Independent Language Learning: Building on Experience, Seeking New Perspectives

Independent Language Learning

Independent Language Learning Building on Experience, Seeking New Perspectives Edited by Bruce Morrison

Hong Kong University Press 14/F Hing Wai Centre 7 Tin Wan Praya Road Aberdeen Hong Kong www.hkupress.org © Hong Kong University Press 2011 ISBN 978-988-8083-64-0 (Hardback) ISBN 978-988-8083-65-7 (Paperback) All rights reserved. No portion of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

10â•… 9â•… 8â•… 7â•… 6â•… 5â•… 4â•… 3â•… 2â•… 1 Printed and bound by Goodrich Int’l Printing Co., Ltd. in Hong Kong, China

Contents

List of contributors

vii

Introduction

1

Building on experience, seeking new perspectives Bruce Morrison

3

Section 1: Emerging perspectives

11

1.

13

Inside independent learning: Old and new perspectives Cynthia White

2.

Learner autonomy, self-assessment and language tests: Towards a new assessment culture David Little 3. Strategic and self-regulated learning for the 21st century: The merging of skill, will and self-regulation Claire Ellen Weinstein, Taylor W. Acee, Jaehak Jung and Jeremy K. Dearman

25

Section 2: The independent learner

55

4. 5. 6.

Identity and learner autonomy in doctoral study: International students’ experiences in an Australian university Sara Cotterall I’m not giving up! Maintaining motivation in independent language learning Linda Murphy Research methods to investigate emotions in independent language learning: A focus on think-aloud verbal protocols Stella Hurd







41

57

73

87

vi  Contents

Section 3: Supporting the independent learner 7. 8. 9.

Achieving your GOAL: A case study of three learners Tanya McCarthy On the road to self-directed learning: A language coaching case study Christina Wielgolawski



Developing learner autonomy through peer teaching experiences Shu-Hua Kao 10. Developing the ARC: Creating an online autonomy resource centre Tony Cripps 11. Autonomous learners in digital realms: Exploring strategies for effective digital language learning Rebecca L. Oxford and Chien-Yu Lin 12. ePortfolios for independent language learning: Episodic innovation or lasting reform? Juliana Chau

Index

101 103 119

131

145

157

173

187

Contributors

Taylor W. Acee is an assistant professor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at Texas State University–San Marcos. He is also co-principal investigator of the Community College Longitudinal Retention Study. Juliana Chau is a lecturer in the English Language Centre of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. She is the co-ordinator of an ePortfolio project€designed to support English language learning. Sara Cotterall is in the final year of her doctoral studies at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, where she is investigating the learning experiences of international PhD students. Tony Cripps is a professor at Ritsumeikan University and holds a doctorate in TEFL. Jeremy K. Dearman is an advanced doctoral student in the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Texas at Austin. Stella Hurd, now retired, was a senior lecturer in the Department of Languages at the Open University, UK.€ Jaehak Jung is an advanced doctoral student in the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Texas at Austin, and associate principal investigator of the Community Longitudinal Retention Study. Shu-Hua Kao is an assistant professor in the Department of Applied English at the Chihlee Institute of Technology in Taiwan. Chien-Yu Lin is a doctorate student in the Second Language Education and Culture programme at the University of Maryland, College Park.

viii  Contributors

David Little, now retired, was director of the Centre for Language and Communication Studies (1979–2005) and head of the School of Linguistic, Speech and Communication Sciences (2005–08) at Trinity College Dublin. He was chair of the Council of Europe’s European Language Portfolio Validation Committee from 2006 to 2010.€ Tanya McCarthy is currently working as a learning adviser at Kanda University of International Studies in Japan.€ Bruce Morrison is director of the English Language Centre at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. €€ Linda Murphy is a senior lecturer in the Department of Languages, Faculty of Education and Language Studies, the Open University, UK. Rebecca L. Oxford is a former professor and distinguished scholarteacher at the University of Maryland. She is now teaching at the Department of Cross-Cultural Competence in the US Air Force Culture and Language Center. €€€ Claire Ellen Weinstein is a professor in the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Texas at Austin. She is also director of the Cognitive Learning Strategies Research Project and co-principal investigator of the Community College Longitudinal Retention Study. € Christina Wielgolawski is a freelance language coach for adults who are learning English, French and German, especially for professional purposes. Cynthia White is professor of applied linguistics in the School of Linguistics and International Languages, Massey University, New Zealand.

Introduction

Building on experience, seeking new perspectives Bruce Morrison

Independent learning is hardly a new concept. Its twentieth-century roots lie in the work of educators such as Dewey (1916) and Tyler (1949), both of whom emphasised the need for teachers and students to take a greater role in and responsibility for the educational process. Freire (1970) and Illich (1971) contributed liberational concepts of an informal education which lies outside the institutional educational structure, and Knowles (1975, 1980) provided a conceptualisation of andragogy and the self-directed learner which was to underpin the mainstream US post-secondary education system. In the UK tertiary educational context, the work of the Nuffield Group for Research and Innovation in Higher Education (1975), and then the enormous influence of the Council of Europe as reflected in the work of Dickinson (1987), Holec (1980, 1985) and Little (1991), further developed conceptualisations of the autonomous and independent language learner. It is also, however, a field that remains dynamic, with scholars from across the world involved in broadening its scope and deepening our understanding of the various notions it encompasses. Research and areas of expertise embrace many aspects of the field, including the development of learner and teacher autonomy, self-directed and selfaccess learning, technology-mediated pedagogy, assessment in (and of) independent learning and the management of independent learning.

Independent learning It has been argued that there is no generally agreed definition of ‘independent learning’. Broad (2006, 121) suggests that when examining

4  Bruce Morrison

the literature ‘it becomes apparent that different terms are used to mean the same thing’. It is clear that independent learning is sometimes used synonymously with terms such as ‘autonomous learning’, ‘selfdirected learning’, ‘independent study’ and ‘self-regulated learning’. Benson and Voller (1997, 2) comment that autonomy and independence are ‘problematic concepts because they carry with them meanings from other discourses and from their application in particular instances of language education’. Little (1991) had previously expressed concerns that the various terms related to the notion of independent learning reflected a misconception that it was synonymous with a teacher-less approach to learning, while two decades earlier Moore (1973) had equated independent learning with distance learning. There seems, however, to be sufficient agreement on a working definition within which varying interpretations can operate. Unlike ‘learner autonomy’, which can be defined as the capacity for activating knowledge and abilities central to the learning process in order to ‘take charge of one’s learning’ (Holec 1980, 3), independent learning is a behaviour or set of behaviours where the learner takes ‘active’ responsibility for the learning process (Dickinson 1995; Broad 2006). The element of individual learner responsibility is either implicit or explicit in most definitions, and clearly underpins the understanding of the authors in this book. Another element that emerges clearly from these chapters is that independent learning is not synonymous with learning alone. While Rowsell and Libben (1994, 669) caution that ‘independent learners are often pedagogically and communicatively isolated’, Kersten (1987, as cited in Broad 2006, 120) points out that independent learning need not be a solitary experience but rather one ‘in which the learner, in conjunction with relevant others, can make the decisions necessary to meet the learner’s own needs’. It is generally accepted that individual independent learners take responsibility for defining their learning needs, identifying the means to attain them, and monitoring and evaluating their own progress. This, however, is not necessarily achieved without support from teachers or peers. Sheerin (1997) notes that learners will, at different stages in the learning process, be more or less teacher-independent or teacher-dependent. Similarly, different individual learners will choose to activate different aspects of independence in different ways, to different degrees, at different times, and in different learning contexts. It is for the learner to decide the degree and type of control he or she wishes to exercise over the learning process. While, as David Little argues in Chapter 2, a degree

Building on experience, seeking new perspectives  5

of learner autonomy can be seen as a highly desirable goal or product of independent language learning, for many learners their primary goal is the learning of a language and not the development of learner autonomy. In the pursuit of their main goal, independent learners may decide that relinquishing a degree of control at one or more stages of the learning process is an effective learning strategy. In Chapter 1, Cynthia White, tracing changes in the conceptualisation of independent learning, argues that independent learning should be interpreted in terms of the learning context, the philosophy of learning, particular learning attributes and the overall learning process. She argues that independent learning needs to be considered in the context of what Field (2000) has referred to as ‘the new educational order’, which emphasises the centrality of lifelong learning with its crucial relevance to education and the modern workplace in our postindustrial world. It is within this evolving educational context that this book is consciously situated.

The book This book focuses on issues related to independent language learning and how it can be supported in very different out-of-classroom educational and geographical contexts. It is divided into three sections which reflect three broad themes that emerged from the 2009 conference of the Independent Learning Association—an organisation of language practitioners and scholars from around the globe who share an interest in the field of independent learning (see Independent Learning Association 2003, 2005, 2007). These three sections are in turn reflected in the book title, suggesting that, in discussion of various aspects of the field of independent learning, while ‘seeking new perspectives’ we should also be ‘building on experience’. Section 1: Emerging perspectives In the first two chapters of the book, Cynthia White and David Little examine ways in which they see the educational landscape shifting in relation to learner autonomy and independent learning. The everincreasing complexity of rapidly changing educational environments requires an evolving understanding of the place of independent language learning in the process of lifelong learning. In Chapter 1, Cynthia White presents three new perspectives on independent language learning, which she explores with reference to

6  Bruce Morrison

three studies against a background which she views as having undergone ‘fundamental shifts’ with regard to our understanding of independent learning. She argues that the way to extend the current independent learning research paradigm is to focus on critically adaptive learners, the role of affect and the part communities play in the processes of independent learning—three aspects to which other authors refer in later chapters. In his chapter, David Little argues for the establishment of an assessment culture that recognises the development of learner autonomy as a primary goal in second language learning and teaching, and in which the learner plays a role in evaluating learning outcomes. Describing an institution-wide language programme at Trinity College, Dublin, he explores the implications of the use of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages and the European Language Portfolio for both learning and assessment. The third chapter of Section 1 considers the importance of learner autonomy from an educational perspective wider than that of language learning, arguing for the need for all post-secondary students to be effective strategic and self-regulated learners if they are to succeed in their higher education studies. Discussing the issues in relation to the North American educational context, Claire Ellen Weinstein, Taylor Acee, Jaehak Jung and Jeremy Dearman present a model of strategic learning. After explaining how this model is constructed, they describe how it has provided the basis for an autonomous learning course at the University of Texas at Austin that aims to help students become more strategic and self-regulated learners, and how the ‘Learning and Study Strategies Inventory’ is then used to measure the effectiveness of students’ management of the learning process. Section 2: The independent learner In Section 2, the focus is on the individual learner, with the authors using learner reflections to examine and illustrate aspects of independent learning and learner autonomy. The section opens with Sara Cotterall examining the linguistic, academic and cultural challenges faced by doctoral students studying at an Australian university. She uses survey and focus group data to present learner stories that provide insights into the impact on these students of their constructing an international student identity which, she argues, is central to the pursuit of the academic autonomy they need to develop and exercise in order to manage effectively the postgraduate learning process.

Building on experience, seeking new perspectives  7

The other two chapters in this section relate to the impact of affective factors in the independent learning process. Linda Murphy examines the experience of a group of adult distance learners of French, German and Spanish studying at the UK Open University. She explores the social, affective and self-motivational strategies they use, as well as the role intrinsic motivation plays in their self-regulation of the learning process. While finding limited evidence of the learners’ explicit use of affective and social strategies in the learning process, she argues that such strategies play a significant role in the wider process of selfregulation. The section concludes with Stella Hurd’s methodologically focused chapter which—after discussing some of the main issues relating to affect and outlining reasons why the study of emotions is important to understanding the processes of language learning and teaching—explores the difficulty of investigating emotions and suggests methods for doing so that might be the most effective. She outlines how her experience of using think-aloud verbal protocols has persuaded her of their value as a tool for revealing participants’ thought processes. Section 3: Supporting the independent learner Smith and Ushioda (2010), highlighting what they refer to as the ‘social side of autonomy’, acknowledge a significant shift towards ‘a more socially situated, relational view of learner autonomy’. This view is reflected in the chapters of Section 3 which examine ways in which the development of learner independence can be fostered and supported. In Chapter 7, Tanya McCarthy reports on a year-long case study of three learners at Kanda University of International Studies in Japan. Analysing data from learner portfolios, interviews and reflective reports, she highlights the importance of the self-directed learner both setting relevant goals in order to have a positive influence on his/ her learning strategies and motivation, and then creating a unique learning plan to achieve these goals. In the following chapter, Christina Wielgolawski presents another longitudinal case study, this time of a single adult learner of French in New Zealand, which focuses on the role of ‘coaching’ in the self-directed learning process. The results of the study highlight the benefits of the flexible and ongoing nature of such an approach to supporting independent learning, with the coach playing a role not only in assisting with the processes of needs analysis, goal-setting and programme planning, but also in asking questions and discussing the process of self-directed learning. In Chapter 9,

8  Bruce Morrison

Shu-Hua Kao reports on a study involving Taiwanese undergraduates majoring in English who acted as peer tutors to non-English-major undergraduate students who had scored low marks in English in their university entrance examination. She suggests that, as a result of their peer teaching experience, the tutors developed greater learner autonomy in a number of ways, including feeling a greater responsibility for their own learning, being more confident (but also more critical) about their learning, and learning in a more collaborative fashion. In Chapter 10, Tony Cripps discusses the development of an ‘autonomy supportive environment’ in the form of an online ‘Autonomy Resource Centre’ at Ritsumeikan University in Kyoto, Japan. Having outlined the pedagogy underlying the Centre and its development, he reflects on the lessons learned from the first year of operation and concludes that the development of such an environment needs to be carefully structured and take full account of the views and needs of all stakeholders. The final two chapters of the book, while differing in scope and focus, both relate to the development of autonomous or independent learners through IT-mediated support. In Chapter 11, Rebecca Oxford and Chien Yu-Lin provide a critical review of the research literature regarding learners’ use of digital learning strategies. At a macro level, they examine how such strategies interact with more traditional learning strategies, while at a more micro level they focus on the effect such digital learning strategies can have on the process of learning to read in a second language. In the last chapter of the book, Juliana Chau considers how eportfolio technology and pedagogy can be used to enrich the best of more traditional pedagogical practice. She reports on how an eportfolio has been integrated into language courses in the English Language Centre of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University with the aim of providing learners with rich independent learning opportunities, and how the feedback from stakeholders can be used to overcome implementation challenges. I trust you will find these chapters as inspiring to read as they have been to bring together into a book that I hope both reflects the rich and varied contributions the authors made to the Independent Learning Association 2009 conference, and which also contributes to a field that is surely central not only to language learning pedagogy but to the whole undertaking of education.

Building on experience, seeking new perspectives  9

References Benson, P. and P. Voller. eds. 1997. Autonomy and independence in language learning. London: Addison Wesley Longman. Broad, J. 2006. Interpretations of independent learning in further education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 30(2): 119–43. Dewey, J. 1916. Democracy and education. New York: The Free Press. Dickinson, L. 1987. Self-instruction in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dickinson, L. 1995. Autonomy and motivation: A literature review. System, 23(2): 165–74. Field, J. 2000. Lifelong learning and the new educational order. Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, UK: Trentham Books. Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder. Holec, H. 1980. Autonomy and foreign language learning. Strasburg: Council of Europe. Holec, H. 1985. On autonomy: Some elementary concepts. In P. Riley ed. 1985. 173–90. Illich, I. 1971. Deschooling society. New York: Harper and Row. Independent Learning Association. 2003. Proceedings of the inaugural€Independent Learning Association Conference 2003. Retrieved 15 January 2010, from http://independentlearning.org/ILA/. Independent Learning Association. 2005. Proceedings of the second€Independent Learning Association Oceania Conference 2005. Retrieved 15 January 2010, from http://independentlearning.org/ILA/. Independent Learning Association. 2007. Proceedings of the Independent Learning Association€ 2007 Japan Conference. Retrieved 15 January 2010, from http://independentlearning.org/ILA/. Kersten, C. 1987. Independent learning: a common essential learning. A study completed for the Saskatchewan Department of Education Core Curriculum Investigation Project, Saskatchewan Department of Education, University of Regina. Knowles, M. 1975. Self-directed learning: A guide for teachers and learners. New York: Association Press. Knowles, M. 1980. The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy. Chicago: Follet. Little, D. 1991. Learner autonomy 1: Definitions, issues and problems. Dublin: Authentik. Moore, M. G. 1973. Toward a theory of independent learning and teaching. Journal of Higher Education, 64(12): 661–79. Nuffield Group for Research and Innovation in Higher Education. 1975. Towards independence in learning. London: Nuffield Foundation. Riley, P. 1985. Discourse and learning. London: Longman. Rowsell, L. V. and G. Libben. 1994. The sound of one hand clapping: How to succeed in independent language learning. Canadian Modern Language Review, 50(4): 668–87.

10  Bruce Morrison

Sheerin, S. 1997. An exploration of the relationship between self-access and independent learning. In Autonomy and independence in language learning, eds. P. Benson and P. Voller. 54–65. London: Addison Wesley Longman. Smith, R. and E. Ushioda. 2010. Autonomy: Under whose control? In Maintaining control: Autonomy and language learning, eds. R. Pemberton, S. Toogood and A. Barfield. 241–53. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Section 1

Emerging perspectives

1 Inside independent learning: Old and new perspectives Cynthia White

Introduction Independent language learning (ILL) has been conceptualised and researched from a diverse range of perspectives and theoretical frames developed over the past three decades. A common thread in all these has been seeing the fundamental challenge of independent learning as developing the ability of learners to engage with, derive benefit from and contribute to learning environments not directly mediated by a teacher. This central challenge remains an important touchstone for the field, and yet also reveals fundamental shifts in what we know about and what we do in independent learning. In this chapter, I will argue that the shifts taking place require four new lines of research: • widening the focus beyond individual learners; • understanding the importance of both active learning and adaptive learning; • acknowledging the impact of Web 2.0 and lifewide learning contexts and practices; and • exploring the inter-relationship between affect and cognition in independent learning. While keeping an eye on the fundamental challenge of ILL, I will explore and illustrate these shifts with reference to three studies: one aimed at enhancing the savoir-faire and adaptive learning of foreign language students; the second exploring how students created and learned within a bilingual Web 2.0 learning community; and the

14  Cynthia White

third examining the critical role of emotion for student cognition and learning trajectories in a traditional independent learning setting. The emphasis in this chapter is on identifying new lines of enquiry, the new understandings they reveal and the value of reflecting on trajectories in ILL, though it is important to note that these trajectories capture some but not necessarily all new domains in the field. To begin with, and as a backdrop to this chapter, I want to briefly trace three aspects: a broad taxonomy of ILL which characterises much of the work to date; significant shifts in ILL with the advent of a ‘new educational order’ (Field 2000), lifewide learning and the opening out of the Web; and the emergence and limitations of the notion of critical autonomy. In attempting to encapsulate ILL, it is helpful to distinguish between interpretations which focus on the learning context or setting, a philosophy of learning or particular learner attributes (White 2008). To these three, I now want to add a fourth dimension—one which focuses on the learning process aspects of independent learning and emphasises the situated and contingent nature of ILL. Beginning with the first interpretation, research relating to settings and contexts has, for example, included detailed analyses of self-access centres, the forms which language advising may take and some forms of computerassisted language learning. The emphasis has been on exploring the potentialities of new sites for learning with independence from the mediating presence of the teacher. ILL as a philosophy or an approach to learning exists to develop learner autonomy and independence, whatever the learning setting. Within this approach, learner independence is both a goal and a process, and the field has devoted much research attention to developing learning practices and activities which might contribute to this aspect of learner independence. The focus on learner attributes explores the contribution learners themselves bring to ILL, including, for example, knowledge, attitudes, learning strategies and, more recently, self-regulation—where the approach has been predominantly, but not exclusively, from a cognitivist perspective. The fourth category I want to add I will call ‘a process approach to ILL’, which takes a social constructionist approach to ILL, stressing the dynamic, contingent nature of learning as it unfolds in particular contexts created by the contributions of participants. It is of course possible to argue that this is not another category, but instead brings a different theoretical lens to the three categories previously outlined. However, I argue that it represents a radically different interpretation of ILL, and I will illustrate this later in the chapter by showing how ILL was constructed and experienced by individual learners, as seen in particular moments and in their learning trajectories.

Inside independent learning  15

ILL needs to be viewed against the backdrop of changes in the place of learning in society and the rapid diversification of learning opportunities that has taken place in the last decade and a half. Field (2000) coined the term the ‘new educational order’ and has long been a proponent of the importance of lifelong learning. He raises serious questions about patterns of participation in learning opportunities, and argues that lifelong learning as the new educational order is an inseparable aspect of citizenship in the 21st century. While lifelong learning has long been a buzzword in relation to education, employability, economic development and the learning society, relatively little is known about its nature, distribution and complexities—formal, informal and incidental. Equally important is the notion of lifewide learning, that is understanding how learning, living and working are interconnected, and how life events and transitions stimulate encounters with new learning opportunities. To date, the place of ILL in lifelong and lifewide learning remains unexplored. In addition, the evident expansion and increasing complexity of learning environments and events requires us to scan more widely if we want to take in the full extent of the ILL landscape. Elaborating on these developments is beyond the scope of this chapter but they include open courseware, cyber language schools, user-generated content communities, Web 2.0 and self-organised learning networks. The advent of new learning modalities raises interesting new challenges for epistemology—including knowing what a language means, how it is acquired, and what we know. I do not address these epistemological challenges here, but rather suggest some ways in which we can develop richer understandings of ILL in both traditional and innovative learning environments. The study of learner autonomy has been intertwined with that of ILL, and both fields have drawn on the mutual lines of enquiry that have opened up to enhance theory, research and practice. I want to examine how the emergence of the notion of critical autonomy can contribute to our understanding of ILL. Working within the field of vocational education, Ecclestone (2000, 2002) developed a tripartite typology consisting of procedural, personal and critical autonomy. Procedural, also known as technical, autonomy involves knowing how to go about learning and making use of knowledge in a subject, including having a command of the required technical processes. Personal autonomy is where students develop self-direction based on knowledge of their strengths and weaknesses, and the possibility of exercising choice in the actions they take as learners. Both these dimensions appear quite rudimentary in terms of our understanding of ILL, but the third

16  Cynthia White

dimension, that of critical autonomy, has much to offer. It involves the ability to form judgements about subject content and developing expertise in it and awareness of subject knowledge in a wider context, as well as commitment and a sense of responsibility to a community (personal or social). I now revisit a study which aimed to help learners become ‘savvy’ in terms of the language learning opportunities around them, examining it in terms of the notion of critical autonomy and arguing for the need for not only critical but also adaptive dimensions of ILL.

New perspectives on ILL: Critical adaptive learning The context for this study, reported in detail in Cohen and White (2008), was a course for first-year university students which aimed at enhancing the informed choices learners can make as they face numerous courses, contexts, events and options for language learning. The study was based on the idea that learners can become skilled in choosing appropriate learning environments and then, within those selected environments, can also become more skilled in learning how to make best use of them. A pilot course was developed by Cohen to develop student expertise and know-how about language learning in both in-class and out-of-class contexts. As part of the course, students conducted explorations of different language learning opportunities in their immediate environment, including high-school language classes, immersion summer camps, tandem language learning and ILL. Although not developed with the critical autonomy frame in mind, the course reflected the three strands in Ecclestone’s definition of the term. With regard to the awareness of subject-matter in a wider context, students went out into the community and compared different contexts, methodologies, and experiences of language learning and teaching. For example, one student found a college instructor who was also teaching at high-school level and observed the teacher in two different roles; some students interviewed participants in study abroad via email; two students observed themselves learning by tutoring in their L1 or L2; another observed learners engaged in conversation with a tandem partner; and one student studied American Sign Language in two colleges and in elementary school. In terms of the ability to form judgements about subject content and growing expertise in it, student reports revealed how this was taking place and the meaning it had in the broader context of their lives. Chelsea, for example, was a bilingual speaker of English and Afrikaans, and was learning Spanish at the time:

Inside independent learning  17

I’ve learned about different programmes, environments, techniques, methodologies and theories in which languages are learned … my understanding of my personal beliefs and learning styles has grown … The process of observing different language learning environments and tools for this paper has served as an essential part of my journey to multilingualism. During this portion of my journey I have looked into the past, at the present and I am now planning for the future.

The notion of social commitment and a sense of responsibility to a community, personal or social, also became apparent in the project. The most compelling examples of this came in a follow-up to the students four years later where they reflected on their journey towards multilingualism. Katie, who had explored many different approaches to teaching and learning French in her project, gave a rich account of what the course meant to her, including in her personal life: Now I’m a Spanish Studies major … I’ve also studied Hebrew, Russian, French, and German. I’ve tried to help people in my everyday life to understand more about language acquisition, so they can either learn a foreign language or understand the situation of those around them with a native language other than English. I may begin to tutor TESL to my in-laws (Latinos), but my training in this area is limited.

The study provided a broadened sense of what was required of learners in ILL in: selecting particular learning environments; combining them with other learning opportunities; critically reflecting on what those environments afford them; and finding ways to add value to their experiences. This view of language learners as individuals who actively seek out and evaluate the possibilities for language learning in their context characterises many of the key processes required of students in ILL. What is not captured by either the field of ILL or autonomy, however, and yet was very marked in the Cohen and White study, is the notion of not just critical but also adaptive learning—that is focusing on how individuals respond to, and work with, the particular features and affordances of the learning environment. The work of Gu (2006) is helpful in this regard: he draws on and extends ecological systems theory, arguing that any environment both frames and enables learning, and that individuals pursue both active and adaptive learning in particular settings, with adaptive learning as a response to the framing features of particular environments. What emerged from the Cohen and White study was that the students not only developed critical autonomy as language learners, but also recognised the need

18  Cynthia White

for critical adaptive learning and the need to see themselves as active agents in deciding how they engaged with, constructed and configured the learning context. While much emphasis has been placed in ILL on the development of active learners exercising choice and control, it is also possible to enrich and extend this by recognising the importance of not just active learners but critical, adaptive learners.

New perspectives on ILL: Community and collaboration Little (2001), in an edited collection on information communications technology and language learning, broke new ground in arguing for autonomy as a collaborative interdependent process, emphasising the importance of the principles of partnership and reciprocity in the context of online tandem language learning. Web 2.0 platforms have revolutionised the Internet, allowing individuals and groups to contribute knowledge, opinions, ideas and experiences, and to form social networks. It is the linkages of information that are of crucial importance—the bringing together of the selected contributions of individuals, rather than the information of individuals per se (vom Brocke et al. 2010). These same principles figured prominently and consistently in a series of eGroups bilingual projects involving different cohorts of an English for the Social Sciences programme at Münster University, Germany and students of German as a Foreign Language at Massey University, New Zealand (Walker and White 2008; Walker and vom Brocke 2009). The eGroups projects were aligned with the intercultural telecollaborative exchanges described by O’Dowd (2003), Kramsch and Thorne (2002) and others (for a recent overview, see O’Dowd 2007). In discussing the projects and illustrating the importance of collaboration and reciprocity, I also want to focus on the importance of community: drawing on Thorne (2009), I will argue that a more critical and problematical understanding of community allows us to take a fresh look at the realities of ILL. Over a defined period of time (from two to six weeks, depending on the project), students met online synchronously and asynchronously, and collaborated in small groups to complete tasks, activities and projects which formed part of their course requirements. Working in small groups, students negotiated their own topics in relation to an overarching theme, for example ‘Globalisation and Localisation— Opportunities and Challenges’. Current media reports from both German and New Zealand sources served as points of departure, and topics were explored from cultural, social, economic or environmental

Inside independent learning  19

perspectives (for further details of the project see vom Brocke et al. 2010). A key feature of this collaboration was that the students were engaged in the project for different curricular outcomes: for the German students, this included a PowerPoint presentation, video, essay or project; while the New Zealand students were to demonstrate how they contributed to the project, to critically reflect on features of the interaction and the way the project developed, and to analyse their own contributions and what they had learned. Students chose from among a wide range of voice and text communication tools, including chat, asynchronous discussion forums and wikis, to plan, exchange ideas, share information, negotiate, collect and analyse data, provide feedback and so on. In subsequent interviews with students, it was apparent that they also extended these tools to include Facebook and YouTube. Student engagement and collaboration took place on different inter-related levels which fitted well with the categories identified by Mangenot and Nissen (2006): the socio-affective level where students developed and maintained relationships; an organisational level which involved complex planning and ongoing monitoring of progress; and a socio-cognitive level where there was joint engagement, problem solving and contribution to the different outcomes of participants. The study offers an insight into how the learners developed their abilities to do several things: to engage with and benefit from the eGroups project environment; to negotiate with different languages and perspectives; and to apply higher-level thinking skills, such as synthesis, analysis, critical reflection and evaluation. It also reveals the many levels on which students worked—socio-affective, organisational and socio-cognitive—to create, interact within and contribute to an online community, drawing on their own knowledge, resources, perspectives and values. We also, however, have a view of the challenges presented by the communities which developed and the ways individual learners worked—and at times struggled—to create the kind of community that would enable them to continue to collaborate and to achieve what was important to them. In online environments such as those discussed here, it is possible to trace how communities develop, and this was indeed one of the tasks for our learners. However, as this happens we are confronted with a view of community which is more complex than we may have imagined. Thorne (2009) argues that the term ‘community’ brings with it ‘problematic entailments of homogeneity and similarity’ (p. 92) and a rather idealised view of interaction, engagement and collaboration. We did not encounter clashes to the same degree as in

20  Cynthia White

Kramsch and Thorne’s telecollaborative project, described as ‘two local genres engaged in global confrontation’ where ‘the exchanges ... only exacerbated the discrepancies in social and cultural genres of communication’ (2002, 99). The projects did, however, give students experience in working with intercultural communicative practices online, in all their complexity: participating in such communities demanded that students were able to learn about, meet and adjust to the interactive demands of participation in intercultural virtual contexts and communities in the target language. The ideal of the collaborative learning community where learners find support for and develop control of their learning in interactions and exchanges misses one critical component—that communities are also inherently complex, at times involve conflict and are potentially at variance with the expectations and needs of learners. The philosophy of ILL has tended to focus on individual learners and much less on communities, and I suggest that this is a very limiting perspective through which to understand ILL. As a field, we now need to widen our focus beyond individual learners to acknowledge that the communities they connect with and perform within are not inert elements in ILL. Seeing ILL in terms of not only the individual but also in terms of the complex and often problematic forms of engagement it requires in communities is an important starting point in re-examining some of the assumptions of ILL.

New perspectives on ILL: Affect and cognition In this section, I draw on a longitudinal, qualitative study (Bown and White 2010a, b) which investigated the complex interplay between students’ affective experiences in learning Russian and their engagement with individualised instruction, as one form of ILL. The setting for the study was a large public university in the mid-west of the United States. All 19 participants had chosen individualised instruction, a hybrid of distance learning and self-access learning, rather than the traditional classroom format for learning Russian. In the programme, they received course materials and a specially prepared handbook to guide them. They worked at their own pace and had face-to-face meetings with an instructor for conversational practice and assessment. The students’ experience of learning Russian through individualized instruction was clearly imprinted on them as seen in the feelings they expressed about what took place: they experienced a wide range of emotions relating to the target language, the learning context, themselves,

Inside independent learning  21

progress and assessment, the process of language learning and many other domains. Positive emotions such as enjoyment, hope and pride were intertwined with more negative emotions such as frustration, shame, anxiety and despair. Specific aspects of the individualised context created strong emotional reactions in some students. One student, Susan, characterised her experience in individualised instruction as ‘lonely’, and noted that she felt ‘abandoned’. Another, Emma, stated that she ‘hated’ the learning format of individualised instruction, adding that those same negative emotions related to her appraisal of herself as, in her view,€ she struggled to work effectively in that context: ‘When I say hate, I’m also saying that it’s how I feel about myself and my lack of ability to work well within that structure’. For another student, John, some features of Russian grammar created salient emotional responses, particularly verbs of motion ‘which I just detest [laughs]’, and the complexity of verbs continued to present him with both cognitive and affective challenges throughout the course of the study. One feature of those verbs made him feel particularly ‘awkward’: ‘it wasn’t a fact of having them memorised, it was just a fact of knowing when to use them’. While John was confident about his ability to acquire the language, how he felt about his progress was the critical dimension for him: he did at times speak of recurrent episodes of ‘frustration’ which he managed by reminding himself of the progress he had made. John was acutely aware of the need to minimise the impact of negative emotions, and did that by reappraising the emotional antecedent, reminding himself of the progress he had made and what he had accomplished. John was adroit at generating positive emotions to good effect in individualised instruction, in order to protect his motivation and sense of self-efficacy. For the students in this study, emotions were an essential part of their understanding of what was going on during the process of learning Russian, and were integral to the processes that created the learning context moment by moment, shaping the ways in which they engaged with the language. The emotions students experienced and reported were also integral to the kinds of judgements and choices they made, including what they chose to study, when, and for how long, and the instructor they chose. Emotions also played a major role in determining their individual trajectories as learners. An important conclusion from this study is that awareness and control of affect are key aspects of ILL, interacting closely with awareness and control of cognition in interesting ways. While research into emotion presents numerous methodological challenges, further enquiry into students’

22  Cynthia White

affective experiences can provide us with a richer and more complete understanding of ILL.

Conclusion ILL is a complex, diverse phenomenon, and has over the last three decades gained momentum as a countermovement to more dominant classroom-based paradigms. In this chapter, I have identified gaps in the way we have conceptualised ILL to date, and pointed to ways in which the development of a new educational order and virtual learning opportunities present new challenges for our understanding of ILL. Through the three studies presented here that were carried out in quite distinct ILL contexts, I have attempted to identify ways in which we can extend current research paradigms to develop a more complete grasp of what is taking place in ILL. I have argued for the need to focus not only on active learners, but also on critically adaptive learners, to extend our concern with awareness and control of cognition to include awareness and control of affect in language learning, and to research further the role of communities in the processes of ILL. Extending research into these domains will contribute to theoretical advancement and further our understanding of ILL as a concept and a developing field of practice. I have also argued for a perspective that acknowledges the experience of ILL as subjective, situated, complex and dynamic. What I have presented is not meant as a forecast for the future of the field, but as a proposal to stimulate rich, new research directions into the ‘meaning’ of ILL. Perhaps the most intriguing question that remains is this—a decade from now, taking another look inside ILL, what will be old, what will be new, what will be yet to come?

References Bown, J. and C. White. 2010a. Affect in a self-regulatory framework for language learning. System, 38(3): 432–43. Bown, J. and C. White. 2010b. A social and cognitive approach to affect in SLA. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 48(4): 331–54. Cohen, A. and C. J. White. 2008. Language learners as informed consumers of language instruction. In Studies in language education. festschrift for elite olshtain, eds. I. Kupferberg and A. Stavans. 185–206. Jerusalem, Israel: Magness, Hebrew University Press. Ecclestone, K. 2000. Assessment and critical autonomy in post-compulsory education in the UK. Journal of Education and Work, 13(2): 141–62. Ecclestone, K. 2002. Learning autonomy in post-16 education. London: Routledge.

Inside independent learning  23

Field, J. 2000. Lifelong learning and the new educational order. Staffordshire, UK: Trentham Books. Gu, Y. 2006. An ecological model of e-learning in Chinese context. Paper presented at PacCALL Conference, Nanjing, China, 16–19 November. Kramsch, C. and S. Thorne. 2002. Foreign language learning as global communicative practice. In Globalization and language teaching, eds. D. Block and D. Cameron. 83–100. London: Routledge. Little, D. 2001. Learner autonomy and the challenge of tandem language learning via the Internet. In ICT and language learning: A European perspective, eds. A. Chambers and G. Davies. 29–38. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger. Mangenot, F. and E. Nissen. 2006. Collective activity and tutor involvement in e-learning environments for language teachers and learners. Calico Journal, 23(3): 601–21. O’Dowd, R. 2003. Understanding the ‘other side’: Intercultural learning in a Spanish-English e-mail exchange. Language Learning & Technology, 7(2): 118–44. O’Dowd, R. ed. 2007. Online intercultural exchange: An introduction for foreign language teachers. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Thorne, S. L. 2009. ‘Community’, semiotic flows, and mediated contribution to activity. Language Teaching, 42(1): 81–94. vom Brocke, J., C. White, U. Walker and C. vom Brocke. 2010. Making usergenerated content communities work in higher education—On the importance of incentive setting. In Changing cultures in higher education— moving ahead to future learning: A handbook for strategic change, eds. U.-D. Ehlers and D. Schneckenberg. 149–66. Berlin: Springer Verlag. Walker, U. and C. vom Brocke. 2009. Integrating content-based language learning and intercultural learning online: An international eGroups collaboration. Refereed proceedings from CLESOL 2008: Origins and connections—language and identity. Building communities of learning [CD-ROM]. Kings College, Auckland, New Zealand. 2–5 October 2008. Walker, U. and C. White. 2008. Teaching and learning for international collaboration. Presentation at the Vice Chancellor’s Symposium, November, Palmerston North, Massey University. White, C. 2008. Language learning strategies in independent language learning: An overview. In Language learning strategies in independent settings, eds. S. Hurd and T. Lewis. 3–24. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

2 Learner autonomy, self-assessment and language tests: Towards a new assessment culture David Little

Introduction Cognitive autonomy is a species-specific imperative (Little 2009, 52): each of us has his or her own thoughts and emotions, and the extent to which we can penetrate the thoughts and emotions of others is strictly limited. Perhaps as a result of our cognitive autonomy, behavioural autonomy seems to be one of three basic human needs, the other two being effectiveness and relatedness (Deci 1996). According to this view, in order to have an integrated sense of self, we need to be autonomous in our behaviour, to set and follow our own agenda. At the same time, we need to be effective in our actions, and we have to act in ways that promote rather than undermine our relatedness with others. It follows from this view of human nature that in formal learning contexts the difference is not between autonomous and non-autonomous learners but between learners whose autonomy is engaged with the process and content of learning, and learners whose autonomy is focused elsewhere. Edward Deci has convincingly argued that autonomy and independence are not the same thing: Independence means to do for yourself, to not rely on others for personal nourishment and emotional support. Autonomy, in contrast, means to act freely, with a sense of volition and choice. It is thus possible for a person to be independent and autonomous (i.e., to freely not rely on others), or to be independent and controlled (i.e., to feel forced not to rely on others). (Deci 1996, 89)

According to this distinction, an autonomous learner is one who is volitionally committed and self-regulated in his or her learning, while

26  David Little

an independent learner is one whose learning is free from the control of others. In this chapter, I focus on the development of learners who are capable of learning autonomously in independent learning contexts. The development and exercise of learner autonomy depend on reflective processes in which evaluation, including self-assessment, plays a central role. As Leni Dam has put it: ‘The function of evaluation is on the one hand to ensure that work undertaken is discussed and revised, and on the other to establish a basis of experience and awareness that can be used in planning further learning’ (Dam 1995, 49). Note that ‘evaluation’ here is concerned with the effectiveness of learning (‘Did we achieve our learning target?’) but also with affective engagement with learning (‘Were we fully committed to our learning? If not, what can we do about it?’). Notwithstanding the key role played by self-assessment and evaluation in autonomous learning environments, formal assessment has often been thought inimical to such environments since it implies external control that inevitably impinges on the autonomy of the individual learner. It is also the case that external examinations and tests, especially standardised tests, traditionally stand apart from the processes of teaching and learning. Indeed, it is sometimes asserted as a matter of principle that teachers should teach, learners should learn, and the highly technical business of developing valid and reliable tests should be left to experts. However, things are changing in the world of language testing. Critical theory acknowledges that testing is not a neutral activity but ‘a product and agent of cultural, social, political, educational and ideological agendas that shape the lives of individual participants, teachers and learners’ (Shohamy 1998, 332); while in the wider educational world, ‘assessment for learning’ (e.g. Black and Wiliam 1998; Gardner 2006) depends on the exploratory modes of discourse favoured by proponents of constructivist pedagogies (e.g. Barnes 1976; Mercer 1995; Alexander 2004). Both these developments prompt two questions: ‘What precisely are the rights and entitlements of the learner?’ and ‘What role should self-assessment play in arriving at a profile of the individual’s learning achievement?’ If we are committed to the autonomy of the individual learner, we shall answer the first of these questions by insisting that the learner should play a role in evaluating learning outcomes, and the second by arguing that an assessment culture favourable to learner autonomy must find ways of accommodating self-assessment that are more than tokenistic. It is my purpose in this chapter to argue that the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) (Council of

Learner autonomy, self-assessment and language tests  27

Europe 2001) and the European Language Portfolio (ELP) offer us a means of achieving these goals. In the first part of the chapter, I introduce the CEFR and the ELP, and explore the implications they have for learning and assessment; and, in the second part, I describe how we have used these tools to shape and reshape our institution-wide language programme at Trinity College Dublin, taking our first steps towards establishing an assessment culture that acknowledges the development of learner autonomy as a principal goal of second-language (L2) teaching and learning.

The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages and the European Language Portfolio The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) is a complex apparatus for describing communicative language use. It embodies an ‘action-oriented’ approach that has six inter-related dimensions: communicative acts; language activity; communicative language competence; context; sociolinguistic and pragmatic competence; and tasks, strategies and texts. The approach may be summarised as follows: • We use language to perform communicative acts, which may be external and social (communicating with other people), or internal and private (communicating with ourselves). • Communicative acts comprise language activity, which is divided into four kinds: reception, production, interaction and mediation. • In order to engage in language activity, we draw on our communicative language competence. • Language activity always occurs in a context that imposes conditions and constraints. • Because we must cope with often unpredictable contextual features, our communicative language competence includes sociolinguistic and pragmatic components. • Language activity entails the performance of tasks and, to the extent that they are not routine or automatic, those tasks require us to use strategies in order to understand and/or produce spoken or written texts. The CEFR applies its action-oriented approach to the description of L2 proficiency at six levels arranged in three bands: A1 and A2 (basic user); B1 and B2 (independent user); C1 and C2 (proficient user). 1 These

28  David Little

so-called ‘common reference levels’ are defined by three kinds of scale. First, there are 34 scales for the activities of listening, reading, spoken interaction, spoken production and writing, which are summarised in the so-called ‘self-assessment grid’ (Council of Europe 2001, 26–7; see Appendix). These scales are behavioural in their orientation and capture the essence of the CEFR’s action-oriented approach: they summarise the tasks that L2 learner-users can perform, what they can do in their target language, at the different levels of proficiency. Second, there are 13 scales of linguistic competence and language quality: general linguistic range, vocabulary range, vocabulary control, grammatical accuracy, phonological control, orthographic control, sociolinguistic appropriateness, flexibility, turn-taking, thematic development, coherence and cohesion, spoken fluency, and propositional precision. Third, there are seven strategic scales: planning, compensating, monitoring/repair, identifying cues and inferring, turn-taking, cooperating, and asking for clarification. This multidimensionality means that we should always interpret behavioural descriptors with reference to the other scales. For example, our understanding of the A2 writing descriptor ‘I can write a very simple personal letter (e.g. accepting or offering an invitation, thanking someone for something, apologizing)’ should be determined partly by, for example, A2 vocabulary control – ‘Has a sufficient vocabulary for coping with simple survival needs and basic communicative needs’, and A2 planning, ‘Can recall and rehearse an appropriate set of phrases from his/her repertoire’. The CEFR’s authors tell us that it was written ‘to encourage practitioners of all kinds in the language field, including language learners themselves, to reflect on such questions as: • • • • • •

What do we actually do when we speak (or write) to each other What enables us to act in this way? How much of this do we need to learn when we try to use a new language? How do we set our objectives and mark our progress along the path from total ignorance to effective mastery? How does language learning take place? What can we do to help ourselves and other people to learn a language better? (Council of Europe 2001, xi)

As this introductory declaration makes plain, the CEFR is strongly learner-centred, and its action-oriented approach explicitly assigns a central role to language use in language learning: ‘Language use, embracing language learning, comprises the actions performed by

Learner autonomy, self-assessment and language tests  29

persons who as individuals and as social agents develop a range of competences, both general and in particular communicative language competences’ (Council of Europe 2001, 9; emphasis added). This implies a task-based approach to teaching and learning. It also means that the ‘I can’ descriptors of the self-assessment grid (see Appendix) and the ‘can do’ descriptors of the illustrative scales portray the autonomous L2 learner as well as the autonomous L2 user. The CEFR is thus directly relevant to the development and exercise of learner autonomy. This is hardly surprising, for it was the Council of Europe that first introduced the concept of learner autonomy into discussion of language learning and teaching via Henri Holec’s 1979 report, Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. The CEFR’s behavioural orientation has two consequences that are crucially important for the argument of this paper. First, it makes possible a much closer interaction between teaching, learning and assessment than has usually been the case, because each ‘can do’ descriptor may be used to: • specify a curriculum goal; • provide a focus for developing learning activities and materials; and • serve as a general criterion for assessment. Second, the behavioural orientation is directly accessible to learners. Even very young language learners in the earliest stages of learning know what they can do in their target language, though they may not be able to gauge the degree of formal correctness with which they do it. The European Language Portfolio Conceived as a companion piece to the CEFR, a means of mediating its action-oriented approach to learners, the European Language Portfolio (ELP) exploits the fact that learners themselves can understand the CEFR’s behavioural descriptors. It is a personal document comprising three obligatory components: a language passport that captures the owner’s linguistic identity, summarises his/her language learning and intercultural experience, and records his/her self-assessment of L2 proficiency; a language biography that provides a reflective accompaniment to the ongoing processes of learning and using second languages and engaging with the cultures associated with them; and a dossier, where the owner keeps work in progress and concrete evidence of L2 proficiency and intercultural experience.

30  David Little

The ELP is related to the CEFR via the common reference levels. In the language biography, checklists of ‘I can’ descriptors arranged by skill/activity and level are used to identify learning targets, select learning activities and materials, monitor learning progress, and evaluate learning outcomes. In other words, the checklists support the L2 learner-user in formative self-assessment. Here, for example, is the checklist for B1 level spoken interaction from the Swiss ELP for learners aged 15 years and over (bmlv 2000): • • • • • • •

I can start, maintain and close simple face-to-face conversation on topics that are familiar or of personal interest. I can maintain a conversation or discussion but may sometimes be difficult to follow when trying to say exactly what I would like to do. I can deal with most situations likely to arise when making travel arrangements through an agent or when actually travelling. I can ask for and follow detailed directions. I can express and respond to feelings such as surprise, happiness, sadness, interest and indifference. I can give or seek personal views and opinions in an informal discussion with friends. I can agree and disagree politely.

In the language passport, the ELP user periodically summarises his or her L2 proficiency against the self-assessment grid (see Appendix) in an act of summative self-assessment. The self-assessment grid defines B1 spoken interaction as follows: ‘I can deal with most situations likely to arise whilst travelling in an area where the language is spoken. I can enter unprepared into conversation on topics that are familiar, of personal interest or pertinent to everyday life (e.g. family, hobbies, work, travel and current events)’. Like the CEFR, the ELP is rooted in the Council of Europe’s commitment to learner autonomy, which has its origin in developments in the theory of adult education in the 1970s (cf. Holec 1979). It reflects the Council’s concern with (among other things) the development of the language learner and his or her capacity for independent language learning; it is (among other things) the property of the learner and a tool to promote learner autonomy; and it supports reflective learning in which self-assessment plays a central role (see the ELP Principles and Guidelines, Council of Europe 2006). In principle, the ELP can support the development and exercise of learner autonomy in three ways. First, when ‘I can’ checklists reflect the demands of the curriculum, they help learners (and teachers) to plan, monitor and evaluate learning over

Learner autonomy, self-assessment and language tests  31

an academic year, a term, a month or a week. Second, the language biography is explicitly designed to associate goal-setting and selfassessment with reflection on learning styles and strategies, and the cultural dimension of L2 learning and use. Third, when the ELP is presented (at least partly) in the learners’ target language, it can help to promote the use of the target language as the medium of learning and reflection. It is often assumed that self-assessment using the ELP’s checklists is a simple matter of ticking boxes and perhaps writing the relevant date beside each tick. However, when descriptors refer to communicative behaviour that takes several years to master, they must be repeatedly analysed and deconstructed in order to yield interim learning targets and self-assessment criteria. What is more, self-assessment claims should always be supported by evidence of some kind, which may include peer assessment; and, in order to provide evidence of proficiency in receptive skills, it may sometimes be necessary to perform productive tasks. Because the ‘I can’ descriptors are continually in focus—used to plan and monitor as well as to assess learning—learners should quickly develop a clear sense of what their performance entails; and because self-assessment is always accompanied by evidence, there is no reason why it should not be reliable.

The impact of the CEFR and ELP The impact of the CEFR since its publication in 2001 has been very great, especially on language testing. International testing agencies quickly adopted the practice of identifying the CEFR level to which each of their tests corresponds, and the common reference levels have also become an obligatory reference point for language textbooks and some national curricula. At the same time, despite the best efforts of the Council of Europe (2009), some of the claims made for language tests, textbooks and curricula are based on vague impressions and wishful thinking rather than close familiarity with the CEFR and empirical evidence. Perhaps inevitably, the CEFR remains a closed book for the great majority of language teachers. The ELP has also had a significant impact. By the end of 2010, a total of 118 ELPs had been developed according to the ELP Principles and Guidelines (Council of Europe 2006) and validated by the ELP Validation Committee. However, the development of most ELPs has not been part of a larger reform of curriculum and assessment; there are few examples of large-scale implementation projects; and, according

32  David Little

to anecdotal reports, many teachers and learners reject the ELP as a time-consuming ‘extra’. There is thus a serious danger that the ELP will pass into oblivion without making a long-term impact—without, that is, bringing the development and exercise of learner autonomy into the language education mainstream. In order to realise the full potential of the CEFR and the ELP, I believe that we must: • treat them as a single package (descriptive apparatus and implementation tool); • use scaled ‘can do’ descriptors to specify the communicative component of L2 curricula; • develop ELPs with checklists that are explicitly derived from the ‘can do’ descriptors of the curriculum; and • design tests and examinations that reflect the action-oriented approach of the CEFR and use the same communicative criteria as learners use in their ELP-based self-assessment. That is how we have used these two tools in Trinity College Dublin’s institution-wide language programme.

A practical example: Trinity College Dublin’s institution-wide language programme As its name implies, Trinity College Dublin’s institution-wide language programme (IWLP)2 is open to all students in the University. Its aims are: (a) to develop students’ L2 communication skills for the purposes of study, travel or work experience abroad during their undergraduate years; and (b) to enhance their academic qualifications, vocational prospects, and potential for future mobility. The IWLP comprises language modules that are taught for two hours a week over 23 weeks and which students can take for one or two years. Each module is complete in itself and represents one-twelfth of the student’s annual workload. The IWLP emphasises language learning through language use; in other words, it is action-oriented, aiming to develop integrated communication skills as well as learner autonomy. Individual learning is stimulated and supported by participation in group projects that, with one exception, run in four-week cycles. In the first week of each cycle, the class (up to 40 students) forms groups (four to five students), each of which drafts a project plan in the target language and assigns responsibilities to individual group members. In the second week, each

Learner autonomy, self-assessment and language tests  33

group member brings one target-language document (from sources such as a newspaper, a magazine or the Internet) relevant to the project and drafts his or her contribution in collaboration with other group members. In the third week, the first draft of the project is revised and the group rehearses its presentation, while in the fourth week all groups present their projects to the rest of the class. The teacher and the rest of the class assess each presentation and students submit written evidence of their individual contribution to the project. Groups are supported in their work by native-speaker assistants, and there is a group review and assessment session after each project cycle. How does the CEFR come into the picture? First, the different modules are mapped onto the common reference levels. In 2008–09, French and Spanish modules were offered at B1 and B2 (intermediate); Irish modules were offered at A2, B1 and B2 (post-beginner and intermediate); German modules were offered at A1, A2, B1 and B2 (beginner, post-beginner and intermediate); and Italian and Turkish modules were offered at A1 and A2 (beginner and post-beginner). Second, students apply for admission to a particular module on the basis of a broad self-assessment that uses descriptors derived from the CEFR (each descriptor refers to the proficiency level immediately below the one that the course in question aims at): Apply for a course at level: A1 if you have never studied this language before, although you may know some very basic words and phrases A2 if you can already understand and say some basic phrases, can introduce yourself, ask and answer questions about personal details, and interact in a simple way when people speak slowly B1 if you can already describe who you are, where you come from, exchange information and communicate in routine tasks (shopping, directions, work) B2 if you can already deal with most situations arising whilst travelling in an area where the language is spoken, describe yourself and your background in a more complex way, and give reasons for your opinions and plans.

Third, projects are assessed according to the common reference levels. Project tasks are the same for all modules, but they are described differently at the different CEFR levels. The illustrative scales for ‘overall oral production’ and ‘overall written production’ are used to describe a global learning outcome which appears at the top of the task description handout. CEFR sub-scales (e.g. ‘sustained monologue’, ‘addressing audiences’, ‘reading for orientation’) yield a

34  David Little

checklist for each task, which is used by the groups to plan, monitor and reflect on their project, by individual students to assess their own work, and by teachers to arrive at a detailed assessment of each student’s role in the project, the group’s oral presentation and individual students’ written submissions. All students taking our language modules use the CercleS ELP (www.cercles.org), which was designed for use in universities across Europe. It accommodates all levels of language proficiency, from beginner (A1) to advanced (C1 and C2), and can be used by students who are learning one or more foreign languages (a) as their main focus of study, (b) as a subsidiary part of their study, or (c) in order to give added value to their study. At the beginning of their module, students use the language passport to audit their proficiency in languages other than their L1. Subsequently, they use the checklists in the language biography in interaction with their task descriptions and assessment criteria to monitor the progress of their learning and support the selfassessment that they are required to undertake as part of our overall assessment procedures. They use the dossier to store work in progress and gather the evidence of their developed proficiency that justifies their self-assessment. At the end of the academic year, students’ final grades take account of their performance in the externally moderated end-of-year assessment, their teachers’ continuous assessment and their own self-assessment. They also have their ELP to provide concrete evidence of their learning achievement.

Conclusion A learner-centred curriculum falls short of its definition if learners are involved in decisions regarding the content of the curriculum and how it is taught, but excluded from the process of evaluating curriculum outcomes, including their own learning achievement. There is some empirical evidence to suggest that when learners are experienced in self-assessment and use procedures that focus closely on curriculum content, self-assessment can produce accurate results (Ross 1998). One of the authors of the CEFR has defined ‘social moderation’ as ‘the process whereby a group of raters establish a common understanding of a set of standards by discussion and training’ (North 2000, 566). ‘Social moderation’ also describes the processes whereby self-assessment, peer assessment and formal, externally moderated assessment interact in Trinity College Dublin’s IWLP. This is surely the kind of assessment culture that the concept of language learner autonomy demands we work towards.

U N D E R S T A N D Reading I N G

I can understand familiar names, words and very simple sentences, for example on notices and posters or in catalogues.

Listening I can understand familiar words and very basic phrases concerning myself, my family and immediate concrete surroundings when people speak slowly and clearly.

A1 I can understand extended speech even when it is not clearly structured and when relationships are only implied and not signalled explicitly. I can understand television programmes and films without too much effort.

I can understand long and complex factual and literary texts, appreciating distinctions of style. I can understand specialised articles and longer technical instructions, even when they do not relate to my field.

I can read articles and reports concerned with contemporary problems in which the writers adopt particular attitudes or viewpoints. I can understand contemporary literary prose. I can understand texts that consist mainly of high frequency everyday or jobrelated language. I can understand the description of events, feelings and wishes in personal letters.

I can read very short, simple texts. I can find specific, predictable information in simple everyday material such as advertisements, prospectuses, menus and timetables and I can understand short simple personal letters.

C1

I can understand extended speech and lectures and follow even complex lines of argument provided the topic is reasonably familiar. I can understand most TV news and current affairs programmes. I can understand the majority of films in standard dialect.

B2

I can understand the main points of clear standard speech on familiar matters regularly encountered in work, school, leisure, etc. I can understand the main point of many radio or TV programmes on current affairs or topics of personal or professional interest when the delivery is relatively slow and clear.

B1

I can understand phrases and the highest frequency vocabulary related to areas of most immediate personal relevance (e.g. very basic personal and family information, shopping, local area, employment). I can catch the main point in short, clear, simple messages and announcements.

A2

Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, self-assessment grid (© Council of Europe)

Appendix

(continued on page 36)

I can read with ease virtually all forms of the written language, including abstract, structurally or linguistically complex texts such as manuals, specialised articles and literary works.

I have no difficulty in understanding any kind of spoken language, whether live or broadcast, even when delivered at fast native speed, provided I have some time to get familiar with the accent.

C2

Learner autonomy, self-assessment and language tests  35

S S P E A K I N G Spoken I can use simple Production phrases and sentences to describe where I live and people I know.

Spoken I can interact in Interaction a simple way provided the other person is prepared to repeat or rephrase things at a slower rate of speech and help me formulate what I’m trying to say. I can ask and answer simple questions in areas of immediate need or on very familiar topics.

Appendix (continued) I can deal with most situations likely to arise whilst travelling in an area where the language is spoken. I can enter unprepared into conversation on topics that are familiar, of personal interest or pertinent to everyday life (e.g. family, hobbies, work, travel and current events).

I can connect phrases in a simple way in order to describe experiences and events, my dreams, hopes and ambitions. I can briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions and plans. I can narrate a story or relate the plot of a book or film and describe my reactions.

I can communicate in simple and routine tasks requiring a simple and direct exchange of information on familiar topics and activities. I can handle very short social exchanges, even though I can’t usually understand enough to keep the conversation going myself.

I can use a series of phrases and sentences to describe in simple terms my family and other people, living conditions, my educational background and my present or most recent job.

I can express myself fluently and spontaneously without much obvious searching for expressions. I can use language flexibly and effectively for social and professional purposes. I can formulate ideas and opinions with precision and relate my contribution skilfully to those of other speakers. I can present clear, detailed descriptions of complex subjects integrating subthemes, developing particular points and rounding off with an appropriate conclusion.

I can interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction with native speakers quite possible. I can take an active part in discussion in familiar contexts, accounting for and sustaining my views.

I can present clear, detailed descriptions on a wide range of subjects related to my field of interest. I can explain a viewpoint on a topical issue giving the advantages and disadvantages of various options.

(continued on page 37)

I can present a clear, smoothly-flowing description or argument in a style appropriate to the context and with an effective logical structure which helps the recipient to notice and remember significant points.

I can take part effortlessly in any conversation or discussion and have a good familiarity with idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms. I can express myself fluently and convey finer shades of meaning precisely. If I do have a problem I can backtrack and restructure around the difficulty so smoothly that other people are hardly aware of it.

36  David Little

W R I T I N G

Writing

I can write a short, simple postcard, for example sending holiday greetings. I can fill in forms with personal details, for example entering my name, nationality and address on a hotel registration form.

Appendix (continued)

I can write short, simple notes and messages. I can write a very simple personal letter, for example thanking someone for something.

I can write simple connected text on topics which are familiar or of personal interest. I can write personal letters describing experiences and impressions.

I can write clear, detailed text on a wide range of subjects related to my interests. I can write an essay or report, passing on information or giving reasons in support of or against a particular point of view. I can write letters highlighting the personal significance of events and experiences.

I can express myself in clear, wellstructured text, expressing points of view at some length. I can write about complex subjects in a letter, an essay or a report, underlining what I consider to be the salient issues. I can select a style appropriate to the reader in mind.

I can write clear, smoothly-flowing text in an appropriate style. I can write complex letters, reports or articles which present a case with an effective logical structure which helps the recipient to notice and remember significant points. I can write summaries and reviews of professional or literary works.

Learner autonomy, self-assessment and language tests  37

38  David Little

Notes 1. It is important to note that the common reference levels were developed empirically, working with language teachers and learners from lower secondary, upper secondary, vocational and adult education (Council of Europe 2001, 217). The successive proficiency levels reflect a trajectory of learning that starts at the beginning of secondary education and progresses through vocational, further and higher education to the worlds of advanced study and work. 2. I am grateful to Dr Lorna Carson for giving me access to her work in progress on the IWLP (Carson 2008), which has informed this section of my chapter.

References Alexander, R. 2004. Towards dialogic teaching: Rethinking classroom talk. York: Dialogos. Barnes, D. 1976. From communication to curriculum. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Black, P. and D. Wiliam 1998. Inside the black box. London: King’s College London. bmlv. 2000. European Language Portfolio. Swiss model for adolescents and adults. Bern: Berner Lehrmittel-und Medienverlag. Carson, L. 2008. Formative assessment and curriculum redevelopment in an institution-wide modern languages programme: Using the Common European Framework of Reference. Paper presented at the ALTE 3rd International Conference, Cambridge, 10–12 April. Council of Europe. 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Council of Europe. 2006. European Language Portfolio: Key reference documents. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Council of Europe. 2009. Relating language examinations to the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR). A manual. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Dam, L. 1995. Learner autonomy 3: From theory to classroom practice. Dublin: Authentik. Deci, E. L. 1996. Why we do what we do: Understanding self-motivation. New York: Penguin. Gardner, J. ed. 2006. Assessment and learning. London: Sage. Holec, H. 1979. Autonomy and foreign language learning. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Little, D. 2009. Learner autonomy in action: Adult immigrants learning English in Ireland. In Mapping the terrain of learner autonomy: Learning environments, learning communities and identities, eds. F. Kjisik, P. Voller, N. Aoki and Y. Nakata. 51–85. Tampere: Tampere University Press. Mercer, N. 1995. The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Learner autonomy, self-assessment and language tests  39

North, B. 2000. Linking language assessment: An example in a low stakes context. System, 28(4): 555–77. Ross, S. 1998. Self-assessment in second language testing: A meta-analysis and analysis of experiential factors. Language Testing, 15: 1–20. Shohamy, E. 1998. Critical language testing and beyond. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 24(4): 331–45.

3 Strategic and self-regulated learning for the 21st century: The merging of skill, will and self-regulation Claire Ellen Weinstein, Taylor W. Acee, Jaehak Jung and Jeremy K. Dearman

We are currently experiencing a worldwide need for our citizens to be better educated, more skilled, lifelong autonomous learners who can adapt to the rapidly changing and evolving demands of the modern world. However, at a time when we have increasing needs for an educated and skilled workforce, a large number of students entering post-secondary education are not effectively prepared to benefit from their studies. This can be seen, for example, in the United States where of those students who enter post-secondary institutions, only about 45% graduate (ACT 2009). Globally, many colleges, training institutes and universities have developed programmes to help students negotiate the transition into tertiary education, experience success in their studies and persevere until they reach their educational goals. However, the overwhelming majority of these programmes focus on traditional definitions of what is required for academic success in tertiary education, namely reading skills, writing skills, mathematics remediation or enhancement, and study skills (Chipman, Segal and Glaser 1985; Hodges, Dochen and Sellers 2001; Weinstein et al. 2004; VanderStoep and Pintrich 2007). In the United States, these programmes are defined as being a component of developmental education, and there are extensive developmental courses at community colleges. At four-year colleges and universities, it is more common to have developmental education housed in a learning centre or in transition programmes, particularly for students who are predicted to be at risk of low performance, academic failure or dropping out. While these types of programmes are critically important for academic success, they are not sufficient. Developmental education

42  Claire Ellen Weinstein, Taylor W. Acee, Jaehak Jung and Jeremy K. Dearman

does help students to succeed in higher education but, overall, the results have been disappointing in terms of retention. Why would such powerful interventions result in such small gains in retention? Part of the answer is that, in addition to developing foundational skills, students need also to become autonomous, strategic and selfregulated learners who are willing to take more responsibility for their own learning processes, metacognitive control, motivation, and other generative learning thoughts and behaviours.

Overview of strategic and self-regulated learning Strategic learners are autonomous learners who have the skill, will and self-regulation needed to survive and thrive in different academic or training environments. In many countries, the term ‘autonomous learner’ is used to refer to this type of learner, while in the United States it is more common to refer to them as ‘strategic and selfregulated learners’. Similarly, in the language learning literature, both ‘autonomous’ and ‘strategic’ are used by researchers and practitioners to refer to such learners, usually depending on the author’s background. Regardless of the term used, the underlying concepts are very similar. The primary components of strategic, or autonomous, learning can be identified as skill, will and self-regulation. Skill refers to critical knowledge about, and knowing how to use, learning strategies and other thinking skills. Examples of the knowledge students need for success include knowing about: the performance demands of different types of academic tasks; their own personal strengths, weaknesses and preferences for how to learn in different content areas; and a variety of learning strategies that can be used to learn different types of content material. Examples of the application of this knowledge include knowing how to use active repetition, elaboration strategies, thinking skills and prior knowledge to reach learning goals. Will refers to the motivational and affective components of strategic learning that either contribute to or detract from academic success. Examples of the elements that contribute to academic success include setting, analysing and using both short-term and long-term goals; using future time perspective and goal hierarchies to generate motivation; developing enabling beliefs; and developing a positive mindset towards learning. Examples of elements that detract from academic success include self-sabotaging beliefs, low self-efficacy, high anxiety and external attributions for performance.

Strategic and self-regulated learning for the 21st century  43

Self-regulation is the glue that helps students to manage their strategic learning on both a global and real-time level. On the global level, this component includes using a systematic approach to learning; managing time (over weeks, months and years); using an instrumental approach to seeking help; and managing motivation for learning. On the real-time level, the elements include managing and reducing high anxiety; using metacognition to monitor learning success; monitoring and regulating the use of learning strategies during a task; managing time on a more immediate basis (during a task, over a few hours or day by day); focusing attention; and maintaining concentration over time.

Weinstein’s Model of Strategic Learning The primary components of strategic learning (skill, will and selfregulation) and their most important elements, or variables, are summarised in Weinstein’s (2006) Model of Strategic Learning (MSL). The elements are grouped under their respective component name (see Figure 3.1). Three requirements governed the selection of the elements, or variables, that are listed under each of the three main components in this model. First, the element needed to have a causative relationship with achievement and retention. Many variables identified as being related to college success have not been shown to also have a causative effect on it. Because the ultimate goal is to develop interventions that help students to succeed and thrive in higher education and the workplace, such variables were not included. The second requirement for inclusion in the model was that the element accounted for a meaningful amount of variance in academic achievement and/or retention. Given the large number of variables that affect achievement and retention and the small effect most of these variables have, the impact of any one element is relatively small. However, if there is a meaningful effect either individually, or when the element is combined with other elements, it was included. Finally, the third requirement was that the element is amenable to some type of educational or training intervention. For example, personality variables were not included because it is extremely difficult to alter such variables in an educational intervention. This is also why demographic variables were not included: such variables (e.g. socioeconomic status) have been shown to have powerful effects on students entering college but they cannot be changed readily by an educational intervention.

SKILL Skill in …

– Time Managing/Dealing with Procrastination – Concentrating – Comprehension Monitoring – Systematic Approach to Learning and Accomplishing Academic Tasks (e.g. Setting Goal(s), Reflecting, Brainstorming and Creating a Plan, Selecting, Implementing, Monitoring, and Formatively Evaluating Progress, Modifying (if necessary), and Summatively Evaluating Outcomes) – Coping with Academic Worry and Anxiety – Managing Motivation for Learning and Achievement – Volitional Control (Managing Commitment and Intention) – Academic Help Seeking

– Setting, Analyzing, and Using Goals – Future Time Perspective – Motivation for Achievement, (i.e. Academic Learning Goals, Interests and Values) – Emotions and Feelings about Learning (e.g. Curiosity, Worry and Anxiety, Apathy, Joy, Anger, and Excitement) – Beliefs (e.g. Enabling/Self-sabotaging Beliefs, Academic Selfefficacy and Attributions for Academic Outcomes) – Creating a Positive Mind-set towards Learning and Avoiding Self-sabotaging Thoughts and Behaviours

AVAILABLE SOURCES

SELF-REGULATION

WILL

– Self as Learner – Nature of Academic Task – Content (Prior Knowledge) – Learning Context

– Using Learning Strategies and Skills – Identifying Important Information for Reaching Learning Goals (e.g. Finding Main Ideas) – Reading and Listening Comprehension – Note-taking and Note-using LEARNER – Preparing for and Taking Tests – Using Reasoning and Problem Solving Skills (… Individual Differences)

Knowledge about …

Figure 3.1 The Model of Strategic Learning

TEACHER BELIEFS/EXPECTATIONS

REQUIREMENTS OF THE CURRENT LEARNING ACTIVITY, ASSIGNMENT OR TEST

44  Claire Ellen Weinstein, Taylor W. Acee, Jaehak Jung and Jeremy K. Dearman

SOCIAL CONTEXT/SUPPORT

Strategic and self-regulated learning for the 21st century  45

The MSL is an evolving and interactive model of the variables that can enhance students’ autonomous learning (e.g. using effective learning strategies) or detract from it (e.g. high anxiety) (Weinstein et al. 2010). It is the interactions among elements in the three primary components that result in more effective and efficient learning. There is also a fourth component of the model which is not under student control but is important for students to understand—the academic environment. The elements of this component are listed on the outside of the rectangle in Figure 3.1. Although students cannot usually change the academic environment of an institution, department or class, it is useful for them to know about these variables and how they might take them into account when studying and preparing for assessments. For example, one element in the academic environment component is understanding the requirements of the current learning activity, assignment or examination. It is difficult to be strategic about completing an assignment if you are not sure what exactly is required for its completion: it would be much like setting off on a car trip with no clear idea about where you are going. This is also true of teacher beliefs and expectations. For example, the more students know about teacher expectations for a given course, the more they can target their learning to those expectations. If a professor includes material found in footnotes in the textbook, this tells the students it is important to pay more attention to footnotes when studying. Another important aspect related to the academic environment component is being aware of and using available resources, such as learning centres, tutoring opportunities, writing laboratories and language learning programmes. Students need to be aware of institutional, departmental and class resources so that, if the need to use them arises, they know what is available and where to find help. Finally, social context and support is important for students’ transition into higher education. Students need to know about, and take advantage of, social support structures and resources (such as clubs, study groups, athletics teams and student gatherings) that are available to them when they first begin college and throughout their studies. Using the MSL, a number of interventions have been developed to help students at post-secondary institutions to become more strategic and self-regulated learners. These interventions range from creating learning centre handouts to brief workshops and semester-length courses. The next section describes a one-semester academic course in the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Texas main campus in Austin that is based on the MSL. This course is taken

46  Claire Ellen Weinstein, Taylor W. Acee, Jaehak Jung and Jeremy K. Dearman

for three college credits (the normal course load for academic courses) and is graded on an A, B, C, D, F scale (F being a failing grade).

Autonomous learning course at the University of Texas Implementing autonomous learning courses, often referred to as learning-to-learn (LtL) or learning frameworks courses in the United States, can be a powerful way to help students become more strategic and self-regulated learners (e.g. Hofer and Yu 2003; Tuckman 2003). Based on the MSL, the LtL course at the University of Texas at Austin (UT) has been found to be extremely successful in helping students to become more strategic and self-regulated learners who persist to graduation. For example, in one study (Weinstein et al. 1999), UT first-year students were tracked for five years in order to compare the graduation rates of those who took the LtL course with those who did not (the general student population). Students who did not take the course had a five-year graduation rate of 55%, which was typical for UT students at that time (1996). However, those who took the LtL course, in either the first or second semester of their first year and did not drop out or fail the course due to excessive absences, had a graduation rate of 71%. This was true despite these students having significantly lower verbal and mathematics scores on the Scholastic Aptitude Test than those who did not take the LtL course. (The Scholastic Aptitude Test is an instrument used by many colleges in the United States to select students who are supposed to have a higher probability of academic success.) These results are even more marked when one considers that most students who take the course are required to do so by advisers or counsellors, and many report having low motivation for studying it. What follows is a description of the course including an overview of the course structure, course content and the instructional methods used. EDP310 is a three-credit LtL course offered by the Department of Educational Psychology at UT that meets 50 minutes a day, three days a week, for 15 weeks. This course is technically a voluntary elective and so is not required for any major or degree plan at UT. However, as noted above, a large proportion of the students in the course are required to take it because they are either predicted to be at risk of low achievement or are already on academic probation. Consequently, many of these students do not want to be on the course and have low motivation for participation. Although places are reserved for first-year students, other students may take EDP310 because they have been placed on academic probation after their first year of study, want to improve their academic performance, or are preparing for post-graduate study.

Strategic and self-regulated learning for the 21st century  47

Course enrolment data from 2005 show the following demographic breakdown: female (58%), male (42%); first year (29%), sophomore (42%), junior (20%) and senior (9%); African American (5%), Asian (20%), Caucasian (48%), Hispanic (23%) and Native American (3%). There are currently nine sections in the EDP310 course with a maximum of 28 students in each section. A faculty co-ordinator and two graduate student assistant co-ordinators together develop course content and structure, as well as determine which assessments to use in the course. They also help with course administration and the training of new teachers (who are all advanced post-graduate students). Extensive preparation is required for those teaching EDP310, including coursework in teaching methods and strategic learning, as well as extensive in-house training (approximately six days prior to the beginning of the semester, followed by weekly staff meetings and mentoring sessions). The MSL is used to select and organise the course content. Topics are selected from all four components but the emphasis is on the skill, will and self-regulation components. In addition to the elements from the model, several common application topics are included such as academic note-taking, and reading and listening strategies. A recent version of the EDP310 schedule of course topics and assignments is shown in the Appendix. Students are taught about the MSL and the core theoretical ideas behind each variable in the model; and they are also taught skills, strategies and approaches they can use to improve in each area. They are guided in using these strategies in a variety of academic situations they encounter in their other classes, including language learning classes. EDP310 is a blended delivery course, with much content being delivered through the ‘Becoming a Strategic Learner’ online modules (Weinstein, Woodruff and Awalt 2007), in addition to in-class instruction that emphasises application, modelling, smallgroup work and whole-class discussions. Where appropriate, direct instruction (lecturing) is also used. Finally, there is a set of readings for the course. Instruction is based on a metacognitive model of awareness, reflection, and taking control or action. Instructors help students to become aware of the different topic areas that foster strategic learning, help them to reflect on their strengths and weaknesses in these areas, and then teach them ways in which they can help themselves to improve and be more effective and efficient in reaching their academic and occupational goals. Although various teaching methods are used, perhaps the most important method for learning effective strategy use is guided practice with feedback. It is critical that students are able to

48  Claire Ellen Weinstein, Taylor W. Acee, Jaehak Jung and Jeremy K. Dearman

practise using strategic learning methods across a variety of academic tasks and contexts. It is also important that they receive feedback from their instructor and classmates that can help them to improve both their understanding and use of these methods. For this reason, students taking EDP310 are required to take at least one other course at the same time so that they can apply the strategies they are learning in the EDP310 course. The ‘Becoming a Strategic Learner’ online modules also use a metacognitive model for instruction. There are ten online modules corresponding to the ten scales of the second edition of the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI) (Weinstein, Palmer and Shulte 2002). This diagnostic screening assessment is also based on the MSL and is discussed in the next section. The LASSI helps students to become aware of their strengths, as well as those areas in which they need to improve in order to help foster academic success. Each module is designed to help students reflect on their knowledge relating to one area and to understand why they may need to improve in that area. The modules also provide material for students to study, and activities that guide them in applying the material and practising using new or enhanced learning strategies. For each module, students are required to take notes on the content, complete selected activities and write one paragraph that integrates the module topic with material they have learned in other modules. Pre-assessments given to students at the beginning of the semester are used in EDP310 to help build student and instructor awareness of students’ strengths and limitations related to strategic and selfregulated learning. This can help students and their instructors to identify where students need to concentrate their efforts most. The preassessments and post-assessments (the same instruments) also provide feedback for evaluating and modifying the course. The LASSI is used in conjunction with measures of goal orientation, help-seeking and reading comprehension. At the end of the semester, the assessments are given to students again to provide feedback on their improvement in each of the areas assessed. The course also includes three examinations which are used to assess and provide feedback on students’ learning of course content.

Learning and the Study Strategies Inventory The Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI) (2002, 2nd edition) is a ten-scale, 80-item assessment of students’ awareness about, and use of, learning and study strategies related to the skill, will and self-regulation components of the MSL (Weinstein and Palmer 2002;

Strategic and self-regulated learning for the 21st century  49

Weinstein, Palmer and Schulte 2002). Students respond to the items using a five-point scale ranging from ‘not at all typical of me’ to ‘very typical of me.’ Coefficient alphas for the scales range from a low of 0.73 to a high of 0.89. The LASSI is both a diagnostic and prescriptive assessment, providing standardised scores (percentile score equivalents) and American norms (norms for some versions from other countries are also available) for the ten different scales. It provides students with a diagnosis of their strengths and weaknesses, compared with other college students, in the areas covered by the ten scales. It is prescriptive in that it provides feedback about areas where students may be weak and need to improve their knowledge, skills, attitudes, motivations and beliefs. There are a number of similarities between the LASSI for generic learning across content areas and the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) developed for language learning (Oxford and Burry-Stock 1995). Overview of the LASSI scales There are eight items in each of the ten scales of the LASSI. The ten scales are: Anxiety, Attitude, Concentration, Information Processing, Motivation, Selecting Main Ideas, Self- Testing, Study Aids, Test Strategies and Time Management. Each of these scales is primarily related to one of three of the components of strategic learning: skill, will and self-regulation. However, because the conceptual framework of the MSL underlies each of these components, there is some overlap and interaction among and within the components and individual scales. The LASSI scales primarily related to the skill component of strategic learning are: Information Processing, Selecting Main Ideas and Test Strategies. The scales examine students’ learning strategies, skills and thought processes in identifying, acquiring and constructing meaning for important new information, ideas and procedures, and how they prepare for and demonstrate their new knowledge in examinations or other evaluative procedures. The LASSI scales mainly related to the will component of strategic learning are: Anxiety, Attitude, and Motivation. These scales measure the degree to which students worry about their academic performance, their receptivity to learning new information, their attitudes and interest in college, their diligence, self-discipline and willingness to exert the effort necessary to successfully complete the academic requirements. The LASSI scales primarily related to the self-regulation component of strategic learning are: Concentration, Self-testing, Study Aids and Time Management. These scales measure how students manage, or self-regulate and control, the whole learning process through using their time effectively,

50  Claire Ellen Weinstein, Taylor W. Acee, Jaehak Jung and Jeremy K. Dearman

focusing their attention and maintaining their concentration over time, checking to see if they have met the learning demands for a course, an assignment or a test, and using study support such as review sessions, tutors, learning centres or special features in a textbook.

Conclusion These are very exciting times for both researchers and practitioners interested in autonomous learning. Research in higher education generally, and language learning and educational psychology specifically, is increasingly focusing on academic preparedness and success. As the demand for higher education and workforce training continues on an upward spiral, the need for more autonomous lifelong learners will continue to grow, along with the need for research-based strategies and interventions that can foster strategic learning. Autonomous and strategic learning have a long history, but research in this area has a relatively short past. From the early cave paintings designed to teach the young, to the development in ancient Greece of mnemonic devices, to our present concerns with optimising students’ learning to meet current societal demands, humanity has been fascinated with helping children and other students to become more effective and efficient learners. It is imperative now and for the foreseeable future that those of us interested in understanding human learning and cognitive processing continue to expand these lines of inquiry. The current emphasis in both research and application in strategic and self-regulated learning is now focused on the cognitive, metacognitive, motivational, affective and behavioural components that foster and detract from successful learning. Our increasing understanding of these areas is poised to change our conceptions of learning, how learning takes place and what can be done to enhance it; and research in these areas will continue to have a profound effect on all levels of education and training. Interactive, multicomponent models, such as the MSL, will enable us to continue to examine learning in general as well as in specific contexts. Some aspects of strategic learning are generic for many content domains, and are useful across various subject areas, tasks and learning contexts. Others are far more content- and/or context-specific. Using models like the MSL will enable us to explore these differences systematically and help us to determine when content-/contextspecific learning is needed most. Assessments such as the LASSI will help us to explore students’ strengths and weaknesses and their impact on learning, as well as provide diagnostic, prescriptive feedback so that we can target our applications to individual student needs.

Strategic and self-regulated learning for the 21st century  51

Appendix EDP 310 schedule of course topics and assignments Class Day

Topics

1

Introduction to EDP 310

2

Pre-assessments: LASSI and help-seeking

Assignments EDP 310 Course overview reading

Top ten list for becoming a successful longhorn 3

LASSI results Description of module assignments

Goals Activity 1 (List 20 goals)

Note-taking 4

Pre-assessments: Nelson Denny and goal orientation Goals in-class discussion

5

Building community Course expectations

6

Model of strategic learning

7

Model of strategic learning

8

Information processing for acquiring knowledge

Model of strategic learning reading Information processing/Selftesting modules Information processing reading

9

Information processing for acquiring knowledge

10

Information processing for acquiring knowledge

11

Self-testing

12

Self-testing

13

Systematic approach

Self-testing reading Time analysis (TMT Activities 5 ,6, 7) Systematic approach reading

14

Types of knowledge

15

Applying the systematic approach

Types of knowledge reading (continued on page 52)

52  Claire Ellen Weinstein, Taylor W. Acee, Jaehak Jung and Jeremy K. Dearman

Appendix (continued) Class Day 16

Topics Attitude: Setting useful goals

Assignments Attitude/Motivation modules Goals, goal orientation reading

17

Attitude: Analysing and using goals

18

Motivation

19

Motivation

20

Exam 1 Review

21

EXAM 1

22

Academic environment

23

Academic help-seeking

Study aids module

Exam 1 Feedback

Help-seeking and academic environment reading

24

Creating and using study aids

25

Time management

26

Procrastination

27

Anxiety

Goals Activity 2 (20 goals revised) Unit 1 Application EXAM 1

Time management module Anxiety module Anxiety reading

28

Coping with anxiety

29

Concentration

Concentration/Selecting main ideas modules

30

Reading and listening strategies

Reading strategies reading

31

Reading and listening strategies

32

Note-taking strategies

33

Selecting main ideas

34

Unit 2 Application work day

35

Selecting main ideas

36

Test-taking strategies

Note-taking reading

Test-taking strategies module Test-taking reading

37

Exam 2 Review

38

EXAM 2

EXAM 2 (continued on page 53)

Strategic and self-regulated learning for the 21st century  53

Appendix (continued) Class Day 39

Topics

Assignments

Post-assessments: LASSI and helpseeking Discussion of capstone project

40

Post-assessment: Nelson Denny and goal orientation

Unit 2 Application

Exam 2 Feedback 41

Integration of course topics

42

Integration of course topics

43

Integration of course topics

Capstone project

Where will you go from here? 44

EXAM 3

EXAM 3

References ACT 2009. National collegiate retention and persistence to degree rates. Retrieved 7 October 2009, from http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/ retain_2009.pdf. Chipman, S. F., J. W. Segal and R. Glaser. 1985. Thinking and learning skills (vol. 2): Research and open questions. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hodges, R. B., C. W. Dochen and D. C. Sellers. 2001. Implementing a learning framework course, 2001: A developmental odyssey. Warrensburg, MO: National Association for Developmental Education. Hofer, B. K. and S. L. Yu. 2003. Teaching self-regulated learning through a ‘learning to learn’ course. Teaching of Psychology, 30(1): 30–3. Oxford, R. L. and J. A. Burry-Stock. 1995. Assessing the use of language learning strategies worldwide with the ESL/EFL version of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). System, 23(1): 1–23. Tuckman, B. W. 2003. The effect of learning and motivation strategies training on college students’ achievement. Journal of College Student Development, 44(3): 430–7. VanderStoep, S. W. and P. R. Pintrich. 2007. Learning to learn: The skill and will of college success (2nd edn). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Weinstein, C. E., D. R. Dierking, J. Husman, L. A. Roska and L. Powdrill. 1999. The impact of a course in strategic learning on the long-term retention of college students. In Developmental education: Preparing successful college students, eds. J. L. Higbee and P. L. Dwinell. 85–96. Columbia, SC: National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.

54  Claire Ellen Weinstein, Taylor W. Acee, Jaehak Jung and Jeremy K. Dearman

Weinstein, C. E., D. K. Meyer, G. Van Mater Stone, W. J. McKeachie and C. I. King.€ 2010. Teaching students how to become more strategic and selfregulated€ learners.€ In McKeachie’s teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers (13th edn), eds. M. Svinicki and W. J. McKeachie. 292–306. Independence, KY:€Wadsworth.€ Weinstein, C. E. and D. R. Palmer. 2002. User’s manual Learning and Study Strategies Inventory. Clearwater, FL: H and H Publishing. Weinstein, C. E., D. R. Palmer and A. C. Shulte. 2002. Learning and Study Strategies Inventory: Second edition. Clearwater, FL: H and H Publishing Company, Inc. Weinstein, C. E., T. L. Tomberlin, A. L. Julie and J. Kim. 2004. Helping students to become strategic learners: The roles of assessment, teachers, instruction, and students. In Thinking about thinking: What educators need to know, eds. J. Ee, A. Chang and O. S. Tan. 282–310. Singapore: McGraw-Hill. Weinstein, C. E., T. Woodruff and C. Awalt. 2007. Becoming a strategic learner: LASSI instructional modules. Clearwater, FL: H and H Publishing.

Section 2

The independent learner

4 Identity and learner autonomy in doctoral study: International students’ experiences in an Australian university Sara Cotterall

Introduction Studying in an overseas university involves challenges ranging from adjusting to differences in food and climate to making sense of the local academic culture. Previous research into the linguistic and academic challenges overseas students face suggests that being able to solve learning problems independently is a prerequisite for survival (see, for example, Leki 1995, Skyrme 2007). The project reported on in this chapter investigates the experiences of a group of quintessential independent learners—international doctoral students—and concludes that negotiating their identities as legitimate members of their new community of practice (Wenger 1998) represents a considerable challenge for them. The study frames doctoral learning as participation in a community of practice (COP) (Wenger 1998), viewing doctoral students as engaged in learning how to think, speak and write as expert members of their COP. The COP perspective is based on the notion that learning fundamentally changes who a person is, with novices transformed into more confident researchers over time. Since they are on a trajectory from novice researcher to licensed scholar—the successful outcome of which is symbolised by award of the title ‘doctor’—identity is also central to the activity of doctoral students, with one researcher claiming that doctoral education is ‘as much about identity formation as it is about knowledge production’ (Green 2005, 153). If, as Chik suggests, ‘a coherent sense of one’s learner identity may foster the development of learner autonomy’ (2007, 58), exploring students’ experiences of negotiating their identities in the new learning context is likely to

58  Sara Cotterall

also reflect their efforts at managing the highly autonomous task of completing a doctoral degree. Three concerns motivated this project. First, the target group appears to have been neglected in recent research on language learning and identity, much of which has focused on immigrants (Norton 2000, Pavlenko et al. 2001, Block 2006). However, as indicated above, international doctoral students also need to construct new identities as they position themselves in relation to members of the local culture, other students, academic staff, university administrators and the wider research community. Second, the project seeks to investigate the processes by which novices are encouraged to participate in established academic communities of practice. Finally, it aims to explore the potential of a biographical narrative approach for exploring participants’ experiences. The data presented in this chapter, however, relate only to the first of these three aims.

Previous research The first stage of the project, which involved an online survey and a focus group discussion, draws on and contributes to the research literature in two different areas. First, it builds on previous research into the learning experiences of international university students. Second, it extends research on identity and learning by expanding the focus from language learning to the broader cultural, social and educational experiences which have an impact on international doctoral students’ learning. Challenges facing international university students Early research into the experiences of international university students focused on their acquisition of second-language (L2) academic literacy (Belcher 1994; Spack 1997; Lea and Street 1998). There is good reason for this. Successful university study in a second language requires advanced language proficiency and an ability to decipher the unwritten rules of disciplinary debate in the academy (Cohen 2009). Skyrme (2007) recounts the experiences of two Chinese undergraduates in their first semester at university in New Zealand. Whereas one was able to reflect on his disappointing results and determine how to adapt his learning strategies for the future, the other student had no idea why he had failed the course despite having sought advice from both his lecturer and other students. The study concludes that responsibility for identifying the purpose of learning activities and discovering how to achieve success in the new learning context lay entirely with the students.

Identity and learner autonomy in doctoral study  59

Other research has focused specifically on the experiences of international graduate students. For example, Deem and Brehony (2000) report on doctoral students’ access to research cultures in two United Kingdom universities, and conclude that international and part-time students have the most difficulty in accessing research and peer cultures. Problems arise for international doctoral candidates, they argue, because they are often older than their local counterparts, may suffer from changes in status and may have family members to support. Morita’s (2004) study of six female Japanese students enrolled on a Master’s programme in Canada explores both their academic socialisation and the way they negotiate identity. She reports that some students had difficulty being recognised as legitimate members of their classroom communities partly because of differences between their and their peers’ learning behaviours. Another strand of research has examined graduate students’ socialisation into academic discourse practices. Writing at the graduate level poses a number of challenges including the need to develop a scholarly voice. As Duff (2007, 1.4) points out: Academic discourse socialisation … involves developing ones’ voice, identity and agency in a new language/culture. Learning scientific discourse, in this view, involves learning to think, act, speak and write like a scientist in a scientific community of practice.

However, it ‘is anything but natural for a graduate student’ (Li 2008, 48) to adopt an authoritative scholarly voice in writing about a field to which they are relative newcomers. This challenge may be felt more acutely by students who are writing in a language other than their first language. Shen, a Chinese scholar of English literature, writes of the identity transformation he went through when he first began writing in English at university: In order to write good English, I knew that I had to be myself, which actually meant not to be my Chinese self. It meant that I had to create an English self and be that self. (Shen 1998, 126)

Identity and (language) learning Since the early 1990s, identity has been investigated in the context of immigrant language learning. Norton (2000, 5) argues that identity is central to language learning in immigrant settings, emphasising that it needs to be understood ‘with reference to larger, and frequently inequitable, social structures which are reproduced in day-to-day

60  Sara Cotterall

interaction’. Her case studies of five immigrant women in Canada highlight the role that social positioning plays in access to the new language. Another study has explored identity construction in the longitudinal narratives of four Japanese students whose families moved back and forth between Japan and North America (Kanno 2003). Kanno focuses on the changing linguistic and cultural identities of the students and the attitudes they encounter in both countries as a result of their ‘hybrid selves’. Identity has also been studied in relation to foreign language learning. Murphey, Chen and Chen (2005) report the benefits of using language learning histories with university learners of English in Japan and Taiwan to encourage reflection on language-related identities. A study of independent language learning at a Japanese university also found that encouraging learners to explore their future identities as users of English had a positive impact on their motivation (Cotterall and Murray 2009). Finally, an investigation of the relationship between agency, identity and autonomy in the English learning and teacher training of university students in China suggests that identity construction may both originate in and result from autonomy in EFL learning (Huang 2009). The central role of identity in doctoral learning is acknowledged by a growing number of researchers (Lee and Boud 2003; Green 2005; McAlpine and Amundsen 2007), many of whom assign a crucial role in the process to writing (Casanave 2008). For example, Kamler and Thomson consider that doctoral researchers are engaged in the ‘mutual construction of text and identity’ (2006, 66) as they participate in a learning process aimed at inducting them into ways of thinking, behaving and expressing themselves like scholars.

What the participants said The data reported here were generated in the first phase of a larger research project. The intention was to obtain baseline data on the initial adjustment experiences of a representative group of international graduate students. Data were gathered through an online survey of international Higher Degree Research (HDR) students1 at an Australian university and a subsequent focus group discussion. The survey was constructed using the online software ‘Survey Monkey’ (http://www. surveymonkey.com/). An email message was sent in mid-March 2009 by the university’s HDR office inviting all international HDR candidates who had enrolled in the previous 15 months to complete the online

Identity and learner autonomy in doctoral study  61

survey. Approximately 200 invitations were sent out; and by the end of the data-gathering period, 63 students had completed the survey. A one-hour focus group discussion was held two weeks after the online survey invitation. Participants were recruited through a survey item which invited volunteers to provide their contact details. Of the 63 survey respondents, 14 volunteered for the discussion and nine eventually took part. The discussion was facilitated and audio-recorded by the researcher, with excerpts later transcribed. Survey data The descriptive data generated by the survey and trends identified in responses to open-ended items are presented below. Survey responses concerned respondents’ reasons for enrolling at the particular university, their previous experience of living abroad, their English language skills and the challenges they faced in their first few weeks in Australia. The majority of respondents (73%) had decided to enrol at the university because they had been awarded a scholarship, although some gave more than one reason. Other reasons included the reputation of the university’s academic staff (38%) and of the university itself (27%). More than half of the respondents (58%) reported having lived abroad prior to arriving in Australia, with a total of 29 different countries listed. The non-native speakers of English among the survey respondents reported high levels of English proficiency (see Table 4.1). When asked about their impressions of Australian English on first arriving in the country, 23% responded that they found it difficult to understand, 47% found it okay to understand and 23% found it easy to understand. The respondents’ confidence in their ability to use English was high with 90% feeling either confident or very confident about using English in social situations, and 87% feeling confident or very confident about using English in academic situations.

Table 4.1 Survey respondents’ self-reported English Language proficiency

Test name

Low

High

IELTS (out of 9)

6.5

8.5

Internet-based TOEFL (out of 120)

102

115

Computer-based TOEFL (out of 300)

263

263

Paper-based TOEFL (out of 677)

650

655

62  Sara Cotterall

Finding accommodation proved the biggest initial challenge for more than half of the survey respondents (53%), with one-third (33%) indicating that understanding Australian English was the major challenge. In addition to difficulties with accommodation, language and homesickness, respondents identified a number of other challenges, which included the high cost of living, administrative problems, understanding how the university works, making friends outside the office and ‘getting into my research project’. Focus group data Nine international doctoral candidates took part in the focus group discussion. Table 4.2 presents background information on the participants. Discussion topics included initial impressions of Australia, accommodation and living costs, HDR student resources and facilities, the university’s communication with students, and relationships with university staff and peers. (See Appendix for a list of questions which guided the discussion.) Following analytical procedures commonly adopted in qualitative research, the interview transcripts were scanned repeatedly to identify common conceptual themes. These themes and illustrative quotations from the data are presented below. Table 4.2 Background of focus group participants

Name Gender Andreas Brigitte Claudia Ferah Helen Marie Omeed Rajiv Songsak

M F F F F F M M M

Nationality

Length of residence in Australia German 20 months German 11 months German 13 months Turkish 8 months North American 8 months North American 1 month Iranian 12 months Indian 12 months Thai 6 months

Degree, Department Ph.D., Geochemistry Ph.D., Linguistics Ph.D., European Languages Ph.D., Biology Ph.D., Linguistics Ph.D., Linguistics Ph.D., Media Studies Ph.D., Cognitive Science Ph.D, Linguistics

While it may seem a somewhat mundane issue, finding suitable accommodation turned out to be a significant concern for four of the nine participants (and over 50% of the survey respondents). Several participants commented on differences between the process of hunting

Identity and learner autonomy in doctoral study  63

for an apartment in their country and Australia, including the difficulty that recently-arrived international students face in providing the personal references and bank statements required by leasing agents. Brigitte commented ‘In Germany it’s like you pick the place. And here it’s they pick you.’ [B, Line 447]. There was also a general consensus that the cost of living in Australia was high, especially the cost of transport. Some participants were disappointed with the resources and facilities made available to them. Andreas found it ‘ridiculous’ that the university allocated the same amount of money to each Ph.D. candidate regardless of their discipline, explaining that since students in the Physical Sciences needed to purchase equipment they were likely to require more money than other students. Marie was surprised at the lack of departmental facilities: I thought I would have an office and a computer. I really thought I would have my place. That’s how I saw it … so okay we’re sharing, but I don’t even get my own computer. [M, Lines 378–80]

Instead, on arriving at the university, she was shown to a postgraduate student computer room and told that if she arrived early enough, she should be able to find a computer to work on. The way in which the university communicated with students also drew comment. Songsak observed that ‘the communication here is in written form rather than spoken’ [S, Line 473], explaining that he was overwhelmed by the large amount of written information he received during the first few weeks. Rajiv was surprised that the airport pickup arrangements had been ‘outsourced’ so that his first contact with the university was through an agent who had no personal relationship to the institution. He was also surprised that the university relied on agents for the scholarship and visa application process: … so the early shocks which I received were how Australian universities require agents for everything, from applications to visa, which seems a bit strange. Given that they have some trust in my scholastic ability, the ability to do research, why can’t they trust the student that he can lodge his own visa or even apply … [R, Lines 255–9]

Participants had different experiences of initial contact with their academic departments and colleagues. Whereas Claudia benefited from participating in a Commencement Programme which involved regular meetings with other newly-arrived doctoral students, others had initially felt unwelcome and isolated. Rajiv explained:

64  Sara Cotterall

People are too busy in their own thing, it looks like, especially as regards to students. Most of the staff members and the university as such is quite okay, but because probably we start at different times of the year and only one student is a new student in the department, so not many people are available at that time for whatever reason to talk to the student early and make the student feel welcome and comfortable or help the student around or things like that. [R, Lines 40–5]

When asked about their relationship with their supervisors, all the participants reported that they were impressed with their supervisors’ academic skills, but several regretted that they had no personal relationship with their supervisor. Brigitte explained: … my supervisor now is a guy, and for my Masters back in Germany it was a woman and I’ve known her through my undergrad degree and stuff so that might have been a difference as well but I was having way more personal conversations with her than I could ever imagine having with my current supervisor now. [B, Lines 748–56]

Songsak commented that he felt uncomfortable addressing his supervisor by his first name, given the Thai practice of inserting the title ‘Ajan’ before teachers’ names. Marie experienced a related problem in composing emails to her supervisor: I still don’t know when I write if I’m supposed to write ‘Best regards’ every time . . . I don’t know how to start my mails, finish them. I have no idea (laughter). I’m guessing, and I’ve asked her and she said ‘Well it’s different for everyone but you’ve been fine up till now’ (laughter) but I still don’t know! [M, Lines 707–12]

Another issue raised by the participants was the level of bureaucracy in Australia. Andreas complained about the time and difficulty involved in preparing the budget for his doctoral project: Yeah, doing the budget was quite a challenge because the way the university does it they don’t really give too much information, you have to get all the information yourself … once you know what you are going through, it makes it a little bit easier but still things don’t work out and it takes ages until things are settled … at the beginning you do so much stuff that’s not related to your research at all … [A, Lines 409–16]

Finally, a number of participants commented on the fact that they found it difficult to make ‘real’ friendships with Australians.2 Helen elaborated:

Identity and learner autonomy in doctoral study  65

Like it’s very easy to go drink with Aussies and they love to buy you beer but then you know I’m still not at the point where I can call anybody other than my flatmate to go watch a movie … [H, Lines 954–6]

Rajiv offered a possible explanation for the difficulty some international students experienced in making friends with local students: Oh probably it’s a language thing because they know that you speak their language so they don’t make any effort on their part to include you and unless you do certain types of things like drinking or certain activities only then it’s easier, otherwise it’s not so easy. [R, Lines 972–5]

Clearly, the identities newcomers project—the way they dress, the social activities they take part in, the language they use—affect their interactions with local students. The significance of these and other themes emerging from the data is discussed below.

Discussion The survey and focus group discussion revealed that many of the participants had previously lived outside their home country, some had completed their Master’s degrees abroad, and most were confident about their English language skills. Yet these multilingual, multiliterate, culturally sophisticated graduate students experienced a number of challenges in adapting to their new environment. In this section, three issues identified by the participants are discussed further, demonstrating how they foreshadow challenges which are central to doctoral study and are therefore important sites for the construction of identity. Becoming an international student implies a significant shift in identity and status for individuals who may have been successful, highly regarded members of social and professional networks at home. More specifically, assuming the status of doctoral student involves being positioned on the bottom rung of the academic ladder. The impact of this change in status is made clear in Andreas’ frustration at discovering the university’s ‘one size fits all’ policy of allocating funds for graduate student research. As a scientist, he depends on access to an adequate budget in order to complete his project. This university policy therefore both challenges Andreas’ identity as a scientist and confirms that, in the eyes of the institution, he is ‘only a student’ and therefore powerless to object.

66  Sara Cotterall

Another issue which foreshadows contested terrain for many doctoral students is highlighted in Brigitte’s comment about her relationship with her supervisor, which apparently lacks a personal dimension. A similar concern is reflected in Marie’s difficulty in finding an appropriate way to greet her supervisor in email messages and Songsak’s reluctance to call his supervisor by his first name. The supervision relationship is a key site for identity negotiation since this is where doctoral students articulate and defend their ideas, observe scholarly practices and experiment with their researcher persona. Consequently, negotiating a mutually respectful, comfortable relationship with the supervisor is essential for effective doctoral learning (Deuchar 2008). The third issue relates to the feelings of dislocation and isolation which several of the students experienced when they first arrived at the university. In commenting ‘I really thought I would have my place’ [M, Lines 378–80], Marie underlines the importance of physical and social positioning for newcomers and reveals the gap between her expectations and local conditions. In exactly the same way, novice researchers are required to create intellectual ‘space’ for their research in the community of practice they seek to enter. Positioning oneself within the institution and the disciplinary community represents a defining challenge of doctoral study. The COP framework reminds us that doctoral learning essentially involves participating (with increasing confidence and decreasing support) in the scholarly practices which characterise academic work. These practices include activities such as drawing up and defending budgets, interacting with a wide range of people with differing levels of expertise and experience, and contributing to disciplinary conversations by writing for publication. Therefore, the issues raised by Andreas, Brigitte, Marie and Songsak relate to important dimensions of scholarly activity. As such, they represent an opportunity for the students to respond not as students but as novice academics by defending their claims and asserting their preferences. Surely Andreas has a right to the resources he needs in order to successfully complete his project? And why should Songsak have to address his supervisor in a way that makes him feel uncomfortable? However, in deciding how to respond, students need to be aware that the power dynamics operating in university hierarchies mean that certain responses carry risks for novice researchers. These examples suggest that the process of constructing an identity as a researcher and scholar is anything but straightforward. Despite

Identity and learner autonomy in doctoral study  67

the benign tenor of much of the research which invokes the COP framework, negotiating participation in an established community of practice is in fact inherently stressful. Block argues that identity work is about ‘negotiating new subject positions at the crossroads of the past, present and future … The entire process is conflictive as opposed to harmonious and individuals often feel ambivalent’ (2007, 27). Many of the issues raised by the students represent contested territory (e.g. rights to equipment and resources, the nature of relationships, and the nature and quality of communication) which they will need to continue negotiating throughout their doctoral studies. Ultimately, doctoral students must learn to participate confidently in new situations. Therefore, deciding when and how to participate, how much help to ask for and who to interact with are key decisions which help to construct the doctoral student’s scholarly identity. These decisions will be influenced by the learners’ willingness to take charge of different aspects of their learning. Autonomy in doctoral learning might be demonstrated by behaviours such as initiating contact with international experts or resisting suggested revisions to a paper. Such acts reflect the students’ increasing confidence in their sense of themselves as researchers and scholars.

Conclusion What can this study tell us about the relationship between identity and learner autonomy in international students’ doctoral learning? In the unique context of doctoral education, where the construction of scholarly identity is both the means and the end of learning, a student’s autonomy has a critical impact on their learning. Doctoral students who stick closely to their supervisor’s direction will develop more slowly than those who view the supervisor’s guidance as just one of many resources to exploit in charting their learning trajectory. This suggests that identity and learner autonomy are intertwined dimensions of the self. Doctoral students’ research confidence unfolds in tandem with the exercise of their autonomy as learners; both contribute to the construction of their scholarly identities. International doctoral students should be able to expect support from at least three different sources: English for Academic Purposes (EAP) teachers, supervisors and the university. EAP teachers can help ‘unpack’ the scholarly practices in which the students wish to develop expertise, including the tacit conventions underpinning them (Elton 2010). Useful activities might include encouraging students to identify

68  Sara Cotterall

the language, style and rhetorical functions of academic discourse, or discussing pragmatically complex tasks such as interpreting and responding to reviewers’ comments on a paper. By understanding scholarly practices better, learners can engage with them more effectively. Supervisors can support the development of their students’ autonomy by first establishing a comfortable, productive relationship with them. This might involve exploring expectations by openly discussing issues such as preferred terms of address and the respective roles of supervisor and student (Paltridge and Starfield 2007). In addition, by creating a rich range of opportunities for them to observe and participate in scholarly practices, supervisors can accelerate the development of their students’ research confidence and their autonomy as learners. For example, students who co-author papers with more experienced researchers can gain valuable insights into the composing process and practise presenting and defending their ideas. Supervisors can also encourage the development of student networks (valuable sites for the development of learner autonomy) and promote researchsupporting activities such as student writing groups (Aitchison 2009). Finally, institutions need to reflect on the quality of the welcome and support they provide to international doctoral students. While many of the focus group participants, like Rajiv, managed to ‘figure everything out on my own’ [R, Lines 288–9], their induction could have been made much smoother. By welcoming international doctoral researchers as new members of the academic community and recognising their potential rather than positioning them as ‘just students’, the university can contribute significantly to their development as autonomous learners and scholars.

Identity and learner autonomy in doctoral study  69

Appendix Focus Group Discussion Questions Crossing borders: A narrative study of international higher degree research students’ experiences of language, learning and identity at university

Introduction You recently completed my online survey about your experiences and impressions associated with arriving in Australia and enrolling at university as a Higher Degree Research student. In this discussion I want to ask you more about your experience of the first six months in Australia and at university. The discussion will be audio-recorded but you will not be identified in the final research.

Expectations and experiences 1. Before arriving in Australia, what did you expect living in Australia would be like? In what way is Australia different from your expectations? 2. What was the most surprising aspect of your first month of living in Australia? Why? 3. What was the most difficult aspect of your first month of living in Australia? Why? 4. What did you expect studying at university in Australia would be like? In what ways is studying at university in Australia different from what you expected? 5. Do you have any other comments on your experiences so far that you would like to make about: • Accommodation, internet provision etc. • Business, service, transport • Finances—cost of living • University administration/welcome/orientation • Your department—getting started, meeting your supervisor, knowing what you were doing. Thank you for taking part in the discussion. <[email protected]>

70  Sara Cotterall

Notes 1. The term HDR includes M.Phil., M.A. by research, professional doctorate and Ph.D. thesis candidates. 2. The participants’ willingness to discuss this topic frankly may have been influenced by the fact that I am not Australian.

References Aitchison, C. 2009. Writing groups for doctoral education. Studies in Higher Education, 34 (8): 905–16. Belcher, D. 1994. The apprenticeship approach to advanced academic literacy: Graduate students and their mentors. English for Specific Purposes, 13(1): 23–34. Block, D. 2006. Multilingual identities in a global city: London stories. London: Palgrave. Block, D. 2007. Second language identities. London: Continuum. Casanave, C. P. 2008. Learning participatory practices in graduate school: Some perspective-taking by a mainstream educator. In Learning the literacy practices of graduate school: Insiders’ reflections on academic enculturation, eds. C. P. Casanave and X. Li. 14–31. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Chik, A. 2007. From learner identity to learner autonomy: A biographical study of two Hong Kong learners of English. In Learner autonomy 8: Teacher and learner perspectives, ed. P. Benson. 41–60. Dublin: Authentik. Cohen, R. 2009. No opinion gets a B: The role of essay writing in disciplinary inductions. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Victoria University of Wellington. Cotterall, S. and G. Murray. 2009. Enhancing metacognitive knowledge: Structure, affordances and self. System 37(1): 34–45. Deem, R. and K. Brehony. 2000. Doctoral students’ access to research cultures— are some more unequal than others? Studies in Higher Education, 25(2): 149–65. Deuchar, R. 2008. Facilitator, director or critical friend? Contradiction and congruence in doctoral supervision styles. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(4): 489–500. Duff, P. 2007. Problematising academic discourse socialisation. In Learning discourses and the discourses of learning, eds. H. Marriott, T. Moore and R. Spence-Brown. 1.1–1.18. Melbourne: Monash University Press. Elton, L. 2010. Academic writing and tacit knowledge. Teaching in Higher Education, 15 (2):151–60. Green, B. 2005. Unfinished business: Subjectivity and supervision. Higher Education Research and Development, 24(2): 151–63. Huang, J. 2009. Autonomy, agency and identity in foreign language learning and teaching. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. University of Hong Kong. Kamler, B. and P. Thomson. 2006. Helping doctoral students write: Pedagogies for supervision. London: Routledge. Kanno, Y. 2003. Negotiating bilingual and bicultural identities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Identity and learner autonomy in doctoral study  71

Lea, M. R. and B. Street. 1998. Student writing in higher education: an academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2): 157–72. Lee, A. and D. Boud. 2003. Writing groups, change and academic identity: Research development as local practice. Studies in Higher Education, 28(2): 187–200. Leki, I. 1995. Coping strategies of ESL students in writing tasks across the curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2): 235–60. Li, X. 2008. Learning to write a thesis with an argumentative edge. In Learning the literacy practices of graduate school: Insiders’ reflections on academic enculturation, eds. C. P. Casanave and X. Li. 46–57. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. McAlpine, L. and C. Amundsen. 2007. Academic communities and developing identity: The doctoral student journey. In Global issues in higher education, ed. P. B. Richards. 57–83. Hauppage, New York: Nova Science Publishers. Morita, N. 2004. Negotiating participation and identity in second language academic communities. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4): 573–603. Murphey, T., J. Chen and L. C. Chen. 2005. Learners’ constructions of identities and imagined communities. In Learners’ stories: Difference and diversity in language learning, eds. P. Benson and D. Nunan. 83–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Norton, B. 2000. Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change. London: Longman. Paltridge, B. and S. Starfield. 2007. Thesis and dissertation writing in a second language: A handbook for supervisors. London: Routledge. Pavlenko, A., A. Blackledge, I. Piller and M. Teutsch-Dwyer. eds. 2001. Multilingualism, second language learning and gender. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Shen, F. 1998. The classroom and the wider culture: Identity as a key to learning English composition. In Negotiating academic literacies, eds. V. Zamel and R. Spack. 123–34. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Skyrme, G. 2007. Entering the university: the differentiated experience of two Chinese international students in a New Zealand university. Studies in Higher Education, 32(3): 357–72. Spack, R. 1997. The acquisition of academic literacy in a second language; A longitudinal case study. Written Communication, 14(1): 3–62. Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

5 I’m not giving up! Maintaining motivation in independent language learning Linda Murphy

Introduction In any language learning context, learners need to maintain their initial motivation until they achieve their intended goals. Research has increasingly highlighted the significance of affective and social aspects of language learning, particularly in independent, distance learning contexts (White 2003, 2005). This may underline the importance of the affective and social language learning strategies identified in Oxford’s widely used (1990) language learning strategy taxonomy. However, relatively few studies explore the use of these strategies in independent or distance learning settings. To paraphrase Oxford and Lee’s (2008, 313) question, ‘How do independent distance language learners keep themselves going when the going gets tough?’ In this chapter, I present a study that examines language learning strategies used by adult distance language learners of French, German and Spanish, studying at beginner level.

Theoretical background Affect and independent language learning Distance education research argues that successful course completion by adult distance learners depends largely on their ability to manage attitudinal and affective factors (White 2005, 168). Although the critical role of affect in successful language learning is increasingly accepted, affective strategies appear the least frequently used (Hurd 2008, 221).

74  Linda Murphy

In this category, Oxford’s taxonomy includes encouraging oneself, rewarding oneself, lowering anxiety through humour or relaxation, becoming aware of emotions and sharing feelings with others. The importance of motivation among affective factors in language learning is highlighted by Dörnyei who proposes five groups of selfmotivation strategies which learners can deploy (2001, 110): • commitment control strategies (to maintain or increase commitment to the original goal for learning); • metacognition control strategies (to control concentration and procrastination); • satiation control strategies (for eliminating boredom and adding extra attraction or interest to learning); • emotion control strategies (for managing emotions or moods); and • environmental control strategies (for dealing with negative, or exploiting positive influences in the learning environment). He notes their closeness to Oxford’s affective strategies. Oxford and Lee (2008) focus on volitional strategies which enable learners to exert control over their learning, suggesting that ‘if motivational strategies provide the pull towards a goal, volitional strategies offer the brute-force push that learners sometimes need to employ in difficult learning situations’ (p. 313). Such strategies might include paying attention to why learning is important; blocking negative thoughts and emotions; and removing distractions and impediments to learning in the study environment (p. 314). Despite the pull/push distinction made, there seems to be overlap with Dörnyei’s self-motivation strategies, highlighting the perennial difficulty in strategy categorisation. Ushioda (1996, 19–20) notes the significance of intrinsic motivation, derived from the experience of learning itself, which can generate positive emotions such as enjoyment, pleasure and satisfaction, thus resulting in persistence and continuing motivation. Ryan and Deci (2000) suggest intrinsic motivation is shaped by working towards optimal challenges which gradually extend the individual’s capabilities and promote feelings of achievement and skill development. This process is supported by feedback through social interaction, prompting positive self-evaluations and enhancing learners’ feelings of competence. Social interaction and independent language learning Recognising the significance of social interaction leads to consideration of the social context and use of social strategies. These strategies are

I’m not giving up!  75

defined by Oxford (1990) as: asking for clarification or correction; cooperating with peers and proficient users of the language; developing cultural understanding and empathy; and becoming aware of others’ thoughts and feelings. White (2003) explains how distance learners have to restructure their environment to facilitate their learning (e.g. by negotiating time, space and resources at home), while at the same time engaging in a certain amount of internal restructuring (e.g. adjusting their beliefs about language learning). Palfreyman (2006) suggests that more attention should be paid to the social context and social strategies, noting that these have been researched far less than the more individualistic cognitive and metacognitive language learning strategies. Ushioda (2007) outlines a more situated view of motivation, drawing on the sociocultural theories of Vygotsky (1986), whereby learning and motivation to learn is a socially mediated process. In this process, Ushioda (2007, 12) maintains that effective scaffolded support enables the learner to achieve what Ryan and Deci (2000) refer to as ‘an optimal challenge’ (i.e. activity which is not too easy, but not too difficult for the individual to carry out with support) and prompts self-evaluation. A situated view of language learning highlights the way intrinsic motivation develops through social interaction, not only in a formal, educational context, but also in the learners’ wider social environment. Despite the significance of social interaction for language learning, and the affordances of communications technology, Figura and Jarvis (2007) found little evidence of research on the use of social strategies through computer-based communication in language learning, and relatively little use of such strategies by the participants in their own study. Hurd (2008, 222) notes that the focus of research has moved away from learning strategies towards self-regulatory and self-management processes, but she also points to the link between affective strategies and self-regulation. Indeed, social, affective and motivational strategies may all play a part in self-regulation of the learning process. Dörnyei (2005, 191) describes self-regulation as a dynamic concept which relies on learners’ efforts to enhance their achievement and maintain their motivation through cognitive, metacognitive, motivational, behavioural and environmental processes, and which may be manifested by a variety of strategies. This chapter explores which strategies are used by independent language learners studying at a distance and how these strategies contribute to self-regulation in practice.

76  Linda Murphy

The research study The study presented in this chapter explores the social and affective strategies, self-motivational and volitional strategies, and intrinsic motivation displayed by a sample of adult distance learners of French, German and Spanish studying at the UK Open University. Students were provided with print and audio materials, and supported by a personal tutor who facilitated regular, optional tutorials which were either face-to-face or online via synchronous audiographic conferencing. Students were able to use synchronous and asynchronous conferencing throughout the course to keep in touch with other learners. Research questions There were four research questions: 1. Which social strategies are used by these learners? 2. Which affective strategies do they use? 3. Which self-motivation or volitional strategies do they use? 4. What role does intrinsic motivation play? Method of investigation Direct observation produces little information about the learning strategies which learners employ (Naiman et al. 1996), particularly in a distance learning context. Cohen (1987) suggests verbal reports from learners, either self-report, self-observation or self-revelation, as an alternative. In this study, retrospective reports were felt to be more practical. McDonough (1995) identifies learner diaries, logs or journals, questionnaires and interviews as methods for gathering retrospective verbal reports. In this study, a monthly learner log was used to gather data. It comprised questions prompting learners to describe their behaviour, rather than ticking a pre-determined list of strategies, and to structure the information provided via open responses. It was designed to be easy to use with minimal briefing. Students were asked to identify any study-related contacts, the nature and the outcome of the contacts, the ‘highs and lows’ of study, how they overcame difficulties and what kept them going (see Appendix). The learner logs were piloted in 2004 to ensure clarity and ease of use. In 2005 and 2006, they were sent to a random sample of 191 students of French, German and Spanish (91 in 2005, and 100 in 2006) who had responded to a pre-course survey of their expectations and

I’m not giving up!  77

initial motivation, and who had indicated their willingness to keep a log. The sample included students from both versions of the courses available at the time, i.e. with face-to-face tuition or with tuition via online synchronous conferencing. As the pilot study showed no difference in learning strategies related to the course version or language studied, these variables have not been considered in the present study. Logs were sent out each month from February to September, following the course start in November, which allowed students time to settle into their courses. A postal return was chosen to avoid technological problems, and reply-paid address labels were provided. Students were assured that responses would be presented anonymously and that they were free to withdraw from the project at any time. Fifty-three students participated in 2005 (17 regularly) and 48 in 2006 (15 regularly). Quantitative responses were collated and qualitative comments were typed up month by month. Logs carried students’ unique personal identifiers in order to track responses from individuals over the period. Qualitative comments were analysed using NVivo 8 (a software package which facilitates the analysis of qualitative data through the coding and categorisation of extracts) for evidence of affective and social strategies (Oxford 1990), self-motivation strategies (Dörnyei 2001) and volitional strategies (Oxford and Lee 2008), and for evidence of intrinsic motivation (Ryan and Deci 2000).

Findings and discussion The findings are now discussed in relation to each of the four research questions. Quotations from students are referred to by their student reference number and year: e.g. (35/06) refers to student 35 in 2006. Which social strategies were used by these learners? Students reported interaction with a range of people including the tutor, other students, family members, work colleagues and friends. However, the most frequent contact was with the tutor (directly or at tutorials), with other students at tutorials and with family members. Overall, the amount of contact was limited. Of the social strategies identified by Oxford, ‘asking for clarification or verification’ was the most frequently used. For example: ‘requested clarification of fait and faut’ (21/05); ‘grammar point—sorted at tutorial’ (21/06); ‘My son was able to clarify a point that was holding me up’ (11/05); ‘I spoke to some Chilean neighbours about the difference in use of pequeño and un poco

78  Linda Murphy

in descriptions’ (35/06). ‘Asking for correction’ was used with the same range of people, particularly in relation to pronunciation which can be more problematic when learning at a distance. Attending tutorials was used for ‘becoming aware of others’ thoughts and feelings’ in order to gain reassurance and reduce isolation: ‘Hearing about other students’ experiences with the course is helpful’ (12/05); and ‘sense of being part of a group’ (45/05). Despite opportunities for online conferencing, few respondents used ‘cooperating with peers’, but those who did so used it for both practice and mutual support: ‘I have regular contact with another student on Skype. We can help each other while progressing through the course together. We practise pronunciation and intonation’ (30/06). Some students reported ‘co-operating with proficient users of the new language’, using contacts outside the course for speaking practice: ‘Daughter at university in Spain—when we speak on the phone I always manage to get a little practice in’ (21/06); ‘I speak German in the office and listen to the conversations’ (31/06). Few respondents provided direct evidence of using these contacts for ‘developing cultural understanding and empathy’, perhaps because the logs focused on language learning. Interest in, and enjoyment of, the language and culture was, however, a major motivating factor (see below). Although not classified as a social strategy, drawing on the moral and practical support provided by family, friends and colleagues was significant for a number of students, reflecting the environmental restructuring (White 2003) required for successful distance learning: ‘support to give me time to do the work required’ (13/05); ‘helped to reassure me to keep going’ (47/06). Social interaction with peers and other language users was reported as a source of motivation to keep going, a chance to evaluate progress and receive positive feedback increasing feelings of competence (Ryan and Deci 2000): ‘I managed to speak to a German visitor at work and she remarked how well I spoke. That boosts confidence’ (31/06). Overall, the use of social strategies for language learning was mainly limited to seeking clarification and correction, but social interaction was a significant source of selfevaluation and motivation for those who sought it out. Which affective strategies did they use? Of the affective strategies identified by Oxford, logs showed no evidence of ‘reducing anxiety through humour or relaxation techniques’. The only reported approach to ‘taking your emotional temperature’ was to

I’m not giving up!  79

discuss feelings with others in ways illustrated above, through tutorial contact or co-operating with peers, and in the support provided by family, friends and colleagues in times of stress. Affective strategy use centred on ‘encouraging yourself’. Of the possibilities included by Oxford, some students reported ‘making positive statements’ and ‘rewarding yourself’: ‘I merely remembered that I probably know 25,000 words in my own language. There is no need for misgivings’ (35/06); ‘planning a holiday to a Spanish speaking country’ (7/06). The limited use of affective strategies may be because students logged little by way of anxiety, though some were clearly unhappy speaking the language in front of others: ‘TOTAL FEAR of speaking out loud’ (24/05). However, they logged a range of other emotions, including disappointment with progress, frustration with aspects of the course materials (particularly the speed of audio material) and technology problems, concerns about memory overload and serious worries about lack of study time—all major demotivators. The majority reported overcoming these negative feelings by deploying cognitive and metacognitive strategies: additional practice; repeated listening; oral repetition and recording themselves; revision; use of other reference materials, the Internet or radio; prioritising; creating or adapting a study plan; revising study methods; rearranging other commitments; and creating more opportunities for study. Use of these strategies to persevere far outweighed the use of social and affective strategies, supporting the notion of an integral link between cognition and affect (Hurd 2008, 231). Which self-motivation and volitional strategies did they use? Students rarely reported using ‘metacognition control strategies’ (to control concentration and control procrastination), ‘satiation control strategies’ (for eliminating boredom and adding extra attraction) or ‘environmental control strategies’ (for dealing with interferences and temptations) (Dörnyei 2001). Frequent references to lack of study time make the absence of satiation and metacognition control strategies unsurprising. Various distractions and interferences reduced study time, including, for example, illnesses and bereavements, increased work commitments, children’s school holidays, holidays and visitors. Students were generally unable to control such events but used metacognitive strategies such as planning, prioritising and finding extra time to deal with them.

80  Linda Murphy

The ‘commitment control strategy’ of ‘keeping in mind positive expectations derived from successful outcomes’ appeared to be the most significant self-motivation strategy used. Students often referred to longer-term goals which helped them to persist. Some of these were related to completing their course of study—‘wanting to achieve a degree in modern languages’ (51/05); and others were linked to the benefits they anticipated from knowledge of the language: ‘My reason for doing French—to live there and run a B and B in France by 2008’ (9/05). Being able to communicate in a country where the language is spoken was an important goal: ‘My sister-in-law lives in France and I’m determined to be able to follow at least some of the conversations with neighbours etc. when I stay with them’ (12/05). The alternative commitment control strategy identified by Dörnyei, that of focusing on what would happen if the original intention failed, was rarely used, perhaps because for part-time learners language study is just one challenge among many and their personal or professional status does not necessarily depend on the outcome. The emotion control strategies identified by Dörnyei include several that have been discussed above and that overlap with Oxford’s social or affective strategies, i.e. ‘self-encouragement’, ‘selfaffirmation’, ‘constructing positive narratives of events’, ‘finding humorous elements’, ‘using relaxation and meditation techniques’, and ‘sharing your feelings with someone’. The remaining emotional control strategies—‘counting to 10’; ‘praying’ and ‘generating useful diversions’—were not mentioned in any logs. With respect to volitional strategies (Oxford and Lee 2008), the logs contained a number of references to blocking negative thoughts and emotions. Perseverance and determination to keep going were a frequent response to difficulties and demotivators: ‘I sometimes wonder “why am I doing this?”—but I am determined to keep going’ (28/06); ‘I won’t give up the course. I will finish it!!’ (33/06); ‘I don’t quit!’ (37/06). In some cases, comments seemed to derive from students’ sense of their own identity as people who always finish what they set out to do. Some students persevered against enormous odds, such as illness, disability, unforeseen additional work demands, full-time caring responsibilities and even the death of a child. What role did intrinsic motivation play? Love of the language, enjoyment of the course and enthusiasm for learning were mentioned by many respondents as an inspiration

I’m not giving up!  81

to keep going: ‘sheer enjoyment of linguistic work’ (22/06); ‘I’m fascinated by the German culture’ (30/06). Evidence of progress, seen through interaction with others or coping with ‘optimal challenges’, inspired students to continue: ‘I have noticed an improvement with my ability to get the gist of the audio extracts’ (27/06); ‘Having a short conversation with a Spanish speaker, being understood and able to keep the conversation going’ (21/06); ‘I feel I am understanding more all the time’ (12/05). Feedback from the tutor on assignments also prompted positive self-evaluation and enhanced feelings of competence: ‘So far I have been getting good results from my tutor which is encouraging and this inspires me to go on’ (30/05). The motivation from a sense of achievement contrasted sharply with frustration expressed over the complexity of tasks, lack of structured practice and steepness of the learning curve. This should serve as a reminder of the difficulty of providing optimal challenges for all in distance learning programmes.

Conclusion Despite an enthusiastic initial response, the number of monthly logs dwindled but they nevertheless provide a picture of changing circumstances and motivations, inspirations and set-backs. The findings confirm relatively limited use of Oxford’s social and affective strategies as noted by Figura and Jarvis (2007) and Hurd (2008). Apart from clarification and correction, the most important use of social interaction appears to be for self-evaluation and boosting confidence. Affective strategies for regulating anxiety were almost entirely absent. Though students reported a range of negative emotions, they overcame them and kept going through employing a mix of cognitive and metacognitive strategies combined with a focus on longer-term goals or benefits, and supported by intrinsic motivation, perseverance and determination. This appears to support the link between affect and cognition (Hurd 2008) and the view that affective and social strategies are part of the wider self-regulation process. It also confirms that it may be more productive to concentrate on the intended outcomes of learners’ behaviour and underlying processes rather than strategy classifications (Dörnyei 2005; Hurd 2008). The next step must be to examine how this diverse picture of self-regulation can inform the design of distance programmes for language learning. Key areas appear to be: helping students to keep their longer-term goals in mind; raising awareness of, and enhancing, intrinsic motivation through interaction in the target language as an

82  Linda Murphy

integral part of distance learning; listening to what learners say about the nature of the challenges they face and, since it is impossible to design distance courses which cater for every individual need, helping them to optimise challenges for themselves by providing more support and opportunities to develop skills for independent decision making (Murphy 2008) in autonomous learning; and ensuring assignment feedback practices foster self-evaluation and help learners to recognise their increasing competence. Finally, course designers need to be aware of the significance of distance learners’ social contexts and offer advice and support to enable them to manage their learning environment.

Appendix Student PI No:

Study Experience Log: Course XYZ : February Sources of support for your study which you may have used: Did you contact your tutor this month?

Yes/No

•

(please give details)

about a language point?

—————————————————————————————— •

about another matter?

(please give details)

—————————————————————————————— In what ways was your tutor able to help you? —————————————————————————————— Did you attend a tutorial?

Yes/No

In what ways did the tutorial help you? —————————————————————————————— (continued on page 83)

I’m not giving up!  83

Appendix (continued)

Did you have other contact with fellow students? • Through a self-help group? Yes/No • In other ways? [e.g.: e-mail, FirstClass conference, telephone, meeting (please give brief details)] —————————————————————————————— In what ways did this other contact help you? —————————————————————————————— Did you get help or support from anyone else (please ✓) • • • • • •

Friends Family? Work colleagues? Local native speakers? Other OU staff Other? (Please give details)

—————————————————————————————— In what ways did these people help you? —————————————————————————————— ‘Highs and lows’ of study this month? Did any aspect of the course/your study cause you difficulties? • • • • • • •

Understanding audio extracts? Speaking in front of others? Pronouncing certain sounds? A grammar point? Completing an assignment? Fitting in your study? Other? (Please give details)

Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No

—————————————————————————————— (continued on page 84)

84  Linda Murphy

Appendix (continued)

How did you get over your difficulty? —————————————————————————————— Did anything make it harder for you to keep going or make you feel like giving up? —————————————————————————————— What did you do about this? —————————————————————————————— Did anything really fire your interest/inspire you to keep going? —————————————————————————————— Anything else you’d like to say about your study this month? —————————————————————————————— Thank you for completing this month’s log Please return it to [author] in the envelope provided.

References Cohen, A. D. 1987. Using verbal reports in research on language learning. In Introspection in second language research, eds. C. Faerch and G. Kaspar. 82–95. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Dörnyei, Z. 2001. Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dörnyei, Z. 2005. The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Figura, K. and H. Jarvis. 2007. Computer-based materials: A study of learner autonomy and strategies. System, 35: 448–68. Hurd, S. 2008. Affect and strategy use in independent language learning. In Language learning strategies in independent settings, eds. S. Hurd and T. Lewis. 218–36. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

I’m not giving up!  85

McDonough, S. 1995. Strategy and skill in learning a foreign language. London: Edward Arnold. Murphy, L. 2008. Supporting learner autonomy: Developing practice through the production of courses for distance learners of French, German and Spanish. Language Teaching Research, 12(1): 83–102. Naiman, N., M. Froehlich, H. H. Stern and A. Todesco. 1996. The good language learner (2nd edn). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Oxford, R. L. 1990. Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle. Oxford, R. L. and K. R. Lee. 2008. The learners’ landscape and journey: A summary. In Lessons from good language learners, ed. C. Griffiths, 306–17. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Palfreyman, D. 2006. Social context and resources for language learning. System, 34(3): 352–70. QSR International Pty Ltd. 2008. NVivo8, Qualitative research software. Ryan, R. M. and E. L. Deci. 2000. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1): 54–67. Ushioda E. 1996. The role of motivation. Learner autonomy 5. Dublin: Authentik. Ushioda, E. 2007. Motivation, autonomy and socio-cultural theory. In Teacher and learner perspectives. Learner autonomy 8, ed. P. Benson. 5–24. Dublin: Authentik. Vygotsky, L. S. 1986. Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. White, C. 2003. Language learning in distance education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. White, C. 2005. Contribution of distance education to the development of individual learners. Distance Education, 26(2): 165–81.

6 Research methods to investigate emotions in independent language learning: A focus on think-aloud verbal protocols Stella Hurd

Introduction Affect as a critical dimension of language learning has been attracting a growing number of researchers as emotions continue to play an increasingly prominent role in theories of learning and language learning (Brown 1994; Arnold 1999; Oxford 1999; Young 1999; Dewaele 2005; Beard, Clegg and Smith 2007; Putwain 2007; Dewaele, Petrides and Furnham 2008). In terms of second language acquisition (SLA), Robinson (2002, 63) reminds us that ‘researchers in the field of language learning have not paid sufficient attention to emotional phenomena’. Scovel (2001, 140) goes further in maintaining that ‘of the five major components of SLA [People, Languages, Attention, Cognition, and Emotion—PLACE] … emotion is the singly most influential’ and that affective variables are still the ‘area that SLA researchers understand the least’. A consensus is emerging that ‘learning processes cannot be understood without taking emotional and motivational variables into account’ (Gläser-Zikuda and Järvelä 2008), and the increasing number of studies using process models testifies to this view. Such investigations, however, pose considerable challenges in terms of both content and process. In this chapter, I explore the following questions: • Why investigate emotions in independent language learning? • Why is it so difficult to investigate emotions? • Based on my own experience, what are the issues involved in using think-aloud verbal protocols as part of a mixed-method approach to investigating emotions?

88  Stella Hurd

Investigating emotions in independent language learning Two main reasons for investigating emotions are: the negative correlation of certain emotions, such as anxiety, low levels of selfefficacy and lack of confidence with language achievement (Horwitz 2001), and the influence of emotions on cognition and behaviour. The relationship between affect, cognition and behaviour has been explored by researchers in a number of disciplines, including psychology, neuroscience and applied linguistics (Ehrman 1996; LeDoux 1996; Arnold 1999; Damasio 2000; Ramnani 2006). Stevick (1999, 47) considers that ‘affect is encoded to various degrees in the cognitive schemata of memory’ and that ‘affect participates in the process of learning … by interfering with it.’ (p. 50). Such ‘interference’ is characterised by the inability to use skills effectively when hampered by low motivation or intense anxiety (Ehrman 1996). Researchers stress the concept of the ‘whole person’ in that we are not emotion-free zones that just think and analyse, but beings with feelings and emotions which not only make us human but affect everything we do. Le Doux (1996, 25) extends this notion further in maintaining that ‘minds without emotions are not really minds at all’. Affect and cognition are seen as partners in the mind where ‘reason and emotion work in concert’ (Ramnani 2006) in a bidirectional relationship in which attention to affect can have a positive influence on language learning, while at the same time the learning setting can create the grounds for purposeful, motivated and enjoyable learning. The increased affective demands of the independent language learning environment arising from the ‘more isolated study context, separation from peers and the teacher, and reduced or altered forms of social contact and interaction’ (White 2003, 114) make a very strong case for investigating this particular group of learners. Bown (2006, 641) focuses on the specific skills independent learners need to develop, suggesting that: In essence, learners must manage themselves. They must regulate and oversee the rate and direction of their learning to a much greater degree than classroom learners whose learning is organised by regular classroom sessions.

Isolation and loneliness—which are often accompanied by uncertainty about abilities and effectiveness as a learner (self-efficacy), negative comparisons with other students (imagined as more successful) and fear of failure—can lead to anxiety, demotivation and even subsequent withdrawal from a course (Murphy 2005; Hurd 2007a, 2007b).

Research methods to investigate emotions in independent language learning  89

Given the power of emotions to influence learning and behaviour, it seems clear that we should discover as much as we can about them and the ways in which they affect the independent learning process— but this is no easy task.

Barriers to investigating emotions There are a number of problems implicit in any investigation of emotions. First, they are notoriously hard to define, particularly within the field of applied linguistics. Second, they are infinitely changeable, as Hascher (2008, 95) points out: ‘the role of emotion in learning is dynamic and can fluently change during the process of learning’. Third, the affective dimensions of learning are seen to be messy and, to many, less important than cognitive considerations, despite the increasing recognition of the interplay between cognitive and affective processes. Moreover, investigating affective factors in an independent and particularly a distance language learning setting is complex: there are problems of access, and many learners do not feel comfortable talking about their feelings and emotions, regarding such talk as peripheral or superfluous to the ‘real matter at hand’ or even as evidence of weakness. There are also methodological problems associated with the variability and temporality of emotions which makes it very difficult to capture them in any systematic way. Scovel (2001, 123) states: ‘What appears to be a fairly circumscribed and neatly labelled territory to SLA researchers is, in reality, a dynamic sea of currents’. Interpreting the data is also far from straightforward, and likely to involve subjectivity and bias. So is it worth it, can it be done effectively and which methods might be most successful? The next sections offer a brief overview of the qualitative instruments most commonly used in a mixed-method approach, before focusing more closely on think-aloud verbal protocols (TAPs), my method of preference in studies with learners studying language at a distance.

A mixed-method approach The most popular quantitative method for investigations of large groups of distance language learners is the questionnaire which is employed extensively to gain information on general trends. Questionnaires can be ‘very useful for giving indications of group norms’ and ‘seem particularly suited to research which investigates learner variables with large numbers of language students’ (Hurd 2008, 21). However,

90  Stella Hurd

as Skehan (1989) argues, it may be that questionnaire methods of data elicitation do not tally with actual behaviour. Kalaja (1995, cited in Cotterall 1999) suggests that questionnaires can only measure affective variables in theory and not on actual occasions of talk or writing. A mixed-method approach using qualitative tools, such as focus groups, interviews, diaries and think-aloud verbal protocols, can give depth to the broader findings of studies using quantitative tools and help to create a more comprehensive picture. Qualitative measures allow researchers to probe more deeply into factors underlying answers to questionnaire items, and allow participants to elaborate on their thoughts and reflect on their experiences. There is also the opportunity when using certain qualitative tools, such as unstructured or semistructured interviews or focus groups, for participants to develop their ideas through interacting with another person (the researcher) or other people (other participants and the researcher). Focus groups The focus group method has four main strengths. Focus groups are more economical on time than diaries or interviews; they can provide supplementary data in studies that rely primarily on survey methods; they allow for the collection of concentrated amounts of data in one session; and they encourage open discussion in a supportive atmosphere which can help to establish a ‘climate of disclosure’ (Wilson 1997) leading to a potentially rich data set. Interviews Interviews can be very effective in encouraging self-awareness through their ability to probe and tease out deeper thought processes. Arthur (2002, cited in Burgess, Sieminski and Arthur 2006, 75) suggests that ‘this kind of in-depth research can be very revealing as participants become aware of their own views and attitudes’. This has certainly been reflected in studies investigating the experience of independent language learners studying in a distance learning context (Hurd 2006, 2007a, 2007b) where semi-structured interview methods have yielded useful data on learner anxiety, motivation, effective time-management and individual approaches to course materials.

Research methods to investigate emotions in independent language learning  91

Learner diaries Learner diaries can encourage learners to think about their learning in a structured way. They can also help to build awareness of the process of learning and enable students to identify what personally motivates or inhibits their own learning. ‘Student emotion diaries’, according to Hascher (2008, 95), ‘… offer a precise view on an individual’s perspective and enable a context-sensitive understanding of emotions…’. If shared, diaries can allow teachers to help learners to monitor and improve the ways in which they learn, and peers to give mutual support (Rubin 2003). They can also allow a sense of control, in that learners alone are responsible for what is being written. For some, writing down negative emotions may help to contain them and minimise their power to interfere with learning. At the very least, in identifying and bringing emotions to the fore, learners are in a better position to deal with them. Think-aloud verbal protocols (TAPS) The method I have used to investigate the affective side of learning has been think-aloud verbal protocols because of the unique benefits they offer. One major advantage of TAPs is that they allow participants to voice their feelings about what they are doing while they are actually doing it, rather than retrospectively, as in other methods. They make it possible for the researcher to gain an ethnographic perspective on the influence of context on learners’ emotional responses and learning behaviour, including strategy use, as they occur. Kobrin and Young (2003, 116) suggest they are ‘the most direct way to uncover the psychological processes that a person uses to perform a task’, and thus have the capacity to give the researcher real insight into what learners are thinking and doing at a micro level, in a way no other research tool can. Nevertheless, the use of TAPs raises both methodological and practical questions. Three main methodological concerns that have been raised in relation to their use are: reactivity, which refers to the extra load placed on students who are having to carry out a task and talk about the process at the same time; automaticity, defined as fluent performance without the conscious deployment of attention, i.e. there is no thinking going on, and we may be unaware of our cognitive processes as many are automatic (Singhal 2001); and incompleteness of the protocol, i.e. when students talk in a disjointed, inarticulate way. There is no evidence from the literature, however, that either reactivity or automaticity are problematic in TAPs (Ericsson and Simon 1993;

92  Stella Hurd

Leow and Morgan-Short 2004), although it is generally agreed that reasonably complex and demanding tasks should be selected in TAPs studies, as these are less likely to involve processes that are engaged in automatically. As for incompleteness, Hayes and Nash (1996, 45) argue that: ‘people cannot articulate everything that crosses their minds’ and McDonough (1995, 12) finds the charge of incompleteness ‘no more a criticism of verbal protocol research than of any kind of research where data is necessarily limited: if anything, verbal reports suffer from the opposite, being too rich’. Another concern is the ‘purity’ of the protocol in terms of its ‘concurrentness’, i.e. in practice most protocols contain a mixture of concurrent, introspective and retrospective thoughts. In response to this point, Graham (1997), for example, finds no clear-cut distinction between thinking aloud (externalising thoughts as they occur), introspection (making inferences or analysing the processes or strategies involved in completing the task) and retrospection (commenting on those processes and strategies). She contends that most protocols are an ‘amalgam of thinking aloud, introspection proper and retrospection after a few seconds’ (Graham 1997, 44). Indeed, if we were to cut out from the protocols any utterances that were not strictly concurrent, we would risk losing valuable insights into the emotions being experienced by the speaker. A major practical disadvantage of TAPs, and indeed of all the qualitative methods outlined above, is the fact that ‘the attempt to ensure validity of introspective data is very often extremely time consuming and results in immense amounts of data’ (Grotjahn 1987, 70–1), which then need to be segmented, coded and grouped to allow theoretical constructs to emerge. Moreover, all entail a degree of researcher bias, which needs to be justified in terms of the aims of the study and the methodologies employed. Nevertheless, despite potential methodological weaknesses, triangulating the data with findings from quantitative methods such as questionnaires can produce a rich and varied picture, and potentially increases the reliability and validity of the results (Hammersley 1996).

Studies using TAPs I carried out a small-scale pilot study using TAPs with beginner distance learners of French at the Open University (UK) in 2005. The choice of TAPs to investigate the affective aspect of learning a language

Research methods to investigate emotions in independent language learning  93

at a distance was based on the fact that, apart from an investigation into autonomy in distance English learning (Vanijdee 2003), TAPs have not been used in a distance language learning setting, and there are no studies that investigate affect using this tool. Given their potential to reveal processes that are normally hidden, among learners who are hard to reach, it was considered that TAPs might have a special application in a distance-learning setting. In particular, they could be carried out by individual students in private in an environment of their choice. Building on the findings from this pilot study, a second TAPs study was set up with a new cohort of French beginner learners the following year (n=13). This was designed to complement a questionnaire sent out at the start of the course. The participants were all volunteers from the course who had responded to the questionnaire and agreed to take part in additional studies during the year. All were contacted by email and given details of the project which involved completing tasks chosen from the coursebook they would be starting at the time the TAPs were scheduled to take place. Fuller information was provided in a followup letter including instructions on how to carry out and record their protocols as they worked through the tasks. The transcripts from the 2006 study together had a word count of 33,268, an illustration of the sheer quantity of data that can be gathered from just 13 participants. This is work in progress and many of the data still remain to be analysed. Nevertheless, the range of emotions expressed in the protocols was considerable, and some examples of expressions of positive and negative emotions are presented in Tables 6.1 and 6.2 (see pp. 94–95). They also give a preliminary indication of the inter-relationship of emotion and cognition, reflecting the ‘dynamic interplay between cognitive and affective engagement’ (Ushioda 2007, 22). Sometimes it was not clear whether an emotion was positive or negative, or even an emotion at all. Some seemed to be a mixture of both, and more clues were needed in addition to the transcript, for example whether there was laughter, a sigh, a questioning or resigned tone, or any other useful clue to meaning. These were categorised as mixed or neutral emotions, and examples are given in Table 6.3. (p. 95). For these kinds of utterances, tonal and pausal data, grunts, groans, giggles, tuts, sighs and possibly nervous ticks like sniffs, coughs, throat-clearing or repeated ‘ums’ and ‘ers’, can be very revealing about feelings, and need to be taken into account in the data analysis. There is software available (e.g. PRAAT)1 which analyses intonation patterns and can help in the process of data interpretation.

94  Stella Hurd

Table 6.1 Positive emotions expressed

Positive emotion

Comment

Excitement

‘I just want to say how much fun this course is! … I’m having so much fun and everything’s so clearly explained. So, I’m having a ball really!’

Pride

‘Excellent, I’m chuffed with that, because I couldn’t understand it before and I got some wrong and now that’s really concreted in.’

Relief

‘Right, well that wasn’t so difficult for me. I thought this is really going to be difficult, but it seems to have got easier.’

Optimism

‘… once you start, it’s that first sentence you know, once you’ve got that over and you kind of think, well I don’t sound too much of an idiot, um, it gives you confidence to go on.’

Determination

‘I still need to work on my accent … I’m determined I’m going to do it, and I will do it.’

Interest in discovery or (a) Agreement of the past participle: ‘That’s interesting – no re-discovery ending to trouvé in the previous answer, but there’s an s on the end of allés.’ (b) The thorny problem of reflexive verbs: ‘nous nous sommes mariés … we married, we married ourselves, reflexive, we we married, nous nous sommes mariés …’ (c) Use of conjunctions: ‘Pendant, during, I remember. Il a travaillé à Paris pendant six ans. Oh yeah, yeah, the French don’t say ‘for’, they say ‘during’. I remember that from school, um yeah.’

Table 6.2 Negative emotions expressed

Negative emotion

Comment

Confusion/uncertainty (a) ‘a eu un contrat … now why a eu? Is that had a contract? He had it, but he hasn’t got it now? Or he got it and he’s still got it? I’m not sure about that …. I’m a little bit confused.’ (b) ‘Was born – Je suis né … né has got to be there somewhere, er, where is it? … oh gosh, where is it?’ Lack of confidence

‘Sitting in my study, I can readily convince myself that I can do this well, but when confronted with a real person asking real questions, my confidence disappears.’ (continued on page 95)

Research methods to investigate emotions in independent language learning  95

Table 6.2 (continued) Fear

(a) ‘It looks a bit scary … listening scares me.’ (b) ‘Each time I start a new unit, I find it quite daunting … sometimes I feel I won’t manage to do it.’

Anxiety

(a) ‘… along with 100% of everybody else, we’re always anxious … I’m anxious about getting my accent right and the ability to actually speak and think on my feet.’ (b) On seeing the icon indicating a listening activity: ‘The earphone sign er, is one of the few things that causes anxiety, in that I find listening and understanding the most difficult of all the exercises.’

Dislike

‘Mon père est né à Liverpool, I think, en 1923. Gosh, I hate these things. Hmm, that’s rubbish isn’t it. I really really hate this bit … I really hate those creative things.’

Frustration

‘Oh God, I’ve got to do this twice … now I’ve got to do it again … this is getting a bit repetitive.’

Disappointment

‘It looks like I haven’t covered myself in glory on that …’

Table 6.3 Mixed/neutral emotions expressed

Mixed/neutral emotion

Comment

Reflective comment – shows awareness of ‘Obviously it’s a bit disappointing when process of language learning you get something wrong, but the whole point of learning a language is to get things wrong. If I got everything right, then there would be no point in me doing the course.’ Taking responsibility in a self-deprecatory ‘I can’t see a devenir in there … Ah, my way fault, I can’t read instructions. … It’s clear, it’s me [laughs].’ Questioning – possibly confused

‘Why is it de travail there and du travail here? Why is il y a like that? Strange …’

Realistic appraisal – tending towards negative in terms of equating language learning with taking medicine.

‘No matter how much sugar gets put on the pill, it still has to be swallowed.’

Taking responsibility – reflections on the good language learner – possibly indicating some frustration

Re verbs: ‘Um, to me, you’ve just got to remember them, you know, and if you’re a student worth your salt, you will.’

96  Stella Hurd

The TAPs procedure Students’ reactions to the TAPs procedure were largely positive, and suggested that TAPs might also be a useful tool for awarenessraising, e.g. • ‘I think if I hadn’t been recording this, I probably wouldn’t have checked that part. I really was quite sure, so that just shows ...’ • ‘The process of thinking aloud as I worked was slightly intimidating, but not seriously so. Given more usage, the fact that you are talking to someone remote might sharpen the focus possibly.’ • ‘I’ve thoroughly enjoyed this, thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to do it … it has really helped me.’

Discussion and conclusion In this chapter, I set the scene for the investigation of emotion and cognition in independent language learning contexts, exploring some of the main issues surrounding affect and why it should be investigated, outlining the difficulties inherent in such investigations in terms of both learners and context, and suggesting appropriate methodologies. Qualitative research tools such as focus groups, interviews, diaries and particularly TAPs, all provide a means of gaining insights into the processes involved in independent language learning and indicate the factors that influence the ways in which learners relate to their learning environment. They also provide a rich database and an end-product which is a contribution to knowledge (Wolcott 1999). In addition, they conform well to the increasing emphasis on process models in language learning, where constructs such as motivation, anxiety and beliefs interrelate in a ‘dynamic, ever-changing process’ (Dörnyei 2005, 66), and with the growing recognition that these inter-relationships are crucial to an understanding of individual language learning. It is important to bear in mind, however, that despite the ability of these qualitative approaches to probe more deeply, any discourse from students, as Granger (2004, 90) warns, ‘can only ever paint a partial picture’ and that ‘the study of affect is a speculative art’. From this we can conclude that whichever methods are used, there is no guarantee that we will find simple answers to our research questions. Indeed, responses may well reveal more complexity as we attempt to expand and deepen our knowledge. In terms of future directions, Dewaele (2005, 367) argues for more interdisciplinarity in the field of language learning: ‘SLA needs to account for the psychological and emotional dimensions of second-

Research methods to investigate emotions in independent language learning  97

language learning’. He adds that including these dimensions in research programmes can contribute to a ‘broadening of the theoretical and methodological horizons of the field of instructed SLA’. Dewaele’s argument is very relevant to independent language learning, where, as we saw from the TAPs study, the special features of the distance language learning context can give rise to a wide range of emotions, in particular negative ones such as confusion, fear, anxiety and frustration, which can influence student attitudes to learning and adversely affect their levels of self-efficacy. The findings of another study (GläserZikuda and Fuss 2008, 137) underline this point: ‘Research on negative emotions demonstrated that different aspects of instruction may cause anxiety, for example, unstructured learning material, lack of feedback and lack of transparency in achievement demands’. The researchers concluded that we should attempt to ‘reduce anxiety by respecting individual student capabilities and personality’. As I have argued, these issues are particularly acute for those learning in independent contexts, and highlight the need for highquality learner support through learning materials with a transparent structure, clearly formulated learning outcomes and individual feedback that is constructive and delivered in an appropriate tone. According to Robinson (2002, 8) ‘motivation and anxiety can clearly often be changed and shaped through teacher intervention in learning’. Learner support mechanisms in independent language learning therefore need to be sensitive to factors such as the desire for privacy, negative feelings about language learning and autonomy, and fear of failure. They should be ‘flexible enough to cater for diverse variables, sensitively and effectively: a formidable task which raises a number of important questions, all the more so in an environment of learning that is constantly evolving’ (Hurd 2008, 89). Researchers are increasingly looking for ‘research designs and methods which capture the learning process and students’ motivational expectations in real contexts’ (Järvelä, Järvenoja and Veermans 2008). The distinct advantage of TAPs is the potential they have to reveal in considerable detail the information students are attending to while performing their tasks. They are considered to be less subject to ‘embellishment or decay of information’ (Pressley and Afflerbach 1995) than retrospective methods which may lead to distorted accounts. Moreover, their human quality, described by Smagorinsky (1994) as ‘a unique soul’, can deepen our understanding of human cognitive processing. However, the complexity of investigating emotions argues for a mixed-method approach that provides an important element

98  Stella Hurd

of triangulation as the most effective way of capturing data that will provide as full a picture as possible. Whichever methods are adopted, it is important to recognise that independent language learners process and mediate their emotions in a variety of ways, and that it is only through listening to them that we have a chance of extending our understanding of this challenging set of issues.

Note 1. PRAAT can be downloaded free from http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat/.

References Arnold, J. ed. 1999. Affect in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Beard, C., S. Clegg and K. Smith. 2007. Acknowledging the affective in higher education. British Educational Research Journal, 33(2): 235–52. Bown, J. 2006. Locus of learning and affective strategy use: Two factors affecting success in self-instructed language learning. Foreign Language Journal, 39(4): 640–59. Brown, D. 1994. Principles of language learning and teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents. Burgess, H., S. Sieminski and L. Arthur. 2006. Achieving your doctorate in education. London: The Open University in association with Sage Publications. Cotterall, S. 1999. Key variables in language learning: What do learners believe about them? System, 27 (4): 493–513. Damasio, A. R. 2000. A second chance for emotion. In Cognitive neuroscience of emotion, eds. R. D. Lane and L. Nadel. New York: Oxford University Press. Dewaele, J-M. 2005. Investigating the psychological and emotional dimensions in instructed language learning: Obstacles and possibilities. The Modern Language Journal, 89(3): 367–80. Dewaele, J-M., K. V. Petrides and A. Furnham. 2008. Effects of trait emotional intelligence and sociobiographical variables on communicative anxiety and foreign language anxiety among adult multilinguals: A review and empirical investigation. Language Learning, 58(4): 911–60. Dörnyei, Z. 2005. The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ehrman, M. E. 1996. Understanding second language learning difficulties. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Ericsson, K.A. and H. A. Simon. 1993. Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (2nd edn). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gläser-Zikuda, M. and S. Fuss. 2008. Impact of teacher competencies on student emotions: A multi-method approach. International Journal of Educational Research, 47: 136–47.

Research methods to investigate emotions in independent language learning  99

Gläser-Zikuda, M. and S. Järvelä. 2008. Application of qualitative and quantitative methods to enrich understanding of emotional and motivational aspects of learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 47: 79–83. Graham, S. 1997. Effective language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Granger, C. A. 2004. Silence in second language learning: A psychoanalytic reading. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Grotjahn, R. 1987. On the methodological basis of introspective methods. In Introspection in second language research, eds. C. Faerch and G. Kasper. 54–81. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Hammersley, M. 1996. The relationship between qualitative and quantitative research: Paradigm loyalty versus methodological eclecticism. In Handbook of research methods for psychology and the social sciences, ed. J. T. E. Richardson. 159–74. Oxford: BPS Blackwell. Hascher, T. 2008. Quantitative and qualitative research approaches to assess student well-being. International Journal of Educational Research, 47: 84–96. Hayes, J. R. and J. G. Nash. 1996. On the nature of planning in writing. In The science of writing. eds. C. M. Levy and S. Ransdell. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Horwitz, E. K. 2001. Language anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21: 112–26. Hurd, S. 2006. Towards a better understanding of the dynamic role of the distance language learner: Learner perceptions of personality, motivation, roles and approaches. Distance Education, 27(3): 299–325. Hurd, S. 2007a. Anxiety and non-anxiety in a distance language learning environment: The distance factor as a modifying influence. System, 35(4): 487–508. Hurd, S. 2007b. Distant voices: Learners’ stories about the affective side of learning a language at a distance. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, Special issue: Listening to learners’ voices, 1(2): 142–59. Hurd, S. 2008. Second language learning at a distance: Metacognition, affect, learning strategies and learner support in relation to the development of autonomy. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, vol. 1. The Open University. Retrieved 7 May 2010, from http://oro.open.ac.uk/21280/. Järvelä, S., H. Järvenoja and M. Veermans. 2008. Understanding the dynamics of motivation in socially shared learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 47: 122–35. Kobrin, J. L. and J. W. Young. 2003. The cognitive equivalence of reading comprehension test items via computerized and paper-and-paper administration. Applied Measurement in Education, 16(2): 115–40. Le Doux, J. 1996. The emotional brain. New York: Simon and Schuster. Leow, R. P. and K. Morgan-Short. 2004. To think aloud or not to think aloud: The issue of reactivity in SLA research methodology. SSLA, 26: 35–57. McDonough, S. M. 1995. Strategy and skill in learning a foreign language. London: Edward Arnold. Murphy, L. 2005. Critical reflection and autonomy: A study of distance learners of French German and Spanish. In Languages and distance education: Evolution and change, eds. B. Holmberg, M. Shelley and C. White. 20–39. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

100  Stella Hurd

Oxford, R. L. 1999. Anxiety and the language learner: new insights. In Affect in language learning, ed. J. Arnold. 58–67. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pressley, M. and P. Afflerbach. 1995. Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Putwain, D. W. 2007. Test anxiety in UK schoolchildren: Prevalence and demographic patterns. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(3): 579–93. Ramnani, N. 2006. Interview BBC Radio 4 Today, 1 August 2006. Robinson, P. ed. 2002. Individual differences and instructed language learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Rubin, J. 2003. Diary writing as a process: Simple, useful, powerful. Guidelines, 25(2): 10–4. Scovel, T. 2001. Learning new languages: A guide to second language acquisition. Boston: Heinle and Heinle. Singhal, M. 2001. Reading proficiency, reading strategies, metacognitive awareness and L2 readers. The Reading Matrix, 1(1): 1–8. Retrieved 6 January 2010, from http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/singhal/. Skehan, P. 1989. Individual differences in second-language learning. London: Arnold. Smagorinsky, P. ed. 1994. Speaking about writing. London: Sage Publications. Stevick, E. 1999. Affect in learning and memory: From alchemy to chemistry. In Affect in language learning, ed. J. Arnold. 43–57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ushioda, E. 2007. Motivation, autonomy and socio-cultural theory. In Teacher and learner perspectives. Learner autonomy 8, ed. P. Benson. 5–24. Dublin: Authentik. Vanijdee, A. 2003. Thai distance English learners and learner autonomy. Open Learning, 18 (1): 75–84. White, C. 2003. Language learning in distance education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Wilson, V. 1997. Focus groups: A useful qualitative method for educational research? British Educational Research Journal, 23(2): 1–15. Wolcott, H. 1999. Ethnography: A way of seeing. London: Sage Publications. Young, D. ed. 1999. Affect in foreign language and second language learning: A practical guide to creating a low-anxiety classroom atmosphere. Boston: McGrawHill College.

Section 3

Supporting the independent learner

7 Achieving your GOAL: A case study of three learners Tanya McCarthy

Introduction Learning a second language can be a frustrating process if a learner does not develop effective learning strategies to take control of his/ her learning process. Taking control of one’s learning involves developing metacognitive strategies such as setting appropriate goals, monitoring progress and reflecting on outcomes (see Zimmerman 2002; Perry, Nordby and VandeKamp 2003). In the self-access learning centre (SALC) at Kanda University of International Studies (KUIS), independent study modules are offered in order to help learners develop these metacognitive strategies, thereby fostering the capacity for autonomous language learning. Goal-setting is a commonly used metacognitive strategy in selfdirected learning, and is the first step in the modules. Learners are encouraged to identify specific learning goals they wish to accomplish and to employ effective learning strategies to help them attain those goals. However, after starting the course with clear goals and a willingness to achieve them, the researcher discovered that most learners were finding it difficult to break down their big goals into smaller, more manageable, interim goals. As a result, these learners could not see any advances in their learning and felt frustrated by their lack of progress. This chapter reports on a case study of three learners over a period of one year in their quest to become better language learners. The study addressed two questions: 1. Would a focus on goals enhance learning? 2. Would the learners be able to apply knowledge gained through independent studies to classroom learning and/or life beyond the classroom?

104  Tanya McCarthy

The acronym GOAL (Goal-Oriented Action Learning) was used to highlight the focus on learning goals and on the learners who were to become active in the learning process. Over the course of the study, goalsetting strategy went from being one of many metacognitive strategies to being at the absolute core of the study, while Action Learning (AL) became the educational process whereby the participants monitored their actions and experiences in order to improve performance. It was hoped that, by the end of their studies, learners would understand how to apply the knowledge they had gained to their classroom learning, other areas of independent study and even life beyond the classroom.

Research literature Goal-oriented learning There is an abundance of literature on the positive effects of goal-setting in sustaining motivation (Ames 1992; Dörnyei 2001), influencing selfregulated learning (Pintrich 2000; Zimmerman 2002), promoting selfefficacy (Locke and Latham 1990) and fostering autonomy (Wenden 1991). Furthermore, research identifies increased confidence and improved learning performance as resulting from goal-setting. These benefits, in turn, result in a higher commitment to learning and a sense of accomplishment upon attainment. It has been reported that, when combined with instructor feedback, goal-setting can have an even greater effect on academic achievement (Schunk and Swartz 1993). Most theories connected with self-directed learning view goal-setting as essential for success. Schunk and Zimmerman’s cyclical model of self-regulated learning (1998, 3) consists of three phases: forethought, performance and selfreflection. In each area, goals can be seen to play a central role: in the forethought phase, learners use goal-setting to control the direction of their learning; in the performance phase, they regulate themselves by employing goal-directed actions and monitoring performance; and, in the final self-reflection phase, they evaluate their progress towards achieving their goals and make necessary adjustments to goal strategies to ensure success. For the learners in this study, goal-setting involved deciding on a specific objective and then taking the appropriate action to achieve the desired result (see Table 7.1). It was an integral part of the self-directed learning programme and aimed to enhance learners’ commitment to attaining goals.

Achieving your GOAL  105

Table 7.1 The goal-setting process

Steps

Learner’s role

1. Understand the Selfproblem in order to exploration set goals and take action.

Advisor’s role Help the learner to tell his/her story and identify a SMART (specific – measurable – achievable – relevant – timely) goal.

2. Examine the problem and think about several approaches to the problem as well as evaluation.

SelfHelp the learner to develop choices understanding in order to create an effective learning plan.

3. The learner takes action.

Commitment to action

Help the learner to identify and assess learning strategies and reflect on how to evaluate progress.

A perceived limitation in goal-setting theories is the negative result of learners becoming frustrated and giving up because they have not achieved their goals. Educational psychologists (see Ames 1992; Pintrich 2000; Anderman and Wolters 2006) have differentiated two types of goals: mastery goals (focusing on mastering knowledge, skills or the process) and performance goals (focusing on the achievement of the goal or the result). In this project, the learning adviser tried to minimise this limitation by helping the learner to focus on the learning process rather than the final outcome. Action learning For educators, action learning (AL) continues to grow in popularity due to its experiential nature of ‘learning by doing’. Its appeal to the researcher is its ‘continuous process of learning and reflection’ (McGill and Beaty 2001, 11). One of the problems in describing AL is that it has become another ‘buzz word’ meaning different things to different people (Weinstein 1995). However, despite differences, there are core features that appear to be consistent when describing AL, and these were incorporated as part of GOAL. Most important, learners were required to work on real problems (Weinstein 1995; Pedler 1997), reflect on their experience and, with this new awareness, move on to more effective action (McGill and Beaty 1992). In this way, within the programme, AL complemented goal-oriented learning, with the

106  Tanya McCarthy

development of the individual as central to the process and learners actively working towards specific actions in order to exercise control over goal attainment. The process of AL in this study required participants to make a learning plan, carry out the plan according to their specified goal, reflect on their learning and finally, in a cyclical process, make changes to the original plan based on their reflections (see Figure 7.1).

To improve speaking skill by increasing vocabulary Reflection Goal and action plan evaluation

Goal-directed actions Self-monitoring

Figure 7.1 The GOAL cycle (adapted from Zimmerman’s model of self-regulated learning, 1998)

The stages of goal setting and action planning were completed either individually, or with friends, and the learner undertook reflection on past actions with feedback from the adviser for guidance. The cycle continued until the learner achieved the intended change or the programme came to its natural conclusion.

Methodology A case study approach was used for this study as it satisfied the three tenets of the qualitative method: describing, understanding and explaining (Tellis 1997). Duff (2007, vii) considers case studies of language learners to be ‘a valuable means of illustrating developmental issues connected with learning another language’, which reflected the aim of the researcher. The three participants in this study were first-year students at KUIS taking the two independent learning modules offered by the SALC advisory service. The researcher worked closely with these learners for one year in order to help them develop an awareness of metacognitive strategies and encourage more autonomous behaviour.

Achieving your GOAL  107

Data collection instruments This research project used three methods of data collection: qualitative data were collected through portfolios over two semesters; three 30-minute in-depth interviews were conducted in the second semester, and then recorded and transcribed; and, finally, students wrote a 500word written reflective end-of-year report where they reflected on the effectiveness of GOAL for learner development. Portfolios In the first semester, learners completed an introductory course on self-regulated learning that included seven units on goal-setting, time-management, learning styles, resources, affective issues, learning strategies and good language learners. Feedback was given each week on the completed activities and on the written reflections. In the final week, learners were asked to write an action plan based on their goals. This introductory course was largely theoretical, but highlighted specific strategies useful for the less-guided portfolio work in the following semester. The portfolio in the second semester required the learners to put their action plans into practice, using the strategies and techniques they had learned in the first semester. Identical questions were asked each week, reflecting the GOAL cycle: 1. What are your goals for this week? 2. What actions did you take to accomplish your goals? 3. Reflect on how you did this week. What did you do well? What can you improve? 4. Based on your reflections, what is your goal next week? Interviews During the first semester, the adviser seldom met with learners and communication was mainly in the form of written feedback on the reflection pages at the end of each unit. In the second semester, however, the learners had three face-to-face meetings with the adviser. Between meetings, as in the first semester, the adviser continued to give written feedback on reflections. In the first meeting, the adviser and learner discussed the learner’s action plan. The second meeting was held four weeks later so that the adviser could check on the learner’s progress and the learner could make necessary changes to improve his/her plan. In the final meeting, the adviser asked the learner to reflect on the preceding eight weeks with regard to the areas of goal-setting, time-

108  Tanya McCarthy

management, learning strategies, motivation, learning materials and reflection. The learners were also asked a number of questions: • How has this programme helped your learning? • Before starting the modules, did you set learning goals? • In which area(s) have you improved the most/least? • How do you think you can apply what you have learned in the classroom? • Do you think you have learned any skills that will be useful to you when you leave university? Which one(s)? Final report Following the interview, learners were required to write a report reflecting on their development throughout the course. They were also asked to think about future learning goals and make action plans of how they intended to reach those goals. In particular, they were asked to examine weaknesses and describe how they intended to change.

Learners’ stories Below are the stories of the three learners involved in this study. Following the introductions is an analysis of their development throughout the GOAL process. Student 1 (S1) S1’s goal at the beginning of the semester was to improve her speaking skills. She described pronunciation as her main problem. She had plans for travelling to New Zealand in the spring break and felt that, without improving her pronunciation, she would not be understood clearly. Her learning strategy was to use the pronunciation software in the speaking booth, as well as music CDs to practise shadowing (an exercise in which the learner listens to a text and repeats what she/he hears after a short delay). Included in her plan was to record a conversation with a teacher, paying close attention to her pronunciation, and then record her voice seven weeks later to check progress. In the first week, she kept to her plan and then, surprisingly, completely veered off-course, subsequently submitting nothing. One week behind, she changed her plan and started practising her reading skills instead. Then she began recording conversations with teachers. By the third week, she seemed to have unknowingly, switched from practising pronunciation to

Achieving your GOAL  109

studying vocabulary. Her plan then became to learn and memorise 30 new words each week and then use them in writing a blog. Student 2 (S2) When S2 started the programme, her goal was to improve her speaking skills. She said she was terribly shy and was only comfortable when interacting with students, as they were closer to her age. Her main problem was that, although she could understand most of what was being said to her in conversation, she was frustrated at being unable to form a quick response due to her limited vocabulary. From the start, S2 showed insight into her language strengths and weaknesses but, even after being exposed to various strategies in the first semester, she still did not understand how to improve in her areas of weakness. Her learning strategies were to watch DVDs and listen to music in order to learn everyday, authentic conversational vocabulary. However, after three weeks, she became frustrated with her progress. She had chosen an attainable goal of studying approximately 12 new words a week. However, as the vocabulary she studied had little relevance to her life or everyday conversation, she found that, after the three weeks, she had succeeded in using only four of the 32 new words. Student 3 (S3) S3’s goal was also to improve her speaking skills and, in particular, she wanted to increase her vocabulary. At the time of the course, English was her third language. She had difficulty in remembering new words and found little opportunity to practise using the language. Her first decision, when she started, was to study new vocabulary from a book she did not enjoy reading. It was not long before she became frustrated with this mode of study. After two weeks of struggling through the book, she decided to review her goals and made changes to her action plan accordingly. She began instead to go to the speaking centre in the SALC to practise conversing with English teachers. However, she found it difficult to converse with native speakers and complained that all she could do was nod or shake her head in agreement or disagreement with what the teacher was saying. Although she found a new sense of enjoyment in learning and increased motivation from speaking with someone from a different country, she was also becoming increasingly discouraged about her inability to do anything more than say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.

110  Tanya McCarthy

Discussion Using pattern-matching techniques to compare findings to expectations (Trochim 1989), the data were analysed to seek answers to the two study questions. Question 1: Would a focus on GOAL enhance learning? The three learners entered the programme with similar goals but varying methods of attaining them. Halfway into the programme, a visual aid (see Appendix) was presented to them, showing the central role of goal-setting in learning. They were asked to refer to it to help refocus them on their learning objectives. Student 1 From the start, S1 had a clear idea of her language strengths and weaknesses, and identified speaking as the area she wanted to improve most. However, she was less clear about her sub-goals, which resulted in her failing to make a suitable action plan. … my small goal is not clearly, not clear, so I think, it’s not so good … to improving my speaking skill.

S1’s focus on multiple goals (pronunciation and vocabulary) in particular led to her finding it difficult to evaluate goals and monitor progress. Three weeks into the programme during the second interview with the learning adviser, S1 reflected on this part of her learning: Adviser: Why do you think it’s hard to do two goals? Student 1: Ummm, two small goals… Yeah. I think I can study, I can study both pronunciation and vocabulary one time … but, if I focus on only pronunciation, I can’t study new vocabulary. Adviser: Okay. So, you think by focusing on one thing, you can improve more in that area? Student 1: Yes.

Her decision to concentrate on only one goal (vocabulary) allowed her to see her progress more clearly and she was then able to decide on suitable learning materials and specific learning strategies that matched her goal. Four weeks later, at the final interview, S1 stated: … first my goal is not good for me, so I can’t, I can’t do so well. But, but the new small goal is good for me and I can, I can learn many word and I can use some of them.

Achieving your GOAL  111

Making this change showed a level of growth in S1. Although she did not have time to put the new plan into motion, she left the course with a new determination and a promise to reflect more on her learning: So, if I do the reflection, I can understand what should I do next week, so… if I don’t do reflection, I can’t understand, What should I do now?

S1 realised that reflecting on previous learning would facilitate better decision making and help her to stay focused on her goal. For over a decade, self-reflection has been considered essential in the promotion of learner autonomy (e.g. Dam 1995; Yang 1998) and this, combined with goal-setting, enabled her to see significant progress in her language learning. Student 2 S2’s goals were also very clear and she seemed to understand the value of setting goals for her language development. If I haven’t goal … I don’t know how I study English. So, I think, mm, it is important to set goals.

This allowed her to choose appropriate learning materials. However, although her action plan of watching DVDs and listening to music suited her goals, she found upon evaluation that the new vocabulary and phrases she chose to study (such as ‘the end of the world’, ‘rhino’, ‘mammal’, ‘the big chill’ and ‘evolution’) were not words she could use easily in conversation with her classmates. In her final report she wrote: Certainly I could enjoy watching and listening during I watched movies and listened to music, but I couldn’t feel that my speaking and vocabulary skills was improved, so I changed materials that I use.

S2’s reflection on her choice of materials was very insightful and demonstrated that over the duration of the course she had developed the ability to select materials to match her goals. Of the three participants in this study, S2’s metacognitive awareness saw the greatest development, and she managed to execute her action plan successfully based on her study goals. She faltered in materials selection in the first three weeks, but she managed to turn the situation around on her own by reflecting on her learning, re-examining her goals and then, once again, seeking materials that would better suit those goals. In her final report, she acknowledged that, although she felt she had improved in ‘learning how to learn’ and, in particular, in

112  Tanya McCarthy

her materials selection, she felt she had more growing to do. This was an insightful comment showing that, for S2, autonomy was not an endbehaviour, but a constantly changing state (Allwright 1990). Student 3 S3 had the lowest language proficiency of the three learners, but was the most eager participant. Her action plan centred on her goal of improving her speaking by increasing her daily vocabulary. Although completing the foundation course in the first semester, she seemed to have difficulty connecting the various metacognitive strategies to her goal. Therefore, when she implemented her action plan, she became confused quickly. After three weeks of not being able to see progress, she met with the adviser to discuss her action plan again. S3 decided to revisit the reason for wanting to improve her speaking and formulate a new action plan. Following that session, she executed the new plan, starting with a change in learning strategies. Instead of simply sitting passively in front of the teacher, she began to prepare short conversation topics, make reservations to have one-to-one conversations with teachers, record the conversations, and write down unfamiliar words and phrases. At this point, S3 was better able to monitor her progress and reflect on her accomplishments. I was happy because I changed, uh, setting goal, and I could become friends with XXX… I was happy.

S3’s final remark in the interview was: Ah, I don’t understand … [last semester’s module], but this programme, ah, I … I could learn, ah, various things.

The cyclical nature of the GOAL process was evident in all three cases (see Figure 7.2). By monitoring and reflecting on learning each week, learners were able to make effective changes to, among other aspects, strategies, choices of materials and goals. Goal-setting solely would not have been likely to achieve this. The results of this study suggest that, if learners see their goals as central to the learning process, they are more likely to achieve them. In addition, if learners set goals on which they can measure progress, they will be better able to sustain motivation. Learners showed that they could, to varying degrees, take responsibility for and manage their learning. However, the researcher also sought to find out if the knowledge gained during the GOAL process would function as ‘a bridge to the outside, unstructured environment’ (Gardner and Miller 1999, 22).

Achieving your GOAL  113

GOAL

To improve speaking skill by increasing vocabulary

Student 1: Reflection/Goal-setting Student 2: Materials selection Student 3: Learning strategies

Figure 7.2 Benefits of GOAL on learners’ development

Question 2: Would the learners be able to apply this knowledge to their independent studies and/or life beyond the classroom? Students were asked this as a final question in the interview. They were asked to refer to six areas of learning: goal-setting; time-management; learning strategies; motivation; reflection; and materials selection. The responses were mixed. Student 1 S1 identified reflecting on her goals as being the area in which she had improved the most. She stated that, before the course started, she found it difficult to achieve set goals: Before I do the programme, I set only big goal, so I didn’t think about small goal … Small goal is important I think.

However, by the end of the programme she valued goal-setting the most. S1 felt that she had grown as a learner and could use the skills learned during the course in the classroom as well as beyond its walls. After I do programme, I learn I should make small goal, I think that kind of thing is good for my future.

Another point is that, although S1’s level of English was relatively higher than that of the other participants, she remained surprisingly dependent on the adviser. Adviser: Do you think it has been useful… for you to set goals? Student 1: I think it’s good, but … if I set goal, only by myself, maybe I quit this plan. Adviser: Okay, so are you saying you still need my help? Student 1: Yes

The literature indicates that learners who have a higher metacognitive awareness usually perform better than those who are less skilled in this respect (see Schraw and Dennison 1994; Rivers 2001).

114  Tanya McCarthy

However, although S1’s language ability was higher than that of the other participants, her metacognitive knowledge was less developed. This suggests that level of language proficiency does not necessarily equate with metacognitive awareness. Student 2 S2 responded positively to the question in the areas of goal-setting and reflection, not only in her learning: I will take action for reflection, review and self-evaluation. I will check things that I could not do every thing at all time, and I will make a list that which thing is all right or not.

but also in her life beyond the classroom: Goal-setting is every time need I think, so if … if I didn’t do programme I don’t think goal-setting is important, so I did programme and, I … my idea change.

She felt that with the skills learned, she could go on to become a flight attendant—the reason why she had chosen to work on improving her speaking. This indicates that if learners match goals to their future needs, learning becomes more meaningful and goal-attainment is more likely. Student 3 S3 felt that her areas of greatest improvement were goal-setting and materials selection. However, although she saw the connection to her learning, I could do this area because I learned, uh, I learned setting goals and learning materials and so … I will want to study more before.

she could not visualise using the knowledge gained in life after university. This, however, does not indicate a failure on her part, as she showed significant development in her ability to self-monitor her learning by the end of the second semester. In her final report, S3 wrote: It is important to me to decide setting goal because I can think that I will stick it out! … Setting goal is important for me to improve English ability.

Her motivation remained high and she had achieved a new-found confidence in her self-efficacy.

Achieving your GOAL  115

Conclusion This study suggests that goal-setting may be a key component in selfdirected learning, and may have a positive effect on learning strategies, motivation and self-efficacy. If learners can be taught how to make goals relevant to their specific immediate and future needs, execute an action plan, monitor their progress through reflection and receive feedback, it is likely that they will be able to have better control of the learning process. In addition, by understanding the function of goalsetting in self-directed learning, it is suggested that advisers, teachers and administrators would be in a more informed position to assist learners in becoming more efficient managers of their learning. Further avenues of academic research that would contribute to the field of self-access learning include a more thorough examination of the effectiveness of goal-setting on learners’ performance, and exploration of the relationship between goal-setting and motivation. Finally, a longitudinal study with multiple informants would provide a greater understanding of the long-term effects of applying goal-setting strategies on other areas of independent study and life beyond the language classroom. For those offering independent study modules to students, or for in-service advisers and teachers, GOAL offers an alternative and effective method of facilitating self-directed learning. Most important, for the three participants in this study, GOAL created the conditions in which they could be responsible learners and transcend the boundaries of the classroom.

116  Tanya McCarthy

Appendix The flower diagram

Learning style Learning materials Timemanagement

GOAL Learning strategies Reflection

Influenced by Dam’s framework for autonomy ‘The Flower’ (1995, 46–7)

Achieving your GOAL  117

References Allwright, R. L. 1990. Autonomy in language learning pedagogy. CRILE Working Paper 6. Centre for Research in Education, University of Lancaster. Ames, C. 1992. Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3): 261–71. Anderman, E. M. and C. A Wolters. 2006. Goals, values, and affect: Influences on student motivation. In Handbook of educational psychology (2nd edn), ed. P. A. Alexander and P. H. Winne. 369–90. London: Routledge. Dam, L. 1995. Learner autonomy 3: From theory to classroom practice. Dublin: Authentik. Dörnyei, Z. 2001. Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Duff, P. A. 2007. Case study research in applied linguistics. London: Routledge. Gardner, D. and L. Miller. 1999. Establishing self-access: From theory to practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Locke, E. A. and G. P. Latham. 1990. A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. McGill, I. and L. Beaty. 1992. Action learning: A practitioner’s guide. London: Kogan Page. McGill, I. and L. Beaty. 2001. Action learning: A guide for professional, management and educational development (2nd edn). London: Routledge. Pedler, M. (ed.) 1997. Action learning in practice (3rd edn). Brookfield: Gower. Perry, N. E., C. J. Nordby and K. O. VandeKamp. (2003). Promoting selfregulated reading and writing at home and school. Elementary School Journal, 103(4): 317–38. Pintrich, P. R. 2000. The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In Handbook of self-regulation, eds. M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich and M. Zeidner. 451–501. New York: Academic Press. Rivers, W. 2001. Autonomy at all costs: An ethnography of metacognitive selfassessment and self-management among experienced language learners. Modern Language Journal, 85(2): 279–90. Schraw, G. and R. S. Dennison. 1994. Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4): 460–75. Schunk, D. H. and C. W. Swartz. 1993. Goals and progress feedback: Effects on self-efficacy and writing achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18(3): 337–54. Schunk, D. H. and B. J. Zimmerman. 1998. Self-regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice. New York: The Guilford Press. Tellis, W. 1997. Introduction to case study. The Qualitative Report, 3(2). Retrieved 13 March 2009, from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR3-2/tellis1.html. Trochim, W. 1989. Outcome pattern matching and program theory. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12(4): 355–66. Weinstein, K. 1995. Action learning: A journey in discovery and development. London: Harper Collins. Wenden, A. 1991. Learner strategies for learner autonomy. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.

118  Tanya McCarthy

Zimmerman, B. J. 2002. Achieving self-regulation: The trial and triumph of adolescence. In Academic motivation of adolescents, eds. F. Pajares and T. Urdan. 1–28. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Yang, N. D. 1998. Exploring a new role for teachers: Promoting learner autonomy. System, 26(1): 127–35.

8 On the road to self-directed learning: A language coaching case study Christina Wielgolawski

Introduction Learner autonomy has gained its place in both the discourse and practice of the language learning domain. One approach to fostering autonomy is self-directed learning (SDL), where a learner assumes responsibility for his/her language learning but does not necessarily operate in isolation. Such a self-directed learner may be supported by a coach, whose role depends on what is needed and wanted in a particular context. The objective of the study I report on in this chapter is to investigate what happens over time as reflected in learner emails, dialogue and actions when language learning takes place in a self-directed mode with the assistance of a coach. The aim is to derive some insights for coaches which could enhance the efficacy of the coaching process. This case study focuses on an adult learner of French in New Zealand preparing for future travel—thus making the target language distant in both time and place. Self-directed learning Investigations into our psychological processes have led educators to believe that ‘learning is more effective when learners are active in the learning process, assuming responsibility for their learning and participating in the decisions which affect it’ (Sheerin 1997, 56). Thus, learners may learn better when they are active agents of learning rather than passive subjects of teaching. One mode in which learners can become actors when undertaking language learning is SDL.

120  Christina Wielgolawski

Early proponents of SDL such as Holec, Dickinson and Carver ‘were explicit that learner autonomy … was their basic educational goal, with self-directed learning being seen as the realisation of a learner’s potential for autonomy’ (Wenden 2002, 36). Therefore, while autonomy is seen as an attribute of the learner, SDL is a particular mode of learning where learners determine content, method and evaluation, and ‘can be considered as something that learners are able to do more or less effectively’ according to the degree to which they possess the capacity of autonomy’ (Benson 2001, 34). The inherent flexibility of SDL can increase considerably the possibility that individual and disparate language learning needs and objectives can be met effectively. As Holec (1996) highlights, in SDL there is no need to design and develop fixed learning programmes in advance; on the contrary, learners are encouraged to construct their own learning programmes tailored to their individual needs and learning styles within the time available.€ He suggests that there are three conditions for success when people wish to learn without having to be taught—they must know how to learn in this way or learn how to do so; they must have access to appropriate learning materials; and a new type of teacher is required. Such ideas led to the founding, in 1969, of the pioneering Centre de Recherche et d’Applications Pédagogiques en Langues (CRAPEL) at the University of Nancy II. This was one of the first resource centres tailor-made to help learners identify their own needs and goals, and to make their own decisions about materials, methods and techniques of language learning. Students also had access to resources prepared by CRAPEL staff and a wide selection of authentic resources in the Sound and Vision Library. CRAPEL can be considered to be the first self-access centre (SAC) and certainly provided the inspiration for the development of many SACs over the following decades. As SACs developed, the learning that took place within them became increasingly synonymous with SDL (Wenden 2002, 37). Coaching With the potential shift from the classroom to the SAC, a need emerged for a new role not only for the self-directed learner but also for the teacher. This person, specialising in the field of independent language learning, has come to be known as an ‘adviser’, ‘consultant’, ‘counsellor’ or ‘helper’. Kwan (1999, 1) asserts that within the construct of autonomy ‘learners have every right to choose to be assisted by others’, and so ‘a

On the road to self-directed learning  121

counsellor and adviser to your own autonomous learning, who knows you well enough to give relevant and appropriate support, clearly makes sense’ (Esch 1994, 165). The identification of this new pedagogical role has led to what Mozzon-McPherson and Vismans (2001, 3) refer to as a new profession and ‘as yet an unfinished dish’. In this profession, it is for ‘the helper to provide methodological and psychological preparation and ongoing advice’ (Wenden 2002, 38). In concrete terms, Riley (1997) outlines the role of this new professional as aiding the learner to take decisions when it comes to: designing and implementing a programme of study; choosing a time and place for learning; selecting materials and activities; setting the pace of learning; and evaluating progress. In much of the literature, the operative space for this professional is the SAC. Having worked for several years mainly in corporate but also in university SACs, where I call myself an ‘adviser’, in this chapter the term ‘coach’ is preferred in order to emphasise that there is no attachment to a particular institution. An adviser in a SAC is employed by the organisation, and so is accountable to and bound by it in terms of philosophy and practice. This affects the amount of time that can be spent with learners based on their entitlements and when appointments can be scheduled; whether language support or only learning support may be given; whether advising for a target language that is not spoken by the coach is allowed; whether there is pressure to obtain certain results; and whether the learner is compelled to use the facility. The term ‘coach’ is used here to highlight that in this context it is the coachee who has engaged the coach to provide ongoing guidance in all areas of concern and who is therefore in control. Much of the SDL research is based in SACs in educational settings where learners are often involved in full-time study. Less has been written about experiences in other contexts. This study seeks to address this gap by entering the world of full-time workers where language learning is mostly a peripheral activity. In doing so, and thus helping to increase understanding of other SDL contexts, it is hoped to improve practice by broadening our knowledge of learning patterns and habits.

Research question Crabbe, Hoffmann and Cotterall (2001, 12) conclude their enquiry into the discourse of advisory sessions by advocating ‘a longitudinal study of dialogue’ so as to discover ‘what action had been taken by a learner and to what extent that action might have been prompted by dialogue’.

122  Christina Wielgolawski

Thus, when Cathy, a full-time worker who asked me to help her brush up her French over a three-month period, consented to participate in this study, the question I wished to examine was: ‘What learner reflections, dialogue and actions are associated with the coaching process?’

Methodology Data were collected from nine face-to-face coaching sessions of one hour conducted in both English and French; emails in English and French between the coachee and coach; two semi-structured interviews in English in weeks five and 12; and a reflective journal in English and French kept by the coach who, in this case, is also the researcher/ investigator. The data were coded according to whether they related to the process of SDL itself (e.g. content, planning), barriers to learning, roles of the coachee and coach, and affect-based reflections (e.g. motivation, enthusiasm). As Cathy was planning a working holiday in France, her aim was to reactivate and improve the French she had learned ten years previously at university and had not used since. This situation was an interesting parallel to my own in that I too had studied French at university and had hardly used it for several years before moving to Paris. However, instead of upgrading my language skills prior to my departure, as Cathy was planning, I did so on arrival in France by successfully utilising SDL. Apart from interacting with native-speaker friends and asking them questions, my resources included language learning calendars and a grammar book, as well as a conversation club, the media and copious reading. Before deciding to embark on this endeavour, Cathy and I had had a preliminary chat about the coaching approach to language learning and how we might work together. This initial clarification of the process appears to have been worthwhile as there were no tensions in establishing roles or problems with expectations about how time would be spent on how to learn, choosing materials and help with the language. We then proceeded with an analysis of Cathy’s requirements where she identified her needs as participating in everyday interactions, such as service encounters and exchanges with colleagues, as well as being able to contribute to more abstract discussions on politics and culture. After some dialogue, Cathy realised that the latter part of her objective was very ambitious for the time available. Following my suggestion, she then agreed that a more achievable goal would be that after 12

On the road to self-directed learning  123

weeks she would be able to converse comfortably for 30 minutes on everyday topics. Consequently, the learning programme focused on expanding everyday vocabulary, and improving listening and speaking fluency, with some reading and writing. Cathy planned to work for six 20-minute periods every week. Due to the difficulty of determining at this initial stage, the appropriate level of structure a learner may need for sessions, it is essential for the coach to monitor this aspect. Resources included published phrase and grammar books, my selfmade materials and the Internet. At first, we arranged to meet for an hour every fortnight, but Cathy soon asked to change to weekly appointments. Cathy describes a typical coaching session as: We’ll go and sit down and have a coffee and try and have a little bit of light banter in French, and then I’ll show you what I’ve been doing and talk through what problems I might have been having, and we’ll look at different approaches and ways to fix those problems. And I might ask you some questions, if I have any, and then we’ll decide what resources we might need for next week.

Such a description ties in with Holec’s three conditions for SDL noted previously: how to learn, and access to appropriate materials and to a new breed of teacher. It also illustrates that Cathy is the one driving the session, and making the decisions about what to concentrate on and what she needs from her coach.

Results and discussion The findings are discussed in relation to the following three themes: Cathy’s attitude to SDL, barriers to learning and the role of the coach. All the quotations below are from Cathy. Cathy’s attitude to SDL As noted earlier, SDL is an approach through which autonomy may be fostered. Cathy displayed a good grasp of this learning mode, explaining during the first interview: You’ve basically got to decide what your objectives are and then figure out how long you want to take to achieve them and then break it down into little tasks and then monitor yourself as you try and achieve those small tasks.

124  Christina Wielgolawski

For Cathy, SDL meant ‘not having to be micro managed and you search for things rather than having to just be told what to do’. While there was self-reliance, there were also issues of time-management and other pressures. In the first coaching session, Cathy noted that SDL is empowering and motivating, and so her attitude to SDL appeared positive. After several weeks experiencing SDL, Cathy reported in the first interview that ‘I’ve actually felt it more rewarding… because I’ve had to think through it myself as opposed to being in a class situation’. At this point she felt confident that she would ‘make quite a good rate of progress’. When asked in the second interview whether she felt she had progressed, Cathy replied ‘Yes, definitely’. Barriers to learning However, it was not always easy to maintain the momentum. Cathy often remarked that her motto was to keep chipping away, but there were stumbling blocks along the road. For Cathy, barriers to learning included negative self-belief, time-management issues and lack of learning strategies. These were addressed within a problem-solving framework that utilises a collaborative dialogue to accurately represent the problem so that feasible solutions can be identified which the learner can apply and evaluate (Crabbe, Hoffmann and Cotterall 2001). Right at the beginning, Cathy asserted that ‘my pronunciation is really bad and I have a problem with talking’. It turned out, however, that this negative self-belief was not based on any actual feedback. Through dialogue Cathy recognised that the absence of oral practice from her classroom days meant that she actually had no performance history and this could be rectified during our weekly meetings by conversing in French as much as possible. After Cathy experienced success, we devised further speaking opportunities, such as ordering at the take-away crêperie and requesting information at the Alliance Française. Soon Cathy was reporting ‘I’m starting to speak out to people’ and commented in the second interview ‘I think I’ve progressed in that I’ve got more confidence in my ability … and that’s what I really needed to do’. Another obstacle was managing learning from a time perspective. Cathy led a busy life and soon realised that ‘learning will take more time than anticipated’ and she was ‘spread quite finely’. We talked about the fact that time will always be an excuse and brainstormed how to use time more efficiently, for example by listening to podcasts while walking

On the road to self-directed learning  125

to work and self-talking when aquajogging. I had recommended that Cathy should follow a pattern of short but regular practice sessions to promote effective learning, but Cathy admittd that she was wasting time at the start of these. This issue was raised concurrently in my reflective journal where I was deliberating on how much structure Cathy needed. Therefore, I suggested that together we create a menu of weekly tasks so that each day Cathy could quickly choose an activity that matched her mood while ensuring overall balance in the week’s programme. For Cathy, this resulted in her considering that ‘things have worked better since we’ve started on a slightly more structured thing’. Early on, Cathy realised that ‘vocab is a big issue for me’ as she had only ever learned lists of words handed out by lecturers to get through assessment tasks but not necessarily for long-term memorisation—so I introduced flash cards and stressed the value of spaced repetition, and Cathy began to use this new strategy. Then, in the fifth session, she reported that she had downloaded software which used a similar approach. After I presented the technique of speed-writing, Cathy started emailing me a couple of paragraphs in French each week, to one of which she added: ‘Writing this is a good chance to revise before speaking this week’. In this instance, the coachee’s problem was that she had a limited repertoire of learning strategies. The coach reacted by proposing new ones, but it was up to Cathy to implement and adapt them to her preferred style of learning. It can be seen that in dealing with such barriers, there was an ongoing cycle of reflecting on problems and acting on solutions. Sometimes simply articulating a difficulty was enough for Cathy to realise how she could overcome it; at other times a dialogue was required to analyse the impediment and discuss possible ways of dealing with it, and for Cathy to then decide on what was best for her. This process was aided by the coach’s developing knowledge of, and relationship with, the coachee. The role of the coach The two main roles of the coach which emerged from this study are discussed below. The first relates to the coaching function and the second to role-modelling. The coach as coach It turned out that the key factor Cathy valued in her coach was encouragement. In the first interview, Cathy commented: ‘You’re quite

126  Christina Wielgolawski

positive which is good, as well you’ve encouraged me to come up with my own decisions about things and you’ve pretty much supervised me making my own decisions’. Another helpful function noted by Cathy was that I had ‘come up with some pretty practical suggestions and really interesting learning tips’. The coach was also there to respond to both specific requests (e.g. helping to select French texts from the Web) and more general ones (e.g. providing more constructive criticism). While learners in one-to-one situations often seek feedback on their actual language use, when it came to speaking, Cathy seemed satisfied in recognising that oral interactions that have gone well demonstrate that her pronunciation, fluency, vocabulary and structures are effective. Concerning writing, Cathy sometimes brought along exercises or paragraphs that she would like checked for accuracy and appropriateness. In fact, as the weeks passed, the amount of time spent during coaching sessions on learning support, such as strategy development, slowly decreased while time spent on language support, such as grammar explanations, increased. This occurred as Cathy became more proficient at learning and, as a result, more able to use the target language, which in turn led to more questions. However, in contrast to traditional teaching, this progression was driven by Cathy following up what she had been working on during the previous week. At the same time, the coach continued to check with the coachee whether any concerns had arisen, and to elicit explanations of, and justifications for, the rationale for decisions and actions so as to promote reflective learning. Cathy found that in more formal teaching settings ‘there’s been more spoon feeding and more discipline from the teacher’. Nevertheless, in coaching it is vital to constantly gauge the mood and respond accordingly, and Cathy also noticed: ‘You’ve put a little bit of pressure on me … when I’ve been quite slack, but not to the extent where I start to clam up’. This becomes possible when the coachee and coach have, over time, built up a good working relationship. The coach as model Cathy seemed appreciative when I shared what had and had not worked in my own language learning and this helped to ensure that a genuine dialogue was taking place. Several times, Cathy fed back that ‘the practical tips from your own personal experience, I’ve found that very useful’. This comment referred to my explaining how I organised my own learning time, went over flash cards while standing in long queues at the post office, made my own set of French scrabble

On the road to self-directed learning  127

cards to play alone and adopted active copying1 of short interviews from magazine articles. I also related how long it took to be able to understand a particular TV news presenter and acknowledged that I still had trouble with movies when everyone is talking at once. Lamb (2004, 3) recommends that those in language teaching ‘need to experience autonomous learning themselves’. A coach needs not only to have tried but also to have succeeded in SDL to be an empathetic, believable role-model and have a better understanding of the situation of the coachee.

Conclusion Coaching differs from other SDL approaches by catering for those who are unable, or do not wish, to access SAC-based advisers. This longitudinal investigation has sought to track the reflections, dialogue and actions of a coachee in order to gain insights into the language coaching process. This study deals with only one coach and one coachee. Further similar studies are required to ascertain the extent to which these findings are generalisable, as well as what may have been overlooked by this participant researcher. Keeping the small-scale nature of this study in mind, the key benefit of the coaching approach appears to be its highly flexible and ongoing support of a personalised SDL programme. Coaches can guide and assist not only with analysing needs, setting goals and planning programmes, but also by asking thoughtful, open-ended questions to raise awareness and to establish a dialogue about SDL, about what is and is not working and how the learning programme can be enhanced. Regular contact is recommended so that difficulties are identified early and can be dealt with promptly by utilising a problem-solution orientation. As time passes, the coach’s increasing knowledge of the coachee and their developing relationship results in advice that is finetuned to the individual. In the case of Cathy, this included recognising when she needed more structure and when it was useful to apply some pressure to boost her learning activity. Time is at a premium for many coachees, including Cathy, and how it can be used to the best effect demands attention since the time factor can generate frustration and undermine the venture. The coach can contribute his or her insights on time-management (e.g. it is usually easier to timetable short but regular sessions); establishing routines and managing sessions (e.g. using a weekly menu system); and exploiting

128  Christina Wielgolawski

so-called ‘dead time’ (e.g. revising flash cards on public transport). These suggestions are more likely to be integrated by coachees as issues surface rather than within the context of a single advisory session held at the beginning of an SDL programme. Finally, it is beneficial when coaches share their own SDL experiences. Cathy valued having me as a model who was able to talk about various learning tactics, tasks, difficulties and successes with first-hand familiarity. This can inspire and reassure the coachee as well as demonstrate the effectiveness of different strategies. Overall, then, the key characteristics of an effective coach include flexibility, empathy and expertise in SDL—and a willingness to hand over as much control as possible to the coachee. Future research could usefully investigate contexts in which coaching works best. For example, Cathy already had a foundation in French but had never tried SDL accompanied by coaching. How does this compare with a situation in which the coachee has no knowledge of either the target language or of SDL with coaching, and so is dealing with the double load of a new language plus a new learning mode? While my experience of language coaching has involved the three languages I speak, how does the situation change when the coach has no knowledge of the target language? Furthermore, what is the impact of removing face-to-face contact between the coach and coachee and relying on online and/or telephone-mediated language coaching to support SDL? There are many research directions to be pursued. To return to Cathy, her observation below from the second interview shows an increasing understanding of how SDL works and should have a positive impact on her future learning: I’ve been reflecting on the way that I learn and figured out that in the past I’ve been cutting corners to try and just get the result that’s been asked for … but I didn’t really learn. Whereas with this approach, where I’ve had to take responsibility for the learning process, I feel a lot more relaxed and am making quite good progress.

Despite the bumpy nature of the road, SDL supported by coaching was successful for Cathy in that she achieved her goal. The raison d’être of the coach is not to remove the challenges but to help the coachee overcome them by promoting a cycle of reflecting and acting so as to become a more proficient learner and thus language user.

On the road to self-directed learning  129

Acknowledgements I would like to thank Sara Cotterall for her thoughtful encouragement and discerning feedback.

Note 1. ‘Active copying’ refers to copying a text in such a manner so as to notice the language being employed—for example, the vocabulary and grammatical structures—and reflecting upon this.

References Benson, P. 2001. Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. London: Longman. Crabbe, D., A. Hoffmann and S. Cotterall. 2001. Examining the discourse of learner advisory sessions. In Learner autonomy: New insights, ed. L. Dam. AILA Review: 2–15. Esch, E. ed. 1994. Self-access and the adult language learner. London: CILT. Holec, H. 1996. Self-directed learning: An alternative form of training. In Strategies in language learning and use: Studies towards a Common European Framework of reference for language learning and teaching, eds. H. Holec, D. Little and R. Richterich. 79–123. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Kwan, L. 1999. A tutor-guided learning scheme in a self-access centre. The Internet TESL Journal, 5(9). Retrieved 11 August 2005, from http://iteslj. org/Techniques/Lai-Tutor-Guided.html. Lamb, T. 2004. Learning independently? Pedagogical and methodological implications of new learning environments. Proceedings of the Independent Learning Conference 2003. Retrieved 16 December 2005, from www. independentlearning.org/ila03/ila03_lamb.pdf. Mozzon-McPherson, M. and R. Vismans, eds. 2001. Beyond language teaching towards language advising. London: CILT. Riley, P. 1997. The guru and the conjurer. In Autonomy and independence in language learning, ed. P. Benson and P. Voller. 114–31. Harlow, Essex: Longman. Sheerin, S. 1997. An exploration of the relationship between self-access and independent learning. In Autonomy and independence in language learning, ed. P. Benson and P. Voller. 54–65. Harlow, Essex: Longman. Wenden, A. 2002. Learner development in language learning. Applied Linguistics, 23(1), 32–55.

9 Developing learner autonomy through peer teaching experiences Shu-Hua Kao

Introduction ‘Peer teaching’ refers to students’ involvement in learning from and with each other, sharing knowledge, ideas and experience (Boud, Cohen and Sampson 2001). With its emphasis on learning, it is often associated with terms such as ‘peer and cross-age tutoring’, ‘peer learning’, ‘learning through teaching’ (Britz, Dixon and McLaughlin 1989; Gaustad 1993), and ‘peer-assisted learning’ (Topping and Ehly 1998). As ‘the tutor is usually two or more years older than the tutee’ (Damon and Phelps 1989, 137), peer tutoring is often referred to as ‘cross-age’ tutoring. Through peer teaching, learning occurs when participants explain ‘their ideas to others’ and take part ‘in activities in which they can learn from peers’ (Boud, Cohen and Sampson 2001, 3). In this sense, peer teaching has the potential to not only enhance the quality of learning but also to cater for a learning environment that is collaborative and interactive (Topping and Ehly 1998). In addition, working collaboratively with peers through social interaction, learners are engaged in using language in order to plan solutions before trying them out and to control their own learning (Vygotsky 1978). This implies that collaboration and interaction play a significant role in the course of the development of learner autonomy and, since peer teaching involves learners in collaborative activities through interaction, it can thus be seen as a means of facilitating the development of learner autonomy. Advocates of peer teaching have claimed that peer tutors benefit from the teaching experience by increasing their own confidence, self-esteem and motivation for learning (Wagner 1982), improving

132  Shu-Hua Kao

their learning of academic skills (e.g. Allen and Feldman 1973; Rekrut 1992), and enhancing peer relations (Greenwood, Carta and Hall 1988). Researchers have also described benefits in terms of the tutor’s development of learner autonomy in aspects such as the enhancement of responsibility, participation and motivation (Assinder 1991), and the improvement of their awareness of the learning process (Mynard and Almarzouqi 2006). King, Staffieri and Adelgais (1998) suggest that peer tutoring may promote students’ feelings of personal responsibility for self-regulating their learning, which indicates the potential benefits for the development of the peer tutors’ learner autonomy. There is, however, a lack of research that focuses primarily on the development of learner autonomy in peer tutors as a result of the peer teaching experience. It has been remarked that those who are able to reflect on their own learning and are willing to learn in collaboration with others are considered to be autonomous learners (Holec 1981; Allwright 1990). Accordingly, in order to develop greater learner autonomy, the need for learners to engage in reflection on their learning process in a more critical manner is indispensable ( Ellis and Sinclair 1989; Dickinson 1992). Since learner autonomy is a multidimensional construct (Little 1991) and the growth of autonomy is seen as a dynamic measure (Candy 1991), the issue of assessing learner autonomy is problematic. This study places a particular emphasis on the tutors’ enhancement of their own learner autonomy and their willingness to be autonomous in their language learning (Holec 1981; Little 1996). The former is mainly concerned with the ability to carry out reflective thinking regarding their own learning, while the latter is closely related to individual learner and learning factors such as motivation, and attitudes towards the purpose, content and process of learning (Little 1996). Following Vygotsky’s (1978) view of learning, which aims to understand what students can do individually as well as what they can achieve in collaboration with others, this study explores the development of learner autonomy in peer tutors through their experiences of peer teaching.

The study Participants The participants in this study were six third-year undergraduates from the Department of Applied English at a higher education institute in Taiwan, who volunteered to take part in the peer teaching programme. They were interviewed and subsequently selected as tutors based on

Developing learner autonomy through peer teaching experiences  133

their letters of recommendation and their English proficiency, as well as their awareness of issues involved in English teaching and learning. After the tutors were selected, they received four three-hour training sessions that focused on teaching methodology, syllabus design, classroom management and learner autonomy. These tutors were English majors (but not studying to become English teachers), and none of them had experience of teaching English to young adults. Taking this into consideration, the researcher decided to provide training sessions aimed at introducing the participants to basic theories about, and skills for, English teaching. Each tutor had to teach ten tutees, and the tutees were required to attend a semester-long, two-hour per week peer teaching programme. The 60 tutees were all first-year undergraduates studying in one of the Institute’s Business schools and, in the entrance examination, they had scored the lowest marks in English in their year group. The training sessions From the selection process, it was discovered that all the selected tutors had some experience of teaching English to children on a oneon-one basis, although they had not received any related training in English teaching. Each training session included a focus on: teaching methodology (introducing theories and approaches to English teaching); syllabus design (introducing skills for material design); classroom management (including techniques and skills for managing a class); and learner autonomy (introducing the concept and approaches to its promotion). Data collection methods Taking a constructivist perspective which views reality as socially constructed (Mertens 1998), the study attempted to understand the complex constructions of meanings of learning underlying the tutors’ development of learner autonomy. Accordingly, the major data collection methods were qualitative in nature, including observation, group interviews and analysis of the tutors’ reflective journals. As the researcher was the Business English teacher, as well as the trainer, of these tutors, it was possible to observe the tutors’ learning behaviours as well as their teaching. Observation notes were kept on a regular basis. In addition, group interviews were arranged before and after the programme for the tutors to exchange their ideas on, and

134  Shu-Hua Kao

experiences of, English teaching and learning. Open-ended questions were designed before the interviews and follow-up questions related to relevant discussion issues were formulated according to the participants’ responses (see Appendix). Since these tutors were also learners, two of the major goals of their involvement in the peer teaching programme were to enhance their abilities in English teaching and, hopefully, in so doing benefit their own English learning. The first group interview questions focused on exploring their expectations regarding English teaching and learning, their roles as peer tutors as well as English learners, and their views on the training sessions provided. After the completion of the programme, the second group interview put a greater emphasis on: gaining a better understanding of how these teaching experiences had affected the tutors’ perceptions of their own English learning; receiving feedback on the usefulness of the training sessions offered; and exploring the tutors’ feelings about the teaching experiences. Both interviews were recorded and transcribed for further analysis. Also, the tutors were required to write reflective journals at least once a month, where they were encouraged to write anything they considered relevant. Data analysis After the data were collected, the researcher adopted Miles and Huberman’s (1994, 10–2) three phases of qualitative data analysis as a framework: ‘data reduction’, which includes selecting and condensing data; ‘data display’, involving systematic organising and analysis; and ‘conclusion drawing/verification’, during which the researcher endeavoured to remain open and sceptical until conclusions were explicitly supported by the data. Thus, the process involved: first selecting and condensing the original data; then organising and analysing them in a systematic manner; and, finally, drawing conclusions when they were fully supported by the data.

Results and discussion Five major themes related to the peer tutors’ development of learner autonomy were derived from the three-phase data analysis: 1. Enhancing their sense of responsibility and motivation for their learning; 2. Strengthening their critical awareness of their own learning; 3. Broadening their use of English learning strategies and study skills;

Developing learner autonomy through peer teaching experiences  135

4. Increasing their confidence in their English learning; and 5. Engaging them in learning in a more collaborative fashion. Enhancing the peer tutors’ sense of responsibility and motivation for their learning From their reflective journals, it was found that these tutors felt strongly about their responsibility for teaching as well as for their own learning. As one tutor noted: After becoming a tutor, I realised it was really a tough job. I bore a really strong responsibility to teach the tutees … sometimes I felt frustrated when I was unable to answer the tutees’ questions or when they were not attentive in the class. I really need to learn more efficiently in order to face the potential challenges from the tutees. I think I’ve never been so motivated to learn English. (Tutor 1: Reflective Journal 3)

This tutor seemed to cope with the ‘stress of teaching’ in an active way by becoming more motivated to learn English. Since motivation has an important role to play in how willing learners are to be autonomous in language learning (Dam 1995), this tutor’s reporting enhanced motivation suggests an increase in her willingness to be an autonomous learner. In fact, it has been stressed that a learner’s willingness to be autonomous in language learning is a key indicator of the development of learner autonomy (Little 1996). The tutor also indicated that her learning needed to become more efficient, which implies an enhanced awareness of the learning process. Adopting a different approach to the stress of teaching, another tutor sought help from the trainer and from other tutors. In her reflective journal, she wrote: The stress of being a tutor is enormous to me as I am more an introverted type of person. I felt very honoured to be selected as a tutor, so I need to take on the responsibility of teaching … Through this teaching experience, I realised that, to be a good tutor, it is not just about the responsibility of teaching, it is even more about the responsibility of learning. While being a tutor, I always sought help from other tutors and from the trainer. (Tutor 3: Reflective Journal 4)

This tutor reflected on her personality in relation to her role as a tutor and indicated that she felt a stronger sense of responsibility, in both teaching and learning, as a result of the teaching experience. Similar findings were also found in Assinder’s (1991) observation that

136  Shu-Hua Kao

peer teaching can increase motivation and the sense of responsibility for learning—factors that are closely related to how well individuals learn a foreign language (Dörnyei 1994). Strengthening the peer tutors’ critical awareness of their own learning All the tutors wrote about how their teaching experience affected their own learning. One tutor, reflecting on her realisation of the importance of ‘learning how to learn’ as well as the necessity of learning strategies in learning English, wrote: After two months of teaching, I started to realise how important it is to learn how to learn, not merely about what to learn … Gradually, I really hope I could help the tutees more by providing them with more English learning strategies … (Tutor 2: Reflective Journal 2)

Reflecting on attitudinal changes, another tutor examined her own learning in a rather critical manner: Since I became a tutor, I started to hold a more serious attitude towards English learning. I was really afraid of not being able to handle the tutees’ questions and I always thought I could never prepare enough … I know I need to learn, and I need to learn whenever I can. I started to notice all the English words around me. I got the feeling that I need to learn all the English words I see. Thinking back to my relatively passive attitude towards English learning, I really hoped I could have realised this sooner. (Tutor 6: Reflective Journal 1)

According to Dam (1995), it is essential that an autonomous learner is capable of critical reflection. These tutors’ critical reflections on their learning—by either realising the importance of learning how to learn and of learning strategies, or by critically examining their previous passive attitude towards English learning—indicate their development of metacognitive knowledge through which learners are able to ‘understand a particular activity if he or she can use it appropriately and discuss its use’ (Brown 1987, 65). In other words, the tutors’ critical reflection on their own learning experience and process has shown an enhancement of cognitive level (Perry 1970) that is strongly connected to metacognitive awareness, the key to the development of learner autonomy (Oxford 1990; Ellis 1999).

Developing learner autonomy through peer teaching experiences  137

Broadening the peer tutors’ use of English learning strategies and study skills As noted above, being more critical about learning was also found in the tutors’ written reflections on their own English learning strategies and study skills. In their reflective journals, they identified a variety of strategies and study skills (including, for example, translation, repetition, selective attention, asking for help and note-taking); and, in examining these entries, it was seen that, during the later stage of the teaching programme, they not only noted their use of more strategies/ skills but also evaluated in more detail the efficiency of their strategy use. The total number of strategies reported in the reflective journals was 48, of which 17 strategies were identified before the mid-term examination and 31 strategies after it. When the strategies reported were classified into three groups, using O’Malley and Chamot’s (1990, 46) groupings (viz. cognitive, socio-affective and metacognitive strategies), it was found that ten of the cognitive strategies identified were reported before the mid-term examination whereas 11 strategies were reported after it. However, the reported socio-affective and metacognitive strategy use both increased significantly after the mid-term examination, in the former case from five strategies to 13 strategies, and in the latter from three strategies to seven strategies. These figures not only show an increase in the number of reported strategies, but also indicate that a wider range of strategies were employed by the tutors for all three types of strategy. The following notes are two examples of the reported strategy use. Examining her reading strategy, a tutor wrote: In the past, I thought reading was merely about knowing the meaning of individual words. Since I started teaching the tutees to read an article, I no longer focus on the meanings of individual words. I would try to find the main idea of each passage and try to understand the meaning derived from the article. (Tutor 4: Reflective Journal 5)

Another tutor reported how she tried to employ different learning strategies and described her own assessment of them: I was pretty good at taking a lot of notes in class and I would review the content of the entire book while preparing for the exams. Ever since I became a tutor, I had to summarise the important aspects of the teaching materials as well as prepare review sheets for the tutees. By doing this for a few weeks, I tried to employ these skills in my

138  Shu-Hua Kao

own learning. I would take notes in a more selective way and prepare some exam papers to test myself in order to see how well I was doing. This worked quite well for me… (Tutor 5: Reflective Journal 4)

Learning strategies are one of the essential elements of learner autonomy (Wenden 1991). These tutors’ reflections show that they widened their use of language learning strategies which, according to Weinstein and Mayer (1986), may influence the motivational or affective state of the learner, or how they choose, acquire, organise or integrate new knowledge—all of which are essential for the development of learner autonomy. In addition, the tutor’s modification of her notetaking approach and her practice of preparing examination papers for testing herself indicate that she had tried to monitor her own learning by using metacognitive strategies. It has been suggested that these types of strategies are beneficial in regulating cognition, focusing, planning and evaluating learning progress (Oxford 1990), and are crucial in the development of learner autonomy (O’Malley and Chamot 1990). Increasing the peer tutors’ confidence in their English learning All the tutors reported an increase in their confidence in learning after the peer teaching programme. As one of them noted: As a tutor, I had many chances to help my tutees with their problems. I have obtained a great deal of achievement from this experience. This also made me feel more confident in English learning … Seeing my tutees’ improvement in their English learning really enhanced my enthusiasm in teaching, and the role of being a tutor did make me feel more confident in my English ability. (Tutor 3: Reflective Journal 3)

Another tutor also mentioned her enhanced confidence resulting from this teaching experience: One of the most unforgettable memories of the teaching experience was that I shared with the tutees my experience of how I tried to improve my once very poor English proficiency and eventually succeeded. Some of the tutees approached me and thanked me for sharing my special experience with them. I didn’t know whether that’d be helpful, but I was really glad that they appreciated it. With such positive feedback, my confidence was largely enhanced. (Tutor 5: Reflective Journal 5)

Confidence has always had an important role to play in the development of learner autonomy. According to Littlewood (1996),

Developing learner autonomy through peer teaching experiences  139

learners’ level of motivation and confidence is related to their willingness to act autonomously. As previously noted, this willingness to be autonomous in language learning is considered to be one of the most important indicators of the development of learner autonomy (Holec 1981; Little 1996). Engaging the peer tutors in learning in a more collaborative fashion As all the peer tutors were also students of a Business English course taught by the researcher, a longer span of observation of their learning was possible. From my observations, they became more actively engaged in asking for help from me as well as from other tutors. When these tutors initiated a study group as the result of the peer teaching programme, they discovered some of the advantages of collaborative learning. In response to one of my questions asked during the second group interview—‘Why did you set up a study group in the first place?’—a tutor said: I have gained a lot of help from other tutors this semester while we had gatherings after each teaching session. To exchange ideas about teaching was our initial purpose to gather together, but eventually we found out we could also discuss the learning content of the subjects we were learning. So, this study group was formed naturally. We found it really beneficial, especially during the period of time when we have examinations. (Second Group Interview: Tutor 6)

When further asked ‘How did you benefit from this group?’, another tutor answered the question in detail: We discussed a lot about our own teaching techniques and how we handled different problems in the classroom. We also shared some of the incidents that occurred in our own classroom … After a few weeks of teaching, our discussions on teaching had become less and as the mid-term examinations were approaching, we decided to study together. We shared notes from the class and discussed the content of learning. The encouragement from the group helped me a lot through the stressful period of the examination time. (Second Group Interview: Tutor 2)

The organisation of a study group shows that the tutors tried to create an alternative learning environment where they could learn in a more collaborative manner. This could be viewed as being beneficial as it provides a sense of greater control over their learning, a benefit

140  Shu-Hua Kao

that differs from the more familiar teacher-oriented classroom tutors’ previous experience of. As far as the development of learner autonomy is concerned, this finding not only echoes Vygotsky’s (1978) approach that emphasises the importance of collaboration as an essential part of learning, but also reflects a collectivist aspect of learning in the tutors that is often found in East Asian contexts (Littlewood 1999).

Limitations Despite the positive results derived from this study, there are at least four limitations. First, in order to obtain more in-depth information, this study focused on a small number of participants in a specific context in Taiwan, and so the potential for generalisation of the findings from this particular context to other contextual settings may be limited. Second, the study focused primarily on aspects of the development of learner autonomy, but whether the tutors’ English proficiency could be enhanced as a result of the peer tutoring experiences remains unclear and may be an area for future research. The third limitation of the study relates to the difficulty of measuring learner autonomy due to its complex and varied nature (Candy 1991; Little 1991). Although the tutors’ capacity for learner autonomy and their willingness to be autonomous language learners were employed in this research as the major indicators of the development of learner autonomy, it may be beneficial to examine how learner autonomy could be assessed in a more systematic and detailed manner. The fourth limitation of the study is linked to the design of the training course and its effectiveness. During the second interview, the tutors’ feedback on the training sessions showed that they regarded the ‘teaching methodology’ and ‘classroom management’ sessions as the most helpful ones for their teaching, while the ‘learner autonomy’ course was seen as the most valuable for their own learning. The ‘syllabus design’ session was considered to be the least practical, and one tutor regarded it as of no importance at all. This may be because the Institute had decided on the syllabus of the English course for the tutees in advance, and neither the trainer nor the tutors were involved in the decision-making process. This became a contextual limitation of the study as it had an impact on the effectiveness of the training course by taking away the opportunity for the tutors to put into practice what they learned from the syllabus design course. A questionnaire on the tutees’ level of satisfaction with the peer teaching programme was conducted after the programme and—despite

Developing learner autonomy through peer teaching experiences  141

the limitations noted above—the feedback received was positive, with 93% of the tutees finding the programme helpful and 90% indicated that, if given the opportunity, they would like to attend the programme in the second semester. In addition, it was found that all the tutors would like to have the opportunity to be tutors again.

Conclusion This study has found that, through the peer teaching experience, the tutors developed greater learner autonomy in at least five ways: • enhancing their sense of responsibility and motivation for their learning; • strengthening their critical awareness of their own learning; • broadening their use of English learning strategies and study skills; • increasing their confidence in their English learning; and • engaging in learning in a more collaborative fashion. These aspects are closely related to aspects of the development of the capacity for learner autonomy (e.g. increased learning and metacognitive awareness) as well as the enhancement of the learners’ willingness to be autonomous in English learning (e.g. enhanced motivation and confidence). In addition, the fact that the tutors initiated a study group for exchanging their feelings and ideas about learning different subjects indicates their willingness to learn collaboratively. Even though this research project found that the peer tutors developed elements of learner autonomy through the peer teaching experience, the study was limited due to several factors: its small-scale design; the lack of an examination of the link between the peer tutoring experience and the tutors’ improvement in English proficiency; the difficulty in measuring learner autonomy; and the lack of involvement of the trainer and tutors in the process of syllabus design. Nevertheless, the tutees’ questionnaire responses indicated that they had positive feelings about the peer teaching programme, while the tutors also provided positive feedback on their teaching experience. Although this study does present evidence of the peer tutors’ development of learner autonomy through the peer teaching experience by using an approach based mainly on self-reflection, further exploration of dialogue between tutors and tutees, tutors and tutors, and tutees and tutees may give us further insights into the interactive nature of the learning process in light of the development of learner autonomy.

142  Shu-Hua Kao

Appendix Group Interview Questions The first group interview (Location: The teacher’s office; Time: 60 minutes) Initial questions, with follow-up question(s) according to the responses in brackets. 1. What abilities do you think an English tutor should possess? 2. What kind of English learner do you think you are? (What do you mean by a ‘good’ English learner or a ‘bad’ English learner?) 3. Have you had any ‘English teaching experience’ before? (Have you taken any English teacher training courses?) 4. Among these listed courses, what do you think are the four most important courses that you need to take in order to become a peer tutor? (The course names were provided for the students to choose for their training: teaching methodology, classroom management, syllabus design, testing and assessment, learner autonomy, material development, using technology in language teaching.) 5. How do you think these selected courses could help with your teaching? 6. How do you think this teaching experience might help with your own English learning? The second group interview (Location: The teacher’s office; Time: 70 minutes) 1. What have you learned from the teaching experience? (Did this experience help your own English learning? How did this experience change your ideas about being a student?) 2. What difficulties did you encounter during teaching? (How did you overcome these difficulties? Why did you set up a study group in the first place? How often did you meet up? How did you benefit from this group? Will you continue to study together as a group in the future?) 3. Are the teaching experiences beneficial to the subjects you are learning?

Developing learner autonomy through peer teaching experiences  143

4. What do you think about the four training sessions? (Are they useful? Why do you think ‘syllabus design’ was not beneficial to you?) 5. Given the opportunities to be a tutor again, would you like to take part in? Why/Why not?

References Allen, V. L. and R. S. Feldman. 1973. Learning through tutoring: Low achieving children as tutors. Journal of Experimental Education, 42(1): 1–5. Allwright, D. 1990. Autonomy in language learning pedagogy. CRILE Working Paper 6. Centre for Research in Education, University of Lancaster. Assinder, W. 1991. Peer teaching, peer learning: one model. English Language Teaching Journal, 45(3): 218–29. Boud, D.,€R. Cohen and J. Sampson. 2001. Peer learning in higher education:€Learning from and with each other. London: Kogan Page. Britz, M. W., J. Dixon and T. F. McLaughlin. 1989. The effects of peer tutoring on mathematics performance: A recent review. Journal of Special Education, 13(1): 17–33. Brown, A. L. 1987. Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation and other more mysterious mechanisms. In Metacognition, motivation and understanding, eds. F. E. Weinert and R. H. Kluwe. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Candy, P. C. 1991. Self-direction for lifelong learning. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Dam, L. 1995. Learner autonomy 3: From theory to classroom practice. Dublin: Authentik. Damon, W. and E. Phelps. 1989. Strategic uses of peer learning in children’s education. In Peer relationships in child development, ed. T. Berndt and G. Ladd. New York: Wiley. Dickinson, L. 1992. Learner autonomy 2: Learner training for language learning. Dublin: Authentik. Dörnyei , Z. 1994. Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 78: 273–84. Ellis, G. 1999. Developing children’s metacognitive awareness. In Innovation and best practice, ed. C. Kennedy. Harlow: Longman. Ellis, G. and B. Sinclair. 1989. Learning to learn English: A course in learner training (teacher’s book). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gaustad, J. 1993. Peer and cross-age tutoring. ERIC Digest 79, March 1993. Greenwood, C.R., J. J. Carta and R.V. Hall. 1988. The use of peer tutoring strategies in classroom management and educational instruction. School Psychology Review, 17(2): 258–75. Holec, H. 1981. Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Pegamon Press. King, A., A. Staffieri and A. Adelgais. 1998. Mutual peer tutoring: Effects of structuring tutorial interaction to scaffold peer learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1): 134–52.

144  Shu-Hua Kao

Little, D. 1991. Learner autonomy 1: Definitions, issues and problems. Dublin: Authentik. Little, D. 1996. Freedom to learn and compulsion to interact: Promoting learner autonomy through the use of information systems and information technologies. In Taking control: Autonomy in language learning, eds. R. Pemberton, E. S. L. Li, W. W. F. Or and H. D. Pierson. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Littlewood, W. 1996. Autonomy: An anatomy and a framework. System, 24(4): 427–35. Littlewood, W. 1999. Defining and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts. Applied Linguistics, 20(1): 71–94. Mertens, D. M. 1998. Research methods in education and psychology. London: Sage. Miles, M. B. and A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative data analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Mynard, J. and I. Almarzouqi. 2006. Investigating peer tutoring. English Language Teaching Journal, 61(1): 13–22. O’Malley, J. M. and A. U. Chamot. 1990. Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oxford, R. 1990. Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle. Perry, W. G., Jr. 1970. Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Rekrut, M. D. 1992. Teaching to learn: Cross-age tutoring to enhance strategy instruction. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Topping, K. and S. Ehly. 1998. Peer-assisted learning. Mahwah, NJ and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wagner, L. 1982. Peer teaching: Historical perspectives. London: Greenwood Press. Weinstein, C. E. and R. E. Mayer. 1986. The teaching of learning strategies. In Handbook of research on teaching, ed. M. C. Wittrock. New York: Macmillan. Wenden, A. 1991. Learner strategies for learner autonomy. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.

10 Developing the ARC: Creating an online autonomy resource centre Tony Cripps

Introduction Japanese universities are struggling to come to terms with the effects of a shrinking student population and the worst economic environment since the Second World War. The declining birth-rate in post-baby boom Japan has resulted in increased competition among universities for the diminishing student population (Poole 2005). This has left would-be university students with the luxury of choice, a challenge to which many private universities have responded by establishing new faculties and developing innovative courses. In such tough economic times, companies are less likely to invest time and money in on-the-job training. Instead, they are becoming increasingly attracted by graduates who leave university not only with a solid grounding in their field, but also with a working knowledge of written and spoken English. The decision by the President of Rakuten Inc. (the biggest€ online shopping€ mall operator in€ Japan) that all inhouse communication will be conducted in English by the end of 2012, and that corporate officers should be proficient in English or risk losing their jobs, has caused much debate and consternation in Japan (Japan Today 2010). Other Japanese companies are adjusting their hiring criteria and focusing on recruiting graduates who can operate in an English-speaking business environment. Such moves are indicative of the pressing need for Japanese university graduates to be able to communicate effectively in English. The Faculty of Economics at Ritsumeikan University in Shiga prefecture is addressing the need for its graduates to have a functional

146  Tony Cripps

working knowledge of English by providing students with an educational system tailored to suit both their academic and vocational needs. This paper outlines briefly the pedagogical framework which underlies the design of an online Autonomy Resource Centre for students on an International Economics programme, before examining the Centre’s development and the practical issues involved.

Background In 2006, the new sub-faculty of International Economics (IE) was established within the Faculty of Economics at Ritsumeikan University. One aim of this sub-faculty is to provide IE students with courses which address their English for Specific Purposes (ESP) needs. In their first year, students follow a skills-based English language curriculum which concentrates on reading, listening, writing and oral presentation skills. In addition, they attend computer-assisted language learning (CALL) classes which aim to improve their TOEIC (Test of English for International Communication) test-taking skills. In the second year of their English studies, students take IE content-based English classes which again focus on enhancing their academic reading, writing and oral presentation skills. The economics content of these courses is comparable with that of basic undergraduate economics courses at a university in the English-speaking world. The students also continue to take economics courses which are mostly taught in Japanese, although some are taught in English by both Japanese and native Englishspeaking professors. IE students have more exposure to academic English than regular economics students, being required in their second year to write 800 to 1,000 word essays in English. Students are taught how to paraphrase, develop their academic arguments through extensive research, and follow APA citation and referencing. At the end of their second year, students give individual ten-minute oral presentations in English on an economics topic, which is followed by a ten- to 15-minute question and answer session (also in English). The online Autonomy Resource Centre (ARC) was developed in tandem with the launch of the new sub-faculty of IE with the aim of helping to meet the academic and vocational needs of IE students who require greater exposure to a higher level of English than regular economics students. Many of the IE students are interested in studying abroad through Ritsumeikan’s short and long-term programmes in

Developing the ARC  147

America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Some IE students also attend independent homestay programmes abroad during the spring and summer holidays. The ARC was designed to provide online support for these students and encourage them to take greater responsibility for their own learning. In addition to supporting students in the acquisition of the skills required for studying and living abroad and for the TOEIC, it also aims to help the students with their wider academic development. Browne and Gerrity (2004) stress the importance of carrying out a needs analysis before establishing a CALL infrastructure. In the case of the ARC, the content-based material was designed on the basis of a needs analysis conducted with members of the IE faculty to determine what skills and materials needed to be woven into the students’ secondyear courses. Two of the main characteristics of an ESP course are the use of authentic materials and materials which promote autonomy (Carter 1983; Gatehouse 2001). Benson (2001, 2) defines autonomy as ‘the capacity to take control over one’s own learning’. When designing and creating learning materials, our intention was to foster learner autonomy by giving our students control over how they study online and helping them to develop their English ability through exposure to authentic material (see Cripps 2009). By giving students the opportunity to use such material at their own pace, and also the option to study with their peers through the forum and chat functions of the ARC, our intention was to provide an online environment which helps to foster learner autonomy. For the second-year content-based IE classes, a small group of English professors from the Faculty of Economics created original reading materials for the Reading courses (R3 and R4), and a communication and writing text with supplementary support material for the Communication and Writing courses (CW3 and CW4). This paper focuses on the CW3 Communication and Writing course which was designed to complement the R3 Reading course that uses economics-related genre texts (Peng 2007). The content-based material for the CW3 classes was piloted in the 2006–07 academic year. During this pilot year it was evident that students needed more out-of-class support. Since financial constraints precluded the setting-up of a physical support centre, it was decided to develop online support in the form of the ARC. The pedagogical framework which underpins the design and development of the Centre is outlined below.

148  Tony Cripps

Pedagogical framework Building on Little’s (1991) seminal work on learner autonomy, Benson (2001, 2) outlines a framework for learner autonomy which is based on the understanding that the capacity to take control involves three important aspects: … the concept of autonomy is grounded in a natural tendency for learners to take control over their learning … learners who lack autonomy are capable of developing it given appropriate conditions and preparation … the development of autonomy implies better language learning.

The ARC was designed to provide our students with the necessary ‘appropriate’ support to allow them to take control of their own learning. Echoing Reinders’ (2006) views on establishing an electronic learning environment, the online ARC was designed not to ‘impose autonomy’ on the students but to allow them to use the ARC as they wish. Online access to the ARC lets the students choose when and how they want to study, as well as their pace of study. Setting their own direction and taking responsibility for their learning is considered central to students becoming better language learners (Rubin 1979). Teachers can encourage students to become more independent by making explicit links between what they are studying and their shortterm and long-term goals. Providing a vocational focus, such as through TOEIC practice and presentation training, can create such a link and encourage students to invest greater effort in their learning. A further aim of the ARC is to provide support for teachers, but such support was developed in the context of ensuring the provision of an autonomous learning environment for our students. Thus when, for example, the CW3 teachers expressed a need for supplementary teacher support material, the provision of such material raised the issue of teacher control. Lamb (2009, 86) advises that in an autonomous learning environment ‘teachers need to let go rather than tighten up some of their control if their learners are to develop greater control not only over their learning environment but also over their own learning and motivation’. The ARC team designed the online CW3 material to allow students such control. The CW3 teachers were advised to use the original CW3 learning and teaching material in class in such ways as they found appropriate, but also to encourage students to access and use the ARC.

Developing the ARC  149

Developing the ARC It was decided that a year piloting the ARC would allow for practical problems to be addressed before it was opened up to all CW3 students. During the pilot year, the strengths and weaknesses of the material were to be identified with the aim of subsequent refinement. To support the small group of English professors in the ARC team, a post-graduate student was enlisted to give technical advice. Financial support was provided through a research grant from the Japanese Ministry of Education (Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Grant in Aid No. 20520538). One of the major initial concerns was to choose the most appropriate online platform upon which to develop the ARC, and during the pilot year the ARC team investigated the use of various platforms. Although the infrastructure for the ‘Blackboard’ online platform was already in place at the university, the ARC team finally opted for the Moodle platform. One of the main reasons for its adoption is the fact that Moodle is based on social constructivist ideals (Moodle 2008) and is designed to facilitate independent learning by actively supporting learner and teacher autonomy. In addition, although Blackboard has many laudable features, Moodle’s plug-in modules make the platform a more flexible option. During the pilot year, the ARC team worked on converting the CW3 text material to online files. In addition to the communication and writing text used in the CW3 classes, authentic introductory videos and content lectures were placed on the ARC. The video material consists of short introductions to basic economic concepts such as opportunity cost, supply and demand, utility maximisation and the problem of income inequality. These videos feature Ritsumeikan professors from the Faculty of Economics discussing fundamental economic issues. The three professors in these videos are, in some ways, role models for our students with all having a good command of English, having obtained post-graduate degrees in Economics in America or Australia. Many students are impressed that not only can their professors discuss economic concepts in English, but that their command of the language is good enough to hold a conversation with the interviewer, a native speaker of English. Self-study comprehension and discussion worksheets were developed to supplement the more formal video lectures on economics given by an American professor. Both the videos and the worksheets were made available online for the students to use. Self-study listening

150  Tony Cripps

tests based on the TOEIC were also placed on the ARC. Table 10.1 outlines the initial features of the ARC. Table 10.1 Initial features of the ARC

Content Audio

Description Practise listening tests based on economics content Sample TOEIC questions

Video

Self-introductions in English by Japanese professors Q & A videos in English with Japanese professors on economic issues 30-minute lectures on the economics subjects in English given by an American professor

Lecture questions Pre-lecture questions for discussion Post-lecture questions for discussion CW3 text

Guidance for essay writing Guidance for presentations

Online communication

Synchronous – using the chat function Asynchronous – using the forum function

Reviewing the ARC During the year spent piloting the ARC platform, the ARC team analysed student and teacher feedback on the CW3 text and support material. Teachers’ views (n=7) were collected using an online survey collection site (www.surveymonkey.com) and semi-structured interviews (Cripps 2008). Their responses were coded and analysed using a grounded theory approach (Radnor 2002). The CW3 teachers noted that the formal 30-minute lectures provided a valuable source of material for content-based discussions and for skills-based learning. They commented that the ‘highly motivated students’ found the material engaging and rewarding, noting that ‘students who put the time and effort into it got a lot out of it and did great work’. There was one dissenting voice. A teacher new to the university stated that the lectures ‘were much too difficult for my students’, and that students ‘had trouble with content-based discussion’ and ‘were not capable of taking this very far’. These

Developing the ARC  151

comments were, however, unrepresentative of the group, and almost all the teachers expressed the view that the CW3 material was useful. As another teacher noted: ‘I had a great time teaching and working with the interested students, as the subject matter was compelling.’ The students were also asked for their opinions about the CW3 material, data being collected through an end-of-semester questionnaire. Since the initial material was specifically geared towards their needs, students in the two higher-level IE classes (n=32) who had used the pilot ARC material were selected for their views. Their TOEIC scores ranged from 500 to over 700. Overall, their reaction to the material was extremely positive, with many of them stating that they liked to see their professors talking about economic issues before watching the formal lectures. However, there was a mixed reaction to the longer, 30-minute formal lectures given by an American professor. Some students complained that the professor spoke ‘too fast’, that the lecture content was ‘too difficult’, and that the lectures were ‘too long’. These statements, made by intermediate-level students (TOEIC 500– 600), must be tempered by the fact that the upper-intermediate level students (TOEIC 600+) voiced no such reservations.

Refinements The ARC team responded to the feedback by revising the existing material and adding new components to the ARC. In their initial comments, some teachers asked for a model presentation to be videoed and added to the ARC corpus. Consequently, examples of effective and ineffective presentations were added to the ARC. The CW3 text (Baber and Cripps 2009) is now in its fourth edition, and teacher and student feedback continues to be used to further refine the text and develop new online support material. Student presentations have also been added to the ARC for students to compare with their own presentations and those of their peers. It is hoped that interactive comments on presentation work through the online forums will help to further improve students’ presentation skills. The ARC has also been expanded to include many more selfstudy listening files, including samples of TOEIC listening material, economics-related video reports from various sources, and a TOEIC listening text written by an ARC team member which is designed to help intermediate-level students to improve their listening skills (Cripps and Shiomi 2009).

152  Tony Cripps

Kohonen (1992) and Little (1996) stress that autonomy implies interdependence, and thus learner autonomy is fostered not in isolation but through social interaction. This notion has provided the basis for the latest refinements to the ARC: the addition of online journals, interactive feedback on the CW3 lessons, and increased use of the chat and forum functions. In line with the initiative’s social constructivist philosophy, it is intended that these online additions will allow students to expand their knowledge base through synchronous and asynchronous interaction with their peers and teachers. The extent to which the ARC has fostered learner autonomy remains to be investigated more fully, but students who have used the resources have said that they are ‘useful for self-study’ and that they allow them ‘to study what I want to study’. In addition, many students have commented that they use the audio and video files to help improve their listening comprehension, especially before taking the TOEIC tests.

Future developments While the precise direction in which the ARC will develop is uncertain, it is likely that, in addition to being provided with more self-access learning material, students will be given access to the blog function which will afford them the opportunity to express their opinions in a safe and nurturing environment. Current student calls for more online TOEIC support material will be answered by the expansion of the ARC’s database of sample questions and worked examples. Additional support material, such as more sample presentations, essay drafts with annotated teacher explanations, essay checklists and audio comments by teachers, will also be provided. Additional lectures of varying levels of content and English difficulty will be made available for selfstudy, and to accompany these lectures students will be encouraged to make podcasts commenting on the lecture content which can then be uploaded and shared. Three other developments are planned. With the advent of 4G mobile technology, it is hoped that our students will be able to access the ARC and download material using their mobile phones, thus going some way to providing a platform which is in tune with our students’ needs and technological expertise. Since many Ritsumeikan students commute from various parts of Japan, this mobile access will provide a greater opportunity for study before and after classes.

Developing the ARC  153

We also envisage that students will be given access to the ‘course creation’ level of Moodle. This will, in effect, give students the instruments to construct their own learning environments, thus facilitating their ability to take greater control of their learning. For teachers, it is planned that reflective lesson planning (Miller 2009) will be woven into future courses which will in turn necessitate the reconceptualisation of how they plan their classes. Finally, we expect to open up the ARC to students from other institutions so that they will be able to use the platform. By working with students from other institutions, it is hoped that students using the ARC will broaden their knowledge base.

Practicalities The essence of effective material development is to continually refine the materials which have been created. Eliciting feedback from our colleagues, the administrative arm of our institutions and our students enables us to design, create and revise material which will be both utilised and effective. With the benefit of hindsight, it would have been beneficial to have expanded the number of people on the ARC team beyond its core members. To this end, the ARC team has solicited the opinions and help of other educators who are teaching the CW3 and CW4 courses. A new CW4 team has been formed, and its members have been active in learning how to use the Moodle platform and creating material for a new CW4 course. As we experienced, some educators can be quite resistant to new material and ideas. If we expect our colleagues to use the material we create for our courses, it is imperative to provide training and the means by which they can then support their students’ online learning (Palloff and Pratt 2009, 371).

Conclusion Creating an online environment which supports independent learning is not an easy task. To do this and develop innovative and effective material requires a structured process which takes into account all the stakeholders involved, and requires the setting-up of a team to devise, test and revise in-class and online material. The construction of the ARC has also demonstrated the importance of an informative feedback loop that collects and acts upon the opinions of students and teachers.

154  Tony Cripps

The development of the ARC is just the first step on the path to increasing learner autonomy in Ritsumeikan students. Benson (2005, 174) notes the conceptualisation of autonomy is changing: ‘… the idea of autonomy, which has been conceptualised in teachers’ professional discourse as being primarily in the interests of the learner, has tended to become an economic imperative in the education policy discourse’. It is likely that vocational demands will increasingly shape both how university courses are run and the role of technology in education. By providing our students with access to the ARC, through interaction with other students and ultimately by giving them the freedom to create their own educational domains, we hope that they will truly study in an environment which fosters autonomous learning and thus equips them better for life after graduation.

References Baber, W. and A. C. Cripps. 2009. Communication and writing 3 (4th edn). Kyoto: Seikyo Printing. Benson, P. 2001. Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. London: Longman. Benson, P. 2005. Autonomy and information technology in the educational discourse of the information age. In Information technology and innovation in language education, ed. C. Davison. 173–91. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Browne, C. S. and S. Gerrity. 2004. Setting up and maintaining a CALL laboratory. In New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms, eds. S. Fotos and C. M. Browne, 171–97. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates. Carter, D. 1983. Some propositions about ESP. The ESP Journal, 2, 131–37. Cripps, A. C. 2008. Media management: Weaving electronic media into an ESP course. The 3rd Centre for Language Studies International Conference Proceedings. 139–47. Singapore: Centre for Language Studies, National University of Singapore. Cripps, A. C. 2009. Developing ESP course material for international Economics students. Paper presented at the 14th Conference of the Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics Proceedings [CD-ROM]. Cripps, A. C. and K. Shiomi. 2009. Tune into the TOEIC listening. Tokyo: Seibido. Gatehouse, K. 2001. Key Issues in English for Specific Purposes (ESP) curriculum development. The Internet TESL Journal, VII(10). Retrieved 21 May 2009, from http://www.iteslj.org/ . Japan Today. 2010. Rakuten to make English official in-house language by end of 2012. Retrieved 1 July 2010, from http://www.japantoday.com/category/ technology/view/rakuten-to-make-english-official-in-house-language-byend-of-2012.

Developing the ARC  155

Kohonen, V. 1992. Experiential language learning: Second language learning as cooperative learner education. In Collaborative language learning and teaching, ed. D. Nunan. 14–39. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lamb, T. 2009. Controlling learning: Learners’ voices and relationships between motivation and learner autonomy. In Maintaining control: Autonomy and language learning, eds. R. Pemberton, S. Toogood and A. Barfield. 67–86. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Little, D. 1991. Learner autonomy: Definitions, issues and problems. Dublin: Authentik. Little, D. 1996. Freedom to learn and compulsion to interact: Promoting learner autonomy through the use of information systems and information technologies. In Taking control: Autonomy in language learning, eds. R. Pemberton, E. S. L. Li, W. W. F. Or and H. D. Pierson. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Miller, L. 2009. Reflective lesson planning. In Maintaining control: Autonomy and language learning, eds. R. Pemberton, S. Toogood and A. Barfield. 109–24. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Moodle homepage. 2008. Philosophy. Retrieved 14 June 2008, from http://docs. moodle.org/en/Philosophy. Palloff, R. M. and K. Pratt. 2009. Beyond the looking glass: What faculty and students need to be successful online. In Handbook of online learning (2nd edn), eds. K. E. Rudestam and J. Schoenholtz-Read, 370–86. Singapore: Sage. Peng, V. M. 2007. Economics and EFL Learners. Ritsumeikan Economics Faculty, 55(5.6) (立命館経済学第55巻5.6号), 9–92. Poole, G. S. 2005. Reform of the university English language teaching curriculum in Japan: A case study. In The ‘Big Bang’ in Japanese higher education, eds. J. S. Eades, R. Goodman and Y. Hada. 242–73. Melbourne: Trans Pacific Press. Radnor, H. 2002. Researching your professional practice. Buckingham: Oxford University Press. Reinders, H. 2006. Supporting self-directed learning through an electronic learning environment. In Supporting independent learning: Issues and interventions, eds. T. Lamb and H. Reinders. 219–38. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Rubin, J. 1979. What ‘the good language learner’ can teach us. In Sociolinguistic aspects of language learning and teaching, ed. J. B. Pride. 17–26. London: Oxford University Press. SurveyMonkey. 2009. Homepage. Date retrieved 21 May 2009, from http:// www.surveymonkey.com.

11 Autonomous learners in digital realms: Exploring strategies for effective digital language learning Rebecca L. Oxford and Chien-Yu Lin

Introduction The arrival of the Digital Age has been a ‘white water change’ (Oxford 2008c, 191), a metaphor describing the rapid, complex and allencompassing nature of this technological wave. The Digital Age has changed the characteristics of language learners themselves. With the pervasive influence of digital technology, most learners in economically developed countries are now either ‘digital immigrants’ or ‘digital natives’ (Prensky 2001; Carlson 2005). Digital natives are individuals who have been surrounded by digital technologies all their lives and who cannot easily imagine an existence without applications such as videogames, email, blogs, texting, cell phones, digital cameras and iPods. Digital immigrants are those individuals who grew up without digital technologies but who have become skilled in the use of some of them, albeit generally with ‘accented’ skills. The Digital Age has opened up a plethora of creative routes for digital language learning, which we define as any type of language learning supported in whole or in part by computer technologies. For instance, Second Life and other ‘massively multiplayer online-roleplaying games’ are increasingly used for language learning (Oxford 2008b, 2010). Wireless, Internet-connected mobile devices, such as MP3 or MP4 players, are among the most popular and most flexible technology aids at US government language institutes (Center for the Advanced Study of Language 2008), offering dual-channel (visual and auditory) learning, ‘augmented realities,’ the possibility of new virtual identities and instant connections with other learners (Dede

158  Rebecca L. Oxford and Chien-Yu Lin

2005; Oxford 2010). Alelo’s Tactical Iraqi offers authentic language and culture instruction delivered in game-like scenario formats to military and other learners, with accurate assessments of progress provided (Nielson, Rockwood and Robertson 2007). Individuals can now benefit from blogging and wikis for language learning (Oxford 2010). However, effectiveness in digital language learning does not magically occur. To be a successful digital language learner, an individual must use relevant language learning strategies. A language learning strategy is a deliberate, goal-oriented action plan that a learner employs to control, regulate, and enhance his or her language learning (Oxford 2011). Many research studies (see those reported in O’Malley and Chamot 1990; Oxford 1990, 1996; Cohen and Macaro 2007; Griffiths 2008) have shown that the use of certain types of learning strategies is related significantly to language proficiency. Appropriate learning strategies make language learning more efficient, more effective and often more enjoyable (Oxford 1990). Among the most salient categories of language learning strategies are cognitive strategies for analysing, synthesising and reasoning; metacognitive strategies for managing and controlling the learning cycle (planning, organising, monitoring and evaluating); and affective and social strategies for dealing with emotional, motivational and interpersonal sides of language learning. The next section presents some of the challenges of digital language learning and depicts the strategic ways by which language learners deal with them.

Challenges of digital language learning and learners’ strategic responses This section focuses on nine challenges of digital language learning and the strategic responses (responses involving learning strategies) used by effective learners when faced with those challenges. The first five challenges are related to features of the digital learning environment, while the remaining four deal with the need for learners to overcome specific inadequacies in the learning programs. Challenge 1: Resolving confusion about which digital language learning programs to use We have already noted some potentially very useful digital language learning programs and devices. However, certain programs have been misrepresented by their creators and advertisers, thus generating great

Autonomous learners in digital realms  159

confusion for potential users (Oxford 2010). Here are a few examples. One suite of digital language learning programs is advertised as providing ‘total immersion’, ‘dynamic immersion’ and ‘real-life scenarios’, although in actuality it offers only static images which learners must inductively match with words and phrases (Nielson and Doughty 2008; Oxford 2010). In a study of Air Force officers attempting to use this application, most participants rapidly lost motivation and focused only on ‘beating the software’ (Warwick 2009). Another program is described as offering an ‘immersion environment’ but actually provides scenarios using inauthentic language (Nielson et al. 2008). Yet another digital program, which specifically claims to teach communication and to enrich users’ lives, actually consists of mechanical drills, lacks authentic language and allows learners to use translation aids to avoid listening or reading in the target language (Lafford 2004; Nielson and Freynick 2008; Freynick and Nielson 2009; Nielson 2009). Because of the misrepresentations in advertisements about certain digital language learning programs, potential users must take active responsibility for learning about the programs so that they can separate verifiable claims from absurd or manipulative promises. Learners’ strategic responses to Challenge 1 To avoid investing large sums of money and time in programs that are falsely advertised or not directly useful to their own purposes, individuals employ learning strategies such as the following: identifying their own goals for language learning; comparing these goals with listed features of a given digital program; separating accurate facts about a program from unverifiable or overtly false promises; analysing the differences and similarities among available programs; seeking sources of technical information; and asking experts for advice. The use of learning strategies is needed for investigating and evaluating digital language learning programs before making a commitment to a given program. We view this as an essential preliminary step for digital language learners, after which the next major challenge is hypertext paths. Challenge 2: Forging appropriate paths to deal with hypertexts Hypertexts are the most common format that any learners, including language learners, encounter in web-based environments (Instone, Teasley and Leventhal 1996). Hypertext is defined as text displayed on a computer or other electronic device with references (hyperlinks)

160  Rebecca L. Oxford and Chien-Yu Lin

to other text that the reader can immediately access by pressing a key or clicking a mouse. Before processing the information found in hypertexts, language learners must face the challenge of deciding what to read next, and this involves constructing a path. Learners’ strategic responses to Challenge 2 Hypertext path construction strategies are special cognitive strategies that did not exist prior to the Digital Age. Salmerón, Kintsch and Cañas (2006) explored three main strategies for hypertext path construction: a strategy using hyperlink screen position, a strategy employing hyperlink interest and a strategy oriented to the semantic (meaningbased) relationship of a hyperlink with a section just read. The results of one study reported by Salmerón, Kintsch and Cañas (2006) showed that readers with low ‘meta-comprehension’ skills decided what to read next by employing one of the first two strategies—choosing a default screen position or making a selection based on hyperlink interest—more often than did their highly skilled counterparts, who decided what to read next by considering semantic relationships. However, the findings were qualified by readers’ prior knowledge of the topic. Choice of a strategy for hypertext path construction helps to determine how much information is acquired and is retained. Challenge 3: Reducing design-induced ‘extraneous’ cognitive load If a digital application is not designed well, it can produce an ‘extraneous’ cognitive load that impedes learning (Sweller 1988; Pollock, Chandler and Sweller 2002). Extraneous cognitive load means that information is presented in a manner that confuses or disorients learners through ‘split attention’ (Oxford 2011). For instance, a poorly designed digital application might offer any or all of the following distractions: overly ‘busy’ graphic representations and animations; overuse of background noise; many conflicting fonts; too much text crammed onto the screen; and an excessive number of hyperlinks on one page. Because of the distractions, the user’s attention is split between important and irrelevant information. Learners’ strategic responses to Challenge 3 Skilled language learners handle extraneous cognitive load in digital applications by using the following strategies: noticing the differences

Autonomous learners in digital realms  161

between key information and distracting information; mentally setting the distractions aside (or technologically removing them if possible); and paying attention to the key information. Such strategies help learners to focus their attention effectively, which is a requirement for language learning (Oxford 1990). The fourth challenge for digital language learners concerns another aspect of cognitive load. Challenge 4: Managing significant ‘intrinsic’ cognitive load ‘Intrinsic’ cognitive load is imposed by the number of information elements and their complexity. Significant intrinsic cognitive load, if not managed well, can impede learning. Intrinsic cognitive load is different from extraneous cognitive load, which is caused by poor design. Intrinsic cognitive load can appear in digital learning and in non-digital learning, although digital formats, such as hypertexts, naturally make the situation more complex, requiring learners to identify or create meaningful linkages among multiple pieces of digital information. Learners’ strategic responses to Challenge 4 Effective learners respond to this challenge by using various learning strategies. The strategy of ‘chunking’ (putting related pieces of information together to intentionally reduce the number of items to be learned) specifically addresses the problem of intrinsic cognitive load and frees working memory for other uses (Paas, Renkl and Sweller 2004). Organising information in memorable sequences or strings (Mandler 2001) is valuable when intrinsic cognitive load is significant, especially if words and sentences in a dialogue need to be memorised. Chunking and creating sequences or strings are examples of a more general class of ‘linking strategies’, which includes comparing, contrasting, relating, differentiating and synthesising information. Linking strategies not only help to reduce or manage intrinsic cognitive load, but also facilitate identifying important information, building schemata (mental frameworks), and monitoring and evaluating comprehension (Carrell 1983; Alexander, Kulikowich and Jetton 1994; Afflerbach and Cho 2008). The fifth challenge for digital language learners concerns speed, one of the hallmarks of the Digital Age.

162  Rebecca L. Oxford and Chien-Yu Lin

Challenge 5: Coping with unhelpful pressures toward excessive speed and multitasking Digital learning reflects societal and technological pressures toward rapidity and therefore toward immediate gratification or fast completion. As a result, many learners try to multitask, doing several tasks at once. However, research shows that as technology speeds things up, people are not really multitasking; instead, they are switching attention from task to task extremely quickly, creating serious interference among multiple tasks (Hamilton 2008). Using magnetic resonance imaging, researchers can actually see the brain struggling while an individual juggles competing attentional demands in attempting more than one task at a time (ibid.). We have already identified ‘split attention’ in reference to extraneous cognitive load based on poor design, but the attempt to multitask creates a different kind of split attention. Learners’ strategic responses to Challenge 5 Wise digital language learners resist the push for rapidity and multitasking by employing metacognitive strategies for planning, organising, monitoring and evaluating their learning. Metacognitive strategies contribute greatly to learner self-regulation and control over digital learning (Azevedo and Cromley 2004; Moos and Azevedo 2008; Zimmerman 2008; Greene and Azevedo 2009). The executive control produced by using metacognitive strategies gives learners the choice to employ other crucial types of strategies, such as cognitive strategies for analysis and synthesis, and reasoning and social strategies for interacting with others (Oxford 2011). Not surprisingly, the use of metacognitive strategies is a ‘key discriminator between successful or unsuccessful students’ in digital learning contexts (Greene and Azevedo 2009, 24). The next four challenges concern the need to overcome specific insufficiencies. The first of these involves inadequate exposure to authentic target language. Challenge 6: Reversing the situation of insufficient exposure to authentic discourse in the target language Many foreign language learners experience limited exposure to authentic discourse in the target language. This is very true in the ordinary foreign language classroom setting, where frequently only one

Autonomous learners in digital realms  163

person (the teacher) is skilled in using authentic discourse in the target language. Dedicated language teachers occasionally try to compensate for this difficulty by encouraging students to use digital language learning programs independently as a means of gaining increased exposure to authentic target language discourse. However, some of these programs fail to provide authentic target language discourse (see Challenge 1), instead offering verbatim translations of English language discourse, scenarios marred by the lack of realistic greetings or leavetakings, or mechanical drills that never lead to authentic discourse (Lafford 2004; Nielson and Doughty 2008; Nielson and Freynick 2008; Nielson et al. 2008; Freynick and Nielson 2009; Nielson 2009; Oxford 2010). These programs thereby engender a distorted understanding of the language and fail to foster communicative competence or cultural competence. Fortunately, some high-quality programs do provide authentic discourse, but it is surprising how many do not. Learners’ strategic responses to Challenge 6 In response to this challenge, some learners strategically employ ‘tandem learning’, a structure in which two learners, each with a different linguistic background, learn a language from the other (Brammerts 1996; Kotter 2003; Chung et al. 2005). Tandem learning can occur via digital means, such as email, online chat or Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). Authentic language usage is a key element in tandem learning. Making the decision to employ digital tandem learning is a learning strategy that involves both metacognitive (planning) and social-engagement aspects. Adept learners develop additional learning strategies to make the digital tandem experience as effective as possible. For instance, one tandem-learning dyad (a Canadian-born, English-native-speaking Korean and a native-speaking Korean who had newly immigrated to Canada) successfully deployed three significant strategies, as seen in online chat transcripts: helping each other to construct meaning by means of expert-and-novice collaboration in authentic communication; appropriating the words (and Internet emoticons) of others; and raising awareness of each other’s’ identities as Koreans in the Canadian context (Chung et al. 2005). For these learners, tandem learning via digital means created the necessary exposure to the authentic target language while forging a personal relationship.

164  Rebecca L. Oxford and Chien-Yu Lin

Challenge 7: Overcoming a sense of lack of community in digital language learning One problem with digital learning can be a sense of lack of a cohesive, closely-knit learning community or a ‘community of practice’ (Lave and Wenger 1991). This problem is especially acute if learners are widely dispersed geographically. Even if learners are in the same classroom, some might feel that digital learning separates them rather than bringing them together into a community of practice. Learners’ strategic responses to Challenge 7 Socially oriented language learners generate strategies for communitybuilding, particularly in online discussion forums and chat rooms. For instance, in Darhower’s (2002) study of university Spanish-language learners participating in online chat, successful groups employed the following social strategies: (a) engaging in many task-centred dialogues; and (b) constantly seeking mutual agreement in decision making. These strategies helped the successful groups to maintain ‘intersubjectivity’ or shared perspectives in chat rooms despite the lack of face-to-face social cues, to create a collaborative community and to complete the assigned foreign language tasks. In addition, the successful learners in Darhower’s chat room study used several language-based social strategies to construct a friendly, coherent interpersonal space in chat rooms. Not only did they employ ordinary greetings, leave-takings and politeness formulas, but they also used extensive humour, friendly sarcasm, jovial insults and playful profanity. Their discourse reflected the learners’ enjoyment of playing with the foreign language, saying things they would probably not say offline in formal social contexts, such as a classroom. Hence, the digital environment provided a unique site for language learners to develop sociolinguistic competence in the target language while building an online community. Language learning and language use became inseparable. In optimal situation such as this, computers can be exceptionally effective tools for collaborative language learning (Meskill 1999). Thus, socially attuned learners in chat rooms can, through the use of social strategies, create a cohesive community. Such a community, as a byproduct, often provides affective support, stimulating motivation and positive emotions. However, many digital environments do not provide adequate affective support.

Autonomous learners in digital realms  165

Challenge 8: Transcending affective inadequacies of distance or completely independent digital learning ‘Affect’ refers to emotion and motivation. In an ordinary classroom and in study abroad programmes, language learners face linguistic, cultural and identity-related changes (Gardner 1988; Horwitz and Young 1991; MacIntyre 2002) which create the need for affective support. Teachers in those face-to-face situations can intentionally give a smile, a pleasant laugh or an encouraging comment when a learner’s face shows anxiety or when a learner overtly voices a negative emotion or displays flagging motivation. Certain language tutors engaged in synchronous (realtime) distance digital language learning, especially where tutors and learners can view each other on-screen, can purposefully offer similar affective support. However, asynchronous-only digital communication often reduces the affective link between the learner and the distance education tutor (White 1995). Some distance education tutors do not consider providing, or do not know how to provide, motivational or emotional support through asynchronous communication. In fact, they might not even notice the need. In a distance digital language learning environment that does not offer any real-time interaction, there might be an asynchronous peer discussion forum, in which learners can employ, with adaptations, some of the social strategies—light-hearted joking, pleasant forms of sarcasm and other learner-friendly interactions—used by the Spanish language learners in their synchronous chat room. Such strategies have the affective benefit of reducing stress and heightening motivation. However, many asynchronous discussion forums do not lend themselves to such interactions, which are more easily accomplished in spontaneous, synchronous digital communication. For these reasons, the language learner takes much of the affective burden when digital communication is only asynchronous. Affective issues are even more daunting in completely independent digital language learning where the learner has no online tutor or online peers. A fully independent environment might provide the learner with only a computer and some compact discs for language instruction, with no human contact to offer even minimal affective support when motivation is low or stress is high. In such a case, the entire affective burden is on the learner.

166  Rebecca L. Oxford and Chien-Yu Lin

Learners’ strategic responses to Challenge 8 When in a distance digital learning situation with asynchronous communication or a completely independent digital learning context, language learners often have a great need for affective support that is unavailable from tutors or peers. In such situations, wise learners develop a variety of affective strategies to maintain their own motivation and positive emotions. Such strategies include the following: (a) personalising a language learning task to make it more appealing (Jones 1999); (b) thinking about the multiple practical rewards of doing a language task well; (c) reflecting on the enjoyable challenges of the task; (d) considering the amount of progress made since the last lesson; (e) increasing motivation through playing with the language or finding out more about the culture; and (f) using deep breathing and relaxation to reduce stress (Oxford 1990, 2011). The somewhat paradoxical affective strategy of ‘self-handicapping’ is also occasionally used. In self-handicapping, the learner deals with motivational issues by making a language task more demanding than it needs to be (Oxford 2011). Self-handicapping gives the learner a reason to feel pleased and increasingly motivated if complete success is achieved on the task. This strategy also provides a plausible excuse if the learner does not perceive his or her performance to be fully adequate. It is therefore a way to maintain positive feelings no matter what happens. Thus, strategic language learners find ways to cope with gaps in affective support in specific types of digital environments. Some language learners also experience a need to compensate for missing guidance in particular digital environments, as the final challenge shows. Challenge 9: Compensating for missing guidance in distance or completely independent digital learning Digital language learners in a distance education environment often complain that this setting deprives them of socially mediated, instructor-provided guidance (Vygotsky 1978) they could have obtained in a classroom (White 1995), especially about how best to plan, carry out and evaluate their learning. When interaction with a tutor is at a distance, and especially when it occurs asynchronously, the tutor cannot provide personalised guidance at exactly the time or in the particular way a learner requires. Many distance education environments give instructions only in one fashion, without the

Autonomous learners in digital realms  167

variety of elaboration that would occur in a classroom. As a result, digital language learners in many distance education situations feel instructionally adrift and isolated. Learners’ strategic responses to Challenge 9 Nothing can fully take the place of an in-person teacher. However, language learning websites provide guidance to enable distance digital learners or completely independent learners to become more autonomous and self-regulated. An example is the learning strategy website of the Centre for Independent Language Learning at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, http://www2.elc.polyu.edu.hk/ CILL/strategy.htm. In addition, books about strategies for language learning, such as How to Study a Foreign Language (Lewis 1999), while not specifically oriented to digital learners, offer guidance that such learners can use in choosing strategies. Finally, Meskill (1991) showed that learner-controlled, interactive, online video materials can provide useful advice regarding language learning strategies. These sources strongly emphasise metacognitive strategies, which are crucial for overall management of language learning. Metacognitive strategies, such as planning, organising, monitoring and evaluating, provide selfguidance, executive control and discipline to enable learners to learn languages at a distance (White 1995) or independently (Oxford 2008a). These sources also underscore the importance of cognitive strategies to help strategic language learners develop schemata and process language information, which can be of great value in distance education and independent learning.

Conclusion We have discussed nine challenges of digital language learning, and have presented information on the strategies that some learners use to deal effectively with those challenges. The knowledge and practice of language learning strategies is essential for successful language learning in digital environments. Strategies addressing various digital learning challenges come from multiple categories, and the theories related to those strategies emerge from several academic disciplines (Oxford and Schramm 2007). This chapter should serve to remind language teachers and tutors of the importance of teaching language learning strategies in order to help prepare students for dealing with digital learning. Many digital

168  Rebecca L. Oxford and Chien-Yu Lin

applications require learners to be autonomous, self-regulated or even completely independent. Non-strategic learners—those who do not have sufficient knowledge of and adequate practice with language learning strategies—are likely to be unable to handle such responsibilities. Non-strategic learners sometimes experience themselves as ‘pawns,’ overwhelmed by digital power rather than able to take charge of that power. For this reason, learning strategy instruction should be integrated into the curriculum of technology-supported language learning. The nine challenges and learners’ strategic responses can provide a basic orientation to the types of strategies learners need for effective digital language learning.

References Afflerbach, P. and B.-Y. Cho. 2008. Identifying and describing constructively responsive comprehension strategies in new and traditional forms of reading. In Handbook of reading comprehension research, eds. S. Israel and G. Duffy. 69–90. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Alexander, P. A., J. M. Kulikowich and T. L. Jetton. 1994. The role of subjectmatter knowledge and interest in the processing of linear and nonlinear texts. Review of Educational Research, 64: 201–52. Azevedo, R. and J. G. Cromley. 2004. Does training on self-regulated learning facilitate students’ learning with hypermedia? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96: 523–35. Brammerts, H. 1996. Language learning in tandem using the Internet. In Telecollaboration in foreign language learning. Proceedings of the Hawaii Symposium, ed. M. Warschauer. 121–30. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Carlson, S. 2005. The net generation goes to college. Chronicle of Higher Education, 7 October. Carrell, P. L. 1983. Some issues in studying the role of schemata, or background knowledge, in second language comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 1: 81–92. Center for the Advanced Study of Language. 2008. Using iPods for foreign language learning. College Park: University of Maryland. Centre for Independent Language Learning. 2009. Learning strategies. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Retrieved on 13 November 2010, from http://www2.elc.polyu.edu.hk/CILL/strategy.htm. Chung, Y., B. Graves, M. Wesche and M. Barfurth. 2005. Computer-mediated communication in Korean-English chat rooms: Tandem learning in an international languages program. Canadian Modern Language Review, 62: 49–86. Cohen, A. D. and E. Macaro. 2007. Language learner strategies: 30 years of research and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Autonomous learners in digital realms  169

Darhower, M. 2002. Interactional features of synchronous computer-mediated communication in the intermediate L2 class: A sociocultural case study. CALICO Journal, 9: 249–77. Dede, C. 2005. Planning for neomillennial learning styles. Educause Quarterly, 28: 7–12. Freynick, S. and K. Nielson. 2009. Using self-study materials in the workplace: An analysis of the US Coast Guard’s trial of Auralog TELL ME MORE. College Park: Center for the Advanced Study of Language, University of Maryland. Gardner, R. C. 1988. The socio-educational model of second language learning: Assumptions, findings, and issues. Language Learning, 38: 101–26. Greene, J. A. and R. Azevedo. 2009. A macro-level analysis of SRL processes and their relations to the acquisition of a sophisticated mental model of a complex system. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34: 18–29. Griffiths, C. 2008. Lessons from good language learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hamilton, J. 2008. Think your’re multitasking? Think again. National Public Radio. Retrieved on 12 November 2010, from http://www.npr.org/ templates/story/story.php?storyId=95256794#commentBlock. Horwitz, E. and D. J. Young. 1991. Language anxiety: From theory and research to classroom implications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Instone, K., B. Teasley and L. Leventhal. 1996. Lessons learned from redesigning hypertext user interfaces. In Cognitive aspects of electronic text processing, eds. H. van Oostendorp and S. de Mul. 265–86. Norwood: Ablex. Jones, C. 1999. Contextualise and personalise: Key strategies for vocabulary acquisition. ReCALL, 1(3): 34–40. Kotter, M. 2003. Negotiation of meaning and code switching in online tandems. Language Learning and Technology, 7: 145–72. Lafford, B. A. 2004. Review of TELL ME MORE Spanish. Language Learning and Technology, 8(3): 21–34. Retrieved on 30 September 2010, from http://llt. msu.edu/vol8num3/review1. Lave, J. and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lewis, M. 1999. How to study a foreign language. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. MacIntyre, P. D. 2002. Motivation, anxiety, and emotion in second language acquisition. In Individual differences and instructed language learning, ed. P. Robinson. 45–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Mandler, G. 2001. Remembering. In Oxford guide to the mind, ed. G. Underwood. 30–2. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Meskill, C. 1991. Language learning strategy advice: A study of the effects of on-line messaging. System, 19(3): 277–87. Meskill, C. 1999. Computers as tools for collaborative language learning. In CALL: Media, design and applications, ed. K. Cameron. 141–62. Lisse, Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger. Moos, D. C. and R. Azevedo. 2008. Self-regulated learning with hypermedia: The role of prior domain knowledge. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33: 270–98.

170  Rebecca L. Oxford and Chien-Yu Lin

Nielson, K. 2009. E-learning foreign languages: How effective is technology-mediated language training? CASL Fact Sheet. College Park, MD: Center for the Advanced Study of Language, University of Maryland. Nielson, K. and C. Doughty. 2008. Rosetta Stone evaluation executive report. Final technical report E.3.1. College Park, MD: Center for the Advanced Study of Language, University of Maryland. Nielson, K. and S. Freynick. 2008. Review of Auralog’s TELL ME MORE: Analysis of computer-mediated self-study materials in Spanish. College Park: Center for the Advanced Study of Language, University of Maryland. Nielson, K., S. Freynik, J. Carnes, D. Schulz, J. Mueller and N. Faryar. 2008. Technical details: Review of transparent language CL-150 – analysis of computermediated language learning materials. College Park, MD: Center for the Advanced Study of Language, University of Maryland. Nielson, K., T. Rockwood and S. Robertson. 2007. M.7: Review of technologymediated language teaching programs. TTO 101. Training Evaluation. College Park, MD: Center for the Advanced Study of Language, University of Maryland. O’Malley, J. M. and A. U. Chamot. 1990. Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oxford, R. L. 1990. Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle. Oxford, R. L. 1996. Language learning strategies: Cross-cultural perspectives. Manoa: University of Hawaii Press. Oxford, R. L. 2008a. Hero with a thousand faces: Learner autonomy, learning strategies, and learning tactics in independent language learning. In Language learning strategies in independent settings, eds. S. Hurd and T. Lewis. 41–66. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Oxford, R. L. 2008b. How technology is transforming the way we learn foreign and second languages. In Strategies in language learning and teaching, ed. G. Cane. 2–18. RELC Anthology Series. Singapore: Regional English Language Centre. Oxford, R. L. 2008c. White water: Sensory learning styles in the digital age. Festschrift: Essays in honor of Dr. Hyo Woong Lee. 191–20. Pusan: Korea Maritime University. Oxford, R. L. 2010. Evaluation of adult language acquisition and sustainment programs and technologies for the U.S. air force. Montgomery, AL: Air Force Culture and Language Center, Maxwell Air Force Base, AL. Oxford, R. L. 2011. Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Harlow, Essex: Pearson/Longman. Oxford, R. L. and K. Schramm. 2007. Bridging the gap between psychological and sociocultural perspectives on L2 learning strategies. In Language learning strategies: 30 years of research and practice, eds. A. Cohen and E. Macaro. 47– 68. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Paas, F. G., A. Renkl and J. Sweller. 2004. Cognitive load theory: Instructional implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32, 1–8.

Autonomous learners in digital realms  171

Pollock, E., P. Chandler and J. Sweller. 2002. Assimilating complex information. Learning and Instruction, 12(1): 61–86. Prensky, M. 2001. Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9. Retrieved on 23 December 2008, from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/ Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20 Part1.pdf. Salmerón, L., W. Kintsch and J. J. Cañas. 2006. Reading strategies and prior knowledge in learning from hypertext. Memory and Cognition, 34(5): 1157–71. Sweller, J. 1988. Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2): 257–85. Warwick, J. 2009. The dilemmas of providing language instruction for the US air force. Air and Space Power Journal. Retrieved 17 November 2010, from http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj09/spr09/warwick. html. White, C. 1995. Autonomy and strategy use in distance foreign language learning: Research findings. System, 23(2): 207–21. Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Zimmerman, B. J. 2008. Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1): 166–83.

12 ePortfolios for independent language learning: Episodic innovation or lasting reform? Juliana Chau

Introduction Since the 1990s, teaching and learning in higher education has become increasingly technology-mediated and student-centred (Benson and Brack 2009). As part of this move, many universities have pursued the development of a managed learning environment with efficient interfaces between web-based learning materials and learner support materials (Beck, Livne and Bear 2005; Liu and Tsai 2005). The teaching and learning strategy at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University (PolyU), for instance, emphasises the wider use of blended learning, and the provision of facilities for learners to ‘develop … personal responsibility, and commitment to being independent learners’, and to enhance their ‘ownership of goal planning and continuous review’ through ePortfolio technology and methods (Hong Kong Polytechnic University 2008, 11–3). In the United Kingdom, the United States, the Netherlands and Australia, ePortfolios serve a variety of purposes and audiences, and are implemented using diverse software tools in a range of educational and professional contexts. The European Language Portfolio (ELP) is an example of the ePortfolio as a tool to allow for self-, teacher and institutional assessment of a learner’s proficiency in languages (Council of Europe 2008). Research findings (Little 2004) confirm the value of the ELP in raising learner awareness of the language learning process, and in supporting the development of a learner’s ability to self-evaluate. Other studies (e.g. Woodward and Nanlohy 2004), however, highlight concern about ePortfolio practice being widely viewed as an episodic endeavour rather than an activity of lasting usefulness.

174  Juliana Chau

Hong Kong is in its infancy in terms of ePortfolio practice and research, particularly in the domain of independent language learning. One possible reason is that many teachers in Hong Kong doubt that Chinese students, being commonly perceived as teacher-reliant (Bond 1996; Farmer and Sweeney 1997), are capable of assuming the more active learner role required of them in ePortfolio use. This chapter discusses how sustained ePortfolio practice can provide a robust basis for fostering independent language learning in higher education. The suggestion of a link between ePortfolio pedagogy and notions of independent language learning draws support from research findings (Abrami and Barrett 2005; Joyes, Gray and HartnellYoung 2010), citing the former as a resource that allows learners to construct knowledge, refine their understanding, and learn socially through interacting with peers and teachers. As Abrami and Barrett (2005) point out, ePortfolios: encourage learners to explore topics from a personal perspective capitalizing on and potentially increasing intrinsic interest. Intrinsic interest and the involvement in authentic learning tasks may also lead to [an] increased … sense of personal commitment and ownership.

It is noteworthy that attributes such as ownership and commitment are closely associated with independent learning (Sheerin 1991), selfdirected learning (Candy 1991), and learner awareness (van Lier 1996)— terms which tend to overlap in the literature on autonomy. Added to this is recent interest in linking autonomy to other student-focused constructs such as self-motivation, agency and identity, rendering the boundaries of autonomy as a field increasingly permeable (Benson 2006). The use of the term ‘autonomy’ in this article is drawn from the work of Little (1995, 175), who argues that an autonomous learner: accepts responsibility for his or her learning. This acceptance of responsibility has both socio-affective and cognitive implications … [involving] a positive attitude to learning and the development of a capacity to reflect on the content and process of learning with a view to bringing them…under conscious control.

Little’s perspective on autonomy is congruent with that of a socioconstructivist view of learning, where co-construction of knowledge and social interaction in the learning process constitute its central concern. ePortfolio practice that aims to cultivate independent learning will provide opportunities and support facilities for promoting learner responsibility for aspects of the language learning process. The learner is conceptualised as a socially constituted agent. The primary objective

ePortfolios for independent language learning  175

of this chapter is to report the findings of three ePortfolio research studies at the PolyU aimed at informing the design of an ePortfolio to help university learners develop their English language skills. An analysis of the findings in terms of learners’ ability to foster longterm ePortfolio use and engage in independent language learning is included. Insights derived from the analysis offer a useful base from which to consider four principles that might guide the development of similar independent language learning ePortfolios. The generic nature of these four principles permits their applicability across diverse settings and learners. This chapter comprises four main sections. The context for which the ePortfolio was developed and key research methods are presented first. This is followed by a discussion of the principles of ePortfolio design for sustained ePortfolio practice and independent language learning from two perspectives: theory and practice. The chapter concludes by examining the potential contribution of these principles to our understanding of long-term ePortfolio practice, and how this can support independent learning.

Context and research methods The ePortfolio reported here was introduced to learners at the PolyU English Language Centre (ELC) in September 2007, with the aim of helping tertiary learners to: (a) develop more effective English language learning strategies, particularly those pertaining to self-assessment and self-monitoring; (b) become better equipped to assume responsibility for lifelong English language learning; and (c) increase their potential for career progression. Between 2007 and 2009, a total of 637 learners and 30 teachers involved in four language courses participated in the project. The ePortfolio was used as an ungraded, additional English language learning tool for learners to chronicle and demonstrate evidence of learning and development, and to reflect on their English language learning experiences. As outlined above, one of the goals of ePortfolio use is to facilitate greater learner responsibility in language learning. Since its inception, the project has faced challenges ranging from low student motivation, curricular constraints and teachers’ concern about workload, to uncertainty about whether employers and the wider community would accept the ePortfolio as a complement to academic qualifications. The data reported in this article were gleaned chiefly from three ePortfolio research studies undertaken from 2007 to 2009.

176  Juliana Chau

Recognising that learning comprises both expected and unexpected experiences, the three studies employed multiple research methods, including post-course questionnaire surveys for teachers and learners, one-to-one end-of-semester interviews, and learners’ ePortfolio artefacts and other documentary evidence such as peer feedback recorded throughout the course. The questionnaire surveys and interviews focused on participants’ views of the ePortfolio and language learning. Four questions framed the main areas of enquiry: • What are the perceptions of learners and teachers of the ePortfolio as a tool to support independent language learning? • What are the short-term and long-term effects of the ePortfolio on independent language learning? • What challenges exist for ePortfolio users with regard to independent language learning? • What support features of the ePortfolio system are perceived by participants as most and least helpful for independent language learning? For clarity, the findings in the ensuing sections are reported as four principles of ePortfolio design from the dual perspective of theory and practice.

Principles of ePortfolio design for sustained ePortfolio practice and independent language learning: The theory Emerging from the findings of the three studies are four principles (see Figure 12.1) identified as: • goals matching content and structure; • context of implementation; • scaffolding; and • learner investment. The multifaceted nature of second language learning, ePortfolio practice and learner responsibility challenges researchers and educators to consider those strategies most valuable for their current situation. A selective review of the literature relating to these four principles follows.

ePortfolios for independent language learning  177

1. goals matching content and structure

4. learner investment

independent language learning

sustained ePortfolio practice

2. context of implementation

3. scaffolding for teacher and learner Figure 12.1 Four principles of ePortfolio design for sustained ePortfolio practice and independent language learning

Principle 1: ePortfolio design to match goals with content and structure The first principle focuses on learners’ ability to identify goals for their ePortfolio and justify their choice of entry (e.g. evidence, communication or reflection) in relation to the identified goals. Research (e.g. Simon and Forgette-Giroux 2000) has advocated the selection of content and structure with entries embodying four dimensions: (a) cognitive—knowledge acquisition and understanding, analysis, evaluation; (b) affective—respect, autonomy, responsibility, risk-taking; (c) metacognitive—self-reflection, comparisons of first drafts and final versions; and (d) developmental—ongoing and cumulative effort. It is understood that, although these four dimensions are recommended as selection criteria, learners can exercise discretion as to the actual number of entries to be shared, and their respective quality and format. This enables flexible implementation of ePortfolios within and beyond the classroom, and achieves a better match between the various pedagogical and institutional practices. Another benefit of creating opportunities for learners to align self-identified goals with course content and structure is reported to be the promotion of critical thinking (Garrison and Anderson 2003). This is because, when compiling an ePortfolio, learners are expected to undergo an iterative process of connecting the what (what to gather and choose), how (how to go about it and how appropriate is a chosen artefact), why (why a certain artefact and the reason for its choice), and what next (what to draw on and how to apply the experience in other contexts).

178  Juliana Chau

Principle 2: ePortfolio design to reflect the context of implementation This principle draws attention to the context within which ePortfolios are implemented. In a time of increased accountability and quality reviews, universities have directed efforts to monitoring graduate outcomes to discern the level of learner achievement. Such a shift has led to a broadening of the focus from learning about disciplinary knowledge to the inclusion of employability skills such as teamwork, self-management and lifelong learning (Benson and Brack 2009). This shift demands adequate support for teachers and learners in both technical and pedagogical terms, and the development of new skill sets in different learning environments, without which resistance to or frustration with change can be easily projected onto the ePortfolio as one of the most visible symbols of innovation (van Tartwijk et al. 2007). For ePortfolios to be widely adopted by universities for stimulating students to be active and self-directed learners, the relationship between contextual factors and ePortfolio design needs to be better understood (Wong and Chau 2008). Principle 3: ePortfolio design to provide scaffolding for the teacher and learner Although ePortfolios have great potential as instruments for cultivating reflection and facilitating systematic planning of learning, their implementation remains at an embryonic stage in many places. New online learning environments typically place expectations of change on the teacher’s role, from lecturing to participating. This process of change requires sufficient scaffolding which may include, for example, training for the teacher and learner, and time being allowed for both to explore and become comfortable with the new mode of operation and interaction (Stoicovy and Sanchez 2007). While teachers require new skills for facilitating online activities and addressing learner responses as co-participants, learners need to acknowledge their responsibility for learning, participate as active co-discussants and be familiar with the appropriate software tools and protocols for online interaction. Where needs are identified and adequate support is given, teachers and learners are more likely to explore the potential of ePortfolio technology for multimodal forms of communication, utilising new media skills for learning and teaching (Hartnell-Young and Morriss 2007).

ePortfolios for independent language learning  179

Principle 4: ePortfolio design to sponsor learner investment Norton’s (2001) perspective on ‘learner investment’ holds theoretical promise for promoting long-term ePortfolio practice and independent language learning. She argues that the concept of investment signals a ‘socially and historically constructed relationship of learners to the target language’ (p. 174), and a learner’s desire to accrue symbolic and material resources to access the powerful networks of target language users. In this sense, language learning as a social practice ‘engages the identities of learners in complex and sometimes contradictory ways’ (ibid.), and concomitantly an investment in the target language constitutes an investment in the self. ePortfolios speak to this need because ePortfolio compilation is a highly personalised process which validates a learner’s authorial voice, laying the groundwork for a communication infrastructure that fosters distributed initiatives for the learning process in more democratic and reflective ways. For this reason, DiMarco (2006) believes that ePortfolio users are likely to experience growth at the personal, professional and intellectual level, and should be recognised as vital agents for social change. For independent learning and long-term ePortfolio practice to occur, ePortfolio design must provide built-in facilities that take account of the learners’ unique socio-historical development of a sense of self, and cultivate an awareness in learners of being social agents capable of mastering social structures even as those structures impose themselves on the learner (Russell and Yoo 2001).

Principles of ePortfolio design for sustained ePortfolio practice and independent language learning: The practice The following sections outline some of the key findings derived from the three ePortfolio research studies conducted at the ELC in relation to the four principles of ePortfolio design. Principle 1: ePortfolio design to match goals with content and structure The ELC ePortfolio provided features for learners to select with whom to share entries, what to discuss, and when and how to present entries, while highlighting opportunities for interaction with teachers and peers beyond the classroom. Initially, learners were instructed

180  Juliana Chau

to identify goals or purposes for language learning, specify possible areas for improvement and consider entries as appropriate evidence of progress in these areas. Learners were given the option of choosing from a list of pre-specified goals or providing their own in the free-text box. Based on the evidence in the learners’ ePortfolios, in practice this process proved unrealistic and cognitively demanding for learners. A possible explanation is that most Hong Kong university students are accustomed to a lecture-based and teacher-directed mode of course delivery, rather than one involving student-initiated participation. The majority of learners in the studies, unsurprisingly, chose to set the goals by ticking the boxes provided in the ePortfolio system. The learner and teacher remarks below, obtained at the post-semester interviews, confirm this difficulty: I didn’t really understand what ‘purpose’ was or what to put in my ePortfolio. It took me a lot of time, so I just uploaded my assignments. (Learner) The students couldn’t make the connection between the purpose and the uploaded files. They thought it was just a matter of presenting anything in English in the ePortfolio. (Teacher)

These comments raised two issues relating to learners’ limited experience of goal-setting and a need for explicit instructions to help them engage critically in matching identified goals with the content and structure of the ePortfolio in the initial stages. In response, clear guidelines were provided which included suggestions for purpose, possible areas of focus for language improvement and items presenting evidence of language progress, with hyperlinked examples for learners’ reference (see Table 12.1). The suggested items encompassed the cognitive, affective, metacognitive and developmental dimensions, aided by timeand date-specific features to track progress. This enabled learners to deal with ‘teething problems’ linked to increased learner responsibility for aspects of language learning and to proceed to formulate strategies for achieving their goals. In post-semester interviews, most learners described the guidelines as helpful and relevant. Principle 2: ePortfolio design to reflect the context of implementation As part of their introduction to using ePortfolios, learners were asked to consider their audience. It was hoped that this would encourage them to reflect on their purposes and methods for learning (see Figure

ePortfolios for independent language learning  181

Table 12.1 Purpose, focus and evidence of an English language learning portfolio

Purpose

Possible areas of focus

Items presenting evidence of progress/achievements in these areas

Improving writing in English

vocabulary, grammatical structure, writing conventions, style and tone, cohesion, coherence and organisation

essay drafts, writing assignments, projects, threaded discussion entries, concept maps or outlines, personal written response to a book/song, current issue, social problem, magazine/newspaper article

Improving speaking in English

pronunciation, fluency, accuracy, intonation, verbal and non-verbal strategies, grammar, vocabulary, style and tone

video clips or sound recordings of meetings, discussion, conversation, online chat, reflection, observation

Improving reading or listening in English

vocabulary, grammar, variety spoken or written response to of text types, reading or books/magazines/films/TV listening for gist or detail programmes, photos, drawings, collages, paintings, poems, short stories, CD/DVD

Organisational critical thinking, creativity, efforts application of knowledge, flexibility Professional employment

career preparation, language and academic skills, potential for future contributions, flexibility

table of contents, presentation, explanation of your ‘best piece’ and of your own process of development, your own web page(s) showcase projects, writing and communication samples, resume, references, internship evaluations, certificates of membership in professional associations, reports/ logs, reflections, awards, transcripts, career plans

12.2, p. 182). In order to help learners shift their attention from mere course completion or grades to the need to place themselves at the heart of language learning, increasing learners’ awareness of audience was and remains an important goal of the ELC ePortfolio. While this process emphasised self-monitoring of the quality of language output, and selfunderstanding through ePortfolio practice from the personal, career and institutional perspectives, only a minority (24% of learners and 11% of teachers surveyed) said this was realised through ePortfolio practice.

182  Juliana Chau

Figure 12.2 ePortfolio design to reflect the context of implementation

An observation by a teacher at the post-semester interview illustrates the problem: I don’t think students really understand the purpose of the ePortfolio. What they seem to care about, quite understandably, is whether they make grammatical mistakes in their work, or whether they are able to express themselves with a wider range of vocabulary.

A reflective entry in a learner’s ePortfolio gives support to this teacher’s view: I want to get a better grade for my report. In order to do this, I need to learn more vocabulary and teachers can give me comments. My department says I need to talk to teachers at the ELC and check the grammar in my writing.

These comments seem to suggest a utilitarian perspective on English learning adopted by many ELC learners, mirroring similar results reported elsewhere (W. Poon 1988). Other factors, such as teaching materials, teaching methods, curriculum, policy, family background and learning environment, are known to influence learners’ attitudes towards English (A. Poon 2009).

ePortfolios for independent language learning  183

Principle 3: ePortfolio design to provide scaffolding for teacher and learner Prior to each language course with the embedded ePortfolio component, participating teachers took part in an orientation session focusing on the concept and practice of implementing ePortfolios. Individual coaching was also available on an ad hoc basis for teachers with technical issues. The teachers then introduced the ePortfolio to their classes, and handled learners’ ePortfolio-related queries in class or referred them to the ePortfolio team. Learners’ needs were further addressed through online, animated tutorials and an orientation video with prompts for in-class discussion or self-directed learning in the ePortfolio system. When asked about the clarity of the interface and ease of navigability of the ePortfolio, 68% of teachers expressed satisfaction, compared with just 36% of learners. One learner voiced this concern: Uploading the video is troublesome; the ePortfolio system supports only certain kinds of files. I know the teacher is going to comment on my work and if the video is not of good quality, and what I say isn’t good enough, I’m afraid the teacher will have a bad impression and my classmates will make fun of me.

This comment underscores a need for multidimensional scaffolding beyond that of technology. The traditional teacher-centred classroom may not accommodate a shift to a communicative focus, where tasks, especially those of a performative nature in an ePortfolio, can be seen as challenging the learner and the teacher to engage with each other in innovative ways. Where support and preparation is inadequate, both may be at a loss about how to proceed, probably resulting in independent coping rather than independent learning. Principle 4: ePortfolio design to sponsor learner investment Various facilities in the ELC ePortfolio system, including learners’ own choice of entries for presentation or of learning goals, affirmed and supported the development of the learners’ self. Decisions about who could view their entries and feedback rested with learners granting or restricting access rights to a particular audience. In other words, work in progress and even entries in presentational showcases could remain concealed until learners felt confident enough to publish them. This helped, in part, to reconcile the tension between personalised space and institutionalised structure, and gave recognition to the notion of the evolving self over time through social interaction. As displayed in

184  Juliana Chau

Figures 12.1 and 12.2, learners on these language courses were informed of the types of entries and activities associated with the desired learning outcomes, and of the linkage between learner attributes and reflective practice. Time was also devoted to raising learners’ awareness of ways of presenting evidence in relation to employability skills and professional accreditation. Nevertheless, in practice, only 38% of learners reported that they saw the potential of the ePortfolio for purposes other than language learning and were willing to continue to use the ePortfolio. Most of the learners interviewed explained that their commitment to continued ePortfolio practice would hinge largely on recognition of ePortfolio practice within and outside the institution. What this appears to illustrate is learners’ reluctance to invest in an ePortfolio when its utility does not seem to go beyond the boundaries of a particular course or institution.

Conclusion This ePortfolio project provided an opportunity for examining some of those key learner support features with the potential for cultivating learning independence and lasting ePortfolio practice. Such features are reported as four principles of ePortfolio design: goals matching content and structure, context of implementation, scaffolding and learner investment. Underlying the discussion are socio-constructivist concepts of learning that place the learners’ experiences within the larger context of moving from being a passive participant to being a socially constituted agent capable of assuming learning responsibility. The discussion highlights that such a move involves challenges at multiple levels. For example, instead of emphasising language proficiency alone, this project has aligned the development of graduate attributes through reflective practice with independent learning, raising learners’ awareness of external expectations (Principles 1 and 2). The provision of scaffolding for the teacher and learner (Principle 3) and the intensity of learner investment (Principle 4) suggest a multilayered framework of social interaction mediated through external interventions— institutional support and acceptance of the ePortfolio by employers and the public—not least in the early implementation phase. As Little (1995, 178) notes, ‘Total independence is not autonomy but autism’. To proceed from independent coping to independent learning, and by extension, from episodic attempts to continued ePortfolio pedagogy, educators need not see explicit guidance and design flaws

ePortfolios for independent language learning  185

in the initial stages as negative; rather, these should be construed as instructive for future implementation, reflection and dialogue. The discussion in this chapter has aimed to illuminate this effort. In sum, ePortfolio design needs to provide teachers and learners with sufficient information to enable them to realistically situate themselves within the environment from the different perspectives of teacher, peer, academic institution, professional body and employer. It also needs to present learners with a range of opportunities to explore different approaches to operating at the interface of knowledge- construction, social interaction and independent learning.

References Abrami, P. C. and H. Barrett. 2005. Directions for research and development on electronic portfolios. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(3). Retrieved 2 February 2009, from http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/ article/viewArticle/92/86. Beck, R. J., N. L. Livne and S. L. Bear. 2005. Teachers’ self-assessment of the effects of formative and summative electronic portfolios on professional development. European Journal of Teacher Education, 28(3): 221–44. Benson, P. 2006. Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 40: 21–40. Benson, R. and C. Brack. 2009. Developing the scholarship of teaching: What is the role of e-teaching and learning? Teaching in Higher Education, 14(1): 71–80. Bond, M. 1996. The handbook of Chinese psychology. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press. Candy, P. C. 1991. Self-direction for lifelong learning: A comprehensive guide to theory and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Council of Europe. 2008. European Language Portfolio. Retrieved 18 December 2008, from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/portfolio. DiMarco, J. 2006. Web portfolio design and applications. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. Farmer, R. and E. Sweeney. 1997. Are you speaking comfortably? In Case studies of improving teaching and learning from the action learning project, eds. D. Kember, B. Lam, L. Yan, J. Yum and S. B. Liu. 293–304. Hong Kong: Action Learning Project. Garrison, D. R. and T. Anderson. 2003. E-learning in the 21st Century: A framework for research and practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Hartnell-Young, E. and M. Morriss. 2007. Digital portfolios: Powerful tools for promoting professional growth and reflection (2nd edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Hong Kong Polytechnic University 2008. Strategic plan 2008/09–2011/12: Achieving excellence in an era of challenge. Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

186  Juliana Chau

Joyes, G., L. Gray and E. Hartnell-Young. 2010. Effective practice with eportfolios: How can the UK experience inform implementation? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1): 15–27. Retrieved 6 June 2010, from http:// www.ascilite.org.au/ajet26/joyes.html. Little, D. 1995. Learning as dialogue: The dependence of learner autonomy on teacher autonomy. System, 23(2):175–81. Little, D. 2004. European Language Portfolio in the classroom: Two examples from Ireland. Paper presented at the De-mystifying the European Language Portfolio Colloquium. Retrieved 3 April 2009, from http://www. britishcouncil.org/brussels-learning-elp-colloquium. Liu, C. and C. Tsai. 2005. Peer assessment through web-based knowledge acquisition: Tools to support conceptual awareness. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42(1): 43–59. Norton, B. 2001. Non-participation, imagined communities, and the language classroom. In The past, present, and future of second language research, eds. X. Bonch-Bruevich, W. J. Crawford, J. Hellermann, C. Higgins and H. Nguyen. 167–80. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Poon, A. Y. K. 2009. A review of research in English language education in Hong Kong in the past 25 years: Reflections and the way forward. Educational Research Journal, 24(1): 8–40. Poon, W. 1988. Language ability, motivation and learning habits of business students. In Language teaching and learning styles within and across cultures, ed. V. Bickley. 100–11. Hong Kong: Institute of Language in Education. Russell, P. D. and J. Yoo. 2001. Learner investment in second language writing. In The past, present, and future of second language research, eds. X. BonchBruevich, W. J. Crawford, J. Hellermann, C. Higgins and H. Nguyen. 181– 96. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press. Sheerin, S. 1991. State of the art: Self-access. Language Teaching, 24(3), 153–7. Simon, M. and R. Forgette-Giroux. 2000. Impact of a content selection framework on portfolio assessment at the classroom level. Assessment in Education, 7(1): 83–101. Stoicovy, C. E. and J. Sanchez, J. 2007. Crossing the digital divide: Online portfolios in a diverse student environment. In Technology and diversity in higher education: New challenges, ed. Y. Inoue. 65–80. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing. van Lier, L. 1996. Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy, and authenticity. London: Longman. van Tartwijk, I., E. Driessen, C. van der Vleuten and K. Stokking. 2007. Factors influencing the successful introduction of portfolios. Quality in Higher Education, 13(1): 69–79. Wong, V. and J. Chau. 2008. Student learning WOES. Asian Social Science, 4(6): 32–8. Woodward, H. and P. Nanlohy. 2004. Digital portfolios: Fact or fashion? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(2): 227–38.

Index

action learning 105–6 adaptive learning 17 affect and cognition 20–2, 81, 88 and digital language learning 165–6 and independent learning 73–4, 87–8 see also emotion; learning strategies; motivation andragogy 3 assessment and learner autonomy 25–34 self- 25–34 see also Common European Framework of Reference for Languages Australia 60–5 autonomous learner conceptions of 3, 25, 42, 132, 136, 174 and digital language learning 157–68 see also autonomy; independent learner; learner autonomy autonomous learning course 46–8 autonomy behavioural 25 cognitive 25 conceptions of 4, 25, 147, 152, 174 contrasted with independence 25 critical 15–6 personal 15–6 procedural 15 see also autonomous learner; independence; learner autonomy coach conception of 120–1 role of 125–7 coaching conception of 120–1, 127–8 contrasted with teaching 126–7 process of 122–3

collaborative learning 18–20 Common European Framework of Reference for Languages 27–9, 31–2 and teaching 29 application of 33–4 see also European Language Portfolio community of practice 57, 66–7 Council of Europe 3, 29, 30 CRAPEL 120 critical adaptive learning 16–8 autonomy 15 reflection 136 developmental education 41–2 digital language learning and affect 165–6 and autonomous learner 157–68 and motivation 165–6 challenges 160–7 goals 159 programs 158–9 strategies 157–68 distance learning 4, 73–82, 92–5 eGroups projects 18–20 emotion and cognition 20–1, 79, 87–9 and independent learning 20–1, 79, 87–9 barriers to investigating 89 control of 80 methods of investigating 89–92, 96–8 see also affect eportfolio 173–85 and context of implementation 178, 180–2 and goal setting 177, 179–80

188  Index

and independent learning 176–84 and responsibility 173–84 and teacher 174, 178–83 design 176–84 see also European Language Portfolio European Language Portfolio 29–32, 34, 173 and learner autonomy 30–1 see also Common European Framework of Reference for Languages French as a second/foreign language 76–81, 92–5, 122–7 German as a second/foreign language 76–81 goals and eportfolios 177, 179–80 and goal-oriented learning 104–5 and goal-setting 7, 103–15 and will 42 in digital learning 159 long-term 80 reflecting on 110–4 types of 105 Hong Kong 173–85 identity and learner autonomy 67–8 and learning 59–60 construction of 64–7 independence 4, 25 see also autonomy; independent learner; independent learning independent learner 3, 4, 88 see also autonomous learner; independent learning independent learning and affect 73–4, 87–8 and emotion 20–1, 79, 87–8 and eportfolio 176–84 and motivation 73–82 community and collaboration in 18–20

conceptions of 3–5, 13–5, 20 history of 3 supporting 148–54 see also autonomous learner; learner autonomy; self-directed learning; self-regulated learning; strategic learning individualised instruction 20–1 Japan 103–15, 145–54 learner active 18 and digital language learning 157–68 and portfolios 29–32, 175–84 as teacher 132–41 attributes 14 autonomous, see autonomous learner autonomy, see learner autonomy -centred curriculum 34 diaries 91 distance 73–82, 92–8 logs 76–7 stories 108–15 strategic and self-regulated 42 strategies, see learning strategies see also independent learner; independent learning; learner autonomy; self-directed learning; self-regulated learning; strategic learning; learning strategies learner autonomy and European Language Portfolio 30–1 and identity 67–8 and peer teaching 8, 131–41 and self-assessment 26–34 and self-directed learning 120 and self-reflection 111 conceptions of 4, 7, 132, 148, 152 see also autonomy; autonomous learner; independent learning Learning and Study Strategies Inventory 48–50

Index  189

learning strategies affective 73–4, 78–9 and peer teaching 137–40 and self-regulation 75 and skill 42 assessment of 48–50 definition of 158 digital language 157–68 examples of 108–9 importance of 136 metacognitive 103 reflection on 137–8 social 74–5, 77–8 volitional 79–80 see also learner autonomy; Learning and Study Strategies Inventory; planning; strategic learning lifelong and lifewide learning 15 motivation and digital language learning 165–6 and goals 112, 115 and independent learning 73–82 and peer teaching 134–6 and will 42 intrinsic 74, 80–1 self- 74, 79–80 see also affect New Zealand 119–28 Nuffield Group for Research and Innovation in Higher Education 3 peer teaching and confidence in learning 138–9 and critical reflection 136 and learner autonomy 8, 131–41 and learning strategies 137–8 and motivation for learning 134–6 definition 131 peer tutors 8, 131–41 planning and Common European Framework of Reference for Languages 28 and European Language Portfolio 30 and evaluation 26

and goal-setting 106–7 see also goal-setting reflection critical 136 learner autonomy and 111 research methods focus groups 90 interviews 90 learner diaries 91 mixed methods 89–90 think-aloud verbal protocols 91–3, 96–7 responsibility and eportfolio 173–4, 184 for learning 42, 58, 112, 119, 135–6, 141, 148, 159 for self-regulation 132 for teaching 135–6 Russian as a second/foreign language 20–1 Scholastic Aptitude Test 46 self-access centre 103, 121 self-directed learning and coaching 119–28 and learner autonomy 120 attitudes to 123–4 barriers to 124–5 conceptions of 4, 7, 119–20, 174 see also independent learning; learner autonomy self-regulated learning 4, 41–50, 75, 104 Spanish as a second/foreign language 76–81 strategic and self-regulated learning see self-regulated learning; strategic learning strategic learning 41–50 components of 42–3 model of 43–6 see also Learning and Study Strategies Inventory strategies see learning strategies supervision of doctoral students 66–8

190  Index

Taiwan 132–42 teacher and Common European Framework of Reference for Languages 31 and eportfolio 174–5, 178–83 and European Language Portfolio 30–2 and learner diaries 91 and self-directed learning 119–21, 123 and strategic learning 45 as researcher 133–4

of English for Academic Purposes 67–8 role of 26, 47–8, 115, 120–1, 148, 165, 167–8 teaching contrasted with coaching 126–7 observing 16–7 see also peer teaching testing see assessment think-aloud verbal protocols see research methods