Studies in Self-Access learning Journal 5(2)

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 79-81 !

Contents: Volume 5, Number 2, June 2014 Edited by Jo Mynard Articles •

Editorial: Understanding and Supporting Self-Access Learners by Jo Mynard (79-81)

•

Establishing Group Autonomy through Self-Access Center Learning Experiences by Harumi Kimura (82-97)

•

General Tendencies of English Language Learners in Using an Independent Learning Centre within the Turkish Higher Education Context by Tarik Uzun (98-111)

•

Effects of Learning Styles on Self-directed Foreign Language Vocabulary Learning by Jing Wu (112-126)

•

Moving Online: Changing the Focus of a Writing Center by Gene Thompson (127-142)

Work in Progress •

"Say Again?" An In-house, Online, Self-access Pronunciation Project for ESOL Students by Menaka Ediriweera, Liz Howell, and Caroline White (143-152)

Regular Column •

Introduction by column editor, Katherine Thornton (153)

•

Evaluating Self-directed Learning Skills in SALC Modules by Junko Noguchi (153-172)

•

Ongoing Development: Pathways and Challenges by Elizabeth Lammons (173-177)

•

Striving for Diversity, Accessibility and Quality: Evaluating SiSAL Journal by Jo Mynard (178-199)

Report

Editorial: Understanding and Supporting Self-Access Learners Jo Mynard, Kanda University of International Studies, Japan

!

"#!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 79-81 !

This is the 17th issue of SiSAL Journal and includes contributions from Japan, Turkey, China, and New Zealand. Although it is a general issue, the themes that bind the articles together centre around understanding our learners better and supporting their self-directed learning.

The first article by Harumi Kimura shows how a SALC can encourage group autonomy. The author argues that one of the main functions of a SALC is to provide opportunities to build and maintain learning communities. Kimura uses a narrative frame and email exchanges in order to collect data from active SALC users in a women’s university in Japan and shed light on ways in which the social functions of a SALC support interdependence.

The second article by Tarik Uzun emphasizes the importance of listening to the learners we serve. The author investigates learners’ needs in a SALC in Turkey and surveys both regular users and non-users. Learning more about learners’ purpose for coming to the centre and their needs will help the institution to improve the available services.

Although the usefulness of learning styles has been questioned recently (e.g., Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, & Bjork, 2008), the importance of individual differences is certainly an area that is considered to be of great importance in self-access learning.

Jing Wu reports on a project whereby learners had the opportunity to access online vocabulary learning tasks that matched their preferences. The author conducted an empirical study to establish whether vocabulary learning was more effective when tasks were matched to learners’ supposed learning styles. The results detected no significant difference in performance, but the learners benefited from being able to access self-directed vocabulary activities.

Gene Thompson reports on an action research project which aimed to improve the Writing Centre service available to students at a university in Japan. The centre faced constraints and decreasing usage figures, and as a result of the research, has changed from being a limited service face-to-face peer run centre, to a more heavily accessed online writing lab.

The “work in progress” piece in this issue was written by Menaka Ediriweera, Liz Howell, and Caroline White from New Zealand. The authors provide a summary of a collaborative project related to an online pronunciation tool developed for independent learning purposes. The tool is unique as it takes into

!

$%!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 79-81 !

account the needs of learners and teachers in the New Zealand context. The tool continues to be improved due to regular feedback from users.

For the past five issues, the regular column has provided ongoing contributions from colleagues working in a self-access centre in Japan and the final installment, which is related to the evaluation of self-directed learning, is by Junko Noguchi. The column editor, Katherine Thornton introduces the piece and the story is concluded with a brief article by Elizabeth Lammons. A new column from the UK context will begin in the next issue of SiSAL Journal.

We conclude this issue with a report I wrote based on research that Tim Murphey and I did to evaluate SiSAL Journal. Many readers participated in the research and may be interested in the results. The measures used to evaluate SiSAL Journal were based on the principles of diversity, accessibility and quality. The results identified some successful factors that we can celebrate, and also highlighted some points that need attention over the coming years. We are grateful to everyone who participated in the research.

Notes on the contributor Jo Mynard is the founding editor of SiSAL Journal. She holds an M.Phil. in Applied Linguistics from Trinity College, Dublin (Ireland) and a Doctorate in TEFL from the University of Exeter (UK). Her research interests are in self-access, affect, advising, learner autonomy and CALL. Acknowledgements I am grateful to authors, reviewers and members of the editorial team who helped to produce this issue.

Reference Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x

!

$&!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 82-97 !

Establishing Group Autonomy Through Self-Access Center Learning Experiences Harumi Kimura, Miyagi Gakuin Women’s University, Japan

Abstract In this article, I argue that a self-access center (SAC) should be able to foster group autonomy, although SACs were originally developed for individually autonomous L2 learning experiences—i.e., each student studying L2 on his or her own. Along with offering learning materials and chances for individual self-study, a SAC should provide opportunities for building and maintaining a learner community. The data obtained by a narrative frame and subsequent e-mail correspondence demonstrated that active users often come to SACs to do homework and prepare for classes. They are happy to work together and have opportunities to make friends with students in different classes and in different year groups—i.e., mutual peer support is vital. Fun activities for establishing rapport and boosting L2 learning motivation are worth implementing. Learner autonomy ultimately involves interdependence between learners in a well-functioning learner community, and for this purpose a SAC can and should be a physical space where students can comfortably spend time and interact with other students, as well as with counselors and teachers.

Keywords: group autonomy, learner autonomy, interdependence, self-access center

Background Current interest in L2 learner autonomy reflects the common understanding that in-class learning is usually not enough for language development because learning another language requires investment of a great amount of time and effort.

Thus, learners should develop the capacity to control or take charge of their learning, i.e., develop learner autonomy (e.g., Benson, 2011a). The primary focus has been placed on individual cognitive and affective development so that the student can become an independent language learner. For this purpose, tertiary educational institutions have set up self-access centers (SACs) where learners have access to a wide range of language learning resources for their independent out-of-class study (Gardner & Miller, 1999). There are shared assumptions that different individuals learn languages differently and that learners need to be self-directed to be truly successful. Thus, SACs are thought to be effective because they are adaptable to

!

"#!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 82-97 !

different interests and needs of individual learners and because they promote autonomous language learning.

However, establishing a space for self-study with a variety of materials stored and ready for use does not automatically create autonomous language learners. In theory, autonomy implies that learners are standing alone in their journey of learning.

In practice, language development is cognitive and affective, and it is mostly possible in specific sociocultural contexts. Learner autonomy researchers have recognized the significance of social contexts and reframed the concept, for example, as follows: “(A)utonomy is a social construct that implies interdependence rather than independence” (Benson, 2011b, p. 16). However, this sidestepping is more rhetorical than meaningful for the theoretical development and practical application of socially developed learner autonomy. Faced with this challenge, L2 learner autonomy research may need to move in a more dynamic direction, and for this purpose, sincere, constructive, and critical student voices are needed to explore how SAC learning helps students become independent through experiencing interdependence.

Hughes, Krug, and Vye (2011, n = 299) conducted a study of learners’ socialization through SAC activities. The researchers found a significant increase in the number of users over a five-month period and reported out-of-class learner community development. For example, students started recommending language learning materials and signed out these materials at increased rates. They started to use Facebook to stay connected, in English, and organized English events on their own. The researchers concluded that their SAC helped students build social networks, through which they developed learner autonomy through exercising group autonomy.

Gillies (2007) conducted another quantitative study (n = 60) on the operation of a SAC and found that regular SAC users and non-users are identified at as early as the beginning of their first year, and the number of regular SAC users decreases in the higher grades. Students who have used SAC only to fulfill their course requirements, students who are not eager to “use” the L2, and students who do not have an intrinsic motivation to learn the L2 are likely to stop using their SAC after an initial and often required period of use. Gillies’ follow-up qualitative study (2010, n = 9) demonstrated that reluctant students seem to develop a misconception that SACs are accessible only to those students whose English skills are at a sufficiently high level. However, the sources of motivation, individual or social, that cause some students to keep using their SAC and appreciate SAC learning are still to be investigated. !

"#!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 82-97 !

I conducted this study with Japanese university students studying English in Japan. I investigated what made some SAC users participate fully in SAC activities and how they appreciated their SAC learning experiences. I focused on active users and their positive experiences; thus, I did not explore what made non-users feel reluctant to use their SAC. Nonetheless, the findings will be helpful both (a) in understanding why developing learner autonomy, to a certain extent, necessarily involves interaction with others in the process and (b) in making SACs more attractive for more potential SAC users. The research questions of the present study are: 1.

How do students perceive SAC learning experiences?

2.

What motivates them to keep coming to their SAC? Methods

Background of this study The school, which I used to work for as a part-time teacher and SAC counselor, has a department of International English and about 60 students are accepted annually. The SAC was originally designed for the students enrolled in the department, but now it is open to other students, e.g., child education majors, as well.

Full-time faculty members are involved in the SAC activities as supervisors, and two part-time SAC counselors who are fluent L2 users of English run the SAC. The counselors stay in the SAC and help students in learning English outside of classrooms. One of them also teaches regular classes part-time. The SAC has books, DVDs, and other individual learning materials, including PCs. The SAC counselors conduct some counseling about learning English and sometimes help students with their homework when necessary and appropriate. They also serve as librarians, managing these materials. Part of the space is designated for individual learning, but there are also two large, round tables that can accommodate about six students each for collaborative learning. Food and drinks are not allowed. The two English counselors organize lunch-time events called All English Lunches (AELs) individually two days a week. Sometimes, they have a featured speaker, and at other times there is a specific theme, or students have fun with games. Participants are supposed to speak English at AELs. Occasionally, special events such as a Halloween party or an All English Cooking Day are held. Students help organize these events,

!

"#!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 82-97 !

and they are encouraged to use English during the process. AELs and special events are the exception for the no-food policy, and students can bring their lunch and eat in the SAC. Teachers and counselors share information about students and work together to help less-skillful students with their study and inspire students with higher English proficiency and motivation to do extra work outside of classes.

Participants The learner participants were 30 female English majors who visited a SAC at a women’s university in the central part of Japan. The two current SAC counselors recruited volunteers for me and asked them to fill in the narrative frame sheet (to be discussed in the next section) in their free time. Among the volunteers, 23 students (76.7%) actually handed in their complete sheet to the counselors. I asked five of the participants, whose narratives I found both coherent and intriguing, to elaborate on parts of their stories through e-mail. In addition, I asked the two SAC counselors to share their views on the SAC through e-mail communication. All of the names used in this article are pseudonyms.

Data collection I collected two sets of data for this study. First, 23 participants filled in a narrative frame (Appendix A for Japanese, filled; Appendix B for English, blank) during the spring term of 2013. One student filled out the frame all in English, four students all in Japanese, and 17 in both English and Japanese. A narrative frame can be considered to be “a story template consisting of a series of incomplete sentences and blank spaces of varying lengths” (Barkhuizen, 2011, p. 12) that are used to extract a coherent story rather than isolated answers to isolated questions. Sentence starters guide participants in constructing a story of their learning experience and help researchers to elicit the information in a structured form (Barkhuizen & Wette, 2008).

Thus, narrative frames scaffold respondents with the narrative structure designed for the specific study on the one hand, and researchers obtain the specific data they want to collect on the other hand (Barkhuizen, Benson, & Chik, 2014). The data from narrative frames are usually analyzed statistically and presented in descriptive statistics. Swenson and Visgatis (2011) described this advantage of narrative frame research as follows: Narrative frames were “used to bring together different stories from different people in order to extract the commonalities in their stories” (p. 442). !

"#!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 82-97 !

In this study, however, the number of learners who submitted the complete frame was only 23 and thus was too small for systematic statistical analysis to be reliable and valid. For that reason, each frame was read as one short narrative and underwent thematic analysis (Barkhuizen, Benson, & Chik, 2014).

Second, I asked five of the participants in the first phase to share their stories in more detail in e-mail correspondence. I felt the need for more detailed and personalized content in their storied episodes than captured in the narrative frame because the frame only provided a limited space after each sentence starter and some of the stories need to be elaborated so that I could understand what the writer actually experienced and how they felt about it. The five participants of the second phase responded in English, Japanese, or both. Two students responded five times, two students three times, and one student once. The length of the messages varied: from 53 to 206 characters (99.4 characters on average) in the case of Japanese and from 67 to 145 words (99.2 words on average) in English. In addition, I asked the two SAC counselors the following questions via e-mail: What do you think is the most important job of SAC counselors? What are the challenges? I thought their views would help me better understand what the SAC users shared in the narrative frame and e-mail exchanges. The data also served as a layer of triangulation. The counselors responded in English.

Procedure Two SAC counselors at the institution distributed the narrative frame accompanied by demographic questions and a consent form when the students came to their SAC. The narrative frame had eight sentence starters, and the participants were asked to fill in the form in their free time, although participation was voluntary. I translated the data collected by the narrative frame and demographic questions into English (when written in Japanese) and combined all into one Excel file (Barkhuizen & Wette, 2008) for identification and categorization of themes (Miles & Huberman, 1994). I also translated the e-mail correspondence written in Japanese into English, identified episodes, or small stories (Bamberg, 2006), and categorized them into different themes. A colleague of mine read the translations for verification and assisted in identifying and categorizing the themes through discussion. The colleague and I met twice for one-hour sessions.

!

"#!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 82-97 !

Results and Discussion In this section, I discuss the findings from the narrative frame and elaborate the discussion with reference to some follow-up data from e-mail correspondence with students and SAC counselors. From the results of coding and categorizing, the following key themes emerged: (1) fun activities, (2) learning together, and (3) learning inside and outside of class. I argue, first of all, that occasional and weekly “fun” activities are useful for nurturing the group cohesiveness of L2 learners and for maintaining motivation for L2 learning. Second, socializing (i.e., participation in social activities) and learning are not two separate things in learning an L2, and psychological membership in the L2 learning community helps stabilize commitment to the goal of developing language proficiency (Dörnyei & Murphey, 2004). Third, a large portion of the SAC learning was directly related to class learning such as doing homework and preparing for class presentations. In the last sub-section, I briefly discuss limitations of this study and directions for further studies.

Special events are not just for fun Fun activities organized as SAC activities are not just for the sake of having fun. Some users make use of the chances to transfer learning outcomes to real language use when they help organize SAC events. One student, Ayako helped decorate her SAC before a Halloween party and wrote in her e-mail that she was happy that she actually used English for a real purpose. During the event, she used expressions such as “Can I …?” “Is this better?” and in her e-mail she said, “The target language suddenly became a part of me,” and she referred to her feeling of language “ownership.” Students who learn their L2 in a foreign language learning environment often do not have opportunities to use the target language outside of classrooms for real purposes, and they appreciate these chances for spontaneous language use. Parties and events, if planned thoughtfully, are able to provide experiences of success so that students can gain confidence through actual use of the language.

These special occasions are also helpful for motivating some others to keep coming back to their SACs and continuing their L2 learning. The motivation behind L2 learning should be generated, maintained, and protected, but it is often difficult for learners to remain motivated. The student Shiho shared an episode:

!

"#!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 82-97 !

Riko (one of the counselors) talked to me at a party with a big smile on her face, “Long time no see! How have you been?” I was ashamed of myself because I had not been so serious about learning English in those days. I thought that Riko somehow knew about my recent tardiness and laziness, so I made up my mind that I would come to the SAC more often and study harder because I did not want to disappoint Riko.

The counselor communicated her concerns about Shiho successfully, and Shiho, in turn, took the message and adjusted her mindset (and hopefully her learning behavior as well). In fact, the counselor described her concept of the counselor’s job as follows: Maybe the most important yet challenging job of a SAC counselor is to let the students know that we are there for them. All English Lunches, parties, and posters don't seem to be good enough for students to keep coming back. …I've been talking to the students outside the SAC, asking them if they need help with their schoolwork or inviting them to our parties and events.

Students do not have many chances to meet and make friends with students in different classes and different year groups, and so they appreciate opportunities such as those that SAC offers—most notably, special events and parties. Kanae, a student, wrote: Even when I do not talk to senior students (senpai), I observe them, hear them talk, and see what they do and how they do it. Parties and AELs are good chances to get to know them in person. What they talk about with counselors interests me, too. I may experience similar things in the near future—their problems and the like. I feel I’m lucky when I make friends with juniors and seniors through SAC activities.

It is somewhat surprising that quite a few students feel “alienated” from each other in their language learning. A SAC can offer opportunities for students to seek

!

""!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 82-97 !

role models of language learning and career development. Some students appreciate receiving job hunting advice from their seniors, “in English.”

To recap, fun activities and events provide students with chances for real language use, and they are worth the investments of time, resources, and energy in order to establish rapport among students and boosting—or re-boosting—the L2 learning motivation of individual students. The need for learning arises from engagement in personally relevant activities (Roth & Lee, 2006), but the relevant activities can also be fun.

We study together and alone Eighteen students (78%) reported that they do regular class homework and prepare for classes in the SAC. They work on their assignments in the SAC even when the assignments are meant for individual study and when they can prepare for class by themselves. I asked all of the five e-mail correspondents the reason for this, and they unequivocally replied that it is fun to do homework in the presence of others.

It seems that the group nature of inquiry supports peer relations. One student, Miki, wrote that she does not have time to do homework because of her part-time job, but she made it a rule to do her homework in the SAC. I asked them all, teasingly, if they just copy what others have done. Miki wrote back as follows: Yes, we sometimes help each other with our homework and do work together, but it’s useless if I just copy. Our teachers do not give us such easy homework. Usually, the assignments we receive are mostly preparation for the next class. If we copy, we are in trouble in class or on tests.

In addition to enjoying doing homework in the presence of others, Setsuko referred to the support she could receive and the comfortable environment.

When I’m in trouble, I can ask my friends, SAC counselors, or teachers for help. I feel more comfortable doing homework in the SAC. Besides, as I wrote in the narrative frame, I think the SAC is like my second home, and in that sense, I’m doing it at home, sort of.

!

"#!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 82-97 !

This extract is intriguing for two reasons. First, Setsuko referred to three parties: her peers, counselors, and teachers. The other counselor, Tere, shared her observation as follows: Students first rely on each other. Then, they come to us. If the instructions (how to work on the assignment) are not clear to the students or they have different ideas about the assignment or about what to do or how to do it, and if we (counselors) don’t have anything to say or to do for them, then one or two students will go to their teacher’s office.

In the literature, group autonomy has a motto: peers first, then teacher (Jacobs, Power, & Loh, 2002). Students learn not to rush to teachers; they first seek support form peers. Interdependence does not mean they are not self-directive. Students are positively interdependent and fostering a group support system in their SACs (Jacobs & Kimura, 2013).

Second, it is noteworthy that Setsuko used the “home” metaphor to describe their learning experience in the SAC. This is new in the literature on SACs as far as I know. Another student, Miku, wrote, “We are like one big family.” Group dynamics researchers argue that the sheer amount of time people spend together contributes to bonding among the members and produces favorable affective outcomes leading to positive cognitive outcomes (Dörnyei & Murphey, 2004). The physical proximity and the contact and interaction among students in the SAC create a safe and comfortable environment for learning. Their need to belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995) to a learner community should not be disregarded because the reason students continue to come is likely to be, at least partly, social. In a comfortable space, the students appreciate the mutual memberships, which help them in constructing their social identities—i.e., who they are with respect to others and as active SAC users.

What is extra?

SAC was developed based on the understanding that in-class learning is usually not enough, especially in EFL contexts, for L2 learners to become skillful users of the target language. They need to do extra work outside of class, beyond the course requirements. Learners do not receive much meaningful input and lack opportunities for meaningful output, and in-class learning tends to be form-focused !

"#!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 82-97 !

learning or studying and does not allow time for fluency development. The rationale for SACs sounds, therefore, very reasonable.

However, the participants reported that most of what they did in their SACs is homework and class preparation. I asked all five e-mail correspondents about what they do that they consider to be something genuinely extra. Here are three responses: Setsuko: Besides doing homework and preparing for class, I sometimes write and send e-mails to my former host family back in the United States.

I can ask SAC counselors for help when necessary. I want to make my messages clear and good. I don’t want my host family to misunderstand me. Is this what you call extra?

Kanae: I don’t have time to do extra. My classes keep me busy. I sometimes watch DVDs, but it’s mostly for fun. I’m not thinking that I’m studying when I watch DVDs. Shiho: For extra, to be honest, I started a couple of things such as reading English newspapers and magazines, but it’s always difficult to continue.

Classwork has priority, my part-time job keeps me busy, and I sometimes hang out with my friends after class or over the weekend and do not spend any time on studying. It’s difficult to finish all the requirements like (reading) graded readers and (keeping) a diary.

This finding coincides with the study results of L2 learners’ time use outside of the classroom: 61% of the time spent on L2 learning was relevant to schoolwork (Visgatis, 2011). Students seem to be under immediate pressure to complete classroom requirements. Thus, the distinction between in-class learning and out-ofclass learning, which is often referred to in the literature on self-access learning, would have to be reconsidered. Homework is what students are supposed to do outside of class, but it is given to enhance or supplement in-class learning. It is not beyond but within course requirements or embedded in taught courses.

Limitations and further studies

!

"#!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 82-97 !

There are two major limitations of this study. First, all the participants were female students in the same university, and the results should be understood with caution. Second, the study was cross-sectional and did not investigate the changes or development of learners’ attitudes and motivation, although some participants referred to some changes of their mindset. Longitudinal case studies to explore, for example, what triggered positive changes are needed.

Conclusions This exploratory study indicates that L2 learners appreciate the learning space for learning together in a SAC, although SACs were originally established for independent self-study. Researchers and teachers have been promoting integration of self-access learning into regular curriculums (e.g., Croker & Ashurova, 2012) and underscoring the social role that SACs can play (e.g., Hughes, et al., 2011), but the past research has still fallen short of emphasizing the significant role the specific physical space can actually play for the purpose of fostering learner community building and assisting in maintaining L2 learning motivation. Attractive and engaging language learning events can be performed in a SAC, and good learner communities can be formed there. The “we” identity cannot be cultivated in a vacuum. In a wellfunctioning SAC, learner autonomy ultimately involves interdependence between the learner and the teacher/counselor and between learners.

Notes on the contributor Harumi Kimura teaches at Miyagi Gakuin Women’s University, Sendai, Japan. She earned her doctorate from Temple University. She studied L2 listening anxiety in her doctoral study. She recently coauthored a book with Dr. G. M. Jacobs, Cooperative Learning and Teaching, in English Language Teacher Development Series (2013, Alexandria, VA: TESOL).

References Bamberg, M. (2006). Stories: Big or small: Why do we care? Narrative Inquiry, 16(1), 139– 147. doi: 10.1075/ni.16.1.18bam Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(6), 497–529. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497 !

"#!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 82-97 !

Barkhuizen, G. (2011). Narrative knowledging in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 45(3), 391–414. doi: 10.2307/3588331 Barkhuizen, G., Benson, P., & Chik, A. (2014). Narrative inquiry in language teaching and learning research. New York, NY: Routledge.

Barkhuizen, G., & Wette, R. (2008). Narrative frames for investigating the experiences of language teachers. System, 36(3), 372–387. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2008.02.002 Benson, P. (2011a). Teaching and researching autonomy (2 ed.). Harlow, UK: Longman.

Benson, P. (2011b). What's new in autonomy? The Language Teacher, 35(4), 15–18.

Retrieved from http://jalt-publications.org/tlt/articles/973-jalt2011-plenary-speakerarticle-what%E2%80%99s-new-autonomy Croker, R., & Ashurova, U. (2012). Scaffolding students' initial self-access language centre experiences. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 3(3), 237–253. Retrieved from http://sisaljournal.org/archives/sep12/croker_ashurova/ Dörnyei, Z., & Murphey, T. (2004). Group dynamics in the language classroom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

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

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Gillies, H. (2007). SAL for everyone? Motivation and demotivation in self-access Learning. Studies in Linguistics and Language Teaching, 18. 117-137.

Gillies, H. (2010). Listening to the learner: A qualitative investigation of motivation for embracing or avoiding the use of self-access centres. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 1(3), 189–211. Retrieved from http://sisaljournal.org/archives/dec10/gillies/ Hughes, L. S., Krug, N. P., & Vye, S. (2011). The growth of an out-of-class learning community through autonomous socialization at a self-access center. Studies in SelfAccess Learning Journal, 2(3), 281–291. Retrieved from http://sisaljournal.org/archives/jun12/hughes_krug_vye/ Jacobs, G. M., & Kimura, H. (2013). Cooperative learning and teaching. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Jacobs, G. M., Power, M. A., & Loh, W. I. (2002). The teacher's sourcebook for cooperative learning: Practical techniques, basic principles, and frequently asked questions.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Roth, W., & Lee, Y.-J. (2006). Contradictions in theorizing and implementing communities in education. Educational Research Review, 1(2006), 27–40. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2006.01.002

!

"#!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 82-97 !

Swenson, T., & Visgatis, B. (2011). Narrative frames to access overseas experiences. In A. Stewart (Ed.), JALT2010 Conference Proceedings (pp. 441!452). Tokyo: JALT. Retrieved from http://jalt-publications.org/files/pdf-article/jalt2010proc-43_0.pdf Visgatis, B. (2011). Out-of-class target language time use. In A. Stewart (Ed.), JALT2010 Conference Proceedings (pp. 453–460). Tokyo: JALT. Retrieved from http://jaltpublications.org/files/pdf-article/jalt2010proc-44.pdf

!

"#!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 82-97 !

Appendices Appendix A Narrative Frame (Japanese Version, Filled)

!

"#!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 82-97 !

!

"#!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 82-97 !

Appendix B Narrative Frame (English Version, Blank, Part 2 Only)

!

"#!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 98-111

General Tendencies of English Language Learners in Using an Independent Learning Centre within the Turkish Higher Education Context Tarik Uzun, Yıldırım Beyazıt University School of Foreign Languages, Ankara, Turkey Abstract Independent Learning Centres (Self-Access Centres) have become an essential component in language teaching institutions to aid learning and foster autonomous learning behaviour. To reach these goals, it is vital to ‘listen to the people’ in the target group. The efforts made and services offered need to be analysed systematically in each centre and centres should be organised and administered by taking students’ needs and expectations into consideration.

The main aim of this study is to put forth a profile of how an Independent Learning Centre (ILC) is used by English preparatory class students (n=715) in higher education in Turkey.

The overall numbers concerning the ILC use, purposes of regular users in visiting the centre, reasons of non-users, materials they find most useful and their needs and suggestions related to the centre have been analysed. The most common purpose for using the centre was found to be ‘to do homework’. According to the users, ‘listening materials’ are the most useful type of resources. ‘More study space’, ‘more listening materials’ and ‘more guidance’ were the most notable needs of the students in the centre. Based on the findings and understanding of the field, suggestions are given to improve the services and materials within the centre.

Keywords: Learner Autonomy, Independent Learning, Independent Learning Centres, SelfAccess Centres

Background Learner-centredness as a perspective involves the roles of teachers and learners within various learning and teaching contexts. The idea itself could basically refer to in-class instruction, which is normally directed by teachers. However, instruction becomes ‘learnercentred’ if pedagogic decisions are made by the teacher with the idiosyncratic interests and needs of each group of learners (even each individual member) given top priority (Johnson & Johnson, 1999).

Studying within learner-oriented teaching environments is usually a challenge for students because, as suggested by Sachs (2012), they are used to being led by teachers and when they are given the possibility to choose their own way, pace or method, they feel insecure and show no interest. According to Harmer (2007), no matter how good a teacher may be, students will find it difficult to learn a language unless they aim to learn outside, as well as during, class time. It is clear that language learning requires time, energy, guidance and in some cases financial support, particularly in terms of tutoring and reaching resources.

!

"#!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 98-111

Teachers might feel the need to assist their students in covering some of these needs; however, a more institutionalized and professional approach to this matter seems more appropriate. In this sense, centres, commonly referred to as Self-Access Centres (SACs), Independent Learning Centres (ILCs) or Language Learning Centres (LLCs), are useful tools generally utilised in language teaching institutions to assist learners in language learning processes. These names are generally used interchangeably.

A self-access centre can be broadly defined as a purpose-designed facility in which learning resources such as audio, video and computer workstations, audiotapes, videotapes and DVDs, computer software and print materials, access to the internet or satellite TV are made directly available to learners (Benson, 2011). No matter how they are named (SAC, ILC or LLC), all these centres have similar ultimate goals – to help students maximise their learning opportunities and to foster autonomous learning (Dofs & Hobbs, 2011). Such centres are regarded as a useful adjunct to classroom learning – or indeed an alternative to it (Harmer, 2007). In terms of the services and resources provided today, Gardner (2007) points to the blurring boundaries of self-access centres as they attempt to do the tasks such as maintaining both physical and virtual locations for learning, providing materials, technology and activities, offering learners advice, guidance, help and support, integrating with a world-wide web of learning resources and integrating with locally-taught courses.

In an institution where a similar centre has been established, it is of great importance to evaluate its efficiency; however, as suggested by Morrison (2011), there is no researchbased framework specifically developed for these centres’ evaluation and it is a serious concern as frameworks designed for other educational entities are not necessarily appropriate for this purpose. In terms of evaluation, analysing the learning tendencies, needs and suggestions of users could be considered as one option. Surely, these centres are quite dynamic and materials and services need to be improved and updated; however, as a learner and learning oriented body, such efforts for development can be more successful if the needs and voices of the learners targeted are taken into consideration. In order to take new steps further, every institution needs to have a clear picture of the situation within its own boundaries.

In Turkey, these centres are generally found in foreign language teaching institutions of universities. Some centres are formed to enable learners to carry out more paper-based studies while others provide learners with computer and internet-based study options. The types of study activities offered in such centres are not standardized and no framework or governmental policy has been reached during the research concerning the formation of these !

""!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 98-111

learner-oriented bodies and their evaluation within the Turkish higher education context. It is generally observed that every institution, either state-oriented or private, follows its own path.

Therefore, analyses concerning the effectiveness of services and resources in such a centre through students’ opinions will have to be structured specifically for each centre. This study aims to present the overall tendencies of English preparatory class students in using an independent learning centre at a state university in Turkey.

Methodology The research context and participants The study was conducted at Yıldırım Beyazıt University, a state-oriented university located in Ankara, Turkey. The university was founded in 2010. The university’s School of Foreign Languages served more than 1000 students with approximately 70 instructors in the 2012-2013 academic year. The only foreign language currently taught is English. Students receive 20-25 hours of English classes per week depending on their levels and have to complete the programme requirements successfully so as to start their academic studies in their departments. As the medium of instruction is 100% in English in many departments, preparatory classes are compulsory for most of the students.

An Independent Learning Centre (ILC) operates within the School of Foreign Languages. The ILC located at the university is made up of two connected rooms with 20 computers in each and a library section in the middle. There are also tables and chairs in each room for personal studies without computers.

The centre contains various printed materials, such as course books, dictionaries, readers and supplementary materials in its library section. Besides these, there are 40 computers placed in the centre for the use of students. The module ‘ILC’ on the desktop of every computer enables students to reach the uploaded computer-based study materials, which are made available for every user separately. Students are expected to study independently by selecting an appropriate level from A1 to C2, based on the Common European Framework, and carry out free practice for as long as they want. The users of the centre can also do listening practice with headphones. Students are not required to attend the centre, and the English language curriculum is not integrated directly with the content of the resources offered in the ILC. Attendance is optional, but students are encouraged to visit the centre.

Students are assisted immediately if they face any technical difficulties or ask for printed,

!

"##!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 98-111

computer or internet-based resources. The centre is operated by a general coordinator, instructors and part-time students, who are appointed to work there.

Students can find speaking, listening, reading, writing, grammar, professional English, vocabulary development and pronunciation materials in the ILC module on each computer.

Besides these, a free internet connection and web links for individual study, preparation materials for international language exams and resources for various course books are also made available.

Participants of this research were preparatory class students who were studying English at different levels within the compulsory one-year programme during the 2012-2013 academic year (See Appendix A). These students were to fulfil the program requirements in order to complete this preparatory class successfully and start their undergraduate studies. Upon completion of these requirements, the students would then join various faculties such as Medicine, Humanities and Social Sciences, Engineering, Political Sciences and Law. The research aimed to include all of the preparatory class students, and 71.1% of them (715 out of 1005) participated in the study.

Data collection and analysis A questionnaire was used to collect data in this study. In order to reach as many students as possible and analyse their overall learning tendencies within the ILC context, the use of a questionnaire was considered the most useful and practical method. As pointed out by Wray and Bloomer (2006), questionnaires can be used to collect both qualitative and quantitative data, and are suitable for a range of research questions allowing data to be collected from a number of informants. It was anticipated at the beginning of the research that the results would give a clear picture of the ILC use at school.

A questionnaire was developed in Turkish and translated into English during the spring semester of the 2012-2013 academic year. The questionnaire specially prepared for this research was titled “Independent Learning Centre (ILC) Evaluation Survey� (see Appendix B). The questionnaire was designed to collect data on the following points:

!

o

frequency of students visiting the centre

o

users’ purposes in visiting the centre

o

why non-users do not visit the centre

o

time spent in the centre per visit

o

materials users find most useful in the centre

o

suggestions from users to develop the services offered within the centre "#"!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 98-111

The questionnaire was taken into all the classes at school and those students who were present were asked to complete it during the class time. Students who were absent that day were not included in the sample.

Analyses were carried out by calculating the percentage for each item. Students were also given the chance to share their own thoughts within some of the questions by choosing the option ‘other’. Other comments offered by students in each question were also analysed in percentages and some of these found worth considering were cited below each table.

The first question played an important role as it determined the subsequent questions that students would answer. Non-users who selected the option “I have never used the centre” were asked to choose a reason out of the given ones or add their own into the given blank.

Their reasons have also been analysed within the study. Those who declared that they use the centre once or twice a week, three or four times a week and at least five times a week were labelled as regular users of the centre.

Results and Discussion Gender balance In total, 328 female/45.87% and 387 male/54.13% students completed the questionnaire. The number of male non-users was 158 (55.3%), and the number of female users was 128 (44.7%). Considering the regular users of the centre, there was a slight imbalance as the regular male users of the centre made up 59.7% (86 users) of the total users while regular female users constituted 40.3% (58 users).

Frequency of centre use The data obtained in the study show that the number of non-users is quite high and similar to the students who used the centre only once or twice. The number of those who attend the centre regularly was found to be 144 out of 715. The detailed numbers are given in Table 1.

Table 1. Frequency of Centre Use Frequency of Centre Use Never been to the centre Only once or twice so far 1-2 times a week 3-4 times a week

!

Number of Students Percentage 286 285 109 26 "#$!

40% 39.9% 15.2% 3.6%

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 98-111

At least 5 times a week Total

9 715

1.3% 100%

Reasons for non-use Reasons that non-users (286 students) gave for not using the centre reveal some interesting results. The respondents could give more than one reason, and the most common reasons were found to be “I find my resources sufficient” (101 students) and “I don’t like studying on a computer” (58 students). Students’ choices in computer-oriented language studies need to be subjected to further in-depth research as this study did not focus on technology integration into an independent learning centre and how students perceive it. Table 2 shows the students’ reasons for not visiting the centre.

Table 2. Reasons Given by Non-users for Not Visiting the Centre Reason I find my resources sufficient.

I don’t like studying on a computer.

I find it unnecessary to study in ILC. I don’t like individual studies.

Resources are not adequate.

Other

Number of Students 101!

58 54 25 16 60

The ‘other’ reasons suggested by some non-users were categorized, and the two most common ones are shown as follows in Table 3.

Table 3. Other Reasons Suggested by Non-users Reason I haven’t ever heard of the centre/ I have no information about the centre.

I cannot find time to go to the centre.

Number of Students 37

22

Purposes of users in visiting the centre Regular users (n=144) were asked to give their reasons for visiting the centre. (They could give more than one response.) They indicated that “doing homework” was their most !

"#$!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 98-111

significant reason for visiting the centre. The main reason for this result seems to be the free internet connection offered as students are expected to use their online homework modules of each course book. Students’ effort in doing online homework is graded, and they receive 8 points upon fully and successfully completing the tasks assigned per level, which seemingly encourages them to follow their online homework more closely using the computers within the ILC. The purpose with the second highest score was found to be “to improve their English”, which can be considered a sign of awareness in their belief that the ILC could be a useful tool to help improve their language skills. Regular users’ purposes/reasons for visiting the centre are shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Purposes/Reasons Given by Regular Users for Visiting the Centre Purpose

Number of Students To do homework 98 To improve my English 77 To prepare for exams 55 Because I like the place as a study area 42 Because I find its resources useful 35 Because I find working on a computer comfortable 17 Because I it’s hard to find materials outside 16

Students were free to choose from the given options and, if they had different purpose(s) from the given options, to write them in the ‘other’ option. Therefore, the purposes that students proposed were analysed separately and not included in Table 4. Some of the comments by students found under the title ‘other’ are: “I go [to the centre] to do homework as I don’t have a computer.”

“To do online homework.”

“To do some listening.”

“I get the chance to carry out more comfortable and devoted studies because no one visits there particularly in the morning.”

Resources used in the centre

!

"#$!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 98-111

Regular users’ answers reveal that some materials in the centre are more popular than others. As a study area allowing computer and internet-based studies, the centre clearly has some advantages compared to other self-access/independent learning centres without any technology integration. Free listening materials organized according to students’ levels and internet links for online study were found to be the most useful resources for the students.

These resources can only be accessed in the centre; however, plans are underway to make these resources available for distance access in the future. The seven most useful types of resources, according to the students, are given in Table 5.

Table 5. Materials Found to be Most Useful Type of the material Listening materials Internet links Printed reference books (grammar, vocabulary, exam preparation etc.)

Grammar materials (computer-based) Readers Reading materials (computer-based) Vocabulary development materials (computer-based)

Number of Students 77 57 45 41 40 38 35

Needs and suggestions of the students concerning the services and resources in the centre As shown in Table 6, regular users of the ILC point to some of their needs and suggestions inside the centre. Students’ answers indicate that the physical capacity of the centre is sometimes insufficient. The most common suggestion was to create “more study space”.

In addition, students underlined their high expectations for listening studies by asking for “more listening materials”. Results indicate that listening resources need to be increased although students find listening materials the most useful type of resources.

Thirdly, the number of students in need of guidance was high, as 49 students demanded “more guidance”. This result implies that students do not regard the centre only as a resource centre, but they also expect it to offer services to foster learning opportunities. It should be noted that, at the time of data collection, the centre did not offer professional guidance. However, towards the end of the term a guidance service was started for students.

The guidance service was carried out by the teachers appointed to the centre. Students could

!

"#$!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 98-111

have a face-to-face talk with the teachers and get advice about various ways to enhance their learning and exam performance. However, there is no data concerning how successful these efforts have been.

Table 6. Needs and Suggestions of the Students Concerning the Centre Suggestions More study space/computer Listening materials More guidance More speaking materials More printed materials Grammar materials Vocabulary materials Reading materials Writing materials

Number of Students 67 53 49 45 44 40 38 34 23

Conclusions This study was designed to take a detailed picture of the visitors’ overall learning tendencies within an Independent Learning Centre context in Turkish Higher Education.

However, based on the findings and analyses of this research, it is necessary to go farther in order to draw conclusions and suggest possible ways to overcome the difficulties witnessed.

Before moving on to the conclusions and suggestions, it is necessary to mention the limitations of the study. Firstly, the data collected for this study belong to the 2012-2013 academic year, when the students and policies of the ILC were different in some ways from the ones today. This should be considered as a limitation, and the results need to be studied within the given conditions at the time of data collection. Another limitation was that the questionnaire was not piloted because of time restrictions (the end of the term was getting closer and the rate of absence was expected to increase). However, no negative feedback, failure in understanding the items or ambiguities was reported while the students were answering the questionnaires. The final limitation is that students did not seem to be aware of what would actually be needed to improve the ILC. This could be regarded as natural since the centre did not intend to offer students services different from the printed and computerbased resources when the study was carried out.

!

"#$!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 98-111

The results of this study indicate that students did not use the centre located at Yıldırım Beyazıt University satisfactorily. In order to overcome this problem, students are now provided with services and activities, such as extracurricular skill-based activities, workshops, and student clubs. A guidance service is also being designed to assist learners throughout their learning. These efforts could in turn not only provide students with possibilities to improve their performance in the target language, but also teach them directly or indirectly how they could learn the best ways to be successful independent learners. It could also be expected that more students will be reached with these attempts, and the centre will become a more frequently visited facility at school.

Introductory tours to the centre could also be organized. These tours seem to be necessary to make sure that the materials and services meet students’ needs and to both draw their attention and encourage them to visit the centre more often. During the ILC tours held in the 2013-2014 academic year, many students found the centre attractive and lively compared with their own classrooms (as observed by centre administrators and instructors). They frequently reported that they liked the computerised laboratories and asked their teachers whether it was possible to have their lessons in the ILC. This feedback shows that classes might have their lessons inside the centre at least from time to time depending on availability.

As a computer-based learning centre, the possibility of doing listening practice in the centre is quite important for students (see Tables 5 and 6). They seem to be aware of this possibility; nevertheless, listening materials need to be updated and enriched regularly. It is also being planned to move the ILC materials online and make them available for distance access. The necessity of this aim is supported with the common feedback received from students in the centre today. It can be expected that reaching the content online or on mobile devices would increase student access to learning tools.

Language teaching institutions need to carry out similar surveys with their students and ‘listen to them’ repeatedly. Otherwise, the effectiveness of their efforts will not be easily evaluated. By doing so, new and more confident steps might be taken towards the goal of a better-organized and more fruitful learning environment.

Notes on the contributor Tarik Uzun is an Instructor of English and Coordinator of the Independent Learning Centre at Yıldırım Beyazıt University School of Foreign Languages in Ankara Turkey. He has been teaching English and Turkish (as a foreign language) for 9 years. He is currently a PhD

!

"#$!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 98-111

candidate at Ankara University Department of Linguistics Foreign Language Education Programme. His research interests are learner autonomy, self-access learning, phonetics, lexicology and Turkish language teaching.

Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Assist. Prof. Dr. Sila Ay from Ankara University for her invaluable support and guidance throughout this research.

References Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and researching autonomy. Harlow, UK: Pearson.

Dofs, K., & Hobbs, M. (2011). Guidelines for maximising student use of independent learning centres: Support for ESOL learners. Wellington, New Zealand: National Centre for Tertiary Teaching Excellence. Retrieved from http://akoaotearoa.ac.nz/download/ng/file/group-7/guidelines-for-maximising-studentuse-of-independent-learning-centres.pdf Gardner, D. (2007). Looking in and out: Managing a self-access centre. In D. Gardner (Ed.), Fostering autonomy in language learning (pp. 186-198). Gaziantep, Turkey: Zirve University. Retrieved from http://ilac2010.zirve.edu.tr/Fostering_Autonomy.pdf Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching (4th ed.). Essex, UK: Pearson Longman.

Johnson, K., & Johnson, H. (1999). (Eds.). Encyclopedic dictionary of applied linguistics.

Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.

Morrison, B. (2011). A framework for the evaluation of a self-access language learning centre. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 2(4), 241-256. Retrieved from: http://sisaljournal.org/archives/dec11/morrison/ Sachs, K. (2012). Developing self-directed learning. IATEFL Voices, 226, 4-5.

Wray, A., & Bloomer, A. (2006). Projects in linguistics: A practical guide to researching language. New York, NY: Hodder Arnold.

!

"#$!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 98-111

Appendices Appendix A Levels, CEFR Equivalents and Numbers of Students per Level at the Time of Data Collection Level Basic Basic (Repeat) Basic + Basic + (Repeat) Independent Independent (Repeat) Independent + Independent + (Repeat) Upper Upper (Repeat) Upper + Upper + (Repeat) Total

!

CEFR A1!

A1 A1-A2 A1-A2 A2-B1 A2-B1 B1-B2!

B1-B2 B2-C1 B2-C1 C1-C2 C1-C2

"#$!

Number of Students ----336 57 146 26 45 12 93 ------715

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 98-111

Appendix B INDEPENDENT LEARNING CENTRE (ILC) EVALUATION SURVEY This survey has been prepared to serve scientific purposes. It will also be used for improving the services in Independent Learning Centre. Please write your name and surname.

Personal information will not be shared with third parties.

Researcher: Tarik Uzun / Instructor of English Name&Surname: …………………………………............... Gender: Female ! Male !

Your Level and Classroom: ...………………………………………………………….……………....

Please choose the suitable option for you.

1. How often do you visit Independent Learning Centre (ILC)? o Never been to the centre. (Please answer Question 2 only)** o Only once or twice so far. (Please skip Question 2) o 1-2 times a week. (Please skip Question 2) o 3-4 times a week. (Please skip Question 2) o At least 5 times a week. (Please skip Question 2) 2. Why do you not use Independent Learning Centre? ** (You can select more than one option) o Resources are not adequate. o I don’t like studying on a computer. o I don’t like individual studies. o I find it unnecessary to study in ILC. o I find my resources sufficient. o Other (Please specify): ……………………………………………………………..........

3. What purposes do you use the centre for? (You can select more than one option) o To do homework o To prepare for exams o To improve my English o Because it’s hard to find materials outside o Because I find working on a computer o Because I find its resources useful o Because I like the place as a study area o Other (Please specify): ............……….....…………………………………………

4. How much time do you spend in the centre on average? o Up to 30 minutes o 30 minutes – 1 hour

!

""#!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 98-111

o

More than 1 hour

5. What are the most useful materials for you? (You can select more than one option) o Printed reference books (grammar, vocabulary, exam preparation etc.) o Coursebooks (printed) o Dictionaries o Readers o Speaking materials (computer-based) o Listening materials (computer-based) o Reading materials (computer-based) o Writing materials (computer-based) o Grammar materials (computer-based) o Vocabulary materials (computer-based) o Pronunciation materials (computer-based) o Coursebooks (computer-based) o Dictionaries (computer-based) o Testing materials (exam preparation) (computer-based) o Internet links o Summer School materials (computer-based) o Materials on Professional English (computer-based) o Extra materials on readers (computer-based) o Other (Please specify): .....…………………………………………………………………

6. In what aspects should ILC be improved? (You can select more than one option) o More guidance o More study space/computer o More printed materials o Grammar materials o Vocabulary materials o Reading materials o Writing materials o Listening materials o Speaking materials o Other (Please specify):....………………………………………...…………………………

Thank you for your participation!

Tarik Uzun Instructor of English

!

"""!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 112-126 !

Effects of Learning Styles on Self-directed Foreign Language Vocabulary Learning Jing Wu, College of Foreign Languages and Literatures, Fudan University, Shanghai, China !

Abstract !

Vocabulary learning is an on-going and life-long process, which is greatly influenced by individual differences. It has been noted that there is inefficient self-directed FL vocabulary learning of college students in mainland China and non-individualized learning may be one of the major reasons. As one of the most significant individual differences, a student’s learning style is supposed to largely determine their selection of learning strategies and have an effect on learning outcomes. This paper focuses on categorizing diversified vocabulary learning tasks which activate various vocabulary learning strategies, and integrating them into a learning system along particular learning paths to cater for different learning styles. The system is also tested in an empirical study for the purpose of checking the effects of these learning paths.!

Keywords: learning styles; vocabulary acquisition; computer-assisted language learning !

As an on-going and life-long process, vocabulary learning is strongly influenced by individual differences (Kojic-Sabo & Lightbown, 1999). Students’ individual differences refer to the differences in age, attitude, intelligence, language proficiency level, learning style etc. These differences should be taken into account when teaching and learning processes are being planned. However, some studies (e.g.

Li, 2010; Liu & Zhang, 2005; Wang, 2002; Wu & Wu, 2008; Xu, Peng, & Wu, 2004) indicate that college students in mainland China depend too much on their teachers and are used to being passive recipients, resulting in a serious lack of autonomy. The majority of those students engage mostly in rote memorization with word lists and decontextualized mechanical drills in self-directed vocabulary learning (Chen, 2001; Wu, 2011). Such non-individualized vocabulary learning may neither encourage students to utilize various vocabulary learning strategies nor stimulate their interest and motivation, and this is thus assumed to be one of the main reasons for their frustration in self-directed vocabulary learning. In this research, learning style will be particularly targeted as one of the most salient individual features. During the research, material which included different learning paths catering for students’

!

""#!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 112-126 !

different learning styles was trialed to see whether there was any improvement with students’ self-directed vocabulary learning by using it.

Learning Styles Dunn and Dunn (1992, 1993, 1999) described learning styles as “the way in which each learner begins to concentrate on, process, absorb, and retain new and difficult information” (as cited in Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, & Bjork, 2008, p. 107).

Learning styles have also been defined as “an individual’s natural, habitual, and preferred ways of absorbing, processing, and retaining new information and skills” (Reid, 1995, p. viii) and “how elements from basic stimuli in the current and past environment affect an individual’s ability to absorb and retain information” (Henson & Eller, 1999, p. 505). Different learning style models or inventories (Table 1) have been created in the past few decades.

Table 1. A Summary of Learning Style Models or Inventories Model / Inventory

Dimensions

Kolb (1984)

converger, diverger, assimilator, accommodator

Reid (1984)

visual, auditory, kinesthetic, tactile, group, individual

Felder and Silverman (1988)

sensing/intuitive, visual/verbal, inductive/deductive, active/reflective, sequential/global

O’Brien (1990)

visual, auditory, haptic

Fleming and Mills (1992)

visual, aural/auditory, read/write, kinesthetic

Oxford (1993)

visual/auditory/hands-on, extroverted/introverted, intuitive/concrete-sequential, closure-oriented/open, global/analytical

Kinsella (1993)

visual/verbal, visual/nonverbal, auditory, tactilekinesthetic

Ely (1994)

tolerance of ambiguity, intolerance of ambiguity

Memletics Learning Styles Inventory (2003)

visual, auditory, verbal, physical, logical, social, solitary

!

""#!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 112-126 !

Regarding the effect of learning styles on learning outcomes, the learningstyle hypothesis or the meshing hypothesis is evidently engrained in the educational practice of researchers who are interested in learning styles. The theory of learning styles suggests that “instruction should be provided in the mode that matches the learner’s style” (Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, & Bjork, 2008, p. 108). In other words, many researchers insist that customized learning to students’ learning styles can allow them to achieve better learning outcomes. For instance, Ford and Chen (2001) support that learning in matched conditions, in which instructional strategies are matched with learners’ learning styles, is significantly more effective than that in mismatched conditions in certain contexts. Omrod (2008) claims that verbal students seem to learn better when information is presented through words while visual students seem to learn better when it is presented through pictures. However, there is also some evidence that contradicts these assumptions, showing that learning may not be improved by adjusting learning based on learning style. For example, Constantinidou and Baker (2002) find that there is “no relationship between a visual learning style and the actual learning of verbal items that are presented visually or auditorily” (p.

306). Massa and Mayer (2006) report that their study provides no support for the idea that different instructional methods should be adopted for visualizers and verbalizers.

In sum, it is inconclusive whether learning styles have an effect on learning outcomes. !

Development of a Self-directed Vocabulary Learning System Embedding Different Learning Paths Although it is difficult to realize individualized learning in a classroom setting, it may be more easily achieved through CALL. CALL derives from Computer-assisted Instruction (CAI). It is interdisciplinary, that is, it is tightly connected to other disciplines such as cognitive psychology, artificial intelligence, course design, human-computer interaction and SLA. It refers to “the search for and study of applications of the computer in language learning and teaching” (Levy, 1997, p. 1) or “learners learning language in any context with, through, and around computer technologies” (Egbert, 2005, p. 4). From the 1990s to the present day, CALL has developed very rapidly and has been greatly influenced by constructivism.

This has meant that the integrative phase of CALL is characterized by the use of multimedia, hypermedia and interactive technologies to promote integration of language learning skills. The adaptive nature of CALL allows students to control their !

""#!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 112-126 !

learning environment and select the options best suited for their learning style preferences (Grace, 1998). Therefore, to address different learning styles, an adaptive and intelligent learning system was developed for the purpose of this preliminary research. Vocabulary learning tasks were categorized and integrated into a system according to particular learning paths, depending on different learning styles. It is proposed to enhance students’ utilization of various vocabulary learning strategies and create an effective individualized learning environment.

To cater for different learning styles, different learning paths indicating those styles have to be built in the intended system. However, it seems impossible to address all the learning styles in Table 1 above. After careful selection, the Memletics Learning Styles Inventory (2003) was consequently adopted for this study because it stresses several of the most salient learning styles and it is precisely defined and widely accepted. The inventory includes seven learning styles, i.e. visual, aural, verbal, physical, logical, social and solitary, but four of them are not taken into account in this research: The verbal style is excluded because this study is related solely to word learning. The physical style is also not considered because it is relatively difficult to address even in a computer-based learning environment.

Additionally, because both individual and social activities are very conducive to selfdirected vocabulary learning according to the importance of independence and interdependence in learner autonomy, the activities for the social and solitary styles are provided for all the students. As a result, the three remaining styles, i.e. visual, aural and logical are introduced to underlie different learning paths in the intended system. A visual-style learner prefers using images, pictures, colors, and maps to organize information and communicate with others; an aural-style learner likes to work with sound and music; and a logical-style learner likes using his brain for logical and mathematical reasoning. In the learning paths, besides most learning tasks addressing a major style among the three, several tasks cater for both visual and aural styles due to their significant prominence in those tasks. What is more, since a few tasks are indispensable to the basic acquisition of new word knowledge, they are hopefully adopted by students of all styles and thereby included in all learning paths.

A self-directed vocabulary learning system called Learning Vocabulary In Domain was ultimately developed (Figure 1). In the system, three learning paths addressing different learning styles, i.e. visual, aural and logical, were built up with the learning tasks activating various vocabulary learning strategies to hopefully !

""#!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 112-126 !

facilitate students’ utilization of these strategies, thereby improving their self-directed vocabulary learning.

!

Figure 1. Main Page Upon logging into the learning system at the first time, students are presented with a questionnaire page about learning styles (Figure 2). In the questionnaire, three choices are initially offered for students: zero (The description sounds nothing like you), one (The description sounds partly like you) and two (The description sounds exactly like you). Then, the descriptions for the three learning styles are arranged in a random order. After students fill out the questionnaire, the learning style that most fits them is reported to them immediately. More importantly, the result leads students automatically to the task page, which displays vocabulary learning tasks that match their learning style.

!

""#!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 112-126 !

!

Figure 2. Questionnaire Page On the task page (Figure 3) of each individual word, learning tasks working for the justified systematic vocabulary learning processes (Wu, 2012) are first categorized sequentially for students’ more effective vocabulary acquisition. Then, the learning paths addressing different learning styles, i.e. visual, aural and logical, are also provided in options for students. The default path is determined by the result of the aforementioned questionnaire survey on learning style. The tasks in each learning path are shown below (Table 2), which activate various vocabulary learning strategies.

!

""#!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 112-126 !

!

Figure 3. Main Task Page Table 2. Learning Tasks in Three Learning Paths Tasks/Strategies advanced organizer

Visual

Aural

Logical

√

√

√

Pronunciation part of speech

√ √

contextual guessing semantic grids

√ √

√

use a concordancer

√ √

imagine a pictorial representation of word meaning

√

group discussion

√

√

word formation

√ √

Video

√

√

dictionary use

√

√

!

""#!

√

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 112-126 !

ask teachers or peers for word knowledge

√

group words

√

√

√

word chunks

√

semantic mappings

√

keyword method

√

√

connect a new word to personal experience

√

√

√

read as much as possible

√

√

√

make up grammatical sentences

√

√

√

An Empirical Study Research question An empirical study was conducted to discover whether the application of learning paths addressing different learning styles in computer-assisted vocabulary learning could significantly improve college students’ self-directed vocabulary learning. Then, two kinds of computer-assisted learning environments were created.

In the first environment, students used a vocabulary learning system that embeds different learning paths with matched learning tasks (S1), i.e. Learning Vocabulary In Domain, and in the second environment, students adopted a system that displays the same tasks but does not indicate any learning paths (S2). The research question was expectedly answered by the comparison between students’ performance in the two environments.

Participants The participants in this study were 61 freshmen from a science and engineering university in mainland China. They were all non-English majors selected from about 4,000 freshmen randomly. The distribution of their English scores in the placement test which was held immediately after their college entrance is shown in Figure 4. As can been seen from the histogram, although it skewed to the left (skewness value=-0.340<1), the skewness was not very strong. Therefore, to a great extent, the participants selected could represent all the students in that grade, and on a !

""#!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 112-126 !

larger scale, those at similar science and engineering universities in mainland China.

For the purpose of answering the research question, the participants were divided into two groups and then randomly assigned to study on self-directed vocabulary learning systems S1 and S2 respectively.

Figure 4. Participantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; English Scores in the Placement Test Comparability of participating groups For the validity of the research outcome, the English scores of the two groups in the placement test were compared. The results in Table 3 revealed that the mean score was 68.67 (SD = 10.13) for the S1 group and 69.61 (SD = 12.32) for the S2 group. These group means were tested using Independent samples t-test, and this difference was found to be non-significant, t (59) = -.327, p = .745. It implied that the two groups were at a similar language proficiency level before the start of the experiment. In addition, studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; performance on the target words in the pre-test was also compared between the two groups. As shown in Table 4, the mean score was 18.90 (SD = 7.49) for the S1 group and 19.19 (SD = 6.41) for the S2 group. Using the Independent samples t-test, there was no detectable difference, t (59) = -.165, p = .870. Meanwhile, the students in both groups were found to be unfamiliar with the target words. From the comparisons above, it is clear that the two groups were qualified to participate in the experiment.

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics of the English Scores of Two Groups in the Placement Test

!

"#$!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 112-126 !

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

S1

30

68.67

10.13

S2

31

69.61

12.32

Table 4. Descriptive Statistics of the Performance of Two Groups in the Pre-test N

Mean

Std. Deviation

S1

30

18.90

7.49

S2

31

19.19

6.41

Instruments Three vocabulary tests, namely the pre-, post- and delayed post-test were designated as the instruments to compare studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; performance. The participants were not informed in advance of the post-test immediately after the treatment nor the delayed post-test two and a half months after the treatment. Therefore, the two tests were designed to be almost the same as the pre-test, with some changes only in the sequence of question items. The test mainly checks the participantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; vocabulary knowledge in three essential aspects, i.e. word form, meaning and usage. It is composed of five parts: 1) Dictation; 2) Choose the correct spoken forms of target words and write out their L1 translations; 3) Find the synonyms of target words; 4) Fill the gaps of contextual sentences with target words; and 5) Make up grammatical sentences with target words. For the purpose of guaranteeing the validity and reliability of this test, two experts in language testing were invited to check it and six college students took the test prior to the participants. It was then revised accordingly.

Data collection and analytical methods The three vocabulary tests were carried out on the two participating groups before, immediately after, and two and a half months after the treatment. Each test lasted about 45 minutes. 61 valid test papers were collected for each test. The papers were scored according to the scoring criteria. Then, all the raw data collected from the tests were analyzed using SPSS. Cronbachâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ! was employed to test the level of reliability within the post-test. The result indicated an acceptable reliability (!=0.779).

Comparisons were made between the two groups based on their performance in the three tests to discover whether the application of learning paths in computer-

!

"#"!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 112-126 !

assisted vocabulary learning could significantly enhance studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; self-directed vocabulary learning. Firstly, the gain scores from the pre-test to the post-test were compared between the two groups by Independent samples t-test to see whether the gain scores of the group engaging in system S1 were significantly higher than those of the group studying on system S2 after the treatment. Secondly, the gain scores from the pre-test to the delayed test were compared in the same way to find out whether the students using system S1 still achieved significantly higher gain scores two and a half months after the treatment.

Procedures The experiment lasted eight weeks including one training week, five learning weeks and two assessment weeks. In the training week, a tutor explained the use of the designated systems to the two groups. During the five learning weeks, the two groups were required to study using their respective systems twice a week, one hour each time in the Learner Autonomy Center (LAC) for Language Studies. During the assessment weeks, vocabulary tests were conducted.

Results and Discussion The results of the gain scores from the pre-test to the post-test between the two groups are displayed in Table 5. The mean score (86.87) for the group using the system which embedded different learning paths with matched leaning tasks (S1) was larger than that (84.71) for the group taking the system which displayed the same tasks but did not indicate any learning paths (S2) immediately after the treatment.

However, this could not justify that the difference was significantly large. Then, these group means were tested using Independent samples t-test, and the difference was found to be non-significant, t (59) = .844, p = .402. It indicated that no detectable difference could be found between the gain scores of the two groups over the treatment period.

Table 5. Descriptive Statistics of the Two Groupsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Gain Scores from the Pre-test to the Post-test

S1

!

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

30

86.87

9.96

"##!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 112-126 !

S2

31

84.71

10.00

According to the results of the students’ gain scores from the pre-test to the delayed post-test between the two groups in Table 6, the mean score (80.40) for the group utilizing system S1 was larger than that (77.32) for the group adopting system S2 two and a half months after the treatment. However, the Independent samples t-test value for the difference between the two groups was still non-significant, t (59) = 1.202, p = .234. It meant that there was still no detectable difference between the gain scores of the two groups two and a half months after the treatment.

Table 6. Descriptive Statistics of the Two Groups’ Gain Scores from the Pre-test to the Delayed Post-test N

Mean

Std. Deviation

S1

30

80.40

9.97

S2

31

77.32

10.02

Based on the analysis and discussion above, a trend was shown that system S1 was not significantly more effective in helping participants gain target word knowledge than system S2. In other words, the application of learning paths addressing different learning styles in computer-assisted vocabulary learning could not significantly improve their self-directed vocabulary learning. On one hand, it may be revealed that tailoring students’ self-directed vocabulary learning to their learning styles has no effect on learning outcomes as other studies (Constantinidou & Baker, 2002; Massa & Mayer, 2006) have reported. As further mentioned in a research study (Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, & Bjork, 2008), “… at present, there is no adequate evidence base to justify incorporating learning-styles assessments into general educational practice” (p. 105). On the other hand, the non-significant outcomes may possibly result from a few factors like the time span of the treatment and the number of target words involved in the preliminary study. A longitudinal study with a longer period of treatment for students may lead them to interact more with different learning paths in the system. Moreover, with a larger number of target words in the longitudinal study, it can enable researchers to collect a broader range of data and

!

"#$!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 112-126 !

thereby probe into more accurate details of computer-assisted self-directed vocabulary learning in different learning paths.

Conclusion Nowadays, most college students in mainland China lack learner autonomy and learn words by rote memorization and mechanical practice, seldom consciously focusing on which tasks they choose. It is expected in this preliminary study that they can select those tasks based on their individual differences, especially with respect to learning styles. With the rapid development of computer technology and its wide applications in language teaching and learning, individualized learning may be more easily achieved by CALL. Therefore, in this research, a self-directed vocabulary learning system called Learning Vocabulary In Domain was developed to address studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; different learning styles. Then, an empirical study was conducted to test whether the group using this system could perform significantly better than that taking the system which displayed the same tasks but did not indicate any learning paths, and as a result no significant difference was detected in studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; performance between the two groups either immediately after or two and a half months after the treatment. The results show that there is no solid evidence to support the efficacy of learning styles on learning outcomes as some studies have already indicated. However, the non-significant results could possibly have been caused by the limitations in the preliminary study such as the time span of the treatment and the number of target words. Therefore, more subtle details of computer-assisted self-directed vocabulary learning in different learning paths could be explored in future research.

Notes on the contributor Jing Wu is a lecturer in the College of Foreign Languages and Literatures at Fudan University in China. Her research interests include computer-assisted language learning (CALL), EFL learning and teaching, vocabulary acquisition and self-directed learning.

Acknowledgements The research is sponsored by the Chinese MOE Youth Funds for Research in Humanities and Social Sciences (Grant No: 12YJC740111) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities in China. !

"#$!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 112-126 !

References Chen, H. (2001). Chinese non-English majors’ strategies for English vocabulary learning. Foreign Language Education, 22(6), 46–50. !

Constantinidou, F., & Baker, S. (2002). Stimulus modality and verbal learning performance in normal aging. Brain and Language, 82, 296–311. doi: 10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00018-4 Egbert, J. (2005). Conducting research on CALL. In J. Egbert & G. M. Petrie (Eds.), CALL research perspectives, (pp. 3–8). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ely, C. M. (1994). Second language tolerance of ambiguity scale. In J. M. Reid (Ed.), 1995, Learning styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom, (pp. 216–217). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education, Engineering Education, 78(7), 674–681.

Fleming, N. D., & Mills, C. (1992). Not another inventory, rather a catalyst for reflection. To Improve the Academy, 11, 137–155.

Ford, N., & Chen, S. Y. (2001). Matching/mismatching revisited: An empirical study of learning and teaching styles. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(1), 5–22. doi: 10.1111/1467-8535.00173 Grace, C. (1998). Personality type, lexical ambiguity, and vocabulary retention in CALL. CALICO Journal, 15(1–3), 19–45.

Henson, K. T., & Eller, B. F. (1999). Educational psychology for effective teaching.

Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Kinsella, K. (1993). Perceptual Learning Preferences Survey. In J. M. Reid (Ed.), 1995, Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom, (pp. 221–231). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Kojic-Sabo, I., & Lightbown, P. (1999). Students’ approach to vocabulary learning and their relationship to success. The Modern Language Journal, 83(2), 176–192.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Learning style inventory and technical manual. Boston, MA: McBer and company.

Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: Context and conceptualization. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

Li, H. H. (2010). Study on autonomous learning abilities of non-English major freshmen and their psychological factors. Exam Weekly, 2, 98–100.

!

"#$!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 112-126 !

Liu, G. L., & Zhang, W. G. (2005). An investigation and analysis of college students’ foreign language autonomous learning. Journal of Xi’an International Studies University, 13(4), 38–40.

Massa, L. J., & Mayer, R. E. (2006). Testing the ATI hypothesis: Should multimedia instruction accommodate verbalizer-visualizer cognitive style? Learning and Individual Differences, 16(4), 321–335. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2006.10.001 Memletics Learning Styles Inventory. (2003). Retrieved from http://www.memletics.com.

O’Brien, L. (1990). The Learning Channel Preference Checklist. In J. M. Reid (Ed.), 1995, Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom, (pp. 196–201). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Ormrod, J. E. (2008). Educational psychology: Developing learners (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Oxford, R. (1993). Style Analysis Survey (SAS): Assessing your own learning and working styles. In J. M. Reid (Ed.), 1995, Learning styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom, (pp. 208–215). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x Reid, J. M. (1984). Perceptual Learning Style Preference Questionnaire. In J. M. Reid (Ed.), 1995, Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom, (pp. 202–207). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Reid, J. M. (1995). Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Wang, D. Q. (2002). Fostering learner autonomy in college English study. Foreign Language World, 5, 17–23.

Wu, J. (2011). Study on college students’ utilization of vocabulary learning strategies.

Fudan Forum on Foreign Languages and Literature, Spring, 84-89.

Wu, J. (2012). Construction, specification and validation of a new framework of vocabulary learning processes. Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 5(4), 116–137.

Wu, J., & Wu, Z. J. (2008). The cognition of self-directed learners under CALL. Modern Educational Technology, 18(5), 37–41.

Xu, J. F., Peng, R. Z., & Wu, W. P. (2004). Survey and analysis on college nonEnglish majors’ autonomous English learning ability. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 36(1), 64–68.

!

"#$!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 127-142

Moving Online: Changing the Focus of a Writing Center!

Gene Thompson, Rikkyo University, Japan Abstract This paper charts the development of a small departmental writing center at a university in Japan. The paper discusses the results from two semesters of an ongoing action research project focused on improving the usage of the center. Faced with significant constraints and decreasing usage, the project used student survey data collected at the end of each semester to drive developments to the center. This led to a shift from using a face-to-face peer model for the writing center, to organizing it as an online writing lab. The article demonstrates the potential benefits of moving online for centers facing significant constraints, and the importance of using data for decision making in driving center development.

Keywords: writing centre, Japanese university, action research !

Writing centers at universities in Japan have struggled with defining their purpose (LaClare & Franz, 2013; McKinley, 2010) and attracting users (Johnston, Yoshida, & Cornwell, 2010). Although guidelines exist which outline a process for the development of centers (e.g, International Writing Centers Association, 2014), each center must respond to the context in which it will operate, by balancing institutional constraints such as budget and space, while attempting to meet differing student needs. As a result, there is considerable diversity in writing centers in Japan and the types of services they offer (Johnston et al., 2010).

This paper outlines the development of a departmental writing center within a business faculty at a private university in Japan, which supports the development of undergraduate students in a Bilingual Business management program. In the department of Global Business at Rikkyo University, students take academic and special purpose English courses in their first and second years, followed by business management content classes (taught in English) in their third and fourth years. As a result, the program requires students to complete academic essays, research papers, and business reports in English.

The paper will introduce and discuss changes to the writing center over two semesters made with the purpose of increasing student usage. It will begin by introducing the initial â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;physicalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; writing center and issues that arose leading to the project. Next, the design of the (ongoing) action research project will be introduced, which involves changes being

!

127!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 127-142 implemented at the beginning of each semester, and the collection and analysis of student survey data at the end of each semester, which is used to inform future development. The first action cycle will be explained, and the survey data collected at the end of the first cycle will be presented. The paper will focus on how this data was used to reorganize the center from a physical space to an online lab. Next, student survey data generated following the second cycle will be introduced and analyzed, before outlining planned future changes and developments. The paper will conclude by discussing two implications which may be of value for educators working in writing centers in Japan: the value for students of easily accessible online materials and resources, and the value for administrators of ongoing data collection about the center.

The Initial Writing Center The ‘purpose’ of writing centers in Japan has been an issue widely discussed in the literature (Hays, 2010; Johnston, Cornwell & Yoshida, 2008; Johnston et al., 2010; LaClare & Franz, 2013; McKinley, 2010; Nakatake, 2013). Some centers have followed American ‘process’ models focused on writer and skills development (McKinley, 2010, 2011), while others have recognized the ‘product’ focus that users often have, and taken more pragmatic approaches in order to demonstrate ‘value’ to stakeholders (LaClare & Franz, 2013). Finally, differing needs have led to greater specialization and special programs within centers, such as the individualized support initiatives outlined by Nakatake (2013) for science students at a university in Tokyo.

McKinley (2011) asked “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?” (p. 295). The initial design of the College of Business (COB) Writing Center followed a design commonly used in North American contexts, utilizing exchange students as peer tutors providing consultations to students about their writing. The stated purpose of the center mirrored the general consensus in Japan (see Johnston et al., 2010) that writing centers should help students to become better writers and not necessarily create better papers. Accordingly, peers were asked to work dialogically with students to improve their skills, rather than students’ texts per se, and information disseminated to students explained that “the Writing Center is not an editing service. It is a peer-run initiative to help you improve your writing ability. We ask questions and provide suggestions to help you help yourself” (COB Writing Center, 2011). !

128!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 127-142

The operation of the service faced institutional constraints: limited budget, the lack of a dedicated space, and a small number of available exchange student peers. As a result, the center was open for approximately six hours per week, using a periodically available meeting room close to the departmental and instructors offices. Two peers were usually on duty in each time slot, and students could reserve ahead, or drop-in to speak with peers about their writing. A simple website provided basic information about the services of the center, but was not well known by students or integrated with other Learning Management Systems (LMS) used in the program.

Cycle One: The Action Research Project Similar to reports about writing centers in other contexts (e.g., McKinley, 2011), the center was initially well received when it was started in 2011, but over time was used less and less by students. Peers reported that students just wanted the grammar of their essays checked, a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;purposeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; issue that has also been noted at centers in other studies (Johnston et al., 2010; McKinley, 2011). Furthermore, while some writing centers are housed inside a general selfaccess center (see Tan, 2011 for a review) and enjoy significant support from their institutions, the COB Writing Center was conceived of as a specialized service for departmental students, remaining a small operation administered by one of the instructors from the six-person Bilingual Business Leader (BBL) team. Reliant on a small allowance of (limited) departmental budget, the center struggled with room availability and attracting peer tutors.

Finally, there was a 75% decline in student usage of the writing center service, from 66 sessions in the first semester of 2012 to only 17 in the second semester. This led to a discussion by the BBL team in April 2013 about the value of keeping the writing center open, and whether it justified the resources involved and effort required to manage the constraints it faced.

The decision was made to keep the center open, and the current research project was started to assess the situation and provide a structure for making changes to the organization of the center, in order to encourage greater use of the center and to assess the value of continuing the service. The design of the project followed a cyclical approach to problem solving, based on the Action Research Spiral (Zuber-Skerritt, 2001), where action cycles (corresponding to semesters) involved the planning and implementation of changes to the organization of the center, followed by the collection of student survey data to gauge the !

129!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 127-142 efficacy of the developments for students. Qualitative and quantitative data were generated through the use of closed-ended and open-ended questions using online surveys. Data were analyzed quantitatively by calculating percentages for closed-ended responses, while openended responses were coded and grouped into themes. The survey results were then presented to the team for discussion, where decisions about developments and changes were then made for implementation in the following semester.

Figure 1. The Action Research Spiral (Zuber-Skerritt, 2001) A number of actions were considered for introduction in the first cycle. Anecdotal feedback from peer tutors suggested that the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;drop-inâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; organization of the center led to situations where students had attempted to visit the center but the peers had been unable to look at the studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s writing (a problem noted by Johnson et al., 2010). Extensive discussion also focused on feedback from peer tutors that students often had relatively straightforward questions. As a result, the teaching team decided upon two actions to be implemented in the

!

130!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 127-142 first semester of 2013, to improve the writing center service: (1) an online reservation system was introduced to prevent situations where students dropped-in to the center but could not have their writing seen; and (2) the creation of an expanded online resource center where students could access materials to help with their writing without needed to visit the center or meet with a peer tutor.

Both actions were examples of recent developments for writing centers internationally, where “writing support systems have gone online to disseminate information about the physical centers, or to provide downloadable writing references” (Tan, 2011, p.

393). The decision to implement a reservations system may seem strange since the center had a problem of low usage, and that by introducing such a system there would be a further step required of students wishing to visit the center. However, tutors reported that during weeks where writing assignments were due the number of students visiting the center increased to a point where they sometimes could not see all students. Accordingly, it was hoped that a reservation system would help avoid such situations.

The decision to expand the website to an online ‘lab’ was made in response to five problems the teaching team considered based on anecdotal peer and student feedback: (1) students did not have sufficient time in their schedules to visit the center; (2) the location of the center was inconvenient to students (did not want to cross campus and come to the departmental floor of the building); (3) students were leaving their writing to the last minute, thus making a visit to the center of little instrumental value for improving their writing; (4) the center could not respond to the spikes in demand when assignments were due (and resulted in no visitors at other times); and (5) students sometimes had relatively straightforward concerns that they did not judge worthy of a trip to the center, but which could be dealt with via online resources such as video tutorials and activities. Accordingly, activities and resources related to specific problems such as sentence fragments and run-ons, along with referencing and plagiarism, were added over the course of the semester based on the requests of instructors.

All second-year students taking departmental EAP classes (due to the design of the program, these students are the only departmental students taking English skills classes in the first semester of each year) were provided with a printed handout that outlined how to access the center online and the resources available, including how to make reservations for the advising service. A free online Learning Management System (LMS) called ‘Language Cloud’ was chosen to host the writing center space online. This platform was chosen because it was a free service, had an easy to use interface, provided information in English and !

131!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 127-142 Japanese, and was accessible via mobile devices such as smartphones. Furthermore, it allowed unlimited attachments and for online videos and links to be embedded smoothly.

Cycle One: Survey Results At the end of the first cycle, a survey was carried out to investigate students’ evaluations of the center and its services. A five-item survey was distributed online using Google forms to approximately 160 second-year students, which generated 90 responses. A final comment section asked student for additional comments or suggestions. The results are summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Semester One Survey Results (1) How did you hear about

Didn’t know

the Writing Center?

about it

(n = 90)

3% (n=3)

(2) Which services, if any, did you use? (n = 88)

(3) If you didn’t use the Writing Center (Advising

Other students

Teachers

Other

4% (n=4)

92% (n=83)

0% (n=0)

Advising service 6% (n=5)

Didn’t have

Didn’t

enough time

know the

for feedback

location

65%

10%

(n=47)

(n=7)

(4) Which part of your

Academic

writing are you most worried

style

about? (n = 73)

(5) In getting feedback for your writing, which style

!

online 22% (n=19)

service), why not? (n = 72)

Writing resources

Didn’t know

Did not use 73% (n=64)

Don’t

Inconvenient

Services

need the

hours of the

aren’t

service

service

useful

14%

4%

7%

0%

(n=10)

(n=3)

(n=5)

(n=0)

Thesis

Topic

statements

sentences

how to make an appointment

Citations

Grammar

Organization

33%

37%

21%

5%

1%

3%

(n=24)

(n=27)

(n=15)

(n=4)

(n=1)

(n=2)

Face-to-face

132!

Email feedback

Chat feedback (e.g. Skype)

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 127-142 would you prefer? (n = 88)

53%

42%

5%

(n=47)

(n=37)

(n=4)

Only 6% of respondents reported using the face-to-face advising service. However, 22% of students reported that they had accessed the online resources. A majority (73%) of students reported not using either the face-to-face service or access the online resources. This strongly suggested that the service did not meet the needs of students; it was clear that further developments were needed to the writing center services in order to make them more useful.

Although the team was encouraged that no students reported the advising service to be not useful, the major reason reported for non-usage concerned student time constraints and inconvenient opening hours. This was problematic, because the advising service could not be expanded due to limited peer availability along with budget and space constraints. The responses to question three “If you didn’t use the Writing Center (Advising service), why not?” indicated that our team’s inference had been correct that students were not using the system due to a lack of time, poor time management (e.g. working on writing assignments at the last minute), and a view that the service was for improving their assignments prior to submission.

Although students had been provided with an information handout about the service, 10% of students reported that they did not know the location or the service, a difficulty noted by other centers (McKinley, 2011) which likely reflects that many may not have even read the information. Furthermore, 14% reported difficulties with the appointment service, indicating that in dealing with the problem of reducing students being unable to see tutors, the introduction of the reservation system had created an additional layer of complexity for students. Furthermore, 7% reported inconvenient hours. This suggests that access, organization, and timing were significant issues for the face-to-face advising system to overcome.

Finally, we reasoned that the responses to question five “In getting feedback for your writing, which style would you prefer?” suggested that while a majority of students reported that they would prefer face-to-face feedback, students were open to alternative ways of organizing the advising service via email or online chat, if a suitable format for online submission could be integrated. Thus, researching a feasible means for submitting writing online for feedback was set as a goal for the second cycle.

!

133!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 127-142 Overall, the survey data suggested that the peer advising service was not positioned to appeal to students effectively. To compound the problem, the leader of the writing center was informed that room availability would be severely limited for the writing center in the following semester (specifically, for only a few weeks of the semester). On the other hand, the online lab had been used by nearly a quarter of students in the first cycle. Accordingly, two primary actions were decided by the BBL team for cycle two: (1) the peer advising service would be suspended due to the room availability issue, and because the considerable use of budget and resources in providing peers in time slots on multiple days of the week was not deemed to be justified by the usage data; and (2) resources would instead be used to expand the center online by retaining one peer, part time, to assist with developing resources for the writing center online. As a result, the writing center would become only an online â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;labâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; for the second cycle.

Cycle Two: Expansion of the Online Resources Cycle two was carried out during the second semester of 2013, and involved the expansion of the online resources for students, and the suspension of the advising service.

One part-time graduate exchange student was hired and worked on developing resources for the online space for approximately three hours per week. Resources were added based on the areas reported by students in question four of the cycle one survey, leading to the creation of three distinct sections in the online lab related to academic style, citations, and grammar.

Resources were sourced online by linking to online activities and video tutorials about writing skills, or developed by the instructors or part-time peer.

During the semester, the amount of materials in the space more than doubled, with specific areas added which focused on skills being developed in the two academic English skills courses being taught in the department that semester, along with general resources for writing skills development. Course instructors also provided suggestions for materials, such as information videos about plagiarism, which were added throughout the semester. Students were automatically added to the online lab by the writing center administrator, and after each update, each user was emailed (via the message function built into the LMS) with details of new resources and activities.

!

134!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 127-142 Cycle Two: Survey Results At the end of the second cycle, a survey was used to investigate students’ evaluations of the (online) center and its resources. Five items were added to the online end-of-semester student surveys for each of the two academic English courses being taught in the department that semester. The surveys were administered online using ‘Survey Monkey’, and students were given the option to allow their responses to be used for research purposes. The data of those who agreed were provided to the researcher for analysis. Accordingly, 195 first-year student responses and 104 second-year student responses were collated for analysis. The results are summarized in Table 2 (first year students) and Table 3 (second year students) below.

Table 2: Semester Two Survey Results for First-year Students (1) Did you access the COB Yes

No

58% (n=111)

42% (n=80)

Writing and Support Center on 'Language Cloud' this semester? (n = 191)

(2) Choose the reasons why you accessed the Writing and Support Center

To access the Writing Guidelines for assignments

To find out about how to write my essay

1

To find out about

Other

citations

(n = 108) Students could choose more

65% (n=70)

38% (n=41)

36% (n=39)

4% (n=4)

Not useful at all

Not very useful

Somewhat useful

Very useful

1% (n=1)

5% (n=6)

70% (n=76)

24% (n=26)

than one answer

(3) Please indicate how useful you found the information on the Writing and Support Center (n = 109)

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1 These vary by course, but are based on the ‘Chicago’ style !

135!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 127-142

(4) Why didn't you access

I didn't know how to

I didn't need it

access it

Other (please specify)

the Writing and Support Center? (n =78) Students could choose more

5% (n=4) 43% (n=34)

62% (n=48)

than one answer

Did not know: 50% (n=2) Asked Friends: 25% (n=1) Used other sites: 50% (n=1)

(5) Do you have any Nothing special: 50% (n=9)

suggestions for improving

Citations and footnotes: 26% (n=5)

the Writing and Support

Grammar and punctuation: 6% (n=1)

Center? E.g. Are there

Want to submit work for review: 6% (n=1)

any materials or areas

More resources for learning English in general: 6% (n=1)

that you would like added?

Resources in Japanese: 6% (n=1)

(n =18)

Table 3: Semester Two Survey Results for Second-year Students (1) Did you access the COB Yes

No

13% (n=13)

87% (n=84)

Writing and Support Center on 'Language Cloud' this semester? (n =97)

(2) Choose the reasons why

To access the

To find out about

you accessed the Writing

Writing

how to write my

and Support Center

Guidelines

essay

55% (n=6)

To find out about

Other

citations

(Please specify)

46% (n=5)

27% (n=3)

9% (n=1)

Not useful at all

Not very useful

Somewhat useful

Very useful

0% (n=0)

0% (n=0)

100% (n=12)

0% (n=0)

(n =11) Students could choose more than one answer

(3) Please indicate how useful you found the information on the Writing and Support Center (n =12)

!

136!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 127-142

(4) Why didn't you access

I didn't know how to

I didn't need it

access it

Other (please specify)

the Writing and Support 5% (n=15)

Center? (n =83) Students could choose more

28% (n=23)

56% (n=47)

than one answer

Forgot: 20% (n=3) Difficult to use: 1% (n=2) Not useful: 1% (n=1) No time: 68% (n=9)

(5) Do you have any suggestions for improving the Writing and Support Center? E.g. Are there any materials or areas that you would like added? (n = 0) No responses

The results showed dramatically different rates of access rates for first-year versus second-year students. More than half (58%) of first-year students reported accessing the center online. This was most likely because first year students also used Language Cloud as a resource for their English for Academic Purposes course, which linked to the writing center online via students’ ‘dashboard’ (a notification center which is displayed when users login).

This meant that they were automatically added to the center as members and received notifications and messages such as updates from the writing center. As a result, there were low barriers to access the center, they were familiar with the platform housing the writing center, could access the resources more easily, and received updates about the center. This integration of self-access materials with the class LMS appears to have been effective.

On the other hand, only 13% of second year students reported that they accessed the online center. Furthermore, a small number of second year students (n=2) reported that they thought the entire writing center had been terminated (not only the face-to-face advising service). Second year students did not use Language Cloud for their classes and were required to sign-up for the service in order to gain access (i.e. opt-in), adding another step for them when they wanted support. Furthermore, they were not required to produce academic written texts for their BBL courses, which is more focused on reading skills and business vocabulary development. Second year students were required to produce reports and proposals in their other classes, and it is likely that students who did access the online center were doing so to access resources to help with those assignments.

Overall, the cycle two survey results indicated that the materials added to the online ‘lab’ met the needs of students; more than 90% of first year students (and all second year !

137!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 127-142 students) reported the information they accessed on the center as being useful or very useful.

Interestingly, 65% of first year students who used the service did so simply to check the writing and citation guidelines of the department, which are available on the site, as well as learn new skills. In this respect, the team’s initial hypothesis appears correct, that students may have had relatively straightforward concerns that could be dealt with via online resources.

Future Developments The survey results may suggest that expanding the service to include more general materials will respond to a latent demand (i.e. that some students already see the service as having value for supporting areas of language development beyond writing). Two first year students requested general English and grammar related materials be added to the service.

Thus, it is expected that the writing center will change from a narrow, to wider, focus in in the future. As Johnston, Cornwell, and Yoshida (2008) explain: EFL learners, in particular, need support not only in writing, but also in areas such as speaking, grammar, mechanics, oral presentations, and essay writing. In addition, these students need to gain confidence in using their second language. Thus, as more and more writing centers are established, they will take on broad and varied roles in supporting student development (Johnston et al., 2008, p. 182) Secondly, the first year student data suggested that citations remained a major concern for students, with five students requesting more materials. An example comment was “I wish there were more examples of how to cite on each material”, which highlighted how the online center can provide value to students and link to the curriculum materials. As the ‘Writing Guidelines’ provided to students in class usually only provide a small number of example citations or general information about writing style, the online center can explain examples from the full style guide and provide examples of nearly all types of citations that students use in their writing. The ease with which videos can be embedded also allows the peer tutor to provide tutorials based on specific requests and concerns. An example is one student who commented, “I wanted to know more about the rules for capitalization” which led to the sourcing of a video tutorial online which was embedded in a tutorial with information about that problem. These requests showed that a mechanism is needed for allowing students to request materials directly during the semester, rather than relying on teachers’ judgments of !

138!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 127-142 requirements. Accordingly, adding such a mechanism to the online lab (using a messaging function) is one development to be implemented in cycle three.

A comment by one first-year student provided the team with a question: Should support materials be provided in English, Japanese, or both? The student commented, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Please prepare Japanese sentence!â&#x20AC;?, raising the issue that some students may not be able to effectively process and make use of the resources online if they are provided only in English.

As Tan (2011) notes, many writing centers in Asian contexts provide bilingual support or resources, and Nakatake (2013) cited the use of Japanese by tutors as a key reason for the success of the writing center in that study. Accordingly, one action proposed for future cycles is to add a Japanese native speaker to the peer team to assist in developing support materials in Japanese.

It was also decided to re-introduce the advising service. Although only one student comment directly requested to be able to submit work for review and advice online, the LMS used for the online center added features during the second cycle that easily allowed for the submission, mark-up, and feedback of written work. Accordingly, the major action to be implemented in cycle three is to increase the number of peers again (initially to two) and reintroduce the advising service via an online model, where students can submit work for review and advice to exchange students in English (and in the future it is hoped the service will expand to allow students to request advice in or Japanese peers in Japanese. Submission and future student survey data will be used to evaluate if and how either of these services, or both, are suitable for retention and further development.

Finally, only 13% of second year students accessed the service in the second cycle.

Accordingly, two actions are already planned for cycle four (i.e. the corresponding semester in 2014) to improve knowledge about, and the relevance of, the service for second year students in the second semester: (1) More materials and information directly related to the second semester second year course will be added, including materials not only focused on writing, but also general skills development; and (2) information about the center will be added to the course orientation materials for second year courses at the beginning of second semester.

Conclusion and Implications for Other Contexts In conclusion, the data collected in the two cycles of the action research project led to major changes in the way that department resources were utilized, resulting in a major !

139!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 127-142 reorganization of the center from a face-to-face service in favor of an online ‘lab’ model.

These changes have resulted in significant increases in reported students usage and have smoothly integrated the writing center into the learning context as an easily accessible resource. Furthermore, as the LMS has expanded features which allow for the submission and ‘mark-up’ of student work, the center is moving towards a fully online model involving two components: A materials lab with resources and workshops, and an online peer support service which students can access from any location. In this respect, the center will come full circle.

Due to the highly situated nature of the action research, the problem solving process in the study is viewed as ‘reflective rationality’, where complex problems require specific situated solutions that are developed in collaboration with the practitioner(s) (Altrichter, Posch, & Somekh, 1993). Accordingly, care should be taken when suggesting implications for other writing centers with different problems. Nevertheless, it is hoped that the actions taken in the current study can provide examples that could be tested by others in different contexts (Altrichter et al., 1993), and that there may be some lessons for other writing centers, which are explained below.

Firstly, the change to an online model has been effective for overcoming the time, space, and budget constraints faced by the COB Writing Center. While the change to an online ‘lab’ model meant losing individualized support during the second cycle, more students are using the writing center and reported positive feedback about the service in the survey. The online system means that students can access resources at any time, from any device with an Internet connection, overcoming the space and room availability problems we encountered. Furthermore, technological advancements are making sophisticated submission and feedback features freely accessible, and the addition of these features to the LMS used by our center, will allow us to re-integrate individualized support into an online model. Thus, for small centers with limited budget or significant constraints similar to the COB Writing Center, there may be considerable value experimenting with online models.

Finally, this study has shown the need for data-driven analysis within a framework (such as the action research spiral) for guiding change decisions and implementation, rather than relying on intuition and anecdotal accounts from team members. The addition of a small number of items to the departmental end of semester curse surveys has provided the team with data which can be analyzed and considered by the team in guiding decisions. In this respect, the experience of the COB Writing Center follows that of others reported in the literature (LaClare & Franz, 2013; McKinley, 2011) where being user-focused and generating !

140!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 127-142 user data has helped the purpose and mission of the writing center to be better understood.

Thus in the writing center in the LaClare and Franz (2013) study, retaining a face-to-face consulting service was argued to be most suitable for meeting the needs of students, a conclusion they inferred by collecting data about their users. On the other hand, McKinley (2011) outlined how workshops were helping to attract users to their writing center, and student survey data was informing change in what aspects tutors focused upon. In both contexts, a little data went a long way. As our writing center is becoming more focused on student-demand, decisions are becoming less about orthodoxy and more about meeting the needs of students. In this respect, the COB Writing Center is discovering its place within the institution.

Notes on the contributor Gene Thompson is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Global Business at Rikkyo University in Tokyo. His primary research interests include teacher training, teacher efficacy, and teacher cognitions. He also maintains an interest in the integration of curriculum and selfaccess, as well as the use of technology in the classroom.

References!

Altrichter, H., Posch, P., & Somekh, B. (1993). Teachers investigate their work: An introduction to the methods of action research. London, UK: Routledge.

Association, International Writing Centers. (2014). Starting a writing center. Retrieved from http://writingcenters.org/resources/starting-a-writing-cente/#BasicSteps COB Writing Center. (2011). What to expect. Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/a/rikkyo.ac.jp/writing-center/about/what-to-expect Hays, G. (2010). Learners helping learners in an EFL writing center. In A. M. Stoke (Ed.), JALT2009 Conference Proceedings (pp. 589-596). Tokyo, Japan: JALT. Retrieved from http://jalt-publications.org/archive/proceedings/2009/E013.pdf Johnston, S., Cornwell, S., & 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.), JALT2009 Conference Proceedings (pp. 692-701). Tokyo, Japan: JALT. Retrieved from http://jaltpublications.org/archive/proceedings/2009/E031.pdf

!

141!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 127-142 LaClare, E., & Franz, T. (2013). Writing centers: Who are they for? What are they for?

Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 4(1), 5-16. Retrieved from http://sisaljournal.org/archives/mar13/laclare_franz/ McKinley, J. (2010). English language writing centres in Japanese universities: What do students really need? Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 1(1), 17-31. Retrieved from http://sisaljournal.org/archives/jun10/mckinley/ McKinley, J. (2011). Group workshops: Saving our writing centre in japan. Studies in selfaccess learning journal. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 2(4), 292-303.

Retrieved from http://sisaljournal.org/archives/dec11/mckinley/ Nakatake, M. (2013). Challenges and possibilities in tutorials in a writing center in Japan. The Language Teacher, 37(6), 17-20. Retrieved from http://jaltpublications.org/tlt/articles/3458-challenges-and-possibilities-tutorials-writing-centerjapan Tan, B. (2011). Innovating writing centers and online writing labs outside North America.

Asian EFL Journal, 13(2), 390-417. Retrieved from http://www.asian-efljournal.com/PDF/June_2011.pdf Zuber-Skerritt, O. (2001). Action learning and action research: Paradigm, praxis and programs In S. Sankara, B. Dick & R. Passfield (Eds.), Effective change management through action research and action learning: Concepts, perspectives, processes and applications (pp. 1-20). Lismore, Australia: Southern Cross University Press.

!

142!

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 143-152

‘Say Again?’ An In-house, Online, Self-access Pronunciation Project for ESOL Students Menaka Ediriweera, The University of Waikato Pathways College, Hamilton, New Zealand Liz Howell, (formerly) The University of Waikato Pathways College, Hamilton, New Zealand Caroline White, The University of Waikato Pathways College, Hamilton, New Zealand!

Abstract This collaborative project comprises the creation of free online pronunciation activities which are geared specifically for independent learning, although classroom use is also valuable.

These are particularly suitable for pre-degree English Language students at Waikato Pathways College, but could be useful to any English Language learner. With teacher input for content creation, the recordings were done on site and the activities re-recorded to reflect input from continual feedback from students and teachers. This project is a work-in-progress.

Keywords: Pronunciation, podcast, vodcast, phoneme, vowels, diphthongs, consonants, connected speech, Kiwi-isms, NZ idioms, motivation, word and sentence stress, eLearning, mLearning !

This project started in response to requests from academic and general English language students for extra help with their pronunciation. Waikato Pathways College (WPC) English Language Resource Centre (ELRC) staff sought to facilitate independent learning in the complex area of pronunciation by providing free online activities. These are easy to access via mobile devices which are optional and additional to classroom work on pronunciation, and as White & Gillard (2011) conclude, “Today's students learn through interactive web chats, virtual game simulations, texting, podcasts, and other real time authentic activities. Digital learning has become a staple in modern society” (p. 5). In 2010 at The University of Waikato, a newly introduced screen-capture application, Panopto, seemed particularly suitable for the creation of online pronunciation activities designed especially for WPC students. Students can work on the podcast and vodcast activities in their own time or with a tutor, in the ELRC in pairs or groups, or teachers may use the materials in class to reinforce or replace their own input on pronunciation. However, these are essentially selfaccess, independently driven tasks. The pronunciation activities are suitable for English learners at any level, and the content topics are suitable for classes working at

"#$! ! !

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 143-152

intermediate/advanced academic levels and those preparing for IELTS. The landing page of the online pronunciation activities is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Landing Page of the Online Pronunciation Activities Background â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Say againâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; is a phrase used to seek repetition and avoid failure in marine communication (Seaspeak International Marine Communication, Strevens & Weeks, 1984).

The same phrase is often used by teachers in English as an Additional Language (EAL) classrooms because of its transparency and immediacy, instead of the more communicatively appropriate "Pardon?" or the more direct, but longer "What did you say?" or "Could you repeat that?". The authors believe this phrase lends the same transparency and immediacy to this project.

As Ducate and Lomicka remind us, "pronunciation plays a significant role in comprehensibility" (2009, p. 66). As well as possibly causing communication failure, pronunciation can generate negative or positive value judgements about the speakers "##! ! !

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 143-152

(Leather, 1999). Accent especially is a recognised source of humour and raises issues of identity (regional, national, ‘other’), prestige or stigma (Holmes, Stubbe, & Marra, 2003; Jenkins, 2007). However, pronunciation has traditionally been an area in which EAL teachers lack confidence. Teachers may also be confused by the emphasis in commercial materials on the perceived prestigious British English accent termed 'Received Pronunciation' (RP), when, as is the case in New Zealand (NZ), not all the RP vowel sounds coincide with their own oral production. The ELRC pronunciation project described in this paper was driven by an emphasis on teaching materials appropriate to the local context, using NZ teachers' voices as models.

Pronunciation Issues The objective in designing activities was to help students achieve the communicative clarity they felt they lacked. The project's agenda included intensive work on segmentals, because individual phonemes can be specifically targeted. Students from most language backgrounds are challenged by the stream of English speech when either listening or speaking, so features of connected speech are also targeted, especially intrusive w/j/r and catenation (linking) and strong/weak pronunciation of function words. The exposure to these aspects of pronunciation aspires to aid the students' production of language and also have a positive impact on students’ listening acquisition as suggested by Hasan and Hoon (2013) “The results of the reviewed studies suggested that the application of podcasting enhanced students’ language skills in general, and listening skills in particular” (p. 132).

Supra-segmentals (stress, rhythm, intonation) affect communication in terms of their effect on meaning, mood, and attitude. Hence the project includes a focus on word stress (to avoid errors such as impotent/important; greenhouse/green house), phrase stress (to clarify meaning, e.g. a blue car/a light blue car and clause stress (e.g. This is my sister Liz./This is my sister, Liz.).

ELRC Points of Difference from Available Pronunciation Resources This project focuses on the need for speakers to improve their own perceived weaknesses. These gaps are identified through experiencing difficulties in communicating with others, and through testing at WPC. Pronunciation is included in the continuous

"#$! ! !

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 143-152

speaking assessments at WPC, and our academic students receive written feedback on their performance indicating specific areas in which they need to improve.

Additionally, the topic content of material in this on-going project either relates directly to studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; academic courses, so that they can perceive the relationship between private and classroom study, or it is contextualised for general/social survival in an Englishspeaking society. The academic content takes account of vocabulary frequency in Nationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s academic wordlist (2001) and Coxhead's research contribution in that area (2000).

The authors produced activities using local teachers' voices with NZ accents, as there was very little NZ pronunciation practice material available commercially. Figure 2 shows the page with links to vowel sounds.

!

Figure 2. Page with Links to Vowel Sounds

"#$! ! !

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 143-152

Technical Approach and Access As corroborated by Ducate and Lomicka (2009), “Technology, specifically the use of podcasts, could offer opportunities for contextualizing tasks, while at the same time honing pronunciation” (p. 68). Panopto allows multiple inputs, including PowerPoint slides (for more details see http://online.waikato.ac.nz/esl/pronunciation). The online recorder allows students to record their own pronunciation of the activities which were audio and video recorded by teachers as pronunciation models. Each recording can be accessed via a separate url, podcast or vodcast downloaded onto a mobile device for eLearning and mLearning. Recordings are accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, as an Open Educational Resource (OER), with a Creative Commons Licence applied to it. The need for the ready availability of resources which can be accessed on multiple platforms or mobile devices is supported by Levy (M. Levy, personal communication, August 31, 2012) who concluded at the Plenary Presentation at the Independent Learning Association Conference 2012, “The need is for learning material to be created for the various devices (phones, tablets and laptops), to be used anywhere, anytime” (Levy, 2012). Figure 3 shows that activities are downloadable and are accessible on iPads and smart phones, as well as on computers.

Figure 3. Activities are Accessible on iPads and Smart Phones

"#$! ! !

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 143-152

Teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Perspectives This project has utilised teacher input at all stages of development. Some comments from teachers include the following: These exercises are particularly useful as a warmer - not only do students get to practise their pronunciation, it is also fun and motivating which puts them in the right state of mind to commence class.

Students can practise pronunciation by themselves which is very helpful as many students are quite anxious about their pronunciation.!!

As Hasan and Hoon (2013) conclude about the use of podcasts for language learning, Some of the reasons for the positive perceptions included the opportunity for students to learn at their own time, and to listen to specific materials that they miss or do not understand multiple times (p. 133).

This process of development and feedback is on-going, and inevitably constrained by limits of time. The opportunity to provide input to the project provides professional development for teachers in the area of pronunciation so that they gain confidence as they acquire expertise in producing material.

Feedback from Users To date, surveys conducted with teachers and students have elicited feedback which has been largely positive but has served to improve activities, for example, by providing diagrams of the mouth to show the articulation points of phonemes, and to develop new activities, such as integrating activities with the materials used in class. Also, activities have been revised and re-recorded to improve the quality, content and length of recordings by reducing input so that students repeat shorter models. There are now two types of tasks, phoneme practice, following the IPA chart, and vocabulary items (words and phrases) from class text content. Individual students can view and listen to and watch the speaker pronouncing words which exemplify the phonemes, or target lexical items, then record these and play them back to compare their own production. The students can compare their recording to that of the teacher, or, there is scope here for peer-assessment. When these pronunciation activities are run during class time, teachers can give feedback to individual "#$! ! !

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 143-152

students. It is hoped that in the future, that if all WPC students have access to ePortfolios, then they will have the ability to submit a podcast of their production for a teacher to assess and provide feedback. As for automatic, immediate feedback on student production, we are yet to find a free online waveform application which can be embedded, that would show the speech patterns for a more accurate comparison, when students are working independently.

An example of a page showing the difference between two consonant sounds is shown in Figure 4. The page showing the individual words is shown on Figure 5. Figure 6 shows the words in context.

!

Figure 4. Page showing difference between two consonant sounds

"#$! ! !

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 143-152

Figure 5. Page Showing the Individual Words

Figure 6. Page Showing the Words in Context

"#$! ! !

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 143-152

Conclusion This on-going project has provided WPC students the opportunity they requested to work on their pronunciation independently at any time of day or night. It has had the additional benefit of affording professional development in the area of pronunciation for WPC teachers and in the area of technology for ELRC staff. With more teachers and students using these activities, in class and as independent learning, and with the possible use of ePortfolios, it is hoped that this project will expand in order to create more resources suitable for the specific levels taught at Waikato Pathways College.

Notes on the contributors Menaka Ediriweera has a B.A. from the University of Otago, and is a registered LIANZA member, who has recently completed a masters paper in eEducation. She actively promotes independent learning through the work and resources at the English Language Resource Centre. For the past nineteen years she has worked at two universities in supervisory management roles, in relation to student computing services and the library. menaka@waikato.ac.nz Liz Howell (Ed.D.TESOL, Exeter, UK) has been an ESOL teacher, teacher trainer and assessor for many years and in many global ESOL contexts. She has a passion for autonomy in language learning. ehowell@kinect.co.nz Caroline White has qualifications in social science, teaching and law. She has been an ESOL teacher for 10 years. She is committed to helping students develop as independent learners. cmwhite@waikato.ac.nz References Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic wordlist. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213-238. doi:10.2307/3587951 Ducate, L., & Lomicka, L. (2009). Podcasting: An effective tool for honing language studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; pronunciation? Language, Learning & Technology, 13(3), 66-86. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol13num3/ducatelomicka.pdf.

"#"! ! !

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 143-152

Hasan M. M., & Hoon, T. B. (2013), Podcast applications in language learning: A review of recent studies. Canadian Center of Science and Education, 6(2), 128-135. Retrieved from http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/viewFile/23820/15118.

Holmes, J., Stubbe, M., & Marra, M. (2003). Language, humour and ethnic identity marking in New Zealand English. In C. Mair (Ed.) The politics of English as a world language: New horizons in postcolonial cultural studies, pp. 431-456. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Rodopi.

Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford, UK: OUP. Leather, J. (1999). Second language speech research: An introduction. Language Learning, 49(1), 1-56.

Levy, M. (2012). The student's voice in designing optimum CALL environments: Approaching questions of autonomy and independence in a networked world. Plenary Presentation at the 5th Independent Learning Association Conference 30 August - 2 September, 2012, Wellington, New Zealand.

Nation, I.S.P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Strevens, P., & Weeks, F. (1984). Seaspeak reference manual. London, UK: Pergamon. !

White, E. L., & Gillard, S. (2011). Technology-based literacy instruction for English language learners. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 8(6), 1-5.

"#$! ! !

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 153-172

Introduction to the Column Katherine Thornton, Otemon Gakuin University, Osaka, Japan Welcome to the final installment of the column which followed the self-directed learning curriculum renewal project being conducted at Kanda University of International Studies in Japan. This final installment by Junko Noguchi on the complicated issue of assessing self-directed learning is accompanied by a conclusion from Elizabeth Lammons, the current curriculum coordinator in charge of the project.

In my capacity as column editor (and as the original coordinator of the project), it has been fascinating to follow how the team has systematically approached the complicated task of both evaluating the existing curriculum and integrating new ideas and approaches to improve it. I would like to thank all the authors for their hard work in putting together these column installments, and to all members of the learning advisor team, past and present, who have contributed to the project. I hope it has been an interesting and valuable column for SiSAL readers to follow.

From next issue (September 2014), the column will showcase an interesting and extremely relevant project undertaken at the University of Bradford, UK, to update and transform its self-access centre, Room 101, into a social learning space. Watch this space!

Evaluating Self-directed Learning Skills in SALC Modules Junko Noguchi, Kanda University of International Studies, Japan The previous four installments of this column have explicated the redesign process of the Self-Access Learning Centre (SALC) curriculum conducted at Kanda University of International University (KUIS) by the Learning Advisor (LA) team. The topics of each installment are: framework and environment analysis (Thornton, 2013); needs analysis (Takahashi et al., 2013); principles and evaluation of the existing curriculum (Lammons, 2013); and piloting and evaluating the redesigned curriculum (Watkins, Curry, & Mynard, 2014) in accordance with the flow of the curriculum process which has been adapted from

153

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 153-172

the design model of Nation and Macalister (2010). Although the assessment process employed in the pilot was mentioned in the previous installment (Watkins et al., 2014), this column installment will discuss assessment for self-directed learning (SDL) in more detail, focusing on the issue of assessment in SDL in general, what kind of assessment process had been implemented at the SALC curriculum previously, and what kinds of changes have been made as part of the ongoing curriculum renewal project.

Problems with Assessing Self-Directed Learning Skills One of the prominent issues when assessing SDL skills in KUIS’ SDL modules is how to evaluate unobservable but interpretable skills such as problem-solving skills. If unobservable aspects of students’ SDL skills are to be evaluated, deciding how the evidence of them should be interpreted can be a major obstacle. For instance, if we are to evaluate their logical problem-solving skills by analyzing what students write in their reflective learning journals, there will be numerous issues we need to face. First of all, we do not teach such skills explicitly but rather implicitly by using eliciting questions in our feedback on submitted module. Secondly, in our SDL modules students are learning everything and expressing themselves in their second language and might lack the language necessary to describe their problem-solving process accurately. Furthermore, as Kim (2002) contends, if there are differences between Westerners and Easterners in their beliefs regarding the importance of explicit verbal representation of thoughts, which affects how they think and talk, Japanese students may struggle with this dichotomy. They grow up in a culture where “silence and introspection are considered beneficial for high levels of thinking” (p. 829), but they are now studying in the context where talking and thinking is considered virtually equivalent. In that instance, it may also be the case that students thought deeply about their learning process but were not able to express their thoughts lucidly due to the possibility they have not had such opportunities in their previous education. Considering all these factors, how valid could it be to evaluate students’ problem-solving skills based on what they write in the module packs or say in advising sessions?

154

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 153-172

On the other hand, since our aim is to help students develop their skills for selfdirection, which by definition involves a great deal of thinking, whether the aim is achieved or not through the modules would be difficult to judge without evaluating students’ thinking process as well. Knowles’ (1975) definition of self-directed learning is “a process in which individuals take the initiative, with or without the help of others, in diagnosing their needs, formulating learning goals, identifying human and material resources for learning, choosing and implementing appropriate learning strategies, and evaluating learning outcomes” (1975, p. 18). It is apparent that self-direction can be achieved only through sophisticated cognitive processes and therefore, we should be able to assess such processes to validate what our SDL modules accomplish in aiding students with their SDL skills development.

Challenges to Overcome One of the remedial solutions for such an issue is to clearly depict the characteristics of unobservable elements represented in students’ artifacts that should be interpreted and evaluated. However, these characteristics are often difficult to formulate and therefore are not always explicitly stated. Schraw (2000) listed three possible factors for the lack of such tangible outcome measurements for metacognition. He maintains that the tendency for people to assess metacognitive growth rather intuitively without using concrete measures is “due to at least three factors: (a) uncertainty about what to look for; (b) the lack of meaningful, cost-efficient measurement strategies; and (c) the lack of meaningful interpretative guidelines (p. 312).” These three issues raised by Schraw (2000) resonated with the concerns we had, which lead us to create some of our own principles for assessment regarding transparency and workload. Therefore, our aim in creating an assessment band for the newly designed curriculum was to overcome the issues with meaningfulness, transparency and practicality as much as possible. Admittedly, it is impossible to create a perfect assessment instrument for unobservable aspects of SDL skills.

Even though we were aware of that fact, we went on to tackle this intricate task, believing that we would be able to establish an assessment band that will serve better than having no assessment guidelines at all.

155

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 153-172

The process of constructing an assessment band will be described later in this paper.

However, let us first look at what kind of assessment bands were used in the previous SDL modules at the university.

How Previous Modules were Graded In the SALC, we had two modules called First Steps Module (FSM) and Learning How to Learn (LHL) (see Noguchi & McCarthy (2009) for detailed accounts of the modules) and we had grading bands for each of the modules, which were referred to as a guideline for grading studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; work at the end of the module. The evaluation process based on these grading bands can be characterized as a summative criterion-referenced assessment since studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; performance is evaluated at the end of the semester according to a set of criteria.

Assessment band for FSM Criteria for full point Reflections Learner demonstrates a deep understanding of concepts presented in the First Steps Activities. Learner shows a strong improvement in the ability to reflect over the study period OR is able to reflect well from the beginning and maintains a high level throughout.

First Steps Activities Learner has attempted all required First Steps Activities and has completed them to a high standard.

Learning Plan Learner has submitted a fully completed learning plan. The plan is relevant, well documented and would need little or no revision in order to be used as the basis for independent learning.

Figure 1. The Grading Band for the First Steps Module

156

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 153-172

The grading band for FSM (Figure 1) is composed of three parts based on artifacts: 1) First Steps Activities, 2) Reflections and 3) Learning Plan. For the First Steps Activities, where students do a series of activities to understand SDL concepts such as goal-setting, the main focus was whether students completed the activities or not. On the other hand, in Reflections, where students answer some reflective questions to demonstrate whether they understand the concepts introduced in each unit as well as how they think they can apply them in their own learning, “the ability to reflect” was the primary concern. In Learning Plan, where students write their language goals and explain how they will achieve their goals, the key elements for evaluation comprised whether the plan is “completed” “relevant” and “well-documented.” Even though it seems the band tries to focus on whether evidence of thinking occurred, it does not evaluate the quality of that thinking.

Assessment band for LHL Criteria for full point Planning / Diaries The learner uses awareness of previous learning experiences and/or needs analysis activities to come to an excellent understanding of their needs and subsequent description of learning goals. And/or the strategies and materials chosen logically match these needs and show a clear focus. And/or the learner shows a willingness to reflect extensively, and refocus their needs if necessary and to choose strategies and materials according to their changing needs over time.

Products / Documentation Work is well documented and shows an excellent application of the SURE+E model. And/or there is a logical connection between the goals set at the planning stage and the work completed; and a logical connection between the work carried out and the diary reflections on the learning activities. And/or there is strong evidence that the learner has incorporated feedback from the Learning Advisor.

Interview and Report In both the report and the interview, the learner is able to report learning needs, strategies used, their performance on tasks and the outcome of those tasks with

157

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 153-172

excellent understanding and insight, showing evidence of genuine reflection on the positive and negative aspects of the learning process.

Figure 2. The Grading Band for Learning How to Learn In the grading band for LHL (Figure 2), there are also three categories for each of the artifacts that are evaluated: 1) Planning / Diaries, 2) Products / Documentation and 3) Interview and Report. This band includes more phrases that demonstrate a clearer attention to the thinking process. For example, the band calls for learners to show “a willingness to reflect extensively” and that project work shows “a logical connection” between goal and work completed. Nonetheless, similar to the FSM, the wording of the band has ample room for various interpretations and needed more clarification of what features needed to be identified for evaluation.

Simply put, these two grading bands attempt to evaluate thinking skills when calculating student module grades. However, how exactly thinking or “reflection” is/should be assessed is not clearly illustrated in the bands and therefore needed to be elucidated.

Research on What Reflection Means Instead of adapting an existing rubric for SDL skills or reflections, the new band was built based on our experiences and expertise in order to create a grading band with meaningful and limpid descriptors designed to suit our context.

While the previous grading bands have some room for different interpretations, there seems to be a great sense of conformity in LAs’ grading as a team. One of the reasons for this observation derives from the fact that all LAs undergo a norming session prior to grading each semester, and there is not much discrepancy in LAs’ grades when they are assigned to rate the same sample work of a student. There is also a record of final evaluative comments that the previous LAs have given to students, which also have a great

158

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 153-172

level of coherency between them in terms of what they mention. These comments are referred to by all new LAs, which might be a factor for enhancing the unified understanding of our grading mechanism for the modules.

This observed consistency in grading approach in the LA team leads to the presumption that LAs have formed shared internal grading criteria that are not explicitly stated in the bands. In order to test this hypothesis and comprehend more deeply how LAs are interpreting the vaguely defined terms to describe unobservable elements of SDL in the grading bands and applying them during grading, a research project was conducted with the hope that the results would form the foundation of the new grading band. The research employed a think-aloud protocol while LAs rated two modules and utilized follow-up interviews to elicit qualitative data with elaborated information of LAs’ internal and even subconscious evaluation process and relevant beliefs. Since the word “reflect(ion)” seems to be the most prominent word that is incorporated in the grading bands to indicate that some form of thinking is being evaluated in students’ module work, research was carried out with the focus on examination of how each LA interprets the word when it appears in the band with the following two research questions: 1) What aspects of students’ work in the modules are valued and assessed? and 2) What does “reflection” mean to the LAs?

Methodology Eight LAs were individually recorded with an audio recorder as well as a video camera during the process of evaluating and deciding final grades for the submitted module work (FSM) of two of their students. The students were ones the LAs had worked together with the whole semester and were randomly chosen for the research. While grading, the LAs were asked to talk aloud about their thinking process. The think-aloud session was followed by an interview with the researcher, where clarification of the more specific rationale for the evaluation was elicited and how the grades the LAs gave in the grading process were decided. Furthermore, every LA was asked a series of questions (Appendix A) to elicit what they value when they grade students’ work and what they think the word “reflection” means. The gathered data was analyzed and repeatedly emerging keywords

159

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 153-172

were categorized by common themes, which were identified using a grounded theory approach (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). The data from the think-aloud sessions was analyzed and made into a list of the criteria that LAs look for when grading learning modules (Appendix B). Also, responses for the question regarding the definition of “reflection” were analyzed and the most frequently emerging key words were identified (Appendix C). The list of criteria and identified key words mentioned above were incorporated in the descriptors of the new grading bands as much as possible.

Results The preliminary results revealed that the majority of the LAs consider that one of the definitions of “reflection” is the combination of evaluation and planning as part of the cycle of self-directed learning, which is represented as a conceptual framework below (Figure 3). Also, there were three elements in students’ reflections that are explicitly recognized as significantly valuable by a majority of LAs: ‘goal-orientedness’, actions for improvement, and analytical skills.

Figure 3. Cycle of Self-Directed Learning Process (adapted from Ambrose, Bridges, DiPietro, Lovett, & Norman, 2010) Goal-orientedness. Greenstein (2012) contents that metacognition, which is one of the key elements in SDL skills, is “purposeful, targeted, and goal oriented” (p. 85).

160

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 153-172

Aligning with that contention, this research shows that ‘goal-orientedness’ is emphasized

by LAs when evaluating students’ SDL skills.

Goal-orientedness refers to the degree to which students focus on achieving their goals. In evaluating students’ goal-oriented attitudes, whether students are able to achieve their goals or not, i.e. make linguistic gains, is not directly considered as a sign of how goal-oriented they are. Instead, whether students can stay aware of their goals and design and conduct their self-directed learning while constantly keeping the goals in mind is taken into account.

This goal-oriented element is evaluated at two stages in the self-directed learning cycle: planning and evaluating. In the planning stage, students’ ability to identify specific language goals and create a detailed plan of what kind of resources will be used and how they are going to be used is graded favorably. Also, in the evaluation stage after the implementation of the plan, LAs placed a high value on students’ competence in evaluating their learning experiences from the standpoint of whether or not they were able to effectively achieve their goals. Furthermore, those learning plans that took into account students’ personal preferences, such as preferred learning styles, and personal limitations such as time constraints, while still matching the stated goals were valued more highly.

However, personal preferences are only valued so long as they aid students with achieving their goals: it would not be useful if they chose something that they like but which does not help with their goals. For instance, in the think-aloud sessions, one of the LAs mentioned that her student, whose primary goal was to improve her conversational speaking skills and related grammar skills, chose a song of her favorite artist as her learning resource. The advisor indicated her concern that even though the student selected the activity that she enjoys doing, it does not necessarily help her improve her conversation skills in the most effective way, especially in terms of opportunities for output. Overall, the capability to judge if something is effective and suitable in assisting with goal attainment seemed to be conceived as fundamentally crucial.

Action plans for improvement 1. Enhancing strength

161

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 153-172

With relation to goal-orientedness, great emphasis is given to concrete action plans for improvement in order to achieve goals. Improvement can be made in two ways: enhancing strengths and reducing weaknesses. When evaluating studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; learning process, it is desirable that students will thoroughly analyze the strengths and weaknesses in their learning process in different areas. Once they recognize what went well, they can examine cause and effect relationships and detect any patterns that can be applied to their future learning. For example, in a hypothetical scenario, suppose one student has a conversation in English with exchange students and realizes that she had more fun than usual since she is usually nervous and worries too much about making mistakes. In her reflection, she attributes the difference to the topic of the conversation since they were talking about the kinds of things she is familiar with such as her favorite artists and Japanese culture. In this kind of situation, if she then decided in the future to bring up some topics that she is familiar with in conversation or familiarize herself with the topics that recur in the conversations, it can be said that she successfully optimized the positive side of her past experience and created ideas for future actions.

2. Overcoming weakness by problem-solving In addition to recognizing the positive side of their learning experiences, students can also try to solve learning problems. In this case, students are expected to analyze the problem in detail and locate the causes. Upon examining the factors, they are then supposed to consider some possible solutions, which form a more concrete action plan for the next learning activities. For instance, suppose the same hypothetical student from above finds that she is too busy and has little time for her English learning activities. After reflecting on the issue, she comes to the conclusion that she tends to underestimate the time needed for the tasks and/or overestimate her time available and tries to finish the things that have less priority than her English studies. She therefore determines to cut her working hours in her part-time job and reduce time spent visiting the club members at her alma mater, which she felt obliged to do. In this case, she demonstrates good problem-solving skills that resulted in a specific action plan.

Analytical skills. In addition to the emphasis on the action plans that are produced from the evaluation procedure, what turns out to be crucial in the process of making efforts

162

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 153-172

for improvement are analytical skills, specifically the ability to examine what happened in their learning process in detail and discern the cause and effect relationship among various elements involved in the process. All the LAs without fail mentioned during their thinkaloud session key words such as “details” and “reason(ing),” indicating that these are significant aspects that influence their judgment about students’ reflections. These two key words overlap with two of the cognitive strategies for self-regulated learning process categorized by Oxford, namely “reasoning” and “conceptualizing with details” (2011, p.

16).

New Curriculum Grading Band Changes in new curriculum grading band The prototype of the grading band for the new curriculum (Figure 4) is currently in the process of development. In accordance with Moon (2002), it is ideal that our learning outcomes and assessment criteria are closely interrelated in the sense that general statements of learning outcomes are clarified with a more clearly elaborated assessment rubric. In order to accord with the ideal process of curriculum designed suggested by Moon, the grading bands were designed to align with and elaborate the newly created learning outcomes and principles (Lammons, 2013), which themselves are based on the recently completed needs analysis research and the newly designed curriculum analysis (Takahashi et al., 2013). In addition, the new grading band takes the research results mentioned in the last section into consideration and is composed of a series of interpretable actions that delineate features of reflection valued by LAs. One of the features in the new grading band is its mention of problem-solving skills.

The band calls for students to identify problems and specific solutions for them. For example, two of the descriptors state that students should be able to “identify any problems and think of specific solutions for them” and “set specific targets for next week based on the reflection and solution to the problems.” Another added change is an emphasis on detailed and analytical thinking. Students are expected to choose “specific” goals accompanied with relevant resources and strategies. Also, one of the descriptors tells students to “include enough details and reasoning in reflections to communicate your ideas thoroughly.” Furthermore, in order to follow one of our assessment principles that students

163

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 153-172

should be informed of how they are assessed, the simplified version along with a Japanese translation was distributed to students in the beginning of the module so that they would clearly know what is expected from them in the module.

Criteria for full point Unit Activities/Reflections •

Complete all the unit activities/reflections thoroughly and as instructed and submitted on time every week

•

Show understanding of concepts introduced in each unit

•

Relate the aims of the unit to your own learning situation

•

Include enough details and reasoning in reflections to communicate your ideas thoroughly

Learning Plan Goal Setting •

Identify a goal that is appropriate, specific, realistic and connected

Resources •

Identify resources that are suitable for your goal and STUDY, USE, REVIEW and EVALUATE (SURE) activities

SURE •

Identify the differences between SURE activities

•

Identify SURE activities that are suitable for your goal and resources

Implementation Do the following every week •

Set a detailed weekly target suitable for your goal and evaluate it

•

Choose and evaluate specific resources/strategies suitable for your goal

•

Choose and evaluate specific and coherent SURE activities suitable for your goal

•

Keep an excellent record of work and reflection and submit it on time

•

Spend at least 60-120 minutes for the learning process

•

Evaluate the process and progress and analyze the cause and effect relationship thoroughly and in detail

164

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 153-172

•

Identify any problem/s and specific solution/s for them

•

Set specific detailed target/s for the following week based on your reflection and exercise active problem solving

Figure 4. The Grading Band Prototype for the New Curriculum Conclusion Evaluating unobservable elements of SDL skills such as self-evaluation skills is one of the most challenging tasks in the effort to help students become self-directed learners.

Even though it is not the case that our new assessment system has solved all the issues we are facing, we have settled on experimenting with a method of evaluating students’ thinking process by examining characteristics that we consider desirable prerequisites in selfdirected learning, such as goal-orientedness, action plans for improvement and analytical skills. This process aligns with one of the basic assessment principles encouraged in Brookhart (2010), which emphasizes the importance of clarifying which characteristics of the thinking process should be taken into consideration.

While it would be an overstatement to say that we can evaluate students’ overall thinking skills by looking at only limited characteristics of their work, the assessment process might be more transparent and fair if we consistently appraise the same patterns of presented features in reflections. Consistency and transparency in assessment is one of the key elements that the LA team agreed on when we developed our principles (Lammons, 2013), and it is fair to say that the new grading band has increased the level of both consistency and transparency by revealing and elaborating what LAs look for. It is hoped that by connecting the assessment with learning outcomes and embracing the list of LAs’ internal criteria for evaluating the modules, the new band addresses all three of the issues raised by Schraw and Impara (2000), regarding lack of clear, meaningful and efficient assessment guidelines and tools.

Further modification to the band will be made based on feedback from LAs and students with the hope that the band will become one of the guidelines that lucidly indicates what we all are aiming for in our endeavor to foster self-directed learners.

165

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 153-172

Notes on the contributor Junko Noguchi taught at a public high school in Chiba, Japan after getting her MA in TESOL and is currently working as a learning advisor at Kanda University of International Studies. Her research interests include phonology and self-directed learning.

Acknowledgements At various stages, the following people have been key members of the project described in this case study: Akiyuki Sakai, Atsumi Yamaguchi, Brian R. Morrison, Diego Navarro, Elizabeth Lammons, Jo Mynard, Katherine Thornton, Keiko Takahashi, Neil Curry, Satoko Watkins, Tanya McCarthy, and Yuki Hasegawa.

166

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 153-172

References Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching.

Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA. Brookhart, S. M. (2010). How to assess higher-order thinking skills in your classroom.

Alexandria, VA. ASCD. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Greenstein (2012) Assessing 21st century skills: A guide to evaluating mastery and authentic learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Kim, H. S. (2002). We talk, therefore we think?: A cultural analysis of the effect of talking on thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 828–42. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.83.4.828 Knowles, M. S. (1975). Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Cambridge Adult Education.

Lammons, E. (2013). Principles: Establishing the foundation for a self-access curriculum.

Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 4(4), 353-366. Retrieved from sisaljournal.org/archives/dec13/lammons/ Moon, J. (2002). The module and programme development handbook. London, UK: Kogan Page Limited.

Nation, I.S.P. & Macalister, J. (2010). Language Curriculum Design. London, UK: Routledge.

Noguchi, J., & McCarthy, T. (2010). Reflective Self-study: Fostering Learner Autonomy. In A. M. Stoke (Ed.), JALT2009 Conference Proceedings. Tokyo, Japan: JALT. Retrieved from http://jalt-publications.org/archive/proceedings/2009/E051.pdf Schraw, G. (2000). Assessing metacognition: Implications of the Buros symposium. Issues in the measurement of metacognition. In G. Schraw & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 297–321). Buros, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

Takahashi, K., Mynard, J., Noguchi, J., Sakai, A., Thornton, K., & Yamaguchi, A. (2013).

Needs analysis: Investigating students’ self-directed learning needs using multiple data sources. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 4(3), 208-218. Retrieved from http://sisaljournal.org/archives/sep13/takahashi_et_al

167

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 153-172

Thornton, K. (2013). A framework for curriculum reform: Re-designing a curriculum for self-directed language learning. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 4(2), 142153. Retrieved from http://sisaljournal.org/archives/june13/thornton/ Watkins, S., Curry, N., & Mynard, J. (2014). Piloting and evaluating a redesigned selfdirected learning curriculum. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 5(1), 58-78.

Retrieved from http://sisaljournal.org/archives/mar14/watkins_curry_mynard/

168

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 153-172

Appendices Appendix A Interview questions used to clarify LA’s internal criteria grading LHL (1) What do you value when evaluating the weekly journals?

(2) What do you value when evaluating the student’s work?

(3) What do you value when evaluating the interviews and final reports?

(4) What do you think “reflection” in our SDL modules means?

169

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 153-172

Appendix B List of LAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s elicited internal criteria for grading FSM A. Task Completion Do tasks completely and properly as instructed.

B. Goal oriented learning with SURE+E model 1. Understand that small goals are small steps to achieve a Big goal 2. Understand the concept of General skills and Specific skills Understand we can divide language skills into 2 groups. The first group is called General Skills. General Skills are the 4 main language skills of Speaking, Listening, Reading and Writing. The second group is called Specific Skills. Specific Skills are the 3 main language skills of Vocabulary, Grammar and Pronunciation.

3. Choose one skill from each of General skills and Specific skills as their goals. The chosen Specific Skill should be the one that will help improve the General Skills.

4. Be able to give details about the chosen skills they want to improve 5. Be able to state the reasons of why they chose the skills as their goals 6. Be able to choose resources, activities and strategies that help them improve the chosen skills 7. Be able to choose resources, activities and strategies that are possibly connected to their interests 8. Be able to state the reasons for the choices of their resources, activities and strategies; why they are useful for their goals 9. Understand SURE+E (Study it, Use it, Review it, and Enjoy it PLUS Evaluate it) model 10. Understand what each of the elements of SURE+E model mean: a. Study: Choose something to focus on and learn something new. b. Use: Practice what you studied in a different setting. For example, you could try using new phrases you have learnt in a conversation. c. Review: From time to time look back on what you have studied so you donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t forget it.

170

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 153-172

d. Enjoy: Put yourself in an enjoyable English environment. For example, read stories, watch movies, listen to music, send emails and chat to friends in English. e. Evaluate: Check your progress once in a while to see if you are achieving your Big and Small goals. Compare your level at the beginning of your plan with the level you achieve after you study for a while. i. Have two records and compare them to see if they improved or not ii. Right amount of frequency iii. Right amount of intervals C. Reflection: Critical and logical thinking 1. Write answers/reflections with enough quantity and details/examples 2. Write personalized answers/reflections 3. Write answers/reflections that shows deep thinking 4. Write answers/reflections that includes good ideas 5. Write rationale for their answers/reflections D. Communication with LAs 1. Reading LAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s comments 2. Answer LA's questions if any 3. Ask questions if needed 4. Implement LA's advice if necessary

171

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 153-172

Appendix C Emerging key words from LA interviews on definition of “reflection” 1. Reasoning / Logical connection 2. Details (not descriptive) / Specific information 3. Noticing/ Awareness / Discovery / Realization 4. Specific and coherent goal 5. Balance of learning 6. Thinking back and forward: a. What went well? / What didn’t go well? (evaluation) b. Why? c. What action should be taken based on the observation? (planning)

172

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 173-177

Ongoing Development: Pathways and Challenges Elizabeth Lammons, Kanda University of International Studies, Japan Since 2011, the Learning Advisors (LAs) at the Self Access Learning Centre (SALC) at Kanda University of International Studies (KUIS) have been engaged in a curriculum evaluation and modification project. This project is still ongoing and we are continuing to make strides in providing an informed curriculum for students. This is the final column in the self-access case study on the SALC at KUIS, so it is fitting that we briefly review what we have learned from this process and discuss what has been accomplished since the beginning of the project. Following this a basic overview of the current status of the project for the curriculum is not static and there will always be possibilities for growth and potential challenges as the environment changes.

Framework of the Project In the first installment of the column, Katherine Thornton, Academic Coordinator of the SALC from 2011-2013, explained the context, framework, and environmental analysis stages of our project. Our focus was on discovering the strengths and weaknesses in our current program and exploring ways in which we could modify it. Thus the framework is the guide for the project and provides us with direction in the ways in which we can evaluate the curriculum in the future to ensure that we are meeting the changing needs of our students and to combat a static curriculum which does not reflect the best practices of our field or the needs of the students.

Once the framework was established, we could begin our curriculum work by focusing on the environment analysis. This stage was vital to our understanding of the constraints that we have to consider in conducting curriculum redesign. Following this stage, we could progress to establishing the needs of our primary stakeholders, the freshman students, as well as the stakeholders who support them at KUIS. This phase of the project was our information gathering phase.

Information Gathering Phase In the second installment of this column, Takahashi, et. al (2013) elucidated the intensive information gathering phase in which four major stakeholders. LAs, sophomore students, 173

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 173-177 teachers, and the university senior administrators were surveyed and interviewed in order to conduct a thorough needs analysis to ascertain the stakeholders perceptions of freshman students self-directed learning needs. We collated the findings from each of the four stakeholders, and grouped them into four areas: socio-affective needs, cognitive needs, metacognitive needs and self management needs. Afterwards, these items were further collated and then rephrased as Learning Outcomes which the LA team decided that all freshman students at KUIS need to achieve. The formation of the learning outcomes was essential in helping us progress into establishing principles that would guide our curriculum and in the coming years assist us in continuing to evaluate its effectiveness.

Principles provide a foundation for the curriculum, and utilizing Nation and Maclister s (2010) subdivision of principles, the LA team created principles for ‘format and presentation’, ‘content and sequencing’, and ‘assessment’. For lists of these principles, an explanation of how they were established and an outline of the strengths and weaknesses of each area that were discovered after using them to evaluate the curriculum, please see the third installment of this column (Lammons, 2013).

Evaluation Phase Once the principles were decided, we turned those principle statements into checklists that we used to evaluate the freshman modules, First Steps Module (FSM) and the Learning How to Learn (LHL) Module (for more information about the modules, see Lammons, 2011; 2012; Noguchi & McCarthy, 2010). Following this process, we were able to prioritize the weaknesses of the FSM and use the principles to modify it in order to create a module or course that better reflects our best practices and supports students. We used this information to create a pilot course which led us into the third phase of our curriculum project.

Design and Piloting Phase Within this phase of the project, we were able to modify the FSM and add additional content while delivering it within the context of a Freshman English class during one semester.

Afterwards the course was evaluated and we were able to draw some preliminary conclusions about its effectiveness based upon the feedback from the stakeholders. The fourth installment by Watkins, Curry, and Mynard (2014) explicates the entire process. Based on the research that was

174

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 173-177 conducted afterwards on the pilot course, in-class self-directed learning gave the students the chance to learn self-directed learning skills and provided a possibility for the direction of our curriculum.

Another aspect of the design and piloting phase is preparing for how the curriculum will be assessed. In the fifth and latest installation of the column, Noguchi (2014) provides the background for how LAs evaluated cognitive and metacognitive aspects of self-directed learning skills. This has led to further ongoing discussion about how we assess students' module work. As we have moved onto another pilot of our freshman module in an outside of class format, we are utilizing and making modifications. This concludes what we have reported thus far about our SALC curriculum reform project. The next section of this column will highlight where the curriculum currently stands as well as some possible challenges for the future.

Ongoing Development Due to the continued curricular changes in other university departments, it was not feasible to incorporate the self-directed learning skills content within the freshman classes. Thus, we had to return to the outside of class non-classroom based self-directed learning model. In this module, students spend four weeks learning about self-directed learning skills, create a learning plan as they complete the units, revise the plan and then they spend four weeks implementing the learning plan they have created. However, we were able to utilize the research that had been conducted on the pilot study in addition to activities that have worked in our elective SALC courses and the FSM to create the Effective Learning Module 1 (ELM 1). We decided that the second module, formerly LHL would be named Effective Learning Module 2 (ELM 2). Last year the university decided that all incoming freshman students would be required to purchase an iPad for use with the university's changing curriculum. Thus, we are in the process of creating an iPad application that students will be able to use submit their modules to their LAs and get feedback.

After the students complete ELM 1, we need to conduct an evaluation of it to see whether it is supporting studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; self-directed learning and also to check that we have adhered to our principles. In order to begin this evaluation, we will be conducting a survey at the end of this semester with students who have taken the ELM 1 to find out what their impressions are of the module. Moreover, we are also considering creating focus groups next semester to get a clearer

175

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 173-177 picture of the areas of the module that are working well and the areas we could improve or change altogether.

By the end of ELM 1, students will have created a learning plan for their goals, trialled the plan over the course of four weeks while reflecting on their learning process, and revised their learning plans. ELM 2 will give students the opportunity to continue with their plans from ELM 1 or create new ones.

Another aspect of the curriculum that has been explored this semester is Optional Course Content (OCC). The content includes separate mini-modules that students can try based on their needs, and the topics include motivation, reducing anxiety, time management and confidence building. These areas came from the results of the needs analysis (Thornton, 2013). These are being made available in the SALC as printed sheets and are also available online. OCC is being promoted through advising, posters and social media.

With all of this activity with our SALC curriculum, we are continuing to work diligently to provide the best support that we can to the students who are taking the modules and those that come to the SALC to improve their learning.

As we have continually impressed throughout the installments of the column on the SALC at KUIS, our curriculum project is ongoing. We are determined to provide a curriculum that fits the best practices of our field and supports our students in their self-directed learning endeavors. Hopefully our journey helps to inspire other self-access centers to evaluate their curriculum and perhaps this project and in particular the curriculum framework will serve as a model to follow.

Notes on the contributor Elizabeth Lammons holds an MA in TESOL from Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, USA. Her interests include learning advising, self-directed learning and professional development.

Acknowledgements At various stages, the following members have been key members of the project described in this case study: Junko Noguchi, Neil Curry, Yuki Hasegawa, Elizabeth Lammons, Tanya McCarthy,

176

SiSAL Journal Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2014, 173-177 Brian R. Morrison, Jo Mynard, Diego Navarro, Akiyuki Sakai, Keiko Takahashi, Katherine Thornton, Satoko Watkins, and Atsumi Yamaguchi.

References Lammons, E. (2011). Transitioning from teaching to advising. Independence, 53, 27-31.

Lammons, E. (2012). Silence is at the heart. Independence, 54, 29-32.

Lammons, E. (2013). Principles: Establishing the foundation for a self-access curriculum. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 4(4), 353-366. Retrieved from http://sisaljournal.org/archives/dec13/lammons/ Nation, I. S. P., & Macalister, J. (2010). Language curriculum design. London, UK: Routledge.

Noguchi, J., & McCarthy, T. M. (2010). Reflective self-study: Fostering learning autonomy. In A. M. Stoke (Ed.), JALT 2009 conference proceedings (pp. 160-167). Retrieved from http://jalt-publications.org/archive/proceedings/2009/E116.pdf Noguchi, J. (2014). Evaluating self-directed learning skills in SALC modules. Studies in Selfaccess Learning Journal, 5(2), 153-172. Retrieved from: http://sisaljournal.org/archives/june14/noguchi Takahashi, K., Mynard, J., Noguchi, J., Sakai, A., Thornton, K., & Yamaguchi, A. (2013). Needs analysis: Investigating students' self-directed learning needs using multiple data sources.

Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 4(3), 208-218. Retrieved from http://sisaljournal.org/archives/sep13/takahashi_et_al Thornton, K. (2013). A framework for curriculum reform: Re-designing a curriculum for selfdirected learning. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 4(2), 142-153. Retrieved from http://sisaljournal.org/archives/june13/thornton/ Watkins, S., Curry, N., & Mynard, J. (2014). Piloting and evaluating a redesigned self directed learning curriculum. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 5(1), 58-78. Retrieved from http://sisaljournal.org/archives/mar13/watkins_curry_mynard

177

!"!#$%&'()*+,%!"#$%&'%("$%)'%*+,-%)./0'%/123/44% % Striving for Diversity, Accessibility and Quality: Evaluating SiSAL Journal Jo Mynard, Kanda University of International Studies, Japan Abstract After establishing a journal, it is important to evaluate its progress to ensure that the principles that underpin its existence continue to be a priority. In this article, the author reports on measures that were used to evaluate Studies in Self-Access Learning (SiSAL) Journal. The research was designed to investigate the three principles that the journal values: diversity, accessibility and quality. The results identified some successful factors such as accessibility and favourable perceptions of SiSAL Journalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s quality. However, the results also identified areas that could be improved to further increase diversity and to encourage submissions from more authors based in different locations.

Keywords: peer-reviewed journal, open-access, evaluation of success, diversity, accessibility

The purpose of this paper is to report on ongoing efforts to monitor the success of Studies in Self-Access Learning (SiSAL) Journal, an open-access, peer-reviewed journal established and published at Kanda University of International Studies (KUIS) in Japan. SiSAL Journal was formed in 2010 and has been the subject of two institutional projects funded by the Research Institute of Language Studies and Language Education (RILS&LE) at KUIS. The first RILS&LE project (2010-2012) investigated the editorial strategies of two peer review journals published at KUIS - SiSAL Journal and PeerSpectives. The authors also proposed an instrument designed to promote professional collaboration and diversity (Murphey, Mynard, & Shanley, 2012). The second project (2012-2014) evaluated the success of the same two peer review journals (Murphey & Mynard, 2014) and this research forms the basis of the present article.

In this article, I will give a brief overview of SiSAL Journal before explaining some measures that are often applied to academic journals in order to evaluate a publicationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s success.

I will show how the research focussed on some of the factors related to the principles of the publication in an attempt to show how the editorial team currently views the success of the journal and what we might focus on in coming years in order to continue to improve it.

Overview of SiSAL Journal SiSAL Journal was formed in 2010 to address a practical need. The journal was %

/12%

!"!#$%&'()*+,%!"#$%&'%("$%)'%*+,-%)./0'%/123/44% % originally designed to be an in-house publication which provided publishing opportunities for colleagues working at KUIS along with a system to archive and share ongoing work. However, once the idea for establishing a journal was shared with colleagues in other institutions, it became clear that there was need for an international publication dedicated to self-access learning. Since its inception, SiSAL Journal has published quarterly issues containing a range of article types from full research papers, to summaries and book reviews. There have been a number of special issues, many of which have been guest-edited by international colleagues.

Factors which Typically Measure Success in a Journal There are various ways of measuring the success of a journal, some numerical and some descriptive. In terms of numerical measures, a commonly used tool is a citation index. A citation index shows how frequently articles from particular journals are cited. One example is the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) which is an interdisciplinary citation index provided by Thomson Reuters. Closely related to this is the Impact Factor (IF) which is calculated by dividing the number of citations in a two-year period by the number of citable articles published the following year. The figure is usually published the subsequent year, so a journal needs to have existed for three to four years before the IF is available. This measure is particularly useful for scientific and scholarly journals when gauging the impact that a journal has within a field.

However, there is the possibility that some editorial policies artificially affect the IF. Another drawback is that this measure is less applicable to journals which have a focus on practical applications as the articles may have a big impact on the field yet be of practical rather than scholarly benefit to its readers.

Rejection rate is another commonly used measure and is the percentage of total submissions which are rejected in a year. Some journals boast a high rejection rate as this may indicate high standards. However, this measure might not be an accurate way to show quality as it is possible that a quality journal might have a low rejection rate as it only receives high quality submissions (Egbert, 2007).

Timeliness and time to publication may be further quality indicators. If a journal publishes regularly and on time, this suggests that the editorial board are dedicated and efficient (Egbert, 2007). It also implies that there are enough submissions to make the publication viable.

Availability and accessibility might also be meaningfully used as success indicators

%

/14%

!"!#$%&'()*+,%!"#$%&'%("$%)'%*+,-%)./0'%/123/44% % (Polonksy, Jones, & Kearsley, 1999) as the implication is that the journal will be read widely.

However, this indicator might be very hard to evaluate if a journal is freely distributed.

There are also non-numerical, descriptive measures that might be used to gauge success of a publication. One example is the inclusion in databases and indexes which not only increases access for readers, but is often evidence that the journal has passed the necessary evaluation procedure for inclusion.

Another measure is the type of article that a journal publishes. A journal which publishes a high proportion of research papers may be an indication of high levels of scholarship, however, if the purpose of the journal is to influence practice, these kinds of articles may not necessarily be an indication of successfully reaching the target readers.

Quality and originality of articles might be another way to evaluate the success of a journal, along with perceived reputation of the publisher, editor, editorial board and authors.

These measures may be highly subjective.

To summarise, there may be numerous ways to evaluate a publication but, as Egbert (2007) notes, â&#x20AC;&#x153;a single method, regardless of the number of components included, could not account for important differences among journalsâ&#x20AC;? (p. 157), so editorial boards might adopt a variety of different measures depending on the scope and purpose of the publication. For the evaluation of SiSAL Journal, we adopted the methods that were most relevant to our research questions and philosophy, but we may consider using some of the other methods in the future.

Journal Values: Diversity, Accessibility and Quality The research design was constructed based on the desire to achieve three important values associated with the journal: diversity, accessibility and quality. Diversity can be defined as the way in which different perspectives are purposefully brought together in order to improve empathy and broaden our thinking (e.g., Lugones, 2003; Murphey, 2013; Ortega, 2005; 2011).

Accessibility is ensuring that something is widely and freely available and this will have an impact on diversity. For example, diversity depends greatly on accessibility by both contributors and readers and online publishing has allowed both diversity and accessibility to blossom.

It is probably true to say that all publications strive to ensure quality and this is attempted in SiSAL Journal by ensuring a rigorous review and editing process involving multiple readers.

%

/2.%

!"!#$%&'()*+,%!"#$%&'%("$%)'%*+,-%)./0'%/123/44% % In addition, invitations to leaders in the field and special issues of publications also increase the quality of a journal. Angeles Arrien said, “I think the human spirit always wants to make a contribution. And I don’t think there are enough invitations” (cited in Briskin, Erickson, Ott, & Callanan, 2009, p. 156). The job of journal editors is to make those invitations wide and far in order to work towards the multiple aims of increasing diversity, accessibility and quality.

Monitoring Success: Research Questions and Data Collection For the purposes of this project, our success measurements were closely aligned to the values of the journal. As three of the main values of the publication are diversity, accessibility and quality, research questions for this project were formulated based on evaluating these values.

Data were collected up until November 2013 when the results were submitted for publication in the RILSE&LE Journal (Murphey & Mynard, 2014).

Diversity One way to measure diversity is to look at location of the contributors, readers, and the editorial team members. This assumes that location allows for representation of people in diverse areas of the globe. While this is desirable it does not mean there is diversity in other categories (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity). Still, this is the least intrusive and most easily calculated criteria for a journal to document. The research questions related to location diversity were: 1. How diverse are the contributors in terms of location?

2. How diverse are the readers of the journal in terms of location?

3. How diverse are the reviewers and editorial team members in terms of location?

These questions could be answered by examining the records related to submissions and reviewers and tabulated.

Accessibility SiSAL Journal is open access, but it is important to be aware of how widely the journals are accessed in order to ensure that we are reaching worldwide audiences. The research questions related to accessibility were: 4. How many views are the online articles receiving and from where?

5. How many people subscribe to the journal or follow it on Facebook and where are they

%

/2/%

!"!#$%&'()*+,%!"#$%&'%("$%)'%*+,-%)./0'%/123/44% % from?

6. Which databases and links bring the most readers to the journal?

These questions could be answered by accessing Facebook and the journal statistics automatically logged by the website provider (Wordpress) and recording the data.

Quality In addition to aiming to provide easy access to the journals and to promote diversity, we also strive to publish quality content and provide a positive experience to contributors. The research questions related to quality were: 7. How widely are the articles cited in other work?

8. How do authors view the publication process?

9. How do readers view the quality of the journal?

A measurement of the first question could be attempted with some assistance from online sources, for example citation reports and universal factor evaluators. SiSAL Journal was evaluated by Universal Impact Factor and included in its Master List. However, although SiSAL Journal submitted an application to be included in the more widely recognised SSCI in 2012, it does not yet feature in its list.

The second and third questions related to quality were investigated for SiSAL Journal by administering an optional online survey to a targeted population of participants. The survey (Appendix A) contained nine multiple-choice questions (each with an optional open-ended follow up question), and one open-ended question. The survey was administered using the online tool SurveyMonkey to potential respondents as follows: ! By email to reviewers, members of the editorial team and authors (contact person only) who had submitted a paper for consideration since 2010 (n=147) ! Via a Facebook post to Facebook subscribers (n=53) ! Via an RSS post to SiSAL Journal to website subscribers (n=212) ! Via a link on SiSAL Journal front page Some of the potential respondents may have been contacted in two or more of these ways over the two-week data collection period, but were limited to one response each. A total of 85 respondents began the survey, 71 (84%) of whom completed it. In order to analyse the data, the

%

/2)%

!"!#$%&'()*+,%!"#$%&'%("$%)'%*+,-%)./0'%/123/44% % multiple choice responses were simply tallied and the open-ended responses were grouped thematically. Incomplete submissions were included in the data.

Results Diversity Research Question 1 was concerned with how diverse the contributors are in terms of location. Since the first issue, SiSAL Journal has featured more diverse authors. For example, Issue 1 (June, 2010) contained contributions from authors based in just two locations: Japan and the UK. At the time of the data collection, the most recent issue (September, 2013) contained six articles by contributors based in five different countries: Jamaica, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand and Turkey. This snapshot report appears to indicate that contributors are based in more diverse locations. However, when we counted the number of authors (not the number of articles) based in each country over the 14 issues of SiSAL Journal published between June 2010 and September 2013, we noticed a disproportionately high number of contributors based in Japan.

Table 1 shows a summary of the location of the authors. Perhaps this is not surprising given that the journal is published in Japan and almost all of the editorial team members are based there.

Table 1. Summary of where SiSAL Journal Contributors are Based (June 2010 - November 2013)

%

/25%

!"!#$%&'()*+,%!"#$%&'%("$%)'%*+,-%)./0'%/123/44% % Research Question 2 asked how diverse the readers of the journal was in terms of location. Readers of SiSAL Journal in a one-year period (from November 1 2012 to October 31 2013) were based in 169 different countries. The 20 countries from which the journal was accessed most often during this time are listed in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Number of Views in One Year by the Top 20 Countries (from November 1 2012 to October 31 2013) Research Question 3 was concerned with how diverse the reviewers and editorial team members of the journals were. The statistics showed a high number of members based in Japan (Table 2). We also noticed that there were more than twice as many males as females on the editorial and review boards (Table 3). In terms of the reviewers, they were based in 24 different locations which seems reasonably diverse. However, the majority (29 out of 73, which is 40%) were based in Japan (see Table 4).

%

/20%

!"!#$%&'()*+,%!"#$%&'%("$%)'%*+,-%)./0'%/123/44% % Table 2. Advisory and Editorial Boards Countries Japan (11) Australia (4) Greece (1) Hong Kong (1) Ireland (1) New Zealand (1) UAE (1) UK (1) USA (1) Table 3. Gender of Advisory and Editorial Boards Male

15

Female

7

Table 4. Location of Reviewers

%

Japan

29

Brazil

1

UAE

6

China

1

USA

6

Germany

1

Mexico

3

Greece

1

UK

3

India

1

Thailand

3

Macau

1

Canada

2

Oman

1

Egypt

2

Pakistan

1

Finland

2

Singapore

1

/2&%

!"!#$%&'()*+,%!"#$%&'%("$%)'%*+,-%)./0'%/123/44% % Hong Kong

2

Sudan

1

Spain

2

Taiwan

1

Australia

1

Turkey

1

Other measures of diversity to research in the future could include whether the articles are single-authored or co-authored, whether the authors are male or female, whether the authors are based at our institution, in another institution in Japan, and whether the authors are students.

For example, we know many of the reviewers may be located in Japan, but are not Japanese and thus location data alone can be misleading.

Accessibility Research Question 4 asked how many views the online articles are receiving. Total views from 1st March 2010 to 1st November 2013 for SiSAL Journal was 118,585. The statistics for a one-year period are shown in Table 5.

Table 5. SiSAL Journal Access Figures in One Year (from November 1 2012 to October 31 2013) Total page views in one year

47,5583

Average page views per month

3,965

Average page views per week

915

Average page views per day

130

In order to highlight the amount of access that individual contributions might get, a summary of the articles that received the most views in a one-year period and the number of views is shown in Table 6. The least frequently accessed articles are the editorials, some receiving just one or two views - or no views at all.

%

/25%

!"!#$%&'()*+,%!"#$%&'%("$%)'%*+,-%)./0'%/123/44% % Table 6. The Top Ten Most Accessed Articles in a One-year Period (from November 1 2012 to October 31 2013) Views “Learning to Foster Autonomy: The Role of Teacher Education Materials” by Hayo Reinders and Cem Balcikanli. Issue 2(1)

3,377

“English for Specific Purposes (ESP) Modules” by Kevin Knight, Issue 1(2)

2,761

“Principles and Procedures for Self-Access Materials” by Brian Tomlinson. Issue 1(2)

1,880

“Review of the Open Culture Website” by Anna Taylor (Gorevanova). Issue 1(2)

1,343

“Internet-Based Resources for Developing Listening” by Ene Peterson. Issue 1(2)

1,225

“Fostering Self-directed Learning through Guided Tasks and Learner Reflection” by Chris King. Issue 2(4)

1,218

“EFL Students’ Writing Strategies in Saudi Arabian ESP Writing Classes” by Mohammad Alnufaie and Michael Grenfell. Issue 3(4)

1,039

“Evaluating Learner Autonomy: A Dynamic Model with Descriptors” by Maria Giovanna Tassinari. Issue 3(1)

1,024

“The Importance of Affective Factors in Self-Access Language Learning Courses” by Sergio Valdivia, David McLoughlin, and Jo Mynard. Issue 2(2)

1,011

“Language Learning Strategy Research: Where do we go from Here?” by Heath Rose.

Issue 3(2)

932

Question 5 asked how many people subscribed to the online journals or followed them on Facebook. A summary is given in Table 7.

Table 7. Subscribers to SiSAL Journal Subscribers

%

Subscribers to the RSS feed

212

Facebook followers

53 /21%

!"!#$%&'()*+,%!"#$%&'%("$%)'%*+,-%)./0'%/123/44% % Question 6 was concerned with which databases and links bring the most readers to the online journals. The statistics were calculated for the same one-year period as above for SiSAL Journal and are shown in Table 8.

Table 8. Top Referrers in a One-year Period (from November 1 2012 to October 31 2013) Google search engine

23,773

Google images

1,633

Other search engines (combined)

1,279

Facebook

461

DOAJ (Directory of Open-Access Journals)

418

Kanda University websites (combined)

99

Yahoo Mail

98

Twitter

97

Academia.edu

85

Quality Research Question 7, concerning how widely the articles are cited, was evaluated through inclusion on the Universal Impact Factor Master List and was calculated to be as follows (according to the website http://www.uifactor.org/JournalMasterList.aspx): SiSAL Journal Impact Factor for year 2012 = 1.0052 By way of comparison, Language Learning and Technology Journal, a highly respected and well-established, online, open-access journal had an impact factor of 1.38 in 2012.

Questions 8 and 9 were investigated through the survey (Appendix A). Appendix B summarizes how the respondents answered the questions by indicating the number of respondents and, where relevant, the associated open-ended comments.

Research Question 8 was concerned with how authors view the publication process and this was found to be generally positive. Out of the 33 respondents who had published in SiSAL Journal, 29 had had a good experience, three an acceptable experience and one a bad experience.

The percentages are shown in Figure 2. %

/22%

!"!#$%&'()*+,%!"#$%&'%("$%)'%*+,-%)./0'%/123/44% %

Figure 2. How Authors Viewed the Publication Process The respondents who had published an article in SiSAL Journal and had had a bad experience unfortunately did not give details. In fact, those who responded to the open-ended question (n=11) were those who had all had a good experience. The raw data is given in Appendix B, but the main reasons cited were: ! ! ! ! !

reviewer/editor suggestions were helpful (n=6) fast turnaround (n=3) the reviewers/editors were very supportive (n=2) the editorial team were very professional (n=1) non-native speakers appreciated the help (n=1) Out of the respondents who had submitted papers that had been rejected, two reported

that the experience was “acceptable” and one reported that the experience was “poor”.

Unfortunately, the open-ended follow-up question was not completed so we are unable to pinpoint the reason for the responses.

Research Question 9 was concerned with how readers viewed the quality of the journal.

One question which sheds light on reader perceptions is Question 3 on the survey (see Appendix B) and respondents were asked to choose between “good standard” “acceptable standard” and “poor standard”. Out of 68 respondents, 42 (62%) viewed it to be “good standard” and 26 (38%) judged the journal to be of an “acceptable standard”. Nobody viewed the journal as “poor standard”. Question 10 was an open-ended question which asked the respondents to make suggestions for improvement. The raw data has been included in Appendix C, but a few general %

/24%

!"!#$%&'()*+,%!"#$%&'%("$%)'%*+,-%)./0'%/123/44% % observations were made (unless indicated, these suggestions were made by only one respondent): ! Request for services that already exist (email alerts, downloadable articles, indexing) (n=5) ! Suggestions to broaden the geographical scope (n=2) ! Suggestion for the inclusion of practical ideas (n=2) ! Suggestion to pay attention to quality of scholarship (n=2) ! Request for a printed version ! Suggestion for better classification of articles ! Request for translations ! Suggestion to commission more articles by qualified colleagues ! Request for materials reviews ! Request for articles on technology Limitations There are certainly many limitations associated with this research. As Egbert (2007) pointed out, it is likely that journals should be evaluated using different measures and establishing the appropriate measures might be the first step. Whereas the measures described in this article are helpful, it would have been useful to further expand them to investigate some of the factors in more detail. For example, the notion of diversity was almost exclusively restricted to location for the purposes of this research whereas we know that diversity may encompass many different factors and we look forward to researching how we might get such information in the future. There were few cases where authors did not have a positive experience and it would be useful for the editorial teams to know what the reasons were in order to prevent negative experiences for prospective authors in the future.

Conclusions and Implications The editorial team members intend to use the results to set goals to increase the quality, diversity and accessibility over the next two years. Some specific goals are as follows: ! Increase diversity on the editorial and advisory boards and also among authors in terms of gender, location and ethnicity ! Increase awareness of SiSAL journalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s availability and accessibility ! Develop ecological routines among our editors and readers to assure quality service In addition to attention to these areas, it is worth noting that there were some very %

/4.%

!"!#$%&'()*+,%!"#$%&'%("$%)'%*+,-%)./0'%/123/44% % positive aspects of the journal. For example, one of the greatest services we have found that we are giving is the “quick turnaround” of innovative information for teachers and researchers.

Whereas many journals take may take a year or more to get creative ideas out to their readers, we are doing it in a matter of months. In addition, the publication experience was generally viewed as a positive one whereas this is often viewed as a frustrating process with other journals.

Notes on the contributor Jo Mynard is the founding editor of SiSAL Journal. She is an Associate Professor and the Director of the Self-Access Learning Centre at Kanda University of International Studies in Japan. Her research interests include self-access, affect, advising and motivation.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank my friend and colleague Tim Murphey for his help with the original research, for his ongoing encouragement, and for helping me to understand the meaning of diversity. I am grateful to my colleague Neil Curry for his invaluable feedback on previous drafts of this paper, and to 85 anonymous respondents who completed our survey. The research was supported with funding from RILS&LE at Kanda University of International Studies.

References Briskin, A., Erickson, S., Ott, J., & Callanan, T. (2009). The power of collective wisdom and the trap of collective folly. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Egbert, J. (2007). Quality analysis of journals in TESOL and applied linguistics. TESOL Quarterly, 41(1), 157- 171.

Lugones, M. (2003). Pilgrames/ Peregrinajes: Theorizing coalition against multiple oppressions. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.

Murphey, T. (2013). Adapting ways for meaningful action: ZPDs and ZPAs. In J. Arnold & T. Murphey (Eds.), Meaningful action: Earl Stevick’s influence on language teaching (pp.

172-189). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

%

/4/%

!"!#$%&'()*+,%!"#$%&'%("$%)'%*+,-%)./0'%/123/44% % Murphey, T., Mynard, J., & Shanley, M. (2012). Editorial strategies for stimulating professional collaboration with peer reviewed publications. Studies in Linguistics and Language Teaching, 23, 111-124.

Murphey, T., & Mynard, J. (2014). An evaluation of the success of peer-review journals at KUIS. Studies in Linguistics and Language Teaching, 24, 63-92.

Ortega, L. (2005). For what and for whom is our research? The ethical as transformative lens in instructed SLA. Modern Language Journal, 89, 427-443.

Ortega, L. (2011). SLA after the social turn: Where cognitivism and its alternatives stand. In D. Atkinson (Ed.) Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 167-180).

London, UK: Routledge.

Polonksy, M., Jones, G., & Kearsley, M. (1999). Accessibility: An alternative method of ranking marketing journals? Journal of Marketing Education, 21(3), 181-193.

%

/4)%

!"!#$%&'()*+,%!"#$%&'%("$%)'%*+,-%)./0'%/123/44% % Appendices Appendix A 1. We aim to gather input that will help us to improve SiSAL Journal. This anonymous survey is designed to gather views from readers on the quality of SiSAL Journal. We are also gathering feedback from authors on the publication process. The whole survey should take less than 5 minutes to complete. Thank you for your participation. The results will be published in a future issue of SiSAL Journal.

The Editorial Team ! I agree to participate in the research and I am happy for my responses to be used in associated publications ! I would prefer not to take the survey 2. How often do you read articles in SiSAL Journal? ! I never read articles in SiSAL Journal (SKIP TO 6) ! Less than once per year ! Around 1--6 times per year ! 12 times per year ! More than 12 times per year 3. In general, how would you rate the quality of the journal? ! Poor standard ! Acceptable standard ! Good standard Optional comments 4. How likely are you to cite or refer to SiSAL Journal articles in your work? ! Not likely ! Reasonably likely ! Very likely Optional comments: 5. Why do you read articles from SiSAL Journal? (check all that apply) ! I am new to the field and I need to learn as much as I can about self--access ! I am interested in keeping current in the field ! I am looking for practical ideas ! I need to cite research in my own work Other (please specify) 6. Have you ever submitted a paper for publication in SiSAL Journal?

%

/45%

!"!#$%&'()*+,%!"#$%&'%("$%)'%*+,-%)./0'%/123/44% % ! No (SKIP TO 9) ! Yes, it was published ! Yes, it was rejected (SKIP TO 8) 7. How would you rate your experience of publishing your paper in SiSAL Journal? ! The experience was bad ! The experience was acceptable ! The experience was good Please give details 8. How was your experience with submitting a paper that was subsequently rejected? ! The experience was bad ! The experience was acceptable ! The experience was good Please explain 9. How likely are you to submit a paper for publication in SiSAL Journal in the future? ! Unlikely ! Reasonably likely ! Very likely Please explain 10. How could SiSAL Journal be improved?

11. Which statement best describes you? ! I have no contact with self--access ! I have some contact with self--access ! One of my main activities is connected with self--access Other (please specify) 12. Are you involved in SiSAL Journal in any capacity? (check all that apply) ! I am not involved in the running of the journal ! I am a regular reviewer (reviewing more than one paper per year) ! I am an occasional reviewer (reviewing less than one paper per year) ! I am a member of the advisory board ! I am a member of the editorial team ! I have edited or co-edited an issue ! I was previously a member of the editorial team Other (please specify) Thank you. The results will be published in a future issue of SiSAL Journal.

%

/40%

!"!#$%&'()*+,%!"#$%&'%("$%)'%*+,-%)./0'%/123/44% % Appendix B 1. We aim to gather input that will help us to improve SiSAL Journal. This anonymous survey is designed to gather views from readers on the quality of SiSAL Journal. We are also gathering feedback from authors on the publication process. The whole survey should take less than 5 minutes to complete. Thank you for your participation. The results will be published in a future issue of SiSAL Journal.

The Editorial Team ! I agree to participate in the research and I am happy for my responses to be used in associated publications (n=83) ! I would prefer not to take the survey (n=1) Skipped question: 1 2. How often do you read articles in SiSAL Journal? (n=77) ! I never read articles in SiSAL Journal (SKIP TO 6) (n=5) ! Less than once per year (n=11) ! Around 1--6 times per year (n=41) ! 12 times per year (n=15) ! More than 12 times per year (n=5) 3. In general, how would you rate the quality of the journal? ! Poor standard (n=0) ! Acceptable standard (n=26) ! Good standard (n=42) Optional comments (n=3) “Good standard, but I think that lots of the research themes are a bit superfluous, and not always so independent learning-specific” “Very relevant and high quality” “contributors need to collect and report data in their papers” 4. How likely are you to cite or refer to SiSAL Journal articles in your work? (n=68) ! Not likely (n=5) ! Reasonably likely (n=43) ! Very likely (n=20) Optional comments (n=4) (Not likely) “Not working on independent learning so much right now” (Reasonably likely) “if such articles come up in search results” (Very likely) ”they are directly related to my area of interest” (Not likely) “I will make comments to other teachers at work.”

5. Why do you read articles from SiSAL Journal? (check all that apply) (n=65) %

/4&%

!"!#$%&'()*+,%!"#$%&'%("$%)'%*+,-%)./0'%/123/44% % ! I am new to the field and I need to learn as much as I can about self--access (n=10) ! I am interested in keeping current in the field (n=50) ! I am looking for practical ideas (n=37) ! I need to cite research in my own work (n=37) Other (please specify) “Interested and looking for practical ideas” “I am looking for other research related to mine” “I have a different reason each time” “I'm an ILC coordinator and this information is very relevant to me” “I have contributed” “I am an author of a few articles” 6. Have you ever submitted a paper for publication in SiSAL Journal? (n=73) ! No (SKIP TO 9) (n=37) ! Yes, it was published (n=33) ! Yes, it was rejected (SKIP TO 8) (n=3) 7. How would you rate your experience of publishing your paper in SiSAL Journal? (n=33) ! The experience was bad (n=1) ! The experience was acceptable (n=3) ! The experience was good n=29) Please give details (n=11) (the experience was good) Some suggestions were made which helped add to the clarity of the article, so that it was improved.

Really supportive - 3 reviewers and editors really going out of their way.

Fast turnaround Fantastic turn-around, great editorial team, very professional Great to get constructive feedback and work on the article until it is published The editorial team is very helpful in giving ideas to improve the article. the feedback from editors was extremely helpful The reviewers were thorough and tough, but ultimately helped us re-shape our paper to meet SiSAL's needs and standards.

Great system for non native speakers. Appreciation.

Supportive reviews which improvd my work. Quick turnaround also good.

Helpful comments from the reviewers to improve my article further.

8. How was your experience with submitting a paper that was subsequently rejected? (n=3) ! The experience was bad (n=2) ! The experience was acceptable (n=1) ! The experience was good (n=0) %

/45%

!"!#$%&'()*+,%!"#$%&'%("$%)'%*+,-%)./0'%/123/44% % Please explain (n=0) 9. How likely are you to submit a paper for publication in SiSAL Journal in the future? (n=72) ! Unlikely (n=10) ! Reasonably likely (n=30) ! Very likely (n=32) Please explain (Unlikely) not really my subject area I'm not involved in self-access any more.

I do not feel that I have enough to say.

I am retired from my previous academic job.

Because I quit working in a self-access learning center (reasonably likely) My colleagues and I have one under review at present.

When time permits ;-) I'd like to submit a paper again if I have a chance (Very likely) I still have plenty of material from working with Self-access and teaching it as a subject within Applied Linguistics. As a 'specialist journal', it would be the most appropriate place to publish.

I've recently become interested in the field As part of my MA studies in Professional Development for Language Education I'm a language advisor trainer. My practice may interest the journal's readership.

I have submitted one but I don't know if it has been accepted or rejected yet Recently presented on a topic related to self access and would like to write it up and be able to share with others in the field.

10. How could SiSAL Journal be improved? (n=27) See Appendix B 11. Which statement best describes you? (n=70) ! I have no contact with self--access (n=8) ! I have some contact with self--access (n=24) ! One of my main activities is connected with self--access (n=28) Other (please specify) 12. Are you involved in SiSAL Journal in any capacity? (check all that apply) (n=70) ! I am not involved in the running of the journal (n=45) ! I am a regular reviewer (reviewing more than one paper per year) (n=4) ! I am an occasional reviewer (reviewing less than one paper per year) (n=16) ! I am a member of the advisory board (n=3) %

/41%

!"!#$%&'()*+,%!"#$%&'%("$%)'%*+,-%)./0'%/123/44% % ! I am a member of the editorial team (n=2) ! I have edited or co-edited an issue (n=6) ! I was previously a member of the editorial team (n=2) Other (please specify) Thank you. The results will be published in a future issue of SiSAL Journal.

--Appendix C Responses to the open-ended survey question â&#x20AC;&#x153;How could SiSAL Journal be improved?â&#x20AC;?

(Question 10) I'm not sure. I like the current format and presentation. I like the different topics that are covered. It is a source of information for me, so there isn't anything that I can think of that could be improved. make its articles downoadable I think that the journal is good as it is. accept more articles about Latin-America based research More regular and a printed option good Evolve toward higher standards publishing quality work I don't think of anything to improve. It is very good. add more useful articles Contributors need to take more responsibility for the quality of scholarship. Some SiSAL articles seem to be the product of ad hoc analysis, and often the data is not as complete as it ought to be.

My fear is that some people take advantage of the fact that a large number of studies in the field of learner autonomy are qualitative and use publications like SiSAL to report anecdotal findings.

You can give chances to unknown researchers from developing countries who need self-access %

/42%

!"!#$%&'()*+,%!"#$%&'%("$%)'%*+,-%)./0'%/123/44% % learning badly.

I think that a few small practical ideas in each issue would be a good idea, or a readers' forum.

Set up a subscription system where the journal is sent automatically to subscribers. (Perhaps this already exists.)

E-mail me to alert me of articles published in my specific area of interest. (I don't always have time to browse through the whole issue to see whether anything interests me) no ideas! accept new members from Brazil I enjoy it very much. I do not have any comment.

It would be nice if the studies published could be classified according to what they are. Most seem to be teacher reflections, some are case studies, some are opinions pieces. Having a guidepost would make reading far quicker.

No ideas.

I di not care abiut it.

Broad indexing in more standard academic indexes (ERIC, Academic Search Complete etc.)

By undertaking translation as part of this I like the themed issues. I also like the fact that it's open access. No improvements that I can recommend at this time.

I think there probably has to be more 'commissioning' of articles. By that I mean that there are many people qualified to write and publish, but it is not a requirement within their job description, so they don't. I think more reviews of particular apps or computer programs or things like dictionaries could be included so that readers are kept up-to-date and reflections n the use of particular facilities like language cafes, caraoke, tandem conversation schemes, and the like, would be useful.

Email alerts wehn the journal is published, like Reading in a Foreign Language is twice a year.

I would like to see more articles focusing on technology in autonomy

%

/44%