Comments on Healey

Deborah Healey’s article Theory and Research: Autonomy and Language Learning discusses various perspectives of learner autonomy, that is, the ability of a learner to feel in control of his/her learning. Her discussion begins by informing the reader of the four categories as identified by Oxford (2003): technical, psychological, sociocultural, and political-critical. However, the majority of the article is dedicated to relating these perspectives to CALL. Regarding the technical perspective, the issues of setting and content are given high value. The setting may vary from closely managed teacher control of content, sequence, and assessment to almost completely independent, self-directed learning on the part of the student. The content of most CALL techniques also varies and usually possessing the advantage of user-commanded adjustments to cater to their individual learning styles.

Psychologically, motivation plays a large role in students’ aptitudes to learn autonomously. More closely related to technology lies an individual’s perception of how their familiarity matches up with the tools. If they believe they possess inadequate skills, they may not be as open to learning in a technological-aided environment.

Socioculturally, something called a “community of practice” (Wenger, 1998a) can be conducive to a learner by “providing social, psychological, linguistic, and academic support for learning” (Wenger, 1998a). As the name implies, such an environment involves groups of learners and, through CALL, they are more closely connected through increased technology such as local area networks, MOOs (multi-user object oriented domains), increased internet availability, and Web-based projects such as Webquests.

Political-critical concerns address the issues related to utilizing CALL in a broader context, one which recognizes the importance of regarding information obtained from technological sources (such as the internet) with an eye for scrutiny. Learners should be informed of the ways to not only access information, but how to assess it. Autonomous learners should therefore be capable of neutrally questioning the information acquired from these tools of technology and not simply accepting it because of its availability.

Healey’s chapter explores various perspectives of learner autonomy in relation to CALL. Among the four mentioned, I found the latter (political-critical) quite interesting and relevant to some current educational issues. As information becomes increasingly easily accessible to learners of all ages, the challenge of determining which information is truthful, suitable, and reliable becomes more and more difficult. Furthermore, learners must contend with the simple fact of overwhelming amounts of information. During a recent discussion with a university professor, I noted him saying, “Information taught to incoming freshmen is outdated by the time they are juniors. What we are doing in higher education these days is not so much teaching information as teaching how to gather and organize it.” Wise words in an age where any basic search query easily yields millions of hits. We must be mindful to teach in ways that develop their knowledge effectively and efficiently, as well as guide learners to acquire it autonomously through neutral perspectives.