Content uploaded by Christine Develotte
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Christine Develotte on Sep 11, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
ReCALL 24(1): 3–19. 2012 rEuropean Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 3
doi:10.1017/S0958344011000267
Working together online to enhance learner
autonomy: Analysis of learners’ perceptions
of their online learning experience*
JE
´RO
ˆME ENEAU
Universite
´de Haute Bretagne, Place du Recteur Le Moal, 35000 Rennes, France
(email: jerome.eneau@univ-rennes2.fr)
CHRISTINE DEVELOTTE
Institut National de Recherche Pe
´dagogique, Alle
´e de Fontenay, 69007 Lyon, France
(email: christine.develotte@inrp.fr)
Abstract
This study concerns the development of autonomy in adult learners working on an online
learning platform as part of a professional master’s degree programme in ‘‘French as a
Foreign Language’’. Our goal was to identify the influence of reflective and collaborative
dimensions on the construction of autonomy for online learners in this programme. The
material used was 27 self-analysis papers in response to an assignment which asked students to
review their distance learning experience (reflective dimension) and to highlight the role of
others, if any, in their learning (collaborative dimension). In addition to these two major
points, the analysis by category of the body of results shows principally that in qualitative
terms, the factors of autonomisation for online learning are interconnected and include: the
difficulties related to distance learning and the strategies that learners develop to face those
difficulties, the importance of interpersonal relationships in social and emotional terms in
overcoming those difficulties, the specific modes of sociability developed for distance learning
and the related development of a new type of autonomy that is both individual and collective.
The discussion examines the creation, over the course of time, of a new ‘‘distance learning
culture’’ that is nonetheless never easy to create and share.
Keywords: Learner autonomy, self-directed learning, online collaboration, reflective analysis
1 Introduction
The study presented here concerns a body of information gathered as part of an
online professional qualification course. In France, online Professional MAs in
Language Teaching and Learning have attracted many teachers of French as a
foreign language, most of them already working in this capacity in different countries
around the world. They can enrol in online programmes that offer university-level
* Translation: Kate Davis
professional qualifications. There are some particular characteristics shared by these
groups of students: many already work in the field and are returning students; some
have difficulty reconciling this dual identity as both teacher and student. Secondly, as
this is distance learning, they may feel isolated when working from home but with
other students they do not know personally; this is a situation they are not accustomed
to, one that requires new forms of autonomy in their work and in their learning.
This article concerns one such programme, launched in November 2006 as a
partnership between the Centre National d’Enseignement a
`Distance (French National
Centre for Distance Education) and the University of Grenoble 3. A module in this
course – entitled ‘‘A discourse approach to intercultural issues,’’ the aim of which is to
help teachers structure the way they include culture and civilisation in a language class
(providing both methodology and content) – provided the opportunity to collect a
body of information in which we could observe and analyse different aspects of the
identity and the autonomy of these online learners.
A month after the beginning of the course, the first graded assignment was to
consider the way students were learning and the differences of distance learning.
They were asked to discuss how they developed their autonomy using this learning
tool and the possible connections between it and their isolation, or on the other hand
between it and support they received from other students. Out of a cohort of 70
distance learning students, 27 of them chose to do this assignment; the analysis of
their responses is presented here.
Our working hypothesis, which we hoped to support with the students’ written
assignments, was that this self-analysis would allow us to identify and even char-
acterize the influence of peers on the construction of individual autonomy for online
learners. While it may appear counterintuitive, this idea seemed to be an interesting
point that should be explored further, in particular the relationship between coop-
eration or collaboration via the Internet and the learners’ construction of identity
and autonomy in their work. We wanted particularly to look at the role of others
in the creation of one’s own autonomy, and we did this using a specific analysis
protocol for the students’ written reflections.
In presenting this work, the theoretical framework will allow us to examine the
relationship between autonomy and identity and specifically how that relationship
works in adult education and distance learning, to insist on the importance of the
role that peers play in the construction of this autonomy, with a distinction being
made between learning autonomously and learner autonomy. In the methodology
section we discuss the context within which the study was done, the subjects’ profiles
and the data gathered, after which the quantitative and qualitative results are given
and then discussed. The students’ answers reveal the different factors that contribute
to the development of their autonomy. The reflective writing assignment and the
identification of the role of others in learning allow us to posit new practical and
pedagogical implications as well as ideas for future research on the subject.
2 Theoretical framework
In addition to work done on language learning and teaching, which has already been
the subject of multiple studies (Benson, 2001; Blin, 2004; Allford & Pachler, 2007;
4J. Eneau and C. Develotte
Benson, 2007; Ciekanski, 2007; Pemberton et al., 2009; O’Rourke and Carson, 2010),
there is now general consensus on a certain number of points concerning adult
learner autonomy. Both in research published in English (Candy, 1991; Benson,
2001, 2007) and in French (Tremblay, 2003; Eneau, 2005; Candas, 2009), the authors
of these studies agree that the role of the environment, and in particular the social
environment, is key to developing this autonomy.
This consensus is most notable in the French research which follows in the foot-
steps of the pioneering work of Holec done at CRAPEL (Centre de Recherches
et d’Applications Pe
´dagogiques en Langues, Centre for Language Pedagogy Research
and Application) over the last 30 years (Candas, 2009). All this work confirms that
autonomy for adult learners learning foreign languages or continuing their education
in general is constructed through a process of exchange and sharing that depends
largely on the resources and the environment. This means that, contrary to popular
belief, a learner’s autonomy does not grow out of isolation (to be autonomous is
not to be self-sufficient); rather it goes hand in hand with the development of
‘‘meta-skills’’, as Tremblay (2003) termed them, that require in particular:
– the capacity to ‘‘know oneself as a learner’’ (be able to identify how you learn
best, your strengths and weaknesses);
– the ‘‘reflective’’ capacity of learning through action (be able to learn by doing,
to act with full understanding of the situation);
– the capacity to ‘‘adapt’’ to the situation and the context (know how to take
advantage of opportunities to learn, know how to turn a problem into
something which you can learn from);
– the capacity to ‘‘learn from others’’ (know how to identify useful resources,
develop skills in relating and communicating with others) (Tremblay, 2003).
Where language acquisition is concerned, these meta-skills used by autonomous
adult learners are types of metacognitive, reflective and social strategies (Oxford,
1990; Benson, 2001; Candas, 2009). But, more generally, they have been pointed out
in work dealing with autonomy in adult learners and self-directed education on both
sides of the Atlantic (Tremblay, 2003; Eneau, 2005; Candas, 2009). In fact, as four
decades of research on self-education and self-directed learning in Europe and North
America have shown, the social dimensions (knowing how to learn from others)
and reflective dimensions (knowing how to learn through and from one’s actions)
are skills that characterize the autonomous adult learner even more than they
characterize autonomous learning (Tremblay, 2003; Tremblay & Eneau, 2006; Eneau,
2008). This means that in some training programmes that lead individuals to direct
their own learning, we observe a veritable transformation of the learner’s identity.
At this point and throughout the different sources mentioned by the authors
(Benson, 2001), it is important to distinguish between two levels of autonomy that
are often confused (Candy, 1991):
(1) autonomy in learning (for example, mastering procedures, managing or
taking responsibility for all or some of the learning process, determining
goals and evaluating what has been learned, and also the ability to find useful
resources);
Working together to enhance learner autonomy 5
(2) autonomy of the learner (supposes distancing and critical reflection,
understanding of levels of difficulty, reference frameworks, etc. and the
ability to make informed judgements on the degree of dependence or
interdependence of the individual in these different situations).
While the perfect level of autonomy in a learner (2) can be seen as the principal end
result of the ‘‘autonomous learning’’ process (1), it is important to note that the
former is not always the result of the latter; a certain number of environmental
conditions (the institution, the programme, etc.) are necessary in order for this
relationship to become firmly established (Eneau, 2005). Moreover, much like the
process of constructing one’s identity, the ‘‘ideal’’ level of autonomy in a learner can
never be completely achieved because the process of autonomisation is always
somewhere in between. It is a balancing act between the person and the environment;
the person and their environment act like ‘‘reciprocal determiners’’ in the autono-
misation process, which is governed by the individual’s meta-learning skills (Tremblay,
2003; Eneau, 2008).
Beyond this theoretical work on adult education, autonomy, self-education
and self-directed learning, research has shown that this balancing act particularly
characterises distance-learning programmes that include a fair amount of self-
education (Eneau, 2005; Je
´ze
´gou, 2008; Develotte, 2009). These types of pro-
grammes actually cause learners (who may well not know each other before the
programme) to work together in alternative configurations that challenge the
traditional ‘‘learning methods’’ by, for example, using both real-time and delayed
feedback, alternating between periods of individual and group learning, and
using specific forms of communication via new media. However, it seems that it
may be necessary to accompany this alteration of work habits in distance learning
programmes with individual or group reflection so that the learners become
aware of these changes, realizing and verbalizing them. With this point in mind,
it seems therefore that the reflective dimension of the autonomisation process
is particularly important (Barbot & Camatarri, 1999; Eneau & Poyet, 2009;
Guichon, 2009).
Lastly, some of the work done on distance learning seems to point to the fact that
whether or not autonomisation occurs through formal, reflective awareness-raising,
it encourages the people working in a group online to develop a ‘‘group identity’’ and
a form of ‘‘collective autonomy’’ (Raby, 2009). Other research concerning various
subjects, from moving from cooperation to collaboration (Henri & Lundgren-
Cayrol, 2001; Simonian et al., 2006), to the relational skills developed online or the
coordination that allows groups working together via the Internet to trust each other
and to achieve results (Wenger, 1998; Loilier & Tellier, 2004; Simeone et al., 2007;
Simeone et al., 2009), highlights the impact of the group seen as a ‘‘learning com-
munity’’ and its influence on whether or not work or learning groups reach their
individual and collective goals. Finally, in an ‘‘integrative’’ vision of the Internet as a
learning tool, the various possibilities provided by distance learning allow learners to
take control of their own learning process (and therefore of the development of their
autonomy), even in their interaction with their peers and in collaborative learning
exercises (Benson, 2001).
6J. Eneau and C. Develotte
It seems then that a distance learning programme that facilitates self-directed
learning and the autonomy of the learners includes, but is not limited to:
– a reflective dimension that encourages learning about oneself (how one learns,
noting one’s strengths and weaknesses, etc.);
– a collaborative or reciprocal dimension to learning, which allows learners to
learn from and with other learners by creating groups that are themselves
autonomous and have their own identity.
Starting from this theoretical framework, the question that served as the basis of our
research concerns this dual aspect of distance learning: In online learning, how do
one’s peers influence the construction of learners’ individual autonomy?
3 Methodology
To answer that question, we analysed the reflective writing assignments of adult
students enrolled in a Master’s programme for Teaching French as a Foreign
Language, a partnership between the Centre National d’Enseignement a
`Distance
(French National Centre for Distance Education) and the University of Grenoble 3.
The class was made up of 70 distance learners; 85% of them were returning students,
already teachers of French as a foreign language, the remaining 15% were initial
students; they were spread across 33 different countries. The optional activity
that provided the information for the study discussed in this paper concerned
27 students, of whom 22 were teachers of French living abroad, 7 men and 20 women
(74% women). These students participated in an optional activity
1
consisting of
online discussions to help them introduce themselves to the group and get to know
each other.
The discussions took place on a Dokeos platform, with the principal tools being a
forum (allowing progressive, reflective analysis through various activities over the
course of the entire year) and all types of communication tools available on the
Internet (MSN, Skype, etc.). The more traditional university work, i.e., student-
teacher communication, was all distance learning and asynchronous communication.
Printed materials were sent to students at the beginning of the year for each course.
Forum discussions, which included a teacher, only related to learning activities
intended to apply what had been learned in the course.
After the first month, students were asked to send a ‘‘self-observation’’ assessment
to the teacher; the assignment was for a paper of roughly 2,400 words about one of
the points of the methodology of the course (called ‘‘reflective analysis’’), and they
were asked to ‘‘make observations about their own habits, behaviour and opinions
concerning online learning’’ (compared to the teaching culture for classes which they
had experienced until now where students and teachers are physically present); one
1
Optional activity: the students were required to hand in two out of three assignments
proposed for the year if they wanted to be marked continuously throughout the year or they
had to write a final paper if they were marked only on their work at the end of the year. This is
why only 27 out of the 70 students handed in this assignment.
Working together to enhance learner autonomy 7
part of the assignment asked them to try to describe their ‘‘perception of the
autonomy needed for this type of learning, and, for example, what other students had to
contribute’’. While this question does introduce a certain methodological bias, it
seemed to us important to have students examine their own opinion of the subject
through the self-reflection necessary in this assignment.
We then analysed the contents of these papers thematically to distinguish, firstly,
the indicators and determining factors of autonomy, noting the ways students talked
about it and how they defined it, and secondly, the role of other online students, the
importance or lack of importance of others (in learning in general and more speci-
fically in the construction of this autonomy). After two people separately categorized
the data for analysis, seeking inter-rater agreement (Chi, 1997; Kerlinger & Lee,
2000), what we noted from the learners’ papers concerning the autonomy acquired
and the role of others in learning can be organized according to the following
categories and sub-categories:
1. Contribution to learning
1.1. Personal organisation in learning
1.2. Socio-cognitive support/opposition
1.3. Complex conception of learning
2. Social-emotional contribution
2.1. Stimulation by/emulation of others
2.2. Exposing oneself to others’ judgement
2.3. Necessity of cooperating
2.4. Virtual sociability
2.5. Isolation from others because of the computer
3. Contribution to constructing autonomy
3.1. The role of others in autonomy
3.2. Acquiring a strategy for autonomy
3.3. Group autonomy
3.4. Reflection on autonomy
These categories, drawn from the data itself, help specify what role other people
play in learning and in the construction of learner autonomy, whether directly
(subcategory 3.1) or indirectly, voluntarily or involuntarily, out of choice or necessity,
etc. These questions will be examined in more detail in the analysis.
An example is given below to illustrate how the categorisation was carried out using
the ‘‘social-emotional contribution’’ category (2). For the subcategory ‘‘Necessity of
cooperating’’ (2.3), we noted that three of the learners’ papers (anonymously identified
as L3, L18 and L26) cite positive opinions of examples of this necessity of cooperating
online (1), while seven learners (L1, L2, L5, L9, L11, L13, L19) have more negative
comments (2). As researchers, we did not expect this distinction between positive and
negative opinions, given by the learners, sometimes about the same aspect of their
learning experience. Moreover in some cases, learners note positive and negative
comments about a single aspect (this could appear, in this case, in the two columns L1
and L2). As an example, excerpts from the papers are listed in the appropriate columns
(Excerpts 1and Excerpts 2) to illustrate the positive and negative connotations of this
necessity of cooperating (Table 1).
8J. Eneau and C. Develotte
Awordaboutbiasandthelimitsofthisresearch:wewouldliketonotefirstthatthe
students’ comments were written in response to an institutional request (an assignment
given by the trainer) and were therefore notmadespontaneously;spontaneousremarks
could have been found on the online discussion forums. External evaluation by the
trainer of a document that supposedly addressed the question of ‘‘self-observation of the
online learning process’’ does not give entirely unbiased results. Similarly, the fact that
the instructions mention their ‘‘perception of autonomy’’ and the ‘‘possible contribution of
other students’’ could lead to these dimensions of the learning process being over-
represented in the learners’ papers. As we will see, however, the results of the research
seem to downplay this bias.
In addition, we should note that while the different facets of learning, cooperation
and autonomy development were observed in the activities and on the Dokeos
platform, it is quite possible that they also could have been observed outside of the
institutional confines, for example, in personal email exchanges. However, we were
not able to analyse these private spaces that remain, by definition, inaccessible to us.
Lastly, the way this information was categorized pinpointed ideas such as the ‘‘necessity
of cooperating’’ or ‘‘exposing oneself to others’ judgement’’ which for the most part have
intrinsically negativeconnotations,whileotherpoints,such as ‘‘stimulation by/emulation
of others’’ have more positive connotations.Thisorganisationofdatabasedonjudge-
ments reflects the content of the papers analysed, and as the results show, particularly in
terms of quantitative analysis, these biases in the end have very little influence on the data
produced in terms of the themes addressed or the positive or negative aspects.
4 Results
4.1 Quantitative data
Twenty-seven learners wrote self-analysis papers that described and/or analysed their
online learning experience; the papers met the criteria for the assignment, which
Table 1 An example of the categorized information (excerpts from the self-analysis papers,
learners No. L3 and No. L19)
Categories Subcategories L1L2Excerpts 1Excerpts 2
(y)(y)
2. Social-
emotional
contributions
(y)
2.3. Necessity of
cooperating
3; 18;
26;
1;
2;
5;
9;
11; 13; 19;
‘‘this ‘required
contribution’
serves the learner’s
interests (as well
as) the other users’
interests’’ (L3)
‘‘having to
communicate
via the forum
is a new
requirement’’
(L19)
(y)(y)
Working together to enhance learner autonomy 9
was for about 2,400 words. Following the categorisation introduced above, (three
categories and twelve sub-categories), we selected 127 quotations concerning the
ways others had or had not helped the learner construct their autonomy. However,
we noted that the ideas of ‘‘autonomy’’ and ‘‘working together’’ were not over-
represented as these 127 excerpts constitute only 4500 words out of an overall total
of 64,800 words (27 papers with an average of 2,400 words); the students were told
that they would be evaluated on the quality of their analysis rather than on their
opinions (whether their learning experience was a positive or a negative one). In
other words, the themes of autonomy and identity and the themes of group,
collective work, or more generally the role of others in this type of learning represent
less than ten percent of the total body of work produced in the 27 documents
analysed. While we could have imagined that an assignment focusing on these two
themes would represent a substantial bias in our work, the analysis shows that their
quantitative importance was relative.
Another expected bias in our research results from the fact that this activity
was done as part of an evaluation. We were expecting, therefore, a fairly positive
slant from the learners in their self-analysis; it would be quite understandable that
the learners, for the benefit of the person evaluating them, would stress their rich
experience, the variety of the things they learned and the skills developed to
overcome difficulties. As can be seen in Table 2, the students’ remarks were more
balanced than we expected. While the various categories and sub-categories
contain a range of positives and negatives (with both positive and negative views
on a single point from the same person, in 14 of the 127 excerpts), the reflective
analyses overall tend towards the positive, with 79 positive points compared to 48
negative ones, roughly two-thirds. However, while some learners mention the fact
that what the exercise asks for is not easy or ‘‘natural’’ (learners L1 and L10, for
example), most of them show a certain maturity with regard to the assignment,
and they honestly analyse both the positive and negative aspects of their learning
process, using this analysis principally for personal evaluation rather than as the
basis for another’s evaluation of them. Thus, for different aspects, the categories
and subcategories include both positive and negative opinions, which are some-
times nearly balanced and sometimes have a clear tendency one way or the other.
Their opinions, broken down into positive and negative, can be organized as
shown in Table 2.
Although these categories were constructed from the data itself, we can see in
Table 2 the different factors that are included in the link between the role of peers
and learner autonomy. For example, as for the social and group dimensions of
learning (which reflect the influence of others on the construction of autonomy), sub-
categories such as ‘‘Socio-cognitive support/conflict’’, ‘‘Stimulation by/emulation of
others’’, ‘‘Exposing oneself to others’ judgement’’, ‘‘Necessity of cooperating’’,
‘‘Virtual sociability’’, ‘‘The role of others in autonomy’’, and ‘‘Group autonomy’’
include 23 negative aspects and 47 positive aspects, that is, roughly twice as many
positive as negative.
In other words, the papers list the positive connotations of constructing autonomy
(two-thirds positive compared to one third negative), and they detail positive aspects
of the role of the other in this autonomisation – almost twice as many positive
10 J. Eneau and C. Develotte
connotations; the learners principally point out the positive aspects of their distance
learning experience as well as the importance of the relationship with others and
the influence of others in the process. These quantitative data thereby confirm the
overall impression given by an initial, brief read-through of all the documents, which
on the whole, give mostly positive accounts of the experience.
4.2 Qualitative data
A closer look at the categorisation reveals the range of positive and negative argu-
ments found in the learners’ papers. The contribution of others to the online learning
experience is classified into three sections: (a) in terms of procedural and cognitive
learning (personal organisation, socio-cognitive support, etc.); (b) in terms of social
and emotional support (stimulation from others, exposure to other people’s judge-
ments, feeling of isolation, etc.); (c) in terms of autonomisation, both on the individual
and group levels (acquiring an autonomous learning strategy, reflective analysis in
learning, feeling of belonging to a group that is itself autonomous, etc.). There are
several examples to illustrate these inter-related categories.
4.2.1 (a) The role of others in learning. The contributions to learning come into
play first with the personal organisation that is necessary for online learning (regularly
reading remarks and responses on the forum, organising one’s work at home, finding a
routine to coordinate work, etc.). However, while seven learners list this personal
organisation as a positive point, it is included in the restrictions and difficulties noted
by eight other learners (online learning implies new restrictions in terms of time
management, work rhythm, etc.).
Table 2 Number of positive and negative excerpts divided into categories and sub-categories,
after inter-rater agreement
Excerpts 1Excerpts 2
1. Contribution to learning 18 12
1.1. Personal organisation in learning 7 8
1.2. Socio-cognitive support/opposition 6 1
1.3. Complex conception of learning 5 3
2. Social-emotional contribution 32 26
2.1. Stimulation by/emulation of others 10 2
2.2. Exposing oneself to others’ judgement 4 8
2.3. Necessity of cooperating 3 7
2.4. Virtual sociability 11 2
2.5. Isolation from others because of the computer 4 7
3. Contribution to constructing autonomy 29 10
3.1. The role of others in autonomy 7 3
3.2. Acquiring a strategy for autonomy 10 2
3.3. Group autonomy 7 0
3.4. Reflection on autonomy 5 5
Total 79 48
Working together to enhance learner autonomy 11
This type of learning does take time (‘‘it’s progressive’’, L11, ‘‘little by little’’ L9), but
moreover it is seen by some as being much more demanding work, in terms of personal
organisation, than traditional attendance learning (working online is ‘‘time-consuming’’,
L9, it’s ‘‘a mountain of work’’, L14). However, the other learners play an important role
in as much as they offer direct or indirect support in learning the procedures and new
ways of working: six learners said that having others read what you have written to
make sure you understood it (e.g., L20: ‘‘I recently responded to a message by L2 (who
wanted an explanation of Chomsky’s idea of competence vs. performance) because I
wanted to give him some kind of answer and at the same time I wanted to test my own
understanding by inviting other students to expand on my answer’’
2
), getting help on
technical questions or questions about the content, etc., helped them learn, while only
one learner (L16) identified it as a possible problem (distance and time delay make the
process more complex and upset people’s previously held notions).
In fact, one of the most notable effects remarked upon is the fact that online
learning seems to encourage a complex conception of learning precisely because of the
distance and the specific time requirements, as well as new ways of working with other
learners. For a majority of those who noted this point (five out of eight), their
conception of learning is more nuanced and more complex; online learning itself
becomes ‘‘another way’’ to learn that calls new representations into play, with new
modes of communication, intergenerational and intercultural aspects. On the other
hand, other learners (three people) see it as a way of learning that creates instability and
makes it difficult to situate oneself (‘‘who is reading what I write? what opinion do the
others have of me?’’ L11), and this can cause the process to be uncomfortable and
unsatisfying.
4.2.2 (b) The role of others on an affective and emotional level. For the majority of
learners however, other people’s contributions to the process were generally considered
a positive element of online learning, mostly in terms of social or emotional aspects.
Other people are a source of stimulation or serve as models. For those reasons, ten
learners note the pleasure, interest and curiosity with which they approached the online
discussions. ‘‘The platform is more than a learning tool, it becomes a psychological
support for everyone thanks to the ties it creates’’ (L6). Again, even if it was difficult in
the beginning, meeting and getting to know other people by learning about their
differences and their similarities motivates learners and provides role models for
learning. ‘‘Humour’’ (L8) and ‘‘positive attitude’’ (L6) or kindness from others have an
influence on this distance meeting certainly, but the process itself is what makes this
type of learning ‘‘exciting’’ and which can even, as one learner put it, ‘‘speed up the
autonomisation process for the learner who is isolated by distance’’ (L3). Occasionally
(for two people), this interaction with others can become an inhibiting factor in as
much as accepting one’s own shortcomings and agreeing to learn from others are not
easy to do for people who are used to working alone or who have low self-esteem.
In the same vein, exposing oneself to others’ judgements is more of a problem than a
positive point (for six and five learners, respectively). While distance and being in one’s
2
The excerpts have been translated from the original French.
12 J. Eneau and C. Develotte
own personal space or in the ‘‘protective bubble’’ (L9) of the forum means people will
share and subject themselves to others’ judgements more easily than when they are
physically faced with others’ judgements, the ‘‘protective screen’’ in distance learning
can be intimidating (L3), inhibiting or even ‘‘fake’’ for other learners. ‘‘The fact that
everything was ‘‘public’’ made it hard for me; I felt held back because I was afraid of
asking the wrong question, of being misunderstood and especially of being judged’’ (L9).
It makes it difficult to identify with other people, to find your place in relation to them,
to compare experiences or to ‘‘reveal oneself’’ (L24). Fear of asking the wrong question,
perhaps an ‘‘inferiority complex’’ (L9) or the fear of being too casual and having
your intentions misunderstood can distort communication via the technological means
of distance learning, making it necessary to be more prudent in these exchanges than
in person.
Moreover, the necessity of cooperating as part of group distance learning is not easy.
While it is seen as serving everyone’s interests (sharing, exchanging, and reciprocal
stimulation make it easier for everyone to learn), only three learners stressed the positive
aspects (a source of personal motivation, not wanting to let the others down) while seven
others noted more negative aspects. ‘‘Ihaveahardtimeovercomingthediscouragement
and anxiety I feel at being judged by others’’ (L10). Being expected to participate in the
forum or the let-down of rejection (accepting when others don’t ‘‘take the outstretched
hand’’, L11) are also part of a learning process that can indeed be frustrating.
The importance that people attribute to the newly-formed group is for most
of them a source of satisfaction, and this isinpartbecausemanyofthelearners(ten
people) feel that they have overcome the difficulties involved to successfully participate
in a new form of ‘‘virtual sociability’’ (L2) and create a ‘‘virtual community’’ (L15). ‘‘Iwas
surprised by the fact that real sociability was created online. With time, people’s identities
become clearer, they become more real and you look forward to meeting with them online’’
(L2). The learners who felt this express the pleasure of being able to count on a new
form of group solidarity (L4, L5, L13, L19) and mutual assistance between ‘‘experienced
people’’ and ‘‘beginners’’ (L5, L13); they feel ‘‘proud’’ (L6) that in spite of the difficulties
stemming from interacting with people of different origins, experiences and even dif-
ferent languages, they succeeded in constructing a group (a community of knowledge, a
learners’ community) made upofdiversemembersfromvariouscountrieswhohave
different professional and personal experiences. Only two people note negative aspects
about the diversity of the group and its languages.
This new form of ‘‘long-distance sociability’’ is one of the best remedies for
the isolation and stress that distance learning and technological means of communica-
tion can cause, four learners note. However, the feeling of community and sociability do
not make up for all the difficulties that all the learners feel, far from it: seven learners say
that despite the time they have spent getting used to it, distance learning is still a source
of technological stress (hoping that in time ‘‘computer’’ will no longer be equated with
‘‘horrid’’, L5), communicational stress (feeling ‘‘paralysed ’’ by the fear of being mis-
understood, L4), organisational stress (constantly feeling ‘‘overwhelmed’’ by the mass of
information to be incorporated, L9), or even psycho-emotional stress(thedifficultyof
overcoming the omnipresent ‘‘anxiety’’ and ‘‘discouragement’’, L10). ‘‘Astrangefeeling
creating virtual sociableness: I have the map and I know where I’m headed, but I have a
hard time following the markers and actually communicating remotely’’ (L12).
Working together to enhance learner autonomy 13
4.2.3 (c) The role of others in developing autonomy. Overall, despite the difficulties
it presents and also because of its specific organisation, distance learning represents a
new path to developing autonomy for many of the learners who participated in this
assignment, and they specifically point to the wealth of positives, both for others and
in their own learning process.
Distance learning does indeed encourage learners to work alone as well as in
a group, clearly highlighting the role that others play in constructing one’s own
autonomy: seven learners distinguish learning autonomously from merely working
alone. For them, being autonomous means being ‘‘active’’ (L26) and ‘‘asserting
oneself’’ (L8) surrounded by a ‘‘group’’ rather than ‘‘alone’’ (L2), becoming
‘‘involved’’ in other people’s learning (L8), ‘‘taking on responsibility’’ (L11) and
becoming more ‘‘confident’’ in group work (L8, L9). ‘‘You learn how to position
yourself inrelation to others as well as how to affirm some of your own opinions’’ (L8).
However, this means ‘‘taking a risk’’ or a ‘‘gamble’’, and that is never easy to do (L9,
L10, L14). Above all else, it requires time to learn to trust people and agree to share
group responsibility. However, the sharing and pooling of resources also demon-
strates how switching roles (the ‘‘reversal of constructive positions’’, L8), learning
from other people (by questioning your own positions), learning to be autonomous
(while remaining relatively dependant on others), etc., all make it possible to learn
about oneself and how one learns.
The reflective dimension of autonomy can be seen in some learners’ opinions
(seven of them) of how one develops a veritable ‘‘strategy for autonomy’’, which is
closely linked to the time dimension of the development of this autonomy. ‘‘With a
little time, you can pick out the ‘‘leading’’ students and those who have the most
pertinent things to say’’ (L25). Within this aspect of time, the development of
individual autonomy and a new identity as an ‘‘online learner’’ goes hand in hand
with the construction of a group identity, which is probably related to the dis-
covery of this new form of ‘‘virtual sociability’’ mentioned above. On the other
hand, as two learners mention, this method of distance learning, which requires
individual autonomy at the same time as it creates group autonomy, imposes rules
for cooperation that may not suit some people (those who prefer working alone,
in particular), because it requires one to start from each person’s individuality
and then strengthens awareness of one’s own habits and behaviour and, ultimately,
one’s own limits. ‘‘Adaptability’’ is then often required (L3, L4, L8, L11). However,
the students (as mentioned in seven papers) then learn to learn together, to better
fulfil their dual role as student and teacher, to ‘‘share their voice with others’’
and encourage ‘‘shared values’’; the end result is a ‘‘positive feeling about oneself’’
(L3, L8).
In this way, individual autonomy (which allows learners to find their place in the
group) and group autonomy (of the learning community) seem to develop together.
While one has to ‘‘come to terms with others’ autonomy to construct one’s own’’ (L3)
one of the paradoxical results of this new group autonomy is that the group learns
together and because it is more autonomous, it may even come to resent the
‘‘intrusion of the instructor’’ (L2). Being more autonomous as an individual would
seem to be the result of constructing autonomy in cooperation with others, and
awareness of this comes about by developing a meta-learning skill which leads to
14 J. Eneau and C. Develotte
true reflective analysis of this new-found autonomy. In some way, autonomy serves
to systematically reaffirm the different elements previously mentioned concerning
the first category, contribution to learning: five out of ten students noted the
effects of this realisation about their own learning strategies – the way they learn,
their need for a regular schedule, what they require for learning, how they adapt
to situations, etc. – in much the same way that their representations of learning
became ‘‘more complex’’ as their awareness of ‘‘the importance of others’’ in their
own autonomisation process increased (L2, L5, L6, L8, L9). ‘‘You learn to all
discuss things together in an environment of shared values, and the result is a positive
self-image’’ (L8). At the opposite end of the spectrum, however, five students
remarked that this realisation is a delicate and demanding exercise, both because of
how difficult it is ‘‘to learn to work rigorously’’ (L4) and to ‘‘find the right balance,
the correct distance inrelation to other people’’ (L6).
5 Discussion and future prospects
Despite a certain number of limitations, in particular ones that have been pointed
out relating to the methodology and the interference of categorisation of learners’
opinions from a graded reflective assignment, this study led us to several conclusions
and as many directions for future research.
In short, the results of this study show most importantly that becoming autonomous
through online learning means learning by oneself, certainly, yet it also means
becoming aware of the role of others in learning and constructing autonomy. Learning
through one’s own actions, online, probably requires more time, organisation and
strict dedication than learning in a classroom, and the process is one that shakes up
preconceived ideas and habits.
Developing one’s autonomy requires that learners understand the level of autonomy
required for online learning (which imposes specific work methods) and therefore that
they understand their own strategies, strengths and weaknesses, in addition to being
aware of their own level of dependence on others (learning to position oneself in
relation to others). Following that, they must ‘‘approach others’ autonomy in order to
construct their own’’ as noted by learner L3. In short, they must learn to work with
others according to each person’s skills and particular experiences, to help and support
without anyone being in a position of authority over others, and begin a process
of sharing and cooperation, that is, learning to learn together. Finally, it becomes
possible to create an effective group, with a place for each person, that adapts to the
varying situations (learning to work autonomously), and at the same time forging a
group identity that leaves rooms for the individual (learning in an autonomous group).
Thus, the role played by the group seems all the more important in online learning
because it allows learners to develop individual autonomy as they find their place in
relation to others. Furthermore, it allows them to develop an acute sense of the
autonomy within the group of online students in this ‘‘online sociability’’.
This exploratory study confirms, beyond the work done specifically on autonomy and
language learning (Little, 1991; Benson, 2001) a certain amount of work concerning
both adult autonomy and self-directed learning, highlighting both the importance of the
Working together to enhance learner autonomy 15
role of others and the reflective work, or meta-learning, in the process of autonomisation
(Tremblay, 2003; Martin, 2004; Eneau, 2005; Develotte, 2009).
Firstly, the role of the other in the construction of an online learner’s identity
in this programme seems similar to the role of the other in the construction of
individual identity, that is to say the subject’s inclusion in a structured relationship of
interactions. The parallel construction of an online community of learners and the
individual identities of learners is mentioned in one learner’s comments, who noted
that the ‘‘training was constructed not only with, but inrelation to and depending on the
others. We work autonomously, but we also work in a community’’ (L23). Thus it is
that a learner’s individual autonomy can develop as a result of the meeting between
learners in the online social group which, as we saw, gives rise to positive and
negative reactions.
Whilst we had not necessarily planned on a categorisation dividing the comments
into positive and negative aspects of this online learning experience and the problems
or advantages that other learners could represent for the construction of one’s
autonomy, during the analysis of the 27 papers that we had to analyse, it was the
methodology of the classification itself that led us to understand the importance of
these points. Despite its limitations, this method shows that the positive effects of
others (their opinions, what they had to share, their support, etc.) make up for the
problems encountered when working on one’s own in a distance learning programme
with an ‘‘autonomous’’ learning process that nonetheless cannot be summed up as
learning ‘‘alone’’.
In addition, the work assigned to the learners here actively sought to bring about
the meta-cognitive reflection that could help them develop strategies for becoming
autonomous. If we look at the students’ comments, we find illustrations of how the
process works: ‘‘each person has to choose the level of sociability that they want to
develop with their classmates during the year-long programme’’ (L18). Here we can see
the importance of time in the construction of a relationship, as well as the impor-
tance of the other members of the group (peers and trainer, possibly) and the
importance of meta-cognitive reflection (realisation that one’s level of sociability
with others is a choice, which is a part of autonomy), in this case motivated partly by
the self-analysis exercise assigned.
However, in contrast with other teaching situations (either in the presence of a
teacher or distance learning), the online programme studied here was based on a
guided teaching that ‘‘required’’ certain behaviour from learners: checking in reg-
ularly, obligatory participation in collaborative assignments, etc. These requirements
seemed to create a particular learning culture manifested in an equal relationship
between teachers and learners and greater solidarity between learners, and this is
mentioned numerous times in the students’ comments. Of course, each person must
come to this culture of online learning individually (Develotte, 2009), but also, all of
the learners as a group develop a feeling of belonging to a learning community
(Moisan, 2007). Certainly, these results are not entirely due to the fact that this was
online learning, however, this learning situation most likely does reinforce them.
Additional studies would be necessary to verify the effect of the group in other
methods of collective education, in professional groups, practical situations and
distance and on-site learning.
16 J. Eneau and C. Develotte
In a more general sense, the progressive construction of this new ‘‘culture of
learning’’ seems to depend on a critical time aspect, and we should stress the fre-
quency with which the students mention the effect of time. If we look at the ‘‘virtual
sociability’’ category, for example, the importance of time becomes obvious in
expressions such as ‘‘as time passes’’ (L2), and ‘‘the feeling of belonging to a ‘‘new
social group’’ is constructed little by little’’ (L11). The fact that this new sociability
among learners was noted after only four to six weeks of the programme leads us to
believe that the learners’ perceptions change quickly, from the very first online group
work assigned, and that by the end of the programme they may very well be more
clearly defined. Further research should allow us to verify this idea.
The specific make-up of the group of learners examined could also have an
effect on the results presented here; in this case, the group is made up of 85%
teachers who are shifting from their professional identity of teachers to another
identity, that of ‘‘online students’’. Also, they are spread across the world and come
from and work in different cultures and educational systems. The group is also 74%
women, and this composition could have an influence on the quantitative as well as
the qualitative results presented (see Mebane et al., 2007). Above and beyond the
collaborative work assigned within the programme, this online context allows people
to have a broader vision of different cultural situations, and relating to others under
these conditions requires more open-mindedness than what is required in the context
of standard training programmes that target the population in France or in another
specific society. This is in fact one of the underlying ideas in the opinion expressed by
one learner: ‘‘there is a greater feeling of solidarity because we are distance learners
and the result is that we try to understand each other no matter what our own point of
view may be’’ (L19).
In this way, autonomy may be brought about indirectly rather than directly by
this type of teaching through the type of behaviour that it encourages; the flexibility
that a change in learning habits requires is probably reinforced in the flexibility
required to relate to others when it is important that one understand them. More-
over, we should remember that this course is about multiculturalism, and this
variable concerning the content of the course should be taken into consideration and
counterbalanced in future research.
Thus, this exploratory study of the dimension of autonomy that is based on others
in online learning raises a certain number of new, practical and theoretical questions
such as: How can we measure the importance of the other for each person in
collaborative work specifically with regards to developing individual autonomy in
learning? How do we take into account the aspect of time in the progressive con-
struction of individual and collective autonomy in these types of online learning
programmes? Does culture play a role in the willingness to work both autonomously
and in a group in this type of programme? Does gender influence the development of
autonomy for learners online?
As far as research goes, this study demonstrates the importance of continued
exploration of the social dimensions of autonomy in order to continue studying the
ways in which group and individual learning allows or prohibits the construction of
individual autonomy beyond the simple procedural or cognitive procedures. It also
points to the need to identify the influence of certain variables concerning individuals
Working together to enhance learner autonomy 17
(gender, age, profession, previous experience, etc.) and those concerning the online
learning programme (progressive collaboration, consideration of diversity, the type
of sharing, etc.) on the construction of individual and collective autonomy. In terms
of methodology, a questionnaire addressing the relational aspects of the learner to
the peer group would probably make it possible to obtain more data on those points.
A tool such as this would allow us to find correlations, if they exist, between the
variables of time, social and reflective aspects that seem to have an influence on the
process of autonomisation for online learners.
References
Allford, D. and Pachler, N. (2007) Language, Autonomy and the New Learning Environments.
Bern: Peter Lang.
Barbot, M. J. and Camatarri, G. (1999) Autonomie et apprentissage. L’innovation dans la
formation. Paris: PUF.
Benson, P. (2001) Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning. Harlow: Pearson.
Benson, P. (2007) Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching,40: 21–40.
Blin, F. (2004) Towards an activity-theoretical perspective on the study of CALL and learner
autonomy? ReCALL,16(2): 377–395.
Candas, P. (2009) Analyse de pratiques d’e
´tudiants dans un Centre de Ressources de Langues:
indicateurs d’autonomie dans l’apprentissage. The
`se de Doctorat en Sciences de l’Education.
Universite
´de Strasbourg.
Candy, P. (1991) Self-direction for lifelong learning: a comprehensive guide to theory and
practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chi, M. T. H. (1997) Quantifying qualitative analysis of verbal data: a practical guide. The
journal of the learning sciences,6(3): 271–315.
Ciekanski, M. (2007) Fostering learner autonomy: Power and reciprocity in the relationship
between language learner and language learning adviser. Cambridge Journal of Education,
37(1): 111–127.
Develotte, C. (2009) ‘‘From face to face to distance learning: the online learner’s emerging
identity’’. In: Goodfellow, R. and Lamy, M. N., Learning Cultures in Online Education.
London: Continuum, 71–92.
Eneau, J. (2005) La part d’autrui dans la formation de soi ; autonomie, autoformation et
re
´ciprocite
´en contexte organisationnel. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Eneau, J. (2008) From autonomy to reciprocity, or vice versa? French personalism’s
contribution to a new perspective on self-directed learning. Adult Education Quarterly,
58(3): 229–248.
Eneau, J. and Poyet, F. (2009) Contribution a
`la professionnalisation de futurs tuteurs en
langues: le cas de l’apprentissage d’une langue e
´trange
`re a
`distance en synchronie. In:
Develotte, C., Mangenot, F. and Nissen, E. (coord.), Actes du colloque Echanger pour
apprendre en ligne (EPAL). Grenoble, 5–7 juin 2009.
Guichon, N. (2009) Training future language teachers to develop online tutors’ competence
through reflective analysis. ReCALL,21(2): 30–49.
Henri, F. and Lundgren-Cayrol, K. (2001) Apprentissage collaboratif a
`distance. Sainte-Foy:
Presses de l’Universite
´du Que
´bec.
Je
´ze
´gou, A. (2008) Apprentissage autodirige
´et formation a
`distance. Distances et Savoirs,6(3):
343–364.
Kerlinger, F. N. and Lee, H. B. (2000) Foundations of Behavioral Research, (4th ed.). Holt,
NY: Harcourt College Publishers.
18 J. Eneau and C. Develotte
Little, D. (1991) Learner Autonomy – 1: Definitions, Issues and Problems. Dublin: Authentik.
Loilier, T. and Tellier, A. (2004) Comment peut-on se faire confiance sans se voir ? Le cas du
de
´veloppement des logiciels libres. M@n@gement,7(3): 275–306.
Martin, C. (2004) From other to self. Learning as interactional change. Uppsala: Acta
Universitatis Upsaliensis.
Mebane, M. E., Sorace, R., Solimeno, A. and Tomai, M. (2007) Gender differences in online
collaborative learning groups promoting affective education and social capital. Psicologia
Escolar e Educacional,11: 27–36.
Moisan, A. (2007) L’ambivalence du sujet au cœur de la flexibilite
´de la formation et de
l’emploi. Le cas des auditeurs du Cnam-Pays de la Loire inscrits en formation ouverte et a
`
distance. Distance et savoirs,5: 83–117.
O’Rourke, B. and Carson, L. (eds.) (2010) Language Learner Autonomy: Policy, Curriculum,
Classroom. Bern: Peter Lang.
Oxford, R. L. (1990) Language learning strategies: what every teacher should know. Rowley,
Mass.: Newbury House.
Pemberton, R., Toogood, S. and Barfield, A. (2009) Maintaining Control: Autonomy and
Language Learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Raby, F. (2009) L’analyse de l’activite
´dans l’enseignement et l’apprentissage d’une langue
e
´trange
`re (Le cas de l’anglais LVE), Une de
´marche ergonomique The
`se d’Habilitation a
`
Diriger des Recherches. . Grenoble: Universite
´Stendhal.
Simeone, A., Eneau, J. and Rinck, F. (2007) Sce
´nario d’apprentissage collaboratif a
`distance
et en ligne: des compe
´tences relationnelles sollicite
´es ou de
´veloppe
´es? International Journal
of Information Sciences for Decision Marketing,29. http://isdm.univ-tln.fr/PDF/isdm29/
SIMEONE.pdf
Simeone, A., Eneau, J., and Simonian, S. (2009). Collaboration et me
´moires externes dans une
formation en ligne: le roˆ le de la confiance dans un environnement virtuel d’apprentissage.
In: Develotte, C., Mangenot, F. and Nissen, E. (coord.), Actes du colloque Echanger pour
apprendre en ligne (EPAL).Grenoble, 5–7 juin 2009.
Simonian, S., Ravestein, J. and Audran, J. (2006) Conditions didactiques de la transformation
d’une liste de diffusion en outil collaboratif. Distances et savoirs,4(4): 513–526.
Tremblay, N. A. (2003) L’autoformation, pour apprendre autrement. Montre
´al: Presses de
l’Universite
´de Montre
´al.
Tremblay, N. A. and Eneau, J. (2006) Sujet, socie
´te
´et autoformation – Regards croise
´s du
Que
´bec et de France. Education Permanente,168: 75–88.
Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Working together to enhance learner autonomy 19
