The LCT dimension of Autonomy offers great potential for making explicit the principles underlying educational practices. In this presentation, I discuss how I enacted the concepts to develop a shared understanding of how to select pedagogic content (PA) for particular pruposes (RA) when designing online embedded literacy materials. This enabled discussion of how the 'targets' of different stakeholders may be effectively integrated, informing the design of pedagogic materials.

1. Daniel O’Sullivan
Twitter: @danielanthonyos
Email: danielanthonyosullivan@gmail.com
Associate Member LCT Centre for Knowledge-building
Legitimation Code Theory:
Discussing Autonomy
with LCT-UK
By Jodie Martin. Used with permission.

2. Communicate for Success
• Collaboration between Monash Uni and Monash College
• Pilot project 2018-2019
• Specialised online and face-to-face professional
communication skills program developed to support students in
core units of study – Masters of Professional Accounting.
• Additional yet embedded within course LMS
• 2hrs+ of study per week

3. Challenges: Project level
• Tight timelines for a small team
• Balancing development of targeted subject-specific resources with
sustainability/transferability
• Degree of integration: additional or assessed?
• Managing expectations and ensuring meaningful, effective
communication between all stakeholders about specific objectives,
e.g.
• Professional communication skills -> improved grad attributes for work
• Course content -> improved course results
• Knowledge about language -> improved English language skills

4. C4S: A multi-faceted collaborative project

5. Actors in the arena of struggle

6. Sociologists Psychologists
Engineers
Artists
Physicists
Mathematicians
Historians
Project owner MAPE Director
MUELC Director
Academics/Course
co-ordinators
Course tutors
Ed designers
Me – head of
project team

7. Survival in the arena of struggle

8. Challenges for me: How to best…
• …balance expectations of managers and stakeholders
• …ensure ‘buy-in’ from the course coordinators, academics and tutors
• …design learning objects that establish clear and specific ‘targets’, and
‘bring the learning home’ for students
• …scaffold students’ understanding of the language required to
express abstract, technical and complex ideas

9. Attempts to legitimise LCT…

10. Generic vs specific
OR
Content vs language
• Either-or approaches
• Quick choice but expectations/details may be
unclear/misunderstood
• over-simplify complex issues
• often result in one being privileged over
another depending on values.
• as one side is preferenced, it becomes
challenging to fully acknowledge alternative
positions and the need to ‘move’ between
positions. E.g. if, when and how?
Instead of dichotomies…

11. Cartesian planes
Content
Generic Specific
Language
• An explanatory framework rather than a meta-
theory (Maton, 2014: 7)
• Rather than just one dichotomous choice,
multiple approaches [(n)‘either’, AND ‘Both’]
• Generates 4 types (e.g. content + specific;
specific + lang; lang + generic; generic +
content)
• Generates spaces where relative strengths can
be discussed
LCT suggests…

12. Axes can be operationalised across project,
course, learning module, activity levels…

13. …dimensions to identify underlying principles / ‘legitimation codes’ / ‘rules of the
game’
LCT offers…
LCT Dimensions Axes Possible uses
Autonomy (target)
PA = which elements?
RA = for which purpose?
How to align stakeholders
Semantics (meaning)
SG = more or less context-specific meanings?
SD = more or less condensation of meaning?
How to make powerful ideas
Specialisation (what’s
valued/legitimate)
ER = what form of knowledge?
SR = from whose perspective?
How to identify success in
different contexts

14. …defined by axes of:
• Positional Autonomy (PA) = insulation between
constituents or how a constituent /element is
positioned relative to a field
• Relational Autonomy (RA) = how those
constituents/elements are related together, such
as their purpose
LCT Dimension 1: Autonomy

15. …can be used by all stakeholders to identify the ‘target’ (i.e. aims or objectives)
LCT Dimension 1: Autonomy
Possible elements - What are we using? (PA) Possible purpose - What are we teaching? (RA)
• Course materials from Moodle/Course Examiner
• Materials for Professional Communication skills
• ‘Traditional’ grammar & language ‘skills’
• C4S language framework (SFL-based):
• Discipline-specific language practices
• Grammar (e.g. word class, verb forms)
• Discourse (e.g. information flow,
nominalisation)
• Genre (e.g. IRAC, reports, reflective writing)
• improvements in understanding of course content
(cumulative knowledge-building)
• improvements of graduate
attributes/employability skills + communication
skills
• improvements in language skills in both academic
and professional contexts
• developing engaging online resources
• developing disciplinary specific discourse (SFL-
inspired) and knowledge-building (LCT-inspired)

16. …can be used by all stakeholders to identify the ‘target’ (i.e. aims or objectives)
LCT Dimension 1: Autonomy
Possible elements - What are we using? (PA) Possible purpose - What are we teaching? (RA)
• Course materials from Moodle/Course Examiner
• Materials for Professional Communication skills
• ‘Traditional’ grammar & language ‘skills’
• C4S language framework (SFL-based):
• Discipline-specific vocabulary
• Grammar (e.g. word class, verb forms)
• Discourse (e.g. information flow,
nominalisation)
• Genre (e.g. IRAC, reports, reflective writing)
• improvements in understanding of course content
(cumulative knowledge-building)
• improvements of graduate
attributes/employability skills + communication
skills
• improvements in language skills in both academic
and professional contexts
• developing engaging online resources
• developing disciplinary specific discourse (SFL-
inspired) and knowledge-building (LCT-inspired)
TEASING APART THESE SUBTLE DIFFERENCES IS EXTREMELY EFFECTIVE FOR LANGUAGE SPECIALISTS AND
EDUCATIONAL DESIGNERS IN PRODUCING COHESIVE AND COHERENT LEARNING OBJECTS

17. Variables must be defined, so, for example,
• stronger positional autonomy (PA+) =
Disciplinary literacy practices (but not
‘linguistics’)
• weaker positional autonomy
(PA–) = other content (includes prof comm
skills, SFL-based KAL)
• stronger relational autonomy (RA+) = for
the purpose of improving course results
• weaker relational autonomy
(RA–) = for other purposes
Autonomy: Aligning with project management V1

18. 18
…whose relative strengths can be varied independently from stronger
(+) to weaker (-) to generate a range of autonomy codes:
 Sovereign code – teaching disciplinary literacy practices (but
not ‘linguistics’) to improve course results
 Projected code – teaching disciplinary literacy for other purposes,
e.g. developing knowledge about prof comm practices and/or
grammar/discourse
 Exotic code - knowledge outside curriculum (includes SFL-based
KAL) used for purposes other than improving course results
 Introjected code – knowledge outside disciplinary literacy
practices used for purposes within that discipline, e.g. SFL KAL
(knowledge about grammar/discourse) being used to improve
course results
Autonomy: Aligning with project management V1

19. Variables must be defined, so, for example,
• stronger positional autonomy (PA+) =
Professional communication practices
• weaker positional autonomy
(PA–) = other content (includes content
knowledge, knowledge about language)
• stronger relational autonomy (RA+) = for
the purpose of meeting graduate
attributes required for industry
• weaker relational autonomy
(RA–) = not for the purpose of meeting
graduate attributes required for industry
Autonomy: Aligning with project management V2

20. 20
…whose relative strengths can be varied independently from
stronger (+) to weaker (-) to generate a range of autonomy codes:
 Sovereign code – teaching Professional communication
practices to meet graduate attributes required for industry
 Projected code – teaching Professional communication practices
for other purposes, e.g. prof. comm. used the purpose of
developing knowledge about disciplinary content and/or
improving results
 Exotic code - knowledge outside prof. comm. practices (includes
content knowledge) used for purposes other than meeting
graduate attributes required for industry
 Introjected code – knowledge outside prof. comm. practices
(includes content knowledge) used for prof. comm. purposes,
e.g. knowledge about grammar/discourse being used to
understand prof. comm. practices
Autonomy: Aligning with project management V2

21. Variables must be defined, so, for example,
• stronger positional autonomy (PA+) = ???
• weaker positional autonomy (PA–) = ???
• stronger relational autonomy (RA+) = for the
purpose of engaging students (in ???)
• weaker relational autonomy (RA–) = ???
Autonomy: Aligning with project management V3

22. 22
…whose relative strengths can be varied independently from
stronger (+) to weaker (-) to generate a range of autonomy codes:
 Sovereign code – ??? to engage students (in ???)
 Projected code – ??? to ???
 Exotic code - ??? to ???
 Introjected code – ??? to engage students (in ???)
Autonomy: Aligning with project management V2

23. 23
 What is the main objectives of the project?
 Who sets the target?
 Push for purpose (RA)
 Elements (PA) often in the blindspot
 Changing goalposts:
• measuring success as results/employment/engagement
• pushing to ensure transferability, scalability and sustainability
• ensuring ongoing funding and/or producing materials quickly
Contested purposes and targets

24. Variables must be defined, so, for example,
• stronger positional autonomy (PA+) =
course content
• weaker positional autonomy
(PA–) = other content (includes comm
skills, SFL-based KAL)
• stronger relational autonomy (RA+) = for
the purpose of teaching course content
• weaker relational autonomy
(RA–) = not for the purpose of teaching
course content
Autonomy: Aligning with lecturers

25. …whose relative strengths can be varied independently from stronger
(+) to weaker (-) to generate a range of autonomy codes:
 Sovereign code – teaching curriculum to learn the
curriculum/discipline
 Projected code – teaching curriculum for other purposes, e.g.
curriculum used the purpose of developing knowledge about
grammar/discourse (outside the curriculum)
 Exotic code - knowledge outside curriculum (includes language)
used for purposes other than the curriculum (e.g. prof. comm.)
 Introjected code – knowledge outside curriculum (includes
language) used for purposes within that discipline, e.g. knowledge
about grammar/discourse being used to understand
curriculum/discipline better
Autonomy: Aligning with lecturers

26. The target = Sovereign code
(specific elements for a particular purpose)
The Sovereign code represents the target of knowledge but…
• If students grasp the concepts, then staying in the sovereign code may result in boredom/lack
of engagement…
• If students do not understand the concepts, the sovereign code limits opportunities for
students to grasp them…
• So it’s important to have autonomy ‘tours’: code-shifting but always returning
Explanatory power: Setting the target

27. The target = Sovereign code
(specific elements for a particular purpose)
 Setting the target identifies where things start and end and allows for more
effective design (i.e. selection, sequencing and pacing) by offering a way of
bringing other elements in and turning them to purpose
 An autonomy ‘tour’ (i.e. moving to other codes but always starting and finishing
in the same one) brings different forms of knowledge together
 Completing autonomy ‘tours’ assists in designing cohesive and coherent
materials whose aims/objectives are clear and explicit to students
Explanatory power: Setting the target

28. 28
Recontextualisation: weakening semantic density

29. ACF5904: Describing Accounting Information Systems
Using curriculum content
to teach the curriculum =
Sovereign code

30. ACF5904: Describing Accounting Information Systems
Using Theme/Rheme to
teach information flow =
Exotic code

31. ACF5904: Describing Accounting Information Systems
Using Theme/Rheme to
teach Curriculum content
= Introjected code

32. ACF5904: Describing Accounting Information Systems
Connecting Theme/Rheme
to Curriculum content =
Introjected code

33. ACF5904: Describing Accounting Information Systems
Connecting Theme/Rheme with
course content to teach Curriculum
content = Sovereign code

34. “I learnt how to make message clearly and how to introduce the topic. Using different
patterns, like linear pattern, zig-zag pattern and fan pattern, can help paragraph to be
understood easily. It is very useful for my writing. I learned how to organise a text structure
or sentence structure when I am going to write an essay.”
“This week C4S helps me to understand the process and structure of BPMN and UML
diagrams. It shows the basic grammar and explains knowledge very well.”
Student comments on this module
Possible interpretation:
The module is cohesive and coherent enough for
students see a logical connection between the
teaching of Theme/Rheme and the course content.

35. Autonomy offers:
 A means of developing a more nuanced understanding of the ‘target’, or aims
and objectives
 Concepts to focus on what is being taught and what is being used to do so
 A means of analysing the degree of success of integration of different forms of
knowledge (e.g. course content vs prof. comm. skills vs knowledge of
disciplinary-specific vocab and discourse)
 Suggestions for how to best tie together the different types of knowledge
across and within C4S modules, activities, etc.
LCT Dimension 1: Autonomy

36. Discussion
• Questions?
• How might Autonomy be applied in your context?

37. Selected references
• Locke, P. (PhD, 2020) The business of teaching: Vocational educators’ experiences of
marketization reforms, University of Sydney, Australia.
• Locke, P. & Maton, K. (2019) Serving two masters: How vocational educators experience
marketization reforms, Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 71(1): 1–20.
• Love, D. (2019, June 19). Autonomy tours in the classroom [Blog post]. Retrieved from
https://digiteacher.wordpress.com/2018/06/19/autonomy-tours-in-the-classroom/
• Maton, K. & Howard, S. K. Taking autonomy tours: A key to integrative knowledge-
building, LCT Centre Occasional Paper 1 (June), 1–35, page 6.
• Maton, K. & Howard, S. K. (2019). Autonomy: the next phase of dialogue between
systemic functional linguistics and Legitimation Code Theory. Journal of World
Languages, 6(1-2): 92-112.
• Maton, K. & Howard, S. K. (2020) Autonomy Tours: Building knowledge from diverse
sources. Retrieved from
https://www.academia.edu/44480469/Autonomy_Tours_Building_knowledge_from_div
erse_sources?email_work_card=title
• Rollett, S. (2020, July 7). Return trips: A blog for Jonathan [Blog post]. Retrieved from
https://stephenrollett.com/2020/07/07/round-trips-a-blog-for-jonathan/