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.
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.
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.
I’m looking forward to a mini conference/series of workshops in Thailand, organised by KMUTT, King Mongkut’s University of Technology in Thonburi (Bangkok). Unlike most such events, this one is very specific, and probably of more interest to people who already have experience with self-acces: Consultation, Evaluation and Implementation. I’ll be doing a half-day workshop on self-access evaluation, which I am quite excited about. Peter Voller from Hong Kong will talk about consultation and Sonthida Keyuravong and Chada Kongchan will cover implementation. If you are in the neighbourhood, do consider joining us. From past experiences I know KMUTT will do a great job with the organisation, and they are one of the leading self-access centres in the country.
The book that Noemi Lazaro and I wrote on ‘Language Learning and Teaching in the Self-Access Centre. A Guide for Teachers’ is now available as a Kindle download for 7 pounds. You can download the book here, or read about it here.
Below you can find the table of contents:
Contents
Introduction
1 The rationale for SACs
How ca SACs benefit language learning and teaching?
2 Linking classroom and SAC
How can the classroom and the SAC be successfully linked?
3 The challenges of SACs
What are some of the challenges faced by SACs?
4 Cultural aspects of ILL
Is Independent Language Learning suitable for all cultural contexts?
5 Activities in the SAC
What types of activities are the most common in SACs?
6 Materials for the SAC
What kind of materials are used in the SAC?
7 Online resources
What kind of online resources are available for independent learning?
9 Advising and learner training
What other types of support are offered in SACs?
10 Assessing learning
What types of assessment can be conducted in the SAC?
11 Managing a SAC
What are the key elements for managing a SAC?
12 Schools without a SAC
How can elements of a SAC be introduced in a classroom?
5th International Independent Learning Association Conference 2012
When: Thursday 30 August – Sunday 2 September 2012
Where: Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
The Organising Committee is pleased to invite you to support and participate in the 5th Independent Learning Association Conference (ILAC 2012), hosted by Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand.
ILAC is an international conference for passionate teachers, learners, and researchers in the field of independent learning and the theme for 2012 is “Autonomy in a Networked World, Te Tū Motuhake i te Ao Kōtuitui”. The conference sub-themes are intended to capture dimensions of the relationship between: the personal, social and cultural identity of the learner, the self and the ‘other’ as agents of learning, the learning environment, and the role of assessment for the autonomous learner.
The conference website www.ila.net.nz has just been launched, providing full details about the conference.
Call for Papers Now Open
The Conference Committee welcome proposals for workshops, papers, colloquia, language fair, swap shop and poster sessions.
Abstracts should address at least one of the key themes of the conference:
1. Framing learner autonomy in today’s world – where we are now and where we are going…
2. Autonomy and identity
3. Autonomy and agency (motivation and strategies)
4. Autonomy and learning environment (classroom, distance, technology-supported, language learning centres, etc.)
5. Autonomy and assessment
For full details and to begin the submission process, visit the conference website.
The deadline for submissions is 4 November 2011.
Key dates
Call for Papers opens March 2011
Sponsorship opens March 2011
Call for Papers closes 4 November 2011
Early Bird Registration opens February 2012
Early Bird Registration closes July 2012
Conference Convenors
Averil Coxhead
Senior Lecturer
School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies
Victoria University of Wellington
Edith Paillat
Language Technology Specialist
Language Learning Centre
Victoria University of Wellington
The article below was recently published in CALL-EJ. I hope you enjoy reading it.
* CALL-EJ Online
* Vol. 11, No. 2, February 2010
Encouraging Autonomy with an Online Language Support System
* Pornapit Darasawang
* iporwang@kmutt.ac.th
* King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, Thailand
* Hayo Reinders
* http://www.innovationinteaching.org
* Middlesex University, United Kingdom
In this article we describe the results of a small study into the implementation of a new institutional language support system in an academic English class at a Thai University. The system was designed to encourage out-of-class learning and to develop autonomous learning skills. As a pilot project, access to the program was offered to one group of students as part of their regular classroom course. We report the amount and type of student usage of the program and in particular the extent to which learners made use of those features of the program designed to encourage self-directed learning. It was found that fewer students used the program than had been expected and that those students who did use it, used it in limited ways. In this article we describe these usage patterns and identify some possible reasons for them. The results may help others in implementing online language support.
Keywords: learner autonomy; online language support system; self-directed learning; CALL; blended learning
Background and rationale
The University where this study took place (King Mongkut’s University of Technology in Bangkok) had identified a number of problems relating to the language proficiency of its students and graduates. In particular, the results of a recent survey study done at the University (Report on the Follow-up of the University Graduates, 2004) had shown that employers thought graduates from the University were not sufficiently proficient in English. This prompted the University to invest in improving the quality of its language teaching and also in exploring ways to prepare students for their language use and ongoing learning in the workplace. One of the measures taken was the establishment of an online language support system that could be used by students and teachers to access language learning materials and support from anywhere at any time. One of the major goals of the system was to encourage students to continue their language learning outside the classroom, and for the program to help them to develop their self-directed learning skills. This program, called ‘My English’, encourages and supports students in setting learning objectives, choosing appropriate materials to achieve their objectives, encourages reflection on their learning and evaluation of their performance. The program also provides a channel for the learners to seek help when they are learning by themselves. This study attempted firstly to identify whether the provision of this type of support was successful in encouraging students to learn by themselves, and secondly to report students’ perceptions of the program.
Literature review
As mentioned above, one of the main reasons for developing the online support system was a perceived need for the University to do more to help students develop their self-directed learning skills. The reasons for this were both practical and pedagogical. The numbers of students requiring language support at the University are very large, and the provision of self-study opportunities was hoped to alleviate some of the pressure on the language courses and their teachers. The pedagogical rationale was to better equip students to manage their learning, both with and without the help of a teacher, and to prepare them for life after graduation through the development of lifelong learning skills and learner autonomy (Dam, 1995; Littlewood, 1996; Breen & Mann, 1997).
One way to develop learner autonomy is to train students how to use cognitive strategies and metacognitive strategies so that they can manage their learning without the help of a teacher. Learner training can be done in class by providing explicit training to the learners (Wenden, 1991). Learner training can also be done by providing an environment and resources for self-study so that learners can develop experience in working alone while being guided in their self-study. A common environment is the self-access centre where the learners have control over the decisions relating to their learning process, such as the selection of resources, monitoring of progress and (self-) evaluation. Self-access centres are now widely regarded as the most common way in which institutions implement the development of learner autonomy (Benson & Voller, 1997).
Many different types of self-access centres exist and many increasingly use technology to support the development of learner autonomy (Schwienhorst 2008; Ulitsky 2000; Vanijdee, 2003). There are several reasons for this. Firstly, CALL materials can be offered to learners independent of time and place and in this they way allow learners to learn the language outside the classroom and without constant teacher direction. CALL materials also facilitate immediate feedback, thus further reducing reliance on the teacher. Because the computer can record and monitor learners’ behaviour and progress, it can dynamically alter input, or make suggestions to the learners, based on their performance. The records can be made accessible to the student to encourage reflection on the learning process and help students make decisions about their learning progress and priorities for further study. The increased control that technology can give students can help students to feel more responsible for their own learning, and can thus increase self-motivation (Ushioda, 1996). In other words, CALL has the potential to empower learners, i.e. to give them more control of their learning, and in doing so, to help the development of metacognitive skills and learner autonomy (Shetzer & Warschauer, 2000).
Some recent reports describe CALL programs used for the development of learner autonomy. Toogood & Pemberton (2002) introduce the Virtual English Language Adviser software that was designed to help students develop a personalised learning plan and suggest appropriate materials and strategies. Gick (2002) describes a program of blended learning where traditional and online learning are combined for a grammar course with the help of CALL, within a self-access centre. In this program students make a personal working plan for grammar and use CALL materials produced in-house which they then discuss with a counsellor. Esteve, Arumi & Canada (2004) describe the promotion of autonomy through CALL, also in a blended-learning course. This course combines online materials and activities with classes, where a study plan is developed, monitored and assessed. Learner training is offered both in class and online. Reinders (2006), for example, describes an Electronic Learning Environment that functions as a shell. The shell provides access to language content, and includes mechanisms to support self-directed learning, such as monitoring of student progress and intervention in the form of advice when students’ learning goals and their learning behaviour (e.g. their materials selection) do not match. Studies into the effects of these tools and mechanisms on student learning (Reinders 2006, 2007) made a number of interesting findings. In general, both questionnaires and interviews showed that students were extremely satisfied with the program. Usage records showed that many students had accessed the resources and had done so frequently and over periods of many months. Many students reported using more resources and more often than they normally did or would have without the program; in this sense the program’s access features were a clear advantage. Staff too were satisfied in that they could look up students’ progress and did not have to spend much time on administration; an advantage of the automatic storage and retrieval of learners’ work. However, SQL queries (queries of information stored in the records of a SQL database) of 1,200 student database records collected over a period of one year gave a somewhat less positive picture. Despite numerous automated suggestions, many students did not complete their initial needs analysis and very few updated their learning plans as a result. Similarly, the suggestions made by the computer were seldom followed by students; when students had set their minds on learning with particular materials or in a particular way, it was clearly difficult to encourage them to change.
The use of online materials and the use of blended learning as a complement to existing classes requires certain skills on the part of the teacher (Reinders 2009) and also factors like departmental support, student perceptions of and experience with self-directed learning, and a range of other factors are likely to have an effect on the success or otherwise of the implementation of this type of support. The study described here aimed to identify what these factors were in the implementation of an online language support system.
We now turn to a brief description of My English, the program used in this study. For a more complete description, we refer the reader to
My English
My English is an online language support system. The program can be accessed online from both within and outside the university. It has a student, a teacher, and an administrator interface. The screenshot below shows the homepage of the student interface which has nine different learning and support modules. The modules can be accessed randomly but are numbered from top-left to bottom-right in an order corresponding to the different stages in the self-directed learning process. The first module is Your learning plan, where the students can write down their personal goals, the difficulties they have in meeting those goals and the ideas they have to remedy them. They can do a self-assessment by completing the online needs analysis. To help them get started, the program uses the results from the needs analysis to provide a list of priority skills and a list of recommended resources suitable for their level. The Find resources module acts as an online catalogue for language learning materials which includes online and print, commercial and in-house produced materials. ‘Recommended resources’ are materials selected by teachers as being the best available for the relevant skills. Your learning record keeps a record of students’ work, such as the materials they have used and the language skills these are intended for. Teachers can provide comments and feedback on the students’ work. The Test yourself module provides eight online tests of general and academic English proficiency. It was included in part because Thai students expect to be tested and like to get regular feedback on their progress. The English for fun module gives information about activities and materials that are more entertainment-oriented. These could include movie screenings or computer games in English, for example. Your progress gives an overview of the students’ learning progress, the number of tests they have completed, the number of times they have used the program and for how long how. It is intended to give students a quick overview of their progress until that point. Getting help from a teacher allows the students to contact the teacher (either their language teacher, if they have one, or the staff at the self-access centre) by posting messages via chat, or, if the teacher is not available, via email. Students can also book an (online or face-to-face) advisory question using this module. The Activities module is a place where the SALC (the Self-Access Learning Center, the unit in charge of My English) can advertise online and face-to-face activities and news. The last module is Live chat which provides chatrooms for communication among the students and for use by teachers, for example to organise a discussion group. Next we will describe the context in which My English was used.
Figure 1: My English homepage
Context of the study
This study investigated the use of My English (described above) and was conducted in the context of an Academic English course (with a primary focus on writing) for postgraduate students from a range of faculties, taught by one of the authors. The class was made up of 31 adult learners ranging in age from 23 to 30 years. They met the teacher 3 hours a week for 15 weeks. They were generally motivated to learn as seen from their attendance rate and their involvement while learning. During the course, the teacher attempted to encourage students to take responsibility for their own learning and make decisions for themselves. They were taught how to apply different steps to writing reports and at the end of the semester had to submit a complete report in groups of three to four people. Students were able to choose a topic for themselves and were free to choose how to present on it. They were encouraged to plan their own learning and to self-correct their drafts.
My English had been largely completed just prior to the start of the course (the modules ‘activities’ and ‘live chat’ described above were not fully functional yet) and was implemented for the first time with this group.
Research questions and methodology
The study attempted to answer the following research questions:
1. 1) Do students use the online language support of My English, and if so, how often and for how long?
2. 2) What aspects of their self-directed learning do they use it for?
3. 3) What do students think of My English?
To answer these questions queries were written for the database of My English, which records all information pertaining to students’ online activities. This information includes times of access, materials accessed, requests for help, and all other activities the students engage in. By using this source of data we were able to piece together a comprehensive picture of students’ usage of the online language support, and answer research questions 1 and 2.
To answer research question 3, we administered a short questionnaire (see appendix A) to the students after the course finished. Nineteen out of 31 students in the class, or 61%, answered the questionnaire. In addition to this, informal feedback about the program was obtained by the researcher-teacher during class time.
Procedures
All students in the class were introduced to My English in the first week of the course. They were shown the program and given an explanation of its purpose and a demonstration of how to use it. Students then individually explored the program in class and completed its online needs analysis. Subsequent usage of the program was voluntary and in no way affected the students’ course grades.
Students who decided to continue using the program received weekly feedback from the teacher, who used the system to respond to student queries online, and to monitor their progress. Students were not given any specific instructions on what to work on (as the program was intended to support self-directed learning, and each learner could choose to practise the skills most relevant to them), or how to use the program. Students therefore had complete control over their learning with My English.
Results
Out of 31 students in the class, a total of 16, or 52%, continued to use the program after the introductory session. The table below shows the number of times these 16 students used My English and the total time they spent using it, over the 14 week period of the course (13 weeks if we exclude the first week introduction; the time taken for the introduction is not included in the figures below).
Table 1: Student usage of My English
St Total time in minutes Nr of times
1 217 6
2 74 2
3 42 4
4 500 14
5 103 11
6 214 9
7 321 9
8 268 18
9 349 13
10 81 2
11 82 12
12 359 10
13 348 16
14 1289 38
15 858 12
16 1348 18
Average 403 12
The average number of times students used the program was 12 so approximately once per week, although there is a large variation with some students only accessing the program twice and others up to 38 times. The average amount of time spent using the program was six and a half hours, but again with a large variation, from a low of 42 minutes to a high of 1289 (over 21 hours).
Table 2 shows which parts (modules) of My English students used. As mentioned above, the ‘activities’ and ‘live chat’ modules were not fully functional at the time of this project and were therefore excluded from the results below.
The data above show that, as would be expected, the catalogue and the materials it contains are easily the most popular of the modules. The average amount of time students spent searching for or interacting with materials is nearly four hours on average. Perhaps more surprisingly, only half of the students record their progress. The language tests seemed to be more popular with students spending well over an hour on average and some students spending up to four and a half hours. Interestingly, students do not make much use of the help function of the program that allows them to contact their teacher.
In order to answer the third research question, a short questionnaire (see appendix A) was distributed to all students in the course (i.e. both those who did not make use of My English beyond the initial introduction and those who did), to investigate their perceptions of My English. Out of 31 students, 19 responded. Of these 14 were users of My English, and 5 were not.
The latter were asked why they had chosen not to use the program. Two students responded that they did not have enough time, and three said they did not know enough about it.
Students who used My English were then asked to list the purposes for which they used the program:
* - practise English (e.g. listening, reading, grammar) (11)
* - test their English knowledge (3)
* - review the lessons (2)
* - practise English in order not to have to attend the class (2)
* - compensate for a missed class (1)
* - use English in everyday life (1)
* - practise English from websites (1)
Next, all students were asked to tick all the activities they engaged in to practise their English outside the context of the course. This was intended to identify to what extent students study independently, and to determine if there was a difference between those who used My English and those who did not.
Table 2: Out-of-class activities
Activity Students using
My English
( N = 14) Students not using
My English
( N = 5 )
Reading news/information in the Internet. 85.71% 40.00%
Watch English movies with Thai subtitles and read along the subtitles. 64.29% 60.00%
Review grammar from grammar books 64.29% 40.00%
Listen to English songs and try to understand their lyrics. 50.00% 60.00%
Watch English news (e.g. Channel 11 news). 42.86% 40.00%
Sing English songs and try to imitate the sound/accent. 35.71% 40.00%
Email/ write letters/ chat with friends in the other countries. 35.71% 0.00%
Read English novels. 28.57% 0.00%
Watch English movies and try to guess from the story. 28.57% 60.00%
Read English newspapers. 28.57% 80.00%
Talk to foreigners. 21.43% 0.00%
Take English courses e.g. speaking in the workplace 21.43% 40.00%
Read English articles which are translated into Thai and compare the two versions. 14.29% 20.00%
Practise from English language teaching websites 7.14% 20.00%
Other, please specify 100% 60.00%
To answer research question 3, participants were asked what they liked about the program. They mentioned the following:
* - includes a wide range of different exercises (4)
* - allows students to practise English on their own (3)
* - allows further study (5)
* - it can be accessed all the time (2)
* - it helps to communicate with the teacher (1)
* - can be used to practise English during free time (1)
* - it can record learning progress (2)
* - it contains interesting websites (1)
The final question asked students for suggestions on how to improve My English. Those who used the program responded as follows:
* - the content should be more up-to-date and suitable for teenagers
* - there should be a greater variety of content
* - the program should contain new movies and songs
* - there should be somebody available so that the user can practise speaking with him/her
* - the tests should have more levels
* - the program should provide some kind of motivation after use
* - the tests should provide answer keys
* - more tests such as TOEIC or TOEFL should be added
* - answer keys to writing exercises should be provided
Suggestions from those who did not use the program were as follows:
* - students should be forced to use the program (2)
* - instructions on how to use the program should be provided (1)
Discussion
The first thing to point out is the relatively small number of students who used the program. Only just over half of all students enrolled in the class decided to make use of My English, even though it was freely accessible, encouraged by the teacher, and, one would hope, directly relevant to their course (there was no evidence in the questionnaire data to suggest otherwise). Another point is that of the 16 students who did elect to use the program, five only made use of it for a relatively short amount of time. In other words, only 11 out of 31 students used the program for a meaningful length of time during the course. It is important to identify why this is so. Responses to the questionnaire as well as informal feedback from students in class showed that students felt they did not know enough about the program, with some recommending that its use be made compulsory. This shows that the introductory session, even though it lasted the better part of an entire class and had students using (not just watching the teacher demonstrate) the program, simply was not sufficient to encourage students to continue to use it. Perhaps more guidance in subsequent lessons, or recommended activities and structured activities would have been beneficial.
Another clue may come from the type of use the students made of the program. As shown in table 2, students, understandably, spent most of their time using the online materials. They also spent considerable time completing the language tests. The education system in Thailand is very test-driven, and many students like to take regular tests to measure their progress. Much less time was spent by the students on recording their learning. In fact, only eight out of the 16 students made an attempt to record their learning activities. Perhaps to the reader this may not sound very surprising, however when one takes into account the introductory session, and the ongoing focus during the course on the development of learner autonomy, as well as the design features of the program that encouraged these postgraduate students to keep track of, and reflect on, their learning, the amount of time students spent on this part of the program could be considered small. Part of the reason for this, is that students do not have a great deal of experience in maintaining a record of their own learning. Some of the comments that they recorded were very superficial. For example, when students completed their learning plan and their intentions for future study they would write down ‘practice’, or when recording their language difficulties, they would write down ‘English’.
Apart from a lack of experience, another reason may be that students do not like to formalise their out-of-class learning. Feedback from some of the students in class showed that they did not necessarily mind practising their English at home, but that recording or planning their learning would make the activity too much like school work. Perhaps it is a bit surprising then, that they still spent a considerable time completing the online language tests.
To some extent, this is also reflected in the results showing the activities students engaged in outside the classroom. Predictably, activities such as watching movies and listening to music score high. It is interesting that some of the more taxing activities, such as e-mailing and writing in English and talking to foreigners, were done more by the students who chose to use My English, than by the students who did not. Perhaps there is a difference in terms of the motivation of these two groups, which would be worth exploring in a future study.
When asked to give their feedback on the program, students asked for more tests and an opportunity to get speaking practice. Interestingly, two of the students who had not used My English during the semester, suggested that the program should be made compulsory.
A surprising result was the small amount of contact the students made through the program with the teacher. It had been thought that the students would take advantage of the opportunity to communicate with their teacher and get regular feedback on their learning. However, very little use was made of this feature. It could be, that the students were able to ask their questions during the class time, however, especially seeing as the class only met once per week, clearly they did not make use of the program to extend their learning opportunities outside the classroom in this way.
What the results above have shown, is that the use of this type of program depends on a number of factors. One of these is the perceptions of the students, not only of the program itself, but also the role of this type of program in their own learning. Some students indicated that they did not wish to make their learning outside the classroom like their learning inside it. Also the results from the questionnaire showed that students predominantly engage in ‘lighter’ activities outside the school, such as watching movies and listening to music. These are, of course, worthwhile activities, and certainly should be encouraged. The question is to what extent these types of activities offer genuine learning opportunities, and perhaps more pressingly, how teachers and institutions, as well as their support mechanisms such as online programs like My English, can ensure that such activities move beyond entertainment and towards language learning. It is clear that a significant amount of preparation and training may be necessary for the students not to see a clear division between their learning inside and outside the institution. At this point, with this particular group of learners, it seems as if most still see language learning as something that predominantly takes place inside the classroom, not as something that is an integrated part of their own lives.
Conclusion
It has to be pointed out that there are several limitations to this study. First of all, the total number of users was rather small. Second, the number of respondents to the questionnaire was also rather small especially with only five of the students responding who had not used My English during the semester. A second limitation is that the study did not aim to record what other activities students engaged in outside the classroom. Although the questionnaire asked students to list these, it is possible that they may have engaged in other work besides My English and the activities mentioned in the questionnaire. This may have been the reason why not all of them chose to use My English, and it is also possible that some of them displayed a greater degree of self-direction in other ways. However, this seems unlikely based on the teacher’s experience with this group and previous groups. Nonetheless, it is a possibility, and future studies should probably aim to control for this variable.
Conacher and Kelly-Holmes (2007) identify flexibility, diversity, accessibility and equality as the key features of ‘new learning environments’. My English makes available learning opportunities to all students, and in this way it improves accessibility. It also allows the teacher to expand classroom learning to the students’ lives, and enables more flexible ways of teaching and learning. Because of its focus on individual learning, the program also caters to diversity, and with its potential to encourage self-directed learning, it can play a role in increasing students’ ability for lifelong learning, and thus, equality. What the program does not do, however, is make all of this sufficiently clear to the students. Students may need more encouragement and perhaps initially even be required to use the program. In addition, they would benefit from more extensive training, not only in the technical but also in the pedagogical aspects of using the program for self-directed learning. Even though the program was intended to be used as a self-directed learning opportunity, the students would have benefited from more explicit instructions and perhaps initially a greater integration of the program into the classroom. In the future perhaps My English can be built into the curriculum in the first few weeks of the course, with required and regular contributions from the students and feedback from the teacher, after which the use of the program could be made voluntary. The results from this small study are somewhat similar to those obtained in previous studies by Reinders (2006, 2007), who found that students who accessed an online self access system did not make use of its features that encouraged the development of learner autonomy. In that study, the author argued for more training, and for making the aims and rationale of the program more explicit to the students. One major difference, however, between that study and the program it described, and this study, is that My English is intended for use as an extension to the classroom, and as such, more integrated than programs such as that developed by Reinders, Toogood & Pemberton, and others described above, which are used by students independently.
What all these studies have in common is that they seem to point to a need for students to recognise the importance of bridging the classroom with their own lives. By connecting the formal learning that takes place in the classroom, with the informal learning that can take place anywhere, students may come to see the University learning experience as not confined to the campus, but rather as an ongoing pursuit that extends beyond the here and now at the university and into the future (Allford & Pachler, 2007). This may sound like a lofty goal, but it is only until students are ready to assume responsibility for their own learning that they will be able to benefit from this type of program. It is the institution’s, and the teacher’s role to provide this rationale to the students, and to ensure that they are ready to assume it. In the case of My English, future courses will need to dedicate more time to emphasizing the ways in which the program may benefit students’ learning. In a way, then, developing My English was perhaps the easy part. Getting the teachers and the learners to take advantage of it may prove an exciting challenge for the years to come.
References
* Allford, D., & Pachler, N. (2007). Language, autonomy and the new learning environments (1st ed.). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Publishing.
* Benson, P. & Voller, P. (Eds.). (1997). Autonomy and independence in language learning. London: Longman.
* Breen, M. & Mann, S. (1997). Shooting arrows at the sun: Perspectives on pedagogy for autonomy. In P. Benson and P.Voller (Eds.), Autonomy and independence in language learning (pp.132-149). London: Longman.
* Conacher, J. & Kelly-Holmes, H. (2007). New learning environments for language learning: Moving beyond the classroom? Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Publishing.
* Dam, L. (1995). Learner autonomy 3: From theory to classroom practice. Dublin: Authentik.
* Esteve, O., Arumi, M. & Canada, M. D. (2004). Hacia la autonomia del aprendiz en la ensenanza de lenguas extranjeras en el ambito universitario: el enfoque por tareas como puente de union entre el aprendizaje en el aula y el trabajo en autoaprendizaje. BELLS, 12.
* Gick, C. (2002). Autonomes Grammatiktraining in der Mediathek. Babylonia, 2, 55-58.
* Littlewood, W. (1996). gAutonomyh: An autonomy and a framework. System, 24(4), 427-435.
* King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi. (2004). Report on the Follow-up of the University Graduates. Bangkok: Planning Division, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi.
* Reinders, H. (2006). Supporting self-directed learning through an electronic learning environment. In T. Lamb & H. Reinders (Eds.), Supporting independent learning: issues and interventions (219-238). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Publishing.
* Reinders, H. (2007). Big brother is helping you: Supporting self-access language learning with a student monitoring system. System, 35(1), 93-111.
* Reinders, H. (2009). Technology and second language teacher education. In: A. Burns and J. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to language teacher education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
* Schwienhorst, K. (2008). Learner autonomy and virtual environments in CALL. London: Routledge.
* Shetzer, H. & Warschauer, M. (2000). An electronic literacy approach to network-based language teaching. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp.171-185). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
* Toogood, S. & Pemberton, R. (2002). Integrating self-directed learning into curriculum: A case study. In P. Benson & S. Toogood (Eds.), Challenges to research and practice (pp.86-110). Dublin: Authentik.
* Ushioda, E. (1996). Learner autonomy 5: The role of motivation. Dublin: Authentik.
* Ulitsky, H. (2000). Language learner strategies with technology. Educational Computing Research, 22, 285-322.
* Vanijdee, A. (2003). Thai distance English learners and learner autonomy. Open Learning,, 18(1), 75-84.
* Wenden, A. (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy. New York: Prentice Hall.
Appendix A - Questionnaire
(This questionnaire was administered in Thai but has been translated into English for this article).
When you were taking LNG 600, I introduced My English, the online language support
program. This questionnaire asks your opinion about the program. The first part of the questionnaire is for those who used the program. If you did not use the program, please go to the second part of the questionnaire.
PART I Students who used My English
1.What do you normally do when you want to practise English in addition to studying in class (you can choose more than one answer).
_______ watch English news (e.g. Channel 11 news).
_______ watch English movies and try to guess from the story.
_______ watch English movies with Thai subtitles and read along the subtitles.
_______ listen to English songs and try to understand the lyrics.
_______ sing English songs and try to imitate the sound/accent.
_______ read English newspapers.
_______ read news/information in the Internet.
_______ read English articles which are translated into Thai and compare the two versions.
_______ read English novels.
_______ talk to foreigners.
_______ email/write letters/chat with friends in the other countries.
_______ review grammar from grammar books.
_______ practise from English language teaching websites.
_______ take English courses, e.g. speaking in the workplace.
_______ other, please specify………………………………………………………….
2. When you used My English, how did you choose what materials to work with?
_______ 1. I first chose from the language skills which I wanted to practise (e.g. listening, reading, writing). Then I chose from the suggestion provided by the program, e.g. Top five materials or Recommended materials.
_______ 2. I chose by typing ‘key word’ based on the skill in order to find the materials I wanted to work with.
_______ 3. I did not think of any language skill but I chose from the Top five materials.
Other, please specify……………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………
3.For what purposes did you use My English?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
4. When using My English, did you use the learning record?
_______ yes ________ no because………………………………………….
5. Do you think there is enough content in My English?
_______ yes ________ no because………………………………………….
6. Do you think the content in My English is useful for English language practice ?
_______ yes ________ no because………………………………………….
7. Overall, what do you think about My English? Please specify what you like or dislike
about the program. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
8. How could we improve the program?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
PART II Students who did not use My English
1.What was your main purpose for taking LNG 600?
_______1. to pass the English requirements of the university.
_______2. to develop academic English proficiency.
_______3. to be able to write my thesis in English
_______4. other………………………………………………………………………..
2.How often do you practise English outside the University?
________ almost never ________ sometimes ________ often
1.What do you normally do when you want to practise English in addition to studying in class (you can choose more than one answer).
_______ watch English news (e.g. Channel 11 news).
_______ watch English movies and try to guess from the story.
_______ watch English movies with Thai subtitles and read along the subtitles.
_______ listen to English songs and try to understand the lyrics.
_______ sing English songs and try to imitate the sound/accent.
_______ read English newspapers.
_______ read news/information in the Internet.
_______ read English articles which are translated into Thai and compare the two versions.
_______ read English novels.
_______ talk to foreigners.
_______ email/write letters/chat with friends in the other countries.
_______ review grammar from grammar books.
_______ practise from English language teaching websites.
_______ take English courses, e.g. speaking in the workplace.
_______ other, please specify………………………………………………………….
4. Do you think online programs such as My English can help you to learn outside class? How?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
5.Overall, what do you think about My English? Please specify what you like or dislike about the program.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
6.Why did you not use My English?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
7. How could we better motivate students to use My English?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Thank you for your cooperation
1. The number of minutes of average use of the program in table 1 is greater than the addition of the average minutes of use of the different modules in table 2 because table 1 includes general browsing of the program where students read instructions or explore the program without using any of the actual modules.
Copyright (c) 2010, Pornapit Darasawang, Hayo Reinders & CALL-EJ Online. All rights reserved.
I am very excited to announce a new book series for Palgrave Macmillan on ‘New Language Learning and Teaching Environments’, dedicated to recent developments in learner-centred approaches and the impact of technology on learning and teaching inside and outside the language classroom I am inviting submissions for full-length manuscripts and edited books.
New Language Language Learning and Teaching Environments offers a multidisciplinary forum for presenting and investigating the latest developments in language education, taking a pedagogic approach with a clear focus on the learner, and with clear implications for both researchers and language practitioners.
Aims and scope:
• To publish cutting-edge research into current developments and innovation in language learning and teaching practice.
• To publish applied accounts of the ways in which these developments impact on current and future language education.
• To encourage dissemination and cross-fertilisation of policies and practice relating to learner-centred pedagogies for language learning and teaching in new learning environments.
• To disseminate research and best practice in out-of-class and informal language learning.
Work on New Language Environments encompasses research (both theoretical and applied) and development in areas as diverse as (and not limited to):
Virtual learning environments
Learner Autonomy
Self-access centres
Blended learning
Distance learning
Self-directed learning
Content and Language Integrated Learning
Work-based learning
Community initiatives
Self-study
Mobile learning
New Literacies
Situated learning
Language Support
Language Advising and Counselling
You can find out more about the series or learn how to submit a proposal here.
An exciting and much-needed forum has just been established by David Gardner and Marina Chavez. As posted recently on Auto-L (apols for cross-posting, but I realise not everyone who reads this blog is on the Auto-L mailinglist):
This is to let you know about a new forum that has been established as part of a project looking at the validation of self-access/independent learning centres. The purpose of the forum is to initiate a participatory approach to defining a set of standards and an evaluative system that is meaningful to all. Please take this opportunity to participate in the development of a system for validating SACs by joining us at:
http://cad.cele.unam.mx/sac/
Looking forward to discussing with you online.
David Gardner (HKU) and Marina Chavez (UNAM)
Some More Background
In our paper at the ILAC conference in Hong Kong (June 2009) we discussed the benefits of a system for the validation of self-access centres. We proposed a system which evaluates self-access centres with reference to their own goals and contexts but also with reference to an agreed set of standards. Ultimately, the system could become the basis for a process of certification. We suggested such a system would be of benefit to self-access practitioners for purposes of self-development and to provide evidence of performance to host institutions and funding bodies.
In our paper we suggested that the only viable way forward is to develop a set of standards which define aspects of an effective SAC through a global participatory process. The goal of this process is to develop a system which is meaningful for all participants.
We have now established a discussion forum to start the participatory process. We envisage this forum will serve as a place for discussing ideas and also as a place to participate in formulating the standards that we hope will eventually emerge from the process.
At the moment the forum is very young so we need your participation to make it work. If you are interested in developing a system for validating self-access centres please sign up to the forum at:
