A Research Of Constructing A Principles-and-Parameters Model For Foreign Language Learning Autonomy

This dissertation, a theoretical research on the notoriously complex construct ofautonomy in the field of foreign language education at the tertiary level byconstructing a principles-and-parameters model (or PPM) for foreign languagelearning autonomy (or FLLA), comprises five chapters.Chapter One introduces the genesis, background and methodology of thisresearch. The genesis of this research resides in a) the conviction that the quality oftheorizing determines the quality of empirical research notwithstanding the mostlyacknowledged reciprocal and cyclical relationship between theoretical speculation andempirical research, and b) the phenomenon that terms regarding autonomy are looselyused as the complexity of the construct of autonomy is obscured in the absence of acoherent and systematic theory that may offer an adequate and sufficient analysis ordescription of what autonomy can be and how autonomy may emerge. In view of theascending popularity of the concept of autonomy in (foreign language) education, thegrowing number of academic studies and researches, and the confusion in and the trapfor conception of “autonomies”, this research is presented by means of criticalthinking, literature review, logical argumentation as well as by resorting to (fruitsfrom) both foreign and Chinese thinking, with an international background ofdramatic expansion of postsecondary education worldwide since World War II and thegradual transition from elite to mass and then to universal higher education and adomestic background of continual educational reform with foreign languageeducation at the tertiary level enjoying constant, constructive and crucial policies ofpolitically, economically and culturally strategic importance. It goes without sayingthat the nature of FLLA and the essence of foreign language learning (or FLL) gohand in hand while FLL is one of the three dimensions (viz. learning, teaching andschooling) of triadic FLE; hence the necessity of defining FLE.Chapter Two presents a tentative definition of FLE and makes a good case forestablishing FLE as an independent discipline of global benefit, concern and development by means of an introduction of the contexts of FLE in China, the natureof SLA (which seems to enjoy overdue and predominant popularity or emphasis in thefield of FLE) and EL (Educational Linguistics), and the status quo of AppliedLinguistics (AL)(to which category FLE is traditionally and seemingly reasonablyassigned) as well as a summary account of how FLE goes on in China, which mayadd to the academic significance of the construct of autonomy and the developmentalvitality of FLE. FLE can be considered as a complex and ecological system thatinvolves three inseparable dimensions of activities, viz. learning, teaching andschooling, and three main entities, viz. learner, teacher and institution, which suggeststhe fundamental plurality, variability and complexity of outlooks on FLL and thusFLLA, demonstrates the fact that there are no monolithic and stable answers toquestions respecting FLL and FLLA, and gives rise to the necessity of are-conceptualization or revision of the present uncertainties and a complexityapproach or principles-and-parameters approach to FLL and FLLA that may makepossible a panoramic and innovative perspective of autonomy and thus turn theautonomy approach in FLE into an entirely new and promising paradigm.Chapter Three expounds why, what and how a principles-and-parametersapproach to FLLA can be adopted. Firstly, it is maintained that both Foreign andChinese wisdom contribute to the origin of “autonomy in learning”, with autonomybeing an issue that has been gathering momentum of investigation over the past lessthan50years thanks to the Western efforts first made in the field of languageeducation; further, a critical literature review is presented by illustrating how learnerautonomy, teacher autonomy, and institutional autonomy can be respectivelydescribed and defined from the four perspectives, viz. technical, psychological,sociocultural and political-critical perspectives, which provides a sound basis for theconstruction of the Principles-and-Parameters Model (or PPM) put forward at the endof this chapter and is conducive to the differentiation of seven pairs of termsconcerning autonomy, viz. Learning Autonomy vs. Learner Autonomy, TeachingAutonomy vs. Teacher Autonomy, Schooling Autonomy vs. Institutional Autonomy,Autonomous Learning vs. Autonomous Learner, Autonomous Teaching vs. Autonomous Teacher, Autonomous Schooling vs. Autonomous Institution andLearner-Teacher vs. Teacher-Learner; moreover,17confusable concepts in relation to“autonomous learning” are sorted out, discriminated and clarified, with some (such asself-instruction, individualized instruction, and independent learning) being merealiasing distortion and some (such as self-access learning, self-directed learning, andself-regulated learning) being, metaphorically speaking, the fingers of the hand of“autonomous learning”, which, in a way, also fuels an intrinsic demand for acomplexity approach that could coherently, consistently and organically integrate theinconsistencies and fragments in theories on (learning) autonomy and which, in otherwords, calls for an at least relatively, if not absolutely, holistic and systematictheoretical framework that can encompass as exhaustive as possible an inventory offactors influencing the emergence of a particular autonomy among the discursivepractices; hence the PPM.Chapter Four is devoted to a further argumentation for the PPM by illustratingthe increasing fluidity of academic identities, the growing permeability of disciplinaryboundaries, and the cross-fertilization and self-organizing process of academicrestructuring that characterize modern times through a concise account of five strandsof theoretical perspectives that may contribute to the ongoing process of restructuringFLE and reconceptualizing FLL(A), viz. linguistic, psychological, cognitiveperspectives in addition to those of “learning sciences” and sociology.Chapter Five summarizes the significance and limitation of this research. Thisresearch does justice to the complexity of autonomy and FLLA, in view of the factthat no single body of theory (monolithic or not, interdisciplinary or not) is to beomnipotent in FLE and the PPM provides a theoretical lens that focuses on thedynamicity, change and emergence rather than the stability, inflexibility andparticularity involved in the nature of FLLA and is expected to enlarge the ontologicaland empirical parameters of research on FLLA; meanwhile, a limitation of thisresearch looms in the limited knowledge of this writer, the double-edged intuition andexperience of this writer, and the absence of a follow-up and further research dealingwith the specification of the principles and parameters of the PPM.