Posts Tagged ‘autonomy’
Monday, January 30th, 2012
This is an older article that was submitted and presented at an autonomy conference. The proceedings ended up never being published, so might as well post it here!
Roles in language advising and fostering autonomy: a journal study
Hayo Reinders, Keiko Sakui, & Motoko Akakura
The University of Auckland, New Zealand
Abstract
The trend towards a more learner-centred approach in language teaching has resulted in both changes in classroom teaching as well as in new forms of supporting learning, such as through self-access and language advising. The role of the advisor or facilitator working in such contexts is significantly different from that of the classroom teacher and requires a somewhat different set of skills. This study attempts to describe the experiences of novice language advisors in a self-access centre in a tertiary institution in New Zealand. Specifically the current article attempts to illustrate the role of the language advisor in promoting autonomy in students. Three themes emerged from the advisors’ journal data: advisors’ roles, students’ perceived needs and traits, and the students’ perceptions of learner autonomy.
Supporting language learning
Options for language learning are now increasingly offered in contexts other than the traditional classroom (Lamb & Reinders forthcoming, Reinders 2004). Self-access centres, language advisory services, and computer-based alternatives (e.g. distance education, tandem learning) are becoming more and more widely available. They are offered in response to the growing and increasingly diverse student body, the greater need for flexibility in learning, and also in response to changes in (language) education which give a greater role to the learner. Preparing learners for this role is now frequently seen as the responsibility of the language professional. However, not all language teachers are experienced in doing this, or in working in contexts other than the classroom. De los Angeles Clemente (2001) for example found that in one university in Oaxaca, Mexico, teachers who were asked to work in the self-access centre without proper preparation and training, developed a dislike of the work, and a disbelief in the potential of independent learning. In addition, they felt anxious about their new roles. Clearly the process of moving from classroom teaching to language support can be a daunting one. In this article we describe this process on the basis of the experiences of two novice language advisors.
Methodology
This article reports journal entries of two of the authors who started working as language advisors in a university self-access centres. Keiko and Motoko are both experienced language teachers; Keiko has taught English and Japanese as a second language for many years and Motoko has taught Japanese, Chinese, and English as foreign languages. The role of language advisor, however, was new to both of them.
Their advisory work was part of a language support programmeme for which the self-access centre had been awarded funding by the New Zealand Ministry of Education. The programmeme was designed to assist both undergraduate and postgraduate students with English as an additional language through regular meetings with a language advisor over a period of approximately three months. The aims of the programmeme were to a) develop participants’ English, and b) develop skills for independent learning and foster autonomy. The meetings worked through a number of steps such as needs analysis, planning, monitoring, and assessment (loosely based on Stickler (2001), with gradually less support from the advisor, to encourage students to take control over the process. The purpose of the programmeme and the process and format of the advisory sessions were explained during the first meeting.
Participants were selected after completing a diagnostic assessment for reading, listening, and writing skills. Those found to be at the lowest levels were recommended to seek intensive language support (e.g. language courses), and those at the middle bands were invited to join the self-access programmeme (those achieving in the highest bands were deemed to have a sufficient level of English to cope at University level). Although students in the middle bands were strongly encouraged to join the programmeme, participation was voluntary and done in addition to regular courses. Participants who completed a sufficient amount of work and attended a reasonable number of meetings were given a certificate of completion. A total of 105 students participated and 62 of them completed the programmeme.
As mentioned earlier, the language advisors agreed to keep a journal for the three months of the programmeme in order to record and make sense of their roles, experiences and expectations. No specific format or frequency was chosen; it was entirely up to the advisors. By the end of three months, Keiko had produced around eleven A4 pages of single spaced entries and Motoko around seven. The journals were not shared until after the completion of the programmeme at which time both read their own and each other’s texts, and coded and categorised them using a process suggested by Manning & Cullum-Swan (1994) and Riesmann (1993). They then discussed the results in terms of the different themes emerging from the data.
Results
Three main themes emerged from the journal data and analyses. They are: 1) the advisors’ roles, 2) students’ perceived needs and traits, and 3) the students’ perceptions of learner autonomy.
1) Advisors’ roles
The first theme revealed by the analysis of the advisors’ journal entries is that of the different roles the advisors attempted to play in their work. They used several metaphors to describe these diverse and complex roles, including those of cheerleaders, fellow travelers, counselors, ghosts, and factory workers.
The first metaphor ‘cheerleaders’ was used because both of the advisors thought that encouraging and motivating students was one of the most important roles during the advisory sessions. There were many students who lacked confidence in their language abilities and who needed a constant reminder that their language was not as poor as they thought and that through hard work they would improve. Keiko wrote:
While we went through a list of resources, Edwardo asked whether he could use the ‘advanced level’ materials. I said sure he could-he said he was happy to hear it. He had thought, “he felt like a garbage” because of the low mark he got for the DELNA [the diagnostic assessment given to students prior to the programmeme; see above]. I think it is important for us to encourage students because they go through ups and downs in the learning process.
Another perceived role was that of fellow traveler. During the sessions, some students wanted to know why and in what ways the advisors themselves had learned English. Also the students seemed to like to hear about the learning strategies the advisors themselves had used as students.
Many students ask me how I studied English. So I often end up telling
my life history!, especially what types of difficulties I have faced, how I
tried to overcome them, and difficulties and advantages of being non-native
speakers in English speaking countries. Students seem to like to hear these
stories. (Keiko).
The third role, that of counselor, is similar to the previous two roles in the way that it involves giving advice and sharing experiences. It differs in that students can benefit from sorting out their own problems and setting their own goals by simply talking to
a third person, a counselor figure.
Just talking things to a third person (must) clear the mind (for the students) and helps to focus on ‘what’s most important’. Anyway, it is good to be thanked, and to be helpful to others even in such a little way. (Motoko).
Another metaphor that emerged from the journal entries was that of a ‘ghost’. Having to continuously encourage participation and often follow-up on missed appointments felt like having to ‘haunt’ the students. There were two main reasons for assuming this role. One was the advisors’ conviction that a few sessions only would not help students enough in developing their language or independent learning skills. The other reason was a political one. At the end of the three month programme, the results of the programme had to be reported to the Ministry of Education and its success would be measures in part by the number of students who had enrolled in and completed the programmeme.
The first student for this morning did not show up. Was 9 am too early for the student? Is it the rain? I’ll see if there is any contact from him, no, I’ll email him… On Monday there was another ‘cancellation-without-notice’. We need to decide what to do with these impromptu cancellations. (Motoko).
Finally, the fifth metaphor reflects the advisors’ demanding schedule, especially at the beginning of the programmeme when a large number of students came to sign up. The metaphor of a ‘factory assembly worker’ is used to illustrate the feeling that the flow of students never seemed to stop, as if the advisors were working in a factory. This metaphor also reflects the feelings that although the advisory sessions needed to be individualised for each student, the necessity of having to deal with many students required developing some ‘formulae’ to deal with the large numbers.
Students keep coming!!! We have been seeing students without a break. Today I worked 6 hours, and I saw nearly 10 students. It is very intense work - listening to students, identifying their language problems, trying to give some advice, etc. I’m exhausted, to be honest. I’m relieved that sometimes some students cancel their appointments - then I know I can take a short break. (Keiko).
As these different roles suggest, the advisors faced multiple tasks and goals in their work, and felt the need to juggle between the roles as they struggled with the paradox of promoting autonomous learning through what sometimes appeared to be controlling the students, especially under time pressure.
2) Perceived students’ needs and traits
Another theme which emerged from the journal entries were perceived students’ needs and traits.
Quite a lot of students feel ‘insecure’, ‘intimidated’ and ‘not confident’ about their speaking abilities. I had thought university students would be more concerned with their literacy skills (which is true), but surprisingly many students come and claim their aural/oral skills need to improve. Some say they do not have opportunities to speak in English and also they are denied the opportunities to speak. (Keiko).
Motoko gradually discovers the importance of pre-existing motivation and goals that the students bring to the sessions and how they are necessary for the students to take advantage of the advisory sessions:
Maybe there has to be an underlying willingness in the student for self-study to ‘work’. (Motoko).
Some of these traits and pre-dispositions are positive abilities that the students themselves are not aware of, but others are negative, such as poor management skills.
It is remarkable how much students actually DO HAVE the ability to decide on their own course of study when they are given the opportunity. I have to believe in the students. (Motoko).
Almost all students slacken off from their own commitments…Students are here because they have not reached a certain level of academic English. These students may require more assistance in managing their studies at this stage. (Motoko).
3) Language advisors’ perceptions of autonomous learning
The third theme is the advisors’ perceptions of autonomous learning. Both language advisors acknowledged the importance of fostering learner autonomy and tried to connect the educational goals of the advisory sessions with the students. Motoko went through a process in which she tried to make sense of what learner autonomy means in her work setting. She first thought that learner autonomy means ensuring that students have good learning habits at the beginning of the programme.
This practice (3 month programme) is all about making a good HABIT for the students. A GOOD STUDY HABIT. (Motoko).
Then she started to have doubts about this, realising the difficulty of pursuing learner autonomy while in actual fact, the act of promoting it to the students entailed a control which appeared quite opposite to autonomy.
My trust for their self-autonomy wavers… it seems. Well, even I have times when I cannot stick with my own study plans. Human nature? But still, learner autonomy… this idea should be presented clearly to the students. (Motoko).
Some students enrolling in this programme with the ‘promise of a free language
programmeme’ seem to discover a slight twist (i.e. being different from a conventional ‘language classroom’). My gut instinct tells me that those who decide not to continue feel wronged by their expectations and don’t want to continue. Of course, I have been putting
my best face forward in ‘promoting’ this programme, believing that it will do them good… so some students have continued coming in… (Motoko).
In comparing advisory sessions to teaching, Motoko began to see that language advisors need to step back and help students take their own centre stage in learning. Motoko equates ‘taking centre stage’ with reaching a stage of autonomy.
In a classroom situation, I tended to be obsessed with ‘teaching’. We know that no one can educate another person, that all of us must educate ourselves, and that a teacher’s role is that of a helper in this process. The question is “How can we help best?” As language advisors, we do get to do the helping, and only the helping (i.e. no teaching). We follow the progress of the students as they grapple with specific academic English
challenges without having to ‘obsess’ about teaching them. This is like standing back and letting the students take ‘centre-stage’, offering cues only when asked for. In self-access learning, reaching this stage seems to be the proof that students have become ‘autonomous learners’. (Motoko).
Keiko constantly struggled to try to make sense of what learner autonomy means in specific contexts like a self-access centre. She does not deny the importance of autonomy for any successful learning in theory, however, she realised that students’ life and learning are always pushed by tests and assignments, and felt that trying to advocate the independent and autonomous learning seemed “out of context” in such students’ lives.
What is the connection between students’ coming to advisory sessions and developing learner autonomy? I’ve been struggling to understand it myself and also define learner autonomy situated in the self access centre. Most students are being “pushed”-attending classes, completing assignments, taking the exams and meeting the deadlines. I’m sure the concept of “autonomy” is very alien to students. Are we helping them to foster autonomy or is there a huge gap between what they are encouraged to do here in the
self-access centre and the rest of campus? (Keiko).
Discussion and conclusion
The results show that the language advisors considered helping learners develop learner autonomy in a self-access centre as a rewarding and enjoyable experience but at the same time as confusing and challenging. This complexity is illustrated by the fact that the advisors in this study perceived themselves as playing multiple roles in the advisory sessions.
As Dickinson argues, autonomy can be divided into ‘an attitude towards learning and a capacity for independent learning’ (1995, p.166). The language advisors’ perceived roles reflect their attempts to accomplish these two separate goals. In order to foster the first (an attitude towards learning), they assume the roles of cheerleader and counselor, thinking that the students need constant encouragement, positive reinforcement and empathy so that they will take charge of their own learning and develop a positive attitude towards autonomous learning.
At the same time, the advisors try to foster the second (a capacity for independent learning). This of course includes specific advice on what language learning materials to use, what language strategies to explore, and how to manage their learning, set goals and monitor their own progress. Also, in playing the role of ‘experienced learner’, the advisors tried to share their own personal learning experiences so that students could expand their capacity for independent learning
The present study also showed that the advisors’ roles were manifold and developed as time went on. Both Keiko and Motoko attempted to make sense of what they could provide to their students through the advisory sessions. When students were able to ‘take centre stage’ in their language learning with less and less help and follow-up from the advisors, it was understood that they had reached a certain ability for autonomous learning. However, initially, the advisors’ perceived roles were more those of a factory worker and ghost, roles that are more controlling and seemingly paradoxical in relation to the development of learner autonomy.
Another theme this study highlights is that the language advisors are aware of many external factors (Benson, 2001) affecting them. These include their own work situations as well as their students’ lives. Some of these factors help to foster learner autonomy, and at times, some others work against it. In other words, helping learners become more autonomous does not occur in a vacuum, as the advisors as well as the students are influenced in many ways, from many sides. For example, the advisors occasionally felt that they needed to act like a ghost to ‘haunt’ some students into continuing with the programmeme. This satisfied both a pedagogical as well as a ‘political’ goal (completion rates would be assessed by the funding agency). Clearly, educational and external factors impinge on an advisor’s work.
Also the unique learning environment provided by a self-access centre influenced both the advisors and the students. Students are under a lot of pressure from exams and assignments. An autonomous learning style can be successful in such examination-led educational environments (Gremmo & Riley, 1995). However, the practicalities of being a student with a busy schedule at times seemed to make the self-study promoted in this programmeme rather idealistic. One of the students said, ‘I understand that autonomy is important and all that. But when I have two things to do, writing an assignment and coming to a self-access centre when I don’t have much time, I always need to finish the assignment, rather than coming to the advisory session’. In theory, few people will argue against autonomous learning, and the need to develop strategies for independent learning. However, the advisors and students both felt the difficulty of converting theory into practice. In assuming multiple roles, the advisors recognised the bigger picture surrounding students’ lives on campus, and tried to progressively fit and understand independent learning into that particular context.
In order to ensure autonomous learning, many theorists and practitioners try to
promote systems in which students are ‘pushed’ to participate in autonomous language learning activities. This can take a variety of forms such as for example through including self-access modules into established language courses (Pemberton, 2003). In this case, practitioners are imposing autonomous learning practices, and providing the students ‘less’ choice in the process of developing autonomy. The students do not have any choice but to go to a self-access centre in order to pass a course. Similarly, in the current study, the advisors needed to play the role of a ghost to ‘push’ the students to engage in autonomous learning. This is where the advisors felt the strongest ambivalence and contradiction in reconciling theory and practice. As a consequence, the advisors’ faith in autonomous learning wavered at times.
The issue of students’ readiness for this type of ‘pushed’ autonomy was seen by the advisors as crucially connected with that of the relationship between motivation and autonomy. Whether autonomy leads to motivation or whether motivation leads to autonomy is often discussed in the literature (Dickinson, 1995; Spratt, Humphreys & Chan, 2002). As these authors argue, the question is not uni-directional in terms of
which influences which, but to when and what extent motivation influences autonomy
and vice versa. Within the limited scope of this study it was clear that some type of motivation and readiness were a necessary quality for students in order to take advantage of the programmeme. The advisors realised the importance of acknowledging and building on these attitudes and abilities to encourage an increasing ability on the part of the students to expand on them independently.
The profession of language advisor is still a relatively new addition to the field of language teaching and learning. Small studies such as the one described here can contribute to our understanding of practical issues surrounding the development of skills for language advising and more broadly, facilitating learning (as opposed to direct teaching). They can also help us understand how those who go through such a process view themselves and their roles as well as how their views on autonomy and independence in learning develop over time. If the comments recorded by the advisors in their journals are anything to go by, it is a fascinating process indeed.
References
de los Angeles Clemente, M. (2001). Teachers’ attitudes within a self-directed language learning scheme. System: 29, 45-67.
Aoki, N. (1999). Affect and the role of teachers in the development of learner
autonomy. Arnold, J. (ed.) Affect in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning.
Harlow: Longman.
Dickinson, L. (1995). Autonomy and motivation - a literature review. System, 23(2), 165-174.
Dingle, S. & McKenzie, P. (2001). Establishing a language-learning advisory
service. Mozzon-McPherson, M. & Vismans, R. (eds.) Beyond language teaching towards language advising. London: CILT.
Lamb, T. & Reinders, H. (forthcoming). Learner independence in language teaching: a concept of change. In: Cunningham, D. (ed.).
Manning, P. & Cullum-Swan, B. (1994). Narrative, content, and scientific analysis. N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (eds). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 463-477.
Pemberton, R. (2003). Keynote paper presented at the Independent Learning Organisation Conference, Melbourne.
Reinders, H. (2004). Key issues in language support. Keynote paper presented at the 7th ELT conference, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia.
Riessman, C.K. (1993). Narrative analysis. (Qualitative Research Methods Series, Vol. 30). Newbury Park: Sage.
Spratt, M., Humphreys, G., & Chan, V. (2002). Autonomy and motivation: Which
comes first? Language Teaching Research, 6/3, 245-266.
Stickler, U. (2001). Using counselling skills for language advising’. Mozzon-McPherson, M. & Vismans, R. (eds.) Beyond language teaching towards language advising. London: CILT.
Tags: advising, autonomy, language advising, self-access, teacher beliefs, teacher education, teacher identity
Posted in All | No Comments »
Monday, January 16th, 2012
A new autonomy book was just published:
Realizing Autonomy: Practice and Reflection in Language Education Contexts, edited by Kay Irie and Alison Stewart, with foreword by Naoko Aoki and Richard Smith, and afterword by Scott Thornbury, published by Palgrave Macmillan, December 2011
More information here.
Tags: autonomy
Posted in All | No Comments »
Tuesday, December 20th, 2011
More information here.
Department of English Studies, Faculty of Pedagogy and Fine Arts
Adam Mickiewicz University, Kalisz
and
Institute of Modern Languages, State School of Higher Professional Education, Konin
are happy to announce an international conference:
Autonomy in language learning and teaching:
Techniques, strategies and resources
supported by the AILA Research Network on Learner Autonomy (http://www.ailarenla.org/)
Konin, May 8th-10th, 2012
CALL FOR PAPERS
Theme: The conference will be devoted to promoting learner autonomy in the language classroom and it will be a follow-up to three similar events that have taken place over the last eight years. It will be organized by the Department of English Studies, Faculty of Pedagogy and Fine Arts, Adam Mickiewicz University, Kalisz, Poland and the Institute of Modern Languages, State School of Higher Professional Education, Konin, Poland. The languages of the conference will be English and Polish, with most of the plenary talks being given in the former.
PLENARY SPEAKERS
The following scholars have agreed to participate in the conference and deliver plenary talks:
· Danuta Gabryś-Barker (Institute of English Studies, University of Silesia);
. David Little (Trinity College, Dublin);
· Kazimiera Myczko (Institute of German Studies, Adam Mickiewicz University);
· Weronika Wilczyńska (Institute of French Studies, Adam Mickiewicz University);
· Maria Wysocka (Institute of English Studies, University of Silesia);
· Richard Smith (Center for Applied Linguistics, University of Warwick).
ABSTRACT SUBMISSION
We welcome contributions related to the theme of the conference which could, among other things, focus on the following areas:
· ways of fostering autonomy in different age groups and at different educational levels;
· evaluation of various techniques and strategies that can be employed with the purpose of developing learner autonomy as well as examples of their practical application;
· developing resources serving the purpose of promoting learner autonomy;
· using information and computer technologies to develop learner autonomy;
· strategy training and the development of learner autonomy;
· learner autonomy, learning strategies and teaching various foreign language skills and subsystems;
· language policies of the Council of Europe and the development of autonomy;
· interdependence of learner and teacher autonomy;
· individual differences and the development of autonomy;
· methodology of research on learner autonomy.
Abstracts of proposed papers in the range of 200-300 words should be submitted by e-mail to konferencjaautonomia2012@gmail.com by March 20th, 2012. The proposals should include the title, name, affiliation, e-mail address and a short biographical note, about 60-80 words in length. Notifications of acceptance will be sent by April 10th, 2012.
PUBLICATION OF PAPERS
After the conference selected papers will be published in a peer-reviewed volume and efforts are currently under way to ensure that this will be done with a leading international publishing house. Further information concerning the publication as well as the submission guidelines will be sent after the conference.
VENUE
The venue for the event will be the Conference Center of State School of Higher Professional Education in Konin, Poland at Popiełuszki 4 St. where all the plenary and parallel sessions will be held and meals and refreshments will be served.
REGISTRATION AND CONFERENCE FEE
All the participants are requested to return the registration form and pay the conference fee by April 20th, 2012. The fee, which covers organization costs, conference materials, lunches and refreshments is 100 euro. We will be able to refund 50% of the fee before May 1st 2012 and after that date no refunds will be possible. The fee should be transferred to the following bank account:
Państwowa Wyższa Szkoła Zawodowa w Koninie
Ul. Przyjaźni 1
62-510 Konin
Kredyt Bank SA
BIC (SWIFT) CODE: KRDBPLPW
IBAN number: PL 65 1500 1461 1214 6004 7669 0000
The title of the payment: Autonomy 2012 + name of the participant
ACCOMMODATION
The participants are requested to book their own accommodation in the Konin Hotel which has consented to offer a discount on its regular room rates:
Hotel Konin, Al. 1 Maja 13, 62-510 Konin, Poland, tel. + 48 63 243 76 00
e-mail: recepcja@hotelkonin.pl
http://www.hotelkonin.pl/
Rooms available from May 7th to May 10th. Rates: single room 125-145 PLN (ca. 35 euro), double room 150-170 PLN (ca. 40 euro), triple room 205 PLN (cs. 50 euro). Breakfast is included in these prices. The name of the conference should be mentioned at the time of the booking.
For further information participants are requested to contact Conference Secretary:
dr Mariusz Kruk
Institute of Modern Languages
State School of Higher Professional Education
ul. Przyjaźni 1
62-510 Konin, Poland
tel. (63) 2497240
e-mail: konferencjaautonomia2012@gmail.com
Information about the Conference and important updates can also be found on the conference website https://sites.google.com/site/konferencjaautonomia/.
CONFERENCE ORGANIZERS
Professor Mirosław Pawlak (Adam Mickiewicz University) pawlakmi@amu.edu.pl
Head of the Organizing Committee
Tags: autonomy, conferences, learner autonomy
Posted in All | No Comments »
Friday, October 28th, 2011
An article written by Cem Balcikanli and myself was just published in Novitas. You can download the article here.
Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 2011, 5(2), 265-272.
265
DO CLASSROOM TEXTBOOKS ENCOURAGE LEARNER AUTONOMY?
Hayo REINDERS
*
Cem BALÇIKANLI
**
Abstract: The development of learner autonomy is widely seen as beneficial in preparing students for lifelong
learning. It is also recognised that most learners need explicit instruction in skills for independent learning.
Classrooms provide a natural opportunity to develop these skills in learners. As textbooks play such an important
role in most classrooms, it is important to ask to what extent they prepare learners for their future learning.
Surprisingly, this has not been done before. This study investigated five English textbooks, commonly used in
classrooms worldwide, to determine the 1) range and 2) frequency of advice given to learners about the language
learning process. It uses an evaluative framework to identify advice relating to the different aspects of the
independent learning process. The study found that the textbooks do little to foster learner autonomy and that
when they do, they offer limited opportunity for practice to students.
Keywords: Learner autonomy, materials adaptation, language textbooks.
Özet: Öğrenen özerkliğinin gelişimi öğrencileri yaşam boyu öğrenme sürecine hazırlama konusunda yararlıdır.
Birçok öğrencinin bağımsız öğrenmeyle ilgili olarak belirgin bir şekilde eğitim alması sıklıkla fark edilen bir
durumdur. Sınıf ortamları öğrencilerin bu becerilerini geliştirmesi için doğal bir fırsat olarak
değerlendirilmektedir. Ders kitapları, sınıf ortamlarında oldukça önemli bir rol oynadığı için, ders kitaplarının
öğrencileri gelecekteki öğrenme süreçlerine ne kadar hazırladıkları sorulması gereken önemli bir sorudur. Bunun
henüz yapılmamış olması oldukça düşündürücüdür. Bu bağlamda, bu çalışma öğrencilere dil öğrenme süreciyle
ilgili olarak verilen bilgilerin 1) çeşitliliği 2) sıklıklarını belirlemek amacıyla tüm dünyada sıklıkla kullanılan beş
İngilizce ders kitabını incelemiştir. Bağımsız öğrenme sürecine ilişkin bilgileri belirlemek için değerlendirme
çerçevesi kullanılmış ve incelenen ders kitaplarının öğrenen özerkliğini az geliştirdiği ve öğrencilerin bu süreci
deneyimlemesi konusunda sınırlı fırsatlar sunduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.
Anahtar sözcükler: Öğrenen özerkliği, materyal uyarlama, dil ders kitapları
Introduction
The development of learner autonomy has become commonplace in many classrooms around
the world. The idea that learners need to be able to take control over their own learning to be
successful not just in class, but also to learn independently without a teacher outside the class,
has become widely accepted in mainstream language teaching (Benson, 2001). In general,
there is now a broader awareness of the importance of developing language learning skills in
addition to the language itself. The development of learner autonomy is sometimes carried out
through ‘learner training’ or ‘dedicated strategy instruction’ but the most likely context in
which learners come into contact with the idea of autonomy on a regular basis, is the language
course, and by extension, the textbook used in that course. Course textbooks may include
some deliberate focus on the learning process and encourage students to reflect on their
progress and as such are likely to play an important potential role in the development of
students’ independent learning skills. However, it is unclear how textbooks implement this, or
indeed, if they really do. If they do not, or do so inadequately, then it is less likely that
students will develop as autonomous learners. There is no previous research to answer these
*
PhD, Middlesex University, The UK, hayoreinders@gmail.com
**
Lecturer, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey, balcikanli@gmail.com
Reinders and Balçıkanlı
266
questions and this study therefore set out to investigate and compare the inclusion of a focus
on autonomous learning skills in five of the most commonly used English textbooks.
Materials evaluation for autonomy
This small-scale study involved an evaluation of course textbooks. Evaluating language
teaching materials can take place at different stages. At the pre-use stage materials are seen as
work plans or constructs, during use they are judged as materials in process, while
retrospective evaluation considers outcomes from materials use (Breen, 1989). Ellis (1997)
suggests that predictive evaluation, which aims to determine appropriateness for a specific
context, is carried out either by experts or by teachers using checklists and guidelines. At the
in-use stage ‘long-term, systematic evaluations of materials … are generally considered to be
successful’ (Tomlinson, 1998, p. 5). These include ‘formative decisions for improvement
through supplementation or adaptation and [sensitising] teachers to their own teaching and
learning situation’ (Nedkova 2000, p. 210).
Evaluating textbooks for autonomy can be done at each of these three stages, but here we
limit ourselves to predictive evaluation; we aim to ‘determine the appropriateness for a
specific context’, which in our case means the extent to which the textbooks attempt to
provide information about, and practice in, skills for autonomous language learning. No
previous studies exist that we are aware of that have looked at this particular question. There
are, however, studies that have investigated how self-access materials (i.e. materials used in a
self-access centre by students learning independently), and the extent to which they support
the development of learner autonomy. Reinders & Lewis (2005, 2006) investigated 25
randomly selected materials advertised as ‘suitable for self-access’, from their University’s
self-access centre. They then applied an evaluative framework for self-study materials. They
found that many of the materials did not include those elements needed for successful self-study. In a follow-up study they found that this applied not only to print materials but also to
computer programs for the self-study of languages (2005). Purely self-study materials (i.e. not
designed for use in a self-access context) were investigated by Jones (1993). He found that
many of the ‘do it yourself’ materials he looked at were old-fashioned in their pedagogy and
methodology with a number in 1993 still based on audiolingual principles. Jones also found
that strategy training and the fostering of autonomous learning skills were almost entirely
absent.
Previous, informal, discussions held by practitioners interested in learner autonomy, such as
those on the long-standing Auto-L discussion list and the ‘autonomy in learning and teaching
materials’ blog and forum have emphasised the importance of evaluating textbooks for their
focus on autonomy. As they are often the primary (and in some cases the only) source of
information about learning, it is important that it is investigated how they encourage students
to reflect on their learning process, and how they offer practice and feedback in this. The
discussions held online also pointed out that such investigation may help to establish
parameters for recommended textbook features, which will help in future materials
production. Such evaluation of regular classroom textbooks for their focus on autonomous
learning has not, to the best of our knowledge, been carried out to date. We therefore set out
to fill this gap in the literature.
Previous studies (e.g. Fenner 2000) have highlighted the importance of identifying whether
textbook materials give students opportunities to make their own choices about what or how
to learn within the book, whether there is a focus on learning styles and strategies, and
Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 2011, 5(2), 265-272.
267
whether there are opportunities for reflection and awareness-building. As for the Turkish
context, there have been certain studies focusing on course book assessment and evaluation
up to now. To illustrate, Arıkan (2008) examined what kind of topics are included in 15 EFL
textbooks used in Turkey. Employing both quantitative and qualitative measures, he found out
that the topics do not reflect real life as much. Arıkan (2009) collected the opinions of future
teachers of English in order to shed light on what happens in Turkish EFL classrooms with
regard to the use of English. Using qualitative research design and analyzing reports made by
12 volunteering practicum students, the research indicated that participants generally find the
quality of coursebooks acceptable although problems with coursebooks are often associated
with the teachers who use them. Kesen (2010), on the other hand, investigated EFL learners’
perceptions about the concept of foreign language coursebook by means of metaphors.
Analyzing the data using the content analysis, the study indicated that for most of the learners,
language coursebooks are perceived as a planet, foreign country, secret garden, and space,
which indicates uncertainty and enigma experienced by the learners. Nonetheless, none of
those, to the best of our knowledge, paid a particular attention to the place of autonomy in
textbooks. In this regard, in order to investigate if, and if so, how textbooks books provide
information and practice in the areas of whether textbook materials give students
opportunities to make their own choices about what or how to learn within the book, whether
there is a focus on learning styles and strategies, and whether there are opportunities for
reflection and awareness-building, we drew on a framework for self-directed learning
developed by one of the authors (Reinders, 2010). It includes eight stages in the self-directed
learning process. These stages are iterative; they form a cycle that repeats and builds on itself.
They are an expansion and adaptation of the five-step model developed by Knowles (1975).
They are widely considered to be the key skills learners need to be able to self-direct their
learning.
Table 1. Stages in the self-directed learning process
LEARNING STAGES TEACHER-DIRECTED LEARNER-DIRECTED
Identifying needs
Placement tests, teacher
feedback.
Learner experiences/ difficulties in
using the language.
Setting goals
Determined by the course,
relatively fixed.
Contextually determined, relatively
flexible.
Planning learning
Determined by the teacher.
Somewhat flexible.
Contextually determined. Very
flexible.
Selecting resources Provided by teacher. Self-selection by learners.
Selecting learning strategies Teacher models and instructions. Self-selection by learners.
Practice
Exercises and activities provided
by teacher
Implementation (language use) and
experimentation.
Monitoring progress
Regular classroom feedback and
comments on assignments and
tasks
Self-monitoring, peer-feedback
Assessment and revision Tests, curriculum changes Self-assessment, reflection
Reinders and Balçıkanlı
268
Figure 1 shows how these eight stages form a cycle, and how they are grounded in and impact
on students’ reflection, motivation, and their interaction (with the language and other
learners). Astute readers will have noticed that we have used the term ‘self-directed learning’
above when talking about learner autonomy. It is important to note here, that by emphasising
observable skills we are taking a somewhat mechanical view of learner autonomy (one that
includes self-directed learning skills). We are fully aware of the more political aspect of
learner autonomy, relating to an individual’s freedom to make their own choices about their
education, as well as the more philosophical view relating to ‘the ability for individuals to
choose and follow their own conception of a life that they deem to be suitable for themselves’
(Winch 2006, p. 1). We are not diminuishing the importance of these elements of autonomy,
but they are less easily identifiable from materials and are beyond the scope of this article. . In
the rest of the article we describe our study and its results as they pertain to the observable
and recognisably trainable elements of learner autonomy.
Figure 1: The cycle of self-directed learning
Methodology
First, we identified five popular English language textbooks based on publicly available sales-rankings. The criteria for inclusion were that the books teach English, as opposed to other
languages, are written in English, are available for learners at the intermediate level, and are
widely used in many countries. The books we selected are: Face to Face, New Cutting Edge,
New Opportunities, The Interchange Series, and New Headway. Although it is possible these
are not the best-selling books we do believe they are both very popular and widely available
around the world even in Turkish context as some of those were used in several research
Planning
learning
Selecting
resources
Selecting
strategies
Setting goals
Identifying
learning
needs
Monitoring
progress
Assessment
and revision
Practice
Reflection
Motivation
Interactio
Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 2011, 5(2), 265-272.
269
studies in Turkey as well (Arıkan, 2008; Arıkan, 2009; Batdı and Özbek, 2010). Next, the five
textbooks were investigated by the two authors in terms of the occurrence or absence of these
eight stages using the framework discussed in the previous section. We made a distinction
between cases where the books provided information about self-directed learning, and where
they provided opportunities to put them into practice. For example, if a book talked about the
importance of learning strategies but did not give any opportunities for controlled practice,
this would be considered as an example of giving ‘information’ only. If, however, classroom
activities were included to give students a chance to practise these strategies, then this would
be categorised as ‘practice’. Any cases where there was a mismatch between the evaluation of
both researchers were discussed until all discrepancies (of which there were very few) were
resolved.
Results
First we present a summary of the results in Table 2. This shows the number of books in
which each of the learning stages was included. The final column shows the number of books
that gave information about that learning stage (for example, explaining the importance of
‘identifying needs’) and the number of books that included activities for students to put it into
practice. We include information about books individually in order to be able to show how
they included information about the different learning stages.
Table 2. Learning stages in the textbooks
LEARNING STAGE INCLUDED? INFORMATION OR ACTIVITY?
Identifying needs X
Setting goals X
Planning learning X
Selecting resources X
Selecting learning strategies 2
New Opportunities: includes information on
speaking strategies.
New Headway: includes information on
vocabulary records.
Practice X
Monitoring progress 2*
Cutting Edge: At the end of each unit, there is a
section called ‘do you remember’.
Face to Face: Each unit includes a Progress
Portfolio where students record what they have
learned.
Assessment and revision
X
As the table above shows, the language textbooks we looked at do not explicitly encourage
learner autonomy. New Opportunities and New Headway do offer limited opportunities for
students to select their own learning strategies and provide practical tips around this. New
Opportunities, for instance, introduces speaking strategies, such as keeping the
communication channel open, and terminating the conversation appropriately. Even though it
does not enable students to practise these strategies, it does encourage language learners to
use them outside the classroom. As for New Headway, it has a section called “keeping
vocabulary records” where students are given information on how to memorise lexical items
Reinders and Balçıkanlı
270
covered in that unit. That is, students are also encouraged to discuss with their teachers and
other students how they record new words with questions such as ‘which of these do you use?
A- Translation. B- The part of speech. C- The meaning’.
As for monitoring progress, Cutting Edge and Face to Face do encourage students to engage
in some monitoring. Cutting Edge has a section called ‘Do you remember?’ where students
are asked to do exercises on the grammatical and lexical points covered. These exercises do
not strictly involve monitoring of progress (as measured against individual learning goals) and
are more about memorization, however since they do let students keep track of their progress
we included them here. Face to Face includes a section called ‘Progress Portfolio’ which
helps students keep track of how much they have achieved over time. To illustrate, this
section includes instructions like “Tick the things you can do in English” and items like ‘I can
describe homes’, ‘I can compare people and things’ and ‘I can talk about future arrangements
and plans’. Additionally, the section asks students to consider what how they feel about their
own progress through questions like “What do you need to study again?” and “Do you need to
go back to the unit?”
Discussion and implications
Textbooks are the most likely way in which learners will come into contact with ideas about
autonomy. At the same time, we agree with Fenner (2000, p. 78), who observes that ‘the
whole idea of developing autonomy may be difficult to reconcile with the use of a textbook in
the foreign language classroom’. Almost all textbooks are collections of texts and tasks
structured by the author in a way he considers best for teaching and learning a foreign
language and in addition, most textbooks define the progression of such learning.’ At the
same time, textbooks do have the potential to foster autonomy in a number of ways even if the
progression of learning is largely fixed, for example, as Cohen (2003, p. 2) points out, through
a focus on learning skills and through strategy instruction; this has the advantage that
‘because the focus of the activities is contextualized language learning, learners can develop
their learning strategy repertoires while learning the target language’. One advantage of using
textbooks with explicit strategy training is that students do not need extracurricular training;
the textbooks reinforce strategy use across both tasks and skills, encouraging students to
continue applying them on their own’ (Cohen, 2003, p. 2).
However, it is clear from the results reported above that such a focus on strategies or other
elements of self-directed learning is not at all common in the five textbooks investigated. Out
of the nine skills, only selecting learning strategies and monitoring progress were covered,
and only in some of the books. Clearly, the enormous amount of attention given to autonomy
in recent years (cf. Benson 2001) has not translated into a deliberate focus on developing
students’ skills for self-directed learning (and by extension, their autonomy) in the most
popular English language textbooks. Even when a textbook does include one or more of the
skills listed in the framework, these are not covered in a structural way; there appears to be no
attempt to draw learners’ attention to the learning process in a way that gradually gives them
more responsibility for their learning. Occasionally some information or an activity may be
included but this is not connected to previous or subsequent content.
What are some of the implications of this? Firstly, teachers will have to be careful not to rely
on textbooks too much to develop learner autonomy. Teachers may expect popular textbooks
published by major publishers to present the state-of-the-art in language teaching, but this
clearly does not extend to skills for self-directed learning. What this means is that teachers
will have to be prepared to evaluate resources before their application in class. Such an
Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 2011, 5(2), 265-272.
271
evaluation need not take long; the evaluative framework presented here and other suggestions
available in the literature are relatively straightforward. Alternatively, and this is more time-consuming, teachers need to be prepared to adapt or complement classroom materials to
include a focus on learner autonomy. This may mean integrating additional tools, such as a
portfolio, or a needs analysis, into the curriculum and aligning its use with the textbook (for
example, to be used at the start of the course, or at the end of a chapter or section).
What this also means is that textbooks need to be seen more as a source of activities and
information rather than as a storyboard for what happens in class. Most teachers do this
anyway; they select what is most appropriate from existing materials for the given context,
and interpret these materials in their own way. The activities contained within them gain
further meaning from their realisation in the learning practice that occurs between learners
and between learners and teacher; in other words, the social context greatly affects how
activities are played out. There is, therefore, a great deal of opportunity to extend textbook
activities beyond the classroom or to include in them a focus on the learning process, in
addition to the learning content. But this does require an awareness on the part of the teacher
to do so.
Finally, the findings from this small study have clear implications for textbook writers; there
is currently very little attention given in these textbooks to developing autonomy. Fenner
recommends: ‘If textbook writers can create tasks and options which leave room for personal
interpretation and scope for autonomy, and where, consequently, the outcome is
unpredictable, the teacher joins a process of learning in collaboration with the learners. In
order to manage this in the classroom, we have to realize that learning a foreign language is
not an end in itself; language is a tool for communication, and communication is always about
something. It is about interpreting and creating meaning (2000, p. 85)’. Clearly, there is
ample scope for materials writers, publishers and teachers to put into practice the commitment
to developing autonomy that has been voiced so frequently in recent years.
References
Arikan, A. (2008). Topics of reading passages in ELT coursebooks: What do our students
really read? The Reading Matrix, 8, 70-85.
Arikan, A. (2009). Problems with coursebooks in EFL classrooms: Prospective teachers‘
opinions, EKEV Academic Review, 38, 309-315.
Batdı, V. & Özbek, R. (2010). İlköğretim Yabancı Dil Öğretiminde Konuşma Becerilerinin
Geliştirilmesinde İngilizce Ders Kitaplarının Etkililiği. E-Journal of New World
Sciences Academy. 5, 892–902.
Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning. London:
Longman.
Breen, M. (1989). The evaluation cycle for language learning tasks. In R. K. Johnson (Ed.).
The Second Language Curriculum (pp. 187-206). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Cohen, A. (2003). Strategy Training for Second Language Learners. ERIC Clearinghouse on
Languages and Linguistics.
Retrieved from http://www.cal.org/resources/Digest/digest_pdfs/0302cohen.pdf
26 January 2010
Ellis, R. (1997). The Empirical Evaluation of Language Teaching Materials. ELT Journal. 51,
36-42.
Reinders and Balçıkanlı
272
Fenner, A-B. (2000). Learner Autonomy. In A-B Fenner & D. Newby (Eds). Approaches to
Materials Design in European Textbooks: Implementing Principles of Authenticity,
Learner Autonomy, Cultural Awareness. (pp. 151-164). Strasbourg: Council of Europe
Publishing.
Kesen, A. (2010). Turkish EFL learners’ metaphors with respect to English language
coursebooks. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language). 4, 108-118.
Knowles, M. (1975). Self-directed Learning: A guide for learners and teachers. New York:
Cambridge: The Adult Education Company.
Jones, F. R. (1993). Beyond the fringe: a framework for assessing teach-yourself materials for
ab initio English-speaking learners’. System, 21, 453-469.
Nedkova, M. (2000). Evaluation. In M. Byram (Ed.). Routledge Encyclopaedia of Language
Teaching and Learning. (pp. 243-261). New York and London: Routledge.
Reinders, H. (2010). Materials development for learner autonomy. Australian Journal of
Teacher Education. 35, 40-55.
Reinders, H. & Lewis, M. (2005). Examining the ’self” in self-access materials. Reflections, 7,
46-53.
Reinders, H. & Lewis, M. (2006). The development of an evaluative checklist for self-access
materials. ELT Journal. 60, 272-278.
Tomlinson, B. (1998). Materials Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Winch, C. (2006). Education, Autonomy and Critical Thinking. New York and London:
Routledge.
Tags: autonomy, learner training, publishing, textbooks
Posted in All | No Comments »
Wednesday, October 26th, 2011
IATEFL LA SIG Pre-Conference Event (PCE), 19 March 2012, Glasgow
Learner Autonomy in Action – across borders
REGISTRATION AND CALL FOR PROPOSALS
Dear colleagues,
The focus of our pre-conference in Glasgow will - as indicated in the title above - be “Learner Autonomy in Action”. Registration is now open and as something new this year, it will be possible to apply for grants in connection with participation in our PCE (see below).
PRELIMINARY PROGRAMME FOR THE DAY
There will be two plenary talks, one in the morning by David Little, Dublin: “Language Learner Autonomy across borders – where are the borders and do they matter? “ The other will be by Scott Thornbury towards the end of the day: “Unplugged Teaching – Autonomy in Action?” Examples of “autonomy in action” will be placed between these two plenary speakers and are intended to provide a basis for discussions in groups as well as question and answer session with the whole group. The aim of the day is– as in previous years - to shed more light upon what is meant by “learner autonomy” and at the same time to inspire participants to begin or to continue developing learner autonomy in their own contexts (for further details go to our website: www.learnerautonomy.org )
REGISTRATION AND CONFERENCE GRANTS
Registration is now possible for our PCE as well as for the whole conference in Glasgow. There are links for registration from our website: www.learnerautonomy.org
There are 2 grants of 300 UK pounds each available towards attending the PCE. The goal is to support and encourage teachers/researchers/contributors new to the field of learner autonomy and learner development.
Deadline for grant applications: Please note that applications for grants have to be sent by e-mail (pce@learnerautonomy.org) to the selection committee by November 30th, 2011. Please write “Conference Grant Application” in the subject heading. A decision will be announced by December 20th, 2011. For further information on the criteria of award and the application process please go to http://glasgow2012.wordpress.com/conference-grants/.
CALL FOR PROPOSALS
To complete the programme outlined above, we need your experience with “Learner Autonomy in Action “. Therefore, if you are a practicing teacher (at any level), a learning advisor, a teacher educator, a manager/director at institutions where autonomy is being developed don’t hesitate to send us your proposal – even if you have just started on more learner-centred approaches.
FORMAT: Your presentations can either take the form of a poster presentation, a short talk, or any other short interactive presentation (e.g. video). Poster presentations will be given 3-5 minutes at the beginning of the day to introduce their presentation to the audience whereupon there will be time and space for talking to the individual presenters. The short talks/interactive inputs will be given 15-minute slots for presentation to the audience.
A proposal form is available on our mail website www.learnerautonomy.org, or on the event website: http://glasgow2012.wordpress.com/call/
Deadline for proposals is Thursday 1st December, 2011. Once the selection process has been completed you will receive a notification of acceptance or rejection by email on Monday 19th, 2011. Please send completed forms to pce@learnerautonomy.org
NB Giving a presentation at the PCE does not exclude you from giving a presentation during the other days of the conference in the main conference programme.
Tags: autonomy, conferences
Posted in All | No Comments »
Sunday, October 9th, 2011
We are very proud to share with you the special issue of Language Learning & Technology journal on ‘Learner Autonomy and New Learning Environments’. You can find the special issue here.
Tags: autonomy, call, new learning environments, technology
Posted in All | No Comments »
Wednesday, October 5th, 2011
I always very much enjoy reading Robert Godwin-Jones’s articles in Language Learning & Technology on ‘emerging technologies’. Godwin-Jones does an excellent job of summarising the latest technological developments in a very accessible manner. The latest instalment, in the special issue Cynthia White and I edited on ‘Autonomy and CALL’ is on emerging technologies for autonomous language learning. Very much a recommended read!
You can find the article here.
Tags: autonomy, call
Posted in All | No Comments »
Friday, September 2nd, 2011
We are proud to say that our new book is now out!
Benson, P. & Reinders, H. (2011) (Eds), Beyond the Language Classroom. The Theory and Practice of Informal Language Learning and Teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. You can read more about this book by clicking on the link ‘beyond the classroom’ in the menu on the right.
An estimated 80% of adult learning takes place outside of formal education (Cross 1981). For language learning, it is likely that out-of-class experiences play an equally important role (cf. de Bot 2007). It is therefore surprising that the role of informal language learning has received very little attention over the years, with the vast majority of research instead focusing on classroom methods, materials and interaction.
Researchers from a range of backgrounds, however, have started to realise the important contribution of informal language learning, both in its own right, and in its relationship with classroom learning. Studies in the areas of learner autonomy, learning strategies, study abroad, language support, learners’ voices, computer-mediated communication, mobile-assisted language learning, and many others, all add to our understanding of the complex and intersecting ways in which learners construct their own language learning experiences, drawing from a wide range of resources, including materials, teachers, self-study, technology, other learners, and native speakers.
Because of the predominance of informal language learning, it is important that the existing body of research is solidified and that the various disciplines that have looked at this area are brought together to present the current state of knowledge in one, accessible volume. For this reason, the researchers below have been invited from different backgrounds to contribute individual chapters that together cover all the relevant areas.
Table of contents
Introduction
Phil Benson and Hayo Reinders
1. Language learning and teaching beyond the classroom: An introduction to the field
Phil Benson
2. Family, friends and learning beyond the classroom: Social networks and social capital in language learning
David Palfreyman
3. Places for learning: Technology-mediated language learning practices beyond the classroom
Leena Kuure
4. From milk cartons to English roommates: Context and agency in L2 learning beyond the classroom
Paula Kalaja, Riikka Alanen, Åsa Palviainen, and Hannele Dufva.
5. Affordances for language learning beyond the classroom
Vera Menezes
6. Becoming multilingual: An ethnographic approach to SLA beyond the classroom
David Divita
7. Talk about language use: I know a little about your language
Erica Zimmerman
8. A possible path to progress: Out-of-school English language learners in Sweden
Pia Sundqvist
9. Teenagers learning languages out of school: What, why and how do they learn? How can school help them?
Sophie Bailly
10. Older language learners, social learning spaces, and community
Garold Murray
11. Tandem learning in virtual spaces: Supporting non-formal and informal learning in adults
Ursula Stickler and Martina Emke
12. Home tutor cognitions and the nature of tutor-learner relationships
Gary Barkhuizen
13. Materials development for language learning beyond the classroom
Hayo Reinders
Introduction to the book
Introduction: Phil Benson and Hayo Reinders
This volume brings together 13 chapters that have been especially written for this collection in response to an international call for contributions to a book devoted to research on language learning and teaching beyond the classroom. In one sense, the common factor among the papers lies in what they are not; there are no studies of classroom language learning or teaching in this volume. This is a significant point, because so many studies are based on research carried out in classrooms or with classroom learners and quite possibly informed by hidden assumptions related to the classroom setting. Studies of language learning and teaching in settings beyond the classroom are valuable, therefore, because they provide alternative perspectives on the meaning of, and social and cognitive processes involved in, language learning and teaching.
At the same time, we are aware of the risks involved in describing this volume in terms of what it is not – risks that are highlighted by the difficulty of avoiding terms such as informal, out-of-class, non-instructed, and so on, which appear to take this way of describing our object of inquiry for granted. We are also aware of the risk of treating the world beyond the classroom as an alternative to the classroom, as if classrooms were the natural place for language learning to take place and the world beyond the classroom a strange and hostile territory in which languages are learned with difficulty, if at all. With the rise of mass education over the past 50 years or so, there has certainly been a tendency for language learning to migrate into educational institutions, to the point where research often views language learning as an ‘effect’ produced by the ‘cause’ of classroom language teaching, which is likely to be stronger or weaker according to the teaching method or style and a variety of social and individual difference variables among the learners. Yet is also common knowledge among teachers that the progress made by students who learn languages only in the classroom tends to be limited, especially in their ability to use the language for spoken or written communication. Well-rounded communicative proficiency, it seems, depends to a large extent on the learner’s efforts to use and learn the language beyond the walls of the classroom. For this reason alone, settings for language learning beyond the classroom deserves much more attention in research than they have received hitherto.
The balance of published research suggests that language learners spend more time learning languages in classrooms than outside them. Whether this is an accurate reflection of current patterns of language learning worldwide is open to question. We suspect that it is not and that vast swathes of the territory for language learning beyond the classroom remain undiscovered by research. One of the interesting features to emerge from this volume, therefore, is the range of settings investigated, several of which, such as those that deal with language learning in the learner’s homes, have not been the subject of research to date. A second interesting feature to emerge has been the significance of teaching in settings beyond the classroom. The dichotomy between classroom and out-of-class learning is often paired with a dichotomy between instructed and non-instructed, or ‘naturalistic’ learning, which can also lead to an assumption that the classroom is a place for teaching and learning, while the world beyond the classroom is only a place for learning. The contributions to this volume suggest that this is a false assumption, and that much of the interest in language learning beyond the classroom lies in the distinctive modes of pedagogy that are found in different settings. These issues are addressed at a theoretical level in Benson’s opening chapter (Chapter 1), which offers an analytical framework for investigating language learning beyond the classroom, involving dimensions of location, formality, pedagogy and locus of control, and a distinction between settings and the modes of practice in learning and teaching that they support.
The chapters that follow report data-based studies of learning and teaching in a variety of settings, using a variety of theoretical perspectives and research methodologies. Chapters 2 to 5 each explore patterns of language learning beyond the classroom from four different, but related, theoretical perspectives. In an interview study of female English learners and their families in the United Arab Emirates, Palfreyman (Chapter 2) uses Social Networking theory to focus on the role of relationships with family and friends, arguing that interaction with ‘significant others’ is a crucial element in language learning beyond the classroom. Palfreyman’s study is particularly valuable in showing how access to target language resources,such as reading materials or native speakers, is likely to be mediated through learners’ family and friendship networks. Kuure (Chapter 3) uses Mediated Discourse Analysis to analyze case study data of a Finnish English learner’s out-of-school, technology-mediated language learning. Here the setting is both the home and the virtual gaming environments in which the learner spends much of his spare time. Kuure shows how online games and the activities around them provide important affordances for language learning, although language learning is not necessarily the objective, as a means of nurturing social relationships through collaborative problem-solving and networking among online peers. Kalaja an her research team (Chapter 4) report a study based on Vygotskyan theory and using qualitative analysis of open-ended questionnaire responses, which compares the different ways in which young Finns learn English and Swedish in and out of school. They find that while their school-based experiences are similar, their out-of-school experiences are very different, with students being much more active in exercising their agency in learning English – an illustration of how different modes of practice can develop in very similar settings, in this case for the learning of different languages. Menezes (Chapter 5) uses narrative data from a collection of written language learning histories, to explore the concept of ‘affordances’ in Ecological theory as a metaphor for understanding how Brazilian learners of English seek out opportunities for learning beyond the classroom. Arguing that affordances do not simply exist in the environment, but are constructed within the learners relationship with it, she examines how learners exercise their agency to find their own particular ‘niches’ and reconstruct their learning environments.
Chapters 6 to 8 look more closely at what is actually learned in language learning beyond the classroom. In an ethnographic study of two Spanish women who arrived in France refugees from the Spanish Civil War and learned French largely ‘naturalistically’, Divita (Chapter 6) makes the important point that, in non-institutional settings, ‘language acquisition’ might be better conceived as a process of becoming multilingual that unfolds in idiosyncratic ways and is shaped by experiences of the sociohistorical conditions in which it occurs. Adopting an approach that pays close attention to language data, Divita seeks evidence for this process in the two women’s use of language and, in particular, their use of code switching. Zimmerman’s (Chapter 7) study is also based on close analysis of language data, using Conversation Analysis techniques, consisting of interactions between Korean learners of Japanese and their homestay hosts. Zimmerman provides important evidence of ‘teaching and learning’ episodes in these interactions, which illustrate the sense in which pedagogy may always be present in language learning beyond the classroom. Sundqvist’s (Chapter 8) quantitative study directly tackles the question of whether Swedish students who engage in English learning language learning beyond the classroom actually learn more than those whose learning is limited to school. The results are interesting, if not entirely, predictable: she finds a strong correlation between time spent on out-of-class learning and oral proficiency/vocabulary size, as well as correlation between these factors and gender patterns in the types of activities, which meant that learning beyond the classroom had a greater impact on boys than girls.
Chapters 9-12 examine issues arising from institutional initiatives to provide opportunities for language learning beyond the classroom: a self-directed language learning programme for young people in France, a self-access English project for elderly people in Japan, a tandem learning project involving participants in Germany, Italy, Poland and the United Kingdom, and home tutoring in English for migrants to New Zealand. Bailly’s (Chapter 9) project provided learners in a vocational high school in France with the opportunity to learn a language of their choice outside school, supported by advisory sessions, web-based learning materials and opportunities to talk with native speakers of the target languages. Evaluation of the project identified continuities between out-of-school language learning and the learners’ school, personal and social lives and three important conditions for success in self-directed language learning: motivation, learning resources and learning skills. Murray’s project (Chapter 10) was also designed to provide language learning opportunities to people who would not otherwise receive them, in this case elderly Japanese attending a university self-access language learning centre designed for use by the general public. His evaluation suggests that older language learners can especially benefit from the creation of social learning spaces offering possibilities for participation in a community of learners and pedagogical support. Stickler & Emke (Chapter 11) report on a tandem learning project for adult learners involving partners in four European countries. Using language data from the project, they investigate how formal, non-formal and informal learning processes support the acquisition of key competences, arguing that non-formal learning plays an important role in adult language learning. Lastly, Barkhuizen’s (Chapter 12) narrative interview study with home tutors of New Zealand migrants deals directly with language teaching beyond the classroom and in the homes of the learners. Focusing on the interpersonal, emotional dimensions of teaching, which come to the fore in one-to-one teaching in the learner’s home, he argues that the nature of the tutor-learner relationship is a major factor in the decision-making processes and practices of tutors and ultimately in the success of their learners.
A number of chapters highlight the role of teaching and, indeed, teachers in language learning beyond the classroom, which suggests that the distinction between classroom and out-of-class learning is a fuzzy one at best. In particular, language learning beyond the classroom is often initiated by teachers who work in educational institutions, and may even take place in these institutions or in off-campus locations. The important role that teachers often play is highlighted in Reinders’ concluding chapter (Chapter 13) which offers principles and practical advice on the design of language learning materials for use in a range of out-of-class settings.
Language learning and teaching beyond the classroom is not a new area of research, in the sense that studies have appeared in the literature from time to time over the years. This volume is timely, however, because the number of studies is increasing and, indeed, it is unlikely that our call for contributions would have received such a positive response 20 or even 10 years ago. In our view, this opens up the possibility of exploring language learning beyond the classroom as an area of inquiry with its own theoretical assumptions and issues of particular concern. Increased interest in out-of-class learning is prompted, in part, by a shift in the basic assumptions of second language acquisition research among many researchers, who no longer see acquisition in purely cognitive terms, but in terms of participation in communities and contexts of various kinds. This view has led to interest in qualitative studies of learners’ lives and often to the use of ethnographic or retrospective self-report data to investigate learning in out-of-class settings. The studies in this volume illustrate this trend, but are also diverse in their use of research methods, especially in the use of quantitative methods and close analysis of language data.
The key issues to emerge from the volume, which readers may wish to keep in mind as they read, include (1) how we might develop a more comprehensive view of the shared and distinctive features of diverse settings for language learning beyond the classroom, (2) the distinctive characteristics of learning processes and what learners actually learn in these settings, and (3) the roles and distinctive forms of teaching and pedagogy. These issues are likely to be most of interest to the growing number of educators who work with learners in non-conventional settings for language teaching and learning, but the possibility of developing a more general understanding of relationships between settings (including classroom settings), learning and pedagogy means that they are equally relevant to teachers who do most of their work in classrooms.
Tags: advising, autonomy, home tutoring, informal, materials development, non-formal, out-of-class, self-access
Posted in All | No Comments »
Friday, August 5th, 2011
Beliefs, Identity and Motivation in Implementing Autonomy
The Teacher’s Perspective
HAYO REINDERS
NOEMÍ LÁZARO
Published in: Murray, G., Gao, A., & Lamb, T. (2011). Identity, Motivation and Autonomy in Language Learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Introduction
Recent discussions of identity and motivation in language acquisition have increased our understanding of the highly personal, variable, and contextually influenced learning processes our learners engage in (e.g. Breen, 2001; Ushioda, this volume; van Lier, 2007). But what about the teacher? What factors affect teacher motivation and identity? This study was motivated by an interest in understanding teachers’ roles as agents in the learning process and in particular their roles as facilitators of autonomous learning in self-access centres.
This chapter reports on a large-scale investigation that took place over three years in which extensive interviews were held with teachers of 46 self-access centres in five countries. The purpose of this chapter is to 1) elicit teachers’ beliefs about learner autonomy in self-access, 2) identify conflicts between teachers’ beliefs about autonomy and students’ (self-access) language learning behavior, and 3) identify conflicts between teachers’ beliefs and institutional constraints. The study is based on an ethnographic approach to develop an understanding of the participants’ personal theories (Borg, 2003) of supporting autonomous language learning. It does this through a combination of open-ended interview questions and a SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) (Thompson & Strickland III, 2001) of the language support offered in the centres. A categorical content analysis (L’Ecuyer, 1990) reveals a complex and sometimes conflicting interaction between the teachers’ beliefs and their everyday roles which suggests that the concept of agency cannot be separated from those of motivation and identity.
Understanding the Teacher’s Role
With the so-called ‘social turn’ in education (Lea & Nicoll, 2002), there is currently a growing interest in understanding the role of the teacher in the wider sociocultural-educational context, and similarly an interest in understanding the teacher as an active individual within that context, responsible for his/her own development. This requires an understanding of the teacher as a person; ‘The aim of teacher education must be to understand experience’ (Freeman, 2002c: 11). Freeman (2002c: 1) provides a comprehensive review of both the conceptual and research literature on teacher knowledge and learning to teach. In his article he focuses on ‘the hidden side of teaching’, where the ‘hidden side’ refers to teachers’ mental lives. Teachers’ beliefs and their sense of identity are examples of these ‘hidden’ characteristics and have been shown to strongly affect teaching practice (Richards & Lochkart, 1991).
How teachers’ beliefs emerge and change over time, and how teachers’ sense of ‘self’ and identity develop, has been the focus of an increasing amount of research over the years. Borg (2003) proposed an influential model of ‘teacher cognition’ which encompasses all of a teachers’ beliefs, knowledge, assumptions, perspectives, etc, that determine teaching practice, and that are, in turn, affected by the practice of teaching. For example, experiences gained in the classroom shape a teachers’ views on pedagogy, as does taking a professional course, or communicating with other teachers.
With Borg’s model as the theoretical framework for this chapter, we are particularly interested in teacher cognition in relation to one particular type of teaching, namely the ‘facilitating’ that occurs in a self-access centre. Teachers (also often referred to as ‘facilitators’) working in a self-access centre find themselves needing to use a different or additional set of skills than those they draw on in a classroom. There are a number of obvious differences between a self-access and a classroom environment that affect the day-to-day role of the teacher. Many tasks that in the classroom are commonly considered to belong to the teacher, in a self-access centre are carried out by the learner, with or without the help of a teacher. Examples include identifying learning needs, setting goals, selecting materials, and monitoring progress. Facilitators thus provide individualised help at times when learners need it, which involves a great deal of flexibility. The ranger of learners’ levels, interests and needs are what usually surprises new facilitators (Moore & Reinders, 2003). Another challenge for facilitators is the difficulty of focusing on skills as opposed to content; in classes generally a certain amount of material needs to be covered (e.g. a course book or a number of topics), whereas in self-access, facilitating involves preparing learners and supporting learners in their self-directed learning. As a facilitator it is impossible in most cases to know if a student will return or not and the focus is thus always on helping learners discover ways of improving their language by themselves.
These differences between the language classroom and the SAC mean that for teachers, working in self-access can be challenging. Looking at Borg’s model (see above), the prior language experience teachers have is usually limited to classroom learning; most teachers have had little, if any, prior experience of developing autonomy as a learner, and most teacher education courses do not cover the topic in detail (Reinders & Balcikanli, 2010. From our personal experience, for many people working in this type of environment is a conscious decision, based on convictions about optimal ways of learning and teaching, and a process that requires a great deal of self-discovery. However, little formal research has so far been done to investigate exactly what motivates facilitators and what challenges exist for them in implementing self-access in practice. In other words, there is little information about the ‘hidden side’ of facilitation as a professional practice, and the relationship between teachers’ cognition on their teaching practice, and vice versa, the effect of teaching practice on teachers’ cognition. The main purpose of this study was thus to fill this gap in the literature and in particular, to explore the relationship between teachers’ identities in terms of their beliefs and perceptions of self; their motivation to promote learner autonomy; and their practice of fostering it in the context of a self-access centre.
Teacher Beliefs about Autonomy and Self-Access
Teachers’ beliefs about autonomy
In order to explore teacher cognition, it is important to start from the individual. Kumaravadivelu (2001c: 541) talks about teachers as ‘autonomous individuals’ who ‘construct their own context-sensitive pedagogic knowledge’. Similarly, Borg (2003c: 81) has described teachers as, ‘active, thinking decision-makers who make instructional choices by drawing on complex, practically-oriented, personalised, and context-sensitive networks of knowledge, thoughts, and beliefs’. To better understand the roles of teachers in the self-access environment it is thus paramount to investigate their knowledge, thoughts and beliefs. In practice, this has not often been done. According to Vieira (2007), teachers are sometimes simply seen as tools to reach certain educational goals, rather than as an integral and active part of the educational process.
If we see teachers as expert technicians, the notion of professional autonomy makes little sense, since expert technicians are not supposed to move beyond or subvert normative expectations. This view of teachers is not compatible with the idea of pedagogy for autonomy, unless we envisage pedagogy for autonomy as a specific kind of regime to be followed uncritically. The resistance of many teachers to educational and political discourses of autonomy is often a sign of rebellion against this instrumental view of their role as technicians who should conform to top-down policies and reforms, more than a sign of rejection of the idea of autonomy itself. (Vieira, 2007c: 23)
Aoki (2008) too, emphasises the personal nature of implementing autonomy and argues that teacher education is about seeing teachers as individuals who develop their educational identities, as they attempt to develop their learners’ identities as autonomous learners:
If identity is the central concern of teachers, learning to support learner autonomy may not be about acquiring knowledge or even generating knowledge as assumed by advocates of reflective practice but about transforming identity. In other words, teacher educators should ask themselves ‘who do I want teachers to become?’ rather than ‘what do I want teachers to know and to be capable of?’ (p. 15)
Perhaps surprisingly, considering the attention learner autonomy has received over the years, not very much is known about the relationship between teachers’ identity and beliefs about learning and teaching on the one hand, and how this affects their practice of fostering autonomy on the other. To understand teaching practice in a particular context, it is important to investigate teachers’ beliefs about that context and we therefore now look at the case of self-access.
Teachers’ beliefs about self-access
A number of previous studies have investigated teachers’ beliefs about learner autonomy and their own roles in its development. One of these (Reinders, Sakui, & Akakura, 2010) is a diary study charting the experiences of two novice language advisors working in a university SAC. It was clear from the advisors’ comments that the facilitation process requires good support and ideally good preparation and training. Other studies have come to similar conclusions. For example, de los Angeles Clemente (2001) found that in one university in Oaxaca, Mexico, teachers who were asked to work in the self-access centre without proper preparation and training, developed a dislike of the work, and a disbelief in the potential of independent learning. In addition, they felt anxious about their new roles. Clearly the process of moving from classroom teaching to facilitating learning in SACs can be a daunting one.
Although studies such as the above help us to understand more about how teachers think about autonomous learning and their roles in supporting this process, much less is known about how the implementation of autonomy works in practice, especially at an institutional level. It is unclear, for example, to what extent teachers’ beliefs about autonomy are matched by their students’ beliefs, and to what extent teachers are supported within their teaching and institutional context in implementing a pedagogy for autonomy. Understanding how ‘autonomy in practice’ works and what impediments may exist, will help better prepare teachers for their roles as facilitators of autonomy and deal with the constraints that exist. Their ability to deal with these constraints, or indeed their willingness to do so, of course depends on their own beliefs about what learning and teaching should be like. It is clear that cognition and practice are closely, and mutually, related.
The Study
The data for this chapter come from a large-scale study conducted between 2003-2007 in which 46 SACs were visited in five countries and in-depth interviews were held with staff. The purposes of that study were to chart current thinking about theory and practice in self-access and to identify issues in its implementation in different countries. As part of the interviews a SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) was carried out (see below). The interviews also included questions about teachers’ beliefs about autonomy and self-access and their motivations for working in this type of environment; it is this subset of the data that we are exploring here. Below we will describe the research questions, participants, procedures, instruments and the types of analyses conducted using this dataset.
Research questions
The research questions this study aimed to answer were the following:
1) What are teachers’ beliefs about autonomy in self-access?
2) What conflicts exist between teachers’ beliefs about autonomy and students’ (self-access) language learning behavior?
3) What conflicts exist between teachers’ beliefs and institutional constraints?
Through these questions we aim to investigate how teacher identity and motivation develop and change in the context of developing autonomy in self-access.
Participants
Participants in this study were teachers in 46 centres in 5 countries, 35 of them were part of a tertiary institution and 11 of a language school. All were visited in person by one of the authors (see table 1).
‘Table 1 near here’ [supplied separately]
Instruments
The semi-structured interviews consisted of 35 questions (most of them open-ended), divided into nine thematic blocs, adapted from Gardner and Miller (1999). Together they cover the main pedagogical and practical issues related to self-access as identified by Gardner & Miller and in the wider self-access literature. The nine themes included: learners’ and teachers’ attitudes towards autonomous learning in the SACs, the counseling service, learner training, learner profiles, materials, activities, assessment and evaluation. The questions about the themes were structured through a SWOT analysis. This is a tool originally used for management purposes that looks at strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of organizations (Thompson & Strickland III, 2001). More recently it has been adapted for use in educational research as it encourages an investigation of a learning or teaching context from multiple angles, unaffected by prior expectations. Strengths in this context are the capabilities and resources that are advantages for the operation of the centre. Weaknesses are the aspects that limit or reduce the potential of the SACs. Opportunities are the external factors that ensure the optimal functioning or future of the centre and threats are the external elements that could negatively impact on the centre and even affect its existence.
Analysis
The interviews were transcribed for content and this was analysed by using the categorical analysis model (Bardin, 2003) within an open categorization framework (L’Ecuyer, 1990), which has no predetermined set of categories, in order to ensure that the resulting categorization corresponded to the reality as felt and expressed by the participants and not to the prior conceptions of the researchers. The transcripts of the interviews were analysed by both researchers, coded, and then transcribed (see for more information Lázaro, 2009).
Results
The results discussed below focus on teachers’ beliefs about autonomy, mismatches between teachers’ and learners’ beliefs, and finally, the relationship between individual and institutional views on autonomy. Together, these affect teachers’ identity and motivation in the context of enabling learners’ ability to control their own learning. The three sections will show the way teachers’ cognitions are constructed based on these three key points.
What are teachers’ beliefs about learner autonomy in self-access?
Several questions in the interviews asked participants to reflect on the implementation of autonomy in self-access and their roles in this process. We have grouped comments related to similar issues together and report these here with representative quotations taken from the interviews.
The development of autonomy is, to many of the teachers we interviewed, primarily about treating learners as equals. In the words of one of the centre managers when talking about the teachers in the centre:
Advisors in the centre, they treat them [the students] as equals. They try to show them that they respect them, they expect respect in return. They have very high standards, they expect very high standards from the students. They try to provide students with some sort of scaffolding or a framework by which the students would do better than what they would on their own. (New Zealand)
Perhaps related to this is the notion that teachers need to be able to offer alternatives to existing power relations:
The advisors really try to break down some of the power relationships that are traditionally present between teacher and student. The adviser tries to ensure that the student realizes that he or she is responsible for their own learning. (Hong Kong)
Some teachers also indicated that they felt they had a responsibility to actively shape a context that allows for the development of autonomy (cf. Winch, 2007). Autonomy, in their view, is thus something that needs to be ‘taught’ or the development of which needs to be ‘guided’.
Understanding why they need learner training is a process. Students don’t understand why they have to learn this. They need guidance and support. Without this, learner training does not work. (Spain)
This implies an increasing (support for) individualisation of the learning process:
One of the strengths of the advising sessions is the capacity to adapt to the student’s needs and his or her situation. I think this is the most powerful aspect of self-access. (Switzerland)
Self-access and autonomy are about the development of life-long learning skills:
It actually enables the learner to continue learning when they leave the school. That’s the biggest single thing, I think. (New Zealand)
The view of learner autonomy as an individualised process towards life-long learning, to many teachers implied a degree of conflict between recognising the individual’s role while still providing the necessary guidance. For several teachers, this form of guidance towards autonomy was seen as a form of negotiation:
The idea for us is to offer them an advising service at the beginning, so that learners can feel comfortable and can start taking their own decisions. After that you can leave more space and let the learner make their own choices more. We wouldn’t want to give learners a set ‘autonomy curriculum’ but it is necessary to start with a certain number of limited options and to offer guidance in the beginning. (Spain)
What conflicts exist between teachers’ beliefs about autonomy and students’ (self-access) language learning behavior?
Looking back at Borg’s model, it is clear that classroom practice plays an important part in the development of teachers’ cognition. Our beliefs affect our teaching practice, but similarly, our teaching experiences affect our beliefs. A mismatch in teachers’ and learners’ beliefs is thus likely to have an impact on teachers’ views on autonomy. Below we report incidences in the interviews where teachers reported a potential mismatch or conflict between their own view on autonomy in self-access and their students’ (self-access) language learning behavior. As in the section on beliefs, we have grouped comments related to similar issues together and report these here with representative quotations taken from the interviews.
One recurring issue is that many teachers feel their students are too dependent on them and do not take responsibility for their learning.
In general I would say that students are not used to autonomous learning. That means that they expect that an advisor will be always guiding their learning process. Obviously one of the goals of the centre and its staff is to get the students to be more and more autonomous, so that they learn to analyse their learning process and so that they can use the learning materials in a more considered way. (Spain)
Students’ dependence is probably closely related to another issue which was mentioned by many teachers, namely students’ lack of interest in developing learner autonomy. Many reasons were cited for this but the most common was that students simply do not think it is important. In the words of a teacher in New Zealand:
For a numbers of years students have said: “Really, I want a teacher to teach me. I don’t want to learn on my own” And I think half of that is financial: “I pay money, so I expect to be taught”. They see it as a complete waste of time. Part of it, it’s educational background about what is expected. “If I go to school I have a teacher teaching me”.
Some students feel their money and time are better spent in class. There is also a common perception that for students independent learning is hard, or like ‘asking them to run before they can walk’ (New Zealand), often of not having been exposed to it in their formative school years. As a result, some students may even fear it, as this teacher from Spain says:
The learner has a very paradoxal attitude towards autonomy. On the one hand, the freedom and flexibility sound very attractive, as does the ‘anything you want, whenever you want’ idea. It’s easy to convince them like this. But after a while students realise that it’s not so easy, and especially if they pay for their education, they start to develop doubts. It’s like looking at a blank page and asking yourself: where should I start?
For some teachers, this lack of interest in autonomy is difficult to understand:
The program has good staff who believe in the idea of independent learning. The problem is that they can’t understand that not everyone wants to be independent in their learning process. (New Zealand)
Not only are students sometimes less than enthusiastic about the idea of directing their own learning, they also often do not see the importance of tools such as learning plans, records, and portfolios. Many students see it as an extra job and may consider it not a good use of their time. Teachers think they often also don’t know how to use these kinds of tools properly:
In most cases the reflection done by students it is not deep enough. They don’t understand the process of the portfolio. They see it as a product/ assignment. (Germany).
Many teachers thought their students had the wrong view of what self-access is and how it contributes to student learning. Many felt students used self-access as a ‘quick fix’ to deal with last-minute problems. This also applies to their views on language counseling sessions.
You get also a lot of students that do like the service, but they basically want you to correct all their mistakes. And that’s not what we do. […] Some students really like it, some others get really annoyed as they just want a grammar check. (New Zealand)
Learners also feel that because self-access learning is often not credited and progress not measured through formal tests, that it is not helpful.
Test are potentially useful, as most of the students do not consider their peers as a source of information, a source of feedback. People think that they themselves are not really good judges of their own progress when it comes to language, and we try to show them that yes it is a valuable source of information. (New Zealand)
Some teachers report developing tests to make self-access more acceptable to students:
As the students are very exam oriented, it is difficult for them to assess without pre- and posttest and to see progress. They feel they can’t measure it. (Hong Kong)
It is clear from the comments reported above that considerable mismatches between teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about autonomy exist. Teachers display different ways of responding to these, in some cases accommodating them (such as in the last example), but in all cases reflecting on them. Since reflection is the starting point for all professional development (Freeman & Richards, 1996), these mismatches are likely to have an impact on the ways in which teachers see themselves within the contexts they work in.
Is there a potential conflict between teachers’ beliefs and motivations and institutional constraints?
The way in which teachers are perceived is likely to have an effect on how they think of themselves. If teachers are not valued or if the goals they are working to achieve are not shared by their colleagues or the wider insitution, then this may have a(n) (detrimental) effect on teachers’ identity and motivation.
In all of the centres we visited, there were issues with regards to the integration of self-access and autonomy into the wider educational context. Often there was a lack of coordination between students’ self-access learning and their classroom work. In the words of one German teacher ‘the activities in the SAC are simply not coordinated with those in the courses’. And according to this New Zealand teacher:
I think that the weakness is that you need a lot of classroom and staff to help students become independent and sometimes I think that we lack that. So like teachers teaching students how to be independent so that when they come to the self-access they are doing the things that would help them to move in independent learning.
Often this lack of integration is due to curriculum constraints where the role of foreign languages and of autonomous language learning in particular, is not given much room in terms of budget or timetabling considerations. Often self-access learning is not compulsory and therefore only very motivated students, or those with severe learning difficulties, make use of the available support.
Actually the curriculum at the university has no language component. Students do not need to have language training, nor the university has the obligation of offering such training. This situation makes it very hard for the centre and the staff to get the necessary funding and recognition (Germany).
Sometimes this lack of integration is a result of working in a large institution where the position of the SAC is not clearly defined:
We haven’t been able to engage all departments within the institute. We haven’t been able to convince people that students should come. In a big institution you get lecturers who follow up the students and say them go to the support language centre and then they ring us and ask us: has this person been there? But many other don’t. I guess, maybe we should have a stronger link with some departments. (New Zealand)
Implementing autonomy can also be a frustrating experience due to a lack of understanding from colleagues in other departments about what autonomy is.
It is very hard to change people’s minds and their way of thinking. Convincing people takes time and it doesn’t always work. In Hong Kong there are very few teachers concerned about the importance of learner autonomy. (Hong Kong).
This lack of understanding results in teachers in the SAC being perceived as somehow doing less valuable work and their professional contribution not always being recognised. In some cases SAC counsellors are labelled ‘administrators’ which does not accurately reflect their roles. In some cases their work is not adequately acknowledged.
According to the new guidelines, work in the SAC now gets less recognition and in practice this means that SALL involves more work for the teachers. This is dangerous, as these teachers may not be interested in working in the SAC anymore. (Hong Kong)
A perennial problem in self-access and one reflected in most of the interviews, is the lack of funding. In some cases this is the result of a lack of institutional integration (no one takes financial responsibility for the centre), and sometimes it may be a result of the lower status of SAC and SAC teachers than other ‘more academic’ departments.
The strength of the centre is the team behind it. Nevertheless there is a part of the team with bad working conditions, and this leads to the situation of people leaving the centre. So, once you have trained a person for the work in the centre he/she leaves and you have to start from the beginning. This is very frustrating for the staff responsible for the centre. (Spain)
This lack of funding particularly affects centres’ ability to hire sufficient staff.
We lack trained staff for working in the centre. We can’t afford to hire professional staff, so we rely on students. As students come and go every semester or every year, there is no consistency. For us it would be much better if we could have permanent staff. (Switzerland)
In a number of centres, teachers in language departments are expected to carry out tasks in the SAC, without proper training and without proper remuneration. SAC time is often paid at a lower rate than classroom time.
We can’t ask teachers to work in the centre, without having their time there recognised. If they don’t get their effort acknowledged somehow, you can’t ask them to invest their free time there. (Germany)
Several teachers point out that institutions may want to use SACs as a way to reduce teaching costs, and that they do not see the need to invest sufficiently in ensuring good-quality self-access support. This also negatively impacts on the views on self-access of the teachers in the centre:
Teachers’ attitudes has been a big thing. In the beginning it was really hard [on the teachers], because the school basically did it [establish the SAC] because they wanted to save some money. Management often views lab time, even self-access time as a sort of money saving and at the end it’s not really. It’s simply an alternative to classroom teaching. (New Zealand)
With or without the support of management and other colleagues the work in the flexible environment that is a self-access centre can be frustrating. As there is often no timetable, no curriculum, and no set materials or classes, the usual ways for teachers to obtain feedback about their and their students’ progress, may not be easily available. This can affect teachers’ motivation:
In the beginning, working in the centre can be very exciting for the teachers, but then comes the time when they have to work alone without much support, and that’s hard and sometimes a source of disillusionment. They do not have much experience and neither their colleagues. They ask themselves: ‘Am I doing it right? Does this really work?’, and they feel really insecure and lonely. (Spain)
It is clear from the comments above that the insititutional context has a significant impact on how the work in the centres is perceived. There is a lack of understanding or appreciation of the professional identity the facilitators bring to the institution, and this has an impact on teachers’ self-perceptions and motivation.
Discussion
The results of this study show a complex interaction between teachers’ beliefs, identity and motivation in implementing autonomy in the context of a self-access. Previous research on classroom teaching has found similar interactions. For example Borg’s framework of teacher cognition (1997, cited in Borg, 2003c: 82) gives prominence to contextual factors and classroom practice, including the learners’ role therein.
In terms of teachers’ beliefs about autonomy, the study found a great deal of overlap between the respondents. Autonomy is widely seen as involving (the development of) equality, and respect between teachers and learners. Other key concepts include empowerment, and related to this, the provision of guidance and the facilitation of learning (as distinct from teaching). The development of autonomy is also seen as a key aspect of successful teaching and a requisite for learner success. In practice, however, these ideas were not shared by many of the students. Teachers felt students did not recognise the importance of developing autonomy and lacked the necessary independent learning skills. It was generally felt that it was not so much cultural differences but rather a lack of previous education that underlies this phenomenon. Students are simply not used to the idea of taking responsibility for their learning.
The interesting, and in our view crucial, question this raises, is how educators will respond to this challenge. Some facilitators adapt by making the self-access environment more like the classroom. An example of this is the implementation of tests to accommodate students’ desire for a formalisation of their self-access learning. The majority of the facilitators, however, especially report an enormous need for learner training. Barcelos (2008) argues that a large part of the reluctance students may have towards the idea of autonomy, may result from misunderstanding and miscommunication. She calls for transparency and argues that ‘teachers need to be more explicit to students about the roles they want to play, clearly explaining their purposes and rationale behind each activity […]’ (p.194).
This leads to the question whether as educators we sometimes think we ‘know better’ and force our ideas of what constitutes good teaching and good learning onto our students, and whether there is an alternative. Barcelos (2008c: 194) suggests occasional adaptation to students’ beliefs. In this view, education, and in particular autonomy education, is a process of negotiation.
The main lesson from the results of this study is that these types of challenges are commonplace. Facilitators can expect to have to answer such questions for themselves in their own teaching context. This requires adequate personal/mental and professional preparation. In reality, however, many teachers lack this preparation. In terms of Borg’s framework, teachers’ extensive experience of classrooms which defines early cognitions and shapes teachers’ perceptions’ is, as the quote shows, based predominantly on classroom teaching. Most facilitators do not have alternative models to guide them, and explicit training in self-access learning is not generally available.
The other point to note is that dealing with different beliefs and possible conflicts that result from this (think of a student refusing to do self-study as an alternative to classroom learning) is likely to challenge teachers’ identity as someone who has the students’ well-being at heart. That in itself may be a fairly healthy process, but not having the requisite preparation for that process, may negatively impact teachers’ motivation, as, like we have shown, it can indeed do. In the words of this SAC manager commenting on her staff:
In some cases teachers feel lost. The other day a teacher commented that she felt frustrated as she didn’t know if her work at the centre had any impact or not, or what kind of impact. What happens is that there’s a lack of feedback.
Without easily accessible professional development opportunities and academic support, individual facilitators may not have enough opportunities to reflect on, and further develop, their personal belief systems. If the development of learner autonomy depends on the presence of teacher autonomy (Smith & Erdoğan, 2008), then surely, the development of that autonomy has to be a priority.
Further challenges to implementing autonomy come from Borg’s ‘contextual factors’, in the case of self-access mainly from institutional constraints. Most of the respondents in the study reported similar problems with a lack of professional recognition. In many cases this was thought to be a result of a lack of understanding on the part of colleagues of what autonomy is and what the role of a facilitator entails. This often resulted in a lack of integration of self-access learning into the wider (language) curriculum, an issue that has been widely reported in previous literature (e.g. Cotterall & Reinders, 2000; Gardner & Miller, 1999). This highlights the importance of awareness-raising; an area where SACs have important work to do. Unfortunately the lack of understanding of the work facilitators do, in practice often translates into decreased status and pay. The lack of recognition for self-access also means that fewer (financial) resources are available for facilities, and, importantly, staff academic development. This is reflected in the common labelling of SACs as a service department and of facilitators as ‘administrators’. This has a clear effect on facilitators’ sense of identity and motivation who see themselves not simply as providing and administrative service, but as people who work at the heart of the teaching-learning interface and who build deep and powerful connections with their students.
Finally, teachers’ sense of their personal development as professionals is informed by ‘classroom practice’ (as in Borg’s framework) and experiences. But in self-access learning, the ‘normal’ means of making sense of these experiences, and of measuring success (through course completion, feedback from students, tests results, etc) are almost absent. For many teachers this means that working in self-access is often a form of isolation; both institutionally, as well as professionally.
Conclusion
This study has shown that facilitating self-access learning comes with both rewards and challenges. One of the rewards is the knowledge that one is actively acting on one’s beliefs, by implementing autonomy in a flexible learning environment. This seems to be the motivation for most of the teachers in our study:
I would say that although human resources does not value our work so much, the teachers in the centre are all people who believe in learner autonomy and have always believed in it since the day the centre was opened. (Spain)
The many challenges, however, negatively impact on facilitators’ identities and motivation. One of the implications of this study is that there needs to be far more accessible and far more specific preparation for teachers intending to work as facilitators, and far more ongoing support. Without such professional preparation, both students and facilitators are likely to be negatively affected. The study has also shown the value of teachers’ voices as an important source of information in investigating the reality of implementing autonomy.
References
de los Angeles Clemente, M. (2001) Teachers’ attitudes within a self-directed language learning scheme. System 29, 45-67.
Aoki, N. (2008) Teacher stories to improve theories of learner/teacher autonomy. Independence 43, 15-17. Online document: http://learnerautonomy.org/aoki2008.pdf
Barcelos, A.M.F. (2008) Teachers’ and students’ beliefs within a deweyean framework: Conflict and influence. In P. Kalaja and S.M.F. Barcelos (eds) Beliefs about SLA: New Research Approaches (pp.171-199). Deventer : Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bardin, L. (2003) L’analyse de Contenu des Documents et des Communications. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Breen, M. P. (2001) Learner Contributions to Language Learning. New Directions in Research. Applied Linguistics and Language Study. Harlow: Longman.
Borg, S. (2003) Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe and do. Language Teaching 36, 81-109.
Cotterall, S. and H. Reinders (2000) Learner’s perceptions and practice in self access
language learning. TESOLANZ 8, 23-38.
Freeman, D. (2002) The hidden side of the work: Teacher knowledge and learning to teach. A perspective from north American educational research on teacher education in English language teaching. Language Teaching 35, 1-13.
Freeman, D., and Richards, J. (1996). Teacher Learning in Language Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gardner, D. and Miller, L. (1999) Establishing Self-Access. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001) Towards a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly 35 (4), 537-560.
L’Ecuyer, R. (1990) Methodologie de L’analyse Developpementale de Contenu. Québec: Presses de l’Université.
Lázaro, N. (2009) Tendencias Pedagógicas en Centros de Autoaprendizaje de Alemania, Suiza, Hong Kong y España. Madrid: UNED.
Lea, M.R. and Nicoll, K. (2002) (eds) Distributed Learning: Social and Cultural Approaches to Practise. London: Routledge.
Moore, N. and Reinders, H. (2003) Teaching for self-study. Modern English Teacher 12(2), 48-51.
Reinders, H. and Balcikanli, C. (2010) Learning to foster autonomy: the role of teacher education materials. (Submitted).
Reinders, H., Sakui, K., and Akakura, M. (2010) Roles in language advising and fostering autonomy: a journal study. Hasald / HKUST. (forthcoming).
Richards, J. and Lockhart, C. (1994). Reflective Teaching in Second Language
Classrooms. Cambridge University Press.
Smith, R. and Erdoğan, S. (2008) Teacher-learner autonomy: Programme goals and student-teacher constructs. In T. E. Lamb and H. Reinders (eds) Learner and Teacher Autonomy: Concepts, Realities and Responses (pp. 83-102). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Thompson, A. A. J. and Strickland III, A. J. (2001) Strategic Management. Concepts and Cases. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ushioda, E. (2010). Motivating learners to speak as themselves. In T. Lamb, M. Garold and A. Gao (eds) Identity, Motivation, and Autonomy: Exploring the Links (pp.XX). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Van Lier, L. (2007) Action-based teaching, autonomy and identity. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 1 (1), 46-65.
Vieira, F. (2007) Teacher Autonomy: Why should we care? Independence 41, 20-29. Online document: http://www.learnerautonomy.org/Vieira2007.pdf
Winch, C. (2007) Education Autonomy and Critical Thinking. London: Routledge.
Tags: autonomy, beliefs, identity, motivation, perceptions, teacher autonomy
Posted in All | No Comments »
Monday, August 1st, 2011
Developing learner autonomy in foreign language learning: Getting learners actively involved
9th September 2011
Ca’ Foscari University of Venice (Italy), Department of Linguistics and Comparative Cultural Studies
Place: Auditorium Santa Margherita, Campo Santa Margherita.
“Few teachers will disagree with the importance of helping language learners to become more autonomous as learners” (A. Wenden 1991).
But what is learner autonomy? How can we develop it in the linguistic field? How can we help learners to be responsible for their learning, to take decisions, to develop language and self-awareness day by day? The conference will give some answers.
This one-day event is organized by the Department of Linguistics and Comparative Cultural Studies of Ca’ Foscari University of Venice (Italy) in cooperation with LASIG (Learner Autonomy Special Interest Group) within Iatefl (International Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language). The aim of the event is to explore the different aspects connected to learner autonomy when approaching foreign language learning, reflecting on future development in research on learner autonomy and multilingualism, and trying to expose practical ideas to be used in class. Prestigious experts and scholars of learner autonomy and foreign language education will present suggestions and proposals with the intent of promoting learner autonomy research and practice, by creating an opportunity to share experiences and pedagogical implications to be adapted to learners of different age and competence.
For further details on the conference venue see the conference official websites:
http://venus.unive.it/ladils/
http://venice2011.wordpress.com/
Tags: autonomy, conferences, learner autonomy
Posted in All | No Comments »
|
| Menu |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Recommended reading | |
| Recent finds
|
| | What I am reading now | |
|
|
|
