BODWELL, ET AL: TEACHING AUTONOMY: RESOLVING THE PARADOX• MENU• PRINTABLE VERSION• HELP & FAQS

Teaching autonomy:Resolving the Paradox
Kevin Bodwell

Meiji Gakuin University

Miki Kohyama

Gakushuin Womenʼs University

Rachelle Jorgenson
Meikai University

Stacey Vye

Kokusai Iriyou Fukushi University

Jodie Stephenson

Kohran Jogakko

JALT2002 AT SHIZUOKA106

The writer Jim Cummins (1994) argues that
educators should move from a “transmission
orientation,” in which knowledge is “inert,” towarda “critical orientation,” in which knowledge is“catalytic,” empowering students to take commandof their own learning and ultimately their own lives.
This workshop built on the premise that learning isbest accomplished by learners rather than teachers.
But can teachers encourage their students towardautonomy when students themselves choose to be
dependent on teacher control? Participants viewed
cinematic portrayals of teachers encouraging
their charges to move toward autonomy, and thendiscussed models methods for resolution of theconflicts that arise when a teacher tries to persuade
dependent students toward more autonomous modesof learning. In general, participants found a need forregulated amounts of structure as students graduallylearn to take more control through incremental
increases in responsibility for curricular goals andlearning processes.
ジム・カミンズ(1994)は、先生が言うことをそのまま鵜呑みにするように強制する｢受身的教育｣から、学生たちが意味を論理的に解釈し知識を構築していき、学習の自己責任をとる｢論理的指導｣に移行すべきであると論じている。このワークショップは、学生自身によって自主的に行なわれる学習が最も効果的であるという考え方に基づいている。しかし、学生が先生に依存するという選択をした場合、どのように自律学習を指導したらよいのだ
ろうか。ワークショップでは先生が自律学習を進めようとしているビデオをいくつか見てもらい、依存心の強い学生を自律学習へ移行させようとする時に起こる衝突を解決するにはどうしたらよいか討論した。最初は先生が必要に応じたサポート体制を与え、学生が徐々にカリキュラムの目標を達成し、学習上の責任をとっていく段階的変化が必要であるという結論に達した。
CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGSBODWELL, ET AL: TEACHING AUTONOMY: RESOLVING THE PARADOX

IntroductionThe origin of our autonomy workshop was the observation
among the presenters that student expectations can often
conflict with the practice of autonomy, creating a paradox inwhich students may autonomously prefer to be dependent. In thetraditional, transmission-based classroom, autonomy is often
suppressed. Students are compelled to absorb what the teacher
tells them, and are not encouraged to build up knowledge byconstructing meaning for themselves (Cummins, 1994, pp. 33- 58).
As a result of their educational experience, many students
may not have the learning skills necessary to manage learning
goals or processes. They are often not even aware that any
management takes place. Thus, in many cases, asking students
to “be autonomous” is likely to be a chaotic rather than aproductive process.
Such chaos is what one of the presenters faced last July when
she had to resolve the contradiction between student expectations
and her own belief in the pedagogy of autonomy. She had takenover two university classes from a teacher who left in the middleof the year. The previous teacher had been doing grammartranslation in one class, and dictation in the other. The presenter
had to decide whether to continue to run the classes as they had
been going, which would have been against her understanding of
the nature of learning, or propose new ways of learning, basedon her belief that students learn better when they take control of
their own learning. She decided on the latter.
The students’ reactions were not enthusiastic: “Since you cameafter the other teacher, I think you should follow her style.” “Theold teacher’s way was fine with us.” Some students panicked:“What about my grades?” “I already did the work required by
the first teacher.” “How are you going to combine your grade andJALT2002 AT SHIZUOKAhers?” Another student seemed to consider the change irrelevant:“As long as I pass the class, do whatever you want.”
This experience exemplifies the paradox, and raises thequestions we explored in our workshop: What should the teacher
do if students make choices that limit their own autonomy? What ifstudents don’t recognize the benefits of autonomy? What if students
resist change toward autonomy because they are unused to it?

Exploring the paradox
To help participants conceptualize our understanding of theautonomy paradox, we showed two short video clips, one fromthe film Sister Act II (1993) and the other from the film Keeping
the Faith (2000). The clips dramatized the conflicts that can arise
when a teacher seeks to foster autonomous learning. We thenposed discussion questions designed to encourage discussionof possible resolutions to the conflicts on the screen and in theirclassrooms. The two clips are described below.

Sister Act II
The teacher, Sister Mary Clarence, walks into a classroom andbegins “laying down the law” to a group of students that until
now have been undisciplined and have not shown any interestin studying. She says that students will no longer be able topass the course just by turning up to class, but will actually
have to study. They will also need to be much more disciplined,
and show respect to the teacher. The students at first reject thisnew way and begin to walk out, until they realize that walking
out means that they will fail the course. In the end all but one
student choose to stay.

107

CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGSBODWELL, ET AL: TEACHING AUTONOMY: RESOLVING THE PARADOX

Keeping the Faithand pedagogical procedures are determined through negotiation
between the teacher and students. Participants’ discussions
suggested that the linear continuum model did not adequately
capture the dynamics of autonomy.

This scene shows how a congregation react when theirunorthodox rabbi, Jake, invites the Harlem Gospel Choir
to take part in the service at his synagogue. While they are
initially surprised at the new, more expressive style of worship,
most people quickly join in. However, afterwards, Jake issummoned to a board meeting, where he is reprimanded for his
unconventional ways. In his defense, Jake says that he is notinterested in keeping people comfortable in their traditionalways, but rather wants to push them to grow. One of the board
members sympathizes with Jake, saying that his ideas are good,
but there is a problem with the execution. The board member’s
final comment is “I think you’ll find people will go a lot further
if they feel they are being led and not pushed.”

Sister Act II

Focusing the workshop discussions
In order to focus discussion, we presenters designed a continuum
intended to model autonomy in practice. We believe that
autonomy can be considered not only as an absolute, but also as
something that can be practiced in larger or smaller amounts,
supported with appropriate levels of structure (Nunan, 1999,
pp. 192 - 203). The left end of the continuum represented thechaotic autonomous classroom, a situation in which students
have free reign of the classroom, the teacher’s role is minimal
or non-existent, and little if any learning takes place. Theopposite end of the continuum represented the teacher-centeredclassroom, where the teacher plays the major role in deciding
what is to be learned and how, often under the direction of
the educational institution’s expectations. The center of thecontinuum represented the productive autonomous classroom,in which the teacher acts as a facilitator, and curricular decisions
JALT2002 AT SHIZUOKA

After viewing the video clip from Sister Act II (1993), several
groups focused on the first set of questions: If we envision theclassroom along the continuum described above, where does
the classroom in the video clip fall? What specific student andteacher behaviors led you to your answer? One group found it
difficult to determine where the clip would fall on the continuum,
as it seemed to be Sister Mary Clarence’s first class with thestudents. Groups that focused on the teacher’s behavior reported
that the classroom was most definitely teacher-centered as she
was laying down the law, defining classroom roles by informing
students of her expectations and rules of classroom conduct.
One participant suggested that the Sister’s attitude was “fascist,”
but her expectations seemed reasonable. Another participant
proposed a motive for the teacher’s behavior suggesting that theSister was laying down the law in an effort to move students
from the previous chaotic situation to a more productive one. In
contrast, groups that focused on the students’ behavior found that
there were some elements of autonomy in the sense that students
felt they had a choice to obey the teacher’s requests and stay inthe class or leave as one girl did. Providing a choice, even one assimple as the choice to stay or to leave, can influence students’attitudes toward their learning situation.
Participants were also asked to consider: Where does yourclassroom fall along this continuum? Several groups indicatedthat their classroom falls somewhere between productive
autonomous and teacher-centered. However, one participant said

108

CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGSBODWELL, ET AL: TEACHING AUTONOMY: RESOLVING THE PARADOX
he thought his classes fit the productive autonomous model as
his students determine and organize their own group projects.
Another participant described her classes as moving among all
three concepts depending on interpersonal chemistry, interest
levels, personal physical condition such as whether students
are hungry or tired, and other factors that she may not beaware of. One participant believed the three concepts are allpart of natural learning processes, involving chaotic periods inwhich students struggle with a new task, teacher support, andeventual productivity. The degree of autonomy in any given
student, teacher, or classroom is a complex dynamic of physical,
mental, and situational factors and as such can’t be adequately
conceptualized in a linear continuum.
This discussion led into the next question: Is this the onlycontinuum you can imagine? Many of the groups agreed that thelinear continuum is simplistic and cannot describe the dynamics
of a typical classroom. One group envisioned a triangular shape,with the productive autonomous element at the apex, and thechaotic autonomous and teacher-centered elements at the corners
on the bottom. Another group remarked that the interactionof the three elements could be represented as three partiallyoverlapping circles.
The next question was: What can a teacher do to encourage
autonomous learning when the class autonomously chooses
to be unproductive? A few groups discussed the notion ofunrealistic expectations. Teachers can’t expect students tosuddenly become autonomous by throwing them “into thedeep end and expecting them to swim.” It was suggested that
autonomy should be introduced slowly, by initially providing
limited choice, such as with a list of two or three exercise
options for a particular content goal. As students become more
comfortable, they can take increasing control. Support can beprovided when needed, and removed when students are able.
JALT2002 AT SHIZUOKAOne participant remarked that in cases where students choose
to be unproductive despite the graduated support structure, theteacher might help students become aware that the consequencesof their choices are likely to include a failure to learn a usefulskill and diminished opportunities that result.

Keeping the Faith
After viewing the outtake from the film Keeping the Faith(2000), a number of groups focused on the question: What
may be some possible reasons behind the resistance to changefrom both the board’s and the congregation’s perspective? One
group said that the rabbi was trying to introduce innovative
concepts, but many followers and the board were comfortablewith traditional concepts because they were familiar and safe.
Thus, they resisted change. When a comforting structure isremoved, some may be frightened. Participants acknowledgedthat the rabbi’s ideas and intentions were inspiring, but he didn’t
explain his rationale, nor did he involve the congregation or theboard in his decision-making. There were no opportunities fornegotiation and feedback, so there was resistance.
Another group considered the issue of negotiation using a
metaphorical interpretation, with the rabbi representing a teacher
and the congregation representing students. They decided thatstudents should be given opportunities to influence the syllabus
and make decisions about learning processes. Even smallchoices, such as between which of two exercises to do, canincrease the amount or “degree” (Nunan, 1999, pp. 192 - 203) ofautonomy. Teachers can reduce resistance by providing structurewith options and then gradually increase choices. The process
becomes a consciousness-raising experience in which students
learn to appreciate autonomy. Another participant mentioned

109

CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGSBODWELL, ET AL: TEACHING AUTONOMY: RESOLVING THE PARADOX
the similar idea that students become autonomous in stages assuggested by Michael Rost in his workshop the previous day at
JALT 2002 (Rost, 2002).
A third group focused on the ideas of one of its members whostrongly identified with the rabbi. She encourages her students
to create class activities for themselves. Although her students
seem to find the changes in the classroom refreshing and study
eagerly, administrators and fellow teachers criticize the teacher’sunorthodox teaching practices.
The final set of questions were (1) Discuss some approaches
the rabbi could take to balance his own goal of helping hiscongregation “grow” while at the same time addressing theexpectations of the board and the congregation and (2) Discuss
some approaches teachers can take to balance their own
goals for student growth while addressing the expectations ofstudents and the larger institution. One participant mentionedthat changes made in the classroom should be gradual andintroduced over time. In this conception, students are a partof the negotiation process of how and what is to be learned.
Gradual implementation also gives the teacher time to document
the effects of the change they introduce in class. Others agreed
that gradual change is particularly useful for teachers who work
for institutions with policy constraints.

Conclusion
We designed our workshop to explore the paradox that can arise
when teacher belief in the pedagogy of autonomy conflicts withstudent belief and behavior. Participants analyzed the situations
depicted in the video clips and examined through discussion
how a teacher can persuade students to cease dependency andtake charge of their own learning.
JALT2002 AT SHIZUOKA

In general, participants agreed that non-autonomous students
can move toward increased autonomy through appropriate
levels of supporting structure, combined with increasing choice.
Initially, choice can be relatively small, such as between two
options in a classroom activity, but eventually, students canbe encouraged to negotiate the whole of curricular goals andclassroom practices.

References
Cummins, J. (1994). Knowledge, power, and identity in teaching
English as a second language. In F. Genesee (Ed.), Educating
second language children: The whole child: The wholecurriculum, the whole community (pp. 33 – 58). New York:
Cambridge University Press
Koch, H., Norton, E., Blumberg, S. (Producers). (2000). Keeping
the faith [film]. (Available from Touchstone Pictures, &Spyglass Entertainment, Dept. CS, Burbank, CA 91521)
Nunan, D. (1999). Designing and adapting materials to encouragelearner autonomy. In P. Benson, & P. Voller (Eds.), Autonomyand independence in language learning (pp 192 – 203).
London: Longman
Rost, M. (2002, November). Collaborating: Learning outsideof class. Featured speaker workshop conducted at the Japan
Association of Language Teachers Annual International
Conference on Language Teaching and Learning, Shizuoka,
Japan.
Rudin, S., Steel, D. (Producers), & Duke, B. (Director). (1993).
Sister act II: Back in the habit [film]. (Available from
Touchstone Pictures, Dept. CS, Burbank, CA 91521)

110

CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS