny I used to leave the classroom in pain, with split sides.
But then learning a language isn’t the same as learning “The Defense Communications Network”. Nor is it 1973.
But then again, there is always an opportunity to learn about WRAF’s knickers and the problems surrounding the station’s need to order more.
Where am I going with this? 我不知道.
Lantian Says:
May 26th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
SPECIALS - These days I am inundated with Chinese input, enough so that I don’t listen as diligently or as repeatedly to Cpod as I used to. It made me think, maybe I’ve reached a point where there isn’t incrementally that much more for Cpod to fill in for me anymore. These days I can read the easy articles in newspapers, I actually find it possible to leisurely read Chinese magazine articles, tv, etc. I’m not saying that it’s 100 percent, but I feel like my plate is full.
In posting and reading in the various V3 areas lately I feel like the most vocal commenters out there aren’t getting the input they need for a variety of reasons.
Why doesn’t Cpod produce more special series to fill that need? Why not a 8-podcast series on grammar, or in a Pimseleur like format, or whatever other creative formats can be done. With the internet and community you could easily get feedback and watch your web-analytics to see which formats really gain popularity.
I think Cpod’s bank of core materials and solid instruction is enough to keep most learners who like the current format busy.
This would go a long way to filling up the various mugs of learners with whatever concoctions they most like to imbibe. Right?
AuntySue Says:
May 27th, 2007 at 6:08 am
How do students learn to work autonomously in a way that is effective? Is it something that does not have to be learned?
Ken Carroll Says:
May 27th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Robant,
Your teacher onviously engaged you with the subject at hand. Comedy is one way to do that, though very, very few teachers that I’ve ever seen could do comedy for more than a few minutes without getting old. He was obviously a talented fellow.
Lantian,
You’ve been with us from the beginning. I think you point to the needs of the long term user of ChinesePod very well. There is more grammar on the way but I agree that we can continue to innovate in other ways. We’ve spent a lot of time working on the software recently, and I think we now have a great tool. The next phase of innovation for me is in finding ways to use the tool and demonmstrate how it can be used on the bassi of individual needs.
Aunty,
I think that, too often, there is a mis-match between what a teacher teaches and what the students learn. Different agendas. However, the mere act of taking more responsibility makes the learning more effective, if you accept (as I do) the idea that knowledge cannot be taught. Knowledge is somethign that the learner constructs for herself through some kind of experience. Making your own decisions, following your own instincts, going where your curiosity takes you, and connecting information in ways that are meaningful to you, all add to the learning experience. This is deep processing and it is personal and subjective. By definition, then, this is something the learner has to discover for himself. By creating the environment/learnscape/climate for this, I believe we can facilitate him to do so.
Lantian Says:
May 27th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
SCHOOLING - Ken, I think I received/pursued a pretty good education. There were better teachers, and ho-hum ones, some classes I learned in better than others due to various formats and teacher styles.
I get the feeling that a lot of your recent thoughts on education mean that something is missing, or changing in current eduation?
In contrast to this, I think education in many places, is already quite good. Although I have, and continue to learn a great deal thru resources on the internet, I wouldn’t trade a university education for it just yet.
I do think, however, that historically language instruction has been lacking…somehow that field went down an awkward path. It’s almost as if some people took the worst of learning methods and applied it to language instruction.
For example, I had an excellent creative writing class…but similar instruction never existed in language classes. I had excellent biology classes that broke down the basics of life as explained by the best scientists, but in language classes the grammar, linguistics and breakdown of language was often poor. I had sociology classes where we had discussions and presentations, but in language classes we just did fill in the blank sentences outloud.
I’m just saying, if Cpod sticks with the basics of current education best-practices, and also innovates, you’ll continue to be leaders in language instruction. You don’t need to innovate everything.
Henning Says:
May 27th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Lantian,
highly interesting! From your comment I read that you indeed achieved a “fledging fluency” and are ready to leave the warm CPod nest for longer and longer periods of time.
As we all here strive for this state I am curious to get to know your conclusions. Considering you being a long time and intensive CPod user and community member and that you are in a full-immersion environment.
- How important has CPod been for you?
- What were the most important CPut contribution?
- Where did other sources had to jump in? What did you not get here?
- What do you *still* learn from the lessons beside a rare Chengyu once in a while?
Sorry for bothering, but I am really curious…
Best regards from a rainy Cologne!
Henning
Prez Life Says:
May 28th, 2007 at 2:46 am
Ken, I’m curious as to what is new about this concept, and where its boundaries lay?
Is the new aspect just the application to language learning?
It seems that an overwhelming majority of the learning through the course of our lives is self-directed.
How did you learn to become a successful entrepreneur? I would guess that you didn’t take a class for this – you probably taught yourself, through observation and trial and error.
How did you learn to become an engaging Podcast host? Probably the same. How did you learn to become a good father and parent to your family (assumption)? Probably the same.
The free content of CPOD seems to be a 529 chapter (and ever growing) audio book. Is there anything fundamentally new about this concept? Certainly we all use books to learn stuff on our own.
The CPOD audiobook is not ordered in a linear or a layered manner, but this also is not new. Pick up any home fix-it book. Very similar structure. It’s not intended to be read cover-to-cover. Your faucet is leaky, you look in the index (i.e. the “tag cloud”) for the leaky faucet chapter and then study it in order to learn how to repair a leaky faucet. Same with any guidebook on programming languages, car repair, spreadsheet applications, etc.
What are the bounds of where self-directed learning is appropriate, and where it isn’t? When you fly to Beijing, do you want a pilot who followed a purely self-directed learning process? Maybe his learning goals were similar to those of Zacharias Moussaoui – to learn how to fly the plane, but not to land it. For CPOD, would you hire an accountant whose education was purely self-directed? Maybe he got bored during the chapter on credits, so then skipped over the next chapter on debits.
It seems that complexity somehow factors into this. Home repair jobs are easy to disaggregate from each other. We don’t need to know how to repair a chimney in order to fix a leaky faucet.
But, prior to becoming a good theoretical physicist, you probably first need to develop a very solid foundation of knowledge in chemistry, calculus, and Newtonian physics, among other things. Definite layering.
It also seems that the necessary degree of retention, feedback, and teacher interaction also factors into the equation as well. When attempting to fix a leaky faucet, the feedback is inherent in the outcome of the process – no other feedback needed. And, we don’t need to remember how to fix the faucet after the job is done. If it starts to leak again in 10 years, we’ll just pull out the book and re-learn how to fix it.
Language seems to fit somewhere in the netherland between these extremes.
Rahee Says:
May 28th, 2007 at 4:36 am
I would just like to say excellent entry, Ken. I’d give a longer entry, but no time. Kudos. =)
Fox Says:
May 28th, 2007 at 10:38 am
>Our job is to create learning opportunities, not to impose a method.
Right, but a “suggested sequence” would make send. OK, you don’t get that with a book either, but with a book it’s somehow implied that you start in the beginning. A homepage does not really have a beginning.
So in the beginning I didn’t sign up with CPod because it wasn’t suggested how to use all the different functions and how to interact them. Maybe it’s now explained, but I didn’t really bother to look again (mainly because now I don’t like the English MP3, and pure Mandarin MP3 for beginner still doesn’t seem to be there).
To me CPods looks now like it’s run by people in love with software technology and effective learning doesn’t bother them too much.
And I wonder why not give a clear instruction? Most people wouldn’t read it anyway. Did YOU ever read the instructions of your digital camera? Sure not, that’s why you can only use the basic functions.
Geoff De Says:
May 28th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
ChinesePod simply has that je ne sais quoi. From the very first time I encountered it I found it to exude a confidence and competence that no other language learning podcast has. I feel it’s going to win. I’m not sure why. Maybe it’s because you guys believe it yourselves or maybe it’s just bloody good propaganda, but I’ve paid for this service and I’ll probably pay you again. Maybe I just feel you know what you’re talking about and maybe we can watch it grow into something big.(At least I hope you believe this????)
Ken Carroll Says:
May 28th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Lantian,
I’m afraid I don’t see current educational practices (in China or in the West) as par for the 21st century course. Regardless of how mainstream education or mainstream corporate training reacts, people are learning differently. The sheer volume of information we face today requires that we take a different tack. We can no longer wait passively for our teachers to explain stuff to us - there’s simply too much to be explained. We have to have much more control over our learning - the internet is making that possible.
I’d also be interested to hear your answers to Henning’s questions.
Prez Life,
I agree that most of our learning happens outside the realms of traditional education.That’s my point: I’m not really sure how much value the old approach really creates these days.
Agreed too, that the home repair book has a ’self-service’ approach. You dip in as you need it. This is precisely why we’re different. I don’t know of another program that accommodates you to study on your terms - when your toilet is clogged, for example. The idea here is that you learn best when you make the learning decisions. By receiving input at the time you need it, the learning sticks because it’s based on experience. That’s whey we need 500 lessons and counting. By contrast most textbooks offer 16 chapters in a set order - staggered, linear - that you can’t change. I wouldn’t suggest for a moment that anyone fly a plane if they are not qualified. The question is the method of learning, not the qualification.
Fox,
ChinesePod is a mixture of software people and language people. Much of the recent work has been concerned with software, but we are not abandoning the notion of pedagogy or the fact that we have real, people with real (human) aspirations. You can take my word for that.
Ken Carroll
Orlando Kelm Says:
May 29th, 2007 at 1:31 am
Brief story/example:
A few years ago I taught an advanced Spanish grammar course for undergraduates at the Univ. of Texas. The first day of class I gave the students a blank sheet of paper and told them that this was the syllabus. We then read the course description and over the next week, together we built the syllabus, giving the students a chance to decide how we were going to approach the course, what we were going to do, and how were were going to grade it. I learned a lot during that class. From one end, it was cool to see how creative students can be when they are given the green light to take charge of their learning. From the other end, I learned a lot about the role of a teacher as a ‘facilitor’ and such. Turns out that my role as instructor continued to be important. I could say, continuing with the ‘mug and jug’ metaphor, that my role became more that of finding the various faucets and showing the students how to turn them on. The students however, seemed to identify some pretty interesting mugs and jugs that I would never have thought of.
Anyway, my point is when we allow students to make decisions about their own learning, they end up doing neat things. At the same time, my role as a teacher didn’t feel any less important and there were plenty of helps, hints, and direction pointing that I was involved in along the way.
For what it’s worth,
Orlando
Ricky Says:
June 16th, 2007 at 10:03 am
Hi Ken,
I’m new to your blog and website but a few things about what you are saying puzzle me. For example, I know that we all construct knowledge for ourselves, as you say you believe. But how can everything really be so subjective as you say? Because you say that you can create an environment which facilitates study but I can’t see how, given that you say its all subjective. What role does the ‘objective environment’ play if learning is so totally subjective ?
As a teacher, I’m someone convinced of the role of the teacher in giving encouragement, and eliciting curiosity in the student. But how is that possible within your view of apparently complete subjectivity ? Are you a solipsist ?
Richard
Ricky Says:
June 16th, 2007 at 11:03 am
Hi Ken
I’ve seen you’ve been reading Carl Rogers. Didn’t you get from him any hints about how software programs can’t replace teachers ? Have you ever thought that empathy, congruence and unconditional positive regard can be provided by a machine? Or is it that you don’t see teaching as having sufficient similarity with client-centred therapy ?
Ken Carroll Says:
June 18th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Ricky,
Learning is subjective, because experience itself is subjective. (I’m not a relativist, however.) Your life, your knowledge, and your particular mental schemata are all subjective in the sense that no other individual shares exactly the same things.
But there are objective things we can say about learning. “Input precedes production” is an example and is a, I beleive, a language learning a universal. The podcasts, the website,the community all exist objectively, though we each experience them in a slightly different way.
I have no intention to replace teachers with software. Software can do a lot but it cannot replace the human element of teaching. I believe I’ve made this plain all along.
Ken Carroll