Little points out that it is difficult to define an autonomous learner (cf. Holec 1981; Little 1991) but he suggests that 

“there is nevertheless broad agreement that autonomous learners understand the purpose of their learning programme, explicitly accept responsibility for their learning, share in the setting of learning goals, take initiatives in planning and executing learning activities, and regularly review their learning and evaluate its effectiveness.” 

Little further specifies that “the practice of learner autonomy requires insight, a positive attitude, a capacity for reflection, and a readiness to be proactive in self-management and in interaction with others.” Autonomous learners also make use of the support of relevant learning communities and collaboration partners, both online and offline.

According to the website International Coaching Community (ICC n. d.), coaching is systematic activity which, using specific methods and techniques, helps “a person change in the way they wish and helping them go in the direction they want to go, […] supports a person at every level in becoming who they want to be”, and […] builds awareness, empowers choice and leads to change” (ICC). Accordingly, “coaching is a process that aims to improve performance and focuses on the ‘here and now’ rather than on the distant past or future” (cf. Skills you Need. What is Coaching?; International Coaching Federation - ICF). A common tenet amongst the many definitions of the practices and methods of coaching is that, rather than an expert, the coach is a facilitator of learning. 

​

In the context of learning,  the words coach and, subsequently, coaching differ from the semantic area of sports training so that, while learning coaches might not be experts in a given area of knowledge, they could be experts in coaching methods and techniques. With appropriate training and/or certification, the coach’s role is not to tell the trainee specifically what to do but rather to help them find their own solutions or responses in accordance with the idea that the “trainee knows best”. Consistent with this principle, the decisions made during the process are up to the learner while the selection of methods and techniques to be applied is up to the coach.
Compare with Coaching-related helping professions.

​

​

​

The expression coaching-oriented language teaching was coined for the CORALL project to reflect its main goal to support students in becoming more autonomous learners and to support teachers of LSP in helping learners to become more autonomous. Coaching-oriented language teaching is suitable for various teaching environments and opportunities. It takes into consideration the project partners’ contexts, independent of whether the HEI has a self-access center, whether the teachers are trained and whether the language courses are bound to a curriculum. The aim of coaching-oriented language teaching is to employ elements of language coaching, which “filter the complete teaching/learning process” (Kovács 2019) through teacher-, self- or peer-coaching (see. Curran 1976 for early research into Community Language Learning and Counseling-Learning in general). Issues to be covered by CORALL include increasing transparency, learner awareness and learner control supported by time for reflection and advising/coaching tools. Instead of concentrating exclusively on coaching techniques, coaching-oriented language teaching emphasizes a coaching attitude while teaching so that language learners are treated as partners who can make informed choices about their language learning with some support and can gradually take over responsibility for their own language learning process(es). Coaching-oriented language teaching is more related to sports and fitness training in the sense that teachers, just like sports and fitness coaches, are experts in their field who use coaching methods to increase the effectiveness of their work and subsequently the work of the learners.

Besides coaching, which emphasises the involvement of non-expert coaches and specific coaching methods and techniques, a number of related  ‘helping’ professions are involved, such as Mentoring, Counseling, Therapy, Training, Consultancy, and Teaching. See the definitions on the website of the International Coaching Community.

Besides coaching skills and competencies, (professional/certified) coaches may be equipped with and responsible for a plethora of suitable coaching methods. Although different approaches can be applied in different contexts, the following list of coaching methods adapted from Moore (2019) shows what to expect:

• communication skills

• techniques for effective feedback

• open-ended questions 

• nonverbal techniques 

• motivational techniques

• effective goal-setting

• encouraging a positive growth mindset

• developing resilience. 

Coaching methods and/or techniques may be used effectively in educational settings. The CORALL project partners see advising as a form of coaching.

An effective form of asking questions is a basic coaching technique. Coaches avoid ambiguous, (mis-)leading or even closed questions and negative phrasing since “asking the right coaching questions means the difference between a one-way interrogation and a dynamic learning session” (Su 2014). 

​

Here are some suggested coaching questions (Su, 2014):

​

What

• What are your ideal outcomes?

• What would have to change to make that happen?

How

• How will you prepare for that?

• How will you stay self-aware and mindful when things get busy?

Who

• Who else could you ask for feedback?

• Who are the key people in your network of support?

Where/When

• Where/When do you feel you are at your personal best?

• Where might you experience resistance in your efforts to improve? 

​

Descriptor questions can help clarify a given situation:

• Help me understand…

• Could you describe further…

​

See more on Open-Ended Coaching Questions HERE: Su (2014).

In contrast to pedagogical models and theories favouring the transmission of knowledge from an expert (teacher, mentor) to a non-expert (student),  

“the general sense of constructivism is that it is a theory of learning or meaning making, that individuals create their own new understandings on the basis of an interaction between what they already know and believe and ideas and knowledge with which they come into contact” (Resnick 1989, as cited in Richardson 2003 pp. 1623-24). 

The general assumption in constructivism is that students are capable of and willing to construct the knowledge under the guidance of the teacher.

​

Advising/Coaching for language learning can be seen as “an offer to support language learners in thinking about their learning to develop new opportunities for learning successfully, using their own skills, abilities, and competences to reach a specific learning objective” (Kleppin & Spänkuch 2012, translated from the German). As an offer, while language advisors/coaches view topics from the learner’s perspective, they do not give prescriptive instructions, recommendations or tips (Spänkuch 2018).  Advising/Coaching offers a personalized approach, which may be used on its own or as part of teaching a language course, employing different types of coaching methods mixed with language teaching (Kovács 2019).

To develop learners’ communicative competence in rapidly integrating global markets, it is often key to improve their proficiency in foreign languages in accordance with the diverse and specific communication needs arising from their education or job. Language for Specific Purposes (LSP) focuses on the use of language as a tool for specific purposes within a particular academic or professional field such as business, technology, tourism, natural sciences or law.

Language learning strategies refer to “specific actions taken by the learner to make learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and more transferable to new situations” (Oxford 1990 p. 8). Her classifications of language learning strategies are divided into two broad groups: direct and indirect. Direct learning covers memory strategies (aiding the retention and recall of information), cognitive strategies (focusing on language processing and practice) and compensation strategies (overcoming knowledge deficits) while the indirect learning strategies involve the metacognitive (managing the learning process), the affective (managing one’s emotions and motivation) and the social (supporting collaboration and interaction with others). These language learning strategies can serve a number of functions, namely because they: 

• support the development of communicative competence as well as learner autonomy;

• involve the learner on a number of levels;

• are flexible, problem-oriented and action-based;

• can be conscious but may not be observable and

• are teachable (adapted from Oxford 1990).

O’Malley and Chamot (1990) in turn distinguish between the following three categories: metacognitive, cognitive and social/affective. Teachers can help students to develop learning strategies through learner training in the classroom and this can take many forms.  One important practical step is awareness-raising as in the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA) lesson plan model (O’Malley and Chamot 1990 pp. 201-203), which involves five phases of learner training, from preparation, presentation, and practice, to evaluation and expansion. Similarly, Reinders proposes another five-step model of learner training that involves the different stages of awareness-raising, modelling, and trying out as well as evaluating and transferring. 

​

Note that Reinders’ (2004) model includes a diversion from the standard PPP teaching model reflected in the three initial steps of O’Malley and Chamot’s (1990) framework.

​

“In formal educational contexts, the basis of learner autonomy is acceptance of responsibility of one’s own learning; the development of learner autonomy depends on the exercise of that responsibility in a never-ending effort to understand what one is learning, why one is learning, how one is learning, and with what degree of success and the effect of learner autonomy is to remove the barriers that so easily erect themselves between formal learning and the wider environment in which the learner lives.”(Little 1999 p. 11).

According to Oxford (2003), a distinction can be made between four different perspectives on learner autonomy: technical, psychological, socio-cultural and political-critical. These can be summarised as follows (see Sudhershan 2012 for a more detailed discussion):

1) The technical perspective is exemplified by Holec’s (1981 p. 3) early definition of learner autonomy as the learner’s ability to “take charge of [his or her] own learning” by means of accepting responsibility for making decisions for the learning process (i.e. selecting objectives, contents, methods and techniques; monitoring the process as well as evaluating both the progress and the learning process) 

2) The psychological perspective outlines those learner characteristics that make it possible for the learner to take control of the learning process (Benson 1997 p.19; Oxford 2003 p. 83). Benson (2001) suggests this means control over the following three cognitive processes: metacognitive knowledge, reflection and attention. Another important factor involves affect, understood as the willingness to take responsibility for one’s own learning  (e.g. Littlewood 1996 p. 428). 

3) The socio-cultural perspective focuses on the fact that autonomy is “characterized not by independence but by interdependence” (Little, Ridley and Ushioda 2002 p. 7; emphasis original), the latter understood as working with others to achieve common goals (Benson 2001 p. 14). 

4) The political-critical perspective can be understood as control over the content and processes of learning (Benson 1997, see also Benson 1996, 2001) as it emphasises the social and transformative character of learner autonomy which “not only transforms individuals, [but] also [...] the social situations and structures in which they are participants” (Benson 1996 p.34). 

The popular view of  learner autonomy as the capacity to take responsibility for one’s own language learning (see Benson 2001 p. 47 and Little 1999 p. 11 cited above) seems to sum up well the particular foci of the four perspectives on responsibility in learning (Sudhershan 2012 p. 19-20): 

1) managing the learning process (the technical perspective) 

2) developing metacognitive knowledge (the psychological perspective) 

3) working with more capable others to make progress (the socio-cultural perspective) 

4) overcoming constraints imposed on learning (the political-critical perspective). 

Developing learner autonomy and the assumption that students are able to work autonomously play a key role in coaching-oriented language teaching (applied in the CORALL project). The learner competence required to learn autonomously is also founded in an entrepreneurial spirit, a ‘can do’ approach, that is not limited by language competence itself.

All pedagogical perspectives and approaches to knowledge acquisition presuppose that learners have certain – albeit different – ‘learning skills’. Although the definitions of learning skills differ, the more general 21st century learning skills include the 4 Cs, “critical thinking, creative thinking, communicating, and collaborating” (WEF 2015 p. 4) which CORALL embraces for language learning. In a meta-analysis of 642 papers from a wide variety of fields, Freeman et al. (2014) found that active learning stimulates authentic problem solving in university STEM courses, which addresses some of the technologically-oriented language courses under study in the CORALL project. In line with active learning strategies for other areas of LSP as well, CORALL appreciates the role of learning tasks that involve effective time management, reading and test-taking skills as well as efficiency in study skills like questioning, summarizing, and using imagery (cf. Dunlosky et al. 2013).

Metacognition is often defined as thinking about thinking (Flavell 1976 in Brame 2013), while metacognitive knowledge is “the stable, statable and sometimes fallible knowledge learners acquire about themselves as learners and the learning process” (Wenden 1995 p. 185), which simultaneously includes thinking about what is being learned and being aware of learning strategies and practices, i.e. “the processes involved when learners plan, monitor, evaluate and make changes to their own learning behaviours (Cambridge Assessment International Education n. d.). The aim of a metacognitive approach is to “increase students’ abilities to transfer or adapt their learning to new contexts and tasks [...] by gaining a level of awareness above the subject matter” (Chick n. d.).

Personalized learning refers to the “shaping of students’ learning activities and the curriculum/knowledge content that reflect the input and interests of students” (Nandigam et al. 2014). Accordingly, learners can understand not only “how they learn, own and drive their learning” but also are “co-designers of the curriculum and their learning environment” (ibid.). Personal Learning Environments (PLEs), the natural corollary, have been consecrated by the founding of the International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments (IJVPLE) and the PLE Conferences in 2010 (PLE), which heralded the Year of the MOOC in 2012. These Massive Open Online Courses can be hosted by an institution or by Coursera, Udacity, edX, FutureLearn and XuetangX (see Arau Ribeiro 2015; Shah 2020 for a historical review). 

Reflection refers to a learner-controlled and goal-oriented process involving both the cognitive and affective dimensions of learning (Boud, Keogh and Walker 1985 p. 11), with emphasis on deliberate learning (Tough 1979 in Boud et al. 1996 p. 32).

In addition to the three phases that Boud et al. (1985) derived from Dewey’s (1933) five (see also infed.org), CORALL understands reflection to further include attitude, behavioural aspects and dialogue (Cinnamond & Zimpher in Clift et al. 1990).

​

Reflection is vital in the development of learner autonomy because “the autonomous learner is essentially one who is capable of reflection at appropriate moments in the learning process and of acting upon the results” (Benson 2001 pp. 94-95). This learner further engages in three different levels of reflection: on the target language, on the learning process itself, and lastly, “on learning habits or ways of thinking about learning that are inimical to autonomy” (ibid). When dealing with new feelings, ideas and information, the resulting association(s), integration, validation and appropriation will necessarily impact the learning outcomes and resulting action(s) (Boud et al. 1996 pp. 31-34), areas of influence where CORALL aims to make a difference through coaching-oriented teaching. 

According to Little, Ridley and Ushioda (2002), learner reflection supported by writing,  learner empowerment and appropriate target language use are the three key principles for promoting learner autonomy in the language classroom (see Arau Ribeiro 2011 for a more detailed discussion on the metacognitive role of writing in ESP). The European Language Portfolio (CoE), for example, is a tool designed inter alia to foster learner autonomy in which learner reflection plays an important role (Little 2009 p. 226).

​

In contrast to constructivist models, transmissive pedagogies focus on transmitting (readymade) knowledge from an expert (teacher) to a non-expert (learner). Hence, effective teaching from a transmissive perspective, “starts with a substantial commitment to the content or subject matter” (Pratt 2005 pp. 2-3). This approach reveals a number of assumptions, like the metaphor of the student as a container to be filled, where the transferred “knowledge exists outside the learner, usually within the text or in the teacher” (ibid.). 

The proprietary term Direct Instruction, created by Siegfried Engelmann and Wesley Becker in 1968, means an “explicit, carefully sequenced and scripted model of instruction” (NIFDI). In transmissive pedagogies, 

“the term direct instruction refers to (1) instructional approaches that are structured, sequenced, and led by teachers, and/or (2) the presentation of academic content to students by teachers, such as in a lecture or demonstration. […] While a classroom lecture is perhaps the image most commonly associated with direct instruction, the term encompasses a wide variety of fundamental teaching techniques and potential instructional scenarios.” (GER 2013) 

To support learner autonomy, transmissive approaches and direct instruction should be adapted appropriately.

• Arau Ribeiro, M. C., Brito, E. & Rodrigues, F. (2015). Uma Avaliação dos MOOC ao serviço do ensino e aprendizagem das línguas estrangeiras [An Assessment of MOOCs for Foreign Language Learning and Teaching]. In T. M. Estrela, C. Cavaco, M. J. Cardona, P. R. Pinto, B. Cabrito, F. A. Costa, J. Pinhal, J. Ferreira, P. Rodrigues, & P. Figueiredo (Eds.), Diversidade e Complexidade da Avaliação em Educação e Formação. Contributos da Investigação [Diversity and Complexity in Assessment for Education and Training: Research contributions]. Lisbon: EDUCA/AFIRSE Portugal. pp. 1252-1262.  http://hdl.handle.net/10314/4046

• Arau Ribeiro, M. C. (2011). Insights from interlanguage as revealed in writing: toward the development of metalinguistic competences for Portuguese adult learners of English. PhD Thesis. Universidade da Beira Interior. Available at: https://ubibliorum.ubi.pt/handle/10400.6/3400 

• Benson, P. (1996). Concepts of autonomy in language learning. In R. Pemberton, E. S. L., Li, W. W. F., Or & H. D. Pierson (Eds.) Taking control: autonomy in language learning (pp. 27-34). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. 

• Benson, P. (1997). The philosophy and politics of learner autonomy. IN: Benson, P. and Voller, P. (eds.) Autonomy and independence in language learning (pp. 18-34). London and NY: Longman.

• Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. Harlow: Longman.

• Boud, D., Keogh, R. & Walker, D. (1985). What is reflection in learning? In D. Boud,R. Keogh and D. Walker (Eds.), Reflection: turning experience into learning (pp. 7-17.). London: Kogan Page/New York: Nichols Publishing Company. 

• Boud, D., Keogh, R. & Walker, D. (1996). Promoting reflection in learning: a model. In R. Edwards, A. Hanson, and P. Raggatt (Eds.), Boundaries of Adult Learning (pp. 32-57). Abingdon: Routledge

• Brame, C. (2013). Thinking about Metacognition. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/2013/01/thinking-about-metacognition/

• Cambridge Assessment International Education (n. d.) Getting started with Metacognition. Available from: https://cambridge-community.org.uk/professional-development/gswmeta/index.html  

• Cinnamond, J. H. & Zimpher, N. L. (1990). Reflectivity as a function of community. In R. T. Clift, W. R. Houston and M. C. Pugach (Eds.), Encouraging Reflective Practice in Education: an analysis of issues and programs. New York: Teachers’ College Press.

• Chick, N. (n.d.) Metacognition. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/metacognition/ 

• CoE - Council of Europe. What is the ELP? https://www.coe.int/en/web/portfolio/introduction 

• Curran, C. A. (1976). Counseling-Learning in Second Languages. Apple River, IL: Apple Hill Press. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED146804 

• Dunlosky, J., Rawson K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving Students’ Learning with Effective Learning Techniques: Promising Directions from Cognitive and Educational Psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 14 (1), 4-58. https://pcl.sitehost.iu.edu/rgoldsto/courses/dunloskyimprovinglearning.pdf 

• The Glossary of Educational Reform GER (2013). Direct Instruction. https://www.edglossary.org/direct-instruction/ 

• Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think. New York: D. C. Heath. 

• Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp.231-236). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

• Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H. & Wenderoth, M. P.  (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the USA 111,  8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111 

• Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Oxford/New York: Pergamon Press. (First Published 1979, Council of Europe)

• infed.org: education, community-building and change. Reflection, learning and education. https://infed.org/mobi/reflection-learning-and-education/ 

• International Coaching Community ICC. What is Coaching. https://internationalcoachingcommunity.com/what-is-coaching/ 

• International Coaching Federation. https://coachfederation.org/core-competencies

• IJVPLE - International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments. https://www.igi-global.com/journal/international-journal-virtual-personal-learning/1134 

• Kleppin, K. & Spänkuch, E. (2012). Sprachlern-Coaching. Reflexionsangebote für das eigene Fremdsprachenlernen [Language learning coaching. Opportunities for reflection on one's own foreign language learning]. Fremdsprache Deutsch [German as a Foreign Language] 46, 41-49.

• Kovács, G. (2019). Language Coaching in the 21st century. EFL Magazine. https://www.eflmagazine.com/language-coaching-in-the-21st-century/ 

• Little, D. (n/d). “Learner autonomy and second/foreign language learning”, LLAS. https://www.llas.ac.uk/resources/gpg/1409.

• Little, D. (1991). Learner Autonomy 1: Definitions, Issues and Problems, 7. Dublin: Authentik. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259874253_Learner_Autonomy_1_Definitions_Issues_and_Problems/citation/download

• Little, D. (1999). Learner autonomy is more than a Western cultural construct. In S. Cotterall & D. Crabbe (Eds.), Learner autonomy in Language Learning: Defining the Field and Effecting Change (pp. 11-18). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang

• Little, D. (2009). Language learner autonomy and the European Language Portfolio: Two L2 English examples. Language Teaching, 42 (2), pp. 222-233. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444808005636

• Little, D., Ridley, J. & Ushioda, E. (2002). Towards greater learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom (pp. 15-22). Dublin: Authentik.

• Littlewood, W. (1996). “Autonomy”: an anatomy and a framework. System, 24 (4), 427-435. 

• Moore, C. (2019). 32+ Coaching Skills and Techniques for Life Coaches & Leaders. Positive Psychology.  https://positivepsychology.com/coaching-skills-techniques/

• Nandigam, D., Sremath Tirumala, S.  & Baghaei, N. (2014). Personalized Learning: Current Status and Potential. IC3e 2014 - 2014 IEEE Conference on e-Learning, e-Management and e-Services. DOI: 10.1109/IC3e.2014.7081251

• NIFDI - National Institute for Direct Instruction. What is DI?  https://www.nifdi.org/what-is-di/di-vs-di.html  

• O’Malley, J. M. & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

• Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: what every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

• Oxford, R. L. (2003). Toward a more systematic model of L2 learner autonomy. IN:Palfreyman, D. and Smith, R. C. (eds.) Learner autonomy across cultures: language education perspectives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.75-91. 

• PLE - The Personal Learning Environment Conference(s). http://pleconf.org/ 

• Pratt, D. (2005). Summaries of Five Learning Perspectives. https://www.academia.edu/317238/Summaries_of_Five_Teaching_Perspectives

• Reinders, H. (2004). Learner strategies in the language classroom: which strategies, when and how? RELC Guidelines, 26 (1), pp. 31-35.

• Resnick, L.B. & Klopfer, L.E. (1989). Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Yearbook.

• Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist Pedagogy. Teachers College Record. 105 (9), pp. 1623-1640. DOI: 10.1046/j.1467-9620.2003.00303.x. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249400122_Constructivist_Pedagogy 

• Shah, D. (2020). Capturing the Hype: Year of the MOOC Timeline Explained.  The Report from Class Central. https://www.classcentral.com/report/mooc-hype-year-1/ 

• Skills you Need. What is Coaching?. https://www.skillsyouneed.com/learn/coaching.html

• Spänkuch, E. (2018). Language learning coaching. Enabling rather than instructing. Magazin Sprache, Goethe-Institut.

• Su, A. J. (2014). The Questions Good Coaches Ask. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2014/12/the-questions-good-coaches-ask

• Sudhershan, A. (2012). Fostering autonomy in intercultural language learning in the foreign language classroom: a case study of international students learning English at a higher education institution in Ireland. PhD Thesis. Dublin City University. Available at: https://libguides.ioe.ac.uk/c.php?g=482485&p=3299852  

• WEF - World Economic Forum. (2015). New Vision for Education: Fostering Social and Emotional Learning through Technology. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_New_Vision_for_Education.pdf 

• Wenden, A. L. (1995). Learner training in context: a knowledge-based approach. System, 23 (2), pp. 183-194