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.