Towards greater learner autonomy in the foreign ...

Towards greater learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom

Report on a research-and-development project (1997–2001)

David Little Jennifer Ridley Ema Ushioda

Authentik Books for language teachers

©2002 The authors

Authentik Language Learning Resources Ltd is a campus company of Trinity College Dublin

ISBN 1 871730 61 9

Typeset in Book Antiqua and Arial

Contents Introduction 1

2

3

1

Exploring the practice and theory of learner autonomy 1.1 A first encounter with practice 1.2 A social-interactive view of learning 1.2.1 Developmental learning 1.2.2 Schooling 1.3 Three principles elaborated 1.3.1 The principle of learner empowerment 1.3.2 The principle of learner reflection 1.3.3 The principle of appropriate target language use 1.4 Towards the CLCS Learner Autonomy Project

4 4 7 7 10 15 15 17

The project: structure and organization 2.0 Introduction 2.1 Aims of the project 2.1.1 Target sector 2.1.2 Pedagogical objectives 2.1.3 Research objectives 2.2 Recruitment of teachers 2.2.1 Initial recruitment phase 2.2.2 Recruitment in Years 3 and 4 2.2.3 Teacher participation: three focuses 2.3 Programme of seminars, workshops and public lectures 2.3.1 Evening seminars 2.3.2 Programme of workshops 2.4 Pedagogical experimentation 2.4.1 Principal areas of pedagogical experimentation 2.4.2 European Language Portfolio 2.5 Empirical exploration 2.5.1 Scope of empirical exploration 2.5.2 Data collection 2.6 Conclusion: looking ahead to some key issues

24 24 24 24 24 25 26 26 28 29

The project classrooms: learners, attitudes and beliefs 3.0 Introduction

45 45

19 22

29 30 32 34 34 35 36 36 36 43

3.1 The learner population 3.1.1 The project classes 3.1.2 Classroom environments 3.2 The profiling questionnaire 3.3 The questionnaire data 3.3.1 General motivation and attitudes to language learning 3.3.2 Attitudes to language learning activities 3.3.3 Effort 3.3.4 Learner beliefs 3.4 Conclusion 4

5

Focus on the teachers 4.0 Introduction 4.1 Teachers’ initial responses to the project 4.2 Teachers’ understanding of what language learning entails 4.2.1 Anna: focus on the notion of language learning through language use 4.2.2 Edel: concern with motivation 4.2.3 Orla: focus on the personal development of low ability learners 4.2.4 Miriam: a gradual change from focus on teaching to focus on learning 4.3 Changes in classroom practice 4.3.1 Target language use 4.3.2 Materials, resources and learner choice 4.3.3 Learner reflection on the learning process 4.3.4 Persistent problems experienced by the teachers 4.4 Conclusion Focus on the learners 5.0 Introduction 5.1 The open-ended questionnaire data 5.1.1 Learners noticing changes in the classroom 5.1.2 Learners’ reactions to being allowed to choose activities 5.1.3 In comparison with other classes: the enjoyment factor

45 45 49 50 52 52 57 63 64 68 69 69 69 78 78 79 81 83 85 85 87 90 91 93 96 96 97 99 101 102

5.1.4 5.1.5 5.1.6

Motivation in project classes Speaking the target language Learners’ understanding of the learning process 5.1.7 Thinking about language – likes, dislikes and aspirations 5.1.8 Summary of the questionnaire data 5.2 Focus on four learners 5.3 Conclusion 6

A second look at the practice and principles of learner autonomy 6.0 Introduction 6.1 Perspectives from abroad 6.1.1 Leni Dam and Lienhard Legenhausen 6.1.2 Hanne Thomsen: “scaffolding” and learners’ preferred activities 6.1.3 Ramon Ribé: the classroom as learning community – exploiting learners’ imagination 6.1.4 Turid Trebbi: challenges to the communicative curriculum and approaches to the use of text 6.1.5 Viljo Kohonen: the implications of the principle of learner reflection for the teacher 6.1.6 Irma Huttunen: reflective learning, reflective teaching, teacher planning 6.2 The European Language Portfolio 6.2.1 What is the ELP? 6.2.2 The Learner Autonomy Project ELP and the aims of the Learner Autonomy Project 6.3 Conclusion

104 107 111 117 121 122 126 128 128 129 130 133

135

136 138 140 143 144 144 146

References

148

Appendix 1

156

Appendix 2

160

Acknowledgements The authors wish to express their thanks to • The Atlantic Philanthropies, without whose generous financial support the CLCS Learner Autonomy Project would not have happened; • the school principals who allowed their teachers and pupils to participate in the project and gave permission for the authors to visit project classrooms; • the teachers and learners who participated in the project and provided the data on which much of this book is based; • the colleagues from other countries who shared their experience and expertise with us – Leni Dam, Irma Huttunen, Viljo Kohonen, Lienhard Legenhausen, Ramon Ribé, Hanne Thomsen, Turid Trebbi.

Introduction For more than a decade the three authors of this book have been engaged in theoretical and empirical research that has focussed in various ways on the phenomenon and underlying processes of autonomous learning in language classrooms. David Little has been concerned to elaborate a theory of learner autonomy that is firmly rooted in contemporary understanding of the psychological and social-interactive processes of human development and learning (e.g., Little 1991, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2001); Jennifer Ridley has explored the relation between learners’ perceptions of language learning and how they reflect on and manage the learning process (e.g., Ridley 1997a, 1997b, 1997c, 2000a, 2000b, 2001); and Ema Ushioda has developed new approaches to the conceptualization and investigation of learner motivation (e.g., Ushioda 1993, 1994, 1996a, 1996b, 1998, 2001). This work brought us into close contact with language teachers, teacher educators, and researchers in a number of different countries, but also with the classrooms in which they work: our theoretical concerns have always taken as their starting point the practical reality of successful language learning environments. Increasingly, we felt challenged to explore how far the results achieved by colleagues in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Spain could be replicated in Ireland, within the constraints imposed by official curricula and public examinations. Our response to the challenge was the CLCS (Centre for Language and Communication Studies, Trinity College Dublin) Learner Autonomy Project (1997–2001), which had two complementary aims: • to stimulate pedagogical experimentation in a number of secondlevel French and German classrooms; • to use various empirical means to explore the impact of this experimentation on teachers and learners. The project was shaped by two beliefs. First, our previous work in the field had convinced us that learner autonomy is not an optional extra, to be developed or not, according to the individual teacher’s preference. On the contrary, we believe that autonomy is an essential characteristic of all truly successful learners, regardless of their age or the domain in which they are learning. Secondly, because learner autonomy is deeply rooted in capacities that are fundamental to human nature, its growth depends not on the application of a “method” but on complex interactive processes that arise from the teacher’s ongoing commitment to explore and implement general principles. In other 1

2


words, the development of learner autonomy requires teachers to rethink their pedagogical beliefs not just once but continuously. This means that a project whose aim is to develop the autonomy of learners is likely to succeed only to the extent that it also develops the autonomy of their teachers, giving them the same sense of purpose and control in their teaching as they are seeking to develop in their pupils’ learning. These beliefs have also helped to determine the structure of this book. Chapter 1 begins by describing an approach to the development of learner autonomy that exerted a decisive influence on much of our previous work and provided the project with an outstanding practical example. The chapter then explores the nature and sources of learner autonomy, with reference to educational, psychological and developmental research. And it concludes by elaborating the three principles that in our view constitute a basic pedagogical toolkit with which language teachers can promote the development of autonomy in their learners. Chapter 2 describes the structure and summarizes the history of the project, while Chapter 3 profiles the schools and learners involved. The teachers and learners who participated in the project were not randomly selected, and for this reason we make no large claims for the generalizability of our findings. Nevertheless, the data presented in Chapter 3 offer a unique insight into the attitudes and beliefs of more than 500 junior cycle language learners and should thus be of interest to anyone concerned with second-level language teaching in Ireland and elsewhere. Chapters 4 and 5 report on the impact that the project had on the attitudes and beliefs of the participating teachers and learners respectively. Here again our data offer unique insights into the reality of foreign language teaching in Irish post-primary schools, and for this reason should be of general interest to language teachers, teacher trainers and educational researchers. Our data also confirm that the success we have witnessed in other countries, though never easy to achieve, certainly lies within the range of Irish teachers and learners. Finally, Chapter 6 returns to the theoretical perspectives of Chapter 1 by describing the contribution that our visiting experts – from Denmark, Finland, Germany, Norway and Spain – made to the project, with particular reference to five key issues with which the project repeatedly had to grapple: • How can we bring learners to accept responsibility for their learning?

Introduction

3

• How can we help them to develop the reflective skills on which effective exercise of that responsibility depends? • How can we get learners to use the target language as the principal channel of learning? • How can teachers develop their long-term planning skills? • How can we integrate the pursuit of autonomy with the demands of the curriculum?

1

Exploring the practice and theory of learner autonomy

1.1 A first encounter with practice The communicative approach to language teaching came to Ireland at the end of the 1970s. For several years there had been a growing sense that the official curricula needed to be revised. The programme of study and the public examinations for Intermediate and Leaving Certificate did little to encourage the development of communicative fluency, and there was no test of oral proficiency at either level. In 1978 the Modern Language Teachers’ Association organized a conference at which keynote speakers from England and Scotland presented approaches to syllabus design based on attempts to describe a coherent communicative repertoire. The discussion prompted by the conference was continued in a series of meetings sponsored by Institiúid Teangeolaíochta Éireann, and in due course the group of language teachers from second and third level who attended these meetings launched the ITÉ Modern Languages Project. The first task the project gave itself was to draw up guidelines for a communicative modern languages syllabus. The so-called Skeleton Syllabus (Little et al. 1980) was strongly influenced by the functionalnotional specifications sponsored by the Council of Europe – The Threshold Level (van Ek 1975), Un Niveau Seuil (Coste et al. 1976), and Kontaktschwelle (Baldegger et al. 1980). It outlined the communicative purposes that pupils should master and specified topics that ranged across the essentials of daily life and the putative interests of Irish teenagers. Next the project set about developing communicative teaching materials for the foreign languages of the Irish post-primary curriculum. Starting in 1982, the French materials were published as Salut!, a three-part course leading to Intermediate Certificate. The commercial success of Salut! helped to extend the project and enabled ITÉ to bring experts from various countries to give seminars on different aspects of communicative language teaching for members of the project. In 1984 one of these seminars was given by Leni Dam, a teacher of English at a middle school in Karlslunde, Denmark. Her topic was learner autonomy. This concept had been fundamental to developments in the theory of adult education in the 1970s, and it was beginning to give shape to experiments in self-access language learning at university level. But the idea that learner autonomy could be success4

The practice and theory of learner autonomy

5

fully pursued with young teenagers of mixed ability was new to participants in the seminar. In principle the project’s work on syllabus definition and materials development was learner-centred, but in practice it was teacher-controlled and strongly prescriptive. Over the course of a day that repeatedly threatened cherished orthodoxies, Leni Dam described her approach to teaching English. She had given up using a textbook altogether, believing that language learning must feed on learners’ interests and that no textbook can possibly match the range of interests represented in a typical class of learners. Instead, she required her pupils to devise their own learning activities and to use a logbook to manage their own learning. The logbooks she had brought with her contained records of lesson plans, lists of words to be learnt, English texts of various kinds (letters to classmates, stories, poems, translations from Danish), and regular reviews of learning progress. One of the first effects of the communicative revolution in language teaching was to banish translation as a principal tool of learning, so the frequency with which Leni Dam’s pupils chose to work on translation projects was surprising, even scandalous, to the communicative frame of mind. But whereas the communicative mainstream was still concerned with teaching languages for communication, logbooks and video recordings showed that these Danish learners were busy learning English through communication. From the beginning English was the principal medium of classroom communication, and all logbook entries were written in English. Inevitably, the spoken English of pupils who had only just started to learn the language was hesitant, and their written English showed strong interference from Danish. But pupils in their third and fourth year of English had already achieved a remarkable degree of fluency and accuracy. Some participants in the seminar were sceptical. Learning English in Denmark, they argued, is a much easier proposition than learning (say) French or German in Ireland. For one thing, Danish learners know that without English their career options will be seriously constrained, whereas Irish learners know that lack of French or German is unlikely to be a serious disadvantage in later life. For another, it is much easier to access English in Denmark than it is to access French or German in Ireland. What is more, the inflexional morphology of English is simpler than that of Danish, French or German, so that Danishspeaking learners of English have an easier job than English-speaking learners of French or German. But these arguments missed the point of the challenge posed by Leni Dam, which had to do not with the

6


quantity but with the quality of learning. That quality is captured in the concept of learner autonomy, understood as a capacity for reflective self-management. In order to develop this capacity in her pupils, Leni Dam helped them to come to terms with the purpose of their learning programme, insisted that they accept responsibility for their own learning, involved them in the setting of learning goals, required them to take initiatives in planning and executing learning activities, and regularly engaged them in a review of their learning and its effectiveness. As this list makes plain, her pursuit of learner autonomy in no way diminished her role as teacher: at every stage she was responsible for stimulating and guiding her learners. Neither did it entail pupils working in isolation from one another: on the contrary, project work conducted in small groups has always been central to her approach. Leni Dam’s achievement is that whatever their level of ability, all her learners become users of their target language; English becomes part of their identity. This is evidently not the case in most foreign language classrooms, however strong their communicative orientation. But Dam was originally prompted to change her teaching approach not by a desire to achieve better results in English, but by the difficulty of dealing with uninterested and thus poorly motivated learners. She describes how it happened as follows: In the mid 1970s I started for the first time to work with pupils of 14–16 years in unstreamed language classes. I was up against the tired-of-school attitude that this age group often displays, as well as a general lack of interest in English as a school subject. In order to survive I felt I had to change my usual teacher role. I tried to involve the pupils – or rather I forced them to be involved – in the decisions concerning, for example, the choice of classroom activities. (Dam 1995, p.2)

Her insistence on sharing responsibility with her pupils had a powerful effect. It was no longer up to her to interest them in learning English: with her help, they must find their own interest. They must also ask themselves, not just once but over and over again, what it was necessary to do in order to become proficient in English. One answer they quickly came up with was that they should talk as much English as possible in the classroom. Discipline was no longer Leni Dam’s sole responsibility either: her pupils readily negotiated rules of conduct apt to support their learning initiatives. By radically changing the way in which learning was organized, Leni Dam radically changed its quality:


7

I soon realized that giving the learners a share of responsibility for planning and conducting teaching-learning activities caused them to be actively involved and led to better learning. It also increased their capacity to evaluate the learning process. In this way a virtuous circle was created: awareness of how to learn facilitates and influences what is being learned and gives an improved insight into how to learn. (ibid.)

At a theoretical level Leni Dam’s approach can be reduced to three interdependent principles. First, learners must be brought to an explicit acceptance that they are responsible for their own learning (the principle of learner empowerment). This entails, second, that they must develop their capacity for reflection, on which their ability to plan, monitor and evaluate their learning depends (the principle of learner reflection). And thirdly, all their learning must be conducted in and through the target language, for only thus will they develop the genuine language user’s proficiency in spontaneous communication (the principle of appropriate target language use). These principles capture the essence of autonomy in classroom language learning, and we shall explore them in greater detail later in the chapter. But first it is necessary to deal with a paradox at the heart of the practical example we have given: learner autonomy, which implies freedom from the control of others, turns out to be the product of interactive processes that are characterized not by independence but by interdependence. In order to understand this paradox, we must take account of the role played by social interaction in human learning.

1.2 A social-interactive view of learning A social-interactive view of classroom learning entails a great deal more than acknowledging that classrooms have an inescapable social dimension. Rather, it is founded on particular claims about the way human beings are, which in turn lead to claims about the relation between individual cognition and social interaction, and the relation between thought and language. This means that a social-interactive view of classroom learning depends on a social-interactive view of developmental learning.

1.2.1

Developmental learning

In biological terms we are autonomous in two closely related senses. First, we are “self-producing” organisms. We grow according to our own laws, which are encoded in our genes (Maturana and Varela 1987, Rose 1997), and external forces cannot make us de-

8


velop in ways that are not already genetically predetermined. Unless we suffer from some physical impairment, we shall learn to walk, but there is nothing any agency outside us can do to make us sprout wings and fly. Less trivially, our personalities and abilities develop as we mature, but they are the personalities and abilities we were born with, not the ones our parents or teachers decided to impose on us. Second, we are autonomous in the sense that we are self-contained. For example, we can think our own thoughts but not anyone else’s, and the extent to which we are able to communicate our thoughts to others or divine what they themselves are thinking is always limited. This biological autonomy is a universal characteristic, an inescapable part of what it is to be human. Of course, human beings do not “produce themselves” in a vacuum. Growth depends on nurture – the provision of physical and emotional care – within a particular environment. The relative influence on human development of gene and environment is a matter of controversy among biologists (see, e.g., Dawkins 1976, Rose et al. 1984), but the very complexity of developmental processes suggests that it is wise to avoid crude dichotomies. As Rose argues, We need instead to be concerned with process, with the paradox of development by which any organism has simultaneously to be and to become, as when a newborn infant must be capable of sucking at the breast while at the same time developing the competence to chew and digest solid food, and with the continuous interchange between organisms and their environments. (Rose 1997, p.18)

This sentence contains two phrases that capture essential aspects of the view of learning that lies behind the project reported in this book. The first is “the paradox of development”, the impossibility of separating being from becoming. According to this paradox, all learning is rooted in the behaviour it is designed to promote. This explains why we cannot develop oral proficiency in a language without at the same time speaking the language, and why we cannot develop as autonomous learners without at the same time being autonomous learners. The second phrase is “the interchange between organisms and their environments”, which captures the very foundation of a social-interactive view of learning. We see it in operation in the first human relationship any of us experiences, between baby and mother. The apparently instinctive behaviour of mothers towards their babies seems calculated to elicit various kinds of response and thus lay the foundations of interaction by encouraging an early sense of reciprocity. But


9

this is by no means a one-sided process: research has shown that from birth babies themselves are intent on gaining the attention of their mothers and thus initiating interaction (see, e.g., Trevarthen 1992). The organism (the baby) is influenced by the environment (the baby’s mother), but in turn exerts its own influence on the environment. This relationship helps to explain why group work plays a central role in efficient classroom learning: successful collaboration inevitably benefits all participants because it is rooted in reciprocity. Effective participation in social interaction depends on our having a sense not only of our own thoughts, needs and purposes but also of the thoughts, needs and purposes of others – what developmental psychologists call “theory of mind” (see, e.g., Astington 1994, Bartsch and Wellman 1995). This emerges very early: it is already present in a sophisticated form in the reasoning of children between three and four years of age. Effective participation in social interaction also entails communication, and the principal tool of human communication is language. Integral to first language development is the early emergence of metalinguistic awareness, which (for example) enables us to recognize regularities of linguistic form or deliberately manipulate language to achieve a particular effect. Theory of mind and metalinguistic awareness (and more generally the capacity for metacognition – “thinking about thinking”) allow psychological autonomy to grow out of our biological autonomy. The fact that they develop so early raises fundamental questions about the relation between (i) general cognitive development and first language acquisition, and (ii) thought and language. It seems clear that we are born with a predisposition to develop a “theory of mind” and to acquire the language of our immediate environment; at the same time, however, neither faculty can develop without the stimulus of interaction. The question then arises, are general cognitive development and first language acquisition separate processes, or do they interact with each other, so that at some levels thought and language are inseparable? One answer to this question was provided by the Soviet psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1978, 1986), who argued that our higher cognitive functions (those that are unique to humans) are internalized from social interaction, which is shaped by language. According to Vygotsky, language plays a central role in all learning because it is the symbolic tool we use to give shape and direction to problem-solving behaviour. In his view “inner speech” – the thought clothed in language that we often use to plan, monitor and evaluate our behaviour – is internal-

10


ized from “social speech” via “egocentric speech” (see, e.g., Vygotsky 1986, pp.86ff.). This process is summarized by Bershon (1992, p.37) as follows: Speech used for problem solving begins during social encounters involving communication and mutual regulation between children and adults or among children of varying capabilities. In this way, children build a lexicon of regulatory vocabulary that enables them to produce egocentric language to direct, control and plan their activities during problem solving. Finally, children internalize this language as inner speech, developing a vocabulary that they can draw on during task involvement to direct their actions.

It is important to stress that Vygotsky’s view of the relation between thought and language had to do with our higher cognitive functions, those that are implicated in consciousness and explicit processes of self-regulation; he nowhere claimed that all thought is dependent on language. Neither an exclusively cognitive nor an exclusively communicative view of language seems to be supported by empirical research evidence (see Carruthers and Boucher 1998). On the whole it seems likely that while some aspects of thought are independent of language, others are not. But for our present purposes it is not necessary to take sides in what is a complex and often highly technical argument. It is enough to recognize the indispensable role that language plays as a cognitive tool, “a key resource by which we effectively redescribe our own thoughts in a format which makes them available for a variety of new operations and manipulations” (Clark 1998, p.178). Without language, it is difficult to imagine either consciousness or metacognition, that complex of processes by which we have thoughts about thoughts, beliefs about beliefs, and so on. By the same token, it is difficult to imagine language without consciousness or metacognition: a significant part of our linguistic competence is inseparable from our consciousness and our capacity explicitly to regulate our behaviour. This is a matter of pivotal importance in a social-interactive view of child development; as we shall see, it is also centrally important to a social-interactive, social-constructivist theory of foreign language pedagogy.

1.2.2

Schooling

In relation to the developmental process that precedes it, early schooling embodies two tendencies that pull in opposite directions, and it is the task of pedagogy to reconcile them. On the one


11

hand, the explicit processes of schooling offer to intensify by artificial means the natural growth of metacognitive and metalinguistic awareness. In this the acquisition of literacy plays a central role. For in the early school years the child must learn how to map the sounds of her mother tongue on to the graphic system by which they are represented visually; and in doing so she inevitably draws upon and further develops her metalinguistic awareness. Indeed, precisely because it depends on explicit processes, one view of literacy equates it with metalinguistics (this argument is developed by Olson 1991). The relation between speaking and writing is, however, less straightforward than those last two sentences seem to imply. It is, of course, true that in the history of any language, speech is prior to writing; and it is also true that some traditions in linguistics have taught us to think of written language as (in principle) speech transcribed (see, e.g., Bloomfield 1933, p.21). But as Olson (1995) has pointed out, writing systems gradually evolved from symbolic systems that were designed to record information graphically but non-linguistically. This fact helps to explain why written forms of language have developed functions but also structures that have no equivalent in the spoken language. It also coincides with Clark’s (1998) view of language as a cognitive tool: as we shall see, the effects he is concerned with are particularly evident when writing is the medium in which language embodies thought (see 1.3.3, pp.21f. below). If the processes of schooling offer to continue the natural development of metacognitive and metalinguistic awareness by artificial means, they are also largely discontinuous with the child’s previous experience to the extent that they are driven by explicit plans and focus on systematic bodies of explicit knowledge. This latter fact has been used to account for the sense of alienation that learners (not just young children) often experience in formal learning environments (see, e.g., Illich 1971, Freire 1972, Mayher 1990). It is also reflected in the distinction that Barnes (1976, p.81) draws between “school knowledge” (“the knowledge which someone else presents to us”) and “action knowledge” (“that view of the world on which our actions are based”). According to this view, one of the central tasks of pedagogy is to find ways of bringing “school knowledge” into fruitful interaction with learners’ “action knowledge” in order to enrich and extend, and especially to make more explicit, the autonomy that learners already possess as a product of their natural development. As Barnes (ibid., p.80) puts it:

12

Towards greater learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom We educate children in order to change their behaviour by changing their view of the world. We want to change the way they perceive the world they live in, not so that they will carry out our purposes, but so that they can formulate their own purposes, and estimate their value.

Pedagogical research that has grappled with this problem has returned again and again to the social-interactive nature of formal learning environments and the key role that is therefore played by work in small groups. For it is when learners work collaboratively to solve problems that they are most likely to exercise and further develop the “metalinguistic function” (Bruner 1986) that mediates between “school knowledge” and the “action knowledge” they bring with them to the classroom (see, e.g., the research reported by Barnes 1976, Tharp and Gallimore 1988, Mercer 1995). Of course, collaboration in small groups cannot produce knowledge from nothing; those who already possess it must pass it on to those who do not. But how exactly does this happen? Vygotsky argued that learning takes place in the “zone of proximal development” (ZPD), which he defined as the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers. (Vygotsky 1978, p.86)

This definition makes three claims: (i) what we can learn is necessarily constrained by what we already know; (ii) the mechanism that delivers learning is interaction; and (iii) the goal of all learning is autonomy (“independent problem solving”). The role of the more expert partner(s) in the interaction is to provide the less expert with support, perhaps by showing how the task in question can be broken down into a sequence of sub-tasks, or by performing those parts of the task that require in its most concentrated form the skill that is the principal goal of learning. The process of giving support in the ZPD has been described as “scaffolding” (Wood et al. 1976), and this metaphor has been widely used as a basis for designing instructional materials and pedagogical procedures. There is, however, a problem with the metaphor of “scaffolding”: it may fail to convey the reciprocal nature of the interactive process Vygotsky clearly had in mind, implying procedures of control rather than support. As an alternative to “scaffolding” Rogoff (1990, pp.77f.) proposes the term “guided participation” because it better captures the “mutual involvement” that is fundamental to the


13

social-interactive view of learning (recall the “continuous interchange” that according to Steven Rose is fundamental to development; see 1.2.1, p.8 above). Since “independent problem solving” is the goal, it is fundamental to the concept of the ZPD that control of task performance should be handed over to the learner at the earliest possible opportunity. But the transfer of control is nevertheless likely to be a gradual process. Relative to the domain of learning in question, the learner brings to a particular learning task an achieved level of autonomy (in Vygotsky’s terms, the independent problem-solving skills that provide the basis for the next stage of development). When “guided participation” is managed to best advantage, that autonomy will gradually expand until it encompasses independent mastery of the task in question. This is yet another illustration of Rose’s “paradox of development” (1997, p.18). It implies that the gradual expansion of the individual’s capacity for autonomous behaviour is a matter of passing through a multiplicity of stages, in each of which achieved autonomy is the springboard that enables him to pass from temporary dependence to independence. An example taken from the domain of play may help to make the concept of the ZPD more concrete. When he was only three, James started to play with LEGO that had been handed down to him by his older sisters. He enjoyed using the bricks to make multi-coloured shapes that were sometimes merely shapes, sometimes objects he used in his games (one of the first such objects looked very like a gun). So much of James’s play centred around LEGO that his father developed the habit of buying small LEGO models for him (ambulances, milkfloats, lorries, speedboats) whenever he returned from a business trip abroad. To begin with, James was not able to put the models together for himself: he would hand a new model to one of his parents or big sisters and they would build it for him. But of course he was greatly interested in the process, eager to help and interactively involved through the talk that accompanied the identification of the different LEGO pieces and the gradual construction of the model. After some time James was able to sort the pieces of a new model prior to getting someone to put them together for him, and from there he progressed to being able to accomplish the first two or three (very basic) stages of model building before he asked for help. And so it went on, until finally he had completely mastered the task of building small LEGO toys. Throughout the learning process construction was accompanied

14


by a great deal of talk, sometimes social (James and the person helping him talking to one another) and sometimes egocentric (James talking to himself). Note that the ZPD provides a model for the learning process overall but also for each of its stages. Note also that although in each successive phase of his learning James depended on the help of others, there was a sense in which he controlled the learning process from the beginning – and of course his parents or sisters were only too glad to have him exercise this control, since building LEGO toys was not specially high on their own agenda. We concluded the first part of this chapter by noting that in Leni Dam’s classroom learner autonomy is the product of interactive processes that emphasize interdependence rather than independence. The argument of this part of the chapter may be summarized as follows. Human beings are autonomous in the sense that they are self-producing organisms, and yet developmental learning requires the stimulus of social interaction. The paradox of development is that becoming and being are inseparable, which explains why babies learn to walk by walking and to talk by talking. (In due course the same paradox also explains why language use plays a central role in effective foreign language learning, and why learners become autonomous only by being autonomous.) The early development of “theory of mind”, metalinguistic awareness, and the capacity for metacognition (“thinking about thinking”) provides the basis for psychological autonomy. Because speech is the symbolic tool that we use to shape, comment on and evaluate shared activity, language is fundamental to the processes of metacognition; at the same time, the more developed the individual’s metacognitive capacity, the greater the contribution he or she can make to social-interactive processes. The same two-way relationship obtains in contexts of formal learning. On the one hand the interactive pursuit of learning goals both presupposes and develops the metacognitive capacity on which the individual learner’s powers of reflection, decision making and independent action are founded; on the other hand growth in the individual learner’s metacognitive capacity increases the effectiveness of the social-interactive learning processes of which he or she is a part. In other words, the individual’s gradually expanding capacity for autonomous behaviour arises from but also feeds back into the interdependence that underpins social interaction. This is the social-psychological reality that justifies the description of effective classrooms as learning communities.


15

1.3 Three principles elaborated We can now return to the three principles that we argued underpin the practice and development of learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom. By way of introduction it is important to stress that the three principles are not to be thought of as three separate components of a pedagogical approach; rather, they embody three closely related perspectives on the highly complex but essentially holistic process of teaching-learning.

1.3.1

The principle of learner empowerment

As we saw in 1.1 (p.6 above), Leni Dam’s decisive first step in transforming the quality of learning was to transfer part of the responsibility for teaching-learning to her pupils. By requiring them to set learning targets, decide on learning activities, and find appropriate learning materials, she gave them a significant measure of control. In motivational terms the importance of this step can hardly be overestimated. According to the so-called humanistic movement in psychology and psychotherapy, being in control of one’s own actions and responsible for their outcomes is a prerequisite for self-fulfilment. For example, Carl Rogers (1967, pp.170f.) defines autonomy as a matter of choosing one’s own goals and accepting responsibility for oneself and one’s actions, and identifies the client’s progress towards conscious self-direction as one of the chief gains achievable by psychotherapy. It is important to stress that Rogers does not promote selfdirection as a cure for all ills. He reports that his clients often found self-direction a frightening and difficult experience; and sometimes, of course, they made wrong choices. But from a therapeutic point of view, health is seen to lie with the conscious exercise of autonomy and the resulting sense of being in control of one’s life. Much the same can be said about the practice and development of learner autonomy in the classroom. Learners often find it difficult (and sometimes even frightening) to be responsible for their own learning, and from time to time they are bound to make wrong choices. But the longer they are required to practise that responsibility, the greater their sense of selffulfilment is likely to be. Bandura’s (1986, 1997) self-efficacy theory is relevant to this argument. According to self-efficacy theory, motivation and achievement depend on belief in our own effectiveness. If we try to control the events that affect our lives, sooner or later we shall run into difficulties; we shall encounter obstacles we had not foreseen, others may

16


oppose our aims, or perhaps we shall fail to achieve our goal at the first attempt. In the face of such difficulties, we persist in our undertaking only if we can maintain a belief in our efficacy. One of the chief sources of that belief is our past experience of success and achievement. When such experience is especially intense, it amounts to what Csikszentmihalyi (1992) calls “flow”. On the basis of large-scale empirical research Csikszentmihalyi concludes that happiness and fulfilment are the product of “a sense that one’s skills are adequate to cope with the challenges at hand” (ibid., p.71). He suggests that “flow” is an accurate measure of self-fulfilment, and that it is experienced most often by those who set their own goals. Another important source of selfbelief is, of course, the support and encouragement we are given by other people, especially when the tide seems to be running against us. A strong sense of inadequacy or failure inevitably undermines selfbelief and makes future success and achievement difficult, especially if we lack the support of others. The relevance of these arguments to classroom learning should be too obvious to require further elaboration. We argued earlier (1.2.2, pp.11f. above) that one of the principal challenges facing pedagogy is to find ways of bringing “school knowledge” into interaction with learners’ “action knowledge”. There are two reasons why it is important to do so. First, what we can learn at any moment is constrained by what we already know; and a large part of what we already know we learnt outside the classroom. Second, the success of education is to be measured not simply by the extent to which we absorb and can regurgitate “school knowledge”, but by the extent to which “school knowledge” becomes part of our “action knowledge”, informing it and giving it a critical dimension. Here again interest and motivation play a crucial role. The growth of our “action knowledge” is shaped by our personal needs and interests, which we pursue spontaneously, autonomously, and often without conscious awareness that learning is taking place. It draws on our intrinsic motivation, which is defined by our own personal interests – the subject matter and activities we enjoy, the areas of knowledge we want to develop, the challenges we want to tackle, the skills we want to master. Intrinsically motivated learning is also contextualized learning, whereby skills are developed in their natural context of use through regular practice. Thus the intrinsically motivated learner will learn to paint by painting, to work with computers by working with computers, and to learn languages by using them. (Ushioda 2000b, p.126)


17

Learner motivation is perhaps the biggest single problem faced by teachers. But by making learners responsible for their own learning, we challenge them to fuel their learning with the intrinsic motivation that underpins their out-of-school activities. Making learners responsible for their own learning is not a single act on the part of the teacher, but a never-ending process. It is fundamental to our view of developmental learning that human beings have an innate predisposition to autonomous behaviour. But the scope of our behavioural autonomy varies according to our developed capacities and our experience: a teenager is capable of a much wider range of autonomous behaviour than a seven-year-old, who in turn is capable of a much wider range of autonomous behaviour than a toddler. The same is true of learner autonomy in the classroom: pupils’ capacity for autonomous learning gradually expands as their proficiency in the subject they are studying develops. This fact defines the teacher’s role in terms that recall Vygotsky’s “zone of proximal development”. From the very beginning she must be intent on handing over control to her learners, but only as much control as they are capable of exercising to their own benefit. She must not fall into the trap of supposing that her learners should be capable of managing every aspect of their learning from the outset, or that there will ever come a time when she herself is not responsible for control of the learning environment. She may begin by getting the class to suggest good reasons for learning the target language and good learning activities. From there she may go on to allow her learners to decide on their own homework, perhaps choosing from an agreed list of possible tasks. Gradually she will lead them to take more control of classroom activities, until they are capable of devising their own projects and managing their own group work. But for as long as the class is with her, she will be responsible for taking whatever initiatives are necessary to maintain it as a learning community.

1.3.2

The principle of learner reflection

The principle of learner reflection is already implied by the principle of learner empowerment: it is impossible consciously to accept responsibility for anything, and then act on that responsibility, without thinking about what you are doing. The word “reflection” tends to conjure up an image of learners locked in communion with their own thoughts like so many incarnations of Rodin’s Thinker. But reflection as an individual and wholly internal phenomenon is the

18


end rather than the beginning of reflective teaching–learning. In the autonomous language classroom, reflection begins as a collaborative activity in which teacher and learners seek to make explicit to one another their developing understanding of the process they are engaged in. Progressive learner empowerment requires continuous negotiation between teacher and learners. Not only must the teacher engage her learners in the setting of a learning agenda, the identification of learning targets, and the regular evaluation of progress; she must also ensure that they are fully aware of the requirements of the curriculum. In other words, through regular whole-class planning and evaluation, she must help her learners to set long-term as well as shortterm goals and to develop a sense of the trajectory of their learning not only across lessons or the few weeks that it may take to complete a particular phase of learning, but also across terms and years. Negotiation at this macro level is supported by negotiation at the micro level, which concerns short-term learning goals and individual learning activities. Like the principle of learner empowerment, the principle of learner reflection implies a continuous process that permeates the life of the classroom. This means that reflection must be pursued as a routine, perhaps by regularly grappling with the five questions that Leni Dam repeatedly puts to her learners (Dam 1995): “What are we doing?” – “Why are we doing it?” – “How are we doing it?” – “With what results?” – “What are we going to do next?” The danger with any routine, of course, is that it will come to be taken for granted and thus lose its meaning. But in the autonomous language classroom we prevent this happening by ensuring that the scope of the learners’ responsibility is always expanding outwards, because in that way we necessarily extend the reach of their reflection. Whether as a collaborative or an individual activity, reflection is unlikely to progress far without the support of writing, for three reasons. First, it is by writing things down that we provide ourselves with something to reflect on in the first place; second, it is easier for us to step back from our own utterances and thoughts when they have been written down; and third, the reflective process itself is greatly facilitated if we use written notes to help us work out what we think. The process and outcome of reflection – on learning goals, plans, activities, outcomes, gains – can be recorded on posters that immediately become part of the public learning environment of the classroom, or in the relative privacy of the learner’s individual notebook, side by


19

side with the texts that are the product of learning tasks. Reflection that is written in the individual notebook sometimes comes from the learner’s interaction with other learners (it may be copied from a collaboratively developed poster), and sometimes it is the result of internal reflective processes. Either way, it can provide a basis for further individual reflection, a stimulus to written interaction with the teacher, and material for another classroom dialogue. When reflection is explicitly focussed on the learning process, it is likely to take account of motivation and affect (“I worked well/ badly”; “our group liked/didn’t like this project”; “I was happy/unhappy with today’s work”). But it should always try to focus on the specific quality of the experience that gave rise to positive or negative feelings – “How did I work well/badly?; “Why did our group like/not like this project?”; “What made me happy/unhappy about today’s work?”. That, after all, is how learners will gradually become aware that a growing capacity for metacognitive control nurtures intrinsic motivation.

1.3.3

The principle of appropriate target language use

The differences between first language acquisition and the learning of foreign languages at school are well known and need not be elaborated here. But there is one similarity between the two processes that is fundamental to our present purposes: proficiency in any language is a procedural skill, and like procedural skills in other domains, it develops through use (recall again Rose’s “paradox of development”, the necessary simultaneity of being and becoming; see 1.2.1, p.8 above). Children acquiring their mother tongue do not first learn the language in order then to communicate; on the contrary, their linguistic development proceeds partly as a result of their attempts to communicate. By deploying whatever proficiency they possess, they create one of the necessary conditions for further growth. In the same way, proficiency in a foreign language can develop only to the extent that learners use whatever proficiency they have for genuine communicative purposes. That, in essence, is the principle of appropriate target language use. It entails that the target language should be the dominant medium of teaching and learning from the outset and comprises three general rules. First, the teacher must speak to her learners in the target language, but in such a way that they can understand her. This means that she must be skilled in simplifying and reformulating her utterances; it also

20


means that there will be occasions when the shortest route to comprehension is a brief gloss in the learners’ mother tongue. Second, in all forms of classroom interaction the learners must use the target language to the full extent of their present capacity. This involves a great deal more than producing formulaic responses to the teacher’s questions, or rehearsing a dialogue or role-play from the textbook. It is certainly easier to achieve if the learners themselves have already identified target language use as an indispensable part of language learning, but it nevertheless requires constant support from the teacher. In interacting with her learners in the target language she must “scaffold” the conversation in much the same way as parents scaffold conversations with small children, providing words and phrases that the learners lack and non-threatening corrective feedback. The teacher can also suggest to her learners ways in which they can support their own target language use (for example, they can use written prompts to support speaking); and she can suggest learning activities that involve them in target language use that goes some way beyond their unaided capacity. A good example of this is the game of picture bingo, which is played by (say) five learners. There are twenty-four cards, each of which has a picture on one side and a verbal description of the picture on the other; and there are four boards, each of which has six of the pictures. Four of the learners have a board each; the fifth works through the cards, reading the verbal descriptions aloud. The four other learners have to compare the descriptions they hear with the pictures on their board. The first learner to claim six cards, corresponding to the six pictures on his or her board, wins the game. Picture bingo provides learners with practice in reading, speaking and listening comprehension, set within an organizational frame that they can easily learn to manage through the target language. Note that if language learning depends crucially on language use, the functional range of learners’ developing proficiency will reflect the range of roles that are available to them in the classroom. For example, they will learn to ask questions by involving themselves in activities that require them to ask questions. This brings us back to the principle of learner empowerment, for to say that learners have access to a full range of communicative functions is the same as saying that they share fully in responsibility for what goes on in the classroom. It also reminds us yet again of the central role that group work has to play in the collaborative construction of knowledge. The third of the general rules that together constitute the princi-


21

ple of target language use is already implied by the second. It has to do with metacognition and the “metalinguistic function” – or, in more practical terms, with the use of the target language to talk (and write) about the learning process as well as the target language and its formal properties. Teachers who accept the first two general rules not infrequently reject this third one, arguing that planning and evaluating learning and discussing formal features of language require a level of linguistic sophistication that is available to learners only in their mother tongue. This rejection is misguided for two reasons. First, thought and language are profoundly interdependent. A moment’s reflection on the frequency with which we talk about talk and think about thinking in our mother tongue should be enough to persuade us that any worthwhile proficiency in a foreign language must also embrace the “metalinguistic function”. Indeed, without it learners will find it difficult to get far in those target language situations that require them to take and justify initiatives and evaluate their outcomes. Secondly, if reflective activities are carried out in the mother tongue they contribute nothing to language learning through language use and may thus seem a waste of time to teachers and learners alike. This brings us back to the principle of learner reflection and the crucial role that writing plays in certain kinds of thinking. Clark (1998) describes this role as the “mangrove effect”: The mangrove grows from a floating seed which establishes itself in the water, rooting in shallow mud flats. The seedling sends complex vertical roots through the surface of the water, culminating in what looks to all intents and purposes like a small tree posing on stilts. The complex system of aerial roots, however, soon traps floating soil, weed and debris. After a time, the accumulation of trapped matter forms a small island. As more time passes, the island grows larger and larger. A growing mass of such islands can eventually merge, effectively extending the shoreline out to the trees! Throughout this process, and despite our prior intuitions, it is the land which is progressively built by the trees. (Clark 1998, p.176)

Clark likens the role played by language in reflective thinking to the mangrove: “It is natural to suppose that words are always rooted in the fertile soil of pre-existing thoughts. But sometimes, at least, the influence seems to run in the other direction” (ibid.). He then has this to say on the effect of writing ideas down: By writing down our ideas we generate a trace in a format which opens up a range of new possibilities. We can then inspect and re-inspect the

22

Towards greater learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom same ideas, coming at them from many different angles and in many different frames of mind. We can hold the original ideas steady so that we may judge them, and safely experiment with subtle alterations. We can store them in ways which allow us to compare and combine them with other complexes of ideas in ways which would quickly defeat the un-augmented imagination. (ibid.)

This argument seems to us to have powerful implications for the role that writing should play in language teaching.

1.4 Towards the CLCS Learner Autonomy Project Taken together, our three principles reflect an approach to foreign language teaching that (i) makes learners responsible for their own learning, (ii) assigns a central role to the reflective processes of planning, monitoring and evaluating learning, and (iii) insists on the target language as the medium of teaching and learning. When such an approach is successfully implemented, learners are fully committed to their learning, develop learning and reflective skills that they can transfer to other domains, and from the first are users of their target language. These qualities are evident in the following self-evaluations written in English by two of Leni Dam’s learners at the end of their fourth year learning English (cit. Dam and Little 1999, p.134). They are remarkable for the way in which they combine clear and fluent expression (the texts are uncorrected) with a developed selfawareness, and they show just how much foreign language learning can contribute to the personal development that effective education brings: Most important is probably the way we have worked. That we were expected to and given the chance to decide ourselves what to do. That we worked independently … And we have learned much more because we have worked with different things. In this way we could help each other because some of us had learned something and others had learned something else. It doesn’t mean that we haven’t had a teacher to help us. Because we have, and she has helped us. But the day she didn’t have the time, we could manage on our own. I already make use of the fixed procedures from our diaries when trying to get something done at home. Then I make a list of what to do or remember the following day. That makes things much easier. I have also via English learned to start a conversation with a stranger and ask good questions. And I think that our “together” session has helped me to become better at listening to other people and to be interested in them. I feel that I have learned to believe in myself and to be independent.


23

The CLCS Learner Autonomy Project arose from our desire to share our three principles with Irish teachers of French and German and to explore their impact on teachers as well as learners. It was founded on two complementary convictions: that good pedagogical practice requires good pedagogical theory, and that pedagogical experimentation and classroom research are two sides of the same coin. At the same time we were clear that pedagogical development must take account of Irish educational traditions and the constraints imposed by particular teaching-learning environments. Chapter 2 explains in detail how the project was structured and organized.

2

The project: structure and organization

2.0 Introduction This chapter summarizes the aims of the project as set out in our original application for funding and explains how the project developed year by year. It describes the schools and teachers involved, the programme of seminars that was arranged each year, and the various pedagogical activities that provided a common focus for classroom experimentation. It also sets the scene for Chapters 3, 4 and 5 by describing the purpose and scope of the data collection undertaken, and outlining the various elicitation procedures used.

2.1 Aims of the project 2.1.1

Target sector

Chapter 1 concluded by outlining our agenda for the development of autonomy in foreign language classrooms at second level in Ireland. It was noted that if pedagogical innovation is to provide a basis for more widespread reform, it must always take account of the specific features of the educational culture to which it is addressed. From the beginning, the CLCS Learner Autonomy Project aimed to work within the three-year junior cycle curriculum prescribed by the Department of Education and Science. It sought to explore in detail, together with participating teachers, how the success of the pedagogical approach described in Chapter 1 might best be replicated within this curricular framework, and in a cultural context where the target languages (French and German) do not enjoy the same widespread popular status that English does in Scandinavia.

2.1.2

Pedagogical objectives

The pedagogical objectives of the project set out in our original application for funding were: • to elaborate a pedagogy apt to develop the communicative proficiency of Irish second-level learners of French and German (during the preparatory year, 1997–8); • to implement and evaluate that pedagogy over the three years of the junior cycle; • through implementation and evaluation, to develop teaching methods and learning resources that can be more widely disseminated; 24


25

• through the research that accompanied implementation and underpinned evaluation, to arrive at a better understanding of the factors governing success in foreign language teaching and learning. Practical constraints, however, posed principally by problems in securing long-term teacher commitment (see 2.2 below), necessitated some adjustment in relation to the first two of these objectives. Our original plan was to lay the groundwork for pedagogical experimentation in a preparatory year (1997–8) and then monitor participating classrooms over the three years of the junior cycle (1998–2001). As it turned out, there was considerable variation in how long teachers remained with the project and at what stage of the junior cycle different classroom groups became involved. Consequently, a more flexible “multi-tier” approach to pedagogical experimentation and classroom evaluation became appropriate, with some teachers and classroom groups becoming involved at a more extended level in the empirical evaluation than others (see section 2.5 below). On the question of dissemination (the third of the pedagogical objectives listed above), the scope and forms that this might take were not determined in advance. It was felt that these should unfold in consultation with participating teachers as the project developed, and that they should be shaped by the project’s evolving research perspectives. In the event the project’s principal dissemination instrument was a version of the Council of Europe’s European Language Portfolio (see 6.2, below).

2.1.3

Research objectives

Our research perspectives operated at two different though interrelated levels. The first level concerned the management and implementation of the project as a pedagogical experiment. A particularly important evaluative focus was the collaborative dynamic between teachers and researchers on which the success of the project depended. The effectiveness of this collaborative dynamic would shape subsequent decisions about approaches to further project development, dissemination and networking. The second research level concerned a sustained and systematic exploration of classrooms in which the pursuit of autonomy is an explicit pedagogical goal. This empirical exploration was guided by the following research questions: • Which paradigms of learning underpin the development of

26


learner autonomy? • How does learner autonomy manifest itself in individual learners? • What are the characteristics of a foreign language classroom where the development of learner autonomy is encouraged? • To what extent does overtly autonomous learning correlate with target language proficiency? • What types of pedagogical practices, learning tasks, resources and evaluative procedures facilitate the development of autonomy in classroom learners? • How are underachieving, poorly motivated, or non-reflective learners best helped to take some responsibility for their learning? • How might patterns of teaching which are successful in one country be transferred to another country? In addition, at the interface between the two levels of research (working with teachers and exploring classrooms) lay a critically important empirical question: how do teachers come to understand what autonomy is about and apply this understanding in their pedagogical practice?

2.2 Recruitment of teachers 2.2.1

Initial recruitment phase

As already indicated, the project spanned four school years from the autumn of 1997 to the summer of 2001: • Year 1 (1997–1998) – preparatory year; • Year 2 (1998–1999) – first year of empirical exploration; • Year 3 (1999–2000) – second year of empirical exploration; • Year 4 (2000–2001) – third year of empirical exploration. The first three months of Year 1 (October to December 1997) were devoted to recruiting teachers to participate in the project, and making arrangements for a programme of seminars for the remainder of the year. With assistance from Seán Devitt of the Department of Education, Trinity College, we set out to recruit five teachers of French and five teachers of German. The first project meeting, held on 13 January 1998, was attended by ten teachers, with apologies for absence from an eleventh. To begin with, most of the teachers were wary of committing themselves to the project. There were a number of reasons for this, including pressure of other commitments, uncertainty about their

The project: structure and organization Teacher Orla

Language(s) taught

School

German and French

A

27 School type and location all boys’ school, Co. Kildare

Anna

French

B

all boys’ school, north Dublin

Edel

German and French

C

co-educational school, Co. Kildare

Sarah

German and French

D

co-educational school, north Dublin

Eoin

French

E

co-educational school, south-west Co. Dublin

Evelyn

German

F


Siobhan

French

G

co-educational school, Co. Meath

Audrey

German

H

Irish-medium all boys’ school, south Co. Dublin

Table 2.1: Teachers recruited in 1998 (first cohort)

own position (several could not guarantee that they would have French or German classes for the duration of the project), and an understandable reluctance to submit their classrooms to the scrutiny of outsiders. By the end of the school year 1997–8, eight teachers who had attended the programme of preparatory seminars and workshops expressed their commitment to the project. They had already embarked on various kinds of pedagogical experimentation and, subject to the approval of their school principals, were willing to allow the research team to collect empirical data from their classrooms. Table 2.1 provides an overview of these teachers and their schools. (To preserve anonymity, the names of all teachers and learners discussed in this book have been changed, and schools are identified by an alphabetical code only). Of these eight teachers, two (Audrey and Siobhan) withdrew early in 1999 during Year 2 of the project, while two more (Eoin and Evelyn) withdrew at the beginning of Year 3 in autumn 1999. The reasons given for withdrawal varied from the pressure of other commitments to ill health. Since participation in the project operated on an entirely voluntary basis and teachers received no official support or recognition for their engagement, a high level of commitment could not be guaranteed. Inevitably, the difficulty of securing long-term commitment from teachers became a significant factor in shaping (a) how the project was managed, and (b) what kinds of empirical exploration were feasible within the three-year period 1998–2001 (cf. the twin levels of research in 2.1.3 above). Section 2.5 outlines the path taken in relation to empirical exploration and data collection goals and procedures.

28


2.2.2

Recruitment in Years 3 and 4

At the level of project management, the recognition that long-term commitment was difficult to secure prompted a decision to cast the net a little wider and recruit more teachers at the beginning of Years 3 and 4 (autumn 1999 and 2000 respectively). We anticipated that, of those newly recruited, only some would opt to remain with the project. By recruiting at the beginning of each year of the project, we hoped to develop a committed core of participating teachers varying in the history of their involvement in the project. Among other things, the integration of new teachers was itself a key focus for empirical evaluation in relation to our own longer-term goals of project development, dissemination and networking. It was important to see whether teachers already involved in the project could act as an interface in mediating their understanding of the project’s pedagogical goals and theoretical underpinnings to new participants. At the beginning of the school years 1999–2000 and 2000–01, letters were sent to teachers of foreign languages in secondary schools in the Dublin area informing them of the project and inviting them to participate. As a result, seven new teachers were recruited in autumn Teachers recruited in 1999 Teacher Language(s) taught Miriam German

School

School type and location

I

all boys’ school, north Dublin

Cormac

French

J

co-educational school, south Co. Dublin

Richard

French

K

all boys’ school, south Dublin

Iris

German and Irish

L

all girls’ school, Co. Wicklow

Jean

Spanish

B

all boys’ school, north Dublin (where Anna also teaches)

Sinead

German

M

all girls’ school, north Dublin

Aoife

French

N

co-educational school, south-west Dublin

School

School type and location

Teachers recruited in 2000 Teacher Language(s) taught Ailbhe French

O

Irish-medium co-educational school, west Dublin

Patricia

Italian and French

P

all girls’ school, north-west Dublin

Catherine

French

Q

co-educational school, south Dublin

Tom

German

R

all boys’ school, south Dublin

Sheila

French

S


Table 2.2: Teachers recruited in 1999 and 2000 (Years 3 and 4)


29

1999, and a further five teachers in autumn 2000 (see Table 2.2). Of the seven teachers recruited in 1999, three (Jean, Sinead and Aoife) withdrew at the end of the school year. All five of those recruited in 2000 remained in principle committed to the project for the duration of the final year, although two of these five attended only a few seminars and workshops. In summary, of the 20 teachers who participated over the threeyear empirical span of the project (1998–2001), we retained a committed core of four teachers from the first cohort (Orla, Anna, Edel and Sarah, although Sarah was on maternity leave during the final year of the project); we also retained a committed core of four teachers from the second cohort (Miriam, Cormac, Richard and Iris); and the group was joined by five teachers in the final year, bringing the number of teachers concurrently involved in the project at the end of Year 4 to a total of 12 (excluding Sarah) from three successive phases of recruitment.

2.2.3

Teacher participation: three focuses

For all teachers taking part in the project, regardless of the length of their involvement, participation essentially comprised three kinds of personal commitment: • attending a programme of seminars and workshops during the school year (September to May); • engaging in various forms of pedagogical experimentation with a chosen junior cycle “project class”; • accommodating members of the research team in their empirical exploration of individual classrooms. Sections 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 address each of these focuses in turn.

2.3 Programme of seminars, workshops and public lectures The programme of activities for each year of the project comprised a combination of weekday evening seminars led by the research team, and Saturday morning workshops conducted by invited experts from overseas. Some of these latter workshops were preceded on the Friday evening by a public lecture on a related theme, given by the invited expert and open to participating teachers to attend. Seminars and workshops took place approximately once a month during school terms, though as already noted the programme of events in Year 1 did not begin until January.

30


2.3.1

Evening seminars

The evening seminars provided the principal forum for developing the collaborative dynamic between teachers and researchers on which the success of the project was likely to depend. These seminars were co-ordinated by members of the research team who led discussion on theoretical issues in relation to autonomy and their implications for pedagogical practice. The seminars also enabled teachers to raise issues of particular concern to them, and to report on their classroom experiences and pedagogical experimentation. At the beginning of Years 3 and 4 of the project, reporting on classroom experiences also served the important function of initiating newly recruited teachers and bringing them to an understanding of the project’s goals and pedagogical implications. Without question, this process of mediation by teachers from the earlier cohorts proved to be very effective (see 4.1 below), and quickly confirmed the important role of networking and peer support in subsequent phases of project expansion and dissemination. By comparison, in the early stages of the project, when mediation of this kind by teachers themselves was not possible, the process of establishing common ground between researchers and teachers and constructing a joint understanding of the project’s goals, theoretical underpinnings and pedagogical implications seemed much slower. In order to facilitate this process, we developed a “working document” which provided a concise working definition of learner autonomy, and spelt out its implications for pedagogical practice (see Figure 2.1). This working document provided the basis for discussion in the seminars as well as a set of practical measures which teachers could draw on as they began to engage in various forms of experimentation in their classrooms (see 2.4 below). Throughout the project, we continually made reference to the working document as a touchstone for reflecting on classroom practice and for focussing on key issues such as target language use and engaging with the curriculum. In addition, we made use of two primary resources as tools for stimulating reflection on pedagogical practice: a video of Hanne Thomsen’s English language classroom (Thomsen and Gabrielsen 1991) and Leni Dam’s published account of her classroom practice (Dam 1995). Hanne Thomsen and Leni Dam visited the project at different times, and both resources gave teachers many valuable insights and provided a useful point of departure for comparing their own classroom practices and teaching-learning contexts with those of Thomsen and Dam


31

Learner autonomy: a working definition •

Learners take their first steps towards autonomy when they begin to accept responsibility for their own learning.

•

They exercise and develop their autonomy by sharing in the decisions and initiatives that give shape and direction to the language learning process.

•

By planning, monitoring and evaluating their learning, they develop their metacognitive and metalinguistic capacities (their ability to reflect on the learning process, the forms of the target language, and the uses to which the target language can be put). Pedagogical implications

•

Learners must be aware of the requirements of the curriculum (what they are expected (i) to know about the target language and (ii) to be able to do using the target language).

•

The curriculum should be the basis on which interim learning targets are negotiated.

•

As their autonomy develops, learners should gradually be given greater freedom of choice as regards learning content and learning activities.

•

Freedom of choice entails an obligation to be answerable for the consequences (responsible for one’s own learning); learners must engage in regular evaluation of their progress, both as a class/group and as individuals.

•

Learners will find it easier to plan and monitor their learning if they keep a formal written record of what they do, how they do it, and with what results.

•

Learners must use the target language as much as possible, not only to perform communicative/learning tasks but to reflect on and evaluate their learning.

•

Learners must pay explicit attention to the formal features of the target language – grammar, vocabulary but also pronunciation and intonation.

•

An explicit focus on form may sometimes mean drill and practice, but this should always be related to some context of target language use.

•

It is all but impossible to focus on grammar except by using written forms of the target language; thus reading and writing should play a central role from the beginning.

•

Writing should also be used from the beginning to support the development of speaking skills.

Figure 2.1: Working document

(see 4.1 below). As the project progressed, the agenda for the evening seminars was determined by one or more of the following: feedback from teachers on their classroom experiences (see 2.4 below); feedback from the research team on empirical data collected from learners (see 2.5 below and also Chapter 3); issues raised in the workshops conducted by invited experts (see 2.3.2 below); planning for the next phase of the project (see 2.6 below and Chapter 6). In general, we adopted an open-ended flexible approach to determining the content and structure of each seminar and the programme of events for each year as a whole. Such an

32


approach was partly necessitated by the uneven patterns of attendance at the seminars and the ever-present uncertainty of teacher commitment. Flexibility, moreover, was fundamental to the process of developing a dialogue of shared perspectives between teachers and researchers, a process that in itself mirrored the social-constructivist dynamic of the classroom pedagogy we were aiming to promote (see 1.2 above). To give one specific example of this collaborative process, an initiative arose among teachers in Year 2 of the project to develop an oral examination for those of their learners due to take the Junior Certificate examination in Year 3. It should be noted that school-based assessment of students’ oral proficiency is permitted by the Department of Education and Science at the end of the junior cycle. This suggestion was welcomed as a positive development by all participants, and the research team was happy to accommodate it within the framework of the project as a further research-and-development initiative. It was agreed that this initiative should be led by a sub-group of teachers who would work on designing an oral examination underpinned by the pedagogical principles of the project. In the end, it happened that the two teachers primarily interested were both obliged to withdraw from the project early in Year 3 (Eoin and Evelyn), and so this initiative was not followed through. Nevertheless, it serves to underline the flexible working dynamic shared by teachers and researchers in the project.

2.3.2

Programme of workshops

Chapter 1 described how our agenda for the development of autonomy in Irish foreign language classrooms drew inspiration from the work of Leni Dam. As noted above (2.1.3), a major research objective was to explore how patterns of teaching that are effective in one country might be transferred to another country. To this end, it was important that our own teachers should have first-hand contact with experts from successful pedagogical experiments abroad, including both classroom practitioners and experts involved in teacher education and curriculum development. During each year of the project, therefore, we invited two or three such experts to conduct workshops for our teachers. In many cases, the Saturday morning workshop was preceded by a public lecture the evening before, raising themes and issues that would be picked up again at a more focussed “hands-on” level in the workshop.


33

Year 1 (1997–1998) Date

Invited expert(s)

Focus

30/1/98

Leni Dam (Danmarks Lærerhøjskole, Copenhagen)

Public lecture on “Developing learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom: basic principles and useful tools for teachers and learners”

31/1/98

Leni Dam, with Lienhard Legenhausen (University of Münster)

Workshop on learner autonomy, drawing on Leni Dam’s classroom practice and Lienhard Legenhausen’s empirical exploration of that practice

27/3/98

Ramon Ribé (University of Barcelona)

Public lecture on “Project work: introducing frameworks in the foreign language classroom”

28/3/98

Workshop on project work

Year 2 (1998–1999) Date

Invited expert(s)

Focus

27/11/98

Hanne Thomsen (Karslunde Skole, Copenhagen)

Public lecture on “Learners’ favoured activities in the autonomous classroom”

28/11/98 7/5/99

Workshop on learners’ favoured activities, and problems/issues raised by the teachers Irma Huttunen (University of Oulu, Finland)

8/5/99

Public lecture on “Reflective language teaching” Workshop on reflective language teaching

Year 3 (1999–2000) Date

Invited expert(s)

Focus

12/11/99

Viljo Kohonen (University of Tampere, Finland)

Public lecture on “Foreign language education, teacher development, school development”

13/11/99

15/4/00

Workshop on teacher diaries, portfolio-based teaching and learning, and the cultural challenge of new teaching approaches Irma Huttunen (University of Oulu, Finland)

Workshop on teacher planning and evaluation

Year 4 (2000–2001) Date

Invited expert(s)

Focus

17/11/00

Turid Trebbi (University of Bergen, Norway)

Public lecture on “Making second language learning accessible to all pupils: educational goals and language curricula in Norway”

18/11/00

Workshop on developing language awareness through creative writing activities

26/1/01

Lienhard Legenhausen (University of Münster)

Public lecture on “Issues in foreign language pedagogy and the evidence from an autonomy-focused classroom”

27/1/01

Leni Dam (Danmarks Lærerhøjskole, Copenhagen)

Workshop on teachers’ problems, target language use, group work activities

7/4/01

Irma Huttunen (University of Oulu, Finland)

Workshop on teacher planning, evaluation, and working with the Junior Certificate curriculum and the European Language Portfolio

Table 2.3: Programme of workshops and public lectures (Years 1–4)

Chapter 6 draws together the key issues raised by the project and addressed by visiting experts in their public lectures and workshops. In this section, we simply provide a summary of the programme of public lectures and workshops during the four years of the project (see Table 2.3). Two of the invited experts (Leni Dam and Lienhard Legenhausen) contributed twice to the project (in Years 1 and 4), while a third (Irma Huttunen) contributed three times (in Years 2, 3 and 4), conducting workshops, visiting selected classrooms at the invitation

34


of our teachers, and providing them with individual feedback on reflective essays they had written (see 2.5.2 below).

2.4 Pedagogical experimentation 2.4.1

Principal areas of pedagogical experimentation

While the programme of seminars and workshops provided the project with input, structure and a reflective focus, its successful implementation depended on teachers’ individual efforts to engage with the issues raised in relation to their own classroom practice. As we indicated when outlining the project’s research objectives (see 2.1.3 above), the pursuit of autonomy as an explicit pedagogical goal has significant implications for various aspects of classroom practice, including planning, classroom management and organization, the design and mediation of learning tasks and resources, evaluative procedures, and the accommodation of underachieving, poorly motivated or non-reflective learners. At bottom, what seems crucial is each individual teacher’s personal understanding of autonomy and its implications, since this will ultimately shape the practices they engage in. Our interest as researchers, therefore, was focussed on what happened in classrooms as it related to teachers’ developing understanding of autonomy, and how learners responded to their teachers’ pedagogical approaches. We do not wish to pre-empt the detailed discussion of pedagogical experimentation and empirical findings that will follow in later chapters. We therefore simply list here the areas of classroom experimentation given particular emphasis in the seminars and workshops, and actively pursued by teachers through the successive phases of the project: • use of the target language as the main medium of teaching and learning; • group work; • learner diaries or logbooks; • giving learners choice; • working with authentic texts as a quarry to explore vocabulary and grammar; • allowing learners to develop their own activities and exercises; • learner reflection and self-evaluation; • goal-setting; • talking with learners about learning.


2.4.2

35

European Language Portfolio

In the final year of the project, particular attention was devoted to developing and experimenting with a version of the European Language Portfolio (ELP) as a pedagogical tool to stimulate learner involvement and reflection and to promote plurilingualism and intercultural learning. The European Language Portfolio is the product of a Council of Europe initiative designed to promote reflective learning and provide an internationally transparent record of individual language learning achievement. During 1998–2000 versions of the ELP were piloted in various educational sectors in 15 Council of Europe member states, including Ireland (for a detailed report see Schärer 2000). The ELP comprises three components: a language passport that records the owner’s language qualifications and self-assessment in relation to the Council of Europe’s common reference levels of language proficiency (Council of Europe 2001); a language biography that provides a discursive account of the owner’s language experience and functions as a process tool to promote reflective learning; and a dossier that contains examples of the owner’s work. The ELP fulfils a documentary and reporting function but also an important pedagogical function, since its compilation is calculated to encourage reflective learning. What is more, the pilot projects showed that the ELP can also serve as a planning tool for teachers and a focus for teacher development. All of this was very much in line with the aims of our Learner Autonomy Project, and we were persuaded that experimenting with a version of the ELP within the project might serve a number of useful purposes: • the ELP would encourage learners to think and talk about their learning and thus give focus to the main pedagogical objectives of the project (promoting learner reflection and responsibility); • it would provide a concrete process tool for teachers and learners in planning the course of learning, particularly if designed to interact closely with the curriculum; • it offered a means of disseminating the outcomes of the Learner Autonomy Project. It was with these purposes in mind that we decided to experiment with a preliminary version of the ELP in project classes in Year 4. As the year progressed, we gradually developed a more substantive version, drawing on feedback from our teachers as well as insights gained from examining existing ELP models from other countries. We return to the issue of the ELP and its particular design features in Chapter 6.

36


2.5 Empirical exploration 2.5.1

Scope of empirical exploration

As indicated earlier (2.1.3 above), a primary research objective of the project was to conduct a sustained and systematic exploration of junior cycle classrooms in which the pursuit of autonomy is an explicit pedagogical goal, or perhaps more accurately speaking, in which the pursuit of autonomy becomes an explicit pedagogical goal. Specifically, the empirical focus was on exploring the process of “turning classrooms (teachers, learners) round” from a traditionally teachercontrolled environment to an environment that facilitates the development of autonomy. In order to explore this process of change, it seemed important that the empirical data we collected should take into account (i) teachers’ and learners’ general attitudes to teaching or learning foreign languages when they joined the project; (ii) how the physical environment might constrain changes in classroom organization; and (iii) what changes could be observed in the reported classroom experiences of teachers and learners during their involvement in the project. As noted earlier (2.2.1 above), the difficulty of securing long-term commitment from teachers constrained the scope and range of empirical exploration that was feasible. Thus, while it was possible to collect data in relation to (i) and (ii) above for all participating teachers, learners and classrooms, the process of tracking change over time (iii) was largely restricted to teachers and learner groups who joined the project in the first or second phases of recruitment and remained with us for at least two years.

2.5.2

Data collection

Data collection was undertaken by members of the research team, with the agreement of participating teachers and the prior approval of school principals, on the understanding that individual and institutional identities would remain confidential. We used a variety of structured, semi-structured and open-ended methods of eliciting self-report data from teachers and learners, and also made observational fieldnotes during visits to project classrooms and the various seminars and workshops that involved teachers and researchers. In addition we made an experimental video recording of one classroom, principally to see whether we could use this medium to collect discourse data from learners engaged in collaborative tasks. However,


37

we came to the conclusion that its scope was limited unless we were in a position to orchestrate a lesson so that we could focus on a particular group working on a task with minimum background interference from other groups, or ideally to make the video recording in a studio setting. In Years 1 to 3 of the project, the majority of the seminars and workshops were audio-taped (with the agreement of participating teachers and visiting experts) as a means of keeping a record of events and tracking general developments. There was never any question of having the recordings transcribed, but in their “raw” state they provide a useful supplement to our written summaries and fieldnotes from the seminars and workshops, and we draw on them in our account of teachers’ experiences in Chapter 4. In addition, one member of the research team (Danièle Tort) kept a detailed written account of each seminar and workshop, focussing in particular on the developing dynamic of the teacher group. This reflective account was especially useful in the earlier phases of the project when we were working to establish a collaborative dynamic and address issues of commitment and participation. In the chapters that follow, our empirical account of classrooms, teachers and learners draws on seven data sources. All comprise selfreport data of one kind or another from teachers or learners, or researchers’ observational fieldnotes. Questions have been raised, of course, about the validity of introspective or retrospective self-report data of this kind. One particular concern is whether the subject’s verbalizations can be taken as an accurate reflection of the cognitive or affective processes under scrutiny (for discussion, see in particular Faerch and Kasper 1987). However, there seems little doubt that for the exploration of teachers’ and learners’ changing perceptions of their classroom experiences, there is simply no substitute for asking them to describe these experiences from their own point of view. Recent developments in second language classroom research have highlighted the importance of integrating the “emic” perspective (i.e., the analysis of events and experiences according to the participants’ own interpretative framework) with the more traditional “etic” perspective (i.e., the analysis of these same processes from the researcher’s external perspective) – see, for example, Bailey and Nunan (1996). Where qualitative research methods are used, as in this project, the key to maximizing the validity and reliability of the data is triangulation through working with multiple data sources (Bailey and Nunan 1996, p.3). It

38


was with this general recommendation in mind that we chose to incorporate the following seven data sources in our empirical study. (1) Attitudinal-motivational questionnaire data from all participating learners. A profiling questionnaire (see Appendix 1) was administered to each new project class. Its purpose was to discover general patterns in the attitudes, motivations and perceptions brought by these learners to the study of foreign languages, specific classroom activities and teaching-learning processes. The questionnaire comprised four sections of closed-response multiple choice or Likert-type items, and it was administered to 25 different project classes (512 learners) over the three-year empirical phase of the project. Chapter 3 provides a more detailed description of the instrument and discusses the findings obtained. (2) Researchers’ fieldnotes. These comprise (i) notes based on classroom observation, with particular reference to the physical environment, teacher-class interaction, lesson content, working methods, and target language use; and (ii) researchers’ fieldnotes from the various seminars and workshops. (3) Open-ended questionnaire data from learner sub-samples. An open-ended questionnaire was devised to elicit learners’ reflections on general and specific aspects of their learning experience about 18 months into their participation in the project: for example, their perceptions of changes in classroom processes; their personal understanding of what “learning” or “being responsible” means; their attitudes to target language use; their experiences of thinking about their learning and about the target language. Appendix 2 contains a copy of the questionnaire sheet given to learners comprising a series of 12 headings, plus the text of the 12 open-ended questions. Learners did not see these questions written down but were talked through each question by a member of the research team in the following manner. The researcher read out one question at a time, ensured that everyone understood what it meant, and then gave learners two or three minutes to write down their reflections for that question in English. Learners were assured that there were no right or wrong answers to any of the questions, and were invited to leave a blank or write “I don’t know” for any question they could not answer. They were also assured that their responses would not be shown to their teacher. The text of the 12 questions was fully scripted in advance, including the examples used to illustrate particular questions, in order to ensure that the elicitation procedures were


39

uniform across different learner groups. All the elicitation sessions were conducted by the same researcher during a normal language lesson. The open-ended questionnaire was administered to seven classes during the second year of their participation in the project – four project classes in March–April 2000 and three project classes in March–May 2001, totalling 114 learners. These data are discussed in Chapter 5. (4) Semi-structured interviews with eight learners. In Year 4 of the project, semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight learners from one project class. Their teacher, Orla, had been involved in the project from the beginning, and had retained the same junior cycle German class through the three-year empirical phase of the project (1998–2001). When the interviews took place in December 2000, the learners were in their final year of the junior cycle and facing the Junior Certificate in six months’ time. The eight learners were selected for interview partly on the basis of their open-ended questionnaire responses the previous year, and partly on the basis of consultation with Orla. We wanted the sample to be fairly representative of the range of ability and motivation levels within this bottom stream learner group. The interviews were conducted at the school during the course of one morning by two members of the research team who each interviewed four learners. Each learner interview lasted about 15–20 minutes, and was semi-structured on the basis of the following questions: Do you like learning German? What do you like about it? What don’t you like about? Is learning German personally important to you, or are you doing it only because you have to? Do you think you’re getting better at German? How can you tell? How do you think you’re doing in German compared to other lessons? Is doing well up to you or the teacher? Do you think you are able to give an accurate description of yourself as a language learner? For example, what are you good at and not so good at? Do you find German hard (e.g., compared to other school subjects)? What do you find hardest – speaking, listening, reading, writing? What do you think you can do to get better? Last year we asked you to explain what “learning” means, and you said [the learner’s own response to this item in the open-ended questionnaire was quoted here]. What do you think now? Have you anything to add?

40

Towards greater learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom Compared to other teachers, is there anything noticeably different about the way Ms X teaches you or what she tries to get you to do? Does Ms X sometimes let you choose what you want to do in German class? Why do you think she gives you choice like this? Why do you think Ms X speaks in German most of the time in class? Do you sometimes try to speak in German? What kinds of things do you say? Why do you think Ms X gets you to keep all your written work in a copybook? Imagine you’re the German teacher. Is there anything different you would do to teach the class?

The interviews were audio-recorded and subsequently transcribed by the researcher who had conducted them. Chapter 5 discusses some of the findings that emerged from the learner interview data. (5) Semi-structured interviews with eight teachers. Eight teachers who participated in the project for two or more years agreed to be interviewed during the second year of their involvement. The purpose of the interview was to prompt focussed critical reflection on processes of change and development in their own thinking and classroom practice since they joined the project the previous year. Four interviews were conducted in November–January 1999–2000 with teachers from the first cohort (Orla, Anna, Edel and Sarah), and four more interviews in January 2001 with teachers from the second cohort (Miriam, Cormac, Richard and Iris). The interviews were conducted by two members of the research team who each interviewed two teachers on both occasions. Each interview lasted about 40 minutes and was semi-structured on the basis of the following questions: Thinking back to where you were when you began the project, • did you have autonomy as a goal, implicitly or explicitly? • what problems did you have in understanding what autonomy was about? (and what is it about?) • can you describe changes in your attitudes and classroom practice since then? How would you describe to another person (now) what you understand by the following? • Learning in general • Language learning in particular • The role of the language teacher How do you see the importance of the group as a whole (for the teacher and for the learners; in relation to learning atmosphere and issues such as crowd control and discipline)?


41

How do you cope with low-achieving or low ability learners, and how do you personally define underachievement? What is your attitude to target language use in the class, and what do you do to encourage your learners to use the target language? What are the motivation problems, if any, in your class and how do you overcome them? How would you complete the following sentence? “Autonomy involves helping learners to …”

Compared with the learner interviews, the interviews with teachers were generally more loosely structured, since teachers on the whole were much more forthcoming in their responses, and their developing train of thought was often allowed to dictate the order in which questions were posed or the emphasis given to particular issues. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed by the researchers who had conducted them. Together with data source (7), the interviews with teachers provide the principal material for discussion in Chapter 4. (6) End-of-year reflections from 5 teachers in May 1999. At the end of Year 2 of the project, teachers were asked to evaluate briefly their classroom experiences and outline their plans for the following school year. Five teachers (Orla, Anna, Edel, Sarah, Eoin) submitted written end-of-year reflections. (7) Reflective essays from 15 teachers. In Years 3 and 4 of the project, teachers were asked to write a “developmental essay” focussing on their experience of “turning their classrooms round” and what they had gained from their participation in the project. The essays had three related purposes: (i) to stimulate critical reflection in teachers through the process of writing down their thoughts on their experience; (ii) to provide the research team with empirical documentation of teachers’ classroom experiences and changes in thinking from their own perspectives; and (iii) to provide one of the visiting experts, Irma Huttunen, with insights into the thoughts and experiences of participating teachers that she could use in preparing her workshops and giving feedback to individual teachers. Teachers submitted their reflective essays the week before Irma Huttunen’s arrival in Dublin in April 2000 and again in April 2001 to give her time to read the essays and prepare her workshops and personal feedback. During her stays in Dublin, she also made a number of visits to project classes to observe language

42


lessons and talk to teachers and learners. Eight teachers submitted reflective essays in April 2000, and seven teachers in April 2001. Of the eight who submitted essays in April 2000, four were from the first cohort (Orla, Anna, Edel and Sarah) and four were from the second cohort (Miriam, Cormac, Richard and Jean). Of the seven who submitted essays in April 2001, three were from the first cohort and had also written reflective essays the previous year (Orla, Anna and Edel); two were from the second cohort and had similarly submitted essays before (Cormac and Richard); and two were from the final cohort (Patricia and Tom). Overall then, the essays provide a basis for comparing the insights and reflections of teachers with different levels of project-related experience, as well as tracking developments in thinking among teachers from the earlier recruitment phases. For each reflective essay, teachers were asked to follow a particular structure based on a series of headings or open-ended questions. Structure of Year 3 reflective essay: • Changes noticed in your understanding of what learning a foreign language entails (for the teacher and also the learners) since you joined the project. • Using the textbook and other resources while working within the syllabus. • Resources/aids you have found particularly useful or have invented. • Use of the target language in the classroom (by the teacher and the learners). • The effectiveness of pair/group work. • The development of the four skills, especially writing. • Homework and learners’ choice. • Ways of helping learners evaluate the language learning process and also themselves as language learners. • Special issues relating to the particular school which you think important. • Teacher reflection: formal planning, written notes, self-evaluation. Structure of Year 4 reflective essay: • What do you think you have gained from the project? What has been particularly helpful or less helpful? • Please describe what you have learned from the visiting experts you have met or heard during your time on the project and from their own focus on different aspects of autonomy. • Can you identify any aspects of their input which do not seem pertinent to the Irish situation? • (If it concerns you:) What have you been doing with the European Language Portfolio, why, and with what results? • Please describe your own reactions/feelings and those of your class to our classroom visits, including data collection. • Please give a list (with short description and stated goal) of any classroom (or


43

homework) activities which you or your learners have devised during the project. • Please describe what you do to get your learners to speak the target language. • To what extent have your own beliefs about teaching and learning changed since you joined the project (and if you can, please say how)? • Please add any further comments about the project or about your own professional development.

2.6 Conclusion: looking ahead to some key issues This chapter has summarized the aims of the project and explained how the project developed year by year. It has described the processes of teacher recruitment and the programme of seminars and workshops. It has also outlined the principal focuses of pedagogical experimentation, and explained the scope of empirical exploration undertaken and the procedures used to collect data. In the next three chapters we turn our attention to particular issues and findings in relation to classrooms, teachers and learners. Chapter 3 gives a detailed overview of project classes and a descriptive account of the total participating learner population, drawing on attitudinal-motivational data from the profiling questionnaire; Chapter 4 focuses on processes of change and development among teachers, based on their accounts of their experiences and our own observations; and Chapter 5 focuses on learners’ responses to their teachers’ classroom approaches. At this point in the account, we believe it is helpful to highlight in advance some key issues that later chapters will address. These were of particular concern to us since they seemed to encapsulate the principal problems in implementing a pedagogy that aims to foster the development of learner autonomy in Irish foreign language classrooms; and by implication they also represented the main challenges facing our project: • promoting learner responsibility and reflection; • encouraging learners to use the target language; • developing teachers’ long-term planning skills; • integrating the pursuit of autonomy with the demands of the curriculum. As subsequent discussion will show, these issues gave focus to much of our interaction with teachers during the project. Moreover, they helped to shape our own perspectives on what forms the tangible outcomes of the project should take and how they might be disseminated.

44


Reference has already been made to the European Language Portfolio (2.4.2 above). In Chapter 6, we explain how we came to see the ELP as a pedagogical tool with which to address the key issues just highlighted, and how we developed a version specifically tailored to meet the needs of teachers and learners working within the context of the secondary curriculum in Ireland.

3

The project classrooms: learners, attitudes and beliefs

3.0 Introduction This chapter describes the population of learners who took part in the project in terms of characteristics such as school type, classroom environment, age, gender, language of study, length of learning and duration of involvement in the project. Drawing on questionnaire data elicited during the early stages of each classroom’s involvement in the project, the chapter characterizes general patterns in the attitudes, motivations and perceptions brought by these learners to the study of foreign languages in general and to specific classroom activities and teaching-learning processes in particular.

3.1 The learner population 3.1.1

The project classes

Teachers committed to joining the project were asked to choose one particular junior cycle learner group or project class to be the focus of their pedagogical experimentation. They were free, of course, to try out new ideas and approaches with other learner groups also, but for the purposes of tracking the development of autonomy over time we felt it was preferable to maintain focus on a single group of learners who would grow to have a particular history and identity in the project. In practice, however, within the empirical lifespan of the project (autumn 1998 to summer 2001), only one project class was monitored for the full three-year period of the junior cycle. Other learner groups were involved for one or two years only, depending on when particular teachers were recruited, how long they remained, and at what stage of the junior cycle the classes in question began their participation in the project. Three teachers (Iris, Anna and Edel) “lost” their original project classes either because the learners were dispersed into new groups after completing the junior cycle or because they were assigned to a different teacher. These teachers consequently adopted new project classes to focus on. Two teachers (Iris and Ailbhe) were anxious to treat two of their learner groups from the same year as project classes for fear of arousing feelings of jealousy if only one group were involved. Table 3.1 gives an overview of the project classes participating 45

German (20)

French (17)

2 nd yr

1 st yr

German (16)

2 nd yr

German (12)

French (24)

1 st yr

French (26)

German (28)

2 nd yr

2 nd yr

French (25)

2 nd yr

transition yr

German (15) French (29)

1 st yr 2 nd yr

project class (no. of learners)

K

L

B

M

N

Richard

Iris

Jean

Sinead

Aoife

German (15) French (22) French (11) German (27) German (26) German (31) Spanish (23) German (23) French (25)

1 st yr 1 st yr 2 nd yr 1 st yr 1 st yr 1 st yr 1 st yr 1 st yr 1 st yr


1998~1999

1998~1999

1998~1999

1998~1999

1998~2000

2000~2001

1998~2000

2000~2001

1998~2000

1998~2001

1 year

1 year

1 year

1 year

1 year

1 year

2 years

2 years

2 years

1999~2000

1999~2000

1999~2000

2000~2001

1999~2000

1999~2000

1999~2001

1999~2001

1999~2001

length of participation

1 year

1 year

1 year

1 year

2 years

1 year

2 years

1 year

2 years

3 years


Aoife withdrew in sum mer 2000

Sinead withdrew in summer 2000

Jean withdrew in sum mer 2000

Iris began with two project classes in 1999, lost both and started with a new class in 2000

rem arks

Audrey withdrew in spring 1999

Siobhan withdrew in summer 1999

Evelyn withdrew in autumn 1999

Eoin withdrew in autum n 1999

Sarah withdrew in autumn 2000

Anna’s first project class completed the junior cycle in 2000 so she chose a new class to work with Edel’s first project class completed the junior cycle in 2000 so she chose a new class to work with

rem arks

Table 3.1: Overview of project classes, classified by year of teacher recruitment

I

J

Cormac

school

Miriam

teacher

Teachers recruited in 1999

H

Audrey

E

Eoin

F

D

Sarah

G

C

Edel

Siobhan

B

Anna

Evelyn

A

school

Orla

teacher


46 Towards greater learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom

P

Q

R

S

Patricia

Catherin e

Tom

Sheila

1 year

1 year 2000~2001

2000~2001

Total num ber of project classes

12 11 1 1

French classes German classes Spanish class Italian class

25 project classes

20 teachers

1 st yr

2000~2001

2000~2001

512 learners

German (12) French (16)

2 nd yr

1 year

1 year

rem arks Ailbhe chose to work with two project classes

Total num ber of learners

French (16)

1 st yr

2000~2001

2000~2001

19 schools

Italian (8)

1 st yr

1 year

1 year

Total num ber of participating teachers

French (22)


Total num ber of participating schools

French (23)

2 nd yr 2 nd yr


Table 3.1 (cont.): Overview of project classes, classified by year of teacher recruitment

O

school

Ailbhe

teacher


The project classrooms: learners, attitudes and beliefs 47

48


for one, two or three years between the autumn of 1998 and the summer of 2001. As the table shows, 25 project classes were involved altogether – 12 French classes, 11 German classes, one Spanish class and one Italian class. Of these, one class participated for three years, six classes participated for two years, and the remaining classes participated for one year only. When entering the project, the majority of learners (14 classes) were in their first year of the junior cycle, ten classes were in their second year, and one class was a transition year (4th year) group who had just completed the Junior Certificate (the teacher in question, Evelyn, did not have a junior cycle class at the time of her participation in the project). As Table 3.1 indicates, class size varied considerably, ranging from 8 to 31 learners. It should be noted that actual class sizes fluctuated during the course of the project as small numbers of pupils inevitably changed classes, language options or schools. For the purposes of this chapter, the class sizes indicated in Table 3.1 refer to the number of learners who were present on the day when the profiling questionnaire (see 3.2 below) was administered by a member of the research team to each newly participating project class. The total number of learners who completed this questionnaire over the three years was 512. Table 3.2 presents a further breakdown of the learner population in terms of school type, gender and language of study. As the table shows, the population comprised a slightly higher percentage of boys

School type all boys’ schools all girls’ schools co-educational schools Irish-medium schools

6 (schools A, B, H, I, K, R) 3 (schools L, M, P) 10 (schools C, D, E, F, G, J, N, O, Q, S) 2 (schools H, O)

Learner population total number of learners

512 learners

number of boys

287 boys (56%)

number of girls

225 girls (44%)

number of learners of French

256 learners (50%)

number of learners of German

225 learners (44%)

number of learners of Spanish

23 learners (4.5%)

number of learners of Italian

8 learners (1.5%)

Table 3.2: Learner population: school type, gender, language of study


49

(56%) than girls (44%), a reflection of the fact that six of the participating teachers taught at all boys’ schools and only three taught at all girls’ schools. In terms of language of study (French, German, Spanish, Italian) the percentage breakdown merely reflects the number of teachers of different languages participating in the project. The figures are not, of course, representative of percentage levels of pupils studying these curriculum languages in the junior cycle population at large. With reference to general ability range, it is not possible to extract from the data gathered a descriptive breakdown of ability levels across the project classes. Participating schools varied, of course, in their approach to grouping pupils as mixed ability classes or lower and upper stream classes. Moreover, interacting with these differences in ability groupings were differences in the timetabling provision of language subjects: learners in some schools were offered a choice of languages (e.g., either French or German), others were given no choice, others studied two languages simultaneously, while the learners of Italian in the project studied this language as an extra option outside normal timetabled hours. For the purposes of the project, participating teachers were generally encouraged to focus their attention on lower stream, low-achieving or mixed ability learner groups since these represented a greater challenge to their efforts to promote responsibility, reflective thinking and motivated engagement in learning. Accordingly, with the exception of Anna’s first project class and one of Iris’s 1999 project classes, both of which were upper stream groups, classes taking part in the project were of mixed or low ability. Orla’s class (monitored for three years) was well known in the school for its low ability levels and the problems that it presented in terms of self-esteem and discipline.

3.1.2

Classroom environments

A particular feature of the Danish classrooms that provided us with practical inspiration for the Learner Autonomy Project is the rich use made of the physical environment to support learning (see, for example, Dam 1995, 2000, Thomsen 2000). Posters of various kinds adorn the walls, drawing attention to negotiated rules, ideas or goals, recording reflections and evaluations, or providing words and phrases to support learners’ attempts to speak and write English. The classroom space is organized flexibly to enable learners to work in pairs or groups as well as participate in whole-class activities. There is

50


also a special area in which to keep materials and resources, including those produced by learners. Without doubt, the more flexible the physical environment, the easier it is to organize classroom learning in ways that foster the development of learner autonomy. In the Learner Autonomy Project, however, classrooms varied considerably in the degree of flexibility and potential they offered teacher and learners. Not all teachers had the luxury of a dedicated classroom for language lessons. Some classrooms were furnished with rows of heavy desks which were difficult to re-arrange for group work activities, particularly given the time constraints of a lesson period (35 or 40 minutes) often truncated by the late arrival of pupils moving between classes from one room or one building to another. Teachers lucky enough to have a dedicated classroom for language lessons fared better. Yet even here there was variation in the flexibility of the work space and furnishings and the range of facilities and resources. Only two classrooms, for example, had a computer, while one dedicated room afforded little flexibility for group work since it was actually a converted language laboratory and the fixed furniture units were still intact. Table 3.3 gives an overview of the types of classroom used by the project teachers. Teacher’s own classroom (sometimes shared with another language teacher) Orla (1998~2000) Edel (1999~2001) Sarah Evelyn Siobhan Miriam Cormac Richard Patricia Catherine Sheila

Learners’ own regular classroom (shared with other subject teachers) Anna Audrey Iris Jean

No fixed classroom (teacher and learners move from room to room for different lessons) Orla (2000~2001) Edel (1998~1999) Eoin Sinead Aoife Ailbhe Tom

Table 3.3: Types of classroom for language lessons

3.2 The profiling questionnaire As already noted, a profiling questionnaire was administered to learners in newly participating project classes. The main purpose of


51

the questionnaire was to inform teachers and researchers of the general levels of interest, effort, attitudes and motivation among learners in each project class. Descriptive rather than predictive in its scope, the questionnaire was not designed to provide valid and reliable measures of particular variables. Rather, it offered a means of characterizing general patterns in the attitudes, motivations and perceptions brought by learners to the study of foreign languages, specific classroom activities and teaching-learning processes, and of making crosscomparisons between learners in different categories. An additional purpose in administering the questionnaire was to make the Learner Autonomy Project seem real and tangible to the learners by giving them the sense that their own views about language learning were of central interest to the research team. The questionnaire was administered by a member of the research team during a normal language lesson within the first few months of each group’s engagement in the project. The session offered an opportunity for the researcher to describe and contextualize the project for the learners, and to assure them that their responses would be treated in confidence and that their teacher would not have sight of their completed questionnaires. Subsequent feedback from teachers indicated that learners relished the sense of importance that their involvement in a project with Trinity College gave them. The questionnaire (see Appendix 1) was in English and comprised four sections of closed-response multiple choice or Likert-type items probing learners’ perceptions in relation to: (A) activities they liked or disliked in language class; (B) beliefs about language learning; (C) the amount of effort they put into language learning; and (D) reasons motivating them to learn (or not learn) the L2. Section D also included an open-ended question inviting learners to write about additional motives they might have for wanting to learn the L2. Learners’ questionnaire responses were entered into a database. For each project class, profiles of the response patterns in each questionnaire section were generated in the form of bar-charts, together with similar profiles of the response patterns among the cumulative learner population year by year. These parallel sets of profiles enabled teachers to examine the response patterns of their learners to see how they related (i) to their own perceptions of the group and of classroom processes and activities, and (ii) to the general response patterns of the learner population as a whole. In this way the profiles provided useful feedback from research to pedagogy. For the purposes of this

52


empirical report, however, individual analysis of each project class is inappropriate, partly for reasons of economy (given that there were 25 project classes) and partly for reasons of confidentiality. The analysis that follows treats the learner population as a whole, tracing some general response trends and offering some specific observations about learners in particular categories.

3.3 The questionnaire data 3.3.1

General motivation and attitudes to language learning

The general picture to emerge from the questionnaire data was unmistakably positive and encouraging in terms of the motivation and attitudes brought by learners to the language learning situation, especially at the beginning of post-primary schooling. Section D of the questionnaire listed nine possible reasons for wanting to learn the target language, plus a statement expressing a wish not to learn the language. Learners were asked to tick items that were true for them. The response percentages of the population as a whole are summarized in Figure 3.1. As can be seen, the data suggest generally positive motivation across the population: 94.3% agree that it is great to be able to speak another language (item 1); 82.2% say they want to learn the L2 so that they can understand people when they go on holiday abroad (item 2); 74.4% say they like learning the language (item 3) and 63.7% think it is fun to speak in the L2 (item 6); 67.2% think that learning the L2 will be useful for making friends with people from other countries (item 10). Only 15% (77 learners out of 512) say they wish they did not have to learn the L2 (item 8). However, of the 77 learners who ticked this item, 69 also ticked positive reasons for wanting to learn the L2, suggesting that they did not always lack motivation or that their lack of motivation was relative to particular tasks or situations. In short, only 8 learners (1.6% of the total population) ticked no positive reasons and indicated a clear lack of interest in learning the L2. The questionnaire items in this section emphasize speaking and communicative goals and it is clear that learners overwhelmingly endorse these goals and recognize the communicative value of learning a foreign language for the purposes of travel or making new friends. This perception is similarly reflected in their responses to the openended question at the end of this section (inviting learners to write down additional motives or reasons they had for learning the L2).

% who ticked this reason


100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

53

94.3 82.2 74.4 67.2

63.7 57.8

55.3

21.1

1

2

3

4

19.1

5

6

7

15

8

9

10

reasons 1

I think it’s great to be able to speak another language

6

I think it’s fun to speak in the L2

2

I want to learn the L2 so that I can understand people when I go on holiday abroad

7

I want to learn the L2 so that I can use it as a secret code with friends

3

I like learning the L2

8

I wish I didn’t have to learn the L2

4

I’d love to have a good L2 accent

9

My parents encourage me to learn the L2

5

I want to be able to speak the L2 so that I can show off in front of other people

10 I think that learning the L2 is useful because I want to make friends with people from other countries

Figure 3.1: Reasons for learning L2 (total learner population)

Surprisingly, perhaps, only 10 learners referred to the motive of academic success in the language (i.e., getting good grades or doing well in their Junior or Leaving Certificate). Most commonly, learners referred to the potential future usefulness of foreign language skills for the purposes of travel, study or work, or for communicating with native-speaker friends and relations. Reasons of this kind were given by 181 learners (56.4% of the 321 learners who wrote a response to this open-ended question). Here are some examples of what they wrote: I think learning German is extremely useful because if you were in Germany you’d want to be able to communicate with people and understand what they’re saying instead of being lost for words. I have a German penpal. We write to each other in English but I would like in the future to write in German to her. German is used in a lot of European countries and when I grow older and have a job it will be useful to know the language! Because my mother sometimes takes in French students and I would like to be able to speak to them in French sometimes. Also it would be useful if I wanted a job that required me to speak French.

54

Towards greater learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom I learn Spanish because I one day might go to another country to work and I think I’d get a job easier if I know more languages than English.


Other open-ended response types related to perceptions that language learning was easy or that this particular language seemed easier than other languages, or to an intrinsic interest in aspects of language learning (e.g., “Other reasons to learn German is that it is very interesting to find out what other countries use for words like dog is Hund”). Many learners also simply reformulated reasons they had already ticked or indicated the ones that were especially important for them. In short, based on the response patterns in Section D, it would seem fair to say that the learner population expresses generally positive motivation for learning foreign languages and a keen interest in developing their speaking and communication skills, though often for future rather than present use. Predictably enough, perhaps, this pattern is represented somewhat more strongly among girls than boys in the population (see Figure 3.2), though it is interesting that perceived parental encouragement to learn a foreign language seems more marked among boys (item 9). 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

96.4 92.7 81.583.1

82.2

54

2

3

4

62

57.8

57.3

59.6 52.4

22 20

1

76.9

71.1

68.3

21.3 17.4

5

6

7

17.4

12

8

9

10

reasons boys 1

6


7



8



9


4


5



2

3


girls

Figure 3.2: Reasons for learning L2 (comparing boys and girls)


55


With respect to patterns of motivation for different languages, the data provide a basis for comparing learners of French and learners of German only, since learners of Spanish and Italian account for a mere 6% of the population investigated. Figure 3.3 summarizes the response percentages of learners of French and German. It should be noted that the data here do not yield any comparisons in relation to degree of motivation, but merely in relation to the percentage of learners who ticked particular reasons. Figure 3.3 suggests a few differences in the response patterns of learners of French and German. Proportionately more learners of German express a liking for learning the language (item 3), while proportionately more learners of French seem keen to develop a good accent (item 4). A higher percentage of learners of French report perceived parental encouragement for learning the language (item 9). A higher proportion of learners of French also indicate that they wish they did not have to learn the language (item 8). This last finding, coupled with the response pattern for item 3, most likely reflects the fact that in the junior cycle, French tends to be a 100

93.895.1 83.2 80.4

80

80 70.3

65.8 62.1

60.5

60

62.1 53.8

50.7

40

24.4 18.4

20

24 16.4

69.8 65.2

18.8 11.1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

reasons learners of French

1 I think it’s great to be able to speak another language 2


learners of German

6 I think it’s fun to speak in the L2 7 I want to learn the L2 so that I can use it as a secret code with friends 8 I wish I didn’t have to learn the L2

3 I like learning the L2

9 My parents encourage me to learn the L2

4 I’d love to have a good L2 accent


5 I want to be able to speak the L2 so that I can show off in front of other people

Figure 3.3: Reasons for learning L2 (comparing learners of French and German)

56


compulsory rather than elective subject, whereas German is more typically studied out of choice. In summary, the response patterns suggest some observable differences between boys and girls and some variation between learners of French and German, but paint a generally encouraging picture of positive motivation and attitudes. As Chapter 5 will reveal, however, what learners say is often not matched by what they do. For example, while learners’ reported motivation indicates a clear appreciation of the communicative value of developing foreign language skills and a liking for “speaking” the language, their willingness to engage in communicative language use in class usually falls significantly short of their expressed enthusiasm. This is confirmed by teacher reports, classroom observations and subsequent self-report data from learners. In essence, there seems to be a mismatch between liking the idea of being able to speak another language and actively engaging in the process of learning and using the language with commitment and effort. This mismatch between wanting and doing will come as little


100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

95.592.8 83.881.8

79.7 69.8

66.5 54.655

58.856

55.5

23.7

21.322

13.9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

69.8 63.6

20.1 11.7

8

9

10

reasons 1st years 1


2


3

2nd years

6


7


8



9


4


5



Figure 3.4: Reasons for learning L2 (comparing 1st and 2nd years)


57

surprise to teachers experienced in working with learners beginning a new language. Put simply, as learners grow to realize that language learning demands hard work and effort, their initial enthusiasm and their perception that speaking a new language is fun may wear off. This small but unmistakable motivational decline is clearly reflected in the comparative response patterns of learners in their first and second year of learning in our population (Figure 3.4). Note in particular the drop in the percentage of learners in second year who say that they like learning the language (item 3) or that they think it is fun to speak it (item 6), as well as the increase in the percentage who wish they did not have to learn it (item 8). (It is important to emphasize that “second year” here does not refer to learners in their second year of the Learner Autonomy Project; all the questionnaire data under discussion were obtained from newly participating project classes within the first few months of joining the project.)

3.3.2

Attitudes to language learning activities

This motivational decline from first to second year is similarly reflected in learners’ expressed attitudes to particular language learning activities (Section A of the questionnaire), though the decline is by no means uniform across all types of activities. As the analysis will show, interesting patterns of difference are to be observed in relation to length of learning experience, gender, and language of study. Section A of the questionnaire asked learners what activities they enjoyed and did not enjoy in their L2 class. 20 items were listed, for each of which learners were asked to indicate whether they did this activity or not, and if so, whether they liked doing it or not. The pattern of likes and dislikes for the total learner population is summarized in Figure 3.5. As Figure 3.5 shows, for most items the percentage of learners who say they like an activity is substantially greater than the percentage who say they dislike it. The majority of learners say they like working with the textbook (item 1), listening to tapes (item 2), listening to the teacher talk in the L2 (item 6), writing in the L2 (item 7), speaking the L2 (item 8), reading the L2 (item 9), looking things up in a dictionary (item 12), working with a partner in class (item 15), giving answers in class when the teacher asks a question (item 17), and working in a small group (item 18). For a number of other activities such as working with computers and videos, the range of experience among the learner population is more limited and the response rates are thus

58

Towards greater learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom % w ho like/dislike

items

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

66.6

25.4 53.9

30.9 26.8

2 6.3 1.6 2.9 0.4

64.6

29.9

62.3

32.2

74.4

20.1 56.4

34.6 28.7

61.9

17.4

38.1 52

23.6 35.2

58.2 45.1

5.1

64.8

6.4 28.5

8.2

69.5

21.7 52.7

8.6 26.8

63.9 37.9

like

45.1

dislike 11 learning things off by heart (even when the teacher doesn’t tell me)

1

working with the textbook

2

listening to tapes

3

watching a video

4

working at the computer

5

working in the language lab

6

listening to the teacher talk in the L2

7

writing in the L2

8

speaking the L2

17 giving answers in class when the teacher asks a question

9

reading the L2

18 working in a small group

10 learning things off by heart (when the teacher tells me)

12 looking things up in a dictionary 13 doing L2 homework 14 looking at videos or photos of L2 country 15 working with a partner in class 16 doing homework with a friend

19 having to be quiet in class 20 speaking or reading out loud in front of the class

Figure 3.5: Likes and dislikes (total learner population)

lower, though the pattern of responses is similarly largely positive. In short, the attitudes expressed here in relation to most language learning activities correspond well with the overall patterns of motivation from Section D. They suggest that learners are positively disposed to practising their language skills and taking an active part in classroom activities – note especially the high percentage who claim to like speaking the L2 (item 8 – 74.4%) and giving answers in class to the teacher


59

(item 17 – 69.5%). As indicated above, however, what learners say they like is not always matched by what they do, once the realization sets in that “doing” involves hard work and effort. More particularly, their claim that they like “speaking” the L2 needs careful interpretation, since subsequent self-report data (see 5.1.5, pp.107–10 below) suggest that many learners have a rather limited understanding of what “speaking” entails. As a long-term objective, it may mean communicating with other people (as reflected in the pattern of responses in Section D), but as a classroom activity speaking seems to mean producing brief rehearsed answers rather than engaging in personal communication – hence perhaps the similarly high response percentages for items 8 (speaking the L2) and 17 (giving answers to the teacher). The activities disliked by the majority of learners are perhaps fairly predictable: learning things off by heart (items 10 and 11), doing homework (item 13), and having to stay quiet in class (item 19). The only activity to produce a mixed response is item 20 (speaking or reading out loud in front of the class) – which again suggests that when learners claim that they like speaking the L2, this does not necessarily mean that they enjoy trying to engage in sustained L2 communication. With respect to item 13, approaches to changing learners’ attitudes to doing homework were put on the discussion agenda during the project meetings with teachers. In particular, Leni Dam and Hanne Thomsen suggested ways of encouraging learner initiative (and thus motivation) by building choice into homework activities on a principled basis. For example, one teacher (Aoife) described how she had negotiated a system of credits with her project class whereby learners who satisfactorily completed a series of homework assignments could choose to opt out of a subsequent homework assignment or to trade their credits for another “perk” of some kind. It seems that few learners in fact chose to miss out on doing homework in this system, preferring to store their credits for other purposes. In relation to gender differences, the pattern of likes and dislikes is again somewhat predictable, with more girls tending to like most activities than boys, though the differences are on the whole quite small (see Figure 3.6). Boys and girls, for example, are evenly matched in their positive attitudes to speaking the L2 (item 8) and giving answers to the teacher (item 17). If there is a trend to be observed in Figure 3.6, it seems that more girls tend to enjoy engaging in focussed language learning tasks and collaborative activities, whether working with the textbook (item 1), listening to the teacher talk in the L2 (item 6), writing in

60

Towards greater learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom % w ho like this activity

items

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

10

20

30

40

60

70 61.3

80 73.3

53.7 54.2 26.8 26.7 4.4

7.7

2.14 59.9

70.7

56.8

69.3 74.2 74.7

56.8 56 26.8

31.1

16 18.5 50.253.3 29.3

42.7 42.7 47 62

20.9

68.4

38.2 70 68.9 50.5 24.4

55.6

29.8 37.3 38.7

boys 1

50


girls 11 learning things off by heart (even when the teacher doesn’t tell me)

2

listening to tapes

3

watching a video

4


5


6


7

writing in the L2

8

speaking the L2


9

reading the L2



12 looking things up in a dictionary 13 doing L2 homework 14 looking at videos or photos of L2 country 15 working with a partner in class 16 doing homework with a friend

19 having to be quiet in class 20 speaking or reading out loud in front of the class

Figure 3.6: Likes and dislikes (comparing boys to girls)

the L2 (item 7), working with a partner in class (item 15) or in a small group (item 18), or doing homework with a friend (item 16). On the whole girls seem to be more biddable and co-operative than boys. However, in interpreting reported attitudes to language learning activities here, it is necessary to take account of inevitable differences in the nature and range of classroom experience among the learner population. Learners may say, for example, that they like working with the textbook, but in many cases this may reflect the fact that they have had little experience of other forms of activity and input and thus have


61

90 learners of French

76.4

80

learners of German

70.7 70

% who like

60

63.3 57.4

56.9

50 41.8 40 30 20 10 0 working wit h the t ext book

working wit h a part ner

working in a small group

Figure 3.7: Comparing preferences of learners of French and German

no basis for comparing textbook work with other modes of learning. Similarly, some learners may have had much less experience of collaborative activities than other learners. Such differences in range of experience may underlie some notable differences between learners of French and German in reported attitudes to working with the textbook, pair work and group work (summarized in Figure 3.7). As Figure 3.7 shows, substantially more learners of German favour working with the textbook and substantially fewer favour pair and group work. This pattern of responses may imply that highly structured pedagogical approaches shaped by the textbook are more likely to be a feature of German than of French classes. Recalling her initial reactions to joining the Learner Autonomy Project and listening to other teachers’ approaches, for example, one teacher of German (Iris) reports that she could not understand how one could stray from using the textbook: People didn’t seem to be using the textbook as such; or if they were, they were dipping in and out of it. I would’ve thought, well German – it’s a very very structured language. You know, you begin here and you do the accusative and the nominative and what have you. And I thought, how are they all going to teach that? (Interview 15 January 2001)

In comparison, teachers of French may have fewer qualms about diversifying the working methods they use in the classroom. Such differences in range of classroom experience may also underlie differences between first and second year learners in their reported attitudes to activities (see Figure 3.8). As Figure 3.8 reveals, the

62

Towards greater learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom % w ho like this activity

items

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

20

40

60

80 74.6

57.4 54.3 52.2 21.6 1.7 0

100

31.1

9.6 5.3

56.9

62.2 67 66.3 70.3

77.3

53.6 58.8 32.3

23.4 17.9 15.8

45

60.3

35.4 34.4 43

47.8 62.5 67.9

30.6

24.4

66

72.5

50.2 55.5 28.2 25.4 33.5

1st years

42.6

2nd years

1


2

listening to tapes

12 looking things up in a dictionary

3

watching a video

13 doing L2 homework

4


14 looking at videos or photos of L2 country

5


15 working with a partner in class

6


16 doing homework with a friend

7

writing in the L2


8

speaking the L2


9

reading the L2

19 having to be quiet in class


11 learning things off by heart (even when the teacher doesn’t tell me)

20 speaking or reading out loud in front of the class

Figure 3.8: Likes and dislikes (comparing 1st and 2nd years)

general trend is a decline in positive attitudes among learners in their second year. This corresponds with the overall motivational decline noted earlier. The drop in positive attitude is largest in relation to working with the textbook (item 1). However, the trend is reversed for a small number of activities, including watching videos (item 3), looking things up in a dictionary (item 12), working with a partner (item 15), and working in a small group (item 18). While we must be cautious in interpreting this pattern of responses, the data do suggest that diversifying classroom working methods and encouraging learn-


63

ers to take initiatives (e.g., by using a dictionary to discover word meanings for themselves, or by engaging in collaborative rather than teacher-led, whole-class work) may contribute to fostering and sustaining motivated involvement in learning.

3.3.3

Effort

response %

Given the predominantly positive patterns of motivation and attitudes to language learning across the learner population as a whole, it is perhaps unsurprising that learners also report generally high levels of effort. Section C of the questionnaire asked learners to consider whether they put a lot of work into learning the L2. It listed ten possible things they might do in an effort to improve or support their learning and invited them to indicate whether they usually, sometimes or never tried to do these things. Figure 3.9, which summarizes the response patterns of the whole population, shows that for most items learners report that they usually or sometimes do these things, suggesting generally good levels of effort and attentiveness in class. 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

81. 3

59. 6

57. 6

55. 7 48. 4

47. 9

47. 346. 3

46. 745. 5

42

39. 8

36. 1

36. 1

34

48. 8 36. 3 29. 7

27. 1 24

20. 9

16. 6 10. 7

7. 2

13. 7 7. 4

9. 8

6. 8

5. 5

1. 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

statem ent item s usually

sometimes

never

1. I make an effort to think about what I’ve learned in the L2 class

6. I put as much effort as possible into doing my L2 homework

2. If the teacher asks the class a question, I try to think of the right answer

7. When I get my L2 homework back, I look carefully at my mistakes and the teacher’s comments

3. If I don’t understand something we are learning in the L2 class, I ask for help 4. If I don’t know the L2 word for something, I try to find out what it is 5. I write down new L2 words in a notebook so that I can remember them

8. When the teacher asks us, I make an effort to talk in the L2 in class 9. I try to learn things off by heart that I know will be useful 10. I look for chances of using the L2 outside school

Figure 3.9: Reported effort (total learner population)

10

64


Note in particular the very high percentage (81.3%) who say they usually try to think of the right answer when the teacher asks a question (item 2); but note also the one item that elicited a preponderance of “never” responses: I look for chances of using the L2 outside school. Interestingly enough, there are no observable differences in the response patterns in relation to gender, language of study or year of study. 81% of second year learners, for example, similarly report that they usually try to think of the right answer when the teacher asks a question. As with motivation and attitudes, of course, what learners say may not necessarily be matched by what they do. The majority, for example, report that they usually or sometimes make an effort to talk in the L2 when asked by the teacher (item 8), yet our earlier discussion has already pointed to certain limitations in learners’ conception of and willingness to engage in “speaking” the L2. In interpreting the pattern of responses in Figure 3.9, it is perhaps most revealing to look at what learners say they do not do: 24% report that they never write down new words in a notebook (item 5); 20.9% report that they never look over their mistakes and the teacher’s comments when they get their homework back (item 7); and 59.6% say they never look for opportunities of using the L2 outside school (item 10). Significantly, these represent three key areas of focus in pedagogical approaches to developing autonomy, viz. using writing to support speaking and learning; engaging in critical reflection and self-evaluation; engaging in personally meaningful target language use (cf. the three principles elaborated in 1.3). While recognizing that it is impossible to prove a causal link between changes in learner attitudes and the pedagogical experiments undertaken by project teachers, it is worth noting that the majority of learners questioned some 18 months later about the role of “writing things down” had a very clear understanding of its purpose and value as an aid to learning (see 5.1.6, pp.115ff. below).

3.3.4

Learner beliefs

So far we have considered learners’ reasons for learning the L2, their attitudes to language learning activities and their selfreported levels of effort in L2 learning. Section B of the questionnaire sought to explore their beliefs and perceptions about aspects of the learning process. It presented ten statements about L2 learning or learning in general, and asked learners to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed on a five-point Likert scale. It should be emphasized that


65

60

response %

50 40 30 20 10 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

statem ent item s strongly agree

agree

not sure

1. Learning a foreign language is very difficult 2. It is helpful when the teacher speaks in the L2 in class as much as possible 3. It is better not to say anything at all in the L2, rather than make mistakes 4. The most important part of learning the L2 is concentrating hard on grammar 5. It is easier to read and write the L2 than to speak and understand it

disagree

strongly disagree

6. It is easier to learn the L2 than Irish 7. Learning the L2 is more difficult than learning other subjects at school 8. You have to be really clever to learn the L2 9. Intelligence is something you are born with and you cannot change it 10. You need to do some learning outside class if you are going to be good at the L2

Figure 3.10: Learner beliefs (total learner population)

the items were not designed to produce a scale or index reflecting a particular learner type or set of beliefs. It should also be noted that these statements cannot be interpreted as learners’ own motivational beliefs shaping their engagement in the learning process. In many cases it is likely that learners had never thought about the propositions contained in the statements until faced with this questionnaire. Figure 3.10 summarizes the patterns of agreement and disagreement in relation to the statements presented. The statements may be grouped into the following three categories: beliefs about the difficulty of L2 learning (items 1, 6, 7); beliefs about language learning processes and skills (items 2, 3, 4, 5, 10); beliefs about the role and nature of intelligence (items 8, 9). In relation to beliefs about the difficulty of L2 learning, the pattern of responses suggests that more learners believe it is difficult than easy (item 1), though more learners believe that learning the L2 is easier than learning other school subjects (item 7). The comparison with Irish produces an evenly mixed range of responses (item 6), though the

66


pattern is inevitably more marked in favour of Irish among learners from the two Irish-medium schools in the project. Some interesting differences do emerge in relation to gender, language of study and year of study. More girls than boys seem to find L2 learning relatively easy: only 25.3% of girls agree or strongly agree that L2 learning is more difficult than learning other school subjects, compared to 31.4% of boys. More learners of German seem to find learning the language easy than learners of French: 59.4% of learners of French agree or strongly agree that learning a foreign language is difficult, compared to just 41.4% of learners of German; 35.9% of learners of French agree or strongly agree that French is harder than other school subjects, while only 22.3% of learners of German hold the same views about German. While once again we must be cautious about interpreting these data, we might speculate that there is a link here with our earlier finding that fewer learners of French say they like learning the language (see 3.3.1, p.55 above). We suggested that a reason for this lower motivational interest might be the fact that French is typically a compulsory subject. To this we might now add the perceived difficulty of the language as a factor contributing to poorer motivation. As discussion of follow-up learner interview data will reveal (see 5.2 below), there seems to be a close connection in some learners’ minds between “liking” a language and perceiving it as easy to learn. Predictably enough, perhaps, the perception that language learning is hard seems to increase as learners move into second year: 55.5% of second year learners agree or strongly agree that learning a foreign language is difficult, compared to 47.8% of first year learners; 35.4% of second year learners agree or strongly agree that learning the L2 is harder than learning other school subjects, compared to 23.7% of first year learners. This relative pattern of responses lends support to our earlier argument that the general decline in learners’ enthusiasm and motivation may partly be accounted for by their growing realization that learning a language entails considerable effort and hard work (see 3.3.1, p.57 above). At the same time, learning may well seem easier in the very early stages, when learners know nothing of the target language. Further evidence of this growing realization on the part of second year learners may be found in their response pattern to item 10 (you need to do some learning outside class if you are going to be good at the L2). 76.1% of second year learners agree or strongly agree with this item, compared to 63.9% of first year learners. In relation to


67

beliefs about language learning processes and skills, nevertheless, this seems to be the only item where there is an observable difference in the relative response patterns of first and second year learners. Regardless of year of study, gender or target language, the majority of learners seem to agree that it is helpful when the teacher speaks in the L2 as much as possible (item 2), while only a tiny minority agree that it is better not to say anything at all in the L2 than make mistakes (item 3). The question of whether the most important part of L2 learning is concentrating on grammar (item 4) produces a mixed range of responses, while the percentage who agree that reading and writing the L2 are easier than speaking or understanding it is slightly higher than the percentage who disagree. Items 8 and 9 explored learners’ beliefs about the role and nature of ability or intelligence. While many agree that learning the L2 is difficult, very few seem to believe that it demands exceptionally high ability (item 8), which is worth setting against the fact that many schools classify languages as being among the more “academic” subjects. A slightly larger but still small percentage seem to hold an “entity” rather than “incremental” view of intelligence (Dweck and Leggett 1988). In other words, they view intelligence as a fixed given entity beyond their control, rather than as personal potential subject to change and growth through learning (item 9). That the majority should hold positive views about individual learning potential is encouraging. However, among the small number of learners who hold negative beliefs here, there is also a tendency for negative response patterns in respect of other items in this questionnaire section. A correlational analysis of relationships between response patterns for all the items suggests the following: • learners who believe that learning a foreign language is difficult may also tend to believe that one has to be really clever to learn the L2 (r = 0.3); • learners who believe that one has to be really clever to learn the L2 may also tend to believe that it is better not to say anything at all in the L2 rather than make mistakes (r = 0.41); • learners who believe that intelligence cannot be changed may also tend to believe that it is better not to say anything at all in the L2 rather than make mistakes (r = 0.27). While the correlations are weak to moderate, they are statistically significant (p < .01) and point to a cluster of negative beliefs among a small proportion of learners that may potentially inhibit motivated engagement in the learning process. These are learners who believe

68


that learning a foreign language is hard and that they lack the necessary ability, and who feel reluctant to make an effort for fear of looking stupid if they get things wrong. Again it is worth noting that many schools count foreign languages among the more “academic” subjects. As later discussion will reveal, the issue of encouraging weaker learners and supporting their sense of self-esteem became a significant concern among teachers in the project, especially Orla (see 4.2.3 below).

3.4 Conclusion This chapter set out to describe the population of learners who took part in the project. Beginning with an overview of the project classes, it has drawn on questionnaire data elicited from 512 learners in the early stages of their participation in the project in order to characterize general patterns in the attitudes, motivations and perceptions brought by these learners to the study of foreign languages. These patterns were shown to be largely positive and encouraging, with some variation in respect of gender, language of study and year of study, and on the whole suggest that the communicative value of developing foreign language skills is readily appreciated by learners of this age group. However, the analysis has pointed to the potential for mismatch between learners’ expressed motivation and attitudes on the one hand, and their actual engagement in the reality of classroom learning and understanding of the learning process on the other. It has also highlighted a range of issues that became a focus of attention in the project, such as target language use, group work, learner motivation, learner self-esteem. The analysis points ahead to more detailed discussion of these issues in Chapters 4 and 5.

4

Focus on the teachers

4.0 Introduction This chapter gives an account of the project from the teachers’ perspective. As Chapters 2 and 3 described, a total of twenty teachers joined the project at various stages. Of these, three participated for three years, from beginning to end, and another five were with the project for two years. Thanks to this core group we are able to discuss their experiences over a period of time. Some of the chapter is based on researchers’ notes or tape recordings from the monthly seminars. Most quotations by teachers which are cited here come from (i) essays which fifteen of them wrote at the end of their first, second, and in a few cases third year in the project; (ii) transcriptions of semi-structured interviews with eight of the teachers, all recorded during their second year in the project (Orla, Anna, Edel and Sarah in NovemberJanuary 1999–2000; Miriam, Cormac, Richard and Iris in January 2001). Section 4.1 describes teachers’ initial responses to the project. In section 4.2 we focus on four teachers’ understanding of what language learning entails. Section 4.3 outlines some of the changes that most teachers introduced into their classrooms, focussing in particular on use of the target language, materials and resources and learner reflection. The concluding section, 4.4, summarizes issues which teachers highlighted in the final stages of the project. Although they had experienced a multitude of problems along the way, they had mostly positive things to say about the project as a learning experience. The underlying argument of the chapter is as follows. The development of learner autonomy in formal classrooms does not usually happen overnight; rather, it is likely to happen slowly, patchily, and on the basis of the teacher’s growing understanding of what makes for effective learning. And while researchers or expert practitioners can offer pedagogical principles derived from research findings and reflection on practice, it is up to individual teachers to work out a teaching approach appropriate to the needs of their own learner groups. This requires a never-ending commitment to planning, monitoring and evaluation.

4.1 Teachers’ initial responses to the project It should be said straightaway that on joining the project the teachers were taking a calculated risk. We were asking them to re-assess 69

70


teaching methods which they had relied on in the past and with which they generally felt comfortable; and by letting their school principals, their learners (and, by extension, parents) know that they were going to deviate from well-tried practices, they were in many respects laying themselves open to criticism and comment beyond the norm. Although we assured them that the classroom visits by the CLCS researchers and visiting colleagues (the “experts”) would be entirely nonjudgemental in spirit, it required confidence on their part to be observed, discussed and described in print, albeit anonymously. With regard to what we were hoping for from the teachers: we expected that although they would aspire to the classroom practices which Dam (1995) describes in the Danish context, they would nevertheless feel constrained by the demands of the Irish public examination system, the Junior Certificate and its syllabus. We also expected them to have developed personal teaching styles, which were likely to have been shaped as much by their own language learning experience as by their formal teacher training. Further, they would probably have developed their own interpretations of the curriculum (see Salmon 1995). It was evident that when they joined the project most teachers were aware of the paradigm shift which had been taking place in language pedagogy during the previous decade: a shift away from a focus on the teacher teaching towards a more learner-centred approach, where the focus is on encouraging learning by providing meaningful tasks. And all of them identified with what is loosely called the communicative approach: learners learn a language in order to communicate in it. In this regard our stated aim that the use of the target language in class should be a prime objective fitted in with their beliefs about ideal classroom practice; however, encouraging target language use remained a recurring problem, as this chapter shows. Generally speaking, teachers tended towards traditional methods of teaching in that they closely followed a textbook and orchestrated learning activities from the front of the class (see Nunan 1999, Chapter 3, for a discussion of traditional and contemporary modes of teaching). The prospect of introducing learner autonomy caused most teachers to be apprehensive; indeed, one described the word autonomy as a “total turn-off”. This example illustrates the gap between the notion of autonomy as a general educational goal and teachers’ readiness to promote it. On the one hand the general thrust of the junior cycle syllabus is geared towards learners’ active involvement in the


71

subject; for example, growing language awareness and the use of effective learning strategies are explicitly referred to as part of learners’ developing autonomy. On the other hand, the project teachers had little if any notion how learner autonomy might be achieved in their classroom. Sarah, for example, said: I had read and heard about it and thought it all sounded great, but I didn’t understand what was behind it and I thought I couldn’t have one of those classrooms where you have different kinds of activities and everyone wandering about. I couldn’t imagine how that could be a teaching approach. (Interview 25 January 2000)

Other teachers were experimenting with innovation without making explicit connections between what they were doing and learner autonomy. Richard, for example, describes how he used to ask learners to keep an individual audio diary, to record their own work over the course of the year. But because he was unsure about its pedagogical benefit, Richard did not insist that learners keep up the practice. (As he learned later from Leni Dam, it pays off to make good ideas like this a requirement, not an option; see 6.1.1 below.) Not all teachers were as experimental as Richard; Cormac, for example, described the “safe” teaching approach he used before joining the project: Today’s Junior Cycle is a modified version of the way that I was taught. It involves an almost slavish adherence to the book in the belief that structures are important. The basics in any language are sheer drudgery, but I do try to enliven this mind-numbing activity by challenging pupils to speed tests, which they enjoy.

Three misconceptions about autonomy were particularly noticeable: (i) that to encourage autonomy implies letting go in the sense of relinquishing all control in the classroom; (ii) that autonomy is not something that sits happily with younger or weaker learners; (iii) that learner autonomy is an optional, add-on factor which has little to do with the serious business of the curriculum. (Similar teacher expectations in relation to autonomy are discussed by Good and Brophy 2000, p.89). In order to establish a common point of reference for teachers joining the project, we wrote the Working Document (see Figure 2.1, p.31 above). Its pedagogical message can be summarized thus: • A shift from an understanding of learning as transmission of knowledge from teacher to learner towards a focus on learners’ construction of knowledge. • An emphasis on target language use by teachers and learners,

72


as a means of genuine self-expression and the only way of ensuring that autonomy is firmly rooted in the business of language learning and language use. • The involvement of learners in certain aspects of the teachinglearning process (e.g., choice of activities, decision-making about the order of topics covered, the setting of short-term learning goals and regular self-assessment). Learner involvement does not imply withdrawal by the teacher; on the contrary, it is always the teacher’s job to ensure that the syllabus is covered. • A focus on writing in the target language as a means of promoting the development of metalinguistic awareness and speaking skills and as a tool for reflection. • Group work as a means of promoting learners’ reflective skills. When these issues were discussed, the teachers realized that they were called upon to change their mindset as well as their classroom practice. At every turn we stressed that there are no simple recipes for promoting autonomy; rather, teachers need to understand the rationale for its promotion by accepting that there is much that they can do to help learners to manage their own learning. This of course requires reflection on the teacher’s part – and in this sense we can refer to teachers being autonomous too. Teachers gave three principal reasons for joining the project in the first place. First, it offered a means of trying out new teaching approaches; second, teachers voiced a general desire to move towards a learner-centred approach; and third, they were looking for ways to motivate their learners. For example, Miriam told us: I wanted the pupils to like the subject and do their homework and learn of their own accord, and be interested. I liked the idea of pupils taking over their own language learning. (Interview 16 January 2001)

And Edel described her rationale for joining the project as the time when she noticed that she was more interested and involved in classroom activities than her learners: I noticed that I was jumping up and down, I was being interested, and I was supplying answers because they didn’t seem to have many answers themselves. (Interview 30 November 1999)

Anna referred to her teaching before joining the project in similar terms: Prior to meeting the group I would mostly have done my best to entertain the


73

class in the hope of getting them interested. I would have gone through the textbook, deviating from it in my own little way, but it would have been me getting their attention. I’d be fairly energetic, but it was nothing to do with autonomy. (Interview 31 January 2000)

There was a general consensus among the teachers that if only they could motivate their classes more, their learners would naturally become more active and take some responsibility for their learning. They felt that learning French or German in Ireland is potentially demotivating; more so than, say, learning English in Finland, where there is an instrumental need to learn English within the wider community. A common feeling too was that foreign language classes are always going to be essentially difficult. After all, it takes a long time before beginners acquire the knowledge or the confidence to express themselves in the target language. A typical concern that language lessons are laborious affairs was expressed by Cormac, who joined the project because he wanted to make his French classes as stimulating as his English classes – not only for his learners but for himself as well: I was aware that there was a very different atmosphere in my English classes. In French I tended to be a sort of follow-the-book person – Chapter 3 always followed Chapter 2 – so the idea of learner autonomy appealed to me because it might be a way out of what I saw as a stultifying approach to learning and also a stultifying approach to teaching. (Interview 16 January 2001)

The perceived link between learner autonomy and motivation is worth noting, since it is crucial to our understanding the development of autonomy. We know that some learners are naturally more autonomous than others, and we expect that when learners are encouraged to be autonomous they will be motivated. In other words, it makes sense to see that the learning experience is interesting, or fun. However, learners who find learning enjoyable are not necessarily autonomous. Autonomy is to do with intrinsic motivation; learners are motivated from within (for a discussion of self-motivation and related concepts, see Ushioda 1996b). Thus in the initial stages of the project we discussed how learners cannot be made to be motivated. We emphasized that it is the teacher’s role to create optimal conditions for learning. For example, by giving classroom tasks that engage learners’ attention and problem-solving skills as well as their enjoyment, by encouraging them to take decisions, and by showing them how to assess their own target language abilities, teachers can help learners to realize that they are the key agents of their learning (see Dam 1995, McGarry 1995, Ridley forthcoming).

74


Several teachers expressed disappointment that we did not give specific tips about how to motivate learners, and that we were not prescriptive about how to encourage autonomy. Cormac, for example, says of his first reaction to the project: The biggest problem was that I was I expecting someone to give me a list of twenty ideas which would enable me to get on with autonomous teaching and autonomous learning and I think that for a while I just found it all very nebulous (Interview 16 January 2001)

As Chapter 2 described, new cohorts of teachers joined the project in September 1999 and September 2000. We used different approaches to engage each new cohort in discussion. With the first group (1998–9) we spent much time focussing on the theory of autonomy, partly because we wanted pedagogical experimentation to be principle-driven, and partly because there was little local experience to build on. We wanted to convince these teachers that when learner autonomy is a pedagogical goal, both learners and teachers benefit. This first group immediately wanted to know whether learners who are encouraged to be autonomous are likely to be more successful at exams than learners in more traditional classrooms. This question was unanswerable, for various reasons. It assumes a close relation between success at doing exams and the development of L2 proficiency; and while we might argue that when language tests are reliable they will elicit an accurate sample of what learners can do in the target language at a particular stage in their learning, it is impossible to identify with certainty which personal factors contribute to success or failure (for example, individuals’ language aptitude, including rote learning ability, or their L1 reading or writing skills). In addition, we need to consider which components of L2 proficiency the exam is testing; for example, grammatical competence or pragmatic competence. A longitudinal study by Leni Dam’s co-researcher Lienhard Legenhausen (1999a) compares the linguistic progress of a group of learners of English in a traditional German classroom with that of Leni Dam’s class who were learning English in Denmark. The Danish learners knew how to communicate naturally and spontaneously in English; by contrast, the German learners produced more accurate, yet stilted and unnatural English. This research raises the question: What kind of L2 proficiency do we want to encourage? In the initial stage of the project we could not, of course, make predictions about how the project classes would fare in the Junior Certificate exams. As it turned out, the teachers who saw their project


75

classes past this exam estimated that their learners fared neither better nor worse than they might have fared if they had not been part of this experiment. Significantly, however, these teachers reported a high level of motivation and enjoyment in project classes. Edel, for example, stated at the final project meeting that its success lay in changes she perceived in her learners’ attitudes, from negative to positive. Thus instead of discussing learner autonomy in terms of outcome we focussed on learning as a process, and on learner autonomy as a capacity whose development teachers can foster (Little 1991, p.4). We also discussed the need to provide learners with a rich diet of authentic input, and the importance of learners’ noticing input. We described how intentionality and explicit learning underpin both learner autonomy and effective language learning (see for example Schmidt 1990, Ellis 1994). We also discussed the characteristics of autonomous learners as described by Breen and Mann (1997); for example, autonomous learners are active, and are strategically engaged in their learning. While it was easy to envisage a learner who might be identified as autonomous, some teachers found this discussion unhelpful, one describing it as “too vague, too theoretical”. Anna’s comments are typical: I understood the theory. I found the idea of autonomy very clear, but I couldn’t see how it might be implemented overnight. (Interview 31 January 2001)

The second cohort of teachers (1999–2001) were able to benefit from what the first group could tell them about their experiences. It also made sense to analyse what successful practitioners do, focussing particularly on the types of demands they make on their learners. Therefore as well as discussing the Working Document (Figure 2.1, p.31 above), we began the second year by showing a video in which one of the project’s visitors, Hanne Thomsen, is teaching English to a second-level class of Danish native speakers (Thomsen and Gabrielsen 1991). General reactions among teachers to the video were: 1. Comment that the target language is the sole means of communication, by both teacher and learners. 2. Surprise that learners had a choice of activities (from a menu of options); and that learning activities were usually not discrete but linked to previous and future activities in a chain. 3. Comment on the physical set-up of the classroom, especially an arrangement of tables and chairs designed to facilitate group work and the use of posters on the walls. The initial reaction of teachers to this video was that they could not envisage themselves reaching the point where they would be able to

76


follow similar classroom practices. Miriam’s concern is fairly typical: Although I believe that through learner autonomy pupil diversity will be catered for better than in the traditional mode of teaching, I am reluctant to abandon the “old” way [control of classroom activity] and go full tilt into learner autonomy mode. I am not sure that I trust myself 100% for this, nor do I trust the learners 100%. (Reflective essay 1, 2000)

In relation to target language use, the video shows that the Danish learners’ use of English is highly functional: it has to do with the here-and-now of learning English. For example, when playing a picture bingo game, learners request information from each other and negotiate meanings in an authentic manner. Like their predecessors who encountered Leni Dam in the mid-1980s, the project teachers were quick to point out some of the differences between teaching French and German in Ireland and teaching English in Denmark (cf. 1.1, p.5 above). For one thing English is “in the air” to a much greater extent in the Nordic countries than French and German are in Ireland. For another, teachers of German in particular felt disadvantaged by its highly inflected nature, pointing out that many learners find German morphology daunting. Both the structural differences and the perceived distance between mother tongue and target language were noted as inhibiting factors for the development of target language proficiency. Regarding point 2 above, as Thomsen herself argues (2000), giving learners choice requires careful joint planning by teacher and learners. It is important to encourage learners to use their own initiative and to help them to discover tasks that they find meaningful and relevant. The notion that teachers might rely less on the textbook was a cause of great debate, as was the use of group work. Iris, for example, explained her reaction thus: Here she was, teaching a class normally, and yet she seemed to have them all doing various activities, and I wondered: Now how’s she going to pull that all together? Does she have a course? (Interview 15 January 2001)

When the third cohort of teachers was recruited in October 2000, we asked them to read Dam (1995) as a way of preparing themselves for a discussion of key issues. Leni Dam visited the project for the second time a few weeks later and stressed the importance of learner reflection (cf. 1.1 above). The teachers were particularly struck by her insistence that her learners should continually reflect on what they are doing, why they are doing it, how are they doing it, and what can it be used for (cf. Dam 1995, p.5). It is worth noting that all teachers


77

immediately welcomed this new insight into the teaching–learning process. For here was a vivid, practical example of learners’ active involvement in their learning; they were engaging in self-assessment on a regular basis, while the teacher remained in control of their syllabus. Leni Dam’s use of posters and logbooks as a focus for learner reflection on the target language, how it is learned, and with what degree of success, provided much food for thought, especially as the reflection was carried out in the target language. The teachers were struck too by Dam’s insistence on mutual respect and honesty in the classroom. This seems particularly important when working with difficult, low ability learners who choose to opt out of classroom activities. The account of the way in which one learner, “Dennis the Menace” (Dam 1999), was encouraged to work at his own pace and within the limits of his abilities removed any lingering notion teachers may have had that autonomy is not something for difficult or low-ability learners. Each new group of teachers raised two major concerns. One was time: how would there be enough time to cover the Junior Certificate syllabus and also devise various types of tasks in addition to the textbook? This concern was linked to the false assumption that major classroom changes should be introduced overnight (Miriam, quoted above, was reluctant to go “full tilt into learner autonomy mode”). It made sense to focus first on the use of the target language in class. Then other changes were introduced gradually. The other concern was space. As we noted in Table 3.3 (p.50 above), not all teachers had their own classroom, which meant permanent poster displays were out of the question. In the first year of the project, for example, Edel taught German in a pre-fab in the school grounds. Other teachers had dedicated classrooms, with moveable tables and chairs, room for displaying posters, and cupboard space for materials and resources. Naturally enough, these practical differences took on great significance in the very early stages of the project. Later, teachers tended to be more preoccupied with linguistic issues (for instance, whether or what their pupils were learning) or with psychological issues to do with learners’ motivation and effort. They also found ways of overcoming at least some of the constraints inherent in their particular classroom environment.

78


4.2 Teachers’ understanding of what language learning entails Bearing in mind that each teacher adapted his/her own teaching approach to suit each project class, we now offer a short summary of what four teachers focussed on as a result of their developing understanding of the language learning process. In interviews and essays they were asked to describe their conceptions of learning. From what follows it is possible to conclude that individual teachers tended to establish certain priorities, as a response both to the needs of their learner group and to their own needs as teachers.

4.2.1

Anna: focus on the notion of language learning through language use

As we explained in Chapter 2, Anna was one of three teachers who stayed with the project throughout. For the first two years she was teaching French to a top-stream class. She was not specially concerned with learner motivation, as other teachers with lower-ability groups were. In May 1999 she described how she saw herself in relation to her class: I see myself in the role of facilitator. I have a bright class and they are adept at working both in groups and individually. They are quite good at taking the initiative at this stage. I use the target language all the time. They are not remotely inhibited by this and are rather proud of their ability to “work it out”. (End-of-year reflections, May 1999)

The reference to learners “working it out” indicates that this was a topic that Anna found important. In an interview in January 2000 Anna reflected on her experiences with this same top-stream class. Here she describes what learning is all about: It means making connections with what you already know. If you get new information and it builds on what you already know, it enables you to make an even clearer interpretation of what you’ve learnt already. (Interview 31 January 2000)

Anna returned to this theme of learners’ construction of knowledge a few months later. In her essay of May 2000, she wrote: Prior to joining the project, I thought teaching French meant giving the learners a bit of language at a time, which they would practise for a while. Then I’d give them another bit, which again they would practise, and so on. It was all rather like building something out of LEGO, but the learners only got the vital pieces in stages. Since joining the project I’ve realized that this was the worst approach possible. Now, from the outset, I let the learners hear, read, and in so far as they


79

can, speak and write every aspect of the language. For example, I no longer reserve the passé composé for second term, or consider “doing” the conditional in third year. (Reflective essay 1)

A year later, in March 2001, Anna still focussed on learners’ languagerelated effortful activity: The project has helped me realize that using a language is the only way to learn it. I am therefore on the alert not to allow myself to fall into the trap of telling the pupils how the language works before they themselves have tried communicating in it. (Reflective essay 2)

And she returned to the theme of knowledge construction when asked to describe how her beliefs about teaching and learning had changed: I understand how the transmission approach in teaching languages effectively alienates all but the most determined and the brightest – often one and the same. The project has clarified for me the importance of learners building on their existing knowledge. (Reflective essay 2)

Throughout the project seminars of the first two years it was evident that Anna considered herself lucky to be able to try out new ideas with a top-stream class; on the surface at least they were quick to welcome the changes she introduced and made efforts to go along with what she was trying to achieve. Anna also appreciated the fact that hers was an attentive class; because she placed great importance on learners speaking the target language, Anna was pleased to note during her second year with the class that she dominated classroom talk less than before, and that the whole group paid attention when one of them was speaking (for her learners’ reaction, see 5.1.4, pp.105f. below).

4.2.2

Edel: concern with motivation

Like Anna, Edel participated in the project from start to finish. In the first two years Edel’s project class was a mixed-ability group learning German, and in the third year it was a mixed-ability group learning French. One of her principal concerns throughout was learner motivation, which she saw as underpinning effective learning. In May 1999 Edel wrote: I feel that the students expect very much to be spoon-fed. They seem poorly motivated. They seem to feel that what they do in here [school] is completely divorced from what they do once they go out through the school gates. (End-ofyear reflections, May 1999)

80


Like Anna, Edel saw the link between language learning and language use. But unlike Anna, she also had to consider whether her learners wanted to try to communicate using the target language and whether they realized the benefit of doing so. In an interview in November 1999, Edel referred to the importance of getting learners to “take the rein in their hands”. A few months later, in April 2000, she described how she helped her learners to do this: I find that I can make them all a little more hopeful. I think we all realize that they will not be able to speak or understand German perfectly. But I point out to them all that if they are interested and learn how to help themselves they can produce a level of German that they may not have thought possible. (Reflective essay 1)

At this point Edel’s project class was in its second year. She clearly saw learning in terms of the degree of learners’ cognitive involvement in their own learning, and the extent to which they had self-efficacy beliefs about their own skills (Bandura 1997; cf. 1.3.1, p.15 above): Now I believe that if the pupils believe they can talk, they are far more likely to try and write, and they will not be quite as daunted when faced with a text to read. (Reflective essay 1)

A year later, in April 2001, Edel still highlighted motivation when reflecting on the project. By this time she was confident that she had discovered how to stimulate learners’ motivation and develop their learning abilities: I think I am far more aware of the different types of learners in my class, and I find myself looking for exercises to get them all motivated. (Reflective essay 2)

(Edel enjoyed devising tasks and exercises of her own; see, e.g., the “shoe box” item on the list of innovations given in 4.3.2, p.88 below.) She continued: I am glad I have been freed from the slavery of the textbook!! I still use it (much more in French than in German as I feel more unsure of myself in the French class). I do not feel guilty about not using the book and allowing the children to choose what we might read next. I am glad that I have begun to trust the children a lot more. (Reflective essay 2)

Edel returned in this final essay to the notion of spoon-feeding. Having tried to get her learners to understand that progress was possible if they tried and made sure that classroom activities aroused their interest, she now saw herself in a different way (as we have seen, Edel joined the project because she was worried that she was much more


81

active in class than her learners): I have begun to look at teaching in a different light and no longer look at my job as being merely a “language teacher”. In teaching this way, I feel I am preparing my pupils for life outside. They are so used to being spoon-fed, just sitting and absorbing or not absorbing what the teacher is telling them. (Reflective essay 2)

Edel was now slightly surprised and pleased to find that she enjoyed teaching more. She commented in this essay that “it’s no longer a ‘teacher against pupil’” relationship and continued: I believe teaching can be more fun than I thought. I tell them how I learned German and I show them the different types of ways one can learn.

4.2.3 Orla: focus on the personal development of low-ability learners Orla too stayed with the project throughout. Her school operates streaming, and Orla’s German class was the bottom stream. A main focus for her was the group dynamic. This class was particularly susceptible to group mood swings, sometimes in response to the day of the week or the time of the class. Significantly for Orla, other teachers in the school had labelled this class as unteachable. Some pupils had difficulties reading and writing in the mother tongue, others had problems of various kinds that caused them to be frequent absentees. Orla was initially doubtful that this was a suitable project class. Six months into the project Orla described how these learners had a very short attention span, were not used to concentrating for long, and had poor long-term memory. She was constantly aware that she must maintain a good teacher-learner relationship if effective learning was to take place. In May 1999, when she was first asked to record the progress of her project, Orla wrote about the topics, tasks and materials she was using, and did not mention psychological issues like learners’ attitudes. A few months later (November 1999) in an interview, Orla made it clear that she was proceeding very cautiously with her group, mainly because they were unpredictable and often difficult to manage. Yet her overall aim with this group was substantial and ambitious: “to make them think”. When asked to describe learning she linked intentional thinking with personal development: I see learning as a development of the person, including development of selfesteem. In line with the autonomy idea, the more they’re conscious of how much they’re learning, the greater their self-esteem. (Interview 30 November 1999)

82


Like Edel, Orla gradually became more aware of individual learners in her project class. Six months later, in April 2000, she wrote: Since joining the project I am more aware of the value and success of each learner. I do not ignore the public examinations and am continually aware of the syllabus and the importance of covering it. However, I am deeply conscious of the fact that all learners can learn a foreign language, and whichever level of the language is reached, all learners can experience success when they express an idea clearly in the foreign language. (Reflective essay 1)

A year later, in April 2001, Orla was preparing the same class for the Junior Certificate examination. Describing her beliefs about teaching and learning, she again stressed the need to cater for each individual in the class. Her understanding of learning still took the whole person into account, and she made a distinction between high-achieving groups who will always learn, whatever the teacher does, and low achievers: Low achievers who have had no success in primary school arrive into secondary school with low self-esteem and very little interest in participating in something that they are likely to have no success in at all. (Reflective essay 2)

Yet Orla insists that learners’ efforts are crucial, and that motivating learners is not enough: The teacher may teach it, but it is the learner who learns. (Reflective essay 2)

Although she was initially sceptical about using this group as her project class, after two and a half years Orla was pleased she had tried. In seminars she told other teachers that learner autonomy should be encouraged among the weakest of learners. In her final essay she again referred to the erratic behaviour of the class, especially just before the Junior Certificate exams. Discipline remained an issue and class behaviour was erratic. Orla referred to her frustration at having prepared a class “brilliantly”, yet coming out of it afterwards “stressed, after an uphill battle”. Yet she remained convinced that she would have had a “much rougher ride” had it not been for the project. She felt that the decisions she took early on paid off. They were: (i) to speak German at all times unless follow-up explanation in English was absolutely necessary, (ii) to make use of group work, and (iii) to give learners a choice of activities (including homework). In particular she found that making the class work frequently in small groups allowed her to move around the room helping individual learners. (As 5.2 shows, normally disruptive learners appreciated this individual attention because it showed that their teacher was taking them seriously.)


83

Above all, Orla rated learners’ growing self-esteem as crucial to their developing autonomy. For example, she typed up poems that learners wrote so that “each learner knows that he will be ‘immortalized’ by his work”. As the exams approached she was also worried, however, that these learners were in danger of over-estimating their target language knowledge and skills; in other words, that by deliberately helping to boost their self-confidence and motivation she had implicitly encouraged them to have unrealistic beliefs about their achievement. It was agreed by other project teachers that if this class had not been labelled bottom stream, and if it had had a greater ability mix, Orla’s life for the past three years would have been easier.

4.2.4

Miriam: a gradual change from focus on teaching to focus on learning

Miriam’s overall reaction to the project was one of extreme caution. She was a member of the second cohort of teachers, and although she welcomed the advice and encouragement of Anna, Edel and Orla, she was – like the majority of the teachers who took part in the project – anxious about changing the status quo. Her attitudes towards teaching, learning and autonomy are in this respect representative of the wider group. We noted earlier (in 4.1, p.76 above) that Miriam was not prepared to introduce radical changes overnight, and of course this was wise. For one thing, she was particularly concerned with the delicate balance of the teacher-learner relationship; for example, she was “slow to concede control” when it came to giving learners a choice of activities. Six months after joining the project Miriam described how she was more concerned than previously with individual learning processes: There has been no major change on my part in my understanding of what learning a foreign language entails, but I am more aware of the diversity of the pupils’ approaches to and their experience of learning German. This is probably due to the extra focus on pupils’ individual handle on the language stressed by the Learner Autonomy Project (i.e. “to learn is to develop relationships between what the learner knows already and the new system presented to him”). (Reflective essay 1, 2000)

A year later, when asked to describe her teaching approach (which, she said, above all encouraged interaction and communication), Miriam was still concerned with the extent to which she was prepared to give her learners what she described as “leeway”. She

84


saw that learning was possible because she, the teacher, provided the input. After that it was up to the learners to learn. [As teacher] you have to provide the material first of all, the wherewithal to get there. You also have to provide them with encouragement and feedback that they’re doing okay. You have to make clear to them what’s good and what’s not good and point them in the right direction. And from the autonomy end of things I think you have to provide them with space to learn. (Interview 16 January 2001)

Three months later Miriam was stressing the importance of teacher and learners working together and she seemed more confident about her role. In her last project essay she wrote: I like the feeling that the learning going on in school is a result of the combined and cooperative effort of pupils and teacher working towards the goal. (Reflective essay 2, 2001)

She indicated, however, that she remained cautious about encouraging learners to get involved with their learning: I quite often feel I am still only dabbling at this learner autonomy approach. In recent weeks in particular (with exams approaching) I find I am falling back to the teacher at the top of the classroom teaching and directing there. I am not sure that my beliefs have changed greatly. But I see the benefit of knowing more about how pupils see their learning and class work, and I am more convinced that it is necessary to have clear goals and a clear idea of the possible means of achieving them. (Reflective essay 2)

It is possible to infer that Miriam’s remark about “only dabbling” at autonomy is linked to a reluctance to introduce innovation in classroom practice. Yet Miriam did introduce many fresh ideas. At the end of the project she noted: Some of the pupils I teach are probably more motivated due to the parts of the learner autonomy approach I apply. (Reflective essay 2, 2001)

The reference here to “parts of the autonomy approach” is significant: the aim of the project was to see the extent to which learner autonomy as developed in Leni Dam’s or Hanne Thomsen’s classroom, for example, might be transferable to the Irish context. Miriam’s cautious approach is typical of many of the teachers not referred to by name in this chapter because they did not participate long enough for us to get a clear view of their development. We can conclude from Miriam’s experience that it is possible, even desirable, to introduce change only when the teacher feels confident to do so. We saw above that Edel, for example, relied on the textbook


85

more in her French class, where she was sometimes unsure of herself speaking French, than in the German class, where she had near-native competence. Making changes requires confidence as well as planning.

4.3 Changes in classroom practice We now turn to some of the practical changes in teaching approaches that the teachers tried out.

4.3.1 Target language use One of the pedagogical principles on which the project was based was that the target language should be the principal medium of teaching and learning (cf. 1.3.3, pp.19ff. above). Only two teachers seemed to experience no problems in this regard (significantly, perhaps, their learners were “generally bright and motivated”). One said with confidence: “I speak 100% French”; the other wrote: The use of the target language is something I’ve been pleased with. I speak at length in French and allow them – and myself – to see how much more they can understand than they think they can. (Reflective essay 1, 2000)

Some teachers lacked confidence in their own ability to speak the target language fluently, while others were put off using the target language in class by learners’ poor concentration or lack of basic target language knowledge. For example: I believe very strongly that I should be speaking in German all the time, but it just doesn’t always happen. This was a really tough one because they do not have the concentration or patience to hang around while I jump up and down and explain things in German. (Reflective essay 1, 2000) I do it bilingually because I tried it initially just through French and they’d sit there and nod away, and then they’d ask you a very basic question about the meaning of a particular word. (Reflective essay 1, 2000)

This last comment is interesting because it raises the question: How can we expect learners to put effort into understanding the target language when they know the mother tongue equivalent will always follow? It should be said, however, that some teachers were pleased and surprised with the results of their own efforts to use the target language as much as possible. For example, Patricia (whose beginner class learning Italian was “fairly motivated”) wrote: The project has given me the impetus to make greater use of the target lan-

86

Towards greater learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom guage right from the start, and not to be afraid to use long sentences, different tenses and a wider range of vocabulary than I would normally use with first years. I realize now that I have been underestimating their abilities and that they respond well to challenge. (Reflective essay 1, 2001)

Nevertheless, getting learners themselves to speak the target language proved a constant problem. At first, the phrase “oral work” was prominent in seminar discussions. But gradually a consensus emerged that although it was useful to give learners opportunities to practise speaking the target language, the ultimate aim in a communicative classroom is for learners to use the target language naturally to interact with the teacher and one another. Even when this aim was accepted, most teachers found it very difficult to create a classroom dynamic in which learners did not feel inhibited from speaking the target language. One teacher even found that her learners were willing to speak German only “for a joke”. Others expressed frustration that learners eagerly grasped and used survival-level phrases like “was heißt das?” or “je ne comprends pas”, but were unwilling to take risks and create utterances of their own. It was particularly striking that project learners in their second year became less willing to use the target language (see Figure 3.4, p.56 above). Frequently, this was partly due to fear of loss of face or inhibition (see also 5.1.5, p.108f. below). Some observation notes which one researcher made of Orla’s first-year class illustrate this point: Orla uses German almost all the time for input and classroom management, repeating and reformulating when necessary. Teacher-initiated discourse was largely confined to the opening plenary session. These first-year pupils seem much less inhibited about trying to use the target language than the other (second-year) classes I’ve observed. They seemed eager to volunteer responses in German to Orla’s questions and quite a few initiated simple queries like “was ist …?” They seemed generally well-motivated in their attempts to engage with the German language and find out how to say things in German. (Classroom observation notes, November 1999)

A year later, Orla noticed that some pupils were less enthusiastic, but insisted that it was her fault, in the sense that she did not always provide them with tasks that required target language use. This point led seminar discussions back to the video of Danish teacher Hanne Thomsen, whose seemingly natural and effortless spoken interaction with her pupils is deliberately based on the notion of scaffolding (cf. 1.2.2 and 1.3.3 above). The teacher helps learners to formulate utterances by repeating and reformulating what they try to say. There is


87

constant repetition and clarification, and in this way the teacher provides native-like input and corrective feedback at the same time (in much the same way as a parent or caretaker might talk to a young child).

4.3.2

Materials, resources and learner choice

All project teachers were encouraged to see the textbook as one resource among others, and most tried to encourage the learners to see it in those terms as well. This innovation was fundamental. Before teachers embarked on the project, their lessons had tended not to be planned in detail in advance; rather, the structure of the textbook, from one chapter to the next, “covered” the curriculum in easily managed stages. In the first year of the project teachers were slow to introduce authentic materials into the classroom; as one researcher noted, input for the lessons derived either from textbooks or, occasionally, special readers. Those who continued into the second and third years of the project became much more confident and adventurous, and their ambition had a knock-on effect. They were pleased to discover the variety of learning opportunities presented by authentic newspaper texts (Little et al. 1989). They soon came to enjoy devising tasks, referred to as games, often to be done in pairs or small groups. Edel described one such task with enthusiasm: The other day I gave them a family tree to look at. They were divided into groups and the topic was the family. I gave one half of the family tree to one person in the group and the other half to another and they had to ask each other questions in German like “Ist sie ledig oder ist sie verheiratet?” I said they could sit beside who they wanted, which meant that sometimes very weak students were together. But to my amazement they were all doing it in German – I could hear that as I sat beside them. When I was with the weaker ones I could hear it too. They said afterwards that they liked it and that they learned from it – new words, I suppose – and they genuinely meant it. (Interview 30 November 1999)

This account of a relatively simple task – other teachers were using more ambitious resources like the Internet – is interesting because it illustrates the learning opportunities that group work offers. Moreover, it reminds us that when learners get absorbed in an activity that requires them to use the target language, they feel they get something out of it. It also shows how one activity links to the next, for example, from reading to speaking to writing. As we noted earlier (4.2.2, p.80 above), Edel was delighted to be free of the “slavery” of the textbook.

88


Like other teachers, she became adept at planning lessons around the topics of the curriculum; and like them she made her plans for each lesson explicit to the class. Here are some of the innovations that teachers noted as having been particularly successful in their project classes: • Use of an Italian chat-room on the Internet. • Downloading written material from the Internet for teacher-led or group-based discussion. • Using a book of fairy-tales written in German by fifth-year pupils. • Writing daily news (individual or group work). • Learners choose a book (classroom reader), read it and write a short summary in the target language. • Learners choose a learning activity for homework (from a preplanned menu). • When working in groups, learners identify new vocabulary which is stencilled onto a card for storage in a class-owned shoe box. Nouns, verbs and adjectives are written in different colours. Planned or random selection of words provides opportunities for further use; for example, making up a story incorporating a given number of words. • Dictionary work: learners devise their own activities. • Conversation groups based on one learner’s two-minute talk, already prepared and based on the topic of the week. • Learners plan oral questions to ask any member of the class, or make up comprehension questions for others based on reading texts. • Learners write poems with the help of the teacher. An example: the topic is colours; the title’s equivalent in the target language is “Black and white”. Learners work with dictionaries to find equivalents for “coal” and “snow”. The teacher writes vocabulary on the board and leads a discussion of possible visual layouts. Learners proceed to write. The teacher types up each poem so that it can become part of a class collection and the learners take turns to make audio recordings of their poems. • Twenty questions: one learner chooses the name of a famous person and others ask yes/no questions designed to help them work out who the person is. • Word searches based on a particular topic where target


89

language words are linked to their English equivalents and located in a word maze. • Lessons always start with an outline in the target language (written by the teacher on the blackboard or on an overhead projector transparency). • Lessons always end with each learner using simple target language phrases to evaluate what he or she has done and record what he or she has learned. As has already been indicated, these innovations were introduced gradually. Teachers exchanged ideas at seminars and drew heavily on the work of Leni Dam (1995, 2000; see also 6.1.1 below). For most project teachers, the introduction of activities that were not directly based on, or indeed suggested by, the textbook, coincided with their shifting attitudes towards the notion of learner autonomy. During the first few months of their participation in the project, most found it very hard to stop giving lessons in which they did most of the talking and most of the thinking. Tom, for example, had the following to say five months into the project: This year I have discovered how difficult it is for the teacher to abandon traditional habits of teaching and to convince students of their pivotal role and responsibility in the learning process. In recent weeks my learners have become very conscious of their need to communicate orally in German, and we are busy devising situations of language use which they feel are meaningful and of practical relevance. (Reflective essay 1, 2001)

Tom’s reference to “we are busy” is perhaps indicative of his new approach, which explicitly includes the learners (cf. Leni Dam’s distinctions between teacher-initiated and teacher-directed activities, learnerdirected activities and “together”-shared activities, discussed in 6.1.1 below). Understandably, the notion that there should be co-operation between teacher and learners raised doubts in some teachers’ minds. Richard’s comment, written six months into the project, is perhaps typical: Always at the back of my mind was the fear that this ad hoc approach would prove my undoing in an exam situation (Reflective essay 1, 2000)

A year later, however, Richard was more confident: In order to succeed you really must embrace the risk-taking element, let go and allow pupils to proceed with their work. Easier said than done! With better pupil involvement classwork becomes more interesting. They know they have a greater

90

Towards greater learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom say in organizing things and so produce a more positive response. Given a choice of learning medium (tape, game, book, etc.) pupils work at a faster and more enthusiastic pace than in the conventional manner. (Reflective essay 2, 2001)

In Chapter 5 we gain insight into what Richard’s and other teachers’ learners felt about classroom activities and choice. Meanwhile it is worth noting that one teacher, Cormac, received a complaint from a pupil about his deviation from the rigid structure of the textbook. The pupil was worried that her class would not “cover” everything before the end-of-year exam (see too Richard’s comment about the exam, above). This point is important. New teaching approaches forced teachers to confront the fact that they were more than ever responsible for planning their lessons in such a way as to set targets for covering the curriculum (the crucial importance of teacher planning, so strongly recommended by the visiting experts, is returned to later in this chapter).

4.3.3

Learner reflection on the learning process

In Chapter 1 we argued that it is fundamental to the development of learner autonomy that learners are given the opportunity to reflect on what they are learning, why, how, and with what degree of success (cf. especially our discussion of the principle of learner reflection in 1.3.2). The importance of goal setting and self-evaluation was regularly discussed at project seminars, and planning and evaluation are included in the list of activities which most teachers felt they (fairly) successfully incorporated into their lessons. At the start of the project we expected that many teachers would welcome the use of a learner diary – special copy books where learners could write classwork and homework and also record (in the target language) lesson plans, learning goals and short evaluative comments. While teachers understood that keeping a learning diary is fundamental to autonomous classrooms like those of Leni Dam (see Dam 1995), some doubted its value. They either gave up the practice altogether or did not make target setting and self-assessment a regular and naturally occurring activity. The following comment by Miriam reflects a general problem felt by teachers: In the hurly burly of the day-to-day class it is not happening in any organized way. (Reflective essay 1, 2000)

On the other hand, Edel worried that she was demanding too much


91

self-assessment from her class: I feel that I probably try to make them evaluate themselves too much. When they do a test I always try to divide it into several sections with varying degrees of difficulty. At the end of the test I always ask them to write how they felt they did and why. (Reflective essay 1, 2000)

When we suggested in October 2000 that teachers should participate in the piloting of the European Language Portfolio (ELP; see 2.4.2 above and 6.2 below), uncertainties to do with the frequency or timing of target setting tended to fade for those who began to use the ELP in their classrooms. They were helped by the practical advice given in the Council of Europe’s guide to the European Language Portfolio for teachers and teacher trainers (Little and Perclová 2001); and they were reassured by the argument that learners’ capacity for self-assessment develops gradually over time. Naturally enough, teachers who started using the ELP developed an approach that suited their class. Extracts from Orla’s summary shows how she made the ELP central to her teaching (at this stage her project class – still the bottom-stream group – was preparing to take the Junior Certificate exam): I began using the ELP in October 2000. I included an A4 green card with a summary of all of the topics for the Junior Certificate syllabus. The students had to choose a topic, work through the vocabulary for this topic and produce a piece of work using the vocabulary. I spent two days explaining the value of the project and filling in the passport section … For two months this peace lasted. Those students who were very motivated achieved a great deal. Those who were less motivated were at least quiet and achieved small amounts. In short, all students learned and worked. Many wrote “I like this way of learning”. (Reflective essay 2, 2001)

These remarks remind us yet again that the teaching-learning process is dynamic, and that teachers have to be flexible.

4.3.4

Persistent problems experienced by the teachers

While it is true that those teachers who stayed the course felt they had benefited from the project in many ways, the real problems they experienced should not be underestimated. In January 2001 Leni Dam gave her second seminar and invited those present to discuss in small groups and then write on posters the problems they were experiencing. By way of follow-up, the next visitor, Irma Huttunen, also discussed with the teachers the problems that

92


they referred to in their final developmental essays (April 2001). The problems were: 1 More reticent learners are not being encouraged enough by the teacher 2 Learners don’t initiate conversation in the target language 3 Lack of motivation among weaker learners 4 Maintaining motivation in a mixed-ability environment 5 Poor note-taking and logbook-keeping among weaker learners 6 Lack of time for planning by the teacher 7 Lack of time in class (short lessons) 8 The teacher doesn’t stick to the daily plan 9 Special concerns to do with the exam system: Am I keeping pace with other classes? Do my learners feel that they are making progress? How do I know that they are learning enough? 10 A general concern about taking risks with a new approach. If we examine these problems more closely, it seems that the old issue of learner motivation remains central (problems 1–5). Yet it was also apparent that teachers’ perceptions of motivation had changed. Whereas in the initial stages of the project they tended to be concerned with arousing learners’ interest, now they worried about maintaining it. It is possible that although their learners’ enthusiasm had been aroused (and classroom observations confirmed that it had), especially weaker learners were not expending much effort. (In Chapter 5 we see evidence of learners wanting to do something, yet not being prepared to expend the necessary effort – a mismatch already touched on in 3.3.2, p.59 above). After discussing these problems with the teachers, Irma Huttunen suggested that the real issue was planning; for effective planning was the way to overcome teachers’ worries about knowing where they and their learners were in the syllabus. She also suggested that teachers might find it helpful to work with one another to draw up a master plan for the three years of the junior cycle. And she recommended that teachers negotiate rules and goals with learners – in this the ELP could play an important role. The further the project progressed, the more teacher reflection emerged as a key theme. The need to plan teaching and learning activities in the long term as well as in the short term gradually became more evident. An early comment by one teacher – “I am not a planning person” – began to make less sense as some of the teachers came


93

to realize that planning (including the gathering of materials relevant to different learning tasks) actually saved time in the long run (cf. 6.1.6 below). Others felt inclined to stay with a more intuitive, spontaneous approach to planning and evaluation, which they felt had served them well enough in the past. None of the teachers kept a systematic record of their teaching during the project, and those who kept diaries tended to make subjective, personal entries.

4.4 Conclusion We noted that teachers embarked on the project with a certain amount of caution, even apprehension. While there was abundant evidence that most of them enjoyed making changes to their teaching approaches (for example, relying less on the textbook to provide them with a pedagogical framework), many were vaguely uneasy about whether they were always doing the right thing for their learners, especially as the exam approached. They all understood the need for the teacher to use the target language as much as possible (how else were learners going to hear, learn and use it?); yet they found it difficult to overcome their belief that some kinds of explanation can only be given in the mother tongue. Real communication in the classroom was a recurring topic of discussion – how, teachers wondered, could their learners achieve real communication during their first two or three years of learning a language when all their learning took place in the classroom, at the rate of a few lessons a week? Thus the larger problem remained unsolved: how to get learners to use the target language spontaneously. As the project progressed one phrase in particular became something of a mantra: you only learn a language by using it. Those teachers with weaker classes found it especially useful to involve learners in writing tasks as a means of supporting their ventures into oral communication. Helping learners to understand that they should take responsibility for their learning was also a central preoccupation, especially in the early stages of the project. At first teachers were unsure how to set about doing this. Later, teachers who used the pilot version of the European Language Portfolio suddenly saw that involving learners in planning, goal setting and self-assessment was not only desirable but achievable. Before that late stage, as Chapter 5 will show, many learners were beginning to realize that their teachers were trying to help them to think about their learning. But turning planning into action was not always easy, either for teachers or learners.

94


By the end of the project, those teachers who had stayed the course understood that promoting the development of learner autonomy requires reflection and effort on the part of the teacher as well as the learners. It is not simply a matter of getting learners interested and keeping them busy. Vague terms like “letting go” or “handing over control” by now seemed oddly out of place. The teachers who had apparently benefited most from the project felt they had learned to collaborate with their classes. There was general agreement that group work and pair work had been a success, once learners had got used to obeying certain rules of behaviour, linguistic and otherwise. What is more, teachers were now paying special attention to (i) their own teaching, (ii) learning processes, and (iii) the progress of individual learners in relation to their subjective and objective needs. These final comments, written in the last stage of the project (April 2001), illustrate these points: The project has coloured my whole approach to teaching French. I have gained valuable insights into the teaching and learning process itself. The project has made clear to me the necessity of involving the pupils actively in what goes on in the classroom, as opposed to prescribing what has to be done. (Anna, reflective essay 2) It is interesting to see how many of the “methods” which the newer project teachers may find strange or daunting have become quite normal to me now. But I cannot reach some of my learners at all and I wonder why. If a child seems to have “gone off” French or German, can I get him back? (Edel, reflective essay 2) I see the huge efforts I have made with this group. Only a small number of learners seem to understand the discipline that is really required to learn a second language (Orla, reflective essay 2) I see the benefit of knowing more about how pupils see their learning and classwork. I am more convinced of the necessity of having clear goals and a clear idea of the possible means of getting there. (Miriam, reflective essay 2) The project has been very beneficial in making me question the way I do things. The only drawback, or perhaps my own anxiety, was the amount of time it required. (Richard, reflective essay 2)

The last word goes to Tom because he draws attention to the wider context of learning a foreign language in Ireland: My involvement in this project has reinforced my belief, based on years of teaching experience, that we must be realistic about language learning. In a cultural environment which is becoming radically less literate and text-based, and where at the same time communicative skills are more necessary, the teacher must


95

work with the students to create “competent foreigners” who are confident in their ability to work in a language. (Reflective essay)

We see here a concern, shared by all the project teachers, that they should provide optimal learning conditions so that their learners could realize to the full their learning potential. Chapter 5 discusses what the learners themselves thought about language learning and their own role in the language classroom.

5

Focus on the learners

5.0 Introduction Seven teachers participated in the project for two years or more. Chapter 4 focussed on the various changes that these teachers made in their teaching approaches; in this chapter we explore what their learners had to say. We begin by discussing findings from the open-ended questionnaires that the seven classes completed during their second year in the project. It was by then approximately eighteen months since they had first become a “project class”, and just over a year since they had filled out the profiling questionnaires described in Chapter 3 (see 3.2 and Appendix 1). We hoped that by now they would be able to reflect on their language learning experience from a mid- to long-term perspective, and to comment in terms of the past and future as well as the present. The advantage of open-ended over closed-response questionnaires is that respondents are guided in the content of what they describe yet they also have the opportunity to reflect further (for discussions of qualitative and quantitative research in L2 classrooms, see Allwright and Bailey 1991, McDonough and McDonough 1997, and Dörnyei 2001). At the same time, open-ended data of this kind must be interpreted with caution. First, there is the issue of researcher bias: we know that most learners enjoyed the status of taking part in a university project, which means that their responses might be coloured by a desire to please. Secondly, learner introspection is not necessarily reliable, in the sense that we cannot take for granted that learners do what they say they do. A related factor is the age of the learners: the phenomenon of wishful thinking is prevalent among adolescents (see Marcus and Nurius 1987). Finally, we cannot assume that at the age of 14 or 15 all learners can take a holistic view of their own learning; they may be more inclined to see it in terms of specific tasks or activities (Huttunen 1996). It should be borne in mind too that these questionnaire respondents represent both genders and a wide range of school types, other educational experience and ability levels. Some were in their second post-primary year, while others were in their third year, preparing for the Junior Certificate examination. What is more, we might expect the differences between them to affect their motivational patterns as well as their sense of engagement with learning. Galloway et al. (1998) cite 96


97

research carried out in the USA and the UK which suggests that learners’ motivation patterns change as they enter secondary school and proceed from one year to the next. Indeed, as we saw in Chapter 3 in relation to the profiling questionnaire (Figure 3.4, p.56 above), there were signs of motivational decline in the comparative response patterns of learners in their first and learners in their second year of foreign language learning. With these considerations in mind, our purpose in this chapter is modest: to explore the extent to which the questionnaire respondents (i) realized that they were key agents of their learning and (ii) found that being in a classroom where the development of learner autonomy was encouraged was a positive experience and one which they realized promoted learning. The discussion in section 5.1 (analysis of the open-ended questionnaire data) focuses on these two issues. Because once-off questionnaires are fairly crude instruments with which to elicit attitudinal or motivational patterns, especially when the aim is to capture a long-term perspective (Ridley and Ushioda 1997), we decided to focus in greater detail on Orla’s class. This class participated in the project for three years, longer than any other class. We not only observed this class more often than others, we also talked at some length to Orla about her learner group as individuals. To complement insights gained from our conversations, we conducted semistructured interviews with some of her class half way through their third year as a project class. Our purpose was the same as when we administered the open-ended questionnaires; however, the use of the semi-structured interview as a research instrument offered the opportunity to gain an in-depth understanding of learners’ experience of their learning (cf. McCracken 1988). In section 5.2 we briefly discuss four of Orla’s learners in terms of their developing autonomy. The concluding section, 5.3, reassesses the approaches that teachers took in the light of what we can glean from their learners’ introspection.

5.1 The open-ended questionnaire data To contextualize what follows, Table 5.1 gives an overview of the seven classes that provided the data discussed in this chapter (see also Table 3.1, pp.46f. above). Each class was in its second project year, and with the same teacher, when the questionnaires were administered. The numbers refer to those pupils who were present when the questionnaires were administered. We discuss the responses to each of the questions in turn (for an

98


Teacher

No. of respondents in the class

Gender

Year in postprimary school

Target language

Sarah

12

mixed

2

French

Edel

23

mixed

3

German

Anna

24

boys*

3

French

Orla

15

boys**

2

German

Cormac

18

mixed

2

French

Richard

9

boys

3

French

Miriam

12 boys 2 German (*top-stream; ** bottom-stream; the others were mixed-ability)

Table 5.1: Overview of respondents to the open-ended questionnaire

overview of questions, see Appendix 2). First though, it is worth stating our underlying aims: as outlined above, we explore the extent to which learners felt that it is they who were doing the learning – as distinct from being on the receiving end of their teachers’ expert knowledge – and the extent to which they reacted positively to what their teachers were encouraging them to do. More specifically, we were interested to see whether their responses offered insights into the extent to which they • reflected on and noticed what they do in class; • felt instrumental in their learning; • were motivated, particularly to speak the target language; • understood, at least in part, what their teacher was trying to achieve. These aims prompt the question: Is it possible to identify, on the basis of what they write, those learners who were autonomous and those who were not? Clearly, we expect that some learners will be more independent in their thinking than others; and a few of the project learners do display – in their responses to this questionnaire at least – evidence of a capacity for critical reflection. By way of illustration, let us quote what Brian (a learner of French) writes. As he describes his learning, he adds what we might call metacognitive insights (here Flavell’s notion of metacognitive experiences as “items of metacognitive knowledge that have entered consciousness” [1979, p.908] is useful). In 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 (pp.9–14 above) we discussed the importance of learners’ metacognitive knowledge, which they draw on to reflect on the language learning process and their strengths and weaknesses as learners. As the following extract indicates, Brian knew that he was a less successful learner than others,


99

in the sense that he was entered for a lower level public exam (Ordinary Level French). But this seemed not to deter him from engaging in motivational thinking, which is indicative of mastery-oriented motivation: I don’t find myself quite as involved in class as other people because I am doing a different level and they are pressing on with new things while I am still paying attention to things the class did a few weeks previously… I find French a lot easier because it is less boring and less stressful which makes it easier to learn… Being responsible for your learning means participating in class as much as possible… I like thinking about language in class and piecing things together because it makes me feel as if I am progressing.

As we shall see shortly, many other learners shared Brian’s positive experience. But we also found twelve learners in this cohort of 113 (i.e., 11%) who seemed to be generally switched off by school, and this had repercussions for their learning behaviour in their language classes, towards which they seemed fairly indifferent. The following extract, written by Ivan, is an example: [During the project] there have been no changes, it’s still the same. I don’t know about having choice, it’s all the same to me… I’m not motivated, I have no interest in school. I don’t speak German, there is no point. I never think about German outside school, I don’t like thinking about the language, I just want to pass the exam.

If we think of learner autonomy in terms of a continuum – with Brian the active, involved learner capable of critical reflection at one end, and Ivan the passive, switched-off learner at the other – it makes sense to interpret the data in terms of learners operating at various points along it.

5.1.1

Learners noticing changes in the classroom

As we explained in Chapter 2, the researcher who administered the questionnaire gave verbal guidance as to how learners might approach each question, while trying to avoid putting words in their mouths. She started as follows: Since your class joined the project just over a year ago, have you noticed any changes in the general atmosphere and the kinds of things you do in your French/ German class? Or are things pretty much the same as they were before?

The point of this question was to see how learners had reacted to innovations made by their teachers. As we saw in Chapter 4, all teachers focussed on greater use of the target language as a means of commu-

100

Towards greater learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom Teacher Sarah

Percentage of learners who have noticed changes 100%

Edel

86%

Anna

96%

Orla

60%

Cormac

83%

Richard

77%

Miriam

67%

Table 5.2: Learners noticing change [N=113]

nication in the classroom, on small group work, on the use of materials other than the textbook, and on getting learners to set goals and reflect on learning tasks. Table 5.2 shows that the majority in each class said they had indeed noticed changes during the previous eighteen months. Since during the eighteen months prior to the administration of the questionnaire the teachers had been making great efforts to introduce different teaching methods, it is not surprising that the majority of learners had noticed this. Interestingly though, we found within each class wide variation in what changes learners said they had observed. In other words, learners had their own interpretations of what goes on in the classroom (cf. Salmon 1995). Miriam’s learners illustrate this variation. We know that she had been allowing learners to choose their homework (for her, a momentous decision), yet only one of them commented on this; and her determination to operate only through German was likewise mentioned by only one learner. Here are some examples of what Miriam’s learners told us: We’ve been doing more writing than before. Yes I’ve noticed changes in the things we do. The grammar and verb work has become much harder. There are not many changes from last year but at the end of each class we write down our opinions of what we think of the class. People are a bit more confident in speaking German in class. Our teacher has been trying to give us different activities such as choosing our homework.


5.1.2

101

Learners’ reactions to being allowed to choose activities

Learner choice was the subject of question 2. Knowing that all project teachers did allow learners to choose homework from time to time (or in some cases regularly), and that all classes were regularly given menus of activities that they could select from, the researcher introduced question 2 as follows: You do lots of different activities in your French/German class. Do you ever get to choose what you want to do, and if so, do you like being given choice?

This time most learners seemed to agree that they were allowed choice. Only in one class was there confusion about whether they were allowed choice or not, but we know that the teacher of this class gave a menu of options from which pupils chose an activity, so it seems that the notion of choice was open to more than one interpretation. With regard to the question whether learners liked being given choice, positive responses ranged from 83% to 100% across the classes. Such enthusiasm is perhaps to be expected: choice encourages a sense of responsibility in learners. For Thomsen (2000, p.72) the prime reason for giving learners choice is to encourage them to take initiatives and to bring their personal experiences to bear on their learning. It is striking that the option of working in pairs or groups was most frequently cited in our data as being the most strongly preferred chosen activity. Other activities mentioned were: writing stories, choosing reading texts, playing games made up by the teacher, like versions of word bingo, crosswords, word dominoes (cf. Dam 1995, and Little et al. 2000, from whom the teachers drew inspiration in planning activities.) Only three learners mentioned in passing that they enjoyed using the textbook. This is interesting since – as Figure 3.5 (p.58 above) demonstrates – in their profiling questionnaires, completed at the start of the project, working with the textbook was a strongly enjoyed activity, especially among the learners of German. As well as naming their preferred activities, many learners went on to explain why they liked choice in general or certain activities in particular. Teachers had been concerned that learners might see group work as an opportunity for doing nothing, and one learner did refer to group work as allowing him to “mess and laugh”. However, most other comments in praise of group work suggest that learners saw the advantages of two or more minds working together on an activity (cf. 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 above). For example:

102

Towards greater learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom We get to share ideas which lets us progress together. We usually have a choice to work on our own or with a friend, which can help our learning skills by being tested on by your partner.

These examples are typical; indeed, only two learners thought that having choice was potentially disadvantageous to their learning. One referred to always choosing the easiest option, which made her feel guilty, while the other complained that having choice from among different activities prevented her from “getting through the course”. But the majority thought that being given choice helped them to master the language. There is also evidence of learners’ self-awareness and language learning awareness: I do like being given choice of what to do during class because if I need to work on my oral German I would ask if we could do tape work and I find this very helpful towards my learning. Having choice gets you more involved. I like being able to choose because I can work on my weak points. The games we play are fun and also educational. Our teacher lets us choose a general topic for the next class. This way she makes it easier to focus on aspects of French that are your weakest. It’s very effective. It is good to have a choice because it gives you the feeling that you are being treated like an adult.

The last two examples suggest that some learners did indeed understand that their teachers were trying to help them take more responsibility for their learning. We should bear in mind, though, that some teachers made their aims explicit to their project classes. Edel, for example, frequently discussed with her class the nature of effective learning; thus some learners may simply have cited what their teachers had been saying.

5.1.3

In comparison with other classes: the enjoyment factor With motivation in mind, the researcher asked her third

question: Compared to other subjects on your school timetable, how do you find your French/German class – for example, fun and relaxing, or boring, or a bit stressful and worrying, or what other words would you use?


103

The purpose here was to access the enjoyment dimension of motivation. It seemed reasonable to supply key words, like fun or boring, in order to see (i) whether learners enjoyed their language classes more or less than other classes (where more traditional modes of teaching predominated), and (ii) to see which additional adjectives came to mind. Their answers were rated in terms of positive, negative and neutral (either they gave a neutral value response like “it’s OK” or they indicated that they were keeping their options open): A very enjoyable class, very interesting and it’s great that we are allowed to have fun while learning. All subjects should be like this (positive) Very boring. When we get questions asked to us in front of the class there is a lot or pressure on you and even if you know the answer you sometimes get it wrong (negative) It depends on what we are doing, sometimes it’s interesting and sometimes it’s boring (neutral)

Table 5.3 shows that more learners gave positive than negative responses; in other words, they enjoyed their language classes more than other classes. This is certainly gratifying to the teachers, but we wanted to know more: what words did learners choose to describe project classes? After all, their enjoyment might be due to a feeling that they were allowed a certain anarchy (an initial fear among their teachers). It was to be expected that many learners would reproduce the key words given by the researcher when framing her question (see above). Table 5.4 shows that project classes were also described as interesting, and in fewer instances, as on the one hand easy and on the other hand challenging or demanding. Given that most classes contained mixed-ability learners, this was to be expected, as were the mixed negative reactions regarding difficulty levels indicated in Table 5.5. The fact that some learners related easy to enjoyment may cause concern for their teachers: Orla, for example, remained concerned throughout that her bottom-stream, low-ability learners thought German was rather easy – a point we return to later in the chapter. Positive reactions

65%

Negative reactions

18%

Neutral reactions

17%

Table 5.3: Positive/negative/neutral reactions compared with classes in other subjects [N=113]

104


fun*

19

interesting

15

relaxed/relaxing*

13

easy/easier

9

challenging/demanding

8

helpful

4

favourite

2

*word supplied in question

Table 5.4: Describing project classes: positive adjectives

Other positive words or phrases were used only once; for example: modern; great craic; happy; very fair (you shouldn’t get your head taken off by teachers); we can speak our minds; we get a good amount of work done. Table 5.5 summarizes the negative responses. Only five learners commented to the effect that the language class was not serious enough, or was too relaxed. This suggests that the teachers had no need to worry that they might appear to be laissez-faire; as our visiting experts insisted, encouraging learner autonomy requires that teachers are in control, in the sense that they have a clear master-plan for what they are doing (see 6.1 below). boring*

14

difficult

4

stressful**

4

too relaxed

3

not serious enough

2

*word supplied in question

Table 5.5: Describing project classes: negative adjectives

5.1.4

Motivation in project classes

The sixth question addressed learner motivation directly. The researcher asked: Are you usually motivated and involved in what goes on in your French/German class? Can you say why (or why not)?

Table 5.6 summarizes the extent to which pupils felt motivated in their French or German classes. It shows the number of positive (yes) responses, the number of negative (no) responses, and the number of neutral responses (i.e., sometimes, as in it depends on what we are doing), expressed as a percentage. This too is pleasing; the majority of


105

yes

61%

no

16%

sometimes

23%

Table 5.6: Being motivated in class [N=113]

learners confirmed the enjoyment factor by saying they were motivated in their language classes. As for the 16% who said they were not (18 learners), we noted in the introduction to the chapter that a total of 12 learners lacked motivation in school generally – they were described as being “totally switched off”. However, the 16% of unmotivated learners here compares unfavourably with the 1.6% of learners who had indicated a clear lack of interest in learning the L2 when they filled in the profiling questionnaire a year before (see 3.3.1). It may be evidence that motivation can diminish as learners progress through school. As well as the word boring reappearing, predictably, in answers to this question (as it did in answers to question 3; see table 5.5 above), we see another factor emerging: a small number of learners added that they were too tired to be motivated in class; and two described, without inhibition, a general unhappiness with life. We knew that some teachers had initially been worried about making changes in their classrooms because these might disturb the status quo with regard to motivation; for example, some learners might get out of control and demotivate their more serious peers. This had been on Richard’s mind. Nevertheless, as we reported in Chapter 4, Richard sensed a general increase in his learners’ motivation (section 4.3.2, pp.89f. above), and he was right: all his learners said they were motivated. (It is worth noting in passing that all the project teachers had an accurate sense of their learners’ motivation levels; it was the underlying motivational causes that tended to puzzle them.) Another concern among teachers had been that their abandonment of their traditional approach might be a demotivating factor; yet only one learner in this cohort of 113 claimed not to be motivated because the class was “not difficult enough”. This may tie in with the complaints, cited in Table 5.5, about project classes being too relaxed or not serious enough. Three learners mentioned too great difficulty levels as being demotivating; interestingly they were in Anna’s top-stream class. However, this time the reason given was that Anna spoke in French all the time. As we explained in 4.2.1 (p.79 above), Anna’s prime aim was to

106


use only French, but to begin with this priority was not well received: the class wrote letters to her asking her to use more English. However, this prompted a thorough discussion, after which the class accepted that Anna’s priority was well founded. Other teachers’ priorities made a more positive initial impact. In 4.2.2 we saw that of the project teachers Edel was the most preoccupied with motivating her learners, which explains her continuous drive to develop innovative learning tools and to explain to the class what she was trying to achieve. It seems that her learners appreciated these priorities. Although three (out of a class of 23) remained switched-off, many were motivated because they understood what Edel was doing. For example: I am very motivated because Ms X gives us the reality that she is not our enemy, she is here to help us and train us for life ahead. I am motivated because our teacher always reminds us that it’s for our own good, that is, doing our homework and assignments as best I can. I think we are motivated because the teacher explains over and over the relevance of each issue or topic like for the exam, and how doing your work makes it easier on yourself. Ms X tries to get everybody to talk and to have a say. Our teacher keeps us motivated by introducing educational games and keeping us interested.

The last example reflects the distinction between learners’ feelings of wanting to do something and the teacher’s need to sustain interest. It also suggests that while teachers may choose to motivate learners by telling them encouraging things, a more direct route is to interest them in activities (Dörnyei 1994). Other reasons given by Edel’s learners were less sophisticated but nonetheless valid: I listen and do my homework so I am motivated. Sometimes we are motivated because she sometimes gives us chocolate and sometimes she teaches us songs.

These differences highlight the variation among learners in their ability to view their learning in terms of all that it entails (a point we return to in 5.1.6 below). Yet in spite of variation from learner to learner, we continue to detect correspondences between what learners in a particular class said about their motivation and what their teacher was specifically encouraging. A third example is Orla’s class. In 4.2.3 (pp.81f. above) we reported that her priority had been to increase learners’ self-confidence. This too did not go unnoticed. While three learners


107

remained unmotivated by the whole experience of school, others said: Yes I do [feel motivated] because I ask questions and answer questions as I do feel involved and part of the class. Yes, I feel motivated because Ms X tries to get everyone involved and that is a good thing for us to have such a great teacher like her. Yes, I think I am motivated in German because when we do something right we get a prize for doing something. And I get two for the price of one, e.g. I do well at my studies and I get a prize as well.

Two general inferences can be made at this point. First, many responses refer to the teacher/learner relationship in terms not so much of liking the teacher (as in the second example above) but of the interesting activities provided by the teacher. In general, learners seemed to link their positive motivation with the interest factor: they seemed to be aware that what kept their minds active and challenged was important. Secondly, it becomes clear that the nature of the group dynamic in each class was an instrumental factor in determining whether learners felt motivated. Many learners were affected by the general ethos of the class (in some cases negatively, as we shall see in relation to speaking the target language). There was a common tendency to refer to what we like to do, as distinct from what I like to do. There is also evidence that the majority of learners felt that the teacher was on their side, encouraging them to do their best. Bearing in mind that five of the classes were mixed ability (a fact which in the early stages caused some teachers to wonder whether they were suitable project classes), these generally positive responses speak volumes for their teachers, who were trying to introduce materials that would challenge and interest everyone. It will be remembered that initially the teachers had been anxious not to let go of the textbook as the one element which united the whole group’s needs; but by the end of the project they could relate particular learning activities to the needs of individual learners, while at the same time maintaining their learners’ sense of group solidarity (Ehrman and Dörnyei 1998).

5.1.5

Speaking the target language

We turn now to one particular indicator of motivation, learners’ willingness to speak the target language in class. Clearly, anxiety will play a part (Horwitz et al. 1996), but other factors are also involved. As we noted in 4.3.1, a major problem experienced by all project teachers was getting learners to speak the target language, not

108


only in direct response to their questions but also spontaneously amongst themselves. We noted the teachers’ surprise when they saw a video recording of young Danish learners using English as a natural medium of communication in class. Subsequently all teachers focussed on (i) speaking the target language themselves as much as possible, and (ii) planning activities which demanded that learners speak the language (for example, several introduced “two minutes’ talk” as a learning activity, following Dam 1995). As the teachers readily acknowledged, there was something of a mismatch between on the one hand their wanting learners to speak the target language and on the other hand their taking action as the providers of native-like input. In 3.3.2 (p.59 above) we reported a similar mismatch between learners wanting to speak the language and actually doing so at the beginning of the project. Now, over a year later, most learners seemed not to realize that the best way to learn to speak a language is to try to speak it. Perhaps they assumed that if their teacher spoke French or German, the ability to do so would be transferred to them by a process of osmosis. In second language acquisition research it is clearly recognized that learning processes are triggered by output as well as input; according to Swain’s “output hypothesis”, learners learn from noticing the gap between what they want to say and what they can say (cf. Swain 1998, Legenhausen forthcoming); and common sense tells us that practice in speaking is essential. Question 7 was introduced as follows: We know that your teacher speaks a lot of French/German in class, but do you sometimes try to speak it too with your friends in class when you’re working together on an activity? If not, why not?

In response, 31% wrote yes and 69% wrote no. Among the negative responses there seemed to be four principal types of explanation: • Lack of personal relevance or interest in being able to communicate in the target language; e.g.: I don’t speak German with friends because there’s no point or I can’t be bothered, or I find it easier to speak English.

• Insufficient target language knowledge (especially vocabulary) for effective communication and understanding; e.g.: I don’t know how to say what I want. Even if I do the other person probably wouldn’t understand.

• Embarrassment over making mistakes or appearing foolish; e.g.:


109

I think we don’t speak German to each other because it can be embarrassing maybe.

• Peer pressure not to speak the target language in class; for example: Even at the “responsible” level I seem pressurized (slightly) by my classmates, so it is harder to speak French casually than when instructed. If you talk French while the teacher is on the other side of the room, you would be branded unpopular or called a nerd.

Table 5.7 quantifies the negative responses according to these four categories. Lack of personal relevance or interest

37%

Insufficient target language knowledge

35%

Embarrassment over making mistakes

12%

Peer pressure not to speak the TL in class

9%

Others

7%

Table 5.7: Reasons for not wanting to speak the target language in class [N=113]

As Ushioda (2000a) argues, while learners’ comments suggest that their reluctance to speak the target language may have stemmed in part from the realization that their target language knowledge was limited, they also point to significant social-psychological barriers. Also, it is possible that learners’ lack of interest in trying to speak may arise from a perception that this activity fails to engage their identity in any meaningful sense (cf. Wenger 1998). We should also consider whether learners were given the time and space (i) to gradually build up confidence and (ii) to acquire those formulaic chunks that are crucial to target language production and on which speakers depend, especially in the early stages of learning. Classroom observation showed that project teachers used the target language much more often than not. This short extract shows Anna trying to act as a “scaffold” to learner John. In the Vygotskyan sense she supports him through reformulation or repetition (cf. Donato and Adair-Hauck 1992): Anna: John, tu as fait les devoirs? John: Oui Anna: Tu as fait les devoirs hier?

110

Towards greater learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom John: Oui … hier Anna: Tu les a fait hier soir? John: Non … j’ai fait … le bus Anna: Tu les a fait dans l’autobus? John: Oui dans l’autobus

If learners do not have the opportunity to engage in this type of teacher/learner interaction, they are unlikely to build a repertoire of useful chunks of speech. Moreover, they need to be encouraged to take risks in trying to construct utterances creatively for themselves. We know that learners in our project classes had been encouraged to use written notes to support the development of their speaking skills (Little 1999). Yet, as indicated above, various negative attitudinal or emotional factors seemed to prevent them from speaking the target language, and these stemmed from their immediate learning environment and perhaps also from the wider community. Turning now to the percentages of learners in each class who said yes, they did try to speak French or German, or no, they did not, we find considerable variation from class to class. In one case 100% answered no; in another there was a 50–50 balance; and in a third the ratio was 60% yes to 40% no. This last class was Orla’s, which, it will be remembered, contained some of the weakest learners in the project – though we should note that when they answered the questionnaire they were preparing for the Junior Certificate. Here are extracts from three responses: Yes, I try to speak German sometimes. I am able to say all the regular words you need. I think I’m good at saying it. I can’t say I speak German every minute of the class but I do speak German to the teacher asking questions in German, and yes I do talk to my friends in German when I am on a project. I speak German in class. I speak a lot of it so I will get used to the words.

The second of these extracts indicates an awareness that we learn languages by using them. Similar comments from two of Edel’s learners seem to echo what she had been telling her class: Yes, now and again I speak German because we can’t go there [to Germany] and write down what we want to say, we’ll have to speak it. Yes, we do try to speak German in class in order to widen our knowledge of phrases, which is for the best really.


5.1.6

111

Learners’ understanding of the learning process

Questions 4 and 5 address the extent to which learners understood the learning process in constructivist terms: did they realize that learning is not a matter of the teacher transmitting knowledge to learners but of learners actively constructing meaning for themselves? In other words, we wanted to find out how learners conceptualized learning, on the ground that learner conceptions are partly shaped by their educational experience (cf. Ridley 1997b, 2000b). If project teachers had been encouraging learners to understand, explicitly or implicitly, that learning involves associating incoming information with what we already know – so that what we know now makes sense and allows us to explore concepts further – the question arises: to what extent did their learners actually understand the nature of learning? Exploring learners’ conceptions of what language learning entails is slightly different from asking them about their beliefs about learning, and the methodology is less straightforward. In the profiling questionnaire we focussed on beliefs (see 3.3.4 above). Respondents had to agree or disagree with a series of statements, for example, learning a foreign language is very difficult (for an overview of research into learner beliefs, see Horwitz 1999). But as Benson and Lor point out (1999, p.464), we need to distinguish between learners’ conceptions of learning (what they perceive learning to be) and their beliefs about learning (what they think is true about learning). Question 4 sought to gain insight into learners’ conceptions of language learning from the perspective of their experience of learning. Knowing this was a complex topic – and something that they might not have thought about before – the researcher resorted to analogy: Let’s suppose someone asks you to describe what the word learning means – what would you say? For example, if someone asks you to describe what the word “walking” means, you might say that it means using your legs to get from A to B, or to get some fresh air and exercise. Or, if someone asks you to explain the word “drawing”, you might say it means using a pencil or crayon to create a picture or a sketch of something. So how would you describe what learning means?

To analyse learners’ responses we adopted the rating system proposed by Berry and Sahlberg (1996) in a study of second-level learners’ perceptions of learning mathematics. They base their analysis on phenomenology (Marton et al. 1997) and distinguish between a surface approach to learning, where learning is perceived as being on the

112


receiving end of knowledge, and a deep approach, where learning is seen as an active process, involving a sense of responsibility, or personal creativity. As Berry and Sahlberg suggest, this distinction is best seen in terms of a continuum (Säljö 1979). They propose “seven steps to good learning”, and we used these to analyse our data on a sevenpoint scale, thus: 1.0 unclear responses (e.g., I don’t know) 1.5 memorizing, passive rote learning (e.g., we have information to remember) 2.0 transfer of knowledge, something compulsory, being taught (e.g., learning is having to learn something that we have not done before) 2.5 a mixture of passive and active, with a positive bias (e.g., learning is being taught something, but only if you like it, because you can’t learn something you have no interest in) 3.0 a sense of understanding, a sense of development (e.g., learning is getting to comprehend all aspects of life rather than getting useless information into your head) 3.5 a sense of discovering new things (e.g., learning is finding out about something new for yourself) 4.0 developing new ideas, a sense of creativity or taking some responsibility (e.g., opening my mind to new ideas and to develop my mind to think for itself ) Table 5.8 summarizes our analysis of learners’ responses according to this scale. Category

Percentage of instances

1.0

12%

1.5

18%

2.0

14%

2.5

13%

3.0

22%

3.5

9%

4.0

12%

Table 5.8: Learners’ understanding of learning [N=113]

To make sense of the table we need to distinguish between those learners who tend to see learning as being a matter of receiving knowledge (surface approach) and the rest, who seem to take a deeper approach. The responses of 44% of learners fall into categories 1.0, 1.5


113

and 2.0 (surface approach); while 56% of learners, scoring 2.5 or more, seem to understand that learning usually requires more than memorization or facts handed down by the teacher. (This finding is comparable with a preliminary study of four of these classes, in which 54% scored 2.5 or more and 46% scored 2.0 or less; see Ridley 2001.) While it is tempting to suggest that teachers’ classroom approaches have an effect on learners’ conceptions of learning, we cannot infer causal relationships because learners may develop a sophisticated understanding of learning with or without a teacher’s influence. For question 5, which asked about responsibility for learning, another set of analogies was used: Say your teacher tells you that you should try to be more responsible for your own learning – what do you think that means? For example, if you’re responsible for looking after your pet dog, that probably means you have to do things like feed it, take it for walks, bath it and so on. Or if you own a bicycle, being responsible means making sure it’s kept in good working order, keeping the tyres in good condition, locking it away in a safe place at night and so on. What about being responsible for your learning – what do you think this means?

The analogy of the bicycle encourages learners to describe selfregulatory behaviour, which means developing appropriate goals and maintaining them (Schunk and Zimmerman 1994). Key themes that learners commented on are: • doing homework • paying attention in class and making an effort • participating fully in classroom activities • being prepared for the next lesson • checking written work and memorizing vocabulary A few compared their role with that of the teacher: This means taking it upon yourself to learn the language because it is for your good, not the teacher’s. It’s taking the initiative yourself. It means to do the learning for yourself. It means having a say in what we learn and how we learn it. And being responsible for our part of the deal.

Among others there was less transparency; good ideas were offered but they were less directly relevant to the question. Some learners mentioned working hard or getting results, and responsibility was referred to in moral terms: It’s not slacking. A certain nameless person in my class takes the easy way out all the time and therefore doesn’t do as well as I do. Oddly enough, he still gets

114

Towards greater learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom decent grades. It’s looking after yourself when you’re grown up. It’s knowing your subject well for the exams. This means not to act the fool in class as not only are you preventing yourself to further your education but the education of fellow classmates as well. Well I’m not responsible because I lost my copybook the other day.

The data suggest that 83% of these learners understood the meaning of accepting responsibility for one’s learning, while 17% did not. However, here again it is unclear whether this was a recent phenomenon attributable to the teacher’s chosen procedures; in other words, we cannot necessarily link teachers’ pedagogical aims and procedures with this finding. It is, however, possible to detect teachers’ – or parents’ – advice in what learners wrote, as in the last two examples cited above. Following on what learners said they did in order to learn, and with motivation again in mind, we also asked them whether they thought about language learning outside class (question 8): Do you ever find yourself thinking about what you’ve been doing in your French/ German class when you’re outside school? Or does this only happen when you’re doing your French/German homework?

Here we find an almost exact balance between those who wrote no (as in only when doing homework) and those who wrote yes (as in occasionally, sometimes or often): 49% responded negatively and 51% positively. Among the negative responses various reasons were given; the familiar word boring reappears, as does tiredness, and – among the 12 learners who generally disliked school – a lack of interest in school was mentioned (it depresses me). A few cited lack of time (I am too busy outside school to think). Nearly all the learners who responded positively went on to give an explanation or an example. It is possible to distinguish between reasons that have to do with motivation and reasons that have to do with learners’ metacognitive strategies, for example, reflecting on what they had learned in class. Among motivational responses we found the following categories: • having found the lesson or a particular topic interesting or personally relevant • wanting to do well in class or in exams • being in contact with native-speaker input, like watching a


115

French TV channel or listening to French or German native speakers • speaking to their own family or Irish friends, as in preparing for a holiday or speaking to a relative who had lived in France or Germany A few responses showed that some learners not only reflected on their learning but also acted strategically. They referred to • deliberately trying to make progress – for example: I sometimes think of my German outside school because I am not particularly good at it and so I try to think of ways to help me with it;

• spontaneous noticing that leads to further reflection – for example: Yes, sometimes words or pronunciations remind me of French and then I always think back on what we did then in French class.

There is also evidence that positive motivation leads to reflection, as in the following examples, from Anna’s class and Orla’s class respectively: When I come home from school I always tell my parents what I did in French class as it is one of the most interesting classes of the day. When I speak French at home all the slang and real French phrases are amalgamated together which helps me then think about my French class. Yes I do think about German outside class when I want to get the prizes that Ms X offers and then I learn a lot.

Significantly for the teachers, responses having to do with learners finding the lesson or the topic interesting were the most frequent. At the same time, it is interesting that there were remarkably few references to what teachers had been telling learners to do in order to master the target language. Edel, for example, advised her class to learn vocabulary by writing words on Post-its and sticking them to the walls and furniture in their bedroom, but only one learner referred to this. This finding suggests that telling learners about effective learning strategies may be ineffective or even counter-productive (cf. McDonough 1995). We note too that when teachers suggested that learners should make optional entries in their learning diaries, very few of them did so. There was in fact a general consensus among teachers that logbooks or diaries were optimally beneficial only when they were integrated into classroom activities. Most teachers put their lesson plan (including a menu of activities for learners to choose from) on an overhead transparency at the start of each lesson, and at the end (follow-

116


ing Dam 1995) asked learners to evaluate what they had learnt (and sometimes why), and whether they felt they had been successful. We were interested to see what learners made of this procedure, and whether they realized that it was there to help them understand aspects of the process of learning. That was the focus of question 9: We know that you use logbooks/diaries/notebooks in class to write things down, like lesson plans, vocabulary and new things that you’ve learned. Do you think it’s good to write things down like this, and why?

It turned out – not unexpectedly – that 93% of the learners agreed that it was a good idea to make a record of lessons. Among those who disagreed there were a few interesting insights into the potential for learner diary entries to become mechanical: I think it is very boring and I think French should be taught orally and by listening to tapes. It’s not a good idea because the answers are already in our book. I do not think it is a good idea for it doesn’t help us mentally and physically. Writing down does not help – we only rephrase what is done.

Clearly, these learners did not associate their learning diary with selfevaluation or goal setting. Analysis of responses to the second part of the question (“why is this a good idea?”) showed that among the 93% of learners who thought it was a good idea to write things, a few (5%) offered individual comments on classroom management: It is a good idea because it helps Ms X manage the class better.

A larger group (46%) saw the practice as helpful because it helped them to revise the linguistic content of lessons just before the exams; for example: Notes are very handy for future revision, especially with the Junior Cert about to rear its head. In a matter of minutes I can revise the entire French language.

The notion that regular record keeping and evaluation might help learners to gain insight into the learning process was lost on this learner. However, others – 48% – associated writing things down (whether in the target language or not) with their own learning processes. For example: It is a good idea, what you write will stay in your brain and it will further your understanding.


117

A few learners offered additional metacognitive insights (cf. 5.1, p.98 above), for example: When you write things down you tend to learn them. There would be no point in the teacher just saying things out-loud. You think about things more when you’re writing them down.

Our final example illustrates the truism that you only learn a language through using it: It is good because it makes you more familiar with the language.

5.1.7

Thinking about language – likes, dislikes and aspirations

In 5.1.3 (pp.102ff. above) we saw that the majority of the questionnaire respondents said they liked their language classes better than other subjects, and in 5.1.4 we drew attention to general motivation levels. Here personal relevance and interest played key roles. The last three questions returned to specific likes and dislikes, starting with thinking about the target language. Clearly, we wanted learners to develop an understanding of how the target language operates as a system; and this meant that they needed to develop enquiring attitudes that would lead them to discover things for themselves. Because the project teachers put great store on encouraging learners to think about the target language system – and perhaps analyse its features, either explicitly or implicitly – we wanted to explore whether learners found this an enjoyable experience (which may or may not involve effort), and whether they (i) understood the relevance of developing enquiring minds and (ii) enjoyed noticing things for themselves (cf. Schmidt 1995). Question 10 asked: When you’re reading or writing French/German, do you like trying to work out for yourself how the language works? What kinds of things have you noticed?

In response to the first half of the question, 60% wrote yes (they liked trying to work things out for themselves), and 40% wrote no. Interestingly, in all but one of the classes more learners said that they liked thinking about language than said that they did not. The exception is Orla’s class of weak learners; although she provided games and activities that required the exercise of analytical skills, it seems that not all of her learners enjoyed giving them their best. Some of the positive responses include an explanation that amounts to evidence of learners taking responsibility for their learn-

118


ing and enjoying it. Here are some examples: I like to think how it works and find out things for myself. I try to use all my resources to make interesting pieces, essays etc., as opposed to writing “I went to the shop” simple things. (Learner in Cormac’s class.) I do and I like it because it helps me to figure things out by myself instead of being taught everything. (Learner in Edel’s class.) I like trying to work out different words etc. as it is a challenge to yourself to see if you can do it without anyone else’s help, which makes you feel more confident. (Learner in Anna’s class.) Yes I like reading words first and trying to figure out what they mean on my own and then I can tell the teacher what I think the words mean and then she can say whether they are right or wrong. I think this is a great way of learning rather than the teacher telling you. (Learner in Orla’s class.)

With regard to what learners said they noticed, the topics mentioned are predictable enough: gender, German word order, similarities between English and target language items (perhaps because it is typologically more distant from French and German than English is, Irish featured only once). In general metalinguistic terminology is used appropriately (for example, masculine and feminine). A few learners referred to the intricacies of tense in French, while others focussed on more basic aspects of language: one learner wrote that words in different languages look different (German words are longer), and a couple of others pointed out that words have different meanings (this may be a reference to “false friends” in French). In contrast to the many learners who used words like fun, great, interesting, challenging, even gratifying, to describe the process of thinking about language, among the 40% of learners who said they did not think about language, surprisingly many expressed their dislike with intensity. As well as citing the difficulty of the target language (the commonest reason), learners used the following words to describe the process of thinking about the language: hate, aggravating, annoying, frustrating, irritating, boring, even pointless. This last word is associated with a reliance on the textbook or the teacher to supply answers; the following comment is typical: I don’t like figuring things out and anyway teachers are there to tell you about it.

This learner has a point about the role of the teacher, of course, but acquiring explicit grammatical rules from the teacher is only one aspect of language learning. Perhaps naturally enough, none of the 12 learners who were iden-


119

tified earlier as being generally switched off as regards school said that they enjoyed thinking about the target language. A few said that they were generally motivated (for example, they found the French or German class interesting), yet – as in the matter of their willingness to speak the target language – we find some evidence of a mismatch between feeling motivated in class and being willing to reflect on the target language. We can only speculate on underlying reasons for this mismatch, but a lack of effort or an unwillingness to take risks may be partly responsible (one learner refers to his own laziness). General proficiency in the target language may also be a factor. We noted in Chapter 4 that one of Anna’s principal objectives was to foster the development of her top-stream learners’ language-related problemsolving skills, and it seems that many of them (71%) enjoyed taking up the challenge (but note also that this class was particularly attentive). Question 11, which addressed learners’ personal long-term goals, drew positive responses across the board. The researcher asked: As a learner of French/German, do you have any personal goals (apart from passing the exam)? For example, if you’re learning to play the guitar, your goal might be to play songs that you really like, or maybe your goal is to play in a band and do some gigs. Or, if you’re learning to work with computers, maybe your goal is to design computer games, or to get a high-tech job and make lots of money when you’re older. What about learning French/German? Do you have any personal goals (relating perhaps to things you might want to be able to do in the future)?

In response, 75% of the learners referred to long-term goals that included French or German, while 25% wrote no, they either did not have any goals, or their goals did not include being able to use the language in question. In every class a majority of learners included the target language in their long-term goals, and most of these learners went on to specify their particular goal. The most popular personal goal was to speak French or German. Communicating with native speakers was given as a prime goal by 41 learners. Most of them wanted to be fluent, while some wanted simply to hold conversations with the locals and, as one learner put it, to be able to survive in French. Visiting France or Germany (which may include being able to understand and speak with native speakers) was mentioned as a principal goal 18 times, and getting a job that would require proficiency in French or German was referred to 11 times. Goals that do not fall into these three principal categories included going to

120


college, speaking the language with members of the family, and being able to understand sports commentaries on TV. A learner in Anna’s class was intellectually motivated: my real goal is simply to understand a new concept, i.e. French. Interestingly, it seems that during the eighteen months or so since these learners had filled in the profiling questionnaires, their aspirations to speak French or German had remained at a high level (cf. Figure 3.4, p.56 above). The various types of enthusiastic aspiration reported here, and the fact that most learners said they were motivated in their French or German class (see 5.1.4, pp.104f. above), are surely to be attributed to the dynamics of the classroom and in particular to the contribution of the teacher. The final question asked learners what makes a good teacher: What words would you use to describe what makes a good teacher?

We were relieved to find that learners took this question seriously. Teachers were not referred to by name except in one instance, where Ms X was described as ideal. The adjectives or phrases that learners used referred to • the teacher/learner relationship; e.g., friendly, understanding, kind, gentle, someone you can talk to, someone who cares, someone who likes working with children, someone who listens; • the teacher’s general ability to teach; e.g., able to teach, explains clearly, makes things interesting, makes things challenging; • the teacher’s ability to speak the target language; • the teacher’s training; e.g., educated, intelligent; • the teacher’s ability to help individuals when they experience linguistic difficulties; e.g., helpful, encouraging, patient; • the teacher’s ability to discipline or control the class; • the teacher’s fairness (i.e., he/she does not have favourites); • the teacher’s disciplinary control – firm but not too strict; • the teacher’s personality; e.g., nice, cool, playful, boisterous, relaxed, someone who isn’t narkey; • the teacher’s sense of humour; e.g. witty, funny, amusing; • the teacher’s personality-related professional attitudes; e.g., organized, motivated, hardworking; • the teacher’s physical appearance; e.g., good-looking, pretty. Table 5.9 shows the number of references to each of these categories. The learners’ beliefs about what makes a good teacher correspond broadly to studies of effective teachers cited by Williams and Burden (1997, pp.46–9). Assuming that they liked their teacher (and classroom


121 Category

No. of words/phrases that fall into the category

the teacher/learner relationship

58

general ability/competence in teaching

50

ability to speak the target language

15

education/training

3

ability to help/encourage individuals

14

ability to discipline/control the class

11

ability to treat pupils fairly

14

ability to be firm but not too strict

18

likeable personality

5

sense of humour

20

professional attitude

12

attractive physical appearance

3

who cares about what happens in life

1

who gives us prizes

1

Table 5.9: Learners’ descriptions of the characteristics of a good teacher

observation suggested that they did), and that many of the words and phrases they used to describe a good teacher would also express how they felt about their teacher, we might conclude that in these project classrooms the teacher–learner relationship not only worked well but was something the learners noticed and appreciated. Viewed from the perspective of the teachers at the start of the project, when there was a general unease about losing control, Table 5.9 also implies that teacher control (in the sense of crowd control) was much less important to their learners than a friendly environment conducive to learning. Teachers’ professional abilities – including proficiency in the target language and classroom management skills – were also appreciated.

5.1.8

Summary of the questionnaire data

The analysis of the questionnaire data allows us to draw some tentative conclusions. At the beginning of the chapter we stated two general aims: (i) to explore the extent to which project learners realized that they were key agents in the learning process; and (ii) to find out whether they enjoyed being part of a project class in which teachers were focussing in particular on target language use and learner reflection. As regards the first aim, we can say that changing learners’ attitudes towards and beliefs about the nature of learning is a slow process. In their second year in the project, approximately half the learners seemed to realize that it was up to them to take more respon-

122


sibility for their learning; but others understood the learning process as a series of activities, some of which they found meaningful (in which case they put in a great deal of effort because they enjoyed the challenge) and some of which they did not. This brings us to our second aim, to discover whether they enjoyed responding to their teachers’ demands. It seems that on the whole they did. We found that learners • noticed the changes that their teachers put into effect, though at the same time we note that individual learners in the same class paid heed to different things; • enjoyed being given a choice of activities, because choice made them feel involved and also responsible; • were motivated when the activity was meaningful and relevant to them; • tended not to want to speak the target language in class; • liked keeping a record of what they did in class; • did not necessarily like finding things out about the target language for themselves; • noticed and appreciated teachers who established a good working relationship with them and who were competent professionals. We also found that although these 113 learners came from very different types of schools (in terms of factors like mixed or single sex, socio-economic group, size of class), their responses showed broadly similar patterns in the areas of likes/dislikes and the extent to which they seemed to know that learning must involve effort on their part – whatever the subject and whoever the teacher. This conclusion supports the notion that some learners are naturally more autonomous than others, but that the teacher can do much to help individuals, especially if this help is visible, purposeful and personally relevant.

5.2 Focus on four learners As we observed in 4.2.3 (p.81 above), in classes that are labelled “bottom stream” or are known to be unmotivated and difficult to teach, the teacher may feel especially unwilling to encourage the development of learner autonomy, for fear that “letting go” will result in chaos. Orla’s project class presented this challenge, and she decided to focus on building up learners’ self-esteem and self-confidence while maintaining a strong, transparent routine in classroom management. The following brief profiles of four of her learners show that


123

• learners develop autonomy in the classroom by different routes; • although we can see a spontaneous link between autonomy and success in language learning among some learners, in others the link is more complex and requires special attention from the teacher. What follows is drawn from classroom observation, conversations with Orla, and interviews with four members of her class carried out during the third year of the project (see 2.5.2, pp.38f. above). Individual differences in the approaches these four learners took to learning German show that learner autonomy (where learners take responsibility for their learning) develops in different ways and to different degrees in different learners. Liam: driven by a personal goal Liam was a learner who seemed to be naturally autonomous. He was one of the highest achievers in this low-ability class, and he managed this position well. He came across as fairly outgoing and mixed well with his peers. However, he did not identify with the behaviourally difficult group of learners who often set the tone in this class, which had a generally bad reputation in the school. Orla described him as reflective and independent-minded. As a project learner he was interesting because he had established a long-term personal goal – to be good at speaking German – and was deploying cognitive and linguistic resources to achieve his goal. Moreover he was able to assess his abilities realistically and to adjust his effort accordingly. Liam was interested in learning German because a friend of his mother, now living in Germany, had a daughter who would be his pen-pal. He spoke German on the phone to the girl’s mother, and this boosted his confidence. He described the first time he did this as follows: My mam was talking to her and said that Liam is learning [German]. The first time she rang I only knew a few words, you know. It was like “yes” and then … Now she’s ringing I’m able to have nearly a conversation with her. Not a big one really but pretty good, so it is.

Unlike many other project learners, who shared his long-term wish to speak German fluently but did not realize that they must practise, Liam was prepared to try to speak, in class as well as outside. He also understood the importance of what he called having the “urge to learn”, while recognizing that it was his teacher’s role to encourage his efforts in a flexible manner. When pressed further about his goal,

124


Liam thought that it was always at the back of his mind. He also understood the link between (i) what he could do, (ii) what he hoped to achieve, and (iii) what would be involved along the way. In this sense we can say that he had a long-term view of his own learning. He said, for example: [Learning] is about making the effort yourself. You can’t depend on anyone else because it’s you that it’s going towards. And really, the brain is the big one of them. But everybody does have to make an effort themselves because if they really want to do well … ‘cos like my cousin [who went to college] – she came from a rough area, a bad area, but she really studied a lot and, well I can see she’s come out the better of it so … I can take a few things from her.

Cian: driven by feeling enthusiastic and interested Cian was extremely confident and a fairly successful learner. His long-term goals were less focussed than Liam’s, and he was more concerned to find the class interesting than to put effort into his learning. In this respect he was more dependent than Liam on what the teacher provided for him to do. He lost concentration easily and tended to act impulsively, and his teacher knew that she had to keep him occupied with activities he found personally relevant. He was developing an understanding of what makes for effective learning in class, however: I listen in class, and we talk in class. We talk to each other in class, and we don’t just talk in English. Like if someone’s talking to each other and if the teacher says “quiet” she’ll say it in German. Yeah she’ll say it in German and we say things back in German. Well sure if you want to do well you’ll study and you’ll listen in class, and learn when you listen. And if you don’t you’ll do nothing. That’s what I think.

His teacher was pleased that Cian’s confidence was high, but it worried her that he found German so easy. He seemed to confuse finding things easy with mastering the target language, and she was concerned that allowing learners to choose their learning activities might encourage them to avoid what they found difficult. Cian took the view, however, that as long as he found the activity interesting he was learning German: In our class the teacher, she’ll ask you what you’d like to do, and if you want to do it or not. Well obviously you’re going to do one of the subjects. Like she’ll ask you if you want to do the bingo game or reading or making up essays using the dictionary. And any one you pick you’ll be using German in every one of them so. Well I pick so sometimes there’s not going to be the same words over and over again. And once you look the words up they’ll stay with you if you’re learning. And it’s a fun way to learn.


125

The reference here to “words” reminds us of another concern of Orla’s: learners in this class tended to think of language in terms of lexical items only, whereas other project classes had clearly taken on board the notion of grammar. She wondered whether Cian’s confidence and interest would remain high if she returned to a traditional mode of teaching, with its greater emphasis on learners’ explicit knowledge of grammatical rules (she was aware that with this class she tended to focus learners’ attention more on lexical phrases than on morpho-syntax). Keith: enthusiastic and teacher-dependent Keith also loved learning German. He found German classes very interesting and also “very easy”. Orla found this slightly worrying, since he was one of the weakest pupils in the class, and she wondered how she could challenge very low-ability learners while keeping them motivated. A possible source of Keith’s unrealistic attitude may have been the difficulty that on-the-spot self-assessment caused him. Whereas others in his class could say immediately which of the four skills they were best at, or what position they occupied in the class, Keith needed guidance: Interviewer: do you think you’re able to give an accurate description of yourself as a language learner? For example, what are you good at and not so good at? Keith: em, I don’t know. Interviewer: I mean supposing for example someone asked what sort of football player are you? What are you like as a football player? You’d be able to say so … Keith: I’d say I’m OK … I’d say I’d be in the top five or six in the class.

When prompted further, he was able to say that he found speaking hardest and explain why: I don’t really know how to put my words into sentences.

(We should make clear that Keith was by no means the only project learner who found self-assessment difficult; for self-assessment is a skill whose development usually depends on guidance from the teacher and a lot of practice.) At this stage Keith did not see the connection between learning German and trying to speak it, neither did he see the target language as a possible medium of self-expression: In class we sometimes we do eh … like what we learn over the three years trying to put them into sentences and say them out to the class

126


This failure to understand the communicative function of language is what makes us describe Keith – like many other project learners – as teacher-dependent: he still needed the teacher to show him that language had to do with two-way communication, whereas Liam and Cian already understood this. Keith was also teacher-dependent because he linked his own motivation with the teacher’s ability to explain things to him effectively (in 4.2.3, p.82 above, we described how Orla saw the need to focus on individual learners’ needs as much as possible; clearly, Keith appreciated this approach). Kevin: independent and choosing not to learn Kevin represents a different type of learner from Liam, Cian and Keith: he had ability in German but decided not to expend effort on learning the language because it did not fit in with his life plan. He is an example of a learner who cannot easily be placed on the continuum described at the start of the chapter, between Brian the active, autonomous learner and Ivan the unmotivated, passive learner. Kevin is active or passive according to his choice of the moment. The following extract illustrates the on/ off nature of his learning effort and interest: [German] is just a language and it’s there to be learnt. It’s just another school subject. Compared with other classes I’m doing really well. I get on really well with the teacher and so I find it easier. Some teachers can take control better than other teachers. Ours can handle us if she wants to and she can have a bit of a laugh as well. If I didn’t want to learn I wouldn’t have to so what I want to do in that class I do it because I want to do it. I know I can get to a certain point and then when I reach this point where I don’t understand something, I kind of leave it.

Keith believed that it is up to individuals to decide whether or not they are going to learn (i.e., become involved in learning activities). His aim was to do well enough to pass the next exam; meanwhile his teacher managed to sustain his interest and to establish a good working relationship with him, so that he tended to choose to pay attention in class. Although he did not find German personally relevant, his instrumental motivation was such that he was willing to participate; and this motivation was fuelled by the general atmosphere of the teacher-learner partnership.

5.3 Conclusion If we compare teachers’ initial concerns about the project with what their learners said after eighteen months, it seems clear that the pedagogical measures teachers took were a motivating force, so that


127

in this respect they were very successful. Learners attached great importance to being given learning activities and materials that were interesting; at the same time, however, the working relationship between teacher and learners was crucial. We conclude that being a member of one of the project classes was an enjoyable experience, and one which learners felt promoted effective learning. Many of them were beginning to understand what language learning entails, especially as regards the learner’s responsibility for his or her learning. However, progress in this direction was slow. In the end the data we have analysed in this chapter contain two messages for teachers. First, getting learners to speak the target language in order to learn it is by no means easy; and secondly, it is vitally important to help learners to understand the purpose of classroom activities. In Chapter 6 we explore these issues further by returning to the approaches taken in their own countries by the project’s visiting experts.

6

A second look at the practice and principles of learner autonomy

6.0 Introduction In 2.1.2 we listed the project aims as we elaborated them in our application for funding and in the brochure that we used to advertise the project to teachers: • to elaborate a pedagogy apt to develop the communicative proficiency of Irish second-level learners of French and German; • to implement and evaluate that pedagogy over the three years of the junior cycle; • through implementation and evaluation, to develop teaching methods and learning resources that can be more widely disseminated; • through the research that accompanied implementation and underpinned evaluation, to arrive at a better understanding of the factors governing success in foreign language teaching and learning. These aims imply a simple linear progression, from design through implementation to evaluation. First we must recruit teachers with classes that have just entered post-primary school; then, almost immediately, we must embark on pedagogical experimentation supported by empirical investigation; and progressively we must pool the practical outputs of the project and prepare them for wider dissemination, at the same time summarizing our empirical findings in an evaluative report. But before we began we knew that it would not be this simple. Teacher recruitment was not straightforward; teacher involvement in the project was subject to various kinds of disturbance; and every teacher came to the project with his or her personal “baggage” (beliefs about language learning and teaching; preferred teaching approaches and activities; the ethos and traditions of the school where he or she was employed; constraints imposed by the limitations of the physical environment; and so on). In other words, there could be no question of developing a single set of pedagogical procedures and implementing them simultaneously in all the project classrooms. At the same, of course, we ourselves were not three blank slates. For a number of years our research, both individual and collaborative, had focussed on the practice and underlying theory of learner au128

A second look at the practice and principles of autonomy

129

tonomy, gradually yielding the model of language teaching summarized in the three principles that we elaborated in Chapter 1: learner empowerment, learner reflection, and appropriate target language use. For us the goal of the project was to develop learners’ communicative proficiency by helping to make them more autonomous; and our task as researchers was to explore with the teachers how they could interpret and apply the three principles in their particular classrooms. As we explained at the end of Chapter 2, the ongoing process of exploration in project seminars and classrooms brought us back again and again to five key issues: • How can we bring learners to accept responsibility for their learning? • How can we help them to develop the reflective skills on which effective exercise of that responsibility depends? • How can we get learners to use the target language as the principal channel of learning? • How can teachers develop their long-term planning skills? • How can we integrate the pursuit of autonomy with the demands of the curriculum? In this concluding chapter we revisit these issues by considering the contribution that seven experts from outside Ireland made to the project.

6.1 Perspectives from abroad The seven experts who visited the project at different stages (see also Table 2.3, p.33 above) were: Leni Dam (Denmark), Lienhard Legenhausen (Germany), Ramon Ribé (Spain), Hanne Thomsen (Denmark), Turid Trebbi (Norway), Viljo Kohonen (Finland), and Irma Huttunen (Finland). We had two reasons for involving them. On the one hand, we knew that they had first-hand experience of significant innovation in language teaching that was directly relevant to our project aims and thus would be of interest to ourselves and the participating teachers. On the other hand, it was fundamental to our approach that teachers in Ireland must find their own way of making their learners more autonomous; thus we wanted to give them the opportunity to think about their own situation (curriculum, examinations, textbooks and other materials, learner characteristics and expectations, environmental constraints) from the perspectives offered by innovative practice in other countries. There were some obvious differences – for example, English is a more immediate reality to learners in the three Nordic

130


countries than French and German are to learners in Ireland; and none of our visitors came from an educational culture that was dominated by public exams to the same extent as our own. But there were also unexpected similarities – for example, some classes in those countries are as large as the largest classes in Ireland; and Irish teachers are not alone in having to contend with low levels of learner motivation (see the account of Leni Dam’s first steps towards learner autonomy in 1.1 above). The series of public lectures and project seminars that we organized from 1998 to 2001 was not conceived as a unified, far less as a progressive programme, not least because the group of participating teachers changed from year to year, and only a minority was able to attend all the events. Nevertheless, we briefed all our visitors about the project in general, its aims and procedures, and also about its pedagogical and empirical progress; so that when they worked with us and the teachers they always focussed, at least in part, on issues that were preoccupying us at that moment. In what follows we summarize in particular those things our visitors said that made a particular impact on the project.

6.1.1

Leni Dam and Lienhard Legenhausen

We explained in Chapter 1 that Leni Dam provided our first introduction to learner autonomy, almost twenty years ago. It was thus entirely fitting that she should be the first of our foreign experts to visit the project. We wanted our teachers to hear from Leni Dam at first hand what she thought learner autonomy was, how she went about developing it, what difficulties she had encountered, and how successful she had been in overcoming them. She also visited the project in its final year, by which time most of the teachers who had experienced her first visit were no longer with us. On both occasions her account of pedagogical principles and classroom practice was complemented by an account of the empirical exploration and evaluation of her classrooms that she has undertaken with Lienhard Legenhausen (see, e.g., Dam and Legenhausen 1996, Legenhausen 1999a, 1999b, forthcoming). This was important for two reasons. First, the empirical exploration of classroom language learning was a fundamental concern of our project; and secondly, we wanted our teachers to be presented with empirical rather than merely anecdotal evidence that autonomous learners do develop higher levels of proficiency than learners who are exposed to more traditional teaching methods. Given our


131

interest in learners of lower ability, we were specially concerned that teachers should understand the extent to which “less academic” learners can become confident users of their target language. In the account that she gave of her own classroom practice, Leni Dam focussed on the issues of learner responsibility and choice, elaborating on the summary account we cited in Chapter 1 (Dam 1995, p.3; see p.6 above). Essentially, she argued that if learners are obliged to reflect on why they are learning (in her case) English and to take some of the decisions about what they should learn and how, they are more likely than otherwise to have their interest and motivation aroused. This argument addressed the principles of learner involvement and learner reflection, while the practical examples with which she substantiated her argument, especially a large number of classroom posters and learner diaries, addressed the principle of appropriate target language use: they were all in English. Naturally, our teachers were keen to hear how to do it. So how can we bring learners to accept responsibility for their learning? And how can we help them to develop the reflective skills on which effective exercise of that responsibility depends? There is no simple answer to either question; for what is required is not a single act on the part of the teacher that somehow transforms the learning behaviour of her class for all time, but rather a continuous interactive process in which learners are repeatedly challenged to use the knowledge and skills they already have as the basis for further learning (cf. the discussion in 1.2.1 about the paradoxical relation between being and becoming, p.8 above). Any satisfactory answer to both questions is effectively a description of the teacher’s role in all its complexity. Leni Dam discussed this in terms of the interaction between teacher-directed and learner-directed activities, in the learning process over time and in the individual lesson. Our teachers found her “possible plan for a teaching/learning period” (see, e.g., Dam and Little 1999, Dam forthcoming) particularly illuminating. The version of the plan (for a double period of 90 minutes) that she presented in 2001 has three parts, which may be summarized as follows: 1. Teacher-directed activities designed to • raise learners’ awareness of the learning community and the responsibilities expected of its members • draw learners’ attention to useful language learning activities • engage learners in joint evaluation of teacher-initiated activities

132


2. Learner-directed activities, e.g.: • sharing homework • “two minutes’ talk” (in which learners work in pairs to sustain a conversation in the target language for two minutes) • projects that are undertaken in groups or pairs (and occasionally individually) and usually last for several weeks • planning of homework or new projects • evaluation of individual, pair and group work. 3. Shared activities, e.g.: • presentations of the target language – preferably by the learners – in songs, stories, videos, etc. • presentation of the results of group, pair or individual work, including learners’ evaluations • joint evaluation of the lesson as a whole. This lesson plan insists that learners are partly responsible for what happens in the classroom, and in each of its phases it requires them to engage reflectively with what they are doing. Sometimes reflective engagement takes the form of whole-class or group discussion; sometimes it is a matter of the individual learner writing in his or her logbook. The plan clearly embodies our three principles of learner empowerment, learner reflection and appropriate target language use (everything is in English, including reflection and evaluation). But it is also clear that it does not absolve the teacher of further planning, for she must keep the lesson plan under review, constantly asking herself whether lessons are achieving the right balance between teacher-directed and learner-directed activities, and monitoring the progress of the class as a whole and of each individual learner (see Dam forthcoming). In videos, posters and logbooks Leni Dam provided ample evidence that her learners were indeed users of English who were by no means limited to textbook phrases but could express complex meanings of their own (recall the two examples quoted in 1.4, p.22 above). Again and again in project seminars the question was asked: how is it done? Essentially, Leni Dam employs two techniques. First, she herself uses English in her classroom from the very earliest stages, and she expects her learners to do their best to reply to her and communicate with one another in English. Secondly, also from the very earliest stages, she expects her learners to write down the English that they want to learn, which means that the development of writing supports the development of speaking (cf. the discussion of the role of writing


133

in 1.3.3). This latter technique is of surpassing importance, because it explains how her learners come to master the forms of English without being explicitly taught grammar.

6.1.2

Hanne Thomsen: “scaffolding” and learners’ preferred activities

When Hanne Thomsen visited the project the teachers were already familiar with a video of one of her classes (Thomsen and Gabrielsen 1991), which has much in common with Leni Dam’s “possible plan for a teaching/learning period”. The video lesson begins with Hanne Thomsen writing the lesson plan on the blackboard and the learners copying it into their logbooks. What follows falls into six parts: 1. A review of homework in which individual learners describe and show to the rest of the class what they have done 2. The performance of a play about a bank robbery that four learners have written and rehearsed 3. Group work – activities include story writing, both individual and collaborative, the rehearsal of a play about Sleeping Beauty, and the game of picture bingo 4. Individual written evaluation of group work 5. The whole class sings a song 6. Hanne Thomsen reads a story to the whole class When we showed this video at one of our project seminars, we drew particular attention to the first part of the lesson, where Hanne Thomsen conducts an extended homework review, inviting one learner after another to say what he or she did for homework. Although they have been learning English for less than a year, her learners are able to present their homework with all the appearance of fluency. This is due partly to their rapidly developing proficiency, but partly also to the skill with which Hanne Thomsen “scaffolds” the interaction (cf. 1.2.2 above). She gives it direction and structure, but she also helps the learners to contribute content by expanding and interpreting their answers to her questions and suggesting possible answers when they are silent. The interaction is genuinely communicative: because the learners choose their own homework, Hanne Thomsen does not know in advance the answers to her questions. Although her expansions and reformulations contain a great deal of implicit corrective feedback (as well as new input), she does not identify and correct errors explicitly. This video sequence rewards detailed and repeated study;

134


for it carries within it one of the keys to promoting communicative target language use in the classroom. It shows how the teacher can support learners in their efforts to communicate; and it suggests some of the techniques that learners themselves must master in order to support one another in pair and group work. It is worth noting that Hanne Thomsen explains the concept of “scaffolding” to her learners and encourages them to explore how they use it in their own interactions (see Thomsen forthcoming). When Hanne Thomsen visited the project she gave a public lecture and a follow-up seminar on the learning activities her learners prefer. Many of these were already familiar to us from Leni Dam’s first visit: make a diary, make word cards, make posters, two minutes’ talk, make small books, make word games, and so on. But Hanne Thomsen also had interesting things to say about the way in which her learners go about writing the short plays that are a prominent feature of her classrooms. First they decide on the cast of characters, which means that each of them has an opportunity to negotiate a temporary new identity; then they use the cast of characters to generate a story, which they divide into scenes; and after that they write, rehearse, and finally perform the play. In this way each member of the group has an investment in the play, which comes to fulfil a dual role: language learning through language use, but also social learning through free experimentation with identities and roles. That Hanne Thomsen’s approach fulfils our three principles no less than Leni Dam’s can be seen from the summary she presented of the way in which she and her learners plan, implement and evaluate each phase of learning: 1. Learners and teacher discuss and decide what should be the aim and focus of the next teaching-learning sequence. They further discuss how best to work in order to get closer to the objectives decided on. 2. Learners decide which materials to work from and how to organize their work, including setting up a time plan. 3. The teacher is open to learners’ ideas and suggestions and supports their initiatives. 4. The teacher observes and analyses the ongoing process, including: • the individual learner’s manner of work • the individual learner’s attention to aspects of language and communication


135

• the learners’ use of language • the learners’ use of knowledge from outside the classroom 5. The teacher considers and plans changes, themes and challenges to be introduced in the next planning phase. 6. The learners and teacher together evaluate the process and the products of learning: • the learners (and teacher) contribute to the evaluation with their own observations, suggestions and opinions • the evaluation is conducted in terms of (i) the aims and objectives of both individual and group work and (ii) expected and unexpected outcomes • consequences are considered, together with ways of using what has been learned 7. Learners and teacher discuss and decide on new aims and objectives.

6.1.3

Ramon Ribé: the classroom as learning community – exploiting learners’ imagination

Of our three principles, the one that gave rise to the greatest puzzlement and proved most resistant to successful implementation was the third, the principle of appropriate target language use. It is a relatively easy and straightforward step to begin the process of empowering learners by introducing an element of choice into what and how they learn; and from there it is a small further step to get them to evaluate what they have done (provided they do it in the mother tongue). But getting them to use the target language spontaneously and flexibly as the principal channel of learning is an enormous challenge and can easily seem a hopelessly unrealistic aim. We have noted the crucial role played by writing in the approaches developed by Leni Dam and Hanne Thomsen: especially in the early stages of learning, written prompts of various kinds support their learners’ efforts to communicate orally, and the insistence on writing things down does much to make them aware of the formal properties of their target language. Further, in Hanne Thomsen’s approach to play writing we have seen a means of overcoming the inhibitions that teenage learners easily experience when they are asked to speak the target language to other learners. Ramon Ribé’s contribution to the project was to expound and illustrate an approach to project work that takes this several stages further, turning the learning community of the classroom into an alternative reality of which the target language is only one element. How

136


this works is summarized in the following three steps (taken from Ribé and Vidal 1993, p.3): 1. Students and teachers brainstorm aspects of their environment they like and those they would like to see improved. These may include changes to the geographical setting, nature, animal life, housing, society, family, leisure activities, politics, etc. 2. Students are put into groups according to common interests. The groups identify the language and information they need. The students carry out individual and group research on the selected topics. The students discuss aspects of this “alternative reality” and then report back. They decide on the different ways (stories, recordings, games, etc.) to link all the research and present the final product. 3. Students present the topic and evaluate the activity. In his public lecture Ramon Ribé provided a theoretical underpinning for this approach, appealing in particular to the idea that we are “self-producing”, or autopoietic, organisms (Maturana and Varela 1987; cf. our discussion of developmental learning in 1.2.1). According to this view, classrooms, or learning communities, “bring forth a world” through the multiple networks of interaction in which their members are involved (see Ribé 2000, forthcoming); that world is both the process and the product of their learning. In the seminar that he conducted with researchers and teachers, Ramon Ribé explored these ideas by engaging participants in a succession of creative activities – exploring individual preferences, developing a myth, devising the ecology of an alternative world, and so on. The seminar was a revealing experience in two respects: the extent to which it helped to break down inhibitions, and the speed with which the various activities took on a life of their own. By the end it was easy to believe in the effectiveness of this approach, especially with learners who are no longer beginners.

6.1.4 Turid Trebbi: challenges to the communicative curriculum and approaches to the use of text As we explained in Chapter 2, our project was not designed as a challenge to the existing French and German curricula; on the contrary, we sought at all times to work within the framework provided by official guidelines and public examinations. This does not mean, of course, that we were (or are) uncritical of the curricula; rather it reflects the fact that if we had proposed to work without regard to curriculum requirements, we would have had even greater


137

difficulty in persuading teachers to join us. In the course of the project, as we attempted a variety of alternative pedagogical procedures and pursued the empirical exploration of what was going on in project classrooms, we were often brought up against deficiencies in the system (inappropriate classroom furniture, lessons that were too short, above all the tyranny of the public examinations). The first of Turid Trebbi’s contributions to the project was to raise fundamental curriculum issues from the perspective of her home country, Norway. It is well known that in Norway, as in the other Nordic countries, English enjoys special status. Not only is it a core curriculum subject; it also figures so prominently in media communication that it is more appropriately thought of as a second than a foreign language. Turid Trebbi’s concern was not with the teaching and learning of English, however, but with the role of other foreign languages in the Norwegian curriculum. The picture she painted was not encouraging; for despite a succession of reforms, the take-up of foreign languages other than English remains problematic. She developed her argument around the following four questions: 1. Do we agree that language learning should be available to all pupils? 2. Are all pupils able to learn foreign languages? 3. Why don’t language teachers just change according to the shift in circumstances? 4. Do we know something about what changes are needed and what changes are productive at classroom level? The answer to the first question is assumed to be yes, as a matter of educational policy and democratic right. Research into first and second language acquisition suggests that the answer to the second question should also be yes; though in Norway as in Ireland there is a strong tendency to classify foreign languages among the more “academic” subjects and thus beyond the reach of less able pupils. An affirmative response to the second question implies a need for change in the way we define learning goals and in the means by which those goals are pursued in the classroom, and this gives rise to the third question. According to Turid Trebbi, in Norway the answer to question 3 focuses on working conditions, in particular the lack of time for teachers to reflect on current practice and future needs. In Ireland we would no doubt answer in the same way. Unsurprisingly Turid Trebbi’s response to the fourth question focussed on the need to develop pedagogical approaches that help learners to become users of their target language:

138


approaches that are concerned not with the transmission of information by the teacher to her learners but with the collaborative construction of communicative knowledge and skill. Such approaches necessarily give a central role to the development of learner autonomy. Turid Trebbi’s second contribution to our project was to open up a new perspective on target language use. In Leni Dam’s and Hanne Thomsen’s classrooms and in Ramon Ribé’s projects, learners are caught up in activities that require them to express personal meanings in their target language. One might describe the process by saying that they are drawn into the language in order that the language may be drawn out of them. In the seminar that she gave for project researchers and teachers, Turid Trebbi showed us that this is a paradox rather than a logical impossibility. She did so by sharing with us a variety of texts that she had given to Norwegian beginners in French and German, inviting them to work in pairs or groups to see what meaning they could extract from the texts and then to use that meaning, together with other linguistic resources offered by the texts, to construct meanings – and therefore texts – of their own. All of the texts she used were authentic in the sense that they had not been created specially for language learners. Several were concrete poems, which learners found easy to grasp linguistically, even though they implied complex social or moral meanings. For example, she used the poem by Ernst Jandl in which the shape of an apple is created by many repetitions of the word Apfel and one instance of Wurm. The learners were quick to recognize that they could use their limited knowledge of the target language to create their own concrete poems, which also resonated with meaning. This approach to the use of text gives learners the status of language users from the very first. In doing so it helps us to reconceptualize the overarching aim of foreign language teaching at school. As Tom urged in his reflective essay (see 4.4, pp.94f. above), instead of trying – and necessarily failing – to produce native speakers of the target language, we should focus on educating “competent foreigners” (a few of whom may in time become almost as proficient as native speakers). This brings us back, of course, to Turid Trebbi’s fourth question: Do we know something about what changes are needed and what changes are productive at classroom level?

6.1.5

Viljo Kohonen: the implications of the principle of learner reflection for the teacher The approaches to language teaching presented by our


139

visiting experts were based on an understanding of teaching-learning as a cyclical process. This is captured in the sequence of questions that Leni Dam uses to stimulate her learners to reflect and evaluate: What are we doing? – Why are we doing it? – How are we doing it? – With what results? – What are we going to do next? (cf. 1.3.2, p.18 above; also Dam 1995). The same understanding is present in Hanne Thomsen’s summary of the way in which she and her learners plan, implement and evaluate each phase of learning (see 6.1.2 above). In the public lecture that he gave in November 1999, Viljo Kohonen elaborated a similar view on the basis of Kolb’s (1984) model of experiential learning, in which concrete experience and active experimentation interact with abstract conceptualization and reflective observation. Over a number of years Kohonen has adapted and elaborated this model for language teaching-learning (see, e.g., Kohonen 1992, forthcoming). In Kohonen’s version, Kolb’s experiential learning cycle (experience – reflect – conceptualize – apply) entails that progress in language learning also promotes growth in learners’ awareness – of themselves, language learning, and language use. This is not a process that involves learners alone, however: according to Kohonen, the experiential teaching-learning dynamic also requires the full engagement of the teacher’s professional awareness, which he elaborates in terms of professional autonomy, communicative action, and commitment to learning. It is fundamental to his experiential model that learner growth depends partly on teacher growth. Clearly, learners cannot be expected to use the target language as the main channel of their learning unless their teacher is prepared to use it as the main channel of her teaching. Because communication (on which teaching-learning depends) is a reciprocal process, the principle of appropriate target language use involves the teacher as well as the learners (cf. 1.3.3 above). The same consideration applies to the principle of learner reflection: the teacher must be proactive in engaging her learners in the reflection that enables them to plan, monitor and evaluate their learning. And if she is to do this effectively, she must herself reflect on every aspect of the teaching-learning process, drawing on the full range of her professional knowledge and skills to do so. Teacher development through reflection was the theme of the seminar that Viljo Kohonen gave for participants in our project. In 1.3.2 we argued that writing things down is essential for effective learner reflection, and the same is true of teacher reflection. As Kohonen

140


himself put it, “Teaching is like an ice cube – it disappears at room temperature.” If we do not keep a written record of the teaching-learning process, we shall have little on which to reflect. For this reason teacher diaries are a compulsory requirement in Viljo Kohonen’s school-based projects (see, e.g., Kohonen and Kaikkonen 1996), as are the developmental essays that participating teachers write at the end of each year. The message that Viljo Kohonen conveyed to the project may be summarized as follows: • We are all prisoners of our autobiographies – of the culture in which we have been educated, the pedagogical methods to which we have been exposed, the professional training we have received, and so on. This means that change takes time and may sometimes be difficult and painful. Self-esteem is no less important for teachers than for learners. • Personal development of any kind depends on reflection, which therefore plays an essential role in teacher development projects. The obligation to keep a professional diary provides a stimulus to individual reflection and ensures that each teacher has something to contribute to the collaborative reflection of project meetings. • Even though professional practice provides the main focus of a professional diary, it is often impossible to exclude personal considerations such as mood, emotion, likes and dislikes, and motivation. As we noted in 4.3.4 (p.93 above), none of our project teachers maintained a detailed written record of their teaching, and those who kept diaries tended to make mostly personal and subjective entries. Nevertheless, the teachers who attended Viljo Kohonen’s seminar welcomed the idea of reviewing their involvement in the project by writing a developmental essay at the end of the school year. As we saw in Chapter 4, the essays that were submitted in 2000 and 2001 became one of our principal sources of teacher data.

6.1.6 Irma Huttunen: reflective learning, reflective teaching, teacher planning Irma Huttunen visited the project in 1999, 2000 and 2001. On her first visit she gave a public lecture on reflective learning in which she identified three levels of reflection – mechanical, pragmatic, emancipatory – and organized them into a developmental hierarchy. She also visited some of the project classrooms, subsequently provid-


141

ing teachers with individual feedback, and gave a project seminar which explored further the issues raised in her public lecture. In 2000 and 2001 she gave project seminars based on her reading of teachers’ developmental essays, on which she also provided individual (and confidential) feedback. Like Viljo Kohonen, she was concerned above all with teacher reflection, but especially in relation to planning and evaluation (see Huttunen forthcoming). These she saw as the two poles of the teaching-learning process: on the one hand, good planning presupposes evaluation and feedback; on the other, evaluation requires a focus, and that is most appropriately provided by the planning that lies behind whatever is to be evaluated. In her 2000 seminar Irma Huttunen dealt with planning by the teacher, planning by learners, and evaluation. She argued that teacher planning must start with two questions: What kind of learning am I aiming at? And what should I emphasize in my teaching? The answers to these questions provide a perspective from which to consider the requirements of the Junior Certificate programme and exam, the strategies and study skills learners need to develop, and illustrative descriptions of communicative language competence based on developmental scales such as those elaborated in the Common European Framework of Reference (Council of Europe 2001). These elements can then be combined in a scale that shows the route to the Junior Certificate. On the basis of this scale a three-year master plan can be drawn up, comprising topics, language, and learning skills, from which plans for each year, term, month and week of the junior cycle can be derived. The teacher’s plan for the whole class provides a framework within which learners can develop their own planning skills, learning how to set goals and choose from a variety of options. The categories used in planning provide the criteria for evaluating the product but also the process of learning: the development of communicative competence on the one hand, learning how to learn on the other. When Leni Dam visited the project for the second time, early in 2001, she began her seminar by dividing the teachers into two groups and inviting each group to reflect on the problems they were still experiencing. These were the problems the teachers identified: • More reticent pupils are not being encouraged enough by the teacher • Lack of motivation of weaker students • Lack of time for planning • Lack of time in class

142


• Students don’t initiate communication in the target language • Teacher doesn’t stick to daily plan • Maintaining motivation in a mixed-ability environment • Note-taking and logbook-keeping with weaker pupils • Exam system/pressures • Am I keeping pace with other classes? • Do my learners feel that they are making progress? • Setting and achieving targets • How do I know they are learning enough/the right material? • Risk of new system • Evaluation A few months later Irma Huttunen invited the teachers, again working in two groups, to review this list of problems and identify common underlying factors. One group came up with five factors: • Worry (on the part of the teacher) • Lack of time • Teacher taking on all the responsibility for learning • Pupils not ready/able • “Unnaturalness” of the classroom The other group identified four factors • Lack of time • Lack of learner motivation may be linked to lack of ability • Desire to understand the learning process and the frustration involved • Perceived lack of guidance – fear of letting go … control? Following an extended discussion of these factors, Irma Huttunen suggested that the largest underlying issue was planning. For effective planning would allow teachers to know where they and their learners were in relation to the syllabus, and it would also help them to address problems of time. Referring to the Junior Certificate programmes for French and German, she suggested that the prescribed themes and communicative tasks should provide the initial orientation, while past examination papers should be used as a guide to appropriate learning tasks and activities from the beginning. She then offered (i) a three-year master plan for a particular class, comprising themes, activities, communicative tasks, and linguistic exponents; and (ii) a master plan for a particular theme, comprising communicative tasks, activities, scaled descriptors of relevant language skills, and a list of related themes. And she concluded her seminar by revisiting the planning–evaluation cycle she had discussed the previous year.


143

What Irma Huttunen told the project in 2001 was more sharply focussed on the specific requirements of the Junior Certificate programme than what she had to say in 2000. This was made possible partly by the progress of the project and partly by the fact that the teachers had begun to experiment with a version of the European Language Portfolio designed to harmonize fully with the official programme and to serve as the project’s chief dissemination instrument.

6.2 The European Language Portfolio In our application for funding and in the brochure that we used to publicize the project, the third of our project aims was “through implementation and evaluation, to develop teaching methods and learning resources that can be more widely disseminated”. To begin with we hoped to develop resource kits for teachers – techniques, activities and materials arising from four years of pedagogical experimentation and empirical evaluation. But it quickly became evident that the diversity of practice in project classrooms would make this impracticable. What we needed instead was a pedagogical tool that would be easily accessible to teachers and learners and would encourage the development of teaching-learning practices that fulfilled our three principles. In 1997 the Council of Europe unveiled the concept of a European Language Portfolio (ELP) at an intergovernmental conference, and in 1998 CLCS developed and began to pilot a version of the ELP for university language learners. This brought us into contact with ELP developers in a number of Council of Europe member states. Between them the pilot projects that ran from 1998 to 2000 focussed on learners of all ages in all domains of learning: primary, lower secondary, upper secondary, vocational, university, adult and further education. Evidence soon began to emerge that the ELP was capable of achieving the kind of effects we were aiming at in the Learner Autonomy Project (for an account of the pilot projects, see Schärer 2000). The first version of our ELP was developed in the summer of 2000 and piloted by project teachers in the school year 2000–01. Partly on the basis of feedback from their classrooms, it was enlarged and refined early in 2001, accredited by the ELP Validation Committee in Strasbourg in May 2001, and published the following October (Authentik 2001).

144


6.2.1

What is the ELP?

The ELP has three obligatory components: • a language passport, which summarizes the owner’s linguistic identity by briefly recording second/foreign languages learnt, formal language qualifications achieved, significant experiences of second/foreign language use, and the owner’s assessment of his/her current proficiency in the second/ foreign languages he/she knows; • a language biography, which is used to set language learning targets, monitor progress, and record specially important language learning and intercultural experiences; • a dossier, which contains a selection of work that in the owner’s judgement best represents his/her second/foreign language proficiency. The ELP is designed to serve a reporting and a pedagogical function. In its reporting function it offers a means of recording and presenting experience of learning and using second/foreign languages; while in its pedagogical function it is designed to promote reflective learning and foster the development of learner autonomy. (For an upto-date account of the Council of Europe’s ELP project, see Little 2002; for an introduction to the ELP’s pedagogical function, see Little and Perclová 2001.)

6.2.2

The Learner Autonomy Propject ELP and the aims of the Learner Autonomy Project

The pedagogical function of the ELP is realized in the reflective processes of planning and evaluating learning and writing about significant second/foreign language and intercultural experiences. The learner’s self-assessment, which is an essential part of the language passport, uses the scales of communicative proficiency elaborated in the Common European Framework. These describe proficiency in relation to five communicative activities at six levels. The communicative activities are listening, reading, spoken interaction, spoken production and writing; the six levels are A1 (Breakthrough), A2 (Waystage), B1 (Threshold), B2 (Vantage), C1 (Effective Operational Proficiency), C2 (Mastery). Two examples will serve by way of illustration. Reading at A1 is summarized as I can understand familiar names, words and very simple sentences, for example on notices and posters or in catalogues, and writing at B1 as I can write simple connected text on topics which are familiar or of personal interest. I can write personal letters describing experi-


145

ences and impressions. Early experiments showed that although learners can use these summary descriptions to assess themselves at the end of an extended phase of learning, the descriptions are by no means detailed enough to serve as a basis for planning, monitoring and evaluating learning week by week and month by month. For this it was necessary to expand the summary descriptions into goal-setting and self-assessment checklists. The Common European Framework itself contains a series of illustrative scales that does precisely this. When we came to design checklists for the LAP ELP, we used these illustrative scales as a means of analysing the communicative goals of the Junior and Leaving Certificate curricula. We found that Junior Certificate corresponds roughly to A1 and A2, while Leaving Certificate corresponds roughly to B1 and much of B2. Accordingly, we developed checklists for these four levels. In the original English version, the checklist for reading at A1 comprises the following items: • I can pick out familiar names, words and phrases in very short simple texts • I can understand words and phrases on simple everyday signs and notices (e.g., exit, no smoking, danger, days of the week, times) • I can understand simple forms well enough to give basic personal details (e.g., name, address, date of birth) • I can understand simple written messages and comments in the classroom situation (e.g., “well done”, “today’s homework”) • I can understand short simple messages on greeting cards and postcards (e.g., holiday greetings, birthday greetings) • I can get an idea of the content of simple informational material if there is pictorial support (e.g., posters, catalogues, advertisements) • I can follow short simple written directions (e.g., to go from X to Y)

And the checklist for B1 writing comprises the following items: • I can write simple connected texts and essays on topics of personal interest, making appropriate use of dictionaries and reference resources • I can write personal letters giving news, describing experiences and impressions, and expressing feelings • I can write messages and reports communicating enquiries and factual information, explaining problems • I can describe the plot of a film or book, narrate a simple story or report on an event • I can write a simple summary of factual information on familiar topics

146


• I can write standard letters giving or requesting detailed information (e.g., replying to an advertisement, applying for a job) These and the other checklists provide an analysis of curriculum goals as a coherent set of developmental scales. They thus provide one of the key tools that teachers need in order to plan their courses, as Irma Huttunen pointed out in her 2001 project seminar, but they also describe possible learning activities and can serve as criteria for assessment. In other words, they support each stage of the reflective cycle, from planning through implementation to evaluation. It is fundamental to the concept of the ELP that it reflects the linguistic reality of the environment for which it is designed, which explains why the discursive elements of the LAP ELP are presented bilingually in English and Irish. It is also fundamental that it should accommodate all the languages that the owner knows, which explains why the pages that the learner fills in and the goal-setting and selfassessment checklists are presented in all five second/foreign languages of the post-primary curriculum: Irish, French, German, Spanish, Italian. One of our principal aims, after all, was to encourage target language use; and by presenting learners with record sheets and checklists in their target language we hoped to kick-start the process of using the target language as the medium of reflection. For the benefit of teachers who had not participated in our project, we wrote a handbook that explains how the ELP can serve both as a planning tool for teachers and as a process tool for learners. The handbook also explains how the ELP can be used to stimulate target language use; clarify examination objectives; provide a focus for negotiating homework activities; support the development of reading, writing and speaking skills; and help learners to set their own learning goals, plan project work, and identify learning problems. In the school year 2001–02 we worked with a network of 15 teachers who were using the LAP ELP to evaluate its pedagogical impact. Members of the network met approximately once a month through the school year, and the feedback from learners and teachers confirmed that the ELP is an appropriate dissemination tool for the Learner Autonomy Project (see Ushioda and Ridley 2002, Ushioda forthcoming).

6.3 Conclusion Chapters 4 and 5 provide ample evidence that the teachers and learners who participated in the CLCS Learner Autonomy Project derived clear benefits from doing so. The project succeeded in showing


147

that the pursuit of (greater) learner autonomy is no less appropriate to language teaching in Ireland than in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Spain. In particular, the reported gains in awareness, motivation and self-esteem, especially among learners in the lower ability ranges, are significant educational achievements whose implications reach far beyond the limited goals of the French or German syllabus. At the same time, the project teachers experienced a sense of liberation as they grappled with the theoretical arguments in favour of pursuing learner autonomy and tried out new things in their classroom. Several of them found it difficult to maintain new practices, but none rejected as unworkable any of the ideas they took from project seminars back to their schools. These are encouraging results. Nevertheless, the key issues that confronted us throughout the project remained key issues at the end. Three of them focus on the interactive processes of the classroom (getting learners explicitly to accept responsibility for their learning; developing their reflective capacities; persuading them to use the target language as their chief channel of learning), while two focus on teachers’ preparatory skills (the need for long-term planning; the challenge of integrating learner autonomy with the demands of the curriculum). Between them these issues capture the task that faces any language teacher who wants to develop the autonomy of her learners within the constraints imposed by a state education system; they will always be with us to challenge and perplex. According to the dialogic view of teaching and learning that we elaborated in Chapter 1, it cannot be otherwise. For when it comes to creating and managing a learning community whose purpose is to promote the autonomy of its members, each teacher must find her own way, and each class she teaches, comprising as it does a unique collection of unique individuals, will present her with a different dynamic. This means that the principles of learner empowerment, learner reflection and appropriate target language use cannot be reduced to a set of simple prescriptions. On the contrary, their successful implementation over time depends on repeated questioning and continuous experimentation. The pedagogical dialogue cannot be written in advance (which is the unexamined assumption on which the use of language course books is mostly based); it must always be negotiated anew.

References Allwright, R., and K. Bailey (1991). Focus on the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Astington, J. W. (1994). The child’s discovery of the mind. London: Fontana. Authentik (2001). European Language Portfolio/Punann na dTeangacha Eorpacha. Version for use in Irish post-primary schools. Dublin: Authentik. Bailey, K. M., and D. Nunan (eds) (1996). Voices from the language classroom: qualitative research in second language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baldegger, M., M. Müller, G. Schneider and A. Näf (1980). Kontaktschwelle. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy. The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Barnes, D. (1976). From communication to curriculum. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Bartsch, K., and H. M. Wellman (1995). Children talk about the mind. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Benson, P., and W. Lor (1999). Conceptions of language and language learning. System 27, 459–72. Berry, J., and P. Sahlberg (1996). Investigating pupils’ ideas of learning. Learning and Instruction 6.1, 19–36. Bershon, B. L. (1992). Cooperative problem solving: a link to inner speech. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz and N. Miller (eds), Interaction in cooperative groups: the theoretical anatomy of group learning, 36–48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Breen, M. P., and S. Mann (1997). Shooting arrows at the sun: perspectives on a pedagogy for autonomy. In P. Benson and P. Voller (eds), Autonomy and independence in language learning, 132–49. London and New York: Longman. Bruner, J. (1986). The language of education. In J. Bruner, Actual minds, possible worlds, 121–33. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Carruthers, P., and J. Boucher (eds) (1998). Language and thought: interdisciplinary themes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clark, A. (1998). Magic words: how language augments human computation. In Carruthers and Boucher (eds), 121–33. 148

References

149

Coste, D., J. Courtillon, V. Ferenczi, M. Martins-Baltar and E. Papo (1976). Un niveau seuil. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Council of Europe (2001). A Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1992). Flow. The psychology of happiness. London: Rider. Dam, L. (1995). Learner autonomy 3: from theory to classroom practice. Dublin: Authentik. Dam, L. (1999). Dennis the Menace – and autonomy. In Mißler and Multhaup (eds), 13–26. Dam, L. (2000). Why focus on learning rather than teaching? From theory to practice. In Little, Dam and Timmer (eds), 18–37. Dam, L. (forthcoming). Developing learner autonomy: the teacher’s responsibility. In Little, Ridley and Ushioda (eds). Dam, L., and L. Legenhausen (1996). The acquisition of vocabulary in an autonomous learning environment – the first months of beginning English. In R. Pemberton, E. S. L. Li, W. W. F. Or and H. D. Pierson (eds), Taking control. Autonomy in language learning, 265– 80. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Dam, L., and D. Little (1999). Autonomy in foreign language learning: from classroom practice to generalizable theory. In On JALT98: Focus on the classroom: Interpretations (Proceedings of the JALT 24th annual conference on language teaching/learning), 127–36. Tokyo: Japan Association for Language Teaching. Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Donato, R., and B. Adair-Hauck (1992). Discourse perspectives on formal instruction. Language Awareness 1.2, 73–89. Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. Modern Language Journal 78, 73–284. Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. London: Longman. Dweck, C., and E. L. Leggett (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–73. Ehrman, M., and Z. Dörnyei (1998). Interpersonal dynamics in the second language classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ellis, N. (ed.) (1994). Implicit and explicit learning of languages. London: Academic Press Limited. Faerch, C., and G. Kasper (1987). Introspection in second language research. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.

150


Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive developmental enquiry. American Psychologist 34, 906–11. Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. London: Sheed and Ward. Galloway, D., C. Rogers, D. Armstrong and E. Leo (1998). Motivating the difficult to teach. London and New York: Longman. Good, T. L., and J. E. Brophy (2000). Looking in classrooms. Eighth edition. New York: Addison Wesley Longman. Horwitz, E. (1999). Cultural and situational differences in foreign language learners’ beliefs about language learning: a review of BALLI studies. System 27, 557–76. Horwitz, E. K., M. B. Horwitz and J. Cope (1996). Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern Language Journal 70, 125–32. Huttunen, I. (1996). Metacognition in the process of development towards learner autonomy. In U. Tornberg (ed.). Focus on the language learner, 77–97. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet Centrum för Didaktik. Huttunen, I. (forthcoming). Planning learning: the role of teacher reflection. In Little, Ridley and Ushioda (eds). Illich, I. (1971). Deschooling society. New York: Harper and Row. Karlsson, L., F. Kjisik and J. Nordlund (eds) (2001). All together now. Papers from the 7th Nordic conference and workshop on autonomous language learning. Helsinki: University of Helsinki Language Centre. Kohonen, V. (1992). Experiential language learning: second language learning as cooperative learner education. In D. Nunan (ed.), Collaborative language learning and teaching, 14–39. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kohonen, V. (forthcoming). Student autonomy and teachers’ professional growth: fostering a collegial structure in language teacher education. In Little, Ridley and Ushioda (eds). Kohonen, V., and P. Kaikkonen (1996). Exploring new ways of inservice teacher education: an action research project. European Journal of Intercultural Studies 7.3, 42–59. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Legenhausen, L. (1999a). Autonomous and traditional learners compared. The impact of classroom culture on attitudes and communicative behaviour. In C. Edelhof and R. Weskamp (eds), Autonomes Fremdsprachenlernen, 166–82. Ismaning: Hueber.

References

151

Legenhausen, L. (1999b). The emergence and use of grammatical structures in conversational interactions. In Mißler and Multhaup (eds), 27–40. Legenhausen, L. (forthcoming). Second language acquisition in an autonomous learning environment. In Little, Ridley and Ushioda (eds). Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy 1: definitions, issues and problems. Dublin: Authentik. Little, D. (1995). Learning as dialogue: the dependence of learner autonomy on teacher autonomy. System 23,2, 175–81. Little, D. (1996). Strategic competence considered in relation to strategic control of the language learning process. In H. Holec, D. Little and R. Richterich, Strategies in language learning and use, 11–37. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Little, D. (1997). Language awareness and the autonomous language learner. Language Awareness 6.2/3, 93–104. Little, D. (1999). Metalinguistic awareness: the cornerstone of autonomy. In Mißler and Multhaup (eds), 3–12. Little, D. (2001). We’re all in it together: exploring the interdependence of teacher and learner autonomy. In Karlsson, Kjisik and Nordlund (eds), 45–56. Little, D. (2002). The European Language Portfolio: structure, origins, implementation and challenges. Language Teaching 35.3, 182–9. Little, D., L. Dam and J. Timmer (eds) (2000). Focus on learning rather than teaching: why and how? Dublin: Trinity College, Centre for Language and Communication Studies. Little, D., S. Devitt and D. Singleton (1989). Learning foreign languages from authentic texts: theory and practice. Dublin: Authentik Little, D., N. French, J. Sheils and D. Singleton (1980). The skeleton syllabus. Dublin: Institiúid Teangeolaíochta Éireann. Little, D., and R. Perclová (2001). European Language Portfolio: a guide for teachers and teacher trainers. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Little, D., J. Ridley and E. Ushioda (eds) (forthcoming). Learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom: teacher, learner, curriculum, assessment. Dublin: Authentik. McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. McDonough, J., and S. McDonough (1997). Research methods for English language teachers. Bristol: Arnold. McDonough, S. (1995). Strategy and skill in learning a foreign language. London: Edward Arnold.

152


McGarry, D. (1995). Learner autonomy 4: the role of authentic texts. Dublin: Authentik. Marcus, H., and P. Nurius (1987). Possible selves: the interface between motivation and the self-concept. In K. Yardley and T. Honess (eds), Self and identity: psychosocial perspectives, 157–72. Chichester: John Wiley. Marton, F., D. Watkins and C. Tang (1997). Discontinuities and continuities in the experience of learning: an interview study of highschool students in Hong Kong. Learning and Instruction 7.1, 21– 48. Maturana, H. R., and F. J. Varela (1987). The tree of knowledge. The biological roots of human understanding. Boston and London: Shambhala. Mayher, J. S. (1990). Uncommon sense: theoretical practice in language education. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge. Talk amongst teachers and learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Mißler, B., and U. Multhaup (eds) (1999). The construction of knowledge, learner autonomy and related issues in foreign language learning. Essays in honour of Dieter Wolff. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston: Heinle and Heinle. Olson, D. R. (1991). Literacy as metalinguistic activity. In D. R. Olson and N. Torrance (eds), Literacy and orality, 251–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Olson, D. R. (1995). Writing and the mind. In J. V. Wertsch, P. del Rio and A. Alvarez (eds), Sociocultural studies of mind, 95–123. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ribé, R. (2000). Of tramas, spaces and creativity. Towards an integrated model of autonomous learning. In R. Ribé (ed.), Developing learner autonomy in foreign language learning, 81–105. Barcelona: University of Barcelona. Ribé, R. (forthcoming). Tramas in the foreign language classroom: autopoietic networks for learner growth. In Little, Ridley and Ushioda (eds). Ribé, R., and N. Vidal (1993). Project work step by step. Handbooks for the English classroom. Oxford: Heinemann International. Ridley, J. (1997a). The relationship between language learning awareness and language using awareness among university-level ab initio learners of German. Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung

References

153

8.2, 267–79. Ridley, J. (1997b). Reflection and strategies in foreign language learning. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang. Ridley, J. (1997c). Learner autonomy 6: developing learners’ thinking skills. Dublin: Authentik. Ridley, J. (2000a). Helping younger learners to reflect on the process of learning. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Language and Social Psychology, Cardiff University, 30 June–5 July. Ridley, J. (2000b). Towards autonomy in university classrooms. In Little, Dam and Timmer (eds), 126–37. Ridley, J. (2001). Teachers’ and learners’ understanding of what language learning entails. In Karlsson, Kjisik and Nordlund (eds), 188–94. Ridley, J. (forthcoming). Learners’ ability to reflect on language and on their learning. In Little, Ridley and Ushioda (eds). Ridley, J., and E. Ushioda (1997). Using qualitative research methods to explore L2 learners’ motivations and self-perceptions. Teanga 17, 29–42. Rogers, C. (1967). On becoming a person. A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. London: Constable. (First published 1961.) Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking. Cognitive development in social context. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rose, S. (1997). Lifelines: biology, freedom, determinism. London: Allen Lane. Rose, S., R. C. Lewontin and L. Kamin (1984). Not in our genes. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Säljö, R. (1979). Learning in the learner’s perspective. 1. Some common sense perspectives. Reports from the Department of Education 76, University of Göteborg. Salmon, P. (1995). Psychology in the classroom. Reconstructing teachers and learners. London: Cassell. Schärer, R. (2000). A European Language Portfolio – final report on the pilot project (1998–2000). Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11, 129–58. Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: a tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning, 1–63. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.

154


Schunk, D. H., and B. C. Zimmerman (eds) (1994). Self-regulation of learning and performance: issues and educational applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty and J. Williams (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, 64–81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tharp, R., and R. Gallimore (1988). Rousing minds to life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thomsen, H. (2000). Learners’ favoured activities in the autonomous classroom. In Little, Dam and Timmer (eds), 71–86. Thomsen, H. (forthcoming). Scaffolding target language use. In Little, Ridley and Ushioda (eds). Thomsen, H., and G. Gabrielsen (1991). New classroom practices in foreign language teaching: co-operative teaching-learning. Video and mimeo. Copenhagen: Danmarks Lærerhøjskole. Trevarthen, C. (1992). An infant’s motives for speaking and thinking in the culture. In A. H. Wold (ed.), The dialogical alternative. Towards a theory of language and mind, 99–137. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press. Ushioda, E. (1993). Redefining motivation from the L2 learner’s point of view. Teanga 13, 1–12. Ushioda, E. (1994). L2 motivation as a qualitative construct. Teanga 14, 76–84. Ushioda E. (1996a). Developing a dynamic concept of L2 motivation. In T. Hickey and J. Williams (eds), Language, education and society in a changing world, 239–45. Dublin/Clevedon: IRAAL/Multilingual Matters. Ushioda, E. (1996b). Learner autonomy 5: the role of motivation. Dublin: Authentik. Ushioda, E. (1998). Effective motivational thinking: a cognitive theoretical approach to the study of language learning motivation. In E. Alcón and V. Codina (eds), Current issues in English language methodology, 77–89. Castelló de la Plana: Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I. Ushioda, E. (2000a). Exploring learners’ inhibitions about speaking the L2. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Language and Social Psychology, Cardiff University, 30 June–5 July. Ushioda, E. (2000b). Tandem language learning via e-mail: from motivation to autonomy, ReCALL 12.2, 121–8.

References

155

Ushioda, E. (2001). Language learning at university: exploring the role of motivational thinking. In Z. Dörnyei and R. Schmidt (eds), Motivation and second language acquisition, 93–125. Hawai’i: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, Technical Report #23. Ushioda, E. (forthcoming). Engaging with the curriculum through the ELP. Neusprachliche Mitteilungen. Ushioda, E., and J. Ridley (2002). Working with the European Language Portfolio in Irish post-primary schools: report on an evaluation project. CLCS Occasional Paper No.61. Dublin: Trinity College, Centre for Language and Communication Studies. van Ek, J. A. (1975). The Threshold Level. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA, and London: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA, and England: MIT Press. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Williams, M., and R. L. Burden (1997). Psychology for language teachers. A social constructivist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wood, D. J., J. S. Bruner and G. Ross (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 17.2, 89–100.

Appendix 1 Trinity College Project on learning a foreign language Thank you for helping us with our research project. We are interested in finding out about how people learn languages. There is no such thing as a right or wrong answer, so you can put down what you think or feel honestly. The information you give will not be passed on to your teacher. When you have finished filling in the questionnaire, please give it to the researcher. There are four sections in the questionnaire. In each section, there are 10 or 20 items. You are asked to answer these items by ticking the boxes. SECTION 1 What do you enjoy or not enjoy in your French class? For each item below, tick

the Yes box if you do this activity.

If your answer is yes, tell us whether you like or don’t like this activity by ticking Yes or No box alongside. Activity

1.


2.

listening to tapes

3.

watching a video

4.


5.


6.

listening to the teacher talk in French

7.

writing in French

8.

speaking in French

9.

reading French

Do you do this activity in class? Yes No

12.

learning things off by heart (when the teacher tells me) learning things off by heart (even when the teacher doesn’t tell me) looking things up in a dictionary

13.

doing French homework

14.

looking at videos or photos of France

15.

working with a partner in class

16.

doing homework with a friend

17. 18.

giving answers in class when the teacher asks questions working in a small group

19.

having to be quiet in class

20.

speaking or reading out loud in front of the class

10. 11.

156

the

If yes, do you like doing it? Yes No

Appendix 1

157

SECTION 2 What do you think about learning foreign languages? For each statement below, tick

the answer that says what you think.

Statements about learning languages

What do you think?

1. Learning a foreign language is very difficult

I strongly agree I agree I’m not sure I don’t agree I strongly disagree

2. It is helpful when the teacher speaks in French in class as much as possible


3. It is better not to say anything at all in French, rather than make mistakes


4. The most important part of learning French is concentrating hard on grammar


5. It is easier to read and write French than to speak and understand it


6. It is easier to learn French than Irish


7. Learning French is more difficult than learning other subjects at school


8. You have to be really clever to learn French


9. Intelligence is something you are born with and you cannot change it


10. You need to do some learning outside class if you are going to be good at French


158


SECTION 3 Do you think you put a lot of work into learning French? Tick the boxes to tell us whether you usually, sometimes or never do the things described below. What some people do when they try to learn a language

Do you do this?

1.

I make an effort to think about what I’ve learned in French class

usually sometimes never

2.

If the teacher asks the class a question, I try to think of the right answer


3.

If I don’t understand something we are learning in French class, I ask for help


4.

If I don’t know the French word for something, I try to find out what it is


5.

I write down new French words in a notebook so that I can remember them


6.

I put as much effort as possible into doing my French homework


7.

When I get my French homework back, I look carefully at my mistakes and the teacher’s comments


8.

When the teacher asks us, I make an effort to talk in French in class


9.

I try to learn things off by heart that I know will be useful


I look for chances of speaking, reading or listening to French outside school (for example, meeting French students or tourists, watching satellite/cable TV, watching French films, surfing the Internet, etc.)


10.

Appendix 1

159

SECTION 4 Do you have any reasons for wanting to learn French? Put a tick

in the box for all the reasons below which are true for you

Reasons for learning French 1.


2.

I want to learn French so that I can understand people when I go on holiday abroad

3.

I like learning French

4.

I’d love to have a good French accent

5.

I want to be able to speak French so that I can show off in front of other people

6.

I think it’s fun to speak in French

7.

I want to learn French so that I can use it as a secret code with friends

8.

I wish I didn’t have to learn French

9.

My parents encourage me to learn French

10.

Tick if this is true for you

I think that learning French is useful because I want to make friends with people from other countries

If you have other reasons for wanting to learn French, please tell us:

____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________

Appendix 2 Trinity College Project on learning a foreign language Question 1: changes _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________

Question 2: choice _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________

Question 3: compared to other lessons _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________

Question 4: learning _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________

Question 5: being responsible _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________

Question 6: being motivated _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________

160

Appendix 2

Question 7: speaking French _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________

Question 8: thinking about French outside class _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________

Question 9: writing things down _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________

Question 10: thinking about language _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________

Question 11: personal goals _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________

Question 12: a good teacher _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________

161

162


Open-ended questionnaire for learners in second year of project 1.

changes – Since your class joined the project just over a year ago, have you noticed any changes in the general atmosphere and the kinds of things you do in your French class? Or are things pretty much the same as they were before?

2.

choice – You do lots of different activities in your French class. Does your teacher sometimes let you choose what you want to do and if so, do you like being given choice? What sort of activity do you like to choose?

3.

compared to other lessons – Compared to other subjects on your school timetable, how do you find your French class – for example, fun and relaxing, or boring, or a bit stressful and worrying, or what other words would you use?

4.

learning – Let’s suppose someone asks you to describe what the word learning means – what would you say? For example, if someone asks you to describe what the word “walking” means, you might say that it means using your legs to get from A to B, or to get some fresh air and exercise. Or, if someone asks you to explain the word “drawing”, you might say it means using a pencil or crayon to create a picture or a sketch of something. So how would you describe what learning means?

5.

being responsible – Say your teacher tells you that you should try to be more responsible for your own learning – what do you think that means? For example, if you’re responsible for looking after your pet dog, that probably means you have to do things like feed it, take it for walks, bath it and so on. Or if you own a bicycle, being responsible means making sure it’s kept in good working order, keeping the tyres in good condition, locking it away in a safe place at night and so on. What about being responsible for your own learning – what do you think this means?

6.

motivation – Are you usually motivated and involved in what goes on in your French class? Can you say why (or why not)?

7.

speaking the L2 – We know that your teacher speaks a lot of French in class, but do you sometimes try to speak it too with your friends in class when you’re working together on an activity? If not, why not?

8.

thinking about L2 learning outside class – Do you ever find yourself thinking about what you’ve been doing in your French class when you’re outside school? Or does this only happen when you’re doing your French homework?

9.

writing things down – We know that you use logbooks (diaries/notebooks) in class to write things down like lesson plans, vocabulary and new things that you’ve learned. Do you think it’s good to write things down like this, and why?

10. thinking about language – When you’re reading or writing French, do you like trying to work out for yourself how the language works? What kinds of things have you noticed? 11. personal goals – As a learner of French, do you have any personal goals (apart from passing the exam)? For example, if you’re learning to play the guitar, your goal might be to play songs that you really like, or maybe your goal is to play in a band and do some gigs. Or, if you’re learning to work with computers, maybe your goal is to design computer games, or to get a high-tech job and makes lots of money when you’re older. What about learning French – do you have any personal goals (relating perhaps to things you might want to be able to do in the future)? 12. a good teacher – Finally, what words would you use to describe what makes a good teacher?

Towards greater learner autonomy in the foreign ...

Towards greater learner autonomy in the foreign ...

Suggest Documents

Learner Autonomy in Foreign Language ... - ScienceDirect.com

Learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom

Learner Autonomy

Learner autonomy - the ECML

Learner autonomy - the ECML

Learner autonomy - the ECML

Learner Autonomy in Foreign Language Education and in ...www.researchgate.net › publication › fulltext › Learner-A

Learner Autonomy

Fostering Learner Autonomy - Core

Learner Autonomy - Semantic Scholar

Learner-centered Teaching and Learner Autonomy - Core

Teacher education towards teacher (and learner) autonomy - CiteSeerX

Promoting Learner Autonomy through Multiliteracy

BLOGGING: PROMOTING LEARNER AUTONOMY AND ...

Learner autonomy, teacher autonomy and the ... - Semantic Scholar

Should learner autonomy be assessed?

Scaffolding learner autonomy in online university courses

Learner Autonomy: Research and Practice in ...

Learner Autonomy in Developing Countries - Springer Link

learner autonomy in language learning: teachers

Choice, communication and learner autonomy: The ... - Ascilite

The Use of Learner Autonomy in English as a Foreign Language ...

the factors that affect learner autonomy in learning english as a foreign ...

The Use of Learner Autonomy in English as a Foreign Language