Integrating self-access learning into an ESP course

Chapter 1

Integrating self-access learning into an ESP course David Gardner The English Centre, University of Hong Kong

This chapter discusses the integration of a self-access language learning module into a one-semester English for Specific Purposes course with the aim of increasing individualization by raising learners' awareness of their language needs, wants and abilities, and providing more opportunities for them to set their own learning goals and choose materials and activities. The chapter is based on the findings of a research project investigating learners' perceptions of the self-access learning module and their use of it. The chapter begins by briefly reviewing the literature and then describing the context of the research and its methodology. The remainder of the chapter focuses on learners' self-reports of their perceptions of self-access learning both before and after trying it; what they did, where they did it, and what they found most useful; the learning goals they set themselves, why they chose those goals, and whether they achieved them; and the learners' own perceptions of whether they were successful. The chapter concludes with a brief and cautious attempt to relate the findings to pre- and post-tests which demonstrate learning gain in two specific areas. The importance of integrating self-access learning Although it has been noted by various authors (see, for example, CIEL 2000, Gardner and Miller 1999, Hurd 2005, Palfreyman 2003, Smith 2003) that there is no single, accepted definition of learner autonomy in the literature, it is taken in this chapter to mean a capacity in a learner to

Integrating self-access learning into an ESP course

9

rake control of his or her own learning by exercising choice, responsibility, independence and critical reflection (Benson 2001, Dam 1990, Holec 1981, Little 1990, 1999). Despite differences in definitions, the importance of autonomy for language learners is well documented (see for example, Benson 2001, Cotterall 1995, Dam 1990, 1995, Holec 1981, Hurd et al. 2001, Little 2003) and has been argued to be a capacity that can be developed (Benson 2001, Nunan 1996) using a variety of approaches (see Benson 2001 for a detailed discussion). One such approach is self-access language learning, which has been defined as a way to assist "learners to move from teacher dependence towards autonomy" (Gardner and Miller 1999, p.8) or" a means of promoting learner autonomy" (Sheerin 1989, p.144). When organized well, self-access learning can provide what Little (2003) calls "autonomization", that is, a process of experiencing autonomy in order to become autonomous. Approaches to promoting learner autonomy have been actively practised and researched since before Holec' s landmark definition of it (Holec 1981), but much of this attention has been on the provision of learning opportunities which are in addition to the content of language courses rather than an integrated part of them. Self-access learning may have been particularly prone to being separated from the classroom because of the proliferation of self-access centres which can support, but often operate independently from, language courses. Nevertheless, it has been recognized that the integration of "self-access learning and classroom learning is an important challenge" (Rost, undated) that teachers need to embrace to the extent that their circumstances allow (Reinders and Moore, undated) and that teachers play a key role in introducing self-access to learners and investing it with credibility by making it a normal part of language learning (Gardner and Miller 1999). More recently, research-based studies have documented attempts to integrate self-access and other similar approaches into the mainstream curriculum (see for example, Fisher et al. 2006, Gregorio-Godeo 2005,

10

David Gardner

Toogood and Pemberton 2002). This chapter discusses one such attempt. The learners and their situation The self-access language learning module was integrated into a course of Advanced English for Science Students, a second course of 24 contact hours taught over one semester to second year students studying science at the University of Hong Kong. The course is taught each year to about 400 students in classes of around 20. Although it had been in existence for more than a decade, the course was completely revised in structure and content. The research reported here was conducted the first time the new version (containing the self-access module) was taught. The main reason for the revision was the impossibility of meeting the needs of a diverse group of students with a single, largely teacher-directed course. The diversity of the students includes: 1. Language abilities - Students' pre-university entrance English examinations range from high to below the official university requirement and also include students who have not taken the test. 2. Subjects of study - English classes contain a random mixture of students from all departments within the Science Faculty. As a result, the skills needed vary widely; for example, some students write essays while others do not, or some need discussion skills while others can complete their degrees without speaking. In the previous version of the course this led to frequent complaints of lack of relevance of the course content. 3. Future need for English - The students of the Science Faculty have varied careers ahead of them. Surprisingly, the number who become scientists, or even science teachers, is relatively low (see Table 1) and even among these, the language skills they need can vary greatly, for example, a lab technician will need different skills from a school teacher.

11


Employment Teachers

%of graduates

17.0

Scientists

9.2

computer programmers/analysts

4.4

Science technicians

3.5

Medical workers

3.5

Research assistants

3.1 40.7

Science-related employment Business professionals

31.0

Other: insurance, real estate, sales, clerical, management, police, government, journalism, accounting, religion, misc.

28.3

Non-science employment

59.3

Table 1 Employment data for HKU graduating science students in 2001 (latest available at the time of preparing the new course) Source: Careers Education and Placement Centre, HKU

As a result of this diversity and of increasingly vocal students complaining about lack of relevance, the new course aims to include greater choice to help students tailor their learning to their needs. This has been done by reshaping the course into three interacting strands (Figure 1). Two strands include a much greater degree of learner choice but remain supervised by the teachers within the classroom component of the course. The third strand is the self-access module which is the focus of this chapter. The self-access module The self-access module is designed to provide an orientation to self-access learning; a framework for setting goals, recording activity, reflection and review; opportunities for reporting back and sharing experiences with one another; and an initial focus for learning activities. This module is organized to provide support, structure and guidance without being directive. The goal is to encourage experimentation and exploration while also ensuring that the learners experience some recordable, measurable achieve-

12

David Gardner

STRAND 1 Speaking

Pre-testing

STRAND 2 SALL

STRAND3

Writing

Individual pronunciation assessment

Guidance

Oral Input

Teaching and Learning

Outcomes

-pronunciation sessions -discussion groups -feedback

Speaking Test

Assessment Value

Figure 1: The new course structure

ment. This goal is important because many of the learners have no previous experience of self-access learning. Organization of the module The course is arranged so that in most of the two-hour sessions half the class attends for one hour while the other half does its self-access learning (called the SALL Hour). The halves then swap for the second hour of the course. This arrangement provides learners with 8 hours of SALL time during the semester, to which they are invited to donate as much extra time as they wish. It also provides the bonus of small groups for intensive oral work in the classroom. In the first week of the course (in which the whole class meets together) the teacher explains SALL, demonstrates how it fits into the course, and shows how it can be used to improve grades on the course as well as contributing to long term language improvement. In the second week of the course, during their first SALL hour, learners complete an orientation which guides them through a discovery process in the Self-Access Centre. It is an opportunity to find out what materials and


13

activities are available, try things out and start forming an opinion about what might be useful for them. They use a simple orientation document to record the experience. In the third week of the course, learners use their orientation document as the basis of a discussion about self-access learning and to share ideas about materials they have found useful and ideas they have had for improving their English. Learners also bring to this session a SALL record which they can download from the course web site or which they can design for themselves. They use this record to set three initial learning goals and state their reasons. They also list the kind of resources they will use and how, and their expected outcomes. The rest of the SALL record is used as the weeks go by to record SALL activities and reflections on those activities. In weeks 6 and 11 of the course, the focus of the discussion sessions in the classroom groups is on self-access learning. Learners discuss progress and their attitudes, and swap ideas for good self-access activities. This provides an opportunity for teachers to monitor how the SALL hours are being used. At the end of the course, learners complete the final pages of their SALL records, which revisit their goals and expectations. They are asked to think about whether their initial goals had proved to be realistic, reasonable and achievable; whether they had changed their goals during the semester; whether they felt they had achieved their goals; whether setting goals was useful; and whether they would go on using self-access learning after the course had finished.

The initial focus At the beginning of the course learners are made aware that the topic of one of the assessed outcomes of the course will not be taught in class. The focus is on nine specific grammar points (which can be changed from one year to another to avoid a build up of received wisdom being passed down to subsequent student cohorts). This focus

14

David Gardner

was chosen because grammar is a constant worry to the learners, who often express dissatisfaction with their level; it can more easily be divided into neatly sectioned points than many other aspects of language; it is relatively easy to work on for inexperienced self-access learners; and it cannot be addressed in the course because of the diverse range of learners' language levels and insufficient time. This topic serves as an initial focus to begin using selfaccess learning. It is carefully delimited and supported with detailed guidance notes on the course web site (which describe the problem areas, give examples and provide links to materials). At the beginning of the course, learners take a diagnostic test to identify their weaknesses in the nine specific points of grammar. They check their returned test papers against an answer key on the course web site which categorizes the errors and links them to appropriate learning material. The diagnostic test serves as an initial needs analysis. The answer key and web materials serve as a kind of counselling. However, it remains the learners' own choice what to work on. Needs analysis The SALL Module helps learners base their self-access learning goals on their individual needs and wants. As has been seen above, the orientation document and the SALL record encourage learners to think about their needs, while the various in-class discussions enable needs to emerge. In addition, the course provides two needs analyses, firstly the diagnostic grammar test mentioned above and secondly, in week 4 of the course, learners receive an individual pronunciation diagnostic. All of these are designed to provide scaffolding while leaving control with the learners. Methodology of the study The study focused specifically on the introduction and use of the SALL module of the new course. The study ran throughout the first use of the new course. Its main pur-


15

pose was to monitor the extent to which the SALL module improved the ability of the course to meet the needs of the learners and overcome the associated problems explained earlier in this chapter. The most important and largest part of the data used in this study is the learners' own perceptions of self-access learning (before and after the course). This was collected by transcribing the SALL orientation document and SALL records for each learner (amounting to approximately 2,000 pages of data), by administering a questionnaire at the end of the first class to evaluate prior knowledge of self-access learning, and by analysing responses to the relevant questions on the end-of-course evaluation-of-teaching questionnaire. In addition, the pre- and post-scores for the grammar tests were compared, as were the individual pronunciation diagnostic and the final speaking test scores. These latter records can be used to look for evidence of learning gain (in a very approximate way). It would be foolish to use the scores to attempt to "prove" that the SALL module was responsible for an improvement (or deterioration) in learners' ability, but the gains can be used to verify the trustworthiness of learners' perceptions of the usefulness of self-access learning. Qualitative analysis software (NVivo) was used to tag learners' perceptions in the above documents as a way of grouping them into categories. Counts were then performed within the categories to discover the proportion of learners ascribing to particular perceptions. These proportions are represented as percentages in the following discussion. The numerical results from pre- and post-tests in both areas where evidence of learning gain was sought (grammar and pronunciation) were compared statistically and found to be significant. Participants' perceptions of self-access language learning The participants in this study were the first cohort of students to use the SALL module. After the teachers' explana-

16

David Gardner

tion of self-access learning but before the participants had started using SALL, a questionnaire was used to gather a picture of their understanding of what they were about to undertake. How the participants defined SALL The majority of participants showed a clear understanding of what SALL meant in the context of their course. Most of them wrote about one or more of the concepts of choice, freedom, flexibility, independence, self-learning, active learning, lifelong learning and individualization (they did not necessarily use these words but expressed these sentiments). It is good to see that these concepts had been grasped, although it is difficult to know how much they were dependent on having recently been presented by the teacher. Many participants also emphasized the opportunity to work on their own areas of weakness. Some participants also wrote about effectiveness, enjoyability, absence of spoon-feeding, development of creative thinking and time-saving benefits. About 25 % of the participants wrote in some detail about differences between SALL and other forms of learning. Most often they were contrasting SALL with classroom learning. Participants wrote a lot about ways of doing SALL and they focused most on computers, the internet and multimedia. Indeed, some participants seem to have had a restricted view of SALL, associating it exclusively with working on the internet. There was also some limited focus on self-access centres and printed materials. A small number of participants expressed concerns that SALL requires heightened self-discipline and persistence. Interestingly, these views are more often expressed about anonymous "other participants" than about themselves. For example: I believe SALL is an ideal way of learning a language. It is because I think one cannot learn a language from a teacher (here, I mean teachers cannot teach rather, they can only


17

help). However, one can learn by himself. Therefore, I believe SALL is a good idea. On the other hand, I think that SALL may not be very practical since it really depends on whether a student want to learn. If one is not self-discipline (which is quite common among HK students), SALL would just give him one hour off.

The importance of choice to participants Almost all the participants (97%) believed that it was important to have choice in their learning. Their reasons included: 1. different needs, abilities, strengths, weaknesses, interests and backgrounds; 2. effectiveness, efficiency, time-saving, convenience, avoiding redundancy; 3. flexibility, freedom, independence, individualized approach; 4. motivating, useful, interesting, fun, relaxing, comfortable; 5. self-improvement, self-exploration, self-focus, selfdiscipline, life-long learning; 6. diversity (of content and approach). Previous experience with SALL About a quarter of participants had used SALL before (a third of those since coming to HKU and the rest at secondary school or at home), but only 4% had ever used a self-access centre before the course began (although 8% had previously made an online visit to the Virtual English Centre, which is maintained by the same team that operates the HKU self-access centre and offers links to self-access opportunities via the internet). The wisdom of including SALL in the course Although only a minority of participants had any handson experience of SALL, 88 % believed it was a good idea to integrate it into their English course. They listed one or more of the following reasons to support that view: self-

David Gardner

18

No. of students

Resource

Language skills and activities

Videos I movies I TV

256

grammar, listening, sentence structures, speaking, speed reading, note-taking, vocabulary

Grammar books

236

reading explanations, doing exercises, preparing for the proofreading test

Newspapers I magazines

225

discussion, essay preparation, grammar, pronunciation, reading, sentence structure, speed reading, speaking test preparation, note taking, vocabulary, dictionary work, writing skills, writing styles

Course books I tapes

160

pronunciation packs, IELTS preparation, writing, vocabulary, listening, presentations, reading

VEC

157

grammar, vocabulary, proof-reading, writing, reading, speaking skills, academic English, vocabulary, quizzes, listening

Novels

51

reading, vocabulary, writing styles, dictionary work, speed reading, pronunciation

Conversation partners

26

speaking, listening, pronunciation, peer assessment, confidence building

Dictionaries

23

vocabulary, grammar

Radio

14

listening, speaking, vocabulary, reading (scripts)

Music

13

pronunciation, listening

Course handouts

11

grammar, pronunciation, proofreading

Journals

10

writing styles

Discussion groups

8

preparation, technique

Consultation desk

6

writing, IELTS, chat

Self-recording (cassette or MP3 player)

3

speaking, pronunciation

Table 2 Resources participants used and why


19

improvement, individualization, fun and good to try new things. A further 6 % of participants were undecided about the wisdom of including SALL in the curriculum but were willing to give it a try. Only 2 % of participants did not want SALL in their curriculum, either because they thought it unnecessary or because they believed they lacked the selfdiscipline to sustain self-access learning. How participants used self-access language learning The perceptions highlighted in this section were collected mostly from participants' SALL reports.

What participants did, where they did it and what they found most useful Participants undertook a wide range of activities with a wide range of resources (Table 2). This suggests a genuine attempt to experiment rather than simply prepare for tests, an interpretation that is reinforced by the fact that some participants listed test preparation alongside other activities. When asked at the end of the course which aspects of SALL were most useful, the responses show very similar priorities (Table 3). Interestingly, the most popular resources (videos, movies and TV) in both these lists were not fully consistent with the goal-setting priority given to grammar (Figure 2), although a number of students did claim to use these resources for working on their grammar. The locations in which participants conducted their SALL activities were also widely varied (Table 4). They quickly learned that they were not obliged to attend the SALL hour as long as they spent an equivalent amount of time on it during the week. It is encouraging that participants took advantage of this flexibility to learn in locations convenient to them, although it is noticeable that the selfaccess centre was still the most popular location. Learning goals This section will look at the learning goals participants set

David Gardner

20

Most useful aspect TV, videos or cinema Language learning books or tapes

No. of students

152 32

VEC online

27 21

Reading

21

Individualization and autonomy

20 12

Newspapers and magazines

Satisfaction Chat

9

LRC facilities

8

NA

8

Discussion

3

Writing

3

Net surfing Language consultants

3 2

Music

2

Table 3 The most useful aspects of SALL

Key: 6 Pronunciation 5 Speaking

4 listening 3 Vocabulary 2 Writing 1 Grammar

Figure 2 Participants' main learning goals


Location SAC Home Virtual English Centre Library

No. of students

323 134 128 78

Others

36 29 19

Canteen

11

Computer Centre Student hall

21

Study room

Table4 Where participants conducted their SALL activities

for themselves, why they chose those goals, and whether they achieved them. The three learning goals participants set for themselves at the beginning of their SALL experience are wide-ranging (Figure 2). Given the initial focus on grammar, there was potential for an over-emphasis on grammar or even a total focus on it. However, although grammar was the most popular goal, it did not dominate. Given HKU students' preoccupation with grammar it is likely that it would have been the most popular goal even without any course-imposed priority. The importance of grammar decreased after goal 1 had been set, although about 11 % of participants selected grammar-related learning for all three goals. Other popular focuses of learning goals were writing, vocabulary, listening, speaking and pronunciation. If the three learning goals of each participant are grouped together it is easier to gain a picture of where participants' priorities were (Figure 3). The most important were grammar (23%), writing (17%), vocabulary (14%), listening (13 %) and speaking (10% ). It is noticeable that oral presentations (4 %), academic English (1 %) and professional English (0%) had very low priorities as learning

N N

Academic English IELTS preparation 3%

Proofreading

Professional English 0%

1%

1%

/

'

//c " /Others

Reading 4% Oral presentations 4%

i

/

_,,/

//

Grammar 23%

0%

Pronunciation~// Writing

8%

17%

Speaking Listening 10% 13%

Vocabulary 14%

Figure 3 Participants' learning priorities


23

goals even though the self-access centre and the Virtual English Centre support these areas. This is important because it is these areas which were the focus of the previous unpopular course which students complained lacked relevance. Also of significance is the low priority given to professional English and preparing for the IELTS language test (used as a voluntary exit test of English proficiency), which is contrary to the common assumption that these second-year students would be concerned about developing skills for obtaining employment. The relationship between learning goals and some of the assessed outcomes of the course is noticeable. Grammar was the highest priority and that is assessed at 30% of the course marks. Writing was set as a goal by 17% of participants and that may have been influenced by the written assessment, worth 40% of the course marks. However, it is also noticeable that pronunciation was given a low priority (8% of all learning goals) although it was a marking criterion for the final speaking test. The remaining 52% of all goals have no relationship with assessed outcomes of the course, most notably vocabulary (14%) and listening (13 %) . This division between course-related and non-course-related self-access suggests that SALL was not seen solely as a way of preparing for assessments. This view is supported by participants' own statements of their reasons for selecting their goals (summarized in Table 5) which show that some reasons were related to course assessment (e.g. setting grammar as a goal because of the proof-reading tests, or writing to improve writing style), but many reasons were related to personal improvement rather than course assessments. About 21 % of participants made changes to their goals during the SALL module. Their reasons were: limited time, self-assessment, course assessment, not interesting, not achievable or realistic, not effective, too many goals, lack of motivation. The changes they made involved the goals (either to concentrate their efforts or to establish new goals) and/ or the materials and activities they used

24

David Gardner

Goal

Reason

Grammar

improve poor grammar proof-reading tests writing a specific grammar focus speaking learn grammar rules

Vocabulary

expand or strengthen better writing better expression better comprehension better speaking

Listening

understand native speakers following fast-paced conversation for watching videos better communication

Writing

improve writing /style

Pronunciation

fluency

improve vocabulary correct poor pronunciation prepare for speaking tests Speaking

fluency I clarity confidence prepare for speaking tests daily communication

Oral presentation

better skills nervousness fluency

Reading

reading speed poor comprehension increase vocabulary

IELTS

Preparation improve grades in IELTS

No. of students

126 74 61 35 31 16 156 56 42 25 15 76 26 18 13 112 16 27 32 12 74 19 17 16 19 16 12 20 18 4 18 5

Table 5 Main reasons for the goals participants set


25

to pursue their goals. In a small number of cases students changed the time they spent on SALL (in all but one case the time was reduced). The majority of participants (79%) did not change their goals and many gave reasons, including: satisfaction with current goals, clear evidence that current goals needed more effort, beliefs that current goals were essential for good English or, in a small number of cases, for achieving good course assessment grades. At the end of their SALL experience (in the last class of the course) participants were asked whether they felt they had met the expectations they expressed when they had started their SALL Record. 26% of participants said yes, although some of them had found it harder than they had expected. Another 26% partly met their expectations, and 31 % felt they did not meet their expectations at all (some students did not answer this question). The reasons given for partly or fully not meeting expectations are given in Table 6. Despite the relatively low rate of meeting expectations almost all participants believed it was helpful to set goals for SALL. In addition, 93 % of participants were confident that some or all of their goals had been reasonable, achievable and realistic. Although many did not give reasons to explain the inconsistency between setting

Reason

No. of students

Limited time

84

lack motivation or discipline

24

not efficient or effective

8

Unrealistic goals

11

lack practice

15

too many goals

4

further improvement needed

2

Table 6 Reasons for not meeting expectations (partly or fully)

26

David Gardner

reasonable goals but still not meeting their expectation, those that did, consistently blamed time constraints. Future plans for using self-access language learning A majority of participants believed they would definitely continue using SALL after the course ended (63%), some planned to continue if time was available (12%), and a small number (7%) did not wish to continue (some participants did not answer this question). The reasons given by those who planned to continue mostly relate to what they liked about self-access learning (Table 7). The reasons why some students would not continue are much less varied (Table 8). It was perhaps optimistic of the majority of students to believe that they would continue making significant use of SALL, given their heavy workloads and homework deadlines. This can only be verified by carrying out a follow-up study.

Reasons

No. of students

Self improvement

90

Like the LRC and/or VEG resources

40

Useful

30

IELTS preparation

20

Continuous learning

16

Enjoyable

11

Importance of English

9

Effective

8

Flexible

7

Goals not yet reached

6

To maintain English level

6

Freedom

4

Independent learning

4

Motivated

3

Table 7 Reasons for continuing SALL


Reason

27

No. of students

No time

12

Not effective or useful

7

Lack motivation

5

Table 8 Reasons for not continuing SALL

The learning-gain data Two sets of learning-gain tests were administered to compare participants' ability before and after the course in specific language areas. The first set of tests used a grammar proof-reading test in which participants were required to discover and correct an unknown number of grammatical errors in a text. A comparison of the pre- and post-tests shows that four participants' scores dropped whereas the remaining 314 participants who took both tests improved their scores, usually by a wide margin (t-tests show a high level of significance for the results). The second attempt to demonstrate learning gain compared scores on the individual pronunciation assessment (the diagnostic used to contribute to each participant's needs analysis near the beginning of the course), and the final individual speaking test scores. This comparison is somewhat problematic as pronunciation was the only criterion of the first test but one of four criteria for the second test. 33 participants scored lower on the second test and 12 participants' scores did not change. The remaining 270 participants showed significant improvements. Although gain in pronunciation was significant it was less pronounced than in the area of grammar. The problematic nature of the second attempt to demonstrate learning gain and the fact that grammar, the subject of the first attempt, was clearly fronted as an initial focus for self-access work indicate that it would be foolish to make strong claims regarding the relationship between the SALL module and these scores. Nevertheless,

l

N

CXl

Liked the Course

The Course was Effective

60% 50%

~

40% 30%

~

.... j .llllnew

20%

10%

~

•

%~rdllllllllll~ Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% % J_=-"'-~"'

Strongly Agree

Agree

Figure 4 Students' appreciation of the old and new courses

mo1d I 'lilllnew :' ~--!

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

CJ

Ill