sucessful strategies in language learning

SUCCESSFUL STRATEGIES IN LANGUAGE LEARNING By Elena Serpunina, PhD

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background 1.2 Problem Statement 2 TEACHING METHODS EXPECTED AND METHODS APPLIED 2.1 History and Development of the Audio-Lingual Method (ALM) 2.2 History and Development of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) 2.3 Comparative analysis: the ALM versus CLT Chapter 2 Overview 3 LEARNER STRATEGIES AS A TOOL TO DEVELOP LEARNER AUTONOMY 3.1 Defining Learner Autonomy 3.2 Types of Learner Strategies 3.3 Learner Strategies as a Tool of Developing Autonomy Chapter 3 Overview 4 EXPLICIT VERSUS IMPLICIT LEARNING TO LEARN INSTRUCTION 4.1 Learning Responsibility Transfer 4.2 Explicit versus Implicit Instruction 4.3 Learning Styles Instruction Chapter 4 Overview 5 RESEARCH DESIGN 5.1 Syllabus and Materials Overview 5.2 Methodology Design Chapter 5 Overview 6 MATERIALS, METHODS AND DATA COLLECTION 6.1 Students description 6.2 Piloting 6.3 Course of Experiment

Chapter 6 Overview 7 PROCESSING AND INTERPRETING THE RESULTS 7.1 Quantative Data 7.2 Statistical methods 7.3 Analysis of Students’ Feedback 8 CONCLUSIONS 8.1 Overview 8.2 Application 8.3 Limitations and Further Research APPENDIX 1 Participant Consent Form APPENDIX 2 Background Questionnaire APPENDIX 3 Before and After Likert Questionnaire APPENDIX 4 How I Learn English Questionnaire APPENDIX 5 Students’ Biweekly Log for experiment group APPENDIX 6 Learning Diary for control group

REFERENCES

1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background The idea of Learner autonomy proposed by Hoilec (1984) and developed by Dam (1995) and Little (2004) proves to work in the long run. It states that teaching the student how to learn motivates them to learn, gives them the responsibility for their learning and helps them become more successful students.

The context of the classroom in Russia is known to be quite a teacher-centric one, while the situation of acquiring English in a monolingual environment demands the student to be highly autonomous, if they want to be a successful English learner (Little, 2004) and to gain the effective level of proficiency. It is clear that the students lack the useful strategies, are unaware of their specific learning styles and have underdeveloped learner autonomy when they enter the English language classroom in Russia.

The lack of these skills hinders them from being successful language learners. My own experience with teaching English with the textbooks that integrate the implicit strategy and styles instruction and autonomy development leads me to conclude that students need explicit styles and strategies instruction in order to help them become more teacher independent and to become more successful language learners and users (see Chapter 3 for more details).

1.2 Problem Statement When in the beginning of this school year we switched from audio-lingual teacher centered Russian textbook to learner centered communicative New Hotline, we experienced serious difficulties from the goal setting (why do it?) to learner diary. Not only had we to explain this concept and provide the students with several user friendly samples every week (Flaherty, et al., 2003), today they still ask us 'what is the learner diary?'. Such simple task as project 'My favorite pop star' took most of the students 3 months to complete, though the deadline was set as long as 2 weeks (and some are still busy completing it). We had been trying to get the projects done but most of them stumbled even at choosing the star let alone gathering material. Creating step-by-step instructions, pair and group assignments and samples of the finished tasks didn't help. Making these tasks obligatory and then awarding extra points for them didn't help either.

They showed low self-esteem, poor time management, inability to meet deadlines and the general uncertainty about how to apply what they had learned to the personal contexts, the typical outcomes of the standard high school experience (Mynard & Almarzouqi, 2006). That is when we started to think about the need to introduce the explicit strategy instruction, especially metacognitive and cognitive kinds.

It was hoped the students would adopt in the course of time, but they have not. At the end of the year we had well-rounded package of materials, students who wanted to learn and know English, a teacher who wanted to help and the vague feeling of mutual dissatisfaction (students with textbook, teacher with the students' attitude). The question is 'what are the possible reasons behind it?' Since we are responsible for the replacing textbook decision, this gap between wish to learn and surprising incapability to deliver touches us personally. We need to get to the reason of that.

The groups were chosen due to their need and want and abilities to learn and surprising incapability to complete personally significant tasks; especially with such a simple task as a project. We sought to find the reasons of it and help students overcome their difficulties. We also did our learner profile about how personality influences proficiency and strategy instruction as well as styles and developing learner autonomy and thought it would be a useful theoretical starting point.

The present paper aims at comparing two methods of styles and strategy instruction, the explicit and implicit ones, both integrated into the English as a Foreign Language course and the degree of their influence on Learner Autonomy Development. The specific objectives are set to contribute to answering the main question.

Aim: How the type of learning to learn instruction influences Learner Autonomy?

Accordingly, to reach the aim, the objectives are to establish: 1. How explicit instruction influences the development of Learner Autonomy; 2. How implicit instruction influences the development of Learner Autonomy; 3. What are the outcomes in comparison?

Thus we propose the following topic of the future research:

Explicit Learning to Learn Instruction as a tool to develop Learner Autonomy in the context of Russian classroom.

The research question is: TO WHAT EXTENT THE DIRECT LEARNING STYLES INSTRUCTION DEVELOPS LEARNER INDEPENDENCE? The object of the study is the process of learning to learn instruction, while the subject of the study the conditions under which the learning to learn instruction takes place.

We suggest the following hypothesis: If Russian students experience explicit learning to learn instruction, English course integrated, then they will become more independent learners.

The alternative hypothesis is that there is no difference between the explicit and implicit instruction outcomes of learner awareness.

Hence we use the following thesis outline: The paper consists of 8 chapters. It begins with the short introduction followed by Literature overview (Chapters 2-4) that gives the outline of the before and after teaching methods compared, self-awareness and explicit strategy instruction. Chapters 5 and 6 describe the methodology and the obtaining of the results respectively, while in chapter 7 we finally focus on interpretation of them. Chapter 8 briefly summarizes the results and their application and limitations and proposes the questions for further research. The appendices contain the consent form as well as questionnaire and log samples.

2 TEACHING METHODS EXPECTED AND METHODS APPLIED One of the main features of the language pedagogy development has been the attempt to renew language teaching through changes in teaching method. In the past five decades, the three separate paradigms have emerged that define the theoretical background on which classroom instruction is based.

Audiolingualism and communicative approach are classically juxtaposed in every way and yet both claim the principal goal of theirs being communication. In the Russian classroom audio-lingual method with grammarian overtones predominates still, while the authentic English language textbooks promote the Balanced Approach within the Communicative paradigm. Thus question arises: ‘What are the principles and practices of these methods in which they strive to achieve the same goal?’ The next sections of the paper attempt to answer this question.

In the first subchapter we trace the history and the methods that contribute to the emergence of the audio-lingual method and its main features as well as limitations. The second subchapter discusses the development of Communicative Language Teaching, the levels of communicative competence and the weak points of the methodology. The third part aims at critically comparing the two methodologies in terms of origins, goals and principles and student/teacher relationships. Last paragraphs of the chapter 2 shortly conclude about weaknesses and strengths of both methodologies.

2.1 History and Development of the Audio-Lingual Method (ALM) The emergence of ALM is well described by Brown who accentuates how prominent theories in linguistics and psychology influenced practice at that time: In the middle of the century the unique advances of both linguistics and psychology had a profound and lasting effect on language teaching methodology. Structural linguistics had provided tools for dissecting language into its smallest parts and for contrasting two languages ‘scientifically’ and behavioral psychology had provided a model for teaching virtually any behavior by operant conditioning. The two theoretical stances merged perfectly to give language teachers a method firmly grounded in theory: the Audio-Lingual Method. (Brown, 1980, p.242) In Britain the ALM was adopted in the form of the Oral or Situational Approach (1940-60s) which

used pattern structures around situations that would provide the learners with maximum opportunity to practice the target language, usually through choral repetition.

Skinner’s influential book Verbal Behavior (1957) brilliantly summarized the findings already existent in methodology and provided a solid theoretical ground for the new method. The whole concept of S>R->R was easily adapted to language learning methodology: ‘The student is encouraged to produce repetitively a suitable sound in his own language and is rewarded each time there is a phonetic variation in the direction of the foreign language sound until gradually only productions of the new sounds are rewarded’. (McDonough, 1981, pp. 14-15)

The behavioral view of both language and language learning dominated foreign language teaching methodology for several decades resulting in classroom emphasis of controlled practice with careful reinforcement (Brown, 1980).

The Audio-Lingual Method shares many features with behaviorist teaching methodologies. The first principle reads that language learning is a process of habit formation. The second one is that analogy; the processes of generalization and discrimination provide a better foundation for language learning than analysis. Lastly, language is speech; speaking skills should be presented first.

Thus the main features of the ALM are as follows: 1. A detailed set of high- and low-level learning objectives is provided.

2. Materials are presented in a highly-structured, predetermined manner.

3. A conversation is followed by an introduction to sentence patterns and drills of them.

4. Vocabulary learning is kept to minimum; the meanings of words can be learned only in linguistic and cultural contexts.

5. A variety of repetitive language drills enable learners to form correct analogies and to reinforce positive learning.

Student/teacher relationship As a variety of drills is set to practice, learning paths are predetermined. The authoritative teacher is at the center of the learning process, he provides resources, instructs and corrects; students learn from the

teacher, as a result they are passive responders, not initiators. Students’ errors have to be corrected right away to prevent the formation of bad L2 habits. Language mastery is represented as acquiring a set of appropriate language stimulus-response chains, a habit formation. Students develop ‘right’ language habits by drilling, often using technology such as tape recordings in language labs, such drills making the learning process impersonal.

Limitations of the ALM The changes in linguistic theory in the 1960's challenged the structural view of language as well as the behaviorist view of language learning. The theoretical foundation of auidolingualism was attacked as being unsound both in terms of language theory and learning theory. According to Chomsky’s (1966) Universal Grammar concept, sentences are not learned by imitation and repetition but generate from the learner’s underlying linguistic competence.

Furthermore, the practical results of the approach fell short of expectations. Though communication was stated the goal, students could not transfer skills acquired to real communication outside the classroom, demonstrating a lack of the long-term communicative proficiency. The ALM is also criticized for its error avoidance, which creates tension and nervousness in students fearing to make a mistake (by Krashen). The experience of studying through audio-lingual procedures is tiresome, boring and unsatisfying. The drill process itself expels the human aspect of both learning and teaching.

To sum up the ALM is based on Behavioral Psychology (the concepts of language behavior and habit formation), Structuralism (basic sentence patterns) and the Contrastive Analysis (the morpheme studies). This method aims at using the target language communicatively by intensive oral drilling.

‘Language learning is overlearning; anything else is of no use’, according to L. Bloomfield (Quoted in: Blair, 1986, p. 4). Developed through 1930s, it had its highlight in 1950s and decline in 1970s; it is still applied in many corners of the world and works well with highly motivated students. The method fails to develop oral proficiency and can be tiresome and impersonal demotivating the student.

The dissatisfaction with the Audio-Lingual Method was one of a number of factors that caused a shift to other, more person-orientated approaches in the teaching of second and foreign languages.

2.2 History and Development of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) Communicative Language Teaching with its emphasis on meaning and communication and its learnercentered concept has served as the dominant approach to language teaching since the decline of the ALM. Though the communicative method gained its wide popularity in the 1980s, its development began in the early 1960s with coinage of the term ‘communicative competence’ in 1966.

American sociologist Dell Hymes, who found Chomsky's distinction between competence and performance inadequate arguing that it places ‘ideal objects in abstraction from socio-cultural features that might enter into their description’ (Hymes, 1971, p.7) and proposed the term communicative competence1.

In Hyme’s view, a person who acquires communicative competence acquires both knowledge and ability for language use. During the early 1970s the concept of communicative competence became the core of the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT).

The work of the American applied linguist Krashen (1978) and his distinction between acquisition versus learning (the acquisition approach) also provided a theoretical foundation for understanding the important role of communication in second-language learning. All these diverse concepts of Hymes, Halliday, Krashen as well as the further development of psycho- and sociolinguistics stressed the importance of the language as the functional means of communication.

The notional-functional syllabus can be considered as somewhat a precursor to the CLT methodology, its goal being communicative competence development by using authentic language and materials (magazines, newspapers and graphic and visual sources around which communicative activities, such as information gap, choice and feedback tasks, might be constructed). The integration of content, meaning and functions became a must and the principle of meaningful and authentic language use was applied (Hadley, 2001, p.116).

Moreover, another remark about the CLT should be made. We can describe CLT as an approach rather than a method, because it represents a philosophy of teaching that is based on communicative language

1

Both the ability of applying the grammatical rules of a language to form correct utterances, and the knowledge when to use these utterances appropriately.

use. Many language teaching methodologies are more or less in touch with communicative teaching now, task-based learning included.

So the basics of the CLT in addition to those mentioned as the part of the notional-functional syllabus are these: 1. Meaning is primary; contextualization is basic.

2. Social functions of language are accentuated.

3. Attempts to communicate in TL are encouraged in the beginning of instruction and the ability to communicate in the TL is developed as well as integrative skills.

4. L1 is acceptable when feasible.

5. Activities include role play, drama, simulations and a variety of games, almost all done in groups and/or pairs.

6. Teacher as a facilitator using TL fluently and appropriately and offering comprehensible input at a level just beyond that currently acquired by the learner.

Student/teacher relationship A tolerance for errors means that learners are not being constantly corrected to produce frustration or anxiety. Instead, errors are seen as a normal phenomenon in the communicative process. Purposeful interaction (between the teacher and the learner as well as between the learner and the learner) is an important feature of the communicative classroom. Through grouping, pairing, and cooperation, students have the opportunity to express their own individuality, establish a positive self-image and produce comprehensible output, while being constantly instrumentally motivated to use the language.

In relation to the roles of teacher and student, Richards and Rodgers note that CLT ‘often requires teachers to acquire less teacher-centered classroom management skills’ (Richards and Rodgers, 1986, p. 78). Their role is to organize the classroom as a setting for communication. Their role is not of a suppressor and controller. Littlewood describes the role of the teacher in CLT as that of a ‘facilitator of learning’, a consultant, advisor, coordinator of activities, classroom manager, co-communicator, ‘human among humans’ who ‘steps out of his didactic role’ (Littlewood, 1983, p. 94).

Limitations of CLT However, despite CLT being an improvement over preceding innovations, the reliance on a single concept of communication is a disadvantage. Stern explains:

In order to account for all varieties and aspects of language teaching we either stretch the concept of communication so much that it loses any distinctive meaning, or we accept its limitations and then find ourselves in the predicament of the 'method' solution: an excessive emphasis on a single concept (Stern, 1992, p. 14).

Other weaknesses are the favoritism of native-speaker teachers as possessing higher communicative competence and proficiency in the target language; difficulty in class management while a lot of pair and group communication takes place and in material control while a lot of it being authentic; lack of the explicit teaching of grammar, resulting in a consequent loss among students in accuracy in the pursuit of fluency. The zero position of the teacher not only rejects planned intervention in L2 learning (by presenting and practicing grammatical features) but also of unplanned intervention (incidental error correction).

Other-directed learners can better succeed as they focus on language as an interpersonal social task, while inner-directed ones approach language learning as an intrapersonal task. CLT is a great challenge both for teachers and students when the latter ones have small vocabulary and scarce knowledge of grammar, thus making the meaningful communication difficult.

To sum it up CLT has become the most commonly accepted methodology for language programs since the 1980s. It is based on concepts by Chomsky (linguistic competence), Hymes (communicative competence), Halliday (basic language functions) and Krashen (acquisition versus learning, developmental nature of errors). This method stresses the communicative aspect of teaching language, concentrating on its function. Authentic materials, pair and group work, role play and simulation and information gap activities are preferred. The approach is learner-centered and individuality-orientated.

However, there are some limitations to this method, the main two being language forms understress and the demand of high level of proficiency in order to communicate meaningfully.

2.3 Comparative analysis: the ALM versus CLT The ALM and CLT were developed consequently in 1960s and 1970s and are used simultaneously.

Their theory counterparts each other, so it will be interesting and useful to compare those two methodologies.

As we can see from the previous subchapters, both methods are well rooted in theory, the ALM in psychology and general linguistics and CLT in applied linguistics and SLA. Though communication was stated the final goal within both methodologies, they achieved it in different ways, the former stressing accuracy and language structure through cognition and repetition, and the latter basing on the notions of competence, proficiency and social function of language.

The goal of the ALM is to create language laboratory providing students with the opportunity of as many graded patterns repetitions as possible. The focus is on language habit formation and the learners’ ability to correctly reproduce the everyday speech patterns. The repetitions are viewed as the reinforced behavior and do not demand any personal involvement. The goal of CLT is to create a realistic context for language acquisition in the classroom. The focus is on functional language usage and the ability of learners to express their own ideas, feelings, attitudes, desires and needs.

The part of the ALM teacher is to orchestrate the choral repetitions, to be a role model for accuracy in pronunciation and grammar competence (sometimes this can be redirected to the technical devices), a source of graded language and an error corrector (teacher-centered approach). CLT claims no teacher intervention and places the learner in the center of the learning process, allowing the student to interact getting assistance from the teacher.

Linguistic competence is based on the communication within the minimal vocabulary and a set of grammar patterns or ready-made dialogues within the ALM with the teacher, in choir or in pairs. CLT stresses the development of both grammar and pragmatic competences. Students usually work with realia in small groups on communication activities, during which they receive practice in negotiating meaning.

The area of attention of the ALM is pronunciation, grammar and oral skills (the main techniques are the variety of drills), while CLT stresses the meaning and interaction skills (open ended questioning and problem-solving activities and exchanges of personal information are utilized as the primary means of communication). Vocabulary is not emphasized in both methodologies.

The practices of the ALM in accordance with behaviorist views are based exceptionally on different kinds of drills (substitution, transformation) and exercises stressing contrast with L1 or language

structure in general (grammar games). As far as CLT is concerned, its techniques heavily rely on cooperation and information gap activities all done with communication as the principal goal in mind.

Though the comparative analysis makes the ALM look much less attractive than CLT, the differences are not as striking as they seem to be. The two methodologies actually have a thing or two in common.

Their primer goal is to teach pronunciation, to develop functional language proficiency and make the students understand everyday speech. A certain focus on culture is maintained as well.

It also should be emphasized, that limitations of each methodology lie in its strengths. The ALM has been strongly overcriticized in favor of CLT, but is not the cure-all in itself.

First of all, the ALM suits well the beginners or elementary level with its stress on good pronunciation and grammar accuracy, as well as discrete speech samples and a set of short and long-term goals. L1 comparison to prevent interference is a reasonable measure, too, especially with a small amount of FL classroom hours within high school system. Besides, linguistic competence is a foundation, on which we can develop other competences, not with the help of drills, of course.

Next on the basis of established linguistic competence, developed by the ALM, CLT can be applied with intermediate and advanced levels. Students who achieve such high levels of proficiency certainly don’t need any drills or teacher’s intervention, but will gain from real life situations, authentic materials, the variety of discourses and comprehensible input offered by CLT, though engaging in communicative activities, which still are a behavior.

Finally, though Chomsky strongly criticized the ALM for the overreliance on the behaviorist theories, there is a definite amount of cognitive procedure involved in the learning process. The development of the linguistic competence (recognition precedes production) and structure learning are impossible without some mental efforts from the learner. A definite amount of language awareness underlies CLT as well, that being only of the higher level (pragmatic and strategic ones). Moreover, both methodologies comprise of the same three aspects (behavioral, cognitive and communicative ones), the latter underplayed in the ALM, while the former underplayed in CLT.

Chapter 2 Overview The development of the L2 Teaching Methodologies throughout the last half of the 20 th century shows that each method considered is based on the certain learning theory and inspired by the findings in the humanities.

Though new methods or approaches imply a certain 'break from the old', they maintain a link with the past by incorporating positive aspects of theories they deny. The communicative approach owes much to the rejection of the behaviorist assumptions, the adoption of Chomsky’s transformational grammar, and communication theories.

Yet, no method is perfect, both the ALM and CLT have their own strengths and limitations, which do not hold them back from still being influential in the world. CLT nowadays acknowledges a deal of control over classroom and materials and language awareness and mild error correction, as a result of borrowing positive (behavioral and cognitive) aspects from the ALM. After all, the right thing to do in the classroom will be not to stick with a certain methodology, but rather combine different types of those that meet the specific needs of the specific students in the specific learning/teaching context, thus developing a somewhat eclectic approach but in a really good working kind of way. The teacher should seek to achieve the right balance between the behavioral, cognitive and communicative aspects of the learning process. Studying findings and principles of language learning and teaching as well as teaching methods available help language teachers get broader view of the context they place their students in.

3 LEARNER STRATEGIES AS A TOOL TO DEVELOP LEARNER AUTONOMY It is recognized now that language learning strategies (LLS) are the key to learner autonomy (LA). In order to facilitate the autonomy in their students, teachers need to incorporate learning strategy instruction into their language lessons. L2 research can assist autonomous learning by ensuring that the learner is offered ‘a range of choices with an adequate coverage of the diverse nature of l2 learning’ (Harris et al, 2001, p.5).

Studies in Learner Autonomy and Learning Strategies (LS) are relatively new fields of research. They didn’t catch the attention of the scholars until mid 1970s, when first CRAPEL research in France and the so-called liberation of education began. Autonomous learning is not yet widely used, perhaps because autonomization threatens the power of educational structures. It is also not clear if it would fit with all kinds of mainstream educational systems (Little, 2004). Little (2000) explained though that learner autonomy is crucial for two interrelated reasons: one reason is that students perform more successfully and are more focused if they are involved in initiating, reflecting and assessing their learning process. The other reason is that if the learners are engaged in learning a foreign language in such a way, they can then transfer the ability to act autonomously to other spheres.

Thus the question arises ‘What learning strategies contribute to development of learner autonomy and responsibility?’ The next sections of the paper attempt to answer this question.

The first subchapter of the chapter critically compares how different authors describe learner autonomy as well as responsibility and how the two relate to each other. The second subchapter discusses different groups of learner strategies. In the third subchapter we study the range of learner strategies as a tool of developing learner autonomy and responsibility. Last paragraphs of the chapter 3 briefly conclude about the results and the study limitations.

3.1 Defining Learner Autonomy The first to introduce the concept of LA was Henry Holec, though Benson (2001) names Yves Chântole to be ‘the father of autonomy’. Holec states that there is a need to stimulate the individual’s

freedom by developing the abilities which entail the student to act more responsibly in running the affairs of the society (Holec, 1981).

Little supports this point of view and believes that learner autonomy depends on a capacity for ‘detachment, critical reflection, decision-making, and independent action’ (Little 1991, p.4).

Leni Dam (1995) agrees with Holec (1981) and Little (1991) and acknowledges that learners take their first step towards autonomy when they accept responsibility for their own learning.

However, the development of learner autonomy also has a social-interactive dimension, as successful classroom experiments make clear. Learner autonomy develops through interdependence: interaction, co-operation and collaboration on the part of the language learners (Dam, 1995).

Little (2000) observes that we remember important learning experiences in terms of our relationship either with one or more other learners or with our teacher.

There are three reasons for this: 1. All humans have a need for communication or face-to-face interaction to function successfully in the society; 2. Responsibility put on students enhances co-operation and collaboration on the part of the learners; 3. Proactive commitment to learning increases motivation and helps develop the reflective and attitudinal resources to overcome temporary 'motivational setbacks’.

Naoko Aoki (1999) adds the emotional aspect to autonomy defining it as a psychological construct and a capacity to take control of one’s own learning ‘in the service of one’s perceived needs and aspirations’. (Aoki, 1999, p. 144).

According to Schurle and Szabo, the autonomy is 'the freedom and ability to manage one's own affairs, which entails the right to make decisions.' These authors single out responsibility defining it as 'being in charge of something, but with the implication that one has to deal with the consequences of one's own actions' (Schurle & Szabo, 2000, p. 4) and conclude that both are interrelated.

Yet another aspect, socio-political one, should be highlighted as in the following definition, ‘Autonomy is recognition of the rights of learners within educational systems' (Benson, 2001).

Nevertheless, most researchers agree that learner autonomy requires a positive attitude towards language and culture, a capacity for reflection and responsibility, self-management as well as readiness for interaction and feedback.

Having considered various definitions of learner autonomy we can conclude that autonomy is a complex construct including emotional (motivation and attitude), executive (responsibility, reflection) and social (interaction) components. We believe responsibility to be an explicit part of autonomy.

3.2 Types of Learner Strategies Weinstein and Mayer (1986) point out that the goal of learner (or learning) strategies use is to ‘affect the learner’s motivational or affective state, or the way in which the learner selects, acquires, organizes, or integrates new knowledge’ (quoted in: Lessard-Clouston, 1997).

Learner strategies at the same time are ‘special thoughts or behaviors that individuals use to help them comprehend, learn, or retain new information’ (O'Malley & Chamot (2000, p.1). All the strategies are communication ones, since they all develop 4 basic skills and language competence in general (Lessard-Clouston, 1997). Learning strategies have several classifications. Rebecca Oxford (1990) distinguishes between direct (memory, cognitive and compensation) and indirect learning strategies (metacognitive, affective and social ones). O'Malley and Chamot (2000) combine the latter two into the socio-affective group but we adhere to Oxford’s classification.

Memory strategies assist in adding information to memory, store it there and then retrieve it, while cognitive (receiving and producing messages in the TL) operate directly on incoming information, manipulating it in ways that enhance learning. Compensation strategies help overcome the gaps in the language knowledge. As Oxford insists, the direct strategies can be of limited application depending on specific tasks, since they involve TL. Indirect strategies are not implicated in the specific knowledge and hence can be a tool for a wider variety of tasks.

Metacognitive strategies are higher order executive skills than the cognitive ones. They involve thinking about the learning process, focusing attention, planning for learning, monitoring of comprehension or production while it is taking place, and self-evaluation (or self-assessment) after the learning activity has been completed and help exercise 'executive control' in general.

Affective strategies include ideational control over affect and help learners manage feelings, motivations, and attitudes related to language learning. Among the examples are such techniques as lowering your anxiety and encouraging yourself (both are often referred to as self-talk) as well as taking your emotional temperature.

Finally, social strategies represent a broad grouping that reflects the influence of social processes on learning and involves interaction with another person, their function is to "facilitate interaction with others, often in a discourse situation" (Oxford, 1990 quoted in: Lessard-Clouston, 1997).

O'Malley and Chamot (1990, 2000) suggest two representative strategies such as cooperation (or cooperative learning), and asking questions for clarification. Oxford adds empathizing with others to the examples.

3.3 Learner Strategies as a Tool of Developing Autonomy Bearing several dimensions of learner autonomy in mind and hypothesizing that indirect strategies are possible tools for developing autonomy we create a framework endeavoring to see how the LA can be developed with the help of LLS. First of all, it should be noted that although we separate components and strategies for the sake of our study they work together, probably at once and not one at a time.

We must remember that the first step is political, acknowledging that LA exists. Acknowledging autonomy is a great motivating factor for the learner. We see then that emotional component can be very well exercised with affective strategies.

Secondly, executive dimension is developed with the help of metacognitive strategies. There are specific metacognitive strategies (O'Malley & Chamot, 2000) for every state: the first, selective

attention develops responsibility, while reflection is enabled by planning, monitoring and evaluation.

Metacognitive strategies are often called procedural or executive knowledge and can exercises ‘being in charge’ aspect of LA. Thirdly, we have social dimension where the learner interacts with others be it students, teachers or native speakers and there the social strategies emerge.

Furthermore, now that we see how indirect LLS contribute to learner autonomy and responsibility development, we can look at it from the teacher’s point of view.

Little (2004) generalizes that the three pedagogical principles of learner autonomy are: 1) Learner empowerment; 2) Learner reflection; 3) Appropriate target language use.

Learner empowerment or goal setting is fulfilled because of motivation and positive attitude encouraged by affective strategies.

As we noted earlier, aside from the attitude or motivational state, there exists what Little specifies as ‘learner reflection’ of the learner autonomy that can be developed with the help of metacognitive strategies. Yet we have to add responsibility to this principle, since the learning is carried out through self-management with the help of metacognitive strategies.

Simultaneously or shortly after the reflective stage the appropriate language use takes place in interaction with others (including the repair of active language use) and the social strategies are a means to that.

Thus the possible framework within which the LLS develop learner autonomy functions this way: 1) Acknowledging learner autonomy and developing motivation and positive attitude applying affective strategies; 2) Learner reflection and responsibility exercised by metacognitive strategies;

3) Appropriate target language use, which is underlain by communicative – socio-cultural and strategic – competence and can be developed through interaction with the help of social strategies.

Yet we are fully aware of the drawbacks of our framework. For example, we combine political and social dimensions since they both regard society and therefore interaction. Nevertheless, the political aspect should be placed rather with the empowerment, however it’s not affectional. Finally we consider Benson’s acknowledgement of responsibility as a way of empowerment, therefore we add his name is on the principles’ list.

However, we see from the table the two fields of research correspond well with each other. All the tree principles formulated by David Little for LA work well within the LA component frame answering the questions why they work, while the strategies distinguished help see how exactly the principles work.

Chapter 3 Overview In this chapter we have discussed how to foster LA and LR applying language learner strategies. We discovered that responsibility is an explicit part of autonomy, which represents a complex construct comprising of emotional, executive and socio-political dimensions. Moreover, we found that the indirect group of metacognitive, affective and social strategies contributes most to developing learner autonomy.

It should be noted, nevertheless, that LA development is a long process and we fully agree with Little (1991) that it takes learning experience and ‘exposure to material’ as well as mutual effort from learner and teacher. If one party doesn’t take the challenge teaching the complex of LLS will not be a success.

This brings the limitation to the present paper as we focused only on the learner not considering teacher autonomy (Little, 2004) as ‘the part of the learning equation’ (Underhill, 1999, p. 140). It can be interesting to study the relation between learner and teacher autonomy.

4 EXPLICIT VERSUS IMPLICIT LEARNING TO LEARN INSTRUCTION

This part of literature overview focuses on teaching methodology issues of Learner Awareness Instruction research. It seeks to find the tools that are available to the teachers who want to foster learner autonomy and develop learners’ organizational skills.

4.1 Learning Responsibility Transfer European Language Portfolio notes five ways in which learners may be expected to develop their study skills and heuristic skills and their acceptance of responsibility for their own learning, with the last goal is often strangely overlooked both by material developers and teachers being 1) As a spin off from teaching and learning classroom activities (that is random and just happens); 2) transferring responsibility for learning from the teacher to the students by encouraging them to reflect on their learning (e.g. learning diaries) and to share this experience with other learners (group/pair work, projects); 3) By systematically raising the learners’ awareness of the learning/teaching processes in which they are participating (goal setting, discussing learning process); 4) Engaging learners as participants in experimentation with different methodological options; (differently structured lessons, group work, peer tutoring, creating projects, etc); And the last goal is often strangely overlooked both by materials developers and teachers 5) 'Getting learners to recognize their own cognitive style and to develop their own learning strategies accordingly' (Little & Simpson, 2003, p. 57).

Moreover, the learning strategy instruction is recommended as a part of ESL teaching. Harris et al.

(2001) conducted a study where and the teacher students had been taught specific strategies of listening/reading and communication. The results were successful and the feedback was positive. The project also aimed on helping to motivate teachers to do so and to raise awareness of the education institution that it will save effort in the future.

Villiers & Ward (2004) have the chapter in Oxford Professional Development Program on monitoring and maintaining the intellectual challenge by developing learner autonomy and providing effective materials, as well as feedback. Autonomy is encouraged by nurturing self-esteem, self-assessment and helping themselves to be better learners thru learning to learn activities. They describe study skills as reference skills, induction and inference, communicative function and 'awareness of learning strategies

which work for them’ (p. 19). The questions offered are 'how they learn vocabulary' and 'how they comprehend.' It is clear that the authors mention a mix of cognitive and metacognitive strategies here, as well as memorizing ones. The methodologists focus on the question 'How can we help teenagers become better learners?' The learning strategy instruction is clearly encouraged both in methodology guide and in the textbook itself (we dwell on the specific points of it in subchapter 5.1).

4.2 Explicit versus Implicit Instruction This part of literature overview focuses on practical issues of Learning Strategies and Styles research.

It seeks the special techniques that are applied when teaching learning skills and conducting learner preference research.

Schurle & Szabo (2000) discuss the possibility of optional course vs. incorporation in a language syllabus. They recommend integrated explicit way, because 'awareness and reflection are essential for development of responsibility' (p. 10). Though possible limitations include students' reluctance to adopt more independent way of learning and teachers unwillingness of incapability to do that, the advantages of this model are 1 all students’ presence, since the course is obligatory 2 time, money and effort waste minimized 3 availability of regular course material as instruction material.

4 strengthening of collaborative spirit between the learner and the teacher.

As far as explicit instruction is concerned, its stronger points include development of learners’ awareness and reflection, and encouragement of learner/teacher collaboration may increase the chance of transfer. The limitations of the explicit integrated instruction include certain frame of mind shift, methodology repertoire the teacher should possess as well as a time consuming task of preparing the instruction materials if the resource package doesn’t’ have them developed.

Several successful studies confirm this idea. Fung et al. (1999, p.1) note that 'explicit strategy instruction and practice can be integrated with existing classroom curriculum and can influence student motivation in a relatively short period of time.'

Their study of Chinese students with poor listening and reading English comprehension showed that after certain direct strategies training they scored high on post test activities. This brings a limitation of this study is single group experiment, while it could have benefited from control group pre and post testing.

Another aspect of this study was the usage of native Mandarin when teaching strategies. The teacher was engaged in 15 minutes session every lesson, during which they explained why the instruction was useful and where and how to apply it. 'The success of this study suggests that students with limited English proficiency can improve their English comprehension through reading strategy instruction that capitalizes on students' L1 language proficiency and literacy skills.' (Fung, et al., 1999, p.1) The somewhat similar study was reported on how to teach science taking into consideration learning styles. Student teachers 'were instructed in the understanding and use of learning styles and temperament styles as it applied to teaching science' (Tripp & Moore, 2007, p. 23). Then they took questionnaires to define their own temperament and learning styles. Once they were aware of their own ones, they were able to identify the difference in learners and to better meet their needs.

The fact that the teachers were better in identifying own and others styles lead us to conclude that students can benefit from taking such inventories as well, since they will be able to identify their own learning styles and needs and to better understand the limitations of others, the teacher included.

4.3 Learning Styles Instruction This part of literature overview focuses on theory issues in Learning Strategies and Styles research. We discuss the problem why both the teacher and the textbook fail to develop learner autonomy via implicit teaching of affective (learner diary), metacognitive (goal setting, reflection), cognitive (projects) strategies.

Much research is done on how to teach learning strategies and with general approach of 'the more strategies we teach the better' we sometimes overlook the fact that students have natural preferences and as Schmeck (1988, p. 173) notes 'that teachers must consider how learning style differences will affect an individual student’s ability to use a particular learning strategy.'

There is a concern that instructors fail to take into consideration important factors such as the influence of the learning environment or subject area. Learners should become first aware of the environment that influences them and where we are going to implement strategies.

The understanding of one’s own preferred learning style, the sense of potential control and direction over one’s own learning (metacognitive awareness) is referred to as crucial in developing learner independence (Harris et al., 2001, Little, 2004). Why? Because awareness of the individual mix of characteristics (learning styles, cultures, educational backgrounds, beliefs, motivations, ages, and genders) of each student provides essential groundwork for effective strategy instruction.

Earlier studies in the UK propose that an approach which both identifies and addresses individual learning styles can improve achievement and motivation, as well as change teacher perceptions (Klein & Swabey, 2001, p.1). Other direction of research, in the USA, shows that underachievers and dropouts and at risk students have a tendency to have less adaptable learning styles and are more frequently 'mismatched' to conventional teaching and environments (Klein & Swabey, 2001, p.1). Garner states: 'The underlying assumption of Kolb's (1984) learning styles is that an individual learner has a preferred approach to learning or an approach where they are more able' (Garner 2000, p.1).

The design of instructional materials is also a related issue. McLoughlin (1999) had observed that 'empirical research signals that learning styles can hinder or enhance academic performance in several respects, although no major research was conducted on the relationship between instructional design of learning materials and learning styles' (McLoughlin 1999, p.6).

Further, there is the issue of matching teaching style with learning style. The awareness of both teacher and student learning/teaching styles creates a rapport and provides a better understanding of the learning situation. It makes the student more aware of the strengths, explains possible weaknesses, but also gives the tips and ways to overcome or repair them, on the whole, making them if not more responsible then at least more aware of their own learning.

For example, Hansen (1997) discusses cognitive styles and how these may influence instructional design and teaching in technology-based education. Matching students and instructors based on cognitive style may not be feasible, since few instructors have the time to develop and present the same material in different ways. Hansen (1997) suggests that learners when provided with alternative learning strategies, ‘have an additional long-term advantage: they will have learned how to learn' (p.16).

Several studies (Felder & Solomon, 2006, 2007) report correlation between the successes in learning and, for example, visual style preference, but the main point of such studies advance the notion of meeting individual learners' needs. This idea is well formulated by Pallapu (2007, p.34): 'The differences of learning styles are affecting the learning and hence if addressed appropriately, there will be an enormous improvement in the learning and that more learning will occur substantially faster.'

Chapter 4 Overview This literature overview leads us to conclude that 1 learning is influenced by many factors, learning styles included; learning styles, in their turn, influence achievement, motivation and teacher perception; 2 the possible reasons of underachievement can be mismatch of preferred learning style of the student, teaching style, instruction and materials design; 3 nevertheless, exposure to mismatched activities can sometimes develop learner skills, though we should meet students' needs in general.

4 students should become aware of their learning styles and preferences and this awareness is a good ground for strategy instruction.

This literature study gave us two efficient ideas being 1) native language can help useful transfer and 2) explicit instruction can help. The authors also argue that direct instruction helps better internalize the metacognitive knowledge.

5 RESEARCH DESIGN In the present chapter we describe the syllabus and materials as well as student language proficiency and attitude first. Then we base our research constructing on these data, choosing and justifying the instruments and briefly concluding on their validity and reliability.

5.1 Syllabus and Materials Overview Syllabus Vocational school curriculum (students study for 4 years both acquiring profession and completing 2 last years of high school) suggests English classes from year 1 to year 3, 3 hours per week.

Occasionally the so-called 'field practice' interferes in the middle of the year (for example, having 7 weeks of practice and coming back only for three study weeks at the end of the term). This doesn't necessary create favorable conditions for teaching English. Sometimes groups have classes two days in a row and they are not always able to get ready with the homework, because of other subject assignments. The package we use is New Hotline International.

Materials The New Hotline consists of student book, work book, teacher's book and CD as well as posters and online support for teachers and students at http://www.oup.com/elt/global/products/newhotline/. It also ranges from Starter to Upper Intermediate levels which correspond to the range of proficiency in our college. The complex has also a culture comparative spot, tools to develop self-assessment and autonomy in the form of learner diary, cross-curriculum activities in the form of individual, pair and group projects.

Every lesson has also learner friendly activities: it opens with a sample dialog, establishes objectives and learning to learn activities and closes with making a learner diary entry, reflection, self-check and fixing possible problems by the learners themselves (using referencing).

The textbook is accompanied by the professional development program booklet that has the chapter 'Matching Learners, Materials and Teachers' stating:

'We need to try to understand our learners better in order to teach them better. For this reason, it is important to always remember that first and foremost we should teach the child and only secondly we should teach our subject, English' (Villiers & Ward, 2004, p. 4).

The authors also suggest developing learner autonomy by nurturing self-esteem; self-assessment and helping students to be better learners through learning to learn activities (see more on it in subchapter 4.4). The booklet describes study skills as reference skills, induction and inference, communicative function and 'awareness of learning strategies which work for them' (Villiers & Ward, 2004, p. 19).

Another point is made about cognitive preferences such as left-right hemisphere intelligences and learning styles such as kinesthetic-tactile, aural-oral and visual. The key approaches to be used are multi-sensory and multi-focus ones (Villiers & Ward, 2004).

Thus New Hotline clearly uses integrated strategy instruction. The students are shown the goals of every block as well as introduced to techniques to improve their learning skills, identify their difficulties and find the ways to solve them. The instruction aims at helping students to learn and fostering learners’ autonomy as well as responsibility with the help of teaching certain strategies. The approach to teaching is humanistic, constructivist and cognitive to language (working the meaning from context) and communicative (information gap, group and pair work) to other aspects.

5.2 Methodology Design First of all, we have two groups of approximately the same age, language proficiency and curriculum.

Group 1 is experimental group, which is taught learning styles both explicitly and implicitly. Group 2 is control group that is taught learning styles implicitly as it is suggested by the textbook. Both participate in pre and post questionnaires.

We base our research on communicative philosophy of language acquisition and the balanced, learnercentered approach to learning. We plan to use a combination of both qualitative and quantitative methods within integrative research paradigm.

The preliminary work includes 3 directions: - choosing, translating and adopting the body of tests; - shaping before and after questionnaire;

- piloting the questionnaire and correcting it.

After studying a number of researches (Malcolm, 2004; Pearson, 2004) in the realm of learning styles and strategies instruction we settled our mind on pretest post test paradigm with 5 point Likert scale, which enables us to apply statistical method and use Chi square defining shifts and checking the hypothesis. Thus, making it a reliable instrument of research. We also use qualitive log of 3 questions compiled by the students after taking every questionnaire in order to check the quantitatve result. Our own log with observation helps to gain chronological course of events and to double check both quantitative and qualitative data. We ourselves also have designed the log forms, as wells as designed and piloted pre/post tests.

In our work we use such instruments as feedback, questionnaires, pre and post testing, observation, students' and teacher's log. The set of the styles and strategies itself includes 12 certified tests and is only slightly adopted by us to teenagers' perception (using VARK for teens as an example) taking into consideration the Educational Psychology and Russian reality (for example, change project for the report). Here we agree with Cook (1999, p. 204) on the inclusion of the first language in the classroom who writes that it ‘can convince students that they are successful multicompetent speakers, not failed native speakers’.

Quantitative methods include questionnaire designed by us with the 5 point Likert scale of 5 statements concerning students’ styles, perceptions, modalities, strategies and autonomy. It is the same before and after test, which lets us apply the statistic methods and see the dynamics of learners’ progress in numbers.

While processing quantitative results we used statistical methods as well counting probability of the hypothesis with the help of Chi square method. We also believe that the combination of both qualitive and quantitative (even statistical) methods helps us obtain more accurate data and thus provides more feasible results.

In order to avoid possible pitfalls of the generic statistic data we add qualitative part to the questionnaires in the form of a small student’s log, consisting of 3 questions. The students fill in the

log after completion and discussion of each inventory. This allows us to get some insight into their feelings, attitudes and perceptions as well as opinions.

The set of inventories is modeled after Peter Honey's LNAQ (Honey, 2008) one with several additions.

In addition to that, the data itself (a set of learner profiles) gathered from the responses to inventories serves as the outcome of the group case research and will be used as well.

The body of the tests itself (see Chapter 6 for the outline) consists of 6 questionnaires and not only gives students their types of learning styles and preferences, thus raising their awareness ('receives an immediate diagnosis of the areas in need of most urgent attention via individual conference', as Honey (2008) puts it), but also gathers data about their ways of learning and attitudes to it.

The students also get somewhat contradicting results about themselves from several inventories, which makes them compare and analyze those thus developing reflecting skills. Both parts end with tips for students of each style.

The third and last method employs us as a participant of the experiment. We apply observation and keep the weekly journal, recording our thoughts and perceptions of the lessons, students’ behaviors and strong points and limitations of the experiment.

The study relied in part on self-report, which has been criticized for its lack of reliability. Triangulated methods of data collection, however, involving both qualitative and quantitative data from more than one source addressed this limitation and added strength to the research findings.

Thus we apply a set of different methods to do the double check and gather various data not only directly connected to the experiment, but also background data that will let us conduct the multifactor analysis in the future. In the perspective, it is possible to draw from the grades and the final test on 4 skills material as well.

Thus, though it is the research carried out 'by the educators in their own classroom' it bears some traits of descriptive research, since it uses surveys and 'involves of a social setting over an extended period of time' (Slavin, 2003, p. 21).

Chapter 5 Overview Russian classroom context should be mentioned where we didn’t use the translated samples that possibly exist, but took and adopted original English language inventories occasionally created specifically for teenager group. We state that our translation and slight adoption to the group we have been teaching for two years suits our purposes more since the inventories have been already created. In addition to that we based our research procedure on the English inventories and tests so the attempt to match the Russian inventories or variant of translated inventories would have been much more daunting task than our rendering them.

Our teaching experiences gave us a problem and after a preliminary literature overview, we formulated research questions and established a hypothesis, as well as proposed methods and an outline for studying this problem. We believe that conducting our master thesis research will help us solve the problem and contribute to discussion of learning styles and strategy instruction.

6 MATERIALS, METHODS AND DATA COLLECTION This research paper has begun with describing a certain issue about acceptance of responsibility by students emerged in the context of a Russian classroom in Chapter 1 Introduction. Next the attempt to resolve the issue is made in Chapter 2 Teaching Methodology where the two teaching approaches are compared and in Chapter 3 Learner Autonomy the methods to foster Autonomy via Learning Styles and Strategies Development are proposed. The specific ways to explore the problem in the specific classroom as well as syllabus and teaching materials are discussed in Chapter 5 Research Design, where the structure of research is assembled and the experiment tools are suggested as a result. This chapter opens with a brief students' background and language proficiency and proceeds to the course of experiment briefly concluding on the data gathered.

6.1 Students description The two second year mixed ability groups (students majoring in Economy and Architecture respectively) we teach have total 28 16-18 year-olds. There are 3 boys and 11 girls in each of the groups. English is the students' L2, while their L1 is Russian. They have a monolingual neighborhood in a monolingual country (The Russian Federation). They began acquiring English in a tutored way at the age of 10 in the classroom environment.

The Global Needs Analysis conducted in both groups revealed they are interested in science fiction and comedy cinema, classical music and watching Discovery Channel. About 60% of them have their own computers and internet access, but unfortunately no one uses this possibility to learn English, as 100% of the students stated they visit only the domains using their mother tongue. At the same time, they ask the questions about how to learn, about different English world phenomena like hippie movement, Canada English, Martin Luther King and American slang. The Architecture students have distinguished artistic abilities, passed the entrance exam in drawing, and draw and paint regularly.

Overall, we have a good rapport between us.

Level of Language Proficiency All the students have good reading and listening comprehension skills. Their speaking reproduction skills are fair, but their interaction skills are rather poor. They are afraid to write, mainly because they feel uncertain about their grammar and vocabulary; both are on the recognition, receptive level.

Mostly they sulk at the enormous task in front of them (to know English) and we discussed in group and individually how they could improve. The general opinion is to go abroad to the English speaking country and start speaking there from scratch. A girl consulted me about enrolling into the extra English class at a language school. But it should be mentioned that each group has an individual who created systems of their own mainly through listening to the songs lyrics as well as net surfing, chatting and emailing to pen friends, so-called out of class learning choices (Pearson, 2005).

6.2 Piloting As we already noticed in Research proposal, the idea of this study came to mind while we switched to new pack of OUP New Hotline, highly based on developing autonomy and helping to learn framework.

This experiment sought to help students gain more confidence (Pearson, 2005) and provide so to speak a crutch to make their transfer from teacher centered audio-lingual method passive activities orientated textbook to learner centered resource pack based on the Communicative Language Teaching Approach.

In this chapter we touch upon background of the study describing two groups, syllabus, curriculum and the classroom situation in the first subchapter, in the second one we construct the research and conclude with suggesting instruments as well as checking their reliability and posing research questions.

By the end of the winter break we prepared the experiment outline, the test materials and the students’ log that we planned to pilot. The piloting had been done with another 3 year group majoring in Construction similar in gender, age, number and language proficiency to the groups in question. The piloted variant of the log consisted of 5 questions being 1 What did you learn during today's class?

2 What strategies you applied?

3 Has awareness of your personality helped you today? How and why?

4 Do you think it will help you in your learning? Why? 5 Are you going to apply the results to your studies? How? Feedback given by the students who after a Study Time and Place Preferences were given this log revealed that questions 1 needed to be specified, while question 2 should be omitted since the students were not aware of the learning strategy definition and types. Question 3 contained a difficult to

understand term ‘awareness’ and thus was joined with question 1 and simplified (see Appendix 4 and 5 for improved log and Likert test).

6.3 Course of Experiment The experiment lasted for 14 weeks in biweekly format. The experiment group got the printouts of each of 6 inventories in Russian which they worked with in 10 minutes time span to learn the certain type of learning styles and strategy they are strong or weak at. Next week the short discussion 10 minutes discussion with individual tips were conducted. Higher level proficiency students did it in English, while the rest of the group in Russian. Then the log was filled in. While teaching the remarks were made referring to the notions and techniques learned via the inventories. For example, ‘you have the whole week to do the homework, complete it during the hours you found are most productive to you’ or ‘this is an exercise for you visual learners out there’ while talking about ‘matching pictures task.

Both experiment and control groups signed the consent forms and gave personal information in experimenter-developed background questionnaires. They also answered 5 point Likert scale inventory considering their learning styles, strategies, learner awareness and autonomy both before and after the 14 weeks term.

Both group 1 and 2 were also taught using the same resource pack that implicitly fosters Learner Autonomy and learning to learn skills (see Chapter 5 for details). We kept the observation journal beginning from the piloting of the Likert test in which we registered the notes after each teaching session.

Week 1-2 Pre Test (both groups) Respecting the students’ privacy we took their permission to use the results and asked them to give brief information about their age, how long they learn English and why and proficiency (Appendix 1).

Pretest self-assessing their skills, styles and strategies was also offered.

EXPERIMENT ITSELF (group 1 only) Week 3-4 Environment for Study

The Study of Time and Place Preferences (http://www.fln.vcu.edu/Intensive/chronotope.html 2) was offered and elicited the interest, according to our observation log. The discussion of the Week 2 was scarce; only 2 people participated in it.

Week 5-6 Sensory preferences Reid's Learning Styles Inventory (http://lookingahead.heinle.com/filing/l-styles.htm) evoked students’ curiosity because it demanded them counting their own scores and gave them practical tips tailored to their dominant learning styles. They began to use such terms as ‘audial’ or ‘kinaesthetic’ easily.

Week 7-8 Cognitive styles Task Processing Preferences (http://homeworktips.about.com/library/brainquiz/bl_leftrightbrain_quiz.htm)

gained

positive

feedback. Our journal states ‘I noticed they know most of terms, apply them to themselves and sometimes others and can analyze quantative data’. In the next chapter we are going to delve more into qualitive feedback description and analysis.

Week 9-10 Learning personality Learning Multiple Intelligence (http://www.scbe.on.ca/mit/mi.htm#ICO) according to Gardner was tested, which eliminated a true discussion among the students even after class. The results give a clear picture of the strong and weak points and also provide guidance for learners’ development.

Week 11-12 Learning strategies The experiment group got copies of Strategies Inventory for Learners of English (SILL), which took them twice time as was suggested. During the discussion most of the students said they never new so many ways of Learning exist and were positive to use most of them in the future. The 5 of 14 students also were noticed copying certain metacognitive and memory strategies techniques in their notebook.

Week 13-14 POST TEST (both groups) During last fortnight of experiment students were asked to fill in the How I Learn English (see Appendix 3) inventory compiled by us as well as the same Likert test they filled in the beginning.

2

The links are free of copyright versions of the certified inventories

Special blank page was also left for their written comments as well as oral opinion were encouraged.

We discuss the feedback we got in Chapter 7. Still a summary of observation should be given here.

Chapter 6 Overview Control group Studied Units 1 – Units 6 of the New Hotline Elementary Resource Pack. Each Unit was preceded by their own goal setting (see Chapter 5) with the help of the textbook, during the classes the learning to learn activities were performed (referencing dictionaries and grammar references, pair and group work and prediction among them). Each unit was completed with self check work; discussion and filling in the learner diary (see Appendix 6).

They have never been told that the textbook they use is geared towards making them more independent or developing their strategies. Moreover, the teacher treated goal setting and reflection activities as just another set of learning tasks. It has been noted that students disliked these activities and tried to avoid them. While being asked about the reasons of it they explained that they see no point in setting goals or checking what they have learned and want to move on to the next ‘more interesting’ tasks like dialogs or listening, demonstrating a low metacognitive awareness (Mynard & Almarzouqi, 2006).

Experiment group During our observation time we noticed two opposing tendencies. Most of the students were positive about the tests from the start. Their motives were different: one part wanted to do anything but English, the other part saw the connection of how the tests will help them to become better English language learners and in general (Tripp & Moore, 2007). Their motivation changed with time (those who found it fun, soon got bored), while the perseverance of those found the inventories useful proceeded with their steady interest. Other group of people were negative from the start and stayed negative thinking that the time is wasted while it could be spend on practicing grammar, for example (more details on it in chapter 7).

7 PROCESSING AND INTERPRETING THE RESULTS First we describe and interpret the results of Likert scale questionnaire, next we endeavor to analyze the results of the experiment as a whole by using students' log entries and our observations. We also generalize about the results using thematic analysis technique.

7.1 Quantative Data As we already stated elsewhere, the participants of both groups, 28 pupils overall, were asked 5 questions about their learning in the second week of the study and then after 10 weeks of the specifically designed instruction (explicit autonomy instruction for the experiment group, the implicit instruction for the control one) were offered the same questionnaire, with statements they were to evaluate using 5 point Likert scale. The necessary directions and explanations were also given to the students. The questionnaire was designed (see Appendix 3 for the sample), in such a way that the questions 1-3 were targeted against checking about learning strategies, while questions 4-5 dealt with autonomy development.

The question 1 (see Table 3) seeks to check if the students are aware of their preferred learning styles and to which extent they have shaped their self-awareness and reflection. The second question was aimed at learning whether students know the specific ways of learning (learning strategies). The third question was inquiring about the usage of the learning strategies. Question # 4 was about students’ independence and represented the description of a good learner. The last question directly stated our hypothesis that we had at the beginning of the study and checked the possibility of self directed learning. First the results provided the descriptive statistics in forms of mean scores for both groups.

The results are given in the Table 3 and state that only 43% and 32% after the experiment are never able to study English without a teacher. Overall the mean shows slight increase in the control group where the direct method was applied and slight decrease but not more than .6-7%. The drastically negative shift in the control group is notable. The average here is 1.93, which indicates ‘never or hardly ever study English without the teacher’. In addition, we should note that the slight positive shift is registered and it is slightly (10%) higher in the experiment group, while in the control group the negative shift prevails (-12.8%).

This can have several explanations. First, we can suggest that students are aware of learning strategies but either cannot or don’t want to apply them to their learning or don’t have the opportunity to do that.

Second, Russian educational system is teacher centered and not enough attention is paid to developing students autonomy, fostering individuality or learning strategy instructions. Thirdly, the results of any self-assessment are influenced by self-esteem: students with lower self esteem could have underestimated themselves (McCrudden et al., 2005).

Not surprisingly the results correspond to the tendency that the group in which autonomy was explicitly fostered showed better outcomes even when their pre experiment results were substantially lower (questions 2,3 and 4), while notions 1 and 5 results were higher from the start. The control group, in which learners’ awareness was implicitly developed, showed decline of the results in terms of strategies, styles development and autonomy and yet the level of reflection stayed approximately at the same level.

In general, the average pretest result for both groups comprises 3.4, while the post test average for the experiment shows increase in 4.8 and the control group result decreases to 3.2. These mathematical values need to be tested statistically for validity though.

7.2 Statistical methods In this subchapter we consider quantative results of Likert 5 point test and apply the statistical Chi square as well as interpret the results. As we noted earlier, the combination of methods gives us much more reliable results.

Our experiment had two stages, where quantative methods were applied, before and after experiment.

Thus to distinguish whether the difference between 2 groups exists we applied the statistical test. We used chi square distribution to test the validity of our hypothesis. Chi square is mainly used to see whether empirical data corresponds to the theoretical expectations, but can also be used to compare two ranges of empirical data and determine if they belong to the same or different sample.

The general formula reads as follows: Χ2 = ∑

( M − A) 2 A

M being the observed value (range 1), while A being the expected value (range 2). After the X 2 has been obtained, it is compared to the normal distribution in the distribution tables, thus confirming or rejecting the hypothesis. If the observed X2 equals or exceeds the X2 in the table, then the hypothesis is confirmed and two ranges are different. If X2 is less than X2 in the table, then the hypothesis is rejected or the so called zero hypothesis H0 (meaning that there are no differences between two ranges of numbers) is confirmed. The probability level that allows us to reject the zero hypothesis equals to no less than alpha = 0.05 (Glass & Hopkins, 1996).

We used the standard package of Microsoft Excel 2007 to calculate the X 2 and the free software Statistics Distribution Calculator developed by Hans Lohninger (2008) of Vienna University. It provides much more reliable result than the critical table, not being the reduced variant due to reducing the table volume considerations. The software also helps to model validity, setting different probability levels and draws a graph.

In our results processing we used Chi square test to see if the differences between the pre and post tests in each of the groups as well as the final results of experiment are valid. Thus we compared the average of the answers to before and after experiment answers in both groups.

Sadly, the statistical analysis didn’t determine any statistically valid shifts, either positive or negative (the critical value for 4 degrees of freedom in our case equals 0.71, hence we have to adopt the H 0 hypothesis). Consequently we arrive to the following conclusions. According to statistical data the control group, to which the learner awareness was thought via implicit instruction didn’t make any significant changes in the attitude after the 12 weeks of instruction (Table 4). The same holds true to the experiment group, to which the learner awareness was taught with the help of explicit instruction.

Moreover, comparing the results of both after experiment tests we observe there is no difference registered between the experiment and the control group, which leads us to conclude that both methods, explicit and implicit ones, produce the same results.

Eventually, we can conclude, bearing in mind that there is no significant difference between two groups according to statistical data, that both explicit and implicit methods of fostering autonomy didn’t produce scientifically valid results.

The confirmation of the zero hypothesis and no significant difference shows that learner’s awareness is a very delicate matter and, unfortunately, cannot be registered by the quantative methods, which leads us to the next subchapter, where we describe and interpret students’ qualitative feedback.

7.3 Analysis of Students’ Feedback Along with the standard quantative pre post 5 point Likert scale data collection, we added qualitative part to the questionnaires in the form of a small students’ log. It consists of 3 questions (Appendix 5) after every quiz was completed in the experiment group. The body of the tests itself consists of 6 sections and not only gives students their types of learning styles and preferences thus raising their awareness, but also gathers data about their ways of learning and attitudes to it.

During 12 weeks 6 logs of 3 questions were filled out by every student after completing each quiz and returned. The post quiz comment logs were also filled out by both control and experiment groups. This allows us to get some insight into their feelings, attitudes and perceptions as well as opinions (Mynard & Almarzouqi, 2006).

We also had students answer the questions about means of learning English to obtain a clearer idea about their proficiency level (Appendix 4). Their proficiency level tests in all the 4 skills are also available and can be used in the future research. But as we already noted, we prefer to focus in this study on the classroom experiment and its course and treat background information as reference material only.

We chose not to apply multi factor analysis and use social background data gathered, because it would have made our study too complicated and much wider than the master's thesis demands. Nevertheless, we have conducted the necessary questionnaires and these data can be used to explain possible contradictions in qualitative results.

We observe that the students have formed the notion of learning preferences and are aware of their own styles and perceptions. They also now are capable of using the terms in the right context. That confirmed by the students' log comments such as ‘I will develop my tactile style’, ‘I’m a global thinker.’, ‘I’m ESFJ on the practical side.’

We will analyze the attitudes later, while overall the log feedback return comprises of 118 answers out of 168, hence 70%. The final feedback is 11 out of 28 or 40%. It should be mentioned, that most of the students were determined to give feedback, though tried to opt out with the shortest answers possible.

Answers such as ‘Yes I will’, ‘probably’ or ‘I don’t know’ are the most common ones. It can stem from their poor organizational skills (Mynard & Almarzouqi, 2006).

Next we applied the thematic analysis technique, used in studies of textual data (Micari, 2004), obtained from a group of students. The technique itself was created by van den Hoonaard’s (1997) and implies finding key concepts in the bulk of written sources at hand. As Micari (2004, p. 6) well puts it we should be ‘carefully examining all instances of a concept and looking for overlap in conceptual groups; and organizing concepts into umbrella themes.’ To be qualified as a theme the ideas should be mentioned by all participants of the experiment.

‘Hm, Interesting’ Attitude Students’ log answers fall into 3 thematic categories with 2 subthemes each. The largest group of 64% finds the quizzes very ‘interesting’ and even ‘exciting’, but unfortunately doesn’t see any relation between them and their learning (‘Thank you, I learned a lot about myself, but don’t think it will help me study’) and will ‘probably’ apply the results in their learning.

The first subtheme can be defined as ‘positively neutral’, because it indicates people who already know a lot about themselves as learners with most typical answers being ‘Some things have backed up my ideas’, ‘I already use these results: different ways of learning’ and ‘I already knew that.’

The second group reflects the ‘plain neutral attitude’ of students who are ‘Not sure, but it was interesting to learn it,’ ‘Somehow probably,’ will use the results they got and are ‘going to think this question over’.

Sure I will! Attitude The second group of 32% find such practice both important and useful (‘I liked the quizzes much, because they helped me learn a lot about myself, I will use many learning strategies, because studies mostly comprise of lectures, I learned my strong and weak points and will work about them’). These

students demonstrate rather high level of responsibility and self-awareness, with typical answers to the questions what have you learned being: ‘It will help a lot in my English learning.’, ‘Not to give up while I have trouble doing something’, ‘To reach my learning goals trying different ways’ and ‘I will read grammar material and then explain it to friends for better understanding.’. They are eager to apply new strategies and note which styles they have and what are yet to be developed.

We divided this theme into 2 subthemes, the first we call ‘specific’ and the second ‘vague’ ones. The specific answers give concrete plans on how they will use the information from the tests (‘That I have the consequent perception’ versus rather vague ‘I learned my type of perception’). The same is with applying the recommendations: ‘I think I’ll develop visual style a bit more’ versus ‘I will develop those on which I scored low’ or ‘It will help to see the way of learning that is best for me’.

‘No Thanks’ Attitude The minority group of 4% students are completely negative about such practices and think that simple, ‘just learning’ will do more good (‘I won’t use it in learning because I can’t change myself’, ‘Strategy is a prejudice, you should just be more flexible’ and ‘It would have been better for us to spend this time on doing more grammar exercises’). They look down to the styles and strategies inventories and refuse to change their attitudes and opinions or prefer not to state them. It indicates their high school experience of rut learning (Mynard & Almarzouqi, 2006).

The first subtheme (see the previous paragraph for examples) we called ‘negative’, while the second subtheme can be defined as ‘indifferent’. Their answers mainly consist of polite 1-2 words, such as ‘no’, ‘nothing’, ‘don’t know’, ‘I won’t’ and ‘no way’. While being observed they filled out the tests and were interested in the results asking for clarification, but were unmotivated to think them over and put their feedback into the written form, finding it as something obtrusive of their privacy.

Overall, we can conclude that most students in the experiment group have developed learning strategies and styles notions and are able to develop learner independence if given due instruction, as well as view such instruction, either direct or indirect, in a positive way.

The students of the control group were also free to give feedback in the end of the 12 week period.

Only 3 out of 14 students gave their feedback, with two answers being positive (‘it was interesting’)

and one negative (‘the questions should be different’). We are aware of the questions’ weak points and consider them to be the one of the limitations of the study that needs correction in the further stages of research.

Chapter 7 Overview This chapter analyzed the quantative data of the experiment results and revealed that on percentage scale, there is a slight positive shift in the average of the experiment group as compared to the control one. The control group who underwent implicit autonomy instruction scored 0.2 lower in the Likert test, while the experiment group scored 1.4 average higher.

Mathematically the result shows that explicit autonomy instruction is more effective, but while put to statistical chi square test, the results didn’t show significant difference, which means there is no valid change in the autonomy perception in both groups after the 12 weeks experiment.

Nevertheless, our observations and the students’ feedback show that only 4% of the students have negative attitude against the explicit autonomy instruction. The rest of the group demonstrated stable interest in learning about themselves as learners and about ways to improve their learning as well as readiness to apply that information in their studying English and studies in general. Finally, autonomy in the Russian classroom can be fostered via the explicit and implicit instruction based on the specific context statistically with the same results.

8 CONCLUSIONS 8.1 Overview The present paper aimed at comparing two methods of styles and instruction, the explicit and implicit ones, both integrated into the English as a Foreign Language course and the degree of their influence on Learner Autonomy Development. The specific objectives were set to contribute to answering the main research question: TO WHAT EXTENT THE DIRECT LEARNING STYLES INSTRUCTION DEVELOPS LEARNER INDEPENDENCE?

can be answered that direct instruction develops learner independence to a certain degree. Two types of learner instruction have been studied and the alternative hypothesis about no significant difference between the styles outcomes proved to be true.

Nevertheless, most researchers agree that learner autonomy requires a positive attitude towards language and culture, a capacity for reflection and responsibility, self-management as well as readiness for interaction and feedback. Thus qualitative analysis reveals a positive attitude and more learning awareness in the group where explicit instruction was applied.

Having considered various definitions of learner autonomy we can conclude that autonomy is a complex construct including emotional (motivation and attitude), executive (responsibility, reflection) and social (interaction) components. We believe responsibility to be an explicit part of autonomy.

In this thesis we have discussed how to foster LA and LR applying language learner strategies. We discovered that responsibility is an explicit part of autonomy, which represents a complex construct comprising of emotional, executive and socio-political dimensions. Moreover, we found that the indirect group of metacognitive, affective and social strategies contributes most to developing learner autonomy.

It should be noted, nevertheless, that LA development is a long process and we fully agree with Little (1991) that it takes learning experience and ‘exposure to material’ as well as mutual effort from learner and teacher. If one party doesn’t take the challenge teaching the complex of LLS will not be a success.

This brings the limitation to the present paper as we focused only on the learner not considering teacher autonomy (Little, 2004) as ‘the part of the learning equation’ (Underhill, 1999, p. 140). It can be interesting to study the relation between learner and teacher autonomy.

This brief literature overview helped us to conclude that 1 learning is influenced by many factors, learning styles included; learning styles, in their turn, influence achievement, motivation and teacher perception; 2 the possible reasons of underachievement can be mismatch of preferred learning style of the student, teaching style, instruction and materials design;

3 nevertheless, exposure to mismatched activities can sometimes develop learner skills, though we should meet students' needs in general.

4 students should become aware of their learning styles and preferences and this awareness is a good ground for strategy instruction.

The fact that the teachers were better in identifying own and others styles lead us to conclude that students can benefit from taking such inventories as well, since they will be able to identify their own learning styles and needs and to better understand the limitations of others, the teacher included.

Our teaching experiences gave us a problem and after a preliminary literature overview, we formulated research questions and established a hypothesis, as well as proposed methods and an outline for studying this problem. We believe that conducting our master thesis research will help us solve the problem and contribute to discussion of learning styles and strategy instruction.

We prepared and conducted the experiment, designed and piloted the questionnaires, translated and adopted all the inventories into Russian and developed the learner independence course. The experiment involved pre and post testing of 28 students on learning styles, strategies and autonomy.

The experiment revealed that students who were directly taught learning styles and strategies became more independent and more responsible learners, according to their feedback, but not to the statistical data.

This paper also analyzed the quantative data of the experiment results and revealed that on percentage scale, there is a slight positive shift in the average of the experiment group as compared to the control one. The control group who underwent implicit autonomy instruction scored 0.2 lower in the Likert test.

Mathematically the result shows that explicit autonomy instruction is more effective, but while put to statistical chi square test, the results didn’t show significant difference, which means there is no valid change in the autonomy perception in both groups after the 12 weeks experiment.

Nevertheless, our observations and the students’ feedback show only 4% of the students have negative attitude against the explicit autonomy instruction. The rest of the group demonstrated stable interest in

learning about their learning styles and way to improve their learning as well as readiness to apply that information in their studying English and studies in general. Finally, autonomy in the Russian classroom can be fostered via the explicit and implicit instruction basing on the specific context with the statistically with the same results.

8.2 Application The present paper contributes to the field of learning styles and strategies studies in the following ways: we considered the particular experiment in the specific Russian classroom context and tested the techniques worked out in the America, Asian and European contexts.

The attempt has been made to make students aware of their own styles, learning personalities and strategies as the part of integrated into ESL instruction course in the Russian classroom context to develop learner independence, awareness and reflection.

The practical application of the study is the creation of the course in styles instruction that raises metacognitive awareness of the students and can help identify learners’ preferences, learner difficulties and give practical recommendations how to overcome them.

We believe that learner autonomy and their milder counterpart learner independency is not an in born quality and can be developed. We also argue that if undernourished it hinders learning and can be a cause of low self esteem, dropping out and the mismatch of students, teachers and materials. The integrated strategy and styles instruction is more effective than the separated one. We stress that such qualities as learner awareness are developed with the help of inventories, students log, consulting and interviews.

We published 2 papers on the topic, titled ‘Developing of learner autonomy with the help of psychological tests’ and ‘Strategic competence of the technical college students and the possibilities of Learner Autonomy’ in 2008 as well as reported on the results of them at the International scientific conferences, held at Kaliningrad State Technical University.

8.3 Limitations and Further Research

We are aware of the weak points of our experiment and consider them to be the one of the limitations of the study that needs correction in the further stages of research.

The limitations include small scale experiment engaging 28 students only; another limitation is the written nature of both qualitive and quantative feedback, as the log didn't generate feedback as desired.

The further research can greatly benefit from interviews. Another limitations lies in the research design, the log questions should be adopted because they don’t always work effectively.

The self assessment cannot be relevant enough to apply strongly in the research; still it gives us a certain insight into the black box of students' minds. Time frame was also a restraint, the constant and not sporadic instructions will certainly be more beneficial to the students.

In the limitations we can also include: not very coherent feedback questions; perhaps mismatched though taken from the same kind of study; sometimes too long and scholarly tests that would have worked better with for 5 minutes simplified ones.

We compiled individual profile for personal records and individual tips and unique mold. During the course of experiment the material on 28 students learning styles, preferences and strategies has been gathered. It can serve as a bank material for comprising individual personality profiles and also for conducting correlation analysis of such factors as learning strategies repertoire, perception modality.

The materials can comprise a group or case study as well.

Thesis Overview The master’s paper consists of 70 pages, 6 chapters, 6 appendices and a reference list of 63 titles.

As we see from the present thesis, the experiment had it negative sides but can be considered as a relative success. The positive side of it was that it relied on the balanced approach and on the integrative data collection. We learned how to design and conduct the reliable piece of research and then how to describe and analyze it. Also it should be noted the lack of such studies for vocational education in Russian colleges. We can hence conclude that after going through different types of data, several conclusions can be drawn out of it.

1 The literature overview answers the question about the instruments of developing learner independence, it being learner awareness of their learning as well as learning styles and strategies appliance.

2 Two methods can be applied while learning autonomy instruction them being direct and indirect ones.

3 The reliability of the method chosen is backed up by applying students’ logs, observation, quizzes results and pre post test 5 point Likert scale procedure. Statistical method of chi square is also feasible.

4 It is proven that in this specific contest both methods give relatively the same effect both rising students learner awareness and giving them strategies and styles knowledge, but indirect method creates less tension and negative reaction.

5 The qualitative feedback shows positive shift while statistically both pre and post tests stay the same sample in both groups.

6 The limitations of the study included relatively short period of time, first year students and the new situation with the textbook as well as not exactly properly designed questions in the log.

7 In the study of the literature we stressed the individuality of the learner a lot, but as a teacher we had to deal with a class as a whole so we considered it as that for the convenience of reporting and analyzing results in this paper. The collection of individual profiles can be used in the course of the further research though.

REFERENCES Aoki N. (1999). Affect and the Role of Teachers in the Development of Learner Autonomy. In J.Arnold (ed.), Affect in Language Learning, 142-154. Cambridge: CUP. Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning. Harlow: Longman/Pearson Education.

Blair, R.W., ed. (1986). Innovative Approaches to Language Teaching. Boston: Hieinle & Heinle.

Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Cherry, E.C. Jr. (1997). Overview of the Seven Perceptual Styles. [Online] Available at: http://www.learningstyles.org/survey [Accessed 26 February 2008].

Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 33, pp.

185-209.

Dam, L. (1995). Learner Autonomy 3: From Theory to Classroom Practice. Dublin: Authentik.

Doff, E. (1988). Teach English. A Training Course for Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dulay, H., Bert, M. and Krashen, S. (1982) Language Two. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (1997) SLA Research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

English Language Teaching, London: Longman, 1991.

Felder, R. M., Solomon, B. A. (2006). Index of Learning Styles. [Online]. Available at: http://www.engr.ncsu.edu/learningstyles/ilsweb.html. [Accessed 6 August 2006].

Flaherty, G., Bowring, J. & Waterman, N. Pop Culture. (2003). Developing essential reading skills.

Book 2. International Language Teaching Services Pty Ltd. Glebe.

Fung, I., Wilkinson, I., Moore, D. (1999). L1-Assissted Reciprocal Teaching for ESOL students to improve their Comprehension of English Expository Text. The University of Auckland Paper presented at the Joint Conference of Australian Association for Research in Education and New Zealand Association for Research in Education, Melbourne, 1999. [Online]. Available at: http://www.auburn.edu/~witteje/ilsrj/resirces.htm [Accessed 21 March 2008].

Garner, I. (2000). ‘The development of Total Learning Style Inventory Scores’, paper presented at the European Learning Styles Information Network (ELSIN) 2000 conference, University of Hertfordshire. [Online]. Available at: http://www.elsinnet.org.uk/abstracts/2000/2-garn.htm [Accessed 13 February 2008].

Glass, G.V., & Hopkins, K.D. (1996). Statistical methods in education and psychology (3rd ed.).

Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Green, J. M. and Oxford, R. ( 1995) A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency and gender.

TESOL Quarterly 29, 2: 261-297.

Hadley, A.O. (2001). Teaching Language in Context. Boston: Hieinle & Heinle.

Hansen, J. (1997). ‘Cognitive styles and technology-based education’, Journal of technology studies, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 14-23.

Harmer J. (1998). How to Teach English. London: Longman.

Harris, V., A. Gaspar, B. Jones, H. Ingvarsdóttir, R. Neuberg, I. Pálos and I. Schindler. (2001). Helping Learners Learn: Exploring Strategy Instruction in Language Classrooms Across Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.

Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy in Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Honey, P. (2008). The Learning Needs Analysis Questionnaire. [Online]. Available at: http://www.peterhoney.com/lnaq/ [Accessed 23 February 2008].

Hutchinson T. (1998). New Hotline Intermediate. Teacher’s Book. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hymes, D. (1971). On communicative competence. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.

Klein, C., Swabey, A. (2001). ‘Using a learning styles approach to improve learning, achievement and retention in further education’, paper presented at the European Learning Styles Information Network (ELSIN) conference, University of Glamorgan. [Online]. Available at: http://www.elsinnet.org.uk/abstracts/2001/3-klei.htm [Accessed 13 February 2008] Kroonenberg, N. (1995). Meeting language learners’ sensory-learning-style preferences. In J.M. Reid (Ed.), Learning styles in EFL/ESL classrooms. (pp. 74-86). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Larsen-Freeman, D., Long, M.H. (1994). An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research.

New York: Longman.

Learning Multiple Intelligence [Online]. Available at: [Accessed 24 January 2008].

(http://www.scbe.on.ca/mit/mi.htm#ICO

Lessard-Clouston, M. (1997). Language Learning Strategies: An Overview for L2 Teachers. [Online].

Available at: The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. III, No. 12. http://iteslj.org/Articles/Lessard-CloustonStrategy.html [Accessed 15 November 2007].

Little, D. (1991). Learner Autonomy: Definitions, Issues and Problems. Dublin: Authentik.

Little, D. (2000). Learner Autonomy and Human Interdependence: Some Theoretical and Practical Consequences of a Social-Interactive View of Cognition, Learning and Language. In B. Sinclair, I.

McGrath and T. Lamb (eds), Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy: Future Directions, 15-23.

Harlow: Longman/Pearson Education.

Little, D. (2004). Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy and the European Language Portfolio.

[Online]. Available at: Paper presented at UNTELE, Université de Compiègne. http://www.utc.fr/~untele/2004ppt/handouts/little.pdf [Accessed 21 December 2007].

Little, D. and Simpson, B. (2003). European Language Portfolio: The intercultural component and Learning how to learn. [Online]. Available at: http://www.coe.int/portfolio [Accessed 11 January 2008].

Littlewood W.T. (1981). First and Second Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Littlewood, W.T. (1983). Communicative Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lohninger, H. (2008). Learning by Simulations: Distribution Calculator [Online]. Available at: [Accessed 27 December 2008].

Malcolm, D. (2004). Investigating successful English learners in Arab medical schools. [Online].

Proceedings of the Independent Learning Conference 2003 Published 20 September 2004 Available at: http://www. agu.edu.bh [Accessed 24 January 2008].

McDonough, S. (1992). Psychology in Foreign Language Teaching. London: Routledge.

McLoughlin, C (1999). ‘The implications of the research literature on learning styles for the design of instructional material’, Australian Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 222-241.

McCrudden, Matthew T.; Perkins, Peggy G.; Putney, LeAnn G. (2005). Self-Efficacy and Interest in the Use of Reading Strategies. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, v20 n2 p119 Win 2005 (Abstract only).

Micari, M (2004). Transformation and Tension: The Experience of Returning to School in a Liberal-Arts Program. [Online]. pp 4-15 NEW HORIZONS IN ADULT EDUCATION Volume 18, Number 2, Spring 2004. Available at: http://www.nova.edu/~aed/newhorizons.html [Accessed 12 May 2008].

Mynard, J. & Almarzouqi, I. (2006). Investigating peer tutoring. [Online]. ELT journal, vol 60/1, Jan 2006, OUP, pp.13-22. Available at: http;//www.doim(n)0.1093/elt/ccio77. [Accessed 26 May 2008].

O’Malley J.M., Chamot A.U. (2000). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition.

Cambridge: CUP. Pallapu, P. (2007). Effects of Visual and Verbal Learning Styles on Learning. Auburn University Institute for Learning Styles Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 34-39.

Pearson, P. The idiosyncrasies of out-of-class language learning: A study of mainland Chinese students studying English at tertiary level in New Zealand [Online]. Proceedings of the Independent Learning Conference 2003 Published 20 September 2004 Available at: http://www. agu.edu.bh [Accessed 24 January 2008].

Reid's Learning Styles Inventory [Online]. Available at: styles.htm [Accessed 2 February 2008].

http://lookingahead.heinle.com/filing/l-

Richards, J.C. and Rodgers, T.S. (1986). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schmeck, R. (1988). Individual differences in learning strategies. In C. E. Weinstein et al.(Ed.), Learning and study strategies (pp. 171-191). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Schurle A., Szabo A. (2000). Learner Autonomy. A Guide to Developing Learner Responsibility.

Cambridge: CUP. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Slavin, R. (2003). Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Stern, H. H. (1992). Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Strategies Inventory for Learners of English http://homework.wtuc.edu.tw/sill.php [Accessed 4 March 2009].

[Online].

Available

at:

Task Processing Preferences [Online].

Available at: http://homeworktips.about.com/library/brainquiz/bl_leftrightbrain_quiz.htm [Accessed 12 January 2008].

Time and Place Preferences [Online]. Available at: http://www.fln.vcu.edu/Intensive/chronotope.html [Accessed 5 February 2008].

Tripp, L.O., Moore, S.D. (2007). Examination of Pre-Service Teachers’ Learning Styles and Temperament Styles within an Elementary Science Methods Course. Institute for Learning Styles Journal, Vol. 1, p. 23-33.

Underhill A. (1999). Facilitation in Language Learning. In J.Arnold (ed.), Affect in Language Learning, 125-141. Cambridge: CUP. van den Hoonaard, W. C. (1997). Working with sensitizing concepts: analytic field research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Viliers S., Ward, T. (2004). Oxford Professional Developmental Programme: Methodology Booklet.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Williams, M., Burden, R. (1997). Psychology for Language Teachers. Cambridge: CUP

Appendix 1 Participant Consent Form Dear student, We invite you to participate in a study about developing learner autonomy. Your participation will help provide information that can improve instruction in your English course and give you information about your own learning skills. Your identity will remain anonymous in the report of the study. Thank you in advance for your help in this research.

If you agree to participate, please sign below. Thank you. ___________________________ __________________ Participant signature Date Appendix 2 Background Questionnaire Please circle your selection 1. Name 2. Age 15 16 17 18 3. How long have you been learning English?

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 more years 4. Level of English (self-assessment) A1 A2 B1 B2 5. What do you need English for? to get a good mark / to understand movies and lyrics / for personal development / to communicate / for work and travel / to move abroad Appendix 3 Before and After Likert Questionnaire Read the statement and evaluate it regarding how you learn English 1 If the teacher gives me a choice of how to do the task (orally, in written form, as a project), I know what way is better for me

2 I notice techniques that help me and try to apply them often 3 I know many good ways to learn English 4 I know my weak and strong points and try to develop my strengths and compensate my limitations 5 I can study without a teacher Appendix 4 How I Learn English 1 What materials do you use to learn English?

2 Why do you use exactly these materials?

3 How useful are these materials for developing your English speaking skills?

Useless 1

2

3

4

5 Very useful

4 Apart from class work and homework, what else do you do to improve your English?

5 What is the most difficult thing for you in learning English?

Appendix 5 Students’ Biweekly Log for experiment group What new things have you learned about yourself?

Do you think it will help you in your learning? Why? Are you going to apply the results to your studies? How? Appendix 6 Learning Diary for control group What have we done in this unit?

Do I understand it?

Can I use it?

Comments Action