each of them refer to intention, attention, awareness and control. For the purposes of this
study, as the reader will see, I have decided to respect the different definitions of the
references I am using but adding my own opinion and concept of them. This is specifically
true for alertness, orientation and awareness, key concepts for the development of the model.
7) Although van Lier's main interest is the definition and analysis of awareness, sometimes
he refers to awareness using the generic, or superordinate term of consciousness (this may
be due to the work he is referring to).
8) Broady's study is related to attitudes and not to the beliefs underlying them. However, I
decided to include it because of its relevance. Moreover, although different authors label
their concepts with different terms sometimes they seem to be discussing the same
phenomena (eg. Cotteralfs and Broady's learner independence).
There are another two studies which I regard as very relevant to this issue. One is Little D,
Singleton D and Silvious W (1984), Second Languages in Ireland: Experiences, attitudes
and needs, and Press, M (1996), "Ethnicity and the autonomous language learner: different
beliefs and learning strategies?". However, I did not include them in my analysis because
they are not focusing on the belief categories the way the others do. To try to infer some
categories would have meant too much interpretation (or misinterpretation) of their
purposes. Nevertheless, their results are congruent with the ones of the studies presented
here and the conclusions support what has been said here.
9) Benson (1997) and Pennycook (1997), concerned about the limited, and sometimes
narrow-minded, views of autonomy of some people, have made their own classification of
different approaches to autonomy. I do not specifically identify with a particular one but
prefer to take advantage of all of them in order to make sense of my own experience in
Mexico.
10) The rationale underlying the difference between the terms of autonomy and self-
direction is similar to the one underlying Holec ,s definitions of autonomy B) and C) (section
2.3) however, the reader will notice the different conceptualisation.
11) Little and Singleton (1990) have carried out interesting research in this area and
suggested that cognitive style do not stop learners to take the most from different situations
and warn us that "it is essential to distinguish between the language learner's cognitive style,
of which he may be largely unconscious and his approach to the learning task, which is at
least intermittently conscious and may well be in conflict with the cognitive requirements of
the learning task".
12) The best example of this approach to autonomy may be the one reflected in the book
titled Deciding to individualize learning: a study of the process, in which the three people
who made the decision (and whose points of view are recorded in this book) were: a leading
member of the Scottish Inspectorate ("perceived as the manager of the innovation"), the
Principal of the Dundee College OfEducation and a lecturer in the Department of
Psychology in the same college. One of them stated that "this powerful alliance (of the three