Learning to Surf:
Structuring,
Negotiating,and Owning
Autonomy
Tim Murphey
Dokkyo University
mits@dokkyo.ac.jp

Looking atfour resonant interconnections between theAnthology and group dynamics, this chapter
proposes a co-constructed developmental view of autonomy. It seeks to show how autonomy
development can dynamically change, is socially produced, develops in specific situations, and isrelated to both teacher and studentdevelopment. Strangely enough, autonomy develops its greatest
resilience in groups—groups that offersupport, security, and ample modeling opportunities.
zcDMrm$b1cMtMmti¥(Dffl\z&Z>4ymmfflmzMBl, H#fc*fl/CtBHT!'f£?>±tf&i•Autonomy You

AskiMURPHEY

Aya was confused byaction logging the first dayof class, so I gave herand theotherstudents some oldaction logs from previous students tolook at. They allfelt more confident
after looking at a lot of models. Afew weeks later Aya asked if it was OKto draw picturesin her action lognotebook. I said, "Please do!" andshe later reported thatif shedrew
pictures of the stories and idioms we were working with she remembered them better. I
then encouraged all thestudents to startdrawing more byputtingAyas comments in a
newsletter of anonymous studentcomments. After a midterm break, Aya handed me her
action login class. Thinking shehadmisunderstood something, I said, "But I didn't assign
anythingfor the break." Shesmiled and said, "Iknow," and she explained, "But I couldn't
help continuing theaction logduring the break. It's fun to write and draw my life. I
thought you would enjoy a look." And I did.

I had the pleasure of reading several early drafts of the chapters in this book before spending
an enjoyable weekend at the Anthology Retreat in June 2003 talking with many of the authors
about their work. In August I was able to read later drafts and some that had not been available
at that June retreat. The richness that I was finding in their work paralleled some writing that
I was doing at the time with Zoltan Dornyei on group dynamics (Dornyei & Murphey, 2003).
In this introductory chapter, I would like to look briefly at four resonant interconnections
between this anthology and my own work: the dynamic quality of autonomy development inrelation to group dynamics, the social origins of autonomy, the situated appropriateness ofautonomy, and teacher autonomy. After exploring those four interconnections, I conclude byproviding a short list, mostly for myself, of questions for my everyday teaching that I hope will
promote my own and my students' critical collaborative autonomy.

The Dynamic Quality of Autonomy Development
The group dynamics literature can contribute at least two strands to our thinking aboutautonomy. One deals with changing leadership styles and how they can help create a safe andencouraging environment in which to invite autonomy (described immediately below). The
other deals with the group's socialization into metacognitive, critical, and autonomous ways ofthinking (discussed further on).

Group dynamics research has long described three types of teacher leaders: autocratic,
democratic and laissez-faire (or more positively stated, autonomy-inviting) (Lewin, Lippitt, &White, 1939). Recently, research has suggested that effective teachers actually use all three kindsof leadership at different times for different purposes (Heron, 1999). Effective teachers often

Acknowledgements

Thanks to those daring students (especially Aya) and teachers who dare to question and confuse
and enlighten. Bravo editors Andy & Mike, and the whole brave group! Because (and see Phi!
Benson's excellent depiction of this in Chapter 19), "Until you are willing to be confused about
what you already know, what you know will never become wider; bigger or deeper"—Milton
Erikson— LD SIG 2003 A n t h o l o g y•Learning toSurfstart out autocratic, then segue into democratic, and later, when appropriate, into autonomyinviting. It seems that at the beginning of a new class, generally, students do want to know thatthe teacher is in charge and has a plan. This assures students that, indeed, the class can help
them learn. When students are clear about what the teacher wants, they can usually work withmore confidence. However, this confidence eventually brings with it a desire to take part morein the decision-making processes of the class,to have a participatory voice, and then, whenappropriate, to be given the trust to do things on their own, as well as collaboratively with theirpeers.

The three modes of leadership, the roles that teachers might take, and some characteristic
activity types that may accompany them are shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1 Isolated Teacher Leader Modes

Typical Activity Types

Teacher/Researcher

Three Modes
Autocratic

Democratic

Engineer

Audio-lingual, grammar,

Creating andproviding structuretranslation / lecture / test,

Negotiator/facilitator

Write your opinions

Re-structuring
Co-structuring
Showing choices

Strategy choiceestablishing set procedures
Let's talk

Collaborative assessment

Ethnographer
Studying students

Autonomy-inviting

Emically evolving fromstudents, about students,

strategy creation, projects,
self-assessment, portfolios

Effective teachers generally flow from the top to the bottom of Table 1 and revert backto previous modes when needed. Sometimes teachers may become temporarily stuck withlimiting beliefs and ways of doing things, such as, "We must translate everything to make itcompletely understood." There may also be dams to stop this flow altogether (e.g., a teacher's
fear of student initiative). It takes an openly communicating community to navigate the flow
and the snags along the way.

Aya, in the narrative above, was first provided the structure of the action logs and given
ample models to follow. She later negotiated the drawing of pictures, a move which, whenreported to other students in the weekly class newsletter, let other students also know thatchanges could be negotiated. Finally, in Aya's decision to continue with the action logging
during the break without teacher direction, she became even more self-regulatory andautonomous.

As in Aya's narrative, the control of autonomy, or agency, generally changes from teacher
structuring to shared negotiation and then to student ownership. It begins with the teacher'sagency of choosing to use an autonomy-inviting structure, such as action logging, in a rather
autocratic way. Later, by allowing negotiation to reshape the structure somewhat, i.e., students
requesting to draw in their logs, agency becomes more shared and negotiated. Finally, theagency shifts to the students (at least some of them) as they make autonomous decisions tolearn and study in certain ways (see Figure 1 overleaf).

—

Autonomy You

Aski

—

4

*

MURPHEY

Structuring

Re-structuring

Re-negotiating

Negotiating/

Owning-Autonomy

Figure 1 Autonomy-inviting processes
The fact that these moves may be highlighted for the whole classin newsletters allows
individuals in the group to influence each other more because they are near peer role models(Murphey, 1998c; Murphey &Arao, 2001) i.e.,psychologically easier to emulate than the teacher
or other more distant models. One student's brave steps show others that they can choose or how
they can make their own paths. Thus, our autonomy is co-constructed by the models offered tous, the models that dare us to think differently, creatively, and critically, and that may inspire us
beyond our own self-expectations and what is available in the observable world.
Despite the teacher's general flow from autocratic to democratic to autonomy-inviting overthe course of several weeks or a semester, the classroom situation will still warrant at times

the teacher switching to another mode, if only for a few minutes. For example, when at first
introducing a new activity, even late in the term, the teacher may want to be autocratic sostudents get the initial pattern down. On the first day,when allowing students to choose three
things to share about themselves with others, the teacher may be autonomy-inviting at the levelof choice of the actual items.

Learners also are not always simply one kind of learner, but rather their desires shift
dynamically as they develop over many weeks, and even momentarily in one class. Somestudents may also come from an environment where they have developed "learned
helplessness" (Seligman, 1990) and have little experience making choices, while others may
demand more choices at the same time. These different ways of being in the world (Gee,
1996) are learned socially and intermentally (Swain, 2000a; van Lier, 2000; Vygotsky 1962;
Wertsch, 1991). Thus, class newsletters (collections of student comments from their actionlogs) may assume importance as intermental-group-learning-tools in allowing students to heareach others' ideas, grasp an understanding of what the group is thinking, and grow from thegroup's explorations. After reading newsletters, many students report that they have a better
understanding of the group and feel more secure (Murphey, 1993; Kindt & Murphey, 2000;
Murphey & Woo, 1998). In shifting leadership styles and providing interactive structures, suchas the newsletters, the teacher is at the same time co-constructing with the students a safe
environment and preparing the ground for greater autonomy.
Ideally, teachers would be capable of manifesting all three types of leadership, as the needarises, and adjusting to individuals and the group—a daunting task, I admit. However, when
we have open communication and students who let their wishes be known, it becomes easier.
Also, setting up autonomy-inviting structures, autocratically even, assures that the doors fornegotiation and autonomy-owning are open when students are ready. Many such autonomy— LD SIG 2003 A n t h o l o g y —5•Learning t o S u r f

inviting structures are included in the following chapters: language learning projects (e.g.,
Stephenson & Kohyama), portfolios (e.g.,Davies, Malone, Shimo), group presentations (e.g.,
Mizuki, Nix, Stewart), group publications (e.g., Cunningham & Carlton), reflection/learningjournals (e.g., Abe, Barfield, Malone, Nix, Takagi), self-assessment (e.g., Barfield, Evans Nachi,
Mizuki), and cooperative learning formats (e.g., Stephenson & Kohyama, Stewart, Takagi).
Furthermore, at a meta-level, Brown refreshingly discusses autonomy stereotypes, Carrolland Head look at structuring autonomy into textbooks for a large program, and Skier and
Vye describe seasoned language learners' histories and discover their autonomous resilience.
Finally, Usuki looks closely at the kinds of autonomy already present in some Japanese students
to further refine our conceptions of what autonomy can be. This is just a small glimpse of thetools that authors in Autonomy You Ask! have been using to develop and research autonomyinviting structures.

In one sense, such autonomy inviting tools as those above are neutral, and it depends on
how the teacher and students use them—even the best of tools can be used autocratically to tie
up learners with the specific desires of the teacher or curriculum. However, in general, thesetools do seem to have more potential to invite more autonomy than many others. And the
opposite is also true—the standard textbook can be an autocratic tool of coercion when used toforce students straight through it with no choice as to the 'how.' Or it could be used to scaffold
autonomy when teachers invite students to skim and select units they would like to cover, or
when they can choose two of the five questions to answer at the end of a unit. Even with themost autocratic of structures, imaginative teachers will always be able to exercise students'
ability to self-direct.
How well the shifts to democratic and autonomous processes are scaffolded by a teacher inthe midst of every-day-learning may be crucial for the acceptance of more responsibility by
the students. At the same time, our invitational structures are not written in stone, and, despite
our convictions that they are great ways for students to manage their learning, it is"students
managing their learning" that we seek most. It can be painful for teachers at times to change orcast aside favored ways of doing things that have served them well.
Social Origins of Autonomy

The variety of teachers coming together to produce this volume is itself a good exampleof the social origins of autonomy. Barfield, Carroll and Head, Malone, Nix, and Stewart,in particular, and others as well, give examples of how supportive and critical cooperative
dialogue (Edge, 1992, 2002) among teachers and co-researchers can help them work throughconflicts and confusions to better understand their classrooms. They still do not haveanswers for all their questions—but then the answers are actually less important than theprocesses of questioning and searching. Many authors also provide examples within theirchapters of how their students can socialize into supportive groups and encourage reflection
and innovation.

Autonomy grows from interaction with others. Most of the time it is modeled frompeers who display self-regulated behaviors, and who provide alternative ways of behaving,
thinking, and choosing. In a Vygotskian sense, all learning starts out between minds,
intermentally, and only gradually becomes intramental. Facilitating the socialization
processes in the classroom (Dornyei & Murphey, 2003) can greatly help this collaborativeautonomy and lead to a more critical stance (Murphey, 2001; Murphey & Jacobs, 2000).
Indeed, underlying the development of such collaborative autonomy is the power of the'conscious collective.' Benson (1996) notes that:—

Autonomy You

Aski

—

Murphey

Learner autonomy and self-directed learning have been strongly associated withindividualization and even isolation in learning, but the implications of a more criticalversion of autonomy are social. Greater learner control over the learning process,resources and language cannot be achieved by each individual acting alone according
to his or her own preferences. Control is a question of collective decision-making
rather than individual choice, (p. 33)
For me, it is not the collective decision-making that must be noticed here, if indeed that does
happen at all, but the collective massing of perspectives and mental resources and questions
that come in a collaborative community such that each individual can better come to termswith their own socio-cognitive conflicts (Murphey, 1989) and questions as needed. Having
everyone agree to what is right may not be needed in many cases; rather, it is the agreeing todisagree which may actually stimulate more thought. I wish to stress that the social accessingof the group's resources (questions, views,techniques, beliefs, ideas, etc.) is what I see as
immensely important in helping individuals to come to a better understanding of their own
particular situations and questions. This Anthology, again, is an excellent example of suchaccessing of a community's resources to create particular local solutions—something readers
will be able to do as well.

Thus, as a precursor to our concern for student autonomy, we might find it more efficient
to concern ourselves with involving the students in the group first, working toward groupcohesion (not total agreement, but respect) as a foundation upon which students can safely
explore their own versions of autonomy. In M.C. Bateson's words,"Participation precedes
learning" (Bateson, 1994,p. 41). Lave and Wenger (1991) talk of increasing participation
through legitimate peripheral participation, allowing one to slowlybecome a full participant
and to own their own learning. It is this identification with the group and participation,even on the peripheral, that opens up members to the social resources that can stimulate andsupport them.

For example, when I ask students to self-evaluate themselves for their grades, many
find it difficult because they have seldom, if ever, been asked to do that in an educational
environment. To give them some idea of how they might do it, I play them a video of a
student making a presentation for a grade. The student starts with "I think I deserve an A
for four reasons..." This gets them thinking of the variety of reasons they might deservea certain grade. More of their insight into self-evaluation comes from discussing their
possible grades with other students in small groups, i.e., participating with the group intrying to figure out how to evaluate themselves. Finally, they are asked to fill out a selfevaluation form and state the reasons why they think they deserve the grade they are giving
themselves. In doing this, they activate their learning from the group and make it moretheir own.

In the chapters that follow, there is ample recognition that autonomy originates from and ismodeled in the social group. Stephenson and Koyama note that students would have liked tohave known earlier what activities others were doing for their Language Learning Projects sothey could have tried them out themselves. Both Mizuki and Takagi begin with collaborative
structures in promoting autonomy, while Evans Nachi's research into self-evaluation showsthat students want to know more about how their peers are evaluating themselves and how theteacher evaluates, before they can feel secure doing it themselves.
We learn autonomy in groups.

LD SIG 2003 A n t h o l o g y7•Learning t o Surf

Situated Appropriateness of Autonomy

Autonomy will have a thousand facets. I find it useful to remember that since one's sense of
autonomy is constructed, autonomy can't be the same thing for everyone—that would be
an oxymoron (see more on this in NaokoAoki's chapter this volume). Aswe model different
people and learn a varietyof tools to self-regulate, our ideas of how we want to be in the world
will not be the same as others. People need to be trusted to generate and manage the kinds ofautonomy that best fit their needs at particular points in time. Deciding for others how theyshould manage or teach autonomy is anti-autonomous. The most educators can do is structure
the possibilitiesfor autonomous action at different developmental stages and offer as many
choices as possible, mixed with problematizing and metacognitive development. While many of
the chapters in Autonomy You Ask! describe autonomy-inviting structures for young university
students (e.g., Davies, Shimo, with portfolios; Cunningham & Carlton, with newsletters),
others recognize different developmental levels in their older and more mature students andseek to learn from them and with them (see Malone, Nix, Skier & Vye, for example).

Finally, self-regulation, or the increasing ability to regulate one's own life and gain moreagency in the world, is seen as emancipatory in many people's eyes. I would like to proposethat this may not always be so, and that this, too, will depend upon multiple factors. In fact, forefficiency, people tend to choose their domains of autonomous action and, in other domains,depend socially on others and trust their judgment. For example, it would be neither advisable
nor desirable for drivers to feel totally autonomous with regard to traffic rules. And we do nothave the time to be autonomous in reference to all the information domains that surround us(politics, law,science, health, insurance, religion, etc.). Thus we tend to choose certain areas tobe active in and to inform ourselves about. Being interdependent with others to act responsiblyin their areas of work allows us to focus on our chosen domains and exercise our agency ina more concentrated manner. This is an advantage of communities in which responsibility
is taken seriously; this creates problems when individuals do not feel this responsibility intheir work. Balancing such constraints leads us directly into teacher autonomy, the final
interconnection that I'd like to explore between my own work and the chapters that follow.
Teacher Autonomy

In parallel to helping students self-regulate their learning, teachers are also involved withbrokering their own autonomy, satisfying institutional constraints, and adjusting to individual
students who may greatly differ from whatever the majority group developmental positions
might be. All of this may push our understanding of teaching into the dynamic and everchanging waves of chaos/confusion theory. As John Kabat Zinn says, "You can't stop the waves,
but you can learn to surf." Learning to surf through the confusion, suspending judgment, andtolerating ambiguity take time and practice. And should even experienced teachers 'wipe out'
(fall off their surf boards) occasionally, they should not take it too hard as there is a wide arrayof variables that determine the success of autonomous orientations of individuals and groups.
However, research (Dornyei & Murphey, 2003) is showing that the more collaborative, orcollegial, groups of teachers are, the more learning usually occurs in their classes:
In the educational literature the adjective 'collegial' has been used to refer to staff andfaculty who work together effectively, who share common goals, professional values
and norms. More specifically, collegiality can be defined in terms of four behaviors of
the adults in a school:—

Autonomy You

Askj

—

Murphey•

having frequent conversations about teaching and learning;observing and providing feedback for one another;•working collaboratively on the curriculum;•

teaching one another about teaching, learning and leading.

In order to test the validity of these reports, Wheelan and Tilin (1999) set out toexamine the relationship between staff/faculty group effectiveness and the actuallevel of productivity in ten American elementary, middle and high schools. Theirresults fully confirmed that a strong relationship exists between staff/faculty groupfunctioning and student outcomes... This points to the conclusion that the quality ofthe teaching a school can provide is related to the maturity and collegiality level of thestaff/faculty group, (p.175)
If,indeed, the "maturity and collegiality levelof staff" leads to better student learning, as reported
above,and autonomy, for teachers and students, is modeled best in wellsocializinggroups, thenperhaps we need to pay more attention to teacher groups to improve student learning. This is also
the conclusion of Kleinsasser and Savignon (1992) who described two types of cultures of teachers
in their research. One was "routine/uncertain cultures," in which teachers were uncertain about

their instructional practice and thus engaged rigidlyin routines. They had few conversations about
instruction and relied on traditional approaches. The other was"non-routine/certain cultures,"where teachers were confident about their instruction, and their daily practices were not predictable.
Kleinsasser and Savignon concluded that, in the non-routine/certain groups, teachers collaborated
across departments and incorporated more communicative activities.
What the above research reports emphasize is the importance of secure environments for
exploration, in which learners and teachers are not simply implementing a method or routine,
but rather using their security to dare to explore with flexibility, to establish extraordinary
learning cultures. As we promote learning fluency (Barfield, this volume) among students, weequally need to promote teachingfluency among teachers.

A major element of this fluency is a safe environment in which teachers can have professional
discussions.Although it sounds like a contradiction, security is the foundation of autonomy andinnovation. Insecure teachers and learners tend to opt for conventional ways (no matter how
much they may dislike them, see Usuki, this volume), and this in turn can lead to isolation:
Idealistically, whatever administrators can do to help construct a coherent, consistentframework which teachers can count on for support, without overly constraining them,will help teachers feel secure enough to experiment and use the flexibility necessary for
improvement of teaching. Perhaps one of the most important contributing elements
is the development of rapport and respect between people engaged in communities oflearners. (Murphey & Sato, 2000, p. 9)

Unfortunately most institutional groups of teachers are far from collegial and safe. We
sorely need descriptions of teacher groups that become supportive of teacher development
and how they become so (Murphey & Sato, in progress; see Callfor Papers in bibliography).
When teachers do not have a collegial environment to work in, they often seek it elsewhere, in avariety of professional groups both formal and informal.
Writing this opening chapter, spending a weekend at the Anthology Retreat in Momoyama
with many of the writers, and watching the Anthology grow with the many reviewers and
LD SIG 2003 A n t h o l o g y —Learning toSurfcollaborators has engaged me in numerous professional reflections and conversations. This
has involved us all in a collegial community of like-minded professionals seeking to improveeducation. Autonomy You Ask! has proved to be a priceless opportunity for collaborative
development for those of us involved, and readers will feel this shared excitement in thechapters that follow.
List of Practical Reminders to Myself as a Teacher

I understand in theory the flow from autocratic through democratic to autonomy, social
modeling, and the social situated appropriacy of developing autonomy, and find I cango with the flow sometimes. However, I also find myself getting hooked by snags and notwanting to change certain beliefs and give up control at times (a dilemma oft described in thefollowing chapters). I am not always sure that I can operationalize my understanding of thesituated appropriateness of autonomy and its social origins. Reading the chapters that follow
has helped me to see different ways of socially approaching and co-constructing autonomy
in classes, and, indeed, in our profession. To focus more on these things, I have made a listof statements and questions, mostly for myself, to help me be more self-regulatory andto remember to keep adjusting to the dynamic variety in autonomy development. As you
in turn read the Anthology, you may want to write down your own reminders, puzzlingquestions, and challenges about autonomy.
Set up structures. Recently, how much have I set up autonomy inviting structures anddone exploratory research (Allwright, 1997)? How can I remain calm when my efforts
don't work, students do not see them as helpful, or they find them constraining rather
than freeing? How can I adjust them? [e.g.,action logging & newsletters.]

Get student input. Recently, how much have I gotten students to give me ideas forautonomous structures and remained open to receiving these and recognizing them?
Are there ways for me to hear their voices,and places for them to express what they
prefer, to be involvedin participatory action research (Auerbach, 1994)? [e.g.,some
students mentioned in their action logs that they were teaching their parents the
songs we were learning in class.]
Negotiate critically. Recently, how much have students attempted to negotiate elementsof the pedagogical classroom organization? [Not much? Check that they know theycan. Remind them how their voices can be heard.]

Study the students. Recently, how much have I, as an ethnographer of my own group of
students, noticed their new ways of learning and acting (student excellence) that I canperhaps amplify for more students to use?
Encourage reflection, choice, modeling, and initiative. Recently, how much have I
invited and encouraged: (a) reflection about their individual choices (see Hasan, 1996,
about reflection literacy), (b) more metacognition, (c) modeling others, (d) exploring
options, (e) owning their own autonomy, and (f) creating new ways to learn?
Collaborate with colleagues. Recently,how much have I collaborated with colleagues
in my institution and outside of it for my own professional development in order toincrease the choices I can offer my students?
Surf. Enjoy the waves, especially the wipeouts (there's something to be learned!).

—Autonomy You

Ask*

—

io

•

Murphey

After the break, Aya gave meher notebook to look at. I was amazed. She has described two of her
friends whoare very close to her, with whom she has begun "playing with English," i.e., speaking
English forfun frequently outside of class. She hasdescribed a wide number of ways thatsheinteracts with English and continues herlearning beyond her university classes, accompanying
many of them with drawings oflww shedoes them. In most of herdrawings and descriptions
are hertwo bestfriends who stimulate herstudy and the manyways thatshe hasfound to study.
She is not autonomous alone. Infact, hersocially collaborative autonomyseemsto make herselfregidations immensely richer. In my mind,I am already asking myselfhow I canfind a wayfor
other students to readher notebook and learn from it. I want the options she has discovered to beshared with others, to increase their choices.

I reflect further, realizing that I did not necessarily inspire Aya in her endeavors, butI did
providethespace for it. I know there are other students who havenot recognized a spacefor
themselves, and others thatstillfeel overly constrained by the action logs and my teaching. I
understand now that I-alone may not be able to show these spaces to all students, butAya, andclassmates like her, might beable to do what I-alone cannot. Surfers collect around places where
waves are breaking and watch carefully.

— LD SIG 2003 A n t h o l o g y —