Learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom

Learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom: teacher, learner, curriculum and assessment

Edited by David Little Jennifer Ridley Ema Ushioda

Authentik Books for language teachers

© 2003 The authors

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

ISBN 1 871730 70 8

Typeset in Book Antiqua and Arial

Foreword The papers collected in this volume were presented and discussed at a symposium organized by the Centre for Language and Communication Studies (CLCS), Trinity College Dublin, in March 2002. The symposium was one of the concluding events of the CLCS Learner Autonomy Project, which was launched in January 1998 with two complementary aims: (i) to explore with a small group of language teachers how far it is possible to develop the autonomy of Irish learners in the junior secondary cycle (12–15 years), and (ii) to collect empirical data of various kinds with a view to discovering more about the classrooms, teachers and learners involved in the project. A full account of the project – its practical inspiration and theoretical underpinnings; its structure and organization; its empirical findings; and the contributions made by seven visiting experts from other countries (all of them contributors to the present collection) – is published as a companion to this book: David Little, Jennifer Ridley and Ema Ushioda, Towards greater learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom (Dublin: Authentik, 2002). We invited visitors from abroad to contribute to our project because we wanted them to share their experience and expertise with the language teachers who were collaborating with us. The diversity of the perspectives they offered suggested that our project would remain incomplete if we did not attempt to provide a coherent overview of the implications of learner autonomy not only for learners and teachers but also for teacher education, the language curriculum and assessment. Thus the idea of a symposium was born. We assigned topics to our invitees, all of whom agreed to contribute; with the exception of Philip Riley’s concluding reflections, papers were distributed to the participants in advance; and we devoted three days to intense and not always cool discussion, in the light of which contributors revised their papers. We are grateful to the contributors for accepting our initial invitation and meeting all subsequent deadlines; to Dara O Siochain of CLCS for her help in organizing the symposium; and to Atlantic Philanthropies, without whose generous financial support the CLCS Learner Autonomy Project and the symposium would not have happened. David Little, Jennifer Ridley and Ema Ushioda September 2003

Contents General introduction Learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom: taking account of all the roles and agencies involved in secondary education David Little

3

Part I: The teacher’s role Introduction to Part I Ema Ushioda

9

Tramas in the foreign language classroom: autopoietic networks for learner growth Ramon Ribé

11

Scaffolding target language use Hanne Thomsen

29

Talking text: reflections on reflection in computer-mediated communication Breffni O’Rourke and Klaus Schwienhorst

47

Part II: Fostering learner development Introduction to Part II Jennifer Ridley

63

Second language acquisition in an autonomous learning environment Lienhard Legenhausen

65

Learners’ ability to reflect on language and on their learning Jennifer Ridley

78

Motivation as a socially mediated process Ema Ushioda

90

Part III: Providing for teachers’ professional growth Introduction to Part III Jennifer Ridley

105

Teacher development in the light of second language acquisition research Seán Devitt

107

Planning learning: the role of teacher reflection Irma Huttunen

122

Developing learner autonomy: the teacher’s responsibility Leni Dam

135

Student autonomy and teachers’ professional growth: fostering a collegial culture in language teacher education Viljo Kohonen

147

Part IV: Curriculum and assessment Introduction to Part IV Ema Ushioda

163

Curriculum development and learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom: constraints and possibilities Turid Trebbi

166

Cultural competence: a basis for participation in society Laila Aase

185

Second language learning: providing for immigrant learners Barbara Lazenby Simpson

198

Content and language integrated learning: a framework for the development of learner autonomy Dieter Wolff

211

Learner autonomy and public examinations David Little

223

Conclusion Drawing the threads together Philip Riley

237

Contributors Laila Aase Associate Professor of Didactics of Norwegian Language and Literature, Department of Education, University of Bergen, Norway Leni Dam Pegagogic Adviser and In-service Teacher Trainer at CVU (University College for Higher Education), Copenhagen and North Zealand, Denmark Seán Devitt Senior Lecturer, Department of Education, Trinity College, Dublin Irma Huttunen Professor Emerita, University of Oulu, Finland Viljo Kohonen Professor of Foreign Language Education, Department of Teacher Education, University of Tampere, Finland Barbara Lazenby Simpson Research Fellow, Centre for Language and Communication Studies, Trinity College, Dublin Lienhard Legenhausen Professor of Language Pedagogy and Applied Linguistics, English Department, University of Münster, Germany David Little Director of the Centre for Language and Communication Studies and Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics, Trinity College, Dublin Breffni O’Rourke Manager of Language Learning Technologies and Resources and Lecturer in Applied Linguistics, Centre for Language and Communication Studies, Trinity College, Dublin Ramon Ribé Senior Lecturer (Profesor Titular), English Department, University of Barcelona, Spain Jennifer Ridley Formerly Lecturer in Applied Linguistics, Centre for Language and Communication Studies, Trinity College, Dublin

Philip Riley Director of the CRAPEL (Centre de Recherches et d’Applications Pédagogiques en Langues) and Professor of Ethnolinguistics, Université de Nancy 2, France Klaus Schwienhorst Coordinator of Language Learning Modules and Lecturer in Applied Linguistics, Centre for Language and Communication Studies, Trinity College, Dublin Hanne Thomsen Teacher of English and German, Karlslunde Skole, and Foreign Languages Adviser, Teachers’ Resource Centre, Roskilde, Denmark Turid Trebbi Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics, University of Bergen, Norway Ema Ushioda Lecturer in English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, Centre for English Language Teacher Education, University of Warwick, United Kingdom Dieter Wolff Professor of Applied Psycholinguistics, University of Wuppertal, Germany

General introduction

Learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom: taking account of all the roles and agencies involved in secondary education David Little

For more than a decade learner autonomy has been a major topic of discussion among language teachers and applied linguists. Pedagogical experiments in classrooms and self-access centres have been described, analysed and evaluated; theoretical debate has drawn on a variety of disciplines to explore the human capacities that make learner autonomy possible; and practical proposals have been made for classroom teaching and the set-up and organization of selfaccess centres, including the provision of advisory services. Each of these strands of discussion has yielded a steady stream of publications – articles, monographs, symposia. What is more, the issues that gather around the concept of learner autonomy – especially the learner’s reflective involvement in all aspects of the learning process – are now widely acknowledged to be of major importance for education generally. As a result the development of learner autonomy (though often it goes under another name, such as “critical reflection” or “independent thinking”) has been adopted as a major goal of school curricula in many countries. In principle at least, such curricula explicitly recognize that the value of education must be measured by the extent to which the processes and products of learning become part of the identity of the individual learner. But despite all the discussion, publication and educational legislation, the successful implementation of learner autonomy in the language classrooms of secondary schools remains a minority achievement. It is not that teachers and their learners have tried and failed; in the great majority of classrooms the attempt has still to be made. This is hardly surprising, for learner autonomy is supported by pedagogical principles that pose a very direct challenge to the “frontal” and “transmission” styles of teaching that remain dominant. Where educational authorities have specified learner autonomy as a curriculum goal, they have usually been guilty of two kinds of failure. First they have neglected to tease out the implications of this policy not only for classroom practice, but for teacher training, the detailed structure and content of the curriculum, and learner assessment; and then they have failed to take the practical steps that those implications demand. In other words, they have done nothing to support the culture change that is necessary if learner autonomy is to become a reality for the majority. At the same time it must be conceded that none of the many publications of the past decade have addressed the theory and practice of learner autonomy from the complementary perspectives of all the roles (learners, teachers, teacher trainers, curriculum designers, examiners) and agencies (especially curriculum and examination boards) that together make up secondary education. This book is an attempt to remedy that deficiency. 3

4

General introduction

The Collins Cobuild Dictionary defines autonomy as “the ability to make your own decisions about what to do”. Learners in formal educational contexts take their first step towards autonomy when they recognize that they are responsible for their own learning; they exercise that responsibility by being fully involved in all aspects of the learning process – planning, implementation, evaluation; and their autonomy grows as a result of their never-ending effort to understand the why, the what and the how of their learning. Learner autonomy, in other words, entails a variety of self-regulatory behaviours that develop – through practice – as a fully integrated part of the knowledge and skills that are the goal of learning. This means that in language classrooms the development of autonomy requires that learners use the target language at once as medium of classroom communication, channel of learning, and tool for reflection. Such is the general understanding of learner autonomy that is shared by the contributors to this volume. On the basis of this understanding, any attempt to describe what language teachers should do in order to develop the autonomy of their learners must consider how to get learners to accept responsibility for their learning, how to ensure that they use the target language to communicate, learn and reflect, and how to organize the classroom so as to engage them as fully as possible in planning, monitoring and evaluating their learning. It is also necessary to take account of the ways in which information systems, especially computer-mediated communication, can help to develop learner autonomy, since IT seems destined to play an increasingly central role in education. These are the concerns of the first part of the book. The second part turns to the learner and focuses in particular on three issues. First, what kind of language development can we expect from pedagogical approaches designed to promote learner autonomy? Secondly, what exactly do we mean by “learner reflection”, and what impact can we expect reflection to have on learners’ understanding of the language learning process? And thirdly, what is the relation between learner motivation and the development of learner autonomy? The third part of the book addresses the question of teacher development. Two papers deal with the professional knowledge and skill that teachers need: knowledge about the processes of second language acquisition and skill in planning programmes of language learning. And two papers deal with the processes of teacher development: getting teachers to accept that (paradoxically) learner autonomy is their responsibility and showing them how to respond to this fact; and promoting the growth of a collegial culture to support teacher development and, by extension, the development of learner autonomy. Convincing theoretical arguments, effective practice, and a gradual transformation of the learning culture of our schools can all be thwarted by inadequate curricula and inappropriate forms of assessment. Accordingly, the last part of the book considers how the development of learner autonomy can be supported from the top down, by curricula and assessment. The specific issues addressed are: the constraints and possibilities inherent in language curriculum develop-

David Little

5

ment; the language curriculum (foreign languages but also the mother tongue) as a source of “cultural competence”; the need for curricula to address the language as well as the general educational needs of immigrant pupils; the contribution that “content and language integrated education” (sometimes called “bilingual education”) can make to the development of learner autonomy; and finally, the kind of public examinations likely to support rather than undermine the development of learner autonomy. All the contributors to this book are practitioners – language teachers and/or teacher trainers – as well as researchers. And although each paper is firmly rooted in research of one kind or another, the cumulative thrust of the book is towards the solution of practical problems in teaching and learning, teacher development, curriculum design and implementation, and learner assessment. The concluding paper, however, reviews the themes raised in the book in terms of wider research perspectives and suggests a number of new lines of enquiry. This is surely fitting; for it is in research that the many insights offered by our contributors have their source, and it is on further research that future progress must depend.

Part I : The teacher’s role

Introduction to part I Ema Ushioda

The concept of autonomy in the classroom invariably brings to mind a vision of learners working happily in groups, pairs or individually, while the teacher hovers in the background. We begin this volume, however, with three papers that emphasize in different ways the pivotal role of the teacher in developing the autonomy of her learners. Ramon Ribé begins by examining implementations of autonomous learning in all their complexity, and classifying them according to three pedagogical positions or perspectives: (i) the convergence position, which allows for autonomous action by learners, but contained within the boundaries of common mainstream action; (ii) the divergence–convergence position, where divergence means opening spaces for learner decision making, responsibility and growth; (iii) the convergence–divergence position, typified by open-ended learning structures and fully developed forms of autonomous learning such as creative project work. Ribé argues that the divergence positions represent a significant departure from traditional practice and require a major change in teacher thinking. Central to this change is the notion of life and learning as creative organic growth, powered from within and triggered by conditions in the external environment. As a metaphor to capture the complexity of these self-structuring creative networks for learner growth, or “webs of life”, he offers the Spanish term trama which has multiple associations. He concludes by stressing the simplicity inherent in the complex pedagogical processes he has endeavoured to describe. In essence, teachers who bring forth creative tramas equate life and classroom, and “grow with” their learners. From the broad vista on creative learning environments presented by Ribé, we step inside one particular English classroom in a Danish school. Hanne Thomsen’s paper shares with us her insights as a teacher engaging her learners in processes of individual and collective growth. The key term in this paper is scaffolding, a metaphor that became the object of much discussion during the symposium, and one that features prominently also in a number of later papers. Thomsen begins with a richly illustrated account of group project work in her classroom, and describes various techniques she deploys to scaffold her learners’ use of the target language as well as their engagement in the learning process. Next, she focuses on learner–learner scaffolding, illustrating various cognitive, linguistic and social-affective scaffolds learners construct for one another as they engage in videotaped group work. Yet even here the strategic role of the teacher is significant: Thomsen describes how she subsequently uses the videotaped data as input to draw attention to the concept of scaffolding as a useful technique that learners can consciously try out in their group work. In her final set of examples, focussing on vocabulary acquisition, she continues to stress her role in raising learners’ awareness of techniques, tools and strategies to support their 9

10

Introduction to Part I

efforts to learn and use the target language. Raising learners’ awareness of affordances in the learning environment is also a central theme in Breffni O’Rourke and Klaus Schwienhorst’s paper. They begin by exploring three complementary perspectives on learner autonomy: the individual-cognitive, the social-interactive, and the exploratory-participatory. They note that all three approaches share a concern for reflection, and describe the vital role played by the medium of writing in developing reflective processes. They then put forward a set of arguments for engaging learners in synchronous text-based computer-mediated communication in a MOO (object-oriented multiuser domain), since such communication makes possible real-time dialogue, like speech, while offering varied opportunities for reflection, like writing. O’Rourke and Schwienhorst report briefly on a bilingual MOO project to illustrate the rich potential of this communication technology to stimulate metalinguistic reflection. While the project involved university learners in Ireland and Germany, the authors suggest that MOO technology is particularly well-suited to deployment in secondary schools. However, they emphasize that no technology can of itself guarantee the development of learner autonomy. The MOO data they discuss show that learners do not necessarily exploit the full potential of the medium as a tool for reflection. The paper concludes by stressing the role of the teacher in creating tasks and conditions to stimulate the reflective processes that support the development of language proficiency.

Tramas in the foreign language classroom: autopoietic networks for learner growth Ramon Ribé

Introduction Snapshots 1. A self-managed ELT class in a secondary school – A constellation of groups is working autonomously on aspects linked to an adventure reader read collectively and discussed in class. It has taken a certain time and a lot of action (input) on the system for this to gain momentum and finally explode into this constellation of operating subsystems. Groups work radially (divergently) towards their own output objectives (see figure 5, p.20 below) – new episodes, their own stories, video-recording, a complicated board game, grammar support cards … These interconnected cells interact like elements of a neural network (figure 1) through conFigure 1 tinuous reporting (throughput) activities. Through shared reader-related activity, the teacher ensures a constant flow of input, focus on form, and energy into the subsystems of the network (see figure 5), and maintains a working balance between endocentric and exocentric forces. 2. A translation class in the University of Barcelona – Undergraduate students develop their own portfolios based on the analysis (discovery of layers and elements of meaning) and later translation of their own favourite text (“the text of my life”). Class work mirrors this discovery-translation process and ensures the necessary input – theoretical, practical and affective. Shared classwork and individual students’ translations of texts analysed in class are uploaded daily into navigable folders in the class intranet. Students process each other’s work through the forum section ... Modelling To a great extent, learning a language is a modelling operation. To speak like the target model implies approximation to, imitation of, and formal convergence towards an accepted communication prototype. Historically, successive paradigms of teaching have always evolved around the question of how best to imitate, internalize and finally assimilate native or otherwise target-modelled language input. Even the metaphor of a multiplicity of interlanguage states is based on a distance-and-race metaphor, with starting and finishing points as well as a gradient of intermediate stages, all of them understood in terms of formal modelconvergence and closeness. Because learning a language is to a great extent an explicit modelling operation, often a sequence of micro-modelling tactical actions, it is implicitly as11

12

Tramas in the foreign language classroom

sumed by much of the teaching and learning population that the process leading to these two not totally identical objectives – (a) learning success, and (b) language mastery – must be exclusively based on a convergent tactical process. This washback effect often taints with uncertainties the thinking processes of teachers who will otherwise openly support varieties of learning organization which cater for and even capitalize on individual learner differences, and who try to foster learner-centeredness and autonomy. Authoring learning processes and communication Although rich process-descriptions and statistical probes abound (e.g., Doughty and Williams 1998), it sounds almost like a truism to assert that strict focus on form within a tightly controlled convergence process may bring about the desired standards of competence in the lower language-description and competence levels. Equally, it may also sound like a truism to assert that at higher integrative levels of competence – cognitive or affective (see figure 6, p.24 below) – totally convergent processes may bring conformity, growth-suffocation and dependence to a language-learning process which is essentially one of global development and identity-building (Riley 1985, 1991). But then, questions arise: • Will only divergence foster global learning, independence, and growth? • Do we want just convergent modelling or learner authoring? • Are these two modes opposite? If yes, is there a view that reconciles both extremes? This paper conceptualizes previous personal views, experiences and research into a provisional synthesis or cross-field paradigm which I have found helpful when dealing with the maze of concepts related to language education, personal growth and freedom. Some of its ideas (convergence versus divergence, metaphorical thinking) have been partly developed in a previous article on individual differences (Ribé 2002) and in recent talks on autonomous learning (Ribé 2001a, 2001b). Initial hypotheses This paper starts with a series of hypotheses: 1 Although convergent modelling is intrinsic to language learning, autonomy and individual growth are essentially divergent processes. 2 Divergence is effectively triggered by the exercise of creativity in three areas – process, content and form. 3 Most implementations of autonomous learning can be described as creative tramas. 4 Metaphors used to describe the web of life apply without change to creative tramas. 5 Any implementation of an autonomous learning process is best described as an integrated and interactive system of networks within networks. 6 The balance between convergence and divergence may be represented as a contextual gradient of shifting focus between two poles – free instru-

Ramon Ribé

13

mental learning of the language in specialized settings (language school, university) and compulsory learning in educational institutions. These hypotheses and all the reflexions in this paper are closely related to a view of learning as a life process, one that – however altered by refined methodological practices – shares all the basic behavioural characteristics of growing organisms. For this reason it makes intensive use of images, concepts and quotations from non-linguistic sources, particularly from Fritjof Capra’s book The Web of Life (Capra 1996). Although these propositions try to encompass the whole range of learning contexts and implementations of autonomous learning, there is a certain bias towards a divergent approach and the contexts the author knows best – secondary education, teacher training, and the teaching of translation to university students.

Convergence and divergence: three views Oversimplifying things, we may observe three different perspectives among second/foreign language teachers who place a high value on autonomy in language education and try to integrate it into their own practice. 1 – The convergence position (figure 2) This can be described as the x/y/z → a view, where x/y/z represents different individual learner orientations, a1... a2... a3 a certain amount of choice within the task, and s a pre-established curriculum or course of action. In this position, the integration of autonomous processes and of x b ... a ... ... individual differences is seen as a necess y sary first step to creating more efficient z teaching tools that lead the students towards the common goals of code learning Figure 2 and skill development as contained in the pre-established language syllabus. At a teaching organization level, autonomy means creating • initial spaces for individual differences through humanistic, cooperative and previous-knowledge elicitation techniques that ensure the learner’s active role in a mainstream modelling process which is essentially shared and predefined; • ongoing spaces for individual learning action and choice within the task that reflect personal strategic preference and procedural initiative (notetaking, summarizing, diaries, diagramming ...), but still parallel the predefined sequence of class or on-line learning action. Given the impossibility of a constant supply of different starting points and task menus for the same target learning area, planned class action usually becomes a unilinear mosaic (or “constellation” – Candlin and Murphy 1987, p.2) of tasks, each of them providing not just an organic internal structure (“a curricu1

2

3

1

14


lum in miniature”, ibid.), but also microspaces for autonomous or parallel learner action (Häussermann and Piepho 1996; Puchta and Schratz 1993; Willis 1996a, 1996b), with an inbuilt primary focus – e.g., the learning of a piece of language code, the exercise of a particular skill or the implementation of a specific strategy. Ideally, these tasks contain or imply a certain integration (globality) of competences to allow for choice in focus, as well as to mirror and cater for a certain range of variation in content preference, learning style, strategic bias, etc. If done on-line, the hyperlink structure of the medium can provide other areas of selection, such as navigation channels, different layers of difficulty, variation in focus, access to ad hoc support information, etc. Autonomous action exists, is often rich and rewarding, but is contained within the boundaries of the common mainstream action. “Opening spaces” (Ribé 1994, pp.29–39 and 187–370) to areas of personal choice having to do with individual differences, while at the same time providing the safety of a pre-established curriculum, ensures a certain degree of central direction, of conformity to external standards, and of learning success measured through the percentage of syllabus covered and the number of items practised. This view, to a certain extent bidirectional but mainly implying external action upon the learner, is not exclusive to a specific context. Whatever its roots (see Mitchell and Martin 1997, p.14), we find it in all kinds of enlightened classroom practice, from adult vocational and university practice to language schools and compulsory educational settings. 2 – The divergence-convergence position (figure 3) The D-C or divergence-convergence position ind ... a ... tends to open spaces mainly for cognitive dex velopment by giving the learner responsibility b ... s y for management control of the central core of z c ... the learning process itself. Whatever the starting point (one or many), in this ongoing “giveFigure 3 and-take” transaction, a/b/c represent simultaneous routes or choices, as well as constant negotiation and monitoring processes. This position, mainly favoured in contexts involving adult learners and where self-study or on-line facilities exist, may not be always totally open-ended in the sense that the target competence goals may be related to the requirements of an external syllabus that acts as reference. Nevertheless, it affects the whole learning process and admits of many forms and variations. Instruments for supporting and promoting “procedural creativity” (software, questionnaires, check lists, strategic maps) are numerous and, although not usually created for this context, are used with increasing frequency in the language class. Decisions are often reflected in learning contracts and other transactional instruments that allow for both choice and responsibility. The multiple devices used in process syllabuses are classified in Breen and Littlejohn (2000, p.294) into three main areas of negotiation: • establishing purposes (e.g., through initial questionnaires or through 1

1

1

1

Ramon Ribé

15

elicitation of a student’s personal syllabus to develop a group syllabus); • decisions concerning contents (what tasks) and ways of working (e.g., who should do what, alternative ways of working through a unit); • evaluation of outcomes (e.g., through self-assessment procedures or through journals for student evaluation of process). In this position, divergence means opening spaces for decision making, responsibility and growth. Autonomy lies in the wide range of choices around the process affecting almost all levels of control, management and strategic decisions – whether levels of involvement, route, order, level of difficulty, when or how. 3 – The convergence-divergence position (figure 4) The C-D or convergence-divergence position p implies an expansion of the second one. a ... x p Its main distinguishing feature is a much p b ... y greater open-endedness at the end of the p p process. It generates spaces not just for z c ... p process creativity, but also for content creativity and the negotiation of the final Figure 4 product pn. The classroom model becomes the “architect’s studio” (Schön 1987) or the performing arts (music) paradigm (Ribé 1994). The curriculum itself is the result of a jointly created learning system in the classroom, what Cole (1981) calls a cultural medium of learning. Teachers supporting this view hold firmly to a set of views, namely that • language education equates with global learner growth; • language learning means developing a specific language learner personality; • language learning shares many characteristics of fundamental life growth, like organized chaos and unpredictability; • promoting learner freedom and independence is central to the FL class; • one of the main goals of foreign language learning is to enhance individual differences in the sense of bringing out the uniqueness of each individuality through the learner’s action upon the medium. These teachers are supportive of fully-developed forms of autonomous learning, like creative project work, where negotiation leads to an end-product which is almost totally system- or learner-dependent and unpredictable. There are many implementations of this convergence-divergence view. Yet all share some characteristics, which makes it possible for them to be studied as branches of the same tree. They are, for instance, macro or multi-episodic events – networks or webs linked through content, goal and procedure. They are creative in the sense of promoting experiences of success in the learner (Gardner 1985, Ushioda 1996), contingent-path motivation (Raynor 1974), and peak experiences (Maslow 1962). 1

1

2 3

1

4 5

1

6

16


About this triple distinction This triple distinction (1–3) describes three positions on a continuum – a gradient where intermediate and mixed forms are the rule and often can only be described in terms of relative closeness to one end or the other. As we proceed from 1 to 3, this scale also represents other factors: • an increasing complexity of teaching-learning interaction; • a growing need for learner space, negotiation processes, and teacher readiness, commitment, involvement and time; • an inverse frequency of occurrence of these positions in the actual classroom (see Mitchell and Martin 1997, pp.7–11). These days most teachers of foreign languages, especially in the school context, define themselves primarily as FL educators (Ribé forthcoming), but many of them pay only lip service to the need to cater for autonomous work and individual learner difference, possibly as a result of the increasing requirements for personal involvement, lack of necessary institutional support, or peer and departmental pressure. While classroom practices derived from the convergence position are progressively well served by the publishing industry and are becoming more deeply rooted in the prevalent educational culture, practices derived from the second (D-C) and third (C-D) views require a new generation of support materials, a major change in teacher thinking, and a very different kind of interactive environment. Although an optimal learning environment probably requires a mixture of the three perspectives, balance being a learning-context variable, this article focuses mainly on the convergence-divergence position, since learner action upon the medium of learning makes this position much more dependent on and supportive of individual learner differences. As this position provides the most radical departure from traditional practice, its description here subsumes and illuminates many of the characteristics of the other two.

Life and learning as creative growth Metaphors for life, mind and learning Throughout history, theories of memory and mind have been consistently based on metaphors drawn from fields of contemporary technology (Draaisma 1995) – from Socrates’s wax tablet to Vygotsky’s scaffolding, or the computer (Pylyshyn 1984), or holographic (Pribram 1991) and neural network models (Gluck and Rumelhart 1990). The same has happened with theories that try to explain learning processes, where metaphors like transmission, transaction and transformation (Miller 1993, pp.4–7) have provided analogical support for time-consecutive and contrasting models; and, more recently, with theories of language acquisition, where input (Krashen 1985), output (Swain 1985) or throughput processing (Ribé et al. 1997) are linked to a cybernetics metaphor of cognition (Capra 1996, p.265) in which mind is seen as an information-processing device.

Ramon Ribé

17

Metaphors for life, mind and learning overlap Metaphors constitute an identifiable stage (the “context of discovery” phase) of any theory-making process (Bruner 1962, p.5). Their role as “mediators” (Beck 1978) between an image and a cluster of abstract relationships allows them to act not only as theory representations, but also as revealers of overlapping patterns and shared paradigms. If traditionally the world of education has borrowed a collection of analogical images depicting a Cartesian view of the curriculum – a firm belief in language learning as a blind modelling process and a geometrical perspective of lesson planning and class organization – these days experience, complexity, autonomy, affect, creativity, chaos and self-organization, systems, top-down, whole networks and self-ecology are among the legion of interdisciplinary metaphorical concepts revealing a deeper thrust towards a unified paradigm shift from physics to lifesciences (see, for example, Bohm and Peat 1987, Capra 1996, Maturana and Varela 1980, Wilber 1986, among many others). The more recent metaphors share the view of a system, a network that changes by a process of organic growth (“structural coupling”) powered from within and triggered by conditions (action-input) from the external environment: Cognition, then, is not a representation of an independently existing world, but rather a continual bringing forth of a world through the process of living. The interactions of a living system with its environment are cognitive interactions, and the process of living itself is a process of cognition. (Capra 1996, p.267) These interactions are cognitive processes – “Cognitive processes and their context unfold continuously and simultaneously in real time” (Gelder and Port 1996, p.327; italics in the original): In the emerging theory of living systems mind is not a thing, but a pro-cess. It is cognition, the process of knowing, and it is identified with the process of life itself. (Capra 1996, p.264) A closer look at overlapping properties between life, mind and learning will reveal a cluster of analogical traits: • Autonomy: “The living system is autonomous [...]. The environment only triggers the structural changes; it does not specify or direct them” (Capra 1996, p.267). • Autopoiesis: “a network of production processes, in which the function of each component is to participate in the production or transformation of other components in the network. In this way the entire network continually ‘makes itself’. It is produced by its components and in turn produces those components. ‘In a living system,’ the authors explain, ‘the product of its operation is its own organisation’ ” (ibid., p.98). • Creativity: The inner drive of all living systems showing itself through action upon the environment. “We are beginning to recognize the creative

18


•

•

•

•

•

unfolding of life in forms of ever-increasing diversity and complexity” (ibid., p.222). Development: “As it keeps interacting with its environment, a living organism will undergo a sequence of structural changes, and over time it will form its own, individual pathway of structural coupling” (ibid., p.220). Holism: “It is obvious that we are dealing here with a radical expansion of the concept of cognition and, implicitly, the concept of mind. In this new view cognition involves the entire process of life – including perception, emotion, and behaviour” (ibid., p.267). Networks: a systemic conception of life, mind and consciousness sees living systems as organized wholes with properties inherent to the system, not to its parts. “In nature [...] there are no hierarchies. There are only networks nesting within other networks” (ibid., p.35). Pattern, structure and process: The three criteria of life – pattern, structure, and process – are so closely intertwined that it is difficult to discuss them separately, although it is important to distinguish among them. (ibid., p.172) Structured environment: Life dynamics, self-organization, interactive systems – life – require certain structural conditions or ordering conditions (spaces) for dynamics, self-organization and for developing autopoietic networks. “A structurally coupled system is a learning sytem” (ibid., p.219).

Mind, life and learning are divergent processes According to this view, we see the process of knowing not as convergent “representation” or “conformation”, but as a creative process: cognition involves two kinds of activities that are inextricably linked: the maintenance and continuation of autopoiesis and the bringing forth of a world. (Capra 1996, p.268) These are the two essential characteristics of all living systems, which over time form their “unique, individual pathway of structural changes in the process of development” (ibid.). In fact, development and learning are two sides of the same coin. Both are expressions of structural coupling. (ibid.) This identification, which is at the heart of all manifestations of experiential learning (see, for example, Kohonen 1992), theories of personal constructs, and much recent teacher thinking and pedagogical culture, runs parallel to the transformation metaphor for learning (Miller 1993), and its implications are more farreaching than is immediately obvious (Ribé 2002). To describe the “highly integrative systems of life”, other metaphors are also used: “ ‘dynamic systems theory’, ‘the theory of complexity’, ‘non-linear dynamics’, ‘network dynamics’, [...] self-organization, autopoietic networks” (Capra

Ramon Ribé

19

1996, p.xviii), all of them connoting dynamic expansion and divergent processes, as opposed to the more mechanistic, linear, sequential and even convergent perspectives. All these are essential characteristics of life and mind in a development process which has been defined as essentially cognitive. Why should anybody hypothesize that authentic learning in general and optimum language learning in particular, both understood as growth, are an exception and should behave in a totally different and convergent way?

Generating self-structuring (“autopoietic”) environments: creative “tramas” for language and personality development From the most archaic and simple form of life to the most intricate and complex contemporary forms, life has unfolded in a continual dance without ever breaking the basic pattern of its autopoietic networks. (Capra 1996, p.221) “Bringing forth a world”: Class-generated language-learning webs Class A from a secondary school in Italy is engaged in an inter-school storywriting project; class B in Spain is doing interlinked group work on chosen aspects of an alternative world; class C in Germany is conducting a survey and producing a report on the opinions of foreign visitors to its town; class D in Denmark is working on a web-based school exchange; class E in France is conducting a global class simulation of life in an apartment building; class F in Hong Kong is experimenting with portfolio-based autonomous organization of the class; class G in the UK is producing a brochure for visitors to its town; class H in Japan is putting together a classroom magazine; students from class I in Ireland are studying in a self-access centre through a system of personal learning contracts; class J1 in Montpellier is conducting a joint intercultural reading project on line with class J2 in Kassel; class K1 in Portugal is working cooperatively on the dubbing of a film, while class K2 is engaged in its own script-writing venture; in class L1 in Barcelona groups of pre-service teacher-training students are producing teaching materials based on literature for children and young adults. Classroom implementations of autonomous learning are varied and externally different. A closer look, however, will reveal remarkable similarities, not just in their agendas (something to be expected as they all share a common philosophy), but also in both their formal surface and their underlying structures. Whether research or creative project-work, global simulation, class-generated drama, network-based cooperative ventures, cooperative class production, classroom magazines, language school contracts for self-access learning, on-line writing, portfolio-based forms of learning organization, or any other types of autonomous organization of individual or team learning, all these implementations share some fundamental characteristics. These characteristics can be interpreted as branches of the same tree – a tree that has its roots in a rich and unshakeable conception of learning as personal creative growth.

20


A rich descriptor: creative “tramas” Having tentatively worked through a variety of labels throughout years of practice and personal reflection – e.g., “Third Generation Tasks” (Ribé 1994, 1998), “Creative Frameworks” (Ribé et al. 1997) – and found them lacking comprehensiveness, I have finally opted for the Spanish everyday word trama which I had been using for a while. I have done so for several reasons: • This term can be used as a hyperordinate for most varieties of autonomous processes involving multiple steps towards a learner-negotiated product, especially processes native to secondary education environments, where complicity, group enthusiasm and involvement are important age-related variables. • It is a polysemous term with lots of primary and connoted meanings reflecting all the shared characteristics of the kind of virtual learning mediums described here. To define it in a succinct and clear way, allow me the use of a self-quotation: As a noun, “trama” means in the first place “fabric” and “texture”, “weft” and “woof”, intercrossing threads and cooperative patterns and structures, with cultural connotations for “canvas” (“canemàs” in Catalan, “cañamazo” in Castilian Spanish), and for tapestry, as well as the pro-cess of making them. “Trama” is the “plot” in a novel, a play or a film – a continuous pattern of developing and absorbing action – and also a “conspiracy” or a “spy net” – a scheme or co-planned series of action events (closely related to the English “plot” and “scheme”). It is also a “sketch” or “outline”, the “screen” in photoengraving and the “blossom” of olive trees. (see Real Academia Española de la Lengua 1992) As a verb, “tramar” means “crossing threads”, “weaving”, producing a framework; “hatching”, “plotting” and “scheming”; “blossoming” (when of an olive tree), as well as “to be up to something” (colloquially). It has connotations of “skill”, of “cooperative planning and thinking”, and of “acting imaginatively” and “playfully” (not necessarily but also “deviously”). (Ribé 2000a, p.89) A term of more specialized use, “trama” is a recognized word in English, where it denotes threads and patterns in woven fabric as well as in the tissues of certain varieties of fungi (The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, vol. 2 – Brown 1993). Shared characteristics Tramas can be best described through the cluster of metaphors quoted earlier: divergence, integrative approach (holism), dynamic systems, complexity, network dynamics, self-organizing (autopoietic) networks, chaos and order, possessing three basic criteria of life (pattern, structure, and process), autonomy, (unique) growth, creativity. Their definitions, drawn from the description of basic life processes, apply literally, Beyond these metaphors, tramas can be described as learner-generated learning systems, virtual worlds with some common characteristics. They

Ramon Ribé

21

• are complex action-based scenarios, multinuclear frameworks, describ• • • • •

able through steps and components; have similar triggering devices; offer a range of learning mediums that go from self-managed routes and navigable strings of learning tasks to virtual immersion environments for language acquisition; show a scale of implementation from self-managed individual work to totally cooperative workshops; generate a shared teacher-learner perspective of the learner space; can be described at different levels: (a) their surface structure of networked steps; and (b) their deep structure of interactional forces (input, output, throughput, motivational energy).

(a) Networks within networks: learner-generated learning systems What we call a part is merely a pattern in an inseparable web of relationships. [...] The perception of the living world as a network of relationships [...]. (Capra 1996, p.37) A system, as an integrated whole, cannot be explained through its single components. Two concepts are basic to Systems Theory: first is the idea of organized complexity (“At each level of complexity the observed phenomena exhibit properties that do not exist at the lower levels”; ibid., p.28); second is the concept of emerging properties to denote these behavioural properties that did not exist before. If we take an implementation of creative project work as a temporary paradigm for tramas, we will see that it appears to the observer as a structure consisting of different levels of organic webs, each unfolding through recursive patterns of nodes and steps. At the level of surface structure, it has been described in terms of ten different networked steps (Ribé and Vidal 1993). This is, of course, a pedagogical description, written for training purposes. Other objectives (the publishing of pedagogical materials; classroom-action narratives, observation and analysis) may require the remapping, expansion or reduction of these steps into slightly different groupings of nodes (see, for example, Dam 1995, pp.32–48; Enright and McCloskey 1988; Fernández et. al. 1996; Yaiche 1996; Ribé 1996, 2000b). The essential perspective, however, remains constant – that of a cluster of related nodes and steps in a process usually leading towards a negotiated and learner-managed objective, sometimes a learning objective, sometimes a creative product. Each step (e.g., “creating a cooperative atmosphere”, “leading the students towards a topic for project work”, “researching a theme”, “reporting to the class”), as an object in an object-oriented piece of programming software, can be seen as the result of lower levels of action consisting of networks of programming routines and interrelated tasks. Figure 5 (Ribé 2002) adapts a known graphic representation of the General Systems model to outline some of the network processes of a creative trama for autonomous learning. The diagram shows an nx number of concurrent streams of action, represented through an ny number of linked nodes, all of them moving

22


Final output re class

Final output

portin g

er

on-lin

e sh

ck ba

a ri ng

pe

ed fe

throughput

neg otiat

Final output episodes - contingent path

Final output

io n

input output

Final output

Final output

Figure 5

towards different final individual or group ouput. The labels input, output and throughput are understood as denoting any kind of action upon or result derived from the system – be it procedural, linguistic, informational or motivational. This diagram also has some limitations. Although the concentric interlinking circles try to describe the interaction among networks and components, these are represented only as static geometric self-contained elements, rather than as neural networks representing process and reciprocal influence. Another limitation of this diagram is the absence of valency representation for the affective or motivational load each step has for the learner within sequences of discrete action – whether steps or tasks, or “streams of behaviour” where there is “a contingent path” (Raynor 1974) towards a final objective (Ribé 1994). This new series of networks should portray the motivational force that empowers any kind of interaction between the components. In systems science every structure is seen as the manifestation of underlying processes. Systems thinking is always process thinking. (Capra 1996, p.42) It is its interactive, networking character at each level that generates the next level. And the system itself is described as a whole, a complex of networks within networks. Once launched, a system has a life of its own. It runs and develops independently through the interaction of its networks. (b) Triggering next-level behaviour By specifying which perturbations from the environment trigger its changes, the system “brings forth a world” (Maturana and Varela 1980, quoted in Capra 1996, p.267)

Ramon Ribé

23

Abstract as the line of thinking behind this paper may be, the virtual world represented by the trama has been generated interactively by some of the component subsystems – learner(s), teacher – and exists in the eyes of all of them. What is it, then, that “brings forth this world”? What perturbations from the environment trigger its appearance? Creativity seems to be the common factor in all these processes. Creativity understood in two ways: first, in terms of content, form and/or process experimentation and production; second, as an attitude to life, a readiness to act upon one’s environment (learning or otherwise), to actively exercise freedom and develop one’s own capacities as a living being. We are describing a basic form of creativity, an attitude, a readiness to act – an implementation in the classroom of a property which is common to all living systems, not necessarily a special gift or skill with the customary connotations of the high intelligence and unusual powers of famous creating minds. Like Prigogine’s theory of dissipative structures, the theory of autopoiesis shows that creativity – the generation of configurations that are constantly new – is a key property of all living systems. (Capra 1996, p.221) This form of creativity implies: • Assertion of difference: a living system is structure-determined, but not predictable. In interaction with the environment, “a living organism will undergo a sequence of structural changes” (Capra 1996, p.221) – transformation. • Action upon the medium: restructuring the environment and restructuring the self. There is another aspect to consider: My feeling is that the concept of creativeness and the concept of the healthy, self-actualizing, fully human person seem to be coming closer and closer together, and may perhaps turn out to be the same thing. (Maslow 1962, p.55) This has to do with two concepts that, following Maslow’s theories, I have described elsewhere (Ribé 1994): risk acceptance and the motivational result of creative or, in Maslow’s words, “peak” experiences. However, probably as a result of family and school education, as well as of peer-group values and identification among adolescents, not all learners are ready to accept the risk derived from even the most basic forms of creativity. We are told by quantum physicists that some sort of action input is necessary to make matter components display the sort of behaviour that can be observed at the next level of networking. Similarly, before taking off and becoming a system, any classroom implementations of tramas require a good number of episodes that reinforce students’ individual and group confidence in their own capacities, help them overcome risk, and arouse content interest – initial sparks and constant support through icebreakers, cooperative learning tasks, as well as a parallel creative risk-taking attitude by the teacher.

24


Of course, creativity in the foreign language class is not limited to the genAffective eration of a “virtual world”. As an atMotivational titude, it affects all levels of learning action. This role is increasingly recogProcedural Strategic nized and the literature on creativity has multiplied a hundredfold in the Sociocultural area of psychology. It is also slowly Pragmatic but progressively being accepted in Textual most aspects of language learning (see, Discourse for example, Ramadevi 1992 in the area of interactive syllabus creation; Cassany Grammatical 1993 in the area of writing; Mitchell and Martin 1997 on the creative conLexical trol of target-language grammar; Semantic Maley 1997 for examples of techniques; Zukowski/Faust 1997 on creativity Phonetic from the perspective of personality building; Cook 2000 on language play). And, although autonomy has to do Figure 6 mainly with the upper levels of learning competence (figure 6), there are also ways to extend this holistic and creative approach to the structurally less ambitious tasks that belong to the lower levels of the scale. Not all teachers are ready to accept the personal risk of creativity either. Education, previous experience, status, teaching conditions and prejudice often work against acceptance, which is always the result of personal growth, but frequently also a context variable.

Two final words The beauty of simplicity At the end of this paper I need to say that, in spite of the apparent complexity of this description, the implementations of autonomous learning, here conceptualized as creative tramas, that I have been privileged to observe or be part of in an already long life of teaching and learning, are beautifully simple. Maybe this is the reason why they are so difficult to put into words and analyse (“The great shock of twentieth-century science is that systems cannot be understood by analysis”; Capra 1996, p.29). A word about teachers Much of the formula-based teaching which results from the more traditional methodologies turns the teacher into a hieratic figure performing complicated rituals and classroom interaction in a collection of blind procedures artificially put together.

Ramon Ribé

25

Among the criteria for mental process, Bateson, a theorist of life, included the following (Bateson 1979; cit. Capra 1996, pp.306–8): • “mental process requires collateral energy” (the energy of a parallel interacting system); • “the interaction between parts of the mind is triggered by difference”; • “mental process requires circular (or more complex) chains of determination”, which could be paraphrased as non-linear patterns of organization. The teachers I have observed and learned from simply equate life and the classroom – their approaches to both teaching and learning. And although their personalities may differ a lot, they have some things in common. They enjoy their teaching, and show an inclination for divergence. They like to experiment, favour non-linear patterns of organization, and take creative risks in class. They love building mental links, discovering and creating patterns. These people derive pleasure and energy from interaction with their students (Bateson’s first criterion – “collateral energy”), create explicit spaces for the students’ freedom (second criterion), and support their choice of learning procedures, content and creative product, and usually non-linear patterns of organization (third criterion). Their action is beautifully simple. They live and become alive in the classroom. They (co-)weave (“bring forth”) tramas and grow at the same time as their students.

Note I wish to thank my colleagues in Barcelona, Maria González-Davies and Elsa Tragant, for their suggestions on an early version of this paper; Dave and Jane Willis for an illuminating discussion of tasks and tramas some years ago; Lienhard Legenhausen for reminding me that the word “trama” also exists in English; David Little for encouraging me to write this paper; and all the participants in the Dublin symposium for their enlightened questions, support and encouragement.

References Bateson, G., 1979: Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity. New York: Dutton. Beck, G. F., 1978: The metaphor as a mediator between semantic and analogic modes of thought. Current Anthropology 19 (1), pp.83–88. Bohm, D., and D. Peat, 1987: Science, Order and Creativity. New York: Bantam Books. Breen, M. P., and A. Littlejohn (eds), 2000: Classroom Decision-Making. Negotiation and Process Syllabuses in Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bruner, J. S., 1962: On Knowing: Essays for the Left Hand. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Brown, L. (ed.), 1993: The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon. Candlin, C. N., and D. F. Murphy (eds), 1987: Language Learning Tasks. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall International.

26


Capra, F., 1996: The Web of Life. New York: Anchor Books. Cassany, D., 1993: La cuina de l’escriptura. Barcelona: Empúries. Cole, R., 1981: Society, Mind and Development. San Diego, CA: University of California. Cook, G., 2000: Language Play, Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dam, L., 1995: Learner Autonomy 3: From Theory to Classroom Practice. Dublin: Authentik. Doughty, C., and J. Williams (eds), 1998: Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Draaisma, D., 1995: De metaforenmachine – een geschiedenis van her geheugen. Amsterdam: Historische Vitgeverij. Enright, D. S., and M. L. McCloskey, 1988: Integrating English: Developing English Language and Literacy in the Multilingual Classroom. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley. Fernández, C., J. A. Martín, R. Ribé and N. Vidal, 1996: A collection of 4 volumes, each produced by one of the authors of the team with a shared Teacher’s Book. Titles: 1, Preparing a Trip; 2, Drama; 3, Other Friends, other Worlds; 4, Teach your Teacher Music. Madrid: Alhambra-Longman. Gardner, R., 1985: Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation. London: Edward Arnold. Gelder, T. van, and R. S. Port, 1996: It’s about time: an overview of the dynamical approach to cognition. In H. Geirson and M. Losonsky (eds), Readings in Language and Mind, pp.326–53. Oxford: Blackwell. (Reprint; first published 1995 in R. Port and T. Van Gelder (eds), Mind as Motion: Explorations in the Dynamics of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.) Gluck, M., and D. Rumelhart, 1990: Neuroscience and Connectionist Theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Häussermann, U., and H. E. Piepho, 1996: Aufgaben Handbuch. München: Iudicium. Kohonen, V., 1992: Experiential language learning: second language learning as cooperative learner education. In D. Nunan (ed.), Collaborative Language Teaching and Learning, pp.14–39. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Krashen, S., 1985: The Input Hypothesis. London: Longman. Maley, A., 1997: Creativity with a small “c”. The Journal Of The Imagination In Language Learning. Vol. IV – 1997 (http://www.njcu.edu/CILL/vol4/). Maslow, A. H., 1962: Towards a Psychology of Being. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. Maturana, H., and F. Varela, 1980: Autopoiesis and Cognition. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. Miller, J. P., 1993: The Holistic Curriculum. Toronto: OISE Press. Mitchell, R., and C. Martin, 1997: Rote learning, creativity and “understanding” in classroom foreign language teaching. In Language Teaching Research 1 (1), pp.1–27. Pribram, K. H., 1991: Brain and Perception: Holonomy and Structure in Figural Processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ramon Ribé

27

Puchta, H., and M. Schratz, 1993: Teaching Teenagers. Model Activity Sequences for Humanistic Language Learning. Harlow: Longman. Pylyshyn, Z. W., 1984: Computation and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ramadevi, S., 1992: Learner-Autonomy in the ESL Classroom. New Delhi: B. R. Publishing Corporation. Raynor, J. O., 1974: “Future orientation in the study of achievement motivation”. In J. W. Atkinson and J. O. Raynor (eds), Motivation and Achievement, pp.121– 54. Washington, DC: Winston. Real Academia Española de la Lengua, 1992: Diccionario de la Lengua Española (21st edition). Madrid: Espasa-Calpe. Ribé, R., 1994: L’ensenyament de la llengua anglesa al cicle escolar secondari (12–18 anys). Bellaterra: Publicacions de la Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. (Abridged version of a Ph.D. with the same title, published in Microfiche, 1988). Ribé, R., 1996: Implementing 3rd generation tasks in the university curriculum. In P. Guardia and J. Stone (eds), Proceedings of the 20th International AEDEAN Conference, pp.293–304. Universitat de Barcelona: Facultat de Filologia. Ribé, R., 1998: Top-down approaches to foreign language learning. In E. Alcón and V. Codina (eds), Current Issues in English Teaching Methodology, pp.25–48. Castelló: Universitat Jaume I. Ribé, R., 2000a: Of “tramas”, spaces and creativity. In R. Ribé (ed.), Developing Learner Autonomy in Foreign Language Learning, pp.81–105. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona, PPU. Ribé, R., 2000b: Introducing negotiation processes: an experiment with creative project work. In M. P. Breen and A. Littlejohn (eds), Classroom Decision-Making: Negotiation and Process Syllabuses in Practice, pp.63–82. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ribé, R., 2001a: Autonomía y aprendizaje de lengua extranjera. Plenary lecture given at the Auditorio Príncipe Felipe during the Encuentro de Lenguas y Culturas (3–5 May 2001) within the framework of the K.E.L.T.I.C. Project Knowing European Languages to Increase Communication. Ribé, R., 2001b: Redes autoreguladas. Tramas creativas en el aula de lengua. Video conference organized by the Basque Government, Donosti, 13 September 2001. Ribé, R., 2002: Individual differences in the FL classroom: a pedagogical perspective. In M. Jiménez and T. Lamb (eds), Differentiation in the Modern Languages Classroom. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang. Ribé, R., (forthcoming): Teaching English at ESO level – desert or oasis? Ribé, R., with M. L. Celaya, M. Ravera, F. Rodríguez, E. Tragant, and N. Vidal, 1997: Tramas Creativas y Aprendizaje de Lenguas: Prototipos de Tareas de Tercera Generación. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona – Publicacions. Ribé, R., and N. Vidal, 1993: Project Work Step by Step. Oxford: Heine-mann. Riley, P., 1985: Mud and Stars: personal constructs, sensitization and learning. In P. Riley (ed.), Discourse and Learning, pp.154–169. London: Longman.

28


Riley, P., 1991: Pulling your self together: the culture and identity of the bilingual child. In C. Brumfit, J. Moon and R. Tongue (eds), Teaching English to Young Learners, pp.275–89. London: Collins. Schön, D. A., 1987: Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Swain, M., 1985: Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass and C. Madden (eds), Input in Second Language Acquisition, pp.235–53. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Ushioda, E., 1996: Learner Autonomy 5: The Role of Motivation. Dublin: Authentik. Wilber, K. (ed.), 1986: El Paradigma Holográfico. Barcelona: Kairós. (Spanish translation; originally published 1982, The Holographic Paradigm. Boston, MA: Shambhala.) Willis, J., 1996a: A flexible framework for task-based learning. In J. Willis and D. Willis (eds), Challenge and Change in Language Teaching, pp.52–62. Oxford: Heinemann. Willis, J., 1996b: A Framework for Task-Based Learning. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman Limited. Yaiche, F., 1996: Les simulations globales mode d’emploi. Paris: Hachette. Zukowski/Faust, J., 1997: Who am I in English? Developing a language ego. The Journal Of The Imagination In Language Learning. Vol. IV – 1997 (http:// www.njcu.edu/CILL/vol4/).

Scaffolding target language use Hanne Thomsen

Theoretical background As a general pedagogical goal, learner autonomy entails that the learner is fully involved in planning, monitoring and evaluating his or her learning. This reflective engagement necessarily has two focuses: the process and the content of learning. In the case of second/foreign language learning, “content” is a complex of knowledge and skills which learners should gradually be able to deploy spontaneously in performing the range of communicative tasks prescribed by the curriculum. In other words, in the second/foreign language classroom, the development of autonomy in language learning is inseparable from the development of autonomy in language use. This in turn means that the target language comes to be used not only as a medium of classroom communication but also as a channel of learning and a tool for reflection. This paper addresses the question: how is the language teacher to promote target language use that will produce language learning? The paper proposes that the answer lies in linguistic and communicative scaffolding, and illustrates a range of scaffolding techniques, drawing on data from a particular classroom. It focuses on the teacher, learning activities, and the learners themselves as sources of scaffolding. The concept of scaffolding relates to Vygotsky’s well-known notion of the Zone of Proximal Development or ZPD (Vygotsky 1978, p.86). In the literature scaffolding has been defined as follows: in social interaction a knowledgeable participant can create, by means of speech, supportive conditions in which the novice can participate in, and can extend skills and knowledge to higher levels of competence. (Donato 1994, p.40) According to Donato, the metaphor implies the expert’s active stance toward continual revisions of the scaffold in response to the emerging capabilities of the novice. (ibid., p.41) Bruner has focussed on this dynamic and dialogical aspect too and describes the technique of scaffolding in the following way: One sets up a game, provides a scaffold to assure that the child’s ineptitudes can be rescued or rectified by appropriate intervention, and then removes the scaffold part by part as the reciprocal structure can stand on its own (Bruner 1983, p.60, cited in van Lier 1988, p.229). The concept of scaffolding has been introduced to the foreign language learning context as well. For a long time the research focus was primarily on teacher– 29

30

Scaffolding target language use

learner interaction, which inspired many teachers to carry out projects in their own classrooms. More recently, attention has also turned to processes of scaffolding in learner–learner interactions (see, for example, Donato 1994). As Little (1991, p.29) points out, learner autonomy theory requires language teachers to create an interactive dynamic that allows their learners access to a full range of discourse roles in the target language. This is because the development of communicative proficiency depends directly on sustained involvement in genuinely communicative behaviour, beyond the minimal and formulaic contributions to which frontal teaching methods traditionally confine learners. As this paper shows, such diversification of discourse roles is made possible through collaborative group work conducted through the medium of the target language, where learners themselves are engaged in providing mutual support and guidance and thus scaffolding one another’s learning.

Introducing the classroom The classroom on which this paper focuses is 7c, Karlslunde Skole, Denmark. The learners are 13 years old and are in their fourth year of learning English. The examples in this paper are drawn from their spoken and written work from three quite different types of projects. These projects all took place during the same school year. The first section focuses on project work as it has traditionally been carried out in this class, and on the teacher’s scaffolding techniques. These include oral techniques as well as the use of various forms of writing (posters, learner logs, key words, summaries, evaluations) as a support for learning and a tool for reflection (for discussion of the role of writing in second language learning, see Little 1997). The section concludes by describing how the teacher encourages learners to support one another while working together. The second section then focuses in detail on how the concept of scaffolding was introduced explicitly to class 7c and mutually elaborated as a learning tool. The final section explores project work again, but this time including a specific focus on language form.

Focus on project work Please, make sure that you’ll be able to finish your project work before 11.20 today, as the poetry group would then like to present today’s poem to us, all right?

As always the teacher speaks to the learners in English and requires them to use English as much as possible. From the very beginning learners have tried to speak and write in English, with help from their teacher, their peers, and classroom-talk posters with English words and phrases. The classroom notice board gives a first impression of what it is like to learn English in this particular class. Posters describe the projects that the learners are currently involved in. Other posters keep track of earlier agreements and decisions made by learners and the teacher about how to facilitate learning; and yet other posters are there to support learners’ growing awareness of linguistic form. The present projects were planned three weeks ago on the basis of evalu-

Hanne Thomsen

31

ating previous projects, and were inspired by an exhibition of materials presented by the teacher in the classroom. It is in the middle of an English lesson and in the middle of a project cycle. The learners are working in small groups or pairs. Some are reading in pairs, some are talking together, some are writing with the help of dictionaries, some are preparing presentations. The teacher is working with different pairs or groups in turn – taking part and/or observing. The atmosphere is friendly and relaxed. Poetry group – Six girls are reading poems aloud to one another (figure 1). They have worked individually with different poetry books and have marked their favourite poems. Today they are presenting these poems to one another and trying to express what they like about each poem as well as why it was selected. Reading aloud is more difficult than they expected and they decide with the teacher to work in pairs on the best poems and to support one another while practising pronunciation and intonation again and again. Then they write a short introduction to each poem explaining their feelings about it. They are working hard and with enthusiasm.

English 2000 We are working together on the materials: All the new poem books We are going to •

read English poems

•

write our own poems

•

talk English while working

We intend to be better at reading and understanding new words, writing (spelling) and chatting We’ll present a collection of own poems and the “good poems” we find in the books

Figure 1 Poetry group poster

Anne Frank group – Two girls who read The Diary of Anne Frank some years ago in Danish have never forgotten it. On these girls’ initiative the class will go to see it performed at one of the theatres in Copenhagen. The two girls are now engaged in an English project about Anne Frank’s diary and her life (figure 2). They have been reading a quite difficult text with the help of dictionaries. They are very good and ambitious learners and like challenges. Today they are working on their poster. They are very critical about the lay-out and the structure of the poster. They know that the hardest part for them will be standing in front of the class and getting everybody’s attention. They have decided to make a questionnaire for their peers as a way of convincing them that it is important to listen carefully to what they have prepared.

32


English 2000 We are working together on the materials: The Anne Frank Diary We are going to •

read and understand a rather difficult text about her diary

•

to make vocab-boxes

•

to make a poster about her life

We intend to learn how to cope with history books in English and to be better at presenting in English We’ll present a poster with facts to be used as background information for Feb. 14th.

Figure 2 Anne Frank group poster

US group – Two boys who are enthusiastic basketball players are working on a project about the US (figure 3). These boys are also quite competent in English but are easily distracted and have problems staying focussed while they work, mainly because they are interested in too many things at the same time. A precise description of their project is very essential for them, as well as for the teacher, to help them focus. As a consequence their poster is not only on the noticeboard but a smaller copy is also laid out on the table in front of them. In this way they can tick the list of contents and help each other not to lose track too often of their targets. As can be seen from the poster, they are also ambitious but still need

English 2000 We are working together on the materials: Different books about the US We are going to •

make a written report and a presentation with OHPs about: – the 50 states – the story of NBA – the Ku Klux Klan

•

speak in English while we work

We intend to be able to do project work in English the way we are used to We’ll present the report – using OHPs

Figure 3 US group poster

Hanne Thomsen

33

quite a lot of support from the teacher while carrying out their plans. “One Way Ticket” group – Two boys have reading difficulties in English. At present they are working together on a taped story. According to their plan, they will listen to the story at least three times (figure 4). Today they are going to start listening to it for the third time. They are not really motivated and try to discuss it with the teacher, but she insists that they stick to the plan: “Make yourselves comfortable and don’t forget – or underestimate – that you have already managed two-thirds of your plan. You’ll probably feel better at reading and understanding this third time.” They realize that there is no escape, and with some reluctance they set up the tape recorder. The teacher watches them and considers how she is going to help them sustain motivation to carry out the last part of their plan: to read something aloud to impress the rest of the class. They will be able to do it but their self-esteem is generally low, so they need teacher and peer support in order to succeed.

English 2000 We are working together on the materials: One Way Ticket – taped story We are going to •

listen to the taped story – at least 3 times!

•

listen and read along the words

We intend to be better at reading English on our own – without tape We’ll read something aloud to impress the others

Figure 4 “One Way Ticket” group poster

“Read and understand” group – The five learners working with some “readand-understand” material are working individually but also in a group (figure 5). They prefer these relatively secure and non-threatening activities: reading small pieces of text, ticking the correct answers in different types of quizzes, and from time to time checking the correct answers for themselves. As additional activities they have agreed with the teacher that they will begin every lesson by asking one another questions about the texts they have read so far, and spell out difficult words from the texts to focus their attention on that part of language learning as well. Finally, as a group, they will select a text to be worked on and acted out in class as a way of presenting the material they have been engaged with, and of broadening their experience of different approaches to learning. At the moment they are still working individually on the material and competing to see who can finish the greatest number of quizzes. USA/Internet group – Finally, another group of boys is working on a project

34


English 2000 We are working together on the materials: Seven minutes on your own 3 A.B.C. We are going to •

read

•

make quizzes

•

ask quesitons

•

make plays

•

spell difficult words

We intend to be better at reading and understanding, speakng and spelling We’ll present a little roleplay from the material Figure 5 “Read and understand” group poster

about the US (figure 6). These boys are very interested in computers and are quite competent users of the Internet. They have bookmarked a lot of websites about the US and selected among them the ones they want to exploit for background information for their project. Today they are writing keywords on small cards that they will use as support when they present their wooden map of the US. They find it difficult to transform the information into their own English, though they have made accurate translations of large parts of the texts. They easily lose track of what they find important and relevant and what they want to present to their peers. The teacher helps them to structure their presentation.

English 2000 We are working together on the materials; The USA – and Internet information We are going to •

read texts about big cities

•

make cards with key words

•

make a wooden map of the US

•

make a small written report

We intend to be better at reading, looking up words, making keywords, writing and spelling We’ll present the ten biggest cities Figure 6 USA/Internet group poster

Once all the projects have been completed and presented in class, the learners and teacher will set up new projects on the basis of their common knowledge about language learning and the requirements of the national curriculum.

Hanne Thomsen

35

Focus on peer scaffolding techniques Inspired by American studies that have focussed on scaffolding techniques in learner-learner interaction, the teacher wanted • to uncover what kinds of scaffolds learners construct for one another while working together on projects; • to make the outcome of the observations accessible to the learners and their peers so that they can draw upon it in future classroom work. On the basis of his study Donato (1994, p.52) makes it clear that the microgenetic analysis of collective activity has revealed that in the process of peer scaffolding, learners can expand their own L2 knowledge and extend the linguistic development of their peers. [Emphasis added.] This is presumably what all language teachers hope takes place when learners are working together cooperatively. But how do we support this process as teachers? [T]he current theoretical position supporting group work in L2 classrooms will be expanded beyond the simple opportunities to exchange linguistic artefact to that of the collective acquisition of the the second language. (ibid., p.53) Could this collective process be transferred to the sharing of knowledge among learners in 7c? A group of three learners volunteered to be videotaped while working together on a play-writing activity – their favourite. They know each other very well and enjoy working together. They are known to be good collaborators and their proficiency in English is average. The learners were observed while working on an oral activity. They helped one another plan what they anticipated they would need in order to act out the role-play during the next class. The videotaped interaction was later transcribed for analysis. Donato (1994) refers to six features identified by Wood, Bruner and Ross (1976) when characterizing what scaffolding means: 1. Recruiting interest in the task 2. Simplifying the task 3. Maintaining pursuit of the goal 4. Marking critical features and discrepancies between what has been produced and the ideal solution 5. Controlling frustration during problem solving 6. Demonstrating an idealized version of the act to be performed The teacher found these features highly relevant to herself and her group of learners as they focussed in a new yet relatively simple way on important techniques for “good group work in English” – a key issue that had been regularly discussed and described over the years within this class. Like their counterparts in Donato’s study, the learners under investigation here did manage to provide one another with mutual support and guidance while working together, and used English as the medium of thought and com-

36


munication almost exclusively. It can be a serious problem getting learners to accept that the foreign language must be the channel of communication and the medium through which learning takes place in all types of interaction. But the teacher must insist on it, for there is no alternative. The learners in question clearly accepted the challenge! In the 15-minute recorded interaction there were 27 identifiable examples of scaffolding. The most common kind of scaffold was that of “maintaining pursuit of the goal” (3), often interwoven with “simplifying the task” (2). All three learners in turn took up the role of guiding the “pursuit of the goal”. This is a very important and fundamental scaffold within the affective and social domain to make things happen at all. Its absence may explain why group work sometimes never gets anywhere at all, no matter how interesting and well-planned the projects may be. At the very beginning, Katrine, the mother of two daughters in the play, sums up what they have planned so far in order to simplify and clarify the task. L1: L2: L1: L2:

You are at concert, or what? No, you ask me to go to the concert. I’ll sit here. I am at home and I’ll drink coffee. … and we come You are … come home after school of course. And then you ask me … Okay, er. Can we go to the concert – with Michael Jackson?

Later on, not wishing to waste time Katrine tells the others: L1:

I have to look it up in the dictionary. Just keep on talking.

The learners tell one another that they must not forget what they have worked out so far: L3: I think that we should write this down ... all we have made. L1, L2: Yes. Yes you are right. L1: Tomorrow we can’t remember. I know that.

Once the learners are a bit stuck in the process: L1: L3:

What should happen next? It has to be something so that the audience don’t think it’s boring. Something funny.

Once the outline of the play has been made, Janne takes the role of insisting on rehearsing: L2: L3: L1:

Let’s go through it again Let’s do that Okay, You are …

And then again Katrine is the one who maintains pursuit of the goal: L1:

We have to do the scene where I have to yell at you – again.

In order not to lose track and to stay focussed, Katrine remarks:

Hanne Thomsen L1:

37

Well, let’s not get into that!

As in Donato’s study, it was not just one learner who took up the role of being the more capable peer. All three did so, though one in particular could be characterized as being more insistent in providing the above-mentioned social-affective scaffolds. In relation to linguistic scaffolds – “marking critical features and discrepancies between what has been produced and the ideal solution” (4), and “demonstrating the ideal solution” (6) – the three learners provide four different examples. Scaffolded help for a request L2 : L3 : L1 : L3 :

L1 : L3 : L2 : L3 : L1 : L2 :

Okay. Er. Can we go the the concert? With Michael Jackson? You ought to ... (4) No, you have to be ... about your homework (4) I know, like this. How are you, mum? I’ve done all my home my homework. Er. Can we please go to the concert tonight? (6) That’s a great idea And with a little blink with your eye. Like this. (6) Okay. Yes. Write it down if you can’t remember. Okay, you … Fine. Oh, I’ve done all my homework! Can we please go to the concert with Michael Jackson, please.

Katia and Katrine both mark the critical features of what has been said compared to an ideal solution: they comment (4) and suggest more modification (6) in the request to the mother. Scaffolded help for a certain word / expression: L3: L2 : L1 : L3 : L2 : L1 : L3 : L1 : L3 : L1 :

We are old enough to have resp… How do you pronounce “ansvar ansvar” ? (4) respons… (6) responsibility (6) responsibility? responsibility (6) Well, I’m not sure about that. You are only 13. Oh, please. Wait a minute. What ? I have to look it up. Just keep on talking. [Looks up “ansvar” in a dictionary] Okay. What were you going to ask me about ?

38

Scaffolding target language use L2 : L1 : L2: L1 : L2: L1 :

L2: L3 : L2 : L3 : L2 :

I mean … Well, I don’t think it’s such a good idea. Why not ? You have to do something else. It’s not a discussion I will have with you right now. Why ? You have to bring a adult with you – and that’s not going to be me. You can ask your father. But he’s not here right now so you are going to wait. Er… Oh… Oh yes, it’s right. Responsibility. (6) Is it? Yes, it is. all right [whispers “responsibility”] (6)

Katia marks a critical feature (4) but is not satisfied with the ideal version (6) she receives. She needs confirmation and checks the solution (6). Scaffolded help for “mutual understanding of setting”: L3: L2: L1 : L3 : L1 : L2 : L1 : L2 :

You can sleep at my place – in my bed. Yes. No (4), you have the same rooms. (6) Oh, do we ? We have a little house. (6) Okay. You share the same room. (6) Okay. Er …

Katrine marks a critical feature (4) of the content of their play, and emphasizes implicit facts about the family that have not been verbalized so far (6). Scaffolded help for an English phrase: L1 : L3 : L2 : L3 : L2 :

Well, let’s not get into that. Oh, you are grounded for a month. A month? No buts. I didn’t say but. (4) But I said but. Let’s write some keywords so we can remember. It’s already getting …

Katia marks a critical feature (4). The “no buts” phrase does not make sense to her. However, Janne does not take advantage of Katia’s attempted scaffolding in this situation. She has moved on to something of greater importance to her. The recorded activity proved to be a good example of smooth group interaction, and according to their learner logs, the process gave the learners a satisfying sense of having managed well in English in relation to their own objectives. There was plenty of negotiation about the process as well as the product (the

Hanne Thomsen

39

actual role-play), and scaffolds of the kind featured in Donato’s study were very much in evidence. In this sense, the data provided potentially fruitful input for all the learners in the class when focussing on “good group work”. The concept of scaffolding (summarized as the six key features on a poster for the noticeboard), the video extract and the examples commented upon here were presented in class under the heading “Focus on good group work in English”. Feature (4), “marking discrepancies …”, was isolated in this case as a future overall objective for classroom work. The term “metatalk” was introduced also and defined as “how to use language to reflect on language use”. On the basis of the insights gained by the individuals from the study, the class was divided into groups of three, similar to the original study group, and given the opportunity of consciously trying to scaffold one another’s learning, paying particular attention to scaffold (4). Groups were asked to supply the class with further good examples of how to “put up good scaffolds” and provide linguistic support. A short text was read aloud twice to the class. In groups of three, the learners had to write a new version of the text, as close to the original text as possible, without any help from dictionaries or grammars. Whenever they “marked discrepancies” they had to underline the word or the expression to signal that they had been “metatalking” about the possibilities. The texts were open-ended and the learners were asked to write their own endings to make the presentations more interesting. The Smith family live in London. Mr. Smith was a high school teather, not far away. Mrs. Smith was a secretary in down town London. They had 3 son’s all of them in high school. They all live at home they live a happy family life in tell one day …

At the end of each session, when one example of written work was evaluated in class (on an OHP), the learners were invited to recall as best they could what kind of metatalk they had produced in their group. Many learners were surprisingly good at remembering how they had talked about the language and reflected consciously on language use: for example, “I was not sure about this … because I remember … and then Peter pointed to the fact ….” The concept of scaffolding was willingly taken up as a potential new resource to facilitate the learning of English. It turned out to be of crucial importance that all learners had had the opportunity of supplying desirable examples of scaffolding for everybody to consider and evaluate. Most learners were conscious that they had been in touch with a useful technique that could be further focussed on and developed in future projects and evaluations.

Focus on vocabulary acquisition and language learning strategies Focus on vocabulary acquisition – a recurrent activity – is taken up once again during the spring term. This time the learners have prepared reading projects in pairs, describing their focus on content as well as form. Vocabulary activities are integrated into meaningful reading projects. There are four different projects

40


A Harry Potter Project •

Read “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone”

•

Make a vocabulary notebook

•

Select texts from the Internet about HP books, the film, the author, the fan clubs, merchandise, etc.

•

Write a report for the library

•

Present the Harry Potter Phenmenon to our class

Focus on: •

New vocabulary

•

How to make neat lay-out and interesting presentations

Figure 7 Harry Potter project poster

described on the noticeboard similar to the one reproduced here (figure 7). The lessons (double periods of an hour and a half) are divided into three parts: 1. Opening – approximately 10 minutes’ focus on new vocabulary and on vocabulary learning strategies A. Presentation of useful new words and phrases • All learners give the teacher one word from their individual list of new words. These words (or a selection of them) are quickly rewritten on the blackboard. Learners are asked to “find someone who knows word x and ask for a definition and a translation”. After a few minutes names of learners are added to words, and learners are tested on what they remember or know about the words. • Descriptions of how individual learners have worked at home to learn new words are evaluated and “good strategies” are added to the list whenever they come up. • While learners go on testing their knowledge of new vocabulary in pairs, the teacher selects some of the words and groups them according to different criteria and adds them to lists of vocabulary already present in the classroom. B. Testing – in pairs • Small word cards from the envelopes at the back of the learners’ vocabulary notebooks act as the point of departure for this activity. Learners ask each other to define the target word using other words in English, to translate it into their mother tongue, to spell it, to use it in sentences or in a short narrative, to give opposites or synonyms, to make associations, to relate it to the story, etc. Words that are not learned yet are put aside. 2. Cooperative reading and work according to plans – approximately 60 minutes • While reading the learners are asked as usual to focus on useful new

Hanne Thomsen

41

vocabulary that they almost know, as well as genuinely new vocabulary. The learners set themselves a target of a minimum of ten new words per lesson. 3. Vocabulary session – 15 minutes at the end of the lesson • During this session, new items are selected and added to the learners’ vocabulary notebooks. The notebooks are small exercise books. The words and phrases are entered into the notebook – one word or phrase per page – according to a set plan which has been introduced previously (figure 8). Word / word phrase: Sentence: Guess:

to be fed up with I am really fed up with you telling me lies all the time opvokset med?

hate dislike

Translation: Definition:

I am fed up with

at vœre trœt af I don’t like it

won’t have it

Pronunciation: Use:

can’t stand it

it makes me mad

it makes me sick We are so fed up with punk Figure 8 Vocabulary notebook sample entry

An assigned homework task relating to “new vocabulary” entails using further vocabulary learning strategies that learners choose for themselves, in order to facilitate the learning of new words (both form and meaning, receptively and productively). In addition, learners are required to write one more new sentence for each new word or phrase until the relevant page has been filled, preferably using different forms of the word. By working on a particular word in this way, learners can check their immediate understanding and judge if they know the word well enough or if further consolidation is needed. Based on the different reading projects, a variety of vocabulary learning strategies favoured by individuals and by the class emerged. The final list is shown in figure 9. In the evaluation learners were asked to tick the strategies they were familiar with and the ones they found helpful to themselves, and to rank the most helpful ones in the reading projects. Fourteen different strategies were ranked by the learners on a five-point scale, and strategies preferred by three learners or more were presented to the class as “favoured strategies/recommendable strategies”, as follows: • Read aloud and imagine • Make a vocabulary notebook • Make stories • Make word cards

42


HOW TO LEARN NEW WORDS Read and listen to a lot of language – and LEARN new words

DISCOVERY STRATEGIES Guess meaning from context and your knowledge of the language Ask others for meaning – (in)directly Look up words in wordlists or dictionaries

CONSOLIDATION STRATEGIES Make drawings of the word Make mind maps or webs Make word cards Make crosswords Make word posters Make associations, synonyms Make word lists and antonyms Make word chains Build sentences Make word pyramids Rhyme Make alphabet exercises Make thematic lists Add adjectives Make and fill in cloze tests Make grammatical lists (word Note down pronunciation classes) Read aloud and imagine Sing or rap Practise spelling – morphemes Make small talks pre- and suffixes Make stories

Make poems Make word pairs Play games: domino, memory, hang-man, odd-man-out, scrabble, bingo, etc. Fill the blackboard Make model sentences Make vocabulary notebooks Make definitions Use post-its ......

Figure 9 List of class vocabulary learning strategies

• • • • •

Small talk Note down pronunciation Make drawings Make definitions Practise spelling – morphemes, prefixes and suffixes The learners in this group were familiar with a wide variety of vocabulary strategies (ranging from 23 to 28 strategies) but did not find them all equally useful. Apart from one learner, who found it too difficult to review the list of strategies, the learners were able to rate the strategies without hesitation. At the end of the projects vocabulary was tested according to the entries in the learners’ own vocabulary notebooks. The final tests were prepared by the teacher on the basis of each individual learner’s selection of words and included: • translation of words – in context; • translation of words – in isolation; • written assignment – a story to be written by the learner on the basis of a selection of the new vocabulary. The learners had set up realistic individual achievement scores and all of them were successful and managed well. There are probably several interrelated reasons for this. Let me point to two factors in particular: Motivation remained high – The projects had been prepared by the learners in consultation with their teacher. Free choice of materials and new vocabulary were the key starting points. Learners had selected their own materials and the new vocabulary to be learned according to their interests and their proficiency level in English. All strove to achieve the same goal of learning new vocabulary, though they chose words and phrases at different levels. All learners achieved success, which motivated them to keep on learning.

Hanne Thomsen

43

Free choice of strategies, related to learners’ favourite learning styles – As in other types of work undertaken, learners themselves chose how to go about learning, with help and suggestions from other learners and the teacher. Learners in this particular class aim in general to become “good language users and learners”, so it is a natural thing for them to feel that they are in charge of their own learning. Ideas for learning are suggested and learners try them out in order to see for themselves how and to what extent these ways of working are helpful to them. The goal for the individual learner in this project was to choose the vocabulary strategies that aided him or her most. The focus was on explicit or intentional learning of vocabulary, though it is likely that the reading materials also gave learners rich opportunities for incidental learning of new vocabulary. For the purpose of a final class discussion, the following collection of entries from individual written evaluations (in uncorrected English) focussing explicitly on vocabulary learning was circulated. How has the vocabulary project been useful to you? I have learned many new words, but I think it will be difficult for me to keep all of them in mind. I have to do many exercises to remember them over a long time, I think. I have a good memory when I learn new words, but after a while my memory disappears, and many of the words are gone. But this vocabulary project has helped me to keep them in mind, because we have focussed on so many different ways to work. I reckon that it was very useful, but also very difficult. When I finally found words I didn’t know, they were very difficult words. Very special words, I believe. The vocabulary part was tedeous and boring, but I can remember the words I have seen in my book. I used imagening, and looking up in dictionaries and writing sentences. That are good activities for me. I have learned a lot of new words, so the “vocabulary notebooks“ have been very useful for me. I do believe that I have learned a bunch of new words. Some times it was tough because the words simply didn’t want to stick to my brains. I was also a bit difficult to kick myself in the behind and write the vocabs, but in the end I am very glad, I did it. I think it has been a very good exercise for me. It has been a very useful thing, even thoug it sometimes has been tougth and very boring. Henceforward I reckon that I’ll take a little glossary notebook and write down new words once I come across good ones. It’s worthwhile spending time on looking at them, thinking about them and writing them down. I know it’s important for me to learn new words. I think that I have learnt a lot and it is a good way to learn new words. Especially the Notebooks have been a very big help, also the small word cards and working together with mates on them.

44

Scaffolding target language use It was a little tedious, but I clearly learned new words. I reckon that it has helped me a lot, because the work we have done in common has been very thorough. I also think that it was hard, but anyway a good way to learn English words. I think the project has been very good for me, because I have learned much. My self-esteem in English has risen. Normally I am shy and insecure in the English lessons and I feel that the others speak English so easy, In this project I have been able to match the others. I have learnt new words allthough it was boring and tough for me. It’s easier to count success with words than with other projects we do. I think it has been very useful for me. I think the vocabulary notebooks was too much work with each word but that is how to learn it by heart. When I read by myself from now on I think I will make wordlists with important information – not all things with all words. I have learnt a lot of words I can use when I need them. But some of them will not be useful for me. I liked the work with the dictionaries and the notebooks, but not writing so many sentences.

Perhaps Janne sums up what has been said in different ways: Learning new vocabulary is a tedious work. It is a good thing to know how to do the hard work in different ways – so you won’t get too bored!

The discussion in class became the pivot for learners’ written descriptions of personal plans for future vocabulary work: I’ll keep on writing words on small papers – and spend time looking at them. I’ll keep on writing the most difficult ones on my notice board at home and look at them whenever I ... I have a lot of videos with subtitles and I think it can help me a lot to learn new words. When I’m reading books and find a difficult word I will use a dictionary and maybe some sentences so it will stick and be easy to remember. In the future I think I will write the words I don’t understand and want to learn down into my english diary and say them aloud thousand of times. In the future I will continue to make a vocabulary notebook. I’ll take a glossary notebook and learn them by heart by doing tricks with them. I think that I will use the notebook and the small word cards, but I am not sure. Search for new words, look them up in the dictionary and add them in my assignments, so I can sound English and get good marks. We will spend time and energy on the words, see a lot of films without subtitles, read books – do the same as we do right now.

Hanne Thomsen

45

Practise words until I can by heart. Watch a lot of TV, pay attention: listen to the words and read the subtitles. Sometimes I wonder what a word means e.g. in music or on the Internet and then I look it up. Often I can guess the meaning. But I am not sure I have got the time to do so much work, as we have just done – in the future.

Another tool has presumably been added to these learners’ rucksacks, to be used by them while moving on to their next “English projects” in school as well as outside school.

Conclusion The learners of 7c – now 9c – will be leaving Karlslunde School in spring 2002. The main concern of the learners and their teacher over the last six years has been to become “good learners and users of English”. Interesting and important projects have been set up to the best of learners’ capacities, carried out in most cases enthusiastically, and evaluated seriously; and on the basis of their new knowledge about the language and the learning process, other interesting – and perhaps better – projects have been designed. Learner logs have helped learners as well as the teacher to find their way through this process. Posters kept in class helped to remind them of what was especially important. Evaluations, questionnaires, portfolios, exhibitions, interviews and discussions were also valuable tools to help learners get to grips with the multifaceted project of learning a foreign language. From the very first lessons the language of communication has been English as far as possible. The teacher always addressed the learners in English, and step by step the learners built up their own English supported by their peers, their teacher and the tools focussed on in this paper. From the very beginning too, writing was seen as a way of supporting speaking and developing language awareness. The learners of 7c have all gone a long way in their lifelong learning pro-cess. They already take advantage of opportunities to improve their English outside as well as inside school. I believe that they are equipped with many valuable tools that they have developed themselves and that – most importantly – they are still eager to learn and know how to go about the process, in cooperation with “new supporters” as well as on their own, when they leave school.

References Bruner, J. S., 1983: Child’s Talk: Learning to Use Language. New York: Norton. Donato, R., 1994: Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf and G. Appel (eds), Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research, pp.33–56. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Little, D., 1991: Learner Autonomy 1: Definitions, Issues and Problems. Dublin: Authentik. Little, D., 1997: The role of writing in second language learning: some neoVygotskyan reflections. In R. Kupetz (ed.), Vom Gelenkten zum Freien Schreiben

46


im Fremdsprachenunterricht, pp.117–128. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. van Lier, L., 1988: The Classroom and the Language Learner. London: Longman. Vygotsky, L., 1978: Mind in Society. The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA, and London: Harvard University Press. Woods, D., J. S. Bruner and G. Ross, 1976: The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 17, pp.89–100.

Talking text: reflections on reflection in computer-mediated communication Breffni O’Rourke and Klaus Schwienhorst

Introduction Internet technologies, and in particular internet-based telecommunications technologies, have increasingly provided a focus for CALL (computer-assisted language learning) researchers and theorists. After initial euphoria over “interactive multimedia”, we have come to understand better the complex interplay between pedagogy and technology that makes CALL a valuable addition to the language classroom. From a pedagogical perspective, the concept of learner autonomy has come to form the basis for the way we conceive of CALL. But it is also true that new technology can fundamentally change the way learners learn a second language, by opening up previously unknown resources for language learning. Hence, it is important to consider technological as well as pedagogical factors in the implementation of CALL. The first section of this paper explores three different approaches to learner autonomy. While these are based on seemingly quite diverse learning theories and concepts and while they all contribute in their own right to a concept of learner autonomy, they ultimately also share a concern for the support of reflective abilities in the learner, most dominantly in the written medium. The second section is therefore dedicated to an exploration of reflection in the written medium. While the medium of writing has been used for asynchronous communication, be it in the form of letter writing, e-mail, or text messaging, its use in synchronous communication has naturally received less attention. During the last twenty years, however, various kinds of internet chat room, online multiuser games, and many other varieties of text-based live communication tools have evolved and even expanded their audience. One of these is the objectoriented multi-user domain, or MOO. MOO technology has existed since 1992, and its origins go even further back to the first multi-user domain (MUD) created in 1979. The third section will try to shed some light on the relationship between writing and reflection and the roles of pedagogy and technology, by looking at learner data from a bilingual MOO project between Trinity College Dublin and the Fachhochschule Rhein-Sieg, Germany. The fourth section will look at the changed role of the teacher: what role can she play, and in what areas, in a synchronous communication medium like the MOO? The project we report on was undertaken by third-level institutions; however, it must be stressed that of all the communications technologies to emerge recently, the MOO is one of the best-suited to deployment in secondary schools. First, it is a reliable technology, and can be implemented at low cost. Creation, administration and management of a MOO are facilitated by the fact that it is 47

48

Talking text: reflections on reflection in CMC

based on open-source software and by a network of developers who are able to log on to systems and, if necessary, assess and fix problems in real time. Second, in contrast to many other real-time communications technologies, the MOO is a controlled and closed environment which, though highly custom-izable, requires little software expertise. Third, the MOO offers a variety of communication modes, including synchronous writing, an internal mailing system and internal mailing lists. All the data that is produced in these modes can be collected, monitored, and evaluated easily. Fourth, the hypertext-based environment encourages playful experimentation with language, an element that is often absent from the real-life classroom at secondary level. In a research area as new as CALL in synchronous communication media, a conclusion is necessarily also a look forward. What questions do we need to ask, and what research tools and methods can be used to research synchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC)? Let us begin with pedagogy.

Learner autonomy and CMC One might well ask what role CALL and CMC have in the pursuit of learner autonomy. We will start by exploring three approaches to learner autonomy. The first approach might be called the individual-cognitive perspective. Based on Kelly’s theory of personal constructs (Kelly 1955/1991), it emphasizes that learners constantly try to improve their existing construct system. The incorporation of new and more precise constructs is always measured against the existing system of constructs; when new constructs involve substantial changes to existing substructures, integration can be a difficult or even painful process. The yardstick for successful construct development is predictive efficiency (Kelly 1955/1991, p.33). Only the learner herself can effect changes to the construct system, through careful processes of reflection. In language learning, this model has often been related to language and linguistic awareness. Although the definitions of language and linguistic awareness vary considerably, it seems useful to refer to language awareness as an innate capacity and linguistic and metalinguistic awareness as being developed through formal schooling, especially through formal reading and writing instruction. Recent researchers in language and linguistic awareness have also underlined the role of the written medium in language learning. The second perspective on learner autonomy may be called social-interactive. Based on the work of Vygotsky and the “zone of proximal development” (Vygotsky 1978, p.86), this view is often misunderstood as a model that is exclusively based on interdependence. However, just as Kelly’s theory of personal constructs has important and quite prominent social implications, Vygotsky’s emphasis on interpersonal interaction and collaboration serves to encourage intrapersonal dialogue. The two views are complementary and demonstrate the complex interplay between independence and interdependence that is characteristic of any form of learning. In Vygotsky’s framework, conscious awareness, or consciousness in his terminology, is linked to our social interactions with the environment and others:

Breffni O’Rourke and Klaus Schwienhorst

49

The mechanism of social behavior and the mechanism of consciousness are the same [...]. We are aware of ourselves, for we are aware of others, and in the same way as we know others; and this is as it is because in relation to ourselves we are in the same [position] as others are to us. (Vygotsky 1979, p.29f.) Social interaction thus becomes a tool to increase consciousness, or conscious awareness. This can be achieved through “scaffolding” (Bruner and Ratner 1978; Ninio and Bruner 1978) or corrective feedback (Kohonen 1992). An important consequence of feedback is that by comparing the verbal formulation actually transmitted with the initial meaning intention, a speaker has the opportunity to become more aware of his own thoughts and to modify and develop them. This is even more true of writing, where there is greater opportunity for correction and revision. (Wells 1981, p.62) Feedback, particularly written feedback, can therefore work towards the development of greater language and linguistic awareness. A social-interactive and an individual-cognitive perspective on learner autonomy are thus inextricably linked. Thirdly, learner autonomy can be viewed from an exploratory-participatory perspective. In learner autonomy, many theorists emphasize that learners should be encouraged to take responsibility for and control over their learning. Both Kelly and Vygotsky mention experimental work with tools and artefacts as a means of raising awareness. These should take the form of cognitive tools: “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; see also Little 1999). According to this view, writing can play a central role: 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 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. (Clark 1998, p.176) The idea of cognitive tools or artefacts again emphasizes the importance of distancing from and reflection on language and language learning, which we consider essential in learner autonomy. In this way, we perceive cognitive tools as supporting cognition rather than replacing it. We have seen that all three approaches share a concern for reflection. Through reflective processes, the learner should become more aware of language, language learning and her own relationship to the learning process and identity in the target language. A vital role for developing reflective processes is played by the medium of writing, which we will now explore in more detail.

50


Written language and metalinguistic awareness Educational psychologist David Olson has written extensively about the cognitive and cultural effects of literacy. His principal argument is that a writing system is less a transcriptional system than a model of language (Olson 1997). In this view, metalinguistic awareness is a result of literacy rather than a prerequisite for it: in learning to read and write, we gain a conception of how language is structured and how it relates to meaning. To take one example, there is some research to suggest that the way a listener phonologically segments an utterance depends on the kind of script he habitually uses. In a study cited by Olson (1995), readers of the alphabetic Pinyin script for Chinese were found to be better at detecting phonemic segments than readers of the traditional logographic Hanzi script. Olson concludes that “to learn to read any script is to find or detect aspects of one’s own implicit linguistic structure that can map onto or be represented by that script” (p.115). Furthermore, for the child, learning to read and write means ultimately learning that “sentences have implications that are necessary by virtue of sentence meaning itself” (Olson 1977, p.276). That is, children come to distinguish (i) between context-dependent speaker meaning and context-independent sentence meaning, and (ii) between social/pragmatic meaning and propositional meaning (Olson 1980; see also Olson et al. 1985). Considerations like these, together with analysis of the indirect, society-mediated effects of literacy, lead Olson to conclude that “writing is in principle metalinguistics” (Olson 1995, p.119). Olson’s views constitute an argument for viewing literacy as the key to the origins of metalinguistic thought in individuals, and to the origins of the received theories of language in a literate society. But what of metalinguistic reflection in the moment-by-moment processes of literacy? Is there any reason to assume that engagement in writing makes people think about language? Mike Sharples’s model of writing sheds some light on this. He stresses the artefactual, tangible nature of text, which makes one’s writing, to a far greater extent than one’s speech, available for conscious consideration. But in addition to affording the opportunity for reflection, Sharples points out that reflective thought is an unavoidable consequence of writing. He portrays writing as a cyclical process involving alternating, discrete and non-overlapping phases of engagement and reflection (Sharples 1993, 1999). In other words, in a writing session one is always either writing or thinking about one’s writing. The two cannot be done together: we “think with the writing while we are performing it”, but “we cannot think about the writing (or about anything else) until we pause”; hence “a writer in the act has two options: to be carried along by the flow of words, perhaps in some unplanned direction, or to alternate between reflection and writing” (Sharples 1999, p.7). Sharples is concerned mainly with the process of composition, and so the kind of reflection he has in mind relates principally to text structure. But undoubtedly the writer who is reflecting in between bursts of engagement is also at times rereading and planning with orthographic and grammatical accuracy, lexical felicity, and other formal matters in mind. The paradigm writing situation, that of


51

the solitary writer producing a stand-alone text, thus comes with distinct moments of metalinguistic reflection built in, as it were. Contrast this with face-toface conversation, where attention is constantly on meaning, which unfolds in real time; where text is constructed by at least two parties; where information comes from a variety of sources, many of them paralinguistic or non-linguistic. Here there can be no clearly structured phases of cognition, certainly none as simple as reflection-engagement. Metalinguistic reflection may take place, but it is necessarily haphazard. Indeed, it has been argued that it is triggered only by communication failure (Marshall and Morton 1978). Perhaps there is room for argument as to whether Sharples’ characterization oversimplifies matters; but at the very least it serves as a useful archetype capturing a key structural difference between the cognitive process of writing and that of speaking. In writing, one tends to think, then do (write), then think again; these phases are clearly enough demarcated to be perceptible to an observer. In speaking, the thinking and doing (speaking) phases are less obviously distinct from one another.

CMC and metalinguistic reflection: hypotheses and tentative findings If we wish to teach language as a communicative system in a manner that promotes autonomy through reflection, then a strong case can be made for integrating the use of real-time, text-based computer-mediated communication. A system such as a MOO combines certain properties of speech with certain properties of writing, arguably capturing the best of both modes. Let us compare, first of all, MOOs and speech: • Like oral conversation, meaning in a MOO is negotiated rather than stipulated. Textual cohesion and coherence are the result of an implicitly agreed but dynamic agenda as to reference (e.g., pronominal reference, deixis) and the background assumptions that keep interlocutors’ inferences in harmony with one another. There is an ongoing “coordination […] between speaker’s meaning and addressee’s understanding” (Clark 1996). This becomes clear from even superficial examination of MOO transcripts: they clearly resemble spoken rather than written texts in their macrostructure. • Oral and MOO texts have a turn-taking structure: overlapping turns are not possible in the MOO in quite the sense that they are in oral discourse, nor can non-verbal feedback be given in parallel with the interlocutor’s turn. • Phatic communion is paramount: communication constitutes the vast majority of social activity in a MOO, and there is therefore perceived social pressure to keep conversation flowing. Related to this, finally, is the fact that … • communication proceeds under immediate pressure of time. These are some of the constraints and pressures under which we expect learners to be able to speak their target language, and to that extent MOO communication

52


provides relevant opportunities for practice. But other aspects of MOO communication are comparable to writing (in the following list, “message” is meant to encompass both “oral utterance” and “text”): • Most obviously, the medium is textual and therefore calls on literate skills. • Message generation is private and invisible: one’s interlocutor cannot influence the shape of an individual message, since complete messages are transmitted instantaneously. • Messages can be reviewed and altered – or even abandoned entirely – before transmission. This too is invisible to the addressee. • After transmission, messages from both interlocutors, being visible, are reliably available for consideration in a way that spoken utterances, which leave only a rapidly-fading trace in echoic memory, are not. • Entire dialogues can be archived for indefinite periods and are therefore available for subsequent review and consideration. In summary, then, real-time text communication such as that in the MOO makes possible real-time dialogue, like speech, while offering opportunities for reflection, like writing. To formulate the argument at its most general, the dependence on a single channel for all communication puts a greater burden on the individual’s conscious cognitive processes. At the level of discourse as a manifestation of joint action (Clark 1996), the single-channel modality means that communication is more susceptible to misunderstanding, and we might expect increased instances of negotiation, repair and other indicators of meta-linguistic activity. There is thus a prima facie case for the view that such communication provides a unique way of combining meaningful communicative practice with reflection on form. But we cannot simply take for granted that using the MOO will in practice result in metalinguistic reflection. This is a claim that must be put to the test empirically. Specifically, we can pose the following research questions, which we will address below: 1. Do MOO participants consciously perceive the opportunities provided by the medium for metalinguistic reflection? 2. Even if they do perceive these opportunities, to what extent do they in fact exploit them? 3. Does metalinguistic reflection follow automatically from use of a realtime text medium? Tentative answers to these questions emerge from online interviews conducted with participants in a bilingual tandem exchange. The exchange brought together, in weekly, one-hour, scheduled MOO sessions, students from Trinity College Dublin with students from Fachhochschule Rhein-Sieg in Germany. The Irish students were in their second and last year of a compulsory module in German, while the German students were learning English, also as a compulsory part of their course. The nine-week exchange formed the basis of a research project, of which semi-structured interviews comprised one of the research instruments. Twelve Irish and three German students took part in the interviews, which were conducted one-to-one in the MOO. Transcripts were thus immedi-


53

ately available to the researcher. A number of the questions asked were intended to elicit insights into the moment-by-moment processes of using the MOO (the relevant questions are listed in the Appendix). This required a degree of retrospection on the part of the interviewees, but it was possible to cross-check retrospection against introspection, since while “listening” and replying to questions they were engaged in precisely the kind of communication that was the subject of the interview. Many of these questions concern the various identifiable points in MOO interaction where reflection can take place: before or during typing; after typing but before transmission (which occurs when the “Enter” key is pressed); immediately after transmission but before receipt of a response, at which point the message is irrevocable and visible to all in the room; after one or more further conversational turns have taken place; and after the MOO session is over, at which point the session transcript is automatically made available to each participant through system-internal mail. Though we cannot draw very robust conclusions from such interviews, the students’ responses were highly suggestive. We will consider each of the three research questions in turn. First, these MOO participants were indeed aware of the medium-specific factors that afford opportunities for reflection. For example, in response to question 1 (see Appendix), 9 out of 15 respondents claimed to be more careful about using their L2 when using the MOO than in face-to-face conversation with native speakers of L2. Of 13 reasons given for this perceived effect, eight responses point to factors intrinsic to the medium. (In transcriptions, a slash / represents a point at which the participant transmitted the message thus far by pressing the key.) • The visual nature of the medium – 3 responses: e.g., “errors in grammar are easier to c / for example... / dem and den sound very similar in speech / but the difference is obvious when you type them out” (IR1); “cause it is easier to see mistakes when writing / I feel when you are talking to them it is easier to hide mistakes but you have to be more accurate when typing” (IR2) • The permanence of utterances – 1 response: “when you write text you are normally more careful about your formulation of your text. You think about your text, you change parts of your formulation before sending that. Spoken text is a ‘one-time’ communication. Once a word has been said you cannot take it back” (GE1) • The speed of interaction – 3 responses: e.g., “I could afford to be more careful about it because I had more time to answer the person” (IR3) • Absence of non-verbal affective cues – 1 response: “You tend to be more careful. A big disadvantage of text is that you cannot express emotions very well. Sure there are emoticons, however if I speak to someone I can use mimic and gesture to underline my opinion. In a chat room I have only text for that” (GE1) Responses to other questions also indicate awareness of possibilities for reflection. In answer to question 4 (Appendix), IR4 states that he thinks before

54


typing in the L2: “i would have to form the sentences in my head in German before i start typing it, whereas in English i would just think of the start of the sentence and then form it as i type”. IR5 reports, in reply to the same question, that I thought about what I was going to say in German first and then typed it as I already knew what I was going to say in english […] / as the conversation is slower in the moo as you have to form the sentences and you may be stuck for vocab for easy words that you may have forgotten due to lack of practice.

IR3’s response to question 5 (“Did you (or do you) read or revise what you type before hitting the ‘Enter’ key?”) is a particularly vivid illustration of how the MOO makes language tangible and available for cognitive manipulation – how words are not just a medium of communication, but representations of language that have become “extensions of thinking and objects in their own right”, that can be “stored, viewed, considered and manipulated” (Sharples 1999, p.10): IR3: it can give better results when correcting the german because if you read it backwards you can sometimes better structure the sentence / I know that sounds weird but thats what i found / ! Researcher: Do you really mean read it *backwards*? IR3: well from right to left rather than left to right / lol [laughing out loud] Researcher: Would you read what you wrote from right to left, word by word? IR3: well it only helps sometimes / […] German sentence structure is so different from English that you have to look forward in the sentence before you look at the start, we’re not used to that / our brains get confused with the verb being at the end of the sentence, so reading last word first restores the objective of the sentence, allowing our brains to do what natural german speakers do Researcher: Are you aware of any similar process on your part when you’re listening to German spoken, face-to-face? IR3: no when speaking, it’s hard to wait for the verb / if you’re trying to translate the rest of the sentence in your head, you could miss the verb

The second research question was: to what extent do students in practice exploit the opportunities for reflection, where they perceive them? A clear pattern emerges here. Near the time of utterance production – i.e., before typing utterances, before transmitting them, and especially immediately after transmitting them, students exploited the reflective opportunities with reasonable consistency: • 12 out of 15 reported either always thinking before typing, or doing so in the case of L2 (question 4); • 11 out of 14 respondents to the relevant question (question 5) reported re-reading their utterances before transmitting them – eight did so solely or especially for L2; • 13 out of 15 reported re-reading their own utterances after transmission (question 6) – two did so only for L2. On the other hand, at a distance from particular utterances or from the MOO


55

session, students show little inclination to review the language produced. The first pertinent question here is question 2: “Did you ever look back at [utterances in your L2 produced by your partner] to remember, or even re-use, words, phrases, expressions, and so on?” Only five affirmed having done so, while all ten remaining respondents had not. Of those who did not, three believed that looking back over previous utterances would interrupt the flow of the conversation (presumably because they would be distracted from the part of the conversation currently unfolding), while another five said that the possibility simply did not occur to them. In either case, conversational flow was obviously the determining factor: to this extent, the speech-like aspect of MOO dialogue seems to have been uppermost in the minds of most respondents. The other question that relates to reflection “at a distance” is reviewing of transcripts after session end (question 3). While ten claimed to have re-read transcripts of MOO sessions, five of these did so only in connection with a writing task in which they were explicitly advised to examine transcripts, and a further five never did. The pattern that emerges, then, is that learners are more inclined to exploit those opportunities for reflection that present themselves around the time of utterance generation and transmission – and especially immediately after transmission – than they are at a distance from utterance generation and transmission. The third and broadest research question posed above was: does the medium intrinsically encourage metalinguistic reflection? That is, are MOO participants drawn into a metalinguistic mode of thought by the mere fact that they are using the MOO? Only in the case of reviewing utterances after transmission do we have compelling reason to believe that this might be so. As noted, the overwhelming majority of respondents (13 out of 15) take this opportunity; but it is especially notable that a significant number of respondents (5) reported re-reading their utterances simply because it is possible, owing to availability of time and visibility of their words: IR6: Yes, i do, just glance over really Researcher: What do you think makes you do that? IR6: I don’t know really. I just do it while i’m waiting. I’m quite an impatient person IR4: Yes I nearly always re-read after I press the Enter-key. Researcher: Again, is there any difference between English and German in this regard? IR4: No, no differnce. I think its just habit. / It sometimes depends on how long i am waiting for a response

However, the reasons most students give for exploiting the medium’s metalinguistic affordances concern factors independent of the medium: • learning-strategic factors (e.g., “I understood most of what was said and made a mental note, if there was any important vocab I wrote it down” – IR7);

56


• pedagogical factors relating to one’s partner’s learning (e.g., “I tried to be careful and not to write kind of colloquial german ... / because I know how confusing this is in the first time one learns a language” – GE2); • communication strategies (e.g., “I found myself writing short simple sentences / I tried to avoid complicated german” – IR6); • social-affective factors, especially face-saving (e.g., “it was actually a bit embarrassing, how bad my German was compared to her English / I guess i tried to make up for it by checking what i was writing” – IR3). It seems, then, that even if writing is indeed metalinguistics, simply using this medium does not automatically compel reflection on form at each of the many available opportunities. The learner interacting with another in a MOO has opportunities for metalinguistic reflection that are not available, or not as tangibly so, in oral conversation. But learners will only exploit these affordances for what they perceive as good and pressing reasons – such as reviewing and correcting their L2 utterances in order to save face. More generally, there seems to be in operation an L2 cognitive/communicative strategy of devoting more resources to reflection on L2 than on L1; but this is most likely common to all L2 communication. Taken together with the finding that learners are more likely to focus metalinguistically on current utterances than past ones, we can conclude that learners are more inclined to local, expedient, tactical exploitation of metalinguistic affordances than to displaced, strategic, considered exploitation. The most plausible interpretation is that reflection is metered according to its perceived immediate utility – for face-saving or for successful communication principally, with learning considerations a runner-up. These data suggest three categories of reflective opportunity within the MOO system. One category includes those properties that positively compel reflective behaviour on the part of users: the opportunity to re-read utterances immediately after transmission falls into this category. A second category includes those opportunities that are less immediately compelling, but that learners tend to take advantage of given medium-extrinsic pressures to do so: this category includes editing utterances before transmission. The third category comprises those properties that are not immediately apparent to learners, and which are likely to be exploited only by virtue of awareness and strategic thinking on the part of the learner, or in deference to positive pressure from task or teacher. It is to the role of the teacher that we now turn. This consideration of the teacher’s role in promoting reflective use of the MOO will finally lead us to an evaluative framework that can be applied to any use of ICTs in language pedagogy.

The role of the teacher We have distinguished between three different areas where the MOO can support reflective processes. All three require some form of preparation by the teacher. Initially, and ideally, a MOO has to be set up – no longer an especially onerous task (Haynes and Holmevik 1998; Holmevik and Haynes 2000). Secondly, a common framework, not least based on learner autonomy, needs to be established with a partner institution in the target language community. Here,


57

similar class sizes, similar age groups and target language competence can all contribute to a solid foundation for motivating exchanges. Organizing MOO projects, part of which involves agreeing on times and booking laboratories, is not easy and requires some flexibility on the part of both institutions involved. Within a tandem learning set-up, once learning partnerships are established, teachers can do very little to stop learners from communicating with their partner; the synchronous nature of the medium almost forces them to speak/write, although bilingual tasks and activities can provide additional stimuli for communication. More importantly, we have seen that the medium’s visual nature, its permanence, speed, and perceived absence of verbal cues, compel learners to focus on and review their own and their partner’s input. We noted that these are intrinsic factors of the medium where little assistance is necessary. We have noted, secondly, that the MOO can lead learners to engage in reflective activities that are not, strictly speaking, medium-inherent, but which are strongly related to the medium’s affordances. For example, it is easy to conceive of tasks that can encourage the intake of new vocabulary that is provided by the native speaker. Awareness-raising sessions could provide learners with transcripts of previous MOO sessions in order to discuss whether input modification (such as avoiding colloquial expressions) is useful or necessary; whether it is useful to keep utterances short or split them into smaller segments; and to consider processes of revision before the utterance is “published” (such as using an online dictionary). Here, the input from the teacher can serve to activate or reinforce existing strategies that the learner might have used anyway, but with less likelihood than would otherwise have been the case. The third area is naturally the most challenging. It is not surprising, for example, that learners will not exploit the automatic transcripts that are provided after each session. First, having a transcript of a live communicative event is something that only truly autonomous language learners would appreciate; it is a tool that is simply so unusual, so new, that many learners do not see its potential. It is only at a very advanced point on our path to becoming autonomous language learners that we think: if I only had a record of my last conversation with that Spanish waiter, I could find out why I ended up with this dish instead of the one I thought I ordered. The opportunity of examining spontaneous spoken or quasi-spoken conversations word for word after the event has simply never arisen. A second reason has more to do with learners’ attitudes towards “useful” learning tools and materials outside the classroom. Many learners still feel comfortable with traditional drill exercises, in spite of the fact that they see no visible effect on, say, their essay-writing skills. Here, the teacher can and should encourage learners to use transcripts as the basis for other activities.

A framework for evaluating metalinguistic possibilities in technologies It is evident that in a MOO the opportunities for reflection are there, that they are exploited by learners, given appropriate pressures to do so, and that even in the face of the same pressures, the same opportunities are simply not present in

58


many other communicative situations. So even where reflection on form does not follow necessarily from the very nature of the medium, for many learners it does follow in practice. Hence learners are drawn into reflective behaviours when using this medium that they would or could not otherwise engage in. In this sense we can speak of affordances for reflection: properties or functions of the system that make reflection natural given certain medium-independent communicative, social-affective or pedagogical pressures. In the MOO, these affordances include the opportunity to plan utterances before typing, and to review utterances before transmission. Other opportunities for reflection have a more compelling character; they are opportunities that learners will tend to be drawn into regardless of the presence or absence of medium-independent reasons to do so; we label these pressures towards reflection. Reviewing one’s own utterances after transmission and before receipt of a response seems to fall into this category: we noted above that 13 out of 15 interviewees reported such behaviour, of whom many reported no specific medium-independent reason for doing so, and of whom only two reported confining the behaviour to L2 situations. Clearly, the teacher has an important role in providing appropriate tasks that will stimulate these processes. Finally, some properties of a medium remain merely potentials for reflection. These will go unexploited by any but the most autonomous of learners unless pedagogical tasks or awareness-raising activities make their value more salient to them. In the MOO, the ability to read back over long stretches of conversations in progress is one such potential for reflection. Another is the possibility of reviewing transcripts of completed sessions: as we saw, though it was exploited by two thirds of interviewees, one third did so only because they were engaged in a task in which they were advised to do so. In this case, the teacher’s role is to provide tasks that will incorporate and render natural the realization of these potentials. This, then, is the framework we propose for evaluating technologies from the point of view of their ability to promote or support reflection. We intend it to act as a grid through which we may view technology-based language learning systems. Such a perspective gives due weight to both learning processes and interactional properties of specific technologies. It can also serve, we suggest, to bring into sharp focus the multiple roles of the teacher seeking to tap the reflective potential of technology in the autonomy-based classroom.

References Bruner, J., and N. Ratner, 1978: Games, social exchange and the acquisition of language. Journal of Child Language 5 (1), pp.391–401. Clark, A., 1998: Magic words: How language augments human computation. In P. Carruthers and J. Boucher (eds), Language and Thought: Interdisciplinary Themes, pp.162–83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clark, H. H., 1996: Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haynes, C., and J. R. Holmevik (eds), 1998: High Wired: On the Design, Use, and Theory of Educational MOOs. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.


59

Holmevik, J. R., and C. Haynes, 2000: MOOniversity. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Kelly, G., 1955 (reprinted 1991): The Psychology of Personal Constructs. London: Routledge. Kohonen, V., 1992: Experiential language learning: second language learning as cooperative learner education. In D. Nunan (ed.), Collaborative Language Learning and Teaching, pp.14–39. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Little, D., 1999: Developing learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom: A social-interactive view of learning and three fundamental pedagogical principles. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 38, pp.77–88. Marshall, J. C., and G. Morton, 1978: On the mechanics of EMMA. In A. Sinclair, R. G. Jarvella and W. G. M. Levelt (eds), The Child’s Conception of Language, pp.225–40. Berlin: Springer Verlag. Ninio, A., and J. Bruner, 1978: The achievement and antecedents of labelling. Journal of Child Language 5 (1), pp.1–15. Olson, D. R., 1977: From utterance to text: the bias of language in speech and writing. Harvard Educational Review 47, pp.257–81. Olson, D. R., 1980: Some social aspects of meaning in oral and written language. In D. R. Olson (ed.), The Social Foundations of Language and Thought, pp.90–108. New York: Norton. Olson, D. R., 1995: Writing and the mind. In J. V. Wertsch, P. del Río and A. Alvarez (eds), Sociocultural Studies of Mind, pp.95–123. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Olson, D., 1997: On the relations between speech and writing. In C. Pontecorvo (ed.), Writing Development: an Interdisciplinary View, pp.3–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Olson, D. R., N. Torrance and A. Hildyard (eds), 1985: Literacy, Language, and Learning: The Nature and Consequences of Reading and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sharples, M., 1993: Computer support for the rhythms of writing. Cognitive Science Research Papers. Brighton: School of Cognitive and Computing Sciences. Sharples, M., 1999: How We Write: Writing As Creative Design. London: Routledge. Vygotsky, L. S., 1978: Mind in Society. The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA, and London: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S., 1979: Consciousness as a problem of psychology of behavior. Soviet Psychology 17, pp.29–30. Wells, G., 1981: Language as interaction. In G. Wells (ed.), Learning Through Interaction, pp.22–72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Appendix Interview questions relating to reflection and awareness. 1. Were you more or less careful than usual about your [L2] when using the MOO, as compared to writing and to face-to-face conversation with native-speaker assistants?

60

Talking text: reflections on reflection in CMC 2. Did you ever look back at your partner’s German to remember, or even re-use, words, phrases expressions, and so on? 3. Did you ever read transcripts of previous MOO sessions? 4. Do you think as you type, or think and then type? 5. Did you (or do you) read or revise what you type before hitting the “Enter” key? Is there any difference between how you type English and German in this regard? 6. Did you find – or do you find now, as you do this interview – that you re-read what you have typed after you press the Enter key?

Part II : Fostering learner development

Introduction to part II Jennifer Ridley

Following the emphasis in part I on the central role of the teacher in autonomous classrooms, we come to three papers that focus on what we can expect from learners in learning environments where autonomy is actively promoted. Lienhard Legenhausen addresses the most important pedagogical issue, namely the relationship between learner autonomy and target language proficiency. He begins by raising two questions. First, what kind of learning environment is most conducive to the linguistic development of foreign language learners? Second, how much and what type of intervention in the target language is maximally supportive? Teachers unfamiliar with the workings of autonomy tend to assume that learners who are allowed to choose activities beyond the textbook, out of range of strict input control, will progress less quickly and less thoroughly than learners in traditional “transmission” classrooms. And as Legenhausen points out, within second language acquisition research there has been much debate surrounding the degree of “intervention” in pedagogical grammar, and the extent to which instruction “makes a difference”. He argues that in some respects the “autonomous classroom” has been misunderstood: successful practitioners like Leni Dam do in fact exert ultimate control over what learners learn and the ways in which they go about it (see Dam’s paper in part III). Legenhausen’s central point, however, is that autonomous learners are likely to acquire a proficiency in their target language that is qualitatively different from the proficiency acquired by learners in traditional classrooms. In an autonomous classroom the discourse that prevails is communicative interaction conducive to meaning-centred learning; moreover the onus is on learners to produce a large amount of spoken and written text in the target language – text that they themselves construct creatively, as a means of self-expression. To support his argument, Legenhausen details the principles and procedures of an autonomous classroom and cites data from the LAALE Project (Language Acquisition in an Autonomous Learning Environment) which provides convincing evidence that the type of language proficiency acquired by Danish learners of English in Leni Dam’s classroom is more native-like in quality than that acquired by a class of German learners of English who were exposed to traditional teaching methods. The Danish learners’ achievements at all linguistic levels compared extremely well with those of the German learners. Legenhausen concludes that when learners are required to engage in meaningful communicative interaction, their formal linguistic development is not hindered. He notes, however, that it is up to teachers to ensure that their learners’ attention is drawn to formal features – an argument that is continued by Seán Devitt in part III. The importance of learners’ awareness of language is a theme taken up in Jennifer Ridley’s paper. The topic of this paper is learner reflection, which plays a central role in the development of learner autonomy. Learner reflection is 63

64

Introduction to part II

discussed in terms of what we want learners to think about (the nature of the target language, the long-term learning process) and also in terms of the quality of their thinking. Ridley argues that learners’ cognitive, metacog-nitive and motivational engagement with learning are, crucially, mutually dependent. Teachers play a large part in helping learners to reflect on the target language, so that knowledge is constructed rather than just received (cf. the papers by Legenhausen and Devitt). They can also help learners to reflect on learning in a constructive manner (the levels of reflection discussed here are elaborated by Irma Huttunen in part III). To illustrate this Ridley describes how a teacher who was a member of the CLCS Learner Autonomy Project helped her class of lowability, low-achieving, unmotivated learners to notice new things about their target language, to develop realistic conceptions of language learning, and above all to enjoy the process. Citing introspective data from teacher and learners, she argues that it is the teacher’s first responsibility to help learners to understand that they are the key agents in their learning (cf. the paper by Leni Dam in part III) and that when they do grasp this principle, any classroom practice that involves learner reflection becomes beneficial, and motivation is likely to be strengthened. The nature of motivation in classroom environments and the pivotal role that intrinsic motivation plays in the development of learner autonomy is the topic of Ema Ushioda’s paper. Its premise is that the type of motivation that is central to autonomy must come from within the learner. However, social-interactive processes play a crucial role in encouraging the sustained growth of this intrinsic motivation. In other words, motivation is a socially mediated phenomenon. Ushioda draws on findings from the CLCS Learner Autonomy Project to support her argument. She describes the potentially negative social forces that hinder the healthy growth of motivation; for example, pressures from the peer group, or a particular classroom culture to do with learners’ attitudes towards learning, or towards themselves in relation to their peers. The particularly sensitive role of the learning context, Ushioda argues, has tended to be neglected in theories of language learning motivation, and certainly misunderstood by those who suggest that teachers can make learners motivated. She also points out the distinction between motivation in the sense of wanting to achieve something and the more important capacity for regulating not only one’s effort but also one’s own motivation. Motivation in this latter sense entails that learners view themselves as agents of their own learning (cf. Ridley’s paper) and also as agents of their own motivation. It is at this juncture that the learning environment – which, as Ushioda argues, is in the teacher’s control – can be either a trigger for or an obstacle to motivational growth and enhanced autonomy.

Second language acquisition in an autonomous learning environment Lienhard Legenhausen

Introduction The debate on how much intervention is needed to facilitate the language learning process in foreign language classrooms has been renewed in recent years (cf. Skehan 1998, Doughty and Williams 1998a). The various issues raised in this context are reminiscent of arguments exchanged in earlier discussions regarding whether learning processes and outcomes of instructed foreign language learning differ in significant and qualitative ways from those in naturalistic settings. Some of these issues boil down to the question of the teachability of language and/or to the effects of formal instruction. Since autonomous classrooms largely abstain from explicit formal instruction, and in this respect lean towards a non-interventionist position without at the same time abdicating teacher responsibility for the linguistic development of the learners, they seem to combine certain aspects of naturalistic settings with systematic guidance that is probably typical of all classrooms. This ambivalent status between input-controlling, interventionist approaches and input-rich naturalistic learning environments might shed further light on the following time-honoured questions: 1. What kind of learning environment is most conducive to the linguistic development of foreign language learners? 2. How much and what kind of intervention is maximally supportive? The majority view of researchers and practitioners alike has always been that instruction does make a difference; however, it may be that instruction supports the learning process only • to a certain extent; • for some students; • at some point of their linguistic development; • provided they get the right form of instruction (cf. DeKeyser 1998, p.42). Doughty and Williams, summarizing various studies, go so far as to claim that “the non-interventionist position is inefficient at best and indefinable at worst” (1998b, p.260; cf. also Doughty 2001). Recent discussions and empirical studies have thus tended to narrow their focus. Many refer to the different types of interventionist techniques that are applied, for example, the degree of (un)obtrusiveness. The options available to teachers range from highly explicit forms of “instruction” to subtly implicit techniques of data manipulation. The former approach might imply a learning programme with carefully sequenced input, form-focussed exercises, and explicit metalinguistic rule formulations, which are intended to actively draw the 65

66

Second language acquisition in an autonomous learning environment

learners’ attention to structural features of the target language. As far as more implicit forms of instruction are concerned, the teacher may prefer to rely on various procedures of input enhancement which are likely to attract the learners’ attention, thereby encouraging them to consciously notice formal linguistic features. Various earlier empirical studies claimed that learners who were subjected to even highly explicit forms of instruction were more successful than naturalistic learners (e.g., Ellis 1989). They hypothesized that formal instruction might prevent premature fossilization and speed up an otherwise rather slow naturalistic process. It is generally agreed, however, that the learners must be “ready” for the acquisition of the structures taught; this of course imposes some restrictions on the timing (cf. Pienemann 1984). More recent studies experimenting with various subtle forms of input enhancement in meaning-focussed classrooms, indicate obvious advantages of these techniques – not only over naturalistic settings, but also over instructional settings with a traditional explicit focus on form (Doughty and Williams 1998b). The superior achievement of learners exposed to implicit input enhancement techniques is attributed to the fact that they allow the learners’ uninterrupted involvement in meaning-based interactions, while at the same time getting them to “notice” formal features they have not yet acquired: Implicit focus-on-form (FonF) techniques are potentially effective, since the aim is to add attention to form to a primarily communicative task rather than to depart from an already communicative goal in order to discuss a linguistic feature. (Doughty and Varela 1998, p.114) Although the rationale of input enhancement techniques is that they minimize teacher interventions, they still belong to an interventionist paradigm, because the communicative tasks are teacher-designed and the input features that are intended to attract the learners’ attention have also been carefully chosen by the teacher. These are certainly distinguishing features from approaches trying to develop learner autonomy such as that developed by Dam over the past twenty years or so (see, e.g., Dam 1995). Within this approach input enhancement techniques and other forms of input control cannot be observed. In this respect the autonomous classroom leans towards the non-interventionist position. In a slightly different sense, however, the autonomous classroom also clearly subscribes to interventionist techniques. These are manifest at different levels, however – for example, in relation to control of classroom procedures. Yet any interventionist techniques are primarily aimed at awareness-raising and continuous self-evaluation, as outlined further below. The autonomous classroom thus exploits the very fact that the sole purpose for coming together in the foreign language classroom is to make a deliberate and strategically motivated attempt at acquiring the structures and the vocabulary necessary for developing communicative proficiency. In order to be able to assess and interpret acquisition processes and outcomes in the autonomous learning environment, a brief characterization of its major

Lienhard Legenhausen

67

principles is called for (cf. Dam 1995 for a more detailed account). Such a description will serve two functions. First, it will help us to set this environment off against naturalistic settings on the one hand and against traditional ones (as well as FonF classrooms) on the other; in other words, classrooms which attract the learners’ attention to form while engaging them in meaning-focussed activities. Secondly, it provides the background for a reasoned explanation as to why it is that autonomous learners are so successful compared to traditionally taught learners who follow a communicative syllabus with a pre-designed linguistic progression.

The principles and procedures of the autonomous classroom Dam and Legenhausen (1997) have distinguished underlying, operational and procedural principles which characterize the autonomous learning environment. Underlying principles include the assumption that language learning – whether in formal or informal settings – is by and large a “creative construction process”, whose driving forces are authentic communicative interactions between learners and between teacher and learner(s). The teachability of language is thus seen as heavily constrained in the sense outlined by Pienemann (1984) and others. This implies that the potentially facilitative effects of direct instructional intervention can hardly bear fruit because of the heterogeneity of any normally large group of learners. Only a subset of learners in a class is likely to be at the same developmental stage and thus have comparable linguistic needs. Individual differences are especially great in the class that I later discuss in more detail; it is a mixed-ability group with widely diverging individual profiles similar to the ones described in Dam and Legenhausen (2001). These underlying assumptions give rise to and motivate operational principles whose guiding maxim is authenticity of social interaction. Since classroom interactions are largely based on the learners’ free choice, and since those activities that are intended to promote the learning process are more often than not carried out in pairs or small groups, the authenticity of the communicative exchanges is guaranteed. None of the traditional “do-as-if” activities that typify more conventional classrooms can be observed in this classroom. The teacher’s central responsibility lies with her role in awareness raising as regards language as a system, communication as a process, and the learning process itself. Thus learners develop a strategic competence for intentional learning. This is seen as a prerequisite for learners not only being willing but also capable of taking responsibility for their own learning. This constituent feature of the autonomous learning environment implies that the multiplicity of processes in the classroom assume significance and thus become part of the learning content. The procedural principles have already been described in detail by Dam (1995). Since there is no predefined language syllabus, some other organizational framework must provide structure to the procedures and support the learners’ (and teacher’s) feeling of security and control over the whole process of learning. This structure is provided by a fairly rigorous management of the work cycle.

68


The cycle starts with a negotiating phase, in which teacher and learners discuss options for classroom activities. They can draw on an ideas bank that has accumulated over the preceding months (and years) and is open for new suggestions at all times. For the learners, freedom of choice and decision making go hand in hand with accountability. The requirement for them to document learning processes and outcomes and make them available to peers, teachers and parents not only guarantees the transparency of the learning/teaching enterprise but is also of relevance from a language acquisition point of view. The necessity to organize and document learning activities provides an authentic writing impetus which leads to more pushed output (see the discussion below). The teacher supports the learners’ endeavours by systematically involving them in the evaluation of processes and outcomes at regular intervals. Her essential function is to see to it that this work cycle is carried out with a sustained effort by all learners. The procedural principles are summarized in figure 1.

Figure 1

Learning outcomes The linguistic development of the class of learners under discussion has been systematically documented in the LAALE project (Language Acquisition in an Autonomous Learning Environment; Dam and Legenhausen 1996, Legenhausen 1999, 2001). In the project, the attainment levels reached at various stages of the learning process were assessed by a diverse array of testing procedures and then compared (i) to those of a class of learners from the same Danish comprehensive school, and (ii) to those of learners from a German Gymnasium (grammar school) class. The latter comparison is of particular interest because the German school


69

system is highly selective, which in this case means that these learners eventually intend to take Abitur (school-leaving) exams that allow them access to university. Although no external measures of comparability could be taken, most learner variables that are conducive to language learning operate in favour of the German group. When comparing the test results and proficiency levels of the “autono-mous” learners to those taught according to a predefined communicative syllabus, the overall finding is that the principles of autonomous language learning as outlined above work extremely well at all levels of linguistic development. The figure and tables that are given in the following sections (a selection of the overall statistical results) support this finding. Vocabulary After 30 lessons the learners’ productively accessible vocabulary was elicited by means of the following instruction: Write down as many words as you can (colours/animals/words for persons/things you can eat/things you see in the classroom/things people can do at work, in their free time). Write down other words or sentences in English. Figure 2 compares the results of this spontaneous recall task, not only with the scores from the German grammar school class but also with learners from the same Danish comprehensive school who followed, as did the German group, a textbook-based communicative syllabus. 120

GT

DA

DT

100

80

60

40

20

0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Figure 2 GT: German Textbook Group/DA: Danish Autonomous Group / DT: Danish Textbook Group /

24

25

70


It should be noted that the graph in figure 2 ignores spelling. When only correctly spelt words are included, then the German grammar school students fare much better (see Dam and Legenhausen 1996 for more detailed information.) The greater availability of vocabulary to autonomous learners indicated by figure 2 may – in addition to factors outlined below – have something to do with another principle of the autonomous classroom: since a deliberate attempt is made to bridge the gap between the classroom and life outside the classroom (Dam 2001), these learners manage (to a greater extent than the other learners) to incorporate old “word” knowledge gained outside the classroom. By contrast, the German group could only activate textbook vocabulary, although several studies have suggested that German learners will have acquired a wide range of English vocabulary before the start of their first English lesson. Grammar In the early months of learning English, do-support structures in questions and negations pose a challenge to students, and indeed they play a prominent role in coursebook approaches. In the LAALE project we investigated how do-support questions were handled in peer-to-peer talks after 18 months of learning English. When we compared the overall statistics of the traditional German class with those of the autonomous learners, we found that the German group did slightly better. Since do-support questions are intensively practised in their coursebook – especially with the verbs like and live – these verbs were clearly over-represented in the peer-to-peer talks. If we omit stereotypical or formulaic questions with like and live from the overall statistics, then the emerging figures give a clearer hint as to the generative capacity of producing do-support questions. Whereas in the case of the German learners the percentage of well-formed Frequencies

Well-formed Questions

Ill-formed Questions

f

f

%

f

%

GT

135

100

74

35

26

DA

142

99

70

43

30

Table 1: do-support in questions (GT= German textbook group; DA = Danish autonomous group)

Frequencies

Well-formed Questions

Ill-formed Questions

f

f

%

f

%

GT

52

24

46

28

54

DA

103

65

63

38

35

Table 2: do-support without the verbs like and live (GT= German textbook group; DA = Danish autonomous group)


71

questions drops from 74% to 46%, the corresponding drop in accuracy rate in the autonomous group is much less pronounced (70% vs. 63%); see tables 1 and 2. The range of grammatical structures that were explored in the LAALE project comprises: the formation of irregular verbs, the use of past tense and present perfect forms, future time reference, etc. They all attest to the fact that autonomous learners manage extremely well to construct the rules of the target language basically by themselves (Legenhausen 1999). Conversational interactions and their development The most striking differences between the autonomous group and the conventionally taught learners can be observed in their conversational interactions. The LAALE project elicited conversational data at two stages: from both groups after 18 months, and from the autonomous learners again after four years (the class of German learners had by then ceased to exist as a group). The instructions simply asked the learners to talk in pairs about a topic of their own choice. The German group by and large transferred their “do-as-if” behaviour from the classroom routines to the peer-to-peer talks. This meant that their conversational exchanges were dominated by textbook phrases that they recalled and activated in order to cope with the task. By contrast, most autonomous learners largely abstained from asking questions whose answers they could have provided themselves, which meant that their communicative behaviour was much closer to the type of authentic interactions that can also be observed outside the classroom. The developmental progress of the group of autonomous learners within the next two and a half years can be assessed when comparing statistical measures relating to topic-initiating and topic-continuing moves. Whereas after 18 months of learning English topics were switched frequently – with only 6 moves elaborating on a topic (measured in T-units) – the figure had risen to almost 18 moves per topic after four years of English. By then the learners had learned how to sustain a coherent conversation over a longer time span. The strategies of topic introduction and continuation also differed significantly. After 18 months questions were used in 92% of all cases in order to introduce a new topic, and they were also relied on heavily to continue a topic (54% of all topic continuations). Two and a half years later the figures had dropped to 58% for topic introductions and 28% for topic continuations. In other words, after four years of learning English the autonomous learners had developed a range of alternatives to questions in order to initiate and sustain a conversation (cf. also Legenhausen 2001). Example (5) below (p.75), might serve as an illustration of the conversational competence of two learners who can be said to have an average learning ability.

Explaining the learning successes The following section seeks to provide principled explanations for the learning successes just described. The basic line of argument is that the autonomous learning environment might be capable of exploiting the advantages of a minimally interventionist pedagogy and combining it with the advantages of the

72


type of authentic communicative interactions encountered in naturalistic settings. The identity of form- and meaning-focussed activities As mentioned above, Doughty and Williams (1998b) provide ample documentary evidence that unobtrusive interventionist approaches relying on techniques of input enhancement are superior to explicit form-focussed teaching as well as to non-interventionist pedagogies. They attribute the superiority to the fact that subtle forms of input enhancement minimize “interruption to the communication of meaning” and thus do not “intrude into the processing of meaning” (p. 232). If we accept the validity of this argument, then a subclass of activities pursued by most learners, especially in the early years, can explain the successes, for example, in vocabulary learning. They make word cards, domino games, picture lottos etc., and thus are involved in constructing their own learning materials. The various games are then made available to all the other learners. It is in the process of producing the vocabulary games that a focus on language and on meaning become indistinguishable and merge. The language focus might also extend to structural aspects when, for example, in picture lottos some learners do not just provide the word for a drawing or a photo clipping, but also include phrases and grammatical structures. We saw for example how one student (learner H) produced a picture lotto after a few weeks of learning English that contained phrases such as: “here is a happy dog/I can see a fine clock/I like Roxette/this is a king and a queen/my mother has a red pillow”. Pushed output Whereas the activity of making games mainly characterizes the early stages of language learning, the production of a variety of text types is considered to be of crucial importance and continues throughout the entire school career. The important role of output for the learning process has been emphasized by Swain (1985). From her observations of early Canadian immersion programmes she found that highly fluent learners of French still showed deficits as regards grammatical accuracy. Although their receptive competence was native-like, their grammatical development seemed to have partly fossilized. Swain concluded that “an input-rich, communicatively oriented classroom does not provide all that is needed for the development of target-like proficiency” (1998, p.65). Against the background of this observation Swain saw the need for pedagogical intervention, at the same time developing her output hypothesis: “The activity of producing the target language may prompt the learners to consciously recognize some of their linguistic problems; it may bring to their attention something they need to discover about their L2” (ibid.). The central role of text production in the autonomous classroom under discussion is underlined by the fact that these learners are pushed to produce output even on their first day of learning English. They are encouraged to compose a text in the foreign language “About myself”. It is a task that makes pain-


73

fully obvious the gap between what the learners know and what the requirements of using the target language are. They thus construct a text from scratch, as it were – with the help of dictionaries, their peers and, of course, the teacher, who provides them with the structures they ask for. The new expressions and structures are then displayed on posters for everyone to see. If learning is characterized as the guided construction of knowledge, then this first-day activity epitomizes its possible implementation in the classroom. An example: (1) About Myself. my name is [AM] and i live in number three [street name] 2690 karlslunde. My birthday is on the fourteen may. My hobbies are boys’ brigade / girls’ brigade and I like to dance. my telephone number is […15020…]. I have two brother’s they are three years old. I have one rabbit and one dog, theyre names are Elvis and Sheila.

If learners are pushed to produce output in this way, they cannot of course be expected to fully see through the structures used. The result may be deviant sentences, put together on the basis of expressions that appear on classroom posters (cf. learner N: My hobbies is a piano […] I love and sewing). Within the first four weeks of learning English the pupils even produce small booklets, which lead them to notice gaps in their verbal repertoire and which at the same time allow them to practise newly needed and discovered structures. The following booklet with the title “My Dog” was produced by learner A after about 6 lessons of English. Each page contains one drawing which has a caption describing it: (2) My Dog It is my dog. It is my dogs home. It is my dogs ball. It is my dogs bowl. It is my dogs basket. It is my dogs dogcollar The end.

The learner has engaged, as it were, in some kind of pattern practice, but of his own accord in a highly productive and authentic way. Awareness-raising in group work/reflection on language It is widely accepted that communicative interactions constitute the driving force of language learning, but in order for learners to be able to progress beyond a stage at which they just manage to express basic communicative needs, they have to be involved in metalinguistic as well as metacognitive processes (cf. Little 1996, p.209). It is here that the teacher takes on a special responsibility, and instigates awareness-raising processes as mentioned above. However, certain group activities such as collaborative writing are especially

74


suitable for noticing gaps, for negotiating meaning as well as form – thereby raising the learners’ awareness of structural aspects of the target code. The following excerpt is taken from a group activity in which three 7th graders collaboratively compose a story which they entitled “Alone on an island”: (3) D: A: […] M: D: M:

There was a ship called the Queen Mary called the Queen Mary who – who sank. Is that alright? Yes, “which” … You can’t say “who sank”, because it’s dead. You can’t say “who sank.”

Although the metalinguistic explanation given by learner M cannot be considered accurate, the group of learners cooperatively come to a heightened awareness of the regularities that determine the selection of relative pronouns in English. In the following excerpt from another cooperative writing activity (“The snake story”) a focus on form blends into a focus on meaning: (4) P: When he […] opened the door to her bedroom, she was sitting at the bed with the snake in her arms. S: Mmh [shaking her head]. She was sitting on the bed, in or on? P: Sitting on the bed. S: Mmh. P: Or what? S: In the bed or on the bed? P: I don’t know. In the bed. S: It depends on if she’s got the leg out of bed, she’s sitting on, if she’s got the leg in the bed, she’s sitting in the bed, in the bed.

Negotiation of meaning in peer-to-peer talks It is generally agreed that communicative interactions in which communicative problems have to be resolved and meaning is co-constructed have the effect of “charging” the input, which in turn makes deep-processing more likely to occur (cf. Stevick 1980). A frequently chosen activity in the autonomous classroom that is called “two-minute talk” provides ample opportunities for learners to engage in repair work and in meaning-making. The following discussion about pen friends was recorded when the learners were in the 8th grade. It revolves around the connotations of the term relationship. (5) N: Have you wri- only written one letter to him [pen friend] and that he notMA: He did not answer the letter, so I think that it was... N: yeah, the end of your relationship.


75

MA: Relationship? N: Relationship, friendship. MA: Yes. N: Friendship, okay. MA: I’m not gay! N: Okay. I still have contact with my friend Anieska.

Hypothesis formation and testing Many traditional classrooms subscribe to a “preventive pedagogy” and are organized in a way that minimizes the learners’ opportunity for making errors. The autonomous classroom, by contrast, allows learners to freely form hypotheses and experiment with language, and the learners’ utterances are thus characterized by a high degree of variability between deviant and well-formed structures. Many L2 researchers hypothesize that variability of this kind is a prerequisite for developmental progress. Learners first acquire new grammatical structures in recurring patterns and stereotypical phrases (cf. Devitt, this volume), as can be illustrated with the -ing form in the following examples: (6) a. My hobby is V-ing. b. I want to go V-ing.

They then over-extend the use of -ing forms to other contexts before being able to sort out the form-function relationships according to target norms. In our data, learner S used structure (6a) in peer-to-peer talks after 17 months of learning English, and within a few minutes she also produced the following structures: (7) a. Ehm, yesterday I was out in ... on riding down in the town (A-I,63) b. I was out at riding (A-I, 63) c. I’ll back riding (A-I, 64)

Similar observations can be made as regards the acquisition of more complex grammatical patterns. Do-support negations, for example, first occur in the phrase “I don’t know”.

Conclusion The linguistic development of the class of mixed ability learners taught according to the principles of autonomous language learning can be said to be highly successful. Their achievement levels compared extremely well with those of German Gymnasium (grammar school) students who followed a mainstream communicative syllabus. The statistical results covering a wide range of grammatical as well as conversational features provide additional support for the interaction hypothesis of second language acquisition. Early and heavy reliance on genuine communicative interactions does not necessarily lead to a neglect of formal features, as often feared by researchers (cf. Skehan 1998, p.11), provided

76


the conversational interactions are accompanied and supported by awarenessraising processes. The autonomous learning environment goes beyond a meaning-focussed classroom as described in the literature, because the interactions can be said to be authentic (cf. van Lier 1996, p.13). The activities suggested by the teacher and/or chosen freely by the learners • might merge a focus on form with a focus on meaning so that the two become indistinguishable; • are more often than not carried out in pairs or small groups and thus lead to negotiation of meaning and socially instigated reflectivity; • include oral and written text production that leads to “pushed output”; • provide learners with space for hypothesis formation and testing. These features taken together characterize the autonomous classroom and might explain its efficiency as regards the linguistic development of its learners.

References Dam, L., 1995: Learner Autonomy 3. From Theory to Classroom Practice. Dublin: Authentik. Dam, L., 2001: Bridging the gap between real life and the language classroom – principles, practices and outcomes. In J. Wagner (ed.), Pædagogik og læring in fremmed- og andetsprog, pp.43–64. Odense: University of Southern Denmark, Institute of Language and Communication (Odense Working Papers in Language and Communication 22). Dam, L., and L. Legenhausen, 1996: The acquisition of vocabulary in an autonomous learning environment – the first months of beginning English. In R. Pemberton et al. (eds), pp.265–80. Dam, L., and L. Legenhausen, 1997: Developing learner autonomy – principles, practices, outcomes. In K. Head (ed.), ELT Links. Vienna Symposium 1996, pp.56–57. Whitstable, Kent: IATEFL, British Council. Dam, L., and L. Legenhausen, 2001: Case studies of individual learners in an autonomy-focussed language classroom – beginners’ level. In L. Karlsson, F. Kjisik and J. Nordlund (eds), All Together Now. Papers from the 7th Nordic Conference and Workshop on Autonomous Language Learning, pp.65–84. Helsinki: University of Helsinki Language Centre. DeKeyser, R. M., 1998: Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practising second language grammar. In C. Doughty and J. Williams (eds), pp.42–63. Doughty, C., 2001: Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (ed.), Cognition and Second Language Acquisition, pp.206–57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Doughty, C., and E. Varela, 1998: Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty and J. Williams (eds), pp.114–38. Doughty, C., and J. Williams (eds), 1998a: Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Doughty, C., and J. Williams, 1998b: Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty and J. Williams (eds), pp.197–261.


77

Ellis, R., 1989: Are classroom and naturalistic acquisition the same? A study of the classroom acquisition of German word order rules. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 11, pp.305–28. Legenhausen, L., 1999. The emergence and use of grammatical structures in conversational interactions. In B. Mißler and U. Multhaup (eds), The Construction of Knowledge, Learner Autonomy and Related Issues in Foreign Language Learning, pp.27–40. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Legenhausen, L., 2001: Discourse behaviour in an autonomous learning environment. AILA Review 15, pp.65–9. Little, D., 1996: Freedom to learn and compulsion to interact: Promoting learner autonomy through the use of information systems and information technologies. In R. Pemberton et al. (eds), pp.203–18. Pemberton, R., E. S. L. Li, W. W. F. Or and H. D. Pierson (eds), 1996: Taking Control. Autonomy in Language Learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Pienemann, M., 1984: Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 6, pp.186–214. Skehan, P., 1998: A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stevick, E., 1980: Teaching Languages: A Way and Ways. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Swain, M., 1985: Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass and C. Madden (eds), Input in Second Language Acquisition, pp.235–53. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Swain, M., 1998: Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty and J. Williams (eds), pp.64–81. van Lier, L., 1996: Interaction in the Language Curriculum. Awareness, Autonomy and Authenticity. London: Longman.

Learners’ ability to reflect on language and on their learning Jennifer Ridley

Introduction Generally speaking we expect classroom-based language learners to engage in two types of reflection. First they need to acquire metalinguistic skills, for example by analysing target language structures as they appear in texts or by developing reflective control over the language they produce when writing (Bialystok 1988). The importance of such skills is recognized in second language acquisition research that suggests that the more learners pay attention to, and notice, input and output the better (Schmidt 1995; Swain 1998). Metacognition is also crucial; if learners are going to assume some responsibility for their learning, they need to stand back and assess what they are learning and the ways in which they go about it (Ridley 1997a). Ideally both types of reflection feed into each other. It makes sense that learners have plenty of opportunities in class to experiment with the target language. In this way they acquire the habit of working things out for themselves – a habit that hopefully leads to a realization that they are gradually acquiring control over their developing knowledge of the system. An increasingly used pedagogical tool for fostering metalinguistic and metacognitive skills is the European Language Portfolio (Little and Perclová 2001), in which learners confront what they know about the language and what they can do in relation to their particular curriculum. When learners regularly engage in self-assessment, questions are likely to be raised in their minds that they possibly revisit when next performing learning tasks. This paper concerns the relationship between learners’ growing understanding of the language learning process and the cognitive and motivational engagement they put into what they do in class. I mean by an “understanding of the language learning process” a belief on the part of the learner that he, not the teacher, is the key agent in the process – in other words, that he is the origin of his learning behaviour, and not the pawn (deCharms 1968). Helping learners to realize this is, I suggest, the first stage in guiding them in the direction of autonomy. Even mature, experienced learners are not always prepared to play an active part in their learning; for example, they may still prefer to rely on their teacher to deliver the curriculum, without seeing the importance of setting their own learning goals (Ridley 2000). The way in which learners conceptualize their learning is therefore important. The paper builds on an earlier study of a group of university learners in which there was evidence of links between individuals’ conceptions of learning, their personal agendas for learning, and the various types of problem-solving communication strategies they deployed (Ridley 1997b). Moreover their concep78

Jennifer Ridley

79

tions of learning were strongly influenced by the types of learning experiences they had had at school. This finding is embedded within Bandura’s social-cognitive view of learning, in which human functioning is explained in a “triadic reciprocality, in which behavior, cognitive and other personal factors, and environmental events operate as interacting determinants of each other” (1986, p.18). When learners’ reflectivity is viewed from this perspective, it is clear that what they think about, or do, might be explained by cognitive and motivational factors and the ways in which these interact. The phenomenon of underachievement, for example, is as much to do with motivational states like lack of self-esteem or inappropriate goals and expectations as with cognition. Indeed, as Carr et al. (1991) demonstrate, the failure of underachievers to develop a functional metacognitive system can be partially ascribed to their negative attribution beliefs. At this point the teacher’s role is crucial: she can influence what her learners tend to focus their attention on, what they expect from language learning, and how they react to the experience of learning. Such interaction between teacher and learners is an example of social constructivism, in that learning in the sense of cognitive growth arises from the social context of the classroom and its variety of human skill, activity and thought (Bruning et al. 1995, p.200). The view that learning is essentially a social-interactive process was one of the driving principles behind the CLCS Learner Autonomy Project (henceforth LAP), on which this paper is based (cf. Little, Ridley and Ushioda 2002). I first summarize its pedagogical expectations and research aims. I then discuss metacognition as a framework for investigating learners’ understanding of learning, and suggest that when trying to investigate the extent to which learners are autonomous, we need a wider perspective than is offered by the paradigm of metacognition. The point is made that adolescent, school-based learners who have not been to a country where the target language is spoken, do not always see connections between themselves, the school subject called French or German, and the various steps they might take to master it. The last section returns to the role that teachers have in shaping learners’ understanding of learning. Referring to data elicited from poorly motivated learners in a low proficiency class in the LAP, I describe how they gradually picked up what their teacher hoped they would realize, namely that foreign language learning is a complex but worthwhile exercise. In this way their understanding of language learning became a product of their learning environment.

The LAP: based on a social constructivist view of learning Our research aims in the project were to trace how (i) the teachers encouraged their learners to take more responsibility for their learning and (ii) their learners responded to this encouragement. The project was based on the Vygotskyan view that learning is a social-interactive process, and, accordingly, the teachers worked within three principles elaborated by Little (1999): (i) the target language was to be used as much as possible as a means of self-expression; (ii) there would be learner empowerment (learners were encouraged to take initiatives, like choosing learning activities); and (iii) learner reflectivity should be encour-

80

Learners’ ability to reflect on language and on their learning

aged. On this last point, metalinguistic reflection was promoted through “information gap” type reading and writing activities (see, e.g., Devitt 1997), and the teachers followed Dam’s (1995) example in getting learners to ask themselves continuously what they were doing, why, and with what degree of success. The LAP experiment, hovering between open-ended research and prescription for pedagogical change, touched several interacting factors. It was impossible to establish causal relationships between teachers’ aims and learners’ responses; indeed they were not hypothesized, rather hoped for. However, there were three main findings that are central to this discussion because they touch on cause and effect. The first was that the teachers were receptive – indeed, enthusiastic about exchanging teacher-fronted, traditional practices of instruction for an approach that focussed more on group work and learner choice. Secondly, as they gradually introduced changes, we found that they correspondingly altered their own conceptions of learning from a traditional view to a constructivist position. In other words they became driven by the notion that learners gain understanding by an active process of construction rather than by passive assimilation of information (Greeno et al. 1996, p.22). Thus it was reasonable to expect interface, or leakage, between what the teachers did and what their learners took up. Of course, it was possible that some learners would be transferring the metacognitive skills they had acquired already in other school subjects to the language classroom; however, as Quicke (1994) demonstrates, evidence of this type of transfer from one school domain to another is inconclusive. Our third finding concerned the learners’ responses to these changes in the classroom, some of which I focus on later. In general, their reaction to our principle of learner “empowerment” (choosing activities or devising materials) was positive, as was their response to being encouraged to become more reflective – as many commented, it was “a good idea”. However, when it came to being encouraged to use the target language in class, we found a general mismatch between learners’ expressed desire to speak the language “fluently” (their expression) and the actual effort they put into speaking it. I return to this point later, as an example of learners’ failure to realize a connection between what the teacher asks them to do in class (here, to try to communicate in the language) and what language learning actually involves.

Researching learners’ understanding of language learning As Wenden (1998) emphasizes, much of the research since the 1980s into the various ways that learners learn has focussed on cognition, and attention has been paid to the metacognitive knowledge that learners have about language learning, or about themselves as language learners. Research into learners’ beliefs about language learning, has tended to be quantitative. For example, they are asked to indicate the extent to which they agree with statements given by the researcher. Recently, however, interest in this domain has widened to include learners’ implicit motivational beliefs, and qualitative approaches are used, such as interviews. This shift reflects a more

Jennifer Ridley

81

general change in educational psychology away from a focus on cognition towards a focus on the interaction between what learners know, think and also feel. Pintrich et al. (1993, p.170), for example, argue that the process of conceptual change is influenced by “personal, motivational, social and historic processes”. And in the domain of research into the nature of self-regulation, there is a growing emphasis on the key role that learners’ implicit goal orientations play in the activation of their metacognitive knowledge, and on the need for learners to select and adapt strategies for managing motivation and affect as well as managing cognitive strategies for thinking and learning (Boekaerts 1995). Thus when we refer to learners becoming autonomous, the process involves selfregulation not only in a cognitive sense but also in a motivational sense (Ushioda 1996; Ushioda’s paper in this volume). Bearing in mind the interaction between cognition and affect, the question arises, which theoretical paradigms offer a framework for exploring how learners understand their own learning? Several different perspectives have been taken. For example, Williams and Burden (1999) use interviews to explore learners’ changing self-conceptions from the perspective of attribution theory. They argue that the ways in which learners attribute success or failure shed some light on how they make sense of their learning situation in a more general way (p.200). Focusing more on learning strategies, Mori (1999) follows the work of Schommer (e.g., 1993) that explores the implications of learners’ epistemological beliefs. This is an interesting area because it has ramifications for the development of learner autonomy. As Mori suggests, if learners believe the following to be true, they are less likely to become successful, active learners, namely: • that learning is quick rather than gradual; • that knowledge is certain rather than tentative; • that knowledge is handed down by authority. Another approach to accessing learners’ conceptions of the target language is to tap into their “naïve theories” of language learning, following Dechert (1992). We did this in the LAP when we asked learners to describe what they thought the process of language learning involved. To analyse their descriptions we took a phenomenological approach, where a distinction is made between individuals who take a surface approach to their learning and those who take a deep approach (Marton et al. 1993). In a pioneering study, Säljö (1979) found evidence that people have indeed different conceptions of learning. His subjects, aged between 16 and 70, came from either formal educational systems or from a working life. Säljö inferred that they conceptualized learning in five different ways, or at five different levels: A – an increase in knowledge; B – memorizing; C – acquiring facts and procedures that can be retained and utilized in practice; D – the abstraction of meaning; E – an interpretative process aimed at the understanding of reality. (cited Von Wright 1992, pp.63f.)

82


This framework is appealing because, as Benson and Lor (1999, p.464) point out, it is to do with people’s accounts of what the objects and processes of learning are, to them; moreover, such conceptions seem to be at a higher level of abstraction than a learner’s stated beliefs about the extent to which something is true. Thus the continuum A–E, although initially a taxonomy that arose in the researcher’s mind from people’s descriptions of learning, also serves as a framework to investigate the extent to which learners understand learning in terms of being on the receiving end of knowledge (where they focus on facts and memory) or understand learning as involving some type of relationship between the learner himself, the learning process and the world outside (cf. Berry and Sahlberg 1996). We also used the notion of levels of conceptions of learning to investigate if the project learners understood that language learning is an active process. A sample of 113 learners from 7 different classes was asked to write down what they thought language learning involved. (This question was part of an openended questionnaire administered to all learners during their second year in the project.) To help them to answer this question, we talked them through the following analogy: 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. Naturally we hoped that by this time most learners would understand language learning to be an interpretative process. As it turned out, the data showed that just under half of the learners (44%) seemed to conceptualize language learning in terms of being at the receiving end of information, and just over half (56%) understood that learning involves more than this. This finding cannot be interpreted in terms of general cause or effect. However, a closer analysis suggested a link between the general ability of the class (as determined by their performance in a range of school subjects) and the extent to which, as a collective group, each class seemed to understand learning within levels C to E of the taxonomy described above. The class that contained the weakest group (i.e., weak in relation to mother tongue literacy skills as well as target language skills) also contained the highest percentage of learners whose conceptions of learning were characterized in terms of being teacher-dependent and memory led (levels A and B). Two examples indicate this: Learning is to be told something and possibly to learn it off by heart, that would be considered as learning. You get a book and look at it for an hour.

We can compare these examples from learners in a more academically oriented class: Learning is looking at things you don’t understand and then gradually understanding the meaning of what you see. It’s opening my mind to new ideas and to develop my mind to think for itself.

This qualitative difference we found between the academically stronger learn-

Jennifer Ridley

83

ers and the weak ones may partly reflect a finding observed by Dechert (1992, p.20): that experts differ from novices in that they form mental representations of the problems to be solved on a higher level of conceptualization than novices do. Another issue was whether the questionnaire was asking too much, in the sense that these learners may not have the language to describe learning processes (Astington and Olson 1990). However, the teacher of the weak group took a pragmatic view: to her, it was not surprising that her class did not appreciate learning in more sophisticated, interpretative terms, since they had been used to teachers exerting a tight disciplinary control over them, allowing little opportunity for a sense of responsibility to develop. In other words, the very problem of disciplining this group had given rise to the practice of pinning them down to rote learning activities or grammar-translation exercises which would occupy their attention – and which we know they found boring. I return to this point later.

Learners’ ability to realize connections between aspects of their learning We know that successful language users are able to understand connections between linguistic forms and their meanings, or between the mother tongue and the target language. However, the ability to see connections in the longer term between apparently discrete aspects of learning has tended to be overlooked in the literature. Yet this ability emerged as a noticeable factor in the LAP; in trying to make sense of what the project learners told us about their learning, we found that there were qualitative differences between those learners who did see such connections and those who did not. Before giving examples, it is perhaps worth noting their age, 13–15 years. Demetriou (2000, p.233), in a model of the development of the organization of the mind, distinguishes between eleven to thirteen-year-olds and fourteen to sixteen-year-olds. He suggests that when learners reach the upper age group they gradually develop an awareness of particular cognitive processes and operations in such a way that they make links between their personal qualities, own preferences, and different types of activities. From the point of view of these project learners, their growing sense of self as language learners may be to do with explicit, objective goals, as determined by the curriculum, or it may be less specific, and more subjective, as we see for example in Cross and Markus’ notion of “possible selves”, which they define as “a person’s various self-schemas that represent those selves the person could become, would like to become, or is afraid of becoming” (1994, p.423). The likelihood that older, more experienced learners can make connections between themselves and the learning process is suggested by Huttunen (1996, pp.82f.; see also Huttunen, this volume). In a pedagogical experiment similar to that of the LAP, Huttunen identifies three levels of reflection. One is the “mechanical” level: for instance, learners “simply enumerate exercises done or vocabulary learnt when they make entries in diaries or reports”. Another level is the “pragmatic” level: “the learner’s thinking mirrors the practical demands of

84


the task in hand”. Or learners may reach the “emancipatory” level where they understand the “holistic nature of the learning process”. Of course, teachers can do much to help young second-level learners to acquire a holistic overview of the long-term task of learning by talking about it in an upfront manner (see the paper by Thomsen, this volume). Indeed, there is growing evidence that using the European Language Portfolio in Irish secondary schools makes learners confront their own learning – through self-assessment – in such a way that they soon understand the nature of language learning in terms of knowledge and skills to be acquired (Ushioda and Ridley 2002). However, as already noted, in the Irish classrooms that took part in the LAP, there remained a permanent problem that beset all the teachers and undermined the achievement of one of the project’s goals, namely getting learners to understand the need to try to speak in the target language (see too Ushioda’s paper, this volume). Although many said that they wanted to become fluent in the target language, they put little effort into trying to communicate in class. Moreover, it transpired that many did not see the personal relevance of speaking the language in class (even though they had expressed their aim to speak it as a personal goal). Significantly, many of those who did try to speak the target language also saw its relevance, either in relation to learning the language (as in “you learn the language through using it”), or in relation to their personal goals. This finding highlights the complex relationship between metacognition and motivation and emphasizes the need for learners to take action. It also puts into question the reliability of learner introspection: do they always do what they say they do, or do they act on what they say they intend to do? It seems that even experienced university learners may need some time (a few months at least) before they do what their teacher encourages them to do, or indeed before they actually put into practice what they think they do (Garrido Lema 2001). In other words, there can be a time lag before learners act on what they know to be effective learning behaviour. Whitaker (1995, pp.13f.) reinforces this point: in developing a model of the reflective learner, he includes the notion of the “integrated” learner, or one who asks himself “how I move from the potential act to the act itself”. Responses to another question in our questionnaire shed further light on the relationship between learners wanting to achieve and their attempts to effect change. The sample of 113 learners was asked whether they thought about the target language outside class, apart from when they were doing homework. Approximately half said yes, they did. Moreover, in their additional voluntary descriptions of the types of things they thought about, there was evidence of two phenomena: first, that their reflection on the target language led to further reflection, and secondly that interest in what happened in the classroom led them to reflect further. (In contrast, those who said they never thought about the language cited “being bored” as a reason.) This example illustrates both phenomena: When I come home from school I always tell my parents what I did in class, as it is one of the most interesting classes of the day. Also when I speak French at home

Jennifer Ridley

85

all the slang and real French phrases are amalgamated together which helps me think about my French class.

Here we see that this learner’s interest is caught; moreover her experience of success might also be reinforcing the relevance for her of certain learning activities. With reading/writing tasks in mind, we also asked this sample of learners about their reactions to being told to be on the lookout for new target language features, and to describe how they felt about being expected to sort out features of the language for themselves, as well as being told about them. Here again, we found that those learners who enjoyed doing these things not only cited the interest factor, but that some realized that this type of thinking contributed to their learning. In other words, when learners get to solve problems and to think critically about the target language, for some at least, learning processes become transparent.

The role of the teacher in helping learners to understand learning I now focus on one teacher (Orla) and her particularly weak and consistently disruptive class. I noted earlier that some learners in this group said they did not know what language learning involves, and that those who did know tended to think in terms of being asked to memorize or rote learn. We saw too that she had high hopes for this group – and as it turned out, they surprised themselves and the rest of the school by doing well in the public exam they took in German at the end of their three years in the project. This class was interesting for two reasons. First, we had insights from the teacher and her learners during this three-year period, during which time it was possible to see evidence of a slow process of social constructivism at work, in the sense that the feedback from the learners (in the form of our data) made this teacher reassess her teaching, as much as her corrective feedback made her learners think. Secondly, at the start of the project most of the class had a generally low sense of self-esteem in relation to academic learning. Semi-structured interviews that we held with eight learners – by then in their third year of taking part in the project – gave us further insights into how they were coping. An interview with one of them, Kevin, showed that low levels of motivation about school in general might initially inhibit any desire to learn a language. Although he still regarded German as just another school subject, he described how the language became more meaningful to him when Orla got him to think about the target language, rather than giving him only mechanical tasks (at this stage, Orla was piloting the Irish version of the European Language Portfolio with this class). In the questionnaire that he had completed eighteen months previously, Kevin had written that he did not know what language learning involved. But now, in the interview, he could elaborate: Oh well learning, it involves, it means, well identifying things. Or like it’s reading and

86

Learners’ ability to reflect on language and on their learning writing and all that stuff. But you have to learn from other people though. Say if I’m sitting at home and all that stuff is getting sent to me from school* I don’t think I’d learn it as well as I’d learn it in school. (*A reference to being sent home for disruptive behaviour.)

Although Kevin could not be called an autonomous learner, he now realized that learning depended on something that he did, and in this sense we might say he was taking a first step in the direction of autonomy. Three factors seemed to be helping him, all to do with the quality of the interaction in this class. First, the activities he chose aroused a personal interest (especially composing simple poems in German). He also saw connections between what his teacher was doing and what he was picking up from her. For example, he said now he knew why she spoke German all the time: “so you’d get used to hearing and listening and you’ll learn it”. Thirdly, he now realized that Orla had a long-term masterplan for the class, not only in terms of how she treated and disciplined them (“she can handle us and have a bit of a laugh as well”), but also in terms of what she had planned the class would be learning – a plan that she shared with the class when they discussed the curriculum together (cf. Dam 1995 and Dam’s contribution to this volume). In short, we see that Kevin’s perception of his teacher’s whole approach was positive, and this may have helped his cognitive engagement with classroom activities (Pintrich and deGroot 1990, p.33). Another example gives further evidence of the interface between this teacher and her learners. The extract is from an interview with her in the second year of the project and it sums up her approach at that stage: It would all come down to a student learning at his own pace. It wouldn’t matter whether the boy next to him was learning lots of things, the idea is that each individual is being challenged. They’re all sitting in front of me capable of learning, so I need to make them feel good about that small bit they learnt, or about the big bit they learnt, and if they’re interested in what they’re doing they get glued to it.

Here we see that although Orla is still concerned with issues of class discipline, she focuses her attention more on encouraging the group to appreciate that they are capable of learning and by providing them with activities that trigger cognitive and emotional interest. A classmate of Kevin’s suggests that he is picking up Orla’s approach and running with it: In our class the teacher she’ll ask you what you’d like to do. Well obviously you’re going to do one of those subjects*, like she’d 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’d be doing German, in every one of them. Well, I pick so that sometimes there’s not going to be the same words over and over again. And once you look up the words they’ll stay with you if you’re learning. And it’s a fun way to learn. (*He means activities.)

Clearly, he is beginning to understand the purpose of various activities and their value in helping him to learn. He also realizes that he can do certain things to help himself to learn.

Jennifer Ridley

87

Conclusion I have emphasized the importance of learners’ ability to see connections between the target language, what they do in class, and the types of learning outcomes they want or expect. Such an ability may seem obvious, and easily taken for granted at second level, yet for some learners, sudden insights that connect the target language with themselves as learners may be the trigger that sets in motion further reflection associated with deliberate goal setting and subsequent action. Monitoring and assessing one’s work can be a mechanical exercise unless its relevance and purpose are appreciated. I have highlighted the complexity of researching the development of autonomy from the learner’s perspective, and have observed that learners’ implicit beliefs and expectations to do with the self are hard to tap into, principally because they combine cognition and affect. We found evidence that the quality of learner reflection may be linked to motivational states of mind; however, as the LAP demonstrated, teachers can exert huge influence on the extent to which their learners understand the learning process and the degree of engagement that it requires.

References Astington, J. W., and D. R. Olson, 1990: Metacognitive and metalinguistic language: learning to talk about thought. International Association of Applied Psychology 39, pp.77–87. Bandura, A., 1986: Social Foundations of Thought and Action. A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Benson, P., and W. Lor, 1999: Conceptions of language and language learning. System 27, pp.459–472. Berry, J., and P. Sahlberg, 1996: Investigating pupils’ ideas of learning. Learning and Instruction 6 (1), pp.19–36. Bialystok, E., 1988: Psycholinguistic dimensions of second language proficiency. Reprinted in W. Rutherford and M. Sharwood Smith (eds), Grammar and Second Language Teaching, pp.31–50. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Boekaerts, M., 1995: Self-regulated learning: bridging the gap between metacognition and metamotivation theories. Educational Psychologist 30 (4), pp.195– 200. Bruning, R. H., G. J. Schraw and R. R. Ronning, 1995: Cognitive Psychology and Instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Carr, M., J. Borkowski and S. Maxwell, 1991: Motivational components of underachievement. Developmental Psychology 27 (1), pp.108–118. Cross, S., and H. Markus, 1994: Self-schemas, possible selves, and competent performance. Journal of Educational Psychology 86 (3), pp.423–438. Dam, L., 1995: Learner Autonomy 3: from Theory to Classroom Practice. Dublin: Authentik. DeCharms, R., 1968: Personal Causation. New York: Academic Press. Dechert, H., 1992: The study of neurolinguistics made me notice what school

88


grammar is. In O. Leirbukt and B. Lindemann (eds), Psycholinguistische und didaktische Aspekte des Fremdsprachlernens, pp.7–23. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Demetriou, A., 2000: Organization and development of self-understanding and self-regulation. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich and M. Zeidner (eds), Handbook of Self-regulation, pp.209–251. London and San Diego: Academic Press. Devitt, S., 1997: Reading and writing one’s way into language awareness. Language Awareness 6 (vols 2 and 3), pp.119–135. Garrido Lema, M. P., 2001: Developing reading skills among ab initio learners of Spanish. Unpublished M.Phil. dissertation, University of Dublin, Trinity College. Greeno, J., A. Collins and L. Resnick, 1996: Cognition and learning. In D. C. Berliner and R. C. Calfee (eds), Handbook of Educational Psychology, pp.15–46, New York: Simon & Schuster McMillan. Huttunen, I., 1996: Metacognition in the process of development of learner autonomy. In U. Tornberg (ed.), Focus on the Language Learner, pp.77–97. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet Centrum för Didaktik. Little, D., 1999: Developing learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom: a social-interactive view of learning and three fundamental pedagogical principles. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 38, pp.77–88. Little, D., and R. Perclová, 2001: European Language Portfolio: Guide for Teachers and Teacher Trainers. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Little, D., J. Ridley and E. Ushioda, 2002: Towards Greater Autonomy in the Foreign Language Classroom. Report on an Irish research-and-development project 1998–2001. Dublin: Authentik. Marton, F., G. Dell’Aba and E. Beaty, 1993: Conceptions of learning. International Journal of Educational Research 19 (3), pp.277–300. Mori, Y., 1999: Epistemological beliefs and language learning beliefs: what do language learners believe about their learning? Language Learning 49 (3), pp.377–415. Pintrich, P. R., and E. V. deGroot, 1990: Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology 82 (1), pp.33–40. Pintrich, P. R., R. Marx and R. A. Boyle, 1993: Beyond cold conceptual change: the role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research 63 (2), pp.167–199. Quicke, J., 1994: Metacognition, pupil empowerment and the school context. School Psychology International 15 (3), pp.247–259. Ridley, J., 1997a: Learner Autonomy 6: Developing Learners’ Thinking Skills. Dublin: Authentik. Ridley, J., 1997b: Reflection and Strategies in Foreign Language Learning. Frankfurt/ Main: Peter Lang. Ridley, J., 2000: Towards autonomy in university classrooms: the role of learners’ goals. In D. Little, L. Dam and J. Timmer (eds), Focus on Learning Rather Than Teaching: Why and How? pp.126–137. Dublin: Trinity College, Centre for

Jennifer Ridley

89

Language and Communication Studies. Säljö, R., 1979: Learning in the learner’s perspective 1. Some common sense conceptions. Reports from the Department of Education, 76, University of Göteborg. 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, pp.1–63. Hawai‘i: University of Hawai‘i Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center. Schommer, M., 1993: Epistemological development and academic performance among postsecondary students. Journal of Educational Psychology 85, pp.406– 411. Swain, M., 1998: Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty and J. Williams (eds), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition, pp.64–81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ushioda, E., 1996: Learner Autonomy 6: the Role of Motivation. Dublin: Authentik. Ushioda, E., and J. Ridley, 2002: Working with the European Language Portfolio in Irish post-primary schools: report on an evaluation project. Dublin: Trinity College, Centre for Language and Communication Studies (CLCS Occasional Paper No.61) Von Wright, J., 1992: Reflections on reflection. Learning and Instruction 2, pp.59– 68. Wenden, A., 1998: Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics 19 (4), pp.513–537. Whitaker, P., 1995: Managing to Learn. Aspects of Reflective and Experiential Learning in Schools. London: Cassell. Williams, M., and R. Burden, 1999: Students’ developing conceptions of themselves as language learners. The Modern Language Journal 83 (ii), pp.193–201.

Motivation as a socially mediated process Ema Ushioda

Introduction The central argument in this paper is that like learners’ capacity for autonomy, their motivation must be viewed as an intrinsic part of human nature, yet one which needs supportive interpersonal interactions and an optimal learning environment in order to grow in positive ways (McCombs 1994, p.59). The paper argues that although the motivation that underpins autonomy must come “from within” (Deci 1996) and be self-regulated rather than regulated by others, socialinteractive processes play a crucial role in encouraging the growth of motivation from within and its ongoing regulation by the learner. Drawing on current theories of learning, the paper begins by arguing the need for a broader concept of language learning motivation that embraces the interaction between the individual and the social learning setting. Referring to data from the CLCS Learner Autonomy Project (see Little, Ridley and Ushioda 2002), the paper suggests that this expanded focus reflects the reality of classroom processes as experienced by learners themselves, for whom wanting (or not wanting) to learn, or wanting (or not wanting) to speak the target language, is inextricably bound up with their relationships with their teacher and fellowlearners, as well as significant others outside the immediate classroom context. Developing the argument that motivation is a socially mediated phenomenon, the paper outlines the potentially negative social forces that may impede the healthy growth of motivation. These include peer group influences and classroom counter-cultures, as well as external regulatory pressures inherent in the educational system (e.g., curriculum demands, examinations, social comparison and competitive pressures). The paper argues that establishing a positive motivational dynamic among learners in these circumstances can happen only in interaction with the development of their autonomy, and through supportive interpersonal processes that encourage growth and regulation of motivation from within.

Language learning motivation: broadening the unit of analysis Theories of motivation in psychology and second/foreign language education have tended to focus on motivation as an individual phenomenon. This emphasis is in keeping with the positivist tradition of quantitative research in which the study of individual difference variables, including motivation, has largely evolved. In the educational sphere, research interest in motivation is shaped in particular by a concern to identify ways of enhancing student motivation; though it is worth noting that such pedagogically-oriented concerns have only recently come to the fore in research on L2 motivation (see Dörnyei 2001a, pp.103–115, for 90

Ema Ushioda

91

a discussion of the current shift in focus towards “education-friendly” approaches to L2 motivation; and Crookes and Schmidt 1991 for their seminal research critique that put pedagogical concerns firmly on the agenda). The positivist bias in motivation research, however, with its adoption of linear causal models of behaviour, leads to a tendency to view pedagogical interventions in terms of methods or strategies, and to view motivation as the product in a chain of cause and effect. This tendency is reflected in the typical process-product experimental research designs of studies investigating the effectiveness of particular pedagogical “treatments”, and often leading to generalized inventories of teacher strategies for motivating learners (e.g., Dörnyei 2001b; Dörnyei and Csizér 1998). Yet as Erickson (1986, p.133) points out, the global recommendations generated by process-product research (e.g., “ensure student engagement” or “proceed in small steps”) offer practitioners little guidance about precisely how to do what is called for. Moreover, as Stipek (1996, p.105) notes, implementing a single recommendation (e.g., giving students more choice in tasks) might actually undermine positive motivation (e.g., if choice is given in a classroom in which performance outcomes and external evaluation are stressed, students will be motivated to choose easy tasks they know they can perform well). It is argued here that a comprehensive holistic approach is needed that situates the concept of motivation, and its interactions in particular with autonomy, in the dynamic social context of the teaching-learning process, and with reference to an appropriate theory of learning. The need for a broader holistic approach becomes all the more clear when we consider how theories of learning have radically changed from the days of behaviourist stimulus-response and knowledge-transmission theories. As Shuell (1996, p.743) summarizes, current conceptions of learning are shaped by two important claims: (i) that learning is constructive rather than reproductive; (ii) that learning is a social, cultural and interpersonal as well as intrapersonal process. Such claims have significant implications for how we view the motivation to learn. If learning is a process of constructing knowledge, the active contribution of the learner as agent in this process is critical. By implication, the motivation to be actively involved must come from within the learner. This is the essential argument propounded by one of the leading researchers on motivation, Edward Deci, and supported by many years of empirical investigation (Deci 1996). Put simply, the learner must want to learn. Yet according to the second claim above that Shuell notes, current conceptions of learning also emphasize the social-interactive nature of the learning process. Learning is a culturally rooted, socially mediated process that takes place through the interaction between the child (or learner) and more competent others in meaningful activities, and entails the shared construction of meaning and understanding (Vygotsky 1978). As Bruner (1996, p.xi) notes, learning and thinking are made possible only by participating in a particular sociocultural setting. The implication for our view of motivation is that if learning is about “mediated participation” (Lantolf and Pavlenko 2001, p.148), the motivation to

92

Motivation as a socially mediated process

learn is also in this sense socially and culturally mediated. It is not located solely within the individual, but is socially distributed, created within cultural systems of activities involving the mediation of other human beings (Rueda and Moll 1994, pp.131f.). Although the impetus to learn comes from within the learner, it develops as a function of the child’s (or learner’s) engagement in a particular activity with motivated and motivationally supportive others. As Good and Brophy (1997, p.238) emphasize, interest resides in people rather than in topics or activities, and motivation develops as a result of interactions among persons, tasks and the larger environmental context. In short, when considering how to enhance the motivation of the individual learner, it seems clear that we must expand the unit of analysis beyond the individual to embrace the interaction between the individual and the social learning setting.

Motivation from the perspective of teachers and learners This expanded focus, moreover, undoubtedly reflects the reality of classroom motivational processes as experienced by teachers and learners. As McGroarty (2001, p.83) comments, teachers typically talk about classroom motivation as a collective issue – e.g., classes are “motivated” or “unmotivated”. When asked individually to write down the motivating changes they think their teacher has introduced into their French or German lesson, many learners in our Learner Autonomy Project framed their reflections in the first person plural rather than singular. For example: Our teacher keeps us motivated by introducing educational games and keeping us interested. We do more group work, listening and fun work. We have somewhat drifted away from the textbook and more towards activities which make learning easier and more fun.

This observation of how learners tend to frame their personal reflections on classroom processes seems hardly remarkable. In fact, it is the very naturalness of this collectively framed perspective that deserves comment here. The sense of belonging to a social unit, or in Deci’s terms the sense of “social relatedness” (1996), is a crucial factor in shaping individual motivation to learn (Kohonen 2001, p.33; see also the paper by Kohonen in this volume). As one eager young learner in the Learner Autonomy Project, Cian, put it during an interview: I just like learning the language because – if there’s stuff out there that other people are doing you’d want to have to do it yourself – because everyone’s doing it.

As Cian also said, it’s harder to work on your own than working with the class.

Asked to reflect on what “learning” meant for him, another learner, Kevin,

Ema Ushioda

93

similarly emphasized the importance of the collective group in stimulating individual learning: But you have to learn from other people though. Say if I’m sitting at home and all that stuff is getting sent to me from school – I don’t think I’d learn it as well as I’d learn it in school.

As illustrated by these learner comments, the social unit of the classroom is clearly instrumental in developing and supporting the motivation of the individual. By extension, the motivation for language learning may also be mediated by significant social influences outside the classroom context, such as parental encouragement, personal contact with target language speakers, or a family history of learning foreign languages. For example, during the course of a semistructured interview with another learner in the Learner Autonomy Project, Liam, it became clear that his strong motivation for learning German was mediated by a variety of significant social influences. Liam explained that his interest developed because his mother was very good at German, and a long-time friend of hers now married to a German and living in Germany had a daughter with whom Liam wanted to become penfriends. In addition, Liam closely identified with an older cousin as a role-model who had been academically successful despite coming from a disadvantaged background: she came from a rough 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.

At the same time, it is evident from the way he described his classroom experiences that Liam also felt very much inspired and motivated by his German teacher (“the one thing you need is a good teacher […] she is a very good teacher”). Yet it is clear that whatever influences may be present in the social environment, these are not sufficient in themselves to promote individual motivation. As Liam observed quite astutely: ’cos you have to have a good teacher, which I have, and you have to have the urge to learn. You have to. Like I had a goal, and that’s really brought me along very well so. It really kept me up like.

In short, motivation itself needs to come “from within” (Deci 1996). As van Lier puts it (1996, pp.110f.), there is a dynamic interdependence between internal and external factors which coalesce in the individual learner’s motivation – an interdependence that is the natural consequence of a Vygotskyan social-interactive view of learning in which individual and sociocultural forces go hand in hand. The inevitable problems in classroom motivation arise when there is not a happy fusion between internal and external forces but a negative tension, where the latter dominate at the expense of the former. In other words, individual motivation becomes controlled, suppressed or distorted by external forces. As argued below, this may happen through negative influences in the classroom social dynamic, or through regulating forces in the educational system.

94


Motivation as a socially-mediated process: the negative side of the coin Without doubt, the classroom social dynamic can have negative repercussions for individual motivation. Collective motivation can all too easily become collective demotivation, boredom, or at the far end of the spectrum, collective disaffection or rebellion, often in the form of classroom counter-cultures defined by rejection of educational aims and values. Even within a classroom with a positive social dynamic, motivation for certain types of tasks and activities may be negatively influenced by adolescent peer group culture (McCaslin and Good 1996, p.658). This seems especially true in language classrooms, where learners are likely to feel anxious or embarrassed about sounding silly or making mistakes when called upon to speak in the target language in front of their peers. As self-report evidence from the Learner Autonomy Project attests, even well-motivated learners may be reluctant to talk in the target language in class when the majority classroom culture dictates otherwise, for fear of being singled out as a “nerd” (Ushioda 2000). As one learner in the Learner Autonomy Project acknowledged: Even at the “responsible” level I seem pressured (slightly) by my classmates, so it is harder to speak French casually than when instructed.

More generally with respect to learners of this age group, the negative motivational impact of the social learning environment is evidenced most strongly in a developmental decline in intrinsic learning motivation (Harter 1992). Children submit to the formal demands of the competitive school culture and lose the natural sense of curiosity and desire for personal mastery that fuelled their learning in earlier years, as their self-perceptions grow to depend more and more on social comparisons, normative standards and external evaluation. As children progress through the school years, there is an increasing tendency for them to apply learning effort not because they want to (in the sense of “motivation from within”), but because they are submitting to the dictates of teachers, parents, curricula, competitive peer pressures and other social forces. Their motivation is thus externally regulated, or regulated by what Deci calls “introjects” – i.e., internalizations in the form of “shoulds” and “oughts” rather than genuine personal desires (1996, p.94; see also Ryan et al. 1992). The role played by the social learning environment in the evolution of individual motivation is thus highly complex and potentially fraught with difficulty. On the one hand, the child needs a stimulating and supportive social environment for learning motivation to be nurtured and sustained. On the other hand, various pressures and controls in the social learning setting run the risk of inhibiting the growth of the child’s motivation from within. What can be done to minimize the risks and maximally support the healthy internal development and self-regulation of motivation?

Ema Ushioda

95

Autonomy, motivation and the classroom group McCaslin and Good (1996, p.658) draw attention to the “complex lived experience of classrooms”, in the sense that learners must try (often with limited success) to coordinate multiple goals and motivations pertaining to personal needs and wishes, teacher or curricular expectations and demands, and important social relations with peers. As Lantolf and Pavlenko (2001, p.146) emphasize, learners are not simply “learners” in an abstract collective sense but people with complex individual histories and a variety of sometimes conflicting goals and motives. If the social learning environment is to support rather than inhibit the healthy growth of individual motivation, it is clear that there must be a close alignment between pedagogical goals and values, individual needs and interests, and peer-related interpersonal goals. It is argued here that such an alignment can be achieved only through processes of direct consultation between teacher and learners in relation to the goals and principles that govern the life of the classroom. Learners must be brought to address the issue of motivation and to negotiate a framework for classroom learning that they can collectively and individually endorse. In short, there must be scope for autonomy. Reviewing classroom-based research evidence, Ryan et al. (1992) suggest that children’s readiness to internalize curricular goals and values will depend to a large extent on the degree to which the social learning environment supports their sense of autonomy and self-determination, and involves them in decisions about the learning process. This close interaction between autonomy and motivation is well illustrated by Leni Dam, who explains how her interest in autonomy as a pedagogical goal was triggered by problems encountered with poor classroom motivation and a “tired-of-school attitude” among adolescents (Dam 1995, p.2): 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 and learning materials. I soon realized that giving learners a share of responsibility for planning and conducting teaching-learning activities caused them to be actively involved and led to better learning. As Dam’s account makes plain, the socially distributed nature of classroom motivation may be a potential source of problems, yet it is also a powerful keystone in harnessing individual motivation to learn. Peer group pressure can be turned into a virtue rather than a vice if learners themselves are involved in constructing and thereby endorsing the collective framework in which they (teacher and learners) will operate. Thus a central feature of pedagogies that seek to promote autonomy is the establishment of a classroom “charter” of some kind, setting out agreed codes of conduct, goals and responsibilities for the whole class, or agreed plans of action for working groups in relation to specific projects or activities (for illustrated discussion, see Dam 1995, 2000 and Thomsen 2000; see also the paper by Thomsen in this volume). Involving learners in collectively negotiating rules and goals in this way capitalizes on (i) the need for

96


self-determination and autonomy that underpins intrinsic motivation; and (ii) social processes in the mediation of individual motivation. Class behaviour is owned by the whole group, of which the teacher is just one member (Kohonen 1992, p.31), and learners are much more likely to accept ground rules which they themselves have had a hand in establishing. Such collective commitment and responsibility help to ensure that potential troublemakers who fail to comply will find themselves subjected to the wrath of their peers. As Dörnyei and Malderez comment (1999, p.161), we should not underestimate the power of the peer group in disciplining the individual. Motivation becomes a collective resource, providing the necessary social support, structure and “co-regulation” (McCaslin and Good 1996, p.660) for individual learning motivation.

Mediating the growth of individual motivation It has been argued so far that establishing a positive motivational dynamic in the classroom entails taking a collective perspective on motivation as a significant distributed resource; and that this resource can be harnessed by engaging learners in processes of negotiation that support their sense of autonomy and social relatedness. But having emphasized the motivational importance of the classroom as a social unit, we must now turn our attention to the pivotal role of the teacher in mediating the growth and self-regulation of individual motivation. In their innovative process model of L2 motivation, Dörnyei and Ottó (1998) draw attention to the difference between the “pre-actional phase” (the forming of wishes, motives and goals), and the “actional phase” (executing the necessary actions and self-regulatory strategies to accomplish these). As they quite realistically point out (p.45), in formal educational settings, the goals are more often than not imposed on rather than formed by learners. For this reason, they suggest that how much school learners persist at learning may largely be a function of motivational influences and self-regulatory processes that operate during the actional phase. This state of affairs contrasts sharply with developmental and experiential learning, where learning is driven by personal goals, needs and interests, and these are directly supported and nurtured by the immediate social environment. If learners’ engagement in formal learning is to approach this level of personal involvement and intrinsic motivation, it is clear that they must develop, or be encouraged to develop, their own reasons for learning, their own agenda, and their own goals (Little 1999, p.83). From the teacher’s perspective, “motivation” is a question not of finding strategies and incentives to get learners to do what she wants, but of providing the right kinds of interpersonal support and stimulation so that learners will discover things they want to do for themselves. For inexperienced language learners, this will mean giving plenty of opportunity to engage with new and different activities and materials, since it is only on the basis of such interaction that learners will develop personal interests and preferences. Thus the negotiated framework that teacher and learners construct must allow space for the teacher to introduce new activities or materials for the purpose of raising awareness and broadening the scope of her learners’ experi-

Ema Ushioda

97

ence (see Dam 2000 for detailed discussion on this point, and an illustrative lesson plan incorporating teacher-initiated as well as learner-initiated activities; see also the paper by Dam in this volume). Equally importantly, engaging learners in collective and individual evaluation of the activities and materials (their purpose, learning value, scope, difficulty level) will develop their capacity to make informed choices and decisions (the paper by Thomsen in this volume offers a detailed illustration of this process). Above all, where learning a new language is concerned, mediating the growth of motivation “from within” entails bringing learners to relate the development of language skills to their own personal lives and interests outside the classroom, and to express their own meanings in the language they are learning (Ushioda 1996). Otherwise, it seems unlikely that they will want to invest in the pursuit of competence in this domain, since the language will always remain to them somebody else’s (the teacher’s, the textbook’s, the target language speaker’s), rather than an integral developing part of their own behavioural repertoire. In this respect, promoting a desire for competence is a crucial factor in the social mediation of individual motivation. The desire for personal competence and mastery is a defining characteristic of motivation that is internally driven (White 1959), as reflected in developmental and experiential learning, as well as the pursuit of favourite activities that are often difficult, challenging yet deeply satisfying and intrinsically motivating to the individual concerned, such as playing a musical instrument, doing cryptic crossword puzzles, or climbing a mountain. It is the personal satisfaction deriving from perceived competence that helps to perpetuate such motivation (Csikszentmihalyi 1978). A significant implication is that learning that is intrinsically motivated must entail the exercise of the competence and skills in question, in order to promote perceptions of growth in mastery and skill development. As Deci puts it, intrinsically motivated learning means “developing one’s potential as one experiences it” (1978, p.198). This motivational argument places a premium on engaging language learners in purposeful target language use in the classroom, in addition to the unquestionable cognitive arguments for such pedagogical practice (see, for example, Little 1999). The pursuit of competence that underpins intrinsic motivation is shaped by a cyclical process of setting and working towards “optimal challenges” that require the individual to stretch relevant abilities by a small but significant amount each time (Deci and Ryan 1980, p.42). Research evidence suggests that learning how to set optimal challenges, working to achieve them, and experiencing growth in competence and skill development can help to cultivate intrinsic interest and motivation (Bandura and Schunk 1981; for illustrative classroom evidence, see also the paper by Thomsen in this volume). Furthermore, there is considerable empirical evidence that engaging learners in setting personal learning goals has an instrumental role to play in promoting not only the internal growth of motivation but also its self-regulation (Pintrich 2000; Zimmerman and Risemberg 1997). This may be because setting short-term goals promotes and authenticates a sense of personal agency as well as perceptions of competence (Bandura and Schunk 1981, p.587).

98


Conclusion: towards motivational self-regulation According to McCombs (1994), our capacity for motivational self-regulation is a function of the degree to which we are aware of ourselves as agents in the construction of the thoughts, beliefs, goals and expectations that shape our motivation. As she argues, without an understanding of our role as agents in formulating goals, self-perceptions and motivation, the stage cannot be set for the emergence of self-regulatory processes (p.53) – that is, recognition of our potential to have control over what we think, and thus control over our motivation. Motivational self-regulation comes about through this higher-order metacognitive self who steps outside the boundaries of thoughts or beliefs and exercises control at a higher level of awareness, perspective taking, and choosing to redirect thinking processes in healthier ways. (McCombs 1994, p.57) Failure to recognize the self as agent in controlling thought and thus motivation can lead individuals to become trapped in negative patterns of thinking and self-perceptions which debilitate their motivation. This latter phenomenon is well-documented in the field of education. It is reflected in particular in the behavioural pattern of “learned helplessness” characteristic of learners for whom the experience of repeated failure or poor performance leads to self-perceptions of low ability and the belief that renewed effort is simply pointless (Diener and Dweck 1978). Central to this maladaptive motivational pattern is belief in a concept of ability or intelligence as a fixed entity which some individuals have in greater measure than others (Dweck 1999, pp.22–38). Performing poorly compared to other learners induces low self-perceptions of ability and low motivation. Learning itself comes to be viewed in competitive terms where doing well means demonstrating ability and outperforming others, rather than gaining knowledge and mastering new skills and concepts (Ames 1992). For learners who find themselves at the bottom of the class, a teacher’s encouragement to “try hard” may be interpreted negatively, since the need for high effort to compete with fellow-learners carries the damaging implication of low ability (Covington and Omelich 1979). Faced with a performance task, such learners may engage in self-handicapping strategies (e.g., deliberately avoid putting in effort, refrain from studying for a test until the last minute) in order to preclude judgements about their ability and so protect their self-image and sense of self-worth (Covington 1992). How can learners be helped to “step outside” these maladaptive motivational belief systems and engage in constructive and effective thinking to regulate their motivation? Two related points deserve attention here, and together they provide a concluding synthesis of the principal arguments in this paper: 1. learners must be brought to view their motivation as emanating from within themselves, and thus to view themselves as agents of their own motivation and their own learning; 2. the development of learners’ capacity to regulate their own motivation needs to be mediated through processes of social-interactive support and co-regulation.

Ema Ushioda

99

The first of these points underlines the significant interaction between motivation and autonomy which this paper has emphasized. Only under conditions which provide autonomy, allow room for negotiation, and make the learning process challenging and personally meaningful, can learners be brought to endorse educational principles and values, to view their motivation as emanating from within themselves, and to view themselves as agents in its regulation. Yet while developing learners’ capacity to become self-regulating agents of their own motivation is the ultimate goal, its gradual achievement will depend crucially on processes of social mediation and interactive support. This is the argument encapsulated in the second of the two points above. Earlier discussion has highlighted the role of social mediation in the growth of individual motivation. As McCombs (1994) argues, social-interactive processes have a similarly pivotal role to play in mediating its ongoing internal regulation. By providing positive interpersonal support and appropriately structured feedback, the teacher can scaffold learners’ attempts to reflect constructively on their learning experience and to redirect their thinking processes in healthier ways (ibid., p.53). The task of the teacher here is not so much to tell learners what she thinks, but to lead them to reflect on and evaluate their own achievements and learning experience in a constructive manner (Ushioda 1996, p.57). For example, faced with disappointment or frustration at their own unsatisfactory performance in a task, learners might be prompted to analyse the problems experienced and their underlying causes (e.g., inadequate preparation or practice, use of inappropriate strategies, insufficient task analysis), and to identify positive steps they can take to address these areas. This interactive approach not only supports the learners’ sense of autonomy by ensuring that events are viewed from their own perspective (Deci 1996, p.72). It also mediates the processes of internalization through which learners grow to reflect on, and thus self-regulate, their own motivation. This gradual shift from “co-regulation” (McCaslin and Good 1996) to selfregulation extends to the motivational domain of learning activity the basic Vygotskyan principle that higher-order cognitive functions are internalized from social interaction with more competent others (Vygotsky 1978, pp.52–7). The higher-order cognitive functions in question here relate to the higher-order metacognitive self who steps outside the boundaries of thoughts and beliefs and redirects thinking processes in ways that help to regulate motivation (McCombs 1994, p.57). As Bruner comments, once learners are brought to realize that they act not directly “on the world” but on beliefs they hold about the world, they can begin to “think about their thinking” and so take control of their learning (Bruner 1996, p.49). The central message of this paper has been that, like learners’ capacity for autonomy, their motivation must be viewed as an intrinsic part of human nature, yet one which needs supportive interpersonal interactions and an optimal learning environment in order to grow in positive ways (McCombs 1994, p.59). Although learners must “do the wanting”, they need to be brought to understand what it is good to want and why. This is achieved not by progressive attempts to regulate their behaviour from outside, but by supportive inter-

100


personal processes which foster the development of autonomy and the growth and regulation of motivation from inside.

References Ames, C., 1992: Classrooms: goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84 (3), pp.261–71. Bandura, A., and D. Schunk, 1981: Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, pp.586–98. Bruner, J. 1996: The Culture of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Covington, M. V., 1992: Making the Grade: A Self-Worth Perspective on Motivation and School Reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Covington, M. V., and C. L. Omelich, 1979: Effort: the double-edged sword in school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, pp.169–82. Crookes, G., and R. Schmidt, 1991: Motivation: re-opening the research agenda. Language Learning, 41, pp.469–512. Csikszentmihalyi, M., 1978: Intrinsic rewards and emergent motivation. In M. Lepper and D. Greene (eds), The Hidden Costs of Reward: New Perspectives on the Psychology of Human Motivation, pp.205–216. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Dam, L., 1995: Learner Autonomy 3: From Theory to Classroom Practice. Dublin: Authentik. Dam, L., 2000: Why focus on learning rather than teaching? From theory to practice. In D. Little, L. Dam and J. Timmer (eds), Focus on Learning Rather Than Teaching: Why and How?, pp.18–37. Dublin: Trinity College, Centre for Language and Communication Studies. Deci, E. L., 1978: Applications of research on the effects of rewards. In M. Lepper and D. Greene (eds), The Hidden Costs of Reward: New Perspectives on the Psychology of Human Motivation, pp.193–203. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Deci, E. L. (with R. Flaste), 1996: Why We Do What We Do: Understanding SelfMotivation. New York: Penguin. Deci, E. L., and R. M. Ryan, 1980: The empirical exploration of intrinsic motivational processes. In L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 13, pp.39–80. New York: Academic Press. Diener, C. I., and C. S. Dweck, 1978: An analysis of learned helplessness: continuous changes in performance, strategy and achievement cognitions following failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, pp.451–62. Dörnyei, Z., 2001a: Teaching and Researching Motivation. Harlow: Longman. Dörnyei, Z., 2001b: Motivational Strategies in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dörnyei, Z., and K. Csizér, 1998: Ten commandments for motivating language learners: results of an empirical study. Language Teaching Research 2 (3), pp.203– 29. Dörnyei, Z., and A. Malderez, 1999: The role of group dynamics in foreign language learning and teaching. In J. Arnold (ed.), Affect in Language Learning,

Ema Ushioda

101

pp.155–69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dörnyei, Z., and I. Ottó, 1998: Motivation in action: a process model of L2 motivation: Working Papers in Applied Linguistics (Thames Valley University), 4, pp.43–69. Dweck, C. S., 1999: Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press. Erickson, F., 1986: Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd edition), pp.119–61. New York: Macmillan. Good, T. L., and J. E. Brophy, 1997: Looking in Classrooms. New York: Longman. Harter, S., 1992: The relationship between perceived competence, affect, and motivational orientation within the classroom: processes and patterns of change. In A. Boggiano and T. S. Pittman (eds), Achievement and Motivation: A Social-Developmental Perspective, pp.77–114. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kohonen, V., 1992: Experiential language learning: second language learning as cooperative learner education. In D. Nunan (ed.), Collaborative Language Learning and Teaching, pp.14–39. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kohonen, V., 2001: Towards experiential foreign language education. In V. Kohonen, R. Jaatinen, P. Kaikkonen and J. Lehtovaara, Experiential Learning in Foreign Language Education, pp.8–60. Harlow: Longman. Lantolf, J. A., and A. Pavlenko, 2001: (S)econd (L)anguage (A)ctivity theory: understanding second language learners as people. In M. P. Breen (ed.), Learner Contributions to Language Learning, pp.141–58. Harlow: Longman. Little, D., 1999: Developing learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom: a social-interactive view of learning and three fundamental pedagogical principles. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 38, pp.77–88. Little, D., J. Ridley and E. Ushioda, 2002: Towards Greater Learner Autonomy in the Foreign Language Classroom. Report on an Irish research-and-development project 1998–2001. Dublin: Authentik. McCaslin, M., and T. L. Good, 1996: The informal curriculum. In D. C. Berliner and R. C. Calfee (eds), Handbook of Educational Psychology, pp.622–70. New York: Prentice Hall. McCombs, B., 1994: Strategies for assessing and enhancing motivation: keys to promoting self-regulated learning and performance. In H. F. O’Neil, Jr. and M. Drillings (eds), Motivation: Theory and Research, pp.49–69. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. McGroarty, M., 2001: Situating second language motivation. In Z. Dörnyei and R. Schmidt (eds), Motivation and Second Language Acquisition, pp.69–91. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press. Pintrich, P. R., 2000: The role of goal-orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich and M. Zeidner (eds), Handbook of Self-Regulation, pp.451–502. San Diego: Academic Press. Rueda, R., and L. C. Moll, 1994: A sociocultural perspective on motivation. In H. F. O’Neil, Jr. and M. Drillings (eds), Motivation: Theory and Research, pp.117–

102


37. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ryan, R. M., J. P. Connell and W. S. Grolnick, 1992: When achievement is not intrinsically motivated: a theory of internalization and self-regulation in school. In A. Boggiano and T. S. Pittman (eds), Achievement and Motivation: A SocialDevelopmental Perspective, pp.167–88. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shuell, T. J., 1996: Teaching and learning in a classroom context. In D. C. Berliner and R. C. Calfee (eds), Handbook of Educational Psychology, pp.726–64. New York: Macmillan. Stipek, D., 1996: Motivation and instruction. In D. C. Berliner and R. C. Calfee (eds), Handbook of Educational Psychology, pp.85–113. New York: Macmillan. Thomsen, H., 2000: Learners’ favoured activities in the autonomous classroom. In D. Little, L. Dam and J. Timmer (eds), Focus on Learning Rather Than Teaching: Why and How?, pp.71–86. Dublin: Trinity College, Centre for Language and Communication Studies. Ushioda, E., 1996: Learner Autonomy 5: The Role of Motivation. Dublin: Authentik. Ushioda, E., 2000: Exploring learners’ inhibitions about speaking the L2. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Language and Social Psychology, Cardiff, 30 June – 5 July. van Lier, L., 1996: Interaction in the Language Curriculum: Awareness, Autonomy and Authenticity. London: Longman. Vygotsky, L., 1978: Mind in Society. The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA, and London: Harvard University Press. White, R., 1959: Motivation reconsidered: the concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, pp.297–333. Zimmerman, B. J., and R. Risemberg, 1997: Self-regulatory dimensions of academic learning and motivation. In G. Phye (ed.), Handbook of Academic Learning: Construction of Knowledge, pp.105–25. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Part III : Providing for teachers’ professional growth

Introduction to part III Jennifer Ridley

The four papers in this part of the book are concerned with various aspects of teachers’ development, on the basis either of formal training or of individual reflection and self-evaluation. Seán Devitt’s paper addresses the relevance of second language acquisition research to language teachers. His central argument is that teachers must understand theoretical concepts associated with both informal language acquisition and the processes that underlie language learning in formal contexts. He also argues, however, that some theoretical positions on how languages are learnt are more relevant – and indeed more plausible – than others, especially in learning environments that set out to promote learner autonomy. His paper begins by taking the reader through a set of key findings on the development of the means for expressing temporality in English, then shows how different theories of second language acquisition explain these findings. These theories include Krashen’s Input hypothesis, Long’s Interaction hypothesis, hypotheses associated with lexical semantics and discourse, connectionism and – of particular significance for teachers – the Processibility and Teachability hypotheses developed by Pienemann. In outlining these various positions, Devitt first illustrates the widely varying interpretations of language acquisition data and then considers the applicability of these theories to language teaching. His final argument is that teachers – and also learners – should be aware of certain developmental stages in language acquisition and that they should realize that language learning is a slow, complex process. Devitt recommends that teachers and learners should support their learning by using the European Language Portfolio. This point is also taken up by Irma Huttunen and Viljo Kohonen. Irma Huttunen’s paper also concerns the knowledge and skills that teachers need in order to understand and successfully implement a foreign language curriculum. Her central message is a recurring theme of the book: learner autonomy depends on teacher autonomy, in particular on teachers’ ability to reflect on what they do. Huttunen describes this process as “teachers planning learning”. She begins by noting that such an approach to the teacher’s role implies a paradigm shift, to the extent that we need to reflect on teaching in the light of learning, which is by definition a lifelong experience (cf. Kohonen’s paper). Huttunen elaborates her argument with reference to three theoretical perspectives on learning and reflection, namely those of Kolb, Schön and Habermas. Essentially, reflection is characterized as having different levels, or components, that feed into and off each other in a reciprocal, dynamic manner. Huttunen then outlines Habermas’s theory of “knowledge constitutive interests” and its relevance to teaching, explaining how the theory is articulated in terms of “targets of reflection” – “mechanical”, “pragmatic” and “emancipatory”. The last of these categories is most beneficial for teachers (and by exten105

106

Introduction to part II

sion, learners; cf Ridley’s paper in part II). Huttunen then gives an account of Grundy’s theory of curriculum planning, which was developed on the basis of Habermas’s theory. She concludes her paper by offering her own proposal for curriculum planning and implementation, which she terms “a proposal for teacher reflection in the process of planning learning”. This provides a framework for the more detailed classroom teaching–learning processes that Leni Dam explores in the paper that follows. Dam begins her paper by summarizing its purpose: to argue that it is largely the teacher’s responsibility to develop learner autonomy; to highlight what this entails; to help teachers to create a more learning-centred environment; to discuss why some teachers succeed and others fail; and to propose a set of criteria for them to follow. This paper is rooted both in Dam’s experience of devising and implementing programmes of teacher development and in the research project described in Legenhausen’s paper (part II). Having re-examined various definitions of learner autonomy, Dam proceeds to put shape on the various issues that her fourfold aim implies. She describes how teachers’ pedagogical approaches should be guided by what she terms “a learner’s four steps towards learner responsibility”; for her as for Huttunen, teaching and learning exist in a reciprocal relationship. Dam then describes a possible plan for a teaching period and summarizes feedback from teachers with whom she has tried out similar teaching scenarios. Throughout the paper, Leni Dam’s assumption is that learning how to teach effectively is a complex business beset by problems, some of which she identifies and suggests solutions for. However, like Huttunen she stresses the benefits for teachers of continuous, ongoing self-evaluation. Viljo Kohonen takes this argument a stage further, proposing that key principles of language teacher education (for example, introspection backed up by support from other teachers) should be extended to the whole school. In other words, he advocates a “collegial school culture” in which teachers are not afraid to share problems as well as successes. This type of culture, Kohonen argues, is essential for a teacher’s professional and personal development. In terms similar to those used by Irma Huttunen, Kohonen argues for a “critical-emancipatory” paradigm. He supports his argument that there is a close relationship between teachers’ professional and personal development by drawing on extracts from research that focussed on teachers’ self-evaluation reports. Interestingly, the teachers in question were involved in portfolio-based language learning, and Kohonen’s account of their experiences gives further insight into how teachers cope with learning environments that are largely shaped around what their learners experience and the ways in which they themselves cope. A central element in Kohonen’s discussion is a summary of what he terms a “holistic framework for experiential foreign language education”. In keeping with his initial argument, he stresses the role that teachers’ personal beliefs and assumptions play in shaping their teaching.

Teacher development in the light of second language acquisition research Seán Devitt

Introduction This paper explores a number of issues related to how second language acquisition (SLA) research might have a role to play in teacher development, with particular reference to teaching in an environment that promotes learner autonomy. It begins by presenting one set of key findings of SLA research for one language, namely the development of the means for expressing temporality in English. It goes on to examine how different theories of second language learning/acquisition explain these findings. Some of these theories have, in turn, led to recommendations for pedagogical practice. These will be discussed briefly. It is at this point that the link between SLA research and teacher development becomes pertinent. While I shall agree with Hatch (1979) and Lightbown (2000) that caution needs to be used in applying the findings of SLA research to language classrooms, I shall also argue that teachers need to be made aware of such findings and their implications and should be encouraged to examine them critically, as is recommended in the Council of Europe’s Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe 2001). This critical awareness of the findings of SLA research is important for learners too if they are going to be in a position to take control of their learning and to assess their own progress. The paper will conclude with some recommendations that concern the relevance of SLA research to teaching and learning in classroom contexts.

The acquisition of the means for expressing temporality in English There are a number of ways in which one could begin a discussion of the acquisition of the means for expressing temporality in English. If we started with the forms, for example, we could examine the order of appearance of the different forms of the English verb system that are used to express temporality. We could focus either on the order in which the different forms reach accuracy, or on the emergence and growth in the use of the different forms over time. In order to get a complete picture of the acquisition process, it would be necessary to consider not only declarative utterances, but also negative, interrogative, and emphatic utterances as well, since these involve the use of the auxiliary do. Or if we started with the function, we could examine the different means learners use in trying to express temporality, not only means that are found within the verb system, but others like the use of adverbs, or the sequencing of utterances in a particular manner. 107

108

Teacher development in the light of SLA research

Forms used by learners of English as an L2 to express temporality In the early 1970s, Dulay and Burt (1973, 1974a, 1974b) carried out a series of studies to examine in what order certain grammatical elements in English – including the various elements of the English verb system – were acquired by Spanish and Chinese children in an English-speaking host environment. The findings of their studies, which were replicated for adults by Krashen and his colleagues (Bailey, Madden and Krashen 1974, Krashen et al. 1976, Krashen et al. 1977) , were eventually expressed as follows: there are clusters of functors which show similar accuracy levels depending on the stage of development of the learner. These can be ordered in an implicational scale. The clusters and their order (presented here only insofar as they relate to the verb system) are shown below in figure 1. –ing (for present progressive) copula

(2

nd

auxiliary com ponent of present progressive)

past irregular

regular past –ed 3 rd person singular --s

Figure 1 Natural order for verb-related morphemes in English (based on Bailey, Madden and Krashen 1974, Krashen et al. 1977, Larsen-Freeman 1975)

These findings were replicated by very many researchers, though the methodology was often criticized. Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991, p.92), after pointing out that over fifty morpheme studies had by then been reported, conclude: “In sum, despite admitted limitations in some areas, the morpheme studies provide strong evidence that ILs [interlanguages] exhibit common accuracy/ acquisition orders.” During the same period, a number of studies of the English negative and interrogative system were undertaken. The first of these (Cancino, Rosansky and Schumann 1978; Cazden et al. 1975) were longitudinal studies of a small number of children, adolescents, and adults from Latin America learning English in the US. Wode, in a longitudinal study of his own German-speaking children learning English in the US (cf. Wode 1976, 1981), also examined the acquisition of the negative and interrogative systems. The findings from these studies can be summarized as follows. For the negative, in the first stage, the major tendency was to put no/not before or after the verb. The second stage was characterized by the appearance of don’t as an unanalysed form, as an alternative to no/not. In the third stage, modal and auxiliary verbs began to be negated cor-

Seán Devitt

109

rectly; the negative element not came after them. In the fourth stage, the auxiliary do began to carry appropriate tense and person markings. Finally, the indefinites some and any began to be used appropriately. In the case of the interrogative, in the first two stages questions were asked without inversion; when inversion appeared in stage three, it was found only with modals and auxiliaries. In stage four, inversion was generalized to include the auxiliary do. Finally, direct and indirect questions were differentiated, with inversion being confined to direct questions. In a study of two groups of learners, Spanish and Japanese adults, Stauble (1984) combined the development of the negative with the acquisition of verb morphology. Her findings for the negative matched those of Cancino et al. and Wode. She found that at stage two of the negative continuum, the only development for morphology was in the copula. The other morphological elements appeared at various points along the continuum, in the order that Dulay, Burt, and Krashen found, but only after much of the development of the negative and interrogative had taken place. Pienemann (1989, 1998), using his own set of data for children and adults but working from a totally different theoretical perspective, found the same general features of development. How temporality is expressed by learners of English as an L2 In the studies in which the above developmental sequences were found, the starting point was the verb forms used by learners to express temporality. In the European Science Foundation project on adult language acquisition (Perdue 1984), the researchers began with an investigation of what was being expressed, and examined all the different ways in which their subjects (adult immigrants in various countries) expressed it. Dietrich, Klein and Noyau (1995, pp.262ff.) found that for temporality, the acquisitional process can be divided into three major steps, which can be characterized by the type of utterance organization involved. Stage A, described as involving nominal utterance organization (NUO), is characterized by the use of lexical items, bare nouns mainly, with no clear sign of grammatical organization. Temporality (mainly localizing an event in time) is expressed by some lexical items (e.g., calendaric adverbs or even expressions of location) or by discourse strategies (e.g., sequencing events in the order in which they occurred). Stage B is described as having non-finite (or infinitive) verb utterance organization (IUO). Utterances typically consist of uninflected verbs, their arguments, and optionally, adverbials. There is a steadily increasing repertoire of adverbials. The system for expressing temporality “is very simple, but extremely versatile” (p.269). Stage C is described as involving finite verb utterance organization (FUO). According to Dietrich, Klein and Noyau, initially there is co-existence of various morphological forms without appropriate functions (e.g., the use of Vroot and V-ing in English to express a range of grammatical functions). Further development is slow, gradual and continuous: There are no distinct and sharp developmental steps. This applies, on the one hand, to vocabulary increase, in particular to an increase of temporal

110

Teacher development in the light of SLA research adverbials, which strengthens the learners’ communicative power. It also characterizes the way in which full control of the appropriate functional use of forms is achieved. (p.270)

They found that tense marking precedes aspect marking, and that irregular morphology precedes regular morphology. They did not have sufficient evidence to suggest patterns of development in stage C, since the number of subjects who reached this stage was very small. However, the data they present are generally in line with what has been described by other researchers. Figure 2 synthesizes the findings for the different studies in this area. These can be considered as substantive for the development of the means for expressing temporality in English. Form-focused studies Interrogative

Negative

Function-focused studies Morphology Stage A: NUO (Nominal utterance structure) No, or few, verbs

Stage 1 Questions are asked without inversion

No/not before or after the verb No/not before the verb

Wh-questions appear No inversion

Unanalysed don’t

Stage B: IUO (Infinitive utterance structure) V-root and V-ing function as general verb forms, not distinguished. Copula “is” develops towards end of stage

Verbs used, but no systematic markings; temporality is expressed lexically, and through the structuring of discourse

Stage 2

Stage 3 Inversion with the modal verb can, and the copula (Pienemann puts unmarked do here)

Modals and auxiliaries are negated (not comes after them)

Inversion is generalized to auxiliary do. It is overgeneralized to indirect questions.

Analysed don’t (do carries tense and person markers)

Direct and indirect questions are differentiated, inversion confined to direct questions

The indefinites some / any are used appropriately

Stage C: FUO (Finite verb utterance structure) V-ing established for Progressive; Past irregular has appeared

Temporality begins to be expressed by morphological means. Different word orders appear (e.g. inversion)

Stage 4 Auxiliary established (Past irregular 50+% Past regular –ed rare 3rd person –s rare*) *(Pienemann puts 3rd person here)

Stage 5 Past irregular established Past regular established High proportion of use of 3rd person –s

Figure 2 A synthesis of the path of acquisition of the means for expressing temporality, incorporating Stauble 1984, Pienemann 1998, Dietrich, Klein and Noyau 1995

Seán Devitt

111

Overview of (some) theories with reference to these findings We now come to the question of why the findings are as they are. There are various theoretical positions on this issue. I shall discuss a number of them in an outline manner to give a sense of the range and complexity of what has been proposed as an explanation for the kind of data on grammatical development that was presented above. (For fuller treatments of second language acquisition theories, see Larsen-Freeman and Long 1991, Towell and Hawkins 1994, Mitchell and Myles 1998.) The Input hypothesis Krashen has built a complex theory on the basis of the findings from the morpheme-acquisition studies discussed above. It consists of a series of interrelated hypotheses, the best known of which is the Input hypothesis. Krashen (1994, p.46) claims that input alone (provided it is comprehensible) is a necessary and sufficient condition for language to be acquired, provided that there is no affective filter blocking it. Thus, the learner will proceed through the stages of development within the verbal system simply by being exposed to comprehensible data that contain features just beyond the stage that he or she is at. For Krashen and his colleagues, therefore, the learner will acquire the 3rd Person singular –s from meaningful input, but only when he or she has acquired the Past Irregular and Past Regular. Support for the strong form of Krashen’s theoretical position is very limited; critiques of his theories are more numerous (see, for example, McLaughlin 1987, Gregg 1984, 1986, White 1987). Input and Interaction hypothesis Long and his colleagues argue that input is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for language acquisition. They argue that interaction is another necessary condition. Interaction causes certain features of the language to be highlighted, and these features then become available for input (see, for example, Long 1981, 1983a, 1983b, Long and Robinson 1998). This is particularly the case when there is a breakdown in communication and there is negotiation about the element that is causing the breakdown. Gass and Varonis (1985) and Varonis and Gass (1985), for example, claim that the specific discourse structure of negotiations allows the non-native speaker the opportunity to become actively engaged with the linguistic input in such a way that this input becomes more “charged” and “penetrates” deeply. The learner, according to the input and interaction theorists, will acquire the 3rd Person singular –s when he or she is at the appropriate level and when negotiation has taken place which includes this form. Long also claims that modification of interactional structure, rather than modified grammar, is “a better candidate for a necessary (not sufficient) condition for acquisition” (Larsen-Freeman and Long 1991, p.144). Those who hold this theoretical position stress the tentative nature of any conclusions that might be drawn from their findings. Gass and Mähle (1988, p.204), for example, suggest that negotiation and interactional and linguistic modifications merely “serve to increase the possibility of a greater amount of

112


data becoming available for further use”, but that there is no guarantee that this data will be processed. Pica (1994, p.518) points out also that there is rarely negotiation about such linguistic features as tense or syntax: “negotiation seems to work most readily on lexical items and larger syntactic units”. Finally, Braidi (1995) stresses that much greater precision in the analysis of the grammatical features of the input is required in order to see whether interaction and negotiation actually do promote the development of morphological and syntactic features. Universal Grammar theories Those who take a Universal Grammar (UG) perspective have not generally shown a great interest in the order-of-acquisition studies discussed above. It seems it was felt that these studies lacked any theoretical framework that would allow generalizations to be drawn from them. However, Zobl and Liceras (1994) “re-instated” the morpheme acquisition studies. They examined the elements of the acquisition orders from a UG perspective, comparing the findings for L2 learners with those for L1 learners for the same items of language. They interpreted the findings as indicating that L2 learners show an early awareness of the functional category of INFL (inflection) because of their first language, but find the parameter of affix movement in English difficult because it is marked: it involves affix lowering for main verbs. Thus they acquire the Auxiliary early in comparison to children learning their L1, but have difficulty in acquiring both the 3rd person singular –s, and the Past Regular for main verbs. This interpretation may also explain why the affixes appear earlier on auxiliaries and modals than on main verbs, since the modals are already in the INFL position. The lexical semantics and discourse hypotheses Yet another perspective on SLA findings is to be found in the work of Andersen and his colleagues (see, for example, Andersen 1991, Andersen and Shirai 1994). They have drawn on the semantics of events – the “Vendler–Mourelatos hierarchy” (Vendler 1967, Mourelatos 1981) – and on Bybee’s (1985) Relevance Principle, governing inflections in language in general, to interpret certain features of the acquisition of tense. Citing evidence from English, Spanish and French acquisition studies, Andersen and colleagues claim that verbs whose inherent lexical aspect is telic (those with a clear end-point – achievement and accomplishment verbs) are the first to attract past tense marking; activity verbs are the first to attract the progressive ending, -ing; and stative verbs are the first to attract the 3rd person singular –s. This suggests that the verb inflections that are acquired initially reflect the underlying lexical aspect of the verbs they are found with. These act as prototypes and inflections then spread gradually to the other less prototypical verbs. In other words, the acquisition of a feature such as Past tense regular -ed is not something that happens across the board, but it is likely to appear initially on different verbs to those for which the ending –ing is found: one should find examples of past tenses such as fixed and created, before such cases as watched.

Seán Devitt

113

Bardovi-Harlig (2000) adds a new dimension. She re-examined Andersen’s data as well as some of her own earlier data which seemed to match that of Andersen (Bardovi-Harlig 1992, 1994). She found that there seemed to be two intersecting influences on the provision of markings on verbs in the narratives produced by her subjects – inherent lexical aspect (as found by Andersen), but also discourse features. Verbs that appeared in the foreground of narratives were more likely to be marked for simple past than those found in the background. However, when both inherent lexical aspect and discourse were considered together, she found that one type of verb – achievements – was most likely to be inflected for simple past, regardless of whether the verb was in the foreground or the background; whereas another type – accomplishments – was generally inflected when it was in the foreground, but much less so when it was in the background. The Connectionist hypothesis Li and Shirai (2000) worked on the same type of issue as Andersen and BardoviHarlig. They took a connectionist approach to the development of linguistic form. Advocates of connectionism do not accept the psychological reality of linguistic rules and the representational innateness for the a priori status of some grammatical and semantic categories. Instead, they argue that connectionist networks detect regularities in the form-meaning mapping process. They propose that neural networks are capable of detecting three types of correlations: between forms and context, between forms and other forms, and between forms and meanings. This allows the child to induce syntactic and semantic structures from the learning environment, initially through the detection of prototypes. They constructed a self-organising neural network model (see Li and Shirai 2000, pp.160ff.) into which they fed large amounts of parental speech data from the Child Language Data Exchange System CHILDES. Their model replicates the pattern of acquisition of verb morphology found for L1 children, namely very high correlations between lexical aspect types and inflectional endings. The differences between both the paths of acquisition and the final achievements of L1 learners and those of L2 learners, Li and Shirai claim, are due to internal and external constraints on L2 learners. L2 learners have an already stabilized language network with certain fixed weights and distinct patterns of connections; the nature of the input is thus very different from that to which children are exposed, both in quality and in quantity. L2 learners do show similar tendencies to L1 learners in the supplying of inflections that match the lexical aspect of verbs, but do not show the pattern of spread from prototypical to less prototypical cases, as Andersen had claimed. The Processibility and Teachability hypotheses A different interpretation again of the findings described above in figure 2 is to be found in Pienemann (1998). In a wide-ranging analysis of L2 data from German, English, Japanese and Swedish, he proposes a theory of processibility to explain the data. The theory depends in turn on the Lexical-Functional Gram-

114


mar of Kaplan and Bresnan (1982) and the model of language production developed by Levelt (1989). Pienemann’s theory can be very briefly summed up as follows. Grammatical information is stored in the lexicon. When a lexical item is retrieved, this grammatical information is stored temporarily, to be used at another point in the constituent structure. The higher up the constituent structure tree this information has to be held, the more difficult the processing will be. Thus, it should be easier to process grammatical information that is held for elements in the same constituent, e.g. plural marking (as in many dogs) than for information that has to be held across constituent boundaries, e.g., 3rd person singular –s. As was noted in figure 2 above, Pienemann puts 3rd person singular –s at the same point in the development hierarchy as inversion in questions. He interprets inversion as resulting from the modality of the sentence; the syntactic information required for this is held at sentence level, high up the constituent tree, and is therefore difficult to process. Related to his Processibility theory is the Teachability hypothesis, which Pienemann claims is a subset of Processibility theory – stages of acquisition cannot be skipped through instruction (1998, p.13): “Since all processing procedures underlying a structure are required for the processing of the structure, the learner would simply be unable to produce the structure.” An alternative: “The King’s new clothes” It is possible to take a somewhat simpler approach to these findings and suggest that the acquisition of the linguistic means for expressing negative and interrogative in English results from the realization by the learner that auxiliaries and modals (i) take the negative element after them and (ii) are inverted in questions. This may be what allows the learner to recognize do as an auxiliary, albeit a dummy one, and to re-interpret the negative and interrogative forms of lexical verbs as resulting from the insertion of do – which then gets treated as other auxiliaries. It may be only at this point that elements of the verb system in neutral modality can be integrated across all modalities, e.g., the marking of past tense and 3rd person agreement, since these now appear on the “new” auxiliary. The evidence does seem to point to the fact that it is only at this point that past tense becomes stable. None of the above theories (or any other!) Finally, it is interesting to note that Dietrich, Klein and Noyau (1995) eschew any complete theory for the explanation of their findings. They observe that development is slow and gradual, that for a long time correct and incorrect usage coexist, and that “language acquisition resembles the slow mastering of a skill, such as piano playing, much more than an increase in knowledge, such as the learning of a mathematical formula” (p.270). Klein (1991, p.68) is more forthright: “I personally think that at present, we simply do not know enough to proclaim a serious and comprehensive theory of language acquisition.”

Seán Devitt

115

Closing comments on theories of SLA It is obvious, therefore, from the presentation of the different theoretical positions described above that, while the data may be fairly clear for certain aspects of second language acquisition, the interpretations range quite widely. It could also be argued that there are insufficient data at this time for any theory of language acquisition to be proved or disproved. Clearly, the presentation of the data given above and the overview of theories of SLA do not do justice to the range or richness of the work that is being done in SLA at the moment. I have deliberately focussed on one feature of SLA and on one language, to the exclusion of what has been done in other areas, in order to establish what the problems for the application of SLA research to classroom teaching and teacher education are likely to be.

The applicability of these theories to language teaching Some of the theories discussed above have been elaborated into full teaching approaches. For example, although they pre-dated much of Krashen’s work, two teaching approaches claim to be based on the principles outlined by him. They are the Natural Approach (Krashen and Terrell 1983) and Total Physical Response (Asher 1993). Both are cited by Krashen (1994) as illustrating his theoretical approach, and both emphasize the notion of comprehensible input as their key feature. Similarly, although task-based teaching (cf. Crookes and Gass 1993a, 1993b) was used before the research on input and interaction associated with Long, Pica, Gass and others, it was provided with a theoretical underpinning based on research. With regard to general principles of language teaching, Pienemann’s Teachability hypothesis has obvious applicability to teaching approaches. For if the hypothesis is valid, teaching that does not bear in mind the stages of language development that learners are at, as identified by SLA research, is not going to be successful. At a more indirect level, SLA research has become more applicable to classroom teaching and learning as a result of a large body of classroom-based research on language learning, much of it within the so-called “focus on form” (FonF) construct, first elaborated by Long (1991). This research has managed to draw together theorists from various backgrounds, both those with interactionist leanings, and those with a UG perspective. Both groups maintain the fundamental prerequisite of engagement with meaning before attention to linguistic form. In the interactionist approach the proposed advantage of focus on form over the traditional forms-in-isolation type of grammar teaching is the cognitive processing support provided by the “overriding focus … on meaning or communication”. […] The learner’s attention is drawn precisely to a linguistic feature as necessitated by a communicative demand. (Doughty and Williams 1998a, p.3) For UG theorists, FonF involves the identification of triggers that will cause

116


learners to perceive appropriate parameters (cf. White 1991, White et al. 1992, White, Travis and MacLachlan 1992). This type of approach has drawn practising teachers into closer contact with research, often with active participation on their part. However, one needs to be careful about just how these studies are to be interpreted, and about claims for the effectiveness of particular pedagogical treatments. As I have indicated, the data are not sufficiently robust to sustain the claims made for them.

What do teachers (and learners) need to know about SLA? It is obvious from the discussion so far that practising and future teachers may easily be confused by the range and (sometimes) contradictory nature of SLA research findings; and it is understandable that, as a result, much of it has not filtered down into teaching or teacher education programmes. Lightbown (2000) reviews findings from SLA research over the previous fifteen years. Her recommendation about the relationship between the findings of SLA research and classroom teaching is the same as that of Hatch (1979): “apply with caution!” Lightbown recommends that teachers enter into dialogue with SLA researchers, developing their knowledge of what has been found, but examining it critically against their own experience. She goes on to say (p.454): SLA research findings do not constitute the only or even the principal source of information to guide teachers in their daily practice of the art and science of second and foreign language teaching. Teachers will make the decisions on the basis of many different factors […] local conditions, the strengths of individual teachers and students, the available resources, the age of the learner, and the time available for teaching. The second draft of the Common European Framework (Council of Europe 1996, p.81) responds to these issues as follows: The Framework aims to be comprehensive, open, dynamic and non-dogmatic. For that reason it cannot take up a position on one side or another of current theoretical disputes on the nature of language acquisition and its relation to language learning, nor should it embody a particular approach to language teaching. Its proper role is to encourage all those involved as partners to the language learning/teaching process to state as explicitly and transparently as possible their own theoretical basis and their practical procedures. In order to fulfil this role it sets out parameters, categories, criteria and scales which users may draw upon and which may possibly stimulate them to consider a wider range of options than previously or to question the previously unexamined assumptions of the tradition in which they are working. What, then, should language teachers be brought to know about SLA research findings? And, perhaps more importantly, what should learners be taught about these findings? From the discussion above a number of things would appear to be essential.

Seán Devitt

117

First, teachers and learners need to be aware that there are stages in language learning/acquisition which do not necessarily correspond with the steps found in language courses. SLA research findings tell them what these stages are and what can be expected at each one. Learners should be able to observe themselves to see if the established stages represent their own experience. This should lead to a new level of metalinguistic awareness (cf. Little 1997) that goes beyond awareness of language to awareness of how language is learned. Secondly, an awareness in relation to language and how it is learned should lead both teachers and learners to realize that language learning resembles organic growth, and that this growth is slow. This can be particularly important during the earliest stages, where normal development involves using just nouns, or nouns and unmarked verbs, to express oneself. Teachers should be aware that it is difficult, if not impossible, for learners to move from one stage to the next before they are ready. They should also be aware that when their learners do not seem to take in what they are taught, this may not be due to stupidity, pigheadedness, or inattention: it may simply be due to the stage they are at. Thirdly, learners should be able to evaluate themselves against the indicators of SLA research findings, as well as against those which relate to communicative tasks, as given in the Council of Europe’s Common European Framework of Reference (Council of Europe 2001). Within teacher education, student teachers need to be given an outline of the facts of SLA research as they relate to the language they are teaching. Where possible, they should also have an extended language-learning experience. Ideally student teachers will be involved in: • negotiating the syllabus for their language learning, preferably by selecting the elements to be learned from the European Language Portfolio (ELP); • regularly revising this syllabus in the light of their on-going experience; • closely observing their language development in the light of SLA findings; • reflecting in an ongoing manner on the learning process, using a learner’s journal, or an appropriate version of the ELP. This type of teacher-education programme would ensure that teachers of languages would have the kind of critical awareness of language acquisition research that is recommended by the Council of Europe.

Suggestions for future research While a wealth of research has been produced within language classrooms over the past fifteen years, little of it has had a developmental focus. It is, therefore, urgent that longitudinal research be carried out on just how classroom learners’ language grows over time. This should involve all stages, including early ones. This approach should be complemented by large-scale cross-sectional studies. Cohorts of students at particular stages or examination levels can be examined to see what the features of their language are. One particularly important project would be to link SLA research findings to the Common European Framework by examining how the levels suggested by the

118


Council of Europe descriptors match stages of development in SLA. It is strange that these two fields of endeavour, which are so closely related to one another in that both are interested in the language development of learners, should not have been brought together. Finally, teachers themselves are in an ideal position to be involved in SLA research. They have at their disposal living “laboratories” where language acquisition takes place on a daily basis.

References Andersen, R. W., 1991: Developmental sequences: the emergence of aspect marking in second language acquisition. In T. Huebner and C. A. Ferguson (eds), Crosscurrents in Second Language Acquisition and Linguistics, pp.305–24. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co. Andersen, R. W., and Y. Shirai, 1994: Discourse motivations for some cognitive acquisition principles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16 (2), pp.133– 56. Asher, J., 1993: Learning Another Language Through Actions (4th edition). Los Gates, CA: Sky Oaks Productions. Bailey, N., C. Madden and S. D. Krashen, 1974: Is there a natural sequence in adult second language learning? Language Learning 24, pp.235–43. Bardovi-Harlig, K., 1992: The telling of a tale: discourse structure and tense use in learners’ narratives. In L. Bouton and Y. Kachru (eds), Pragmatics and Language Learning, pp.144–61. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois, Div. of E.I.L. Bardovi-Harlig, K., 1994: Anecdote or evidence? Evaluating support for hypotheses concerning the development of tense and aspect. In S. M. Gass, A. D. Cohen, and E. E. Tarone (eds), Research Methodology in Second Language Acquisition, pp.41–60. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bardovi-Harlig, K., 2000: Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: Form, meaning, and use. Language Learning 50 [Supplement 1]. Braidi, S. M., 1995: Reconsidering the role of interaction and input in second language acquisition. Language Learning 45 (1), pp.141–75. Bybee, J., 1985: Morphology: A Study of the Relation Between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cancino, H., E. Rosansky and J. Schumann, 1978: The acquisition of English negatives and interrogatives by native Spanish speakers. In E. M. Hatch (ed.) Second Language Acquisition: A Book of Readings, pp.207–30. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Cazden, C. B., H. Cancino, E. Rosansky and J. Schumann, 1975: Second Language Acquisition Sequences in Children, Adolescents and Adults: Final Report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education. Council of Europe, 1996: Common European Framework of Reference for Language Learning and Teaching. Draft 1. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Council of Europe, 2001: Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crookes, G., and S. M. Gass (eds), 1993a: Tasks and Language Learning: Integrating

Seán Devitt

119

Theory and Practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Crookes. G., and S. M. Gass (eds), 1993b: Tasks in a Pedagogical Context: Integrating Theory and Practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Dietrich, R., W. Klein and C. Noyau, 1995: The Acquisition of Temporality in a Second Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Doughty, C., and J. Williams, 1998a: Issues and terminology. In C. Doughty and J. Williams (eds), pp.1–11. Doughty, C., and J. Williams (eds), 1998b: Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dulay, H., and M. Burt, 1973: Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning 23 (2), pp.245–58. Dulay, H., and M. Burt, 1974a: Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning 24 (1), pp.37–53. Dulay, H., and M. Burt, 1974b: A new perspective on the creative construction process in child second language acquisition. Language Learning 24 (2), pp.253– 78. Gass, S. M., and D. Mähle, 1988: Integrating research areas: A framework for second language studies. Applied Linguistics 9, pp.198–217. Gass, S. M., and E. Varonis, 1985: Variation in native speaker speech modification to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7, pp.37–58. Gregg, K. R., 1984: Krashen’s Monitor and Occam’s razor. Applied Linguistics 5, pp.79–100. Gregg, K. R., 1986: Review of “The input hypothesis: issues and implications” by Stephen D. Krashen. TESOL Quarterly 20 (1), pp.116–22. Hatch, E., 1979: Apply with caution, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 2, pp.123–43. Kaplan, R., and J. Bresnan, 1982: Lexical-Functional Grammar: a formal system for grammatical representation. In J. Bresnan (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, pp.173–281. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Klein, W., 1991: Seven trivia of language acquisition. In L. Eubank (ed.), Point Counterpoint: Universal Grammar in the Second Language, pp.49–70. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Krashen, S. D., 1994: The input hypothesis and its rivals. In N. Ellis (ed.), Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages, pp.45–77. London: Academic Press. Krashen, S. D., N. Houck, P. Giunchi, S. Bode, R. Birnbaum and G. Strei, 1977: Difficulty order for grammatical morphemes for adult second language performances using free speech. TESOL Quarterly 11, pp.338–41. Krashen, S. D., V. Sferlazza, L. Feldman and A. Fathman, 1976: Adult performance on the SLOPE test: More evidence for a natural sequence in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning 26, pp.145–51. Krashen, S. D., and T. Terrell, 1983: The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice-Hall International. Larsen-Freeman, D., 1975: The acquisition of grammatical morphemes by adult ESL learners. TESOL Quarterly 9, pp.409–30. Larsen-Freeman, D., and M. H. Long, 1991: An Introduction to Second Language

120


Acquisition Research. London and New York: Longman. Levelt, W. J. M., 1989: Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co. Li, P., and Y. Shirai, 2000: The Acquisition of Lexical and Grammatical Aspect. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Lightbown, P., 2000: Classroom SLA research and second language teaching. Applied Linguistics 21 (4), pp.431–62. Little, D., 1997: Language awareness and the autonomous language learner. Language Awareness 6 (2 and 3), pp.93–104. Long, M. H., 1981: Input, interaction and second-language acquisition. In H. Winitz (ed.), Native language and Foreign Language Acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379, pp.259–78. New York: New York Academy of Sciences. Long, M. H., 1983a: Native speaker / non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics 4, pp.126–41. Long, M. H., 1983b: Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation in the second language classroom. In M. Clarke and J. Handscome (eds), On TESOL ’82: Pacific Perspectives on Language Learning and Teaching, pp.207–25. Washington, DC: TESOL. Long, M. H., 1991: Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, and C. J. Kramsch (eds), Foreign Language Research in Cross-cultural Perspective, pp.39–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Long, M., and P. Robinson, 1998: Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In C. Doughty and J. Williams (eds), pp.15–41. McLaughlin, B., 1987: Theories of Second Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold. Mitchell, R., and F. Myles, 1998: Second Language Learning Theories. London: Edward Arnold. Mourelatos, A. P. D., 1981: Events, Processes and States. In P. Tedeschi and A. Zaenen (eds), Syntax and Semantics 14: Tense and Aspect, pp.191–212. New York: Academic Press. Perdue, C., 1984: Second Language Acquisition by Adult Immigrants: A Field Manual. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Pica, T., 1994: Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes and outcomes? Language Learning 44 (3), pp.493–527. Pienemann, M., 1989: Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments. Applied Linguistics 10, pp.52–79. Pienemann, M., 1998: Language Processing and Second Language Development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co. Stauble, A. M., 1984: A comparison of a Spanish-English and a Japanese-English second language continuum: Negation and verb morphology. In R. Andersen (ed.), Second Languages: A Cross-linguistic Perspective, pp.323–54. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Towell, R., and R. Hawkins, 1994: Approaches to Second Language Acquisition.

Seán Devitt

121

Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Varonis, E., and S. Gass, 1985: Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics 6, pp.71–90. Vendler, Z., 1967: Verbs and times. In Z. Vendler (ed.), Linguistics in Philosophy, pp.97–121. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. (First appeared in The Philosophical Review 66, 1957, pp.143–60.) White, L., 1987: Against comprehensible input: The input hypothesis and the development of second language competence. Applied Linguistics 8, pp.95– 100. White, L., 1991: The verb-movement parameter in second language acquisition. Language Acquisition 1, pp.337–60. White, L., N. Spada, P. Lightbown and L. Ranta, 1992: Input enhancement and L2 question formation. Applied Linguistics 12, pp.416–32. White, L., L. Travis and A. MacLachlan, 1992: The acquisition of Wh-question formation by Malagasy learners of English: Evidence for Universal Grammar. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 37, pp.341–68. Wode, H., 1976: Developmental sequences in naturalistic L2 acquisition. In E. M. Hatch (ed.), Second Language Acquisition, pp.101–17. Rowley, MA.: Newbury House. Wode, H., 1981: Learning a Second Language 1. An Integrated View of Language Acquisition. Tübingen: Günter Narr Verlag. Zobl, H., and J. Liceras, 1994: Functional categories and acquisition orders. Language Learning 44 (1), pp.159–80.

Planning learning: the role of teacher reflection Irma Huttunen

Introduction The topic of this paper, teachers planning learning, implies a paradigm shift in relation to the L2 curriculum that has repercussions for its implementation both in the classroom and beyond. The paper argues for a radical change of focus, away from the teaching of what Little (2001, p.50) describes as “fragments of language: words and phrases that instantiate atomistic communicative functions or decontextualized grammatical rules” towards the notion of lifelong learning, where the aim is to help learners in a continuous process “to build up the attitudes, knowledge and skills they need to become more independent in thought and action, and also more responsible and co-operative in relation to other people” (Council of Europe 2001, p.xii). This perspective on both teaching and learning entails not only the development of learner autonomy, but also a heightened level of teacher autonomy as well. As the paper further argues, such a shift in the ways in which teachers teach necessarily replaces a mechanical view of knowledge and learning with an emancipatory view of the curriculum that extends to the whole educational system. The role of teacher reflection takes on greater significance in this new scenario; indeed, teachers need to develop awareness of what they are doing at the metacognitive level. And when they acquire this heightened awareness, what they plan or evaluate in relation to their teaching leads them to decide what is relevant in the language learning environment they are in the process of creating. I begin by looking at teacher and learner reflection together, since the teacher cannot plan a stimulating learning environment without paying attention to learner reflection as well. I suggest that the type of reflection a teacher wants to encourage among learners is a mirror of his or her own reflection. Reflection is then discussed from two perspectives: first, in relation to Kolb’s notion that structural foundations underpin experiential learning, and secondly from the perspective of Habermas’s theory of knowledge-constitutive interests. I then examine the role of reflection from the point of view of a curriculum theory that is based on Habermas and further developed by Grundy. At this point the discussion broadens to take account of Schön’s concepts of reflection-on-action and reflection-in-action. Finally I propose an outline for a reflective, emancipatory planning process that teachers can incorporate into their teaching.

Kolb’s learning theory and teacher reflection Kolb’s (1984) description of the structural foundations underlying the process of experiential learning, and the resulting basic knowledge forms, provides a good 122

Irma Huttunen

123

starting point for an analysis of both teacher and learner reflection. The theory that Kolb presents is centred on the recurring, dynamic interaction of certain key processes. Two basic ways of gaining knowledge are proposed: (i) “concrete experience”, which is grasped via apprehension; (ii) comprehension that brings order to experiences in the form of different kinds of “abstract conceptualization”. These processes are, however, not sufficient for learning and understanding; rather, the observed items of knowledge need to be further processed, either in a concrete form by using them in different ways and contexts (a process Kolb terms “active experimentation”), or in an abstract form by reflecting on them (“reflective observation”). Concrete experience and abstract conceptualization In language teaching and learning, the element of concrete experience refers especially to the interactive, and more especially, to the dialogic dimension of pedagogy; this entails authentic use of language. Concrete experiences also occur whenever teachers or learners engage with the target language culture. For teachers especially, the building of learning environments that promote such experiences alongside other, perhaps more formal kinds of experiences is important (Huttunen 1997, Kaikkonen 2001). Taking Kolb’s line of thought further, we can say that the abstract element could represent cognitive structuring and verbal, figurative, numerical or musical mediation of one’s own experiences. The notion of the abstract could also be seen to represent abstract knowledge gained and mediated by others and received through written or spoken texts and other forms of communication. Active experimentation Active experimentation (in other words, trying things out) could be said to refer to the practice and application of knowledge, opinions, language – as well as communication and learning skills in different kinds of open-ended and problem-centred tasks and situations. In addition to more or less traditional modes of rehearsing and practising, pedagogical simulations of concrete experiences such as video, drama or interaction via different kinds of media give good opportunities to develop and practise the kinds of language and dialogue that are transferable beyond the classroom (cf. Dam 2000, Ribé and O’Rourke/Schwienhorst, this volume). Of course, teachers’ personal views on the nature of the L2 learning environment can lead to widely different applications of this element of experimentation. Reflection again could refer at its best to wide, open contexts, including both reflection-on-action and reflection-in-action as defined by Schön (1983). Reflection-on-action I suggest that Schön’s notion of “reflection-on-action” involves: 1 the teacher’s understanding of the nature of language proficiency and language learning; 2 the goals and aims he/she sets for their development; 3 the planning and evaluation of curricular solutions in the areas of content

124

Planning learning: the role of teacher reflection

and various modes of teaching and learning; 4 the means whereby learners develop their metacognitive knowledge and skills; 5 ways to help learners to develop their social and intercultural knowledge together with their interactive (especially dialogic) skills; 6 the development of learners’ problem-solving abilities, awareness and heuristic skills (see, e.g., Refugee Language Support Unit 1999). For both teacher and learners, the development of such reflection is a long-term process that will bring about a growing ability to see what is relevant and meaningful at both a personal and a more general level of studies (cf. the papers by Ridley and Ushioda, this volume, Huttunen 1996). Reflection-in-action “Reflection-in-action” refers to the way in which we spontaneously solve unforeseen problems that arise in class. The level of teachers’ reflection, and the extent to which they have paid attention to the above six issues as part of their own planning processes, can have a direct influence on the quality of their solutions in reflection-in-action. In this way the importance a teacher gives to reflection marks both his or her own work and that of the learners. At its best the recurring interplay of Kolb’s four dimensions of experiential learning – concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation – in different combinations can result in a deeper dialogic relationship between them. This will have an effect on development in the areas of cognition, metacognition, awareness and skill. In general, the frequency of the representation of the reflective element in relation to the frequency of each of the other three elements in a teacher’s thinking will have a stong effect on the qualitative nature and the level of his or her reflection and planning of learning.

Habermas’s theory and teacher reflection While Kolb provides a basis for exploring the relationship between reflection and the three other constituents of learning from a pragmatic point of view, Habermas’s theory of “knowledge-constitutive interests” (1972) gives us tools with which to analyse the meanings and values behind teacher reflection and the resulting views and actions. These interests shape what we regard as knowledge and also the way in which we determine the categories by which we organize that knowledge. Habermas bases his theory on the Aristotelian notion of the essential dispositions behind human actions, characterizing the cognitive interests behind them as “technical”, “practical” and “emancipatory” interests. The basic orientation of Habermas’s “technical interest” lies in controlling and managing the environment with a view to reproducing what the presenter of knowledge considers to be the most valuable aspects of human society. It is strictly product-oriented. However, this orientation also leads to an appreciation of skilful copying of the presented ideas and models – but without necessar-

Irma Huttunen

125

ily understanding them. Such a process can be regarded as a sign of a “mechanical” view of the nature and content of knowledge. Habermas’s second category of cognitive interests, that of “practical interest”, aims at understanding a particular environment so that one is able to interact with it, to live as part of it, and to carry out a practical action within it. For both teacher and learner this means interaction and collaboration with the learning environment, as well as interpretation and negotiation of meanings within it. This is, however, a here-and-now experience: there is no proper analysis and links are not made with wider contexts. The strong social-interactive aspect (cf. Vygotsky 1978) of practical interest is further strengthened in “emancipatory interest”, a term that refers to a searching for new insights and new, critical ways of looking at things and experiences in wider contexts. In language studies, the whole target language culture becomes part of the learning environment, and interaction with it leads necessarily to active use of the target language. This interest can be seen as a development of “practical interest” towards both teacher and learner autonomy. Habermas calls emancipation an act of finding one’s own voice. It would seem therefore that there are similarities between Habermas’s notion of the emancipatory interest and the convergence-divergence position as defined and discussed by Ribé (this volume). It is obvious that the learning process as well as the product becomes crucial in such a development. When the reflective aspect is lacking or minimal, Kolb’s structural dimensions of “concrete experience” and “active experimentation” coincide with Habermas’s level of “mechanical reflection”. In Habermas’s “pragmatic reflection” we can find traces of all four dimensions of Kolb’s learning circle. However, as the scope of reflection aims at the immediate, the interaction between reflection and the three other dimensions is restricted in nature. In Habermas’s “emancipatory reflection” there is a recurring interaction between all of Kolb’s dimensions, with the reflective dimension constantly present, directing this interaction.

Experiments in categorizing teacher reflection A group of experienced teachers were able to fill in a grid I designed (Huttunen 1993a) as a tool for describing teacher and learner reflection along the lines of Habermas’s three “knowledge-constitutive interests”. These interests were defined further in terms of the target of reflection, which was then explored through the elements of meaning, language and action as follows: Mechanical reflection Meaning: the content of the message is taken as such, without paying attention to its relevance or links to personal experience. Language: the language is taken and memorized as such, without further analysis or connection with experiences and meanings. Greatest attention is paid to accuracy. In communication and production the memorized items are used without variation in form or meaning.

126


Action: procedures always take a pre-planned and accustomed form. Whatever the reasons for action, the manner in which action is carried out and the outcomes of action are not analysed. Pragmatic reflection Meaning: the learner/teacher arrives at an increased understanding of an issue during an action or as a result of it, but does not analyse it further or link it with wider experiences. Language: language is regarded as a means of practical communication. Attention is paid to the form of the language, especially when difficulties arise in communication. Action: action varies with the demands of the situation. The immediate reasons for the action, its procedures and its outcomes are analysed. Emancipatory reflection Meaning: the learner/teacher gets new insights and new ways of looking at things while deliberately engaging in reflection. Connections are sought with one’s own experiences, and there are reasons for action and for the outcome of action. Language: language is regarded both as an object of conscious learning and as a means of learning. It is linked with experiences and used as a tool to discuss learning content and learning experiences. Here the language of learning finds its own place in reflection. Action: alternative ways of looking at things are sought and tried out. Attention is paid to both immediate and long-term reasons, procedures and outcomes of action. The above analysis was successfully piloted in the lower and upper levels of a Finnish comprehensive school and in a Finnish upper secondary school (Huttunen 1996). It has also been adapted to analyse professional development in teacher education (e.g., Milliander 2001).

Curriculum and planning learning Grundy (1993) has built a curriculum theory on the basis of Habermas’s three cognitive interests, discussing each interest from the point of view of teaching and learning. She defines curriculum as a way of organizing both human educational content and practices. For the purposes of this paper, we can expand her definiton of curriculum to include the processes of planning, monitoring and evaluation. Evaluation, which takes place on the basis of reflection, is a starting point for all successful planning. Monitoring, which carries the element of reflection as well, belongs to the pragmatic realization of the curriculum. Grundy points out that “technical interest” leads to strict control of the educational environment and to a reproductive view of knowledge and skill. Ridley (this volume) gives an example of a classroom environment that illustrates this and points out that disciplining the learner group gave rise to the practice of

Irma Huttunen

127

pinning them down to rote learning activities and grammar–translation exercises. Such an approach clearly underlies a traditional view of the curriculum, according to which teachers are expected to be non-autonomous transmitters of a curriculum written by others. This means that little reflection is expected of them. Nor do traditional teachers themselves usually see the importance of deeper reflection on what they themselves and their students are actually doing, nor why, how, and with what results and consequences this takes place. In Kolb’s terms, the four structural dimensions are not in balance in traditional teachers’ thinking: abstract knowledge and a mechanical form of adaptation (experimentation) predominate, and there is little interaction between the different dimensions. Such imbalance leads to the kind of classroom practice described by Little (2001). At its worst it embodies the following problems: 1 lack of a modern view of the nature of language proficiency; 2 lack of any deep understanding of how language learning takes place; 3 lack of continuity in teaching and of a holistic view of the curriculum; 4 failure to grasp (a) the importance of the nature of learning process and (b) the significance of actively involving the learners in the learning process, and accordingly (c) lack of experience-based knowledge of how to actively include learners in planning and evaluating learning. In other words, in such a situation teachers have only a vague idea of what they are actually teaching, and learners have an even vaguer idea of what they have actually learnt. When “practical interest” guides curriculum work, learners are active subjects in the learning process and there is a strong effort to make the learning experience meaningful to them. Because of this effort, classroom activities often have a problem-centered focus, where learners, together with their teacher, can confront “real” issues that are relevant to their age and culture. This points clearly to action-oriented teaching and learning. Language has a strong role to play, both as an object of learning and as a medium of learning and dialogue. The “here-and-now” quality of “pragmatic interest” can naturally be relevant at some stage or other in the learning process. “Emancipatory interest”, and accordingly the emancipatory curriculum, includes the same basic features as the pragmatic curriculum, including the action-oriented approach encouraged by the Common European Framework (Council of Europe 2001) and the European Language Portfolio. The emancipatory curriculum is open to wider contexts and connotations, to reflection on cause and effect, and to a search for alternative ways and solutions. It lays strong emphasis on pedagogical and problem-oriented dialogue (Little 2001, Barnes and Todd 1995). The social-interactive dimension of learning is extended to include making contact with various groups representing the relevant target language cultures and carrying out joint activities with them. This type of curriculum includes the planning of extensive goals and projects, and this naturally makes more demands on teacher reflection and planning. It also requires more in terms of the level of learner reflection, action and dialogical competence in the target language. An emancipatory curriculum is not only relevant to learners

128


with advanced language skills, it is also relevant to any long-term learning objective that includes teaching learners the various skills and attitudes that are necessary for successfully engaging in a learning environment that both encourages and makes demands of them. Learners need to make sense of what they encounter in class, and being active, responsible learning requires reflection. However, the teacher needs to reflect even more, since it is up to her to build learning environments that make meaningful learning possible (Huttunen 1993b, 1997). Therefore it is learning, not teaching, that should be the teacher’s main concern. This way of thinking will cause fundamental changes, both in the ways in which the curriculum is implemented in the classroom and in the type of reflection required of teachers. The higher the teacher’s level of metacognition and awareness of the nature of language proficiency and learning processes, the deeper the reflection and the greater the teacher’s skill in profiting from reflection-on-action and reflectionin-action.

Teacher reflection in the process of planning learning As teachers are largely responsible for what goes on in their classes, they are naturally responsible for the basic planning of learning as well. To be successful, their plans should describe a consistent and coherent trajectory from the day they start teaching a particular class to the day they leave it to the next teacher. This requires several stages of reflection, during which the planning shifts from rather general to more and more focussed, specific items. These stages should not, however, be seen as a linear, uni-directional system. Rather they are different aspects of a recursive process which gradually leads to deeper insights and to an expanded reservoir from which the teacher can draw. Planning should give the teacher a frame within which to work; it should not be seen as an inflexible mechanical system. On this basis we can envisage six planning phases in the construction of a modern emancipatory curriculum for a language class, as outlined below (cf. Huttunen 2001). It should be noted that phases 1 and 2 represent the basic knowledge and insight a language teacher should always have. The construction of these two phases can follow a logical order, as presented here, but it can also take a more pragmatic route, in which the teacher first looks at the requirements that come from outside, and then fits his or her own approach to suit these requirements. In other words, phase 2 may precede phase 1. Phases 3 and 4 form the necessary frame within which the teacher is able to build consistency and coherence in classroom learning activities. Phase 5 represents a more specific – yet at the same time a more tentative – type of planning that is done each year for each class. Phase 6 is the phase where there is joint planning with the learners. Here is a general outline of these phases: Phase 1 requires the teacher to reflect deeply on his or her own approach to very basic issues in language learning and teaching. This has to do with the quality of the teacher’s professional engagement and concerns issues like: 1 What in my opinion should a learner be able to do in the target language

Irma Huttunen

129

in order to demonstrate a good language/communication proficiency (a) in general and (b) at the stage I am teaching? 2 What to my mind is especially important in language proficiency at the stage I am teaching? Why? 3 What knowledge of the learner’s own culture and the target culture should the learner acquire at the stage I am teaching? Why? 4 What learning skills should be learnt at the stage I am teaching? Why? 5 What could I do to help my learners to reach these goals? After answering these questions, teachers could be encouraged to find out what an up-to-date book like the Common European Framework (Council of Europe 2001) says about these issues and to reflect once more on their own views. If teachers have not made these issues clear for themselves, their views on language learning and teaching may be too narrow and may cause some of the problems mentioned above. Experiments connected with the Common European Framework (e.g., Jaakkola 2000) show that such clarification helps teachers to achieve a deeper understanding of their own thinking and approach, and to develop and even change it. In this way there is transparency among teachers – and by extension among their learners – as they understand how to build emancipatory learning environments and encourage meaningful communication with and between the learners. The crucial areas of awareness that emerge from the SLA research findings described by Devitt (this volume) may also serve as healthy reminders of the fact that whatever the teacher’s aims and goals are, there will necessarily be much variation in their realization. Phase 2 entails the exploration of externally determined curricular goals. Reflection is needed in order to set the teacher’s own goals within broader frameworks such as the requirements of the official, or national, curriculum and its associated examinations. Here Little’s warning (this volume) against the well-known negative washback effects of traditional public examinations should be borne in mind. In spite of the currently rather fixed nature of state examinations in many countries, it is nevertheless possible for a teacher to set “autonomy-friendly” goals and encourage “autonomy-friendly” evaluation without putting at risk the students’ success in the official examinations. Teachers should naturally also know something about their students’ previous studies. Such information is usually sought in the official curriculum or in textbooks. If they exist, learners’ portfolios from the previous year(s) would constitute a third very helpful source of information. The official curriculum and examinations provide a framework for learning activities, though often from a product-oriented and school/exam-centred standpoint. The modern world, however, expects a different angle on knowledge and a wider view of proficiency. It is therefore important to develop a more comprehensive perspective by placing the various aspects of the language, communication and learning skills so far acquired alongside the linguistic knowledge and language skills that are identified in more comprehensive, internationally-known scales, like those presented in the Common European Framework. The “can do” statements that appear in the various versions of the European Language Port-

130


folio will also be of great help in planning learning (Little and Perclová 2001). Phase 3 involves getting a holistic view of the part of curriculum the teacher is responsible for. This will help to establish continuity in teaching. In practice this means describing a trajectory of learning for the whole period the teacher will be responsible for the class. This should give information on the four main aspects of language studies: 1 content knowledge (with relevant cultural features and associated vocabulary areas); 2 linguistic knowledge and know-how (linguistic exponents); 3 language skills (communication skills and know-how, receptive, productive and mediation skills); 4 aspects of learning to learn (for acquiring knowledge and information, for using it for different purposes, for understanding connotations and learning to see what is important and what is less important; for memorizing, for planning, follow-up and evaluation). It happens very often that content knowledge is a starting point for planning a theme. There are also increasing numbers of examples of projects in which themes that are worked on in language classes are integrated with studies in one or more other school subjects (see for example Aase, this volume). These projects tend not, however, to go as far in integration as does bilingual teaching (Wolff, this volume, Takala 2000). Whatever the teacher’s choice, an outline of the above four elements is important if the teacher is to make learning programmes meaningful by giving a picture, to both him/herself and the learners, of how the different aspects of language and communication proficiency and study skills are expected to grow. Such an outline also helps the teacher to see to it that the requirements of the official curriculum and exams are met. Phase 4 is a matter of arranging the work of Phase 3 into smaller units: modules and a relevant number of themes within each umbrella module. This process helps the teacher and learners to get a better grip on the diverse nature of the work to be done. Following the trajectory that has already been established (see phase 2 above), the contents of each module would build on the previous ones and form a chain of modules for each year – although still at a fairly general level. Although all four aspects of language study identified above should be present to a lesser or greater degree, a particular theme typically focuses on one or two of them. Here the teacher’s view of the nature of language proficiency and language learning will direct his or her reflection and planning; and it will become even more prominent in phases 5 and 6. Phase 5 is the phase of writing a preliminary yet fairly concrete master plan for each particular class as they embark on a new theme. At this stage the teacher is preparing for the final planning with the learners. This preliminary plan should be open enough to leave room for changes and for joint planning with the learners. For this purpose, a master plan could offer suggestions of appropriate options to do with content, materials and study procedures. Where relevant, there could also be room at this stage for totally spontaneous plans presented by learners (and accepted by the teacher). The more experienced the learners are in

Irma Huttunen

131

this regard, the more room there should be for their own planning. The basic structure of such a plan usually contains elements like the goal(s) of the theme and relevant items from the four study areas mentioned in phase 3. It would also be helpful for the teacher to make links with the official curriculum, official exams, Common European Framework scales and European Language Portfolio checklists (see phase 2) in order to keep an eye on the larger picture. Such knowledge would be motivating for learners, who often compare their studies in this type of classroom with what they do in traditional classes. It would also gradually lead teachers away from the belief that they must devote many weeks exclusively to preparing for the official examinations. The planning of Phase 6 would also benefit from a reservoir of relevant study materials, from suggestions based on a tentative flow-chart of the sequences of work within a particular theme, and from suggestions of the contents of whole-class studies and optional individual/group studies. Finally, it is important for both the language study process and the learning-to-learn process that this plan always includes the objects and modes of teacher evaluation and checks, of peer evaluation and learners’ self-evaluation – as well as the objects, modes and timing of possible assessment. The more carefully (groups of) teachers prepare these plans, the easier it is for them to manage successfully the planning of phase 6. Phase 6 is the phase of joint planning with the learners at the beginning of a new theme. Here the teacher presents a tentative master plan in a form appropriate to the learners’ proficiency level. The teacher then discusses the plan with the group. This discussion should include reflection on how the relevant item(s) in the European Language Portfolio checklists can be met, and on the possible options in the master plan. By the end of this process, each learner should have in his or her portfolio a plan, comprising a list of joint activities to be carried out with the rest of the class. The plan would also mention additional individual/ group activities that the learner intends to participate in, together with an outline of ways to carry them out. A wide range of plans should be accepted, as long as they fit the goals of the particular theme. This would give the learners an opportunity to pay attention to their needs – and sometimes to their wants as well. This approach supports the view of individual learning paths, as proposed by the Common European Framework. It is important, however, to leave room for changes, and also to write them in the plan when they occur. When the realization of the whole plan is documented in the portfolio, together with examples of products presented in the dossier section of the portfolio, this document can be used to guide the planning of the next stage of a learner’s work. To make such planning successful, it is important to teach learners how to plan, how to make sensible choices and informed suggestions. During these planning sessions, it is also important to discuss the merits of whole-class planning, group planning and individual planning, as well as the benefits of self- and peer-evaluation. Such discussions encourage realistic personal growth, skill in dialogue and collaboration with the learning environment – as well as an interpretation of meanings within it. They also provide an excellent opportunity to teach (in the target language) the type of pedagogical language that has a strong

132


transfer value in many areas of life: the learners gradually get used to reflection, negotiation of meaning and different kinds of communication in the target language. Thomsen (this volume) gives a revealing example of how teenage learners can be introduced to the concept of metalanguage and shown how to use it. In this way the teacher is able to build learning environments suitable for the growth of learner autonomy and of the ability to find one’s own voice.

Conclusion: the nature and requirements of a reflective planning process The process of designing a holistic emancipatory plan requires plenty of highlevel reflection. This type of effort on the teacher’s part results not only in a concrete plan for his or her work, but also something that is even more important: the discovery of his or her own voice. Traditionally teachers have had little or no instruction in how to plan in the long term, let alone how to plan a holistic curriculum, where the learner and the learning process are the central concern. This is probably why so many teachers still feel that they do not have time for such planning. Another reason may be the assumption that they should do all this planning on their own, and all at once – without realizing that planning is a never-ending process that is stimulated by holistic autonomy-friendly evaluation, creative work with learners, collaboration with other teachers, and is a natural part of educating the self. Several projects and experiments around Europe (see, e.g., Holec and Huttunen 1997) have shown that with experience teachers and learners come to appreciate planning and evaluation as an integral part of planning. They have reported that the importance of this kind of planning process is that both teacher and learners constantly know how they are doing and where their efforts have led them. As demonstrated by Kohonen (2001), local collaboration, tutored co-planning and support for teachers is, however, important in this change of paradigm.

References Barnes, D., and F. Todd, 1995: Making Meaning Through Talk. London: Heinemann. Council of Europe, 2001: Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dam, L., 2000: Why focus on learning rather than teaching? From theory to practice. In D. Little, L. Dam and J. Timmer (eds), Focus on Learning Rather Than Teaching: Why and How?, pp.18–37. Dublin: Trinity College, Centre for Language and Communication Studies. Grundy, S., 1993 (4th edition): Curriculum: Product or Praxis. London: The Falmer Press. Habermas, J., 1972 (2nd edition): Knowledge and Human Interests. London: Heinemann. Holec, H., and I. Huttunen (eds), 1997: L’autonomie de l’apprenant en langues vivantes. Learner Autonomy in Modern Languages. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Irma Huttunen

133

Huttunen, I., 1993a: Reflective learning, reflective teaching. In I. Huttunen (ed.), Report on Workshop 2B. Learning to Learn Languages: Investigating Learner Strategies and Learner Autonomy. Heinola, Finland, 7–12 March 1993, pp.41–4. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Huttunen, I., 1993b: Reflection as a tool of learning. In I. Huttunen (ed.), Report on Workshop 2B. Learning to Learn Languages: Investigating Learner Strategies and Learner Autonomy. Heinola, Finland, 7–12 March 1993, pp.106–8. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Huttunen, I., 1996: Metacognition in the process of development towards learner autonomy. In U. Tornberg (ed.), Focus on the Language Learner, pp.77–97. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet Centrum för Didaktik. Huttunen, I., 1997: The role of the environment in language learning. In B. Kettermann and I. Landsiedler (eds), The Effectiveness of Language Learning and Teaching. Ergebnisse der Europaratstagung vom 5.–8. März 1996, Graz, pp.108– 26. Graz: Zentrum für Schulentwicklung. Huttunen, I., 2001: Paper presented at the EYL conference – European perspectives on three key issues in language teaching. Belfast, 11–12 December 2001. Jaakola, H. (ed), 2000: How to Promote Learning to Learn the First Foreign Language. Piloting the European Common Framework of Reference in Finnish Schools. Helsinki: University of Helsinki Department of Education. Kaikkonen, P., 2001: Intercultural learning through foreign language education. In V. Kohonen, R. Jaatinen, P. Kaikkonen and J. Lehtovaara, Experiential Learning in Foreign Language Education, pp.61–105. London: Pearson Education. 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., 2001: Towards experiential foreign language education. In V. Kohonen, R. Jaatinen, P. Kaikkonen and J. Lehtovaara, Experiential Learning in Foreign Language Education, pp.8–60. Harlow: Longman. Kolb, D., 1984: Experiential Learning. Experience as a Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Little, D., 2001: We’re all in it together: exploring the interdependence of teacher and learner autonomy. In L. Karlsson, F. Kjisik and J. Nordlund (eds), pp.45– 56. Little, D., and R. Perclová, 2001: European Language Portfolio. Guide for Teachers and Teacher Trainers. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Milliander, J., 2001: Developing reflective skills by means of the portfolio. In L. Karlsson, F. Kjisik and J. Nordlund (eds), pp.156–67. Refugee Language Support Unit, 1999: Meeting the Needs of Refugees. Proficiency Benchmarks for the Pre-vocational Sector. Dublin: Trinity College, Refugee Language Support Unit. Schön, D., 1983: The Reflective Practitioner. London: Temple Smith. Takala, S., 2000: Some questions and issues on content-based language teaching. In K. Sjöholm and A. Ostern (eds), Perspectives on Language and Communication in Multilingual Education, pp.1–54. Åbo: Åbo Akademi University, Faculty of

134


Education, Department of Teacher Education, Report No. 6. Vygotsky, L., 1978: Mind in Society. The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA, and London: Harvard University Press.

Developing learner autonomy: the teacher’s responsibility Leni Dam

Introduction The term learner autonomy has been generally defined as a developing capacity on the part of learners to accept responsibility for their learning. Teachers who aim to promote a learner-directed learning environment encourage learners to reflect on their learning, understand the process of learning and the function of language, and adopt patterns of learning in which they themselves take initiatives and feel in control of their progress. The teacher’s task in this regard is of course onerous. In spite of the fact that the teacher carries enormous responsibility in promoting learner autonomy, there has been somewhat less attention paid to her role than to that of her learners. At a theoretical level we find a multitude of definitions of learner autonomy. At the pedagogical level the characteristics of autonomous learners have been identified and we have determined what we might reasonably expect from them. We have been less precise in suggesting corresponding teaching paradigms for teachers. The general purpose of this paper is to redress this imbalance. Its specific aims are: 1 to argue that it is largely the teacher’s responsibility to develop learner autonomy; 2 to highlight the types of responsibilities that might be expected of the teacher; 3 to suggest ways of supporting teachers in their wish to change their traditional role and their traditional teaching environment towards a learning-centred environment; 4 to discuss why some teachers succeed in making this change and some fail; 5 to propose a set of criteria for teachers against which they might examine the crucial part they have to play in promoting learner autonomy. The paper draws on my own experience as a teacher of English (and lately also as a teacher of history and geography) as well as on my experience working with teachers and colleagues as a teacher trainer in Denmark and elsewhere. My examples are taken from in-service courses I have held with teachers of English and also from courses and workshops for teachers of other subjects who aim to get their learners more involved in their own learning. As such the examples address a universal issue, namely the teacher’s responsibility for establishing a learning environment where teachers and learners are jointly responsible for the outcome, whatever the school subject. I conclude by suggesting that learner 135

136

Developing learner autonomy: the teacher’s responsibility

autonomy develops not only in the classroom but also – and perhaps more importantly – in the teacher’s own development and awareness as regards his or her role in the whole process.

From a focus on learner responsibility to a focus on teacher responsibility Over the years theorists and practitioners have tried to identify the characteristics of autonomous learners and pinpoint what we might expect from them. One of the more precise definitions in my view is that given by Holec (1981), whose argument can be summarized as follows: Learner autonomy arises when the learner is willing to take charge of his/her own learning by independently • choosing particular aims and purposes; • choosing materials, methods and tasks; • exercising choice and purpose in organizing and carrying out the tasks; • choosing and applying criteria for evaluation (when he or she is capable of doing so). Less attention has been paid to corresponding teaching paradigms for teachers. Not that the responsibility on the part of the teacher in the process of getting learners involved in their own learning was doubted or questioned (see, e.g., Barnes 1976, pp.172–87). Rather, in connection with the introduction of the term “learner autonomy” the focus was understandably on the learner and his or her responsibilities. Consequently many teachers saw the development of learner autonomy as primarily a change that would take place within their learners. The big questions for these teachers were: How do I get my learners to change? How do I make my learners responsible? Often these teachers had difficulty implementing learner autonomy in their classes, and only when they realized the need for a change in themselves did they succeed in their goal. By contrast, those teachers who from the very start realized that developing learner autonomy was to a large extent their responsibility, and that it involved a change in their own role in the classroom, were by and large successful. My experience of the difference between successful and less successful teachers was described at the AILA conference in Amsterdam in 1993 in my paper “Starting points for developing learner autonomy” that was based on data collected from 180 teachers over a period of ten years. It seemed to me obvious that if we wanted more teachers to enter successfully into the world of developing learner autonomy in our institutions, then definitions of learner autonomy had to specify the responsibilities of the teacher as well as the learner. An awareness of the teacher’s role is evident in various other definitions of learner autonomy; for example, the Bergen definition (1990), developed by a group of participants in the 5th Nordic Workshop on Learner Autonomy, held in 1988. Here the teacher’s responsibility is mentioned indirectly: “It is essential that an autonomous learner is stimulated to evolve an awareness of the aims and processes of learning” (Bergen 1990, p.102). The main demands, however, are still on the learner:

Leni Dam

137

Learner autonomy is characterized by a readiness to take charge of one’s own learning in the service of one’s needs and purposes. This entails a capacity and willingness to act independently and in co-operation with others, as a socially responsible person. An autonomous learner is an active participant in the social processes of learning, but also an active interpreter of new information in terms of what she/he already and uniquely knows. (Bergen 1990, p.102) In the first three statements of his five “negatives” Little (1991, p.3) very clearly stresses the importance of the teacher and her responsibility in the development of learner autonomy: • Autonomy is not a synonym for self-instruction; in other words, autonomy is not limited to learning without a teacher. • In the classroom context, autonomy does not entail an abdication of responsibility on the part of the teacher; it is not a matter of letting the learners get on with things as they best can. • On the other hand, autonomy is not something that teachers do to learners; that is, it is not a teaching method. Teacher responsibility

Learning-centred learning environment

Looking back / planning ahead: What did I / we do? What can it be used for?

Carrying out the plans: How are we going to do it? Integrated evaluation of process

Evaluation / New planning: What happened? Why? What next? Why?

Co-operation / Negotiation / Dialogue

Figure 1 The chain with focus on responsibility

Learner responsibility

138


However, what this responsibility more precisely covers is not further elaborated. I too saw the need to stress the teacher’s responsibility when mentioning the learner’s responsibilities. When first trying to get teachers to develop learner autonomy in their classes I had, like everyone else, primarily focussed on a change in the learner’s role. This focus is evident in my simplified model of a teaching/learning sequence I called “the three circles” (Dam 1994, p.506). The model was meant to illustrate the development of learner autonomy as a move from a teacher-directed teaching environment to a learner-directed learning environment. And even though the teacher’s responsibilities in this process were mentioned, even stressed (Dam 1995), they were clearly not made sufficiently apparent. We see, for example, that the development of learner autonomy is not widely exercised in institutional contexts. I therefore stopped talking about the development of learner autonomy as merely a move from a teacher-directed teaching environment to an exclusively learner-directed learning environment. Seeing the need to highlight the teacher’s responsibility, I extended the simplified model of a teaching/learning sequence to include the teacher’s as well as the learners’ responsibility, as is shown in figure 1. As a follow-up, the next step is to suggest what the teacher’s responsibility actually entails.

What are the teacher’s responsibilities when trying to develop learner autonomy? First and foremost, the teacher must be willing to “let go” so that her learners can “take over” (Page 1992). This presupposes acceptance of the view that “to learn is to develop relationships between [what the learner knows already and the new system being presented to him], and this can only be done by the learner himself” (Barnes 1976, p.81). This view requires a change in the teacher’s traditional role as well as a change in the organization of her classroom towards an “autonomous” classroom (Dam 1994). In order to change, though, she has to know what to change: she has to be aware of the differences between a teachercentred teaching environment and a learning-centred learning environment, and be sure of how to discharge her responsibilities in the latter. In a teacher-directed teaching situation the teacher’s responsibility is traditionally to transfer information – school knowledge (Barnes 1976, p.81) – to learners. Teachers, learners and parents understand and accept this kind of responsibility. All three parties feel to a large degree secure in this situation. Furthermore, this type of environment often supports the teacher’s self-esteem; she feels she delivers good lessons. Of course, she may not be blind to the negative aspects of her approach, as these examples from statements collected from in-service training courses (1995–2000) illustrate: The syllabus has been decided beforehand – no possibility for individual initiatives for the learner.

Leni Dam

139

The learners will only learn for school, not for life. It makes “hiding” easy for weak learners. In most cases it does not meet the demands in the curricular guidelines as regards differentiated teaching and learning.

But other statements indicate that some teachers see positive value in aspects of the traditional teaching situation: The requirements for the daily work are fixed – for teacher and learners. The teacher knows the syllabus. Most learners need a fixed framework. They like it. The learners like to be told what to do.

In this setting the teacher knows what to do: she knows her responsibilities, in the sense that she plans the lessons, carries out the plans and evaluates the outcomes. By and large she feels confident and at ease in this type of environment. She is in command. It may happen that she is not quite satisfied with the results, but often she blames the irresponsibility of her students. Of course, we cannot expect our learners to be responsible for their own learning if they haven’t got a say in planning, in carrying out the plans, and in evaluating the work undertaken. However, in order to make appropriate decisions when doing so, they must have had a chance of gaining experience and establishing an awareness of various possibilities. This process can be labelled “a learner’s four steps towards learner responsibility” and articulated as in figure 2:

Experience with and insight into useful and relevant activities, suitable partners, appropriate ways of organizing the work undertaken, and various ways of evaluating process as well as progress ⇓ Awareness of what, why and how to learn; awareness of one’s role in the learning process ⇓ Influence on and participation in decision making as regards one’s own learning (choice of activities, partners, materials, etc.) ⇓ Responsibility for one’s own learning

Figure 2 Four steps towards learner responsibility

140


It is a teacher’s responsibility on the basis of her experience and/or professional education to ensure that her learners are guided through these steps towards responsibility for their own learning. In a learning-centred learning environment we can expect the teacher • to make clear to her learners what is expected of them (curricular aims, test demands, etc.) and to introduce appropriate, useful and varied activities for the learners to choose from in order to reach these as well as their personal goals; • to present various ways of organizing work and to draw up, together with her learners, criteria for choice of partners based on their own experience with pair and group work – again, so that her learners can make relevant choices for their own work; • to find ways of supporting her learners’ choices and decisions instead of spending time checking what they have done or rather what they have not done, e.g., by introducing and applying useful tools in the learning process such as the use of posters and logbooks; • to support her learners’ awareness as regards what, why, and how to learn and also their own role in this process by suggesting different ways of evaluating the work undertaken, e.g., in their logbooks and the use of portfolios. Last but not least, it is the teacher’s responsibility to establish (and to give time and space for) a dialogue between the learners themselves as well as between teacher and learners. Such dialogue ensures that the process of learning is discussed and evaluated, and in this way the learning process becomes a shared responsibility, socially undertaken. The big question remains, of course, as it was twenty years ago: how can teachers be supported in this change of role? How can they be supported in changing their usual responsibility for teaching into a new type of responsibility, that of supporting learning? How can we get teachers to stop asking themselves: “How do I best teach this or that?” How can we get them to ask the question: “How do I best support my learners in learning this or that?” Clearly, these issues take time to resolve.

How can teachers be supported? There is no doubt that the recent and growing focus on the teacher’s responsibility for developing learner autonomy provides a useful framework for teachers and teacher trainers as they try to change the traditional teacher’s role. I now make some practical proposals. A possible plan for a teaching period In order to support teachers and teacher trainers I have modified my earlier description of “General elements in an autonomous classroom” (see Dam 1994, pp.522–4) to accommodate an explicit focus on the teacher’s responsibility. In the previous teaching “plan” I described possible activities that could take place during a lesson, hoping that teachers would gradually leave more and more

Leni Dam

141

initiative to their learners. However, it has been my experience that teachers do not succeed in this to the extent that they might hope for. In order to highlight the teacher’s responsibility, the plan (figure 3) now suggests that a period in class be divided into three clearly defined sections (see Dam 2000): 1.

2.

3.

Teacher-initiated and teacher-directed activities promoting awareness-raising as regards:

•

What to learn and how to learn

•

The learning environment and the responsibilities expected from its participants (learners and teacher)

•

Suitable activities for developing learner autonomy as well as communicative competence, i.e., useful language learning activities in a learning-centred environment, adequate materials for this purpose, relevant ways of and tools for organizing work, and various types of evaluation

Learner-directed and initiated activities – an example of an agenda:

•

Share homework in pairs or groups

•

“2 minutes’ talk”

•

Work with “free activities” (learner-chosen activities, in groups, in pairs or individually within the given framework)

•

Plan homework – and the next step

•

Evaluation of work carried out, individually and in pairs or groups

A joint “together session” for teacher and learners including:

•

Presentation and evaluation of results or products from group work, pair work, or individual work

•

Joint events with language input and language activities such as videos, songs, lyrics, story-telling, quizzes, etc.

•

Joint overall evaluation of the period

Figure 3 A possible plan for a period

1 A section where the teacher is in charge. The contents of this section are decided and carried out by the teacher according to the needs of her particular learners: their age, their level of competence, their expectations, the target language, etc. 2 A section where the learners are in charge. Based on the experience and awareness gained in section 1, the learners plan what to do and how to do it according to their individual needs and interests within the overall objectives. The teacher’s role in this section is to support and to be a participant in the learning process. At beginners’ level the teacher can suggest an agenda for the learners’ work. 3 A joint together-session where things are shared and evaluated, where teachers as well as learners have a say. The organization of this section is primarily the teacher’s responsibility, but this responsibility can be passed over to the learners.

142


It should be noted that change does not happen just by hearing or reading about it (“school knowledge”); you have to try it out, in other words make it your own “action knowledge” (Barnes 1976). I therefore believe that for in-service teachers the best kind of support for developing learner autonomy is participation in workshops, courses, seminars, etc. together with like-minded teachers, where they are forced to plan and carry out steps towards the implementation of learner autonomy. A model for in-service teacher training aimed at getting teachers to change their traditional teaching practice The model for my inset courses nowadays follows to a great extent the last phase of a model for a workshop developed in 1984 in Greve, Denmark: Training as classroom decision making and investigation (Breen et al. 1989, pp.125–33). Evaluations from course participants, as well as innovative measures they undertook in their classrooms, show that with this type of programme we managed to get teachers involved in innovation and in their own development (Taylor 1990). What has changed over the years, however, is the growing awareness of the teacher’s (and the trainer’s) responsibility for the development of change in the classroom. This has, of course, had an impact on the content of the programme. What then are the main issues in the present programme? First, the programme still takes as its starting point – indeed, is based on – the participants’ own situation, their expectations and their experience as regards teaching and learning. Secondly, it forces the participants to be actively involved in their own learning by asking them to articulate their various expectations and experiences as well as reflections on the ongoing process during the course. Personal logbooks have been introduced and used for this purpose. The participants are in this way made co-responsible for the outcome of the course. Thirdly, the programme is divided between “joint meetings” and “time for personal experiments”. By way of support for their planning, course participants are given a questionnaire (see figure 4) which when filled out is shared with the rest of the

Plan for small steps in my classroom as regards the learners’ active involvement in their own learning.

•

What would I like to try out or change or investigate or look into before we meet again?

•

Why do I want to do it?

•

How am I going to do it?

•

With what result? How am I going to evaluate the process? What kind of data/evidence do I expect to bring along to share with the group?

Figure 4 Planning questionnaire

Leni Dam

143

group. In the classroom a similar approach is very useful when groups of learners or individual learners set up their plans for their work. The experience gained in the classroom is evaluated and discussed at the next meeting (the next “together session”). Growth points (we call them “flowers”) as well as problems (or “pinching shoes”) will be the point of departure for new types of input and the next stage of innovation (see figure 5).

Evaluation of “small steps in my classroom as regards the learners’ active involvement in their own learning” – a checklist to be used for the sharing of experiences with the group.

•

What did I actually do in relation to my plan?

•

With what result – from the teacher’s as well as the learners’ point of view?

•

“Flowers”? Why?

•

“Pinching shoes”? Why?

•

Possible “Next step”?

Remember to bring along data from your classroom showing the process (demands, agreements, evaluations, logbooks, posters, video or taperecordings).

Figure 5 Evaluation questionnaire

Hopefully it is clear to the reader that this model for an in-service programme reflects exactly what we hope the teachers will do when they try to develop learner autonomy in their classrooms. The programme has taken much the same shape as “A possible plan for a period” (figure 3, p.141 above), with its three phases and clearly defined responsibilities assigned to participants (course participants, trainers, learners, and teachers). Its aim is to guide the participants through the “four steps towards responsibility for one’s own learning”. We believe that we provide the course participants with “action knowledge” rather than “school knowledge”. Yet the question remains, why do some teachers succeed in developing learner autonomy in their classes while others fail? Why do some teachers succeed and others fail? As mentioned, my basic programme for in-service teacher training has been in use for more than twenty years and has not always led to the desired outcome. My feeling is that after a while too many course participants resume their traditional teaching patterns. This feeling is fuelled by comments from former course participants such as: “I’m afraid that I’ve returned to traditional teaching, but I do make use of some of the things from the course.” On the other hand it is also my feeling that the stronger focus in recent years on the teacher’s responsibility in developing learner autonomy has made a difference. Comments from teachers would typically be: “I am really making use of what we started in your course.” It is also my experience that the suggested model for “A possible teaching period” has supported many teachers in

144


their attempt to change their teaching/learning environment. They grasp the importance of their responsibility in the process. They grasp the importance of teacher-initiated and teacher-directed activities, where the teacher raises learners’ awareness and provides ideas for possible ways of going about learning – while leaving the actual learning to the learners in the learner-initiated and learner-directed section. These teachers seem to be successful in keeping up the development towards learner autonomy. The less successful teachers are in my view the ones who, for various reasons, still try to avoid a change within themselves. Their focus is still on changing their learners. How good it would be if their learners were willing to take charge of their own learning and capable of doing so – in other words, were to become “responsible” learners. This attitude shows through in the following comments: The learners did not do any homework. They spoke Danish when I turned my back on the group. The clever learners did all the work.

The teacher who made the comment about homework might have asked herself whether her learners found the homework relevant, whether it was actually necessary, or whether its purpose was obvious to the learners. Similar questions could be asked about the other comments. When teachers blame their learners for lack of responsibility we can say that they 1 do not clearly see their responsibility in the organization and content of the lesson; 2 have not changed their role so that during the learner-directed activities, instead of checking and controlling, they can • be engaged in their learners’ learning process • be open to learners’ ideas and suggestions • support learners’ initiatives • encourage further activities • map out progress together with the learners • be a consultant as well as a co-learner in the learning process • observe and analyse for later evaluation with learners. In many cases these teachers introduce the logbook in their classes or set up project and group work, but basically they do not change their teacher role. It is highly likely that they will return to their traditional teaching environment after a while – if indeed they ever left it.

A set of criteria by which teachers might examine the crucial part they have to play in promoting learner autonomy Based on the many plans and their evaluations that I have collected over the years and – more importantly – on my discussions with course participants when they return from their “time for personal experiments”, I have compiled a checklist which is by no means complete. Before blaming the learner for lack of

Leni Dam

145

responsibility it might be a good idea for teachers to go through the list, alone or with a colleague. Alternatively the list might come in useful when I want to check if I, the teacher, have lived up to my responsibilities regarding the development of learner autonomy. The checklist comprises these questions: • Have I made the official demands and aims clear to the learners and their parents? Do the learners know what is expected of them? • Have I made my demands/expectations clear? • Have I supported the learners in setting up their individual goals/aims/ objectives? • Have I given my learners a genuine choice as regards: – What to do (type of activity, content of activity)? – Who to work with? – How to do it, including homework? • Have I prepared my learners to make these choices? • Have I made sure that my learners are familiar with different activity types, different ways of organizing their work, different tools for keeping track of the work undertaken? • Have I introduced useful tools for raising the learners’ awareness of their own learning as well as for documenting and evaluating their learning process (posters, logbooks, portfolios)? • Have I provided space and time for evaluating the learning process? • Have I made sure that the learners’ experiences, reflections and evaluations have an impact on further work – for them individually and for the class as a whole? • Have I entered into a dialogue with my learners – a dialogue that enhances rather than hinders learner autonomy? In short: 1 Have I prepared my learners to take responsibility for their learning? 2 Have I followed the “four steps” (see figure 2, p.139 above)? 3 Have I managed to establish a learning environment that supports the self-esteem of learners and teacher alike; in other words, an environment that supports the personal development of all participants?

Concluding remarks I have argued that the development of learner autonomy depends on teachers’ developing awareness of their role in the process. We know that this process can be threatening, but in most cases it is also rewarding. As teachers experience a change in their attitude to and understanding of learning, it is vitally important that they can share their ups and downs with someone. They may share their experience with colleagues or fellow course participants, but the ultimate goal is of course that such sharing takes place between the participants in the learning environment, teachers and learners.

146


References Barnes, D., 1976: From Communication to Curriculum. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Bergen, 1990: Developing Autonomous Learning in the Foreign Language Classroom. Bergen: Universitetet i Bergen, Institutt for praktisk pedagogikk. Breen, M., C. Candlin, L. Dam and G. Gabrielsen, 1989: The evolution of a teacher training programme. In R. K. Johnson (ed.), The Second Language Curriculum, pp.111–35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dam, L., 1994: How do we recognise an autonomous language classroom? Die Neueren Sprachen 93, pp.503–527. Dam, L., 1995: Learner Autonomy 3: From Theory to Classroom Practice. Dublin: Authentik. Dam, L., 2000: Why focus on learning rather than teaching? From theory to practice. in D. Little, L. Dam and J. Timmer (eds), Focus on Learning Rather than Teaching: Why and How?, pp.18–37. Dublin: Trinity College, Centre for Language and Communication Studies. Holec, H., 1981: Autonomy in Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon. (Reprint; first published 1979, Strasbourg: Council of Europe) Little, D., 1991: Learner Autonomy 1: Definitions, Issues, and Problems. Dublin: Authentik. Page, B. (ed.), 1992: Letting Go – Taking Hold. A Guide to Independent Language Learning by Teachers for Teachers. London: CILT. Taylor, M., 1990: Development and change effected through an in-service training course: teachers’ perceptions. Unpublished M.A. thesis in Linguistics For English Language Teaching. University of Lancaster, Department of Linguistics and Modern English Language, Lancaster.

Student autonomy and teachers’ professional growth: fostering a collegial culture in language teacher education Viljo Kohonen

Introduction Language teachers have an important role to play in how their students experience foreign language learning. They are a significant resource for self-directed, reflective learning that is part of learner autonomy. Developing autonomy in foreign language education is a complex process that requires time, commitment, expertise and explicit pedagogical guidance. As Little (1999) points out, students do not become autonomous learners simply by being told that they are now in charge of their learning. They can take greater control of the learning process only to the extent that they acquire the appropriate knowledge, skills and motivation. They also need to be actively involved in the whole process, interacting with their peers (in small groups) and sharing their learning experiences. This paper emphasizes the importance of the learning culture of the whole school for the promotion of self-directed language learning. It argues that learner autonomy is part of a more general concept of “values education” in school. Being an autonomous person implies respecting one’s own dignity as a moral person and valuing others by treating them with corresponding dignity. Human dignity involves moral agency, in the sense of being aware of one’s conduct and its effects on others. Values education is thus an inherent part of interaction between members of the school community. As Jackson et al. (1993) point out, schools do much more than pass on knowledge. The social learning environment of the school lays the foundations for lifelong attitudes to learning and habits of action. Therefore teachers need to reflect critically on their educational values and assumptions and the ways in which they organize, monitor and evaluate learning in their classes. Teachers’ awareness of ethical issues and their commitment to the educational ethos of their school provide the context for student autonomy. Enhancing autonomy underscores the need for a collegial school culture whereby teachers work together with the students (and the school’s stakeholders) in order to develop the school as a collaborative learning community. It is desirable to link student guidance for autonomous language learning with a wholeschool approach to promoting socially responsible student learning. Such a policy should, in fact, become a shared and publicly acknowledged pedagogical orientation of the school that includes all subject teachers as far as possible. This would mean that the school acquires a different culture as a work place and leads to a new educational paradigm: from teacher isolation towards teacher collabo147

148

Student autonomy and teachers’ professional growth

ration and professional autonomy. In such a critical-emancipatory paradigm, the teacher’s role is that of a reflective practitioner. Teachers need to assume a critical stance in relation to their profession in order to understand the constraints imposed on their work by external circumstances. When necessary, critical reflection should also lead to a determined course of action. In accordance with an emancipatory interest in knowledge (cf. Huttunen, this volume), teachers need to take charge of developing their professional skills, thereby becoming part of an interactive professional identity with the aim of fostering learning and personal growth. The new role emphasizes teacher autonomy and the moral nature of teaching (Kohonen 2000a, 2001a, 2002; see too Ribé, Huttunen, Dam, Riley, this volume). This paradigmatic shift involves collaborative, negotiated learning aimed at learner autonomy. The goal of socially responsible learner autonomy entails a socio-political dimension in foreign language education: going beyond the language skills, strategies and competences towards promoting education for democratic citizenship by encouraging active participation and responsible action within the learning community (cf. Byram 2002). Such a learning culture also requires new principles and practices in teacher education. The changes I envisage need to be identified and explained if they are going to be understood and facilitated. This is the starting point of this paper.

Professional growth and school culture: the OK Project With the above argument as a framework, I undertook an action research school development project with my colleague Pauli Kaikkonen at the Department of Teacher Education in Tampere University: the OK School Development Project (1994–8). A central goal of the project was to enhance teachers’ professional growth and socially responsible student learning by promoting a collegial school culture. The teachers’ participation in the project was voluntary. The schools were expected to make a basic commitment to the project, providing support to the participating teachers. About 40 teachers from six schools in the vicinity of Tampere joined the project (for more detailed accounts see Kohonen and Kaikkonen 1996, 2001, Kaikkonen and Kohonen 1997, 1999a, 1999b, Kohonen 2000a, 2001b). Our goals evolved gradually into the following common principles that guided our work during the four-year project: 1 providing support for site-based curriculum design, while leaving the ownership of the project to the participating teachers; 2 supporting collegial collaboration by facilitating joint planning of the project and working in a number of different groups; 3 helping the schools to establish networks through various interest groups, including international networking; 4 promoting openness of professional discussion and exchange of ideas between the participants; 5 developing the notion of teachers as researchers through an action research orientation and dissemination of the findings.

Viljo Kohonen

149

These principles still allowed ample room for the teachers to take their own on-site decisions in the schools and in their own classes. We saw such space as essential for the development of teacher autonomy, ownership and commitment. We introduced our educational goals to the schools at the onset of the project – goals that were part of a broad pedagogical approach. The project aimed at developing instruction within an experiential learning approach emphasizing reflective, autonomous learning and intercultural learning (see Kohonen 2001a, Kaikkonen 2001, Jaatinen 2001, Lehtovaara 2001). The participating teachers accepted our approach and, at the same time as working within it, they conducted their schools’ projects independently. They also evaluated their site-based projects by collecting mainly qualitative data from the whole process. They analysed their data themselves and disseminated the findings on their own in various different contexts. We established a joint project-planning group right at the start of the project, consisting of the two researchers and one teacher from each participating school. This group soon became a focus of professional interaction. We held regular monthly planning meetings in which we made decisions about the in-service workshop programmes and evaluated the progress that had been made. We organized workshops almost monthly during the project (with a total of 32 workshops between 1994 and 1998); these usually lasted between half and a full working day. In designing the in-service workshops, we encouraged a collaborative culture through an extensive use of reflective work either alone or in small groups. We also provided ample time for the teachers to share their experiences and personal discoveries. Several kinds of partnerships were developed in the project for mutual learning (see Kohonen 2000a, 2001b, Kohonen and Kaikkonen 1996, 2001). We encouraged the project teachers to clarify their professional aims, their thinking and pedagogical practice. For this purpose we provided lectures and workshops on reflective learning, intercultural learning, qualitative research and hermeneutical philosophy as a theoretical underpinning of the project. We also disseminated relevant professional papers to be discussed by the teachers in the schools. In this way a joint theoretical framework was gradually shaped interactively; teachers used and developed further the ideas in their classes on their own, while also sharing their experiences with colleagues. We also introduced the idea of developing student portfolios for reflective learning and self-assessment. This work was later continued in a further project (partly with the same teachers) as part of the Council of Europe’s pilot project on the European Language Portfolio (for more information see http:// culture.coe.int/portfolio). As a companion to learner portfolios, we encouraged the OK Project teachers to develop their own professional growth portfolios as a tool for increasing self-awareness and facilitating professional reflection. On the basis of these records, the teachers wrote a personal developmental essay at the end of each year and submitted it to us as research material. About half the teachers undertook this task. The findings discussed in this paper are based on the developmental essays and open-ended thematic interviews carried out with

150


two teachers from each school at the end of each school year. In connection with the workshops, the teachers frequently undertook “bridging” activities that they worked on in their classes and then reported their findings and experiences at the next seminar. The reports created a spirit of openness, shared responsibility and mutual learning in the project (cf. Dam, this volume). The OK Project thus provided a common forum for exchanging pedagogical ideas and experiences. Many of the teachers were also ready and willing to report on their findings to other teachers in seminars at a local, national and international level. The three collections of papers written by a number of the participating teachers and the two researchers (Kaikkonen and Kohonen 1997, 1999a, 1999b) were another important means of disseminating the findings.

Some empirical findings in the area of professional growth The language teachers’ enhanced professional identity The language teachers took up the idea of portfolio-oriented language learning as an important pedagogic tool for encouraging self-directed, reflective language learning. They soon discovered that tutoring their students’ portfolios required a great deal of time for designing and guiding the work, negotiating the ground-rules and deadlines, answering questions, reading the student assignments and giving feedback. This called for a new kind of firmness on their part in setting the tone of the work, negotiating activities and expecting that the students also observe the agreed deadlines. Encountering the students on a more personal basis in open negotiation was a new experience for many of them. Teachers also found that teaching such lessons to their students changed their personal views and images of teaching in a fundamental way. Portfolio-oriented learning opened up significant new perspectives on their work. Student portfolios clearly helped them to get to know their students better as individuals with their own lives, interests and hopes for the future. For one secondary school teacher, for example, the language portfolio opened a new world of professional growth and student guidance and tutoring; she used her personal diary as a vehicle for tracking and reflecting on her own growth while developing the student portfolio as a tool for guiding student progress. Her concept of teaching was indeed gradually changing (Kohonen 2000a, 2002): I still ‘teach’, of course, and am still a certain authority and adult in my class ... but I have also become a counsellor of my students’ learning. I attempt to create a positive climate in my classes and I also have the courage to take risks. I have become an observer of learning and I continuously encourage my students by giving them positive and yet honest feedback, both orally and in writing.

Another teacher found that she was more than just a teacher of languages in her school. At times she felt like “a social educator, a psychologist, a family therapist, a listener, a referee, someone who comforts”. Increased personal collaboration with parents at parent meetings also gave the teachers a better knowledge and understanding of their students’ home backgrounds. However, the meetings also raised the question of where to find the time for them, particularly

Viljo Kohonen

151

as they had to be held in the evenings. An upper secondary language teacher analysed her professional development thus: Knowledge transmission and authority were not the basic idea of being a teacher. What then? Could it be that the teacher is also a human being in class, someone who can also make mistakes and admit them?

Important for this particular teacher was a two-year intensive course on counselling and long-term work as a mentor of student teachers. After a thirty-year career, her view of teaching as a profession entailed guiding her students, talking and negotiating with them, giving space for student questions, and being an adult person in the class. Portfolio-oriented work gave her essential tools for this orientation. She noted that everything that had happened in her long professional career had in some way contributed to her development. The language teachers found that collaboration was mutually beneficial. At the same time they noted that cooperation across the curriculum was also useful, in that it provided new perspectives for thinking. Colleagues provided a mirror, as it were, for each teacher to reflect on her own teaching. The teachers’ reflections suggested an enhanced notion of the secondary teacher’s professional competence. This competence consists of the following dimensions of expertise (Kohonen 2000a, 2000b): 1 Subject-matter expertise: knowledge of the subject(s) taught and a disciplinebased theoretical understanding of them. This is, of course, the traditional role identity of secondary teachers. 2 Pedagogical expertise: knowledge of the students as individuals, how to encounter and guide them individually, how to facilitate their learning and teach them to be more competent and skilful learners; how to make the curriculum content more readily accessible to them. 3 Expertise in school development: an understanding of natural change and the assumption of a responsible role in developing the school as a collegial work place, and a commitment to the ethical aspects of the teacher’s work. These dimensions of expertise suggest a significant enhancement particularly in the secondary school teacher’s traditional role as the subject (language and linguistics) specialist working in isolation and largely within the transmission model of teaching. The emerging new professionalism therefore poses a significant challenge for the teacher, teacher education and the whole culture of schooling. Teacher growth as emotional involvement Facing professional change is not just an intellectual, rational matter of learning factual information. It is also very much a question of undertaking the necessary emotional work inherent in any major change – as in any profession. This is because change implies that part of the teacher’s competence has become obsolete and needs to be replaced by new attitudes, skills and understandings. Change thus poses a threat to the teacher’s professional self-understanding and belief

152


systems. This requires modifications in the beliefs and assumptions that underlie the teacher’s sense of role identity (see Kohonen 2000a, Leitch and Day 1998). Teachers reacted to such emotional demands in a variety of ways. On the one hand, some of their new discoveries were rewarding and entailed feelings of increased professional competence and even a kind of ‘empowerment’; a feeling of being energized and stimulated by work and by the collegial community. Professional growth was thus a personally enriching experience for many teachers. They learned to accept their limitations and imperfections and realized that they were still good teachers. Not having to be perfect was thus a liberating experience. Teachers assumed the courage to articulate their thoughts more openly, and did not get discouraged when they encountered resistance to their ideas. The teachers also felt a strong need to learn more in order to increase their understanding of their work. At the same time, they realized that they needed to look after their own well-being and mental resources by taking time for rest, privacy and reflection. They noted that an exhausted teacher would not be helpful to anyone. Increased self-understanding encouraged them to give presentations about their work to colleagues at various professional meetings. They felt that they believed more in the significance of their work; in other words, they could make a difference to their students’ lives. On the other hand, however, professional growth also entailed feelings of uncertainty and insufficiency. As well as their own self-doubts, these innovative secondary teachers also had to face suspicion and even resistance from a number of their colleagues as well as from several of their students. Many teachers also asked themselves how they could behave in their classes in a confident way while having inner doubts about the adequacy of their own professional skills; how to give an impression of being a competent and encouraging teacher while feeling professionally uncertain? This paradox inherent in being an innovative teacher caused stress and anxiety to several of them. Changing the professional beliefs and assumptions in the middle of a full workload was at times felt to be emotionally draining and even overwhelming. However, there was a wide range of individual differences among the teachers, and what was a stressful situation for one teacher could be challenging for another. One lower-secondary teacher discovered that she had to learn to proceed in small steps and also allow herself to make mistakes. Failures and mistakes were part of life, and they could also contain seeds for growth. When a teacher encounters her own insufficiencies it is also easier for her to understand and appreciate imperfections in others. As one teacher noted: “We touch others through our insufficiency, not through our impeccability and excellence.” For her, facing the changes was thus a question of humility, endurance, maturation and personal growth. Sharing her feelings with a colleague was a significant help for her in the process.

Viljo Kohonen

153

Discussion of the findings A model of awareness in foreign language education Autonomous language learning has a solid basis in a holistic, experiential learning approach as a broad theoretical orientation. The student is seen as a selfdirected, intentional person who can be guided to develop his or her competences in three inter-related areas of knowledge, skills and awareness: (a) personal awareness and self-direction, (b) awareness of language and communication, and (c) awareness of learning processes. These components of learner development need to be accompanied by and consciously linked to the teacher’s professional growth (for integrating knowledge about SLA into initial teacher education, see Devitt, this volume). Further, teacher development needs to be embedded in the context of purposeful staff development towards a collegial institutional culture, and connected to developments in society at large. I now elaborate these three perspectives: (a) Personal awareness and self-direction. These develop naturally throughout the life cycle. However, such development can be facilitated in language education by designing learning environments that foster students’ healthy (and realistic) personal growth. This is a question of working towards a community of learners in which the students feel safe to explore the uncertainties involved in language learning and communication. In such a process, language learning expands beyond the notion of communicative competence towards intercultural competence, relating to otherness in human encounters (Kohonen 1992, Kaikkonen 2001, Byram 2002; see also Huttunen, Ushioda, Aase, Riley, this volume). (b) Awareness of language and communication. An important part of foreign (and more particularly second) language learning will obviously take place in informal contexts, outside classroom settings. However, language classrooms still provide a powerful environment for learning. They allow language, communication and learning to be made explicit and discussed and explored together, with the teacher as a professional guide and organizer of each learning opportunity. The quality of this environment is determined by the kind of tasks the students engage in and how they are guided to work on what they do. The students need to understand and conceptualize the big picture of the whole foreign language learning enterprise they are undertaking. This means helping them to acquire for themselves a kind of personal map of their learning task, helping them to orient themselves in the fuzzy terrain of human communication. (c) Awareness of the learning processes. This helps language students to monitor their learning towards increasingly self-directed, negotiated language learning and self-assessment. This involves knowledge about learning strategies. At a higher level of abstraction, the metacognitive knowledge of learning helps students to improve the ways in which they plan and monitor the learning processes (Kohonen 1999, 2000b, 2001a; see also Ridley, Devitt, Trebbi, Little, this volume).

154


Facilitating student autonomy makes it necessary for the language teacher to reflect on his or her professional identity. Teachers need to work on their beliefs and assumptions about their role as language educators. They need to see themselves as reflective professionals as they encounter the uncertainties of guiding and supporting self-assessment and self-directed student learning. In experiential learning the teacher becomes a facilitator of learning, an organizer of learning opportunities, a resource person providing learners with feedback and encouragement, and a creator of the learning atmosphere and the learning space. Clearly, an essential question is how the teacher exercises his or her pedagogical power in the class (Jaatinen 2001; Ribé, Huttunen, Dam, Lazenby Simpson, Trebbi, Riley, this volume). The teachers in the project found it helpful to share their experiences with their colleagues in the seminars and workshops. Working closely together improved their personal relationships and made it easier to give and receive feedback. Through collegial collaboration teachers found better ways of tackling the problems of student motivation, discipline and bullying, thereby gaining rewarding experiences of working together (Kohonen 2000a, 2000b, 2001b). To summarize this discussion, I propose the holistic framework for experiential foreign language education set out in figure 1 (see Kohonen 2001a, pp.49–50). 1. Personal Awareness: Self-Concept, Identity Realistic Self-Esteem Self-Direction Autonomy 3. Task Awareness: Understanding, Using, Constructing Communication Skills in Context

2. Process Awareness: Learning

Experience Apply

Experiential Learning

Reflect

Conceptualize

Monitoring Reflection Cooperation Critical Selfassessment

Teacher's Professional Awareness: Professional Autonomy Communicative Action Commitment to Learning Culture of Learning Institution and Society: Quality of Learning Environment Culture of Learning Community Collaboration between Participants Figure 1 Experiential language education in the institutional context

Viljo Kohonen

155

To promote experiential foreign language education we need to consider the learning process at the levels of the individual learner, the teacher and the school organization as part of the society in which learning takes place. This entails nothing less than a redesign of the language teaching profession and a willingness among schools to take on a new culture as a collaborative work place. As shown by the cyclical process in the middle of figure 1, experiential learning constitutes the reflective core orientation at each level (cf. Huttunen, this volume). Intuitive experiences are grasped and made sense of through conscious reflection and abstract conceptualization. This involves a tension between unconscious and conscious learning. The experience is transformed into personally meaningful learning through reflection and active experimentation. This creates another tension between the elements of detached reflection and active risk-taking. All these modes of learning are necessary for the development of the components of intercultural communicative competence (see Kolb 1984, Kohonen 2001a, Kaikkonen 2001). Professional growth as transformative learning Some recent literature has discussed the teacher’s professional growth and the possibility of supporting it through in-service teacher education in terms of “transformative learning”. Essential to this concept is that teachers emancipate themselves from their constraining beliefs and assumptions and create new pedagogical solutions. Such change is an experiential process that integrates the cognitive, social and emotional aspects of professional learning. The process is community-based and aims at a culture of collegial sharing and interactive learning, while creating space for individual growth. Transformative learning includes the following properties (Edge 1992, Cranton 1996, Darling-Hammond 1998, Askew and Carnell 1998, Kohonen 2000a, 2000b, 2001a, 2002): 1 Realizing the significance of professional interaction for growth. 2 Developing an open, critical stance to professional work and seeing oneself as a continuous learner. 3 Developing a reflective attitude as a basic habit of mind, involving reflection on educational practices and their philosophical underpinnings. 4 Developing new self-understanding in concrete situations. 5 Reflecting on critical events or incidents in life (and work history) and learning from these personal insights. 6 Conscious risk-taking: acting in new ways in classes and in the work community. 7 Ambiguity tolerance: learning to live with uncertainty concerning the decisions to be made. The approach emphasizes the teacher’s self-understanding based on pedagogical reflection in concrete situations with learners. Darling-Hammond (1998) points out that teachers learn by observing and listening to their students carefully and by looking at their work thoughtfully. This furthers their understanding of what students believe about themselves, what they care about, and what

156


tasks are likely to give them enough challenge and success to sustain motivation. Teacher learning therefore needs to be connected with actual teaching, supported by ongoing theory building: “Teachers learn best by studying, doing, and reflecting; by collaborating with other teachers; by looking closely at students and their work; and by sharing what they see” (ibid., p.8). Teachers often seem to make a distinction between their personal and professional selves. Leitch and Day (1998) point out that teachers’ professional growth is adequate only when it is placed in the larger context of their careers and personal lives. Professional growth is a complex phenomenon involving both cognitive and affective learning. It is important for teachers to attend also to their emotional selves and their life histories in their reflections (Jaatinen 2001). The transformation process often involves experience of cognitive and emotional dissonance and feelings of uncertainty and ambiguity. To cope with such feelings teachers (as well as students) need support. To develop a curriculum, teachers need to share their ideas, insights and problems with each other. They need to clarify and redefine their educational beliefs, images and assumptions. They need to work towards increased reflectivity by considering their goals and practices, judging their decisions against concrete empirical evidence. The purpose of this reflective work is to integrate their prior professional beliefs and images, their theoretical knowledge and their classroom experiences into new personalized understanding, or “experiential understanding” as Edge (1992) calls it. Conditions for professional growth Teachers need to address the basic questions of the purpose of education and what it means, for them, to be teachers in today’s schools. In so doing they can develop a critical understanding of their profession and of themselves as human beings. This makes it possible for them to take active charge of developing their work together. Action research provides a framework and tools for this pedagogical enquiry. It underscores the educational motives for undertaking research and development work: improving the quality of teaching and learning in the local school context (Kohonen and Kaikkonen 1996, 2001, Edge and Richards 1993). It is essential that this process promotes both the teacher’s professional growth and school development in order to improve student learning. Research is geared to classroom realities and is carried out mainly by the teacher (rather than by an outside researcher), in collaboration with other teachers. In a collaborative school culture, teachers and students can encounter each other in a more holistic way as genuine persons and partners in learning. In doing so they build a new teaching and learning community, encouraging authentic communication while respecting diversity. Grimmett (1996) points out that pursuing their professional growth involves teachers in a struggle because the conditions and settings in which they work can pose obstacles for professionalism. The teacher’s work is constrained by situational and social factors. Frequently these factors offer teachers the role of technical

Viljo Kohonen

157

curriculum implementer, rather than inviting them to work towards an innovative educator’s position. Dealing with such obstacles requires commitment, effort and persistence. Grimmett argues further that teachers are involved in a struggle for increased professional authenticity in which they examine their professional beliefs and assumptions and reflect on what actually happens in their classes. Professional growth is thus essentially a question of time, struggle, commitment and support. Well-intentioned (and relevant) school innovations may, in many cases, become counter-productive if they are introduced at such a rate that the teachers cannot cope with them properly. Transformative teacher learning requires time for thoughtful reflection and internal processing, and time for collegial discussions and the planning of pedagogical procedures. Teachers also need time to collect their observations, reflect on them and modify their actions according to their findings. This is why transformative learning should not be pushed through too hastily. Changes of the magnitude of paradigmatic shifts in teacher thinking, pedagogical action and school culture just do not take place overnight. They are inevitably a function of time and commitment in any profession. Besides, students are similarly in need of time, guidance and support in the process (see Ridley, Thomsen, Legenhausen, this volume). Increasing pressure without appropriate support can therefore entail feelings of powerlessness and frustration and lead to withdrawal, fatigue and a professional crisis (Fullan 1996; Kohonen 2000a, 2001b, 2002). The current trend of introducing the mechanisms of the market economy into schools to improve their efficiency is undermining the conditions of education aimed at fostering student autonomy. Instead of competition, rush, sanctions and additional external pressures (or threats of them) evident in the fashionable practices of “quality control”, what is needed in school at the moment is time, professional effort and administrative support. Fullan (1996) similarly emphasizes the importance of time for real change to take place in schools. If there is not enough time for collegial discussion and the development of a culture of caring and sharing in schools, any innovative work that is done easily remains superficial, fragments and is lost. Towards a new collegial culture in teacher education The university–school partnership that we developed in the OK Project is an example of developing new possibilities for the university (or college) to support schools and teachers. In the traditional models of university–school cooperation, researchers have usually given teachers lectures and seminars on learning and teaching while remaining outside experts and evaluators of the results. Such orientations have encouraged the teachers to remain in a dependent role. We set out to develop a new model for the collaboration, based on the socialconstructivist and emancipatory educational paradigms. Essential to the new concept of university–school partnership is that it is based on the equal status of the partners and mutual trust and respect. It also

158


encourages the teachers to take charge of developing their school through an action research orientation. This means assuming an inquiring attitude to the work: becoming sensitive to potentially interesting problems and learning to think them through systematically and rigorously. To facilitate these processes, teacher educators need to develop a supportive culture for intensive work on self-understanding, in an equal partnership with the participating teachers and schools. As the foregoing discussion of the design and findings of the OK Project shows, we were able to develop a number of ways for facilitating the processes of professional growth towards a new collegial culture. Our data on their professional growth indicates that the participating teachers were actively committed to increased professional learning. In an environment of trust and openness, teachers can feel safe to expore their professional images, beliefs and assumptions and take the risk of questioning and modifying them where they see that it is possible and appropriate.

References Askew, S., and E. Carnell, 1998: Transforming Learning: Individual and Global Change. London: Cassell. Byram, M., 2002: Politics and policies in assessing intercultural competence in language teaching. In V. Kohonen and P. Kaikkonen (eds), Quo vadis, foreign language education, pp.17–32. University of Tampere: Department of Teacher Education. Cranton, P., 1996: Professional Development as Transformative Learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Darling-Hammond, L., 1998: Teacher learning that supports student learning. Educational Leadership 55 (6), pp.6–11. Edge, J., 1992: Cooperative Development: Professional Self-development Through Cooperation with Colleagues. London: Longman. Edge, J., and K. Richards (eds), 1993: Teachers Develop Teachers’ Research: Papers on Classroom Research and Teacher Development. Oxford: Heinemann. Fullan, M., 1996: The school as a learning organisation: distant dreams. In P. Ruohotie and P. Grimmett (eds), pp.215–26. Grimmett, P., 1996: Teacher development as a struggle for authenticity. In P. Ruohotie and P. Grimmett (eds), pp.291–316. Jaatinen, R., 2001: Autobiographical knowledge in foreign language education and teacher development. In V. Kohonen et al., pp.106–40. Jackson, P. W., R. E. Boostrom and D. T. Hansen, 1993: The Moral Life of Schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Kaikkonen, P., 2001: Intercultural learning through foreign language education. In V. Kohonen et al., pp.61–105. Kaikkonen, P., and V. Kohonen (eds), 1997, 1999a, 1999b: The living curriculum 1, 2 and 3. Tampere: Reports from the Department of Teacher Education in Tampere University A9, A18 and A19. (In Finnish.) Kohonen, V., 1992: Foreign language learning as learner education: facilitating

Viljo Kohonen

159

self-direction in language learning. In B. North (ed.), Transparency and Coherence in Language Learning in Europe, pp.71–87. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Kohonen, V., 1999: Authentic assessment in affective foreign language education. In J. Arnold (ed.), Affect in Language Learning, pp.279–94. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kohonen V., 2000a: Facilitating transformative learning for teacher growth. In B. Beairsto and P. Ruohotie (eds), Empowering Teachers as Life-long Learners, pp.127–45. Hämeenlinna: Research Center for Vocational Education. Kohonen, V., 2000b: Portfolio-oriented language education and the teacher’s professional growth. Babylonia 4, pp.11–14. Kohonen, V., 2001a: Towards experiential learning in foreign language education. In V. Kohonen et al., pp.8–60. Kohonen, V., 2001b: Teacher growth and site-based curriculum development: developing in-service teacher education. In E. Kimonen (ed.), Curriculum Approaches, pp.35–53. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä, Department of Teacher Education. Kohonen, V., 2002: From isolation to interdependence in ELT: supporting teacher development through a university-school partnership. In J. Edge (ed.), Continuous Professional Development: Some of our Perspecives, pp.40–49. Whitstable, Kent: IATEFL. Kohonen, V., R. Jaatinen, P. Kaikkonen and J. Lehtovaara, 2001: Experiential Learning in Foreign Language Education. Harlow: Longman. Kohonen, V., and P. Kaikkonen, 1996: Exploring new ways of in-service teacher education: an action research project. European Journal of Intercultural Studies 7 (3), pp.42–59. Kohonen, V., and P. Kaikkonen, 2001: Towards a collegial school culture: fostering new teacher professionalism and student autonomy through an action research project. Paper presented at the Experiential Learning World Conference at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. Kolb, D., 1984: Experiential Learning. Experience as a Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Lehtovaara, J., 2001: What is it – (FL) teaching? In V. Kohonen et al., pp.141–76. Leitch, R., and C. Day, 1998: Reflective processes in action: mapping personal and professional contexts for learning and change. Paper presented at the annual conference of the European Conference on Educational Research, Ljubljana. Little, D., 1999: The European Language Portfolio and Self-assessment. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, Document DECS/EDU/LANG (99) 30. Ruohotie, P., and P. Grimmett (eds), 1996: Professional Growth and Development. Vancouver: Career Education Center.

Part IV : Curriculum and assessment

Introduction to part IV Ema Ushioda

The final papers in this symposium consider the implications of all the foregoing arguments for national curricula and public examinations. The papers offer perspectives on a wide range of secondary curriculum contexts, including mother tongue, second language, foreign language and bilingual education. Turid Trebbi begins by examining curriculum development as a vehicle for introducing pedagogical innovation, with particular reference to the teaching and learning of second foreign languages (i.e., other than English) in Norway. After giving a brief historical overview, Trebbi describes the rationale and development of the national curriculum for French and German (lower secondary) introduced in the Norwegian educational reform of 1997. Emphasizing the key issue of accessibility for all pupils, she explains how a major objective was to develop a curriculum that catered for the diversity of individual language learning processes, and that was consequently underpinned by the principles of learner autonomy. Trebbi illustrates how these possibilities are realized in the design of the curriculum. However, she also signals constraints in the educational system, such as the lack of an official examination and qualification in the second foreign language, and the reluctance of the National Assembly to make the subject compulsory and thus accessible to every pupil. Trebbi then considers the curriculum at the operational level in terms of its impact on classroom innovation, and highlights the potential for mismatch between curriculum specifications and implementation. Nevertheless, she concludes by expressing confidence that, provided teachers are given sufficient support and time, the new curriculum will open the door to important changes in thinking and classroom practice. An underlying theme in Trebbi’s paper is that foreign language competence, like mother tongue competence, is a form of social and cultural competence. This theme is further developed in Laila Aase’s paper which focuses on the interactions between mother tongue and foreign language education. Aase points out that children will normally develop an advanced text competence in their mother tongue at an early age, and that such text competence should be drawn upon when they begin to learn a foreign language. Equally text competence acquired in the foreign language classroom can feed into the growth of general text competence. As Aase argues, developing text competence is not simply a question of developing linguistic skills, but entails participating in society through mastering the cultural forms that are valued in the society in question. She discusses how this general cultural purpose of language education might best be described through the German concept of Bildung, which closely associates learning with culture (historical and contemporary) and individual development. Here Aase emphasizes the important reciprocal relationship between 163

164

Introduction to part IV

cultural forms and internal processes. Mere exposure to cultural content is not sufficient; what is significant is the creation of structures and principles for understanding through cultural encounters in the form of texts. As Aase notes, the process of developing such understanding depends on language development. The language curriculum therefore has an important contribution to make to the growth of individual competence across all school subjects. The implications of language development in relation to the whole school curriculum are brought sharply into focus in Barbara Lazenby Simpson’s paper. Here attention switches to the learning needs of migrant children, for whom access to education in the host country is dependent on the development of appropriate second language proficiency. As Lazenby Simpson explains, the challenges facing these learners are particularly complex since they often entail not only linguistic but also cultural and educational discontinuities. Despite these grave challenges, Lazenby Simpson stresses that it is essential for migrant pupils to engage with mainstream education as soon as possible so that their educational and life achievements are not diminished by language deficit. Focussing on the Irish context, she discusses how the key to addressing this highly complex set of issues lies in language learning that also provides for the growth of self-awareness and self-esteem, and for the development of those skills that ultimately empower the learner. Following the arguments of earlier papers, she underlines the pivotal mediating and co-constructive role of the language support teacher in this process. Lazenby Simpson concludes by describing how the European Language Portfolio serves as a particularly useful pedagogical tool to mediate this learning dialogue between migrant pupil and teacher and facilitate the empowerment of the learner. The interaction between language education and other subject learning is also a theme of Dieter Wolff’s paper, which focuses on “content and language integrated learning” (CLIL). Also known as “bilingual education”, CLIL entails the teaching of a number of content subjects through the medium of a foreign language. Research has shown that content subject knowledge as well as foreign language proficiency benefit from this integrated approach. Wolff points out that CLIL does not imply a particular methodology, and that traditional teacher-centred approaches often prevail. However, his main argument is that CLIL has the potential to provide a much richer framework for the development of learner autonomy than ordinary foreign language or content subject classes. Wolff elaborates his argument with reference to six issues central to the development of autonomy: learning content, learning objectives, learning environment, social forms of learning, learning strategies, and evaluation. He discusses how CLIL classrooms offer a context that is especially conducive to the development of learner autonomy, since it engages learners’ interest in content that is authentic, facilitates the setting of objectives, creates a realistic learning environment for research and experimentation, encourages group work, and promotes the growth of transferable strategic abilities. In relation to evaluation, Wolff notes that this concept remains a problematic issue but suggests that CLIL may offer a particularly strong case for incorporating self-assessment, since learners find it easier

Ema Ushioda

165

to evaluate learning processes and results with respect to content than language. The problems posed by formal assessment in autonomous learning contexts are addressed in detail in the final paper by David Little. The paper begins by summarizing the collective arguments of earlier contributions in terms of three premises: (i) learner autonomy denotes a capacity for self-management in learning; (ii) the development of learner autonomy in any domain presupposes the progressive achievement of learning goals; (iii) learning is mediated by socialinteractive processes. On the basis of these three premises, Little first outlines reasons why public examinations are perceived as being inimical to the development of learner autonomy. He then explores the issues of assessment and accountability with reference to the business philosophy of Total Quality Management, and notes that positive interaction between external and self-assessment is made possible by the fact that internal quality procedures are based on externally established quality criteria. Drawing a parallel with the language teaching context, he proposes that a similar interaction becomes possible if the Council of Europe’s Common European Framework is used to define curriculum goals and assessment criteria, and the European Language Portfolio is used to guide the management and assessment of classroom learning. In the final part of his paper, Little describes how an autonomy-friendly system of public examinations might be designed on this basis.

Curriculum development and learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom: constraints and possibilities Turid Trebbi

Introduction There seems to be common agreement that the curriculum has a key role to play in the effort to implement learner autonomy in the classroom. When national curricula embody traditional beliefs about teaching and learning and thus support a view of teaching as transmission of knowledge, change in the language classroom is all but impossible, even for the most convinced and energetic teacher. In recent years, however, school reforms in European countries have resulted in new national curricula that are more attuned to the idea of learner autonomy and more likely to promote innovation in the language classroom. This paper presents the Norwegian curriculum for French and German at lower secondary level (grades 8 to 10), which was developed as part of a more general educational reform in 1997 (L97: Læreplanverket for den 10-årige grunnskolen, Det kongelige kirke-, utdannings- og forskningsdepartement, Oslo). It serves as an example of a curriculum that takes account of the idea of learner autonomy. At the same time it gives rise to three major issues: 1 the curriculum as a prescriptive document; 2 access to language learning; 3 the curriculum and classroom innovation. The first section of the paper outlines the background to the curriculum and gives some indication of the context in which it originated. This paves the way for the arguments in the second section, which explains why learner autonomy was adopted as the rationale for curriculum planning and why an alternative type of curriculum was designed. The third section seeks to demonstrate how the curriculum responds to new educational demands. It briefly describes a new view of the subject, and then gives an outline of the curriculum that summarizes the principal issues of subject structure, objectives, content and pedagogical approach. The fourth section is concerned with the curriculum at the operational level. Essentially I argue that the curriculum can be a vehicle for change and a means of opening the door to new approaches in the classroom, provided that the processes of innovation receive strong support.

Background: elitism or access? As a consequence of globalization and the increasing impact of the information society, we are currently living through a period of transition towards greater emphasis on the need for foreign languages. There is also reason to believe that 166

Turid Trebbi

167

foreign languages are or will be of great concern to school authorities in all European countries. Social changes bring with them new needs for knowledge and insight, and the acquisition of languages has become a prerequisite for anyone who wants to participate in decision making and benefit from the opportunities offered in professional and private life. In the nineteenth century the same was true of reading and writing skills: teaching reading and writing was a means of empowering people. Today, foreign language learning is one important way of making democracy sustainable. However, in some European countries foreign languages are not yet available to all pupils. The April 2000 Eurobarometer survey revealed that fewer than half of the citizens of the European Union claimed to be able to hold a conversation in a foreign language. To this I would add that in some countries like Norway, proficiency in foreign languages other than English is poor. This prompts reflection on the issue of access to knowledge as a common educational goal. During the last century this issue was on the agenda in Norway, at least by implication, whenever educational changes were undertaken. Already in 1936 there seemed to be agreement that the foreign language to be taught in elementary school should be English – it was argued that German was more difficult (Gundem 1989). It also seems to have been generally agreed that foreign language teaching should be limited to pupils with the necessary learning ability, which turned out to be about 25% of all pupils. This position was not seriously challenged until the 1950s. In 1957 the Innovation Council of the Ministry of Education set up a plan labelled “English for everyone”, which involved differentiated instruction and streaming. The Act of 1969 finally made English compulsory and the first foreign language for all pupils. This marked a significant break with the traditional status of languages as school subjects for selected pupils only. Now all pupils were considered able to learn at least English, though the traditional view of German as a more difficult language also survived. The reform of 1974, which replaced a parallel school system with a comprehensive system, introduced German and two years later also French, as an option at lower secondary level. The pupils could choose between a whole range of subjects, from languages to pottery and football, depending on what each school decided to offer. Local orientation and priorities determined whether or not a second foreign language was offered. Optional subjects led neither to examinations nor to qualifications for admission to upper secondary school, which led many to oppose what they saw as the lowering in status of the second foreign language. Because a second foreign language was not compulsory, and not even offered in many schools, marked regional variations soon made themselves felt. In 1988, for instance, about 60% of the lower secondary intake in Oslo completed the second foreign language course, as against about 18% in the nothernmost county, Finnmark (Gjørven and Trebbi 1988). Even when pupils were offered a second foreign language and chose it, many dropped out after a while. One reason was said to be the absence of in-service training for teachers, as a consequence of which the abstract grammatical approach to language learning associated with the former parallel school system was retained, even if the overall

168

Curriculum develop and learner autonomy

goal of the subject was the development of communicative proficiency. The desired shift in approach did not occur. The view was still held that only a certain proportion of pupils had the ability and talent needed to learn a second foreign language. In many ways the situation resembled that of English in the 1950s and 1960s. This was despite the fact that both the 1974 and the 1987 curricula were informed by a view of learning as a personal and individual process, and were consequently conceived as a set of open guidelines giving ample room for teachers to construct their own classroom syllabus together with their learners. Dissatisfaction with the teaching of the second foreign language grew in step with increasing internationalization. In 1988 the Council for Primary and Lower Secondary Education appointed a working group to devise a plan of action to improve matters. The first of eleven recommendations was that the second foreign language should be made compulsory after a five-year trial period (Gjørven and Trebbi 1988). This won sympathy but did not lead to any changes because the political majority was not in favour of a move viewed as increasing the dominance of “theoretical” subjects in our school system. Nevertheless, the Ministry of Education did set up a three-year project from 1989 with the objective of investigating how to improve second foreign language proficiency at lower secondary level. The project decided to examine the potential of learner autonomy, which proved to be beneficial for all pupils involved (Trebbi 1995). This experience was of considerable value when curriculum planning was undertaken three years later in 1995. (Members of the planning group were Anne Britt Heimdal and Geir Nordahl-Pedersen (German), Irene Andreassen (Finnish), Rita Gjørven and myself (French). I also chaired the group and was responsible for the final proposal.) At this stage, the Ministry wanted the curriculum to address the needs of all pupils. The 1988 recommendation that a second foreign language should be mandatory no longer seemed like utopia. Now French and German were to be considered a constituent part of general education rather than offered on a selective basis only. Access was understood in its broadest sense: not only should a second foreign language be a possible choice for all pupils; all pupils should be regarded as having the capacity to learn a second foreign language. This was a new way of looking at the situation compared to the earlier ambivalent position of the 1974 and 1987 reforms, in which seemingly open guidelines aiming at individual learning and differentiation were constrained by continued acceptance of the classic view of teaching as transmission of knowledge. It was recognized, at least by the Ministry, that competence in more than one foreign language (i.e., a language in addition to English) was no longer an unrealistic goal for all pupils.

Rationale Learner autonomy and successful learning The aim of giving all pupils access to a second foreign language is coherent with the concept of learner autonomy. This is not because learner autonomy is perceived as an absolute prerequisite for language learning, but because it seems to provide for successful learning by all pupils in an institutional environment that

Turid Trebbi

169

advocates learning for personal development and emancipation (Dam 1995; Trebbi 1995). Successful learning in this context is viewed not in terms of excellence of learning outcomes based on predefined criteria, but as learning that is both self-regulated and motivated by the building of individual identity in a social context. Three principles of learning advocated by, among others, George Kelly (Kelly 1955, repr. 1991) support this position: • learning is based on personal experience; • learning involves confrontation between existing representations and the unknown; • learning is personal construction of knowledge. Fundamentally, the learner is seen as being in charge of his/her own learning, no teacher can know what is best for each learner, and no teacher can predefine the learning process and its outcomes. To be in charge, however, is one thing; to be able to take charge of one’s own learning is another. Most learners have to learn how to do this. In other words, learners have to learn how to learn by developing awareness of their own learning. According to Kelly’s model, teachers cannot distribute knowledge but only the raw material for knowledge construction. Teachers can also provide good conditions for knowledge building. These may be defined as open learning situations which foster social-interactive processes and provide individual learning space (Trebbi 1987). According to Kelly: It is not what happens around him that makes a man experienced; it is the successive construing and reconstruing of what happens, as it happens, that enriches the experience of his life. (1955, repr. 1991, p.73) In this and other constructivist views, learning depends on collaborative investigation by teachers and learners from their different perspectives. The known is confronted with the unknown and challenged by new experiences. In the learning process contributions from the learner and the teacher are, in principle, equally important. The need for individual learning space is one implication of this theoretical position. The “successive construing and reconstruing of what happens” also has social implications in that it entails a complex interaction between agents in the learning situation. In this perspective, the concepts of learner autonomy and successful learning are two sides of the same coin. Against this background our imperative was to conceive a curriculum that catered in a realistic way for the diversity of individual language learning processes, and that consequently reflected the principles that govern the development of learner autonomy. This brings us to a discussion of the curriculum as a document for managing teaching and learning. The curriculum – a prescriptive document A curriculum is a prescription for classroom action and is imbued with authority as the teacher’s working instructions. The crucial question concerns the curriculum’s ideological orientation. Traditionally there has been a deep contradiction

170


between learners’ needs and official demands. The typical traditional curriculum is “premissed upon a pre-packaging of knowledge seen-as-items” (Candlin 1984, p.30), with an ordered sequence of teaching and learning and predefined learning outcomes. By contrast, an experience-oriented curriculum has open tasks and allows flexible personal investment in learning and the exploration of different learning approaches within a collaborative learning environment; in other words, it challenges the static classroom and puts change on the agenda. But how can we design this type of curriculum without making it seem normative and exclusive? Candlin (1984) advocates planning at two levels: at level one there should be official guidelines for an overall strategy, and at level two there should be local syllabuses arising from what he calls tactical sequencing of action and activity in the classroom. As noted above, however, open non-directive guidelines which invite teachers and learners to construct their own classroom syllabus may fail to respond to learner needs and the needs of society, simply because teacher representations of teaching/learning tend to support a classical transmission view of the process. In French and German classrooms in Norway following the 1974 and 1987 curricular reforms, pupils were demotivated by a teaching methodology that was generally perceived to inhibit rather than facilitate learning. As noted by Devitt (this volume), the predefined steps of a language course do not necessarily correspond to the actual developmental stages of language competence, and this mismatch may have been a contributory factor in the negative experiences of pupils learning French or German in Norway. Another perspective is offered by Bourdieu (1990), who claims that successful learning depends on the mental baggage one brings into the learning environment, and on whether it is included or excluded. It seems clear that the simple provision of open guidelines may not be sufficient to ensure the development of local syllabuses that genuinely challenge the traditional foreign language classroom. The fundamental question is: What should be included in the curriculum to make it conducive to fostering the development of learner autonomy and to giving learners opportunities to pursue their own directions and make fruitful choices for their own learning progress? This was the basic question that faced the 1995 curriculum planning group. From it there emerged other controversial questions such as: How can we define the subject in a way that makes it relevant to all students and to general educational aims? How can the curriculum define learning outcomes that are not contradictory to the learning process itself? What should be taken out of the control of the teacher? All of these were urgent and problematic questions that required answers. In addressing these problems, the task was to sustain an effective balance between openness on the one hand and direction on the other, in order to respond to diverse learning needs and, at the same time, establish a direction for innovative pedagogical change. An additional concern was to respond in an appropriate manner to the task as defined by the Ministry. The Ministry had decided that subject curricula should be formulated as a set of overall aims together with learning objectives that included content items, work-

Turid Trebbi

171

ing methods and the structure of the subject. Decisions about evaluation were exempted from the curriculum and delegated to the national examination board once the subject curricula had been finalized.

Outline of the curriculum The second foreign language as school subject – a qualitative change Qualitative changes in our view of the school-going population have changed the status of the second foreign language. It is now seen to contribute to the overall aims of primary and secondary schooling as part of the programme of general education. During the last few decades there have been new theoretical insights into the nature of languages and how languages and communication relate both to culture and to mental processes of understanding. We have become aware that language use entails both cultural exposure and cultural expression. This implies that foreign language competence, like mother tongue competence, is a form of social and cultural competence. In this respect, we are facing a qualitative change that legitimizes and makes plausible the new emphasis on giving all pupils access to a second foreign language. The commitment to democracy through access to education and the desire to offer all pupils a solid basis for successful participation in society now have an impact on the second foreign language as a school subject. The first paragraph of the curriculum (see Appendix for the full text of the curriculum for French/German), labelled The subject and educational aims, emphasizes that language learning is considered relevant to more general educational goals, namely the development of insight and social competence in a cross-cultural sense. This has been adopted as a justification for the second foreign language as a general school subject. Moreover, the role of language teachers becomes prominent in building a culture of multilingualism, and especially in encouraging pupils to take on foreign languages and to continue to do so in adult life. It is also stated that the pupils know a lot about languages when they start to learn French/German at the age of 13. The course “builds on the foundations for language learning which pupils have developed in the learning of their mother tongue and of English, the experience they have already acquired through contacts with other languages and cultures both in school and elsewhere, and on the text competence which they have acquired through their study of Norwegian and English” (see Appendix). The first paragraph sums up the following arguments for language learning as important to all learners: • new needs as regards knowledge and skills; • a general need for cross-cultural insight; • language learning is personal growth; • interrelationship between mother tongue development and the learning of foreign languages. It argues that for all pupils learning a second foreign language “contributes to new ways of thinking and promotes understanding of relations between majority and minority cultures, of linguistic equality, and of the culture they them-

172


selves belong to”. In this perspective, a realistic view of the target language competence we are aiming at is fundamental. Understanding, insight and selfexpression are key words. This view of the subject, related to the assumptions about successful learning noted in the second part of the paper, led to a re-examination of such fundamental questions as: What kind of competences should the learner develop that are consistent with the justification of the subject? What kind of subject structure would be conducive to the development of those competences? How should content, sequencing and learning outcomes be defined so as to make them harmonious with one another? The following sub-sections explain how these questions were tackled. General aims for the subject The curriculum defines three general aims which are related to 1) communicative competence, 2) communicative and cultural awareness, and 3) taking charge of one’s own learning, which includes a lifelong perspective: • to develop pupils’ ability to use spoken and written French/German and to encourage them to interact with people from French/Germanspeaking and other cultures; • to develop pupils’ awareness of communicative situations and French/ German language usage, and their perspectives on both the foreign culture and their own; • to promote pupils’ insight into what it is to learn French/German and the development of their capacity to take charge of their own learning, so that all pupils are given good opportunities to learn the language and lay foundations for further learning of French/German and for learning other languages. Structure and areas of study The subject is structured into four main areas, two of which are “activity areas” and two of which are “knowledge areas”: • exposure to authentic target language; • use of the target language; • knowledge of linguistic form and the cultural context of the target language; • knowledge of one’s own language learning. The subject comprises both experience and theory. The curriculum document explains that using the language is the core of the subject; it is both the means and the end. The three other areas support this while also constituting ends in themselves. Pupils’ encounters with the language form the point of departure for learning. They can develop the ability to find their way in French/German texts they meet for the first time, express what they experience in their encounters with those texts, and thereby enhance their text competence and language awareness. In the area labelled the French/German language and its cultural context, pupils can, on the basis of their own need to understand and express themselves, build up knowledge of the language as linguistic structure, as the expression of a culture,

Turid Trebbi

173

and as communication. In the area labelled knowledge of one’s own language learning, they can gain insight into the process of learning French/German, increasing their independence and ability as language learners. The structure of the subject is also concerned with the question of sequencing and progression within a programme of study. Exposure to and encounters with the target language dominate in the 8th grade, whereas study of formal aspects of the target language is more explicitly emphasized in the 10th grade (see Appendix, grades 8 to 10). The four areas of study described above are summarized in two global learning objectives which underpin the three-year course: • Encountering and using the oral and written language – Pupils should develop the ability to understand French/German, express themselves in it, and create meaning in French/German texts. They should develop their ability to communicate in French/German. • Knowledge of French/German language and culture, and of one’s own learning – Pupils should develop some insight into the language as a medium of interaction and the expression of a culture. They should develop insight into how to work to learn French/German, and become increasingly independent language users. Approaches to teaching and learning The curriculum highlights the following features for successful learning by all pupils: • a realistic view of language learning as an organic personal process; • language use from the very beginning; • a functional approach to the study of form; • task-based work, presentation and sharing of understanding and production; • learning in collaboration with others; • interlanguage seen as a reflection of the learning process and not as deficient compared to target language norms; • attention paid to the aesthetic qualities of materials worked with in open learning situations that provide space for diverse learning; • learning to learn and self-evaluation; • the potential of information technology both as a tool and as a medium for language use. The following key claims are made: • “Pupils may acquire elements of language in different sequences, and what they learn of the language may also differ. In cooperation with teachers and fellow pupils, they will gain experience of shaping their own language learning.” • “The learning task will be both practical and theoretical, enabling pupils to discover and explore the language, to use it right from the start, and through their own use of it gradually to systematize their discoveries and try out their knowledge of the language. It is emphasized that pupils

174

•

•

Curriculum develop and learner autonomy are to work also with texts that were not specially designed for language training (authentic texts).” “Attention will be paid to the aesthetic qualities not only of the learning material which pupils will encounter, but also of the material they create themselves. When pupils concentrate on the relation between form and content and discover that diversity of meaning offers a number of paths to understanding and insight, they may find the space they need to express themselves with and in the language, questioning, interpreting and using their imagination.” “Errors can often be seen as signs of learning. Particular attention should therefore be paid to the process whereby pupils develop their own texts. The pupils’ evaluation of their own texts, and of the actual work process helps them gain insight into their own language learning.”

Content and learning objectives A national curriculum is of course a highly political document and the result of negotiation and compromise. This is reflected in three ways in the formulation of the curriculum. 1. Specification of content – Instead of the compulsory reading lists that we find in other subject curricula in the 1997 educational reform, only suggestions and examples are given. This was necessary in order to be consistent with our decision that pupils should have the opportunity to make choices. As a consequence of this, on the other hand, it was also considered necessary to elaborate openended banks of learning resources of all kinds for pupils. Pupils beginning French in the 8th grade should, for example: experience and form an impression of the French language and French usage by encountering a diversity of oral, written and visual texts. Some of the texts must be such as were not specially designed for language training purposes (authentic texts), and originate in different periods, for instance well-known tales like “Blanche Neige”, such Biblical texts as the Gospel for Christmas Day, songs which pupils can recognize from their own language like “Frère Jacques”, rhymes, jingles, poems, texts from the media, for instance pictures, French films and documentaries which are subtitled in a language which the pupils know, TV programmes, newspapers, magazines and factual prose texts, for instance interviews, polls, recipes and brochures Emphasis is put on authentic material, defined as not being “specially designed for language training purposes”. However, the notion of content comprises more than reading lists and learning resources. Content is conceived in a more comprehensive way as incorporating learning activities, learning to learn activities, learner productions, and tasks that have been performed. Instead of giving prescriptions of selected content items, the curriculum specifies selected activities; for example, “the student shall make choices, shall exchange understanding of meaning, shall participate in evaluation of the learning environment in relation to objectives”.

Turid Trebbi

175

Some sequencing is necessary in relation to the learning of grammar, since grammar needs to be studied in a structured manner. Yet this is seen as being under the control of the learner. Learners are to develop insight into their own learning, including awareness of the need for information and of the necessity to build a knowledge of grammar. Learners should, for example, • work with French/German, observing and exploring rules and the functions of various words; • familiarize themselves with French/German structures and rules at sentence and text level in order to be able to understand and express themselves in French/German; • learn structures, rules and forms of cohesion in French/German in order to become increasingly effective users of the language. The curriculum specifies certain activities intended to give learners experience of developing autonomy. For example, learners should • define their own learning needs; • set up learning targets; • evaluate learning materials and approaches in relation to the aims of the French/German course; • make choices that will benefit their own learning of French/German. 2. Specification of learning objectives – The Ministry demanded that content items should also be formulated as learning objectives – “the learner shall learn x”. Yet such strong direction seems unrealistic when we take into account the uncertain nature of the learning results to be expected when the curriculum is variously implemented. Learning objectives are accordingly expressed in different ways, either related to activities that the pupils will do, or expressed as competences to be developed. This procedural approach to defining learning objectives replaces the more static descriptions represented by predefined learning objectives. The assumption is that specific activities may provide valuable experiences and insights concerning new approaches to language learning. For the curriculum to be coherent with the conception of language learning articulated here, it seems untenable that it should prescribe what pupils “should have learnt”. As some examples of specified activities, pupils should • search for meaning in oral and written texts; • experience interaction with others in their work on the texts; • seek to understand and themselves compose various types of text in which they also attempt to communicate with others; • observe similarities and differences between French/German and Norwegian by applying their knowledge of their mother tongue and other languages, and by comparing original texts with translations; • make their own choices, and discuss their efforts to learn the language. 3. Evaluation – The Ministry had decided that the curriculum should not deal with the evaluation of learning results. However, task-oriented work and the specification of what learners do during the course may serve as new forms of assessment, in the sense that learning success can be measured by what learners

176


are able to do. In this respect, having learners present the tasks they are able to perform is consistent with the rationale underlying the European Language Portfolio and functions both to document the learning process and to communicate learning outcomes. Here are some examples of tasks from the 10th grade. Pupils should • work on the composition of different types of text which also lend themselves to communication with others; • read, write, listen, talk, converse and use French/German to relate events they have experienced. Outline of the curriculum – conclusion The curriculum embraces the key features of learner independence, collaboration, research methods in the classroom, and taking charge of one’s own learning. It emphasizes the importance of success in communicating one’s intended message, rather than preoccupation with how the message is conveyed. Learning the forms of the target language is subservient to the aim of communication, and grammar is subordinate to communication-related objectives. A new style of classroom organization is implicit in the curriculum, as are new teacher and learner roles. All of this entails new approaches in the classroom. However, we must not forget that mental obstacles remain. When the educational reform for primary and lower secondary came into force in 1997, the National Assembly, instead of making a second foreign language compulsory, decided to replace the former system of optional subjects with a system of additional subjects. This means that a second foreign language remains an option only, since pupils can choose from among six additional subjects – Finnish, French, German, additional English, additional Norwegian, or practical project work. The idea that the second foreign language subject opens up general educational opportunities for all pupils appears not to have convinced the majority. Many are disappointed with this solution. The second foreign language curriculum was designed to make a second language accessible to all pupils, and indeed today, five years later, the number of pupils choosing a second foreign language seems to be rapidly increasing. Yet there is still no official examination, and taking the subject does not lead to any qualifications. Others argue that the decision not to make the subject compulsory reflects a realistic view of classroom practice resistant to innovation. As a footnote to this, it is worth adding that in upper secondary education, pupils who did not opt to take a second foreign language at lower secondary are obliged to take one as a compulsory subject. In vocational schools, however, a second foreign language is offered only as an exception.

Implementation The operational level Innovation at the level of curriculum development is, of course, rather simpler than innovation at the operational level. Moving to the operational level, the

Turid Trebbi

177

crucial question is: What can we expect from a curriculum in terms of classroom innovation? In 1996, the Ministry conducted interviews with language teachers to gauge their opinions of the curriculum proposal. Among the opinions expressed (Gjørven 2000), the teachers maintained that: • the teaching of grammar must be more structured – it is necessary to know where to begin and where to end; • the teacher cannot leave it to the learners to learn grammar rules only when they feel the need for them; • the learners are not able to decide what to learn; • the learners are not mature enough to make choices; • the curriculum puts too much responsibility on the learner; • authentic texts are too difficult for beginners; • authentic texts do not facilitate language learning. Today, five years after the reform, the three main tendencies of teacher reaction towards the curriculum are: • rejection; • relabelling of traditional concepts; • innovative approaches. The third tendency seems to be growing. Many innovative initiatives related to the use of information technology are being undertaken and supported financially by Ministry programmes. The curriculum turns out to be helpful in planning for innovation in the language classroom, not least in initial and in-service teacher training. An alternative model of initial teacher training which tries to compensate for traditional approaches in school practice is currently being explored. Teacher trainers are more closely involved in the students’ teaching practice in the sense that particular tasks are required of the trainees during their teaching practice, and ways of promoting metacognition and reflective learning are given more emphasis. Agreements have been made with supervisors in schools, who are given opportunities to develop their own competence in order to support more relevant teaching practice for the trainees. Learner autonomy and the development of text competence and inter-cultural insights are basic components in the in-service course. It is not sufficient for the student teachers to learn about these issues; they need to experience them in practice. As noted earlier, the curriculum is by definition the teacher’s set of working instructions. However, the disjunction between the curriculum as text and the curriculum in operation is considerable. Not surprisingly, a learner autonomy approach represents a challenge to entrenched classroom culture and teacher attitudes. As human beings, we cannot run away from our history and culture. We probably still find ourselves under the influence of very old pedagogical ideas. As a teacher trainer, I firmly believe that we should be realistic about the situation we are working in. If we want to introduce innovation in the language classroom, we have to understand what the premises are and also what the conditions are that we must take into consideration. In Norwegian language classrooms there is a fundamental contradiction, not to say confusion, between the following:

178


• the traditional transmission of knowledge and the learner as the agent of learning;

• the concept of knowledge as a collection of firmly defined entities and knowledge experienced as development and construction;

• teacher dependency and learner responsibility; • teacher direction and learners taking charge of their own learning. The big challenge for language teachers is to trust that pupils want to learn and are able to learn languages provided they have learning opportunities. These involve: • making individual learning processes explicit; • replacing old classroom structures with alternative structures and procedures; • focussing on both language learning and metacognitive perspectives – in other words “learning to learn”. The key word is autonomization. It seems that foreign language teachers are slowly beginning to take this dynamic view of learning into account. Instead of arguing that 13-year-old pupils are too immature to make their own choices, many teachers are starting to look for learning-to-learn approaches to support their pupils in making choices. Provided that teachers are given substantial support, as well as time, there is every reason to believe that the 1997 curriculum will become instrumentally important in initiating new ways of thinking and new approaches to classroom practice. To conclude, I would like to quote from the Eurydice survey of foreign language teaching in schools in Europe (Eurydice 2001): the European Year of Languages 2001 [is] a year-long celebration […] with the aim of encouraging everyone to learn and speak foreign languages with the general message that learning languages opens doors, and that everyone can do it (p.208). The same view is firmly supported by our curriculum.

References Bourdieu, P., 1990: Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press. Candlin, C., 1984: Syllabus design as a critical process. In C. Brumfit (ed.), General English Syllabus Design: Curriculum and Syllabus Design for the General English Classroom, ELT Documents 118, pp.29–46. Oxford: British Council and Pergamon Press. Dam, L., 1995: Learner Autonomy 3. From Theory to Classroom Practice. Dublin: Authentik. Eurydice, 2001: Foreign Language Teaching in Schools in Europe. Brussels: Eurydice European Unit. Gjørven, R., 2000: Learner autonomy in the curriculum guidelines, (how) will it work? In R. Ribé (ed.), Developing Learner Autonomy in Foreign Language Learning, pp.145–55. Barcelona: University of Barcelona.

Turid Trebbi

179

Gjørven, R., and T. Trebbi, 1988: Styrking av det andre fremmedspråket. Innstilling en arbeidsgruppe. Oslo: Grunnskolerådet. Gundem, B., 1989: Engelskfaget i folkeskolen. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Kelly, G., 1955 (repr. 1999): The Psychology of Personal Constructs. London: Routledge. Trebbi, T., 1987: Elevtilpasset opplæring. In Språksymposiet, Gausdal 1987, pp. 131–9. Oslo: Informasjonssenteret for språkundervisning. Trebbi, T., 1995: Apprentissage auto-dirigé et enseignement secondaire: un centre de ressources au collège. Mélanges Pédagogiques 22, pp.169–193. Nancy: Crapel, Université Nancy II.

Appendix: 1997 Norwegian curriculum for French (lower secondary) [English translation by the Norwegian Ministry of Education. The curriculum for German is identical, except for references to specific texts.]

Introduction The subject and educational aims It is becoming increasingly important to know languages. Contact between peoples and interaction across national and cultural boundaries has increased. The solutions to important questions concerning our living conditions need to be sought in global cooperation regardless of the cultural differences in the world. Activities which used to be national are now extending beyond our borders. Working life and further education are accordingly also more often calling for knowledge of other foreign languages in addition to English. One also needs to know more languages to be able to find one’s way about in the information society and to make independent, critical and constructive use of information. Broader and better language competence are becoming a general requirement. French is the key to large language areas in Europe. It also represents a culture which from a long way back in history has had an important impact on the development of our own society. The increasing contacts with Europe in all fields of social activity lend French a particular importance at this time. With English and German, French is among the most widely used languages in the various European contexts, whether cultural, economic, or everyday. By making themselves understood in French and being able to understand French speakers, pupils can engage in French-speaking people’s experience and knowledge, and familiarize themselves with a different culture. This contributes to new ways of thinking and promotes understanding of relations between majority and minority cultures, of linguistic equality, and of the culture they themselves belong to. Learning French is one of the school’s provisions for enhancing the pupils’ overall language competence. Teaching of their first language and foreign languages is based on the same view of language, in which is focused upon not merely skills, but also general education, socializing, and the development of

180


language and cultural awareness. The course in French builds on the foundations for language learning which pupils have developed in the learning of their mother tongue and of English, the experience they have already acquired through contacts with other languages and cultures both in school and elsewhere, and on the text competence which they have acquired through their mother tongue and English. The course provides a platform for upper secondary school training. Approaches to the study of French The approaches are designed to make the subject accessible to all pupils. Pupils should be allowed room to bring many sides of their personalities to bear and to use their own approaches. Pupils may acquire elements of language in different sequences, and what they learn of the language may also differ. In cooperation with teachers and fellow pupils, they will gain experience of shaping their own language learning. The learning task will be both practical and theoretical, enabling pupils to discover and explore the language, to use it right from the start, and through their own use of it gradually to systematize their discoveries and try out their knowledge of the language. It is emphasized that pupils are to work also with texts that were not specially designed for language training (authentic texts). Such texts bring pupils into contact with the living language they will encounter in French-speaking areas. The language course emphasizes creative work, in which drama and music are among the natural components. Pupils will use the language to create their own oral and written texts, which can also be shared with others. Texts in this broad sense involve both oral and written use of the language. Attention will be paid to the aesthetic qualities not only of the learning material which pupils will encounter, but also of the material they create themselves. When pupils concentrate on the relation between form and content and discover that diversity of meaning offers a number of paths to understanding and insight, they may find the space they need to express themselves with and in the language, questioning, interpreting and using their imagination. Errors can often be seen as signs of learning. Particular attention should therefore be paid to the process whereby pupils develop their own texts. The pupils’ evaluation of their own texts, and of the actual work process, helps them gain insight into their own language learning With regard to opportunities for all pupils to learn French, information technology is creating a new situation. It enables pupils to gain immediate and realistic experience of the language in a motivating and efficient way. It can make it possible for pupils to participate in real language communities by talking to people in nearly all parts of the world and communicating with people whose first language is French. Such direct contact with the language is also an invitation to independent learning. The structure of the subject The subject comprises four main areas: 1. Encountering the spoken and written language

Turid Trebbi

181

2. Using the language 3. Knowledge of the French language and its cultural context 4. Knowledge of one’s own language learning Areas 1 and 2 are treated together under the heading Encountering and using the oral and written language. Areas 3 and 4 are treated together under the heading Knowledge of French language and culture, and of one’s own learning. Using the language is the core of the subject. It is both the means and the end: pupils learn to use French by using it orally and in writing as listeners, readers, interlocutors and writers. This is a question not only of language skills but also of ability to communicate across cultures. The three other areas support this while also constituting ends in themselves. The point of departure for the learning is pupils’ encounters with the language, in contexts which provide pointers for understanding and exploring what is new. Pupils can develop the ability to find their way in unknown texts in French, express what they experience in their encounters with those texts, and thereby enhance their text competence and language awareness. In the area The French language and its cultural context, pupils can, on the basis of their own need to understand French and express themselves in it, build up knowledge of the language as a structure, as the expression of a culture, and as communication. In the area knowledge of one’s own language learning, they can gain insight into the process of learning French, increasing their independence and ability as language learners. The two target areas in the curriculum gather together focal points from the four main areas of the discipline.

General aims of the subject are • to develop the pupils’ ability to use spoken and written French and to • •

encourage them to interact with people from French-speaking and other cultures to develop the pupils’ awareness of communicative situations and French language usage, and their perspectives on both the foreign culture as well as their own to promote the pupils’ insight into what it is to learn French and their capacity to take charge of their own learning, so that all pupils are given good opportunities to learn the language and lay foundations for further learning of French and for learning other languages

Objectives and areas of study Encountering and using the oral and written language Pupils should develop the ability to understand French, express themselves in it, and create meaning in French texts. They should develop their ability to communicate in French. Knowledge of French and French culture, and of one’s own learning Pupils should develop some insight into the language as a form of interaction

182


and the expression of a culture. They should develop insight into how to work to learn French, and become increasingly independent language users.

Areas of study Grade 8 Encountering and using the oral and written language Pupils shall • experience and form an impression of the French language and French usage by encountering a diversity of oral, written and visual texts. Some of the texts must be such as were not specially designed for language training purposes (authentic texts), and originate in different periods, for instance well-known tales like “Blanche Neige”, such Biblical texts as the Gospel for Christmas Day, songs which pupils can recognize from their own language like “Frère Jacques”, rhymes, jingles, poems, texts from the media, for instance pictures, French films and documentaries which are subtitled in a language which the pupils know, TV programmes, newspapers, magazines and factual prose texts, for instance interviews, polls, recipes and brochures • search for meaning in oral and written texts and use pictures, songs and music to empathize with and create meaning in what they read and listen to, and experience interaction with others in their work on the texts • seek to understand and themselves compose various types of text in which they also attempt to communicate with others, for instance poems, games, rebuses, crossword puzzles, interviews, postcards, recipes, comic strips, cartoons and multimedia texts • observe similarities and differences between French and Norwegian by applying their knowledge of their mother tongue and other languages, and by comparing original texts with translations Knowledge of French language and culture, and of one’s own learning Pupils shall • work with French observing and exploring rules and the functions of various words, and practise recognizing words from other languages in the French texts they encounter, become accustomed to using dictionaries and grammars as aids in their work with the language, find material in various sources, and use modern information technology as a source of information and a tool • help to create good learning situations and working methods, make their own choices, discuss their efforts to learn the language and discuss how to provide the whole group with the best possible conditions for French language learning • talk about their own culture and French culture in connection with their work on texts, including such aspects as ways of thinking, living conditions, and traditions and customs

Turid Trebbi

183

Grade 9 Encountering and using the oral and written language Pupils shall • explore oral and written texts and learn about their contexts. Pupils should have access for instance to short stories, e.g. from “Le petit Nicolas” by Jean-Jacques Sempé and René Goscinny, folk tales, cartoon strips, for instance by Claire Bretecher, ballads, traditional songs like “Avec mes sabots” and “Alouette”, pop and rock texts, and straightforward factual prose texts, for instance about the lives of famous or ordinary people • work on the composition of different types of text in which they seek to communicate with others among other things by using the language together with such modes of expression as pictures, music, song, dance, drama, or by making for instance video, photo and sound montages or writing small plays, pen portraits, diaries, letters, notices and informative material • work on the interpretation and expression of meaning by reading, writing, listening, talking and conversing in various communicative situations • use the language outside the classroom, both locally, regionally and internationally, for instance in letters, telephone conversations and faxes, on the Internet, and in video and sound recordings Knowledge of French language and culture, and of one’s own learning Pupils shall • familiarize themselves with French structures and rules at the sentence and text level in order to be able to understand and express themselves, use dictionaries, grammars and other aids in their study of the language, and gain experience in designing exercises and exchanging them with other pupils • seek to learn something about the similarities and differences between French and their mother tongue by comparing texts in the two languages • define their own learning needs, set up learning targets, and assess their own efforts and progress • become acquainted with cultural and social conditions in the Frenchspeaking regions, for instance their geography, history, art, cultural history, and government, and discuss their own and French-language culture in connection with their work on texts and with contact with people in France and in other countries Grade 10 Encountering and using the oral and written language Pupils shall • work with authentic texts. Pupils should have access to excerpts from novels for instance by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry and Christiane

184

•

•

•

Curriculum develop and learner autonomy Rochefort, fables for instance by Jean de La Fontaine, fairy tales for instance by Charles Perrault, excerpts from historical documents, for instance the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, excerpts from plays, articles from newspapers and magazines, factual prose texts, for instance travel descriptions, and proverbs and jokes read, write, listen, talk, converse and use French to relate events they have experienced, stories they have read and, for instance, films they have seen, and invent and express themselves in the language in a variety of communicative situations work on the composition of different types of text which also lend themselves to communication with others, for instance fairy stories, stories, radio plays, advertising texts, and reviews, and use texts they encounter as models and points of departure for their own spoken and written use of the language establish contacts with people in other countries, for instance through various cooperative projects in which they convey information among other things about the majority and minority cultures in their own country

Knowledge of French language and culture, and of one’s own learning Pupils shall • learn structures, rules and forms of cohesion in French of which they can make use in order to become increasingly effective users of the language, learn something about the history (etymology) of French words, and experience the impact on the use of language of the cultural aspects of a linguistic situation • learn to use a broad range of aids to solve the problems they encounter in their study of the language, and increase their insight into how useful information can be stored, organized and made available manually or electronically in the classroom and the library • talk about and evaluate learning material and approaches in relation to the aims of the French course, and make choices that will benefit their own learning of French • work with cultural and social conditions in French-speaking areas, for instance work for peace, the cultural heritage, and the natural environment, for instance as these are approached in international cooperation

Cultural competence – a basis for participation in society Laila Aase

Introduction In recent years language teaching and learning have benefited greatly from a new awareness of learning processes and learning environments. Increasing focus on areas such as learner autonomy, process writing, portfolio assessment, etc., has given rise to new modes of communication in language classrooms, and to a certain extent altered the role of the teacher. Nevertheless, there are pitfalls in this development that we need to be aware of. One is the tendency to emphasize methods, procedures and general learning issues at the expense of content and the specific purpose of language education: the fallacy of instrumentality. Another is the assumption that any learner’s work is good enough as long as the learner has chosen the task himself: the fallacy that learning is solely an individual issue for the learner himself. In fact, the idea that language acquisition is a matter simply of performing a series of tasks is a misunderstanding that is just as likely to occur in classrooms based on learner autonomy as in other classrooms. Examining these matters from the perspective of cultural aims, this article highlights the importance of viewing language learning as the development of a fundamental cultural ability and not merely a set of practical skills. It argues that for both mother tongue and foreign language education, the purpose should be to emphasize content in language learning in the process of developing cultural competence in language classes. The questions raised here do not come with ready-made solutions. Tension between collective cultural aims and the development of the individual learner is an issue in learner autonomy as in any teaching and learning situation. This is because not just any choice of content or any learning strategy can serve the purpose of language development equally well. The teacher must make choices, preferably based on a deep understanding of why we teach languages in schools, of the correspondence between language development and cognitive and social development, and consequently, of our abilities to participate in cultural forms in society. In the Norwegian curriculum the purposes of foreign language learning are closely linked with mother tongue education. This relationship is expressed in the various foreign language syllabuses in much the same way. For example, this is what the syllabus for German/French states: Learning German/French is one of the school’s provisions for enhancing the pupils’ overall language competence. Teaching of their first language and foreign languages is based on the same view of language, in which is 185

186

Cultural competence – a basis for participation in society focused upon not merely skills but also general education, socializing, and the development of language and cultural awareness

In other words, the connection between mother tongue and foreign language learning is not merely a matter of the one being dependent upon the other. There is a joint purpose of language awareness and language development in mother tongue and foreign language learning. All school subjects develop language by elaborating concepts and explanations and engaging in rational thinking. Language learning differs from other subjects by focussing directly on language itself in order to develop awareness of what a language is and how we form meaning in a variety of oral and written text forms and in different contexts. In this process the learner will constantly work on two different levels at the same time, as observer and participant. He will develop linguistic skills by using the target language and at the same time develop an understanding of what he is doing by being supervised and guided in his learning. Ideally he will develop a text competence that includes genre awareness, a sense of style and an understanding of how it is achieved, a number of strategies for interpreting text, and the ability to produce oral and written texts himself. The cultural purposes of language teaching and learning become invisible if language is understood mainly as a practical tool for communication or as knowledge of vocabulary and grammar. Culturally oriented language teaching must deal with the most common as well as the most valuable text forms in a culture. It must also enable the learner to understand something about why we find it necessary to read and write texts in such a variety of genres, and why we need to explore the possibilities and boundaries of language. Language learning is in this sense a “meta” discipline of language. The difference between a simple communicative approach to language teaching and this “meta-level” approach becomes clear when we work with literary texts in language classrooms, especially poetry, as the following example shows. This poem by the American poet Wallace Stevens has little to offer in terms of vocabulary or grammar, but it is extremely rich in meaning: Among twenty snowy mountains, The only moving thing Was the eye of the blackbird. Learners meet a text like this with very varied prior knowledge and reading strategies, and it is on the basis of these that they interpret the text. If we simply leave them with their prior knowledge, they will not learn much. They need to develop their strategies for creating meaning in a text like this, and they need to develop an understanding of why we value such texts so highly in our culture. Learning to learn in this perspective is a much more complicated issue than being able to choose tasks and methods. The base for this development is the learner’s own reading abilities. Learners need to formulate and reformulate their understanding of the text if they are to grasp their own understanding. They also need to entertain other people’s interpretations in order to shift per-

Laila Aase

187

spective and investigate new aspects of the text. In Bakhtinian terms we may say that we need to have a multitude of voices in the language classroom. No prescribed teaching method can possibly encapsulate this important balance between the learner’s individual investigation and collective collaborative endeavours on the one hand, and the teacher’s contribution to the learning process on the other. It has to be worked out in the actual teaching/learning situation. Most learners will find it easy to describe the landscape presented in Stevens’ poem and say how they feel about it – whether it is beautiful, disturbing, austere, scary, and so on. The teacher, being probably the most experienced reader in the class, will have additional perspectives to offer and will draw attention to various topoi or highlight features of the text to be explored. He will immediately see how the text presents a number of contrasts containing possibilities of meaning. He will have an idea of the importance of the contrasts between vast and minute, white and black, immobile and moving. He may ask questions like: Who is speaking to us? Where is he? Why is this said/written? What could happen here? What would happen if someone walked into this scene? Why the past tense? What is the difference between seeing and reading this? To grasp meaning in a text we need to know how to go about it, some kind of path-finding method. We also need to know that there is no fixed meaning because language is ambiguous and because each reader creates meaning from his own prior knowledge. Yet the text itself restricts our interpretations. To be able to judge what a reasonable interpretation may be is part of cultural competence. In addition, reading and interpretation require a certain amount of personal investment in the project, a willingness to put something at risk. In other words, there are social and cultural conventions that restrict our reading and there are possibilities for the individual to create meaning within these frames. The autonomous learner can explore the text, present his interpretations or his feelings, reconstruct the text, or play with it in any way he likes. This will always be an important part of literary work in the classroom. But this cannot be enough if our purpose is to develop an understanding of what language can do to and for us. Giving learners space to investigate texts on their own terms may lead to fruitful processes without the teacher’s assistance, but if it does not, it is surely the teacher’s responsibility to make it happen. Language learning in school differs from language learning elsewhere because of the double perspective of practising language and developing metalinguistic understanding. It differs from other language learning situations by having among its purposes mastery of cultural forms that we consider valuable in our society. This mastery includes aesthetic aspects as well as meta-perspectives on culture itself in the context of heritage. In all these areas mother tongue and foreign language teaching share a joint project. Yet there are important differences also to be considered, one being the different starting points for the two subjects, and another being the different contributions embedded in specific languages and texts. The learner enters the mother tongue classroom with a fairly advanced text competence that has developed out of previous cultural experience in his envi-

188

Cultural competence – a basis for participation in society

ronment. From a range of starting points, the teacher has to create a learning environment in which all his learners can develop genre awareness, linguistic and metalinguistic skills, aesthetic awareness, interpretation skills and understanding of texts and contexts. The foreign language teacher has additional tasks because new grammatical structures and a new vocabulary are involved. This added dimension presents both difficulties and possibilities. Foreign language learning provides a comparative perspective on languages, and thus helps to enhance language awareness in relation to both mother tongue and L2 learning. But to achieve these aims teachers must see the possibilities in the double perspective and exploit them in their classes. Often the foreign language teacher can take advantage of the text competence the learners have obtained in mother tongue classes, but we also encounter examples of learners who develop a more advanced text competence in the foreign language, generally as a result of a favourable learning situation. If, however, the foreign language teacher considers the main task to be overcoming difficulties concerning grammar and vocabulary, he will provide a meagre learning environment in the language classroom. The same is true for language teaching geared solely towards the development of communicative competence understood in the most practical sense of the term. If schools provide an exclusively technical and practical language education, they forfeit their basic purpose and legitimacy as cultural institutions.

Genre awareness as a means for participation To be familiar with a broad range of text forms is one of the prerequisites for participating in society, and therefore also a prerequisite for democracy. This claim may seem both pompous and naïve, but it is what legitimizes language education in schools. Bakhtin emphasizes that we must master cultural genres in order to understand one another. In fact mastery of these collective cultural forms makes it possible for the individual to communicate in a truly individual way (Bakhtin 1986, p.80). The better we master genres, the better we will be able to show our own individuality through them in a way that also reflects the unique and specific situation of communication. Bakhtin claims that people who have perfect linguistic skills might still be completely helpless in certain situations because they have not mastered the genre. This helps to explain why some learners never participate in classroom discussions: they have not mastered the genre and therefore neither understand the purpose of the activity nor know how to speak in the particular classroom setting. The oral genre that we call classroom dialogue or literary discussion may serve as an example of how we can acquire both genre awareness and skills. This genre is chosen for purposes of discussion here because an issue that is sometimes overlooked in relation to the development of learner autonomy is the important role played by whole-class dialogue. In a classroom dialogue there will be an implicit demonstration or model of how we may go about approaching a literary text. The terms used and the questions asked form part of the model. In addition, the multitude of voices and the way the teacher makes room for all of them show that flexibility of thought is a prerequisite for interpretation.

Laila Aase

189

Sometimes we experience unique situations in the literature classroom with a strong shared feeling of having created something together through real investigation and real dialogue. Such golden moments may be rare, but they are extremely important because they show a way into a text and open the text up for everybody to see. Whether people then choose to reject it or enjoy it is up to them. All experienced teachers know that involving all students in dialogue in the classroom is not easy. Students have multiple reasons for not participating. They may resent the subject or the teacher, they may need to hide, they may be afraid of speaking up in class, or they may not have mastered the genre of classroom dialogue. If the scope of our teaching is to include mastery of this genre, we shall have to focus on the formal characteristics that the participants must understand in order to be able to take part. These characteristics depend on the content of the discussion; for example, literary concepts are to a certain extent necessary tools for a literary dialogue. A notion of what we are looking for and how we go about finding it is similarly a prerequisite for participation. In other words, participation is not just a matter of self-confidence or self-esteem; it also requires mastery of a speech genre. The assumption here is that the learner benefits more from examples and models than from rules of communication or language (Aase 1996). In short, he will learn from being part of a situation; and he will learn both intuitively and consciously, from participating and from observing. A classroom dialogue is a text created collaboratively. Every utterance in the class is a contribution to the common text. And ultimately it will be a text built up by many voices. In Norway, Olga Dysthe (Dysthe 1995, 2000) has shown how Bakhtin’s notion of multiple voices in a literary text gives us perspectives on texts in classrooms. According to Bakhtin, the utterance always has a dialogical aspect, no matter how monological it seems to be. Individual utterances are somehow answers to something already said or written; they are always created with regard to others, their thoughts and reactions, and for their benefit. Every utterance is created in expectation of a reaction or an understanding. The web of individual utterances in classroom dialogue is created within a frame where the individual has room to define the text in relation to his own interests, though his contribution is restricted to the issue at hand and shaped with consideration to previous utterances. If participation is experienced as an opportunity to present personal ideas, individuals may find it worthwhile to make a contribution. In such a classroom setting, learning processes may be stimulated and nourished by a multitude of ideas and understandings, while at the same time the students encounter models for communicating these ideas. Genre awareness develops out of active participation and observation, since the dialogical character of the utterances generates ideas and tentative answers among listeners as well as contributors. Defining procedures for classroom dialogue helps to raise students’ awareness of this particular genre. As noted above, a literary dialogue in the classroom is a genre that differs from any other conversation because of its specific aim and because of certain characteristics of form and context. By participating, the student can learn how to use concepts intrinsic to this genre and develop his understanding of them at the same time.

190


Classroom dialogue is a genre, but it can also be looked upon as a game. The metaphor of playing a game is not chosen arbitrarily. A classroom can easily be seen as a playground where the players choose different parts to play. Enjoying a game is not merely a question of knowing the rules; it also involves seeing the game as a way of presenting oneself or of acting out certain ideas within the framework of the rules. In other words, the student must have developed a reason for participating. Literary dialogue has these two aspects of formality and play. The formal side can, to a certain extent, be learnt, but the play aspect must be enjoyed. This is related to what Roland Barthes describes in The Pleasure of the Text (1976) when he discusses why we read literature. In the act of reading we let ourselves become absorbed by the fictive universe, not because we are eager to get information, but because we enjoy indulging in the layers of meaning in the text. We let ourselves get involved in demasking the rules of the text, and become participants. The student who meets Wallace Stevens’s text will probably not see the point in dealing with it at all if he does not allow himself to get involved in it somehow. In every game there must be scope for players to play not only according to the rules, but also to a certain extent on their own terms. The wider the scope is, the more exciting the game becomes for the dedicated player. Games that involve nothing more than following the rules become boring after the second or third time. In the literature classroom, learner autonomy and freedom of space are just as important as the need to know structures and procedures as part of mastering the genre. Mastery of a variety of text forms or genres provides a basis not only for participation in society but also for understanding how other people have used language to contribute to art, science, politics and entertainment. In this regard we must bear in mind that genre is defined in terms not only of linguistic form but also of function and purpose, and is embedded in traditions. Individuals place themselves in a context by making use of cultural forms already given in the society they are born into. The dynamic interaction between what is already given and the development of our own textual identity is, of course, a theme both for cultural history and for education.

Cultural competence and Bildung – concepts for understanding general aims in education Language learning as cultural competence is not a simple concept. Language itself is a cultural product, as are texts. Peter Burke’s definition of culture provides us with a starting point for discussion: “a system of shared meanings, attitudes and values and the symbolic forms (performances, artefacts) in which they are performed or embodied” (Burke 1978, p.270). Texts and text forms certainly constitute part of this definition of culture. But, as we can see, this definition does not specify the limits of such symbolic forms or identify which are the most valuable. These are strongly contested matters that cannot easily be agreed upon because they are linked to different value systems in different subcultures in society. The notion of culture may imply culture of the elite or various definitions of mass culture or folk culture. Curricula and textbooks

Laila Aase

191

provide some frames for understanding what texts, genres and activities we consider most useful for developing text competence in a cultural context, but even here we do not find all the answers. The quotation from the Norwegian curriculum above presents “general education, socializing, and the development of language and cultural awareness” as the main goals in opposition to “mere skills”. Yet these concepts need to be fleshed out with some kind of content, and a number of choices must be made since time is always limited. It will fall to the teacher to make most of these choices. The general cultural purpose of education is captured in the German concept of Bildung. This concept entails historical and cultural perspectives closely associated with a pedagogical tradition that has had a strong impact on the development of schooling in northern Europe since the 18th century. It can easily evoke a somewhat authoritarian approach to the cultural content of education – what Wolfgang Klafki calls material Bildung (see below). So how can an 18th-century concept, developed in a different context and based upon different ideas of education from our own, contribute to a contemporary philosophy of teaching and learning? The reason this concept has had a renaissance in the discussion of education in northern Europe is probably that it represents an alternative to utilitarian language learning. A Bildung perspective forces us to link learning to culture, and the difference between learning languages in school and outside school becomes clearer. The Bildung framework also emphasizes the importance of selecting texts and text forms that have something special to offer, whether from a contemporary or an historical perspective. In the classical rhetorical tradition of education, language learning played a unique role because it was believed that classical languages and classical model texts exerted a powerful influence on the development of the learner’s thinking and text competence. The purpose of education in the traditional grammar schools was not to equip the individual with the skills to gain a position in practical life, but to enable him to become a good person (vir bonus). The virtuous person should have knowledge, good moral judgement, and a rational mind. He should be independent and free to speak and act in society. Although the study of rhetoric changed from being primarily associated with the education of the orator and became integral to the education of the elite literate classes in the Latin schools, the ideals derived from Cicero and Quintilian survived. From the 18th century these ideals also included the fashionable new concept of taste. The importance of language for the education of the elite was based on an understanding of the connections between language and thought, and therefore between language competence, learning and participation in society. The ideal of Bildung was challenged by a new social class, the wealthy bourgeoisie, who needed a more practical education related to trade and commerce. In fact they claimed a different concept of Bildung, based on their own understanding of the values that education should be built upon. They founded a new type of school, the so-called institute, which came to flourish all over Europe in the 18th and early 19th century. Here modern languages became school subjects, most often studied for the practical purpose of being able to speak the language

192


in business or social situations. Whereas Latin and Greek had been the mark of the scholar, modern languages, especially French, became the mark of the modern person, both the gentleman and the accomplished lady. But even in the institutes language learning could be reduced to exercises in grammar. The following example comes from an institute, or realskole, in Bergen around 1855: Our text book in English contained only two texts, one of which I have forgotten. The other I recall clearly. It started like this: “We are told that Sultan Mahomed by his perpetual wars abroad and his tyranny at home has ruined his states” etc. And these texts were varied in numerous ways, in Norwegian and English, in questions and answers, in active and passive, and I am not exaggerating when I say that this one text filled at least one school year. (Jessen 1910, p.32; my translation) The role of the mother tongue in culture and school has not been the same in all European countries. In Norway, the mother tongue became a subject in grammar schools early in the 19th century. At the same time French and German were introduced into the curriculum, but not within the same Bildung framework. From the beginning, mother tongue education was based upon the classical ideal of Bildung through Latin and Greek language and literature and modern aesthetics, as developed by the new humanists in Germany. The idea was to raise the status of the mother tongue through cultivation: if the learner could develop skills in writing texts based upon the same rhetorical ideas as writing Latin compositions, the cultural standard of the nation would rise. If students could also develop their language awareness through reading valuable texts in their mother tongue and use them for their own thinking, their own moral standards and their own writing, then the mother tongue could emulate the classical languages as a basis for Bildung. A student at Bergen Grammar School wrote the following in his diary on 10 November 1813: Conrector [the teacher] claims that like the Greeks who educated themselves simply by studying their mother tongue, we should be able to do the same by studying ours […]. We study in order to be cultivated. To study a language is to train the faculties of the mind, memory, taste, judgement etc […]. Knowledge of language is not only a bridge to many things, it entails also many things in itself. (Rieck 1813, unpublished manuscript; my translation) This student describes the programme for the new subject with astonishing accuracy. From his description it is clear how the teacher has explained the purpose of the subject to his students, and also how student and teacher have developed a joint understanding of this purpose. This is precious evidence of how a meta-perspective on language and Bildung had a place in a mother tongue classroom at an early stage. The examples presented here are intended to illustrate how mother tongue and foreign language learning have been given different positions in the Bildung framework of Norwegian education. The examples, however, do not tell the

Laila Aase

193

whole story regarding the role of either mother tongue or foreign language learning. One reason for this relates to changes in the Bildung concept during the 19th and 20th centuries. A second reason is lack of a common understanding of the role of mother tongue and foreign language study among different schools, teachers and geographical areas. In our contemporary curriculum, the idea of education as a possibility and a right for everybody has changed the concept of Bildung from its association with elitism to its acceptance as a general cultural aim to enhance democracy and equality. The idea that Bildung should be an aim for all learners requires us to make explicit how we understand this purpose. The concept is as sharply contested as the concept of culture. There is simply no common agreement as to the most valuable forms of knowledge, skills and attitudes to aim for. Consequently, there is also disagreement about content and method in language classrooms. The curriculum gives some of the answers but not all, and certainly does not offer a definition of what Bildung is and how it can be achieved. In an effort to clarify our position on these matters, it may be helpful to examine Wolfgang Klafki’s discussion of Bildung.

“Kategorial Bildung” Wolfgang Klafki has systematized the traditions of Bildung into two main types: formal and material (Klafki 1996, 2001). These traditions may be difficult to find in a pure form either in a historical period or in a contemporary educational setting. Nevertheless, they represent positions in the landscape of education that we recognize as trends that have influenced educational thought, and most educators would readily identify with one or other of these trends. For example, when teachers express a credo like “the important thing in my classroom is not what the pupils learn, but that they feel safe and happy in school”, or “they can’t leave school without having read The Merchant of Venice”, they argue for one of these traditions of Bildung. They probably do this without themselves being aware of the implications. In opposition to these two traditions Klafki introduces a third type of Bildung: “kategorial Bildung”. Material Bildung emphasizes the acquisition of certain ways of thinking and behaviour, and knowledge of high value. In this tradition, what is important is the content of education, defined according to certain norms of traditional value. Content may relate to knowledge and skills in a broad area – e.g., science, arts, politics, crafts. We may describe the learner as one who steps into a world of cultural artefacts and becomes part of it. This concept of Bildung may be criticized for its static concept of culture. We should nevertheless acknowledge that it takes into account the fact that history and tradition have something to teach us. The problem may still be that the learner ends up knowing about many matters, rather than developing knowledge from or through the content and experience of education. Formal Bildung emphasizes the development of the student’s spiritual faculties rather than the acquisition of cultural forms. Learning situations that belong to this category are those that enhance personal development on a general basis

194


– e.g., the development of good personal qualities, learning-to-learn skills, the ability to work collaboratively, or to achieve self-realization. Many educational trends that are labelled “student-centred” or “learner-oriented” are what Klafki calls formal, because the content of the subjects seems to have minor importance compared to personal development. In extreme cases, any content would be acceptable as long as the learner enjoys it or has chosen it himself. An obvious criticism here is the lack of respect for cultural and historical tradition. Criticism might equally be levelled at the romantic notion of creativity coming from the individual himself. The pedagogical goal of learner autonomy may be exposed to this pitfall if we are not careful to focus attention on cultural aims as well as the need to give individuals learning space. Klafki’s own alternative is “kategorial Bildung”. He emphasizes that this is not a compound or synthesis of the two other forms but represents a fundamentally different approach that links the two traditions in a dialectical relationship. The relationship between cultural forms and internal processes is reciprocal in the sense that each is dependent on the other. Meeting a cultural form like literature is not only something the learner learns about, but also something he learns through. Klafki puts it this way: “The child opens up to the world, and the world opens up for the child” (1996, p.193; my translation). School subjects contain knowledge handed down through the generations. On the one hand, Klafki points out that intellectual processes are dependent on cultural forms; and on the other hand, he points out that these forms must have a general, categorical character that can be retraced on the learner’s side as understandings, experiences, and perceptions. Applied to school subjects this means that the learner does not become a cultured person simply by being exposed to certain issues through the curriculum. It is rather that basic and general insights in these fields of knowledge can influence his way of thinking and his perception of the world. Klafki points out that the amount of knowledge that can be obtained in school is limited. Therefore it is important to select a body of general knowledge that can create structures and principles for understanding. This is what Klafki calls “exemplary” teaching: through selected examples, the basic knowledge within a subject can emerge. “Kategorial” denotes the effect of example-oriented teaching on the learner. “Kategorial Bildung” is strongly connected to understanding and interpretation, and this again is dependent on language. The learner meets cultural forms in language, either as texts or as artefacts presented or explained in texts. The process of developing understanding through all these different forms of cultural encounter depends on language development. We may therefore claim that language study in school has an important contribution to make to the growth of individual competence across all school subjects. Besides contributing to students’ ability to use languages, language study contributes to their capacity to understand texts through interpretation. The strategy of understanding a situation or a text by trying out various hypotheses for creating meaning is not only a method for the reading class, it is also a way of life. Klafki’s various concepts of Bildung point to the potential pitfalls of literature

Laila Aase

195

classrooms. If the emphasis is on the student’s experience, interpretation may be too individualized and arbitrary. If the emphasis is on the text, the general cultural aspects of reading and interpretation may be taken care of, but the processes of internalization and learning may be inadequate. The interpretation of the text may also be too schematic and obvious. In Klafki’s terms, the ideal reading process combines the individual processes of creating meaning from personal experience and the historical and cultural aspects of text and context.

Content and interaction in language classrooms If we apply Klafki’s concept of “kategorial Bildung” to reading texts in the language classroom, it becomes evident that there are particular qualities of texts that have an impact on how they can function for cultural purposes. Mere exposure to content in the sense of issues or information is not sufficient for a cultural understanding of texts, which is an essential aim of language classrooms. Cultural awareness in the foreign language classroom should entail much more than, for example, learning about Christmas customs in another country (Fenner and Newby 2000). It is true, of course, that meeting another culture through language and texts will provide knowledge of different lifestyles, geography and history: one of the key dimensions of learning another language has to do with meeting “the other”. But “the other” is necessarily embedded in texts, and understanding texts both in a general sense and in a particular cultural frame should be a specific aim in language classrooms. Here lies a justification for the use of authentic texts in language learning. Authentic texts reflect more cultural perspectives than pedagogically constructed texts. However, it is not the case that simply any authentic text can fulfil the aim of Bildung. The texts must possess certain qualities in relation to content, form or traditional importance which give us reason to think that they can represent a cultural encounter for the learner and qualitatively extend his understanding of language and text. My assumption is that artistically created texts should have priority in the language classroom because they show a consciousness of how language can be used in new ways that are sometimes playful and surprising, sometimes subtle and intriguing. This awareness-raising potential can be fulfilled by texts in a number of genres, and not exclusively fiction. Nor is it the case that we must necessarily deal with difficult or complex texts to achieve our purposes. What is important is that the texts should have a much greater semiotic richness than the descriptive texts we often find in foreign language classrooms. If we examine how a textbook introduces a theme to build up new vocabulary in a certain area, we almost always come across rather flat descriptive texts. For example, if the class is working on the theme of the body, it is not much use if the text is taken from an anatomy textbook but offers little more than vocabulary for parts of the body. A far more interesting genre-oriented approach would be to select texts from different genres such as a poem, a paragraph from a novel, an extract from an anatomy textbook, a cosmetics advertisement, and so on. The collage of texts would not only provide a rich vocabulary but also show how the body can be

196


understood and perceived differently through different texts. The teacher must take account of a number of factors when selecting texts for his learners – e.g., in relation to complexity, motivating content, choice of genre appropriate to their level. At bottom, what seems important is that such choices are founded on a consideration of what learners might actually like or be genuinely receptive to, and are not simply our prescription of what they might benefit from. Developing learners’ skills in reading, producing and understanding texts is part of the joint project of mother tongue and foreign language teaching. Reading provides models for writing, for ways of thinking that may be uncommon to the learner, and for ways of perceiving the world and representing experience. Reading entails both communication and meaning creation. Jerome Bruner explains how children use stories to understand the world (Bruner 1990). Reading in schools differs from reading elsewhere because the reader not only enjoys and interprets the text but also learns how to do so at the same time. If the literary text is characterized by what Iser calls indeterminacy, vacant positions and empty spaces (Iser 1975, 1978), the reader fills in these holes in the process of reading. He thus creates a consistent entity of meaning. All his previous reading experience helps him to form hypotheses about how to interpret an actual text and how to change these hypotheses during the reading process. Reading and writing as well as speaking are creative activities that depend on both autonomy and guidance during the learning process. Classroom interaction and dialogue must give room for both. Cultural forms such as genres and language conventions represent safe frames for participation if the learner masters the forms or “the paths in the forest of the text” as Umberto Eco (1994) puts it. The experience of interpreting text can have a place in foreign language classes from the very beginning, but it is important that the texts contain an enigma or at least a few loose ends. If there is nothing to wonder about, there is little to talk about. The essential principle is that learners should be given possibilities for new and different encounters in school that they would not necessarily have outside school. In this respect, the choices the teacher makes are critical. Neither mother tongue nor foreign language classrooms can achieve the aim of Bildung or cultural awareness if the teacher himself has an instrumental approach to language and language learning. It is vitally important that the teacher understands that language is not merely a means of communication, but that thought and communication take place within language. In this perspective we may claim that we learn about the world by grasping it through language in our own speech and writing, and in communication with other people and other texts. In meeting other thoughts or interpretations of the world, we have new experiences that may challenge our own. Good learning situations are those where the teacher not only provides activities for using and developing the target language but also selects texts that can enhance cultural text competence.

References: Aase, L., 1996: Fra regel til tekst? In S. Ongstad (ed.), Hva gjør vi med sjangrene og de med oss?, pp.61–71. Oslo: Cappelen.

Laila Aase

197

Bakhtin, M., 1986: Speech Genres and other Late Essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas. Barthes, R., 1976: The Pleasure of the Text. London: Cape. Bruner, J., 1990: Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Burke, P., 1978: Popular Culture in Early Modern Europe. London: Temple Smith. Dysthe, O., 1995: Det flerstemmige klasserommet. Oslo: Ad Notam Gyldendal. Dysthe, O., 2000: Mitt ansvar er å gi elevene de redskaper de trenger for å lykkes. Om lærerens rolle i det dialogiske og flerstemmige klasserommet. In K. Esman, A. Rasmussen and L. B. Wiese (eds), Dansk i dialog, pp.15–49. Copenhagen: Dansklærerforeningens Forlag. Eco, Umberto, 1994: Seks turer i fortellingenskoger. Oslo. Fenner, A-B., and D. Newby, 2000: Approaches to Material Design in European Textbooks: Implementing Principles of Authenticity, Learner Autonomy, Cultural Awareness. Strasbourg: ECML / Council of Europe. Iser, W., 1975: Die Appellstruktur der Texte. Unbestimmtheit als Wirkungsbedingung literarisher Prosa. In R. Warning (ed.), Rezeptionästhetik. Theorie und Praxis, pp.228–52. Munich: Fink. Iser, W., 1978: The Act of Reading. London and Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Jessen, P., 1910: Bergens hverdagsliv i femti-og sext-aarene. Kristiania and Copenhagen: GyldendalskeBoghandel Nordisk Forlag. Klafki, W., 1996: Kategorial dannelse. In E. L. Dale (ed.), Skolens undervisning og barnets utvikling, pp.167–203. Oslo: Ad Notam Gyldendal. Klafki, W., 2001: Dannelsesteori og didaktik- nye studier. Århus: Forlaget Klim. Rieck, J., 1813: Jacob Riecks dagbok. Unpublished manuscript. Bergen Katedralskoles Arkiv.

Second language learning: providing for immigrant learners Barbara Lazenby Simpson

Introduction In recent years the Irish educational system has been required to meet the linguistic and educational needs of migrant pupils from a wide range of language, cultural and educational backgrounds. The term migrant is used here to cover children of refugee, asylum seeker and economic/professional migrant families. If the newcomers are to engage with primary and post-primary education to a level that will facilitate the fulfilment of individual potential, this has many implications for the principled design and delivery of programmes of second language learning that must be provided for them. On arrival in Ireland, children of migrant families have immediate access to formal education (primary education in Ireland takes place between four and a half and twelve years of age, post-primary pupils are aged between twelve and eighteen). Once pupils are enrolled in a primary or post-primary school, their existing standard of education is assessed to the extent that this is permitted by communication difficulties and, on occasion, reluctance to provide information. Pupils are then assigned to mainstream classes in which they will spend the greater part of their time in school. In the post-primary context, this entails entry to a range of subject-specific classes such as history, geography, mathematics, science, English, and so on. The pupil is withdrawn from mainstream classes in order to attend language support classes. It is clear that second language learning must be embedded in and run concurrently with mainstream learning: only in this way is it possible to promote the integration of newcomer pupils while at the same time avoiding excessive loss of time in introducing them to curricular learning. The most obvious requirement in the Irish context, therefore, is the acquisition of English language proficiency in the skills and subject areas required by school going and school learning. Language support is focussed on the English language demands of the curriculum, which have been articulated as English Language proficiency benchmarks for non-English-speaking pupils at post-primary level (Integrate Ireland Language and Training 2001). Textbooks designed for learners of English as a foreign language fail to meet the highly specific needs of language support pupils in mainstream education. An important objective of language support is to bring pupils into engagement with the textbooks and materials that are in use daily in mainstream classes, and this explains why the approach to language teaching in the language support system is content-based. This organizational principle for the management of language support in 198

Barbara Lazenby Simpson

199

schools suggests, to some extent, the content and types of activity on which the language support programme is based. However, for the pupil, the school, and indeed society in general, there are more fundamental and far-reaching factors implicit in second language learning and teaching. Spinosa et al. (1997, p.18) hold that “only when there is a disturbance of some sort do we appear to ourselves as agents, with beliefs and desires directed toward goals that require some particular action”. Teenagers and young adults entering the unfamiliar learning environment of a new and different society must cope with conflicting cultures, ideas and emotions. They require support in identifying their beliefs and desires and the appropriate action that must be taken. Ultimately only the individual can pursue his or her own path of action and must be empowered to do so. The means of empowerment is the gradual development of learner autonomy and this consideration is fundamental to the discussion that follows. This paper examines the range of issues affecting migrant pupils in mainstream education, with particular emphasis on the post-primary sector, and discusses the implications for second language pedagogy. The challenge presented to language support teachers is discussed not only in the context of the second language classroom but also in terms of the role the specialist language teacher must play in preparing learners for, and supporting them in, their engagement with the broader school curriculum. Finally, the pedagogical principles which underpin effective school-based second language learning are explored in relation to the European Language Portfolio. It should be noted that the principles and issues raised in this paper are applicable to other domains of learning and to learners of other ages, and are not restricted to adolescent learners of a second language.

The learning/teaching challenge The learners When they enter the educational system of the host country, migrant pupils frequently bring with them a range of issues which may not have been encountered before by school principals and teachers, or which may combine to produce different results from those previously encountered. For any migrant child who is not a speaker of the language of the host community, at least four underlying social and cognitive factors influence the rate and effectiveness of second language acquisition. Those factors are: motivation and arrival at the “decision” to learn; exposure to the second language prior to school entry, in terms of quantity and quality; age with regard to cognitive capacity and the cognitive demands of learning; and the impact of personality on the pupil’s approach to learning (Tabors 1997, pp.79ff). However, a wider and more complex range of issues and attitudes underlies these four factors. These issues, which may exist singly or in combination, can interact with one another with potentially serious implications for learning, socialization and cognitive development. Parental involvement and attitude to education (see, for example, Coelho 1998) can be positive, negative or, as a

200

Second language learning: providing for immigrant learners

consequence of recent experience or trauma in the home country, passive and apparently lacking in interest. Linguistic and cultural discontinuities often exist between home and school (McKeon 1994, p.21; Pease-Alvarez and Vasquez 1994, p.83), and discontinuity between previous and current educational systems and curricula may bring conflict or uncertainty to the pupil’s perception of his or her situation. Failure to acquire literacy in the first language owing to lack of formal education, or its interruption through enforced mobility, may result in little if any metalinguistic development (Swain and Lapkin 1991) – more positive, however, is evidence of the benefit to metalinguistic development of literacy in one or more languages (see, for example, Bialystok 1991). The need to acquire the decontextualized language skills that are a precondition for coping with higher-order, language-dependent concepts (McKeon 1994, p.25), runs parallel with the need to acquire content knowledge (Met 1994, p.159) in order to meet specific subject demands in the mainstream curriculum. Finally, an overarching factor which influences the pupil’s sense of belonging and hence his or her perception of the learning challenge, is the inclusivity or otherwise of the physical and social environment of the school (Coelho 1998, p.95), and the extent to which cultural difference and individual learning needs are accommodated. The pressure on language learning is particularly evident at post-primary level and is greatest where early mainstreaming is the educational policy. Different subjects not only impose different conceptual and linguistic demands, but may be based on an assumption of specific cultural knowledge. Examples are history and literature courses, which generally pre-suppose understanding of the cultural norms that have been an integral part of the native pupil’s previous education and home environment. For teenagers and young adults, exclusion from the mainstream as a consequence of cultural or educational deficit results in a type of local acculturation which, according to Bruffee, “prevents them from living lives that [are] intellectually, emotionally, and aesthetically fulfilling” (1999, p.7). Local acculturation fosters a parochialism of thought which precludes individuals from discovering their own potential and achieving the economically viable and vocationally satisfying lives to which they may aspire (ibid.). Parochialism of thought is frequently underpinned by low self- or group-esteem and results in self-limiting perceptions of possibility and personal potential. While this situation may be seen to exist in native communities and is frequently marked by socio-economic deprivation, the case is more extreme for individuals from ethnic groups whose exclusion is compounded by lack of language. It is clear therefore that in the planning and delivery of effective language support, a factor vital for success is the teacher’s understanding of the domain of second language teaching and of the issues that are both central and peripheral to it. The teacher The second language teacher must, at the outset, re-appraise her role from a number of different perspectives. A major and overwhelming influence on many


201

teachers is the formative experience of the “13,000 hour apprenticeship of observation” (Lortie 1975, cited in Bailey et al. 1996, p.11), which is described as providing indelible imprints on individuals. This is the apprenticeship of being a pupil first, then a student, and observing many teachers over a long period of time before entering the classroom as a teacher onself. The period of experiential and taught formation, as well as subsequent professional experience in the classroom, provides the teacher with a set of baseline learner profiles. These take into account typical factors in the native cohort of pupils, such as social background, previous school attendance, typical capacities on entry, local factors and individual interests. Such knowledge determines how the teacher interacts with pupils, what types of learning activity are appropriate for them, and what expectations she has of pupils, either individually or as a group. The arrival of a new cohort of learners from obviously different educational and cultural backgrounds requires that the teacher first examine her attitude and behaviour as a cultural being (McKeon 1994, p.27). The second language teacher is a medium through whom norms of behaviour, communication and education are reflected implicitly. Where ethnic or religious constraints preclude a pupil’s casual interaction with native pupil peers, the language support teacher may be the sole cultural model. As a consequence, she cannot presume without reflection that the kind of language use she presents to learners or the types of activities she selects for the classroom are appropriate and systematically implemented models upon which the new pupils can firmly base their learning. Classroom discourse and modes of interaction are of overwhelming significance and require conscious planning. The teacher must then develop a means, frequently in the absence of satisfactory communication, of identifying a variety of new baseline profiles. No broad assumptions can be made about a migrant pupil’s previous educational experience, world knowledge, home environment, cultural or ethnic influences, attitude to schooling, learning skills or other factors which will, sooner or later, be brought to bear on the new learning situation. Having reflected on her relation to the new teaching environment and having identified the starting point for the learning that will take place during the language support period, the teacher must then make decisions about the prioritization of learning for each individual learner, frequently with reference to content areas in which she is not expert. It is only in the light of such awareness and knowledge that effective short- and long-term planning for instruction can take place. All planning must be interpreted and initiated from the perspective of the pupil (see, for example, Met 1994, p.161), but must take full account of the broader social and curriculum demands that entry into mainstream education imposes on the pupil. The nature of second language learning in the school context Learning a language as a migrant differs from much school-based foreign language learning, not least because the target language is the medium of all learn-

202


ing. In the new educational environment the migrant pupil can represent concrete and abstract notions, facts and experiences, objectives and aspirations only through the new language. The language of the host community becomes the principal medium for representing the individual’s former and new worlds. Language learning is therefore the precondition for all other learning. This has profound and far-reaching implications. However, although the need to learn a language is possibly at its greatest for migrant pupils, the extent of the challenge can mean that greater need does not necessarily entail greater motivation to learn. For migrant pupils entering postprimary education on arrival in a new country, the demands of a subject-specific curriculum and public examinations may prove overwhelming. The apparently easier option may be to leave school at the earliest possible moment. Clearly, an increase in the number of early school leavers whose lack of formal education renders them unsuitable for many areas of training or employment has serious consequences for any society. Empowering the learner If migrant pupils are to be successful in formal education and in their preparation for future training, education and careers, then they too must develop the self-esteem, motivation and ability to take responsibility for their own learning that, according to MacBeath (cited in DfEE 1998, p.8), mark out those who do well in life. For a migrant pupil, the first steps along this path depend on the ability to enter and engage with mainstream learning at the earliest possible opportunity. This means that the personal learning framework developed in the course of second language learning must empower the pupil to take control of all aspects of learning with, but more particularly in the absence of, support from others, including the teacher. Inevitably many excellent subject teachers have little language awareness and little understanding of the constraints imposed on their pupils by an inadequate linguistic repertoire. In order to cope with this situation, the pupil must quickly come to understand the process and content of learning and his or her relationship to it, and must develop the individual skills to take control of the process across a range of very different subjects. The self-knowledge, confidence and learning awareness implied by these requirements are individually held and can only develop as part of the growing autonomy of each individual pupil. Equally, the range of constraints on learning demonstrated by migrant pupils is a consequence of highly individual experiences. Hence the process of learner empowerment through the development of learner autonomy can be effective only if it is individually driven. If the language support class is to become the first basis for engagement with the curriculum, in terms not only of language but of sustainable autonomous learning, then the pedagogical principles underpinning all learning and teaching, in combination with the role of the teacher, are of crucial importance to the ultimate success or otherwise of each individual pupil.


203

Implementation of the learning/teaching dynamic The cognitive dimension According to cognitive interpretations, learning is the result of active engagement with new information, which is internalized by processes of assimiliation and accommodation (e.g., Piaget 1966). This in turn implies engagement with a range of cognitive challenges. As a consequence of the incremental accrual of knowledge and experience during the learning process, the initial challenge is reduced but also adjusts to accommodate more complex cognitive operations. The effective learner gradually gains understanding of, and control over, those cognitive activities which could be described as “core” to any particular domain of learning. Different domains of learning inevitably emphasize different ranges of cognitive tasks. For example, the tasks demanded of pupils in the chemistry laboratory will overlap only to a very limited degree with the tasks normally demanded in the language classroom. However, in the second language classroom where learning objectives must lead to content-based activities, a wider challenge may be made to the pupil’s cognitive abilities and development. Teenage migrant pupils who have experienced discontinuities in their education may encounter new cognitive demands for which they are unprepared. Feuerstein holds that full and effective learning is possible for all individuals despite what may appear to be psychological constraints or disabilities (Feuerstein et al. 1980). He proposes a categorization of the cognitive demands inherent in a learning task or activity in terms of a cognitive map. The cognitive map is composed of seven elements: • content and how the focus of the activity relates to the learner’s previous knowledge and experience; • complexity in terms of the quality and quantity of units of information necessary to carry out the task; • modality; • abstraction, which is present in second language learning at a metalinguistic level as well as in the thematic content of the task or material used; • cognitive operations such as categorization, ordering, etc.; • efficiency in terms of speed and accuracy; • phase – due to the recursive nature of language learning, there may be no single established order for the phasing of a set of learning tasks or activities. Socially constructed learning This model may help to explain, from a cognitive developmental perspective, how learning results in an “end product” of newly gained knowledge. It does not explain, however, what factors are necessary for cognitive development to occur so that migrant pupils, with widely varying starting points and capacities, may each gradually become autonomous in relation to the process of learning both the language of the host community and curriculum subjects.

204


An obvious connotation of the word “autonomy” is independence but, as Little points out (1991, p.5), as social beings our independence is always balanced by dependence, which is manifested in particular in our social interaction with peers, colleagues, family, and so on. This dual nature of autonomy – a capacity to behave in an independent and individual manner, but to do so while observing the constraints imposed by membership of particular social groups (in the present case, the second language class, the school) – shapes the practical approaches that bring success in second language learning. Social interaction implies collaborative activity and dialogic negotiation – Vygotsky’s claim that “outward, interpsychological relations [become] the inner, intrapsychological mental functions” (Vygotsky 1986, p.xxxvi) is a classic summary of this position. Mental constructs are created out of social interaction, especially collaborative activity. Different models of collaborative learning entail the development of different skills in learners. A general requirement, however, is the development of negotiation skills based on individual and shared knowledge, the expression of opinions, and the allocation of responsibility. Collaborative behaviour in the classroom underpins dialogic negotiation that, in the case of second language learners, takes place in the target language. An important additional benefit is that such behaviour also models a style of interaction typical of Western society. Thus pupils learn how to agree and disagree, how to persuade, how to carry out individual responsibilities within a group context, and so on. This is very important for pupils from cultural traditions in which negotiation is unknown and disagreement is unacceptable. The “consensus group” model (Bruffee 1999, p.21), in which pupils work in small groups on an open-ended task, offers a means of managing full engagement with the target language through a process of dialogue and negotiation focussed on content that is of immediate relevance to each individual pupil. Well-planned classroom activities that take account of the “cognitive map” support the development of a socially constructed learning environment that fosters pupils’ cognitive development, helps them to meet both language and curriculum demands, and encourages the gradual growth of learner autonomy. In order to understand fully how these elements interact, it is necessary to examine the role of the teacher. The role of the teacher Within a socially constructed learning environment, the roles of teacher and learners are of equal importance but unequal status. If, however, the objective of teaching is to empower learners to take control of their own learning, to become autonomous individuals in this regard, and to become good and effective learners, then the role of the teacher becomes that of facilitator and mediator combined. Learners’ control of their learning may be defined as control of the cognitive activities that produce learning, such that the demands of a learning task become clearer, the purpose of the task is understood, and the outcome of the task may be analysed and assessed for its effectiveness. In this way individual


205

learning gradually gains an acceptable level of sustainability. In the case of second language pupils in post-primary schools, achieving a level of sustainability in language learning brings with it the potential for full engagement with education. Feuerstein (Feuerstein et al. 1991) defines the key features on which mediation depends and considers three, above all, to be essential to all learning tasks. First is the significance of the task to learners. In the case of second language learning, task significance is a function of the immediate relevance of the task to all school activities on a daily basis. The second feature is purpose beyond the here and now. The transferability of learning to other contexts and domains may need to be emphasized in the early stages of learning, but it will become increasingly clear to the pupil as autonomy develops. The third overarching feature on which mediation depends is shared intention. That is to say, the approaches and means used by the teacher to present and motivate the task or activity must have a clear intention, such that the intention is both understood and reciprocated by the learners for the duration of the activity. It is inevitable that, within the collaborative environment presupposed by this socially constructed situation, the behaviour of the learners has much effect on the dynamic of interaction and the engagement of all participants as that of the teacher. Reactions and responses of learners, particularly in regard to shared intention, will inevitably affect the subsequent reaction and response of the teacher and thus the fine tuning of the planning process as learning progresses. However, for many language teachers the domain of second language teaching in the school context represents change and thus challenges the belief system of each individual teacher. The question of teachers’ beliefs is a complex one, but broadly speaking they may be considered at two levels. The superordinate level is that of “belief in”, which refers to belief in the system in which the teacher operates. The elements that constitute the system include curriculum demands, examination and assessment requirements, expectations of the system with regard to teaching approaches or methodology, and the requirement to use particular tools or materials as a basis for, or means of, course delivery. The other level of teacher beliefs concerns “beliefs about” different aspects of the teaching/learning dynamic. These include beliefs about learners and how and why they learn, beliefs about teachers and their role in relation to learners and the learning process, and beliefs about the means whereby learners achieve a learning gain as a result of classroom activity or engagement. In a system of learning in which the two levels of belief are entirely complementary, so that views about learners, teachers and learning are reflected in teaching tools, approaches, syllabi and means of assessment, teachers may find that even a new and relatively unfamiliar argument is, nonetheless, persuasive. On the other hand, where conflict occurs between the two levels of belief, it becomes more difficult for a teacher to proceed with clarity of purpose. The articulation of any activity so that intention may be shared is, to begin with, vulnerable to the position of learners within a Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky 1978, 1986). The fact that the learners are not in possession of the

206


full range of understanding and knowledge held by the teacher as mediator inevitably means that not all learners will, at the outset, fully appreciate the intention of the learning activity. It is likely that, for some learners, the intention may not become fully clear until the task has been completed and reflection can supplement the mediation process. The achievement of shared intention, to whatever degree, depends largely on the teacher’s clarity of purpose, which enables her to communicate to her learners an understanding of • why this particular learning activity has been selected at this time; • what principal learning outcomes are expected; • where the activity contributes to the larger learning process. Learners, on the other hand, must be able to answer the following questions: • Why am I doing this activity? • What in particular do I need to learn from the activity? • In what way does it contribute to my immediate needs in the school? and, on completion of the activity: • How have I performed?

The European Language Portfolio The reporting function Versions of the European Language Portfolio (ELP) have been developed for use with migrant pupils learning English as a second language in primary and postprimary schools in Ireland. The ELP is used as a key instrument of learning because it meets the wide variety of demands identified in the discussion above. The ELP’s dual role as a reporting and a pedagogical document makes it possible to identify each pupil’s existing linguistic strengths and to manage the progress of learning towards clearly identified objectives. The reporting function is used at intervals as learning proceeds but begins with a self-assessment of all languages known to the individual pupil. Because of the cultural and educational discontinuities often experienced by migrant pupils, there is a danger that other languages they have learnt and may still use will lose their validity in the new environment. Loss of validity can result in rejection of the language and everything associated with it. Reflecting on and recording competence in other languages at an early stage of the language support course gives those languages a degree of public acknowledgement. The same activity also begins the process of raising the pupil’s language awareness. Later, as proficiency in the target language develops, it too is recorded in the same way, as an extension of the pupil’s linguistic knowledge and communicative repertoire. The pedagogical function The pedagogical function of the ELP is based on the principles that underpin the development of learner autonomy. In the first place the ELP is the property of the learner, is not for examination purposes, and records only what the pupil, with


207

teacher support as necessary, wishes to record. So empowerment begins through absolute ownership. As the pupil moves back and forth between producing work that is kept in the dossier and recording progress in the language biography, a natural dynamic develops which supports the process of learning. Every small advance in learning is recorded and filed. Apparent failure to progress can be analysed to provide a positive motivation for the next activity or stage of learning. A recursive process of target setting, reflection and self-assessment, each of which is provided for in the ELP, enables the learner gradually to assume control of his or her learning. Target setting, reflection and self-assessment correspond to the three questions, noted above, that pupils must learn to ask themselves if they are to achieve full understanding of what they are doing and why. Equally, for the teacher the ELP provides clear evidence of individual performance in relation to clearly specified goals. This allows the teacher to make well-informed decisions about learning activities, outcomes and phasing, as noted earlier. Shared intention is no longer a question of the communication of ideas, often under considerable communicative constraints; it is rather the logical progression of learning motivated by a commonly held understanding of goals and relative achievement. Common understanding is gained through shared reflection on outcomes, not at an abstract level or in a negative context dominated by bad performance or failure, but focussed on the pupil’s ELP. Self-assessment is fundamental to the ELP but also to the development of learner autonomy. Boud (1995, p.11) holds that self-assessment involves two key elements: first, the development of criterial awareness and knowledge; and second, the capacity to make judgements about work done in relation to those criteria. Donato and McCormick (1994, cited in Lantolf 2000, p.91), in a study of portfolio use, noted that the portfolio approach to learning enabled students “to self-assess the relevance of what they know, to elucidate and establish goals, to select effective performance-related strategies, and to develop specific evidence of strategy use”. Self-assessment acts as a pivot, embedded deep in the learning process: it looks both backwards and forwards, facilitating reflection on what has taken place and the articulation of what is to come in future learning. It raises learners’ awareness of their own strengths and weaknesses, in relation to the process of language learning and their ability to perform in the target language. It marks a partial transfer of responsibility for assessment from the teacher to the learner and drives the cycle of goal-setting, learning and evaluation; it increases the stake that each learner has in his or her language learning; and it fosters development of those transferable skills and key competences which ultimately contribute to the individual’s ability to learn beyond the language classroom. As Woodward suggests, “when assessment and learning become united there is an added strength that shows that the combination is more than the individual parts” (Woodward 1998, p.415). Self-assessment may be the purpose or the product of reflection, which is also central to the development and practice of learner autonomy. Reflection by the pupil is supported in the ELP not only in relation to the content and progress of

208


learning, but also in terms of the individual’s relationship to the learning process, how he or she learns best, where additional learning may occur, and so on. Reflection gradually assumes a mediating role which parallels that of the teacher and, like the teacher’s role, depends on clarity of purpose and intention. The selfknowledge that self-assessment brings is of immeasurable importance for the migrant pupil as developing autonomy enables him or her gradually to take control of the new learning environment. The concept of the ELP as a “total” learning instrument has proved particularly appropriate in meeting the sometimes exacting needs of migrant pupils entering mainstream education by learning the language of the host community.

Conclusion If, as Crookall and Oxford suggest, “learning a second language is ultimately learning to be another person” (1988, p.136), then second language learning may assume negative connotations, creating a barrier which the learner refuses to cross. Such negative connotations, however, contradict the principles of democratic citizenship that underlie the ELP and are most powerfully realized in the achievement of learner autonomy. The migrant pupil’s achievement of democratic citizenship requires the maintenance of all that is valuable from his or her previous life combined with full and active engagement in the new one. A second language classroom that supports the development of learner autonomy is the first and potentially the most formative experience in the new life of any migrant pupil, since language learning is the principal means by which participation in the life of the host society can be facilitated. For the pupil, engagement with all that is offered by the new life is most immediately obvious in the context of mainstream education. Inevitably, however, engagement must also embrace the outside world and extend into personal development and lifelong learning. As Little has pointed out, long-term success in any school or university subject is a function of the extent to which the individual learner can apply the knowledge and skills he or she has learnt in the classroom to situations in the world outside the classroom: and that can happen only on the basis of self-motivation and self-regulation. (Little 2001, p.33)

References Bailey, K. M., B. Bergthold, B. Braunstein, N. J. Fleischman, M. P. Holbrook, J. Tuman, X. Waissbluth and L. J. Zambo, 1996: The language learner’s autobiography: Examining the “apprenticeship of observation”. In D. Freeman and J. C. Richards (eds), Teacher Learning in Language Teaching, pp.11–29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bialystok, E., 1991: Metalinguistic dimensions of bilingual language proficiency. In E. Bialystok (ed.), Language Processing in Bilingual Children, pp.113–40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


209

Boud, D., 1995: Enhancing Learning Through Self-Assessment. London: Kogan Page. Bruffee, K. A., 1999: Collaborative Learning. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Coelho, E., 1998: Teaching and Learning in Multicultural Schools. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Crookall, D., and R. Oxford, 1988: Review Essay. Language Learning, 31 (1), pp.128– 140. Department for Education and Employment, 1998: Extending Opportunity. London: HMSO. Donato, R., and D. McCormick, 1994: A sociocultural perspective on language learning strategies: the role of mediation. The Modern Language Journal 78, pp.453–64. Feuerstein, R., Y. Rand and M. Hoffman, 1980: Instrumental Enrichment. Glenview, Illinois: Scott Foresman. Feuerstein, R., P. S. Klein and A. J. Tannenbaum, 1991: Mediated Learning Experience: Theoretical, Psychological and Learning Implications. London: Freund. Integrate Ireland Language and Training, 2001: English Language Proficiency Benchmarks for Non-English-Speaking Pupils at Post-primary Level. Dublin: IILT. Lantolf, J., 2000: Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching 33, pp.79–96. Little, D. G., 1991: Learner Autonomy 1: Definitions, Issues and Problems. Dublin: Authentik. Little, D. G., 2001: How independent can independent language learning really be? In J. Coleman, D. Ferney, D. Head and R. Rix (eds), Language Learning Futures: Issues and Strategies for Modern Languages Provision in Higher Education, pp.30–43. London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching. Lortie, D., 1975: Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. McKeon, D., 1994: Language, culture and schooling. In F. Genesee (ed.), Educating Second Language Children, pp.15–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Met, M., 1994: Teaching content through a second language. In F. Genesee (ed.), Educating Second Language Children, pp.159–182. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pease-Alvarez, C., and O. Vasquez, 1994: Language socialization in ethnic minority communities. In F. Genesee (ed.), Educating Second Language Children, pp.82–102. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Piaget, J., 1966: The Origins of Intelligence in Children. New York: International Universities Press. Spinosa, C., F. Flores and H. L. Dreyfus, 1997: Disclosing New Worlds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Swain, M., and S. Lapkin, 1991: Heritage language children in an English-French bilingual program. Canadian Modern Language Review, 47 (4), pp.635–641. Tabors, P. O., 1997: One Child, Two Languages. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

210


Vygotsky, L. S., 1978: Mind in Society. The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA, and London: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S., 1986: Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Woodward, H., 1998: Reflective journals and portfolios: learning through assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 23 (4), pp.415–423.

Content and language integrated learning: a framework for the development of learner autonomy Dieter Wolff

Introduction The characteristic features of an autonomous classroom have been highlighted by Leni Dam (cf. Dam 1994, 1995): authentic materials, group work, negotiation of learning tasks, self-evaluation of learning processes, and the teacher’s role as a classroom manager were among the most important issues focused upon. These and other practical concepts were taken up in the theoretical discussion under headings such as authenticity, learning as a socially mediated process, learner reflection, process orientation, evaluation (cf., for example, Benson and Voller 1997); they have also been central to discussion in the course of this symposium. Advocates of learner autonomy recommend the construction of learning environments based on concepts like these in order to enable learners to develop autonomy (see, for example, Müller 1996, pp.81ff). Although learner autonomy has been developed predominantly within a foreign language learning and teaching framework, the concepts characterizing this approach are valid for any other subject matter and learning context (see, for example, von Aufschnaiter, Fischer and Schwedes 1992). Authenticity, learning as social mediation, reflection on the learning process, self-evaluation, and a number of other related concepts which I will take up in this paper are, from a pedagogical point of view, subject-independent, neutral categories which should be implemented in all institutionalized learning if learner autonomy is one of the goals. However, the implementation of learner autonomy in today’s school system is, as we all know, a very difficult venture. Almost every aspect of our educational systems offers resistance to the introduction of the concepts mentioned. Authentic materials are difficult to use in a system with rigid curricular aims; group work is hardly efficient in an institution in which the teacher perceives himself as the only provider of knowledge; self-evaluation of the learning process is regarded as irreconcilable with the marks the teacher has to award at regular intervals. The organizational structure of our school systems, with their inflexible time schedule, a randomly ordered sequence of subjects during the day, and the learning and teaching of these subjects in isolation from one another, poses additional problems. In short, as constituted at present our school systems do not provide a suitable framework for the development of learner autonomy. This paper is based on the conviction that if we are to implement learner autonomy and its underlying concepts in our classrooms, we must look for 211

212

CLIL: a framework for the development of learner autonomy

educational frameworks that are better suited to such an approach. One framework, which to my knowledge has not previously been assessed with respect to its suitability as a platform for the development of learner autonomy, is content and language integrated learning (CLIL) or bilingual education, an approach to institutionalized teaching and learning in which a number of content subjects are taught through the medium of a foreign language. In my opinion CLIL provides an interesting framework for the construction of a learning environment which fosters learner autonomy, and the main aim of this paper is to point out its autonomy-raising potential. In what follows I first discuss learner autonomy as a general educational goal, introducing the categories that will be used in the last part of the paper when I examine the CLIL framework under the aspect of fostering learner autonomy. In the main part of the paper I give a detailed description of content and language integrated learning, its organizational structure, its key issues and learning potential, and its methodological approach. The last part of the paper is devoted to an assessment of this framework as a means of creating a learning environment in which the development of learner autonomy is possible. To avoid misunderstanding I should make clear at this point that my distinction between CLIL as a pedagogical framework on the one hand and a learning environment suitable for fostering learner autonomy on the other is intentional and necessary. CLIL is neither more nor less than a template that can be used for different purposes. This becomes clear when one looks at the majority of CLIL classrooms, which are highly traditional and purely instruction-based. My argument is that when one takes account of its full potential, CLIL is better suited than many other frameworks in instructed learning to create a learning environment in which the development of learner autonomy can be achieved. CLIL is not, of course, the only way of implementing learner autonomy in our school systems; compared to most other frameworks, however, it offers better opportunities to create an autonomy-friendly environment.

Learner autonomy: a global educational goal The research conducted in cognitive psychology, and especially in the constructivist paradigm, is beginning to exert a growing influence on our pedagogical thinking. Although the slogan “construction instead of instruction”, which nowadays can be heard throughout the educational world, seems to me an inappropriate simplification, there can be no doubt that the central idea of constructivist thinking – that human cognition and human learning are constructive operations which the learner organizes and carries out autonomously – is changing our concepts of teaching and learning in institutional contexts. This change is in the direction of learner autonomy, which could be defined as the ability to manage one’s own construction processes, and it will have a profound influence on our theoretical pedagogical thinking and our classroom practice (for more details see Wolff 2002a). In my opinion there are at least six issues related to teaching and learning in an institutional context which must be reconsidered on the basis of the

Dieter Wolff

213

constructivist paradigm. These are learning content, learning objectives, learning context, social forms of learning, learning strategies, and evaluation. As aspects of institutionalized teaching and learning they focus on the most important areas of classroom practice and must be redefined according to the principal goals of learner autonomy. In what follows I will attempt such a redefinition. This will make it possible in the last part of the paper to assess CLIL as a framework for the development of a learning environment suitable to fostering autonomy. The constructivist paradigm requires that we see learning content from a new angle. From learning theoretical research we know that learners construct knowledge on the basis of their subjective experiential knowledge (see, for example, Jonassen 1996, p.11). Confronting them with predefined, simplified and graded content as in a traditional classroom or a traditional textbook most often deters them from relating this content to their own individual knowledge, which is, of course, unique to each learner. Learning content must rather be represented in all its complexity to give individual learners the chance to assimilate it into their own knowledge. Consequently, providing a large variety of authentic materials related to a specific learning item is more helpful than a textbook with its restricted content. Learners can participate in the collection of such materials and can thus decide for themselves what materials they want to work with. This is, of course, unthinkable in a traditional classroom. The concept of authenticity, mentioned in the introduction, is related to this category. Within the constructivist paradigm learners must be enabled to define their own learning objectives. This is possible only if the learning objectives introduced in the classroom are credible in the sense that learners can identify with them and recognize their importance for their own learning process and their own life. Only if learning objectives are convincing in this sense does the learner get involved in the learning process (Müller 1996). The learning context does not really play a role in traditional pedagogical concepts. The structure of the school system is taken for granted and the teacher’s authority is not questioned; all decisions are taken by the teacher and the learners need not take any responsibility. A learning context influenced by the constructivist paradigm must be organized in such a way that learning content can be embedded in it convincingly and what has been learned can also be used. This means that both teachers and learners must participate in the design and organization of such a classroom. Decisions must be taken jointly and students must understand that they are also responsible when a project or a task is not completed successfully. The learning context should be organized in much the same way as a research laboratory in real life (Collins et al. 1989, Jonassen 1992, Müller 1996). If learning is socially mediated, as constructivist theories maintain, it is necessary to reflect on the consequences this has for the classroom. Traditional forms of classroom work (especially frontal teaching) do not fit with such a concept. Instead, other forms of social co-operation must be made use of, in particular group work. One highly important concept in constructivist theories is that of strategic or

214


procedural knowledge (Strohner 1995). The ability to take charge of one’s own construction processes entails strategic knowledge. Construction processes are strategy-led and, in order to become more independent, learners must develop such strategies. The promotion of processing and learning strategies, which are only of marginal importance in traditional classrooms, must be a central goal in a learning environment striving for greater learner autonomy. The last concept to be taken up here is self-evaluation. This is probably the most important issue in constructivist thinking, but also one of the most difficult to realize in institutionalized learning. Our present school systems are characterized by “other-evaluation” and students are not used to evaluating their own learning processes. It is very difficult to create learning environments in which the capacity for self-evaluation is promoted, particularly because “other-evaluation” is regarded much more highly in our societies, which tend to distrust selfevaluation. The portfolio idea is one possible way of fostering self-evaluation; it is necessary, however, to embed it in a supportive learning environment.

Introducing content and language integrated learning Having reassessed six key aspects of institutional learning environments from the perspective of constructivist thinking and learner autonomy, I now introduce content and language integrated learning as a possible framework for creating efficient learning enviroments in which learner autonomy can be developed. CLIL, which I will define in more detail in a moment, is practised on a large scale in a number of European countries. In Austria and Finland more than a hundred schools offer this kind of education; in France more than eighty schools educate primary school children by using a foreign language as medium of instruction; and in Germany more than five hundred schools make use of the CLIL idea in content subject teaching. Other countries are experimenting with CLIL in smaller numbers of schools. On the whole it is estimated that more than 1,800 schools in almost forty European countries practise some sort of CLIL (for more details see Wolff 2002b). A definition of content and language integrated learning “Content and language integrated learning” is the recently introduced umbrella term for a number of similar approaches to the teaching of content subjects through a foreign language. Other terms used are “bilingual content teaching”, “bilingual subject teaching” or “content-based language teaching”. The term CLIL is now the most commonly used, however, especially since a definition has been found which seems to be generally acceptable: Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) is a generic term and refers to any educational situation in which an additional language and therefore not the most widely used language of the environment is used for the teaching and learning of subjects other than the language itself. (Marsh and Langé 2000, p.iii)

Dieter Wolff

215

This definition brings together a number of concepts, the most important of which is that CLIL must not be regarded simply as an approach to language teaching and learning; it is concerned with content and language equally. Many scholars and even some CLIL teachers tend to believe that within the CLIL paradigm content subjects are taught in a foreign language only to improve the students’ foreign language proficiency (Weller and Wolff 1993). But this is not the intention of an approach that is geared towards content learning as much as towards language learning. Recent research has shown that although CLIL improves foreign language proficiency even when the most traditional methodology imaginable is used, it benefits the content subject just as much. From what we know now about content subject learning in a foreign language, we understand that learners learn better and are more motivated than in traditional content subject teaching. It has also been shown that learners look at the content from a different and broader perspective when it is taught in another language. But probably the most interesting research result is that learners develop more precise concepts when another language is involved (Lamsfuß-Schenk 2002). In this connection some researchers argue that in CLIL content subject-related intercultural learning takes place (Christ 2000). A closely related and equally important point is that within a CLIL framework content and language are learnt in integration. The two subjects – a language and a subject like history or geography – are related to each other and dealt with as a whole. This does not take place within the traditional school framework where learners find it difficult to establish relationships between subjects (Hallet 2000). The third essential point in the definition is that CLIL, unlike immersion approaches of the Canadian type, usually involves a limited number of content subjects. Whereas in “Franco-German” or “European” schools all or most content subjects are taught in a language which is not the most widely used language of the environment, CLIL projects usually focus on between one and three content subjects. This is an important point in the context of mainstream European schooling: if all content subjects were taught in a language other than the children’s mother tongue, it would be impossible to demonstrate their first language competence. The last point in the definition I would like to highlight has something to do with the way language is dealt with in the classroom. The definition states that other languages are used to teach and learn content subjects, i.e., that they are the medium of instruction. This does not mean, however, that language as such is not focused on in the classroom. Language is both content and medium in the CLIL classroom, which again distinguishes CLIL from “immersion” programmes. On the other hand, in the CLIL classroom language is not taught in the same way as in a traditional classroom – it is brought into focus only when it is necessary to do so and important for the understanding of a specific aspect of the content subject.

216


Organization and make-up of content and language integrated learning A recent survey (Marsh, Maljers and Hartiala 2001) gathered important information about organizational and structural aspects of CLIL in Europe. Although CLIL has developed differently in different European school systems, there are a number of similarities which should be mentioned here in order to make the approach more transparent as an educational framework. In general, CLIL schools or CLIL branches in European schools are designed in such a way that one or more content subjects (in general from the humanities and social sciences) are taught in a foreign language for at least four years. The content subjects most frequently chosen are history, geography and social sciences. The most frequently used languages are English and French, with German ranking third. The largest number of CLIL schools is in secondary education, but CLIL exists also in primary education, and in some countries vocational schools have opted to teach content through a foreign language. In these schools the CLIL subjects are broadly different, ranging from information technology to economics. In general, it is estimated that the age span of CLIL learners ranges from three to twenty-one years. In most countries the students entering CLIL classes are still selected on the basis of written tests or oral interviews. The number of schools offering preparatory language classes for CLIL is fairly small; if Germany (where preparatory courses are compulsory) is excluded, not more than 15 per cent of the schools make such an offer. Apart from the German-speaking countries, where teacher education focuses on two subjects, teachers are usually either content subject teachers or language teachers. Content subject teachers are often native speakers of the CLIL language, while language teachers in many countries acquire an additional qualification in a content subject. Materials for content and language integrated learning are often sourced in countries whose official language is the target CLIL language. In general, teachers use both authentic and textbook materials (the latter from the content subject textbooks available in these countries). Teachers also adapt authentic or other materials to the linguistic level of their students or write their own materials. Except in Germany, curricula developed by educational authorities do not exist. In most countries the schools or the CLIL teachers develop their own curriculum. In almost all countries the general principle underlying curriculum development is that learners are expected to know as much about the content subject as learners in a mother-tongue course. Often, however, content subject curricula are modified compared to mother-tongue curricula, especially in history or geography, where more content related to the culture underlying the language is introduced.

Dieter Wolff

217

Some methodological considerations For many years, while CLIL played only a minor role in institutionalized teaching and learning, methodological aspects were neglected. In general, teachers taught their content subject in the foreign language as they would have taught it in their mother tongue. Similarly, language teaching and learning in the CLIL classroom took place according to traditional language teaching methodology. In a way, the content of the content subject simply replaced the traditional content of the language classroom, and apart from this the CLIL classroom looked like a traditional teacher-centred language or content subject classroom. The survey mentioned above (Marsh, Maljers and Hartiala 2001) is not the only source of evidence to suggest that the situation has changed in recent years. Educationalists and practising teachers have realized that the pedagogical potential of CLIL is greater than they had imagined, and a number of more innovative advocates of CLIL insist that a specific CLIL methodology should be developed (Thürmann 1999). For the time being, the methodological discussion centres around three general issues: promotion of reading comprehension, focus on writing, and the development of an approach in which language-sensitive teaching and learning play a central role. There can be no doubt that these issues go far beyond the typical methodological discussions in language or content teaching. The development of reading skills is regarded as highly important in the CLIL classroom. Most of the acquisitional processes are related to reading comprehension: learners work with documents and other sources in order to acquire knowledge in the content subject. Although reading strategies play an important role in all learning contexts, in CLIL they are pivotal in determining students’ success or failure. A specific CLIL methodology has to take this into account; thus the promotion of reading strategies plays an important role in all methodological discussions. And it must be kept in mind that content subject work also includes specific reading skills – working with graphs, maps, charts, etc. Learners need to acquire specific strategies to help them process the information contained in these materials. In a way, the focus on processing strategies in the CLIL classroom is characteristic of a new methodological approach, which is not only language- but also content-based. Learners do not read texts in order to learn language but in order to acquire knowledge in the content subject. This makes the whole learning process more skill-oriented with respect to both language and content. The same is true of the productive skills. Whereas in the communicative language classroom the promotion of oral skills is regarded as particularly important, in CLIL classrooms writing skills play a highly significant role. From very early on, learners are obliged to use the foreign language to write down the results of what they have studied: they have to compose reports, write definitions, compile the results of observations, and so on. Content subject language competence is to a large extent text competence, and a CLIL methodology must be a methodology geared towards the development of writing proficiency in the

218


foreign language. The most important point of discussion is, however, the integration of content and language in the CLIL classroom. Experience with communicative approaches to language teaching suggests that exclusively meaning-focused language learning is not very successful: focus on form is also important, especially in institutionalized learning contexts. This is why CLIL teachers opt for an approach which is content-oriented but at the same time language-sensitive. The content of the subject stands at the centre of the learning/teaching process, but in order to deal with the content in the foreign language, learners must acquire appropriate knowledge and skills. In the classroom this works according to the principle of language across the curriculum, i.e., language is brought into explicit focus whenever necessary. Two aspects of language work have been discussed in some detail in recent years. One is terminology, which has lost its overwhelming importance in the classroom. In the early CLIL years in particular, teachers believed that content teaching could work only if students had the precise terminology in the foreign language at their disposal. Language work at that time simply consisted of learning lists of terminological expressions. Nowadays it is emphasized that the terminological inventory of a content subject can be divided into more general and more specific terms. As quite a number of CLIL specialists (for example, Krechel 1996) put it, in CLIL one should begin by providing more general content subject-oriented terminology and should then slowly move towards more and more specific vocabulary. The other aspect is more skill-oriented and concerns classroom discourse. Because of its content orientation, classroom discourse plays a much more differentiated role in CLIL than in a traditional language classroom. According to Thürmann (1999) discourse skills in a CLIL classroom can be analysed into two sets: one more general functional set consisting of speech acts like identify, classify/define, describe, explain, conclude/argue, evaluate; and one more specific set which differs according to content subjects or groups of subjects: for example, making inductions/stating laws, describing states and processes, working with graphs, diagrams, tables etc., interpreting, writing reports.

Content and language integrated learning as an approach to promoting learner autonomy Having briefly sketched the current CLIL framework, I now turn to what this framework, when exploited to its full potential, can do for the promotion of learner autonomy. The underlying hypothesis is that content and language integrated learning constitutes a framework within which one can build a learning environment better suited to fostering autonomy than most of those that exist at present. It should have become clear by now that the potential of CLIL for language and content learning cannot be reduced to the factor of exposure time as some theoreticians have argued. Longer exposure does not automatically result in higher language proficiency, although it has indisputably contributed to the

Dieter Wolff

219

success of conventional and traditional approaches to CLIL teaching and learning. I am convinced that there is more to CLIL and shall now proceed to outline how this approach is capable of fostering learner autonomy, on the basis of the six concepts characterizing institutional learning environments which I introduced in the second part of the paper: learning content, learning objectives, learning context, social forms of learning, learning strategies, evaluation. I begin with learning content. In traditional language classrooms all learning content is pre-defined, simplified and graded. Linguistic content is structured according to rather enigmatic principles of “ease of learning”, which have not changed for the last 100 years or so. And non-language content is reduced to fairly stereotypical sequences of everyday life (my family, my pets, in school, in a disco, etc.). Most of the materials used are not authentic but designed by textbook writers to fit a notion of communicative and/or linguistic progression. As we have seen, approaches committed to the pedagogical aim of learner autonomy favour less structured and richer learning content to help learners relate their previous knowledge to the new knowledge they are expected to acquire. Such learning content is quite difficult to provide for the language classroom, however, and teachers and learners often fall back on the stereotypical topics of the traditional classroom: England and the English, Black Americans, Youngsters in England, School uniforms in Britain are typical examples. Furthermore, it is clear that in any language classroom the content chosen, rich as it may be, is always subordinate to language and language work. The integration of content subjects can be of great help here. Geography and history provide rich learning content for the classroom – content which is real and not fictitious and is thus potentially more motivating than the content usually dealt with in language classrooms even where learners are free to choose what they want to work on. The learning content of most content subjects consists of “realia”, i.e., facts and processes of the real world, and thus appears much more relevant than the often pseudo-real content of the language classroom. In a sense, a content subject like history or geography limits the learners’ choice in a positive way, confining it to specific topics and projects within the defined range of the subject. And, perhaps even more importantly, the language of all content subjects is characterized by a high degree of precision (LSP as an accurate register) compared to everyday language, which is quite vague and imprecise and probably more difficult to learn. A last point in favour of CLIL-based learning content is that it is characterized by a scientific orientation and is thus richer and more complex than most content dealt with in ordinary language classrooms. According to the second concept discussed above, learners should be able to define their own learning objectives. The learner is expected to set for himself the more global and the more specific goals of his learning. It seems very helpful for the learner if his decision-making processes can take place in a CLIL context. Such a context is more closely related to the learner’s individual experience than a language learning context. It is easier for the learner to specify objectives like “I would like to know more about the deserts in Africa” or “I would like to know

220


more about fish and why they can swim so long under water” than to define complex linguistic objectives that are difficult for him to understand. Of course, this does not in the least preclude the possibility that learners will also learn to define linguistic objectives; on the contrary, defining content subject objectives will help them to define linguistic objectives. In a traditional learning environment, the learning context is dominated by decisions made outside the classroom by the administration or by the school. In classrooms oriented towards learner autonomy, the learning context is created collaboratively by students and teacher. Together they set up a kind of learning laboratory in which they experiment and do research and thus deal with their learning content (the target language and the target language culture) in a motivating way. The point here is whether experimentation and research are not more realistic and more motivating for students if they are dealing with concrete topics from the field of geography or history and working with, let us say, temperature charts or historical maps. Research and experimentation can also be carried out in relation to language, of course, but a learning laboratory lends itself much more readily to investigation in the social and natural sciences. The content subject makes the process of research and experimentation more realistic than a language does. In a way, experimentation with language can be prepared through research in the content subject, since in the beginning it is easier to do research in a content subject than in a language. In learner autonomy the dominant social form of learning is group work. In an autonomous classroom, which is regarded as a research laboratory, occasions for group work are much more numerous than in a traditional classroom. It is clear that content subjects, with their rich potential for research and experimentation, add a new dimension to group work. They give it authenticity; one could even go so far as to say that content subjects may enforce group work in the classroom. In the second part of this paper I suggested that learning strategies have a very high potential with respect to the development of learner autonomy. Only learners who have learned to work with specific learning techniques and study skills will be able to become more independent in their learning. Learning techniques and study skills are highly complex abilities both in language and in content learning. I have already mentioned the importance of reading and writing skills, which consist of highly complex sub-skills (inferencing in reading and planning in writing are just two examples). Reading tables and graphs and describing photographs and charts are specific skills which can be developed in the CLIL classroom and then extended to more complex reading and writing tasks. Learners can also draw upon their skills of working with tables and graphs when they turn to address the description of linguistic phenomena or reflect on linguistic rules and regularities. The concept of evaluation is probably the most difficult one to realize in any learning environment. Many teachers seem to be quite happy to leave this problem to the school authorities, although they might be reluctant to admit this. In a CLIL context other-assessment becomes even more difficult than in a tradi-

Dieter Wolff

221

tional context. The question arises whether students should be assessed according to their linguistic achievements or their results in the content subject. In general, it is argued that content knowledge should determine the student’s assessment in the content subject, and linguistic proficiency in the language subject. But in this way CLIL loses much of its attraction as an integrative approach. One solution might be to incorporate self-assessment, an idea that is so important in learner autonomy. Since learners can evaluate their learning processes and learning results better with respect to content than with respect to language, there might be an especially strong argument in favour of selfassessment in the CLIL context.

Concluding remarks In this paper I have tried to show that CLIL, as an integrated approach to content and language teaching and learning, offers a number of advantages compared to other institutionalized frameworks within which the promotion of learner autonomy has been attempted. My arguments for CLIL boil down to one very important point: more than other approaches, CLIL provides a learning enviroment in which language and content are equally important and in which learners can work with content in a motivating way, focusing explicitly on language – its form and structure – whenever necessary.

References von Aufschnaiter, S., H. E. Fischer, and H. Schwedes, 1992: “Kinder konstruieren Welten. Perspektiven einer konstruktivistischen Physikdidaktik”. In S. J. Schmidt (ed.), Kognition und Gesellschaft: Der Diskurs des Radikalen Konstruktivismus, pp.380–424. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Benson, P., and P. Voller (eds), 1997: Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning. London: Longman. Christ, H., 2000: “Zweimal hinschauen – Geschichte bilingual lernen”. In L. Bredella and F. J. Meißner (eds.), Wie ist Fremdverstehen lehr- und lernbar?, pp.43–83. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Collins, A. E., J. S. Brown and S. E. Newman, 1989: “Cognitive apprenticeship: teaching the crafts of reading, writing and mathematics”. In L. B. Resnick (ed.), Knowing, Learning and Instruction, pp.453–94. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Dam, L., 1994: “How do we recognise an autonomous language classroom?” Die Neueren Sprachen 93, pp.503–527. Dam, L., 1995: Learner Autonomy 3: From Theory to Practice. Dublin: Authentik. Hallet, W., 2000: “The bilingual triangle: Überlegungen zu einer Didaktik des bilingualen Sachfachunterrichts”. Praxis des Neusprachlichen Unterrichts 45, pp.115–125. Jonassen, D. H., 1992: “Expert systems as cognitive tools” In P. A. M. Kommers, D. H. Jonassen and T. G. Mayes (eds.): Cognitive Tools for Learning, pp.103–4. Berlin: Springer Verlag.

222


Jonassen, D. H., 1996: Computers in the Classroom: Mindtools for Critical Thinking. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Krechel, H.-L., 1996: “Französisch als Vehikularsprache im bilingualen Sachfach Erdkunde”. In H. Buchloh, H. Christ, E. Klein and N. Mäsch (eds.), Konvergenzen: Fremdsprachenunterricht: Planung – Praxis – Theorie, pp.17–33. Tübingen: Narr. Lamsfuß-Schenk, S., 2002: “Geschichte und Sprache. Ist der bilinguale Geschichtsunterricht der Königsweg zum Geschichtsbewußtsein?” In G. Bach, S. Breidbach and D. Wolff (eds), Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht: Didaktik, LehrerLernerforschung und Bildungspolitik zwischen Theorie und Empirie. Schriften zu Bilingualismus und bilingualem Sachfachunterricht Bd. 1, 191–206. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Marsh, D., and G. Langé (eds), 2000: Using Languages to Learn and Learning to Use Languages. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä. Marsh, D., A. Maljers and A.-K. Hartiala (eds), 2001: Profiling European CLIL Classrooms: Languages Open Doors. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä. Müller, K., 1996: “Wege konstruktivistischer Lernkultur”. In K. Müller (ed.), Konstruktivismus: Lehren – Lernen – Ästhetische Prozesse, pp.71–115. Neuwied: Luchterhand. Strohner, H., 1995: Kognitive Systeme: Eine Einführung in die Kognitionswissenschaft. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Thürmann, E., 1999: “Eine eigenständige Methodik für den bilingualen Fachunterricht?” In G. Bach and S. Niemeier (eds), Bilingualer Unterricht: Grundlagen, Methoden, Praxis, Perspektiven pp.75–96. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Weller, F. R., and D. Wolff (eds), 1993: Bilingualer Unterricht. Die Neueren Sprachen 92. Wolff, D., 2002a: Fremdsprachenlernen als Konstruktion: Grundlagen für eine konstruktivistische Fremdsprachendidaktik. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Wolff, D., 2002b: “Bilingualer Sachfachunterricht in Europa”. In C. Finkbeiner (ed.), Bilingualer Unterricht, pp.33–9. Dortmund: Schroedel.

Learner autonomy and public examinations David Little

Introduction The arguments of this paper are based on three premises that have been established in various ways by other contributors to the symposium: 1 Learner autonomy denotes a capacity for self-management in learning: a capacity to set one’s own learning goals, monitor one’s own learning progress, and evaluate one’s own learning outcomes. Accordingly, self-assessment is fundamental to the practice and development of learner autonomy at every stage and in every phase: What have I already learnt? What do I need to learn next? Is my current learning effective? Have I achieved my goal? 2 The development of learner autonomy in any domain presupposes the progressive achievement of learning goals: unless I achieve my first learning goal I have no principled way of choosing my second goal; unless I achieve my second goal I have no principled way of choosing my third goal; and so on. Accordingly, autonomous learners are simultaneously autonomous users of the knowledge and/or skills they are in the process of mastering. If they are not, their autonomy has neither meaning nor purpose in relation to their learning. 3 Learning is mediated by social-interactive processes: individual growth depends upon but also feeds into the collaborative construction of skills and knowledge. Autonomous learners are thus characterized by an independence that is at once constrained and enriched by interdependence. This premise has two consequences: a. Learners develop their capacity to plan, monitor and evaluate their learning not in isolation from one another but collaboratively. Under guidance from their teacher (who is guided by the curriculum), they set their own goals partly by engaging with the goal setting of their peers, and they assess their own progress partly by assessing the progress of their peers and submitting to assessment by their teacher. The capacity for private reflection grows out of the practice of public, interactive reflection, and the capacity for self-assessment develops partly out of the experience of assessing and being assessed by others. It is axiomatic that all assessment carried out in the classroom, whether it is self-, peer or teacher assessment, should be based on criteria that have been made explicit in advance, usually through negotiation. b. In accordance with the second premise, the development of target language proficiency depends crucially on target language use. This includes listening, reading and writing, but it especially means using the target language as the medium of all classroom interaction, including collaborative reflection, goal setting and evaluation. In this way autono223

224

Learner autonomy and public examinations

mous language learners develop a proficiency in the target language in which (as with native speakers) reciprocal oral interaction is primary. The paper is divided into three parts. The first part considers why public examinations are commonly perceived as being inimical to the development of learner autonomy; the second part explores the issues of assessment and accountability with reference to the business philosophy of Total Quality Management; and the third part points to a possible way forward, in which the Council of Europe’s Common European Framework and European Language Portfolio would play a central role.

The problem with public examinations In their traditional form public examinations are at odds with my premises in three ways. First, they focus exclusively on the achievement of the individual learner as a product of the educational system. In this they largely ignore the communicative and collaborative nature of effective learning, encouraging instead a view of education as the transmission of knowledge to the individual. The league tables published in the United Kingdom in order to facilitate comparison between schools further encourage learners and their parents to think of schools as “service providers”, even as “factories” or “production lines”, and their pupils as “products” (cf. Handy and Aitken 1986). However well pupils may have worked together to create and maintain a community of learning, when the public examination results are published, they are in stark competition with one another, so many isolated points on the bell-shaped curve of a normal distribution. It is the central purpose of public examinations, of course, to discriminate between learners. But it should be possible to do this in a way that does justice to the process of learning, taking account of the fact that the knowledge and skills acquired by the individual are rooted in complex social-interactive processes. Public examinations are also at odds with my premises in their overdependence on written tasks. No doubt most of them also have an oral component; but whatever form it takes, the oral component is usually treated as an adjunct to the written examination. In other words, traditional public examinations favour the written over the spoken language and fail to reflect the fact that proficiency in writing and in non-reciprocal oral communication is underpinned by proficiency in reciprocal oral communication. This may seem surprising, given that for the last thirty years or so the theory and practice of language teaching have been dominated by the idea that we learn languages in order to use them as channels of communication. But publications fundamental to the development of the communicative approach, notably the Council of Europe’s Threshold Level (van Ek 1975) and its offspring, had little to say about assessment. By defining proficiency in terms of the meanings that learners must be able to deploy in order to achieve their communicative purposes, the Threshold Level helped to shift attention from grammatical form to communicative function. This had an immediate though often superficial impact on the design of textbooks, and it also led to a reconsideration of pedagogical practices and curriculum objectives. Among professional language testers, moreover, it stimulated a

David Little

225

concerted effort to understand and define communicative proficiency in measurable terms. But the impact of the communicative approach on public examinations was relatively slight. Where oral exami-nations already existed they were sometimes redesigned in an attempt to make them more “communicative”; where they did not exist (as in Ireland) the communicative approach gave extra impetus to the campaign to have them introduced. Curricula were in many cases redesigned in deference to central principles of the communicative approach (again as in Ireland), but public examinations changed only slightly. The third way in which traditional public examinations are at odds with my premises has to do with their washback effect. In Ireland and the United Kingdom public examinations mark the end of lower and the end of upper secondary education. The grades that pupils achieve determine curriculum choices in the first case and entry to third-level education in the second. The importance attached to examination grades inevitably generates a powerful washback effect. In particular, the closer pupils get to the examination, the more their teachers are likely to focus on the perceived demands imposed by the exam. At best this leads to a narrowing of focus, at worst it can produce absurdity. Some years ago, for example, it was decided to introduce a cloze test into the Leaving Certificate examinations for foreign languages in Ireland. Overnight at least one Irish educational publisher brought out books of cloze tests, and in many language classrooms sitting learners down to do cloze tests became an important new teaching method. In their emphasis on the written language, the activities they require candidates to perform, and their role in crudely rank-ordering candidates in relation to future options, public examinations do not encourage the adoption of pedagogical measures apt to promote the development of learner autonomy. Clearly, radical reform is necessary; but proposals for change need to be formulated on the basis of an approach to assessment that accommodates my three premises.

External assessment, self-assessment and accountability Approaches to teaching that aim to foster the development of learner autonomy are “progressive” in the sense defined by John Dewey in 1928: they are characterized by respect for individual capacities, interests and experience; enough external freedom and informality at least to enable teachers to become acquainted with [learners] as they really are; respect for self-initiated and self-conducted learning; respect for activity as the stimulus and centre of learning; and perhaps above all belief in social contact, communication, and cooperation upon a normal human plane as all-enveloping medium. (Dewey 1974, p.171) Progressive pedagogies have usually been elaborated in conscious opposition to traditional pedagogies; and progressives have often identified an inappropriate relation between learning and assessment as one of the central weaknesses of traditional education. No doubt this helps to explain why progressives have

226


sometimes neglected – even resisted – external assessment (see Gardner 1993, p.197). But a moment’s reflection should be enough to persuade us that such neglect and resistance are mistaken. For if it is true (as I stated in my first premise and as so many papers in this symposium have also argued explicitly or implicitly) that self-assessment is fundamental to the practice and development of learner autonomy, and if it is also true (as I stated in the first consequence of my third premise) that the capacity for self-assessment develops partly out of the experience of assessing and being assessed by others, it surely follows that there must be a place in our scheme of things for external assessment. I shall briefly explore what that place might be with reference to the business philosophy of Total Quality Management. My use of this parallel is likely to cause educational hackles to rise. For one thing, as I have already implied (see p.224 above), education is very different from business and learners are very different from goods or services. For another, many of the quality systems already adopted by educational institutions consume large quantities of time and paper without doing much to improve quality. Nevertheless I believe the parallel is worth pursuing for four reasons. First, the developmental stages that gave rise to the philosophy of Total Quality Management help to illuminate the difference between traditional approaches to assessment and the very different approaches required to support and do justice to learner autonomy. Secondly, Total Quality Management itself is a useful metaphor for the processes of mutual accountability and quality control (“How are we getting on?”) that underlie successful autonomous classrooms. Thirdly, issues of quality and accountability are not going to disappear from the educational agenda, which means that those of us who wish to see learner autonomy more widely pursued as a pedagogical goal must consider what kind of quality system best accords with our purpose. And fourthly, in its concern with the reliability and validity of forms of assessment, language testing has long been committed to quality assurance and quality improvement. Dale et al. (1994) identify four more or less discrete stages in the development of Total Quality Management. First came inspection as a means of identifying products or services that were sub-standard. This is essentially an “after-theevent screening process” (Dale et al. 1994, p.5), and as such it bears much the same relation to manufacturing or the provision of services as traditional examinations bear to learning. Next came quality control, designed to reduce the number of sub-standard products or services by focussing on the production or service process (ibid., p.6); and quality control was followed by quality assurance, achieved by “directing organizational efforts towards planning and preventing problems occurring at source” (ibid., p.8). These two stages correspond roughly to the principle that underlies classical curriculum theory: that examinations should be used to determine not only what has been learnt but also how effectively it has been taught. Finally came Total Quality Management, which entails “the application of quality management principles to all aspects of the business, including customers and suppliers” (ibid., p.10). This corresponds to the kind of assessment and accountability I believe we should be aiming at.

David Little

227

The British Standards Institution has defined Total Quality Management as follows: A management philosophy embracing all activities through which the needs and expectations of the customer and the community, and the objectives of the organization are satisfied in the most efficient and cost effective way by maximising the potential of all employees in a continuing drive for improvement. (BS.4778, 1991) The motivation for adopting such a management philosophy is clear. By ensuring a high quality of manufactured goods or services, a company ensures a high level of productivity, which in turn maximizes the cost-effectiveness of its operations and thus its profitability, and this helps it to maintain its competitive position in the market place. What benefits the customer also benefits the company. As management philosophy evolves from quality inspection through quality control and quality assurance, more and more of a company’s functions become involved in the search for quality. The philosophy of Total Quality Management clearly embraces all of a company’s activities and all of its employees. It is a commonplace of the Total Quality Management literature that success depends above all on convincing all personnel, whatever their role in the company’s operations, that they have a stake in the quality process, and on ensuring that every manager and every employee is enabled to develop to the full those skills on which the maximally efficient and effective performance of his or her duties depends. How the quality process works in practice can be illustrated by describing briefly the steps by which companies secure the industrial quality standards ISO 9000 (having to do with manufacture), ISO 9001 (having to do with the provision of goods), and ISO 9002 (having to do with the provision of services). The first step is to draw up a Quality System Manual that describes the nature of the company’s business and the various activities by which it pursues its business. This makes it possible to elaborate a set of Quality System Procedures, which specify in detail how each of the company’s activities is carried out and what measures are proposed to assure and improve the quality of products and/or services. Where appropriate, procedures are accompanied by work instructions; those procedures that have to do with record keeping are accompanied by appropriate forms. This documentation and the actual operation of the quality process are then audited externally, by an agency approved by the International Organization for Standardization. The external audit determines whether or not the company is awarded ISO registration. Two points require particular emphasis. First, it is sometimes supposed that ISO registration invites external interference in the company’s business. This is not so, however. Although the International Organization for Standardization provides detailed guidelines for the elaboration of Quality System Manuals and Quality System Procedures, it is up to the company in question to say what its business is, what activities are entailed by that business, and how those activities are carried out – in other words, “what we do and how we do it”. The external

228


auditor’s role is limited to establishing the adequacy or otherwise of the proposed quality system according to internationally agreed criteria. It is of course possible that the operation of a quality system will bring about important changes in the nature of the company’s products or services. But those changes will be generated from within the company, they will not be imposed from outside. The second point requiring emphasis is this. Once ISO registration has been awarded, it is maintained on the basis of further external audits conducted on a regular basis. But it is fundamental to the operation of the quality process that the company also conducts regular internal audits of its quality performance. Thus not only is it necessary to secure employees’ commitment to the ideal of Total Quality Management; it is also necessary to involve as many of them as possible in the ongoing evaluation of their own and others’ performance. In companies that do not seek to practice an ethos of interdependence and mutual support, this can cause acute problems. But where such an ethos already exists or has begun to develop, the ongoing evaluation of one’s own and others’ performance can have an invigorating effect on the morale as well as the efficiency and profitability of the organization. A business run according to the principles of Total Quality Management seems to me to resemble an autonomy-focused classroom in two important ways. First, in both domains success depends on the distribution of responsibility across all participants in the process – managers and employees on the one hand, teacher and learners (appropriately supported by school principal and department head) on the other; and secondly, in both domains self-assessment plays a decisive role in the setting of goals and the evaluation of outcomes. The practice of Total Quality Management is based on a fruitful interaction between self-assessment and assessment by external authority. Any reform of public examinations designed not only to do justice to my three premises but to encourage the more widespread adoption of the pedagogical practices that they imply, must seek to achieve the same fruitful interaction in the educational sector. How that might be done is the concern of the last part of my paper.

Towards more appropriate public examinations The Common European Framework and the European Language Portfolio In Total Quality Management interaction between external and self-assessment is made possible by the fact that internal quality procedures are based on externally produced (ISO) quality handbooks that already state the criteria for external assessment. In second and foreign language teaching a similar interaction becomes possible if the Council of Europe’s Common European Framework (CEF; Council of Europe 2001) is used to define curriculum goals and assessment criteria and the European Language Portfolio (ELP; see Little 2002 and the Council of Europe’s ELP website: ) is used to guide the management and assessment (including self-assessment) of learning in the classroom. The CEF defines non-native language proficiency in relation to five activities

David Little

229

at six levels. The activities are listening, reading, spoken interaction, spoken production, and writing; the levels are A1 Breakthrough, A2 Waystage, B1 Threshold, B2 Vantage, C1 Effective Operational Proficiency, and C2 Mastery. Definitions are couched in the form of “can do” statements. Thus, for example, A1 Writing is summarized as: I can write short, simple notes and messages relating to matters in areas of immediate need. I can write a very simple personal letter, for example thanking someone for something; and C1 reading is summarized as: I can understand long and complex factual and literary texts, appreciating distinctions of style. I can understand specialized articles and longer technical instructions, even when they do not relate to my field (Council of Europe 2001, pp.26f.). This approach has two consequences. First, because proficiency is defined in terms of communicative behaviour, the same descriptors can be used to specify learning goals, identify learning tasks, and define assessment criteria. This brings curriculum, teaching and examinations into a much closer relation with one another than has usually been the case; in particular, all teaching can effectively become “teaching for the exam”. The behavioural definition of proficiency also implies that communicative success must be the first criterion by which learner performance is judged. Different grades of success can then be determined in terms of such factors as fluency, socio-pragmatic appropriateness and grammatical accuracy. Secondly, because proficiency is defined in relation to five communicative activities, the CEF can be used to specify (i) curricula that take account of the fact that receptive skills usually run ahead of productive skills and (ii) curricula that focus chiefly or exclusively on a sub-set of activities or communicative skills. The European Language Portfolio (ELP) comprises 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 (crucially) 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 was designed to have a reporting and a pedagogical function. In its reporting function it supplements the certificates and diplomas that are awarded on the basis of formal examinations by presenting additional information about the owner’s language learning experience and concrete evidence of his/her second/foreign language proficiency and achievements. In addition, it allows the owner to document language learning that has taken place outside formal education. This function arises from the same concerns that three decades ago led the Council of Europe to attempt to develop a European unit/credit system for second/foreign language learning by adults (e.g., Council for Cultural Coop-

230


eration 1979). In its pedagogical function the ELP is designed to promote plurilingualism, raise cultural awareness, make the language learning process more transparent to the owner, and foster the development of learner autonomy. This function reflects the Council of Europe’s commitment to cultural diversity, cultural exchange, and the ideals of lifelong learning and learner autonomy (for the latter, see especially Holec 1981). The reporting and pedagogical functions of the ELP support each other in the ongoing process of self-assessment that is fundamental to its effective use. Selfassessment in the ELP is based on the common reference levels of the CEF. In particular, the version of the language passport devised for use by older adolescents and adults (the so-called “standard adult passport”) contains the selfassessment grid from the CEF (Council of Europe 2001, pp.26f.). ELP owners use the grid periodically to make an overall judgement of their proficiency in the second/foreign language(s) they know. But self-assessment of this summative kind is only a small part of the reflective function of the ELP, as it is also only a small part of the self-assessment that is fundamental to the development and practice of learner autonomy. ELP owners give much more time to formative self-assessment as they use the language biography to set learning targets, review learning progress, explore their learning style, and record especially important learning and intercultural experiences, and as they keep the contents of their dossier under critical review. As with learner autonomy generally, so with effective use of the ELP: self-assessment quickly becomes as much a habit of mind as an activity. If the common reference levels of the CEF are the metric against which ELP owners must assess their second/foreign language proficiency, it follows that they should also be used in setting learning targets, selecting learning activities, and monitoring learning progress. During the pilot phase of the Council of Europe’s ELP project (1998–2000; see Schärer 2000) two difficulties were frequently reported. The first was that learners and their teachers found it difficult to engage in these reflective tasks on the basis of the self-assessment grid alone: they found the summary descriptions of proficiency too general. This problem was solved by expanding the summaries into checklists of tasks, usually drawing on the illustrative scales contained in the CEF but often simplifying them in order to make them more accessible to learners. Checklists like those contained in the Swiss ELP for adolescents and adults (bmlv 2000) or the Irish ELP for learners in lower and upper secondary education (Authentik 2001) constitute a full and explicit toolkit for planning, monitoring and evaluating language learning. If learners refer to them constantly in the course of their learning, they should find it much easier to assess themselves against the summary descriptions of the self-assessment grid. The second difficulty concerned self-assessment itself. Many teachers found it difficult to accept that their learners were capable of arriving at a reliable judgement of their own target language proficiency. How, they wondered, could learners possibly assess themselves accurately unless they already possessed the same degree of linguistic knowledge as teachers themselves? This difficulty

David Little

231

had two sources: a failure to recognize that self-assessment in the ELP is referenced in the first place to behavioural rather than grammatical criteria; and pedagogical practice that was not intent on fostering the development of learner autonomy. Not surprisingly, the ELP pilot projects for which self-assessment was not a problem were those that used the ELP as a basis for reflective teaching and learning. Most foreign language curricula are based on communicative objectives, however those objectives may be defined. This means that they can be restated in terms of the CEF’s common reference levels. Thus the goal-setting and self-assessment checklists in the Irish ELP for lower and upper secondary learners were developed by using the illustrative scales in the CEF to analyse the official curriculum. In this way it is possible to create a powerful continuity between individual goal setting and self-assessment on the one hand and external assessment on the other. The question then arises, what form should public examinations take? Designing an autonomy-friendly system of public examinations In order to harmonize with the three premises I elaborated in my introduction, public examinations must fulfil three criteria: 1 They must interact with the processes of self-assessment that are fundamental to successful learning (as we have seen, this criterion is also fundamental to Total Quality Management). 2 They must do justice to the social-interactive nature of the learning process; that is, they must find ways of assessing the interdependent effort of learning communities as well as the achievement of individual learners. 3 They must reflect the primary role of the spoken language in teaching and learning and in underpinning the development of fluency in writing. The first of these criteria can be met by restating curricular goals in terms of the CEF’s common reference levels and using a version of the ELP to mediate between the curriculum on the one hand and the teacher, the class and the individual learner on the other. Learners’ certificates might reflect this mediation by presenting three parallel judgements: their own final self-assessment, their teacher’s assessment, and the assessment achieved in the public examination. This would almost certainly have a positive washback effect: learners and their teachers would be likely to work hard to avoid too great a discrepancy between internal and external assessment (this is also an effect of the assessment processes required by Total Quality Management and ISO registration). The second and third criteria can be met by giving a central role to oral examinations conducted in the school, preferably by two external examiners working together. These examinations might be conducted in two parts: (i) presentations of projects by groups of learners, and (ii) the presentation of their ELP by individual learners. In either case, a prepared oral presentation could be followed by spontaneous questions and answers. The examiners would use rating sheets to assess learners’ performance, making independent judgements before negotiating an agreed mark. Learners’ ELPs could also be submitted to the examiners and assessed by them using a variant of the same scoring ap-

232


proach. Material contained in the dossier section would not necessarily all be in print – there might also be audio or video recordings, for example. But ELPs would nevertheless give a comprehensive overview not only of each learner’s individual development, but also of his/her proficiency in writing. (For an account of the use of rating grids and scales of linguistic accuracy to assess the communicative proficiency of university-level language learners, see Little and Ushioda 1998.) Although the argument I have developed in this paper implies that this form of external assessment should be the major part of public examinations, a case might also be made for requiring learners to take a test designed to rank-order them in terms of their general underlying language proficiency. Such a test might comprise a standardized battery of dictation and C-tests (Klein-Braley 1985, Raatz 1985, Raatz and Klein-Braley 1985; see also Little and Ushioda 1998). The washback effect of these instruments should be minimal given the strong communicative requirements of the main part of the examination. Scores achieved in this test could be reported as a fourth item on learners’ certificates.

Conclusion In this paper I have argued for a reform of public examinations from the perspective of pedagogical approaches calculated to foster the development of learner autonomy. Such a reform is urgently needed for two reasons. First, traditional modes of public examination fail to do justice to the realities of language learning in autonomous classrooms, which is driven by communicative language use; and secondly, reform of public examinations is the only certain way of encouraging the more widespread pursuit of learner autonomy and thus promoting greater success in the achievement of curriculum goals. One obvious advantage of the kind of reform I have advocated is that it takes account of the current preoccupation with quality in education. Inevitably, it raises serious issues of test design, especially having to do with reliability, and poses a number of logistical challenges. These, however, must be overcome; for without reform it is difficult to see how the learning successes reported in other papers in this symposium will ever be made more widely available.

References Authentik, 2001: European Language Portfolio/Punann na dTeangacha Eorpacha. (Version for use in Irish post-primary schools.) Dublin: Authentik. bmlv, 2000: European Language Portfolio. Swiss version. Bern: Berner Lehrmittelund Medienverlag. BS.4778, 1991: Quality vocabulary, part 2: quality concepts and related definitions. London: British Standards Institution. Council for Cultural Cooperation, 1979: A European unit/credit system for modern language learning by adults: report of a symposium held at Ludwigshafen-am-Rhein, Germany, 7–14 September 1977. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Council of Europe, 2001: Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:

David Little

233

Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dale, B. G., R. J. Boaden and D. M. Lascelles, 1994: Total Total Quality Management: an overview. In B. G. Dale (ed.), Managing Quality, second edition, pp.3–40. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall International. Dewey, J., 1974: Progressive education and the science of education. In John Dewey on Education, pp.169–92. Chicago and London: Chicago University Press. First published 1928. Gardner, H., 1993: The Unschooled Mind. London: Fontana Books. First published 1991. Handy, C., and R. Aitken, 1986: Understanding Schools as Organizations. Harmondsworth: Pelican Books. Holec, H., 1981: Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon. (First published 1979, Strasbourg: Council of Europe.) Klein-Braley, C., 1985: Reduced redundancy as an approach to language testing. Fremdsprachen und Hochschule: AKS Rundbrief 13/14, pp.1–13. Little, D., 2002: The European Language Portfolio: structure, origins, implementation and challenges. Language Teaching 35 (3), pp.28–35. Little, D., and E. Ushioda, 1998: Institution-wide Language Programmes. A Research-and-Development Approach to their Design, Implementation and Evaluation. London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research, in association with the Centre for Language and Communication Studies, Trinity College Dublin. Raatz, U., 1985: Tests of reduced redundancy – the C-test, a practical example. Fremdsprachen und Hochschule: AKS Rundbrief 13/14, pp.14–19. Raatz, U., and C. Klein-Braley, 1985: How to develop a C-test. Fremdsprachen und Hochschule: AKS Rundbrief 13/14, pp.20–22. Schärer, R., 2000: European Language Portfolio: final report on the pilot project. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. (http://culture.coe.int/portfolio) van Ek, J. A., 1975: The Threshold Level. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Conclusion

Drawing the threads together Philip Riley

Introduction When I received the invitation to attend this symposium and to make some kind of concluding statement, my first reaction was one of mixed enthusiasm and apprehension. Enthusiasm because the programme looked varied and interesting. Apprehension for the same reason: how do you react to some fifteen papers, doing justice to them, but at the same time doing something more than simply summarizing them or producing lists of points which various people might have made? On reflection, I decided that, rather than trying to produce a systematic synthesis, grouping the papers together on the basis of underlying topics or notions, I would focus on certain aspects of the discourse we use when discussing autonomy-related issues. My main reason for doing so is that a number of contributors to the symposium have voiced anxieties about the vagueness of, or the lack of agreement concerning, the meanings and use of even some of the most important terms and expressions regularly employed in this field. To some extent, such ambiguities may be inevitable, given the complexity of the notions in question and the speed with which contiguous disciplines such as cognitive psychology and social learning theory are developing. But the very least we can do is to try to make those discrepancies explicit. Indeed, this is probably both a prerequisite and a means for going forward.

Metaphors we live (and learn) by In fact, it was the organizers of the symposium who provided me with the thread of my argument, when they suggested glossing the conclusion “Pulling the threads together”. I immediately found myself entangled in one of the great “metaphors we live by”, those conceptual metaphors underlying daily conversation which serve to frame thought and perception, to structure experience (Lakoff and Johnson 1980). The metaphor in question might be best expressed as: TALKING IS WEAVING

Or perhaps LANGUAGE/DISCOURSE IS CLOTH

“Text” comes from Latin texto: I weave. We weave plots, which have to be unraveled in a dénouement that keeps readers on tenterhooks. The author of a recent historical bestseller was described as “embroidering a colourful tapestry in time and space”. Liars fabricate tissues of lies. Arguments are tightly knit. Storytellers spin a good yarn or leave loose ends. And we provide our learners 237

238

Drawing the threads together

with language in the form of materials, which we may have found on the Internet, the world-wide web. The power of this metaphor can be seen most clearly in Ramon Ribé’s paper, and in particular in his discussion of tramas – weft and woof. At the risk of oversimplifying or trivializing his argument, I would say that by extending the weaving metaphor to the conditions of production, how we weave (as well as how we learn to weave, and what we weave), he has placed the language learning process in a far wider social and cognitive context than is usually the case, particularly in the reductionist models of “the learner” and “learning” which are current in the field of Second Language Acquisition. I shall return to this latter point, but for the moment, let us look briefly at one or two of the other metaphors which various contributors to the symposium have used. The first is the Vygotskyan metaphor of scaffolding, also mentioned by Ramon Ribé, but richly illustrated and discussed in Hanne Thomsen’s paper. She shows very clearly that through spoken interaction learners can provide one another with the supportive conditions which enable them to extend skills and knowledge to higher levels of competence. One is immediately struck by the fact that, although their two metaphors are very different, Thomsen and Ribé are making a very similar point about the conditions of learning. There is no problem here, in fact my argument is precisely this: that we can have different metaphorical takes on the same referent, providing different but not incompatible insights, whereas a more positivist discourse would rob us of this cognitive flexibility. For example, Ribé’s weft and woof becomes an integral part of the structure of what is woven, whilst scaffolding is removed to leave a free-standing structure, an insight that could have implications for a taxonomy of the behaviours in question, and therefore – possibly – for classroom activities, or for training language advisers. Viljo Kohonen comes up with a fresh variant on the LANGUAGE LEARNING IS A JOURNEY

metaphor, according to which learners are beginners, intermediate or advanced, make progress, slowly or rapidly, keep up, fall behind, get ahead, reach objectives or feel lost or that they are not getting anywhere. Kohonen speaks of helping learners “to acquire for themselves a kind of personal map […] to orient themselves in the fuzzy terrain of human communication”. Clearly, one of the points that he is making figuratively is that learning to read a map for oneself is very different from following a leader. Metaphors are structures for the organization of experience. We can only hope to understand what our learners have to say to us if we understand the metaphors they use, especially if they are also the metaphors we use, rich with unconscious implications. And of course this is doubly true for new metaphors. For example, David Little has used the expression “quality control” both literally and metaphorically, as an approach to systematizing certain aspects of the conditions of production. It goes very well with the weaving metaphor and with the idea that learning is a socially mediated activity in which all participants are

Philip Riley

239

responsible agents with rights and roles, yet some of us felt very uneasy about using it because of its links with the discourse of the market economy and of “best practice”. The overall point I have made so far is that we need to understand our understandings, to look more closely at our professional discourse both at the theoretical level, the framing and representation of concepts, and at the level of practice, the nitty-gritty of how we talk to learners and how they talk to one another. It is entirely in keeping with the constructivist approach adopted by most symposium participants that there should be this congruency between the two levels.

Learning and identity One of the most striking characteristics of this set of papers is that almost without exception they illustrate the latest position or state of development in a progressive widening of the concept of “the learner”: the learner as a social being, zoon politikon. This issue is one on which most of the papers touch, directly, as in the case of Jennifer Ridley’s contribution, and indirectly, as can be seen from the high frequency of terms like self (and its compounds such as self-direction, selfimage, self-access, etc.), identity and person, and role. However, I think it is important to remember that people working on autonomy are still very much in a minority in this respect. Our discourse is quite unrepresentative of applied linguistics and (above all) SLA discourse in general, and this in itself justifies our taking these terms for closer examination. Representations of or metaphors for “the learner” (cf. Appendix 1) are so numerous that today there can be no question of presenting even a selective list. For the moment, though, I would like to focus on the last century or so, and even then in a schematic fashion. During that period, we have gone through at least three stages: • I – The learner as a physical organism. Learning as a branch of physiology. Behaviourism. I feel there is really no need for me to go into the reasons as to why this account was found to be inadequate. A mindless psychology was developed in which extrapolations were made from the physical behaviour of rats and rabbits to human beings, from species which do not possess language to the only one that does. The logical absurdities involved in this were clinically and definitively demonstrated by Chomsky in his review (1959) of Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. • II – The learner as a model of the learning process. Cognitivism. This approach to the learner is in fact not so much about the learner as about learning. It is an attempt to model cognition, to represent and account for a process rather than a person, a process common to all learners rather than to one. It is an abstraction, a reductionism, and a useful one, far richer than (I), as it has provided the basis for almost all the studies and research carried out under the banner of SLA. It is probably the most commonly subscribed to approach in our profession at present, taking researchers and teachers together. However, it is also an approach that presents a

240


certain number of disadvantages. Above all, it has no truly social or interactive dimension, and it does not take into account the learner’s self or social identity, which means that it is not appropriate for the investigation of autonomy or of learning as a socially mediated process. In brief, this is a generalization about what goes on in peoples’ brains rather than a characterization of the individual’s nature and his or her relationship to the social environment. • III – The learner as a person consisting of a self with a social identity. Constructivism. In this perspective, the learner is seen as a member of and participant in a culture and a society. Since all the factors constitutive of membership and all the practices constitutive of participation are differentially distributed, however, we cannot remain at the level of abstraction of approaches I and II. We will have to describe “the learner” in terms of the individual’s access to knowledge, power, roles and resources. If the learner is to be seen in the round, both as an autonomous individual and as a member of society – something insisted on by almost all the contributions to this symposium, as necessarily entailed by any kind of constructivist approach – what is needed is a theory of identity. Not that there is any shortage of theories, but finding one that is helpful in terms of autonomous language learning is extremely difficult. Of course, some of the problems are philosophical and inherent to the concept itself. Others, though, are the results of our very demanding requirements: we would like a theoretical-analytical approach which provides an account of identity, and which is both coherent and oriented towards theindividual-as-a-language-user-in-society. In other words, it will have to be a model that includes within a theory of social action a range of concepts related to personal identity (self, social identity, roles, ethos and sociocultural competence), and to language (discourse and intersubjectivity, communicative competence). The frequent references to Vygotsky and Bruner during the symposium (and to Habermas (1981), as far as I am competent to judge) seem to me to clearly indicate a general drift in this direction. Two other sources of insight which I would add are the lines of inquiry set in motion by Georg Simmel (Wolff 1964) and George Herbert Mead (1934) on the nature of social interaction and the architecture of the self respectively. The discussion which follows owes much to those traditions. Self: numerical identity (which individual?)

Person: social identity (what sort of individual?)

Private, subjective

Public, social

Reports as “I” / “me”

Addressed as “you”

The agent of my actions

A set of roles

Essential individual

Member of groups

Continuity of memory:

Participant in interactions:

Diachronic locus

Synchronic focus Figure 1: Identity

Philip Riley

241

A model of the kind we need will probably look something like figure 1. In this approach, Identity is seen as a superordinate term, with self and personality as subordinates: Self is used to talk about what makes individuals just that, individual. What makes “me” me, as opposed to all other individuals, the agent of my actions, the continuing locus of my thoughts and memories, separately embodied in a numerically and physically distinct organism, which self-reports using the pronoun “I”, which is subjective and private. On the other hand, we use “person” to talk about what makes this individual like other individuals in terms of shared characteristics, memberships and rights and duties, the “you” that others address and construct, report on and to, according to local norms of personhood. For instance, when we say Mary Smith is a thirty-six year-old mother of two who works as a cashier for Lloyds, votes Labour and sings in East Chester choir we have categorized Mary in terms of her • age cohort • gender and family • occupation • political filiation • residence • leisure activity. Here, then, we are talking about social identity, the sum of all the sub-groups of which the person is a member. All these categories are related to language in at least two different ways: • They are encoded in language: expressions such as “occupation” and “cashier”, “mother”, “Labour” are selected from the repertoire from which identities can be constructed, different languages and societies having in varying degrees different repertoires. • These different aspects of Mary’s identity are likely to influence indexically the ways she talks and the ways people talk to her – as mother, cashier, chorister, and so on.

Role In order to illustrate how this approach can be of use to us in our discussions of autonomy, let us look at one of the terms we have all been using: role. It has long been a commonplace that the introduction of autonomy implies “a change in the teacher’s role” and “a change in the learner’s role”. But what is a role and how does it relate to self, social identity and (language) learning? Following the argument about identity outlined above, we can say that role is a set of discursive positions, a socially-warranted set of rights and duties (responsibilities and competences) to perform certain categories of act. Roles are enacted by individuals who are recognized as competent for the matter in hand. It takes two to tango: a teacher can only teach if the other social partners involved (the school, the pupils and so on) validate his or her right to do so. This recognition or social warrant can take a number of different forms such as the

242


adoption of complementary measures and roles, or the performance of rites of passage such as religious ceremonies or examinations leading to diplomas and “qualifications”. However, in cases of uncertainty or conflict, it is necessary for participants to negotiate their roles through recourse to membershipping strategies and identity claims (discussed in more detail in Riley 1999, 2002) such as: Pregnant women should consult their doctor before taking this medicine. Ticket-holders only. Nice little girls don’t use words like that. Excuse me, is it you that’s collecting the questionnaires? Why don’t you correct my English? I’ve been a Chelsea supporter for fifty years. As an atheist, I don’t have any sympathy with either side. As I’m a complete beginner, you’ll have to teach me everything. For those of us who are self-employed … Wearing my hat as the club’s Treasurer … Through strategies of this kind, situationally relevant aspects of social identities are negotiated, claimed or specified. Speakers select those aspects of their own or their interlocutor’s identity which they wish to activate as situationally salient. Disagreement always remains a possibility, however: Look, it’s not my job to dish out expenses forms Who the hell do you think you are/you’re talking to? Call yourself a carpenter! You’re the specialist, so you tell me. I want a teacher who will really make me work, not an “adviser”. Hopefully, we are now in a better position to see what is meant when we say that “Language advising is a new role”, or that “Autonomy implies a new role for teachers”. New roles imply a redistribution of rights and duties and of the acts which realize them. For example, it is a recognized part of the teacher’s role to correct and evaluate pupils’ performance, but shifting towards self-direction will involve divesting the teacher of the obligation to perform these acts and establishing conditions where they can be performed competently by learners. Since in any dyad roles are largely complementary, it is not possible for one of the partners to make a unilateral declaration of independence as to his or her role. It requires an interlocutor’s cooperation, which in turn will usually require negotiation. This is especially true when the roles, rights and duties in question are out-ofconsciousness, as is usually the case with, say, a teacher-learner dyad. Most people believe that the ways teachers and pupils behave is natural, universal, rather than a culturally-specific set of norms and practices. Pedagogical traditions are so deeply embedded in ways of thinking and behaving that it can require a real effort for individuals to become aware of them, to disembed them

Philip Riley

243

from common sense. Since roles are the situationally relevant aspects of social identity, a reconfiguration of identities necessarily accompanies any modification of roles and their forms of enactment. Put more simply, a change of roles means that there is a change in who does, says, or decides what. The comparative study of interactive discourse across a wide range of learning situations and cultures – not just teaching and advising, but apprenticeship and discipleship, play, indeed every imaginable kind of knowledge transaction and economy – is therefore an urgent priority. We need to further our understanding of the types of personhood available in particular societies, their images of the competent adult, and the ways in which selves and identities are formed, if we are to develop culturally appropriate forms of autonomy.

Identity, role and the European Language Portfolio Before leaving the subject of identity, I think it is important to relate the theoretical ideas we have been discussing to a major language learning project which I believe clearly embodies a number of them. I am referring, of course, as did several speakers at the symposium, to the European Language Portfolio (ELP), which, it seems to me, is a successful attempt to put some of those ideas into practice in a coherent but not too constraining way. I was not personally involved in the development of the ELP, so I must be careful not to read my own ideas into it, but certainly when one speaks, as David Little does, of the language passport component as “summarizing the owner’s linguistic identity” and the language biography as “recording experiences” and the dossier as “representing proficiency”, I see a structure which corresponds very closely indeed to the architecture of personhood I have outlined – self, social identity and roles. This perception is reinforced by the statement that fundamental to its effective use is self-assessment. Moreover, the internal structure of the ELP also seems to provide support for the emergence of the self, for self-development in the most fundamental sense. A number of participants (Schwienhorst and O’Rourke, Lazenby Simpson, Aase, Thomsen, Dam) have alluded to the defining role played in the learning process by metacognitive aspects of dialogue. In this view, metacognition is seen as an interior dialogue paralleling interpersonal dialogue. But who is this interior dialogue between? Following research in anthropology, social psychology and linguistics (summarized in Riley 2001a), and developing the model of personal identity outlined earlier, it seems reasonable to say that it is between “I” and “me”, that is, between my self as a locus of awareness and the social persona of which I am aware. When I talk to myself (my self?) I address from the inside, as it were, the social being others construct and validate from the outside. Without this dialogic intra-action, there can be no learning and no self-expression, since this is the mechanism of all socialization. This point is made by both Vygotsky (1978) and Mead (1913, 1934) and has received empirical confirmation in the work of Bruner (1960, 1996) and his colleagues: identity, including both self and person, is socially constituted. Unless individuals are subjected to socialization, they remain wolf-children. I would argue that the ELP neatly and simply reifies

244


the structures and functions of the socialization process, which goes some way at least towards explaining why both teachers and learners are finding it to be such a valuable instrument. A very similar relationship is to be discerned between the ELP and work on motivation – self-motivation – in that the ELP provides a framework which gives individual learners “something to show” for their efforts, and successfully meeting objectives has been shown to be the most important contributory factor in recent work on self-motivation. The term “paradigm shift” has been somewhat overused of late, but I certainly feel that it can be justified when referring to the work on motivation being carried out by Ema Ushioda and her colleagues in Dublin. In one sense, what they have done is simple: they have shown that in the context of self-direction and autonomy, traditional approaches to the concept become oxymoronic. It does not make sense to continue thinking of motivation as something that is done by one person to another, of teachers motivating their students, the only true motivation being self-motivation. But as Ema Ushioda points out, even self-motivation is, like the learning process itself (a point insisted on by the majority of papers in the symposium, but perhaps most explicitly by David Little, Viljo Kohonen and Jennifer Ridley) a socially mediated phenomenon, framed within the relationships the self forms with others. It is not some kind of spontaneous combustion or immaculate conception. I can think of no better example of motivation as a social phenomenon than that marvellous passage in Mark Twain’s Tom Sawyer where Tom is given a job he hates, painting a fence. But instead of doing the work grudgingly, he goes about it in front of his friends with feigned enthusiasm and delight. And he responds to their taunts or their sympathy by insisting on the interest, value and importance of the work and the status it brings. The result is, of course, that they all want to share the experience, and so they beg him to let them try and even offer to pay him to let them do so. With great magnanimity, Tom lets them do the work whilst he has a quiet smoke, if I remember aright.

Ethical issues A question raised in a number of papers (for example, Aase, Lazenby Simpson, Kohonen) and frequently alluded to in the ensuing discussions concerns the moral status and implications of “autonomy” in theory and practice. Since the notion of autonomy is based on a view of the individual as responsible for his or her acts, this question impacts directly on the essential qualities of human nature, and on the place, rights and duties of the individual in society. Such intellectual vistas are daunting in the extreme, but too important to be left to the moral philosophers. Unsurprisingly, no single approach seems to hold sway. Indeed, for the present at least, it seems appropriate that people working in this field should largely feel free to frame “autonomy” within their personal belief and value systems. This certainly does not mean that we should bury our heads in the sand and wait for the problems to go away but that, instead of waiting for the great integrated theory to come along, we should deal with specific, urgent aspects of

Philip Riley

245

the problem as we encounter them. Since the cultural and institutional contexts in which autonomous approaches to learning are being adopted are increasingly diverse, a definitive statement of these ethical issues is impossible, but they include: • The duty to publish • The distribution of power • Attempts to model identity The duty to publish What is the moral justification of a symposium of this kind? Presumably those who organize such events have their practical and scientific reasons for doing so, but can they be said to be of any benefit to society? At the risk of attracting postmodernist thunderbolts, I would argue that publication – in the widest possible sense: “placing in the public domain” – is a duty. This is not a matter of vaunting our cleverness or the brilliance of our research results, far from it: only if our work has been fully exposed to public scrutiny under conditions in which our results can be disproved can it be said to be worthy of the name of research. As Seán Devitt has shown in his searching and very informative paper, we have every reason to be humble about certain aspects of our research, but our uncertainties should be clearly vulgarized so that they are not misused one way or another: oversimplified by charlatans at one extreme, or used as an excuse for ineffectual relativism on the other, that is, for doing nothing. As John Milton says: I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue, unexercised and unbreathed, that never sallies out and sees her adversary, but slinks out of the race … (Areopagitica) We are involved in the social sciences and so it is incumbent on us to deal with society: we are accountable to society. The stand-up-and-be-counted factor is especially important in a society where there is widespread ignorance about linguistic matters and at a time when there is a real backlash against everything that is progressive in education. The distribution of power In the discussion of what “changing roles” means, I argued that it necessarily entails changing who does, says and decides what. But you cannot redistribute the loci of decision-making or develop a culture of respect rather than deference or oppression unless power is itself redistributed, unless learners are empowered. For some, this is impossible: “Knowledge itself is power” and determines roles and relationships. They argue that it is therefore hypocritical nonsense to suggest that in asymmetric social and epistemic relationships – such as teacher/ language learner – there can be anything other than hierarchy in decision making. Since this is a view held by many teachers and learners, it is a major obstacle to the implementation of autonomous learning approaches, one which is usually labeled “psychological” or a matter of “beliefs and representations”. But it could

246


as properly be described as “political”, precisely because it is based on a particular view of power relationships. As I have argued elsewhere (Riley 2001b), that same view leads many people to find that democracy is impossible, since democracy is individual autonomy writ large. Nonetheless, political philosophers and sociologists such as Anthony Giddens and David Held (Giddens, 1990, 1991, 1992; Held, 1986) have provided three cheers for democracy in the shape of detailed models for the ways in which “free and equal relations” can be established between individuals. Strikingly, given that neither has the faintest interest in language learning as far as I know, the main points in their argument are grouped together under “The Principle of Autonomy”, and the terms they use and the ideas they enunciate can be extrapolated to our field of interest almost completely unaltered (cf. Appendix 2). There are, then, three main reasons for our continuing to investigate the problem of “authority” in political, ethical and didactic terms. Firstly, it is a problem which emerges directly we try to introduce any form of advising for autonomous learning, to change roles. Secondly, it is considered as an insuperable obstacle by many colleagues and learners, and we need to develop rational and convincing arguments. And thirdly, such an investigation is a necessary part of our own reflective practice Attempts to model identity Over recent years there has been a developing awareness that the Native Speaker is not necessarily the model (the role model) language learners should be aiming at. Language teachers should not aim at cloning native speakers, of transforming French children into English children or German children, for instance. The reasons adduced to justify this are usually sociolinguistic and pedagogical (and very solid ones they are, too) but there are others of a psycho-affective and ethical kind. Taken together, they form a powerful argument for taking as our model not the unrealistic Native Speaker, but what I like to call the Competent Foreigner. The Competent Foreigner is a second language user who is able to express him- or herself adequately, without sacrificing personal identity or culture and without unintentional transgression of Native Speaker norms. I can only give the briefest indication of why this is an ethical issue. It is one of the characteristics of modernism that widespread attempts are made to suppress individual identity and self-expression in favour of institutional identities, for example, corporate identities. For example: Air hostesses and stewards Call centre operators Fast food restaurant staff Supermarket cashiers are all being subjected to increasingly detailed constraints on their communicative behaviour in the workplace. To take a relatively benign example, in France post office staff are expected to follow the “BRASMA” formula:

Philip Riley

247

Bonjour Regard Accueil Sourire Merci Au revoir I appreciate that those of you who have had dealings with the French administration in the past may think that it is high time attitudes to the public were improved, but taken to extremes – in call centres where specific adverbs are prescribed and where the length of an exchange is regulated to the second – such imposed constraints on personality, on ethos, represent an attack on identity and an intolerable interference with freedom of expression. My point is that much language teaching does exactly the same thing: learners are provided with detailed instructions as to how they are to behave, the words are put in their mouths, they are fitted up with roles and identities without reference to their own personalities. The only solution to this ethical conundrum is, of course, autonomy, empowering learners to identify (and suddenly the term seems really meaningful) their own needs, roles and discourse. In other words, this ethical question has very important repercussions for fundamental aspects of learner behaviour and for second language acquisition studies. Hanne Thomsen, Lienhard Legenhausen and Leni Dam have demonstrated with exemplary clarity that in autonomous classrooms, learners are successful as conversationalists because they are engaged in authentic communicative interactions, they are producing their discourse, not manipulating the textbook’s or even the teacher’s discourse. I see this as being directly related to the problems of identity and self-expression we were discussing earlier.

The geography (geopolitics?) of “autonomy” Any learner- and learning-centered approach necessarily entails a willingness to embrace variation at every possible level of the process and its context, so it is both logical and desirable to find that “autonomy” is realized in different ways in different parts of the world. (Directly or indirectly, this point is made by Turid Trebbi, Laila Aase and Dieter Wolff). Even if we limit our attention to Europe, it is quite clear that there are differences between Scandinavia and Great Britain, “The Continent” and Eastern Europe. It is a long way from Hull to Helsinki, or from Barcelona to Bergen, Dublin to Dubrovnik. As I said, this is absolutely as it should be. However, on a wider, global scale, there are certain developments which, although not really serious for the moment, make me feel slightly uneasy. The first is that even nowadays, geographical distance can act as a barrier to the exchange of ideas and experience and, of course, linguistic and cultural differences may exacerbate this problem. For example, many developments in Spain and Portugal, South America, Cuba and the Caribbean are hardly known about in Europe or South East Asia. Yet there is a rich pedagogical tradition in Latin America and the Iberian Peninsula and an

248


ongoing heuristic practice from which we could certainly benefit (see, for example, Vieira 1998, Vieira et al. 1999, Chavez Sanchez 1998, 1999). There is also the point that the absence of regular contacts and discussion, of shared experience, can easily lead to semantic drift, to a lack of common concepts and vocabulary which is particularly dangerous when we think we are using the same words, of course. This is why I insist, pedantically, on examining and defining “identity” and “role”, for example, in some theoretical detail. More dangerously still, autonomy is being seen in some parts of the world as essentially European and English-speaking, at best as a vehicle for European humanism and individualism, European values and concepts of the self, and at worst as neo-colonialist linguistic imperialism. Both David Little (2000) and Phil Benson (1997) have presented cogent arguments to show that this is not necessarily the case, that “autonomy” is a cognitive imperative, but one that must assume different forms as it is conditioned by social contingencies in diverse cultures (see also Riley 1997). Unfortunately, however, there is some truth in the accusation, especially when “autonomy” is commodified and globalized by institutions such as examination syndicates, commercial language schools and consultancies, and national language institutions, quite literally selling it in the way you might sell the latest model of car or off-the-shelf computer system (cf. Block and Cameron 2002). The intercultural issues and problems which have just been mentioned loom larger and larger. So far most of the work that refers specifically to autonomy rather than to ethnolinguistic studies of cross-cultural variation in communicative practices has been on either local resistance to the idea, in particular aspects of the local pedagogical tradition and institutional structures which act as a brake on this kind of innovation, or on ways in which local practice is favourable to autonomy. During the symposium Laila Aase, Turid Trebbi, Barbara Lazenby Simpson and Jennifer Ridley all discussed these aspects, which are clearly of primordial importance, and there is a steadily growing body of empirical research which has helped dispel a certain number of stereotypes and myths, such as the idea that “The Asian learner” is culturally and psychologically unfitted for and opposed to any kind of independent learning (Pierson 1996; Press 1996 ; Littlewood 2000; Palfreyman and Smith forthcoming). Another question which would be well worth investigating is: Why is it that autonomy has not taken off in the USA? On the surface, everything would seem to be propitious to the adoption of independent modes of learning: the USA is a society with a high degree of individualism and a long tradition of self-improvement, US thinkers like Dewey, Rogers, Illich, Pirsig and Bruner have provided much of the inspiration for “learner-centredness”, and great expertise in many areas of education, linguistics, second language acquisition studies and learning strategies, and so on is available there. Yet, despite the lively interest of educational psychologists in the neo-Vygotskyan paradigm (Wertsch 1991), with its emphasis on selfregulation, the concept of autonomy as understood, say, by the contributors to this volume remains largely unexplored, especially in the field of language learning.

Philip Riley

249

I firmly believe that one of the ways in which such questions have to be approached is through an investigation of culturally-shaped concepts of identity, as outlined earlier. Every society has its social representation of personhood, the competent adult self, and adopts corresponding practices, that is, ways in which identities are shaped: education, family, school, church and other institutions necessary to produce ideal adults in its own image (cf. Laila Aase’s discussion of Bildung). By definition, nothing could be closer to the notion of autonomous learning than representations of the self and rearing practices, since the “auto” in autonomy means “self”. If we hope to encourage autonomy in specific contexts, we need to look closely at local notions of self (identity and personhood) and at the practices, especially the rearing practices, through which selves are constructed.

Conclusion: “I gotta use words when I’m talkin’ to ya”. This paper has examined a certain number of terms which crop up frequently in discussions of autonomy and self-directed learning. Since some of these terms – “self”, “identity” and “role”, for example – are amongst the most hotly-debated in our intellectual universe, it would be idle to imagine that we have done anything more than scratch the surface of the various epistemological problems they represent. “Purifying the language of the tribe” takes a lot more than this. Nonetheless, honing our terminology is one of the best ways of improving the quality of those discussions, even if only because it enables participants to put their fingers on just what it is they disagree about. Moreover, as I have attempted to show, an exercise of this kind can bring out relationships between ideas, and between theory and practice, which might otherwise go unnoticed.

References Benson, P., 1997: The philosophy and politics of learner autonomy. In P. Benson and P. Voller (eds.), Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning, pp.18– 36. London: Longman. Block, D., and D. Cameron, 2002: Globalisation and Language Teaching. London: Routledge. Bruner, J., 1960: The Process of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bruner, J., 1996: The Culture of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Chavez Sanchez, M., 1998: Coleccion Aprendizajae Autodirigido 2. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico. Chavez Sanchez, M., 1999: Coleccion Aprendizajae Autodirigido 1. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico. Chomsky, N., 1959: Review of Verbal Behaviour by B. F. Skinner. Language 35, pp.26–58. Giddens, A., 1990: The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Giddens, A., 1991: Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern

250


Age. Cambridge: Polity Press. Giddens, A., 1992: The Transformation of Intimacy. Cambridge: Polity Press. Habermas, J., 1981 (tr. T. McCarthy 1984): The Theory of Communicative Action. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Held, D., 1986: Models of Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press. Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson, 1980: Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Little, D., 2000: Strategies, counselling and cultural differences: why we need an anthropological understanding of learner autonomy. In R. Ribé (ed.), Developing Learner Autonomy in Foreign Language Learning, pp.17–34. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona, PPU. Littlewood, W., 2000: Do Asian students really want to listen and obey? ELT Journal 54 (1), pp.31–36. Mead, G. H., 1913: The social self. Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods 10, pp.374–380. Mead, G. H., 1934: Mind, Self and Society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Palfreyman, D., and R. Smith (eds) (forthcoming): Learner Autonomy across Cultures. Pierson, H. D., 1996: Learner culture and learner autonomy in the Hong Kong Chinese context. In R. Pemberton, E. S. L. Li, W. W. F. Or and H. D. Pierson (eds), Taking Control: Autonomy in Language Learning, pp.49–58. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Press, M-C., 1996: Ethnicity and the autonomous language learner: Different beliefs and learning strategies?. In E. Broady and M-M. Kenning (eds), Promoting Learner Autonomy in University Language Teaching, pp.237–259. London: CILT (in association with The Association for French language Studies). Riley, P., 1997: The guru and the conjurer. In P. Benson and P. Voller (eds), Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning, pp.114–31. London: Longman. Riley, P., 1999: On the social construction of “the learner”. In S. Cotterall and D. Crabbe (eds), Learner Autonomy in Language Learning: Defining the Field and Effecting Change, pp.29–39. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Riley, P., 2001a: Multilingual identities: «Non, je ne regrette rien». Inaugural Lecture, University of Cambridge Day of Multilingualism and Multiculturalism, June 18th 2001. Riley, P., 2001b: “The learner”: self-made man or man-made self? In M. MozzonMcPherson and R. Vismans (eds), Beyond Language Teaching, Towards Language Advising, pp.173–83. London: CILT. Riley, P., 2002: Epistemic communities: the social knowledge system, discourse and identity. In G. Cortese and P. Riley [EDS?], Domain-specific English: Textual Practices Across Communities and Classrooms, pp.41–64. Bern: Peter Lang. Vieira, F., 1998: Autonomia na Aprendizagem da Lingua Estrangeira. Braga: Universidade do Minho, Departamento de Metodologias da Educaçao. Vieira, F., G. Branco, I. Marques, J. da Silva, M. A. Moreiro and M. da Silva e Silva, 1999: Educaçao em Linguas Estrangeiras: investigaçao, formaçao, ensino. Braga:

Philip Riley

251

Universidade do Minho, Departamento de Metodologias da Educaçao. Vygotsky, L., 1978: Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wertsch, J. V., 1991: Voices of the Mind: A Sociocultural Approach to Mediated Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wolff, K. H. (ed.), 1964: The Sociology of Georg Simmel. Chicago, IL: Free Press.

Appendix 1 Ideologies speak through institutions and individuals to construct different kinds of “learner” (or, in most cases, “child”). They include: The learner as primitive organism The learner as computer The learner as disciple of guru or conjurer The learner as Christian humanist The learner as Postlapsarian Man The learner as worker or employee The learner as consumer The learner as mother/womb The learner as flower/plant The learner as (noble) savage The learner as clay for moulding (Discussed in greater detail in Riley 1999)

Appendix 2 David Held and Anthony Giddens on democracy [Democracy is] concerned to secure “free and equal relations” between individuals in such a way as to promote certain outcomes: 1 The creation of circumstances in which people can develop their potentialities and express their diverse qualities. A key objective here is that each individual should respect others’ capabilities as well as their ability to learn and enhance their aptitudes. 2 Protection from the arbitrary use of political authority and coercive power. This presumes that decisions can in some sense be negotiated by those they affect, even if they are taken on behalf of a majority by a minority. 3 The involvement of individuals in determining the conditions of their association. The presumption in this case is that individuals accept the authentic and reasoned character of others’ judgements. 4 Expansion of the economic opportunity to develop available resources – including here the assumption that when individuals are relieved of the burdens of physical need they are best able to achieve their aims. The idea of autonomy links these various aspirations. Autonomy means the capacity of individuals to be self-reflective and self-determining: to “deliberate, judge, choose and act upon different possible causes of action”. … The aspira-

252


tions that compose the tendency towards autonomy can be summarized as a general principle, the “principle of autonomy”: Individuals should be free and equal in the determination of the conditions of their own lives; that is, they should enjoy equal rights (and, accordingly, equal obligations) in the specification of the framework which generates and limits the opportunities available to them, so long as they do not deploy this framework to negate the rights of others. (Giddens 1991, quoting Held 1986. Discussed in greater detail in Riley 2001b)