Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 2(4)

SiSAL Journal Studies in Self-Access Learning Special Issue on Self-Access Success Stories

December 2011

SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL

Journal Journal Journal Journal Journal

SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL

Journal Journal Journal Journal Journal

SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL

Journal Journal Journal Journal Journal

SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL

Journal Journal Journal Journal Journal

SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL

Journal Journal Journal Journal Journal

SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL

Journal Journal Journal Journal Journal

SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL

Journal Journal Journal Journal Journal

SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL

Journal Journal Journal Journal Journal

SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL

Journal Journal Journal Journal Journal

SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL

Journal Journal Journal Journal Journal

SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL

Journal Journal Journal Journal Journal

SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL

Journal Journal Journal Journal Journal

SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL

Journal Journal Journal Journal Journal

SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL

Journal Journal Journal Journal Journal

SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL

Journal Journal Journal Journal Journal

SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL SiSAL

CONTENTS: Volume 2, Number 4, December 2011 Edited by Diego Navarro and Jo Mynard Editorial by Diego Navarro Articles - A Framework for the Evaluation of a Self-Access Language Learning Centre by Bruce Morrison - Fostering Self-Directed Learning through Guided Tasks and Learner Reflection by Chris King - Fostering Learner Autonomy as Agency: An Analysis of Narratives of a Student Staff Member Working at a Self-access Learning Center by Atsumi Yamaguchi - Growth of an Out-of-Class Learning Community through Autonomous Socialization at a Self-Access Centre

by Leander S. Hughes, Nathan P. Krug and Stacey Vye

Success Stories - Group Workshops: Saving Our Writing Center in Japan

by Jim McKinley - Enhancing User Identification with the Independent Learning Centre at Sung Bin Home for Girls

by Elton LaClare - A Learning Success Story Using Facebook

by Lara Promnitz-Hayashi

Journal Journal Journal Journal Journal

Special Issue on Self-Access Success Stories Contents: Volume 2, Number 4, December 2011 Edited by Diego Navarro with Jo Mynard •

Editorial by Diego Navarro (238-240)

Articles •

A Framework for the Evaluation of a Self-Access Language Learning Centre by Bruce Morrison (214-256)

•

Fostering Self-directed Learning through Guided Tasks and Learner Reflection by Chris King (257-267)

•

Fostering Learner Autonomy as Agency: An Analysis on Narratives of a Student Staff Member Working at a Self-access Learning Center

by Atsumi Yamaguchi (268-280)

•

Growth of an Out-of-Class Learning Community through Autonomous Socialization at a self-access Centre by Leander S. Hughes, Nathan P. Krug and Stacey Vye (281-291)

Success Stories •

Group Workshops: Saving Our Writing Center in Japan by Jim McKinley (292-303)

•

Enhancing User Identification with the Independent Learning Centre at Sung Bin Home for Girls by Elton LaClare (304-308)

•

A Learning Success Story Using Facebook by Lara Promnitz-Hayashi (309-317)

Editorial Diego Navarro, Kanda University of International Studies, Japan SiSAL Journal: Looking back at 2011 Welcome to the December 2011 issue of SiSAL Journal, a special issue highlighting success in a self-access learning context. Given that it is the final issue of 2011 we thought it fitting to start by sharing some of the successful endeavours the journal has been involved in this year. SiSAL is continuing to successfully expand its readership and range of accessibility, making it an increasingly important contributor to the practice of self-access education around the world. SiSAL Journal is now

!

"#$!

indexed in seven databases: DOAJ, Academia.edu, EBSCO, Open J-Gate, Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory, WilsonWeb and Google Scholar.

2011 saw SiSAL Journal publish special issues on four different areas of interest in self-access learning. The March issue on skills development and practice kicked off the year and featured many topical articles including one by Paul Kei Matsuda and Michelle Cox. This article addressed some of the challenges experienced by tutors working in writing centres by offering helpful strategies that writing tutors can use to work effectively with second language writers.

The June issue followed and looked at the different roles learners can play in self-access learning. One of the highlights of the issue was a description by Brian Morrison of self-directed learning modules designed to help learners accurately identify language learning needs for external exam preparation.

The September issue was quite a big issue, generating a lot of interest, both in terms of submissions and the number of readers who accessed it. It focused on the relationship between self-access learning and technology, specifically, CALL, Elearning and M-learning. The featured article by Mark Warschauer and Meei-Ling Liaw entitled ‘Emerging Technologies for Autonomous Language Learning’ examined the interplay between new technologies and the language learning needs of adult learners.

The December 2011 Issue December winds down the year by looking at self-access success stories. We begin with four articles demonstrating the variety of ways success can be interpreted and presented within self-access learning.

Bruce Morrison’s article presents a research-based framework for the evaluation of self-access centres (SACs). The framework consists of four key interdependent elements which provide the ‘multidimensional aspect’ necessary for systematic evaluation of SACs. His study centralises the idea that evaluation of SACs needs to be grounded in relevant theory. In the introduction to the article by Bruce Morrison, the author considers the present-day relevance of a SAC evaluation model he designed several years ago.

The second article by Chris King, investigated a portfolio project meant to introduce learners to self-access learning and raise awareness of the different learning options available for successful out of-class learning. Results of the study indicate that

!

"#%!

a majority of learners spent more time learning outside of the classroom and felt that the portfolio project helped them discover effective ways to improve their English.

Using a narrative study approach to frame her investigation, Atsumi Yamaguchi’s article reveals how a student staff member’s experience of working in a self-access centre led to the successful enhancement of her ability to take control over her learning.

The fourth article by Leander Hughes, Nathan Krug, and Stacey Vye examines how the promotion of ‘autonomous socialisation’ in a self-access centre resulted in a significant increase in the number of learners using the centre as well as the creation of out-of-class L2 learning communities.

Following the articles we present three stories which look at success in a self access learning context. The first story by Jim McKinley describes how the implementation of workshops designed to raise awareness of the benefits of a university writing centre led to improved student and faculty attitude towards the service as well as increased student uptake.

The second story by Elton LaClare describes the efforts of volunteers working at an independent learning centre in Korea to revive interest in the centre through a community project meant to enhance learner identification with the centre.

The final story by Lara Promnitz-Hayashi discusses how the introduction of Facebook activities helped increase student participation in discussion activities which helped lay the groundwork for more successful in-and-out of class L2 interaction.

We hope you will enjoy reading the final issue of SiSAL Journal of 2011 as much as we have enjoyed putting it together.

On behalf of SiSAL Journal I would like to wish everyone a happy new year – here’s to a wonderful 2012 and hoping that success finds you in all your future endeavours!

Notes on the contributor Diego Navarro is the associate editor of SiSAL Journal and has been a member of the editorial team since 2010. He works as a learning advisor at Kanda University of International Studies in Japan. His areas of professional interest are self-directed learning, diversity in education, and learner beliefs.

!

"&'!

"#"$%!&'()*+,!-',.!/0!1'.!20!3454674)!/8990!/29:!/;<" !

A Framework for the Evaluation of a Self-Access Language Learning Centre* Bruce Morrison, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong Abstract For self-access language learning centres (SACs) to be accepted as efficient and effective alternatives or complements to more established modes of language learning and teaching, it is of serious concern that there is no research-based framework specifically developed for their evaluation. In this paper, a framework for the evaluation of a SAC is proposed which aims to recognize both the elements common to most SACs as well as the diversity inherent in a centre that predicates upon learner individuality. The study upon which this paper reports employed a grounded theory methodology examining data collected from participants representing various SAC stakeholder roles and subsequently proposing an evaluation framework consisting of 4 elements: context, key questions, decisions and actions. These elements, although presented individually, are interdependent and provide the framework with a multidimensional aspect that allows the evaluation team to carefully plan the various aspects of the evaluation while at the same time ensuring that these are brought together to ensure coherence in terms of aims, methodology and reporting. Central to the framework is recognition that the evaluation should be theory based and thus that it should incorporate a means of clearly representing the particular SAC theory (or mapping) upon which the evaluation is to be focused. The paper concludes with brief discussion of potential implications of the use of such a framework, both theoretical and practical.

Note from the author I cannot believe it is now some six years since I wrote this article. When Jo Mynard asked me if I would consider its inclusion in this edition of SiSAL Journal, my first thought was "why?" - I couldn't see how it could still have relevance after six years in a field which has moved on apace. However, I was flattered and so went back, reread the article and began to consider its relevance today.

Sure, much has changed in the world of self-access language learning, not least the technological context which has impacted on so many aspects of pedagogy and learning. Whether the SAC today is the same place as it was in 2005 is a question for another day, but it is clear that the fields of independent learning and learner autonomy are more fully developed and more extensively researched. In these fields, new understandings have been forged in many areas including supporting our students' development as autonomous learners through encouraging critical engagement with both human and technological interfaces, assessing the degree of autonomy our learners achieve, developing and implementing eportfolios as a way of allowing our learners to track and take greater control of their learning, and how learner autonomy affects and is affected by teacher autonomy.

241

"#"$%!&'()*+,!-',.!/0!1'.!20!3454674)!/8990!/29:!/;<" !

What I feel might be of interest to readers of this issue of SiSAL Journal is not so much the SAC evaluation model (the product of my research), but rather the underlying thinking and process by which I arrived at my conceptualisation of what a SAC is and how it might be evaluated - all of which were very much shaped by what were then very much newly-developing fields.

Bruce Morrison

Evaluation has played a central role in education for more than 100 years (Madaus, Stufflebeam, & Scriven, 1983) and its importance in English language learning and teaching has been widely recognized (Strevens, 1977; Stern, 1983; Beretta, 1992; Alderson & Beretta, 1992; Lynch, 1996, 2003). In contrast, however, little attention has been paid to the evaluation of self-access language learning (SALL) and self-access language learning centers (SACs). SAC evaluations have tended to be undertaken as administrative necessities, summative in nature, narrowly focused on accountability, and often mainly expressed in terms of statistics of usage and cost-effectiveness.

This is slowly changing. As the area of SALL displays greater educational maturity and there is increased recognition of the role SACs can play in the English language learning and teaching processes, both administrators and educators are demanding evidence of the efficacy of a self-access approach. This is particularly true in Hong Kong where a considerable amount of public funding has been provided for the establishment and running of SACs in order to enhance language learning and teaching provision.

An End-of-Year SAC Vignette It is April and the end of the second semester of the university year is approaching. The head of the English Language Centre (ELC) drops into the office of Joan, the SAC coordinator, to remind her that that the annual report on the work of the ELC required by the funding body will shortly be due. This means that Joan will need to prepare her part of the report focusing on the work of the SAC. Last year the funders had stressed the need for quantified, objective evidence of how effective the SAC and its various initiatives were in enhancing studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; English proficiency. This year, they have requested a particular focus on qualitative data such as learners' perceptions of efficiency.

242

"#"$%!&'()*+,!-',.!/0!1'.!20!3454674)!/8990!/29:!/;<" !

Joan needs to start the annual process of going back to various data sources including usage figures, learner questionnaire results and diary comments to mine them for data that are particularly relevant for this year's evaluation request. She then needs to collate the data and ensure that they are presented in such a way that they meet the expectations of the funding stakeholders. She will also use the data to provide herself and the SAC staff with indications of aspects the center's operation that warrant development or change.

After the ELC head has left, Joan looks around the SAC and reflects on both the very different uses the learners make of the centre and the SACâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s various stakeholders' very different perceptions of what the centre actually is. She then considers how she might more truly evaluate a centre with such diversity in such a way that the expectations and needs of all the various stakeholders might be met.

In her reflections, Joan considers what she sees as the role of a SAC evaluation.

She decides it should encompass both developmental and judgmental functions. The developmental aspects derive particularly from the motivation of herself, the SAC teachers and the SAC learners to improve the operation of the SAC in order for it to better provide an effective and efficient service to its users. The judgmental aspects are, however, more likely to derive from the demands of stakeholders such as the SAC funders who perceive such judgments as necessary to inform decisions concerning the future funding. Joan also, however, understands that such a binary conception of an evaluation's functions is simplistic and that the two functions are not entirely either discrete, or independent of each other. Her mind then drifts back to the annual report.

From examination of the annual reports on language enhancement initiatives written by each of the Hong Kong universities, it is clear that evaluation of Hong Kong tertiary SACs has been primarily, and fairly narrowly, focused on the summative function of justifying continued funding: There are few references to developmental issues. It is with such thoughts in mind, and my own experience of the practicalities of the Hong Kong SAC context, that the study I introduce briefly below began.

The Need for an Evaluation Framework There has been little evaluation of SACs and even less which has been conducted in a systematic manner, indeed "evaluation has taken a backseat in the 243

"#"$%!&'()*+,!-',.!/0!1'.!20!3454674)!/8990!/29:!/;<" ! development of SALL" (Gardner, 2002, p. 48). There are two main reasons why an informed framework for the evaluation of SACs is needed. Firstly, evaluation as acentral developmental element in language learning programs is recognized by researchers (e.g. Lynch, 1996) and its role is implicit in much of the self-access literature which describes SACs and then proposes future developments based on elements of that description (Ma, 1994; Lee, 1996; Gardner & Miller, 1997). From a more summative viewpoint, funding bodies commonly demand demonstrable accountability from funded initiatives in terms of something more than simple costeffective, budget-focused accounting.

If it is to be argued that SACs provide an effective and efficient alternative or complement to the more traditionally accepted modes of language learning and teaching, it is of serious concern that there is no research- based framework specifically developed for their evaluation. SACs differ in many respects, both pedagogically and administratively, from other educational entities such as schools or language programs and, therefore, frameworks developed for such entities are not necessarily appropriate for the evaluation of SACs. The Study In the study (Morrison, 2003), I argue the need for a theory-based evaluation framework based upon a coherent SAC theory which identifies SAC resources and activities, and indicates the causal links between such resources, activities and outcomes (Chen, 2005; Wholey, 1987).

Study aims and objectives The study has as its two main objectives the development of a SAC mapping and a SAC evaluation framework. The first is a theory based upon those defining elements identified as constituting a SAC and is described below. The second is an evaluation framework that aims to handle the diversity inherent in a SAC context.

It is clear from my experience that each SAC is unique in terms both of its constituent elements and in the way these elements interact with the individual, independent learner and with each other. An evaluation framework, however, needs to be able not only to recognize learner individuality, but also the systemic commonality of SACs in terms of how they operate to support the study of such learners collectively.

244

"#"$%!&'()*+,!-',.!/0!1'.!20!3454674)!/8990!/29:!/;<" !

Study methodology Since one of the primary objectives of the study was to develop a theory of SAC operation, I did not initiate the study with any pre-determined hypothesis or theory to prove or disprove. Rather, I collected and analyzed data related to the topic, and from this derived a theory that can explain the data. Grounded theory was the underpinning methodology of the study. Grounded theory employs an inductive approach, “an initial, systematic discovery of the theory from the data” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p.

3) which “emerges from the bottom up...from many disparate pieces of collected evidence that are inter-connected” (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992, p. 3).

Data Collection I selected 16 study participants on the basis of their fulfilling the roles of various types of Hong Kong SAC stakeholders. These roles included that of SAC learner, teacher, co-ordinator and support staff, as well as those of researchers in the areas of SALL and SACs. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and post-interview email questionnaires. Interview protocols identified various topics of discussion relating to SALL, SACs and language learning more generally. The course of each individual interview, which I wished to be exploratory conversations between two professionals, was, however, finally determined by the interviewer and interviewee collaboratively. As interviewer, I strove to be open to new ideas and interpretations, and to display a "deliberate naivete" (Kvale, 1996, p. 31) through the use of openended questions that were intended to be appropriate to the role the participant played within a SAC. These open-ended questions were followed by probing questions to clarify meaning where necessary for further interpretation. After the interviews, I sent follow-up e-mails of varying lengths to a number of the interview participants to request elaboration or clarification upon comments made in the interview.

After the initial stages of data analysis, an email questionnaire was sent to all interview participants to clarify, confirm and enrich the interview data. Unlike the interviews, the questionnaire gave participants an opportunity to consider the issues carefully before answering in their own time.

Data analysis I analyzed and interpreted the interview data using an iterative process of annotation, 245

"#"$%!&'()*+,!-',.!/0!1'.!20!3454674)!/8990!/29:!/;<" ! coding and checking of the data in a series of increasingly-focused steps (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Flick, 1998; Richards, 2003).

After transcribing the interviews, I revisited the data many times and recorded the coding processes in the form of: memos; a paper-based mind map where data were represented in a non-hierarchical manner to avoid premature grouping of data that might have biased further analysis; structured entries using an electronic coding tool that enabled easy storage and sorting of data; summaries of both the mind map and electronic coding; and a final consolidated summary that compared and synthesized the paper-based and electronic records of analysis.

How the SAC theory and evaluation framework emerged from the process of analysis is characterized in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Data analysis stages of the study An Evaluation Framework In this section, I describe the evaluation framework that derived from the data analysis process outlined above. I firstly present and briefly introduce the complete framework, before continuing to describe the four main elements separately. I finally discuss the way the elements interact as constituent parts of the evaluation as a whole.

The framework The framework (see Figure 2) comprises four elements. At the top is the Context element that directly affects the key questions elements and indirectly the other two elements. From left to right, the decisions element relates to decisions that have to be made at various stages of the evaluation process. The four actions boxes in the middle of the figure represent the actual operation of the evaluation. The key questions, that are discussed in order to reach the decisions on the left of the figure,

246

"#"$%!&'()*+,!-',.!/0!1'.!20!3454674)!/8990!/29:!/;<" ! are directly linked to the context in that the three foci questions (why, what, and how) are entirely context dependant.

Figure 2. A framework for the evaluation of a SAC Different types of arrow are used to denote different types of relationships between the elements: 1.

The heavy black arrows signify the very significant influence that the context

has upon the three key questions, the two decision elements upon the mapping (see The Actions Element section below) and evaluation plan, and the first two decision elements upon the second and third respectively;

247

"#"$%!&'()*+,!-',.!/0!1'.!20!3454674)!/8990!/29:!/;<" !

2.

The two lightly shaded arrows at the top indicate the fact that the context has an

indirect effect on the decisions and actions elements, in addition to its direct effect on the key questions; 3.

The curved, double-headed arrows indicate the repeated interaction between the

key questions that takes place when these are discussed; 4. The simple black vertical arrows between the actions are indicative of the generally chronological progression from the first to the fourth; and, finally, 5.

The call-out lines from the decisions boxes are used to indicate that the

decisions result from discussion of the key questions and that the three stages of the ‘Evaluation process’ are component parts of the ‘Evaluation’ action element.

The key questions and decisions elements The key questions, why, what and how, are those three questions that I had identified in the program evaluation literature as being central to existing evaluation constructs and central to the focusing and planning of an evaluation. As noted in The Framework Section above, and as illustrated in Figure 3, the evaluation decisions result directly from discussion of the key questions.

Figure 3. Framework elements 1 - Decisions and key questions Study participants identified the key question why as relating primarily to the evaluation audience, which would include direct stakeholders such as the learners and indirect stakeholders such as the centre funders, as well as to the need to identify the

248

"#"$%!&'()*+,!-',.!/0!1'.!20!3454674)!/8990!/29:!/;<" ! evaluation functions in terms of whether they are primarily formative or summative.

The question what was perceived as relating to the need for: specific evaluation foci which, might include, for example, the efficiency of procedures, staffing and systems, or effectiveness in terms of learning gain; the need for clear, shared understanding of key terms (or boundaries); and agreement on what type of data (or truth) the evaluation is seeking. The question of how was seen to relate to three aspects. The first is the evaluation approach in terms, for example, of its formality or whether it is to be primarily qualitative or quantitative in nature. This clearly leads to the question of methodology which in turn generates operational questions concerning, for example, sampling and the choice of data collection tools. Finally, and crucially, the composition of the evaluation team and team membersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; roles was felt to influence, and be influenced by, decisions concerning the previous two aspects.

As reflected in the framework, the three key questions are not discrete and isolated from each other. Instead, they are interdependent with decisions taken as a result of the discussion of one question impacting on, or being impacted upon by, another. Discussion and resulting decisions will clearly be greatly influenced by the context (see The Context Element section). Furthermore, since the three key questions are not discrete, neither are the resulting decisions made in isolation from each other.

Clearly, for example, a decision regarding the foci of an evaluation will affect its methodology.

The actions element The actions element is, as presented in isolation in Figure 4, linear in presentation. It would, generally, also tend be chronological in operation but not necessarily strictly so.

249

"#"$%!&'()*+,!-',.!/0!1'.!20!3454674)!/8990!/29:!/;<" !

Figure 4. Framework elements 2 - Actions Within the element, I have identified four discrete actions that I believe are crucial to the effectiveness of any SAC evaluation: the development of the SAC mapping; the evaluation plan which would outline the stages and timing of the evaluation process; together with the evaluation itself; and a plan for a metaevaluation.

Mapping The first action, which aims to address the key question of what is to be evaluated, is that of developing a SAC mapping (Morrison, 2002, 2003). I use the term mapping to refer to both the process of examining data concerning the SAC and the subsequent product that aims to present the interpreted data relating to the relationships between the learner and the various elements that comprise the SAC. This presentation needs to be in a form that is easily accessible for the audience, similar to the way that a topographical map defines geographical features from the point of view of the map reader. With reference to the mapping process, the term is

250

"#"$%!&'()*+,!-',.!/0!1'.!20!3454674)!/8990!/29:!/;<" ! used to allude to a subjective and interpretive act that is, at the same time, embedded within a framework of analytical research. It also aims to reflect the highly iterative process that is needed in order to produce a clear representation of an individual learner’s interaction with the various component parts of a SAC: “Mapping...uncovering realities previously unseen or unimagined, even across seemingly exhausted ground .... it remakes territory over and over again, each time with new and diverse consequences” (Corner, 1999, p. 213).

While each mapping of an individual SAC will differ in many ways, my research and experience suggests a common centrality of interaction of the various SAC components with the learner’s progress from initial assumptions regarding, for example, language level and needs, through potential effects the SAC might have upon the learner to the realization, to varying degrees, of the learner’s objectives.

Evaluation plan Although in my review of evaluation constructs few (e.g., Worthen & Sanders, 1987; Pollard, 1989; Chen, 2005) explicitly featured an evaluation plan as an element, in all the development of a plan is clearly implied, as it is in data derived from my study. Such a plan is clearly necessary in order for all the evaluation stakeholders to share the decisions made relating to the key question (how) regarding the evaluation methodology.

Evaluation The ‘Evaluation process’ box refers to the actual processes involved in the implementation of the evaluation itself. It serves to represent the stages of an evaluation that result from the evaluation plan. The stages in the process that are indicated in Figure 4 are indicative since, clearly, in any specific evaluation, they would be affected by decisions made earlier that, in turn, had been informed by the SAC mapping and had subsequently informed evaluation plan.

Meta-evaluation The meta-evaluation action refers to the process of evaluating the evaluation (Stufflebeam, 1978; Nevo, 1986; Straw & Cook, 1990). The dotted line linking it to the SAC mapping box indicates its potential for informing a future evaluation process, including any revision to the SAC mapping.

251

"#"$%!&'()*+,!-',.!/0!1'.!20!3454674)!/8990!/29:!/;<" !

The context element I use a large box and arrows to represent the context to emphasize its huge importance within the evaluation process. Lynch (1996, 2003), in his context adaptive evaluation model, suggests a "checklist, or inventory" which can be used to define the program context. He characterizes this context inventory as a ‘step’ in the model which enables the evaluator to "develop a preliminary sense of the important themes and issues" in order to "determine what is being evaluated" (Lynch, 1996, p.

170). While I agree that these are important tasks, I do not perceive the concept of context in exactly the same way. Rather, reflecting more closely his (2003) view in relation to context and themes, I see context impacting more widely and iteratively upon various stages of the evaluation and not just in terms of ‘setting the scene’ and determining foci.

I see the context as being constituted of everything that might impact upon the key questions and consequently upon the decisions elements and, through them, upon the actions. Furthermore, the context will impact on all questions, decisions and actions involved in the evaluation process. In an evaluation, each question will need to be addressed; each decision will need to be made; and each action will need to be taken with specific reference to the evaluation context. This can be seen, for example, in the huge effect that the contextual element, funding, can have on the focus, scope and nature of the evaluation.

Bringing together the framework elements Taken separately, the four individual elements comprising the evaluation framework might be said to simply reflect different aspects of existing, recognized evaluation practice. I believe it is the bringing together of these in an attempt to reflect more meaningfully the SAC realities, while at the same time presenting this in as simple and accessible a manner as possible, that provides the descriptive power of the framework.

In highlighting the interaction not only between the elements but also within them, I believe the SAC evaluation framework represents integration of the elements in a way that tries to address concerns regarding the need to consider the evaluation as whole and not just a series of discrete elements: “When you are in a threedimensional game, you will lose if you focus only on the top board and fail to notice 252

"#"$%!&'()*+,!-',.!/0!1'.!20!3454674)!/8990!/29:!/;<" ! the other boards and the vertical connections between themâ&#x20AC;? (Nye, 2002, p. 24).

Conclusion: Implications and Applications Joanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s annual reporting task is perhaps less an evaluative exercise than a bureaucratic accounting one. The framework would hopefully provide her with the starting point for a meaningful evaluation of her SAC, being used to guide her to ensure that all relevant dimensions of evaluation planning are properly considered.

Reflecting the necessity for careful thought and planning prior to the conducting of the evaluation itself and for the identification of the complex links between the SACâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s component parts and learner achievement, the primary theoretical strength of the framework lies, I believe, in its multi-dimensional nature. Unlike some theoretical evaluation constructs, it does not present a view of evaluation as a rather simple linear process but rather recognizes its complexity presented in terms of the interaction between the key questions, decisions, actions and context elements.

It is, however, a framework and not a model and does not, in itself, dictate a particular approach or methodology. Its prescription is only in terms of: the questions to be asked (not the answers); the decisions to be made (and not the decisions themselves); and, a simple recognition of the actions to be taken in, I would argue, any evaluation. A major implication of its adoption lies in the recognition of the context as the major determinant in addressing how questions are to be answered and subsequent decisions made.

The primary practical implications of the study lie in the potential application of the framework in conjunction with the mapping of an individual SAC. Incorporating the need to develop a SAC mapping, it is to be hoped that the evaluation framework provide the basis for the planning of a SAC evaluation. It is designed as a framework for the evaluation initiators supporting them in drawing up the evaluation plan that will guide the evaluation in a step-by- step manner. If used effectively, I believe it has the potential to ensure that all dimensions of the evaluation planning are considered in terms of the questions asked, the resulting decisions made and subsequent actions taken. It is intended that the centrality of the notion of context within the framework might help to ensure that the type of inappropriate evaluation approach sometimes employed by outside experts with little or no understand of local conditions (Alderson & Scott, 1992; Lynch, 1996) can be avoided.

While the framework was designed for use in the evaluation of a Hong Kong 253

"#"$%!&'()*+,!-',.!/0!1'.!20!3454674)!/8990!/29:!/;<" !

SAC, I now feel that it can have application in the evaluation of SACs more widely and of other educational entities. With its emphasis on flexibility and the critical influence of context, it may be particularly applicable to those of an â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;alternativeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; nature which are more context dependent and perhaps less predictable in make-up than, for example, others longer established and operating within a well defined and more commonly understood educational context.

Notes on the contributor Bruce Morrison is Director of the English Language Centre at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. His research interests are primarily in the areas of self-access language learning and program evaluation, focusing in particular on the development, administration and evaluation of self-access language learning centers; evaluating learning gain in a self-access centre; the roles of the self-access centre learner and teacher; and non-native speaker learner experiences of English-medium education.

References Alderson, J. C., & Beretta, A. (Eds.). (1992). Evaluating second language education.

Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Alderson, J. C., & Scott, M. (1992). Insiders, outsiders and participatory evaluation.

In J. C. Alderson & A. Beretta (Eds.), Evaluating second language education (pp. 25-57). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Beretta, A. (1992). Evaluation of language education: An overview. In J. C. Alderson & A. Beretta (Eds.), Evaluating second language education (pp. 5-24).

Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education. MA: Allyn & Bacon. Chen, H.T. (2005). Practical program evaluation. London: Sage Publications.

Corner, C. (1999). The agency of mapping: Speculation, critique and invention. In D. Cosgrove (Ed.), Mappings. (pp. 213-252). London: Reaktion Books.

Flick, U. (1998). An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage Publications.

Gardner, D. (2002). Evaluating self-access language learning. In P. Benson and S. Toogood (Eds.), Learner autonomy 7: Challenges to research and practice (pp.

55-64). Dublin, Ireland: Authentik.

Gardner, D., & Miller, L. (1997). A study of tertiary level self-access facilities in 254

"#"$%!&'()*+,!-',.!/0!1'.!20!3454674)!/8990!/29:!/;<" !

Hong Kong. Hong Kong, China: City University of Hong Kong.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine Publishing.

Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews. London: Sage Publications.

Lee, W. (1996). The role of materials in the development of autonomous learning. In R. Pemberton, E. S. L. Li, W. F. Or, & H. D. Pierson (Eds.), Taking control: Autonomy in language learning (pp. 167-184). Hong Kong, China: Hong Kong University Press.

Lynch, B. (1996). Language program evaluation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Lynch, B. (2003). Language assessment and programme evaluation. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.

Ma, B. (1994). A study of independent learning: The learner t raining programme at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. In E. Esch (Ed.), Self-access & the adult language learner (pp. 140-145). London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching & Research.

Madaus, G. F., Stufflebeam, D. L., & Scriven, M. S. (1983). Program evaluation: A historical overview. In G. F. Madaus, D. L. Stufflebeam, & M. S. Scriven (Eds.), Evaluation models: Viewpoints on ducational & human services evaluation. Boston: Klujer-Nijhoff.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage Publications.

Miller, L., & Gardner, D. (1994). Directions in self-access language learning. Hong Kong, China: Hong Kong University Press.

Morrison, B. J. (2002). The troubling process of mapping and evaluating a self-access language learning centre. In P. Benson & S. Toogood (Eds.), Learner autonomy 7: Challenges to research and practice (pp. 55-64). Dublin, Ireland: Authentik.

Morrison, B. J. (2003). The development of a framework for the evaluation of a selfaccess language learning centre. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China.

Nevo, D. (1986). The conceptualization of educational evaluation: An analytical review of the literature. In E. R. House (Ed.), New directions in educational evaluation. London: Falmer Press.

Nye, J. (2002, March). The new Rome meets the new barbarians. The Economist, March 23, 23-25.

Pollard, R. J. (1989). Essentials of program evaluation: A workbook for service providers. Unpublished manuscript.

255

"#"$%!&'()*+,!-',.!/0!1'.!20!3454674)!/8990!/29:!/;<" !

Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative inquiry in TESOL. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Sheerin, S. (1991). State of the art: Self-access. Language Teaching, 24(3), 153-157.

Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Straw, R. B., & Cook, T. D. (1990). Meta-evaluation. In H. J. Walberg & G. D. Haertel (Eds.), Encyclopedia of educational research (pp. 58-60). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Strevens, P. (1977). New orientations in the teaching of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stufflebeam, D. L. (1978). Meta-evaluation: An overview. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 1(1), 17-43.

Wholey, W. R. (1987). Evaluability assessment: Developing program theory. In L. Bickman (Ed.), Using programtheory in evaluation (pp. 77-92). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Worthen, B. R., & Sanders, J. R. (1987). Educational evaluation: Alternative approaches & practical guidelines. New York: Longman.

*Originally published as Morrison, B. (2005). A Framework for the evaluation of a self-access language learning centre.

Supporting Independent English Language Learning in the 21st Century: Proceedings of the Independent Learning Association Conference Inaugural â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2005 (Reprinted with permission)

!

256

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 257-267

Fostering Self-directed Learning through Guided Tasks and Learner Reflection Chris King, Unitec Institute of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand Abstract This article reports on the potential impact on learner attitudes and behaviour from the use of a set of guided self-directed learning worksheets. The study consisted of a before and after questionnaire with a portfolio of activities that became progressively less teacher directed. Each activity had a section for learner reflection. Final reflective comments were captured at the end of the portfolio.

Data collected from both questionnaires and from reflective comments was analysed using a grounded theory approach (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). While it is recognised that this study is a classroom-based research project with a small number of participants, and that the data collected is learner-reported, the findings are nevertheless important and suggest that such portfolios can be successful both in promoting the use of self-access centres and in fostering learner autonomy.

Keywords: self-access centres, learner autonomy, portfolios, success story

The importance of fostering learner autonomy is widely accepted. Despite wide and varied definitions, learner autonomy is recognised as having a central place in the language-learning journey (Benson, 2001; Nunan, 1996) because, essentially, it allows learners to take charge of their own learning (Chan, 2001; Little, 2007). Self-access centres have an important role to play in the development of learner autonomy and are seen to be “an increasingly important aspect of language learning provision” (Gardner & Miller, 2010, p. 161). Learners who make use of self-access centres have the potential to become able to take responsibility for their own learning, to develop effective strategies for independent learning and to devise their own programs of study (Littlewood, 1997; Sheerin 1997).

Induction to self-access centres is often fundamental to success. While the benefits that self-access centres can provide are widely recognised, Sheerin (1997) is among many researchers who note that the “mere existence of self access centres does not ensure independent learning” (p. 64). Likewise, it is recognised that ongoing learner training and development that provides effective

257

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 257-267 support for learners, be it from a classroom teacher or a learning advisor, is critical to the success of self-access learning (Sturtridge, 1997). Little (2002) states that “it is usually necessary to provide learners with some kind of advisory service” (p. 2). This notion is supported by Gardner and Miller, who note the trend towards an increased provision of advisory services in self-access centres (2010).

The Present Study This study reported on here was born from a belief in the value of fostering and supporting learner autonomy, and the in value that self-access centres can have both in developing autonomous learning and in supporting language development. At the inception of this project, there seemed however to be a perfect storm of constraints. A combination of one-off and ongoing issues such as department budgets, teaching load and class numbers meant that it was not possible to provide an incoming group of learners with one-on-one support from either the classroom teacher or from a language-learning advisor, nor was it possible to provided learners with individualised learning plans. The critical problems then, were how learners could be introduced to the self-access centre and how self-directed learning could be supported under such conditions. To this end a scaffolded self-directed portfolio project was developed. Guided portfolios were selected as being able support a progression of tasks from teacher-directed to semi-directed to self-directed while providing learners with a summary of completed work. It was felt that learner reflection and review could also be incorporated in a portfolio structure to encourage the development of “the capacity for critical reflection on learning” (Murphy, 2008, p. 215) which is seen to be crucial in facilitating the ability for learners to “to learn from the experience and shape next phase of learning” (p. 200). To evaluate the project and gain information about any possible benefits of using a set of guided worksheets in fostering learner autonomy, the following research questions were investigated: Do the above attitudes and behaviour display any change after the completion of a set of out-of-class directed, and semi-directed tasks over a course of language study? If so, what is the nature of these changes?

258

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 257-267 Was the self-directed portfolio project an effective way to introduce learners to the self-access centre?

Were portfolios useful for supporting self-directed learning and fostering learner autonomy?

The Self-Directed Learning Project Participants in the study consisted of seventeen intermediate-level adult migrant learners of English as an Additional Language (EAL) enrolled in a sixteen-week course at a New Zealand tertiary institution. The age of participants and length of time in the country varied. Nationality and ethnicity also covered a wide range, including learners from Asian, African and Middle-Eastern countries.

Project Design The self-access portfolio was comprised of a set of ten worksheets that were given to learners at the beginning of the course. Learners were instructed to complete the worksheets outside of class time. As one of the aims of the project was to foster learner autonomy, it was decided that coursework and homework should be seen to be separate from the portfolio project. To this end, while all students were given a copy of the self-access portfolio, participation in the project was voluntary. A decision was made not to refer to the portfolio throughout the course, but rather to leave the completion of the worksheets to the discretion of individual learners. This is in line with Cooker’s (2010) principle of learning at self-access centres truly being self-access with learners not “required to use the facility” (p. 7). On the cover of the portfolio were a set of guiding questions that promoted learners to reflect on their learning needs and their attitudes to learning outside the classroom. Inside the portfolio there were ten onepage worksheets to complete over fourteen weeks of the course. The first six worksheets in the portfolio consisted of structured tasks designed to introduce learners to the range of language learning activities that could be done in the selfaccess centre, such as reading an article from a newspaper produced for L2 learners, listening to a song and completing an exercise, finding a relevant grammar workbook exercise or making an appointment with a peer tutor. Tasks

259

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 257-267 gradually became less structured and less teacher-directed. The final tasks in the book simply asked learners to choose a language learning activity at the selfaccess centre. At the end of each task were a set of guided questions intended to prompt learners to reflect upon the activity they had completed, with the aim of encouraging an evaluation and planning of learning as well as an ongoing assessment of needs. Both the guided reflective questions and the scaffolded progression can be seen in figure one below.

Figure 1. An example of a teacher-directed task and a self-directed task.

The Practice Makes Perfect task above on the left is strongly teacherdirected, with further instructions about the task printed on the second page of the portfolio. The task required learners to find a particular reading practice book, choose a story to read and complete the exercise in the book. Extra Task Four task on the right is an example of one of the final tasks, which simply asks learners to do something at the self-access centre. In this way scaffolded support was provided as the tasks progressed from being strongly teacher-directed, to semi-directed to self-directed.

260

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 257-267 Data collection and analysis A two-pronged approach was used to data collection, with pre-project and post-project questionnaires and a series of reflective comments that were completed by participants at the end of each task and at the end of the portfolio project. To enable a comparison of responses, the same five questions were used in both the pre and post questionnaires. Figure two below shows the questionnaire on the left and the final page of the portfolio with the reflective comments on the right.

Figure 2. Data collection tools: survey questions and reflective comments The data collected was largely qualitative and open-ended, and an in-depth iterative analysis of leaner comments was conducted. The analysis was conducted in an open manner to allow for the possible emergence of unexpected themes and relationships between comments were explored in order to allow a theory to emerge from the data.

261

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 257-267 Results and Analysis Survey questions The comparative results of the two surveys, given to learners at the start of project and after the completion of the self-access portfolios at the end of the 16week project, provides insight into both learner perceptions and behaviour with regard to learning beyond the classroom. The extracts presented here are unaltered with errors left intact to preserve the richness of the learner responses.

For the first question, how much time do you spend learning English out of class each week, nine learners reported an increase in the amount of time spent studying outside of the classroom, four learners reported a decrease, and one learner reported no change in time spent studying outside of class. The overall average for all learners of 9.18 hours spent outside of the classroom in the first pre-portfolio survey increased only modestly to 9.32 hours at the end of the project. However when the nine learners who reported an increase were isolated, the average change in time spend studying outside of the classroom was an increase 3.28 hours per learner.

For question two, what do you do to learn English outside of your classroom, there were no marked changes in overall response. While a number of students reported an increased range of activities, a similar number of students listed fewer activities on the second survey. It was clear, however, that on the second survey learners gave more articulate responses. Rather than simply providing a list of activities, in the second questionnaire, learners often provided reasons for why they engaged in particular activities. One example of this related to reading a newspaper written for EAL learners is that “this task can help me to read and understand some new words because there is vocabulary list in the article”.

For the third question, is doing your own English study and learning outside of class time important, although all learners responded with a ‘yes’ in both surveys, the reasons listed by learners in each survey differed. Responses in the first survey were linked to themes of time and revision, and responses in the second survey linked to themes of planning of study and selection of activities.

Comments such as “you need more time and more chance to practice” and “I can review and consolidate learning of class” were typical of the open-ended comments in the first survey, while comments such as “when I go to the LLC, I 262

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 257-267 chiose the weak subject”, “you can spend your time on your weak skill”, “I can focus on what I’m interested in” and “we can choose many subjects you like” are representative of responses to the follow-up survey.

For question four, how do you feel about learning English outside of the classroom, a thematic shift in leaner perceptions was also evident. Typical comments from the first survey were “it’s useful for me”, “your English…will be improved and developed” with responses focusing on the necessity and utility of study outside of class. In contrast, responses to the second survey focused largely on affect, as illustrated by such comments as “it’s very enjoy”, “sometimes happy, sometimes frustrated”, “this is my best time to study without teacher”, “when I got new knowledge from out of class I am very happy” and “I feel it can revive my self-confidence”.

The final question in the survey required learners to complete the sentence learning English outside of the classroom is like… to form a metaphor. No thematic shifts were evident, but as responses are nonetheless illustrative of learner perceptions of autonomous learning, a section of responses is listed below. …I buy shoes and choose that suit one …traveling which can bring unexpected happiness and disappointment …exploring, you don’t know what you’ll find out …learning to walk for kids …learning driving …plant a flower, need the sun and water …a key that makes you improve English quickly …swimming in English …second teacher …a person not only needs to have meal but to drink water …auxiliary verb …to drink coffee Reflective comments The second method of data collection was the reflective comment sections that learners completed at the end of each task and on the final page of the selfdirected portfolio. While it was evident that learners used the reflective comments 263

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 257-267 at the end of each worksheet to respond to the task in an affective way, gauge the effectiveness of each task and plan further study, no specific themes or patterns emerged. The reflective response to the overall project on the final page of the portfolio however, provided much richer data for analysis. For the first question, have these self-study worksheets helped you improve your English, thirteen students responded positively with ‘yes’, one student responded negatively with ‘no’, and three students gave a mixed ‘in some ways’ response. For question two what was the most useful task and question three what task wasn’t useful, responses were varied and no clear pattern was apparent. Comments made however were often thoughtful and reasons were well articulated. Regarding which task was not of use, one learner commented: “Read the book. Because I’d like interesting books, short stories, novels and history but the books are old and little bit not interesting for me.”

For question four, did you do any other learning after you finished the four extra tasks, twelve learners responded with ‘yes’. The response “Yes, I did. I often read some articles from Password and listen types. Visit Languge Tuotor” is representative of eight learners who reported doing further study in the self-access centre. An alternative response “watching TV and searching internet about current issues” is representative of five learners who stated that they continued to do autonomous study outside of the classroom but focused on activities beyond the self-access centre. Five learners reported that they did no further study outside of the classroom. One of these learners stated “no because of lazy” while four learners responded with a comment such as “no because we have no time and lot of examination!!!”.

For the final question, will you continue to study by yourself in the future, all seventeen students stated ‘yes’. While the open-ended comments were varied, most learners simply stated what kind of activities they would do and what skills they would study. Only two learners gave reasons: “studying by yourself and study with teacher are auxiliary to each other” and “yes, because English will be very useful for me in the future”.

264

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 257-267 Discussion The main research question, whether learner attitudes and behaviour display any change after the completion of the portfolio project is answered by the data presented above; for nearly all learners both changes in attitudes and behaviour were apparent. After the completion of the portfolio, a majority of learners spent more time studying outside of the classroom and felt that the portfolio project helped them to improve their English and stated that they would continue to study outside of the classroom. Learners were also more able to articulate both the reasons for and the benefits of studying outside of class. Finally, learners seemed to be more able to take responsibility for planning their own study activities. As the portfolio project progressed learners indicated both what they would study in the future “I will listen to Tv and radio”, why they would study “must study hard to get good level to become more confident if I meet with kiwi people”. At the end of the portfolio learners made comments such as “I want to focus on listening the tapes again because I found it’s a good way for improving my English”.

The project reported upon here was a case study investigating the use of a set of worksheets that progressed from teacher-directed to semi-directed to selfdirected in fostering learner autonomy. As such it is worth noting that the project was limited in several ways; the number of participants was relatively low, with 17 students completing the entire portfolio project and 14 of those students completing both the pre and post project surveys. It also needs to be noted that although learners were made aware of the separation between the portfolio project and classroom work, performance and assessment, the study relied on selfreported data. Furthermore, participants were not required to articulate why they felt the portfolio had or had not contributed to improving their English nor were they required articulate why they would or would not continue to study in the future. Modifying the design of these questions may provided a more useful response.

These above limitations notwithstanding, the study reported here shows that, for this particular group of learners, the guided self-access portfolio project appeared to have a positive impact on both the attitudes that learners held and on

265

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 257-267 the behaviour in which the learners engaged regarding language learning beyond the classroom.

Conclusions The aim of the portfolio project was to introduce learners to the self-access centre, cultivate an awareness of the importance of studying outside of the classroom, and promote knowledge of the kind of study options available in an overall attempt to foster learner autonomy in a situation where little individual student-teacher contact was possible. In this respect the portfolio project can be considered to be a success story. While the particular constraints in the context in which this project was established meant that one-on-one support from a teacher or language-learning advisor was not possible, this is not to say that scaffolded self-access portfolios such these should be used in isolation. Indeed, the strong suggestion of this author would be that they be used in concert with a range of other support measures. Regardless of the availability of other support options, the clear implication is that such guided portfolios can be a useful tool for teachers who wish to foster self-access learning, and can contribute towards making learnersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; journeys towards autonomy stories of success.

Notes on the contributor Chris King has been teaching EAL, both in New Zealand and overseas, for what sometimes seems like quite a long time. He works at the Department of Language Studies at Unitec Institute of Technology, and is currently teaching on an Intermediate-level course. His research interests include Task-Based Language Learning, eLearning, and Learner Autonomy.

266

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 257-267 References Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning.

Harlow: Longman/Pearson Education.

Chan, V. (2001). Readiness for learner autonomy: What do our learners tell us?

Teaching in Higher Education, 6(4), 506-516.

Cooker, L. (2010). Some self-access principles. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 1(1), 5-9.

Gardner, D., & Miller, L. (2010). Beliefs about self-access learning: Reflections on 15 years of change. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 1(3), 161172.

Little, D. (2002). Learner autonomy and second/foreign language learning.

Subject Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies Good Practice Guide. Retrieved 2 September 2012, from http://www.llas.ac.uk/resources/gpg/1409.

Little, D. (2007). Language learner autonomy: Some fundamental considerations revisited. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 14-28.

Littlewood, W. (1997). Self Access: Why do we want it and what can it do?. In P. Benson & P. Voller (Eds.) Autonomy & independence in language learning (pp. 79-92). London and New York: Longman.

Murphy, L. (2008). Learning logs and strategy development for distance and other independent language learners. In S. Hurd & T. Lewis (Eds.) Language learning strategies in independent settings. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Nunan, D. (1996). Towards autonomous learning: Some theoretical, empirical and practical issues. In R. Pemberton, S.L. Edward, W.W.F. Or, and H.D. Pierson (Eds.), Taking control: Autonomy in language learning (pp. 1326). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Sheerin, S. (1997). An exploration of the relationship between self-access and independent learning. In P. Benson & P. Voller (Eds.) Autonomy & independence in language learning (pp. 54-65). London and New York: Longman.

Sturtridge, G. (1997). Teaching and learning in self-access centres: Changing roles. In P. Benson & P. Voller (Eds.) Autonomy & independence in language learning (pp. 79-92). London and New York: Longman.

267

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 268-280

Fostering Learner Autonomy as Agency: An Analysis of Narratives of a Student Staff Member Working at a Self-Access Learning Center Atsumi Yamaguchi, Kanda University of International Studies, Japan

Abstract This study investigates narrative stories of a student staff member working at the Self Access Learning Center (the SALC) at Kanda University of International Studies, Japan in order to discover whether / how her working experiences in the SALC have an impact on her identities especially focusing on her development of learner autonomy as agency. Drawing on four layers of narrative positioning (Wortham & Gadsden, 2006), I will explore: 1) the ways that agency is projected; and 2) how the learner’s involvement in a SALC impacts on her identities. The examination revealed that the learner’s involvement as a student staff member enhanced her agency to access a target community of English in the SALC. Drawing on the Communities of Practice (CoP) framework by Lave & Wenger (1991), I discuss the possibility that gaining voice in the target community might enable a learner to be more autonomous. Finally, this paper addresses the importance of learner involvement in SALCs - not only for the learners involved, but also for other SALC users in order to provide opportunities to activate both agency and autonomy.

Key words: learner autonomy, agency, identities, Communities of Practice

The Self-access Learning Center (SALC) at Kanda University of International Studies (KUIS) in Japan is a state of the art English-only facility which accommodates more than 11,000 English learning resources as well as human resources. Currently twenty-four student staff members are employed on a part time basis to work at the circulation counter. In this study, one of the student staff member’s autobiographical stories will be investigated as a case study to shed light on how her experiences working in the SALC had an impact on her identities. Drawing on Toohey and Norton (2003)’s claim that that language learning is participation in a “Community of Practice” (Lave & Wenger, 1991), I will discuss how the student staff member gained a voice in a target English-speaking community of the SALC. Employing a systematic analysis of four layers of positioning (Wortham & Gadsden, 2006), I will explore the discursive projection of her identities in her narratives. The ultimate goal of this study is to discuss the impact of learner involvement in SALCs in order to foster learner autonomy. "#$! !

!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 268-280

Learner Involvement in Self-Access What are the SALC and SALCers?

The SALC was originally established in 2001 for the purpose of providing a learning space for students outside class at KUIS. The SALC aims to provide opportunities for students to individualize their learning experiences and develop skills for becoming autonomous language learners. In addition to resources, students have access to language advising services and selfdirected learning modules through which they work with learning advisors to implement individual learning plans. The SALC also serves as a unique learning environment in that learners are required to interact in English. As Aston (1993) argues, learner involvement in SACs is an important component for successful implementation of self-access because it allows learners to be more self-reliant and responsible for their learning. In his study, Aston (1993) asked eight learners to try new equipment and materials in a SAC, then found that their attitudes toward English language learning as well as autonomous language learning was positively impacted. Thus, he posits that through active involvement in the SAC learners become “animators and creators” (p. 226) instead of consumers of services. To further explore learners’ contributions to SACs, Malcolm (2011) involved learners in a mandatory activity whereby learners were involved in developing materials. Malcolm found that respecting learners’ voices related to materials in a SAC is crucial in order to make the contribution successful. Regarding the context of this study, the SALC employs part-time student staff members who contribute to the service in another way. Currently twenty-four students serve at the circulation counter helping SALC users to check learning resources in and out, helping them to use the SALC facilities, and maintaining resources and equipment. The staff members are recruited through official announcements, and selected based on their expected potential to contribute to the SALC. The staff members are known as “SALCers” among students, and seem to serve as role models as good English learners (see Yamaguchi, 2011). If the SALC is regarded as a space for learners to construct L2 selves, their taking responsibility and gaining voice in the space could be considered as ways in which the students activate their agency to access to the target language community. In the next section, I will discuss how I conceptualize learner autonomy from the standpoint of sociocultural and poststructuralist perspectives.

"#%! !

!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 268-280

Theoretical Framework Learner autonomy as agency Since the mid-1970s, the concept of learner autonomy, “the ability to take charge of one’s own learning” (Holec, 1981, p. 3), has been widely discussed. The field of language learner autonomy began with the Council of Europe’s Modern Languages Projects, which aimed to deconstruct traditional teacher-centered practices, and then support a move toward learnercentered process of learning and teaching (Benson, 2001). Whilst there has been heated debate over the definition, the application in Asian-contexts (e.g. Littlewood, 1999), and alternative conceptualizations (Pennycook, 1997; Holliday, 2003), learner autonomy is seen to be a key component of successful language learning and teaching from the viewpoint of communicative language teaching.

In this study, I interpret autonomy from sociocultural and poststructuralist perspectives, that is “socially oriented agency” (Toohey & Norton, 2003, p. 59). Language learners are considered to be “agents” (Lantolf & Pavlenko, 2000, p.162) who take responsibility for their own learning and control to what extent they devote themselves to doing so. Agency is a language learner’s will or drive to learn. Toohey and Norton (2003) claim that language learners need to activate their agency in order to gain access to a “Community of Practice (CoP)” (Lave & Wenger, 1991). If the SALC is considered to be a target community of English, involving teachers, learning advisors, administrative staff, and learners, the learning space functions as a CoP allowing learners to activate their agency as members of the community. According to the literature related to identity (e.g. Norton, 1997; Pavlenko, 2001), identity refers to ways in which “people understand their relationship to the world, and how that relationship is constructed across time and space, and how people understand their possibilities for the future” (Norton, 1997, p. 410). CoP has been discussed as a target L2 / foreign community (e.g.!Kinginger, 2004), I will expand that scope to an immersion learning space within a learner’s native country. Thus, through analysing a SALC staff member’s narratives, I will explore the following research questions: 1) In what ways are the learner’s agency projected?

2) Does the learner’s involvement in the SALC have an impact on her identity? If so, how? "&'! !

!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 268-280

Methodological Framework Autobiographical narration to project the self To explore the above research questions, I will employ narrative analysis since autobiographical narratives discursively construct and project the self (Wortham & Gadsden, 2006). Although many studies on autobiographical narratives tend to look at just the content, Pavlenko (2007) argues that researchers should treat narrative data not as a collection of facts, but also take account of the content, context, and the form. In the same vein, Wortham and Gadsden (2006) successfully showed how linguistic devices signal positioning of the self and how this positioning helps in constructing the self. To make my analysis more systematic, I will approach my interview data in the light of Wortham and Gadsden’s “four layers of narrative positioning” (p. 319) that the narrator and the interviewer accomplished. In the following section, I will briefly describe the four layers of narrative positioning.

Four layers of narrative positioning Wortham and Gadsden (2006) established systematic accounts of autobiographical narratives drawing on Bakhtin (1981), Bamberg (2003), Labov and Waletzky (1976), Schiffrin (1996), and Wortham (2001). Wortham and Gadsden claim that in the first layer, narratives position narrators as they refer to past events as the ones who experienced the narrated events (“reference to past event”, p. 320). In the second layer, narrators position the characters (including themselves) in the narrated events (“voicing”, p. 320). A voice is a “recognizable social type” which is signaled by “indexical cues”, characteristically by using expressions and “quoted speech” (p. 321). Thirdly, the narrators show their “evaluation” (p. 322) of those voices in the third layer. “Evaluation” is similar to Bakhin’s concept of “ventriloquation” (p. 322) by which narrators position themselves with respect to the voices. Finally, by telling a story, the narrators interactionally position themselves toward interlocutors in the “story-telling event” (p.

319) in the fourth layer. If this positioning is repeatedly displayed, this fourth layer becomes a window to the narrator’s self in an interactional event. Wortham and Gadsden argue that the four types of positioning should be distinguished to systematically understand construction of the self.

Through the four layers, I will investigate the SALCer’s positioning, especially looking at whether or to what extent she positions herself as an active agent toward the CoP. "&(! !

!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 268-280

Participants In order to embrace a systematic account of narratives, I need to consider the participants’ contexts. The main participant in this study is Kyoko (pseudonym), a junior student SALCer who had worked as a student staff member for two years at the time of the interview. I came to know her through my work as a Learning Advisor (LA) in the SALC. I first noticed her because of her non-Japanese appearance and her excellent English even compared with other SALCers, but after a colleague who used to work closely Kyoko introduced me to her, I came to casually interact with her in English whenever we met in the SALC. None of Kyoko’s family closely associates with English, but she explained that she was motivated to learn English because her past English teacher praised her English pronunciation. She went to a regular high school, where chances to speak English were not afforded. However, she stayed in England for two weeks on a program called “Model United Nation” which aims to provide young people with an awareness of international relations and diplomacy through an academic simulation of the United Nations.

Although Kyoko speaks English fluently enough to communicate well, her speaking still contains grammatical errors. As the narratives were co-constructed through the dialog between Kyoko and me, I am also considered to be a participant so I will briefly describe my context as well. At the time of the interview, I was a first-year LA at KUIS and still in the process of understanding my role as a LA helping promote learners’ self-directed learning skills through an advising program in the SALC. The interviews were conducted twice in a semi-structured way and focused on Kyoko’s English learning experiences in the SALC. The interviews lasted thirty minutes each. Prior to the first interview, Kyoko was given the option to speak either English or Japanese, and chose English to be the language used throughout the interviews.

In the following section, three excerpts from the interview data will be analyzed. I acknowledge that the data represented provides limited evidence, but I was only able to select three short excerpts for the sake of the word limitation of this particular article. Nevertheless the extracts demonstrate how Kyoko activates agency through working as a student staff member.

"&"! !

!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 268-280

Data Analysis

The interviews were audio-recorded, and then I listened to the data carefully multiple times to identify recurring themes. Strong recurring themes surfaced; namely, (1) Kyoko’s aspiration to become like a “native” (meaning native speaker of English) and (2) her transformation into a “positive” self in English. Although the following excerpts do not contain reference to “a native”, it recurrently appeared elsewhere in the interview. The first excerpt was selected to illustrate Kyoko’s agency towards cultural norms of English-speaking countries, such as voicing opinions. In this excerpt, she talks about herself before and after she joined the Model United Nation program, noting a change. By contrasting norms of Japan and English-speaking countries, Kyoko shows her positive evaluation of the English-speaking side of herself.

Excerpt 1: Kyoko’s agency to access the CoP (K: Kyoko; A: Atsumi (researcher)) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90 10 11 12 13 14

A: K:

Were you different before you joined the program?

I am really shy and I don’t, I am always afraid to making a mistake. Cause,yeah, JAPANESE*rarely nn::!*hands up to say their opinions in the class, so that teachers gonna always pointing out them, so but in America or European countries asking questions is really fundamental, basical thing, and no teachers blame if then do that even though they have few knowledge about it, but I might think that if I made a mistake someone other people think about me just I am like a stupid or I’m not, I don’t really have knowledge or I am just, kind of, yeah, not a good student, so I am really afraid of that. But I realize that it’s just wasting time, if I want to be positive, I need to be, I need to do it by myself. I need to do, get, I need to do, I need to START by myself.

In relation to the first layer of positioning, Kyoko made reference to a past event where she was shy and afraid of making mistakes in classrooms in Japan (lines 2-3). Even though she utilized the present form, I understand her accounts as practices she had participated in in the past. Due to the fact that English is not her first language and that she participated in the United Nations, I assume that she meant “was afraid of “and “realized” in line 11. If this is the case, she presents herself as someone who had been immersed in American or European culture. With regards to the second layer, Kyoko voiced herself as originally very “shy” and “afraid of” making errors in front of an audience (line 2). However, her voicing changes toward the end of "&)! !

!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 268-280

this story to project a more responsible and independent self. Furthermore, judging from “JAPANESE*!rarely (line 3),” she negatively voices Japanese students’ way of being passive in class. On the other hand, she positively voices teachers from the United States and Europe - “no teachers blame (line 6)”. Within the third layer, Kyoko evaluates the voice of Japanese students as “it’s is just wasting time (lines 11-12),” and says “need to START by myself (lines 13-14)”.

This might signal her positive evaluation of Western cultures as well as her transformation to thinking in a more agentive way to gain access to the target community. Through these examples of voicing and evaluation she discursively positions herself as a member of L2 culture rather than L1 culture in the fourth layer. This could also be conceptualized as her having transformed herself to a more positive self with a great deal of agency. Indeed, this story projected her agency to L2 culture. In the next excerpt, Kyoko tells a story of how she became a SALCer as a freshman student.

Excerpt 2: Kyoko’s agency activated by a senior SALCer (K: Kyoko; A: Atsumi) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

A: K:

A: K:

Why did you apply for the SALCer’s job?= =Because when I went to the SALC to make a card, SALC card, the senior, senior person, which, uh, who was Yumeko was making SALC card for me, and yeah, then, I thought they were not students, just, such as like managers uh-huh but then after that, yeah anyway later, I met her in a class.

And I (was) really surprised that “why she is here?” I asked her that she is a student, and she introduced herself briefly, and I got some information and we became closer than before, and she recommended me to work in the SALC because I was very interested in SALCers. She was a kinda role model for me. She speak English very fluently, but something. I really felt, she, “how, what, what a wonderful girl she is” so, and yeah yeah yeah (.)That’s the moment to be a SALCer.

From the perspective of the first layer, Kyoko refers to the time she came to the SALC for the first time as freshman student. By doing so, she might have positioned herself as an new freshman student with no connection to the SALC. In the second layer, Kyoko voices Yumeko as someone superior to her by using indexical cues, “the senior, senior person (lines 16-17)” and “not students just such as like managers (lines 18-19)”. Later in line 27, Kyoko voices Yumeko as her “role model” who speaks excellent English and is generous and kind. Then, in the third layer, Kyoko positively evaluates Yumeko as “a wonderful girl (line 28)”. Thus, in the fourth "&+! !

!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 268-280

layer, this story might position Kyoko as a “SALCer (line 29)” who decided to be a SALCer for an authentic reason. By doing so, Kyoko discursively represented herself to be a role-model SALCer who applied for the SALCer’s position not to earn money but to contribute to the SALC and help SALC users as Yumeko did.

Excerpt 3: Kyoko’s growing agency (K: Kyoko; A: Atsumi) 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

K:

I know the student who came, who often comes to the SALC counter, but they, uh, she rarely, she seldom smile(s). And I feel some kinda uncomfortable or some I was not really happy to talk with her because even if I talk, trying to make her laugh or talk to her, she never she never smile, but gradually, nn:::, I could know how she has been changed gradually whenever I try to ask her feeling or her situation of “how are doing”, or “is that your homework?” “Did you read that book?” or yeah she told about her classes and her situations because she had a lot of things to do everyday such as job hunting or part-time jobs, and many assignments or she was almost pa, panic or yeah or yes ((laughter)) she was almost dead, so she couldn’t try to be positive, I mean, yeah but if I could, when I could know her feeling, “uh, I know your feeling, you must be so busy, but just try to be, just try to be yourself” I said, yeah and then she smiled, !!!, yeah. If I try to continue to talk with the people to get to know, understand each other, I could, we could yeah make a some kinda great relationships, so it was really great memory for me. Maybe since then she tried to talk to me, even though they, ya before that she never try to do, but yeah it was a kind of big change for each, for each so, it was yeah, really, I was very happy.

The reference to this story may position Kyoko as an experienced SALCer who has helped SALC users. In relation to the second layer, she negatively voices a student who “seldom smiles (line 31)”. On the contrary, she voices herself as a positive SALCer who tries to cheer the student up (lines 33-34). Then, Kyoko evaluates the student as “uncomfortable (line 32)” and “not really happy (line 32). Additionally, she voices herself sympathetically using quotations, “how are you doing (line 36)”, “is that your homework? (lines 36-37)”, and “did you read the book? (line 37)”. These divergent positionings appear to be similar to those of Kyoko and Yumeko’s in the excerpt 2. Then, the story enters a turning point in line 43, which might be a “complicating action” to use Labov and Waletzky (1976)’s term. The quotation (lines 43-44) positions Kyoko as a sympathetic and encouraging SALCer similar to Yumeko. Then, the student was voiced positively i.e. “smiled (line 45)”. The reference to the particular event and "&,! !

!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 268-280

voicing the characters in the story allowed Kyoko to position herself as an active agent in the SALC. Then, she rephrased “I could” to “we could” (lines 46)”. By doing so, she interactionally presented herself not as an individual learner but as a member of the target community of the SALC. In other words, she positioned herself as an insider of the community who is in charge of the space rather than an outsider to the space. Eventually, overseeing the trajectory of her three narratives, it might be claimed that those stories illustrate Kyoko’s growing agency to be more responsible for her learning and control her ways of being in a target language practice space, i.e., the SALC. Discussion Kyoko’s narrative stories unfolded the trajectory of her identities having shifted over time in storied events as well as in context-situated identities on an interactional-level. Her agency was discursively projected through a window of Wortham and Gadsden’s four layers of narrative positioning. In excerpt 1, her agency to gain voice in the target CoP was marked though the comparison between her passive Japanese self to an active English side of herself. In excerpt 2, she expresses her agency for accessing a foreign language community. According to the analysis, Yumeko seemed to have functioned as Kyoko’s role model. Finally, excerpt 3 shows that Kyoko activated her agency to encourage another SALC user by positioning herself as an insider of the foreign language space. Indeed, it seems that Kyoko invites SALC users to the CoP to which she belongs. To answer the second research question, the learner’s involvement in the SALC did have an impact on her identities to a large extent, judging from Kyoko’s growing agency over time. Kyoko illustrated herself as a shy and passive student before extensively being involved in the SALC, yet her later narratives hinted that she transformed to being a more positive and agentive self. Furthermore, it might be true that the existence of student staff members working in the SALC serve as role models and motivators for new students. Thus, opportunities for learners to work in the SALC could provide not only student staff members but also SALC users with chances to foster autonomy in the sense that they have opportunities to activate their agency to access a foreign language community of practice.

"&#! !

!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 268-280

Conclusion This paper examined whether or to what extent autonomy conceptualized as socially oriented agency is projected within autobiographical narratives. From a analysis of a SALC student staff member’s narratives, it was revealed that student staff members in the SALC could serve as role models, and that their working experiences as student staff members could activate their agency to a greater extent to gain voice in the CoP. Furthermore, they could foster autonomy of fellow learners who visit the SALC. Indeed, more attention should be paid to learners’ contributions to SACs, and learners’ participation to the CoP could shed light to a larger extent on discussions of learner autonomy.

Notes on the contributor Atsumi Yamaguchi has an MA from the University of Hawaii and currently works as a Learning Advisor in the Self-Access Learning Center at Kanda University, Japan, where she advises and team-teaches EFL students and promotes learner autonomy. Her research interests include learner autonomy, identity and intercultural communication.

References

Aston, G. (1993). The learner’s contribution to the self-access center. ELT Journal, 47(3), 219-227.

Bakhtin, M. (1981). Discourse in the novel (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). In M. Bakhtin, The dialogic imagination (pp. 259-422). Austin: University of Texas Press. (Original work published in 1935) Bamberg, M. (2003). Positioning with Davie Hogan: Stories, tellings, and identities. In C. Daiute & C. Lightfoot (Eds.). Narrative analysis: Studying the development of individuals in society (pp. 135-157). London: Sage Publications.

Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and research autonomy in language learning. London, Person Education.

Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy in foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon. "&&! !

!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 268-280

Holliday, A. (2003). Social autonomy: Addressing the dangers of culturism in TESOL. In D, Palfreyman & R.C. Smith (Eds.), Learner autonomy across cultures: Language education perspectives. (pp. 110-126). New York, Palgrave Macmillan.

Kinginger, C. (2004). Alice doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t live here anymore: Foreign language learning and identity reconstruction. In A. Pavlenko & A. Blackledge (Eds.), Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts (pp. 219-242). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Lantolf, J., & Pavlenko, A. (2000). Second language learning as a participation and the (re)construction of selves. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lave, J, & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Labov, W., & Waletzky, J. (1967). Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience.

In J. Helm (Ed.), Essays on the verbal and visual arts (pp. 12-44). Seattle, University of Washington Press.

Littlewood, W. (1999). Defining and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts. Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 71-94.

Malcolm, D. (2011). Learner involvement at Arabian Gulf University Self-Access Center.

Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 2(2), 68-77 Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity, and the ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 409-429.

Pavlenko, A. (2007). Autobiographic narratives as data in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics 28(2), 163-188.

Pennycook, A. (1997). Cultural alternatives and autonomy. In P. Benson & P. Voller (Eds.), Autonomy and independence in language learning (pp. 35-53). London, Longman.

Schiffrin, J. (1996). Narrative as a self-portrait: Sociolinguistic construction of identity.

Language in Society, 25 (2), 167-263.

Toohey, K, & Norton, B. (2003). Learner autonomy as agency in sociocultural settings. In D. Palfreyman & R.C. Smith (Eds.), Learner autonomy across cultures: Language education perspectives (pp. 58-72). New York, Palgrave Macmillan.

Wortham, S. (2001). Narratives in action. New York: Teacher College Press.

"&$! !

!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 268-280

Wortham, S., & Gadsden, V. (2006). Urban fathers positioning themselves through narrative: An approach to narrative self-construction. In A. deFina, D. Schiffrin & M. Bamberg (Eds.) Discourse and identity (pp. 314-344). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Yamaguchi, A. (2011). Analysis of Japanese studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; narratives on English language learning at a self-access learning center. The JACET International Convention proceedings, 437 442.

"&%! !

!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 268-280

Appendix: Transcript notation .

falling intonation

?

rising intonation

(.)

short pause

:::

extended ending

CAPS

emphatic stress

xxx

analyst omission

A: word =

no discernible pause between two speakers

B: =word *

falling pitch

"$'! !

!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 281- 291

The Growth of an Out-of-Class Learning Community through Autonomous Socialization at a Self-Access Center Leander S. Hughes, Saitama University, Japan Nathan P. Krug, Saitama University, Japan Stacey Vye, Saitama University, Japan Abstract This study investigates the benefits of attending the Saitama University English Resource Center (ERC), a self-access center for English language learning open to all students at the university and managed by full-time faculty who alternate as center advisors. The study builds on previous research to explore how advisors promote language learning through facilitating autonomous socialization in the L2 among center attendees. This authentic social interaction not only exposes learners to patterns of discourse and other language input unavailable to learners in most institutional settings, it has also served as the means through which visiting students have formed an out-of-class learning community that now extends well beyond the centerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s walls.

Findings of a significant increase in center attendees and meaningful gains in the number of frequent attendees over the past year provide evidence that supports informal observations of the growth of this extraordinary L2-based community.

Keywords: advising, learner autonomy, out-of-class learning, self-access center, socialization

Two previous studies revealed that students who attended our self access center (called the English Resource Center or ERC) experienced gains in their English proficiencies that were more than double those of students who did not attend (Vye, Krug, Wurzinger, and Hughes, 2011; Krug, Wurzinger, Hughes, and Vye, 2011). In addition, Krug et al. (2011) found a positive relationship between the number of times students attended the ERC and the amount their proficiency rose. Although these findings were encouraging, the studies also raised further questions. For example, assuming that ERC activities indeed account for the observed gains, what exactly is it about ERC activities that would promote such extraordinary proficiency growth?

Furthermore, although the increases in proficiency can be seen as evidence of the success of our center in addressing learner needs, there are of course other factors that must be considered. In particular, as the center is open to all students enrolled at the university and attendance completely voluntary, an investigation for increases in the number of attendees and frequency of attendance over time would prove valuable in giving us a clearer picture of how our center serves our student body.

281

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 281- 291

After providing a basic overview of the ERC and its activities, the present study addresses the main questions introduced above. Specifically, this study explores how the emphasis on autonomous social interaction at our center likely contributes to the previously observed proficiency increases while also encouraging the growth of an autonomous community of L2 users which further reinforces out-of-class language learning. Finally, this study examines ERC attendance data for quantitative evidence of the growth of this community over the past year.

An Overview of the ERC Location, Hours, and Physical Space The ERC is located within the Center for English Education and Development (CEED) at Saitama University and has provided an English learning environment available to the university-wide community since 2004. The ERC is open 3:00pm to 5:00pm from Monday to Friday and serves as a space for learners to improve their English skills outside of class. The center moved from a borrowed portable structure situated in a remote area of the campus to its current location in 2006, which was a success story in itself as previously the center had no fiscal support and relied on donations of English resources from instructors as outlined in Vye, Barfield & Anthanasiou, (2010). The ERC is visible from the hallway via a glass wall, where anyone joining can view the activities that are occurring and conceivably feel more comfortable entering the facility than if the room was not visible from the outside. In addition, the entrance dons a Japanese language sign that advertises, “Anything (you want to) Consult (about) English Room,” and perhaps as a result, attendees’ come with a diversity of queries and English language goals.

The physical space of the ERC is rather pleasing to the eye as the windows opposite the entrance overlook a grove of trees and greenery. The walls to the left and right of the windows hold our updated collection of DVDs, graded readers, language study and test preparation guides, and books which are now available to students to borrow thanks to a number of grants from the University in the past three years. These grants have also allowed the provision of new computers, a projector, and various media players to enhance language learning. The ERC can comfortably accommodate about 25 learners at a time with four different spaces to gather and relax in, surrounded by various posters, plants, and the borrowed scenery outside the windows.

282

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 281- 291

Our learners have continually remarked that the current location is more relaxing and less ‘institutional’ than other places on campus. Even as the center continues to grow and the advisors work on the challenges this growth brings, the calming elements of the room provide a valuable sense of stability, helping new-comers to relax and feel more at home.

Activities Perhaps the best way to describe the main activities of our center is by contrasting them with those that typify English courses at our and other Japanese institutions. First though, in order to make this contrast accessible regardless of the reader’s background, we provide a very brief overview of the current general state of university language teaching in Japan.

Despite the growing popularity of communicative, learner-centered approaches to language education in Japan, much of the language teaching, particularly at the secondary and tertiary levels remains teacher-centered and often tends toward grammar-translation or the similar “yakudoku” approach described by Hino (1988). Even the more communicative courses tend to adopt what Friere (1970/ 1993) would call a “banking” view of learning, wherein pre-determined knowledge and skills are “deposited” into learner’s minds by the teacher. Rossatto (2005) explains how the banking approach to learning results from an over-emphasis on exams by education systems— and with Japan’s high school entrance exams, its center exam for entering university, and its abundance of private cram schools to prepare students for these exams, it is safe to conclude that Japan’s education system is indeed fixated on testing. Currently, at our university the fixation does not end with admission to the school, but continues on in the form of preparation courses for the Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC), which far outnumber the other English courses offered to the general student body. Peering into one of these TOEIC classes, one would likely see the teacher-as-banker working hard to deposit test tactics, vocabulary, and grammar points into the heads of largely passive students via lectures and receptive-skill-oriented textbook activities.

Our center resides on the opposite end of the language education spectrum.

First, whereas English courses at our university tend to be teacher-centered, there are no “teachers” in the traditional sense at the ERC during open hours. Instead, the fulltime faculty members who staff the ERC take on the role of advisors whose main task 283

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 281- 291

is facilitating English communication and rapport between the students who visit and then stepping back and letting learners autonomously develop and manage their interactions. Meanwhile and as previously mentioned, student attendance is completely voluntary: Students may come and go at anytime during open hours.

There are no tests, grades, or point systems save for a simple rule which asks both students and advisors to donate ten yen to the center for every word of Japanese they speak (and so speaking Japanese is technically not against the rules—it is just expensive). Thus, our center primarily serves as a meeting place for students to engage in target-language conversation and build friendships through the medium of English, and while an advisor is on hand to provide help if it is needed, the focus of students’ attention is on each other, not on the advisor (student activities in the ERC are further described in the next section). Of course, advisors also take on other, more traditional responsibilities, such as assisting students with English papers and speeches and advising those seeking more effective language learning strategies.

In addition to serving as a site explicitly to engage in ‘conversation-forlearning’ (Kasper, 2004), the ERC environment fulfills a number of other roles. First, it functions as a space to borrow resources, offering a large collection of DVDs (popular movies, documentaries and TV series), graded readers (including wellknown collections by Oxford and Cambridge), novels, and language resource books.

Attendees can freely access all resources during ERC hours as well as borrow them for further self-study outside of the ERC. Secondly, while the ERC is closed, teachers often make use of the room for their regular classes, as its assortment of resources and technological equipment makes for a stimulating learning space. Thirdly, advisors frequently make use of the ERC for supplementary tutorials. Finally, the ERC serves as a site for extra-curricular events— including, for example, annual student-led drama productions, speech practice events, independent research seminars, and social gatherings (see Krug et al., 2011, and Vye et al., 2011).

The Benefits of Authentic Social Interaction in the L2 The foreign language environment tends to be characterized by limited opportunities to participate in authentic target-language interaction outside of the formal language classroom. This includes the settings in which many English as a foreign language (EFL) learners in Japan find themselves, often even when they are 284

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 281- 291

motivated to engage more actively in English. Commonly, in the formal language classroom in Japan (as was implied above in relation to Japan’s emphasis on testing) the teacher governs interaction with teacher-initiated ‘initiation-response-feedback’ (IRF) (Sinclair and Coulthard, 1975) exchanges—facilitating task completion and the efficient conveyance of the main points of a lesson but limiting other exchange patterns and ways of learning. Even in tasks that focus on meaning and fluency, the teacher as head-of-the-classroom has a direct influence upon the pattern of interaction. Markee (2000) does not deny the importance of such ‘institutional talk’ (Drew and Heritage, 1992), but he also emphasizes the value of ordinary conversation for language learning. Thus, one of the most important functions of the ERC is to provide our learners with the opportunity to take part in English-only target language practice and conversation-for-learning in which, as previously mentioned, advisors relinquish any controlling influence they may have on attendee interaction. During conversation-for-learning activities, students seat themselves in small groups and manage their own interactions including group size, activities engaged in, length of conversations, and topics discussed.

The ERC, then, supplements formal language classroom activities within the university (i.e., institutional talk) by allowing and encouraging learners to experience forms of interaction that are more like ordinary conversation (i.e., what Drew and Heritage (1992) term ‘non-formal’ institutional talk). In the ERC environment, learners assume responsibility for the management of talk-in-interaction. As learners manage their own discussions and interactions they are able to experience a wide variety of interactional practices in English, such as inviting others into a conversation, leaving (and even returning to) a conversation, and sustaining conversation. Providing learners with opportunities to experience such practices is not only important for second language (L2) development, but moreover helps learners establish deeper social ties with each other via the L2. These ties then become the springboard for out-of-class learning community development.

The Importance of Community in Reinforcing Out-of-Class Learning As the advisors Adriana Edwards Wurzinger, Leander Hughes, Nathan Krug, and Stacey Vye’s increasing commitments stretch beyond the ERC in the CEED, the number of advisors present each day, whose roles are explained earlier in the paper, 285

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 281- 291

has decreased from two to one since the spring of 2010. Meanwhile, the number of attendees visiting each day has risen significantly (see the next section for details).

Our learners can come and go in the center as they like without making appointments with the advisor. Some of the learners attend the ERC more frequently than others, while a few of them come to simply borrow resources. Various successes have risen from this development and two initial success stories that have sprung from authentic out-of-class experiences are described here subsequent to the explanation of the changing role of the advisors.

Previously, with two advisors in the ERC per session and with fewer attendees, there was a tendency for communication to be controlled by the advisors rather than by the learners, perhaps because the former advisors conducted activities in which learners became used to following the advisors lead (we are not quite sure what the activities actually were). Interestingly, this dependence on the advisors may have also been an unintended effect of the previously mentioned Japanese name for the center (“Anything (you want to) Consult (about) English Room”), which implies that the role of advisors is to give explicit guidance and advice, while the learner’s role is to listen and take note.

Conversely, with one advisor present at each session along with a steady increase in attendees, there has been a natural tendency to step back and listen to the needs and concerns of attendees. With this change came a shift from the learners predominantly consulting the advisor to asking peer advice from each other, as the locus of control passed into the hands of the learner with the increased social interaction described in the previous section. Furthermore, with the supplementary grants, we were able to purchase new materials based on attendees’ feedback that were closer to their learning needs. For example, some books that were on loan by a teacher that were difficult in level and content that had never been borrowed were returned and more level appropriate resources such as graded readers, TOEFL preparation guides, writing style guides, global issue resources were purchased. We thus saw evidence of out-of-class learning that was initiated by the learners using resources according to their own pleasure and interest in the content and in the language learning itself (Benson, 2011). In addition, and as Benson (2011) has also observed, ERC advisors noticed that out-of-class learning requires some degree of autonomy, which varies from person to person, therefore, there is a variety in how

286

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 281- 291

individuals engage in this authentic learning. Several instances of these interactions and their implications are explained below.

Examples of out-or-class learning successes extend beyond what was on our radar screen in the ERC regarding learner goals. One account of out-of-class learning success was indicated by a trend showing how the learners recommend resources to each other documented on borrowing cards. Perusing the cards, we noticed that friends and acquaintances seemed to be recommending resources to fellow peers, a pattern of peer-advising that we had not been aware of or observed up until that point.

This pattern was evident in at least 30 instances, where clusters of friends (many of whom met for the first time in the ERC) were borrowing the same resources at increased rates. With the recent influx of relevant materials, peer-advising on resources has also increased and groups of friends can be seen perusing the shelves during ERC open hours and pulling out resources they recommend to each other for studying English.

Other evidence of successful learner engagement and out-of-class learner community development was discovered when the advisors were invited to a spring party by some of the learner attendees via Facebook. Not only did one advisor attend and enjoy the party, but through the invite, the advisors stumbled upon a wellestablished social group of 20 plus friends who had first met in person in the ERC and now use Facebook in English to stay connected. Following this discovery, further attendee activities reflecting the learner community-building aspect of the ERC have been noted, such as organizing drama workshop events and planning and going on an overnight English camping trip (the advisors found out about the latter by viewing a video of the trip on Facebook).

Thus, it appears that the decrease in the number of advisors and increase in attendees and consequent changes in advisor practice have helped the ERC become a sort of hub from which social networks develop and expand through authentic interaction in the L2. The result is a community of learners, whose deepening social ties and shared interests enable them to further enhance each otherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s out-of-class learning through varied and evolving forms of peer-advising as well as through simply maintaining their friendships outside of the ERC at least partly through the medium of English.

287

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 281- 291

A Quantitative Investigation of ERC Community Growth This section examines ERC attendance data in order to investigate if and to what extent ERC attendance has increased, both in terms of the number of students visiting as well as the frequency of their visits. Significant increases in these numbers would not only indicate a growing demand at our university for the type of learning experiences offered at the ERC, but moreover may lend empirical support to the observations made in the previous section regarding the growth of an ERC community of out-of-class learners.

Sample and data collection Since October 12, 2010 the ERC has employed a simple computer sign-in system which allows for much more accurate and reliable attendance data collection compared to the guest book previously used. The present computer ERC sign-in system runs on a computer located just within the entrance of the ERC room so as not to be missed by students (unfortunately, students still occasionally manage to slip through without signing in). When students sign in, they are required to enter two pieces of information: their student identification number and their reason for attending that day (in English). The sample for this study comprises all of the instances in which students logged into the computer sign-in system with a valid student I.D. number during ERC open hours over the 154 days the ERC has been open since October 12, 2010 and gave reasons for attending that excluded words indicating other motives for coming than socializing in the L2 (specifically: book, DVD, borrow, return, newspaper, copy, or check). In this way, 110 (of 409) students were omitted from the study sample, leaving 299 students who accounted for 2026 (of 2393) instances of ERC attendance during the period of study. The reason for omitting entries listing other reasons than socializing was to ensure that fluctuations in students who, for example, came just to borrow and return resources did not create a false positive (or negative) with regard to our question of whether or not the community of students formed through socialization in the ERC has expanded.

Analysis and results To determine whether ERC daily attendance has increased significantly over the 154 day study period, a one-tailed, independent t-test was performed to contrast 288

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 281- 291

the first 77 days of ERC daily attendance numbers with those of the last 77 days (df=152). Results indicate an increase of 2.86 students (with a lower limit of 1.25 and upper limit of 4.47 at the 95 percent confidence interval), from a mean of 11.44 students per day (SD=4.88) in the first 77 days to a mean of 14.58 students per day (SD=5.23) in the last 77 days. This 24 percent increase in daily ERC attendance was significant at p<.001 with a t of 3.50.

Next, although no significant overall increase in attendance per student was found when comparing the first and second halves of the study period, upon more detailed examination, some differences became clear which, although important, could not be analyzed through inferential statistics. Specifically, while the number of students who only attended the ERC once in 77 days remained nearly the same (83 students during the first 77 days versus 81 in the last), the number of students who attended the ERC more than once every two weeks (every 10 days the ERC was open) increased by 73 percent, from only 26 students during the first half of the study period to 45 students in the last half. Meanwhile, there was a modest increase in the number of students who attended at least twice, but not more than once every two weeks, of 25 percent, from 60 students to 75. Thus, the number of students who come back to the ERC after their first visit, and in particular, the number who do so frequently, has increased.

In summary, over the past year, both the number of center attendees in general and those who attend the center often has increased. These findings align well with the informal observations made in the previous section of the growth of an ERCbased out-class-learning community.

Conclusion This study explored the growth and benefits of out-of-class learning originating in our self-access center. The exploration highlighted the process by which autonomy-affirming advisor practices and an informal learning environment promote authentic social interaction in the L2 among center attendees. This socialization encourages language development as learners experience a wider variety of patterns of L2 interaction than they would otherwise have access to. For example, learners in the ERC have the opportunity to participate in extended â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;initiationresponseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; sequences (rather than only the relatively short three-part IRF pattern

289

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 281- 291

typical of teacher-led classrooms) and are able to experiment with a range techniques and strategies required of interactants in order to hold, or take, conversational turns.

As social interaction at our center has deepened, it appears to have led to the development and expansion of an out-of-class L2 learning community. This community is characterized by increased peer-advising on language learning, including the recommendation and exchange of English resources, as well as the undertaking of social activities in the L2 outside of the center - thus further reinforcing language learning. Finally, the increases in the number of center attendees and particularly the number of frequent attendees over the past year lends empirical support to informal observations suggesting that this center-based community of outof-class L2 learners is indeed expanding, and that the overall benefit of our center to the student body is thereby increasing.

About the contributors Leander Hughes is an Assistant Professor at the Saitama University Center for English Education and Development. He is interested in quantitative language research methods and in applying findings in current social psychology to the language learning context. His other interests include computer assisted language learning, learner autonomy, and communicative task effectiveness.

Nathan Krug is an Assistant Professor in the Center for English Education and Development at Saitama University. He has research interests spanning the fields of conversation analysis, discourse analysis and CALL. Nathan is interested in language learning and second-language conversation within the computer-mediated environment.

Stacey Vye is an Assistant Professor at the Saitama University Center for English Education and Development (CEED) in Japan. Her research interests and publications include reflection, learner and teacher autonomy in language education including the connections between both processes.

References Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and researching autonomy. London: Longman.

Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds.) (1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Freire, P. (1970/1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum Books.

290

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 281- 291

Hino, N. (1988). Yakudoku: Japan's dominant Tradition in Foreign Language Learning. JALT Journal, 10(1), 45-55.

Kasper, G. (2004). Participant orientations in German conversation-for-learning. The Modern Language Journal, 88, 551-567.

Krug, N. P., Edwards Wurzinger, A., Hughes, L. S., & Vye, S. (2011). Language learning through socialization: Diversified use of a self-access center.

International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 1(1), 19-25.

Markee, N. P. (2000). Conversation analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Rossatto, C. A. (2005). Engaging Paulo Freire's Pedagogy of Possibility: From Blind to Transformative Optimism. Boulder, Colorado: Rowman & Littlefield Publisher, Inc. Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. London: Oxford University Press.

Vye, S., Barfield, A. & Anthanasiou, A. (2010). Learning that doesn’t label what ‘kind’ of autonomy is appropriate. Independence IATEFL, 50(1), 21-24.

Vye, S., Krug, N. P., Edwards Wurzinger, A., & Hughes, L. S. (2011). Learning through interaction: Four snapshots of an English resource center. The proceedings of the International Conference on Social Science and Humanity Conference ICSSH 2011 (pp.161-165). New York: Thompson ISI/Thomson Reuters. !

291

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 292-303

Group Workshops: Saving Our Writing Center in Japan1 Jim McKinley, Sophia University, Japan

Abstract Writing centers in universities across Japan are on the rise. These centers are commonly understood to be for remedial language help, deterring students confident with their language ability from attending. Over the past few years the number of student appointments at our writing center had been decreasing. Students were expressing no need for the center since, in their understanding, it was meant only for correcting grammar. To increase awareness of the writing center, we decided to conduct workshops to provide basic frameworks for learning aspects of writing outside of grammar. Since running the workshops, reservations for tutorials have been increasing, suggesting the workshops to be successful.

Keywords: writing center, one-to-one tutorial, writing workshop, independent writing

Last year, the article â&#x20AC;&#x153;English language writing centers in Japanese universities: What do students really need?â&#x20AC;? (McKinley, 2010) posed the question of whether writing centers in Japan should be based on a U.S. model. The conclusion : The foreign language-learning environment requires a specialized approach. This has become more and more evident in our writing center at Sophia University as the number of student appointments at the center has been gradually decreasing over the past few years. Based on feedback from the students, it seems this may be due to our global citizen students feeling perfectly confident with their English. They see the writing center more as a remedial language center than a place where they could hone and improve their writing skills. The need for specialized approaches is not exclusive to foreignlanguage learning environments, however. Writing centers in general may suffer from a bad reputation whenever there is a lack of consensus as to their mission and services among the centers, students, and faculty (George & Grimm, 1990).

Our English-language writing center at Sophia University opened in 2004 as one of the "GP" (Good Practice) projects established in the Faculty of Liberal Arts with funding from the Ministry of Education, awarded in recognition of excellence in undergraduate education. The 1

Paper presented at the 3rd annual Symposium on Writing Centers in Japan held March 9, 2011 at Kanda Institute of Foreign Languages in Tokyo, Japan

292

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 292-303 students in this faculty must submit TOEFL scores equal to eligibility requirements for admission into most U.S. universities. Therefore, the writing center at Sophia does not serve as an English language learning center. However, a number of students perceive it that way. Based on post-tutorial session feedback from students, the main issue seems to be that students’ expectations do not coincide with the services of the writing center. In one-to-one tutorials, students expected tutors (mostly native English-speaking or bilingual graduate students)to read their papers and correct their grammar and were often disappointed when this did not happen, suggesting that tutors who did not correct grammar were not as good as those who did. In response, we introduced a “preparation form” (included as appendix in McKinley, 2010) that students could complete before their tutorial. The idea was that it would help them to identify issues that could be discussed and to remind them that the tutors would not check grammar.

Later reports from tutors indicated that the students were not using the forms correctly, or at all, and that the forms may have actually deterred students from coming. Our writing center as it had been originally conceived was starting to fade away to become only a blip in the historical timeline of writing centers.

While writing centers in the U.S. date back to the 1930s, the history of writing centers in Japan is comparatively short, dating back only to the 1980s when the first in Asia was started at the University of Maryland campus on Yokota Air Base. At that time the writing center focused on dealing with a diverse range of issues, from the various levels of first and second language ability to the expectations and outcomes of the clientele including discussions on writing, philosophy and literature (McMillan, 1986). However, with funding from the Ministry of Education in 2003-2004 for universities to start writing centers (Johnston, Cornwell & Yoshida, 2008), and the start of an annual writing center symposium in Tokyo in 2009, interest has been growing exponentially. This interest is also reflected in the amount of research presented at JACET and JALT and the addition of new writing centers (Johnston, Cornwell & Yoshida, 2010). In the years leading up to this growth, a number of articles were published describing the situation of these university writing centers and their similarities to those in America (Johnston, 2006; Johnston & Swenson, 2005; Yasuda, 2006). In their 2008 article, Johnston, Cornwell and Yoshida attempted to challenge these descriptions by contending, “Writing centers in Japan are different in from [sic] most writing centers in the U.S.A.” (Johnston, et al. 2008, p.182). They went on to discuss the fact that writing centers in Japan are mostly English-only language 293

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 292-303 centers, and the students using the centers are English as a Foreign Language learners. Although this significant point was emphasized, the description of the general structure of the centers still went back to the U.S. model.

In this paper I will provide an overview of some of the issues, particularly students’ and faculty’s misconceptions of the writing center service and the decreasing attendance dilemma.

This will be followed by a brief discussion of some ideas about promoting the center, including a writing center orientation and conducting large group workshops in addition to individual tutorials. I will then deal with the question as to whether workshops may improve student and faculty attitudes toward the center.

Attitudes What people “know” about writing centers: A writing center is a place students go to when they have writing problems. At the writing center, a student sits down one-to-one with a tutor to work out those problems.

This seems like a valuable service. Why wouldn’t students want to use such a service?

The most common reasons provided by my students in their feedback are “no time”, and “I don’t have big writing problems. My English is fine.” Those who did use the service gave mostly very positive feedback, but the overwhelming negative evaluation was, “It’s not always worthwhile. It depends on the tutor.” One student wrote, “Some tutors at the writing center just say ‘it’s good’ and don’t tell me how I can improve my essay. I won’t be going to the writing center as much as I did last year” (from English Composition 2 class student-needs assessment, 12 April 2010). It has become clear that students’ expectations of the writing center service and what a tutor is supposed to do for them reflects a desire for more direct language teaching, rather than discussions of the writing.

The success of our writing center is invariably dependent on the ability of the individual tutors to “do magic.” The value of individual sessions is obvious – it gives students a chance to have an in-depth discussion about their writing. At many writing centers, individual tutorials are the only service offered. Even The Writing Lab Newsletter carries the tagline, “Promoting the exchange and voices of ideas in one-to-one teaching of writing” (see e.g. Durhman, 2003). Until last year, our writing center only offered individual tutorials, but it seems shortsighted to conclude that individual tutorials are the only way.

294

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 292-303 The Writing Center “Service” Our tutors are trained to maximize benefit by asking critical questions that help the students to focus on their writing needs (the “preparation form” referred to above was meant to help with this). For the most part, the discussion typically does not go beyond the immediate task for which the student has sought guidance. However, students and tutors alike will on occasion report on a session that allowed the student to develop as a writer. Normally this development is in areas of writing such as developing a thesis, using outside sources, and organizing and structuring an essay. But again, this happens only on occasion.

What is the mission of a writing center, and what services should it offer? Is it a remedial writing skills center? Is it a proofreading service? In Japan, is it simply English language assistance for non-native English users? Often these are the perceptions faculty and students have about a writing center – a place to go when students need help fixing their writing problems, usually grammar. However, the tutors in our writing center have all been instructed not to check grammar but instead to “talk about it.” This presents a myriad of issues. Students sometimes reported disappointment when the tutor refused to check grammar. At other times, students reported disappointment because the tutor only checked grammar!

Stephen North’s 1984 essay “The Idea of a Writing Center” revealed some important frustrations he experienced while serving as director of a writing center. He explained that for much of the history of writing centers, many faculty and students have understood them to be remedial skills centers or “fix-it shops” – ideas that carry on today. He described some of the misunderstandings he experienced: The new faculty member in our writing-across-the-curriculum program, for example, who sends his students to get their papers "cleaned up" in the Writing Center before they hand them in; the occasional student who tosses her paper on our reception desk, announcing that she'll "pick it up in an hour"; even the well-intentioned administrators who are so happy that we deal with "skills" or "fundamentals" or, to use the word that seems to subsume all others, "grammar." (North, 1984, p.433) This emphasis on grammar may be a result of the history of writing centers. In the early days, a writing center was more often called a Writing Laboratory or Writing Clinic. North 295

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 292-303 (1984, p.436) reported that in a 1950 article in the College English Journal, the author, Robert Moore, wrote: Writing clinics and writing laboratories are becoming increasingly popular among American universities and colleges as remedial agencies for removing students' deficiencies in composition. (Moore 1950, p.388) At the time Moore wrote this, he was unaware of how this statement would be part of the early stages of an entire academic discipline dedicated to writing center education (Lerner, 2001). But these early stages begged for a clearer definition of what “the writing center” was meant to be. Were they really for “removing students’ deficiencies in composition”? It is significant that I have chosen to focus on North’s article, which was published nearly three decades ago and refers to articles published three decades before that. I point this out in order to draw attention to the irony of the fact that even though such frustrations were being expressed in the hope of improving attitudes toward writing centers then, these attitudes appear to have changed very little, if at all. In January 2011, a student of mine, after a semester of reminders, explanations, and ample opportunities to use the writing center told me that he was a good writer, and did not need it. He explained that none of his other classes had writing tasks (an issue that needs more attention and is raised as a central problematic issue in the American higher education context by Arum & Roksa, 2011) and that he was a fluent writer who did not have a problem with grammar. No matter how many times I explained, he did not seem to understand how he would benefit from using the writing center service.

Overall faculty support is difficult to ascertain. Outside those who teach the required English courses, very few professors promote the center. In these courses, all teachers at least mention the writing center to their students, but generally no more promotions of the Center are made. In April 2010, three of the four teachers of the English Composition 1 classes, myself included, decided to make writing center appointments mandatory. Two of the four teachers of English Composition 2, myself included, decided to make it mandatory as well. The result was a slight increase in the number of appointments made, along with an increase in the number of cancellations and no-shows. There was no penalty for cancellations, either in the courses or from the writing center, indicating that some students may have had the understanding that they 296

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 292-303 simply had to make an appointment, and not concern themselves with attending that appointment.

A particularly discouraging case was one involving a teacher who seemed to see no value or relevance in the services of the writing center. In February 2011, in response to an email I sent to the teacher informing him that none of his students had made an appointment and requesting that he help promote the center and its services, he explained that because he assigned specific writing assignments, he handled all his students’ writing needs. He acknowledged that the students were made aware of the writing center, but refused to require or encourage his students to attend. In a follow up email he further emphasized that he had been teaching writing for over 35 years and therefore he could handle all his students’ writing needs.

This communication was indicative of the resistance of experienced teachers incorporating the writing center into their course and task designs. Since the writing center did not exist ten years ago, those teaching at that time designed their courses accordingly. Astonishing, however, was the lack of flexibility or openness to finding a way to benefit from the writing center service now that it has been running for eight years.

Promoting the Writing Center What are we still doing wrong? Is it just poor marketing? North provided an example from a promotional flyer that described his writing center as “a tutorial facility for those with special problems in composition”. In consideration of this, North then asked, “Is this hint of pathology, in some mysterious way, a good marketing ploy?” (p.434) The question has been raised repeatedly: How do we promote the writing center? Unless they get straight As in their writing classes (not a remarkable achievement in Japan, really2), students understand that they have some issues with their writing that might make a visit to the writing center worthwhile. But then, for those students, do they really understand how the writing center can help?

What is more, students do not rush in to make appointments. Students taking the required English courses make appointments, which means we get many first and second-year students.

2

Japanese universities have traditionally been given “academic freedom,” meaning courses and assessments are made by individual teachers with no external evaluation. Because of this, students have grown disillusioned and some stop attending classes, yet teachers still pass students out of obligation of duty for the university accepting them (see Goodman, 2005 for discussion). A student may receive an A grade simply for good attendance.

297

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 292-303 Then the numbers drop off dramatically. How can we save ourselves from the attendance dilemma?

A community college in Arizona published an interesting piece in The Writing Lab Newsletter titled “Greatly improving writing center attendance” (Durhman, 2003). The author described how they managed to improve attendance by doing an informational “scavenger hunt.”

The students are given a sheet of questions that they can only answer by visiting the writing center, its website, and talking to at least one of the tutors. They describe great success with this practice, as it familiarizes the students with the writing center.

Last year in the first semester, our program held a mandatory orientation session at the writing center for all first-semester students. They came, they met the tutors, they received a copy of the “preparation form”, and all the information went in one ear and out the other.

Throughout the semester, my own students asked me where the writing center was and what they had to do there. In the second semester we tried visits from writing tutors to the English Composition classrooms, in which students listened to a tutor tell them about the writing center and what it had to offer. That seemed to have a positive response, so we will try it again, but in the meantime, the most positive response came out of our initiative to try something new with the writing center—workshops.

Workshops or Tutorials?

After commencing my PhD studies at the University of Sydney, I had the very good fortune of finding work in the university’s Learning Centre. This center is run by researchers, most with PhDs in education and/or linguistics, who develop all the materials for a workshoponly program. When the center

first started in 2002, they held the usual one-to-one tutorials,

but found after many years that it was not working. It was the same story—students came in looking for a proofreading service, and ultimately, that was what the center came to provide.

The director and research team at the center decided to stop the one-to-one tutorials.

Instead, they created a full calendar of workshops and short courses (once a week for five weeks) focusing on all the different “needs” areas, even including a short course on combating procrastination. The primary areas of focus were: •

Academic/critical writing (essay writing, quoting, summarizing, paraphrasing, developing an argument, planning an assignment, etc.)

298

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 292-303 •

Pragmatic grammar (basics of grammar, functional grammar)

•

Critical reading (reading strategies, for note taking, of research articles, etc.)

•

Research preparation (preparing a thesis proposal, overview of a thesis, developing the thesis argument, etc.)

•

Oral presentation skills (for native speakers, for ESL speakers) These workshops and short courses were often full, with students on waiting lists, or

forced to wait until the next time they were on offer. Students were given a calendar at the start of each year so they could figure out the best way to join all the sessions they wanted. The success at Sydney may be owed to the workshop-only program, or it may just be that students in Australia are more likely to seek this kind of help.

Last year, I decided to try a similar approach. I conducted three writing workshops with tutors assisting (sitting with groups of students and checking their work) in an attempt to show students a potential advantage of a writing center—the opportunity to focus in groups on one aspect of academic writing. The workshops were held in November and December 2010 and the topics were: thesis statements, academic style, and integrating sources. These topics were chosen based on particular writing needs I was consistently noting in my own students’ writing at the time. I regularly commented on vague or seemingly non-existent thesis statements; academic style seemed to escape many students who often used colloquial, spoken English forms and phrases; and as for integrating sources, students regularly struggled with plagiarism caused by a failure to report information and cite appropriately.

The workshops were considered a success, with an average attendance of 58 and overwhelmingly positive evaluation from the attendees. Adding these numbers to the attendance records provided a significant increase for that semester, making it the highest number of students making use of the writing center (although not specifically tutorials) in years.

Maximizing Student Benefit An important question remains: How do we get students to want to come to the center?

Students attending the writing center were given a survey to complete. In it, we asked the question, “What aspects of the tutorial system were most beneficial to you?” There were many responses about the benefits of “face-to-face” discussion of writing. Responses from first-year students in spring semester 2010 included: 299

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 292-303 Grammar/language use: •

When the tutor edited my paper, and explained to me what I need to check and correct.

•

Gaining the other’s perspective and can my grammar checked before due.

•

Grammatical errors and miss-organization

Instruction or doing the work for the student: •

My tutor pointed out things that the English teacher didn’t advise me to do for the final draft.

•

The tutor gives me new idea that I wouldn’t be able to think of.

•

The tutor helped me to come up with things I could talk about in the essay.

Becoming a better writer: •

The revising aspect

•

I can understand the weakness in my paper.

•

Clarified my thoughts and questions.

•

I found it beneficial that tutors help students together, not only giving notes or memo, but addressing what needs to be improved. So students can understand why the work needs to be revised and how.

•

The fact that we have people and facility dedicated to improve students’ writing is beneficial.

On improved organization and structure: •

I was able to organize the essay better.

•

The tutor showed me which way to structure my paper.

300

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 292-303 Clearly, students have a wide range of expectations of the writing center. In responses to some other questions, students expressed some frustration with limitations of the tutorials such as not being able to focus enough on certain features of writing: •

I wanted to talk more about how to make my paper more persuasive.

•

Didn’t get to improve my vocabulary that I really needed to do.

This issue requires careful consideration. The policy of the writing center in terms of the limitations of a tutorial are based on the philosophy of collaboration (i.e. not correcting or doing the work for the students), but the frustrations expressed here suggest there may be a call for some further discussions in tutor training sessions about meeting students’ needs. In the case of improving vocabulary, as much as tutors can suggest certain language, this does not help students to become improved vocabulary users. As for persuasive writing, tutors are advised not to give students ideas, but rather help them shape their own, something difficult to achieve if the student is working on multiple issues in a single tutorial. Both of these cases suggest the need for specialized sessions, such as workshops, where students can target these skills and work toward improving them.

Feedback from the English Composition teachers was positive, saying they liked the idea of a calendar of workshops so they could send students to work collaboratively with other students with similar needs. Feedback from students included a lot of “thanks”, and asked for more workshops on other topics, especially in smaller groups with more attention from tutors.

The workshops helped create some awareness of the writing center. Some students who attended those workshops then made appointments to discuss the specific aspect covered in the workshop. (The most common case of this was from students who attended the workshop on incorporating sources).

Conclusion As our writing center at Sophia University was at the start of the growth of such centers in Japan, we are at the point now where we can look back at the model on which it was based and make adjustments according to our needs. The focus needs to be on those issues that are specific to our learning environment in Japan. Attitudes toward the writing center are very 301

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 292-303 diverse. The fact that English is a foreign language in Japan permeates even our English-only program at Sophia University, where students and faculty continue to see the writing center as a place for remedial language learning. We need to try to encourage more positivity by helping students and faculty better understand the actual services provided and the overall benefits of the writing center. Promoting the writing center through visits by writing tutors to the English Composition classrooms proved to be only somewhat helpful, but we will continue on this path for now.

The biggest step toward changing the misconceptions of the writing center and improving attitudes was brought about through the implementation of workshops. It seems clear that the workshops are a solution to increasing student interest in—and benefit from—our writing center. We will continue running the workshops each semester and will try adding new ones. In order to get a clearer idea of our attendance problems, we will put a more precise system into place to track students’ attendance to the workshops and their follow-up tutorial sessions. As for the cancellations and no-shows, we are going to uphold a strict policy where any student who misses an appointment will only be able to come for “walk-in” sessions for the remainder of the semester. In terms of student and faculty attitudes and understanding of the writing center, we will watch for changes as the workshops continue. We maintain hope that they will save our writing center.

Notes on the Contributor Jim McKinley is an Assistant Professor of English and co-director of the Writing Center in the Faculty of Liberal Arts at Sophia University in Tokyo, Japan. His research interests include EFL writing curriculum design and implementation, and critical writing pedagogy.

References Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Durhman, L. (2003). Greatly improving writing center attendance. The Writing Lab Newsletter, 27(10), 6-7.

George, D., & Grimm, N. (1990). Expanded roles/expanded responsibilities: The changing nature of writing centers today. The Writing Center Journal, 11(1), 59-66.

302

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 292-303

Goodman, R. (2005). W(h)ither the Japanese university? An introduction to the 2004 higher education reforms in Japan. In Eades, J.S., Goodman, R. and Hada, Y. (Eds.) The 'Big Bang' in Japanese Higher Education Reform: The 2004 Reforms and the Dynamics of Change. (pp.1-31). Melbourne: Trans Pacific Press.

Johnston, S., Cornwell, S., and Yoshida, H. (2008). Writing Centers in Japan. Osaka Jogakuin Daigaku Kenkyuu Kiyou, 5, 181-192.

Johnston, S., Yoshida, H., & Cornwell, S. (2010). Writing centers and tutoring in Japan and Asia. In A. M. Stoke (Ed.). JALT 2009 Conference Proceedings (pp.692-701). Tokyo: JALT. Johnston, S., & Swenson, T. (2005). Establishing a writing center: Initial findings. Osaka Jogakuin Daigaku Kenkyuu Kiyou, 2, 13-24.

Johnston, S. (2006). Writing Center: 2005-2006 assessment. Osaka: Osaka Jogakuin College, Education and Promotion Department.

Lerner, N. (2001). Searching for Robert Moore. The Writing Center Journal, 22(1), 9-32.

McKinley, J. (2010). English language writing centres in Japanese universities: What do students really need? SiSAL Journal 1(1), 17-31.

McMillan, P. (1986). Tadpoles and topic sentences: A writing center in Asia. The Writing Lab Newsletter, 11(3), 1-3.

Moore, R.H. (1950). The writing clinic and the writing laboratory. College English, 11(7), 388393.

North, S.M. (1984). The idea of a writing center. College English, 46(5), 433-446.

303

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 304-308

Enhancing User Identification with the Independent Learning Centre at Sung Bin Home for Girls Elton LaClare, Sojo International Learning Centre, Sojo University, Japan Abstract The Independent Learning Centre at Sung Bin Home for Girls is a language and life skills learning environment for girls between the ages of 8 and 18 who reside at Sung Bin Orphanage in Gwangju, South Korea. Although initially learners exhibited a great deal of enthusiasm for the centre, over time interest faded to the extent that many ceased to be regular users. This article describes the efforts of volunteers and orphanage staff to revive interest through a community art project intended to enhance learner identification with the centre. In addition to highlighting the importance of collaboration among stakeholders, the article asserts that undertakings of the type described here should be seen as part of an on-going process of maintaining engagement.

Keywords: learner identification, learner involvement, mural, self-access centre

Background In early 2009 a group of volunteer language teachers began making preparations for the establishment of a self-access learning environment at a girlsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; orphanage in Gwangju, South Korea. This was not the first time such an endeavour had been undertaken. A similar effort had been made several years prior though a variety of problems had forced its closure after only a few months of operation. While factors such as a lack of manpower and insufficient learner instruction undoubtedly played a role, we honed in on the problem that we believed to be the most salient, namely a lack of stakeholder involvement in the process of establishing and managing the centre. From the original decision to create the centre through to the details of its execution, everything had been decided by the volunteers and the director of the orphanage. Neither the learners nor the orphanage staff had been consulted at any stage. This above all else, we concluded, was responsible for the centreâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s failure.

A Different Approach In contrast to the unilateral approach that characterized the initial effort, our second attempt sought to create opportunities for input from potential users as well as (though to a lesser extent) the staff of Sung Bin Orphanage. In many ways the

304

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 304-308 conditions were ideal for maximizing learner involvement. The centre was to be located within the orphanage complex itself, which ensured easy access. Furthermore, the number of users was not too great (around 60), and their involvement with the centre could continue for upwards of ten years. These last two factors in particular have been identified by Aston (1993) as being especially important in enabling learner involvement.

From early on we made a point of consulting learners on decisions relating to all aspects of the centre. One of the more memorable examples of this was a session conducted by one of our volunteers in which learners were asked to draw pictures of how they imagined the centre might look. Although we were obliged to disregard the more imaginative efforts (those that included swimming pools and billiard tables), several themes emerged that assisted us in selecting the furniture and colour scheme.

In terms of learning resources, measures were taken to ensure that the centre was appropriately stocked with items of interest and relevance to the learners. A local EFL bookseller was persuaded to open his shop to groups of learners for the purpose of exploring and selecting resources. Although limitations of time and space meant that not every learner was able to participate in this process, most seemed satisfied with the choices made by their peers. With the construction complete and the resources purchased, we officially opened the doors of the Independent Learning Centre at Sung Bin Home for Girls in March of 2009.

Declining Involvement and Use Because so much effort had been expended in soliciting input during the early stages of the project, it was generally (and perhaps naively) assumed that sustaining learner interest and involvement in the centre over the long term would be a matter of course. While it is true that the centre benefited from an initial flurry of enthusiasm from the learners, after less than half-a-year it became clear that interest was on the wane. Records of the number of users as well as the frequency and duration of their visits revealed a steady downward trend. Informal interviews confirmed that while at first the learners had been curious and excited about the centre this feeling had diminished over time. Interviewees were asked what could be done to renew their interest in the centre, however, no concrete suggestions emerged.

305

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 304-308 Re-engagement Considerable discussion revolved around the plight of the centre and what could be done to turn the situation around. A number of solutions were proposed, but the most intriguing was that of a community art project, namely a mural, that would reinvigorate learners and volunteers alike. A theme that emerged from the subsequent planning sessions was that the project should not be a â&#x20AC;&#x153;one-offâ&#x20AC;? enterprise but rather the first step in an on-going process aimed at maintaining engagement and enhancing learner identification with the centre. To this end, a project implementation cycle (Figure 1) was devised based on a model created by Henderson, Ahmed, Shafeeqa, Jauhary and Smith (2006). The project implementation cycle seemed to address our primary goal of re-engagement through collaboration between users and volunteers.

Furthermore, since the cycle was, by design, self-renewing we hoped to reverse the trend that had claimed a large percentage of the centreâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s users.

Figure 1: Project Implementation Cycle It is important to point out here that complacency and low motivation were experienced in equal (if not greater) measure by the Sung Bin staff and volunteers.

Decreasing interest among the learners left many questioning if running the centre was worth the effort involved. Thankfully, the mural project provided a much needed

306

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 304-308 boost of enthusiasm. In addition to the excitement generated by the project itself, the implementation cycle included awareness raising activities the benefits of which were two-fold. First, the attention of local news media provided validation for those who had worked so hard for so long to make the centre a reality. Second, the publicity brought in a fresh group of volunteers whose ideas and energy would prove instrumental in the months to come.

Outcomes and Conclusion Although factors such as the proximity of our users and the duration of their involvement with the centre have been, in the main, tremendous advantages, they have also given rise to challenges perhaps not faced by other self-access facilities. It is taken for granted that learners will experience periods of low motivation at one time or another. However, in the case of the Independent Learning Centre at Sung Bin Home for Girls, all too often these periods co-occur or spread from one learner to the next with frightening speed. No doubt this can be attributed to the fact the learners live together and study together and influence each other in ways not easily accounted for by those tasked with operating a self-access centre.

Going into the mural project we knew better than to expect miracles, but our hope was that the enthusiasm flourishing among the volunteers and staff would spread to the learners. Thankfully it did, and for the six-week lifecycle of the project there was an atmosphere of genuine joy. The creation of the mural was a true collaboration with the learners taking part in every step of the process. We were careful to ensure that their voices were heard throughout and that they featured prominently in the accompanying awareness raising campaign. During various debriefing sessions, it was clear that in the minds of most of the volunteers our goal of re-engaging the learners had been accomplished. This sentiment was borne out in the centreâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s attendance figures, which rose sharply over the ensuing weeks and months.

That said, it remained a matter of concern among the volunteers that the centre continue to attract users following the completion of the mural project. It was in this respect that the project implementation cycle proved especially useful by helping us to channel the positive energy created by the mural into discussions about future schemes. We were particularly keen to undertake projects that would both engage the learners and enrich the centreâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s resources. One such endeavour was the construction of a puppet theatre and marionettes to be used in English skits and role-

307

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 304-308 plays. Gardner and Miller (1999) have drawn attention to the benefits of learners becoming producers of language-learning materials, and while the age and proficiency of our learners seriously diminishes the practicality of this, projects such as the puppet theatre address the ultimate goal of enhancing identification with the self-access centre by allowing learners to exert a measure of control over the environment.

In a self-access centre such as ours at Sung Bin Girls’ Orphanage, with its residential dimension and reliance on volunteer labour, there is a constant risk that the SAC might come to be seen as a burden or an imposition in the eyes of the stakeholders. As such, managing the centre involves managing the atmosphere to ensure that it remains a place of wonder, excitement, change and improvement. In our case, achieving this would not have been possible without a fundamental shift in the way we looked at the centre. Regarding it as a process rather than a product allowed us to address and eventually reverse the declining participation observed over a period of months following the centre’s opening. Experience has convinced me that a management ethos which remains closed to the idea of collaborative evolution leaves its learners on the outside and inhibits identification with the self-access centre.

Notes on the contributor Elton LaClare is currently a lecturer at Sojo University in Kumamoto, Japan.

Previously Elton taught at Chosun University and Gwangju National University of Education. For seven years Elton served as a volunteer teacher at Sung Bin Girls’ Orphanage during which he helped to establish the orphanage’s self-access centre.

References Aston, G. (1993). The learner’s contribution to the self-access centre, ELT Journal, 47(3), 219-227.

Gardner, D., & Miller, L. (1999) Establishing self-access: From theory to practice.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Henderson, R., Ahmed, Z., Shafeeqa, F., Jauhary, A., & Smith, J. (2006). Community mural: A facilitator’s guide to mobilising community environmental action.

Male: Live & Learn Environmental Education.

308

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 309-316 !

A Learning Success Story Using Facebook Lara Promnitz-Hayashi, Kanda University of International Studies, Japan Abstract The use of Web 2.0 tools such as wikis and blogs is becoming more widespread in the language learning classroom, however social networking can also be an effective tool.

Social networking is not only easy to use; it also helps encourage an autonomous learning within a social environment for students. Activities using a social networking site, such as Facebook, can put control for studying into the students’ hands. It can create not only motivation but also increase students’ social relationships outside of the classroom. This article discusses how simple activities in Facebook helped a lower language proficient class to become more comfortable participating in online discussions, giving their opinions and forging closer relationships with their fellow classmates. !

Keywords: Web 2.0, motivation, participation, social networking "#$%&'(')*!%+,!-#$'.#!+!&+/01+(!2+1/!'3!#4#1*5+*!(63#!+&5!6,!&'7!6&36(/1+/6&)!/%#! (+&)0+)#!#50$+/6'&!,#$/'18!"%#1#!+1#!&0.#1'0,!/#$%&'(')*!/''(,!7%6$%!$+&!-#!6&/#)1+/#5!

6&/'!/%#!$(+,,1''.!+&5!0,#5!'0/,65#!$(+,,9!,0$%!+,!$%+/9!#.+6(9!-('))6&)9!.6$1'-('))6&)!+&5! ,'$6+(!&#/7'1:6&)9!/'!&+.#!+!3#78!;'$6+(!&#/7'1:6&)!%+,!6&$1#+,#5!6&!2'20(+16/*!6&!1#$#&/! *#+1,!+&5!,6/#,!,0$%!+,!<*;2+$#!+&5!=+$#-'':!$+&!-#!+!4#1*!0,#30(!/''(!6&!/%#!$(+,,1''.!+,! /%#*!21'.'/#!-'/%!/+1)#/!(+&)0+)#!0,#!7%6(#!+(,'!21'.'/6&)!(#+1&#1!+0/'&'.*!+.'&)! (+&)0+)#!,/05#&/,8!!Holec (1981) defined autonomy as “the ability to take charge of

one’s own learning”. Dickinson defined it as “the situation in which the learner is totally responsible for all of the decisions concerned with his learning and the implementation of those decisions ” (p. 22). These definitions focus on the idea that autonomy is capacity within learners rather than their learning situations, which can result in a more positive and motivating learning experience for students as students themselves decide what they would like to do and how. Sanpraset (2010) argues that autonomous learning is a relatively new concept in many countries such as Japan, Thailand and France. In these countries’ education systems are based more on “rote memorization, attention to detail, and precise, linear and logical analysis without critical thought” (p. 110). It can be difficult for students in Japan to become accustomed to taking control of their own learning.

Introducing social networking sites such as Twitter or Facebook can help students increase their own language learning in a fun and motivating way. A number 309

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 309-316 !

of studies (see Mork, 2009) discuss using Twitter in the classroom. While microblogging can be useful and encourage students to use more concise language as they must write posts no longer than 160 characters, it can be difficult to keep up-todate with messages. Twitter can group topics using hashtags but this can be confusing for students, especially if they have little background in technology. Twitter can also link video, television or polls; however these require separate applications. Facebook on the other hand can help keep topics grouped together in one place, which is easier for students to read and they have more control over the length of their posts. They can attach links, share photos and videos, send private messages, add notes or easily chat online synchronously. According to facebook.com there are currently approximately 800 million active users worldwide in over 70 languages and with more than 350 million users accessing Facebook on their mobile devices. In other words, Facebook is an extremely convenient application that students and educators can access anywhere. Not all students have access to a computer or internet at home and by having mobile access to Facebook; students are able to access their accounts anywhere. !

Saving Face in the Classroom Participants This activity involved twenty-seven lower language proficient students in their first year at a private university in Chiba, Japan. The students had TOEIC scores of 300-500 (equivalent to levels A2-B1 in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages) and were 18-19 years of age. Although involvement was voluntary, all members of the class chose to participate both inside and outside the classroom.

The activities With the spread of Web 2.0 tools, many educational technology experts feel that multimedia technologies can “motivate students to learn languages better than without it” (Kim, 2009). Multimedia technologies can be more interesting and refreshing to students and whether teachers introduce new technologies or incorporate multimedia tools that students are already familiar with, they can increase students’ motivation and language output. Langer de Ramirez (2010, p. 3) also states that “Web 310

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 309-316 !

2.0 tools are forgiving of errors and provide students with ways to save face as they practice their new language in cyberspaceâ&#x20AC;?. As Web 2.0 encourages more interactivity and in a bid to increase student motivation using computers at the end of first semester, it was decided that social networking would be incorporated into a lower language proficient class.

The aim of this paper is to offer some initial observations on how the use of a social network site appeared to motivate learners to participate and take charge of online discussions. Clearly further research is needed involving a more systematic analysis of the data, however, initial observations indicate that the use of Facebook contributed to increased student motivation and language output. Facebook was chosen for this activity as students were able to control what information they shared, is relatively easy to use and students could make the activities as easy or challenging as they wished as students were able to decide the level of difficulty and content of their questions, posts and the videos they uploaded. Only three of the twenty-seven students were already using Facebook, however they were not accessing it regularly.

This is representative of Facebook users in Japan as according to Tabuchi (2011) less than two percent of Japanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s population is using Facebook. The class spent one entire lesson making accounts on Facebook and learning about privacy matters and online safety. Students were given the choice of viewing Facebook either in English or in Japanese during the sign up process as it was important that they understood the settings for their own privacy and online safety. Once all members of the class had successfully created Facebook accounts, it was decided that students would use it to discuss a weekly topic in a secret group set up by the teacher. By using a secret group and selecting the highest level of privacy, students were able to post to the group without worrying about who was viewing their posts and activities.

The activity began with the teacher starting the first discussion. Students were given one week outside of class to answer the question and although the activity was not a compulsory component of the course syllabus, students who did contribute were allocated bonus marks towards their final participation grade. This continued for three weeks and during this time students were encouraged to navigate through their own Facebook page and update their profiles, add pictures and find friends. While students were not required to be friends in order to post in the secret group, all participating members were required to become friends with each other in order to be able to post responses on each otherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s walls and to enable chat. The second month into the 311

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 309-316 !

exercise the class was divided into groups of three and each week one group was asked to collaborate, decide on a question and post it as a new discussion topic where their classmates could enter into a discussion. It was interesting to observe the range of questions the students devised and how the length of replies and the content developed over time. The student generated questions ranged from simple, less detailed topics such as vacations, Christmas, and favourite animated characters to more adventurous ones which required more detailed replies such as, New year aspirations, music and questions/feedback related to the studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; own in-class presentations, videos of which had been uploaded by the teacher.

When the teacher was posting questions studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; answers were brief and cautious and students wrote many short sentences (see table 1). The average post was approximately 3 sentences consisting of an average of 5 words per sentence. Students later began using longer sentences with conjunctions. However, once the students themselves began to form their own discussion questions the replies increased in length and the content became more detailed (see table 2). Studies on the effects of Computer Assisted Classroom Discussion (CACD) (Chun, 1994; Kern, 1995; Warschauer, 1996) found that CACD motivated students more when it was initiated by the students themselves more than when it was initiated by the teacher, and this was observed to be occurring in the Facebook activity.

Table 1. Initial responses to teacher generated question regarding the class orientation trip ! !#$%&'%"()*+%"&,-.+"-.)"/$&''"+)*01""23&+"4*4"5-."$*6%7"8"23&+"4*49:+"5-."$*6%7"" 2-.$4"5-."$*6%"+-";-",&/67"! <+.4%9+"="

<+.4%9+">"

I liked the stars at night. It was so beautiful! I didn't like the baths.

I liked delicious foods. I did not like the baths.

I expected a big bathtubâ&#x20AC;Ś I would like to go back with everyone again!!

I want to go to there again.

! ! !

312

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 309-316 !

Table 2. Student-generated topic on a famous person they would like to meet and why If you could meet any famous person in the world who would you meet?

What would you ask them? Why? Student 1 Student 2 I would like to meet BoA! I would like to talk to her about dancing and ask her how can I be good at dancing like her because her dance is very very cool!

I'd like to meet Hikaru Utada.I love listening and singing her songs. One of my favorite her songs is "Hikari", so I'd like to go karaoke with her and sing it together.

As a result of students forming their own discussions on Facebook this enabled the learning to become student-centered rather than teacher-centered and students were able to develop not only their computer literacy but also their social competencies. Students were also given opportunities to use Facebook synchronously using the chat tool in class to discuss topics and post links to each other for discussion. In an interview of 10 students, 7 students stated that they enjoyed doing this as they could think about what they wanted to say and check it before sending it to their partners and it was “exciting” because they had to respond faster as their partner was waiting for replies in real time whereas in the weekly discussion activity the students had longer to think and respond. Students were able to work at their own pace and they would often ask a student sitting near them for help if they were unsure about vocabulary or expressions. They also liked the fact that they were able to choose what they wanted to talk about making the activity more autonomous and therefore learner centred. Sutherland-Smith (2002) completed a study on online discussions in an ESL class in Australia and she found that students only asked for help when they had technical difficulties and this was seen to be occurring in this class. Similarly, the 7 students also said that they felt more confident and were able to say more compared to when they were participating in oral face-to-face discussions.

Kern (1995) states that some CMC environments can lead to “greater language production in terms of messages and turns than in face-to-face” which can be seen in the comments made by students and what was actually observed in the chat transcripts. Students were able to discuss numerous topics and express their opinions which all students in the interview admitted was more comfortable to do in an online environment compared to face-to-face, especially in a culture where people do not often openly state their opinions (see table 3). Baron (2010:84) suggests that 313

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 309-316 !

“communication technologies are increasingly offering people the opportunity to manage their terms of interpersonal linguistic engagement”.

Table 3. Students’ opinions about movies What kind of movies do you like and why?

Student 1 Student 2 I like horror muvies because I want I don't like horror movies so much ….. and to feel thrill though I'm fearful. I …. , Because I'm timid:( But I think Biohazard think "Ring" is the scariest and there is very exciting, I like the games very much are'nt really scary horror movies like too.

Ring recently :( I also like impressive movies because those I like fantasy movies, Lord of the Rings, Harry warm my heart:) Recently, Potter, Chronicles of Narnia and Hocus I was impressed by the movie "The Pocus. These movies make me happy and symphony of miracle" excited. I'd like to be able to use magic too:) As Lacina (2004) states, discussion boards can encourage collaboration among students and enable them to partake in experiential learning experiences. Linnenbrink and Pintrich (2002, p. 319) stated that “teachers can enhance situational intrinsic motivation and thus increase academic achievement by finding tasks and activities that are highly engaging for students”. What had initially begun as an extrinsically motivated activity, where students were able to receive bonus marks for participating, soon transformed into an intrinsically motivated as all 27 students in the class chose to participate in the activity. By transferring the discussion topics to the students an increase in participation resulted with students writing not only longer posts but multiple replies to questions. In the initial three weeks of the activity all students replied only once to the teacher generated questions. The first two student generated questions also had one reply by each student. After scaffolding from the teacher and assistance in how to continue an online discussion, students began with an initial reply to the question and then a further reply to a classmate’s response. By the end of the activity 14 of the 27 students were making 3 or 4 posts in response to classmates’ posts. They gained more confidence and gave their opinions more online and by the end of the second semester, students were noticeably more interactive not only online but also in face-to-face activities in the classroom. Students went from merely answering questions on the Discussion page to actually interacting on each other’s Walls, uploading pictures along with video, joining fan pages and also using the chat function independently, not only with their classmates and teacher, but also with other 314

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 309-316 !

friends they had found on Facebook. It was also noticed that their interactions on Facebook outside the discussion activity were increasingly appearing in English.

Some students even posted questions about grammar points if they did not know the correct word or usage.

Conclusions As can be seen above, incorporating Facebook into the classroom was a new experience for students, not only technology-wise but also using the English language.

It was observed that following the incorporation of the Facebook activity many of the more introverted students became more motivated in class and were actually talking more with their classmates. It was also noticed that students began to express more opinions and give extended reasoning in not only their face-to-face interactions but also in their written classwork. While it is impossible to say that social networking was the reason for these differences, it can be said that it possibly played a role and these types of activities do show promise as they appear to give students choices and opportunities to have control over their own learning These kinds of opportunities and environments may create conditions for facilitating the development of learner autonomy. !

Notes on the contributor Lara Promnitz-Hayashi is a lecturer at Kanda University of International Studies in Chiba, Japan. Her research interests include CALL, bilingualism, multilingualism, codeswitching and Australian English. ! !

References Baron, N. (2010). Always on. Language in an online and mobile world. New York: Oxford.

Benson, P. (2007). Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 40, 21-40.

Chun, D. (1994). Using computer networking to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22(1), 17-31.

315

SiSAL Journal Vol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, 309-316 !

Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computer: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. The Modern Language Journal, 79(4), 457-476.

Kim, I-S. (2009). The relevance of multiple intelligences to CALL instruction. The Reading Matrix, 9(1), 1-21.

Lacina, J. (2004). Promoting language acquisitions: Technology and English language learners in Childhood Education, 81(2), 113-115.

Langer de Ramirez, L. (2010). Empower English language learners with tools from the web. USA: Corbin Press Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for academic success. School Psychology Review, 31(3), 313-327.

Mork, C. (2009). Using Twitter in EFL education. The JALT CALL Journal, 5(3), 41-56.

Sanpraset, N. (2010). The application of a course management system to enhance autonomy in learning English as a foreign language. System, 38, 109-123. !

Sutherland-Smith, W. (2002). Integrating online discussion in an Australian intensive English language course. TESOL journal, 11(3), 31-35 Tabuchi, H. (2011, January 10). Facebook wins relatively few friends in Japan. The New York Times, p. B1.

Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13 (2/3), 7-26.

Warschauer, M., & Liaw, M. (2011). Emerging technologies for autonomous language learning. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 2(3), 107-118. !

316