an experimental study of a basic english teaching … an experimental study of a basic english...

32

2010 年 6 月中国应用语言学（双月刊） Jun. 2010

第 33 卷第 3 期 Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics (Bimonthly) Vol. 33 No. 3

An Experimental Study of a Basic English Teaching Model

WU ShujingBinZhou University

AbstractBased on the theory of learner autonomy and the characteristics of Basic English teaching in

China, a Basic English teaching model called “Inquiry, Cooperation, Presentation, Reflection

and Innovation” was applied to enhance the Basic English skills of English majors. The results

of the experimental study indicate that the model is effective in promoting learners’ autonomy

and their comprehensive abilities on the condition that the key roles of learners are emphasized

while the teachers’ roles are paid attention to.

Key words: learner autonomy; Basic English teaching; reflection; innovation

1. Introduction

Basic English, also called Comprehensive English, is the main course for the freshmen and sophomore English majors at Chinese universities. According to the English syllable for English majors (2000), the main objectives of the course are to cultivate the students’ overall ability to use language and their autonomy and creative thinking, and to lay a solid foundation for mastering advanced English. However, the traditional Basic English teaching method overemphasizes modeling and learning by rote and neglects the cultivation of the students’ creative thinking, and the conventional teacher-centered approach de-emphasizes the discourse between teacher and students; teachers have absolute authority in the classroom and are not ready to share with the students their responsibilities in the teaching and learning process. Meanwhile, students are not ready to take those responsibilities upon themselves and enjoy greater autonomy (Purdie, Douglas & Hattie, 1996; Robbins, 1996; Tarnopolsky Karajeva, & Zhang, 2001). Higher education

33

WU Shujing

in the 21st century requires highly skilled individuals with autonomous learning abilities and creative thinking. It should establish the educational concept of student-centeredness with teachers as facilitators. In China, few experiments have been conducted on Basic English based on the theory of learner autonomy. This article addresses this problem by studying the drawbacks in the present teaching model and introduces a new teaching model by showing its effects through quantitative and qualitative analysis.

2. Literature Review

Learner autonomy is the desired goal of education. However, there exists controversy with regard to what learner autonomy is.

2.1 Autonomy in language learning The concept of “autonomous learning” stemmed from debates about the development of life-long learning skills and the development of independent thinkers both of which originated in the 1960s. By 1981 Holec (1981, cited from Gardner, 2002) had defined autonomy “the ability to take charge of one’s own learning”. He developed this definition further by talking about autonomy as a conceptual tool. Holec has been a major influence in the debate about autonomy in language learning and his initial definition has been taken as a starting point in much subsequent work in the area. Dickinson (1987: 11), for example, accepts the definition of autonomy as a “situation in which the learner is totally responsible for all of the decisions concerned with his or her learning and implementation of those decisions”. Other definitions of autonomy have situated it within three major schools of thought. Some see it is a personal characteristic, some see it as a political concept and others see it as a definition of educational practices.

To summarize different views of learner autonomy, Tudor (1996: 18) clarifies them into two categories: a certain mode to study or a qualitative involvement of learners in their language study. In the former sense, autonomy refers to various forms of independent or self-directed learning involving limited teacher intervention, generally outside a traditional classroom setting. In the latter, qualitative sense, autonomy relates to notions of awareness of learning goals, participation in decision-making and personal assumption of responsibility. He stated that over time, it is the second view of learner autonomy that has become the central object of concern, and it is in this sense that the term tends to be used in more recent writing. He points out the reasons for this shift are relatively clear: learner may or may not wish to study in an independent manner, but their ability to make this decision and to implement it effectively is dependent upon their strategic and attitudinal preparedness, in other words, on qualitative factors. Tudor’s statement may be supported by a long list of researchers (Holec, 1981; Little, 1990; Wenden; 1991). The definition of learner autonomy in this paper adopted also refers to the qualitative involvement. In this study, the learner is placed at the center of focus, so it is important to identify the characteristic of an autonomous learner. The autonomous learner is expected to take charge of every stage of his/her learning, such as, defining aims, choosing materials and

34


evaluating their progress in language learning. And attitudes and abilities are the core of learner autonomy in language learning. Learners’ autonomous learning abilities mainly include abilities of goal-setting, plan-making, self-monitoring and self-assessment.

2.2 Teacher’s roles in the autonomous learning According to Little (2007), the teacher plays an essential role in the development of learner autonomy and the teacher’s role is shaped by three pedagogical principles. The first principle is learner involvement—the teacher have to involve learners fully in planning, monitoring and evaluating their own learning. The second principle is learner reflection—

the teacher must help learners to reflect on the process and content of their learning continuously and to engage in self-assessment regularly. And the third principle is target language use-the teacher must ensure that the target language is not only the goal of learning but also the medium, including its reflective component.

Based on the principles, the teacher has to scaffold negotiation with and between learners so that they can participate actively in the process and help them to develop criteria for critical evaluation: Is this relly a good learning activity? Why? Can you say what you think you learned from it? And so on. In an autonomous classroom, the teacher should not only help students to be focused in their goals but also show them how to support one another in collaborative discourse. Finally, all aspects of learning are evaluated by groups of learners, and by individual learners.

2.3 Related English language teaching programs in regular classroomThe studies of learner autonomy has had great impact on foreign language teaching and learning. Nunan (1989) and Prabhu (1987) have had great interest in the use of problem-solving tasks in teaching a foreign language for a number of years and have achieved great success. In China, there have been many theoretical explorations of learner autonomy in English teaching (Dai, 2004; Feng, 2006; Peng, 2002; Shu, 2004; Shu, 2006), which can shed light on applying the theory of learner autonomy to English teaching. The studies of learner autonomy in regular Chinese EFL classroom can generally can be categorized in the following three types: the first type is about investigations on the independent learning ability(Xu, 2004; Zhu, 2007); the second type focuses on empirical experiments on develping learner autonomy(Jin & Wu, 2004; Li & Hui, 2007; Peng, 2002; Wang, 2007; Wang, 2007; Zhu, 2005); and the third type aims at discussion of elements of learner autonomy (He, 2007; Liu & Gao, 2007; Zhang, 2005). Considering the correlation, the research mainly focuses on the empirical experiments on develping learner autonomy. Peng (2002) implemented a two-year research project in non-English majors where both teachers and learners were asked to reflect on their respective teaching and learning. The result showed that Chinese students expected more learner participation and welcome the idea of learner autonomy. Li & Hui’s study showed that classmates within the learner group positively influences their own autonomy. Zhu’s 2005 paper reports an empirical study of scaffolding instruction, with 89 non-English students from Taizhou College, Nanjing Normal University, as the subjects. The research findings were as follows: the study not only helped improve students’ English achievement, but also contributed to the cultivation of their overall

35

WU Shujing

communicative competence. Wang’s study showed that problem-based learning is beneficial for the students to show their learning interest, develops their higher-order thinking skills and improve their learning autonomy and creativity. All these explorations provide insights for future experimental research in the English classroom. However, when there exist some problems: most studies about learner autonomy mainly focused on non-English major students, neglecting other English learner (Gao, 2006), especially English majors and still very few experimental researches were carried out at home. Furthermore, Chen & Zhang’s (2003) study shows that English major students’ autonomous learning abilities are not high. Basic English is the key course for English majors and one of its important objectives is to foster learner autonomy. Therefore, revising the traditional teaching model constructing and implementining a new Basic English teaching model are fundamental for the teacher to promote English major students’ autonomy.

According to the principles of learner autonomy and the above teaching programs, a few factors should be considered when a Basic English teaching model is designed: (1) Teachers should develop “situations” based on students’ previous experience and knowledge to arouse their knowledge schema. (2) Teaching activities should be student-centered. Under guidance from the teacher or with the aid of their peers, students should solve problems in English learning using their own knowledge and, in doing so, improve their overall communicative competence. (3) Learning processes should be emphasized. Reflective thinking and self-assessment in the English learning process deepens the students’ understanding of learning as well as of how to learn. (4) The design of teaching should take individual differences into consideration. The teacher should encourage the students to take active part in class activities, provide them with opportunities to make hypotheses, to predict, to investigate, to find their own answers, to exhibit and to do self-assessment in order to arouse their interest in learning English and make them feel confident while studying in the Basic English course.

2.4 The framework of the Basic English teaching model

2.4.1 The traditional Basic English teaching model

The traditional Basic English teaching model is usually stated as “3Ps” model. According to Baker & Westrup(2003), the framework of 3Ps model can be illustrated as follows.

The model is made up of three steps: presentation, practice and production. The step of presentation is to make students understand the new language by presenting or teaching the new language to them. The step of practice is to make students practise the new language by drilling and less controlled activities. The step of production aims to make students grasp the language by using the lauguage they have just learned.

The Basic English teaching model based on a constructivist approach designed by the researcher provides educators and instructors with a new perspective from which to reflect on English teaching problems, to understand the mechanics of English teaching and learning, and to explore ways of teaching. Moreover, this Basic English teaching model reflects the changes of English teaching in goals and functions, from recipient learning to discovery learning, from a focus on declarative knowledge to that on procedural

36


knowledge, realizing the interaction between knowledge explanation and ability cultivation and integration of English classroom teaching and autonomous learning. Furthermore, this Basic English teaching model, which provides students with opportunities for self-inquiry, self-reflection and self-assessment, is beneficial to broadening students’ horizons and fostering their thinking abilities, thus making up for the shortages in traditional Basic English teaching.

The main differences between the traditional Basic English teaching model and the Basic English teaching model designed by the researchers are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Comparison of the two Basic English teaching models

Categories Traditional Basic English teaching model The Basic English teaching model

View of learning teaching-centered learning-centered

Authorities teachers teachers and students

Teachers’ roles initiator, indoctrinator director, organizer, promoter, facilitator

Learners’ roles recipient, individual learning constructor, cooperative and corporative learning

View of knowledge objective, static, determinate subjective, dynamic, situational

Curriculum outlook textbook-based all-round content or materials

Learning experiences product-based process-based

Process control teachers’ initiation autonomous learning

Motivation extrinsic motivation intrinsic motivation

Assessment summative assessment integrating summative and formative assessment,

emphasizing self-reflection and self-assessment

2.4.2 The Basic English teaching model The researcher, taking into account the principles of learner autonomy and exploring the characteristics of Basic English, suggest the following model of Basic English teaching (Figure 1).

Situation

Self-inquiry

Cooperation

Innovation

Self-reflection

Presentation

Self-assessment

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

Figure 1. The Basic English teaching model

This model consists of six steps: context creation, self-inquiry, cooperation and communication,

37

WU Shujing

presentation, assessment and reflection, transference and innovation. The step of context creation aims to activate learners’ original schemas so that they

can link what they will learn to what they have learned. The step of self-inquiry is to improve the effects of learning by encouraging learners to

construct knowledge in their own way by learning, thinking, doubting, and asking questions. The step of cooperation and communication helps to enlarge and broaden learners’

knowledge. Meanwhile, learners can learn how to cooperate with others and share with others. The step of assessment and reflection directs attention to not only the result of the

learning but also the process of learning, in order to promote learners’ abilities for self-management, self-reflection and self-assessment so that they can become autonomous and life-long learners.

The step of transference and innovation can help learners to use the English language in different contexts.

The new model emphasizes the key roles of learners but also pays attention to the teachers’ roles. It starts from the learners’ prior knowledge, and sets proper tasks and problems by means of self-inquiry and cooperation to achieve the goal of transference and innovation. In turn, transference and innovation will promote learners’ construction of learning and improve their abilities to cooperate and communicate, fulfilling the objectives of Basic English.

The process of the teaching model can be divided into three stages. The first stage is learning before class; the second is classroom teaching; and the third stage is autonomous learning after class. During these stages, the teacher and students set up teaching objectives, choose teaching content and design teaching activities mutually.

2.4.3 Comparison of two Basic English teaching models

According to the related studies, the Basic English teaching model is different from 3Ps in three ways.

First of all, the Basic English teaching model is more beneficial for students’ autonomy than 3Ps model by offering students opportunities not only for self-inquiry, presentation, self-assessment and self-reflection but also for goal-setting/plan-making, choices of teaching/learning materials and methods which is vitally important for autonomous learning while in 3Ps model, students seldom have such opportunies. Secondly, the implementation of the Basic English teaching model is to encourage students to solve communicative problems or real-life problems by doing all kinds of tasks through the cooperation and the effective use of their existing language resourses while 3Ps model “entails a good deal of language control on the part of the teacher”(1996: 45). Thirdly, in the Basic English teaching modle, classroom learning is integrated with outside-class learning which can be regarded as a communicative process, while in 3Ps model, languge learning is mainly restricted to the classroom learning(Shu, 2006).

2.4.4 Demostration of the Basic English teaching model

A lesson from College English Book 4 (published by Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 1996) “The Enormous Radio” is taken for an example. Before this lesson,

38


the students are asked to do some internet search to learn about the life of middle-class Americans and the author of the text.

As the first step of the lesson, the teacher asks the students questions in the form of brainstorming, such as (1) “What’s your hobby? Do you like listening to music on the radio?” (2) “If you are faced with intense competition, what will you do? Will you feel frustrated? If so, how will you transfer your frustration?” (3) “What’s your attitude towards people prying into the affairs of other people?” Afterwards the teacher asks the students to share what they know about the author of the text: his life, his works, evaluations of him and the background knowledge relevant to the novel. Through context creation, the students’ previous schema is aroused so that they can link what they will learn to what they have learned.

As experimental the second step of the lesson, the students are required to read the text, trying to understand it with the aid of the questions offered by the teacher, or they are encouraged to raise their own questions based on the content of the text. If the students have understood the text well, the teacher can ask them to explore how well the text is written, including the choice of title, the style of the writing and the structure of the text. Next, the teacher can guide the students toward character analysis, the moral degeneration of the main characters of the text, and ask the students to summarize the text. During the process of self-inquiry, the teacher only acts as a facilitator and organizer, and the students are encouraged to construct knowledge in their own way by reading, thinking, doubting, analyzing and summarizing.

As the third step of the lesson, the students are required to do discussion work: “Imagine yourself in possession of such a radio. What might it reveal to you about the people living in China today?” This activity can not only cultivate the students’ cooperation abilities but also provide opportunities for them to imagine and to use the language in a new situation so that transference and innovation can be achieved.

In the performance step, the students are offered chances to present their ideas. By communicating and sharing with others, they can construct their personal knowledge from different perspectives so as to enlarge their knowledge and cultivate multi-angle views, and this can be beneficial in fostering their critical thinking and creative thinking.

Next, the students assess their own work, considering criteria such as attitudes towards participation, personal responsibility, attentive listening, and offering help. Finally, all members of the group sign their names. This kind of assessment can motivate the students to reflect on their learning process rather than the learning product, which is vital for maintaining their interest and positive attitudes towards the target language learning, and for promoting their sense of responsibility.

With regard to the outside-class learning stage, students are required to study the passage on their own and write a passage on how to deal with everyday stress. They can use the internet to collect plenty of linguistic and cultural materials concerning the target language. The written work not only provides opportunities for them to use the language, and to reflect on what they have learned but also opportunities to communicate with each other and to solve their real problems.

39

WU Shujing

3. Research Design

3.1 Research questions The purpose of the experiment was to observe, measure and analyze the effects of the Basic English teaching model on the teaching and learning of Basic English. Based on the theoretical framework proposed, the researcher put forward the following research questions:

1) Does the Basic English teaching model have any effects on Chinese students’ attitudes towards autonomy?

2) Does the Basic English teaching model have any effects on Chinese students’ autonomous learning abilities?

3) What’s the effect of the Basic English teaching model on Chinese students’ English proficiency?

4) What are students’ attitudes towards the Basic English teaching model?

3.2 Participants This was a quasi-experimental design, involving two regular classes or 80 sophomore English majors from a university in Shandong Province. One class was experimental the experimental group (EG), and the other one the control group (CG). They had similar experiences of English learning. They shared the same teacher. The two groups worked from the same textbooks, College English (Books 3 & 4) published by Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. They received six periods of instruction each week. The courses progressed at the same rate for each class, and almost the same number of assignments was given after class. The amount of time that students spent studying outside class was a variable that could not be directly controlled during the period of investigation. At the end of the treatment, the teacher investigated the average time that the students had spent studying out of class so as to take this into consideration during the analysis of the results. The EG received the Basic English teaching method that was carefully designed by the researcher and teacher while the CG received 3Ps model. The EG had altogether 39 students, 31 females and 8 males. The CG had 41 students, 33 females and 8 males. The pretest (p= .467, two-tailed) indicates there were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of their initial level before the experiment. The treatment extended from September 2006 to April 2007.

3.3 Instruments In order to investigate the effects of the model, the researcher collected both quantitative and qualitative data.

The instruments included the students’ self-assessment sheet, the students’ evaluation of the model, three proficiency tests and questionnaires about students’ attitudes towards and abilities in autonomous learning (see Appendices I and II). The students’ self-assessment and the students’ evaluation of the model were only responded by the EG students. The students’ self-assessment sheet covered the aspects of attitudes towards participation, personal responsibility, attentive listening, and offering help. The

40


students’ evaluation of the model included some open-ended questions. The EG students' evaluation of the model was explored through their e-mail answers to the researcher’s open-ended questions. They used the same e-mail anonymously. The questions asked were as follows:

What have you gained from the Basic English teaching model? (50-100 words)Do you like the Basic English teaching model? Why or why not?What do you think of the teacher’ roles in the Basic English teaching model? What do you think of the activities in the Basic English teaching model? The three proficiency tests were used to measure the students’ listening, grammar

and vocabulary, reading comprehension, writing, and cloze test performance. The questionnaires about students’ attitudes towards autonomous learning based on

Broady (1996: 235) were completed before and after the experiment anonymously. The questionnaires consists of 31 items, covering three areas: confidence, interest, and attitude. The questionnaires on the students’ autonomous abilities, designed by the researcher, consists of 30 items, covering three areas: goal-setting and plan-making, self-monitoring and self-assessment. All the items are written in Chinese to avoid the misunderstanding of the items. The students are asked to respond to the series of items on the five-point Likert scale with 5 being the highest score and 1 being the lowest score. Take Item 1(If I don’t study, it’s the fault of my own) of the questionnaires about students’ attitudes towards autonomous learning for example, strongly agree=5, agree=4, nutral=3, disagree=2, strongly disagree=1. To avoid that categorized arrangement may have some influence on students’ responses to the questions, the items on the questionnaire are arranged randomly.

Before the study began, a pilot study was conducted in Class 5 and Class 6, including 80 sophomore English majors in the same university. The study was to test the internal consistency of the two questionnaires. Tables 2 and 3 show the results.

Table 2. The reliability of the questionnaire about the students’ attitudes towards autonomous learning obtained from the pilot study

Items Number of Items Cronbach’s Alpha

Confidence 12 (Items 2, 4, 8, 9, 11, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 30) .837

Interest 9 (Items 5, 10, 12, 17, 23, 24, 25, 26, 31) .702

Attitude 10 (Items 1, 3, 6, 7, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 29) .742

Total 31 .835

According to Table 2, the values of every category are above .7, with the value of Alpha of the whole questionnaire .835, which shows that the whole questionnaire about the students’ attitudes towards autonomous learning as well as its three categories has high internal consistency.

41

WU Shujing

Table 3. The reliability of the questionnaire about the students’ abilities of autonomous learning obtained from the pilot study

Items Number of ItemsCronbach’s

Alpha

Goal-setting & Plan-making 9 (Items 3, 5, 11, 13,16, 20, 24, 25, 28) .786

Self-monitoring 11 (Items 1, 4, 6, 10, 14, 15, 18, 21, 22, 26 29) .753

Self-assessment 10 (Items 2, 7, 8, 9, 12, 17, 19, 23, 27, 30) .731

Total 30 .821

According to Table 3, the Alpha value of every category was above .7. Therefore, the categories of the questionnaire about the students’ abilities of autonomous learning had high internal consistency.

3.4 Treatment To make the study more reliable and convincing, three tests were carried out in this study, in which three nation-wide Tests for English Majors (Band-4) in 2006, 2005 and 2007 were employed. They were at almost the same level of difficulty and were used as pre-test, mid-test and post-test respectively. Before the test, an investigation was conducted to ensure that the participants had no access to the test paper. The objective part of the three exams was marked by the computer; the subjective part was marked by three teachers who were not involved in the treatment and the means of the marks given by the teachers were recorded. Both before and after the treatment, the participants were asked to complete the questionnaire on autonomy.

At the very beginning of the treatment, the EG (39 students) was divided into six small groups. They were encouraged to engage in prediction, explanation, debating and defending their ideas through student-centered interaction. Each student was offered opportunities to self-explore, cooperate, make presentations, assess and reflect on themselves.

The CG received the traditional teaching model: 3Ps model, which consists of three steps-presentaion, practice and production and they seldom have opportunities offered by the teacher to cooperate, make presentations, assess and reflect on themselves.

3.5 Data analysisData from the two questionnaire surveys and students’ scores in the three tests were collected and analyzed by SPSS 12.0.

Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected. The quantitative analysis involved several statistical procedures: descriptive statistics, reliability analysis, independent-samples t-test and paired-samples t-test analysis. Qualitative data were mainly from the students’ self-assessment sheet, and the students’ evaluation of the model.

4. Results and Discussion

According to the teacher’s investigation, there was no significant difference between the

42


EG and CG in the amount of time that students spent studying outside class, and this ruled out the possibility that this factor affected the reliability of results of the treatment.

4.1 Does the Basic English teaching model have any effects on Chinese stuents’ attitudes towards autonomy?According to the result of the factor analysis of the questionnaire in the pre-survey, three factors are extracted, which are the students’ confidence in managing their own learning, their interests in the English course learning and their attitudes towards their own responsibility and initiative in language learning.

Table 4. Comparison of the two groups in the pre-survey

Factor GResponse of Pre-survey

Mean Std. Deviation t p

Confidence EG 3.4545 .5849 −.226 .822

CG 3.4866 .5740

Interest EG 3.3897 .4614 −.426 .673

CG 3.4485 .7250

Attitude EG 3.7804 .3844 −.070 .945

CG 3.7902 .6276

**p<0.01; *p<0.05

Table 4 shows that before the treatment, there was no significant difference between the EG and CG although the CG had slightly higher means than the EG in all the factors (3.4866 vs. 3.4545 for student confidence in autonomous learning, 3.4485 vs. 3.3897 for student interest and 3.7902 vs. 3.7804 for student attitude).

Table 5. Comparison of the two groups in the post-survey

Factor GResponse of Post-survey


Confidence EG 3.9946 1.0398 1.825 .072

CG 3.5795 .9423

Interest EG 3.8596 .7440 2.487 .018*

CG 3.5897 .4614

Attitude EG 4.1769 1.1893 2.025 .046*

CG 3.9946 .8701

**p<0.01; *p<0.05

Table 5 shows that after the treatment, the EG had higher means than the CG in all factors of confidence (3.9946 vs. 3.5795), interest (3.8596 vs. 3.5897) and attitudes towards their own responsibility and initiative in language learning (4.1769 vs. 3.9946). Among these factors, significant changes took place in EG students’ learning interest and attitudes. The

43

WU Shujing

EG also had a little larger standard deviations than the CG for all the three factors. It was possible that some EG students were accustomed to the traditional teaching method and did not follow the new Basic English teaching model. Therefore, it is necessary for the teacher to give students psychological preparation before using the new model.

The table also shows that the EG students were willing to assume more responsibility and were less dependent on their teachers and in their learning than the CG students. They became more confident in their abilities to make their plans, set their goals, self-assess and monitor their progress.

The comparison between the two groups shows that the Basic English teaching model had some positive effect on students’ attitudes towards learning autonomy.

4.2 Effects on the autonomous learning abilityThe questionnaire about the students’ autonomous learning abilities was administrated to the CG and EG before and after the treatment. The results are shown in Tables 6 and 7.

Table 6. Comparison of the two groups in the pre-survey

Items GResponse of Pre-survey


Goal-setting &

Plan-making

EG 3.2632 .9497−.778 .439

CG 3.4412 .9906

Self-monitoring EG 3.0513 1.0120−1.057 .294

CG 3.1795 .9140

Self-assessment EG 2.9474 .7930−.436 .664

CG 3.1471 1.0768

**p<0.01; *p<0.05

Table 6 shows that before the treatment, there was not significant difference between the EG and CG although the CG had slightly higher means than the EG in all the factors (3.4412 vs. 3.2632 for goal-setting and plan-making, 3.1795 vs. 3.0513 for self-monitoring and 3.1471 vs. 2.9474 for self-assessment).

Table 7. Comparison of the two groups in the post-survey

Items GResponse of Post-survey


Goal-setting &

Plan-making

EG 3.8302 .75282.392 .020*

CG 3.5094 .5759

Self-monitoring EG 3.6897 .80642.154 .040*

CG 3.2414 .5110

Self-assessment EG 3.7037 .82342.000 .056

CG 3.2593 .5257

**p<0.01; *p<0.05

44


Table 7 shows that after the treatment, the EG had higher means than the CG in all factors of goal-setting/plan-making, self-monitoring, and self-assessment. Among them, the differences in goal-setting/plan-making and self-monitoring reached the level of significance. More students in the EG could set goals and make plans suitable for their own learning situations, compared with the students in the CG. The EG students had better abilities to self-correct, participate, monitor their learning process and select material.

It is also clear that although the EG students had experienced one and a half semesters’ of teaching using the proposed model, they could not always assess their English learning appropriately. Therefore, it may take much more time for students to acquire the ability of assess themselves.

The comparison between the two groups shows that the Basic English teaching model had some positive effect on the students’ autonomous learning abilities.

4.3 Effects on language proficiencyTalbe 8 reports the comparison of the two groups in English proficiency tests.

Table 8. Comparison of test results of the EG and CG

Tests G N Mean Std. Deviation t p

Pre-testEG 39 61.2949 11.71746

−.504 .617CG 41 62.4487 8.02036

Mid-testEG 39 64.3974 10.36008

1.117 .271CG 41 63.2439 10.92424

Post-testEG 39 71.0037 12.19857

8.192 .000**CG 41 67.2216 10.13429

**p<0.01; *p<0.05

Table 8 shows there was no statistical difference between the two groups in the pretest and mid-test although in the mid-test, the EG (Mean=64.3974) already scored higher than the CG (Mean=63.2439). The results of the post-test scores show that the EG significantly surpassed the CG.

4.4 Students’ attitudes towards the Basic English teaching modelThe EG students’ responses towards the Basic English teaching model are summed up in Table 9.

Table 9. The EG Students’ attitudes towards the Basic English teaching model

Items ResponsesAgreement

(%)

Disagreement

(%)

Neutrality

(%)

Achievements My abilities to think and cooperate have been improved. 76.9 10.3 12.8

My ability of self-reflection has been enhanced. 89.7 0.0 10.3

My English proficiency had been improved. 76.9 5.1 17.9

45

WU Shujing

Items ResponsesAgreement

(%)

Disagreement

(%)

Neutrality

(%)

Attitudes

towards the

model

I like the new teaching model. 84.6 5.1 10.3

I have more opportunities to select my learning materials

and learning methods.

89.7 2.6 7.7

I am more actively involved in English learning. 74.4 10.3 15.4

The model is more autonomous. 76.9 5.1 17.9

Teacher’s roles The teacher’ roles are changing towards tutoring and

facilitating us to learn.

71.8 20.5 7.7

Attitudes

towards the

activities

The activities have raised my awareness of English

learning.

87.2 0.0 12.8

The activities have enhanced my confidence of

managing my own learning.

79.5 7.7 12.8

According to Table 9, we can see most of the students have positive attitudes towards the new Basic English teaching model. As for the achievement from the Basic English teaching model, most of the students mentioned that the new teaching model was beneficial for them to improve their abilities to think and cooperate, with their abilities of self-reflection promoted and their English proficiency improved. Moreover, they stated that the new teaching model offered them more opportunities to select their learning material and learning methods so that they were more actively involved in English learning. As a result, most of the students agreed to use the new teaching model and thought that the teaching model was more autonomous and the teacher’s roles were changing towards tutoring and facilitating them to learn. They reported that these activities of the program not only raised their awareness of their learning but also enhanced their confidence of managing their own learning.

4.5 Discussion The results of data analysis show that the Basic English teaching model has a positive effect not only on the students’ attitudes towards autonomous learning but also on their autonomous learning abilities and their language proficiency.

With this model, the students showed more willingness to take more responsibility of their own learning. They became more and more interested in language learning. They realized that an increased awareness of the learning process was very important. From the analysis of the students’ post-test results, the outcome of the EG was shown to be higher than that of the CG. The Basic English teaching model proved to be superior to the traditional teaching model for English major students.

The results of this study support the view that developing some degree of autonomy is essential if learners are to become effective language users (Breen, 1984; Littlewood, 1996; Nunan, 1997). This view is most succinctly summarized by Knowles (1975: 34) when he claims, “There is convincing evidence that people who take the initiative in learning learn more things and learn better than people who sit at the feet of teachers, passively waiting to be taught.”

46


The results of this study also support the understanding that autonomous learning is not “teacher-less learning”. As Sheerin (1997, cited in Benson & Voller, 1997: 63) succinctly states, teachers “have a crucial role to play in launching learners into self-access and in helping them to stay afloat”. This study showed that both teachers and students are faced with considerable challenge. Teachers are no longer in the dominant position as the sole, authoritative speakers in class, and students are no longer simple, passive receivers of knowledge. However, this does not necessarily mean teachers are less important. On the contrary, their job is more demanding and challenging: helping students grow up as creative and independent learners. They must focus attention on helping students understand how to learn instead of directing all their energies toward how to teach.

5. Pedagogical Implications

The shift from teacher-centered classes to student-centered classes can only be realized by assessing students’ needs and overcoming their psychological dependence on the teachers. Learners need to become more aware of their central role in the decision-making process. They have to take an increasing amount of responsibility for their learning. They have to learn about the importance of reflection on their learning and how it can help them to redefine their goals to make them constantly relevant to students’ needs and wants.

Students are encouraged to be interdependent and to work collaboratively. Collaborative learning is an educational approach to teaching and learning that involves groups of students working together to solve a problem, complete a task, or create a product. According to Gerlach, “Collaborative learning is based on the idea that learning is naturally social act in which the participants talk among themselves. It is through the talk that learning occurs” (Gerlach, 1994: 28).

It is necessary to establish an effective monitoring mechanism, one that can be used to carry out accurate, objective evaluation. The content of assessment should include comments on students’ basic knowledge, skills, attitudes towards English study and cooperation. Students must be offered opportunities to develop the ability to self-monitor, and make assessments of their own learning achievement. During the process of constant self-assessment, students can understand their own learning experiences and adjust their learning strategies or design their new objectives of learning for themselves.

6. Conclusion

By using the new teaching model, students can have a better opportunity to think, explore, self-assess, use the language, and monitor their own learning progress. Within the small learning group, teachers can give more guidance to different students and better know individual students. The students at Binzhou University, who seem to be moving towards becoming autonomous learners, surely, have not only learned language skills but will also have developed the capacity to think and to take control of their own learning. Nevertheless, and despite the positive results of the study, it will not always prove easy

47

WU Shujing

to develop effective assessment mechanisms and give each member of a group authentic assessment. Furthermore, in this model, students have more responsibility in learning. How are the teachers and students guided to a balance between their roles? These are questions which need to be studied further.

References

Benson, P. & Voller, P. 1997. Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning. London and New

York: Longman.

Breen, M. P. 1984. Process syllabuses for the language classroom. In C. Brumfit (ed.), General

English Syllabus Design. ELT Document 118. London: Pergamon & British Council.

Broady, E. & Kenning, M-M. 1996. Promoting Learner Autonomy in University Language Teaching.

London Association for French Language Studies in Association with CILT.

Chen, X. X. & Zhang, X. Y. 2003. 高校应用专业学生自主学习的必要性与可行性[Necessity and

feasibility of learner autonomy in language learning for English majors]. Journal of Xi’an

International Studies University, 11(3), 50-53.

Dai, W. D. & Liu, C. Y. 2004. 学习理论的新发展与外语教学模式的嬗变[New developments in

learning theories and the shift of ELT models]. Journal of Foreign Languages, 152(4), 10-17.

Dickinson, L. 1987. Self-Instruction in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Feng, Y. F. 2006. 建构主义学习设计六要素在英语教学中的应用[The application of six elements

of constructivist learning design in ELT]. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 207(6), 33-36.

Gao, J. L. 2006. 国内“学习者自主性”研究的回顾与展望[A review of Chinese studies on

learner’s autonomy]. Foreign Language Teaching Abroad, 2, 54-59.

Gardener, D. & Miller, L. 2002. Establishing Self-Access: From Theory to Practice. Shanghai: Shanghai

Foreign Language Education Press.

Gagnon, G. & Collay, M. 2001. Designing for Learning: Six Elements in Constructivist Classrooms.

California: Corwin Press, INC.

Gerlach, H. 1994. Virology. In B. W. Ritchie, G. J. Harrison & L. R. Harrison(eds.), Avian Medicine:

Principles and Application (2nd ed.). Wingers Publishing, Lake Worth.

Guo, Zaizhao. 2006. An empirical investigation on cultivating students’ autonomous learning

capacity in college English teaching. CELEA Journal, 6, 45-55.

Knowles, M. 1975. Self-directed Learning: A Guide for Learners and Teachers. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Little, D. 2007. Language learner autonomy: Some fundamental considerations revisited. Innovation

in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 14–29.

Littlewood, W. 1996. Autonomy: an anatomy and a framework. System, 24(4), 27-35.

Nunan, D. 1989. Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press

Nunan, D. 1997. Designing and adapting materials to encourage learner autonomy. In P. Benson & P.

Voller (eds.), Autonomy & Independence in Language Learning, 192-203. London: Longman.

Peng, J. D. 2002. 大学英语学习中的“学习者自主”问题研究[A study on the problems of

learner autonomy in college English teaching]. Foreign Language World, 89(3), 15-19.

48


Pfundt, H. & Duit, R. 1991. Students’ Alternative Frameworks and Science Education.

Bibliography(3rd ed.). IPN Reports-in-Brief.

Prabhu, N. S. 1987. Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Purdie, N., Douglas, G. & Hattie, J. 1996. Students conceptions of learning and their use of self-

regulated learning strategies: a cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Educational Psychology,

88(1), 87-100.

Robbins, J. 1996. Language learning strategies instruction in Asia: Cooperative autonomy. In

Autonomy 2000: The development of Learning Independence in Language Learning Conference

Proceeding, Nov. 20-22, pp.159-164. Bangkok, Thailand.

Saunders, W. L. 1992. The constructivist perspective: Implications and teaching strategies for

science. School Science and Mathematics, 92(3), 136-141.

Shu, D. F. 2004. 外语教学改革：问题与对策[ELT in China: Problems and Solutions]. Shanghai:

Shanghai Foreign Langauge Education Press.

Shu, D. F. 2006. 外语课堂教学新模式刍议[A new model for classroom instruction in FLT].

Foreign Language World, 114(4), 21-29.

Tarnopolsky, K. & Zhang, J. 2001. Teaching English as a foreign language in China: Teachers

and students’ attitudes to the communicative approach, learner-centering, and learners’

autonomy. Journal of Shandong Agricultural University (Social Science) , 3(2).

Thomas, L. & Harri-Augstein, S. 1985. Self-organized Learning: Foundations of a Conversational

Science for Psychology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Tudor, L. 1996. Learner-Centeredness as Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wang, X. 2007. 基于问题的学习——学生自主学习能力的有效途径探讨[Problem-based

learning: An effective way to autonomous learning]. Foreign Langauges and Their Teaching,

215(2), 30-32.

Wen, Q. F. 1996. 英语学习策略论 [On English Learning Strategy]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign

Language Education Press.

Wenden, A. 1991. Learner Strategies for Learner Autonomy. New York: Prentice Hall.

Williams, M & Burden, R. 1997. Psychology for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Willis, D. 1996. Accuracy, fluency and conformity. In J. Willis & D. Willis(eds.), Challenge and

Change in Language Teaching. Oxford: Macmillan Heineman.

Zhu, F. 大学英语支架式教学实证研究 [Demonstrating research on bracket teaching mode in

college English teaching. Journal of Harbin University, 26(1), 129-132.

Appendix I 英语学习者自主学习观念调查问卷

以下各题都有A.坚决不同意；B.不同意；C.不置可否；D.同意；E.坚决同意五个选项，请

在适合自己的选项前打“√”，每个小题只选一个，不可多选或漏选。

1. 如果我不学习，应归咎于我自己。

2. 我可以自学很多东西。

3. 我喜欢上让学生参与决定学习内容和学习方法的课。

4. 我知道我想学的东西。

5. 我期望老师能确切地告诉我要做的事。

49

WU Shujing

6. 基础英语学习，包括很大程度的自学。

7. 假如基础英语课对我没有帮助，我会自学。

8. 必须有老师，才能有效地学习基础英语。

9. 我认为只有在老师的帮助下，我的基础英语才能提高。

10. 在基础英语课上，我喜欢一切都由老师讲解。

11. 我必须在老师的督促下学习基础英语。

12. 学习基础英语最好的方法是老师的讲解。

13. 我应该为我的学习负责。

14. 制订个人计划对学习基础英语是非常重要的。

15. 确定个人学习目标对基础英语学习很重要。

16. 评价自己的进步对基础英语学习很重要。

17. 假如我在基础英语学习中遇到困难，我会尽最大努力去克服。

18. 在基础英语课上，我希望能够选择自己的学习资料。

19. 我能确切地知道基础英语课上我想使用的资料。

20. 假如让我自己评价自己的作业，我没有把握。

21. 我想我能确定自己的学习目标。

22. 我认为我知道自己学习基础英语的最好的方法是什么。

23. 我努力学习基础英语是为了通过考试。

24. 老师要批改的作业才值得做。

25. 只有上交的作业我才会去做。

26. 我学习基础英语是因为我对基础英语感兴趣。

27. 我相信我能解决基础英语学习中遇到的困难。

28. 我想我能评价自己学习基础英语进步的情况，从而找出薄弱环节和改进的措施。

29. 学习中遇到困难，我等老师来解决。

30. 老师让我说明完成作业的某项学习任务的过程和方法，我说不清楚，因为我没注意过这

方面的问题。

31. 请回答：a.谁应为你的学习负主要责任？

b.在没有老师帮助的情况下，你是如何学基础英语的？

c. 你的基础英语学习主要由谁来评价？

Source: (Broady 1996, a little revised)

Appendix II 英语学习者自主学习能力调查问卷

以下各题都有A.坚决不同意；B.不同意；C.不置可否；D.同意；E.坚决同意五个选项，请

在适合自己的选项前打“√”，每个小题只选一个，不可多选或漏选。

1. 我能根据不同的英语学习任务调整自己的学习方法。

2. 我经常根据自己基础英语学习的具体任务设计不同的自我评价方案。

3. 我根据自己的实际情况，为自己的基础英语学习制定了远期计划。

4.我经常根据不同的英语学习任务而调整自己的学习方法。

5. 为了提高自己的基础英语水平，我制定了学习计划并经常检查计划执行情况。

6. 在基础英语课上，我积极回答老师提问的问题。

(Continued on p. 14…)

an experimental study of a basic english teaching … an experimental study of a basic english...

Documents