Learning Learning 17 (1) Spring 2010
Review: Ellen Head
Mapping the Terrain of Learner Autonomy,
by Felicity Kjisik, Peter Voller, Naoko Aoki
and Yoshiyuki Nakata#$%&'()*+,-Hフェリシチ・キ
シク、ピーター・フォレル、青木直子、中田賀之

Reviewed by Ellen Head, Poole Gakuin
University
エレン・ヘト、プール学院大学

Mapping the Terrain of Learner Autonomy !"#$%&'()*+,-./0#$%&'(12345367+895:;3<=>0?@AB
CDEFGHIA123JK=>LM:;3<=>04=L'(ANOP+QR=>-SME
LTUVFDWXYMZIA[02007 \3]^_`a%XbcdS5ILAXAe;fAghi
jklmnofpqghprstSHuv3
w95xAXYMZ IAyzA{3|}fS
5a~-•F95%&€•3‚ƒM„…'(3†K‡Mˆ‰ŠAy‹0ˆnlmn!Œ•Ž•/XYGH•A‘’“lmnX”•dS>L
MZ"#$%&'(A–—A˜G™Gš=>›
œ.H"#$%&„…•.H"pžŸq ‰H
j¡n’¢‰H£¤¥¦§¨.š=>"#$%&'(A©ª3‹L>.ZIA[01970\«3%&;¬‰-®¯‰+°3±f=}>-S5'(;Holec3²M³´3²GµtMZHolec3²
ME%&0 £¶3²M·?3²M%&!a¸0£¹º/EH·?3»fFL%&¼½¾¢¿!£¹_/31ƒMIEruÀMZÁ;AÂÃ
0%&;A"ÄÅÆAÇÅ.E=>‚ÈGH

Learning Learning 17 (1) Spring 2010ª;0%&;A"#$.+ÂÃE=>LMZ[DX0IAÉ;AÊËf=L•+:ÌIErX~MZdf3HÍ[A£ÎÏÐ3‚ƒMÈ#$%&AÑÒ+ÓÔ=>LM{^A³´0HÕÖFrfH%&;‚²×£¶A#$0Í[A£ÎÏÐ3‚L>ØÙFxAXYMr„Ñof0ÚÛÜLxAÝEÞß>LMZš=>HàáAâãÃF³´0#$%&'(AdfFMäåA5}H%&+¥ßMæç´èAéê+ëì1íîA¯“½ïðñòói®¾¢ôh‰õöò÷ø
Ã'(î+ùÌúûïðñHæç´üÃFŠ“½ïðñHFÛýþFïðñA'(+ÿ>!"‡MØÙP+#ß>LMZ
Mapping the Terrain of Learner Autonomy cameinto being “to initiate Japanese language
speaking teachers into the field” and “to have avision for the future” of where learner autonomy
studies might be heading. (p.7) The book,published in both English and Japanese, wasthe result of conversations between the editors
at the 2007 ILA conference at Kanda University,Tokyo. Some of the papers are very close to thepapers given at the conference, while others,
like Aoki’s and Nakata’s, have been written
subsequently for the book. It struck me assomewhat ambitious to expect the same
volume to provide an orientation for those new
to autonomy studies and a challenge to those
who have been in the field for some time, but in
effect the book succeeds in fulfilling both
functions. It is divided into four sections,“Looking back and taking stock”, “Examples”,“Advisor, counsellor and teacher development”
and “Looking ahead”..
The book brings together accounts oflearning in widely different settings, and thistension is one of the principle themes of thebook. Holec introduces a distinction between
what he calls “state 1”, instruction-basedlearning, and “state 2”, non-instruction-based,learning programs.

30

Ellen Head
Personally, I find this division somewhat
artificial, particularly when Holec goes on to saythat the aim of “state 1” education is “toincrease the learners’ responsibility…producing
independent learners” in contrast to “state 2”
which aims “to produce autonomous learners”.
I feel that now that Japan has someuniversities, such as Kanda University ofInternational Studies and Akita University, which
are committed to “state 2” style programs, there
is great potential in opening up dialogue
between those engaged in language advisingand those working in a classroom setting. I
wonder if such dialogue can best be facilitatedby concentrating on what separates us rather
than looking at the continuity between the aims.
To do him justice, Holec does provide anexcellent and detailed account of aspects ofimplementation of “state 2”, with somestimulating suggestions for learner training andteacher training, all of which I would suggest
are also relevant to “state 1”. He makes thepoint that learners often conceive goals in termsof materials and can benefit from interaction
with an advisor who helps them to interpret theirgoals in relation to activities and skills. He also
provides a lovely new metaphor: “rigging”: “innon-instructed learning, the help received may
best be described as not so much of thescaffolding type as of the rigging type: its
objective is equipping learners with theknowledge that they require to fulfill theirdecision making needs.” (p.29). As a metaphor,rigging, i.e., the ropes and connections needed
to extend the sails of a boat and position themto catch the wind, suggests that learning is avoyage and the learner is moving forward like aboat, carrying not only the equipment but theability to adjust the equipment.
In the second section of the book,“Examples”, there are three case-studies: Little,
focusing on the European Language Portfolio inIreland, Schwienhorst, contrasting a successful

Learning Learning 17 (1) Spring 2010

and an unsuccessful implementation ofautonomy in a computer based course, andMurray, describing a “learning structure” whichforms the basis of study in a self-accessenvironment at Akita University. I foundSchwienhorst’s paper refreshing as hechallenges some entrenched assumptions:“Why do publications speak of CALL but notbook-assisted, classroom-assisted, teacherassisted, peer-assisted, television-assisted,mobile-assisted…language learning?…On its
own [the computer] does not create newopportunities for learning, but certainly facilitatesa variety of communication scenarios, a variety
of authentic language input, a variety ofintelligent CALL…applications and a variety of‘cognitive tools..’. (p. 101). Making an analogy
with jazz, he identifies reflection, interaction andexperimentation as possible hallmarks ofdeveloping autonomy (pp. 89-91). However he
immediately follows up with “Concepts such asreflection, interaction and experimentation
should not be seen as inherently beneficial tolanguage learning nor should the application oftechnology be viewed as inherentlybeneficial.” (p. 103). This is a salutary reminderof the need for detailed attention to process andcareful evaluation of any initiatives which aresupposed to encourage learner autonomy. His
contrasting examples, entitled “How to failmiserably in implementing learner autonomy
principles”, (pp. 104 – 105), let us see how theaddition of preparatory and follow up work plus
some scaffolded pair work, turned a computerbased class from a failure into a success. He
introduces the term “affordance” (Gibson, 1979),
to describe the potential actions supported by alearning environment, and explains how
additional tools, such as transcripts of students’conversations, can increase the affordancevalue of an environment. (pp. 107 – 109).
The following two papers focus on the artof advising students: Gremmo takes a very31

Ellen Headhonest look at the interaction between advisor
and advisee to see how much impact theadvice had, while Karlsson and Kjisik analyze
the importance of learner histories. My interest
was caught by the use of Eva Hoffman’s term,“the fracture between language andexperience” in the latter paper. Karlsson andKjisik suggest that these “‘fractures’ between
language and experience can be made into thebuilding blocks by the process of writing andsharing stories.” (p. 186). This seems to me toencapsulate the benefits of language histories,
or indeed any kind of reflection on an
experience of the gap between what was aimed
for and what was achieved, very elegantly.
In my opinion, Nakata’s overview of thecurrent state of play in implementing autonomybuilding strategies in Japan, would fit better inthe final section “Looking Ahead” rather thanwith “Advisor, counsellor and teacher
development”. Nakata’s commitment to proautonomy teaching is clear, and he makes nobones about the need for smaller class-sizes
and teacher-development, but without touchingon the socio-political background it is (in myview) difficult to give the whole story.
Aoki makes up for this deficit in her
paper “Where learner autonomy could fail asecond language user: three level analysis ofsocial context.” (pp. 236-257). I would havebought the book for this paper alone, as it isboth incisive and grounded in examples full ofinterest. The first section consists of discourse
analysis of contrasting contexts, one where anative-speaker interlocutor assists the learnerand one where the reverse happens. (One point
for a future edition would be to translate thetranscriptions into English.) Aoki makes thepoint that [untrained] “native speakers often
tend to sacrifice forms for the sake ofcommunication when a second language
speaker is struggling to formulate what s/he hasto say.” (p. 244)

Learning Learning 17 (1) Spring 2010

I have experienced this and agree with Aoki
that it is not easy to find friends or volunteer
teachers who will put up with providingscaffolding rather than instant answers. This iswhat Aoki calls the “micro-level” context. Her
next example (“meso-level”) concerns identity
construction in L2, as revealed by a Korean
woman who experienced difficulty expressing
her true self in Japanese to her critical husband
but gained confidence when speaking
Japanese at a swimming club and also with aJapanese friend she had known back in herhome country. Aoki comments “Learnerautonomy alone would not be enough forsecond language learners to sustain old social
identities and forge new ones of their choice…
success depends on who they come intocontact with.” (p. 249). Finally, for the “macrolevel”, taking the example of an adult maleBrazilian learner of Japanese, she addresses
the “structural conditions, be they economic,
social or political…that support or restrictlearner autonomy as a capacity.” (p. 250) She
shows how the system has failed to help thisman despite his eagerness to study, mainly due
to the harsh economic conditions he is under.
She calls for “more balanced, holistic
approaches that situate individual capacity inthe social context and focus on all of its threelevels”, those levels being, discourse analysis,
ethnography and the macro level of “politics,demography and economy”. (p. 254). She talks
about the challenge of future research, whichmight draw on all three levels, “solving” of the“paradigmatic contradiction” between them. In
the JSL (Japanese as a second language)
context, she suggests the need for a moreequal relationship between teacher andstudent, a more sophisticated attitude inrelation to learning materials and resources
such as study centres for JSL. Aoki’s argument
is of practical importance because Japan willneed more guest workers to deal with the aging
population in coming years. In the wider
32

Ellen Headcontext of applied linguistics research as awhole, her challenge to carry out research withgreater awareness of various researchparadigms makes a thought-provoking finale to“Mapping the Terrain”, which is both inspiring in
its call to mixed methods research, andempowering as an example of how it can bedone. In contrast, Benson’s paper, (whichprecedes Aoki’s in section 4) seems to me to beweighed down by a determination toproblematize the relationship between
instructed and non-instructed learning. As
mentioned above, the creation of two separate
categories of analysis might tend to work as a
distraction from fruitful collaboration between
classroom teachers, advisors and learners.

Learning Learning 17 (1) Spring 2010

However, the diversity of views andexperiences encompassed in the book as awhole, bears testimony to the variety of learnerautonomy studies and their practicalapplications, especially in university foreign
language learning settings today.
ReferencesGibson, J.J., (1979). The ecological approach
to visual perception. Boston MA: Houghton
Mifflin
Hoffman, E. (1998). Lost in translation: a life ina new language. London: Vintage. (Original
published in 1989).

33