【Abstract】Learner autonomy and communicative competence have been buzz words in the field of language learning and teaching for a few decades. The popularity of learner-related terms implies that teacher-oriented mode should be replaced by learner-oriented mode （Shen， 2014）. To implement learner-dominant model， language classroom which is learner-centered and communicative should be established. Collaborative writing and correcting will be applied in this new-type classroom.

【Key words】learner autonomy; communicative competence; EFL writing

【作者簡介】王美玲（1990.6-），女，漢族，廣東東莞人，廣東科技大學(xué)，專任教師，碩士，研究方向：二語習(xí)得。

1. INTRODUCTION

A main objective of learner autonomy is to equip students with the capacity “to learn to learn” and “to learn to liberate” （Masouleh & Jooneghani， 2012， p. 837）. Communicative competence is viewed as production of communicative language teaching （CLT）， whose goal is to prepare learners successfully for real-life communication （Littlewood， 2014）. However， in Chinese context， teacher-oriented classroom still leads a dominant role in English teaching and learning （ETL）. The focus of ETL has been triggered to grammatical and structural accuracy for a long period failing to fulfill the expectation cultivating learners communicative competence perfectly. With an effort to transfer teacher-centered mode to learner-centered mode， this present article tries to construct an autonomous and communicative classroom where EFL learners complete writing task cooperatively.

2. CREATING MODERN WRITING CLASSROOM

It is widely accepted that if EFL teachers desire to achieve success on their language teaching practice， they ought to attach great significance on interaction with learners. Whatever teaching strategy is adopted to enhance learner autonomy， it is unavoidable to mention three principles： learner involvement， learner reflection and target language use （Little， 2007）. Learner involvement refers to both teachers and learners shoulder the responsibility for deciding learning objective， choosing learning material and approach， monitoring learning progress and assessing learning result. Learner reflection has a strong link with learner involvement and cognitive attention. When learners engage themselves in mental activities （e.g. decision-making and self-evaluation）， they need to perceive clearly what they are doing， which requires persistent reflection. In Littles （2007） viewpoint， learner interaction is “the dialogue between teacher and learner” （Little， 2007， p. 25） and communication among learners. EFL teachers in real world generally believe that students are incapable to reflect on their own learning with target language. However， this principle has been suggested to be practical when learners have obtained a certain level of proficiency （Thomsen， 2003）.

CLT aims to enable learners to communicate in target language under real-life situations rather than equip them with a bunch of grammatical rules （Celce-Murcia et al.， 1997）. To achieve this pedagogical goal， Savignon （2002） suggested that communicative curriculum should comprise five factors which were language arts， theatre arts， language for a special purpose （i.e. language for communication）， personal target language use and beyond classroom. Inserting CLT into Chinese conventional teaching approach， Hu （2010） presented four types of mixed methods （i.e. blending functional communication into linguistic teaching， raising learners cultural awareness of target language and integrating situational constrains into language teaching）. Moreover， CLT classroom should apply efficient pair or group collaboration， authentic language input， genuine and meaningful output （Brown， 1994）. Even with piles of relevant theory， a certain number of EFL teachers fail to build up CLT classroom appropriately. Littlewood （2014） pointed out four potential problems preventing the establishment of CLT classroom. Teachers simply adopt CLT to satisfy requirement from the authority concerned， or incorporate local context into CLT framework， or integrate only a few CLT components into traditional pedagogical framework， or “choose ideas and techniques from the universal， transnational pool that has been built up over the years and evaluate them， not in relation to any notion of CLT” （Littlewood， 2014， p. 354）. Moreover， teachers probably hold the assumption that language learners feel accustomed to act as passive receivers in classroom， in contrary to the idea presented by Benson （2007） that Asian EFL learners desire to have freedom and access to direct their own learning. On the whole， the result of implementation of CLT in China turns out to be disappointing.

The principles above highlight the components of autonomous-communicative classroom individually， reaching an agreement on improving learner independence and reducing reliance on teacher. To construct a new-type classroom， group-collaboration and self-correction provide practical access. Working in group supplies opportunities to conduct “intensive interactive use of the target language” （Little， 2007， p. 25）. In collaborative writing classroom， group members ought to discuss， negotiate and integrate different opinions together， speaking in English as much as possible. Beyond verbal communication， important information is supposed to be written down to tract learners cognitive noticing. When negotiating with peers， EFL learners may distinguish the language gap between themselves and peers. When written output is completed collaboratively， autonomous error-correction will be followed， which refers to EFL learners notice and correct grammatical errors with the aid of reformulation （Vickers & Ene， 2006）. Comparing their original version with the reformulated version written by native speaker， students might raise awareness of linguistic errors and enhance grammatical accuracy on writing. It is obvious in this type of writing classroom， learners no longer act as passive recipients but active participants （Hu， 2010） while teachers play scaffolding roles rather than knowledge transmitters. However， teachers transformation from leading to scaffolding has no implication that they become redundant in autonomous writing context （Masouleh & Jooneghani， 2012）. A certain degree of teacher intervention is in need， especially when learners lose in “blind alley” or fail to set “optimal challenges” （Little， 2007）.

3. CONCLUSION

To create a learner-centered， communicative setting， the major challenge lies at the role of teacher. In traditional context， teacher usually functions as knowledge-holder and class-instructor， leading the predominant role （Lu， 2012）. In the realm of autonomous learning， teacher is advised to be facilitator and resource-provider， playing a scaffolding role （Masouleh & Jooneghani， 2012）. In CLT classroom， teacher is preferred to act as activity designer and executor （Hiep， 2007）. Regardless of different roles teachers play in different contexts， the role of learner maintains relatively constant， effective thinker and active participant （Shen， 2014）. Furthermore， multiple roles of teachers indicate that they should possess multiple capacities to adapt in the mixed context. However， the bulk of EFL teachers in China generally lack of advanced English proficiency and multiple competence （Yu， 2001）. It seems that conducting a learner-oriented and communicative EFL writing classroom is beyond their technical capacity. Therefore， more attentions and devotions should be attached to relevant and efficient teacher training programs preparing teachers to modern EFL classrooms.

References：

[1]Brown，H.D. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching[J].Englewood Cliffs，NJ：Prentice Hall Regents，1994.

[2]Benson，P. Autonomy in language teaching and learning[J]. Language Teaching，2007，40（1）：21-40.

[3]Celce-Murcia，M.，Dornyei，Z.， & Thurrell，S. Direct approaches in L2 instruction： A turning point in communicative language teaching？ [J].TESOL Quarterly，1997，31（1）：141-152.

[4]Hiep，P.H. Communicative language teaching： Unity within diversity[J]. ELT Journal，2007，61（3）：193-201.

[5]Hu，W. Communicative language teaching in the Chinese environment. US-China Education Review，2010，7（6）：78-82.

[6]Little，D. Language learner autonomy： Some fundamental considerations revisited[J]. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching，2007，1（1）：14-29.

[7]Littlewood，W. Communication-oriented language teaching： Where are we now？ where do we go from here？[J]. Language Teaching，2014， 47（3）：1-14.

[8]Lu，J.? Autonomous learning in tertiary university EFL teaching and learning of the Peoples republic of China[J]. International Journal of Information and Education Technology，2012，2（6）：608-611.

[9]Masouleh，N.S.，& Jooneghani，R.B. Autonomous learning： A teacher-less learning？[J]. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences，2012，55：835-842.

[10]Savignon， S. J. Communicative curriculum design for the 21st century[J]. English Teaching Forum，2002，40（1）：2-7.

[11]Shen， Q. Web-based autonomous learning in the Chinese EFL setting[J]. Theory and Practice in Language Studies，2014，4（7）：1409- 1414.

[12]Thomsen， H. Scaffolding target language use. In： D. Little.， J. Ridley.， & E. Ushioda. （eds.） Learner Autonomy in the Foreign Language Classroom： Teacher， Learner， Curriculum and Assessment （pp. 29-46）[J]. Dublin： Authentik，2003.

[13]Vickers， C. H.， & Ene， E. Grammatical accuracy and learner autonomy in advanced writing. ELT Journal，2006，60（2）：109-116.

[14]Yu， L. Communicative language teaching in China： Progress and resistance[J]. TESOL Quarterly，2001，35（1）：194-198.