Enhancing learner's autonomy in efl context the case of secondary school students in Algeria

I-Literature review on learner autonomy in education

-Many errors, rough estimation. The errors tend to be large ones, Verbal and cognitive strategies dominate, Improve rapidly however beginners generally do not know what they need to do to improve, When teaching relate to something that they know.

3-2-Associative Stage (motor stage)

-Associate cues from the environment with required movements required to achieve goal, Organize more efficient movement patterns, Strengthen motor program, Consistency gradually increases, Develop anticipation, Monitor own feedback, Last longer (weeks => months). 3-3-Autonomous Stage

Final stage, Performance of the skill becomes «automatic» (in terms of attention demands). People in this stage do not think about the movements ,Programming longer movement sequences, Allow to perform cognitive activities during performance of the skill. They can do another task at the same time, Detection of errors much better.

Although this model was designed for motor skills development it remains a major framework to understand a general learner behaviors enabling the detection, the correction, the assessment and the enhancement of any skill of whatsoever domain.

The following figure (Fig.2) shows clearly the relation between the stages related to this

model.

Fig. 2: Fitts and Posner 3-Stage Model

Source: https://vdocuments.mx/document/exos-certification-coaching-science-final-5-2014-athletesa-performance.html (by June the 6th,2020).

-10-

I-Literature review on learner autonomy in education

A simple application of this model to sports (motor skills) shows the accuracy of this model in evaluating skills (most right column of the following table 2).

Table 2 : Fitts & Posner Stages of Motor Skill Learning

Source :

https://www.psia-rm.org/download/resources/fall training/PSIA-RM%20&%20Fitts%20&%20Posner%20Stages.pdf (By June the 6^th,2020).

4-Autonomy levels

The whole information about this topic is taken from Benson (2006) as it is a full view.

In the late 1990s a number of writers sought to operationalize the notion that autonomy is a matter of degree. Nunan's (1997: 195) attempt involved a model of five levels of `learner action' - `awareness', `involvement', `intervention', `creation' and `transcendence' - which could inform the sequencing of learner development activities in language textbooks.

These levels also involved dimensions of `content' and `process'. At the awareness level, for example, learners would be `made aware of the pedagogical goals and content of the materials', `identify strategy implications of pedagogical tasks', and `identify their own preferred learning styles/strategies'. At the transcendence level, learners would `make links between the content of classroom learning and the world beyond' and `become teachers and researchers'.

-11-

I-Literature review on learner autonomy in education

While Nunan's model remained within the framework of language learning, Littlewood's (1997: 81) three-stage model involved dimensions of language acquisition, learning approach and personal development. In the context of language acquisition, autonomy involved `an ability to operate independently with the language and use it to communicate personal meanings in real, unpredictable situations' (autonomy as a communicator).

In the context of classroom organization, it involved learners' `ability to take responsibility for their own learning and to apply active, personally relevant strategies' (`autonomy as a learner'). And in a broader context, it involved `a higher-level goal of . . . greater generalized autonomy as individuals' (`autonomy as a person'). At around the same time, Macaro (1997: 170-172) proposed a somewhat similar three-stage model involving `autonomy of language competence', `autonomy of language learning competence' and `autonomy of choice and action'. Scharle & Szab'o's (2000: 1) resource book for the development of autonomy was also informed by a three phase model involving `raising awareness', `changing attitudes' and `transferring roles'.

Littlewood was also responsible for a widely cited distinction between `proactive' autonomy,`which affirms [learners'] individuality and sets up directions which they themselves have partially created', and reactive autonomy, `which does not create its own directions but, once a direction has been initiated, enables learners to organize their resources autonomously in order to reach their goal' (Littlewood 1999: 75).

My own attempt to model levels of learner autonomy involved dimensions of control over language learning and teaching processes grouped under three main headings - learning management, cognitive processing and the content of learning (Benson 2001).

Each of these models implies a possible progression from `lower' to `higher' levels of autonomy. They may also be related to the movement of the idea of autonomy into mainstream language education and a perceived need to identify spaces at the lower levels, where autonomy might be fostered without radical educational reforms. Nunan (1997: 201), for example, argued that his model illustrated how `autonomy can be a normal, everyday addition to regular instruction'.

-12-