Ferthelln1u11ePnless11n111n
Higher
EIIUCldln

Pre-Conference
Issue
CUESIGNews
Mccafferty:

CUE 2001
Conference Preview

2

Promoting Autonomy and/or
Self-Direction in SL Teaching

6

Developing Learning Strategies
fora'Working Knowledge of English '9Feablres
Brown:

Hart:

Klein:A Case Study of Setting Standardsof Distinction for Japanese
University English Majors
14

Prefess101a1
Development
Weinkle:Writing for Publication:
A Short Guide for New Writers

18

CVllerptpellne
Snyder:aroundmt1 $1iHu me~.~. flltZ,Y
IIJb.iclig.tliou/,/!JO-7JJhtUI_you~ in die

Take Five Brainstorming Activity 22

darbleu am/ if_you flJtZIIIlo $fll oul

From
TIieCllalkface
Mick/as:ofii, _you.!houirlaJrile aboul ii.

OpinionandPerspecuve
Heigham:~ 11Jrileaboul die l~s

20

Learner Autonomy Websites

Staying Open to Change

24
7JJrilin$is lhe lllflapon

Milne:The Long Bumpy Road

25

Focus on Learning Rather
than Teaching: Why and How?

htlll'JOIU

haue ~airul ~" cbao1aroundus.

.9f_yourlon1I aJrile,_you're in~"Book
Review
Snyder:lllfl

darbleu foreuer am/_you 11J011'I 6e
tlllJarfl

ofii.

28

-Xnu_yaVuzub"(sludenl Isl _year7JJa.r«laQlm)- •llsslcllllonlM'lllllUl11TeacblnlCllllll•IIUnlvlrsllVEdllClllrsSIIIClll
l111ereS1Gnu1
letall PricelerN1n-Memllers:¥180/$1

S.rl•I 2111:l1l•1

IICIE

I, 1Ss111

ic.:..

..

13th
lzuoka

Miho
Tokai

!-..
•--I

.ft....
=
.....
•ft

i

.;

II
ft

•
•!!

~

Fees:
2-day package (2 nights accommodation ,ence attendance):¥21,000
1-day conference attendance only:¥3,
JALT members: ¥1000 discount on package ·CUE members: ¥2,000 discount on package

1

II

51

'!C

i

1111112111:
.....

IICIE

llllal

CUE
2001Conlerence
Preview
Eamon McCafferty
Con/ erence Co-Chair--I

Andrew Finch was born in Wales back in the
As expected, this year's conferenc.etheme has~ drawn
mists
of time, and had various teaching positions
a diverse range of topics for exploration(see schedule on the insert). It has also managed
to attract a large number of pre-registrants. Indeed, we are delighted to say that at the time ofgoing to press we already have more than 160
people pre-registered, more than the total attendance at the first CUE conference nearly one year
ago. The cosy atmosphere set there seems readyto be repeated however, with the conference taking place in a self-contained facility that includes
accommodation and catering.
A new feature of this year 's conference is theinclusion of three featured speakers who will
each address the entire assembly with a different perspective on the conference theme. As Programme Chair, I had the great pleasure of inviting them to lead us in our weekend discussions
believing that all three share certain characteristics that will pave the way for a successful gathering. Namely, a dedication to their own and others' professional development , an ongoing concern with maters relating to the autonomy of students and teachers , and an ability to develop andconvey important ideas in an open and engaging manner. However, if you haven't yet pre-registered for the conference (required), please don'ttake my word for it. Come and join us and listen
to what they have to say for yourself. You'll alsofind that they are also joined by a large numberof similarly dedicated professionals , all determined to share their knowledge gains with you
and hear your own opinions.
As a taster (and hopefully a teaser), I include
abstracts for the three featured speakers below.
First, though, I'd like to offer a few casual wordsof introduction. Andrew Finch has supplied his
own biographical details, but in the case of Alan
Mackenzie and Steve Snyder, I have taken advantage of my longer association with them togive you a snapshot of how at least one person
sees them .

before going to Korea in 1988 to learn "Go"(Wei-Chi). He became Visiting Professor atAndong National University in 1991, moved to
Hong Kong in 1993, taking a Distance M.Ed.
(TESOL) from Manchester University, and wasinvited back to Andong in 1997 as Deputy Director of the new Language Center, where hedesigned and ran a three-year task/project-based
conversation programme. He has just received aPh.D. in Program Evaluation (also Man. U.), andis now Deputy Director of Seoul National University of Technology Language Center. With Dr.
Hyun Tae-duck, he has co-authored three task/
project-based Conversation English books for
Korean students: Tell Me More! , Now yo.,u 'reTalking!, and The Way Ahead. These all incorporate self-assessment and learner-centred methodology, and they can all be viewed online at
http:/ /www.hogusan.com.
As a child, Alan Mackenzie's independent
spirit may have sometimes frustrated his parents,
but since growing up and graduating from the
MA TESOL program at Teacher's College Columbia University, he has successfully funnelled
his autonomous energies into academic pursuits.
So much so, in fact, that he has recently been
invited back to Columbia as an associate professor on the same programme convening acourse on - yes, you guessed it - autonomy. Truly
a life-long learner, Alan has entangled himself
in so many academic projects in the past few
years that it is difficult to imagine where he finds
time for it all. Usually a person 's social life might
suffer in such a situation, but Alan has miraculously managed to remain loyal to his natural
hedonistic instincts. Long being known as one
to buck convention, he has recently been seen
donning a suit and tie. His friends are somewhat
worried about this. His parents, however, will2

1111112111:........

IICIE

1111111

ANDREW
FINCH

probably be even prouder than they already are
if they ever get wind of this somewhat puzzlingtransformation. I personally anticipated this slow
mutation one hot summer morning three years
ago as I watched Alan arrive for classes at the
Waseda University Summer School. He was
wearing full traditional Scottish dress including
heavy woollen kilt and accompanying regalia.
These days nothing surprises me about him any
more. I do wonder what he'll choose to wear at
the conference this year, though.
Steven Snyder is currently working on his
Ph.D. at Macquarie University after already completing the Masters of Applied Linguistics there.
This at least partly explains why he is always so
difficult to get hold of. (Let's say you were trying to chase down biographical details, for example ...). Steve does come out of hiding for
JALT national conferences however, where hecan sometimes be seen performing a strange little jump with a click of the heels. I believe thismay be due to an unflagging zest for life coupled with professional dance training earlier in
his existence. But then again this may simply be
the way people walk back in Steve's hometownof Buffalo, Colorado. Back in those earlier days,
Steve also used to be something of an adventure
sports freak but is now (he says) getting fat fromlack of exercise. He has a litany of achievements
but believes none of them are worth mentioning. Not wanting to intrude upon his modesty, I
won't embarrass him by listing them here.
Rather, I'll simply say that Steve, very much likethe two gentlemen above, is quick to smile andshare a laugh with all who cross his path, and,again like Alan and Andy, is just as keen to engage you in serious academic discussion if that's
what takes your fancy. (Just don't get him started
on ballet.)I'll turn you over to the much more serious
and infinitely more interesting words of the three
featured speakers, Andy, Alan and Steve. Personally, I am very much looking forward to hearing their speeches at the conference. I hope you'll
feel the same way after reading their abstracts.

..

11vnot1
Speech:1sa111n1av
10:10-11:00J
11tono111V:
Where
arewe?
Where
arewe101•;a

Ii

Autonomy has figured large in recent TEFL
literature and practice, and has run the risk of
becoming the latest politically correct catch-•word, attempting to be all things to all teachers,and (because of this) defying attempts to pin
down definitions of what it is that everyone
seems to be agreed on. Brooks & Grundy (eds.)
see it as "axiomatic that learner autonomy shouldbe the goal of every learner and every teacher"(1988, p. 1), while Little observes that "genuinely successful learners have always been autonomous", and that educators must "help morelearners to succeed" rather than following learnerautonomy as an explicit goal (1995, p. 175).
Autonomy is still largely evaluated by its effectiveness in enabling learners to learn the foreign language (Dickinson 1987, p. 2), thoughmuch research has not been done in this area.
However, this talk will attempt to look at thelarger picture and at language learning as education.
From such a perspective, the author will argue that it is the responsibility of every teacher
to promote autonomous, critically thinking, responsible members of society, and that lesson
content or subject matter is a secondary goal inthis endeavour.
The educational model we have at present isbased on competition and aggression, whichwere effective survival strategies over the lastthousands of years. However, we live in a different world now, and competition only denudes
the world of resources.
It is little use educating students to be successful business people when the world has nofish, trees, or oxygen. In this situation, holistic
objectives are all we have, and the promotion ofautonomous beings must become a definition of
education.

JoinusinShimizu,
Shizuoka
a

R
•

I

...

--2111:.....

,.111111

ALAN
MACKENZIESTEVESNYDER
Speecll:llllndav11:10-12:001
111111es1eech:lllblrdlV15:20-18:10) 1111011
b ellllcalln11erat1ve
11rlearnerlearees 1llreedon1:
choiceco•straill
Teacher••nomv, 11111111
lld lnUIIUOIIIDrlwtll I take the position that there are ethical
Teacher autonomy is not one monolithic concept, although it is often talked ofin those terms.
The literature on teacher autonomy most often
characterizes teacher autonomy as how independently a teacher can make decisions. Often
this is taken to mean the teacher doing whatever
they want to do. However, teacher autonomy
might better be conceived as being the ability ofthe teacher to take control of their teaching/learning situation within constraints imposed onthem and utilising the resources available to themto the best of their ability.
While it is difficult to say whether a teacher
is autonomous or not autonomous, we can define a series of contexts that are more or lesscontrolled or manipulable and teacher behavior
that exhibits more or less control over that context.
Exploding the term "Teacher autonomy" reveals a number of different contextual constraints
within which the teacher needs to operate. These
include linguistic, intellectual, administrative,
hierarchical, textual, physical and personal constraints. The intersection of these defines theindividual's teaching context and thereby thelimits to their professional learning context.
Viewing teacher autonomy as the ability of
the individual to work within their professional
learning context and manipulate it to achieve
their pedagogical, intellectual and personal aims
might provide a useful framework for analysis.
Further, relating this to learning organisation
theory may provide opportunities for schools tomanipulate constraints they impose on teachers
to better enable their staff to contribute to organisational growth.

motivations for providing learners' with options
as to the method of their instruction. I will argue
that providing learner choice also has benefits
to teachers as well. Utilizing the ethical perspective has the advantage of focusing on how instructional policy effects the differential needsof individual students within the context of thebelief systems underlying such policy.
Curriculums are indeed based upon a small
set of curricular philosophies, although in mostcases it is tradition which informs the curricular
design. Interestingly, there is some convergence
between these curricular philosophies andlearner choice. However, it can be said that only
two of these philosophies give much attention
to influences on the learner from outside theclassroom(Critical
TheoryandDevelopmentalism).
It will be argued that much of the thml:ght
about educational input and output is confinedto thinking about the classroom, even though it
cannot be denied that circumstances outside theclassroom have an enormous impact on the individual learner. These extra-classroom influences should not be ignored, for they constitutemuch of what is observed as variation in learning outcomes.
My position is this: If we know about suchlearner variation then we have an ethical obligation to provide options to address these differences between circumstances individual
learners. I will then address how we might implement learner choice given the time constraints
and role conflicts that teachers' must deal with.

RegistertortheConterence
Package
Online@hlll://www.wlld-1.1ra/c11/con11re1c1s/111110• v.hllnl
4

IIIIE

Slrlll 2111:••-••

1111111

Getting
totheConterence
Site
IVTIXI

Please note that those staying at the conference site are requested to arrive on Friday between 3pm and 10pm and that there will be no
food served on Friday. Meals (breakfast/ lunch/dinner on Saturday and breakfast/ lunch on Sunday) will be served in the restaurant in the next
building. There is no food available at the conference/accomodation centre but there is a beerand soft drinks machine.

From JR Shimizu station it will take about
15 mins. and cost approx. 2,600 Yen. Ask for"Miho-randono (Tokai Daigaku) Miho
Kenshukan."

avcar
Exit at Shimizu Interchange on the Tomei Expressway and follow the signs to Miho (about
10 km). It's well-signposted the whole way. Just
as you drive into Miho, the road narrows andthere is a "crank" curve (a sharp turn to the rightfollowed quickly by another to the left). About
1km after this you will see a large car park to
your right. Park your car here (500 Yen) and you
will find the site in front of you.

IVShlnkansen
II ShlZUlkl
andon
II JRShlmlZu
Take the Tokkaido Shinkansen to Shizuoka
Station and transfer from there to JR Shimizu
Station. From Tokyo it takes approx. 1 hour by
Hikari (1st stop) and 90 minutes by Kodama (6thstop) to Shizuoka Hikari service runs about once
every hour and Kodama two or three times. The
Shinkansen tracks at Shizuoka are on 2F and you
can"transfer to the Tokkaido line on IF without
exiting. Your Shinkansen tickets will be accepted
through the turnstiles and you can pay the fareadjustment at Shimizu Station (3rd stop, 12 minutes). From there you'll need to take a bus or
taxi to the site (see below).

Contact eamon@gol.com if you need moredetails about any of the above.

IVBustrimJIShimizu
StadonThe is only one exit out of Shimizu Station.
On the right hand side of the square in front is
Bus Stop No. 9. Take the no. 58 bus from here
until until the final stop, called Miho Land (thisis written on the front of the bus). It takes 20-30
minutes. There are five or six buses every hour
starting from 06:30. The last bus on weekdays
leaves Shimizu Station at 20:30 and at 20: 10 on
weekends/holidays. The site, named (Tokai
Daigaku no) Miho Kenshukan, is about five minutes walk from the bus stop. There will be a signpost on the pavement in front of the bus terminal giving directions to the site.

5

~
M

-

-

D

•I

S111
•12111:llllllll,111111

IICIE

PromotingAutonomv
and/orSellDirection
inSlTeaching
P. Charles Brown
Dept. of Communication Studies Ibaraki University
ternalized by the learner. Shedding these constraints or psychological assumptions (Mezirow,1985) is at once an act of learning and psychological growth in its own right and a precondition for subsequent self-directed learning.

The idea of self-directed, autonomous learning is firmly entrenched in the adult education
literature. It is one of only a few core concepts
that have laid the foundations for the identity ofadult education as a distinct field of practice andinquiry (Tennant, 1991). But like most core concepts, self-directed learning is open to a range
of interpretations. At one end of the spectrum,
self-directed learning is thought to occur whenlearners determine goals and objectives, locate
appropriate resources, plan their learning strategies, and evaluate the outcomes (Knowles,
1978; Tough, 1967; Moore, 1980). Thus, selfdirected learning would be characterized by themastery of a set of techniques and proceduresfor self-learning. At the other end of the spectrum, self-directed learning is thought to incorporate the notion of "critical awareness"(Mezirow, 1985; Brookfield, 1985). Criticallyaware learners have the capacity to identify andchallenge assumptions because they are emancipated from their psychological and cultural
assumptions and are more in touch with theirauthentic needs. Thus, they are able to make acommitment to learning on the basis of a knowledge of genuine alternatives.
These approaches to self-directed learning
have in common a concern with the psychological growth of the learner. They both assume thatlearning and psychological growth are connected, although the nature of the connection
differs in each case. In the first view, in which
self-directed learning is essentially a skill, learners are assumed to have a psychological needfor self-direction. The learning processes basedon this view (for example, the learning contract)
are designed to acknowledge and awaken thisneed (Brookfield, 1985). In the second view, anassumption is made that constraints on learning
originate in the social structure and become in-sen-direction
forlearners.
happensoverume
In the second language education literature,
two terms, learner self-direction and learnerautonomy, are often applied in relation to language learning strategies (Oxford, 1990). These
terms have been used in various ways. For instance, Dickinson (1987) used self-direction torefer to the learner's attitude of responsibility,and he used autonomy to refer to the learningmode, situation, or techniques associated withthe responsible attitude. Holec (1980, 1981) used
the same two terms but in reverse, with self-direction referring to the learning mode, situation,or technique and autonomy referring to the learner's attitude. Unsurprisingly, these two terms
have come to be synonymous as they are usedinterchangeably in L2 teaching/learning circles.
According to Oxford ( 1990), language learning strategies encourage greater overall self-direction for learners. Self-direction is particularly
important for language learners, because they
will not always have the teacher around to guidethem as they use the language outside the classroom. Moreover, self-direction is essential to theactive development of ability in a new language.
Owing to conditioning by the culture and theeducational system, however, many language
students (even adults) are passive and accustomed to being spoon-fed (Knowles, 1975; Oxford, 1990). They like to be told what to do, andthey do only what is clearly essential to get agood grade, even if they fail to develop usefulskills in the process (Brown, 1994). Attitudes

I1111112111:·•-•.111111

IICIE

ProJect-basedteaching
1ra1n1tes
aUIOnOIDV

and behaviors like these make learning moredifficult and must be changed, or else any effort
to train learners to rely more on themselves anduse better strategies is bound to fail (Wenden,
1987). Just teaching new strategies to students
will accomplish very little unless students begin
to want greater responsibility for their own learning (Carver, 1984).
Leamer self-direction is not an all or nothing
concept; it is often a gradually increasing phenomenon, growing as learners become more
comfortable with the idea of their own responsibility. Self-directed students gradually gain
greater confidence, involvement, and proficiency(Chamot, 1987).

All appropriate language learning strategies
are oriented toward the broad goal of communicative competence. Development of communicative competence requires realistic interaction
among learners using meaningful, contextualized
language. I posit that utilizing a project-based
approach to teaching L2 at the college or university level will not only help learners become
more competent , but also make them more selfdirected and/or autonomous.
My presentation at the CUE 2001 Mini-Conference will describe how project-based teaching, in general, leads to communicative competence and promotes self-directed learning.

Establlshln1
newrolestortheteacher

References

Teachers traditionally expect to be viewed as
authority figures, identified with roles like instructor, director, manager, judge, leader, evaluator, controller and as Gibson said (1985, p. 267),
as people who "make the students toe the line".
According to Harmer (1983) too, the teacher ins~cts. These familiar roles will stifle communication in any language classroom because they
force all communication to go from and throughthe teacher.
The specter of role change may discomfort
some teachers who feel their status is being challenged. Others, however, welcome their new
functions as facilitator, helper, guide , consultant, adviser, coordinator, idea person, diagnostician , and co-communicator. New teaching capacities also include identifying students' learning strategies , conducting training on learning
strategies, and helping learners become more
independent (Wenden, 1985). In this process,teachers do not necessarily forsake all their oldmanagerial and instructional tasks , but these elements become much less dominant. Thesechanges strengthen teachers' roles, making themmore varied and more creative. Their status is
no longer based on hierarchical authority but on
the quality and importance of their relationshipwith learners (Holec, 1981). When students takemore responsibility, more learning occurs, andboth teachers and learners feel more successful.

Brookfield, S. D. (1985). Self-directed learning:
From theory to practice. New Directions for
Adult and Continuing Education, 25, San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by principles :An interactive approach to language pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice hall
Regents.
Carver, D. (1984). Plans, learner strategies, andself-direction in language learning. System,
12 (2), 123-131.
Chamot, A. U. (1987). The power of learning
strategies. Ohio Bilingual-Multicultural Update, March, 4, 6-11
Dickinson, L. (1987). Self-instruction in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibson, J. (1985). The silent period: An examination. Language Learning, 26, 267-280.
Harmer, J. (1983). The practice of English language teaching. Harlow: Longman.
Holec , H. (1980). Leamer training: Meeting theneeds of self-directed learning . In H. B.
Altman & C. V. James (Eds), Foreign language teaching: Meeting individual
needs. Oxford: Pergamon.
Holec, H. (1981 ). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Knowles, M. S. (1978). The adult learner : A
neglected species. (2nd ed.). Houston: Gulf.

1

..-

ii

a

...

--U11:

Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning.
Chicago: Follett.
Mezirow, J. (1985) . Context and action in adulteducation. Adult Education Quarterly, 35, (3),142-151.
Moore , M. G. (1980). Independent study. In R.
D. Boyd , J. W. Apps , and Associates (Eds.) ,Redefining the discipline of adult Education.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New
York: Newbury House Publishers.
Tennant, M. (1991). The psychology of adultteaching and learning. In J. M . Peters, P.
Jarvis, & Associates (Eds.), Adult Education:
Evolution and achievements in a developing
field of study. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tough , A. (1967). Learning without a teacher:A study of tasks and assistance during adultself-teaching projects. Educational Research
Series , 3. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Wenden, A. L. & Rubin , J. (1987). Learner strategies in language learning. Englewood, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.

....

llllll1

noughts
to Ponder<Jhe word 'revofulion, 'so
offensive lo /he perseculorsof 9a/}feo, was originallyused lo denole /he c_ychcaf
passage of cefes(ial bodies.
When /he geograph1cal
movemenls of people are ..
lampered wilh, /hey allach
lhemsefves lo pof}hcal
movemenls ... Y-or !J<evofulion
is a /}£eraling god, /he
7Jionysus of our age. ~ is acure for melancho(y.
!J<evofulion 1:S/he Way lo
Y-reedom, even if /he end
resufl 1:Sgrealer servilude.
23ruce Cha/win

I1111112111:......

IICIE,.111111

Developing
learningStrategies
tora
workingKnowledge
ol English'
Nicolaas Hart
Kwassui Women's College, Nagasaki

ANew
Approach
10ELS
InJapanmand that ... all Japanese acquire a working knowledge of English ... not simply
as a foreign language but as the international lingua Jranca, (because) it equips·one with a key skill for knowing and accessing the world.

In Japan there is a new enthusiasm for ahigher level of active participation by learners
in English language studies (ELS). It is basedon the principle of learner autonomy (LA)which gives students the right and opportunity
to develop their own learning strategies (LS)to engage in the learning process. LA has as its
basic assumption that learning is enhanced
when the student has a large measure of control over the goals, content and processes oflearning (Trim, 1981; Cathercole, 1990; Little,
1991; Wolff, 1994; Dam, 1998; Cotterall andCrabbe, 1992, and Cotterall and Crabbe, 1999),
and LS have been described by Chamot et al,(1999, p. 2) as "procedures or techniques thatlearners can use to facilitate a learning task."
The higher level of involvement by students
is intended to be extended to all areas of education in Japan. In 1997, the Curriculum Council of the Education Ministry recommended thereplacement of 'lecturing on facts' with more'student centered approaches' to learning (Isbell
et al, 1999, p. 3), and "beginning in 2003, teachers will be expected to change their methodsof instruction to become more experience- andactivity-based. Nurturing self-learning and theability to think as an individual will be emphasized." (Isbell, 1999, p. 5)
Parallel with this, the Japanese government
has made an increased commitment to ELS insecondary education 1 because it is aware of theincreasing economic importance if English language skills in a global economy. In a recent
statement , Japan's Goals in the 21st Century(PMC, 2000) we read:

The perception is that the Japanese population will use its English language skills
at work and at home to access and converse with the rest of the world, meaningthat they can freely and immediately obtain information, understand it, and express their own ideas clearly.
Whether college and university students arecaught up in this enthusiasm for ELS is doubtful. Certainly, the research departments of industry and commerce are making use of the resources of the Internet, and when the Japanese
economy recovers (particularly, ifthere is a coming together of South East Asian nations in someform of economic community), there will be anincrease in job offers for workers with English
language and computer skills. However, obtaining these skills does not appear, presently, to bea major priority for college and university students, who seldom have clear, personal, longterm employment goals. Except for English
majors, such students are primarily concerned
about completing the required ancillary English
courses without any clear understanding of thepotential commercial value of their skills.

Thelntroducuon
ofLeamer
Strateales
InJapanSeveral researchers (Robbins, 1996; Jones,
1995; Benson & Lor, 1998; White, 1995; and,
Littlewood, 1999) have indicated that for cultural reasons such autonomy is not easily intro-

The advance of globalization and the information-technology revolution ... de-

I

IIC•

-...I
I!

•

duced in South East Asia where students have
had little opportunity to identify their own learning goals , to engage in interactive-group learning or to develop their own learning strategies.
This is not to say that students are not ready forsuch English language communication . Some students reported that they discouraged their teach er
from switching back to an EFL textbook, whichreminded them of their former English commun ication classes and distracted them "from the excitement .. . felt at encountering the English-speaking world directly" (Kitsukawa et al, 1999, p. 18).
They commented:
It is important to have classes like this inwhich we do not learn English per se but
apply the English we have already learned.
(Ibid).
According to research by Rausch (2000), Japanese students appear to be ready for student-directed, learner-based approaches for developing
autonomous learning.
There is now an accumulation of reports about
successful ELS programs in Japan that have employed a wide range of approaches to empower
students to set their own learning goals and to makethe curriculum more flexible so that it can respondto the needs and interests of these students (Isbell
et al, 1999; Kluge et al, 1999; and, Mackenzie,2000), and the Learner Development- Special Interest Group (LD SIG) withinJALT has, since 1994,
been devoted to developing learner autonomy andimproving use oflearning strategies by students inboth English and Japanese language studies.
The question remains, "To what extent shouldsuch strategies be taught?" Chamot, (1999, p. 7)
proposes thathighly explicit instruction (should begiven) in applying strategies to learning
tasks (which) is gradually faded so thatstudents can begin to assume greater responsibility in selecting and applying appropriate learning strategies. The cycle (isrepeated) as new strategies or new applications are added to students' strategic repertoires.

S111112111:hllllll,lmt1
poster . However, it is good to be reminded that this
deliberate employment of LS by students is a component of American "main-stream college education" (Isabell et al, 1999, p. 3). It is unrealistic to
expect Japanese students with restricted L2 skills
to reflect in English on their "metacognitiv e awareness " or even to use the meta- language to describe
the processes though some might.

Student
Directed
1eve10111ent
01

learningStrategies
In a private four year women's college inWestern Japan a new department was set up in1998 in Human Relations Studies which accepted the challenge of the globalization of information. Moreover, the program was directed
towards enabling students to determine their own
values, to make their own informed choices, tomanage their own continuing whole-life education and to become active members of the international community of the 21 st century.
The main subjects, taught in Japanese, arePsychology, Welfare, Education and Sociology.
The aim of a supplementary but compulsory
four-year English Language course was tostimulate students to use real language that resulted from the exchange of opinions about reallife preferably in the main areas of study andthat would model activities they will be engaged
in in real life. The objective of the Year 1 course
was to enable students to work together as agroup in order to develop the skills to understand written English language statements on
a particular topic, to discuss the information in
English or Japanese, and to prepare and present
oral and written English language commentson the topic that reflected the information andthe opinions of the members of the group, andto focus on strategies for learning English.
The text selected for 1999/2000 was Book
I in the New Perspectives in Social Education(Getlins, 1995) series, a major curriculum development project of the Victorian Associationof Social Studies Teachers in Australia designed
to provide material for a comprehensive Social Education program for years seven to ten(ages 13-16). The topics are:

The task of teachers is to activate the student's"metacognitive awareness", the awareness of thethinking processes involved in the strategies, including listing the strategies with definitions on a

1. Our Changing Community,

112.

Making Decisions,

3.

Belonging to Groups,

4.

Ageing and the Aged,l • CIE

Sllrlll 1111:111•1 I, 111111

5. Food Production,

students used these ideas to implement changes
in their own LS and in the way they identified
resource material, negotiated meaning and presented the relevant information in English.

6. Hazards and Disasters,
7. Gender Issues
8. Rights and Responsibilities.
Each of the eight topics has six to eight separate important sub-topics providing some resource material but mainly a set of 12-20 focus
questions.
The 94 students met twice a week as threeparallel classes in six permanent groups, eachhaving students in the upper and lower range.
The first four and the last three topics were dealt
with in 24 sessions each. Each group chose its
own sub-topic and students spent the first session on understanding the questions, the second on deciding what questions they were going to write about, and the third and fourth (andfifth) sessions on reviewing information gathered from their own experiences and resources
and from the internet and on preparing written
and oral statements in English, The next session was spent on preparing an A3 poster. During the last session three members of eachgroup gave an oral presentation about theposter. The posters were then put on classroom
display until the completion of the new set ofposters. All students were also required to maketwo three-minute speeches during each semester about things that interested them in theirstudy of their sub-topic.
The students were encouraged to resolve together how best to accomplish their task andto identify their own language learning strategies. To assist them in this, students were required at least once a week to write private communications to the teacher in English. They
were encouraged to comment on and to ask
questions about the learning task, to write aboutproblems they encountered in the learning process and how they dealt with them. The main
objective of these communications was to encourage students to reflect on individual andgroup language learning strategies. The teacher
presented a summary of these strategies according to specific categories derived from Oxford(1990, p. 37-55) and Robbins (1996) in handouts to the students for group discussions. The

Gathering
IhaStra1auI1s
The intent of the program was to allow thestudents to experience their autonomy in thelearning process. They had to choose what toinvestigate, how to analyze the data, and how
to express and present their ideas. Exposure tomeaning conveyed by the target language camefirst and after that they focused on the wording
and the presentation (Willis, 2000, p. 7). In describing this process, students incidentally expressed ideas about the LS employed. On aweekly basis, these LS were identified under
different headings as How Other Groups are
Working. Each group received a copy of theexam pJes, which they then pasted on their cumulative file under each heading. The students
were not trained or compelled to use the LS; theiruse was optional but often readily adopted or
adapted.
A few sample statements are attached:

Olllllnlna
lld undanta1dl1g
lntonnadan
P1111111
We decided to choose not many subjects. It isbetter to say much about little. [(3A) 3:3]

Prler111W11•11
We talked about where our grandparents live.
It gave us ideas about our topic. [(4G) 3:6]

1111111111
We talked about the how people were feelingfrom their words and the pictures. [(5E) 2:5]

letenaceMllll'III
Weput key words in the BBC website and were
surprised about many different disasters. [(5A)1:2]

Gllllerlll llfllllllllll
We took pictures of places in and around college then we wrote about where people live.
[(]A) 1:1}n•c •E

2,11:......

1,111111

TralSlldll

Precess
WrldllI write English words in the newspaper article. Then I talk about it in English to the group .
[(JE) 1:5}

Welooked at my sentences today. I made many
mistakes . The group members corrected them.
[2:6 :30}...
,.....
..
••The leader made English notes when she
talked to the teacher with other leaders. I am
impressed.

.!

S1111•rlzl11

I__

We cannot write everything, so we found themain ideas together and wrote a new story. It
was easy.

CIISsllVIII
We discussed how decisions are made inyoung and mature families. We made a table.
[(2E) 2:2]

l •ISIIIIIII
We didn 1 understand why Malaria is a problem in Africa, so we spoke to the teacher.
[(5A) 2:3]

Preceal•alnllnnlllo• andeqrealna
011n1onsMe•rlzl •I
When one student has to speak , a group member helps in memorizing the statement. It iseasier. [2: 1: 1]

11.a11111S111•
We asked class members what they would do
if there was an earthquake . We got many ideas.
[(5F) 1:6}

INftlrlll
I understood my classmates understand me
when I spoke. I was excited to see them listening. [3:6:22]

Evllllllll 1111111
I am impressed with my class mates speaking. They look relaxed . I want to speak likethem . [3:1:14]
Coding: [(Topic/sub-top ic) Class :Group] and {Class:Group:Student}

llsc •SSIII
We discussed in Japanese what the teacher
was talking about. Jfeasked him to tell us again.
[1:2:9}Sl,IIISIIIIIIIII
Wlnll.lrlllls 1111IIClll'IS
We use an English-English dictionary. Difficult words can be made easy. [J: 3: 11]lrl •IIII Wlnll 1111IHIS
Weput the ideas about each topic on different papers. Now we understand them better.
[1:5:22}

WlnlSII Clltlll
When we write our report, we learn many new
words because the other words give them meaning. [2:5: 12]

PrlNl'IIIwrlllll 11111• 1111
Wegot nice graphs about female employment
in the USA. Together we made sentences about
it . [(6E) 3:3]

Developing student autonomy does notmean abandoning the student to her own devices. It means enabling and equipping the student to exercise that autonomy in a responsible manner. Developing learning strategies
means cultivating skills within a context of
purpose. Mostly, such skills are learned fromothers, but they must always become a personalrepertoire.

References
Benson, P. and Lor W., (1998). Making senseof autonomous language learning . English
centre monograph No. 2, Hong Kong: Hong
Kong University.
Chamot, A. (1999). Learning strategy instruction in the English classroom. The Language
Teacher, 23, 6, 7-9.
Chamot, A., Barnhardt, S., El-Dinary, P., andRobbins, J. (1999). The learning strategies
handbook. New York: Addison WesleyLongman.

12l • CIE
Cotterall, S. and Crabbe D., (1992). Fostering
autonomy in the language classroom: implications for teacher education. Guidelines
14, 2, 11-22.
Cotterall, S. and Crabbe D. (Eds.), (1999).
Learner autonomy in language learning: Defining the field and effecting change. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Dam, L., 1998. From theory to practice . Dublin: Authentik language learning resources.
Gathercole, I. (Ed.), (1990). Autonomy in language learning. London: Centre for information on language teaching and research.
Getlins, I. (Ed.), (1995). New perspectives insocial education -Book 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Isbell, K., (2000). An Interview on Active
Learning with Dr. James Eison. The Language Teacher, 23, 5, 4, 5, 9.
Isbell, K., Sagliano, J, Sagliano, M., andStewart, T. (Eds.) (2000). Introduction. The
Language Teacher, 23, 5, 3.
Jones, J. F., (1995). Self-access and culture:
retreating from autonomy. ELT Journal, 49,..3, 228-243.
Kitsukawa, M., McMahill, C., Nakamura, M.,
Sato, A., Shimizu, S, and Tagohka, R.
(1999). Transforming the Cultural Studies
Curriculum in Partnership with Students.
The Language Teacher, 23, 5, 11-13, 18.
Kluge, D., Mcquire S., Johnson D. and Johnson
R. (Eds.), (1999). Cooperative Learning,
Tokyo: JALT.
Little, D., (1991). Learner Autonomy: 1. Definitions , Issues and Problems. Dublin:
Authentik Language Learning Resources.
Littlewood, W., (1999). Defining and Developing Autonomy in East Asian Contexts.
Applied Linguistics, 20, 1, 71-94. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Mackenzie, a. S., (Ed.) Content in Language
Education: Looking at the Future. JALT,
2000
Mombusho (The Ministry of Education),( 1999). English in the Upper Secondary
School. In: Formal Education: Elementaryand Secondary Education. Available at<http ://mombusho. go. jp/aramashi/
1999eng>1111•1111:,.-.1.111111
Oxford, R. L., (1990). Language Learning
Strategies. New York: Newbury House.
Prime Minister's Commission, (2000). The
Frontier Within: Individual Empowerment
and Better Governance in the New
Millenium, Japan 's Goals in the 21st Century. Chapter 1. Overview, IV Japan's.'Twenty-First-Century Frontier. 2) Enhancing global literacy. Available at <http:// &;www.kantei.go.jp/> (Then go to 1) English, •2) Policy Initiatives).
Rausch, A. S., (2000). University Student
Readiness for Language Learning Strategies
Instruction: Teacher Directed verses
Learner-Directed Approaches. On Cue, 8,
1, 12-17.
Robbins, J., (1996). Language learning strategies instruction in Asia: cooperative autonomy? ERIC Document, ED409728.
Robbins, J., (1999). East meets West: approaches to learner autonomy. In Barfield,
A, Betts, R., Cunningham, J., Dunn, N.,
Katsura, H., Kobayashi, K., Padden, N.,
Perry, N. and Watanabe, M. (Eds.), (1999).
Proceedings of the 1998 Japan Associationof Language Teachers, (pp. ???) Tokyo:
JALT.
Trim, J. L. M. (Ed.), (1981). Modern Languages
Programme,
1971-1981.
Strassbourg: Council of Europe.
White, C., (1995). Autonomy and strategy use
in distance foreign language learning: research findings. System 23, 2. 207-221.
Willis, J., (2000). A Holistic approach to taskbased course design. The Language Teacher,24, 2, 7-13, Tokyo: JALT.
Wolff, D., 1994. New Approaches to Language
Teaching: An Overview . CLCS Occasional
Paper No. 39. Dublin: Trinity College.

2

Notes
1 The Ministry of Education, Japan, prescribes from 2003 of the 35 compulsory
credit hours, 5 in English Oral Communication I and English I in the Upper Secondary School. In Formal Education: Elementary and Secondary Education.
<http:/ /mombusho.go.jp/aramashi/
1999eng/mnu.htm>

11

--2N1:

IICIE

.....

,.111111

I CaseStudv
01SettingStandards
01
Distinction
torJapanese
Universitv
Ronald D. Klein
Maiors..• English-!.!

Hiroshima Jogakuin University

lntroducuan
An antidote to the oft-heard litany of slipping English abilities of Japanese college students is the introduction of standards. Traditionally standards, evaluation and accountability are
dangerous concepts to meddle with in Japanese
universities, where teachers are considered sacrosanct from scrutiny and student outcomes arelimited to passing or inflated grades. This paper
outlines the process followed at one university
to develop criteria of superior effort and achievement or 'standards of distinction. 'PercelVed
Nead
During a research trip to Singapore in September 1999, I read an article in The Straits
Times, 'Mind Your English ,' written by their
Tokyo correspondent. The article mentioned Japan's 'shocking global TOEFL ranking' documented in the journal, Chuo Koran, quoting thearticle's author, Professor Koike Ikuo ofMeikai
University, "Japan needs to make a bold attempt
to reform its English-language education, or in
20 years, we will be left far behind."Professor Inoguchi Takashi of Tokyo University was also quoted, echoing that sentiment, anda book, Nihonjin wa naze eigo ga dekinai ka?
(Why can't Japanese people speak English?) by
Suzuki Takao (1999) was cited.
As an English teacher in a Japanese university, I had to take these charges seriously andpersonally. This was no longer a national issue,
the kind of family problem which members havelong learned to be reminded of without surpriseor embarrassment. Japan stands almost dead lastamong Asian countries in average TOEFL score,
behind Korea, China and Mongolia.
While some statisticians have questioned thesignificance of the TOEFL ranking figures(Reedy, 1999), every English teacher in Japan isfamiliar with anecdotal evidence, some humorous, some bleak, of the poor results of Japanese
students attempting to master English.
If the problem is as clear as it seemed, then
any university English department which does
not address it is complicitly condoning, encouraging and perpetuating these poor results. What
could I do?

After summer vacation, I walked the corridor of our department (called MOET, an abbreviation for the Meeting of English Teachers),
talking to colleagues about the report and floating the idea of addressing the lack of progress inEnglish in our department by establishing a setof standards. These standards would be seen asa clear articulation of what our department could
expect of its students. Without encountering any
objections by the disparate members I consulted( senior/junior, conservative/progressive), I was
encouraged to bring the issue to the full department.
At our MOET meeting at the end of October, I brought forward a one-page proposal whichstated the problem and proposed forming a committee to make recommendations to provide
measurable standards of performance. With noobjections, I asked permission to form a committee. For committee colleagues, I chose two
Y?unger teachers, both outspoken for progressive causes.

TheProcess
II:
TheC81DIDltt88DeesIISWark
Meeunu1-Tlleeredcal
111111
Our first meeting was to discuss theoreticalissues and the scope of our work . We had to de-

14

IIN'lll2111:.....

IICIE
cide whether we were going to design a) a program for all students or b) a more limited program for what we initially called 'honors' students.
If the former, then we must look at issues oftracking or ability grouping, yearly assessments,
remediation, assessment of graduation thesis,
and the restructuring of the grading system. If
the latter, we could limit our scope of work to
setting out objective student-centered criteriathat together represented a superior level of effort and achievement in English.
We chose b), because it appeared more objective, less controversial and easier to implement. Another reason was that within the context of falling standards and inflated grades, thebetter students had no way of assessing their performance and no incentive to do their best work.
The scheme was nevertheless not restricted tothese students. A list of scores and activities
would indicate the department's expectations of
all students, weak and strong.

Meeuna11-PerlannanceCriteria·At our second meeting we agreed to make alist of verifiable activities, with weighted points,
that would in sum demonstrate superior effort,
ability and accomplishment in English. Any student who attained the requisite number of points
would receive departmental recognition ·andgraduate 'with honors.' There would be no predetermined number or percentage of students
who could participate, nor would students be solicited by invitation. We wanted an open system,
available to all, where the more students measuring themselves against the Honors Standards ,the better.
The department already had a set of initiatives that we could draw on. For example, we
had long been encouraging students to take
TOEIC, TOEFL and STEP tests, allowing students to place out of entry level English classes
depending on their scores. We were a local testing center for TOEFL. We had also set up a relationship with an interpretation school, where
our students formed their own class at a reducedpnce.
In addition to these external activities, thedepartment already had in place several study
abroad programs, advanced classes, the gradua-, ...... 1tion thesis requirement and a variety of English
activities in school. The committee wanted tobuild on all those existing activities as the basisof its program to reward students who took advantage of these opportunities.
Care was taken to balance activities that rewarded students of incoming high ability withactivities that rewarded effort. For example, if a
student had spent five years in the United States,
she would naturally excel in the standardized
tests. So tests and grades were only one part of
the whole scheme.
Another consideration was a balance of classroom/ extra-curricular activities, with rewards
emphasizing doing extra work. A third was tobalance activities favoring students who had
economic advantage. While study abroad andextra lessons are encouraged, care was taken tobalance those points with curricular activities
that did not cost extra money.
We further concluded that in addition to devising a set of criteria showing superior achievement, we would also create a set of recommended standards, which we would encourage
all students to attain. Without making thesestandards mandatory for graduation, for the firsttime the department's minimum expectations ofstudents were stated publicly.

Meedna111-lcthlllles
anllPDIIISAt our third meeting, we went through a draftof possible activities and attached points to them.
One of the members, whose speciality is educational evaluation, took responsibility to assemble the list of criteria with points in time for the
next departmental meeting. At the end of March,
before school started and with the intention of
implementing the program with the incoming
freshmen and retroactively for the incoming seniors, the Standards Committee made its presentation to the MOET.

ThePrecanHI:

ClartllcauonsandIIVISIOIS
While the Committee would have wanted
immediate approval, the feeling was that the
MOET needed more time to study the proposal
for further discussion later. The Committee madeanother presentation at the next two MOET

11

...
•

••;;

-

IICIE
meetings in April to solicit and answer questions
and concerns. Questions and answers included
the following:
Q 1: What advantages does this program provide?
Ql : The purpose is to publicly articulate standards of effort and achievement to students.
The underlying assumption is that, overtime, these standards will be identified by
the larger community with the university's
English program.

--2111:

States universities. Later, it may become
noted on the students'official transcript.
There were also some very vocal objections(0) from one British professor on the following
grounds, with the following responses (R):
01 : It is not a program, per se.
RI: This may be a narrow interpretation ofwhat constitutes a 'program.' It does havea point of entry, steps toward completionand exit outcome .
02: The scheme is elitist in that it addresses
the needs only of high ability students.

Q2: Should this be mandatory or optional?
A2: Certainly optional, but available to all students. Making even Recommended Standards mandatory would be invoking extracurricular evaluation.

R2: True, the Committee decided to start byarticulating standards for high ability students. However, it is not elitist in the sensethat it is open to anyone to participate. The
secondary effect is that it publicly sets
standards for all students to measure themselves by.

Q3: Are the measurements objective?
A3: Yes, as much as possible . Only some extra papers and graduation theses are open
to subjective evaluation.

03: The scheme doesn't address the morepressing needs of the department to shore
up standards of the below-average students.
'·

Q4: Is the system of point distribution realistic?
A4: We plan to field-test the system and makemodifications. The criteria and points
could change in the future.

R3: Correct, but that wasn't the scope of thepresent proposal. It is hoped that this issue will be addressed in the future.

Q5: How do we document achievements?

04: Any 'honors' program would be dishonest by creating an inflated sense of accomplishment.

A5: All activities should have an accompanying document (test score, certificates ofparticipation or completion, transcripts,
papers with evaluations, etc.)

R4: The criteria are objective and stand up to
scrutiny. By most educational standards,
they would represent a high level of performance and accomplishment.

Q6: How can this be helpful to students; forexample, to get a job?
A6: Unfortunately, job-hunting takes place
before the award can be made; therefore ,it has no direct effect on job-hunting whilestill a student. What this program does isto provide motivation to work at a higher
level of ability, which might be useful in ajob.
Q7: What exactly will students receive?
A 7: At the beginning, the Department will issue a letter or certificate to the student attesting their graduation 'with honors.,.
This is similar to 'cum laude' in United

11111111,111111

05: The term 'honors' has a specific meaning
in the British educational system, which
is not at all what this program is.
R5: The term was changed to 'distinction' .
Also, the program will have a Japanesename that will also describe it.
At the end of May, a list of clarifications waspresented to the MOET, addressing these concerns . One day in June, armed with transcripts,
five high ability students measured their achievements and activities against the Honors Standards. Only two would have passed. But they
11

I

I

--2111:IICIEraised questions that required clarification regarding specific items on the list.
The Committee met one more time to clarify
all items and revise the point system. This revised version was presented to the MOET twotimes for discussion in July. At both these times,
discussion see med supporti ve except for thesame profe ssor who repeated his objections,
thereby blocking approval.
With the self-imposed November deadline
approaching , MOET brought up the propo sal one
more time in mid-October. At that time , the objecting pro fess or made his points again , but
agreed to accept the scheme as long as it did not
use the term ' honor s.' It was at this point thatthe term ' Distinction ' was accepted and the program was approved for implementation beginning April 2001.

FllblreSten
During the remainder of the school year, theCommittee set up the mechanics for implement ing the distinction program:
1. Explanation s of the program will be written in English and Japanese and will be
distributed and announc ed during Orientation in April and public ly posted throughout the year.

.....

, ...... 1

to conceptualize, design and fine-tune the program, was accomplished in four hour- long meetings, plus a late-night sprint by one member .
Along the way, the English Department ,while shying away from makin g performancestandards mandatory for all students, tacitly acknowledged the motivating function that clearly
articulated statements of distinctive achievement
will have on all students.
Without clear goals to work toward, students
are left on their own to determine what is anacceptable level of mastery of English. It willtake several years to see whether participationin this program will, in fact, motivate students
to do their best. The Standards Committee willmeet regularly over this time to evaluate the program. The scheme is seen as fluid, with newactivities or different point distribution possible from year to year. As it stands, the Distinction Program is a public departmental challenge
to all students, showing them ways to attain highachievement in English. It also pub licly statesto the larger community what an Eng lish degree
at our university means in objective terms .

Reterences
Koike Ikuo , Eigo shippa i kokka wo dou
tatenaosu (How to rebuild the country which
has failed to teach English effectively).
Chuo Koron, 114 , 8, pp. 92-99 .
Reed y, S. ( 1999, December 6). TOEFL stats
don 't tell the whole story. The Japan Times.
Suzuki Takao (1999). Nihonjin wa naze eigo ga
dekinai ka? (Why can't Japane se people
speak English?), Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Mind your English. (1999, September 2). The
Straits Times (Singapore).

2. Folders stored in the department office, forparticipating students , will hou se documentation of accomplishments( e.g.
TOEFL scores, transcripts, language school
certificates of completion , ESS activities,
school paper , etc.). Students can set up
Distinction Folders by attaining 10 points.
3. Twice a year, in July and February, the Distinction· Program Committee will review
all folders to verify records , tally awarded
points and update progre ss reports . In February of each year, seniors will be informed
if they will graduate 'w ith distinction .'Comments can be addressed to Ron Klein at:<rklein @gol.com >CIICIUslll
From proposal to approval, the proce ss to establis h a distinction program at Hiroshima
Jogakuin University took 12 months and cameup for discuss ion at eight separate department
meetings. The actual work of the committee:
11

Ii

...

Sllrlll2111: ......

lllla1i WritingtorPublication:a ShortGuide.!!

I- torNewWriters
I

1•

..
I

Mark Weinkle
Publications are an important part of academic work. For teachers who want to work inuniversities and colleges, it is becoming increasingly important to be carrying out research. Publication is not only a crucial part of the research
process, but also a tangible, and marketable ,product of it. A strong track record of good quality research is a form of qualification as important as a degree, and often more so. Job descriptions often use phrases such as ' .. . or equivalentresearch record,' to indicate this.
For someone who has not yet published theirwork, the prospect of doing so can seem daunting. Where to start? How to write? Who to approach? Without guidance. these questions canseem unanswerable.
On the other hand some teachers may feelthat publication is really no part of the job theywant to do. This is a fair point of view, and one
to which such teachers are entitled . There arecolleges and universities who will likewise place
little emphasis on research. Nevertheless careerprospects for those who do not research and publish are limited. Full time university positions
invariably require a substantial research record,
and tenured positions especially so.
Both groups of teachers: those who have notpublished but would like to, and those who have
hitherto had little interest in research and publication, may find something of use in the following overview of the process.

Where
11stanil
The purpose of academic journals is to disseminate accounts of current research in a particular field. There are of course some peripheral types of articles that are not directly basedon the writer's research, but these are generally
written by academics with a broad knowledgeof their field. Book and software reviews, andsome kinds of opinion pieces come into this category. Also, they carry little weight in themselves, unless backed by a solid research record.
Therefore it's not necessarily an easy option to
try to begin by writing, say, book reviews.
Keeping in mind the underlying purpose of
publishing, perhaps easiest course for a newwriter, as well as the most effective in terms ofthe development of future writing skills, is toreport on your own research or classroom practice. Journals such as On CUE, The Language
Teache (J'L'J) EL Gazette, The Internet TESLJournal and TESOL Journal are basically practitioner journals. All aim to publish accessible
accounts of research for a general audience of
language teachers.
·Many journals also run regular sections containing descriptions of classroom activities.
' From the Chalkface ' in On CUE; ' My Share'
in TLT, 'Tips from the Classroom' in TESOLJournal and so on. These kinds of articles aregood places for novice writers to start, based asthey are on classroom experience. EL Gazetteruns a similar section called 'Prospects ' , which
carries detailed but straightforward descriptionsof what particular regions of the world are likefor an English teacher.
Having noted above that opinion and perspective articles should not be seen as an easy option, nevertheless On CUE, as well as some otherjournals such as TLT, welcome opinion and perspective pieces from first-time writers. While it'strue that the writer needs to have a strong knowledge base underlying their perspective , thisdoesn't have to be a conventional academic
background . Practitioner knowledge, arising outof reflection on classroom experience is equallyvalid.

11

Slrlll2111: 111•11,1111111

IICIE

Thewriting
process
Before you begin to write it's a good idea to
do a little research into the journals you are considering writing for. Reading previously published articles will give you an idea of the preferred style and content areas that each one tends
towards. Some journals also give writing advice
in their guides for contributors . Many will offer
specific advice if you contact the editor with an
initial idea before writing. On CUE, EL Gazetteand TLT do this. TLT also offers the assistanceof their peer support group, which pairs up writers with sympathetic but constructively criticalreaders to help writers work through drafts of
their papers. Most editors recommend having
another person read through your paper. Be
aware though, that if that person is a friend theyshould be able to feel sufficiently detached togive an honest critical appraisal, and to ask difficult questions without worrying about offending you.
A common problem that editors encounter islong-windedness. Having to seek out the basic
ideas in a long article expressed in what thewriter mistakenly believes to be an academic
register is very time-consuming. In fact all theeditors contacted while researching this article
stressed that simplicity and directness are key
criteria for publishable papers. So too is brevity.
Matthew Fellowes, of EL Gazette offers thefollowing advice:
Try to write simply. However complex andimportant your subject, it's a good idea toprovide readers with an incentive to keep
reading. Once you've written the draft,
read it through and try to cut it down; as arule of thumb, cutting a first draft by I 0
per cent is likely to do it good.
Other problems arise when writers of conventional research reports fail to review the literature sufficiently to find out what previous work
has been done on the topic, or when their ex-

perimental design lacks validity. The latter issometimes the case when writers make the kindof statistical claims appropriate for large scalestudies, even though they are themselves using
very small samples , perhaps just their own class.
For all the journals mentioned in this brief
overview, a key criteria is that papers should be
relevant to teaching and research results should
ideally have some practical application to thesituation in which readers may find themselves.
Most of these journals also require adherence to
APA citation formatting and/or writing style.
Editors vary in the level of strictness about this.
Of course the few journals referred to here
are just a small sample. There are many journals and newsletters that could be appropriate.
Most JALT SIGs have publications, as do TESOL
SIGs. See their respective home pages. Alsocheck the calls for papers in the bulletin board
and news and announcements columns in TLT
and On CUE.
If you haven't published your work yet, andthis article has prompted you to try, the adviceof Robert Long, of TLT, is well worth bearing inmind:
Enjoy your research. If you don't enjoy theprocess, the end result probably won't be
worth publishing, or the effort.
If you do enjoy it, though, and you believe
your account of it is worth sharing with yourpeers, write it up and send it to a suitable journal. And if you're not successful at first, don't
give up. Few editors will simply reject your work
outright. They are more likely to suggest waysof re-organising what you've done, so persevere
and resubmit your work, either to the same publication or to another. And good luck.

AcknoWledaements
Thanks to Matthew Fellowes of EL Gazette,and Robert Long of The Language Teacher for
their help in compiling this article.

JournalFrequency

Reviewed?

Web page

The Language Teacher
EL Gazette
The Internet TESL Journal
TESOL Journal
On CUE

MonthlyMonthlyMonthlyMonthly
3 times per year

Reviewed
Not reviewed
Reviewed
Reviewed
Becoming reviewed

http://jalt.org/tlt
http:/ /elgazette.com
http://iteslj.org
http ://tesol.org/tj
http:/ /wild-e .org/cue

11

..
I•••
a

i•a
•

-•

IICIE--2111:11111111,111111

Cvber1i1eline:
I learner
Autonomv
Websites·15

II

Steve Snyder
Miyazaki Women's Junior College

With the upcoming CUE Conference dedicated to Developing Autonomy, it seems appropriate to include some learner autonomy-relatedsites in this installment of the Cyberpipeline.
There are quite a few sites out there, and the ones
chosen here are a good jumping off point for
those wanting to learn about learner autonomy.

TheJILT
Learner
1eve111me•
SIG
http://www.miyazaki-me.ac.jp/~hnicoll/leamerdev/
What better place for CUE members to search
first than the Leamer Development SIG site. This
site is maintained by Hugh Nicoll, who is thecoordinator for Leamer Development as well as
having served in many positions for the CUE SIG.
The site has links to on-line versions of their
publications, which include Japanese as well as
English text. The site also has information links
to upcoming conferences. Links to the other sites
noted in this article can also be found on the
Leamer Development site, so this is an excellent starting place. This site also has information about the Leamer Development SIG which
is worth checking out.
Previous issues of Learning Learning, theLeamer Development newsletter, cover a wide
range ofleamer autonomy issues, such as the useof computers with autonomy, use of diaries, designing materials, and much more. There is alink to selected papers from the Conference on
Autonomy in Language Leaming, entitled Taking Control: Autonomy in Language Learning.
This site also includes some links to more tangential topics, such as the International Conference on Language Rights and Japanese computing links.

PhilBenson's••111111
andIndependence
Paae
http://ec.hku.hk/autonomy/
Phil Benson, University of Hong Kong, has
one of the most complete bibliographies for
Leamer Autonomy online--around 600 items.
If you know of something he hasn't listed, you
can add it to the bibilography directly. Benson
and Voller have written a book entitled Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning (1997) and there are links to buy it on thesite. For an excellent introduction to autonomy,
Benson provides an introductory essay, "Whatis autonomy?" complete with links for each reference. The site also has links to interested
groups in Asia, and there is a set oflinks to selfaccess language learning centres on the web.
Some of these self-access sites are quite interesting, and worth looking into.

http:/ /web.tiscalinet.it/Tante ViePerlmparare/learning paths/
Here is a site with a very different flare. The
site is divided between an Italian version of thepages and an English version. The above address should get you to the English version. The
first impression is that there are a lot of moving
graphics. Once you get past that initial surpriseof this intensely graphic site, you'll find that it
is intelligently organized and has a wealth ofmaterial in it. I found the links to Mariani's
papers very interesting and a convenient use of
the site. The links are extensive, including muchmaterial on learning strategies, learning styles
and learning enhancement. There are also some
unusual links that I found of mixed value. This
site also includes an extensive bibliography.

21

S.rl•I 2111:1111• 1 I, la •l 1

IICIE

to research papers by the staff. Through the variThelATEFlleamerlndependence
ous links you access the MOO and other reSIGHomePage
sources. I found one page on the site through a
http ://www.iatefl.org/lisig/lihome .htm
This is the site of the learner autonomy special interest group of the International Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language (IATEFL). Their stated scope is not limited to learner autonomy , but specifically includes issues of learner independence and interdependence. Through the site you can accesscurrent and back issues of Independence, thenewsletter. As with other sites, there are links
pages and notices of upcoming events.

search engine which did not seem to be linked
to the main page. I have since discovered thatby adding /assistants/ to the URL you get a listing of the assistant staff pages, and an example
of an interesting paper is the following:

C,

CD
'II
'II
CD

-=·

CD

Tllklll II lhl MDI:
lellllr 111111111V
and111111111ura1111111111111
http://www.tcd.ie/CLCS/assistants/
kschwien/Publications/CALLMOOtalk.htm
AllrllCIIIS11 lllllr 111111111
http://jillrobbins.com/autonomy.html

learner
Autonomv
InLanguage
This is a paper by Jill Robbins about Leamer
learning
Autonomy in a Japanese setting. I highly rechttp://www.vuw.ac.nz/lals/divl/ailasc/..-..

ommend accessing it.

This is the official site of the AILA Scientific Commission on Leamer Autonomy. On thissite you can learn about their three main activities: AUTO-L, a list-serve dedicated to discussion on autonomy; LAPI, which is a listing ofresearch projects on learner autonomy; and theirnewsletter.
To join AUTO-L, send an e-mail to Anita
Wenden <wldyc@cunyvm .cuny.edu> asking to
subscribe. Within a day or two, you should start
receiving messages.
AUTO-L is a semi-moderated list whichworks like an online e-mail course in autonomy
with different discussion moderators every two
to four weeks and although the traffic is light,
the conversations go deep.

Centretorlanguage
andCommunication
Studies,
TrlnllV
College,
Dubllnhttp://www.tcd.ie/ CLCS/
The above address gets you to the Centre for
Language and Communications Studies at Trinity College, Dublin. This site is filled with resources. You will find links to occasional papers by David Little (a remarkable number ofthem), listings of staff courses offered, and links
21

Slrlll lN1: llllal I, 111111

IICIE

-...
u

TakeFiveBrainstorming
Activitv

I•a

Tim Mick/asShitennoji International Buddhist University

ti

E

I!

This activity is for anyone who has ever asked
an open question and go the deer in the headlights response. Maybe they are too shy. Perhaps
they lack the English ability. It may be cultural.
Whatever the reason it's frustrating when students just sit silently, seeming to ignore the question. I know that my students have opinions andI want to hear them. Recently I compared the
responses of two groups of freshman English 1
students to the question 'Why do you study English?' When simply asked this question, most
students responded, 'I don't know.' When I used
the Take Five format, students thought about thequestion, negotiated in groups, and I got answers
such as 'I need it to take a teacher's license,''I'd like to travel abroad,' 'my major is English
and I want to be able to communicate with foreigners.' While some students still replied, 'I
don't know,' the answer seemed more legitimate
now. Although this takes more time than simply
asking questions, when plugged in to this activity questions are answered much more thoughtfully. In addition, I find these answers are much
more useful in helping me make pedagogical dec1s1ons.

summarv
This is a game-like, group brainstorming activity that incorporates nominal group technique.
In nominal groups, the members do not communicate until they have completed an initialtask individually. Research has shown that thismethod creates more creative responses thantypical brainstorming approaches.

FICISIS:lnll:
Mltlltlls:

Time:

1. Expressing opinions
2. Generation of ideas.
3. Building consensus
False beginner and above; large
groups. Can be modified for all
levels.
Blackboard or OHP; students
need paper and pencil
30 - 40 minutes.

Procedure
1. Pose a question to students and answer any
questions they may have about it. For example, at the beginning of a semester ask,
'What concepts do you most want to learn
from this class?'
2.

Give students two minutes to prepare personal lists or responses individually.

3. Have students form groups of five, andgive them five minutes to pool all ideas,
and then reduce the list to the five items
most important to the group.
4.

As a whole group, ask each group to contribute one item from their list. Write these
items on the board, and continue until thelist contains 10 items, without duplications. This will be the group list.

5.

Have the students return to their groups
and choose the item from the group listthat they feel will be the most popular, notthe one they prefer, but the one that mostgroups are likely to prefer.

6. As a whole group, ask each team to reporttheir choice, and each time an item is chosen mark one point for it on the board.
7. Award points to each group based on thenumber of groups that chose the same item.
For example, if three groups chose thesame item, each of those groups is awarded
3 points. If only one group chose an item,that group is awarded 1 point.
8. Eliminate the top rated item, rank it as
number one, and continue the procedure
until the top five items have been decided.
9.

If there is a tie for the most selected itemin any round, award points as usual, but
do not delete any item from the group list.
Instead give each group 1 minute to pre-

Slrt•I 2111:•••••• I. 1111•1

IICIE
pare a defense of their choice, and 30 seconds to present them. Continue as before.
10. Calculate the scores for each group. Congratulate the group with the highest total
score, for its ability to recognize the mostimportant issues. Also reward originality
by asking each group to refer back to their
original list and check for ideas that madeit to the group list. Award 5 points to the
top ranked item, 4 points for the 2nd
ranked item, and so on.
11. Give time at them end to allow for discussion, questions and insights to the process.

RadanaleThis game like activity allows students to give
input or generate ideas, and it requires minimalplanning.

Evaluatlan
This activity incorporates nominal grouptheory to produce more and better ideas than bysimply asking questions or using typical brainstorming activities. It encourages students tocompete at achieving consensus, but even though
it is game-like, it is cooperative. It allows for
guided group decision-making and encourages

students to feel ownership of their final decisions. Although the object is to find the top fiveanswers, other answers do not need to be disregarded. The teacher can note them, and try toaddress them in other lessons, mini-lessons, oreven individually.

Uvanauans

11

at the beginning of units to find out which concepts are important or of interest to students. It
can be used as a course evaluation, by asking,'Which points were most useful for you?' As
well, it can be used as a pre-reading/lecture activity, by asking, 'What do you know about ...
?', or as a review, by asking, 'What did you learn
about ... ?' For lower level students, instead ofasking them to generate the original lists, theteacher can create the group list or provide pictures to represent concepts, and begin with step
3, identifying the top five items.

4:

.,

u

-..
:!
•

•
The activity is easily modified. It can be used i(AdaptedfromTrainingand DevelopmentJomnal(1991). 45, 2, pp37-42.)

Fram
tbeChalkllCI.7osubmil classroom applrcalions,leclinirues

andlesson plans, up lo 1000 words, confacf sec/ion
e<blor: :.7/ndrew Obermeier,

....
I•
I

..•

~

-•

.!I

In this issue, the OP column offers two shortperspectives that focus on professional development. The writers' views are the result of
having gone through an experience in theclassroom, a change which has resulted in adifferent way of seeing that classroom and thelearners in it. We can all certainly benefit fromsharing such experiences and we'd like tothank Alan Milne and Juanita Heigham forsharing them. Alan Milnes article was written in response to his receiving the CUE Newcomer award for 2000,for which we congratulate him.

S111112111:......

,.111111

We would like to present these articles as
examples of how the Opinions and Perspectives column can be open to personalized perspectives on the learning/teaching process aswell as more traditional polemical pieces. So,
if other readers have experiences that they'dlike to share and which in some way changed
their perspective on the language learningclassroom, please contact the OP editor, Keith
Ford <jf6k-ford@asahi-net.orjp>.
Of course, scholarly perspectives on current issues in language teaching are also welcome.

Staving
OpentoChange
Juanita Heigham
Sugiyama Jogakuen University
As teachers we all have our preferred styles learner-centered in that I have strictly limited
ofteaching,just as learners have preferred styles my own talking time and encouraged pair andof learning. It is easy, when things are working group work. In the past, my classes focused onwell in our classrooms, to sit back and tell our- a grammar point and controlled practice of 'theselves we've got it right and that what we are structure of the day.' The grammar introduction
doing meets our students' needs. However, it's was short, rarely more than five minutes, andimportant not to get complacent. In this 'perspec- then the students were guided into active comtive' piece I would like readers to consider the munication, with activities such as information
following experience as an argument for being gap, controlled discussion and role play. In thisopen to change and the trying out of new ideas way, I was essentially following a Presentationin our classroom even when we think things are Practice-Produce model of the communicative
going well.
approach, with the importance of language inIn particular, I would like to share a recent struction and grammar focus overshadowingchange in my teaching which has resulted in a content. I felt that the students were responsive
raising of my students' awareness of their own to my methods, I was comfortable in the classrole in the learning process. Through introduc- room, and in the evaluations at the end of eaching project work into my classroom and encour- course, my students generally said positiveaging students to work more autonomously, there things, but primarily about me.
has been a significant shift in the content of stuMy style seemed to work well; however, havdents' evaluations, from focussing on me - the ing recently tried a different teaching approach,teacher - to themselves - the learners.
project work, I have discovered that my learnThroughout my seven years of teaching, it has ing-centered classroom was missing a key inalways been my goal to be a guide for my stu- gredient, specifically students' awareness of theirdents rather than be the center of their attention . own progress and a sense of growing confidence
My training was relatively traditional, and I be- in using the language. Students had been enjoylieved language rather than content should be the ing my classes, but that enjoyment did not cormain focus of learners' attention. However, I relate to a strong feeling of marked improvement
have always carefully tried to make my classes in their English skills.

24

8'1'1112111:
Ill •• 1.ISlll 1

IIIIE
Involvement in project work has given mystudents greater autonomy than in my previous
classroom ; they work cooperatively in groups ,making joint decisions and achieving a specificgoal: usually the feedback of information to theirpeers in the form of a presentation. This added
responsibili ty has changed their perception of
the classroom . Project work is very different
from my former teaching style, and it allows fora more learning-centered classroom, and now
that I have been introduced to this different style,
my enthusiasm for teaching has been heightened
because I feel that I am giving my students what
they really want. Furthermore, they appear to behighly motivated by it.
Evidence of changes in student perception has
been found in their enthusiasm and more strikingly, their evaluations. In the past, when I readmy evaluations, I was always pleased with what
I thought, at the time, were positive student comments. Now, I realize that while my students
did enjoy my classes, the amount of actual learning and increase in confidence was not significant enough for them to remark on since themajority of the comments they wrote were aboutme, such as: "This class was very good because[my teacher] tried to make class work more interesting and cared for each of us" and "Thisclass was very enjoyable. My teacher was very
funny." However, today, while my students still
give positive evaluations, the focus has shifted
significantly from me to themselves, where it
should be. Now, I receive comments like: "At
first I was shy and hesitated to speak English.
But now I can speak without hesitation" , "First ,I couldn 't express myself in English naturally.
But at last, I came to have confidence to speak
and have presentation" and " .. .this course hashelped me to feel free to use English."
It appears that learning through project work
has produced a natural shift from learners evaluating the teacher to learners evaluating themselves . In addition, I have learned where thefocus of evaluations should be: on what the students feel they actually learned, on their growing sense of confidence and on what they cantake with them from the classroom experience.
I would like to emphasize that in this brief
article, I am not trying to promote project work
per se. Rather, through sharing my own experience, which has changed my perspective on theclassroom and on learning, I am encouraging
others to challenge themselves by being open tochange and new ideas. This can only benefit ourlearners and make our own work more fulfillmg.

ThelongBumnv
Road
Alan MilneAs I considered the various approaches I
would take to writing this piece, I decided not
only to focus on the development of myself as ateacher, but also to include how I have tried not
to compromise myself in terms of personality
and as a person. As recent events have dictated,
this is now a kind of sketch of one part of mylife where the latter intention broke down. That
critical incident consequently caused me to review my outlook and approach to a profession I
so enjoy, despite the stresses and strains such a
job often brings to the fore. I would like to describe this experience along with how I feel mydevelopment as a teacher has evolved over the
past three and a half years.

I must state from the outset that my origins
do not lie in teaching. I am not professionallytrained as a teacher but rather as an electrician.
Rather strange beginnings for life as a university teacher some people might say, but several
years ago, after having to endure several days
working in sub zero temperatures at a buildingsite in my former home town of Aberdeen, Scotland, I decided that there must be more to life.
So, I decided with great trepidation, to give up
my work and apply to study at the Department
of Japanese Studies at the University of Sheffield. One of the main reasons I chose JapaneseStudies was from my practising Judo for ten
years prior to my application. So I suppose I was

25----...

'II

•
•

'cl

a

'II

•
n
i·
•

l • CIE

·I
•
I

..•

2
II

-

·-•
a

drawn to the field through that brief brush withthe culture.
It was during this time, after acting as a translator to a Japanese researcher at several special
schools in Aberdeen, that I became interested in
special education. That was my first real contact with the handicapped and it made a great
impact on me. Motivated to become more involved in this area I applied to do a Masters inSpecial Education at the University ofTsukuba
after graduating from Sheffield in 1992.
Upon graduation from Tsukuba in 1996, in
need of work, purely by chance, I applied for a
job at a conversation school as a stopgap until
something better came along, whatever 'better'
may have been. However, to my very great surprise, I found I actually liked teaching, especiallychildren . Greatly enthused to be helping theseyoungsters take their first steps towards knowledge in another language , this was my first initiation into the world of English teaching. I have
now gradually moved on to college and university-level teaching.
Working in a university environment as someone new to the profession, I have had to rely on
the help of several colleagues and develop fromtheir advice a set of my own pedagogical principles for my teaching. This has been in effect abaptism of fire. It has taken a full three and ahalf years before I could feel comfortable walking into a class with a rough plan of how I am toproceed, ready to change things instinctively ifl
sense things are not going well.
Perhaps the greatest thing I learned during thisperiod was that the students expect not only ateacher, but also a person to whom they can relate. I began to realise that the teaching was only
half of the battle: the other half had to be a projection of myself as a person to convey what it
was I wanted them to learn in a way that theywould enjoy. This resulted in a more relaxed
approach to my teaching , which allowed me tobe myself . I concluded what is probably obvious , that students will do much more work if
they feel they are coming to a class they will beenjoying.
Nevertheless, in the easy-going atmosphere I
try to instill, there is a very fine line between
students enjoying a class but yet not doing
enough work, which has often lead to the feel-

Slrlll 2111:11111111,111111
ing that I should perhaps be more authoritative.
This directly relates to the 'critical incident' I
mentioned at the beginning.
The case in question occurred in one class
where I teach writing. The students had just completed their first major writing assignment and I
was asking that they pair up and engage in peer
review before I collected their essays and gave
my final comments.
On this day, two students in particular, after
repeated friendly warnings , persisted in reading
their keitais much to my mounting irritation. Before long I had had enough and asked them toleave the class, much to their considerable shock,and that of the rest of the class which descended
into deadly silence. What had I done? Here wasa perfectly functioning class, happy, working
away with the usual minimal amount of chatdestroyed by 30 seconds of frustrated anger andthe painful two-minute or so exit of the two students in question.
I nevertheless was of the opinion that, having shown some discipline , I would have complete control of the class on the next occasion which of course I did. However, it was a control
of a class that had no life, which felt fearful rather
than relaxed. It was just a very hard-working ,quiet class. As for the two students I had formally ejected, there was a sense of a betrayal oftrust and friendship , and even hurt. I asked myself there and then: was this the kind of class I
wanted to manage? I let the situation continue
for two more lessons, during which time I reflected more on what happened on that day : I
decided at the end of the second lesson after theincident to ask the offending students to staybehind so I could have a word.
The rest of the class left and we sat down together. I think they were expecting even morewrath by their terribly timid expressions. However, I told them in Japanese that , although what
they did on that day was not good and goingagainst my instructions in class , my reaction totheir behaviour - to go as far as to send them out- was far too strong. In what could be termed anemotionally charged atmosphe re, I apologised
for my actions and, to my surprise they then most
touchingly said "thank you " . Two words which
redeemed me from one week of torturous selfreflection and turned an otherwise over serious

211111112111:111-lllllll

IICIE
90 minutes back into the friendly joyous class it
used to be.
Ifl learned anything from that, it was that intrying to be such a disciplinarian I had left mycharacter behind and, with it, the very essenceof my teaching. I am who I am, and I have toaccept the students for what they are and adapt.
Usually, a sense of humour and the realisationthat students are, in nearly all cases , trying theirbest is enough to subdue any irrational need toget angry with either mistakes or misbehaviour.
I see my future goal in teaching to further refine my teaching strategies, through both further
experience and by completing a distance MA in
TEFL with Leicester University. Hopefully, indoing so I will help to motivate those students
whose desire to learn English, for whatever reason, has been nullified by past experience. Accepting and developing myself as a teacher finally comes down to loving what I do, respecting the students for who they are, and realisingthat problems along the way are just bumps on
the road.

Alan Milne teaches at the University ofTsukuba, Chuo University, Keio SFC University,and Komazawa Junior College. He is a member of the WAFFLE teacher s writing group,
which was the subject of a profile in the last issue of On CUE.

i•

-..
I!

~

111001• 11Ponder
do lony as me pro/eel onlo
/he coffech've morfcl.insl.ilul.ions, media,
soc.iefy-

an aufhorifyii

does no/ r.iyhljulfy
possess, me are allominy
ourselves lo beconlaminaleclb_yahen!J/me allow /heelemenls.

c5elf lo come lo
consciousness, /heaulhorify .is 1ns1cle.
Jlappen1ny
mde

happens.

We/he space, me

unloc.£ /he door, and ma1f.
We surrenderlo

ravr:Shmenl!JJ(arion Woodman

..-••
•

l • CIE

Slrlll2111:...._l,lall1

IIICIIS onl11arning
Rathllrthan

-

I
:

;

I

T11achin1:
WhyantiIIIW/1

L1111
Tinmetlledsl llubli1t
Cllb'lflr18•111111111
Gann•llicallen
Sludles,
TrilllV
Cl......... l1.12000J$30.ISIND-9151151-8-3
I. 238.
Reviewed by Steven Snyder, Miyazaki Women's Junior College
lillle, L D•

Twenty years have passed since the publishing of Holec 's seminal work Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning and nearly thirty years
since Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Despite the claims of critics that learner autonomy
was just another of a long line of passing fads insecond/foreign language teaching, today learnerautonomy remains an important and vital conceptual approach to language teaching. It may
be said that learner autonomy is now more
widely implemented throughout the world thanat any previous time, although its influence remains most powerful in Europe.
Two major proponents of learner autonomy
have been David Little, of Trinity CollegeDu blin, and Leni Dam, of Damp.arks
Laererhojskole in Copenhagen. Both Little andDam have presented throughout the world andpresented in Japan several years ago as featured
speakers on the JALT Four-corners tour and at
the JALT international conference. Their published works are many, including a series of contributions to books through the Authentik Language Leaming Resources Ltd. impress, a publisher dedicated to learner autonomy themes established by David Little.
In their most recent book they have teamed
up with Jenny Timmer to produce Focus on
Learning Rather than Teaching: Why and How?
This book developed out of papers from the 1998
IATEFL conference in Krakow, Poland, and represent proceedings from that conference.
Besides being the most recent book on learnerautonomy, Focus on Learning Rather than
Teaching: Why and How?, it is certainly one of
the most comprehensive books published on thistheme, and will be a reference that interested
university level language educators will want toacqmre.

The papers included in this book address arange of issues on learner autonomy, and thisreview is intended as a guide for those interested
in any specific topic, as well as a general reviewof the book itself.
Learner autonomy presents two immediatechallenges: the theoretical construct and implementation. Focus on Learning Rather than
Teaching: Why and How? is intelligently divided
into five sections which address the differing
aspects of these two challenges.
Part I is entitled "Setting the agenda- theory,
practice and research," and could stand alone as
an excellent introduction to learner autonomy.
The first article is by David Little and is ~mtitled, "Why focus on learning rather than teaching?" In his paper, Little articulates a persuasive argument on the defects of teacher-centeredinstruction and the justifications for learner-interactive, learner-centered and learner self-instructing strategies of L2 instruction.
Much of the theoretical underpinnings of previous books on this topic by Little (e.g. Little,
1991) are summarize in this brief paper, making
it an excellent resource for those wishing an introduction to learner autonomy.
Additionally, Little's paper contextualizes
learner autonomy within pedagogical and psychological theory and is complete with in-text
references to authorities making it a particularly
useful starting point for those wishing to pursue
research in this area. Briefly, Little argues for adecommodification of learning (Salmon, 1995)
and a Vygotskian informed view of learner social interaction, which, taken together, advocate
the desirability and superiority ofleaming "fromthe inside out" (Little, 2000). Little's explanation is clear and well developed, making theconnections between the various threads transparent.

21

111'1112111:.......

IICIE
The second paper is by Leni Dam on "Whyfocus on learning rather than teaching?: fromtheory to practice." Although the argument of
this paper is similar in content to a previous
works and more comprehesively addressed(Dam, 1995), this paper serves as a methodological overview and as an essential introduction to the following paper, which actually evaluates learning performance in an autonomous
learning course.
The third paper is by Lienhard Legenhausen,
an associate ofLeni Dam, who reports on a longitudinal study of autonomous learning entitled,"Focus on learning rather than teaching- withwhat results?" Essentially a three-year study
comparing performance of elementary school
students in a learner autonomy environment incontrast to a more traditionally taught English
course, this study is a model of how comparative methodological research can be conducted,
and is certainly a testament to the effectivenessof Dam's implementation of learner autonomy
principles.
The comparison chosen was a German gymnasium English course, whose students represent the upper 40% of public school students inGerman schools. (German public education, like
Japanese public education, is highly streamed,or tracked, by aptitude, with the main difference
being that streaming occurs at an earlier age inGermany).
In contrast, the students in Dam andLegenhausen's Language Acquisition in an Autonomous Learning Environment (LAALE),
were 21 mainstream children mixed with 8 students would were receiving remediation in their
LL
Legenhausen (2000) found that recognitionlevels of target vocabulary were similar between
the two learning conditions, the productive ability of the learner autonomy students was dramatically greater. In a grammar study of the twogroups after four years of instruction found aninteresting dissociation: when tested formulaic
task the traditionally taught German students
performed marginally better than their Danish
autonomous group; however, performance on asubtask tapping creative use of formations theDanish autonomous students clearly out performed the traditionally taught group.

1111111

Also investigated was a peer-to-peer discourse task performance where students attempted to talk for 4-5 minutes, in which theautonomous learners dramatically out performed
the traditional group in the quality of their discourse.
Based on Long's (1981) assertion that L2
learners tend toward briefer and less involved
interactions, Legenhausen (2000) investigated
the ratios between topic-initiating and topic-continuing within the discourse task and found that
autonomous learners had three times the lengthof topic-continuance over the traditionally instructed group.
A more complicated picture was also reported
from a C-test (a partial close test) of German
students in various streamed and instructional
conditions over a one-year period. Of particularinterest here is that between comparable levelsof streaming, children with autonomous instruction performed significantly better and approached or exceeded performance of the higher
streamed groups given traditional instruction.
Taken together, the findings reported inLegenhausen (2000) represent clear evidence ofthe superior effectiveness of autonomous instruction over traditional teacher controlled instruction of foreign language for elementary school
children.
There may be some confounding in the comparison of different L 1 in the two groups, but
this objection is indirectly addressed in the oneyear study of German students. Another objection might be that the results of this study may
not be generalizible to the adult populations.
Certainly, the behavioral-interaction between
students of differing cultural and language backgrounds would be expected to be different, andthese differences could affect learning outcomes.
A third would be age related: that there is a
critical age (e.g. Scovel, 1988) for learning L2,
with the students of Legenhausen (2000) being
within that critical period and adult learners being outside of that period. It should be pointed
out that in studies of phonological perception(Werker & Pegg, 1992) and accent evidence(Flege, 1991; Archibald & Young-Scholten,
2000) have found evidence counter to the critical-period hypothesis- adults do exhibit theability to perceive non-native contrasts and ex-

21

--•

I

•

Slrlll!111: 111111,1.111111

IICIE

I
i

hibit a inter-language continuum when acquiring pronunciation; it should also be rememberedthat Scovel (1988) referred to persistent L 1 accent in L2, not to the developing of competentcommunication abilities in the L2.
Clearly, further methodological research isneeded with adults to confirm the effects on adultlearners, but the findings in Legenhausen (2000),for the present at least, represent strong justification for the use of the learner autonomy approach to L2 instruction with adult learners.
A simplistic schematic of progress within thelearner autonomy construct, might be progressing from teacher-dependence toward interdependence with fellow learners, and ultimately
towards a capacity for independent learning.
Theoretically and practically, the greater challenge is the transition from teacher dependency
to interdependence, because this transition would
require the greatest change in attitude and expectations of the learners. Part 2 of Focus on
Learning Rather than Teaching: Why and How?
presents a series of papers under the heading"Some examples of practice," which directly
address the problems associated with learnerattitudes and expectations within the autonomous environment. The examples and discussion in this section are quite illuminating andhelp to address the problems inherent in the transition to autonomous learning. The first article,
entitled "Involving learners in their own learning- how to get started," by Seeman and Tavares
relates these teachers' experiences in initiating
an autonomous learning environment, with examples and reflection on the process. Hanne
Thomsen's "Leamer' favoured activities in theautonomous classroom," describes a problem
very close to the hearts of university foreign language teachers: what to do with a mixed-ability
group oflearners. Thomsen gives numerous examples and comments about the materials used
and the success he had with them.
The process of acquired learner interdependence is directly addressed in the next three papers. "Between a rock and a hard place: the interdependent classroom" by Russell Whitehead,describes his views and experience on building
interdependence. Marion Geddes' "Interdependence can help independence," relates her expe-.-•• .

-

riences with an English language immersion program in Scotland.
Her situation involved short courses of only
two-week durations. Even under such time constrains, she relates how students not only learned
language, but also learned about interdependence
and independent learning.
Leslie Bobb Wolff's paper on "Changing attitudes towards treatment of mistakes," outlines
her strategies on moving responsibility for correction on to the student, rather than implicitly
on the teacher and discusses the learning outcomes.
Part 3 includes four papers which report onclassroom research involving learners' awareness of the learning process. Space here prevents reviewing each of the papers individually;
however, taken together these four papers underline the importance of reflective tasks, suchas diary writing advocated by Leni Dam, and goal
reflection.
The various authors discuss learning contracts, needs assessments and questionnaires interms of their effectiveness and validity.
Metacognitive awareness, which was central
to Wenden ( 1991), subjective world view, which
was central to Riley (1997), are addressed byseveral authors illustrate their instruments fortapping these areas and raising awareness. It is
implied that personal reflection is an essential
component to an effective learner autonomy
environment.
As stated by Christopher Candlin in the preface to Wenden (1991), "Autonomy, like awareness, needs a goal." (p.xii). Indeed, given that
context the four papers in part 3 take on a particular importance.
The affective and metacognitive aspects oflearner autonomy are essential, vital. Unlesslearners appreciate the task before them, there
is some likelihood of failure (Nolan, 2000; Little, 1991).
This crucial aspect of implementing learnerautonomy is well presented in this section, alongwith comments and methods for addressing thisarea.
Part 4 includes three papers regarding teachertraining issues with learner autonomy. Part 5,
the final section, includes only a single article
on curriculum, by Candelaria Torres Diaz. Diaz
II

.....

IICIE
reports on an attempt in the Canary Island s tocreate a learner autonomy workshop in which
under-achieving students are exposed to learnerautonomy principles for learning in secon darysubjects, rather than its application to foreign
language learning .
Diaz descr ibes the rationale and the plans for
implementing the workshops which will cons ist
or 70 hour s a learner autonomy environment instead of proscribing the same time to additional
convent ional remediation activities.
These latter sections, though interesting intheir own light, are less relevant to university
educators than the previous sections and will not
be reviewed here.
Focus on learning rather than teaching: whyand how? is a must read for those already know 1edgeable on learner autonomy, because it extends
the previou s literature and summarizes it in aparticularly useful manner ; it is also a must readfor those interested in learning about learnerautonomy, as it is a well connected text with clear
explanatory force.

latarences

1.111111

Timmer, J. (eds.) Focus on learning rather
than teaching: how and why? Dublin: Centre
for Lan guage and Communication Studies,
Trinity Co llege Dublin.
Riley,?. (1997) . Learner Autonomy 6: developing learners thinking skills.. Dublin:
Authentik.
Salmon , P. ( 1995). Psychology in the classroom.
London: Casse ll.
Scovel , T. (1988). A time to speak: a
psycholinguistic inquiry into the critical period for human speech. New York: Newbury
House.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Wenden, A. ( 1991 ). Learner Strategies for
Learner Autonomy . Heme! Hempstead:
Prentice Hall International Ltd.
Werker, J. and Pegg, J. ( 1992). Infant speech perception and phonological acquisition. In
Ferguson , C., Menn , L., & Steol-Garnmon,
C. (eds.) Phonological Development: models, research, implications. Timoniurn, MD.:York Press.

Archibald, J., and Young Scholten , M. (2000).
Archibald, J. (ed.) Second language acquisition and linrrnistictheorv. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishers Inc.
Dam, L. (1995). Learner Autonomy 3: fromtheory to classroom practice .. Dublin:
Authentik.
Flege, J. (I 992). Speech learning in a second
language. In Ferguson, C., Menn , L., & SteolGammon , C. (eds.) Phonological Development : models, research , implications.
Timonium, MD .: York Pres s.
Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed.
Harmondsworth : Penguin.
Holec, H. ( 1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Little, D. (1991). Learner Autonomy 1: definitions , issues and problems.
Dublin:Authentik.
Long, M. ( 1981). Questions in foreigner talk discourse. Language Learning , 31, 135-157.
Nolan, (2000). Language learning processes:
finding the key to learning effectiveness andlearner autonomy. In Little, D., Dam, L., &02111:.....

~

11

-•

••
l

•

IICIE

Slrl112111:111•1 I, 111111

On-allfor papers

Alms:To provide a forum for the presentation and discussion of research, ideas and curriculum activities of broad interest to College and University Language Educators .

TVIISII lrllcles 1111111:
Featares
APA referenced articles with a focus on language
education and related issues at tertiary level of
up to 2,000 words

Pralesslonal
Deve111ment
1-2000 words on further education and gaining
employment.
Contact section editors : Debra Pappier and Marie Weinkle ,toonomads @hotmail .com

Crlllrllllr lllllrl lrtiCIIS•• consideration of issues likely to be per- IDIRll lnll Perspecthre
ceived by college and university educators 650 words; longer, coordinated , point-counteras relevant to language teaching in Japan point articles are possible.
• well designed and well reported empiri- Contact section editor Keith Ford ,jf6k-ford @asahi-net.or .jp
cal research.
• writing that situates issues within the conReviews
text of relevant.----------------------.
reviewsof books, textprevious work,books,
videos,presentawhile refraining
tions/workshops,
films ,
from quoting
April 15, July 15, January15
etc
.
600
words,
1500
for the sake of(Deadlines:
Feb
25,
May
24,
Nov
18)
words
for
scholarly
review
quoting,______________________.essays.
• thought-provoking theoretical papers, provided clear Contact section editor : Steven Snyder, snyder @phoenix .ac.jp
practical implications are fore-grounded

1D1raxlma11
Publicat111
Dates:

Fram
IllaChalllaceclassroom applications, techniques and lessonplans, usually up to 1000 words.
Contact section editor: Andrew Obermeier , andrewo @gol.com

cnera111111e

descriptions of websites that might prove usefulfor language teaching and professional development; length depends on how many sites are reviewed
Contact section editor: Steven Snyder, snyder@phoenix .ac.jp

Research
Digestsummaries of research published in university
in-house publications , of broad interest to college and university educators

ficuson11110111
a column in which the writer may ask/answer
common questions about language that are ofinterest to teachers and learners . 250-600 words

Conference Reports, Eamon McC afferty, eamon@gol.com
News and Announcements, Ala n Mackenzie, asm@typ hoon.co .j p

all other queries to Michael Carroll, oncue @carroll.freehosting.ne t

lfflcerContact
llfonnadonfor2111:Feel free to contact board members about your SIG
ExlCIIIVl
11111:
Alan Mackenzie, CUE SIG Coordinator and On CUE Layout: Keisen
University; Riverside Heights 2a, Yaguchi 3-12- 12, Ota-ku, Tokyo 1460093 Tel/Fax: 03-3757-7008 E-mail: <asm@typhoon.co .jp>
Steven Snyder, Treasurer: Steven Snyder, Miyazaki Women's JuniorCollege; 1714-1 Yoshino-cho, Nobeoka-shi , 882-8508 Tel: 0982-23-5670
E-mail : <snyder@phoenix.ac.jp>

Eamon McCafTerty, Program Chair : Tokai University, Shimizu campus; 439-52-201 Utouzaka, Shimizu-shi, Shizuoka-ken, Japan, 424-0873;(h) Tel/Fax: 0543-48-8299; (w) Tel: 0543-48-8299, Fax: 0543-34-9837;
E-mail: <eamon@gol.com>

Hugh Nicol Membership Chair: Miyazaki Koritsu Daigaku, 1-1-2
Funatsuka, Miyazakiishi 880-8520 Tel: 0985-22 -8812 (h) 0985-20-2000,
ext 1306 (w) Fax: 0985-20-4807 (w)E-mail: <hnicoll@funatsuka.miyazaki -mu.ac .jp >Michael CarroU, Publications Chair/On CUE Editor: St Andrews University, 1-1 Manabi-No, lzumi-shi, Osak:a-fu, 594-1152 Tel/fax: (075) 7813456
E-mail: <oncue@carrol l.freehosting.net>

01 CIEEdhlrllllllVISl,Vlllnl:
Andrew Obermeier(From the Chalkface)<andrewo@gol.com>;Susan Phillippoussis·<sphilipp@miyazaki-mic.ac.jp>;Joseph Tomei <jtomei@kumagaku.ac.jp> ; Debra Pappier(Opinionand Perspective, ProfessionalDevelopment)<toonomads@hotmail.com>; Marl<
Weinkle(ProfessionalDevelopment)<toonomads@hotmail.com>; John Mclaughlin<jmcl@gol.com> ; Steven Snyder (Reviews, Cyberpipeline) <snyder@phoenix.ac.jp>32