Autonomy and anarchy

Autonomy and anarchy

Frank Lacey

Ådalens Privatskole, Denmark

Frank Lacey from Ireland has been working as an FL teacher (German, English and French) for nearly 30 years. Frank has been living and working in Copenhagen for more than 25 years, having married a Dane, and has two daughters. He is ‘quite’ passionate about his teaching and has for the past 10 years been working with learner autonomy in his classrooms and holding courses on the benefits of learner autonomy. E-mail: frank@jernsokerne.org

W

hen I tell people about my belief in the power of student autonomy, I am often met with sceptical smiles. I very much understand this scepticism. I once shared it. And I even appreciate it, since it forces me to reflect on my practices. Student autonomy in many people’s ears sounds like anarchy.

I have been practising student autonomy for 9 years. The readers of this magazine know well that autonomy means that students choose how they want to learn. They decide what they want to do, how, with whom and then evaluate the results with their fellow students and with the teacher. In short, they take responsibility for their learning and for the evaluation of their learning.

Some people would suggest that I, being the teacher, am shirking my responsibility. But this is most definitely not the case.

All my students are obliged to document their learning in their logbooks and I regularly read these logbooks. I make sure to thoroughly read all logbooks at least once a month. (I have nine different classes – that is about 200 logbooks every month, so yes, it is a time-consuming activity!) And in basically every lesson I can see in their logbooks exactly what they are learning, thus I have a very clear insight into the learning process and learning results of each and every one of my students. I give brief, written, individual feedback to every student in their logbooks. So feedback, just like the work the individual students are doing, is extremely differentiated.

All of us who preach autonomy share the belief that autonomy has a beneficial influence on the student’s intrinsic motivation. Motivational research (Dörnyei 2001a, 2001b; Ushioda 1996) supports this belief. We, as individuals, are naturally more interested in the projects we choose ourselves than projects which we are compelled to complete to please others. “BUT!” some might say,” is this not just too good to be true? Disaffected teenagers with all the distractions that they face don’t arrive in class eager to explore grammar, punctuation, culture etc.”. Certainly, my students are teenagers with all the challenges and adolescent behaviour but in my experience they are intrinsically motivated. Why?

Until recently I did quite honestly find it difficult to explain why student autonomy works in my classes. Recently I read a book called ‘Engaging learners/Outstanding teaching’ written by Andy Griffith and Mark Burns, and here I met the concept ‘Contain’. “Contain is about establishing positive norms that the teacher wants to see in his or her classroom. These norms – such as working hard, cooperating, reflecting on and improving the quality of one’s work – will grow and become embedded over time” (Griffith and Burns 2012: 55).

In other words, ‘contain’ means that the teacher defines the limits. Setting the limits does not just mean that the teacher tells the students how to behave. Adolescents are adolescents … their heads are full of millions of conflicting ideas and plans from sex to interpersonal relationships to high scores on computer games, anything other than ‘learning’. Thus the teacher’s task is to get through the fog of conflicting thoughts and set clear requirements to the students. Teachers must at the same time clearly verbalise their high expectation to the students and their (the teacher’s) personal enthusiasm for the subject being taught, and for the students. Both Hattie and Dörnyei agree that the teacher’s positive expectations are strongly influential on students’ performance.

My students have a huge influence on what we do and how we do it in our lessons. But what is not up? for discussion is that “we are here to learn”. I am very clear in my demands. In almost every lesson I emphasise that “we are here to learn” and that I definitely expect them to be engaged and serious in their work. I do not accept that students come late to our classes. I sometimes even lock the door and write home to the parents of students who come late. Being late is simply not acceptable! Students should not use the toilet during my lessons either. We have breaks every 90 minutes so only in extreme cases is it acceptable that students leave lessons, something which is otherwise quite common in Denmark. We have lessons of between 45-90 minutes and every single minute is important. We are a team with a goal, a common mission, a mission for which every single student is mutually responsible. My task as a teacher is to help the students to maintain their focus. They have to learn and I have to ‘contain’.

Most students seem to enjoy my lessons. I do my best to make sure that they are full of energy and at the same time have a serious focus on learning. I enjoy a high degree of respect among the students and their parents but that is because I demand respect. My signals are very clear and my enthusiasm for my subject and my students is obvious. I do not attempt to be friends with my students. I like them, I respect them and I am interested in their linguistic development and their lives. I have my role: ‘teacher’, and they have theirs: ‘learner’. We have a common mission – and that mission is learning.

References

Griffith A. and Burns M. (2012). Engaging learners. Crown House Publishing.

Dörnyei, Z. (2001a). Motivational Strategies in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dörnyei, Z. (2001b). Teaching and Researching Motivation. Harlow: Pearson Education.

Ushioda, E. (1996) The Role of Motivation. Dublin: Authentik.