studies in self-access learning journal 3(3)

SiSAL Journal Vol. 3, No. 3, September 2012, 212-214 !

!"#"!!!

Contents: Volume 3, Number 3, September 2012

Edited by Jo Mynard

• Editorial by Jo Mynard (212-214) Articles

• The Impact of Teacher Training for Learning Autonomy by

Martha Armida Fabela-Cárdenas (215-236)

• Scaffolding Students’ Initial Self-Access Language Centre Experiences by Robert Croker and Umida Ashurova (237-253)

• Readiness for Self-Access Language Learning: A Case of Iranian

Students by Razieyeh Ahmadi (254-265)

• Supporting the Development of Autonomous Learning Skills in Reading and Writing in an Independent Language Learning Centre!by Hazel L. W. Chiu (266-290)

• Video Self-assessment for Language Learners by Rob Hirschel, Craig Yamamoto and Peter Lee (291-309)

• The Effects of Applying Betts' Autonomous Learner Model on

Iranian Students by Nahid Yarahmadzehi and Elham Bazleh (310-321) Announcements

• Upcoming special issues: Calls for papers!o SiSAL Journal Special Issue on Strategy Development in Self-

Access edited by Heath Rose!o SiSAL Journal Special Issue on Self-Access Writing Support

edited by Rachael Ruegg!

Editorial!

Jo Mynard, Kanda University of International Studies, Japan

Welcome to the second general issue of SiSAL Journal. Once again, through

the publication of a general issue we are able to include some interesting articles that

might not necessarily have been received for publication in a special issue. Issues of

SiSAL Journal have a good international representation and this current issue is no

exception. Contributions come from Mexico, Hong Kong, Japan and Iran.

Although this is a general issue of SiSAL Journal, I have identified some

salient themes coming through in the articles. These are: training for autonomous

learning; scaffolding self-access use; and beliefs about learning and using the L2.


!"#$!!!

Training for Autonomous Learning

Two articles report on studies which investigated the effectiveness of training

for autonomous learning. The first article is by Martha Armida Fabela-Cárdenas

who reports on a study using Q Methodology which investigated whether a teacher

training programme in Mexico had an impact on teachers’ opinions and beliefs about

learner autonomy. The results suggest that the training was successful in influencing

changes in attitudes.

Nahid Yarahmadzehi and Elham Bazleh discuss learner autonomy in the

Iranian context. Using a quasi-experimental research design, the authors investigate

whether using the Bett’s Autonomous Learner Model leads to any significant

improvement in (1) students’ readiness for self-directed learning and (2) students’

language proficiency. The results indicate that “attempts to incorporate autonomous

learning into school curriculum would be beneficial”.

Scaffolding Self-Access Use

Two of the article specifically focus on ways in which learners are supported

in self-access learning. Robert Croker and Umida Ashurova take a look at ways to

introduce first year university students to self-access centres in Japan. The authors

discuss the scaffolding activities that were used in order to help “classroom English

learners” transform into “SALC English users”.

Hazel L. W. Chiu looks at ways to support the development of reading and

writing in a self-access centre in Hong Kong. The examples in the author’s paper

show how learners’ needs are addressed through individual and small group

consultations and how the advisor encourages a deeper-level of engagement with the

learning process through the dialogue.

Views about Learning and Using the L2

Two papers in this issue focus on investigating learners’ beliefs. In her paper,

Razieyeh Ahmadi investigates learners’ perceptions and behaviours related to

autonomous self-access language learning in Iran. The results of a quantitative study

suggest that learners are ready to take charge of some aspects of their self-directed

learning, but will need support in other areas.


!"#%!!!

Rob Hirschel, Craig Yamamoto and Peter Lee report on a mixed methods

study which investigated Japanese university students’ beliefs about their interest,

enjoyment, and confidence with using English. Participants in the study were asked to

create and view video recordings of themselves interacting in English and complete

self-assessment questionnaires. The results of the study indicate that participants in

the video treatment group “were able to perceive gains in interest, enjoyment, and

confidence that the control group participants did not”.

Notes on the editor

Jo Mynard is an Associate Professor at Kanda University of International Studies. She

is the Director of the Self-Access Learning Centre, Assistant Director of the English

Language Institute, and Deputy Director of the Research Institute of Language

Studies and Language Education. She holds an Ed.D. in TEFL from the University of

Exeter, UK and an M.Phil. in applied linguistics from Trinity College, Dublin. She

has taught EFL in Ireland, Spain, England, the UAE and Japan, and has been involved

in facilitating self-access learning since 1996. She co-edited three recently published

volumes; one on learner autonomy and two on advising in language learning.

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to the contributors for submitting their work to SiSAL Journal, to the

reviewers for their feedback and to the editorial team once again for their input,

support and editing skills.

Upcoming Issues

We are now accepting submissions for the March 2013 issue on self-access writing

support which will be guest-edited by Rachael Ruegg. Following that, we will be

publishing two general issues in June and September, 2013. If you are interested in

guest editing a future special issue, please contact the editor. For submission details

and deadlines, please check the website: http://sisaljournal.org

SiSAL Journal Vol. 3, No. 3, September 2012, 215-236

215

The Impact of Teacher Training for Autonomous Learning Martha Armida Fabela-Cárdenas, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, México

Abstract

This article focuses on teacher attitudes towards learner autonomy and discusses whether teachers’ attitudes change through teacher training. The study was carried out with teachers working in different self-access centres within the State University of Nuevo Leon, Mexico (UANL). The aim of the study was to report any changes in teachers’ opinions and beliefs on issues after a teacher training course. These issues range from teacher-centeredness, learner-centeredness, learner autonomy, work in the SAC, views on language learning, the role of teachers, the role of learners, views on local culture, and on motivation. The study was carried out using Q Methodology.

Keywords: Self-access, autonomous learning, learner training, learner autonomy, teacher autonomy, teachers’ attitudes.

The last two decades have seen an increase in the development of self-access

language learning centres around the world. This has promoted an interest in learner

autonomy and best practice to promote it. Practitioners and theorists in the field seem to

agree that in most schemes for learner autonomy, teachers still play an important role

helping the learner develop autonomy (Benson, 2007; Nakata, 2011; Sinclair, McGrath &

Lamb, 2000).

Learner Autonomy

Autonomous learning has become the umbrella term for an approach that

envisions giving learners more autonomy in their decisions about what, when and how to

learn. Holec (1981) introduces the idea of autonomy and separates directed-teaching from

self-directed learning, presenting a theoretical and practical description of the application

of the concept of autonomy in language learning by adults. In order to do this he

introduces specific techniques that learners would need to acquire in order to develop

autonomy.


216

In order to help learners assume more responsibility to control their learning and

to make all the necessary decisions, it was suggested that learners needed learner training

to analyse their needs, identify their learning styles, make use of appropriate learning

strategies, establish goals, monitor their progress, and self-evaluate (Ellis & Sinclair,

1989; Holec, 1981).

Little (1995) suggests that if the ultimate and only purpose of learning a language

is using that language, practitioners should bear in mind that the social dimension of

learning and using a language calls for a more collective, as opposed to individual, effort

for learners to develop autonomy for learning.

Little’s contribution helped the profession to see autonomy from a different

perspective where indeed, the textbooks, the curriculum and the teacher still played a role

in shaping and balancing autonomy while also providing the social opportunity for

maximal self-development within human interdependence (Little, 1995).

However, it was suggested that in situations where learner autonomy and self-

access learning are totally new concepts, it may be difficult to encourage learners to

move away from the traditional approaches with which they are familiar, and that is a

reason why “Learners need to be exposed not only to self-access learning but also to

information about how it is different and why” (Gardner & Miller, 1999, p. 12).

It becomes evident that what is applicable to learners is applicable to teachers too.

Teachers might also find it difficult to move away from the traditional approaches;

therefore teachers as well as learners need to be exposed to autonomous learning and self-

access learning in order to be able to make sense of it.

In consequence, there has been an increasing interest in focusing on the role of the

teachers and their own development through teacher education (Sinclair, McGrath &

Lamb, 2000) and it has become important that teacher training mirrors learner training.

Teacher Autonomy

Within the field of English language learning, the roles of teachers in promoting

learner autonomy have been examined in specific contexts (Benson, 2007; Chan, 2003;


217

Holec, 1981; Lamb, 2000; Nakata, 2011; Sinclair, McGrath & Lamb, 2000; Reinders &

Lazaro, 2011; Smith, 2000; Voller, 1997; Yang, 1998).

Holec (1981, p. 23) suggests that the role of the teacher, if self-directed learning is

to be implemented, changes from ‘producing’ learning to ‘facilitating’ it. The teacher’s

task, then, is to help the learner to develop the ability to define all aspects of his/her

learning. This would include; establishing his/her objectives to meet his/her personal

needs, defining contents, finding the appropriate materials, choosing learning strategies

and learning activities that might be useful, establishing goals, monitoring progress,

making realistic plans, self-evaluating and self-motivating. Similarly, Voller (1997, p.

113) reminds us that teachers need to remain faithful to three fundamental assumptions:

1) That language learning is an interpretative process and that an autonomous

approach to learning requires a transfer of control to the learner

2) That teachers should make sure that their teaching practices reflect these

assumptions by engaging in a process of negotiation with the learners

3) That teachers observe, self-monitor and reflect upon the teaching strategies they

use and the nature of interaction they set up and participate in

As we have increasingly adopted this pedagogy, we have been in need of

organising teacher education that helps teachers to cope with their new roles and

demands. How should this teacher education be?

Little (1995, p. 179) argues that learner autonomy and teacher autonomy are

interdependent and that learner autonomy becomes a matter for teacher education in two

ways. Firstly, we must provide trainee teachers with the skills to promote autonomy in

the learners. Secondly, we must give them first-hand experience of learner autonomy in

their own training to make teachers more likely to succeed in promoting learner

autonomy since their own education will have encouraged them to be autonomous. Little

asserts that what is valid for learner training is also valid for teacher training in self-

directed language learning


218

Teacher education should be subject to the same processes of negotiation as

are required for the promotion of learner autonomy in the language classroom.

Aims and learning targets, course content, course process, learning tasks and

the assessment of learner achievement must all be negotiated (1995, p. 180)

Aoki (2002) agrees and suggests that teacher education for the development of

teacher autonomy needs to be flexible in order to grant freedom and room for choice, to

be psychologically supportive for personal growth, and to allow mutual trust between

student-teachers and teacher educators.

It has also been pointed out that not all teachers, just as not all learners, are at the

same level of autonomy. McGrath (2000, p. 109) distinguishes two broad perspectives on

teacher autonomy: (i) self-directed professional action and (ii) freedom from control by

others. He also argues that we cannot assume a readiness on the part of teachers to

exercise autonomy in any of these ways and reports that in a course on materials design

and evaluation, some teachers were found to be at different stages of this continuum;

‘some were developed and independent enough to tackle action research projects, some

could develop this capacity without intervention, and some were at a very early stage of

teacher autonomy - conditioned perhaps by either cultural or curriculum constraints.

In many contexts, including the context of this study, teachers might opt for

accepting the decisions already made by others because this seems to be less demanding

in every aspect. Such teachers obviously have not developed their own autonomy.

McGrath (2000) suggests that exercising independent judgment about the decisions made

by others (e.g. on syllabus, examinations, textbooks) requires compromise and

negotiation as well as determined autonomous action, but that not all teachers

demonstrate the capacity and freedom for self-direction. This is important, as Benson

(2000, p. 117) argues ‘the ability of learners to exercise their rights depends upon the

extent to which teachers are prepared to exercise their own right to autonomy’.

In that sense, Benson suggests that teachers have to be able to explore the

boundaries of their institutional constraints (e.g. the curriculum) which should not be

difficult if, as Little (1995, p. 178) explains, every time a teacher presents a curriculum

s/he does it from his/her own unique interpretation of it.


219

In a similar vein, Voller (1997, p. 111) argues that the role of the teacher as a

negotiator and/or mediator is key to allow learners to gain some control over contexts

otherwise controlled by others (e.g. authorities, curriculum, etc). However, as Smith

(2001) points out, we may need to acknowledge and try to address constraints on our own

autonomy as teacher educators in relation to being self-directed professionals, being self-

directed learners and being free from external control.

McGrath (2000), like Little (1995), proposes a teacher training programme where

the message and the medium are one and argues that participants will experience a level

of uncertainty that is generated in the practice of autonomous learning, and which they

must confront in order to emerge convinced to implement autonomy in their own

classrooms.

This approach, according to Little (1995, p. 180), will never be “entirely

comfortable or entirely successful” but it will give trainers and trainees the opportunity to

sense the uncertainties generated by surrendering control and will compel participants “to

be more than consumers of ready-made courses” (p. 80). Little argues that those who

succeed will be more coherent in their day-to-day interaction with their learners.

Some interesting ideas for teacher education and teacher development are proposed

by Lamb (2000), including: the need for reflective practice, the need to relinquish control

in the classroom, the integration of peer-assessment, peer-appraisal and mentoring, and

the consideration of teachers’ personal theories and beliefs given that their beliefs might

influence whether they promote autonomous learning or not.

This implies that in every university there might be lecturers who are more or less

inclined towards favouring learner autonomy and this study explores whether teachers

change their attitudes after a teacher training course that takes into account

recommendations from the literature to mirror teacher training with learner training, a

course that is co-produced by trainer and trainees, who jointly decide the aims, the course

content and the learning activities.

The Context of the Study: Self-Access Centres in Mexico

The study explores my own environment in relation to teacher training and its

effects on teachers’ attitudes. It was carried out with twelve teachers working in different


220

self-access centres (SACs) within the State University of Nuevo Leon (UANL), Mexico.

The SACs in the UANL offer two modalities of English learning for students. The first is

autonomous learning with guidance from a tutor in the SAC and the second is a blended

mode of classroom sessions plus autonomous learning in the SAC. These teachers work

in one or both of these modalities.

The participants in the study are 12 teachers, all of whom are Mexican. They

represent ten different schools, including four Preparatory Schools and six Faculties.

Their ages range from 22 to 55, while their experience in teaching ranges from one year

to 30 years and their experience in SACs ranges from one month to three years. There are

two men and ten women in this group of teachers.

These 12 teachers had shown two main attitudes that had been identified as

Directive Teachers and Trusting Teachers in pre-course interviews. The Directive

Teachers tended to distrust the students ability for self-direction and the Trusting

Teachers were more prepared to share the control and the responsibility for learning with

the students (Fabela, 2009).

The aim of the post-course study reported here was to explore whether the

teachers had been influenced by the experience in the course and whether they had had

any changes in opinions and beliefs after a teacher training course on autonomous

learning.

Methodology The study was carried out through Q Methodology, a method to study subjectivity

in a systematic objective way that uses quantitative as well as qualitative techniques to

understand subjectivity, that is, to understand the personal viewpoint of individuals on a

topic of personal or social importance (McKeown & Thomas, 1988). Q Methodology is

considered a qualitative method, appropriate for studies with a constructivist approach

that try to understand how people make sense of some particular issues or themes. Watts

and Stenner assert that it reveals:

…the primary ways in which these themes are being interconnected or otherwise

related by a group of participants. In other words, it can show us the particular


221

combinations or configurations of themes which are preferred by the participant

group. (2005, p. 70)

In order to obtain such configurations, Q methodology interviews are arranged

using a collection of opinions or ‘Q statements’ about the topic being researched, in this

case, issues of autonomous learning. Interviewees are asked to agree or disagree with the

‘Q Statements’. A Q statement is an opinion or a belief stated in a meaningful sentence

and a Q set is the collection of Q statements. The Q set in this study consisted of a total of

44 Q statements. Each participant was asked to rank the Q statements written on cards

according to his/her own opinions and score each statement under a scale that varies from

two opposite views, for example, ‘I strongly agree with this opinion’ or ‘I strongly

disagree’, and sometimes ‘most like me’ or ‘most unlike me’.

The level of agreement or disagreement can be represented on a scale from –5 to

+5 including zero, where –5 represents a strong disagreement, +5 represents a strong

agreement, and a neutral position is represented by zero. The participant sorting the Q

statements places every card under the scale, which is normally laid out on a table, thus

producing the scores for the statistical analysis. The objectivity of Q Methodology comes

from its statistical analysis which provides a systematic way to examine and reach

understandings about personal experiences (McKeown & Thomas, 1988).

The collection of the Q statements, which come from among all the members in the

community, helps in displaying many viewpoints. Through the interviews, the

participants express their own opinions based on the Q statements. Normally the Q

statements are collected from the discourse of the subjects in the research, from the

literature in the relevant field, from newspapers, editorials, articles and books. In this

case, the Q statements were collected from the voices of students, teachers, SAC

coordinators, and from the literature in the field of autonomous language learning. The

researcher designed some of the statements to balance the Q set by trying to make sure

that all possible viewpoints were included. The Q Statements for this study and their

sources appear in the appendix. An advantage in using Q Methodology is that it can

measure the intensity of the beliefs of the participants, possibly shedding light about why

some attitudes might be difficult to change. The issues discussed in the Q Methodology


222

interviews pre and post course ranged from teacher-centeredness to learner-centeredness,

distributed in seven dimensions: Autonomous learning, work in the SAC, views on

language learning, the role of teachers, the role of learners, views on local culture and

motivation. The results shown here report on the changes of teachers´ beliefs after the

course.

Results Post-course: Change in Teachers Attitudes

The reader will remember that a previous study (Fabela, 2009) reported that the

twelve participating teachers had allocated themselves into two ‘clusters of opinions’ or

‘components’. One cluster (formed by teachers T12, T5 and T4) showing an attitude

consistent with a Directive Teacher, another cluster (T1, T2, T3, T6, T7, T8, T9, T10,

T11) showing an attitude of a Trusting Teacher. This depended on whether they had a

tendency towards teacher-centeredness or learner-centeredness and learner autonomy.

In order to discover whether teachers’ attitudes change, a learner-centred and

learner-directed in-service teacher training course was organised. As suggested by Little

(1995), the course was co-produced by trainer and trainees so the aims, contents, process,

learning activities and assessment were negotiated. By following the principles for

learner-centeredness and autonomous learning, the contents, the processes, and the

distribution of the topics for a 20-hour timetable were decided by the trainees with the

teacher trainer adopting the role of the facilitator.

After the teacher training course, Q sort interviews were arranged and the

participating teachers scored their opinions on the same set of Q statements that were

used in the previous study (Fabela, 2009). These post-course interviews produced a new

dataset for the SPSS Data Reduction and Factor Analysis which are the statistical

techniques used in Q Methodology and that, based on the teachers scoring of the Q

statements; reveal how teachers thinking similarly will form a cluster of opinion. A

teacher belonging to a particular cluster is shown numerically in a significant ‘loading’ or

correlation coefficient.

A loading is statistically significant if its value is greater than 2.58 x SE, where S.

E. is the Standard Error calculated as 1/!N, and N is the number of Q Statements. Since

in this sample N = 44, loadings greater than 0.388 are statistically significant.


223

Table 1. Component Matrix (a). Component from the Factor Analysis Post-course.

Teachers Component 1

T6A .951

T12A .936

T8A .930

T9A .923

T3A .911

T10A .876

T7A .866

T1A .858

T5A .807

T2A .770

T4A .770

T11A .750

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

1 component extracted.

Rotated Component Matrix (a) Only one component was extracted.

The results in Table 1indicate that in the post-course interviews there was

only one component or group, which means that all 12 teachers had similar views

forming one cluster of similar opinions. This shows that the division in opinions pre-

course had disappeared.

Were the opinions of teachers favouring teacher-centeredness or inclined towards

learner- centeredness and learner autonomy? The teachers’ correlation coefficient to each

individual Q statement from the post-course interviews (see the appendix) shows exactly

how teachers scored their agreements and disagreements. A more general analysis to

detect teachers’ opinions along the continuum between learner-centeredness and teacher-


224

centeredness in respect of the seven dimensions represented by the Q statements was

carried out and is shown in Table 2. This general analysis is based on the correlation

coefficients contained in the appendix. Given that a correlation coefficient greater-than or

equal-to .8 or -.8 is considered significant the distribution between agreements and

disagreements was made considering .8 or above as Agreement; -.8 or greater was a

Disagreement; numbers in between -.8 and .8 were considered neutral as follows:

A is used for agreement (from 0.81786 to 1.11408), D for disagreement (from -1.5315 to

-0.86222) and N for neutral when loadings were low (from -0.60693 to 0.79152).


225

Table 2. Location of Teachers’ Post-course Views on the Seven Dimensions.

Dimensions Teacher-centred instruction. (Disagree to strongly disagree)

Learner-centred instruction. (Agree to strongly agree)

1. The role of Higher Education institutions

The only source of knowledge: Q2D, Q42D

One among many sources of knowledge: Q1A

2. Teachers’ roles (Sheerin, 1989) Paternal, authoritarian Q15N, Q30D, Q33D, Q52D, Q57N, Q59N

Fraternal, authoritative Q8A, Q18A, Q41A, Q55N, Q56N

3. Learners’ roles Dependent: Q5D, Q9N, Q44D, Q50D

Independent: Q3A, Q4A, Q6A, Q7A, Q10A, Q16A

4. Work in the SAC Isolating (frustrating, unproductive) Q22N, Q23N, Q28N, Q31A,

Supportive (productive): Q19A, Q20A,Q26A,Q27A Q46A,

5. Views on language learning (Gow & Kember, 1993; Williams & Burden, 1997)

Reproductive Q43N, Q47D, Q48D, Q49D

Meaning-based Q45N, Q54N

6. Views on local culture (Chandler 1983, p. 88 quoted by Jones, 1995).

Hindering autonomy Q12D, Q13D, Q39D,

Contributing to autonomy Q14A

7. Motivation (Ushioda, 1996)

Learners’ low motivation hinders autonomy

Learners’ high motivation contributes to autonomy Q34A

Table 2 shows that teachers agreed that higher education institutions were only

one source of knowledge among many other sources but considered that what is done in

schools is relevant. It was difficult for them to either agree or disagree if the roles of

teachers were paternal and assertive versus fraternal and permissive (see Sheerin, 1989).

However, the teachers disagreed that learners are meant to be dependent and

thought that learners should be given more opportunities to be independent. They


226

considered that the learners’ work in the SAC can be isolating and frustrating if learners

are not supported through learner training and learner counselling and that SACs offer

possibilities for students to extend their learning, to practise and to develop responsibility

and autonomy.

The teachers mostly disagreed that learning should be reproductive but were very

tentative about it being totally meaning-based. They disagreed that culture has a

hindering effect and agreed that there is a need to be competent in a rapidly-changing

world. They agreed that the motivation of the learners will increase when they are given

learner training and learner support in the SAC.

In summary, the Trusting Teachers group confirmed their views towards learner-

centeredness; and the teachers who had been in the Directive Teachers group (T12, T5,

and T4) actually changed towards views more favourable to learner-centeredness by

adopting similar views to those of the Trusting Teachers. Now, all 12 teachers seem to

have understood the principles of autonomous learning. So, how did teachers who had been classified as Directive (Fabela, 2009), before

the course, change their views after the training course on autonomous learning? A closer

look at their discourse, produced as they interacted with every Q statement, will allow us

to understand their thinking.

Teachers’ Voices about Change As part of the Q sorting process, teachers were asked to voice their own opinions

as they interacted with the Q statements. These opinions were recorded and transcribed

and serve to find out what teachers think. Their opinions here are very important for two

reasons; firstly, to confirm whether the course had an influence on teachers’ beliefs, and

secondly, to confirm whether they are being sincere in their indicated beliefs as opposed

to trying to please the interviewer, one of the risks of any interviewing process. This is

difficult to know, but the discourse was analysed, teacher by teacher, to try to find

contradictions.

The transcripts seem to show that teachers returned to their classrooms and SACs

to experiment with some of the ideas they had learned from the course, and their

attempts, and their reflections on their attempts, seem authentic.


227

Their reflections seemed to confirm the level of agreement or disagreement

expressed in the statistical loadings which showed that they all have similar opinions

forming only one group, and that after the course the two groups found in the pre-course

interviews as the Trusting Teachers and the Directive Teachers have merged into one

group with similar opinions favouring autonomous learning.

The teachers’ reflections were about: self-direction; the influence that younger

teachers had on older teachers and vice versa; the feelings of uncertainty that autonomous

learning entails; learning strategies; having a different role as a teacher; an increase in

motivation by choosing their own topics in the teacher training course instead of having

these imposed; learning pathways; the demands on time and energy that the change

requires from teachers; and changing and evolving.

The following opinions from Teacher T4 and Teacher T12 seem to indicate that

they were not expecting to contribute, together with the facilitator, to the decision-making

about how the course should be carried out:

T4 about the course: We are not used to such course management, I thought

you would bring all the topics we were going to see but this course adapts to

our needs, to what we want, and we build it. At the beginning we all wanted

to talk about motivation because that’s a problem that we all share and later

we saw other topics of our interest and perhaps that brings out more interest

than if the topics had been imposed.

T12 About the course: From the moment you asked ‘what would you like to

do in the course?’, and logically it was the first time [we heard this] and I

told my friend ‘I don’t understand what’s happening, she is supposed to be

teaching us’ and my friend said ‘I think they are not ready, they don’t know

about this course, perhaps they got the date [for the course] wrong, I think

they haven’t organised it. But then everything was focused on only one

point: autonomous learning; [therefore] the course couldn’t be any other

way.


228

It is interesting to see that the course has given them some benefits; T4, for

example, seems to have gained confidence and self-esteem to be a language advisor:

T4: Before the course, I used to feel an administrative or a secretary, any

other thing but not a teacher, and with the course I realised I could apply all

what I learned in my BA and this is something I didn’t feel before taking the

course, now I realise that when I develop activities in the SAC I can apply

all what I know about the subject. As you said, we continue to be teachers

but with a different role.

And others benefited too, gaining some practical ideas in terms of what the

teachers have to do to provide resources in SACs, but also an awareness of the time and

energy that the change requires from the teachers:

T9 about the course: I plan to implement the idea of the learning pathways.

I’ll try to find time to prepare them. I know it is a lot of work but it’s worth

it, that’s what I want to do.

This section finishes with a quotation that looks towards the future with hope:

T5 on Q 13: Well, it is difficult to change and to develop towards

autonomous learning but I don’t agree that if we changed we would betray

our culture; on the contrary, we would be evolving, so to speak.

This section has shown the teachers’ voices about their own beliefs after the

experiential training course. Similar to the findings of Kato (2012, p. 86) the interaction

of the teachers with the Q statements in the interview process seem “to allow advisors to

reflect critically and explore themselves differently in a way which might not take place

in an internal dialogue or in casual workplace conversations”. The following section

contains some reflections.


229

Conclusions This discourse analysis, along with the statistical results, seems to show that the

teacher training had a positive effect on teachers’ beliefs and attitudes towards learner

autonomy. It cannot be claimed that the process of the course went very smoothly as the

participants - teachers and educators - experienced doubts and anxieties along the way.

During the first two days of the course, teachers were reluctant to take control and the

educator had to step in to assist, thus making this course more a combination of methods

rather than a purely experiential method. This confirms that teachers, like learners, are at

different stages of self-direction as professionals and at different levels of autonomy as

learners. Initially they expected the educator to be directive. This was reflected in the

results regarding their views about the role of teachers, where they did not seem

convinced of the need to move from the paternal, authoritarian role of the teacher to a

more fraternal and facilitating role. This could be interpreted as a cultural trait and a

legacy that needs to change in the future as teachers gain more self-esteem for self-

direction. However the opportunity to co-produce the training course as in learner-centred

education helped them be more aware of the processes involved in promoting

autonomous learning in their own classrooms.

This body of data also seems to show that teachers who had previously shown

attitudes consistent with teacher-centeredness changed their attitudes towards learner-

centeredness after a training course which was based on the principles of learner-

centeredness and learner autonomy, and went back to their classrooms and SACs to try

out some of the new ideas.

Notes on the contributor

Martha Fabela is a professor at the Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Faculty of

Philosophy and Arts. She is responsible for educating student-teachers and in-service

teachers in the bachelor and graduate programmes on ELT. Within this university she

was in charge of developing 57 self-access centres and training teachers and advisors in

their use and operation, and in the provision of services and support for language

students.


230

References

Aoki, N. (2002). Aspects of teacher autonomy: Capacity, freedom and responsibility. In P. Benson & S. Toogood (Eds.), Learner autonomy 7: Challenges to research and practice (pp. 110-124). Dublin, Ireland: Authentik.

Benson, P. (2000). Autonomy as a learners' and teachers' right. In B. Sinclair, I. McGrath,

& T. Lamb (Eds.), Learner autonomy, teacher autonomy: Future directions (pp. 111-117). Harlow, UK: Longman.

Benson, P. (2007). Teachers’ and learners’ perspectives on autonomy. In T. E. Lamb &

H. Reinders (Eds.), Learner and teacher autonomy: Concepts, realities and responses (pp. 15-32) Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Chan, V. (2003). Autonomous language learning: The teacher's perspectives. Teaching in

Higher Education, 8(1), 33-54. Chandler, D. (1983). A history of Cambodia. Boulder, CO: Westview. Cotterall, S. (1995). Developing a course strategy for learner autonomy. ELT Journal,

49(3), 219-227. Dam, L. (1995). Learner autonomy: From theory to classroom practice. Dublin, Ireland: Authentik. Ellis, G., & Sinclair, B. (1989). Learning to learn English. A course in learner training.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Fabela-Cárdenas, M.A. (2009). Teachers’ attitudes on learning autonomy in

the context of self-access language centres. Lenguas en Aprendizaje Auto-Dirigido Revista Electrónica, 3(1). Retreived from cad.cele.unam.mx/leaa

Gardner, D., & Miller, L. (1999). Establishing self-access. From theory to

practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Garton-Sprenger, J. (1990). Training learners to learn. In D. Hill & S. Holden (Eds.),

Effective teaching and learning (pp. 58-63). Oxford, UK: Modern English Publications.

Gow, L., & Kember, D. (1993). Conceptions of teaching and their relationship to student

learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 20-33. Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford, UK: Pergamon

Press. Illich, I. (1971). Deschooling society. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.


231

Jones, J. F. (1995). Self-access and culture: retreating from autonomy. ELT Journal,

49(3), 228-234. Kato, S. (2012). Professional development for learning advisors: Facilitating the

intentional reflective dialogue. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 3(1), 74-92.

Lamb, T. (2000). Finding a voice: Learner autonomy and teacher education in an

urban context. In B. Sinclair, I. McGrath, & T. Lamb (Eds.), Learner autonomy teacher autonomy: Future directions (pp. 118-127). Harlow, UK: Longman.

Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy: Definitions, issues and problems. Dublin, Ireland:

Authentik Little, D. (1995). Learning as dialogue: The dependence of learner autonomy on teacher

autonomy. System, 23(2), 175-181. Lowes, R., & Target F. (1998). Helping students to learn. London, UK: Richmond

Publishing. McGrath, I. (2000) Teacher Autonomy. In B. Sinclair, I. McGrath, & T. Lamb (Eds.),

Learner autonomy, teacher autonomy: Future directions (pp. 100-110). Harlow, UK: Longman.

McKeown, B., & Thomas, D. (1988). Q Methodology. London, UK: Sage Publications. Nakata, Y. (2011). Teachers’ readiness for promoting learner autonomy: A study of

Japanese EFL high school teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(5), 900-910.

Nunan, D. (1988). The Learner-centred curriculum. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press. Reinders, H., & Lazaro, N. (2011). Beliefs, identity and motivation in implementing

autonomy: The teacher’s perspective. In G. Murray, A. Gao & T. Lamb (Eds.), Identity, motivation and autonomy in language learning. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Sheerin, S. (1989). Self-access. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Sinclair, B., McGrath I., & Lamb, T. (Eds.) (2000). Learner autonomy, teacher

autonomy: Future directions. English Language Teaching Review. Harlow, UK: Longman.

Smith, R. C. (2000). Starting with ourselves: Teacher learner autonomy in language


232

learning. In B. Sinclair, I. McGrath & T. Lamb (Eds.), Learner autonomy: Teacher autonomy: Future directions (pp. 89-99). Harlow, UK: Longman.

Smith, R. C. (2001). Teacher education for teacher-learner autonomy. In J. Gollin, G.

Ferguson, & H. Trappes-Lomax (Eds), Language in language teacher education (CD version). Edinburgh, Scotland: IALS, University of Edinburgh.

Ushioda E. (1996) Learner autonomy 5: The role of motivation. Dublin, Ireland:

Authentik Voller, P. (1997). Does the teacher have a role in autonomous language learning? In P.

Benson & P. Voller (Eds.), Autonomy and independence in language learning. (pp. 98-113). Harlow, UK: Longman.

Yang, N. D. (1998). Exploring a new role for teachers: Promoting learner autonomy.

System, 26(1), 127. Williams, M., & Burden, R. (1997). Psychology for language teachers: A social

constructivist approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2005). Doing Q Methodology: Theory, method and

interpretation. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2, 67-91.


233

Appendix. Teachers loadings for Q statements Post-Course

Correlation Coefficient

Q Statement

-1.5315 2. Teachers and universities are the only ones with the obligation to teach the students and they must give all the information and all the knowledge students will need in their active life as adults (Q by the researcher).

-1.51785 39. The school and any type of learning must be solemn and boring for it to be serious and effective. It´s not possible to learn effectively and have fun at the same time (Q by the researcher).

-1.43862 42. Nothing you do at school matters anyway. (Lowes &Target, 1998).

-1.43219 5. In a teaching-learning situation the teacher has 100% responsibility for the students´ learning. The students only need to obey the teacher because the teacher knows best (Q by the researcher).

-1.40058 13. Under the Mexican culture it is very difficult to change and develop towards a culture of autonomous and independent learning (from a teacher).

-1.32057 52. The teacher should decide what happens in the lesson. It is important that the teacher stays in control of the lesson. The teacher should know the best way for the students to learn. Students are in class to listen to the teacher and learn from her/him (Lowes &Target, 1998, p. 15).

-1.28829 49. There is a “right” way to learn and the teacher knows it (Lowes & Target, 1998, p. 15).

-1.28805 50. Independent learning is for very brilliant people, almost genius. All the rest, we need teachers to teach us, and to impose discipline and control. We don’t do anything on our own (Q by the researcher).

-1.24795 44. You learn by listening and doing as you are told rather than by working things out for yourself (Lowes & Target, 1998).

-1.16742 12. Traditional teaching, whereby the teacher has all the knowledge, all the authority, and all the responsibility for the students´ learning, is the best option we have. That’s the way we have always done it and that’s the way that works the best (Q by the researcher).

-1.05245 47. Students cannot evaluate their own learning (Lowes & Target, 1998).

-0.95215 30. The role of the teacher in the classroom should be the traditional role of teaching English in the classroom. Students need strict and close supervision. The idea of working in the SAC is nonsense. The students have neither willingness nor ability to study on their own. Teachers have to push them to come and study in the SAC (Q by the researcher).

-0.92732 48. You only learn because you are forced to (Lowes & Target, 1998).

-0.86222 33. The teachers in the SAC have no will and no ability to train students on how to learn. The students don’t want to learn how to learn (Q by the


234

researcher).

-0.60693 57. Teachers don’t like training learners on how to learn, they prefer teaching them English only (from SAC Coordinator).

-0.59570 15. Students have to be closely supervised otherwise they will take unexpected paths that teachers didn’t indicate. Students need to be checked frequently so they don’t go wild and they don’t go where they shouldn’t (from a teacher).

-0.56432 45. Some people- only a few- have a gift for languages (Lowes & Target, 1998).

-0.52257 56. Tutoring students enrolled in AL is less tiring than teaching and preparing lessons since the teaching timetables are fixed while the tutoring timetables are flexible (from SAC Coordinator).

-0.46918 43. What you learn in the English course cannot help you in the engineering [or any undergraduate] courses (adapted from Lowes & Target, 1998).

0.03378 55. Normally in my English lessons my students and I make joint decisions about the planning, pacing and evaluating of the activities for the classroom (Cotterall, 1995).

0.10278 28. The information given to the learner when s/he is enrolling in the SAC for AL is very limited. That’s why the learners feel insecure at the beginning. I think the information should be clear, simple and friendly (from a student).

0.16282 59. For a teacher, teaching is easier that tutoring. For teaching they can have everything planned and programmed, while tutoring requires student-centred programmes and timetables (from a SAC Coordinator).

0.29553 54. The most meaningful part of what I have learnt, I’ve learnt it outside the classroom (adapted from Jones, 1995 citing Illich, 1971).

0.46663 22. Learners are lazy and have no self-discipline, they don´t do anything by themselves. The teachers have to put them under pressure for them to study. If students are not made to present their work to the teacher then they don’t do any work (from the teachers’ team in discussions).

0.55724 23.The flexibility of AL is attractive to the students but when they feel alone and they don’t feel at ease in the SAC they loose motivation due to the fact they are not used to this type of learning (from a student ).

0.65385 9. Learners who always depend on the teacher will have difficulty operating outside the classroom (Garton-Sprenger, 1989).

0.78288 8. Teachers should stop worrying about being better teachers, and spend more time helping our students to become better learners. In this context, the teacher is a guide rather than a Goddess), who provides students with information about the learning process and who helps them take responsibility for their own learning (Garton-Sprenger, 1989).

0.79152 4. Teachers should help students develop their ability to make their own decisions about what to do rather than being influenced by others or told


235

what to do (Dam, 1995, p. 4). 0.81786 7. It is impossible for the teacher to please all students all of the time,

particularly given the constraints of course-books, syllabuses requirements, exams, etc. It is therefore important that students formulate their own realistic objectives and develop their own learning strategies (Garton-Sprenger, 1989, p. 59).

0.83042 18. In AL the student does not feel pushed by the teacher or by the group but s/he learns at his/her own pace. However, it is necessary that a teacher is there to support me (from a student).

0.92856 27. When a student enrols for the CR+SAC programme, s/he must be willing to learn and willing to dedicate the time required and be aware that what the teacher teaches is not enough, that s/he must practice on his/her own (From a student).

0.96486 46. At the beginning, when a student is using the SAC for the first time s/he might feel insecure, shy, and uncomfortable but as soon as he begins to use the SAC regularly he stops being afraid and feels more confident to make decisions and take actions (from a student).

1.00966 3. It is more important for a young person to have an understanding of himself or herself, an awareness of the environment and its workings, and to have learned how to think and how to learn (Trim, 1984, p. 6 cited in Dam, 1995, p. 3).

1.01036 6. Learners should know how to choose what they need to learn, the teacher must be available to present them with all the possible sources and all the possible strategies to use the sources and to learn. Q by the researcher as opposite to Q. 5)

1.04133 31. Students read in the newspaper that most companies require graduates from engineering who are proficient in English but despite this SS don’t do any extra effort to learn English. They think that a 50 minute lesson per day is more than enough. They don’t come to the SAC to extend their learning (teachers team in discussions).

1.04464 20. Students in the SAC (in their practice) acquire more knowledge because they confirm what was seen in the classroom and they learn to be more autonomous and responsible and organised with their time (from a student).

1.05654 26. AL helps the student to have some initiative, because s/he is not limited by the teacher, s/he can do more than what the teacher suggests (from a student).

1.06914 1. No school or even university can provide its pupils with all the knowledge and the skills they will need in their adult lives (Trim, 1984, p. 6 quoted by Dam, 1995).

1.07266 14. The world is changing rapidly; there is always new information to be learnt. We must learn to learn new knowledge, discoveries, and developments on our own for the times when there will be no teacher to teach us. If we don’t learn on our own we won’t be competent and efficient at a local level let alone worldwide (from a student).


236

1.09136 41. Not everything a learner needs to know can be taught in class (Nunan, 1988).

1.09226 34. If students understand how the SAC works and how to take advantage of the materials and resources existing in the SAC, they would feel more confident to study in the SAC on their own. With a good learner training it would be possible that students want to, and are able to study in the SAC without being pushed by the teacher (Q by the researcher).

1.09356 19. A student working in the SAC is not limited to only one book, or topic, or skill, etc. but s/he has the opportunity to study or practice in all the areas (from a student).

1.10155 16. AL gives us more independence since we come to realize that we can learn on our own without needing to be depending on the teacher (from a student).

1.11408 10. Learning to learn autonomously is the best way to invest my time in the university to be able to learn whatever comes in the future when I am no longer in the university (Q by the researcher).


! "#$!

Scaffolding Students’ Initial Self-Access Language Centre Experiences

Robert Croker, Nanzan University, Japan

Umida Ashurova, Sugiyama Jogakuen University, Japan

Abstract

As the number of self-access language centres (SALCs) in Japanese universities continues to grow, so too does the challenge of successfully introducing them to first-year university students, whose initial experiences of self-access language learning may otherwise be confusing and even unsettling. One approach is to carefully scaffold students’ first SALC encounters by connecting them with their classroom learning experiences. This paper discusses one such approach developed at a private university in central Japan, which was based upon a two-stage ‘push-pull’ ‘materials-light, people-focused’ strategy. Teachers initially ‘pushed’ their students to visit the SALC by giving them speaking ‘homework’ to be done there. The SALC then also offered interesting interactive events designed to ‘pull’ learners to continue to come. These push-pull activities could be done with few or no materials, and emphasized interaction with people rather than materials. This two-stage, push-pull strategy served as a bridge between the language classroom and a SALC, helping learners make the first steps in their transition from being a ‘classroom English learner’ to becoming a ‘SALC English user’.

Keywords: connecting to the classroom, SALC activities, learner motivation

For many first-year Japanese university students, attending a self-access learning centre

(SALC) can be daunting. From their experience, English has often been a language that has been

taught inside the classroom under the direct supervision and control of the teacher. The freedom of

a SALC may easily bewilder these students. That freedom challenges their assumptions about

learning by asking them to accept that a language is primarily learned and not taught, that this

learning can occur outside the classroom and beyond the teacher’s gaze, and that it can be a

collaborative, self-directed endeavour. Given this gulf between their previous learning experiences

and the ‘foreign culture’ of a SALC (Jones, 1995), it is perhaps not surprising that many first-year

students are apprehensive about beginning to engage in self-access learning.

To help first-year students overcome this initial hesitance to step foot in a SALC, a two-

stage, push-pull strategy was developed by the English program on the Seto Campus of Nanzan

University, Japan, for its SALC, called the World Plaza, when it initially opened in 2006. Starting

in the first weeks of the spring semester, first-year English communication and reading teachers

‘pushed’ their students to go to the World Plaza by giving them interactive speaking projects and

tasks to do there, instead of, or in addition to, regular class homework. Then, from the middle of the


! "#%!

first semester, events were also held in the World Plaza to ‘pull’ students there, such as having

regular chat time, lunchtime discussion clubs, movie clubs, a language clinic, and guest speakers.

This two-stage, push-pull strategy was successful in helping many first-year students develop the

habit of regularly coming to the centre.

This strategy also dovetailed with two crucial features of the World Plaza: a ‘materials-light,

people-focused’ approach which emphasized students interacting with each other rather than with

materials; and a ‘no using Japanese’ speaking rule. These features put interacting in English at the

very heart of the World Plaza, a noisy, bustling space about the size of a high-school classroom. It

was assumed that the students were the primary, and sufficient, learning resource. By doing so,

students could change the way they see themselves, from being ‘classroom English learners’ to

becoming ‘SALC English users’ – students who enjoyed coming to the SALC to use English and to

participate in the English language learning community that developed there.

Stage One: Connecting the Classroom to a SALC

Experiences in other programs

There is now a growing body of research that supports explicitly linking the classroom with

a SALC. The research David Gardner and Lindsey Miller conducted at universities in Hong Kong

in the mid-1990s (as reported in Gardner & Miller, 2010) found that there were weak links between

classroom instruction and SALCs, as the self-access programs had been developed independently

from classroom teaching. However, when they repeated their study in Hong Kong in 2010, they

found that there was much more integration. One way that classrooms were being integrated with

SALCs there was through project-based learning, a strategy that Gardner and Miller had first

advocated over a decade earlier: “Although a project may be started in class, learners could use self-

access facilities and libraries to continue their work; …. In this way classroom-based learning can

be linked with a self-access centre” (Gardner & Miller, 1999, p. 167).

There are also some published reports of a shift to a closer integration of classroom

activities with a SALC through projects and tasks in the Japanese university context. One example

is Gene Thompson and Lee Atkinson’s account of project-based learning at a private university in

Hiroshima (Thompson & Atkinson, 2010). There, classroom learning was connected to materials

and resources in the university SALC through activities and projects. These were skillfully designed

to serve as an ongoing orientation for first-year students to the SALC and its resources. Each

activity the learners did there used different resources or areas of the SALC, designed around

specific ‘pathways’ to introduce learners to the centre. Thompson and Atkinson found that

“[p]roviding specific pathways into the SALC gave even the most reluctant learners a clear reason


! "#&!

and objective for using the center” (Thompson & Atkinson, 2010, p. 53). Similarly, Hamish Gillies

(2010) suggested scaffolding such reluctant learners’ initial jump from the classroom to the SALC

with short and achievable tasks that the teacher sets and practices in the classroom before learners

complete them in the SALC. For Gillies, the goal is to introduce learners to the SALC through

interactive and collaborative activities so that their first experiences there are enjoyable and

successful.

The Nanzan University, Seto Campus case

In the case of Nanzan University, in preparation for the opening in 2006 of the World Plaza

on the Seto Campus, the twelve teachers in the English program, which included Robert (one of the

authors of this paper), began discussing its concept and operation. We decided that the World Plaza

itself would be staffed by one full-time and two part-time ‘World Plaza Assistants’, would be open

from 10am to 6pm weekdays, and funded initially by a four-year Japanese government ‘Gendai GP’

grant. We also decided that the World Plaza would have relatively few language learning materials

– only some newspapers, magazines, DVDs of movies and sitcoms, and two flat-screen TVs – but

many tables, chairs and sofas where learners could sit and interact with each other. Benson had

reminded us that “organizational aspects of the center and its resources convey messages to learners

about the nature of language learning” (2001, p. 119), and that open areas for interaction emphasize

that language learning is a process of communication and collaboration (Benson, 1995).

We also considered how we could introduce this new learning space to our non-English

major students, many of whom seemed to be quite reluctant learners. We decided to focus on first-

year students. In the first year of university, language identities are forged, and these identities

strongly shape SALC use, as Hamish Gillies’s subsequent research confirmed (2010). Realizing

that it would be particularly important to provide support to students who come to the World Plaza

for the first time (Hughes, Krug, and Vye, 2012), we decided to carefully scaffold these learners’

first experiences in the World Plaza through ‘push activities’ – interactive language projects and

tasks that classroom teachers could give their students that ‘pushed’ them to go there. Each teacher

set their own push activities in class, and learners first practiced them there before doing them later

in the World Plaza. The information that each learner collected in the World Plaza could then be

used in later classes for further activities – so connecting the World Plaza back to the classroom. A

colleague, David Barker, dubbed these projects and tasks ‘World Plaza ACtivities', or WPACs

(pronounced ‘wa-paks’) for short. To help make these push activities clear, here are three examples

(you can find more examples in Appendix A):


! "'(!

Language learning histories – done with a senior student: To prepare for the WPAC,

learners first interviewed two or three classmates during class time about their language

learning experiences, using both questions given by their teacher and also their own. After

class, in the World Plaza, each learner then interviewed one senior student to create a

language learning history of that person, which the learner condensed into a bullet point

form. In the following class, learners summarized this language learning history to a partner.

Partners compared their own and their senior’s language learning histories. This project

gave the first-year students the opportunity to meet learners in the upper years, many of

whom were quite motivated to study English.

Travel preferences survey – done with first-year students from other classes: Using

questions that students themselves had created in class, learners interviewed four or five

students from other classes who were in the World Plaza about their travel preferences

(Would you prefer to stay in a hotel or a ryokan? Travel by bus or train? Schedule lots of

activities or have lots of free time?), and reported the results back to a partner in the next

class. The two partners compared their results, then the class jigsawed so each partner could

summarize these differences to a new partner. Such projects socialized the whole first-year

to work together in the World Plaza.

Describing pictures – done with one student from the same class: Learners practiced

describing pictures in class, using language practice sheets. In the World Plaza, learners

selected three pictures from the magazines on display there, took a photo of them with their

phone, and practiced describing them for a ‘mini-presentation’ to a different partner in the

next class. In class, this partner then chose one picture to describe back to the presenter, who

listened and helped if necessary. This project prepared students for their mid-term speaking

test, and it helped learners become used to the idea of practicing English outside class for

assignments and tests.

World Plaza ACtivities (WPACs)

WPACs were different from regular language class homework. Regular homework was

assigned to be done individually but the key feature of WPACs was that they were done

interactively with other students, and often with students from other classes. Another distinction

was that regular homework often required learners to read and write to prepare them for more

interactive communicative tasks in class whereas WPACs obliged learners to also speak and listen –

the interactive communicative tasks were ‘the homework’. Getting learners to speak and listen was


! "')!

consistent with the interactive nature of the World Plaza, and to focus on language as a tool for

communication rather than exam preparation. It also helped to develop a language learning

community that, as previous research indicates, motivates learners to continue to use a SALC

(Hughes, Krug and Vye, 2011), as discussed further below. To keep students accountable for their

work in the World Plaza, all WPACs had to receive an authorized stamp or signature in order for

students to get credit. Moreover, due to their interactive nature, cheating on WPACs or doing the

tasks in Japanese was made quite difficult.

One shortcoming of WPACs was that they had to be done in the World Plaza, and only

during opening times, while regular homework could be done almost anywhere and at any time.

However, students could and did negotiate to do WPACs outside the World Plaza if they had a

pressing reason, such as being unable to go to the World Plaza that week, or preferring to do the

WPAC with a family member or particular friend. This extended the learning space beyond the

World Plaza to the broader world – which in fact was the real goal of the WPACs. Table 1

summarizes the differences between regular homework and WPACs.

Table 1: Comparing regular homework on the Seto Campus and WPACs

Regular Homework World Plaza Activities (WPACs)

Done individually

Done interactively with other learners

Often requires learners only to read and write but not speak or listen

Can focus primarily on listening and speaking

The teacher is unsure whether it is done in English or not

Definitely done in English, due to the ‘no using Japanese language’ policy in the World Plaza

The teacher is unsure whether it is done by the student him/herself

Definitely done by the student if it is signed or stamped by peers, volunteer students, or World Plaza staff

Can be done anywhere

Must be done in the World Plaza

In order to ensure that learners had enjoyable and successful initial self-access learning

experiences, they had to understand clearly how to do each WPAC. As learners were unfamiliar

with them at the beginning of the semester, every WPAC was carefully designed to be fun and

achievable, and each one was introduced carefully in class. WPACs were based upon the topics,

tasks, and activities done in class, using language that learners had already prepared there. To create


! "'"!

an expectation that learners would be able to succeed, each WPAC was first modelled and practiced

in class, giving learners opportunities to make those inevitable first mistakes and ask questions

about how to avoid them. It also gave teachers a chance to identify and address any potential

unforeseen problems. Additionally, to promote positive interactions among students, appropriate

attitudes in the World Plaza were also discussed. For example, teachers and students discussed

being positive about speaking English, being open to helping other learners do their WPACs, and

being challenged by World Plaza experiences. Learners seemed to carry those attitudes into the

centre, where they facilitated learner interaction and helped make the experience enjoyable and

successful. Interacting in the World Plaza became an opportunity for learners to extend their

language comfort zones.

In our English program, each teacher could determine how to link WPACs to their own

classroom. Some teachers regularly gave WPACs every week, and for some courses 10% of class

grades were based upon them. Also, some teachers required all learners in a class to do certain

WPACs, but made other WPACs optional. However, of these optional WPACs, learners may have

been required to do a certain number (say, two or three) over a semester. Since learners were busy

with club activities, part-time jobs, and homework from other classes, they were given at least a

week to complete a WPAC.

To prove that they had done their WPAC appropriately, when learners had completed one

they got the signature of their WPAC partners and of the World Plaza staff on their WPAC sheet.

Also, there was a World Plaza attendance stamp card system called the World Plaza Passport.

Learners received one stamp for each 30 minutes they were in the World Plaza. For attending a

regular event, learners received a blue stamp and for completing a WPAC, learners received a red

stamp. The World Plaza Assistants would also note the date the WPACs were done. When learners

had finished their first ‘bronze’ level stamp card, they would move up to the silver, gold, and then

member levels, which motivated many learners to keep coming back to the World Plaza.

Who could learners do their WPACs with? At the beginning of the semester, teachers

allocated WPAC partners in class before going to the World Plaza to help ease learners’ initial

trepidations. However, we soon found that it was better to allow learners to select their own

partners, either before going to the World Plaza or once they were there. The World Plaza

Assistants, one of whom was Umida (the other author of this paper, and the full-time World Plaza

Assistant during this project who developed many of the pull activities), could also help learners

find a partner if necessary. It was easiest for learners to do WPACs with learners from the same

class. Classmates knew the context and purpose of the WPAC, and had practiced the necessary

language. However, learners were often required to do their WPACs with learners from other

classes, or encouraged to invite friends from other classes to go to the World Plaza to do them


! "'#!

together. Doing WPACs with learners from other classes proved to be more challenging and

exciting, and helped build the sense of there being a World Plaza community that spanned the entire

school. Moreover, in ‘managing’ such WPAC interactions with students from different classes,

learners needed to explain the ‘what,’ ‘why,’ and ‘how’ of the WPAC, and also help the other

learner with the language needed to complete the task. In so doing, learners had to use a broader

array of language resources than they would with a classmate and there was much more opportunity

for unexpected responses and language. For example, for the travel preferences survey, the learner

had to explain to the student from the other class what the survey was, why it would be interesting

to do, and describe how to complete it; also, the students from the other classes might use language

that the learner had not practiced in her own class. However, we found that it was better to wait

until learners had become familiar with the idea of doing WPACs before expecting them to work

with students from other classes, and to keep these WPACs simple and straightforward.

Conceptualizing push activities

One way we thought about push activities was in terms of how teacher-directed or learner-

directed they were. For example, when a WPAC was an interview, if the teacher decided the topic

and all of the questions and the learners only chose their partners, then this WPAC was relatively

teacher-directed. On the other hand, if the learners could decide the topic and write their own

interview questions, then this WPAC was more learner-directed. The distinction is important

because making WPACs more learner-directed over the semester and year led learners to take more

control over their own learning and develop greater autonomy.

Another way we thought about WPACs was in terms of how many World Plaza materials it

required. For example, an interview required no World Plaza resources, as learners would bring

questions on their own paper and just chat to other learners there. Such an activity was ‘materials

light’. However, if the WPAC needed the learners to watch a DVD, read a newspaper or magazine,

or play English language board games, then it required more materials. This distinction is important

because the availability of materials could be a major constraint on projects and tasks, particularly

when a SALC newly opens or has a limited budget, an issue that Thompson and Atkinson (2010)

also discovered.

The framework in Figure 1 categorises WPACs along two continuums. The horizontal

continuum represents the degree to which WPACs were teacher- or learner-directed. WPACs on the

left were more teacher-directed, whereas WPACs on the right were more learner-directed. The

vertical continuum represents the amount of material required. WPACs at the top of Figure 1

required few or no materials, whereas WPACs at the bottom required more materials and these

materials were either permanently kept in the World Plaza or put there for just a short period of


! "''!

time. In the top-left quadrant, then, are activities that are teacher directed and materials light,

whereas in the top-right quadrant are activities that are learner directed but still materials light. In

the bottom-left quadrant are activities that are teacher directed but more materials heavy, while in

the bottom-right quadrant are activities that are learner directed but more materials heavy. All of the

example WPACs are explained in more detail in Appendix A.

Figure 1. Push activities – WPACs framework

Stage Two: Offering Events to Continue to ‘Pull’ Students into a SALC

The bridge from the classroom to self-directed learning

The WPAC projects helped first-year learners develop the habit of going to the World Plaza

regularly but they were just the first stage in scaffolding learners towards using the World Plaza

regularly. The second stage was holding events in the World Plaza that pulled learners to keep

visiting there of their own volition. This two-stage, push-pull process is represented in Figure 2.


! "'*!

Figure 2: Developing greater learner-directedness: push projects and pull events

Note: Adapted from Jones (1998).

World Plaza pull events were organized regularly throughout the week, and advertised

throughout the campus on posters and on the English program website. Most events were held

during lunchtimes, and learners could eat their lunch then. At the beginning of lunchtime each day,

the World Plaza Assistant would invite learners to join the events through the campus loudspeaker

system. At other times of the day, including after fourth period, other events were also scheduled.

Some events were held once a week, some twice or more. Here are two example pull events, both

mostly for lower-level learners (more examples are provided in Appendix B):

English Conversation Lounge: Learners dropped by to chat with the Assistants and other

learners about light topics. Serving as the core of World Plaza community-building, this

event created opportunities each day for learners to talk to each other without worrying

about their proficiency. A special event called ‘Beginners’ Paradise’ was arranged for

elementary-level learners.

Travel Club: Learners could share their travel experiences and information about previous

and prospective destinations for leisure travel, study-abroad programs, and home stays.

Enthusiastic senior students eager to share their travel experiences, and junior students

thinking about, or dreaming about, their next trips, usually participated. Learners were

encouraged to bring photos and other mementoes.

Crossing that bridge with other learners

Motivating learners to continue to use English outside the classroom, beyond homework and


! "'+!

structured activities like WPACs, is arguably one of the biggest challenges facing any EFL

language program. Successful learning in itself can be very motivating, and learners who regularly

attend a SALC have been reported to improve their English proficiencies more than double those of

learners who do not attend (Vye, Krug, Wurzinger, and Hughes, 2011, and Krug, Wurzinger,

Hughes, and Vye, 2011, both cited in Hughes, Krug and Vye, 2011). But these successes may take

time to become apparent. What is the key to helping learners reach that point? Leander Hughes and

his colleagues Nathan Krug and Stacey Vye (2012) found that the reasons learners at a public

Japanese university went to their SALC changed over time. Initially, learners went because they felt

that it would help them to learn English; however, the most common reason for continuing to visit

was primarily social; that is, they felt that they had become members of a learning community

there. Also, the teacher pushing learners to go to the SALC became a less important reason over

time, and the presence of resources there was not particularly significant at any point (Hughes, Krug

and Vye, 2012). The authors concluded that the key to fostering long-term motivation to attend a

SALC lies in nurturing the establishment of social bonds between learners.

These findings are consistent with the push-pull approach we had adopted. In the first stage,

the teachers designed WPACs that got learners to see the World Plaza as a learning space outside

the classroom. In this learning space, learners could interact with learners from other classes and

years, and this began to socialize learners into the World Plaza language learning community. In the

second stage, the role of the teacher becomes less important, and the World Plaza Assistants

facilitated the development of a learning community by organizing many events each week that

were interesting, appealing, and most importantly, interactive – reflecting the greater emphasis

placed on socializing and community-building. Moreover, the materials-light nature of the World

Plaza was not important to most learners, who did not see resources as a major reason to visit the

World Plaza.

Conceptualizing pull events

We thought about pull events in a similar way to the push activities; in terms of how many

materials they required. However, rather than thinking of pull events in terms of being teacher-

directed or learner-directed, we conceptualized them in terms of which level of learner they were

best suited for, i.e. lower-level learners or higher-level learners. Figure 3 illustrates this framework,

and provides examples of each type of pull event, which are all explained in more detail in

Appendix B.


! "'$!

Figure 3. Pull activities – World Plaza events framework

Lower-level learners would often initially choose to attend easy and fun social events and

later try more challenging events. Higher-level learners would often go directly to the more difficult

events, and some even gave presentations as lunchtime guest speakers. Less confident learners’

journeys would often follow a similar route; first, they might participate in lower-level interactive

events and later try higher-level ones. The more adventurous learners might later become lunchtime

guest speakers. In so doing, the student guest speakers acted as guides or near-peer role models

(Murphey, 1996) for other learners.

Conclusion

Thompson and Atkinson (2010) remind us that it is important not to dichotomize learning

experiences into the classroom versus a SALC, but rather to think in terms of the degree to which

they can be integrated – from weak integration to strong integration. For the Seto Campus English

program teachers, the push-pull strategy offered an approach that increased that integration in a way

that made sense to our learners. It scaffolded their journey from more structured teacher-directed

activities begun in their classrooms through to more learner-directed projects that occurred in a

SALC. The journey our students undertook at the World Plaza was a people-focused process that


! "'%!

did not require many resources or even staff – just learners, a space, and a strategy to skillfully link

the two together. It was a strategy that recognized that learners have different motivational triggers,

and sought to provide multiple opportunities for them to explore new learning experiences and

learner identities as they developed from being a ‘classroom English learner’ toward being a ‘SALC

English user’, actively contributing to the development of the language learning community there.

Notes on the contributors

Robert Croker is from Australia, and he continues to teach in the English program on the Seto

Campus of Nanzan University, where his students are still going to the World Plaza. His research

interests include qualitative research and action research methods.

Umida Ashurova is originally from Uzbekistan and currently teaches English at Sugiyama

Jogakuen University, Japan. She began her career in EFL in Japan at the World Plaza, and was the

first World Plaza Assistant. Her research interests include integration of self-access into curriculum

and practice of English as a lingua franca.

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge that the ideas in this paper are not just our own, but belong to all of

the Nanzan University Seto campus English program teachers, particularly Yoshikazu C. Watanabe,

who originally conceived the World Plaza concept, and David Barker, the first World Plaza

coordinator. We would also like to acknowledge Monkasho Gendai GP funding for this project.

References

Benson, P. (1995). Self-access and collaborative learning. Independence 12, 6-11.

Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education

Gardner, D., & Miller, L. (1999). Establishing self-access: From theory to practice. Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge University Press. Gardner, D., & Miller, L. (2010). Beliefs about self-access learning: Reflections on 15 years of

change. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 1(3),161-172. Gillies, H. (2010). Listening to the learner: A qualitative investigation of motivation for

embracing or avoiding the use of self-access centres. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 1(3), 189-211.


! "'&!

Hughes, L. S., Krug, N. P., & Vye, S. L. (2011). The growth of an out-of-class learning

community through autonomous socialization at a self-access center. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 2(4), 281-291.

Hughes, L. S., Krug, N. P., & Vye, S. L. (2012). Advising practices: A survey of self-access

motivations and preferences. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 3(2), 163-181. Jones, F. R. (1998). Self-instruction and success: A learner profile study. Applied Linguistics,

19(3), 378-406. Jones, J. (1995). Self-access and culture: Retreating from autonomy. ELT Journal, 49(3), 228-234.

Murphey, T. (l996). Near peer role models. Teachers Talking To Teachers: JALT Teacher

Education SIG Newsletter, 4(3), 21-22. Thompson, G., & Atkinson, L. (2010). Integrating self-access into the curriculum: Our experience.

Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 1(1), 47-58.


! "*(!

Appendices Appendix A

Examples of Push Activities (WPACs)

(organized in terms of the degree the activity is teacher or learner directed,

and the amount of World Plaza resources required)

teacher-directed,

materials-light

learner-directed,

materials-light

The Survey Space and Discussion Point: Learners

from the same or different classes surveyed each

other or discussed class topics.

Topics: Language learning histories; travel, food,

and sport preferences; opinions on fashion and

prevailing social expectations; personal topics

(hometown, club).

Outcomes: Learners wrote their partners’

answers under each question on the WPAC interview

sheet. Learners could also summarize their

discussions as a mind-map, in bullet-point form, or

as a poster to share in the next class.

Materials: WPAC interview sheet with teacher-

generated questions.

Note: If learners decided their own topic and

wrote their own questions, this could make this

WPAC more learner-directed.

The Test Drive: Learners practiced for mid-term

speaking tests with other learners from the same

class, self-evaluating using the speaking rubric.

Topics: Casual conversations, picture stories.

Outcomes: Completed speaking test rubric,

preparation for the speaking tests.

Materials: Speaking test rubric.

Comment: These WPACs are the easiest to

organize, and require no World Plaza materials.

Telling Tales: Learners read stories in class or for

homework, then practiced telling them to each

other during class. In the World Plaza, learners

practiced re-telling the stories, or mixing them

together to create new ones.

Topics: Japanese and foreign folktales, Eiken

picture stories, learners’ own stories.

Outcomes: Learners’ own unique stories;

recordings and transcriptions, or write-ups of

stories. Learners could also retell their new stories

in the next class.

Materials: The original stories.

Chat Pals: Learners chatted with other learners

from the same or a different class.

Topics: Class-related topics, or anything else

that learners wanted to talk about.

Outcomes: A record of their chat topics and

chat partners on a ‘WPAC chat sheet’ (with

vertical columns listing the date, time, partner’s

name, and chat topic), in their learning logs, or

simply on their stamp-cards.

Materials: The WPAC chat sheet.

Comment: Such WPACs reflect communication

in the real world – learners choose what they want

to do, and the resources are just their own

language proficiency, curiosity and creativity.


! "*)!

teacher-directed, materials-heavy

learner-directed, materials-heavy

Discussion Record: Learners recorded a short

discussion (e.g. 5 minutes) with a partner. Some

teachers also required students to transcribe part of

that recording, correcting their mistakes.

Topics: Personal topics, such as home town or

part-time job, through to more academic topics such

as international relations, the environment, or

Japan’s economy.

Outcomes: Digital recording, transcripts.

Materials: small digital recorders (or learners’ own

smart phones).

Art and Style: Learners described pictures to each

other, using language practiced in class.

Topics: Artists’ pictures, ads, newspaper photos,

Internet news photos.

Outcomes: Partner presentations in the next class,

speaking test practice preparation.

Materials: Magazines, newspapers, art books, cut-

out or downloaded pictures, and the WPAC language

sheet with suggested phrases.

The Language Shadow: Advanced level learners

taking an interpretation class were paired and

assigned to translate newscasts and documentaries

from the BBC or CNN. One learner listened and

translated for a certain period of time, such as thirty

seconds, without looking at the screen. Their partner

checked the accuracy of the translation against the

subtitles.

Topics: Current news topics and affairs.

Outcomes: Interpretation notes.

Materials: A TV with English news.

Tube Talk: After practicing discussing sit-coms

and movies in class, two learners watched one

together in the World Plaza. Then, they

summarized the story to each other and discussed

the themes. Learners could also watch

documentaries together.

Topics: Class-related topics such as personal

relationships, families, famous people’s

biographies, history, identity.

Outcomes: For extra credit, learners could

represent their ideas in a mind-map or an essay, or

write discussion questions to bring to the

following class.

Materials: Any sitcom or movie in the World

Plaza, or available on TV.

The Quest: Learners practiced strategies for

asking and answering questions in class, then

played question and answer games such as the

Cathy’s Cards or wrote their own lists of

questions to put on their own, self-created board

games (similar to snakes and ladders).

Topics: Any classroom-related topic.

Outcomes: Learners became much more

proficient at asking and answering questions.

Materials: Cathy’s Cards, Deck, or snakes and

ladders-type boards.

Comment: Learners prepared for these WPACs in

class using language and strategies illustrated by

the teacher, but had greater control over

completing them using World Plaza materials.


! "*"!

Appendix B

Examples of Pull Activities

(organized in terms of the language level of the activity,

and the amount of World Plaza resources required)

lower-level, materials-light

higher-level, materials-light

English Conversation Lounge: Learners drop by

to chat with the Assistants and other learners,

either on the sofas or at the tables.

Topics: Light topics (e.g. family, pastimes,

travel, etc.) decided by the learners and then

written on topic cards.

Participants: Any learner wanting to enjoy

chatting in English, but mostly lower- and

intermediate-level learners.

Beginners’ Paradise: Similar to English

Conversation Lounge, but specifically for

beginner level learners who may not be

confident enough to go the English Conversation

Lounge.

Topics: Light topics (e.g. family, pastimes,

travel, etc.) decided by the learners and then

written on topic cards.

Participants: Beginner level learners, with the

Assistants.

Comment: These were the most popular World

Plaza events, and were also the easiest to

organize as they required no or little preparation.

Travel Club: Learners share their travel

experiences and information.

Topics: Previous and prospective destinations

for leisure travel, study-abroad programs, and

homestays.

Participants: Senior students enthusiastic to

talk about their travel experiences, and junior

students thinking about their next trips.

English Diary Club: Learners share, peer check,

and discuss their personal and learning diaries

and journals. These learners see this as a chance

to improve their writing and also chat and get to

know each other.

Topics: Personal and learning experiences.

Participants: Learners who want to improve

their writing or discuss language learning.

English Debate Club: Learners can debate issues

in groups or in front of others.

Topics: Timely topics (e.g. Japan’s relations

with her neighbors, etc.) and perennial topics

(e.g. global warming, cultural perspectives, etc.).

Participants: Intermediate and advanced

level learners, World Plaza Assistants, teachers.

Comment: These activities pulled in higher-

level learners, yet were easy to organize and

could also adapt to learner interests and levels.


! "*#!

lower-level, materials-heavy

higher-level, materials-heavy

English Advisory Service (EASE): World Plaza

Assistants answer grammar and vocabulary

questions from learners, and also advise on

learning strategies. Learners can make an

appointment via the English Program website.

Topics: Any grammar or vocabulary question

that learners have.

Participants: Learners with specific language

questions, or learners who would like to develop

meta-cognitive language learning strategies.

The Quest: Similar to the push WPAC, learners

played question and answer games such as the

conversation-initiating Cathy’s Cards, or wrote

their own lists of questions to put on their own,

self-created board games (similar to snakes and

ladders).

Topics: Any topic.

Participants: Often shyer learners who could

not really sustain a conversation well, or more

outgoing learners who really enjoyed learning

English while playing games.

Comment: These types of activities were very

effective in drawing lower-learners to the World

Plaza.

News Hour: Watching the English-language TV

news or documentaries together, then discussing

or debating issues.

Topics: The most topical news items.

Participants: Higher-level students,

Assistants, and teachers.

My World, Your World: Guest speakers

(graduate students, company representatives,

teachers, learners) spoke about their own

environments, life and work experiences.

Topics: Volunteering, living in India, being a

high school teacher, caring for children, etc.

Participants: Learners interested in that topic

or person.

International Day: Foreign students from

Thailand, the Philippines, South Korea, China,

and Taiwan shared their ideas about the socio-

cultural and economic issues affecting their

countries. This also showed students the

varieties of English spoken across Asia.

Topics: Life in Taiwan, the culture of

Thailand, food in the Philippines, education in

China, etc.

Participants: Learners interested in that topic

or person.

Comment: These events challenged higher-

level learners, and gave them an active voice in

the World Plaza.


!

! "#$!

Readiness for Self-Access Language Learning: A Case of Iranian Students Razieyeh Ahmadi, University of Guilan, Iran

Abstract

The main aim of this study was to investigate Iranian English for Specific Purposes’ students’ perceptions and behaviors related to autonomous self-access language learning. The researcher defined autonomy in terms of responsibility and decision-making abilities in different areas of second language learning such as: choosing activities and materials inside and outside of the class, courses objectives, evaluating learning, and their course In order to reach these aims, a questionnaire by Chan, Humphreys, and Spratt (2002) was distributed among 133 Law major students at two universities in Guilan province (North of Iran) University of Guilan and Anzali Azad University. The results showed that students seem ready to take more responsibility and control for some aspects of their learning, but need some support and control from their teachers in other aspects of learning. Key words: self-access language learning, learner autonomy, learner responsibility

The concept of autonomy along with self-access language learning is still new in many

countries including Iran, and the number of universities and institutes which provide self-access

centers are relatively few. The status of English teaching in Iran is as a foreign language, and

English is a subject matter in high schools and universities. Students do not use English as a

medium for daily communication, the educational system is traditional and teachers and learners

hold beliefs and attitudes that sometimes hinder new approaches. As Pishghadam and Mirzaee

(2008) note, there is no shift in the Iranian educational system from modernism to

postmodernism. In the majority of cases, most of the classroom time is devoted to teachers’ talk;

students answer questions and passively follow teachers’ directions. There is no initiation of

activities by the students, teachers select the objectives, activities, and evaluate students’

progress. Learning English is based on memorization of vocabulary and grammatical points,

these are the common features in public universities.

Self-access centers give students an opportunity to exercise control over their learning;

students have the freedom to choose the materials and plan their own learning and it is an

approach that encourages autonomy. In Iran universities and institutes need to provide facilities


!

! "##!

like SACs in order to develop abilities such as creativity and critical thinking among Iranian

students. According to Holec (1981, p. 3) autonomy is “the capacity to take charge of one’s own

learning”. Little (1991, p. 4) defined autonomy as a “capacity for detachment, critical reflection,

decision making, and independent action”. The core principle of autonomy is closely related to

learners’ acceptance of responsibility in language learning.

The passive role of Iranian students in the learning process is a hindrance to their success;

they are observers and listeners in the classroom and compete with their classmates rather than

collaborate. Inevitably, learners struggle with their new responsibilities in self-access learning.

As Gardner and Miller (1999) point out, the introduction of self-access language learning

changes the roles of teachers, learners, and the whole environment of the classroom, because it is

an “approach to learning language, not an approach to teaching language” (p. 8).

The purpose of this study was to explore law major university students’ perceptions

related to autonomy, namely perceptions of responsibility and decision making ability in

different aspects of language learning. Understanding more about these perceptions indicate

students’ readiness for autonomy and their readiness for autonomous language leaning in self-

access centers.

Readiness for Autonomy

Readiness is a term coined by Cotterall (1995) and it involves the amount of learners’

willingness and ability to be involved in autonomous language learning. According to Littlewood

(1996), the development of autonomy depends on two things: ability, and willingness. Based on

Littlewood’s definition, a person may have the ability to make independent choices but not have

the willingness to do so. On the other hand a person may have the willingness, but not capable of

making choices.

Readiness measures the relationship between attitudinal factors and autonomy. In one of

the early studies conducted by Cotterall (1995), the researcher used a 90 item questionnaire and

investigated 131 learners’ beliefs for autonomous language learning. In this study the researcher

identified six factors: the role of the teacher, the role of the feedback, the learners’ sense of self-

efficacy, important strategies, dimensions of strategy-related behavior, and the nature of

language learning. Results indicated that learners’ beliefs regarding these variables have an

impact on students’ readiness for autonomy.


!

! "#$!

The educational system in Iran is in rapid change from a very traditional framework to a

more modern, innovative one. Current learners are experiencing changes in primary and

secondary schools, and even private institutes are willing to provide facilities for their learners to

learn languages independently. However, attitudes and perspectives do not change overnight;

there are still many teachers and students in Iran who implicitly and explicitly resist change in

their roles and in the types of interactions and activities in the classroom.

The University of Guilan does not have a self-access center, but with an increase in the

number of students, changes in the development of language skills, and rapid changes in Iranian

society administrators think it is necessary to develop attitudes towards lifelong learning among

students. Any changes in learning context needs an investigation of learners and teachers’

perceptions and attitudes,

In addition to the study cited by Cotterall (1995), there are a number of other studies on

learners’ readiness to be autonomous in language learning from different contexts. In a study by

Chan, Humphreys, & Spratt (2002), the researchers investigated students’ readiness for

autonomy in language learning. Their study was initiated by the establishment of self-access

centers at the University of Hong Kong. The researchers examined students’ views towards their

responsibilities, and those of their teachers’, their confidence in their ability to operate

autonomously, and their assessment of their level of motivation in learning English. The

participants were 508 male and female students taking English courses at Hong Kong

Polytechnic University. The researchers administered a questionnaire and conducted interviews.

The results showed that students did not have a good understanding of their own responsibilities

and abilities, and they considered their teacher as the person most responsible for their learning.

The only notable study about learners’ readiness and attitudes toward autonomy in Iran

was conducted by Kashefian-Naini (2002) in Shiraz University where the researcher was based.

Kashefian-Naini explored 168 male and female EFL learners’ readiness for autonomy. The

researcher administered Cotterall’s (1995) questionnaire and conducted a factor analysis to show

the existence of the following factors among this group of Iranian EFL students: (1) learner

independence, (2) dependence on the teacher, (3) learner confidence, (4) attitudes towards

language learning, and (5) self-assessment. The researcher also considered the effect of other

variables (age, sex, marital status, grade point average, parents’ level of education, year of study,

their occupation, place of birth, and place of residence). Among these variables, only students’


!

! "#$!

academic achievement and professional status of students had an impact on EFL students’

readiness for autonomy.

A related research study by Javdani, Ghafoori, and Mahboudi (2011) also in Iran

investigated 120 insurance and biology major ESP learners’ beliefs and attitudes towards the role

of SACs in improving their reading comprehension at the University of Tabriz. They also tried to

determine the attitude of ESP learners towards the role of dictionaries, graded readers, graded

readers with cassettes, grammar resources, vocabulary books with exercises, listening and

writing materials, computer programs, and audio-video tapes. Questionnaire results showed that

participants were positive about the resources. Students also believed that the SAC was a good

place for learning.

The author is unaware of any previous research regarding the concept of autonomy in

terms of responsibility perceptions and decision-making ability in Iran. The author considered

this gap and conducted a study with a group of law major students who were taking an English

for specific purposes course at university,

Methodology

The main purpose of the present study was to examine a group of Iranian ESP learners’

readiness for autonomous self-access language learning. Readiness is defined as students’

perceptions of their own responsibility, their teachers’ responsibility, and their decision-making

ability in different aspects of language learning. Another purpose was to find out whether or not

there is a relationship between students’ responsibility perceptions and decision-making ability.

The researcher used quantitative research design to describe a large number of ESP students’

perceptions in a formal and objective manner.

The research questions were: 1.What are ESP students’ perceptions of their responsibility

in language learning at university? 2. What are ESP students’ perceptions of their decision-

making ability in language learning at university? 3. Is there a relationship between ESP

students’ perceptions of responsibility and decision-making ability in various aspects of language

learning at university?


!

! "#$!

Research Settings and Participants

The study involved 133 law major university students from the University of Guilan and

Azad University of Anzali (both from Guilan province in the North part of Iran). The participants

were selected based on purposive sampling because the purpose of the research was to focus

specifically on law major (ESP) students and the researcher did not intend to exclude any of

these participants for this study.

Questionnaire

The main purpose of this study was to measure ESP students’ readiness for autonomy and

self-access learning in terms of their responsibility and ability perceptions in different aspects of

language learning. To fulfill these aims Chan, et al., (2002)’s questionnaire was used which

specifically covers these areas. The original questionnaire consisted of four sections

[responsibility, ability, autonomous activities (inside and outside of class), and motivation], but

for this study the researcher used two sections of the questionnaire (responsibility and ability).

To avoid any misunderstanding, the English version was translated into Persian language (Farsi).

In order to ensure the validity of the questionnaire, it was given to experts in University of

Guilan. They evaluated it in terms of content validity, face validity, and clarity of items. The

translated version of the questionnaire was also given to one expert in translation in University of

Guilan to compare the Persian version with the English one. Based on evaluators’ suggestions

and comments the final Persian questionnaire was prepared and piloted with 35 law major

students. This group of students was not included in final study. The data based on the pilot

study was gathered and analyzed. For the reliability of the questionnaire, the Cronbach-alpha

value was calculated to see the internal consistency of the instrument.!Cronbach-alpha value for

the Autonomy questionnaire was found to be != 0.94 which is a high level of reliability.

Data Analysis

For the data analysis, first, the percentages of responses were calculated for each item in

each section to establish the ESP students’ responsibility and decision-making ability perceptions

in different areas of the language learning process. The chi-square test was carried out in order to


!

! "#$!

establish whether or not there was a relationship between the students’ perceptions of

responsibility and their decision-making ability in learning language.

Results and Discussion

Learners’ perceptions of their own and their teachers’ responsibility

In the first section of the questionnaire, the participants were instructed to report their

perceptions of their own and their teachers’ responsibility for the language learning process.

Students ranked their perceptions on a five-point Likert scale from 0 (not at all) to 5

(completely). Table 1 presents the percentages of answers related to each question, and the table

also shows the statistical relationship between participants’ perceptions of their own and their

teachers’ responsibility. For the ease of interpretation the “not at all” and “a little” categories

and “mainly” and “completely” categories have been combined.

As Table 1 shows, for items 1, 3, 11, and 12 (making progress during lessons, stimulating

their interest in learning, evaluating their learning, and their course) the majority of students had

the notion of shared responsibility and considered both themselves and their teachers responsible

for different areas of language learning process. For items 6, 7, 8, and 10 the percentages of

responses by students showed that they gave more responsibility to their teachers, these are items

that are related to methodological aspects, planning and management of the class activities (such

as deciding the objectives of the course, choosing activities, and materials to learn English).

Items 2, 4, 5, 9, and 13 showed that students considered themselves responsible for

different aspects of language learning. These are the items that were directly related to their

learning such as (making progress in language learning, identifying their weaknesses, working

harder, deciding how long to spend on each activity, and what to learn outside the class).


!

! "#$!

Table 1. Students’ Perceptions of their Own and their Teachers’ Responsibilities.

Students’ perceptions of their

own responsibilities in %

Students’ perceptions of their

teachers’ responsibilities in %

Questionnaire Items Not at all /

a little

Some Mainly /!

completely

Not at all /

a little

Some Mainly / completely

1. Make sure you make progress during lessons

22.6 23.3 54.1 30.1 26.3 43.6

2. Make sure you make progress outside class

25.6 13.5 60.9 54.1 21.8 24.1

3. Stimulate your interest in learning English

20.3 24.1 55.6 32.3 23.3 44.4

4. Identify your weaknesses in English

23.3 15.0 61.7 41.4 18.8 39.8

5. Make you work harder 13.5 15.8 70.7 38.3 27.8 33.8

6. Decide the objectives of your English course

38.3 21.8 39.8 24.1 21.8 54.1

7. Decide what you should learn next in your English lessons

34.6 28.6 36.8 26.3 23.3 50.4

8. Choose what activities to use to learn English in your English lessons

35.3 25.6 39.1 24.8 22.6 52.6

9. Decide how long to spend on each activity

23.3 21.8 54.9 37.6 29.3 33.1

10. Choose what materials to use to learn English in your English lessons

44.4 16.5 39.1 28.6 18.0 53.4

11. Evaluate your learning

27.1 23.3 49.6 28.6 20.3 51.1

12. Evaluate your course

30.1 23.3 46.6 33.1 19.5 47.4

13. Decide what you learn outside class

18.8 14.3 66.9 49.6 25.6 24.8

ESP Learners’ perceptions of their decision making ability in language learning

The second section of the questionnaire investigated participants’ perceptions about their

ability to decide on different aspects of language learning. Its aim was to establish students’

readiness for autonomous language learning. Students ranked their responses on a five-point


!

! "#$!

Likert scale from 0 (very poor) to 5 (very good). Table 2 shows the percentages of students’

responses related to each question. For the ease of interpretation the “very poor” and “poor”

categories and the “very good” and “good” categories have been combined.

Most of the students’ responses clustered in the “ok” category of the scale. According to

Chan, et al., (2002) this category indicates that students have an average ability to handle their

own learning autonomously. Only items 17, 20, and 22 showed that students had “good / very

good” ability to do these activities. These items were: Ability to choose learning objectives

outside the class, ability to evaluate learning, and ability to identify their weaknesses. The

findings of this section revealed that participants had the ability to evaluate their language

learning but they shared this responsibility with their teachers in responsibility section. These

findings show that in spite of being capable of evaluating their learning, Iranian ESP students

still need support and help from their teachers.

Table 2. Students’ Perceptions of their Abilities in Learning English.

Section 2 items: Students’ perceptions of their own

abilities in learning English

Very poor /

poor

Ok Very good /

good

14. Choosing learning activities in class

24.8

54.9

20.3

15. Choosing learning activities outside class 36.8 39.8 23.3

16. Choosing learning objectives in class 24.8 38.3 36.8

17. Choosing learning objectives outside class 29.3 32.3 38.3

18. Choosing learning materials in class 34.6 36.1 29.3

19. Choosing learning materials outside class 30.8 36.8 32.3

20. Evaluating your learning 21.8 34.6 43.6

21. Evaluating your course. 39.8 33.8 26.3

22. Identifying your weaknesses in English 13.5 38.3 48.1

23. Deciding what you should learn next in your English lessons

28.6 36.1 35.3

24. Deciding how long to spend on each activity 24.8 39.1 36.1


!

! "#"!

ESP learners’ perceptions of their decision making abilities and their responsibilities in

language learning

One of the assumptions of this study was the existence of a relationship between

students’ perceptions of responsibility and their decision making ability in autonomous language

learning. In order to find the relationship between these variables, a chi-square test was used and

the results showed that there was a significant relationship at the level of <.05 in four pairs of

items, (Table 3 shows the chi-square results). The items were: items 16 and 6 ( “choosing

learning objectives in class” and “deciding the objectives of the English course” ), items 24 and 9

( “deciding how long to spend on each activity” and “deciding how long to spend on each

activity” ), items 18 and 10 ( “choosing learning materials in class” and “choosing what materials

to use to learn English in English lessons” ), and items 20 and 11 ( “evaluating learning” and

“evaluating learning” ).

The results indicated that there was a relationship between how students perceive their

abilities and perceptions of responsibility. Perceptions of greater ability might bring perceptions

of greater responsibility, or vice versa.

The results of the present research suggest that Iranian ESP students have the ability to

decide some aspects of their language learning process, and students’ acceptance of

responsibility in some areas of language learning associates directly with their ability. The

findings also suggest that Iranian students need more freedom to express their ability; for

example, in terms of choosing objectives and activities in the language learning process. As a

result it is necessary to consider the role of context and educational system as an important

variable which can facilitate or hinder the development of autonomous behavior among students.


!

! "#$!

Table 3. A Comparison of Students’ Perceptions of their Own Responsibilities and Decision-

making Ability in Learning English (Chi-square).

Section 1 items: Students’ perceptions of their own responsibilities

Section 2 items: Students’ perceptions of their own abilities in learning language

Chi square

4. identify your weaknesses in English

22. Identifying your weaknesses in English

.089

6. Decide the objectives of your English course 16. Choosing learning objectives in class .002

7. Decide what you should learn next in your English lessons

23. Deciding what you should learn next in your English lessons

.714

8. Choose what activities to use to learn English in your English lessons

14. Choosing learning activities in class .138

9. Decide how long to spend on each activity 24. Deciding how long to spend on each activity

.019

10. Choose what materials to use to learn English in your English lessons

18. Choosing learning materials in class .010

11. Evaluate your learning 20. Evaluating your learning .032

12. Evaluate your course 21. Evaluating your course .097

13. Decide what you learn outside class

17. Choosing learning objectives inside class .070

Limitations

Although this research study has achieved its’ aims, there were some limitations. First,

the participants were limited to law major students so the results cannot be generalized to other

students. Second, the researcher only employed a questionnaire to gather data, so reasons for the

results cannot be adequately theorized. Further studies need to explore the perceptions of other

students such as those studying a different major and those of different age groups. Third, the

researcher only considered students’ perceptions, so another study could consider teachers’

perceptions of readiness for self-access language learning. Fourth, this study investigated

participants’ perceptions towards ability and responsibility; further studies might consider other

factors, such as participants’ perceptions of their roles and their teachers’ roles.


!

! "#$!

Conclusions and Pedagogical Implications

The major findings of this study are: (1) students were ready to take responsibility for

some areas, for example, identifying weaknesses, working harder, deciding what to learn outside

the class, and checking progress outside the class.; (2) students were not ready to accept the

responsibility for the following areas: deciding the objectives of the course, deciding what should

learn next, and choosing activities and materials to learn English; (3) students had an average

level of ability to manage learning; and (4) there is a significant relationship between how

students perceive their abilities and how they perceive their responsibility. Perceptions of greater

responsibility could lead to the perceptions of greater ability, or vice versa.

Based on the findings of this study and the review of the literature, there may be several

implications. First, these students expressed an average level of ability in different situations of

autonomous language learning mentioned in items (e.g. choosing learning objectives outside the

class, evaluating their learning) so it seems reasonable to give them more opportunities to learn

English based on their needs, such as providing them with situations where they have the

freedom of choice to address their needs and interests. Developing autonomy also needs

resources and facilities such as the availability of a self-access center which can encourage

independent language learning among students. As Javdani, et al., (2011) indicated a “SAC can

function as a bridge and prepare learners for actual language use” (p. 17). Also as Gardner and

Miller (1999) point out, learners who engage in learning within self-access centers experience

new roles and, they accept some degree of control over their learning. So, this study showed that

the students are ready in some aspects of language learning and providing facilities such as a

SAC can help them to develop autonomy more easily. This study also revealed that there is a

need for more studies to investigate Iranian students’ perceptions towards other related areas

such as their perceptions of their roles as learners of English, their practice of autonomous

activities, their motivation level, and their employment of metacognitive strategies in learning

language. The educational system in Iran is changing, and the number of self-access centers in

private institutes is increasing, so research studies of this kind would help universities and, other

institutes (both private and public) to be prepared before providing self-access facilities for their

students, because students’ behavior is strongly influenced by their attitudes and perceptions.


!

! "#$!

Notes on the contributor

Razieyeh Ahmadi earned a Master’s degree in TEFL at University of Guilan, Iran. She has

experience of teaching English to learners at different institutes. Her research areas are autonomy

in language learning, computer-assisted language learning, English for specific purposes, and

self-regulated learning strategies.

References

Chan, V., Humphreys, G., & Spratt, M. (2002). Autonomy and motivation: Which comes first? Language Teaching Research, 6(3), 245-266.

Cotterall, S. (1995). Developing a course strategy for learner autonomy. ELT Journal, 49(3),

219-227. !Gardner, D., & Miller, L. (1999). Establishing self-access: From theory to practice. Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge University Press.!!Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy in foreign language learning. Oxford, UK: Program Press.!!Javdani, F., Ghafoori, N., & Mahboudi, H.R. (2011). The attitude of ESP learners towards the

role of self-access language learning centers in improving their reading comprehension. ESP World, 32, 1-22. Retrieved from http://www.esp-world.info/Articles_32/DOC/Javdani.pdf!

Kashefian-Naini, S. (2002). An investigation into college EFL learners’ beliefs demonstrating

their predispositions towards learner autonomy. (Unpublished masters’ thesis). Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran.!

!Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy: Definitions, issues, and problems. Dublin, Ireland:

Authentik.!!Littlewood, W. (1996). Autonomy: An anatomy and framework. System, 24(4), 427-435.!!Pishghadam, R., & Mirzaee, A. (2008). English language teaching in postmodern era. TELL, 2,

89-109.!


266

Supporting the Development of Autonomous Learning Skills in

Reading and Writing in an Independent Language Learning Centre

Hazel L. W. Chiu, Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Abstract This article draws on observations, examples and findings from previous action research and teaching experiences gathered in an independent language learning centre in a university in Hong Kong to explore strategies for supporting independent learning. The learning centre offers one-to-one and small-group learning sessions to support the development of independent learning skills in various areas. This discussion will explore particularly the focuses of reading and writing skills development. These learner-centred support sessions aim to develop awareness of different types of learning strategies to suit individual learning needs, and cultivate interest and ability for continuous self-learning. The benefits of a semi-structured scaffolding format with attention to individual learning differences and supported by technology will be highlighted.

Keywords: independent language learning, autonomy, writing conference, extensive

reading, scaffolding

This article will begin with brief overviews of learner autonomy, as well as

self-access and self-directed learning. It will then examine the initial development of

self-access centres in Hong Kong and explore ways to support autonomous learning

skills in the changing educational contexts in recent years, particularly in one of these

independent learning centres.

The concept of “autonomy”, which involves the situations, skills and capacity

in directing one’s own learning (Benson & Voller, 1997), has been used in different

ways in language education to suit specific contexts. How autonomy is interpreted

often depends on the degree of emphasis put on various factors which impact the

learning context. These factors may involve the knowledge, ability, attitude and

motivation of the learners, in addition to the various constraints the learning

environment imposes on learning, such as curriculum requirements, teaching and

learning approaches, and institutional control.

The terms “self-access learning”, “independent learning” and “autonomous

learning” have become popular at different times in the past few decades. Their level


267

of popularity somehow indicates the different stages of development concerning the

factors which impact how learners take charge of their own learning.

“Self-access learning” was a term often used in the 1980s and 1990s when

student self-learning started to receive attention and learning resource centres in the

name of self-access centres (SAC) were being set up for facilitating this type of

learning. Benson (1992) makes a distinction between self-access and self-directed

learning. He suggests that the former refers to the design and organisation of

resources, whereas the latter calls for certain skills that the learner needs to apply in a

learning situation. He further points out that self-access might be defined as “the

design and organisation of resources for self-directed learning” and that many SACs

are in fact “other-directed to one degree or another” (Benson, 1992, p. 31), as students

might lack the skills to be truly self-directed. Self-access learning at this early stage,

therefore, seems to imply the provision of resources rather than truly self-directed

learning.

In recent years, there has been a tendency to use the terms “independent

learning” and “autonomous learning” in place of “self-access learning”, as emphasis

goes beyond the access and provision of resources to cover more intricate

relationships between the learners and the learning processes. Although

“independence” seems to be quite similar in meaning to “autonomy”, Benson &

Voller (1997) point out that the former denotes freedom from reliance on others,

while the latter indicates the ability to make one’s own decisions about what to do

without being influenced or instructed to do so. The latter word also implies freedom

from external control, which is often hard to achieve, particularly in current

educational contexts where institutional authority often precedes individual learning

preferences.

In her discussion of shifting perspectives in independent language learning

(ILL), White (2011) points out that in the current educational context where emphasis

is put on lifelong and life-wide learning, new dimensions on ILL (which take into

account the situated and contingent nature of ILL) should receive more attention. One

of these dimensions is the critical adaptive learning perspective, which considers

language learners as individuals who actively seek out and evaluate the possibilities

for language learning in their own contexts and learning communities.


268

Development of Self-Access Centres in Hong Kong Universities

Starting from the 1990s, there was a surge of interest in self-access language

learning (SALL) in many parts of the world. Within East Asia, Hong Kong was

gradually becoming a centre of expertise in SALL development, as a result of

generous government financial support for SALL as a means to facilitate language

enhancement (Pang, 1994). Self-access centres, sometimes with different names and

focuses in language learning, were established in various universities in Hong Kong,

for example, the Study-Centre at Hong Kong Polytechnic University, and the Writing

Centre at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

As described by Benson (1994), the primary aims of such [self-access study]

facilities are to enable learning to take place independently of teaching and to

encourage students to direct their own learning. Students are given the opportunity to

choose and use self-access materials on their own and to assess their own

performance by themselves.

This new concept of learning contradicted conventional educational concepts

in Hong Kong, and called for a need to re-define the roles of teachers and learners.

Instead of being at the centre of the learning process, the teacher was expected to play

a more subsidiary role for facilitating and supporting learning. The learners took over

at the centre, where they were expected to make decisions in directing their own

learning. However, as pointed out by Benson (1994), it does not necessarily follow

that students will be able to direct their own learning simply by visiting a self-access

centre. Farmer (1994) also suggests that Hong Kong students were used to highly

structured tuition where learners were expected to adopt a highly passive role.

Without confidence in using English and a foundation to develop autonomy, self-

access learning was initially an unfamiliar and difficult task.

As reported in several studies in Gardner & Miller (1994), a number of

universities which established their SACs in the 1990s embarked on learner training

programmes to help their students develop self-access learning skills. Examples were

the self-directed project at Lingnan College, the self-access project undertaken by

first-year undergraduates at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, and

another seven-day programme that trained learners to utilise (for self-directed

language learning) the resources of the Independent Learning Centre at the Chinese

University of Hong Kong.


269

Researchers exploring the initial development of SALL during this period,

such as Cooley (1993), suggested that most students were not yet ready for self-access

learning. A great deal of teacher and institutional support was clearly needed and

offered at universities for helping students develop into self-directed learners.

The Present Educational Context and the Type of Support Needed in SACs

A comparison of the newly established English Language Study-Centre at

Hong Kong Polytechnic described by Farmer (1994) and the current Centre for

Independent Language Learning in the same institute (now upgraded to a university),

may highlight the difference in the type of support needed for students in the present

educational context.

In the 1990s when the Study-Centre was first established at Hong Kong

Polytechnic, the centre primarily catered to weak students who were referred in pairs

or small groups. The centre offered remedial support to those students who required

supplementary tuition (Farmer, 1994). Like most other universities, the self-access

centre in the university also helps students develop self-access learning skills by

offering individual and small-group consultation sessions for solving individual

learning problems, or helping students devise and implement self-study or language

improvement plans. Similar types of support are still being offered currently at the

centre (now re-named Centre for Independent Language Learning) Independent

learning has also become more integrated into the formal curriculum as a part of the

course requirements. Some new courses, especially those developed for the new four-

year curriculum which started in 2012, make independent learning a kind of web-

work requirement for passing the courses. In other words, face-to-face instruction has

become increasingly blended with individual self-learning, facilitated by technology.

Inclusive curriculums and variegated learning needs

The new curriculum in the university, like those in many other present-day

universities, is becoming continuously inclusive in covering a wide array of skills and

objectives. As shown in the web description of the new four-year curriculum from

one of the universities (Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 2011), in 2012-13,

students are expected not only to attain learning outcomes for professional

competence in their own chosen discipline, but also to develop multidisciplinary


270

perspectives with a broad knowledge base. They should also achieve generic

outcomes for all-round development, including critical thinking and problem-solving

abilities, creativity and innovation, communication and language skills, global

outlook, leadership and teamwork skills, entrepreneurship, cultural appreciation,

social and national responsibility, and even healthy lifestyle and lifelong learning

capability (Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 2011).

With the increasingly overloaded curriculum and the inclusion of independent

learning as one component of the curriculum, students no longer prefer to make

voluntary commitments for long-term independent learning according to a detailed

plan in the form of a learning contract. Advances in technology, such as the

development of the internet, have enabled easy access to various types of resources,

and diminished the role of self-access centres as resource depositories. However,

there is an increasing demand on the development of complex cognitive skills to cope

with the high demands of modern university education, for addressing learning needs

within the formal curriculum and beyond it. These are often described as higher order

thinking skills, such as critical and creative thinking skills of logical reasoning,

analysis, evaluation, judgement, problem-solving and creation (Brookhart, 2010).

In their discussion of the learning styles of millennial students, Howe and

Strauss (2007) describe seven core traits of the millennial generation. Two traits are

particularly relevant in exploring the learning needs of present-day students:

pressured and achieving. Students nowadays face a great deal of pressure to study

hard and show their outstanding performance in various areas of abilities. To be an

outstanding achiever requires higher order thinking skills, which need to develop

gradually. Compared to students in the past, current students need even more support

to fulfil various expectations and learning targets to accomplish more within a shorter

time.

The concept of autonomy needs to be re-defined in the present educational

context. Learning is supposed to be more autonomous with the development of

technology. Learners are increasingly encouraged to take charge of their own learning,

and they are more capable in accessing information. However, this easy access to a

large amount of information also causes difficulties in making choices and decisions.

The development of technology brings stronger institutional control, higher

performance expectations and less freedom for individual learners. Being an

autonomous learner in the current educational context means having the ability to take


271

into account all these factors and maintaining a good balance of subjection,

independence, and autonomy.

Current support in independent learning centres

In recent years, students are not so interested in seeking advice on devising

and implementing long-term self-learning plans. They often go to the independent

language learning centre to seek help to address more immediate and short-term

learning needs for fulfilling various learning targets within or beyond the core

curriculum. These are mostly tackled by individual and small group

consultation/support sessions offered in the independent learning centre where I

conducted my action research studies.

Reading and Writing Support Sessions in an Independent Language Learning Centre

The remainder of this article will discuss examples of engaging learning

support sessions conducted in an independent language learning centre in one of the

universities in Hong Kong. These were individual (one-to-one) or small-group (three

to five students) support sessions led by a teacher for tackling various learning needs,

such as reading and writing, group discussion, oral presentation, job- or study-related

application and public exam skills. Students identify their own learning targets and

ask the teacher to give them guidance or advice to fulfil these in the sessions.

These learning sessions are offered on a voluntary basis to the undergraduate

and postgraduate students of Hong Kong Polytechnic University in various disciplines,

including humanity and technical subjects. Students can choose their own time slots

and teachers to work with, and request the type of help they need. The learning

sessions can be flexibly structured to suit different learning needs. They can be quite

unstructured or semi-structured depending on student needs and the teacher’s

perception of what kind of instructional strategy will be effective and engaging for

fulfilling learning objectives. They also offer the opportunity for learners to direct and

monitor the learning process, as well as to reflect on their own learning.

Appropriate scaffolding strategies need to be used to support the development

of learning ability. According to Vygotsky’s (1978) theory on the zone of proximal

development, interaction and collaboration with a more skilled expert can help to

speed up a learner’s progression to another developmental level, enabling him or her


272

to do independently what he or she could previously do only with assistance. Based

on these ideas on interactive and collaborative support, Gibbons (2002) further

suggests that the use of this type of scaffolding can help learners to move toward new

skills, concepts, or levels of understanding. With this type of temporary assistance by

which a teacher helps a learner know how to do something, the learner will later be

able to complete a similar task independently.

This type of assistance is in fact relevant to both classroom teaching and for

supporting autonomous learning. Autonomous learning involves not only the

motivation to take charge of one’s own learning, but also the ability to do something

beneficial independently. Autonomous learning skills are neither something that

students can finish learning, nor something they either have or do not have. Rather,

they are a continuum of different levels of abilities which require continuous

development. Autonomous learning skills need to be developed at all times, because

different educational environments create different learning needs that students need

to tackle.

The types of scaffolding provided in these learning support sessions are

different from what occur in the classroom, as they are more learner-centred and

flexible in addressing individual learning needs. In supporting independent learning,

the level of teacher directiveness can always be adjusted according to the

requirements of the learning contexts and needs of the students. In their analysis of

the written discursive devices used by language advisors in providing input to learners

on planning and implementing an individualized self-directed learning plan, Mynard

& Thornton (2012) describe different degrees of directiveness according to the needs

and levels of awareness the students show in the learning process. In the learning

support sessions discussed in this article, the levels of teacher directiveness can also

be adjusted according to how autonomous individual students are. The higher level of

directiveness in some parts of the sessions can also serve as models for students to

refer to when they tackle similar learning targets on their own.

An important objective of these learning sessions is to encourage the

development of continuous and voluntary autonomous self-learning. Students have

perfect freedom in enrolling in these sessions. The kind of strategies they gain and the

ability they develop will also help to sustain their interest and motivation in

continuous learning. This type of support is suitable in the present educational context

when students need to face a wide array of learning needs.


273

Students nowadays need to use three major types of autonomous learning

skills: (a) general learning or study skills, such as researching, making choices and

decisions about one’s learning; (b) language learning skills or abilities for different

focuses, such as independent writing and revision skills, extensive reading skills and

interests, and other skills in developing their reading, speaking, writing and listening

abilities; and (c) higher order thinking skills to tackle the various learning outcomes

(both language and non-language).

In language learning, the three types of skills described above often merge for

effective autonomous learners. In the following sections of this article, experiences of

conducting individual and small-group support sessions for developing reading and

writing skills are reported and discussed based on data and examples from two small-

scale action research studies.

Individual (one-to-one) writing conferences

These individual writing conferences are one-hour writing assistance sessions

offered on a one-to-one basis in which the students can request the type of help they

need, based on a piece of writing they brought for discussion. These learner-centred

writing sessions offered assistance to suit the various writing needs of university

students, such as: (a) assignments for different subjects (e.g. term papers, project

reports, theses); (b) various types of applications (e.g. for jobs, postgraduate studies,

exchange programmes, internship, scholarship); (c) public exam skills development

(e.g. IELTS, Use of English Exam (public pre-university matriculation examination in

Hong Kong some students need to re-take); (d) students’ own writing practice for

various purposes to develop their writing skills and ability.

These one-to-one writing conferences are not supposed to be a kind of

improvement service on students’ writing, as it is impossible to offer individual

assistance to the vast amount of writing that students need to do. Instead, it is a kind

of awareness-building learning session to help students develop the skills to identify

problems in their writing and do useful revisions on their own. In other words, the

consultation sessions are examples of model reflective exercises for students to

imitate for improving their writing.


274

Structure of writing conferences

The writing conferences are generally structured to include six main focuses to

ensure that the target of enhancing students’ reflective skills is achieved. Depending

on students’ skills and abilities, instructional strategies can vary to suit the needs of

individual students, with different emphases on these focus areas:

A. Student’s quiet reflections at the beginning on the overall strengths and

weaknesses of the piece of writing by jotting notes on the work sheet; teacher

reading of writing

B. Student’s oral reflections on overall strengths and weaknesses

C. Student’s oral reflections on most common language problems

D. Discussion of language problems

E. Discussion of content and organisation of ideas

F. End-of-conference reflections and feedback

The first five minutes of the conference is usually spent on students’

reflections and note-taking, as well as the teacher’s reading and quick marking of the

piece of writing (e.g. underlining). The student then orally reflects on his/her overall

strengths and weaknesses and major language problems. Next, the teacher elicits

responses from the student about his/her suggestions concerning problems in

language, content and organisation of ideas. The session ends with reflections and

feedback on what has been learned.

Although there is a relatively high level of teacher directiveness for facilitating

the development of skills in some parts of these consultation sessions, students’ own

reflections also receive a great deal of emphasis, especially at the beginning and the

end of the session. Before discussing specific language and content/organisation

problems, students are given a two-part reflection sheet (see Appendix A and B) for

writing notes on the overall strengths and weaknesses of the piece of writing, as well

as analysing the types of language mistakes it contains. They then present these orally.

Their ideas will be revisited in the end-of-conference reflections when they have to

comment on their initial judgement after analysing the piece of writing with the

teacher and recapitulating useful ideas gained from the session.

There are different levels of directiveness in different parts of the conference.

Parts A and F are the most student-directed, as the teacher allows them to give their


275

own views before responding. Parts B and C are also highly student-directed,

although sometimes the teacher needs to elicit more relevant ideas or clarify unclear

ideas. Parts D and E are the most teacher-directed compared to the other parts. They

serve as frameworks for analysing writing which students can use as a model when

they are doing their own writing revisions unaided.

Prompting questions were used in different parts of the conference to help

students reflect and revise their own writing, especially in parts of the conferences

with a higher level of teacher directiveness. The following are examples of prompting

questions for scaffolding students’ ability to analyse their language problems and

suggest improvements in content and organisation:

1. What is wrong with the underlined words?

2. The meaning of this sentence is unclear. What do you want to say?

3. What do you mean by this word?

4. What other connective words can you use instead of this one, to show a contrast

between these two parts of the sentence?

5. The sentence contains too much information. Which is the most important idea

you want to convey? What are the key words you have to keep?

These prompting questions also serve as guidelines for students’ own reflections

in working individually. When students reflect on their piece of writing unaided, they

can also look for problems in the areas highlighted in prompting questions. For

example, the use of appropriate words, such as connective words, unclear sentences,

or overloaded sentences with too much information.

The following are the analyses of examples from the writing conferences where

scaffolding strategies worked well, extracted from a small piece of action research by

Chiu (2011a).

Initial self-directed reflections on students’ writing

At the beginning of most sessions, students can usually identify one or more

area of strength and weakness close to those later pointed out by the teachers. Even if

their ideas are different from those of the teacher, initial reflections followed by close

analysis of their writing and final reflections at the end help students to construct a

metacognitive framework for evaluating their own writing.


276

End-of-conference student reflections and feedback

Mostly positive comments were received at the end of the conference sessions.

The following are some examples of comments from students on the feedback sheets:

• Very helpful instructor I have met, many tips received.

• It’s useful and interesting. I think I have learnt new knowledge from the session.

• The teacher is very helpful and provided me with good advice on improving the

language of my paper, especially in terms of tenses and connections.

• She is a very professional teacher with enthusiasm. She really helped me a lot in

my writing and logical thinking.

In short, most of the feedback received for the writing conferences was very positive.

Recurrent ideas were usefulness of the instruction: to suit individual needs, in terms

of writing development, and in specific areas such as language, connection of ideas

and logical thinking. Some students also felt that the conference sessions were

interesting.

Students were asked to describe the useful things they had learned in the

session, which help them to recapitulate ideas and reflect about the session. This

facilitates the development of independent analysis and reflective skills on other

pieces of writing. Students can also reflect on the strategies used in the session, and

use these as a model for analysing their own writing independently later.

Examples for more teacher-directed analyses of language problems

There are a number of common language problems which often occur in

students’ writing. These are often related to the use of vocabulary or expressions

which are inappropriate (e.g. collocation problems), imprecise, unnecessary, or lack

variety. There are also grammatical mistakes such as those related to tenses, word

forms, sentence structure, agreement (or singular/plural forms), prepositions or voice

(active/passive).

The following are two examples of how scaffolding strategies worked

effectively to engage students’ attention and help them to work out ways of tackling

the language problems:

1. Use of precise words

In one of the individual writing conferences, the student did some practice for the

IELTS writing task. He wrote a short piece of descriptive writing to describe the data


277

in a graph. The following is a sentence with a problem using precise words

(underlined).

Sample text:

In general, the total quantity of items transported increased obviously, while the

amount of goods carried by railways fluctuated during these 28 years.

The problem in using the word “fluctuated” was that it did not exactly describe what

was shown in the graph, which indicated only small changes in quantity over the

period instead of great “fluctuations”.

To help the student understand the problem, the teacher used a number of

prompting questions to guide him in thinking in the right direction.

Teacher: Have there been great changes in quantities during the period?

Student: No.

Teacher: What’s happening in the graph?

Student: The same.

Teacher: So is it a good idea to say “fluctuated”? The word means great

changes.

Student: No, not many change.

Teacher: What other words are better then?

Student: Stable … same …

Teacher: So can we say “remained quite stable”?

Although the student could not give the exact expression to replace the

inappropriate word, he was guided to realise the problem, and he could give the key

words for forming the appropriate expression.

2. Appropriate collocation

This example was from an expository essay on problems and solutions on the topic of

overpopulation. The following is a sentence with a problem in appropriate collocation

(underlined).


278

Sample text:

If effective solutions are implemented, we can build a more harmonious and

peaceful life to live in.

There is a problem of collocation, as the word “build” does not collocate with the

word “life”. To help the student understand the problem, the teacher used a number of

prompting questions to guide him in thinking in the right direction.

Teacher: We usually say ‘build a house’, but we use another word with the word

‘life’. Can you think of other possible words?

Student: Make …

Teacher: You are quite close. Can you think of other similar words?

Student: Live …

Teacher: You are almost there. If you like your life, what can you say about it?

Student: Enjoy?

Teacher: Very good! We can say ‘have’ a more harmonious and peaceful life, or

‘enjoy’ a more harmonious and peaceful life.

The student finally hit on the word ‘enjoy’ after the teacher had asked him a

few relevant prompting questions.

Examples of more teacher-directed analyses of content/organisation of problems

The most common problems for content and organisation of ideas involve a

lack of sufficient contextualisation and elaboration of ideas, a lack of focus within

paragraphs, and failure to use specific words to convey ideas clearly.

The following are two examples of how scaffolding strategies worked

effectively to engage students’ attention and help them to work out ways of tackling

problems in content and organisation of ideas:

1. Organisation of ideas within a paragraph

Type of writing: Expository essay on problems and solutions concerning

overpopulation (public exam)


279

Sample text:

In poor countries, people are facing the scarcity of food, water and other daily

goods. In addition, it is common that the limit number of children per family

have chances to be educated. As we all know, poor countries suffer lots of

unemployment which lower the people’s life standard. There is no doubt that an

increase in population simply makes the situation worse.

Problem: Different problems related to overpopulation are not well-connected

Solution: Organisation of ideas under one main focus (putting the three factors of

resources, education and employment under the main theme of “scarcity”)

Prompting questions: Can you suggest a key word which is related to all the ideas

covered in this paragraph? Do people have enough of everything? Which word in the

paragraph means that you don’t have enough of something?

Student’s response: After a few prompting questions, the student was able to point

out the word “scarcity”. Then she was guided to indicate that she discussed three main

factors in the paragraph: resources, education and employment.

2. Enhancing clarity by elaboration

Type of writing: Final-year project report on the topic of online apparel purchasing

Sample text:

Online Reputation Systems (ORS), in which feedbacks of the buyers are

collected, analysed and presented, which enable the good reputation of the sellers.

Problem: There is a breach in logic, as it is not clear how the good reputation of the

company is related to the feedback, which can be both positive and negative.

Solution: Elaborating on the benefits of feedback in helping the company to improve

their services, before saying that a good reputation can be built up for the company.

Prompting questions: How is feedback related to the building up of a good reputation,

since feedback can be both positive and negative? Is feedback good only if it is

positive? Can negative feedback be good? How can it be good?

Student’s response: She was gradually guided to suggest that negative feedback can

be good sometimes, as it can help the company to improve their services.


280

Encouragement for continuous self-learning: Use of online materials

Besides using prompting questions to guide students to work out ways to

improve their writing, the teacher can also suggest ideas for further self-learning that

are specifically related to the problem areas, making use of web materials accessed

through a computer used in the support session. The following were examples of

suggestions given in these writing conferences:

1. Referring students to online concordancers to check word collocations, e.g. the

teacher types the words ‘build’ and ‘life’ on the concordancer on the English

Language Centre (ELC) website to show that these two words could not occur

side by side.

2. Referring students to online dictionaries, e.g. for checking the meaning and ways

of using the word ‘fluctuated’.

3. Showing students examples from writing models of a relevant genre to illustrate

improvements in various areas, such as style, coherence or elaboration of ideas.

4. Referring students to the ‘Grammar’ link on the ELC website to check up on

grammatical structures they cannot manage well in their writing.

Strategies used in some parts of the writing conferences seem to be too

teacher-directed for an autonomous learning context. However, the teacher guidance

provides students with models for analysing and evaluating their writing. This

contributes to the development of students’ metacognitive skills in monitoring their

own learning, which is an important condition for students to become truly

autonomous learners.

Small-group reading discussion sessions

Other types of consultation sessions offered in the independent language

learning centre are small-group discussion sessions of three to five students led by a

teacher for tackling various types of learning needs, mostly speaking-related, such as

group discussion, oral presentation, job interview, social English and pronunciation.

Students usually make their own decisions about learning targets and ask the teacher

to give them guidance or advice in the session.


281

At this university, the encouragement of extensive reading and the cultivation

of a reading culture is one of the reform initiatives for the new four-year university

curriculum (Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 2011). However, reading extensively

in a second language (L2) is not the type of easy pleasure reading we often associate

with extensive reading in general. It is a great challenge for second language learners

to try to access extensive reading materials intended for first language (L1) readers.

To support interest in voluntary extensive reading for L2 readers in this situation, I

conducted a small-scale action research study in implementing reading support

sessions in the independent language learning centre of the university, making use of

the small-group discussion support sessions to introduce students to English books

(fiction or non-fiction) for extensive reading (Chiu, 2011b).

The main purpose of these sessions is not to teach reading comprehension, but

to help students develop an interest in and the ability for voluntary self-reading,

initially for the targeted book and later for other books when a reading habit is

developed. These are called introductory reading sessions, as they aim to introduce

fiction and non-fiction books (originally intended for general L1 extensive readers) to

these L2 learners who may find the books a little difficult for pleasure reading.

These one-hour semi-structured discussion sessions are offered to small

groups of three to five students who are voluntary participants. Students need to first

read a short fiction or non-fiction extract for 10 to 15 minutes. They then follow

through with the activities suggested in the task sheet to discuss answers to a few

questions to enhance their understanding of the text and the context of the extract.

After that they have a ten-minute discussion on a given topic which is related to a

theme from the text and to some ideas or concepts which were familiar to them. At

the end of the session, they reflect on their learning experience.

Book choices

Books targeted for general L1 extensive readers are used for these support

sessions. They are divided into three main categories: fiction classics, contemporary

fiction and non-fiction. The books are selected according to whether they are suitable

for young educated persons of today, based on at least one or two of the following

principles:

• Containing themes or ideas interesting or meaningful for university students

• Not too difficult in terms of both content and language for university


282

undergraduates who are L2 learners of English

• Popular (e.g. best-sellers, or with film adaptations)

• Well-written (e.g. award-winners)

Fiction books can be best-sellers and have film adaptations. These are

contemporary popular books which suit current interest or time-honoured classics

with a lasting currency. Non-fiction books can be contemporary writings on current

topics of general interest which are particularly relevant to university students, such as

those about relationships, communication, self-improvement and modern

developments.

The following are examples of books used in these sessions:

Fiction classics

Animal Farm by George Orwell

Great Expectations by Charles Dickens

Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen

Contemporary fiction

Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone by J. K. Rowling

The Client by John Grisham

The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini

Non-fiction

How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie

Rich Dad Poor Dad by Robert T. Kiyosaki

The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People by Stephen R. Covey

A reading extract most representative of each book, or most likely to arouse

interest in reading the book, is selected for students to read for 10 to 15 minutes.

Other similar books can also be used to suit different interests. If there is a repository

of task sheets produced for different books, students can have wider choices of books

they would like to read.


283

Support materials and procedures

The reading discussion sessions are conducted according to the structure set

out in a set of support materials for each book. A task sheet selected to support the

discussion session is structured according to the following headings:

A. Author description

B. Book summary

C. Context of reading extract

D. Comprehension questions

E. Discussion task

F. Online materials for further reading

The teacher only gives brief background information before students read and

discuss the reading extract. Sections A, B and F are mainly for students to read on

their own later. The teacher briefly describes the context of the reading extract using

the information in section C. Section D is mostly teacher-directed, and the purpose is

to help students grasp main ideas for understanding and appreciating the reading

extract. Section E can be conducted without much teacher intervention, unless

instances where teacher guidance is needed are identified. Students can also share

short reflections about the session at the end to enhance their cognitive orientations

about starting to read and discuss a book of their own choice.

Like the writing conferences, these reading discussion sessions can be

conducted with different levels of teacher directiveness in different parts of the

sessions in response to the level of autonomy different groups of students exercise.

Teachers and students can also make decisions about the relative emphases and time

they spend on different parts of the sessions.

Discussion task/topic

The topics in the discussion tasks are designed in a way which can help

students interact quite independently without too much scaffolding from the teacher

concerning topics that connect to their own lives, as well as to major themes in the

book. These topics can also be connected to the other non-language learning

outcomes promoted in today’s inclusive university curricula, such as critical thinking

skills, cultural appreciation, whole-person development, lifelong learning, global


284

outlook, sense of ethical conduct and social responsibility. The following are

examples of discussion topics for the three types of books:

Fiction classic: Great Expectations by Charles Dickens

If you were offered a similar type of benefit and opportunity by an unknown person

on similar conditions, like what was given to Pip, would you accept it? Why or why

not?

Conditions for the offer to Pip:

• Always bear the name of Pip

• The name of the benefactor remains a secret until he chooses to reveal it

(The reading extract is Chapter 18 of the book. The young protagonist Pip meets

Jaggers, a lawyer from London, who informs him of a secret benefactor’s intention to

offer a sum of money for Pip’s education to become a gentleman.)

Contemporary fiction: Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone by J. K. Rowling

Why do you think the Harry Potter books are so popular? Can you suggest some

reasons after reading this extract? Do you like the book yourself? Do you think you

will enjoy reading the book on your own?

(The reading extract is from Chapter 7 of the book. It describes the welcome

ceremony of the Hogwarts School of Magic, in which new students are magically

sorted by the headmaster into different houses.)

Non-fiction: The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People by Stephen R. Covey The text describes five levels of listening:

1. Ignoring

2. Pretending

3. Selective listening

4. Attentive listening

5. Empathic listening

Can you think of some examples in your life when you practised listening at one or

more of these levels, e.g. listening to a friend, your parents, or the lectures? Do you

agree with the author’s evaluation of the fifth level of listening?


285

(The reading extract is from the section ‘Habit 5: Seek First to Understand,

Then to be Understood’. It is related to the principles of empathetic communication.)

The main purpose of these support sessions is to develop students’ interest and

ability in further extensive reading on their own for the same book which they start

reading in the small group, and even for other books for general L1 readers. It is

hoped that they can gradually develop an extensive reading habit.

Online materials for continuous extensive reading

The online references at the end of the task sheet provide material to cultivate

students’ reading interest further. They can be online reviews or critical analyses of

the book for which students have read the extract, as well as multi-media materials for

stimulating interest, such as film titles and audio recordings.

Student feedback

Feedback taken from the student reflections at the end of the sessions indicate

that these reading sessions are beneficial for developing reading interest and ability.

Students felt that they gained a better understanding of the book at the end of the

reading sessions and some of them indicated that they would be interested in reading

the book later or watching the film adaptation of the book.

Conclusion

The development of good writing skills and extensive reading habits requires

self-directed learning efforts. However, they are difficult to develop without initial

teacher support. They are also hard to sustain without the cultivation of interest. These

guided sessions can provide support and stimulation to encourage individual learning

efforts.

The development and attainment of other non-language learning outcomes

promoted in the new curriculum of the university, such as critical thinking skills,

cultural appreciation, a broad knowledge base, and a sense of ethical conduct and

social responsibility, can only be achieved through sustained self-learning. This type

of long-term learning effort also needs initial encouragement and support from

teachers.


286

Face-to-face individualised instruction is valuable at all times. In a

technological age where digital access to information is becoming easier,

individualised personal instruction can focus more on the development of critical

engagement and higher order thinking skills. In our changing educational

environment, intensive individualised instruction would still be needed to help

students cope with the large amounts of information and knowledge they are exposed

to, in order to develop higher order cognitive skills to make good use of these in

tackling various types of learning needs.

The types of scaffolding provided in these learning sessions are different from

those which often occur in the classroom. The sessions are flexible and learner-

centred to address different individual learning needs chosen to be addressed by

students rather than decided by the teacher. The teacher can also adjust the level of

directiveness in conducting these sessions in response to the different levels of

autonomous learning skills students have. Scaffolding strategies used by the teacher

can also serve as models for students to monitor their own learning.

These learning sessions can be used flexibly to address specific learning needs.

They can be easily replicated by small groups of students who are interested in

working on their own without teacher guidance by following the suggested structures

or materials. The voluntary and impromptu nature of these learning sessions suit the

learning style of present-day students who are facing high demands on their

educational performance and who also have a busy learning schedule, but might not

be readily prepared to commit to activities which are too demanding and time-

consuming. They are also relatively easy and flexible to be conducted in independent

learning centres.

With initial support to make (extensive) reading and writing in a second

language a less intimidating task for students, there is a possibility that they can

gradually develop into independent readers and writers with an interest and ability in

self-directed reading and writing development. This is one of the important goals for

helping students become autonomous learners.

Notes on the contributor Hazel L. W. Chiu teaches language enhancement courses at the English Language

Centre, Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Her professional/research interests


287

include reading and writing, grammar teaching and learning, task-based language

teaching, the use of language arts for language teaching and learning, and independent

language learning.

References

Benson, P. (1992). Self-access for self-directed learning. Hong Kong Papers in

Linguistic and Language Teaching, 15, 31-38. Benson, P. (1994). Self-access systems as information systems: Questions of ideology

and control. In D. Gardner & L. Miller (Eds.), Directions in self-access language learning (pp. 3-12). Hong Kong, China: Hong Kong University Press.

Benson, P., & Voller, P. (Eds.). (1997). Introduction. In P. Benson & P. Voller (Eds.).

Autonomy and independence in language learning. New York: Longman. Brookhart, S. M. (2010). How to assess higher order thinking skills in your classroom.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Chiu, H. L. W. (2011a). Enhancing learner ability and motivation in critical

reflection on writing through semi-structured learner-centred writing conferences. Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Language and Communication, Bangkok, Thailand. December 2011.

Chiu, H. L. W. (2011b). Small group introductory reading sessions for developing

interest and ability in extensive reading. Paper presented at the Language Centre Symposium on Developing Students as Readers and Writers in the Four-Year Curriculum: The Role of the English Language Centres, Hong Kong, China. June 2011.

Cooley, L. (1993). Using study guides: An approach to self-access. Hong Kong

Papers in Linguistics and Language, 16, 93-101. Farmer, R. (1994). The limits of learner independence in Hong Kong. In D. Gardner

& L. Miller (Eds.), Directions in self-access language learning (pp. 13-27). Hong Kong, China: Hong Kong University Press.

Gardner, D., & Miller, L. (Eds.). (1994). Directions in self-access language learning.

Hong Kong, China: Hong Kong University Press. Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second

language learners in the mainstream. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Hong Kong Polytechnic University. (2011). New 4-year undergraduate

curriculum structure. Retrieved from http://4yc.polyu.edu.hk/curriculum.html Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2007). Millennials go to college. Great Falls, VA:

Lifecourse Associates.


288

Mynard, J., & Thornton, K. (2012). The degree of directiveness in written advising: A

preliminary investigation. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 3(1), 41-58. Pang, T. T. T. (1994). A self-direct project: A critical humanistic approach to self-

access. In D. Gardner & L. Miller (Eds.), Directions in self-access language learning (pp. 29-38). Hong Kong, China: Hong Kong University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. White, C. (2011). Inside independent learning: Old and new perspectives. In B.

Morrison (Ed.), Independent language learning: Building on experience, seeking new perspectives (pp. 13-23). Hong Kong, China: Hong Kong University Press. doi:10.5790/hongkong/9789888083640.003.0002


289

Appendices Appendix A

Writing Reflection Sheet

Part A: General reflections on writing Reflect on your major strengths and weaknesses, especially in content and organisation of ideas.

Strengths Weaknesses


290

Appendix B Part B: Language problems analysis Tick your major types of errors (around three of them) and give examples below (or mark them on your piece of writing).

Types of errors Examples from your writing A. Tenses e.g. I meet an old friend yesterday.

B. Verb forms e.g. He was read a book when the bell ringing.

C. Parts of speech e.g. She followed the steps careful when she worked on the project.

D. Sentence structures e.g. We happy last night saw old friends.

E. Incorrect/Inappropriate words e.g. I was fear of the dog.

F. Redundant/Unnecessary words e.g. Robert returned back the book to her.

G. Connectives e.g. I don’t really like this idea. Therefore, I am totally against it.

H. –ing and –ed forms e.g. I am very interesting in chess.

I. Prepositions e.g. We have to take action with response to the situation.

J. Singular/Plural forms/Agreement e.g. There is many student in the class.

K. Others: e.g. spelling, articles, active/passive voices, word order


291

Video Self-Assessment for Language Learners

Rob Hirschel, Sojo University, Japan Craig Yamamoto, Sojo University, Japan Peter Lee, Sojo University, Japan

Abstract

Students were video recorded performing similar tasks at both the outset of the academic year in April and towards the year-end in December. Student participants (N=123) viewed both videos in December and completed identical questionnaires with regard to both videos. The questionnaire sought to elicit students’ (1) satisfaction with their English ability, (2) interest in speaking English, (3) ability to interact in English, (4) enjoyment of communication in English, and (5) confidence in speaking English. Mean scores for all items were higher (all statistically significant) for the December videos. In a similar survey comparing students’ perceptions of improvement during their eight months of study, learners participating in the video treatment (N=143) reported higher scores of improvement than the control group (N=107) for all items (2, 4, and 5 achieving statistical significance). Initial results appear to indicate that student videos are correlated with a positive effect upon students’ interest in, enjoyment of, and confidence in speaking English, but not with perceptions of increased general English ability or ability to interact in English. The findings are applicable to teachers and advisors of individual learners, who wish to empower their students in realizing progress for language learning endeavors that can sometimes seem tenuous.

Keywords: self-assessment, motivation, awareness, video

In the field of self-access language learning, assessment has been found to be one of the

“key challenges” due to the unconventional nature of self-access centers in providing unique

programs for learners who individually decide what activities to pursue, and when, how, and for

what duration to perform them (Reinders & Lázaro, 2007). Compared with the more traditional

classroom whereby students are often presented with identical resources, at identical times, with

identical instructions and identical deadlines, constructing a fair assessment can be a very

daunting task. In their investigation of 46 self-access centers in five countries, Reinders and

Lázaro (2007) found that 24 conducted no assessment whatsoever, whereas the remaining 22

centers employed a variety of assessment measures, with self-assessment comprising 82%. The

self-assessments took a number of forms including questionnaires, learning diaries, and

assessment grids and portfolios such as the European Language Portfolio (ELP). In a chapter

entitled Learner autonomy, self-assessment and language tests: Towards a new assessment


292

culture, Little (2011) made a very compelling argument for self-assessment, but offered only one

new instrument, the ELP. Other recent articles by scholars in the field either focused on

assessment of “autonomy” (Benson, 2010) or, as in an article entitled Managing self-access

language learning: Principles and practice, made no mention of “assessment” at all (Gardner &

Miller, 2011). It was thus, with scant attention given to self-assessment in language learning, that

the authors undertook the present research.

This pilot study aims to explore the possibility of using video assessment for teachers,

learning advisors, and students to effectively monitor progress in language learning. For students,

self-assessment is viewed as an invaluable way of involving students in the learning and

evaluation process, enabling students to become more autonomous and self-directed learners,

and giving students the skills to make the most of language learning opportunities (Little, 2005;

Ross, 2006). For teachers, learning advisors, and administrators, the videos can similarly be used

as tangible products for demonstrating gains.

Video-Stimulated Recall (VSR) has long been used in teacher training and development

(Calderhead, 1981; Reitano, 2006). Though a 100% purely objective method of data collection

does not exist (Pirie (1996) outlined numerous potential biases), VSR has advantages in being

able to record at least some aspects of classroom performance and enables the viewer(s) to revisit

this data and reflect upon performance, decisions taken, and emotions felt. Reitano (2006)

highlighted some of the limitations of VSR, including embarrassment, a fixation on one’s

physical appearance, and a firm mindset whereby objective observations are challenging. From

the discipline of business management, there have been concerns as to the accuracy of self-

assessment, with research suggesting self-assessment is more strongly tied to affective factors

than to cognitive ones (Sitzmann, Ely, Brown, & Bauer, 2010). For language learners, however,

it is precisely these affective factors that are among the most important (Arnold, 2009), perhaps

even more so for the independent language learner (Hurd, 2008). Affective factors aside, Ross

(2006) found that through proper training, student self-assessment can be both valid and reliable,

and can contribute to greater learning outcomes. Reitano (2006) concludes that VSR “has been

shown to be a most effective tool for teachers to reflect on their knowledge in action and to

promote professional growth” (p. 10). The authors of the current study believed that perhaps the

very same tool of video reflection could be used for language learners as well.


293

Literature Review

MacIntyre, Clément, Dörnyei, and Noels (1998) wrote that the “primary goal of language

instruction” (p. 545) is to facilitate communicative use of the second language (L2). It is not a

stretch to see that communicative use of an L2 necessarily involves a certain amount of

autonomy. Littlewood (1999) explains:

If we define autonomy in educational terms as involving students’ capacity to use their

learning independently of teachers, then autonomy would appear to be an incontrovertible

goal for learners everywhere, since it is obvious that no students, anywhere, will have

their teachers to accompany them throughout life. (p. 73)

An integral part of autonomous learning, regardless of how one may define the term (for

definitions see Little, 2007; Littlewood, 1999), is some measure of autonomous assessment or

self-assessment. Little (2005) explains that a learner-centered curriculum is incomplete without

self-assessment and shared responsibility. Chen (2008) describes the merits of self-assessment in

assisting “students to develop knowledge of standards of good work” (p. 238), identifying

performance in relation to these standards, and making appropriate choices for further study.

Both Little (2005) and Chen emphasize the role of self-assessment in enabling learners to reflect

on their strengths and challenges, and consequently develop as informed learners. Chen (2008)

specifies the opportunities for growth in the phrase “learning to assess and assessing to learn” (p.

254), whereas Little (2005) describes the process of self-assessment as enabling “learners to turn

occasions of target language use into opportunities for further explicit language learning” (p.

322).

In the field of teacher training and development, there have been numerous studies

investigating the practice of VSR. Reitano (2006) notes five advantages of VSR that may also

apply to the current study: (1) allowing for the reliving of specific episodes in context, (2)

enabling both self-reflection and input from others, (3) giving adequate time for reflection, (4)

putting the subject in control, and (5) enabling subjects to make explicit what may have

previously been understood only implicitly. Though these advantages of VSR are expected to

cross over from the realm of teacher training to that of language learning, the authors of the


294

current study were unable to find any research literature focusing upon video use for student self-

assessment and learning.

Research Questions

The following research questions were thus proposed:

1. How do students perceive their progress in spoken English after 8 months of formal study?

(Progress, in this study, is understood to encompass not only communicative ability, but

also the important affective considerations of interest, enjoyment, and confidence.)

2. How do the above perceptions compare with those of students who have not been video

recorded?

Methodology

Participants

The participants were drawn from 11 intact classes of first year students at a Japanese

university of sciences and engineering. All participants had two 90-minute periods of English per

week for two 15-week semesters. None were English language majors. All participants

undertook the same English curriculum taught by the three instructor-researchers.

Two survey measurements were completed, details of which are explained later in this

section. For the first survey instrument, a paired samples t-test was used to analyze the two

iterations. After removing participants who had been absent for one or more of the video

recordings, or for one or more of the video-viewing and questionnaire completion sessions, the

number of participants stood at 107.

For the second survey measurement, analyzed via an independent samples t-test, there

were 143 participants in the experimental group and 107 participants in the control group

(N=250).

Conditions

The participants in the video treatment group were video-recorded twice during the

academic year: once at the outset in April and once towards the end of the year in December.

The time of recording was chosen to provide students and their teachers with viewable data from

approximately the beginning and end of their first-year university English studies. The aim of the


295

above research questions was to assess students’ progress in spoken English (understood to be

communicative). The participants were therefore asked to record interactions in pairs such that

elements of conversation, including interactive ability and confidence in communicating with a

partner, could be evaluated. The April video recording entailed pairs of students asking each

other about their identity pages (see Appendix A). The December video recording involved pairs

of students speaking about common topics (see Appendix B). Following completion of the

second video recording in December, the students watched the two videos in successive classes,

immediately completing the same questionnaire after each video, comprising the questions

indicated in the next section.

In a third class, the video treatment group participants completed an additional

questionnaire after watching the two videos together. The control group responded to the same

questionnaire (instrument two) in the absence of any videos. Control group participants

experienced the same classes, with the same curriculum taught by the same instructors. The sole

difference was the absence of video activities.

Survey Instrument One

The survey instrument, completed twice by the treatment group (N=123), comprised five

items translated into Japanese and back-translated for accuracy. The items were chosen and

constructed in an effort to assess a robust definition of progress in spoken English comprising

both elements of production (general English ability, ability to interact in English) and elements

of affect (interest, enjoyment, confidence). Each item was followed by a space to optionally

record any comments. The survey instrument was administered online, and the respondents could

answer in Japanese or English. The items are shown in Figure 1.


296

Figure 1. Survey instrument 1

Survey Instrument Two

The survey instrument completed by both the treatment and control groups (N=250)

comprised five items translated into Japanese and back-translated to ensure accuracy. The items

were constructed to enable comparison between the treatment group, which had recorded,

watched, and evaluated their videos; and the control group, which had no video activity. The

items are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Survey instrument 2

Results

The descriptive statistics for survey instrument one are presented in Table 1. The average

ratings of the participants (N=123) were all slightly higher for the survey administered following

viewing of the December video as compared with the survey following viewing of the April

video. A paired samples t-test, with values reported in Table 2, indicates that all December gains

were statistically significant at the .05 level.

I. On a four-point Likert-scale (4= strongly agree, 3= agree, 2= disagree, 1= strongly

disagree):

1. Looking at this video, I am satisfied with my English ability.

2. Looking at this video, I can see that I have an interest in speaking English.

3. Looking at this video, I feel that I have the ability to interact in English.

4. Looking at this video, I can see that I enjoy communicating in English.

5. Looking at this video, I feel that I have confidence in speaking English.

II. Any comments for each of items 1-5.

On a four-point Likert-scale (4= strongly agree, 3= agree, 2= disagree, 1= strongly

disagree):

1. Since beginning university, my English ability has improved.

2. Since beginning university, my interest in speaking English has increased.

3. Since beginning university, my ability to interact in English has improved.

4. Since beginning university, I enjoy communicating in English more.

5. Since beginning university, I have more confidence in speaking English.


297

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Survey Instrument 1.

Itema Video Viewed M SD S. E. Mean

Q1 April 2.01 .50 .05

December 2.20 .54 .05

Q2 April 2.45 .60 .05

December 2.72 .50 .05

Q3 April 2.02 .53 .05

December 2.22 .61 .05

Q4 April 2.69 .65 .06

December 2.93 .56 .05

Q5 April 1.98 .53 .05

December 2.18 .56 .05 aN=123

Table 2. Differences in Means for Survey Instrument 1.

Item M SD T df Sig. (2-tailed)

Q1 -.19 .52 -4.01 122 .00

Q2 -.27 .62 -4.84 122 .00

Q3 -.20 .59 -3.85 122 .00

Q4 -.24 .65 -4.00 122 .00

Q5 -.20 .55 -3.91 122 .00

Note: All differences in means were statistically significant at p ! 0.5.


298

The descriptive statistics for survey instrument two are presented in Table 3. The

experimental video group scored marginally higher on all items regarding improvement. An

independent samples t-test, with values reported in Table 4, was performed. Levene’s Test for

Equality of Variances was conducted and the suitable values were chosen. The statistical

procedure indicated that items 2, 4, and 5 incurred means from the two groups that were

statistically significant at the .05 level. These results demonstrate that learners who participated

in the video treatment rated themselves higher, after eight months of study, on measures of

interest, enjoyment, and confidence, but not on measures of ability.

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Survey Instrument 2.

Item Group N M SD S. E. Mean

Q1 Video 143 2.80 .57 .05

Control 107 2.74 .56 .05

Q2 Video 143 3.00 .47 .04

Control 107 2.83 .56 .05

Q3 Video 143 2.88 .52 .04

Control 107 2.81 .58 .06

Q4 Video 143 3.06 .51 .04

Control 107 2.83 .62 .06

Q5 Video 143 2.66 .64 .05

Control 107 2.49 .60 .06


299

Table 4. Differences in Means for Survey Instrument 2.

Item Mean Difference Std. Error Difference t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Q1 .07 .07 .91 248.00 .36

Q2 .17 .07 2.51 206.72 .01*

Q3 .07 .07 .95 213.93 .34

Q4 .23 .07 3.14 200.52 .00*

Q5 .18 .08 2.24 248.00 .03*

Note: *Differences in means were statistically significant at p ! 0.5.

Qualitative Data

For the purposes of triangulation, participant comments were solicited in the two

administrations of survey instrument one. Participants were encouraged to make comments in

either English or Japanese, with a professional translator performing translations of the Japanese

comments. The comments section was both optional and open ended. Thus, while definitive

conclusions cannot be made about the comments of students who elected to respond, the

comments can give a broader indication of student perspectives than by using the Likert-scale

data alone.

The comments for each of the five questions on iterations one and two of survey

instrument one were first independently coded by the three researchers, discussed, and finally

coded together by the team. Comments for items 2 (interest in speaking English) and 4 (enjoy

communicating in English) generally fell along the spectrum of interest in the subject matter

(clearly evident, clearly lacking, or not explicitly mentioned). Statements such as “I'm not sure

that other people can see, but I'm very interested” were categorized as the student demonstrating

an interest in English language learning. Conversely, statements such as “I don't like English

very much” were clearly indicative of students who lacked interest. Given the open-ended nature

of the comments, many, such as “I thought English is difficult” could not be categorized on a

scale of interest. One commonly uncategorizable type of comment had to do with smiling. In the

two iterations of the survey, there were twenty instances of smile, smily, or smiling recorded,


300

only two of which were coded for participant interest: “When I speak, I smile and look

interested” and “I looked that I was having fun, because I was smiling”. Other comments such as

“I was smiling”, “I’m talking with a smile”, and “I could talk with smile” would tend to indicate

interest in the subject matter, but without greater context could not be coded as such. Smiling,

particularly in the Japanese context, could be construed as a sign of embarrassment or

discomfiture (Andrade & Williams, 2009). The three comments, “I’m smiling foolishly”, “I’m

smiling bitterly”, and “I don’t have smile” might indicate negative feelings, but again, without

greater context could not be coded. Comments for items 1 (satisfaction with English ability), 3

(ability to interact in English), and 5 (confidence in speaking English) generally aligned along

two different dimensions: a) interest in the subject matter, and b) satisfaction with English ability.

Comments that did not reference interest or satisfaction with English ability were left uncoded.

Table 5 displays the results of the qualitative portion of this study. Bearing in mind that

comments were optional and that their coding can be problematic based on limited context, the

results are nonetheless promising. In all instances, satisfaction and interest were registered in

higher percentages for the December video iteration than for the April iteration, and

dissatisfaction and disinterest in equal or lower percentages for the December iteration.

Particularly noteworthy is the large percentage of student responses for the December video

indicating interest for items 2 and 4.


301

Table 5. Analysis of Comments.

Item Video

viewed

N Coding

Dimension

+ % unc % - %

Q1 April N=66 Satisfaction 7 10.6 13 19.7 46 69.7

Interest 15 22.7 51 77.3 0 0

Q1 December N=46 Satisfaction 15 32.6 10 21.7 21 45.7

Interest 11 23.9 35 76.1 0 0

Q2 April N=57 Interest 22 38.6 26 45.6 9 15.8

Q2 December N=44 Interest 29 65.9 14 31.8 1 2.3


Interest 7 13.2 46 86.8 0 0


Interest 9 20.5 35 79.5 0 0

Q4 April N=50 Interest 22 44 25 50 3 6

Q4 December N=43 Interest 28 65.1 15 34.9 0 0


Interest 6 12.5 42 87.5 0 0


Interest 9 20 36 80 0 0

Note: + and – refer, respectively, to presence and absence of the coding dimension. unc indicates responses that were uncategorizable with regard to the coding dimension.


302

Discussion

The first research question asked how students perceived their progress in spoken English

after eight months of formal study. The participants from the video treatment group reported

higher ratings for the December video on all five items of survey instrument one. These

statistically significant findings appear to demonstrate that the experimental group believed they

were making progress. These results are promising. There are, however, a number of limitations

to these findings, discussed in the next section, for which caution is advised in interpreting the

results.

The second research question asked how the perceptions of the students in the video

treatment group compared with similar students in the control group. These findings are a little

more robust in that there is a control group with which to compare the video treatment group

findings. On survey instrument two, eliciting perceptions of improvement, the experimental

group ranked themselves higher on all five measures (three of which were statistically

significant). Items 2, 4, and 5 (eliciting perceptions of interest in speaking English, enjoyment of

English communication, and confidence in speaking English, respectively) all incurred small, but

statistically significant differences when compared against the control group. This finding leads

the researchers to believe that the video treatment has had some positive effects on how learners

rated their interest, enjoyment, and confidence in communicating in English.

Conversely, for items 1 and 3 (both eliciting perceptions of ability), no statistical

difference was found. Thus, while the video treatment appears to have led to higher self-ratings

for affective measures, there appears to be no difference with regard to measures of ability.

The qualitative results tended to validate the results from the survey instruments,

particularly for items 2 and 4 (evaluating interest and enjoyment, respectively). For the

December iteration of survey one, responses such as “I looked [like] I was enjoying it”, “I can’t

speak English well, but I like to speak”, and “I have more interest than the last time” were

common for item 2. For item 4, typical responses included “I enjoyed the conversation”, “I think

that speaking English is difficult but fun”, and “I was nervous but excited to do it”. The

responses for item 5 with regard to confidence were a little more circumspect with only eleven

participants making statements such as “I think that I am better than I was”, “I could talk with

[confidence] looking at my partner”, and “I could talk without hesitation”. Though the

participants appeared relatively reluctant to express satisfaction with their current ability, many


303

of the students did clearly express interest in studying English throughout their responses to the

five survey items. Often-recorded responses such as “I’m interested in English but I can’t really

speak English” and “I want to improve my English and gain confidence” underscore this point.

Limitations

As with any research into language learner perceptions, there are a number of limitations

inherent. First, there is the concern that students may not be particularly accurate assessors of

their own progress. Sitzmann et al. (2010) have called into question whether self-assessments are

in fact more of an affective judgment than a cognitive one. Given that the statistically significant

results in this study were indeed for affective factors rather than those concerning ability,

perhaps this limitation is not as worrying. In future studies, it may be useful to provide thorough

training in self-assessment such that students can achieve greater validity and reliability in their

own assessments (Ross, 2006).

A second concern is that all students were clearly aware of which video was taken in

April and which was taken in December. There thus exists the possibility whereby student

expectations led them to assume improvement when, in fact, none may have existed. Having

invested eight months of study into their English, it may be difficult for learners not to give

themselves higher scores on the second iteration of survey one. On the contrary, however, there

is also the possibility that non-English major students who have been required to take English

might have been disaffected with the subject matter and may have given themselves equal or

lower scores in the second iteration of survey one, regardless of any possible improvement. As

there is little possibility of controlling for students’ knowledge of which video was taken when,

the best way of ensuring valid and reliable self-assessments is, again, through comprehensive

self-assessment training.

A third limitation relates to the timing of both iterations of survey one. The recorded

videos from April and December were both viewed and evaluated by students in December in

successive classes. The proximity of the viewings and the elapsed time from the April recording

may have affected students’ evaluations. The authors’ follow-up research will have students

view and evaluate their performances shortly after the recordings.

There are finally practical matters to be considered. The April recordings were made in

the classroom (multiple pairs at once) with no external microphone and the audio quality was


304

often problematic. The December recordings were instead made in auxiliary rooms and were

much more audible. The next study will see both sets of recordings made in auxiliary rooms for

maximum clarity.

Conclusion

The above limitations notwithstanding, this study has gleaned some important and

tangible results. Taken together, the qualitative and quantitative data point to a pattern whereby,

over the eight month course of study, students appeared to be developing a greater interest in and

enjoyment of communicating in English. Slightly increased levels of confidence were also

apparent. Particularly noteworthy was that participants in the video treatment group were able to

perceive gains in interest, enjoyment, and confidence that the control group participants did not.

What has not been sufficiently demonstrated is a perception of gain in satisfaction with

general English ability or in the belief that the student has an increased ability to interact in

English. The results for video treatment group participants were not statistically different from

those of the control group for those measures. Frequent survey responses such as “I can’t

communicate well yet” suggest that, although students may not appreciate gains in their ability,

they may have made gains in terms of their interest in the subject matter.

There are a number of potential explanations for students being unable to perceive gains

in actual ability. Perhaps the most obvious (and the most disconcerting for teachers) is that there

was no gain. The authors believe, however, that gains in communicative ability in a short term

EFL setting are rather difficult to pinpoint, especially in the absence of any quantifiable

measurement. Students, particularly in the absence of training, may be unable to objectively

measure their own gains (Sitzmann et al., 2010). A child, by way of analogy, may have

experienced vertical growth in an eight-month period. With no chart to assist her, however, that

growth may be imperceptible, particularly if the child’s friends are growing as well.

What this study has clearly demonstrated is that intermittent video recordings can assist

students in identifying gains of interest in, enjoyment of, and confidence with using English.

Particularly in the absence of other concrete measures of demonstrating gain, these video

recordings may better enable learners to realize the often elusive progress they are making in

their language studies. This progress, even if it is more affective than cognitive, can provide a

substantial boost in motivation for students.


305

Future studies should address the limitations described in the previous section, including

training students to be competent raters of their own performance, viewing and evaluating the

videos shortly after recording, and considering practical matters such as recording quality.

Further research should also seek to identify students’ perspectives on the self-assessment

training, video recording and viewing, and evaluation process in order to determine whether or

not students believe these activities to be valuable. Researchers may want to consider using

qualitative data collection methods such as interviews and focus groups in order to provide more

contextual information for better coding and analyzing of the data. Finally, it would be

interesting to see research that compares students’ self-evaluations on measures of ability against

those of qualified and independent instructors. The authors of this pilot study are currently

pursuing a revised replication study in order to tackle some of these challenges.


Rob Hirschel is a lecturer at the Sojo International Learning Center (SILC) of Sojo University in

Kumamoto, Japan. His research interests include assessment, affective factors in the language

classroom, error correction, and CALL.

Craig Yamamoto is currently a lecturer at Sojo University in Kumamoto, Japan. He has been a

manager, teacher and trainer for teachers in EFL/ESL since 1996 at the primary, secondary, and

post-secondary levels. His research interests include assessment, training, and learner motivation.

Peter Lee is currently a lecturer at Sojo University in Kumamoto, Japan. He has been teaching

EFL/ESL for more than 10 years at the primary, secondary, and post-secondary levels. His

research interests include evaluation, listening, and CALL.

References

Andrade, M., & Williams, K. (2009). Foreign language learning anxiety in Japanese EFL

university classes: Physical, emotional, expressive, and verbal reactions. Sophia Junior College Faculty Journal, 29, 1-24. Retrieved from http://www.jrc.sophia.ac.jp/courses/pdf/ver2901.pdf

Arnold, J. (2009). Affect in L2 learning and teaching. ELIA, 9, 145-151. Retrieved from

http://institucional.us.es/revistas/elia/9/8.%20Arnold.pdf


306

Benson, P. (2010). Measuring autonomy: Should we put our ability to the test? In A. Paran & L. Sercu (Eds.), Testing the untestable in language education (pp. 77-97). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Calderhead, J. (1981). Stimulated recall: A method for research on teaching. British Journal of

Educational Psychology, 51, 211-217. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1981.tb02474.x Chen, Y.-M. (2008). Learning to self-assess oral performance in English: A longitudinal case

study. Language Teaching Research, 12, 235-262. doi:10.1177/1362168807086293 Gardner, D., & Miller, L. (2011). Managing self-access language learning: Principles and

practice. System, 39, 78-89. doi:10.1016/j.system.2011.01.010 Hurd, S. (2008). Affect and strategy use in independent learning. In S. Hurd & T. Lewis (Eds.),

Language learning strategies in independent settings (pp. 218-236). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/10049/1/Affect%26StrategyUseinIndependentLearning.pdf

Little, D. (2005). The Common European Framework and the European Language Portfolio:

Involving learners and their judgements in the assessment process. Language Testing, 22, 321-336. doi:10.1191/0265532205lt311oa

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

Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1, 14-29. doi:10.2167/illt040.0 Little, D. (2011). Learner autonomy, self-assessment and language tests: Towards a new

assessment culture. In B. Morrison (Ed.), Independent language learning: Building on experience, seeking new perspectives (pp. 25-39). Hong Kong, China: Hong Kong University Press. doi:10.5790/hongkong/9789888083640.003.0003

Littlewood, W. (1999). Defining and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts. Applied

Linguistics, 20, 71-94. doi:10.1093/applin/20.1.71 MacIntyre, P., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to

communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 545-562. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb05543.x

Pirie, S. (1996, October). Classroom video-recording: When, why and how does it offer a

valuable data source for qualitative research? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for Psychology of Mathematics Education Panama City, Florida.

Reinders, H., & Lázaro, N. (2007). Current approaches to assessment in self-access language

learning. TESL-EJ, 11, 1-13. Retrieved from http://www.cc.kyoto-su.ac.jp/information/tesl-ej/ej43/a2.pdf


307

Reitano, P. (2006, December). The value of video stimulated recall in reflective teaching practices. Paper presented at the Social Science Methodology Conference, University of Sydney, Australia.

Ross, J. A. (2006). The reliability, validity, and utility of self-assessment. Practical Assessment

Research & Evaluation, 11, 1-13. Retrieved from https://exams.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/30005

Sitzmann, T., Ely, K., Brown, K. G., & Bauer, K. N. (2010). Self-assessment of knowledge: A

cognitive learning or affective measure? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9, 169-191. doi:10.5465/AMLE.2010.51428542


308

Appendices

Appendix A Identity Pages Illustrated by Students Prior to the April Recording


309

Appendix B Common Topics for the December Recording


310

The Effects of Applying Betts' Autonomous Learner Model on Iranian

Students Nahid Yarahmadzehi, Chabahar Maritime University, Iran Elham Bazleh, Chabahar Maritime University, Iran

Abstract

Classroom-based, teacher-directed language learning has been dominant in language teaching and learning for decades; however, the notion of autonomy is not novel to language teachers. Since the publication of Holec's book, Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning (1981), autonomy in language learning has been a significant issue for discussion in relation to language learning practices and language teaching principles. Many ESL researchers have turned their attention to learner autonomy in classroom settings; however, learner autonomy in the Iranian context within self-access settings, classroom settings, and school curriculum has not been adequately addressed in the literature. To fill the research gap mentioned above, the present study aims to determine: 1. if Betts’s Autonomous Learner Model (Betts & Kercher, 1999) has any significant effect in terms of students’ self-directed learning readiness, and 2. if Betts’s Autonomous Learner Model has any significant effect on students’ English language proficiency. Adopting a quasi-experimental design, the study involved a comparison between the experimental and the control group. Two instruments were used: Gugliemino’s (1977) Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale (SDLRS); and standardized TOEFL test. 30 students (group A) were taught English based on a pedagogical model, which blended Betts’s ALM with classroom instruction and 30 students (group B) were taught through a traditional teacher-directed method. Finally, after six months of treatment, TOEFL test and SDLRS test were administered as the post-test and the results were analyzed by means of SPSS software. The results showed that ALM can work with Iranian students as evidenced by generally average performance on SDLRS and TOEFL post-tests.

Key words: Learner Autonomy, Autonomous Learner, Autonomous Learner Model.

Since the publication of Holec's book, Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning

(1981), autonomy in language learning has been a significant issue for discussion in relation

to language learning practices and language teaching principles. Holec (1981) defines learner

autonomy as “the ability to take charge of one's own learning” and noting that this ability “is

not inborn but must be acquired either by natural means or by formal learning” (p. 3). Taking

charge according to Holec (1981, cited in Kumaravadivelu, 2006) means to have and to hold

the responsibility for planning, for defining contents and progressions, for selecting methods

and techniques to be used, for monitoring learning progress, and finally for evaluating what


311

has been acquired or self-assessment. Dickinson (1994, p. 2) believes that autonomy is “an

attitude to learning rather than a methodology.” Benson (2003) argues that “we cannot teach

students to become more autonomous… (But) we can create the atmosphere and conditions

in which they will feel encouraged to develop the autonomy they already have” (p. 305).

The Problem

As Farhady, Jafarpur, and Birjandi (2007) observe, universities in Iran are not capable of

accommodating all applicants who pass the examination, so entrance examination is a

competition test rather than selection test. One possible way to obviate this problem is to

increase the capacity of educational institutions to accommodate all who pass the test. In

recent years, measures have been taken to increase the capacity by establishing distance

learning universities and virtual learning centers. Moreover, rapid changes in information

technology have necessitated the need to place more focus on English in order to improve

students’ ability and capability to deal with the development of learning strategies in the new

millennium. Much of the modern educational materials are developed in English; as a result,

competency in English language is a definite advantage. In the ever-changing information

era, Iranian students should not lag behind especially when there is a need to provide them

the knowledge and skills necessary to make them 21stcentury learners. Attempts should be

made to develop in students the ability to engage with, interact with and participate in

particular learning environments that are not always directly mediated by the teacher, and to

give them successful experiences of independent learning in such contexts as self-access

centers. Autonomous leaning is meant to empower students to go beyond the limits of the

classroom, and continue their own learning and communicative innovation outside the

classroom. Encouraging the students to be autonomous learners will also be beneficial for

them in the future because they will learn to be lifelong learners. Consequently, the

development of self-directed learning skills could be a possible solution for the problem. The

major goal of the Autonomous Learner Model (ALM) is to facilitate the growth of students as

independent, self-directed learners who function with minimal external guidance. ALM is

one of the leading models worldwide, and its flexible approach permits its adaptation and

application in different situations and with different learners. A description of the model is

provided later in the paper. The specific research questions this study set out to answer were:

1. Does the application of the Autonomous Learner Model have an effect on students’ self-

directed learning readiness?


312

2. Does the application of the Autonomous Learner Model have an effect on students’ English

language proficiency?

Methodology

Participants

60 students were chosen from learners of an English language institution located in

the city of Fasa, Fars province, 30 females and 30 males, ranging in age from 15 to 19. They

were at a low intermediate level of English proficiency. It was a general English proficiency

course which focused on four language skills namely, speaking, listening, reading, and

writing. The participants’ first language was Farsi. The length of their English study was 4 to

5 years. The students formed two teaching classes: one class (group A) was involved in the

experiment while the other class (group B) was taught in a traditional teacher-directed way

which is the main approach in Iran. The classes were held three days a week for twenty

weeks. Each session was two hours.

Instruments Standardized English Proficiency Test (TOEFL)

A standardized proficiency test, TOEFL (taken from Nolan-Woods & Broukal, 1991),

was used to determine both groups A and B levels’ of English proficiency. The test was

administered twice, once at the beginning and once at the end of the course.

Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale (SDLRS)

The SDLRS was designed by Gugielmino in 1977 It is a 58-item, five-point Likert

scale instrument, which measures a total score for self-directed learning readiness. Since its

creation, its construct validity has been confirmed through numerous studies. It is generally

accepted as the most valid and widely used instrument of its kind. Scale questions were

presented in English to avoid measurement error which could be attributed to translation of

the scale into Farsi. Scale instruction was written in Farsi so that there would be no

misunderstanding.

Treatment of experimental group

The major goal of the ALM is to facilitate the growth of students as independent, self-


313

directed learners, with the development of skills, concepts, and positive attitudes within the

cognitive, emotional, and social domains in order to initiate their learning and evaluate its outcome.

In other words, the model aims at helping students become 21st century learners through the use of

activities in the five major dimensions of the model. The five dimensions of the model are:

orientation, individual development, enrichment, seminars, and in-depth study.

In order to meet objectives of the five dimensions of the model, different activities of each

dimension were selected and implemented in the experimental group classroom. The activities are

presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Dimensions and Activities of the ALM.

It should be emphasized that the teaching material was the same, and the same teacher

taught both groups A and B. Group A’s teaching was based on a pedagogical model, which blended

Betts’ ALM (Betts & Kercher,1999) with classroom-based instruction.

Students came to class and the instructor delivered a short lesson. The regular curriculum

was compacted into 1 hour a day and the materials for the Autonomous Learner were covered

during the remaining 1 hour. By omitting the corresponding parts of regular curriculum in which

students demonstrate quick mastery of and substituting alternative work or moving through the

curriculum at a faster pace, curriculum can be compacted so the teacher can devote remaining class

time to autonomous learning. This way, students would not view it as extra work. No exercises

were done in the classroom. The students were asked to do the exercises by themselves or with the

help of their groups, and just as a last resort come to the teacher. The rest of the class time was

devoted to implementing Betts’ ALM (Betts & Kercher, 1999), which incorporated the following

features:

Dimensions Activities

Orientation Multiple Intelligences Worksheet, group building activities (Temperature Readings).

Individual development

Lifelong notebook, six selves, technology matrix, organizational skills activities.

Enrichment Exploration, investigation.

Seminars Seminar.

In-depth studies In-depth- study.


314

Orientation dimension: Students first filled in a Multiple Intelligences Worksheet to

find out what their different multiple intelligences are, which they shared with their teacher.

Students did group-building activities to develop a cohesive group. In ALM, group learning

which holds the team and each individual accountable for learning the materials is highly

recommended. Betts and Kercher (1999) believe that “communication, trust, acceptance, and

openness are essential ingredients for the successful development of positive group

interaction throughout the model” (p. 95).

Temperature Readings activity allows learners to take their emotional temperature which is

one type of affective strategies based on Oxford’s (1990) division. This affective exercise allows

students to share their emotional ‘temperature’ and learn to read one another’s ‘thermometers.’

Then, they should be able to manage their emotions, which mean they should be able to monitor

and regulate their feelings so they aid rather than impede the handling of situations.

Individual Development: Students did Inter/ Intra Personal activities which include

Lifelong Notebook, assessments relating to Six Selves which aimed at developing in students

a deeper awareness of life-long learning, and apply the results to their own life. The students

were asked to add information to all ten sections of the Lifelong Notebook throughout the

next two years. The ten sections included lifelong reading list, provocative quotes,

provocative questions, goals and dreams, people and places, adventures and experiences,

areas of possible study, favorite friends and relatives, poems and especial writings, and

miscellaneous.

Technology activities which include Technology Matrix, and Collage provide students with

the opportunity to identify the technology available in the world today, decide what technology is

needed in the next few months and the next year, and applying what they know how to do today

and learn what they want to use in the near future. Organizational Skills activities which include

Life Management, Goal Setting, and Time Management were also implemented. Good life

management ensures that every aspect of life grows as it should. Without life management, it is

easy to leave out some aspects of personal growth while overemphasizing the others. The Life

Management activity provides an opportunity for learners to pay attention to different areas of their

lives and indicate their degree of satisfaction in each of the areas. This way they realize the truth of

where they actually are, and this realization in turn gives them the motivation to do something

about it.

Goal setting involves learners in determining what they want to accomplish within a stated

time period. The Goal Setting activity offers learners a chance to set goals and prioritize them and

the Time Management activity familiarizes learners with the strategies to manage their time and


315

use time creatively. Students must be able to manage their time. Time management involves

scheduling, planning, and managing one’s study time and this involves setting aside time for study,

using that study time effectively, and setting realistic goals and timetables for their studies. Moon

(2002, p. 19) quotes Csikszentmihalyi (1997) who asserts that “time is the ultimate scarce source

that we have.” (See Betts & Kercher, (1999) for more details about the activities).

Enrichment: Enrichment provides opportunities for students to work with authentic

materials which they can easily relate to and are interested in. Students were encouraged to begin

exploration by finding out what is out there for learning English, and bringing in the English they

have found on their own. They were asked to explore the topic of language learning and

technology. The objectives were to learn how to listen and how to learn about topics where there is

little or no knowledge and to share the new knowledge verbally with the rest of the class. The

process of exploration is never completed, for there is always something new to learn. After that,

they were asked to firstly report on what they have done to enhance their English outside the class,

and secondly present their findings to the class. Students were asked to use their notebooks as

records of the English they discovered on their own (See Betts & Kercher, 1999).

Research investigations provide learners with opportunities to participate in a longer term

commitment to a topic. Each group was asked to articulate their topic. The teacher only acted as a

facilitator, offering support and guidance through the process where necessary. Learners completed

the proposal. Topics of interest to students became central to the research investigations, which

included “the effects of starving or fasting on the body”, “the life of Coco, the designer of Chanel,”

“Mahtma Gandhi” (students learned how positive attitudes allowed people to overcome hardships

or accomplish great feats), and “the life of highly critical and creative thinkers like Socrates and

Plato.” By selecting such topics and getting familiar with those who had highly critical and creative

thinking, students were able to discover for themselves the characteristics of good thinking. Once

each group selected a topic, they began the investigation by writing questions about their topics.

Then, they began collecting data through different sources of information, for example books,

internet searches, and videos. The final steps, presentation and evaluation, not only put closure to

the students’ investigations but also gave them the opportunity to reflect on how they learned so

that they were able to talk to other students about formulating questions, gathering and organizing

information, and developing a final mini-product. Most groups used Microsoft PowerPoint

presentation software. The groups which investigated the life of Socrates and Plato, developed a

questionnaire that they used in an interview with one of the members who took the roles of

Socrates and Plato. The students conducted the interview, and shared their knowledge with the

audience by actually becoming that person. Other students were also allowed to ask questions when


316

the interview was over. Each group completed evaluation forms. Evaluations focused on what the

learner had learned and what she or he might have done differently in order to improve the next

piece of work. The teacher also gave feedback on their work. Investigations trained students in

specific skills they would need to conduct research which would be needed at the next stage.

Seminars: Learners in small groups researched a topic, presented it as a seminar to the rest

of the class, and assessed it using their own selected and developed criteria. The seminars change

the students’ role to learners. The topics learners selected included: “English speaking countries’

holidays, customs, values and traditions that are different from theirs,” “games,” “the life of

Elizabeth Taylor.” Groups presented general information to their classmates through the use of

lectures and then engaged the rest of the class in generating new ideas and opinions, they discussed

the topic, and finally through a discussion of what had been learned, the groups brought the

discussion to a closure (See Betts & Kercher, 1999).

In-depth study: At the end of this stage, by completing an in-depth study, the learner has

the ability to perform at the highest level of learning. At this point students are becoming learners

and researchers. This dimension provides students with the opportunity to conduct research.

Students pursued areas of interest in long-term individual or small-group studies. They were asked

to submit their proposals. Most learners decided to research their favorite topics in English which

included: “what are the main majors of biology at different universities in Iran and their career

possibilities,” “what is the best way to lose weight,” “which jobs are most needed in near future,”

and “what can be done to reduce inflation” Students were asked to define a problem, then, by

brainstorming, students identified relevant information. The students interviewed a person who

could help them with their topics. For example, for losing weight the student interviewed a

physician and a personal trainer. After that, they were asked to generate specific hypotheses

beginning with words such as “… is the best way to lose weight because…” Next, they wrote out

specific, step-by-step instructions for testing their hypotheses, trying to control as many variables

as possible. For example, one student wrote: “1. doing exercise for two months, following a

vegetarian diet for 2 months, taking weight loss pills for two months; 2. weigh the participants

before and after the experiment; 3. compare the results for the different treatments.” Finally,

students were asked to analyze their information and state their conclusions.

After the course finished, students were required to continue their work in their own

groups or individually as far as possible. Other phases of their work were explained to them.

This stage of the course was not monitored or assessed by the teacher.


317

Results and Discussion

The quantitative data from SDLRS and TOEFL test were analyzed using SPSS to obtain

descriptive and inferential statistical results (Table 2).

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics of SDLRS Scores.

Groups Variable Mean Standard

deviation

Minimum Maximum Range

Pre-test 170 36.6 109 230 121 Group A

N= 30 Post-test 230 29.2 179 285 106

Pre-test 170 36.7 106 231 125

SDLRS

Group B

N= 30 Post-test 180 36.7 116 242 126

The average score for adults completing SDLRS questionnaire is 214 and the standard

deviation is 25.59. As table 2 indicates, the pre-test mean score of SDLRS of group A and B

are both 170. Both groups’ readiness for self-directed learning, according to Table 2, was

below the adult average before the intervention. The post-test mean scores of group A and B

are respectively 230 and 180. The mean scores of the two groups are not the same. After the

intervention, the control group’s (B) readiness for self-directed learning was still below

average but, the experimental group’s (A) readiness for self-directed learning increased to

around average.

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics of TOEFL Scores.

Groups Variable Mean Standard

deviation

Minimum Maximum Range

Pre-test 360 22.6 330 405 75 Group A

N= 30 Post-test 420 33.7 382 490 108

Pre-test 370 24.4 330 409 79

TOEFL

Group B

N= 30 Post-test 410 34.1 352 482 130

As shown in Table 3, the pre-test mean scores of group A and B respectively are 360

and 370 and the standard deviations are 22.6 and 24.4. The post-test mean scores of groups A


318

and B respectively are 420 and 410 and the standard deviations are 33.7 and 34.1. Before the

intervention, the English proficiency level of both groups was low intermediate, but after the

intervention period, the English proficiency level of both groups improved to intermediate

level.

Table 4. Independent Samples T-test of SDLRS Scores for Both Groups A and B

Prior to the Experiment.

Test statistical index N Degrees of freedom t Level of significance

SDLRS 60 58 .62 .536

Table 4 indicates that the difference between SDLRS scores of both groups A and B

is not statistically significant.

Table 5. Independent Samples T-test of SDLRS Scores for Groups A and B

After the Experiment.


SDLRS 60 58 -7.33 .000

Table 5 represents the t-test results for examining the difference between both groups

A and B’s post-test mean scores. The value of P is smaller than .05 which means that the

difference between SDLRS mean scores of both groups is statistically significant. The mean

score and the standard deviation of group A are 230 and 29.2 respectively. The mean score

and the standard deviation of group B are 180 and 36.7, respectively.

Table 6. Independent Samples T-test of TOEFL Test for Groups Prior to the Experiment.


TOEFL 60 58 .642 .523


319

As table 6 indicates the difference between TOEFL scores of groups A and B is not

statistically significant.

Table 7. Independent Samples T-test of TOEFL Test for Groups A and B

After the Experiment.


TOEFL 60 59 -15.92 .000

Table 7 represents the t-test results for examining the difference between both groups

A and B’s post-test mean scores. P value is smaller than .05 which means that the difference

between TOEFL mean scores of both groups is statistically significant. The mean score and

the standard deviation of group A are 420 and 33.7 respectively. The mean score and the

standard deviation of group B are 410 and 34.1 respectively. In other words, group A has a

statistically significantly higher mean score on TOEFL than group B.

Conclusions

The investigation showed a statistically significant increase in the experimental

group’s TOEFL and SDLRS scores. On the whole, most of the learners achieved success in

their language learning. The results indicated that there is a statistically significant difference

between the mean score of both groups A and B (t (58) =-15.92, p=.000) on TOEFL scores.

In other words, group A had a statistically significantly higher mean score on TOEFL than

group B. The difference between both groups in the post-test was also statistically significant

(t (58) =-7.33, p=.000) on SDLRS test. In other words, group A had a statistically

significantly higher mean score on SDLRS than group B. The results showed that ALM can

work with Iranian students as evidenced by generally average performance on SDLRS and

TOEFL post-tests. The model may have better effects if it is applied in earlier education.

Applying ALM earlier has this advantage that it will not be necessary to try to change

students’ attitudes regarding learning. In addition, students who became familiar with the

research style and more autonomous approaches in the first grade would be able to take full

advantage of the skills and knowledge they gained through this model in their future

education. The research indicates that attempts to incorporate autonomous learning into

school curriculum would be beneficial.


320

Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research

The samples consisted of a small number of participants. It is clear, therefore, that

these samples are not representative of Iranian students in general. The findings related to the

effects of applying this model would be more revealing and robust if students could be

observed for a longer period of time, in later stages of their education, and with increased

sample size which was not feasible within the scope of present work. The effects of this

model can also be investigated with students at other levels of education. Researchers could

investigate the effects of the whole version of this model over a period of at least three years.


Nahid, Yarahmadzehi is a lecturer and head of the English language department at Chabahar

Maritime University, where she teaches and supervises MA students.

Elham, Bazleh is an MA student at the Chabahar Maritime University, Iran.

References

Benson, P. (2003). Learner autonomy in the classroom. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Practical English language teaching (pp. 289-308). New York: McGraw Hill.

Betts, G.T., & Kercher, J. K. (1999). The autonomous learner model: Optimizing ability.

Greeley, CO: ALPS. Dickinson, L. (1994). Learner autonomy: What, why, and how. In Leffa, V. J. (Ed.),

Autonomy in language learning (pp. 1-12). Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul.

Farhady, H. Jafarpour, A., & Birjandi, P. (2007). Testing language skills: From theory to

practice. Tehran: The Organization for Researching and Composing University Textbook in Humanities.

Guglielmino, L. M. (1977). Development of the self-directed learning readiness scale.

Georgia, GA: University of Georgia. Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod.

London, UK: LEA.


321

Moon, S. M. (2002). Developing personal talent. In Mönks F. J., & Wagner, H. (Eds.), Personal talent, intelligence and special abilities. Development of human potential: Investment into our future (pp. 11-21). Bonn, Germany: K.H Bock.

Nolan-Woods, E., & Broukal, M. (1991). NTC’s preparation for the TOEFL. U.S.A.: NTC. Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Rowley,

MA: Newbury House.

studies in self-access learning journal 3(3)

Documents

selfaccess learning

selfaccess language

learning autonomy

selfaccess use

selfaccess centres

selfdirected learning

general issue of sisal

o sisal journal special