A Class Project
Collaborative
Newsletters
Joyce Cunningham
Ibaraki University
joyce@mx.ibaraki.ac.jp

Wade Carlton)araki.3c,jp

Thisnewsletter centres arounda collaborative group project wherein studentschoose positionseither
on reporter teamsor as editorialstaff in order toproduce a professional-looking class newsletter on
Microsoft Publisher. The newsletter is then distributed to all students and professors alike in our
department. We will describe theprocess of makingthe class newsletter but, above all, with a viewto exploring how autonomyhas challenged and changed not only theprojectitself but our students
and us, the teachers as well: that is to say, how we now interact, plan, and negotiate steps in the
newsletter together.
Z\<D=.3.—Xls9-<D$''b\±, W,mX'ft!&-T%inV-y'1kWX, 1t<0^X'¥M$]/-$—9- • 9—
A, &L<(±, MM7-,9yy(DHt1'b^:&mv\-7i^ayyb-/iy'')y->f-X\ y°atfifZ>£.5t£-i-^p^-*f^fKLTU<„ z(D=.zL--xuy-\£, %fr%n^m<n±^±^9t*&]\zhmffl,z£<D£-5lZ$t%.X^otzftt^5U&X, ^n.-Xl/^-^fPSiiS, ^SO, -ji-XU*—ffrS©
S-SISTf&fc-6*t£©J:5ft:tHHS:3tT, SJ*L.ffiHKU#*4Afcffl^*Si9rr*.

Forpurposes of authorship credit, Joyce Cunningham is thefirst authorof thispaper.

113"

A u t o n o m y You Askj

ii4

*

Cunningham&

CarltonIntroduction

This project was a very very instructive projectfor me!! It's first time to advance class byourself. This isagood project because students act independently. I hope we could havemuch more project like this. (Reporter Yoshimi Takahashi, Spring 2003)
It was agood experience for me. Ithelped my English very much. I could improve throughthis work: it helped my grammar, vocabulary and thinking about style. (Assistant Editor
Saori Ogura, Spring 2003)

We could decide articles which wewant to do.... Newsletter Project was very hard work,
butI could have a good experience. I will treasure our newsletter. (Reporter Natsumi
Masukura, Spring 2003)
This project gave mea lot of valuable experience, because I could know howto make annewsletter. If this English class studied only English, I couldn't have such an experience. I
thought this project wasvery good. (Reporter SeiichiTanaka, Fall 2002)
In the Department of Communication Studies at Ibaraki University, our third-year students
have been involved in a challenging newsletter project for severalyears, but this year, we(throughout the paper, "we" refers to both authors) decided to infuse more autonomy into theprocess. There were several reasons for this. First of all, we believed the editorial staff needed

to have more decision-making power and overall responsibilityfor the entire project. Second,
because the newsletter represented the culmination of weeks of writing, we wanted the final
product to more honestly reflect the learners' voices, instead of the teachers having ultimate
editorial control. Third, throughout our English programme, it has become the teachers' goal
to give the students more say in what and how they learn.
At first blush, it may seem that learner autonomy and collaborative tasks such as our
newsletter are at odds with each other, but according to Thomson (1998), this is not necessarily
the case. Learners can work together in some aspects of their education while also working
autonomously. Indeed, the combination of these two ways is likely more beneficial thaneither one alone. Benson (2001), in fact, states that an atmosphere of collaboration is the ideal
background for students to make choices regarding their autonomous learning. Project work
is a great opportunity to promote collaboration, and as Fried-Booth (1986) explains, "by itsvery nature, project work places the responsibility on the students, both as individuals and as
members of a cooperative learning group" (p. 3). Among others, Hart (2002a), a university
teacher in Japan, has introduced some autonomy into group work in class: in his case, a series

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Dr Mary Lee Field, who was at the origin of this project three years ago,and of course, our wonderful students throughout the three classes who have advised us andgiven us excellent feedback. Finally, we wish to thank all the members of the Autonomy You Ask!
team who have given us valuable comments, and, especiallyAndy Barfield and Mike Nix for their
dedication to this project.

— LD SIG 2003 A n t h o l o g y —115* A Class P r o j e c t .

of three-week poster projects completed byfirst-year students, in which theyreported in theirweekly journals the particular strategies theyhad employed in the completion of their projects.
What do we mean by autonomy? Benson and Voller (1997b, pp. 1-2) include the following
characteristics:•

situations in which learners study entirely on their own
a set of skills which can be learned and applied in self-directed learning•

the exercise of learners' responsibility for their own learning• the right of learners to determine the direction of their own learning.
Holec (1981), however, defines autonomy as,"the ability to take charge of one's own
learning" (p. 3), i.e.,

determining the objectives;
defining the contents and progressions;selecting methods and techniques to be used;
monitoring the procedure of acquisition (...); andevaluating what has been acquired.
At first, our newsletter project, perhaps, didn't fit neatly into either of the above authors'
characterizations of learner autonomy, and possibly didn't exactly match anybody's idea oflearner autonomy, but gradually, in the changes we have been making throughout the past year
and a half, it does seem to touch on more of the key areas.
Looking at the overall picture of how tasks are completed on the way to producing the newsletter,
students are now working and learning more autonomously. That is, the teacher has assumed amore supportive role, and the students have greater responsibility for their own learning. Sakiko
Sekiuchi,Editor of the Spring 2003 Newsletterin ClassA, put it like this, "It is heavy responsibility
because I must decide the deadlines and finish the newsletter. I must tell others on the editorial

team what they must do... but it was good experience and I learned a lot." Collaborative tasks suchas creating a classnewsletter can motivate and challengestudents by involving them in a whole
new,fascinating, learning experience. Newsletters are invaluable projects for they provide learners
with real life choices,skills and opportunities to work independently of the teacher. Not only are
the students developingskills in writing for real purposes, but they are collaborating with and are
responsible to their teams for a meaningful and relevant product, read by students and professors
alike in the department. Reporter Tomomi Machida,in Class A 2003,writes,"We can gain a big
satisfaction by completing all tasks by ourselves."

In this chapter, first, information about the English programme at our department will bepresented briefly. Next, the newsletter project in its former state and the absorbing process
involved in making this project more learner-centred will be described. Comments gleaned
from written feedback and interviews with students are examined to shed light upon our
ongoing efforts to alter our initial structure. (Practical worksheets and sample newsletters canbe found on the Autonomy You Ask! website.)
Background Information on the ProgrammeThis particular newsletter project has existed in its present form for several years in the thirdyear of the undergraduate English programme in the Department of Communication Studies

Autonomy You

Aski

—

n6

•

Cunningham&

Carltonat Ibaraki University. Ibaraki University is a national university, which means that the students
tend to arrive with high test scores on the English section of the 'Center Examination' (usedfor admission purposes at Japanese universities), but not especially good English skills. Our
English programme attempts to remedy that situationby focusing on usingbalanced skills inproject-based, communicative activities.

Each year when new students are admitted, they are divided into two classes, A and B,
depending on their English score on the Center Exam. The higher-scoring students go into the
A class and the lower scorers into the B class. Generally, there are no major differencesbetween
the two classes (although they do develop their own class personalities and dynamics), but in
the A class there are usually a few returnees or students who have similar high English ability.
Each class has about 30 students, with around 240 in the department's 4-year undergraduate
programme. Freshmen have an unheard of five 90-minute periods of English a week with anative speaker professor,while sophomores havethree. Bythe third year, this decreases to oncea week as students begin the arduous task of finding work after graduation.
Although not a new idea, newsletters are seldom discussed in university EFL teaching circles.
However, such projects are supremely manageable. Desktop publishing has evolved greatly
over the past few years and offers new, teacher-friendly programmes. Even word processing
programmes like Microsoft Word have surprisingly flexible layout options for creating
newsletters, and often include templates with which to start. We thus believe this project iswithin the reach of most third and fourth year English classes at Japanese universities.
The Newsletter Project
We will first explain general procedures used in the project: preparation (such as learning aboutnewsletters and deciding positions), as well as editorial staff work, reporting teamwork, andfinalizing the whole newsletter. Here, we will compare the more teacher-centred newsletters of 3
years ago, which worked well (and might even be sorelytempting to those who try this project for
the first time) with the results both positive and negativewe have had in infusing more autonomy
into the latest projects. Sincewe are two teachers in separate classes, we often see eye to eye, butthere are, of course, some differences in approach. We will highlight these, as appropriate.
Introducing Newsletters and Topics to the ClassIn the pre-task phase—both in the original project and the present one—teachers are still at
the helm when introducing the newsletter. Initially,the teacher needs to build a knowledge basein order to familiarize learners with newsletters in general. To this end, a variety of newsletterscan be collected and distributed to the class. Sample newsletters will be posted on our future
English workshop programme website at Ibaraki Universityor can be found elsewhere in suchbooks as Knockout Newsletters (Jones, 2000). In pairs, learners select one newsletter that catches
their interest and, guided by a worksheet, they analyze its construction: the kinds of headlines,
sections, content, layout, visuals, etc. (see Appendix A on the Autonomy You Ask! website).
In Class A, students are encouraged to select and present their favourite format, discuss thisin new groups, and vote on a final format. Originally, the teachers announced what the generaltheme would be (i.e., Ibaraki University). Small groups then brainstormed possible topics
for their class newsletter and shared these with the class. In Class B, a different strategy was
employed: Students referred only to the previous semester's ClassB newsletter so that positions
for the newsletter could be decided, groups formed, and ideas for articles brainstormed by theend of that first class period.

LD SIG 2003 A n t h o l o g y

ii7 * A Class Project. . .

In a July 15th, 2003 interview, Editors Sakiko Sekiuchi and Saori Ogurasuggested anotherimportant improvement to the familiarization procedure. Saori stated:
The editorial team needs to have a more general idea of what happen with thenewsletterat the beginning. Atfirst, I was VERY confused about this. We didn't know the generalprocedure. Yes, you showed us the steps each day and asked us what we wanted but, before
westarted project and each class, we needed toknow more. We didn't know.
Joyce responded:
Maybe, I could meetwith theEditorial Staffbefore theproject begins and email objectives
by cell phone before each class?...Give yougeneral information initially to help you
understand the general steps and then, prior to each class? I guess I am a details person.
It sounds like different learning styles orapproaches. I think you look at theforest first. I
usually look at the trees butjust being reminded of this is helpful to me to try to be moreaware of that next time and proceed in those ways. This is very helpjul.
In fact, Robinson and Barrett (1999), in a handout for their presentation Organizing a
student-centered audience-specific reporting class, set out clear recursive phases and approximate
time frames so that students quickly gain a global perspective of their project and suggested
publication schedule (12 days in their case) from the very beginning of their project. Our
newsletter project takes about six to eight 90-minute class periods, depending on how muchautonomy is granted.
Choosing Positions

Before starting the actual project, students should also have a firm understanding of the various
positions in the newsletter. After job descriptions have been examined and discussed (seeAppendix B on the Autonomy You Ask! website), students can decide on their first and second
choices by the end of the same lesson as well as work out reasons to justify their preferences.
Originally, in both classes, the final decision as to who would serve on the editorial staff
was made by the teacher, after class,through considering motivation, general experience,
participation, and attendance records from the previous year.
Changes in this procedure came from student feedback such as the following: "Joyce, youneed to make sure that the graphic/photographer and the inputter are good with computers.
They have to work well on computers. When we didn't know something, we worked until...
we did it but this is important. Kaori [inputter] knew computers and so, we were lucky"(Sakiko Sekiuchi, Spring 2003 Class A Editor). This year too, Joyce collected the choices andpreferences and considered them after class. She discovered that no-one wanted to be editor,
even after she emailed those students who indicated interest in serving on the editorial teamin other positions. Previously, she would have twisted some poor student's arm (rather
mercilessly) but, in trying to remain true to the process of involving students in making thedecisions, the next class, she asked volunteers for the editorial team to meet and:a) negotiate/decide among themselves who would consider taking on the editor's
position; and,b) sort out who would work in the other positions.

In Class B, the students were asked as usual to indicate privately (on a piece of paper) their
top two preferences for a position: editor, assistant editor, graphics/photographer, inputter,—

Autonomy

You

Aski

—

n8

•

Cunningham&

Carltonarticle chief, or reporter, along with their reason. Wade then took about 5 minutes of class time
to look at how the preferences stacked up. Luckily, there were at least two volunteers for eachposition. He then put together the editorial team first, the article chiefs second, and finally,
everyone else became a reporter by default.

In both classes, the students were also reminded that, in the casewhere a position were
contested by two or more volunteers,there would be another newsletterproduced in the fall.
This new freedom of choice in volunteering for jobs may motivate learners by providing themwith an authentic (although sometimes difficult) opportunity to take on responsibilities drawn
from real-world experience.
More Involvement for Editorial Staff

Previously, it had always been the teachers who decided the focus of the newsletters (i.e.,
Ibaraki University or a particular theme). However, in remaining true to our decision toincrease autonomy, we have now handed this decision over to the editors. In Class A, theeditorial staff surprised us this semester when they turned this decision over to the class.
Astutely, they curtailed discussion time by limiting the choice to three different areas, asked
groups (of approximately 5 people) to discuss this for a short time, and called on all to vote.
They used the same procedure for brainstorming and finalizing general topics, as well as
forming reporter teams by allowing the clusters to remain as they happened to be on that day(although both editors later stated with hindsight that smaller groups of three would haveproduced better results in getting all members involved and participating more evenly).
In Class B, the editorial staff decided to have a theme-less newsletter, but to retain final

decision-making authority as to the kind of articles. After the four article teams of 4 students
each (assigned randomly) brainstormed possible article topics and the lists were put together
on the class whiteboard, the editorial staff decided to have each of the teams write two articles,

which they could request by topic on a first come, first served basis. However, this decision wasmade on the proviso that the staff would have veto power, in order to maintain some senseof variety and balance of topics. As Nunan notes (1988,p. 62), giving learners a say in thematerials, based on what interests them, goes a long way in increasing their sense of autonomy.

One of the problems we experienced in years past was that, although enthusiastic, theeditorial staff initially accomplished little until the first drafts were received. They seemed
to waste a lot of time and even looked a bit bored. Joyce would be fairly busy working with
reporter teams over several drafts. Wade would float around the groups, giving help when
asked and making occasional comments to all the groups if he saw common mistakes or felt
there needed to be some more teacher direction. It was pointed out by our collaborators in thisAnthologyproject, at a meeting in Tokyo, that originally, reporter teams seemed to have moreautonomy than the editorial staff, and that with our new way of doing it, the editorial staff wascatching up in the autonomy aspect of the project. This, perhaps, could account for the factthat even with a bit of'prodding' in the first stages of the project, the editorial team didn't seemto achieve much in the first newsletters.

Later, we discovered that it was difficult for them to envisage what the final newsletter
would look like without knowing much about the articles being written, relatively isolated
as they were in their corner of the room. In an interview conducted at Ibaraki University on
February 12th, 2002, Tomo Ouchi and Kentaro Koike, last year's ('pre-autonomy') co-editors,
had good insights and advice on how to increase editorial staff participation during the initialstage of the project. Kentaro suggested that the editors be more involved in the brainstorming— LD SIG 2003 A n t h o l o g y

ii9* A Class P r o j e c t . .

by reporter teams. In hisopinion, in future newsletters, reporter teams shouldfirst make an
appointmentto presentthe outlineof their proposals (ideas, formats, etc.),to the editorsrather
than reporting directly to the professors ashad always beendone prior. Indeed, this advice was
excellent and was verybeneficial to changing howthe editorial team and the teacher worked, ina way that improved student autonomy.

Giving the editors the power to accept or reject ideas for articles from the reporter teams
from the very beginning of the production has contributed to the editors becoming much morefamiliar with the content, and thus more engaged in making a good newsletter. The editorial
team now checks not only if there is sufficient variety of style and formats but also,of content.
AsTomo pointed out in the feedback interviewmentioned above,"In the first joint production,
there were 2-3 stories about restaurants, and not all at the same level of interest. All groups

should have very different topics." Now, keepingthis advice in mind, the teacher can first workwith the editorial team when deciding on possible guidelines for articles they wish to appear
in the newsletter emphasizing catchy titles and subtitles, and the kind of report that will bemade (descriptive, narrative, factual based on surveys and questionnaires, etc.). With suchparameters in mind, the reporter teams can reflect these in their brief oral presentations to theeditorial team preparing, in addition, 3-4 main ideas with a few details for each section of theirarticle(s).

After discussing what to include in their articles, reporter teams in Class A now make a briefpresentation to the editorial staff on the ideas for articles they wish to write. This year, in theirnewsletter, Viva IBA!, Class A reporter teams presented on their ideas for articles about Ibaraki
Prefecture Festivals and Fireworks, Great Beaches in Ibaraki, A Saluteto Natto, and Restaurants
in and aroundIbadai. The editorial staff listened to these presentations on planned articles andapproved or suggested changes (in the case of overlapping topics among groups, and so on).
This process in Class A took extra time as the decision about the selection and placement ofarticles was no longer quickly made by an experienced teacher after class. However, to our wayof thinking, the increased speaking during the presentations and the sharing of information,
goals and deadlines have resulted in heightened involvement by the editorial team, and are all
well worth the extra time. Even so, still more change was suggested by this year's editor, Sakiko
Sekiuchi, who noted, "Yes, but I think that the reporter teams need more preparation still. Not
just the focus [of the oral presentation] they are making us but they need to put more details in
it before they present to us."Moreover, we now ask the editorial staff, after consultation with the teacher, to decide on

deadlines for editing drafts and final proofing. These dates are announced and explained
personally by the editorial staff to each reporter team. It might appear to some readers thatthe pendulum has swung in the opposite direction: that the reporter teams, initially with acertain degree of autonomy in their decision-making, have now had to bow to an increasingly
powerful editorial team in order to have ideas approved or rejected. To a certain degree, thismight be true, and writing this chapter has forced us to come to terms with this fact and search
for new ways to help lighten somewhat the load of our editorial staff.
The teachers do spend a little extra money and ask a fellow classmate or fourth-year
student with editorial experience from the previous school year to teach Microsoft Publisher
to the editorial staff, freeing us to oversee the whole process instead of constantly helping theeditorial team in the separate computer room. In the end, the teacher may become a little moreequal in the learning because often (s)he may not know how to use Publisher as well as thestudents themselves, but the teacher is nearby if needed to try to help. From the experienceof the instructors, it is useful to explain to the editorial team that, in addition, to their initial—

Autonomy You

Ask<

i2o

•

Cunningham&

Carltonresponsibilities, a newsletter file complete with name of the newsletter,list of report titles, andcontributors and so on should be inputted and shown to the teacher. In this way, the editorial
staff will graduallygain experience in using Microsoft Publisher early on and prepare for later
work on incoming articles.
Getting Down to WorkIn general, through this project, reporter teams become involved in process writing for real
purposes. Many stated that, prior to this project, they had mainly generated ideas in Japaneseand then, translated into English. By the end of the first newsletter, however, they realize just
how time consuming this method was. Moreover, in high school, they had not learned thedifferences between a Japanese and English paragraph nor had they worked from an outlineof ideas, integrated much factual information from the Internet or used quotes. For many,
too, surveys and interviews were new, and they are interested in compiling and analyzing
information because it results from their own original questions. However, some realize that
it is not always easy to conduct an interview skillfully to draw out useful details from a busy
professor or restaurant owner for their article. Miki Suzuki wrote:
I learned a lot of things through this newsletter project. For example, I knew the difficultyof reporting information accurately, how to write quotations, include more facts, and soon. I also learned the difference in English between a more casual styleand more formal
style.

On this same subject, Yukino Kurosaka wrote honestly:
There are bigdifferences between theJapanese and English wayof writing. It is still
difficult ...to get used to this. I have to keep trying. I could also learn not to repeat thesame word in a paragraph. I could learn newvocabulary too. I hope to repeat thisproject.
The two classes produce their own separate newsletters in the spring, allowing more learners
to attain Microsoft Publisher skills. In the fall, students are now asked to choose between

continuing to work as separate classes or collaborating together. Both Tomo Ouchi and Kentaro
Koike, co-editors of Class A, were strongly in favour of maintaining completely separate classnewsletters. Tomo gave the following reasons:
It is difficult [fora joint editorial team] to decide on whatreports should go on thefront
pageand whatreports should go on the inside 2-3 pages. Reporter teams all want theirreports to appear on the frontpage. If separate, we can avoid this problem. In addition,
there will bemore competition between the two classes. Our class willsay, "Oh, B class has
interesting issues so we have to make a better newsletter next time"
This was the poke in the ribs that really pushed us to start rethinking the project and how we
could perhaps move from the teacher who made most of the final decisions and was the true
powerhouse / publisher behind the scenesto having the students themselvesbe much more
firmly seated in the driver's seat. It was a gradual process of trial and error with each teacher
discussing successes, obstacles,and challenges with the other to question, hone skills, and keep
trying.

Joyce was blessed with a 'dream team' this past spring semester (although this same class
had been the most difficult freshman class in her 7 years of teaching in Japan and nearly drove
her to drink). However, when questioned as to whether it was autonomy which had madeLD SIG 2003 A n t h o l o g y —

121

•

A

Class Project.

the difference, the answer was not exactly what Joyce had hoped (drat!!!) but rather that theclass had simply matured, that personality differences had been worked out by third year, andso on. Bethat as it may, the dream team has helped Joyce experiment with autonomy in thisproject, and supported her so that both the editorial team and the teacher have re'joyce'd in thefreedom.

By heeding advice given to us eitherthroughwritten and oral feedback or in interview form,teams are encouraged to be more responsible for their projects. Motivation to work hard has
increased, and our students have become even prouder of their end product. As students learn
about autonomy, so do we. Autonomy becomes not just movingfrom the traditional front of
the class to walking around the class while helping different groups, but rather, stepping back tosecond and support the students in their decisions and daily progress. It means finding ways tostay quietly in the background, askingthe editorial team if and when they want to address theclasswith instructions for the next class.It also involves one to two meetings and phone calls tothe editorial team before each class: planning together, preparing and checking common goals,
and collaboratingon final drafts. The spotlight is cast upon the students who are now the main
actors. However, Jodie Stephenson, one of our collaborators, commented, "It sounds like morework for the teachers! And some people think teachers who promote autonomy just want totake it easy!"
But, no pain, no gain. For any busy teacher, contacting an editorial staff before or duringclass and reaching agreement as to how to proceed and conduct the class together is not always
convenient, but the rewards seen in the enthusiastic smiles of the students and their increased

cooperation do make this whole procedure more attractive.

As the newsletter progresses, there are ongoing meetings at all levels. Reporters are busy:
discussing, analyzing data, writing and improving draffs while meeting with various membersof the editorial staff to update them on progress, problems encountered, and so on. In orderto do this, they have to identify, organize, and delegate responsibility to team members: Most
are writers, while a few volunteer additionally as typists, proofreaders, gathers of data andsources, etc. As well, content and length of stories, tabulation and integration of survey orquestionnaire results, and suggestions for the kind of visuals required are negotiated anddecided on. Deadlines need to be confirmed and updated as to when drafts and revisions are to
be handed in to the editors. Indeed, as reporter Yoshimi Takahashi, Spring 2003, wrote in her
post feedback form, "It's very important to advance the project. If I didn't do my work, othermembers would be puzzled. Therefore, I tried to participate the talk and tried to work on time.
Other member also did that."

Working on Drafts

Previously, it was only the teachers who read the drafts after class and worked exclusively withthe reporter teams on improvements and changes. Now, the teachers are stepping back and theeditorial staff is doing the reading and commenting on each successivedraft. Target deadlines
for drafts are announced by the editorial team (after consultation with the teacher).
Prior to the newsletter project, paragraph writing had been reviewed in class. In their freshmen
year, students had gained a good grounding in writing from a writing textbook, one of only two
used in their five classesa week. However,even this review is open to question. As Wade pointed
out, "Joyce, how can you be sure they need that review and not something else?"This question
does need to be asked rather than assuming that the teacher knows what is best for them.
However, Joyce did find this pre-newsletter review of what constitutes good paragraphs beneficial
when the editorial staff worked on the drafts or when meeting with them. They did not have to—Autonomy You

Aski

—

122

•

Cunningham&

Carltonbe reminded as much of these things and seemed alertand,yet, more at ease while checking forthem in their drafts. However, to Joyce's surprise,in the July 15th interview, Saori, so incrediblein her proofreading guidance, still called for more information on newsletter style explaining,"We needed to knowmore about howto writearticles for a newsletter. Forexample, don't put
your opinion in the middle of the article and other things... Some teams didn't know how towrite good topic sentences." It would seem that still more such teaching could be givenif directly
related to articles in progress. Students could alsobe given reading about newsletterstyle as foundin Buss and McClain-Ruelle's Creating a Classroom Newspaper (2000). These are good points that
we need to ponder further when planning future classes with the goal of giving extra support but
not interrupting the flow of progress in the newsletter.
Initially, it was with some misgivings and quite a lot of apprehension on the part of Joyce
at least, that the 2003 editorial team in ClassA set about reading the drafts. Joyce asked herself
how they could possibly go beyond their umpteen years of conditioning in order to ignore
grammar mistakes and focus rather on checking for: good titles and topic sentences, whether
details were linked to the topic sentences, whether facts or quotes had been integrated into theparagraph, and so on. However, the 'dream team' completely blew her away' The correctionsof Class As editorial team were spot on and, in some cases, better than Joyce herself would
have done, for they read closely for contradictions and identified other problems that she had
missed. She duly noted how they very politely first praised and thanked each reporter team fortheir efforts, and then proceeded to suggest changes. However, the assistant editor, Saori Ogura
did mention how she felt a certain amount of stress to be lifted thusly above her colleagues
when appraising their drafts. In the July 15th interview, she explains, "Some students (I will
not say their names) felt very confident in their English and it was difficult to try to makesuggestions to them. That part was hard." Sakiko added, "It was hard to push them to write
more in a paragraph when they thought they had written enough but they hadn't. So we had
to push them". Joyce, however, was delighted with these remarks as they are what every person/
teacher in positions of decision encounter. In a mini-meeting of our Anthology collaborationgroup in July 2003, Jodie Stephenson too commented on these results as coming about possibly
because students had more stake in their own production.
Joyce hopes to be more sensitive to such struggles and honest reflections above. She has
been trying a system of quiet, behind-the-scenes support for the editorial staff, ticking andinitialing Editorial Staff suggestions she agrees with, and writing in pencil other changes they
could think about. In this way, the editorial staff can either leave as is, ignore (and erase thepencil) or change to their own writing. It seems to be working so far; that, and a liberal doseof praise each time a member of the team comes in with a completed draft between classes.
Later, in the July 15th interview, Saori confirmed that the system of ticks had helped a lot tosupport the team when approaching individual reporters about changes to be made in thearticles.Hopefully, this will continue to cultivate autonomy in the future while, at the sametime, allowing for teacher input. In Class B,Wade had always followed a 'hands off approach toediting, so no major changes were necessary. In particular, he had never played the middleman
between the article teams and the editorial staff; the originals went to the editorial staff andthey were given the job of editing. He usually floated around the room, as a 'human reference,'
to be used by students who felt the necessity to ask about certain points in their articles.
However, compared with the newsletters made before this most recent one, it seemed that thestudents asked him for this kind of on-the-spot native speaker advice less often.
Perhaps this could partly be attributed to the fact that Wade had announced in the firstclass period of the 2003 spring newsletter project that the editorial staff would have more
responsibilities and the teacher (in both ClassA and Class B) would be making fewer decisions.
— LD SIG 2003 A n t h o l o g y —123* A Class P r o j e c t .

It might be worth further study to seeif students do in fact become more autonomous when
told there is a plan to enable them to learn that way, as opposed to students who are placed in
an autonomous situation but not told so. In the new system, reporter teams, when ready, handfirst, second, and third drafts in to the editorial team while the latter reads them and hands

them back. However, this brought a new problem to the foreground because there then seemed
to be some down time for the reporters while the editorial team read the drafts and madesuggestions. Sakiko in the July 15lh interview confirmed this and added:
They [reporter teams] didn't know what to do but they still needed to have a little moretime to read each other's parts because, in our class, they divided up articles and wrote
different parts but didn't read each others' parts before. They needed to make sections
better, see they didn't repeat ideas, etc. They used different pronouns in the articles andit was confused. It will lighten the Editorial staff work if we don't have to do that for
them.

Finalizing and Assessment

As articles are finalized and handed in, the editorial staff can withdraw to the computer lab towork on layout, inputting and proofing of articles and so on. Reporter teams, now almost freedof their responsibilities, can compile portfolios of work accomplished both individually and inreporter teams during the project. This record is an invaluable assessment tool as instructors
may not know if students have all collaborated more or less equally in the project. Amongother things, portfolios can contain a cover page, list of contents, a completed worksheet ofthe analysis of sample newsletters (see Appendix A on the Autonomy You Ask! website), endof-day logs/reports, questions and data tabulated from interviews/surveys, sources, a final
one-page evaluation of challenges, stumbling blocks, solutions, and so on. The end-of-day
logs/reports include such information as the amount of English the student/group spoke, work
accomplished in class, and what stills needs to be done for the following week.

This kind of self-assessment, similar to that advocated by Murphey (1998c) and Small(2002) is important in getting the learners to take charge of their own success. Incentives can begiven to the editorial team, in view of their disproportionately high amount of work during the
project. Joyce decided this year that the editorial team did not need to complete the portfolio.
Wade had an indolent editorial staff his first time doing this newsletter project, and their final
grades reflected this. His second and third staffswere much more diligent, and he rewarded
them with ice cream parfaits and dinners at the localAustralianbar and grill, respectively. Extra
marks could be givenif a teacher felt this were important as an incentive, but, in the third yearof the Ibaraki programme, there are no specific criteria for grading the course. Weboth agree
that it is general effort toward improvement that is most noted.

Another question that inevitably crops up is how closely the instructor should proofread andcorrect final texts. It goes without saying that the teacher is the best judge of the expectationsof each department and how conservativeor progressive other professors may be in theirtoleration of errors. Wade felt strongly about encouraging students (and proofreaders) to be
responsible for their own work and that one should not interfere too much. He argued (andJoyce understood) that the learning gained in this project and the feeling of authorship by
the students are more important than discrete point errors. However, Joyce surprised andembarrassed herself in wanting to 'polish more, worrying about the beliefs and standards ofother professors in the Department who would receive the newsletter.Would they understandthat there were discrete point errors?

—

Autonomy You

Ask;

—

124

*

Cunningham & C a r l t o n

In fact, Joyce probably threw the baby out with the bathwater and caused a fairly lively
dialogue on this very subject of corrections to occur between Wade and herself after sheannounced via email:Wade, i stumbled on a greattechnique today, the third draft was due and theeditorial
staffwas to do their usualchecking at theparagraph level but i asked all teams to switch
articles and check at the GRAMMAR level because it would save the editorial team timeand effort, i said that each article shouldbe read twice and corrected and then, it could
be handed on to the editorial team. The reporter teams did a SUPER job. Saori (Assnt.
Editor) was really happy about it because she said, "NOW they realize all the hardwork
we have done and theyare appreciating it more"Shewas all smiles.

Wade replied anon:
Well, it's greatif theyknow what they are doing. ButI wonder how much re-editing youreditorial team will end up doing... As a presenter at JALT said lastyear, withpeerediting(in the level ourstudents areat), all too often they will change something that was correct
tosomething wrong. I have seen it enough in my own classes to change my mindabout
doing thatkind of thing. I always used todo it, butespecially when you have a capableassistanteditor like Saori, I would leave it in her hands. I think the last time I did peer
editing, I told them thatthey could just look at the edited parts as another opinion toconsider and could keep their original words if they were sure they were correct... Actually,
even students in our classes thatareabout at the samelevel of English often make quite
different kinds ofgrammar mistakes... Soyou can't even assume that trading papers
amongfairly equal-level students will be safe! Just my two cents. Do what works for you.

As it happened, students in Joyce's class consulted her on quite a few of the sentences where
they had questions. Joyce thinks Wade's idea of having the editorial team make the final
decision is probably a good one, especially if one member of the editorial team with the best
grammar skills weregiven the role of collecting suggestions and deciding to integrate them or
not into the final drafts.

When the newsletters are finished, Wade (and now Joyce) immediately asks the students
for feedback on the newsletter. Because the most recent newsletter project incorporated manychanges in order to make it autonomous,Wade's most recentfeedback surveystarted with awritten explanation of the change toward a more student-centred projectbefore probing thestudents' feelings about the increase in autonomy. For example, How doyoufeel about this way?,
What were the good points about doing it this way?, and What were the bad points? All of thecomments were valuable, but below are some of the more salient ones:
Comments favorable toward autonomous process, Spring 2003

We can feel wemakejurnal by ourself. We can choose topics we like. (AssistantEditor Yuki
Mimori)

I agree partly. Butwe need a teacher's help and guidance enough. (Photographer/
Graphics Designer Norio Yamaguchi)

Teachers don't give too many commands. (Reporter Shun Komori)— LD SIG 2003 A n t h o l o g y —125 * A

Class P r o j e c t . . .

We madepositive cooperation each other. (Section Chief Yoko Hirata)
It's great, butI wonder if we can spare timefor that. (Reporter Natsuko Sato)
It was quitedemocratic way. We can beattached to this paper. We can do our work withforwardness. (Section Chief Asami Kanno)
Theclass are lively. (Editor Yutaka Ido)

Comments less favorable toward autonomous process, Spring 2003

I like that teacher decides details. Doingso, work is earlier. (Assistant Editor Yuki
Mimori)

There weren't enough explanations in advans. (Reporter Tomoko Funabashi)
If the editorial staffs don'thaveability to do well, we can'tmake a good newsletter. And it
takes much time to make it by ourselves, soyou shouldgive us time. (Reporter Masahiro
Hiramatsu)

Editorial staffs. They have to work out of class, but they hardly work in class. (Section
Chief Asami Kanno)"I want more correction (revision) or advice. (Section Chief Chizu Sato)

Most of the students had both favorable and unfavorable comments, as would be expectedfrom the way the questions were posed, but overall, considering the comments of all 20
students, it would appear that the increase in autonomy was very well received by the students.
Some of them gave excellent advice about improving the project, mostly in the way of moreteacher direction in certain areas, and these parts will certainly be tweaked in future projects.
Indeed, it can be said that every class has a different 'personality,' and consequently, teacher
direction may need to be adjusted.
Finally, when ready, the newsletters must be printed. For the first few semesters, ournewsletters were reproduced in black and white only. However, a small sum of money has
finally been found within the department budget to cover the costs of colour and better quality
paper, which shows the considerable efforts of the students in a better light. If no such budget isavailable, volunteers can be recruited to help with photocopying.
The newsletters are delivered to each class throughout our department. We found it wise
to distribute our first few productions at department meetings in which we explained theprocess and our objectives. The initial 'oohs' and 'ahs' from colleagues were ample reward
for our endeavours. Another change in relinquishing control is that we would like ourstudents to have the pleasure of hearing this reaction. They themselves will be invited topresent the newsletter and revel in the surprise and appreciation. It is important to taketime for this extra PR, as the colour budget eventually sprang from this. It is also well
worth the time to explain that, although there may be discrete point errors in the texts,—

Autonomy

You

Aski

—

126

•

Cunningham&c C a r l t o n

the newsletters represent the students' own work, and that for this reason, they are notcompletely error free.
At the Anthology Retreat at Momoyama University in June 2003,we received more greatideas from other attendees. For example, these newsletters can also be used as a promotional
tool at high school recruiting classes and placedin recruiting kits.The audience can include
visitors to city and prefectural foreigner centres. The newsletters' importance reaches beyond
the university into the community at large. This year, as mentioned above, our English
workshop programme homepage at Ibaraki Universitywill be finished, and students'
newsletters will be available and read far beyond their classroom walls.
In the second semester, as the procedure for the newsletter is basically the same, we will
not go into any great detail. However, it is valuable to have students first reflect on their past
performance: their roles, past and present goals, suggestions for improvement at the level of theindividual, group and class, etc. In addition, the first semester newsletter can be re-evaluated by
the other class (if there is more than one making a newsletter) which examines, writes up, andexchanges confidential comments and suggestions about your class production. This feedback
from a real target audience can then be discussed in small groups and taken into consideration
when tackling the second semester newsletter.
Conclusion

In conclusion, in the process of gradually relinquishing control and trusting the students to dotheir best, we, the teachers, have learned much. After all, our learners are in the front lines andhave proved themselves capable of advising us as shown in their interviews and final feedback.
It has been challenging, to say the least, to attempt to infuse more autonomy into the project.
Some of the changes in the procedure and teachers' own attitudes have been successful; others
are still in incubation or maturing. However, thanks to these efforts, we have enjoyed observing
the exciting process of students becoming more motivated, rising to the challenge of accepting
responsibility, and making their own decisions. In fact, our classesactually have gone muchfurther than we ever dreamed possible. Finally, we feel this project stimulates students to reach
their potential while working under the pressure of deadlines both in and out of class andjuggling other commitments. In the first newsletter of the academic year especially, some docomplain about a lack of time to complete group reports or other duties for the newsletter,but this mainly stems from a lack of experience. In the second semester newsletter project, thestudents are more familiar with the procedure and use their time more efficiently, even though
they have quite often changed to different positions in the newsletter. In her self-reflection,
Yasue Sato wrote a fitting closing comment:

The badpoint in third year was thatwe have ourzemiand many things to do. So, it
wasvery hard to do this project butthe (finished) newsletter is my treasure now. I know
if I want toget something I needto sacrifice something. Thanks to a little trouble, thenewsletter seems more beautiful to me.

— LD SIG 2003 A n t h o l o g y —12 7 * A Class Pro j e-_ r. . .
Critical Reader Response i

Heidi Evans Nachi

Joyce and Wade's account of one university newsletter project class shows an exciting exampleof negotiated course development embedded in critical collaborative autonomy practices.
What is particularly striking is that as teachers promote autonomy, it's not just students who
benefit—the students teach the teachers what it means to be autonomous! In this way, student
autonomy is enhanced as teachers relinquish power and increase student accountability,
and class goals are negotiated because student perceptions inform course design. Moreover,increasing student autonomy encourages teachers to reflect on and adjust their own teaching,as Joyceand Wade have done here.
In the English Language Program (ELP) at Kwansei Gakuin University where I work, student
feedback is highly valued and used to promote ongoing curriculum innovation. In Joyce and
Wade's context as well, feedback elicited from evaluations and interviews has a critical impact
in shaping an emerging course because it's cyclicaland ongoing: Students and teachers aredeveloping the project during the project itself in some cases, or developing the project on thebasis of feedback from the previous project. Doing so allows teachers to respond to student
concerns in a timely manner, so students experience the benefits from their own critical course
reflection. Joyce and Wade's students don't just 'own' their newsletter—they 'own' the class.

The newsletter project class both fosters student autonomy and promotes lifelong learning
behaviors with skills transferable to other courses and their post-academic careers. Students areengaged in more than process writing with a purpose—they take on tasks previously managed
by teachers (i.e., selecting editors and narrowing topics), and participate in various meaningful,'real life' scenarios requiring a host of skills, such as critical thinking and analysis, evaluation
and revision, decision making and meeting management, and speaking and presentation
skills, to achieve course goals. Like Joyce and Wade, ELP teachers foster similar skills throughgroup work, and students expand on these skills in their Japanese courses, upper level English
medium courses, and their future careers. I think it might be fruitful for Joyceand Wade tosurvey their students a few years after graduation to investigate how this project course may
have impacted their post-university lives.

Developing a newsletterproject class has been one of my dreams, but I've always thought
it would be too much work. Joyce and Wade show indeed that it is work, but work that hasenormous pay-offs—students and teachers emerge with unforgettable memories and a classomiyage (a 'souvenir' or 'memento')—the newsletter. Like Joyce and Wade, I have witnessed
how student motivation skyrockets when students are given choice and responsibility, andI think teachers can learn how to 'let go' from Joyce and Wade's experiences. Ultimately,when students write about topics they have selected, when they produce work that has awider readership beyond the classroom, when they are given decision making opportunities
and responsibility, and when teachers can maintain a role as consultant and guide as Joyce
and Wade have done, magic happens. Does this mean autonomy is magical? Maybe; maybe
not. But after reading this chapter, I'm convinced Joyce and Wade have co-constructed with
their students a learning environment that promotes creativity, critical thinking, thoughtfulreflection, and lifelong learning. And I think there's something magical about that.

—

Autonomy You

Aski

128

•

Cunningham&

CarltonCritical Reader Response 2

chitose asaoka

I read this chapter with great interest. I particularly respect the authors' courage and effort inletting their students take the initiative and give them more decision-making power. As we are
all aware, we often feel more secure and time-efficient when decision-making power is in theteachers' hands. However, learning should take place through a meaning-negotiation process
between students, as well as between a teacher and students. In addition, students should be

more responsible for their own learning. Furthermore, I agree that students should engage in"a learning experience that involves English" rather than acquiring English language skills as
the only goal. Thus, it is very important that the students' final products be shared beyond theclassroom and into the larger community.
I question which kind of academic writing training Wade and Joyce's students had totake prior to the project. They explained that, during the first year, their students "gained agood grounding in writing," and before the start of the project, "paragraph writing had beenreviewed in class." However, as one of their students revealed, some students seemed to havestill struggled with academic writing in English. In order to make this kind of project more
successful, students need to be aware that there is a "sufficient variety of style and formats" aswell as "contents" in English writing, which might be quite different from writing in Japanese.
The dual constraints of inexperienced writers, both in content areas and in L2 writing skills,
can often be a very frustrating challenge for our students (Gosden, 1996; Asaoka & Usui, inpress). In this project's case, their students seemed to have multiple constraints: writing in
a new genre (newsletter writing), writing about specific content areas and academic writing
skills.As the student editor pointed out, they might need more "preparation" about style andformats in newsletter writing prior to the project—for example, in their second year of the
program.

In addition, just as Joyce and Wade recursivelyquestioned each other, I also often
question myself in terms of how much I should proofread and correct students' final texts.
Since students may adhere to teachers' suggestions in order to please them (Asaoka & Usui, inpress), Joyce and Wade should probably leave it to their students if the purposes of the project
are to work collaboratively and to take responsibility for their own writing. Of course, theassessment criteria of the project should be clearly emphasized so that students have a firm
understanding that their grades are based on their participation and commitment in their own
learning, rather than on writing correct sentences.If this were done, then students might notcomplain that they would prefer more correction and advice from teachers, as in the case of
Chizu.

In these sorts of collaborative tasks, students should learn to shoulder the responsibility of
their own learning, whereas teachers also need to learn to trust their students and act more likea facilitator than a language teacher.

— LD SIG 2003 A n t h o l o g y —