Learning Learning 学習の学習 ISSN 1882‐1103 Volume 19, No. 1 Spring 2012 Greetings ごあいさ From the Editors Michael Mondejar and Jackie Suginaga 編集者 Michael MondejarとJackie Suginagaより Overview of this issue 最新号について Learner Development SIG News 学習者ディベロプメント研究部会近況報告 Andy Barfield & Richard Silver 2 3 3 Greetings from Learner Development SIG Members LD SIGのメンバーより New to Learner Autonomy? 自律学習は初めて？ Steven Paydon Greetings from Bill Mboutsiadis LD SIG会員紹介：Bill Mboutsiadis 5 6 LD SIG 2011 Grant Awardees LD SIG2011年度助成金受給者 Lessons from the Advising for Language Learner Autonomy Conference アドバイジング・フォー・ランゲージ・ラーナー・オートノミー 神田外語大学大会からの学び Ian Alexander Hurrell Autonomy‐related Problems and Possible Solutions 自律学習に関する問題と解決の可能性 Mehmet Boyno Reflections on Autonomy 自律学習のリフレクション Michael Wilkins JALT 2011 Conference JALT 2011 の感想 Matthew Coomber Feature Articles フィチャード 9 12 16 18 アーテイクルス Developing an Online Environment to Enable the Independent Learning of English Pronunciation 英語の発音の自主学習を可能にする オンライン環境の開発 Mathew Porter Private Tuition as a Learning Format for Japanese Adult Learners of L2 English 日本人成人のL2英語学習者のための学習形式としての個人教授 Lee Arnold 21 35 Voices 読者の声 Autonomy Big and Small Phil Benson, Michael Mondejar & Jackie Suginaga 42 Looking Back 報告 My Reflections of the January 29th Get‐Together １月２９日エリア・ミーティング振り返って Rachelle Jorgenson th Reflection on the February 19 Get–Together ２月１９日エリア・ミーティングを振り返って Tomoko Kurita 49 51 Looking Forward 今後のイベント JALTCALL Conference 2012 Darren Elliott Nakasendo 2012 Conference Robert Moreau JALT Pan‐SIG Conference Literacy: SIGnals of Emergence Jim Ronald Learner Development SIG Forum at JALT2012 Bill Mboutsiadis 52 52 53 53 SIG Matters インフォメーション 財務報告 LD SIG Financial Report LD SIG treasurer LDSIG財務 Hiromi Furusawa Contributing to Learning Learning 「学習の学習」原稿募集 54 57 JALT学習者ティヘロフメントSIGの会報 Greetings ごあいさつ From the Editors Michael Mondejar and Jackie Suginaga 編集者 Michael MondejarとJackie Suginagaより G reetings all, This issue of Learning Learning comes out a little later than usual, and in a season of mixed emotions. While spring is normally a time of rebirth and renewal, of fresh starts and new beginnings, this spring was marked by the one-year anniversary of the Great East Japan Earthquake, which ravaged the Tohoku region and continues to cast a heavy shadow in the minds and hearts of everyone in Japan. Many of us affected by the quake have come to reflect on our own lives and the lives of our neighbors, and have become determined to aid in the rebuilding efforts either directly via volunteering or indirectly by making donations. The theme of self-reflection connects all of the contributions in this issue of Learning Learning. The issue begins with an introduction to two new SIG members, Steven Paydon and Bill Mboutsiadis. Currently in the SIG publications team, Steven discusses his first encounter with learner autonomy as a child in Australia, as well as how this experience informs his beliefs about teaching today. Bill, the SIG Program Coordinator, describes how principles of learner autonomy influence his teaching beliefs and practices. Following the introductions are reflective pieces by the 2011 LD SIG Grant Awardees: Ian Alexander Hurrell, Mehmet Boyno, and Michael Wilkins, and Matt Coomber. Ian and Mehmet both detail their experiences at the Advising for Language Learner Autonomy conference, held by the IATEFL Learner Autonomy Special Interest Group at Kanda University of International Studies, and what they came away with from the conference. Michael discusses his roots and current research in learner autonomy, as well as his experiences attending the JALT2011 Conference held in Yoyogi, Tokyo last year, and Matthew reflects on both positive and negative experiences at the same conference. 2 LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) We are also happy to feature in this issue two articles by Mathew Porter and Lee Arnold. Mathew describes an online pronunciation course that he designed, discussing how successful the course was in promoting his learners’ autonomous acquisition of phonological knowledge. Lee reflects on how adult learners in private tuition take control of their own learning, and offers some guiding principles for promoting learner autonomy in this particular learning context. Also featured in this issue is an interview with Phil Benson, one of the plenary speakers at JALT2011 and long-time proponent of learner autonomy. In this interview, conducted by Michael Mondejar and Jackie Suginaga, Phil describes his personal journey with learner autonomy, and the directions which it may take in the future. In “Looking back”, Rachelle Jorgenson, and Tomoko Kurita each offer reflections on the Tokyo LDSIG gettogethers that have been held on a monthly basis at Teachers College in Suidobashi since December 2011. Darren Elliott, Robert Moreau, and Bill Mboutsiadis also preview different LD SIG forums taking place this year. This issue of Learning Learning reflects the cooperation of many people, and we would like to thank in particular for their contributions and assistance: Phil Benson, Andy Barfield, Richard Silver, Steven Paydon, Bill Mboutsiadis, Ian Alexander Hurrell, Mehmet Boyno, Matthew Wilkins, Mathew Porter, Lee Arnold, Matthew Coomber, Rachelle Jorgenson, Tomoko Kurita, Darren Elliott, Robert Moreau, Kay Irie, Hiromi Furusawa, Hugh Nicoll, Alison Stewart, and Fumiko Murase. Without their invaluable help it would not have been possible to publish this issue. We hope that you will find something of relevance and interest in this issue and as always, we want to hear from you if you are interested in writing articles, reflections, or book reviews, or working on the editorial/translating team. Newsletter of the JALT Learner Development SIG Overview of this issue 最新号について 本号に投稿されたすべての論文・記事に共通 しているテーマはセルフ・リフレクションで す 。 19.1 号 は 二 人 の 新 し い SIG 会 員 、 Steven PaydonとBill Mboutsiadisの自己紹介に始ま り 、 2011 年 度 LD SIG 助 成 金 の 三 名 の 受 給 者 （ Ian Hurrell ・ Mehmet Boyno ・ Matthew Coomber）が参加した学会を振り返り、二本の 論文へと続きます。一本目はMathew Porterが オンライン上での発音学習について、二本目 ではLee Arnoldの成人学習者がいかに自律学 習をすることができるかについて述べていま す。そして、LD SIGが２０１１年度年次大会 に基調講演者として招いたフィル・ベンソン のインタビューをお読みください。彼自身が 今までの自律学習を巡る旅を振り返り、今後 の方向性について語っています。さらには、 Matthew Coomber ・ Rachelle ・ Jorgenson Tomoko Kuritaによる最近のSIGの活動につい ての報告です。そして今号の締めくくりは古 澤弘美の会計報告、Darren Elliott・Robert Moreau・Bill Mboutsiadisによる各学会にお けるLD SIG フォーラムについてのお知らせが あります。巻末には学習の学習への投稿募集 とガイドラインがありますので是非お読みく ださい。 Michael Mondejar & Jackie Suginaga Learner Development SIG News November 2011‐April 2012 学習者ディベロプメント研究部会近況報告 2011年11月~2012年4月 T hough the start of the new academic year in Japan takes place in April, the LD SIG began its new term in November, shortly after our Annual General Meeting (AGM) at the JALT National Conference in Tokyo. After five years at the helm, Hugh Nicoll stepped down at the AGM to focus more on redeveloping the website and editing publications. We would like to thank Hugh and all the outgoing officers for all their efforts on behalf of the SIG these last few years. In our new roles as co-coordinators, together with all the other 2012 LD SIG officers, we hope very much to build on established successes and to help revitalize the SIG in other areas. Several new faces were among the 20 people who took part in the SIG’s AGM, where we continued the discussions about future plans that had started over email in the weeks immediately prior to the conference. We welcome the further participation of other SIG members in the committee if you are interested. Please just let us know if you would like to take part. Since November, many changes have started taking place. Kay Irie, fresh from coediting Realizing Autonomy, will be taking over from Hiromi Furusawa as SIG treasurer this April. Hiromi deserves special thanks for having been so efficient and organized, helping the SIG stay financially organised in providing a wide array of teacher support and conference events. Hiromi’s top-notch work was noticed and commended by the National Director of Treasury! Kay has been shadowing Hiromi for the last year or so, and we hope someone will in turn step forward and shadow Kay. Again, if you are interested, please let Kay or us know - thanks in advance for doing so. On membership matters, Rachelle Jorgenson is continuing as membership chair, and has been joined since November by Matt Coomber and Jeremy White. As a team, they have been putting in place new systems for keeping up to date membership details and for reviewing and renewing the email lists by which we contact you. This will, we hope, allow better communication about SIG matters, as well as help the SIG acknowledge and include new and renewing members more quickly than before. We invite your feedback on membership matters, and any other aspect of what the SIG is doing, and how it is working for you. Following the publication of Realizing Autonomy, the publications team, led by Alison Stewart and Masuko Miyahara, together with Hugh Nicoll and Fumiko Murase, have been putting forward ideas for the next project(s). These currently include self-publishing a series of books online. Expect to hear more about this later in the year after the publication of a special Learning Learning issue with the Realizing Autonomy Proceedings. Here we would like to thank Alison and Kay, along with Martha Robertson, Steve Paydon and Masuko Miyahara. Bill Mboutsiadis took over as Programme Chair from Richard Silver and has created a collaborative SIG programmes planning Google site which can be found via the LD SIG website. Many people are helping Bill organize events this year with Rob Moreau coordinating LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) 3 JALT学習者ティヘロフメントSIGの会報 our participation at Nakasendo, Jim Ronald with Ellen Head at the Pan-SIG Conference in Hiroshima, and Darren Elliot at the CALL SIG Conference in Kansai. We will have LD SIG forums at all these events and hope to see you at one or more of them. As well as keeping you up to date with all of the upcoming LD SIG events, Bill will also be organizing the Learner Development SIG’s annual forum at JALT2012 in Hamamatsu - we applaud Bill for everything he is doing. At the local level, the LD SIG has been organising get-togethers in Hiroshima, Kansai and Tokyo, with Jim Ronald and Andrew Brady taking the lead in Hiroshima, Ellen Head, Phil Brown, Steve Brown and Richard Silver in Kansai, and Andy Barfield, Rachelle Jorgenson and Stacey Vye in Tokyo. We are hoping too that get-togethers will soon take shape in Nagoya, with Darren Elliott leading. LD SIG get-togethers vary in their specific character from one metropolitan area to another, but, generally speaking, they are discussion based, with those attending exploring their learner development interests and/or engaging in collaborative practitioner research. Please join in this year if you are interested. Another committee aim since November has been to revitalize the SIG website. New content is continually being added to the website about different activities and projects that the SIG is involved in, as well as information about SIG grants, memberships and subscriptions. Non-JALT members can now take part in the SIG through subscriptions, and information about this and how to join the SIG as a JALT member can be found on the website. The AGM minutes from November 2011 are available there if you missed them, and past issues of Learning Learning are also fully accessible online. Many thanks to Darren Elliott, Mike Nix and Hugh Nicoll for all their work on the website so far, as well as for maintaining the SIG’s Facebook presence. Rob Moreau has also been revising the LD SIG logo, the new version of which you should start to notice in the coming months. We thank him for his time and effort on this, too. Part of the strength of working in teams and having many different voices to listen to and acknowledge lies in the breadth and diversity of input that different issues and decisions receive. This has helped us all develop further the 2012 LD SIG Grants and Wider Participation Scheme, with the first awardees to be announced in April. It is also helping us shape our collective planning for the next 1218 months following the success of the Realizing Autonomy project. We would like to 4 LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) thank the members-at-large of the committee for all their constructive criticisms and suggestions, in particular Phil Brown, Dexter Da Silva, Ellen Head, Kayo Ozawa, Martha Robertson, Greg Rouault, Keiko Takahashi, and Stacey Vye. Though the story of SIG over the past six months has been overwhelmingly positive, it was with great sadness that in January we learnt of the death of Richard Pemberton, a close friend of the SIG from its very beginning. A full tribute to Richard will be published in the Realizing Autonomy Proceedings. The committee is currently developing ideas for a fitting and lasting memorial to Richard and his work in the learner autonomy field, and we hope to announce more information about this later this year. Our final round of thanks goes to Michael Mondejar and Jackie Suginaga whose sustained efforts over the past six months bring to you this fantastic issue of Learning Learning. We hope that you really enjoy reading it. As with the newsletter, so too with the SIG: We welcome your participation wherever you are teaching, learning or using languages (and whatever languages too) elementary school, junior high school, senior high school, distance learning, graduate studies, language school or university. May this new school year be successful and fulfilling for you in exploring learner development in many different ways. With our very best wishes Andy Barfield & Richard Silver On behalf of the Learner Development SIG committee LD SIG 委員会代表 アンディ・バーフィールド リッチ・シルバー Newsletter of the JALT Learner Development SIG Greetings from Learner Development SIG Members LD SIGのメン バーより 自律学習は初めて？ LD SIG会員紹介：Steven Paydon New to Learner Autonomy? Steven Paydon, Tokai University I recently joined the Learner Development Sig after becoming intimately interested in learner autonomy. At first, I thought I was new to this idea of putting the learner in control of their own learning - but now I am not so sure. Years ago my family moved to a station, what Americans would call a rather big ranch, on the edge of the Kimberly region in outback Australia. It was remote and isolated, but that is actually an understatement. Our nearest neighbor, literally the house next door, was 12km away. The nearest town was 182km away, along 120km of unsealed, rough roads that were often made impassable by flooding rivers. In fact, the town was so far away, and so difficult to get to, that we would only go shopping about four times a year - in a big truck! We were so remote that we even had our own airstrip. The airstrip was vital for two reasons. Firstly, we received our mail once every two weeks by mail plane. Secondly, and most importantly, if in case of an emergency we needed a doctor, the only realistic way to get help was via the Royal Flying Doctor Service (RFDS). Needless to say, there were no schools anywhere remotely near where we lived. Instead, my brother and I completed our elementary school years in a pioneer version of distance learning called School of the Air. School of the Air derived its name from the teachers delivering their lessons via HF Radio, i.e. ‘through the air’ (schools.net.nt.edu/ksa/). These radio sets were another essential part of life for isolated communities. Built into a rugged, army-green metal box, they came with a hand-held microphone and a long piece of wire that you would tie to a stick and throw up the nearest gumtree for an aerial. They were mainly used for the RFDS, but so long as there were no emergencies at any given time, they could be utilized by School of the Air - or the odd communications between a very small amount of people scattered throughout a very vast region. Other than that, about the only other thing you could rely on picking up on the HF radio was the Indonesian fishing boats chattering away at night about 1000km to our north. Each school morning we would sit in front of these radio sets listening intently to the static in excited anticipation. Then eventually, we would hear our teacher’s voice come over the radio and our class would begin. A typical morning roll-call would go something like this: “Good morning KSA Grade 6. This is Mrs. Fitzgerald. Are you there? Over.” Suddenly the airwaves would burst to life! A multitude of young little voices would say, not in quite the synchronized unison we come to expect in a physical classroom, “Good morning Mrs. Fitzgerald. Over.” The adrenaline rush was almost too much for a young boy to stand. From that moment on we were in contact with the outside world, and although our young imaginations couldn’t quite grasp it, we knew that we were a part of something big. Reflecting back now, School of the Air seems to be my first real introduction to learner autonomy. Autonomy seems to me to be having a freedom of choice. My brother and I were free to choose how much we studied and when. Just so long as we kept up to schedule and got our work finished before the mail plane arrived with our next set of lessons, mum didn’t really care what we did. This was both a liberating and motivating experience for us. Writing on Self-Determination Theory (SDT), Deci and Ryan (2000) identify three LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) 5 JALT学習者ティヘロフメントSIGの会報 psychological needs that, when met, lead to intrinsic motivation: relatedness, competence, and autonomy. School of the Air helped fulfill these needs for us. Although we couldn’t see it, School of the Air gave us a sense of belonging to a community. We would check in with our teacher every school day, and we could hear the voices of other little kids experiencing the same wonder as us. We had a sense of competence because we were learning from materials designed to be at just the right level for us (optimal challenge). Moreover, seeing as there were no other kids, no TV, no video, no clubs, no shops…absolutely nothing, we were free from distractions and totally focused on completing our lessons. Not surprisingly, we also finished them in haste. And finally, we also had ample autonomy because, apart from having to be present for our morning roll call, we could study whenever we wanted. Deci and Ryan (2000) also postulate that students in autonomy-supportive environments show higher levels of motivation and learn more than students in controlled environments. My brother and I can vouch for this, too. We were proactive and engaged. We used to burn through those materials so fast that we would finish two weeks’ work in one week. There were no school rules for us, no sitting in crowded classrooms waiting for a bell to ring, either. In fact, there was no watching a clock at all. We were interested, excited, confident, and this translated into performance, persistence, and creativity. In fact, we were so creative that once we had finished all our materials, we would just check in for roll call in the morning and then knick off down the creek catching snakes and lizards until the next lot of materials arrived. Now I find myself here in Japan. My neighbor lives only inches away from me, I have over a hundred channels on my TV, and a convenience store is always in walking distance. Like everyone else teaching in Japan, I also find myself bound by various institutional constraints. These controls are often a necessary fact of life as a teacher, but learner autonomy seems to me to offer us some balance in regards to overbearing control. That, combined with my own learning experience, makes me think that we can use learner autonomy to motivate our students to reach higher and achieve more. If we can give our students a sense of belonging, then they will work hard for their community. If we can give them a sense of success, then they will gain the confidence to push their boundaries. And if we can give them a sense of choice, then they 6 LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) will be motivated to take control. My brother and I thrived on the ability to take control of our learning. We ended up being sent away to boarding school in our high school years. However, my School of the Air experience set me up to thrive at distant learning when doing my Masters as an external student. The ability to take control of my learning was a motivating experience that I hope I can pass onto my students. References Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and wellbeing. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. Katherine School of the Air. Retrieved from schools.net.nt.edu/ksa/. Greetings from Learner Development SIG Member Bill Mboutsiadis LD SIG 会 員 紹 介 ： Bill Mboutsiadis H ello everyone. My name is Bill Mboutsiadis. I have been asked to introduce myself since I’m a recent LD SIG member and to discuss my understanding of learner development. I hope to meet more of you during the various events that are now being developed. As LD programme chair, I’ve had the pleasure to connect with some of you via emails and so I’m looking forward to meeting you in person this year. In this introduction I will also explain my ongoing understanding of learner development by specifically discussing what learner autonomy means for me and how it is realized with my learners in our shared learning environment. I arrived in Japan in March of 2010 with my family to teach at Meisei University in the West Tokyo area of Hino City. I have been teaching in ESL environments for most of my career though my initial experience was teaching at a university in Bratislava, Slovakia. Turning down a JET teaching offer back in 1996, I started teaching English for Academic Preparation at the University of Toronto’s English Language Program. Since then I’ve always wondered how things would have turned out for me if had chosen to go to Japan. Coming here has thus fulfilled a long-time goal to have a Japanese EFL teaching opportunity. Newsletter of the JALT Learner Development SIG It has also been a great chance for my children’s growth and learning. My second son Alexander was born in Niigata in December of 2010. Finally, a major motivating factor to come to Japan was to re-energize my career after a recent loss of plausibility and purpose in my teaching. The professional development possibilities and academic rigor in applied research here in Japan have been a major motivating factor to better myself and has contributed to a re-evaluation of my professional belief system. Most memorable so far has been the many individuals with whom I’ve met at various conferences who have welcomed me as if I’d been here for a long time. I’ve been learning on a daily basis here. With the LD SIG, I have found a great sense of a community of practice which brings out the best in everyone. This is what I have been missing the last 10 years of my career. Learner autonomy development As soon as we take our first breath as human beings upon leaving our mother`s womb, we are born learners. We are learners in the survival of life. The recent birth of my two sons in 2009 and 2010, have demonstrated to me, as to all new fathers, the curious love of learning. They both are independent explorers of the world. My wife and I give guidance and try to create an environment of encouragement for learning and growth. John, my three-yearand-three-month old son, is constantly trying to do things on his own. He literally pushed me away and wants to do things by himself. He demonstrates a desire to have control of his learning through his curious exploration of the environment around him. I have come to realize that I should give time for him to figure things out on his own. With my watchful eye and positive feedback I am facilitating his learning through experiences that he is creating and not simply being directed towards instructional behaviour from me. Knowing when to intervene and when not to is key to maintaining an unobtrusive observation. In the future, as my children enter educational settings, there will be attempts to curtail their independent learning through the conforming influences of formal institutions. This is unfortunate and can be stifling for learners. A loss of control and ownership of their learning process will occur. I would hope their learning environment would encourage them to be independent critical thinkers and encourage them to seek out truth and knowledge. I believe autonomy in learning is the taking back of this loss of control in one’s learning process. The ability to take charge of one’s learning is very powerful because it builds learner agency. Agency creates motivation through nurturing curiosity and thus developing a belief that something positive is happening to one’s self and that there is independent control that is facilitating this experience. A confidence is thus created that allows a learner to be a risk taker in the learning process. This regained control shifts the responsibility of learning to the learner as opposed to being dependent on the educator (Holec, 1981). According to (Benson, 2001), “the autonomous learner is one that constructs knowledge from direct experience, rather than one who responds to someone’s instruction” (p. 70). As in my son’s case there is a natural tendency for learners to take control over their learning. Autonomy may be displayed in different ways to different degrees depending on each learner and the learning situation. Autonomy can be developed if given the appropriate conditions and preparation and is a more effective form of learning than non-autonomous learning. Autonomy can be illustrated by the famous quote of Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), “You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself.” Furthermore, within my practice I try to be less of an instructor and more of a facilitator. My students are discouraged from relying on me as the main source of knowledge. I try to encourage my students’ own capacity to learn on their own and with their peers. I try to encourage them to make decisions about what they learn. This all takes time and patience since it is basically a re-socialization that needs to take place. At Meisei University in Japan, the instructors in the International Studies Department have been given great autonomy in instruction and curriculum development. The instructors have come together and decided the textbooks for particular courses. On the other hand, the department that manages the required general English courses has basically mandated the textbooks. In all classes where a text is required we, the students and I, negotiate the chapters of the text that they would like to cover. In some other classes I have gone off the textbook and used my own material to liven up the class since the text is so disconnected LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) 7 JALT学習者ティヘロフメントSIGの会報 from the learners’ reality. The most autonomy I have in my teaching context is by being the chair of the Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) autonomy learning courses. International Studies majors are required to take four autonomous learning classes over the first two years of study. These classes are quite unique in Japan and take place in a CALL room. I am lucky as the chair of the CALL autonomy learning courses since I am constantly learning and trying to make a positive learning environment for my students and instructors. We are constantly adapting and improving the course. There is no text book for the class. Most of materials are developed, provided and introduced to the students. Students are also encouraged to seek out other sources for their learning that may include online websites or other out-ofclass learning opportunities. The class is not streamed by proficiency levels due to the logistics of booking the CALL room. This mixed class context allows for each student to seek out their own comfortable level of learning. Students have a choice of their learning activities on a daily basis. The activities include a variety of online learning sites, in-house software, graded readers and some DVDs. The students are assigned a similar term project but it allows for self directed creativity and expression. Within my classes I try to give as much choice to my learners as possible. In the autonomy classes there is absolutely no testing of any kind unless the students try some online quizzes. At the end of the term I set up advising sessions where we look at the term’s activities and their progress and together we negotiate their final mark. This situation is quite unique and can be explained by the fact that Meisei is a private university which allows 8 LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) some freedoms. The English teachers have been given great autonomy in designing the curriculum. This autonomy would be very limited in a more conservative national university. Finally, autonomy in learning in general, as I see it, is not necessarily a final destination. It is also not something to be taught by some individual. It is a life-long path of continual discovery by both the learner and educator of what it means to connect with the world in the search for ultimate truths in life. Bill Mboutsiadis has been an instructor in the English Language Program at the University of Toronto since 1996. He is chair of CALL Learning at Meisei University and is a high school TESL certified educator. Bill has been living in Japan with his wife and two boys since 2010. His research interests include: learner & teacher autonomy development, Language education policy, transformative & sociolinguistic learning theories, CALL, critical pedagogy, Content & Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), Dogme, Extensive Reading (ER), Digital literacy, kamishibai storytelling tradition, digital interactive storytelling, English for Academic Purposes (EAP), World Englishes (WE), art media education, children’s literature, international field work learning, and Teachers Helping Teachers (THT) – international teacher development workshops and in-service volunteer work. References Benson, P. (2007). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. Harlow: Longman. Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon. (First published [1979], Strasbourg: Council of Europe.) Newsletter of the JALT Learner Development SIG Learner Development SIG 2011 Grant Awardees LD SIG2011年度助成金受給者 Lessons from the Advising for Language Learner Autonomy Conference アドバイジング・フォー・ラ ンゲージ・ラーナー・オート ノミー神田外語大学大会から の学び Ian Alexander Hurrell University of Birmingham Ian Alexander Hurrell, バ ー ミ ンガム大学 A s a head teacher at a small private language school, more commonly referred to in Japan as an ‘Eikaiwa’ school, I probably came to the Advising for Language Learner Autonomy Conference at Kanda University of International Studies (KUIS) from a different view-point than most of the other participants who were coming from a university teaching background. I find that it is useful to think of an Eikaiwa school as a kind of fitness gym for developing English, where each student comes to the school with different ability levels and also with a range of goals, such as becoming able to communicate in a professional environment or simply for personal interest. In addition, as a service industry, there is strong pressure to provide customer satisfaction as the customer’s desire to stay at the school is directly linked to the satisfaction they feel from the service provided. However, accommodating all of these different ability levels and goals can be very demanding on teachers who struggle to prepare materials to satisfy their student’s needs and expectations. teaching at an Eikaiwa school. The sheer volume of work in constructing personalized materials for each of my 40+ students was often overwhelming and would frequently result in classes that not only failed to satisfy my student’s needs but also failed to provide a motivating teaching experience for myself as a teacher. However, after starting a Master’s degree in TEFL/TESL, I was introduced to ideas such as learner-centered teaching, learner autonomy, discovery learning, advising, self-access learning, etc. This has allowed me to develop and implement open-ended syllabi which put me in the role of a learning advisor and passed control of the student’s learning progress into their own hands. In this way, I was able to help my students to develop their own teaching programs and create their own materials, tailored to their personal needs. This has not only helped to reduce the burden of creating materials on my shoulders, but, more importantly, it has allowed my students to develop into more responsible, motivated and independent learners, as well as creating a much more positive learning environment at my school (Hurrell, 2010). It was with this background that I came to this conference, with a view to finding out how others have been applying the ideas of advising and learner autonomy in their own teaching situations and how I might be able to apply them to my situation in the Eikaiwa industry. The day before the conference, I was lucky enough to go on a tour of Kanda’s Self Access Learning Center (SALC). It was illuminating to see how KUIS had implemented the concept of learner autonomy and advising into their center through full-time learning advisors, independent learning programs, private multipurpose language learning rooms, and a lounge area where students could come and chat in English in a relaxed and comfortable environment. We also had a chance to observe an advanced writing class where the students worked collaboratively to investigate topics of their choosing using the internet and a variety of other sources and write their own research papers. It was clear that the idea of learner autonomy runs deep in the core philosophy of KUIS, which made it the perfect setting for this conference. This was the case for me in the early years of LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) 9 JALT学習者ティヘロフメントSIGの会報 The next day, I was impressed to see the number of people who had come from all over Japan and also internationally to attend the conference. After taking part in the enlightening seminars and chatting with the participants between sessions, it seemed clear that conference presenters and participants shared a number of common issues with developing the ideas of advising, learner autonomy and self access learning in ELT. The first and biggest issue was naturally the question of how should we introduce the ideas of advising and learner autonomy to students. These ideas are still in their relative infancy and, while the literature provides a lot of evidence to show how autonomous learners are more successful, there is still little information on how teachers can actively help students make the transition from being passive learners to independent learners who are in control of their own progress. Many of the seminars focused on how we might address this issue. Howard Doyle from Kochi University and Michael Parrish from Kwansei Gakuin University presented their study on the methods that their learners use to improve their English outside of class. This is something that my students often ask me about so I was interested to hear their findings. I was amused by some of the more ingenious methods their students had come up with, such as switching the language of their iPhones from Japanese to English. At this point, their study seemed to be mainly concerned with identifying the various methods that their students preferred to use, but I think it would also be very useful for language advisors to have more information about which methods are more successful in improving the learner’s communicative ability. This could be the subject of a follow-up study. John Adamson and Naoki Fujimoto-Adamson from the University of Niigata Prefecture presented their work on the role of translanguaging (alternating between the learners L1 and L2) during mentoring sessions. This is a subject that is of great interest to me as I have often experienced resistance to native speaker instructors using Japanese in their lessons at Eikaiwa schools. I believe that this is primarily because of the perception that an English-only policy will create an immersion environment and will aid learning by pushing the students to speak more English. While this idea may have some merit, I feel this policy greatly limits the types of ideas that can be introduced, especially with lower level students, 10 LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) as language has to be kept within the learner’s L2 ability range. In my classes, I have been able to get positive results by mentoring my students using Japanese where necessary and students have reported greater satisfaction with their classes. Over time, the management of my school has gradually become more comfortable with the judicious use of Japanese in my classes. Nonetheless, this is still an issue that I grapple with on a daily basis in my teaching. Just how much of the student’s L1 should be used during teaching sessions? It was interesting to hear the stories of how other instructors dealt with this issue in their classes. One teacher commented that he only used Japanese when he got the “blank stare”, an experience that I think many of us have had at least one time in our teaching careers. However, from the range of opinions that were expressed, I think it is fair to say that the use of trans-languaging is very much left to personal intuition at this time. It would be very useful for the development of language advising to see more work done in this area to create a set of guidelines so that instructors can be better informed about appropriate use of translanguaging when advising. It goes without saying that creating autonomous learners was a major issue of the conference, but another issue of equal importance was encouraging institutions themselves to promote the ideas of learner autonomy and advising. It was clear to see that KUIS had made a considerable investment in creating their SALC, and many of the participants who I talked with had come with the aim of starting similar facilities at their own universities. However, in these tough economic times, competition for resources is fierce between various departments, and convincing university decision-making bodies to commit these scarce resources to creating a center and employing full-time advisors is a tough prospect. This is especially the case when there is currently little concrete evidence to prove that such centers would be significantly more effective in improving a student’s communicative ability than conventional teaching. This point was clearly illustrated by the presentation made by Marjo Mitsutomi and Mariko Sakurada from Akita University, which has also recently opened a self-access center. They talked about their difficulties in fighting for resources and trying to get students through the doors. As I listened to their presentation, a lot of the problems they were talking about reminded me of discussions from my days as a Newsletter of the JALT Learner Development SIG business major, such as the need to create a coherent business model for the center and to market the center effectively within the student body. Therefore, it seems that if we promote the widespread development of such centers, especially in a commercial industry such as Eikaiwa, then a sound theoretical underpinning alone will not be sufficient. We also need a strong business rationale. This brings me to the final issue raised in the conference, that of using ideas from other fields to aid our research in developing the concept of learner autonomy. We saw how the representatives from Akita University highlighted the need for a clear business rationale. However, there were other presenters who had also taken concepts from other fields. A presentation which greatly impressed me was given by Satoko Kato of Kanda Institute of Foreign Languages. Ms. Kato had conducted research into the various problems that advisors at her institution had in their professional development, for example: understanding their role as a facilitator of language learning rather than a teacher; dealing with the uncertainty of advising where potentially any issue could arise versus the relative certainty provided by teaching with a lesson plan; and adjusting the expectations of both advisor and advisee as to what is to be expected in advising sessions. Ms. Kato used a wheel diagram (Kato & Sugawara, 2008) to plot how advisors and advisees felt about their advising sessions and used the results to discuss with advisors about how they could improve their advising. Neither I nor the people around me had ever seen this kind of technique before. When I approached Ms. Kato to ask her about how she had developed the idea, she informed me that she had adapted the wheel diagram from a technique commonly used in life counseling to help people improve their life. After hearing this, I thought that this technique could also be applied with my students to help them develop as autonomous learners, and I plan to do this in the future. It became apparent that advising in ELT could greatly benefit from work already done in related fields, and this issue was encapsulated by the final presentation given by the key-note speaker of the conference, Chris Candlin. He presented his research on the techniques used by the professional medical industry to advise patients about health issues and highlighted how health advisors could not explicitly tell patients what they should do, but rather had to employ a number of techniques in order to guide patients to make the right choices by themselves. Candlin then went on to demonstrate how this basic principle may be applied when advising students to become more autonomous learners. This further reinforced the idea that a lot could be learned from other related fields to develop the idea of advising for language learner autonomy So, after all this, what lessons could be taken away from this conference? It is clear that there is still a lot of work to do if we are going to convince both students and institutions to commit to the ideals of learner autonomy, advising and self-access learning. This is especially true of the Eikaiwa industry, which is commercially driven and wary of abandoning tried and tested methods. However, if research into the problems raised in the conference can be continued with the help of work already done in related fields, such as business and counseling, I believe that it will be possible to overcome these issues. Conferences such as this one play a great part in exciting people’s imaginations to explore ways that we might develop and adapt our own teaching contexts so that we can help learners take greater control of their own learning, and I look forward to making my own contributions in the future. Ian started his teaching career on the JET program teaching at two senior high schools in Saitama Prefecture, Japan. After three productive years on the JET program, he became head teacher of a private language school in Sapporo, Hokkaido, where he continues to help his students to develop into successful learners of English. Currently, he is about to complete his Masters in TEFL/TESL. His main interests lie in learner autonomy, task-based language teaching and the use of discourse analysis to help learners understand pragmatic meaning in authentic materials. References Hurrell, I.A. (2011). A plan for a negotiated task-based syllabus. JABAET Journal, 14(15), 93-110. Kato, S., & Sugawara, H. (2008). Actionoriented Language Learning Advising: A new approach to promote independent learning. The Journal of Kanda University of International Studies, 21, 455-475. LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) 11 JALT学習者ティヘロフメントSIGの会報 Some Autonomy‐Related Problems and Possible Solutions 自律学習に関する問題と解決 の可能性 Mehmet Boyno Sahinbey Kiz Teknik ve Meslek Lisesi Mehmet Boyno, Sahinbey Kiz Teknik ve Meslek Lisesi T he way I was brought up as a child at home and the way I was treated as a student at school in an obedient culture (one where a person isn’t able to decide or behave on their own in most cases) made me eager to become an autonomous individual. In the first year of my PhD studies, I became aware of the concept of learner autonomy and could name this desire concretely. Then, I conducted research on some dependent engineering students with low motivation. They were dependent in that their English instructor was complaining about their not activating their inner mechanisms in terms of shaping and directing their own learning. On my supervisor’s advice, I started to deal with learner autonomy. My PhD dissertation is entitled “An analysis of the factors influencing learner autonomy in the Turkish EFL context” (Boyno, 2011). While learning more about autonomy, I decided to encourage my students to become autonomous because my students were, as I observed with the engineering students, not so independent nor self-directed. Accordingly, at the very beginning of the academic term, I administered a questionnaire to students so that I could find out their personal diversities: their learning styles, multiple intelligence areas, emotional intelligences, motivation, attitudes and anxiety towards learning English, parental attitudes and English language learning strategies that they employ. I shared the results with them so that they could experience more personal awareness before getting language awareness and learner awareness. I did not follow the 12 LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) ready-made curriculum and the commercial coursebooks entirely. Instead, my students decided on the syllabus design, the order of the units and topics to study in accordance with their needs and wants. They also developed their own materials in addition to using the coursebooks. At the end of the semesters, they assessed both their own performance (self-assessment) and that of their peers (peer assessment). I am interested in parental attitudes and autonomy in early childhood, and the applications of self-access centres. I am also interested in classroom-based advising. I know the difficulties of classroom-based advising (please see my explanation of our presentation for the details); yet, in last year’s IATEFL Learner Autonomy Special Interest Group (LA SIG) event entitled ‘Advising for Language Learner Autonomy’ held at Kanda University of International Studies (KUIS), I expected to learn more about the role of the advisor and that of the advisee and about the advising process including the development of materials. I have been teaching English in Turkey since 1995. I worked at both private and public primary and secondary schools. Everything was quite traditionally teacher-centred: the foreign language teaching system, teachers’ way of teaching, administration, and so on. In 2007 and 2009, I presented and listened to presentations on different aspects of learner autonomy at the Independent Learning Association Conferences (ILACs). The LA SIG event at Kanda was very special for me owing to its on-target topic: advising. As a practitioner researcher, I have been aiming to practice autonomy in my classrooms since 2007 despite facing many problems (the details of which you will find below where I write about our presentation). By joining this LA SIG event, I wanted to learn from other academics’ experiences as to classroom-based advising in their presentations and to find possible solutions to my problems. In 2009, I listened to Marina MozzonMcPherson’s presentation at ILAC in Hong Kong. She talked about advising and how to deal with advising-related problems. I enjoyed it very much. Hence, I decided to join the oneday event at Kanda after flying from Turkey to Japan for nearly 11 hours non-stop, thinking that I would be able to listen to Marina again. Unfortunately, she could not make it to this event on advising because of some health problems. (I hope you made a speedy recovery, Marina!) Yes, I missed her but Newsletter of the JALT Learner Development SIG enjoyed and presentations. learned a lot from other One of my main points of interest is the selfaccess centres (SACs) incorporating materials available for the students, advisors and assessment. I satisfied this academic hunger of mine during the pre-conference visits to the self-access centres. This was not my first time at self-access centres. In 2009, I also visited some centres in Hong Kong as a preconference event before ILAC and in Mexico when I visited Marina Chavez Sanchez and her colleagues at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), and Virna Velázquez and her colleagues at Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México (UAEM). I tried to understand how people design these centres, how many advisors are employed for how many students, what the limitations of the centres are, and what kind of students tend to make use of the facilities in the centres. I enjoyed my interviews with both the advisors and the students there in this sense. I did the same during the SAC visit before the LA SIG event at Kanda. I found out that, if not integrated into the curriculum in any year, mostly final-year students (fourth-year students) visit self-access centres aiming to obtain some materials in their majors to assist them with their career after graduation. In other words, they hoped to find opportunities in English for academic and specific purposes. I observed that there were not often enough advisors in SACs. Another problem was not the diversity of materials but the limited number of the same materials. My teaching experience through autonomy taught me that learner autonomy is a kind of character education. As one gets older, I believe it gets difficult to change a person’s character. Hence, it would be better to start nurturing autonomous learners when they are young. And I insist that, even before beginning school, children should be brought up as autonomous individuals. In other words, parental attitudes are of crucial importance. There is a famous Turkish saying: “A tree gets shaped when young.” In the conference, I visited the poster presentation entitled “Advising using parenting skills” by Yuki Hasegawa and attended the presentations entitled “Advisor versus advisee” by Umida Ashurova, “Developing a deeper understanding of learning processing during complex learning tasks” by Luke Carson, “How a learner changed: Linguistic evidence of metacognitive awareness in advising sessions” by Hisako Sugawara, and “Encouraging learner autonomy through peer feedback in the writing classroom” by Jennie Roloff-Rothman. My colleagues Eyyup Akıl, Ferhat Dolaş and I gave a presentation entitled “Difficulties of classroom-based advising”. The themes of these presentations suited my interests and the questions in my mind. Yuki’s poster introduced the concept of STAR Parenting (respond to cooperation, acknowledge feelings, set limits, teach new skills, and avoid problems). These components, which are originally proposed for not perfect parents but growing parents, are used in faceto-face advising sessions and also in written feedback on the students’ work by teachers and aim to assist children in becoming autonomous by giving them responsibility to make choices on their own. Although very practical, the steps of this study look very difficult to practice in a crowded classroom in terms of dealing with each student in details. Nonetheless, I believe that these steps can be useful with students who are really eager to learn English at a reasonable level in spite of their harsh conditions. What is more, this study positively confirmed my belief that not only teachers at schools but also parents at home can do something to nurture autonomous individuals. Umida and her two third-year student advisors talked about the linguistic gains from peer advising to first-year students through positive feedback. They shed light on the importance of the interference of peer advisors’ own learning styles, and learner beliefs and attitudes in advising sessions. Some other variables that they emphasized were cooperation between peers, credibility of peer advisors, personality, age, gender, culture, motivation and language. I asked Umida about her thoughts concerning the integration of self-access centres into the curriculum as in their case. She replied that as a limitation of their curriculum they had to separate listening skills from reading, writing and speaking skills and learner training. Students worked on their listening skills in their self-access centre as a compulsory part of the curriculum while practicing the other components in the regular classrooms. One of the participants suggested that integration of the self-access centres into the curriculum raises awareness in students and makes them explore more about their strengths, weaknesses, wants and needs. I have seen that there are different set-ups with regards to SACs: some are completely integrated into the curriculum, some are integrated partially into LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) 13 JALT学習者ティヘロフメントSIGの会報 the curriculum, and others are separate from the curriculum. I think it might be a burden for teacher-dependent students to visit such a centre and try to make their own way through their learning. However, as they get accustomed to the centre and start to be more successful in their learning, that is, once they get a taste of success, this burden might turn into a habit of them making use of centres. Luke’s presentation was on how cognitive and metacognitive processing interact in complex learning situations. In his study, teacher guidance was replaced with learning advisors’ working with advisees – a very dynamic and continuous movement between upper and lower levels of cognitive processing. This process was improved by all learners’ metacognitive behaviours to various extents. To him, the upper level of cognitive processing is a must for the completion of a complex independent learning task and must be accompanied by metacognitive learning concepts such as planning, monitoring and control of learning. Most of my students are passive and have low motivation to learn English. They prefer playing the secretary of the teacher while they take notes in the classroom and memorising their notes before exams as much as they can. Putting aside whether they can direct their own learning in terms of planning, monitoring and controlling it (metacognition), they do not even try to discover their own wants and needs. Neither do they try to understand the tasks that they are assigned (cognition). Thus, parallel to the findings of this study, cognition and metacognition should go hand in hand. Hisako’s presentation described one way to assist learners to reach their learning goals: by autonomous dialogues through multiple advising sessions instead of assigning them with a long to-do list. Hisako’s case study with one female student put forward some linguistic evidence as to how her learner’s metacognitive awareness developed to take responsibility of her own learning process. At the end of this informative presentation, one of the participants commented that teachers should focus on not only “what is the student doing” but also “what does she think she is doing” In addition, he added that even parents should personalise the learning process for their kids and support them metacognitively at their own reasonable pace instead of asking them to do everything that teachers require, including staying up late all night studying. Yes, this was one of my viewpoints concerning autonomy. I felt elated to see that there are academics 14 LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) thinking in the same way as me. In Jennie’s workshop, participants discussed the significance of peer advising and peer feedback for dynamic and effective autonomous writing lessons. During the workshop, through sample essays and peer reflection worksheets, we played the adviser and learner. At the end of the workshop, we found opportunities to speculate on the applicability of the presented writing materials to our own contexts and encourage the promotion of peer feedback in the writing classroom. I believe that peer advising and peer feedback should be aimed for when autonomy is in practice. However, when writing (a productive skill) is in question, teachers should be attentive and keep monitoring the learners’ work. My colleagues and I aimed to draw attention to some other elements apart from the learning advisor which is still a crucial component of autonomous learning: the education system, fellow teachers, learners, administrators and parents in the Turkish EFL context at the secondary school level. The foreign language teaching system has imposed ready-made curriculums and materials. Fellow teachers have been uninterested in professional development and have showed resistance to change and shifts in their roles. Students have been unwilling to take on more responsibility in their own learning and are disturbed and reluctant to leave their comfort-zones. Administrators have been strictly loyal to the ready-made issues and concerned about the students’ disturbance just like parents. At the end of our presentation, one of the participants told us that we were not alone in experiencing these issues. He meant they experienced the same problems in Japan. Another academic complained about the restrictions made by policy makers. In addition, Andy Barfield asked whether there was an autonomy association in Turkey. It was an honour for me to say that we have already started a new association with my colleagues. We aim to conduct autonomyrelated research at school – starting from universities down to primary school. In order to be able to practice learner autonomy in any circumstance as effectively as possible – at secondary schools in my case – I believe that everyone involved (teachers, students, administrators, parents) needs training. Additionally, a radical change is needed in the foreign language teaching system. Fortunately, the system in Turkey has changed since the beginning of this academic term. We would like to start with the three universities in our city Newsletter of the JALT Learner Development SIG (Gaziantep). At the same time, we are in close touch with the Provincial Administration of National Education to train the English teachers to help them gain positive beliefs towards learner autonomy as an initial issue. Thus, they will be able to encourage their students, administrators and student-parents to practice learner autonomy as well. The students may be encouraged to gain more responsibility related to their own learning processes. The administrators and the student parents may be more patient with the process and provide the teacher and the students with some support both financially and pedagogically. All of these points reminded me of two realities of the Islamic Turkish educational system: medreses (a kind of religious and scientific higher education institution) and Holy Qur’an courses. At medreses (although rare in number nowadays, they have been functioning for centuries), the scholars have their own classrooms, just like individualised rooms for different skills at self-access centres. They educate groups of two students at the same time by means of assessing their individual learning out of class. This is to not only personalise the learning but also provide opportunities to negotiate in groups. Students follow their own paths of learning and try to accomplish the requirements at their own pace. That is to say, even though some students start the programme on the very same day, they may soon find themselves following different paths according to their levels, background and pace. As for the Holy Qur’an courses, there is a hodja (a teacher) helping a group of successful learners to go ahead and work at their own pace. After finishing their daily requirements, these leading successful learners are assigned with teaching and helping some other groups of learners learn at their own pace. In other words, they play the role of peer advisors. In both cases (medreses and Holy Qur’an courses), learning is not limited to school or course hours. Rather, students do research and study out of school and are scaffolded in their learning when necessary. choose from ready-made materials or develop their own materials? When should students start to develop their own materials? What kinds of training programmes should be organised for students, teachers, administrators and parents? Where should the advisor start and stop? Is peer advising practical in all levels? What are the typical characteristics of an advisor? What are the roles of teacher-, peer- and self-assessment? I am planning to pursue my post-doc studies to find answers to these questions. Mehmet Boyno received his MA in English Language Teaching from Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkey, in 2003 and his PhD from Çukurova University, Adana, Turkey, in 2011. His main interests include learner autonomy, English for specific purposes, teaching young learners, personal and professional development, and teacher education. References Boyno, M. (2011). An analysis of the factors influencing learner autonomy in the Turkish EFL context. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Cukurova University, Adana. All in all, many questions come to my mind regarding nurturing autonomous learners and individuals: How can the teacher be encouraged to let go of some of their control and to let their students gain more responsibility? When should we start giving responsibility to the students? What criteria should be taken into consideration while deciding on the tasks? Should students LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) 15 JALT学習者ティヘロフメントSIGの会報 Michael Wilkins Ritsumeikan University that allowed me to be flexible and experiment with different materials and methods to follow up this interest. Some materials and methods I have tried are extensive reading, portfolio assessment, negotiated syllabi, projects, vlogging (video blogging), webquests, and various social media applications. Michael Wilkins, 立命館大学 Autonomy research group Reflections on Autonomy 自律学習のリフレクション M y name is Michael Wilkins. I work at several universities around the Kansai area. I received a grant to attend the JALT national conference in Tokyo last November. I’d like to thank the LD SIG members for this support. I think these grants, however small, make a big difference to part-time teachers. The professional development costs of courses, books, and conference fees and transportations costs can add up over a year when coupled with no research grants from the universities. Last year, I had a new addition to my little family, and before I received notice that I would receive the LD grant I was seriously considering cancelling my attendance in Tokyo. However in the end I participated in five presentations. My learner autonomy “history” I’ve always been a bookworm, so when I first heard of Extensive Reading (ER) through a pamphlet written by Rob Waring and published by Oxford University Press, I was an instant enthusiast. However, my teaching context at the time was not conductive to experimentation so I soon started doing my M.Ed at Temple University. I think my interest in both ER and learner autonomy started from my own learning style and interest in reading. I actually joined the LD SIG at that time but was unclear on how to participate besides going to the national conference, so I let my membership lapse. Another source of my interest in learner autonomy is from my classroom experience. Like most teachers I experiment in the classroom to see what works best. Essentially, I do my own action research daily and I found the obvious pattern that students would engage in learning much more readily when dealing with topics they were interested in and in ways they were comfortable with. Luckily, in the past 3 years I have had teaching situations 16 LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) Last year I joined a group of 6 researchers from various universities but based at Kansai University of international Studies. The focus of the group is learner autonomy. We administered a survey to almost 1000 participants at various universities around Japan. The research was inspired by a study conducted by Holden and Usuki (1999), which attempted to correct the misconception that Japanese university students are somehow less autonomous than learners from other cultural backgrounds. Their study utilized 10 open-ended interview questions to elicit students’ attitudes and beliefs about learning, their expectations of themselves, and their expectations of their teachers in the learning process. Our study, however, utilized a questionnaire used by Ustunluoglu (2009) in Turkey. This questionnaire contained 22 questions to elicit: what learning decisions and tasks students perceive as their responsibility, what learning decisions and tasks are their teacher’s responsibility and what learning decisions and tasks they perceive they are capable of doing. The final goal is to measure students’ perceptions of responsibility and ability in the classroom - two main learner autonomy dimensions laid out by Littlewood (1999). The process of doing this research has been as interesting as the outcomes. As the last person to join the group, I had no say in the initial structure of the research. However, being able to collaborate with a large group and participating in the process of collecting, coding, and analyzing data from a study of over 1000 respondents was a valuable experience. My classes I have been lucky enough to have been teaching in places where I have teacher autonomy. To me, teacher autonomy is the freedom to experiment and be creative in the classroom. This has allowed me to experiment with using new technologies, peer assessment, syllabus negotiation and other studentcentered teaching methods. Newsletter of the JALT Learner Development SIG I saw Steve Quasha’s Best of JALT 2008 winning presentation at a Kobe chapter meeting on portfolio and peer assessment, and have been working on variations of that idea for over 3 years. Some things I like about this method are: the students reflect on what they have done over the whole course, the audience is more than just the teacher, the students have choices about what they will put in their portfolio and how they will present it. As well as English skills the students need to use artistic skills, and, most of importantly, students choose to share some surprising personal information about their successful experiences that brings the group closer together. Students always give this sort of evaluation good feedback. I have also been experimenting with new ways for students to present their information. Some ways I have tried have been Pecha Kucha (see pecha-kucha.org), Prezi (see prezi.com) presentations, poster presentations, and video. Recently, the production and consumption of video has been a major area of student activity in and out of class. One reason for this is Facebook and smart phones make it extremely easy for students to make and share short videos and interact with each other. Recent interests For the last few years I have been really interested in polyglots, people who speak multiple languages, and their take on language learning. Their perspective is a little different than that of a language teacher, but they are the ultimate successful autonomous language learners so they must have something to say. Of course, throughout history there have been many good examples of polyglots, but in the digital age there are a few that have caught my attention: Steve Kaufman (thelinguist.blogs.com and lingq.com), Khatzumoto (alljapaneseallthetime.com), and Benny Lewis (fluentin3months.com). All three are very successful and autonomous language learners. They are not particularly supportive of language classes and teachers, but rather advocate Krashen-style input learning methods such as extensive reading and listening. JALT National Autonomy seems to have become a buzzword in the teaching community. At every session I attended the presenters mentioned autonomy and how their topic would positively affect student autonomy. This may have been due to my own focus but the presentations were often random ones I chose for their time and location next to my presentations rather than their particular topics. Since then I have noticed learner autonomy mentioned in almost every local presentation as well. I’m embarrassed to say I had not heard of Phil Benson until his keynote speech, which piqued my interest. Through attending the LD SIG forum and dinner, I had the good fortune of talking to him at length. I have since bought his book and am currently working through it. I participated in five presentations at the 2011 JALT national, four of which were connected to learner autonomy. The first was titled “Examining Learner Autonomy Dimensions” from the project described in the third section of this article. The second was titled “The 24 Hour English Challenge”. In this project we asked students to volunteer to use English all day on a non-school day. Originally, the idea was for students to individually try a variety of autonomous activities but in collaboration. It evolved into groups of students interacting in English in the community while completing fun tasks. This worked well and was very satisfying when students recreated the idea themselves without direct teacher input (but as invited participants). The third presentation was entitled “Using Google Docs in the Writing Classroom”. This was mainly an introductory presentation describing for teachers on how to use the Google Docs tool. However, the focus of the activities was on groups of students working autonomously on writing projects collaboratively on line. The last presentation was titled “Developing an Audience for ESL Writers”, which looked at using the Internet to create spaces for students to create real meaningful content that others want to read and in turn motivate students to learn more. Future My main project next year is how to create an audience on the Internet for student work. Students react positively to an appreciative audience for their efforts. With the development of the Internet and social media, this has become easier than ever before. I’d like to start a blog, YouTube channel and Facebook page where students write about what interests them about Japan in English and attract people around the world who are interested in Japan. A second project is an English Speakers’ club. Students from various universities would meet to do fun activities in English only. Students often express a need to find social situations to use their English and meet others who want to LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) 17 JALT学習者ティヘロフメントSIGの会報 do the same. References Holden, B. & Usuki, M. (1999). Learner autonomy in language learning: A preliminary investigation. Bulletin of Hokuriku University, 23, 191-203. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS /ED450581.pdf Littlewood, W. (1999). Defining and developing learner autonomy in East Asian contexts. Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 71-94. Ustunluoglu, E. (2009). Autonomy in language learning: Do students take responsibility for their learning? Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 5(2), 148-169. Retrieved from http://eku.comu.edu.tr/index/5/2/e_ustunluogl u.pdf Reflection on the JALT 2011 Conference JALT 2011 の感想 National Memorial Olympics Center, Yoyogi, Tokyo, November 18th – 21st, 2011 国立オリンピック記念 青少年総合セ ンター、2011年11月18日〜21日 Matthew Coomber Kyoto Sangyo University マシュー・クーンバー 京都産業大学 W ere anyone to conduct a genre analysis of ELT conference reports, they would doubtless arrive at the conclusion that conferences are unremittingly sunny affairs, and presentations always professional, thoughtprovoking and engaging. But of course the reality is not quite the same. Conference-going, like any other activity, has its fair share of frustrations and disappointments. It’s just that these aspects of the experience rarely seem to make it as far as the reports, and with good reason considering the huge amount of volunteer work that goes into organising a conference on the scale of JALT National. It seems almost inconceivable to report on a conference in anything less than glowing terms, as if to mention a negative experience is in some way a criticism of the conference as a 18 LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) whole. Even though this is most emphatically not the case, it is thus with some trepidation that I must report that my two days in Yoyogi included both ups and downs. Despite the risk of living up to the common stereotype of the British as being obsessed with the weather, it would be difficult to write a balanced report on this year’s conference without mentioning the torrential rain which persisted throughout the whole of the first day. I wish I had been able to ignore the effect of the downpour which set in when I was in the middle of Meiji-jingu, having foolishly decided that a walk across the park from Harajuku would be a more pleasant way to get to the site than attempting to change trains at the intimidatingly complex (to a non-Tokyoite at least) Shinjuku station. Sadly though, that would require a more phlegmatic character than that which I possess. Needless to say, arriving soaking wet was not a good start to the day, and with events split between three buildings drying out was never more than temporary. This combination of bad luck and my own bad judgment led me to reflect upon how these two factors can impact upon the conference-going experience. A more predictable, but equally unavoidable problem, relates to scheduling. While one of the great advantages of a conference the size of JALT National is that there will almost certainly be a presentation appealing to your interests at any particular time, the downside of this is that there will often be more than one. Thus, when deciding on my first presentation of the day during my shinkansen journey from Kyoto, I was faced with the dilemma (trilemma, perhaps?) of choosing between three presentations which, for very different reasons, appealed to me roughly equally. Greg Sholdt’s Featured Speaker Workshop - Getting started with quantitative research, sounded just the kind of thing I needed to help me with my current research, in which I am looking at ways teachers can encourage learners to make selfdirected revisions to their writing, rather than relying on teacher feedback. Yet on the other hand, I really wanted to hear Marcos Benevides introducing his new series of graded readers, based on the Choose your own adventure series I enjoyed as a child. As next year I will be starting a new job at a university with a well-established extensive reading programme, I was especially interested in discovering whether the ELT version of the series had managed to retain the atmosphere of suspense and reader involvement I recall from my own reading. Newsletter of the JALT Learner Development SIG Finally, a short paper by Paul Leeming and Stuart Cunningham on group dynamics and leadership in the classroom, the importance of which I feel to be vastly under-represented in ELT research, was something I didn’t want to miss. In my own teaching, I have long been mystified as to why certain classes seem to gel far more successfully than others, and was hoping to gain some insights as to how I might be able to promote greater cohesion in my less successful groups. Ultimately, my poor planning led to me arriving late and took the decision out of my hands, but the process of deliberation made me think about how any one delegate can only ever see a tiny fraction of what is on offer at JALT National, and how the decisions that we make, which involve both luck and judgment, are to a large extent responsible for our perceptions of the event as a whole. Luckily, I was able to attend a later presentation by Sholdt on a similar topic, and was thoroughly glad I did so. Even more fortunate was the fact that no Health and Safety officers happened to look in. By the time the presentation began, a room designed for around 20 people held twice that number. However, it was well worth the effort to squeeze into the room. While quantitative methods can seem intimidating to the novice researcher, Sholdt’s clear explanations and sheer enthusiasm for his subject left me with the feeling that quantitative research was no longer the impenetrable mystery I had previously thought, but something I could see myself eventually getting to grips with. While I doubt I will ever attain a true appreciation of what the presenter termed the ‘beauty behind the numbers’, Sholdt’s example of an early research project he conducted into extensive reading helped me to realize both that potential sources of quantitative data are readily available in the classroom, and that results can be analyzed and presented in ways that are both meaningful and comprehensible. To practicing language teachers, such as myself, who have only a rudimentary knowledge of statistics, it would be a refreshing change were more quantitative researchers to consider just how accessible their work is to the typical reader. By 5.30 on Saturday evening, many delegates’ enthusiasm may have been starting to wane, and my thoughts were turning to the first beer of the night rather than the last presentation of the day. After an early start and a long, information packed day, what I needed was a presentation that could re-energise me. Given that Richard Silver is not only co-coordinator of the LD SIG, which generously sponsored my participation in this year’s conference, but also a colleague and a good friend, I am about to lay myself open to charges both of sycophancy and subjectivity. However, not to mention Richard’s presentation in this report would seem fundamentally dishonest, as it was by far the best I saw at this year’s JALT, providing me with just the burst of energy I needed at the end of the day. Focusing on the issues and challenges which arise when using presentations in the language classroom, Richard suggested several ways in which the activity can be transformed from one dominated by one-way transmission of information by a single student to an experience in which the entire class can be more actively involved. Even more than the highly stimulating content, what set this workshop apart was the innovative way in which the presenter managed to create genuine interaction between participants who had been strangers at the start of the session. Too often, in my experience, presenters’ attempts to promote audience interaction in workshops feel forced, awkward, and at times pointless. Yet in this case, the group activity Richard engaged us in was not only integral to his theme of Growing autonomy in presentation-discussions, but also immensely enjoyable. In spite of the knowledge that that first beer was waiting for me, I left the room wishing the presentation could have gone on longer. After such a positive ending to the first day, and with a dry pair of shoes on my feet and a blue sky overhead, my expectations were high as I set out on Sunday morning for the first plenary speech of the day. A quick glance inside the cover of any of the books in the Cambridge Language Teaching Library reinforces the view that Jack Richards, responsible for more titles in this series than any other author, is without doubt one of the giants of our field. Yet a speaker being an ‘internationally renowned applied linguist, teacher educator, and textbook author’, to quote Richards’ biodata from the conference handbook, does not necessarily guarantee a good speech. Richards though, more than lived up to his reputation, delivering a wideranging plenary covering some of the most fundamental issues in our profession, and doing so without apparently feeling the need to pause for breath! As Richards himself acknowledged, the scope of this plenary was such that to do his subject full justice in a mere hour was an ambitious goal. But while the sheer breadth of topics covered meant that at LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) 19 JALT学習者ティヘロフメントSIGの会報 times the audience may have been left wishing for greater depth, personally I felt that Richards did a fine job in walking (perhaps sprint would be a better choice of verb?) the tightrope of offering something to novice teachers, 40-year veterans, and everyone in between. As a member of the latter group, of particular interest to me was the importance Richards ascribed to disciplinary knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge. While I would certainly agree with the presenter’s assertion that teachers who possess both types of knowledge are more likely to be more effective than those who do not, I also wonder about the potential impact of when and how that knowledge was obtained. My practical experience of teaching preceded the theoretical knowledge I have gained, a situation which would be decidedly odd in most professions, but which does not seem unusual among EFL teachers in Japan. It seems to me that overlaying theory onto practical experience, rather than vice versa, may have a significant impact on the ways in which we develop as teachers. As Sunday drew to a close I faced my final scheduling conflict of the weekend, with my own presentation beginning at the same time as the LD Forum. Thankfully, although I missed most of the poster session, I was able to arrive in time to enjoy the stimulating round table discussion which closed the event, and for me, the conference. While the need to return to Kyoto that evening meant that, much to my disappointment, I was unable to join other SIG members for dinner, I was at least provided with food for thought: Phil Benson’s observation that there is a degree of conflict between the principles of learner autonomy and sociocultural theory leading me to reflect on the need to be aware of this potential conflict in my own classroom. And it was with that thought in my head that my participation in JALT 2011, made possible by the much appreciated grant I received from the LD SIG, ended. Now, looking back through the conference handbook as I write this report, I am reminded once again of the incredible variety of expertise that language teachers in Japan possess, and only regret that limited time allows us to enjoy such a small amount of what is on offer at JALT. But perhaps it is better to be left wanting more. Matthew Coomber has been teaching English in Japan since 2001. Having spent the past five years working at Ritsumeikan University, he is looking forward to different challenges when he takes up a new position at Kyoto 20 LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) Sangyo University in April 2012. 5­year membership of JALT: Buy 4 Get 1 free! JALT is currently running a ‘5 years for 4’ membership campaign where you can pay for 4 years’ membership of JALT (4 x 10,000 yen) and receive one year free (i.e., get a total of 5 years membership of JALT). The campaign runs from March 1 to August 31 2012. If you sign up for a 5‐ year membership within that period, you will also have a chance to win a fees waiver for this year’s conference, to be held in Hamamatsu, Shizuoka, October 12‐15 2012. For more information about joining JALT, go to: http://jalt.org/main/ membership. At present there is no SIG‐wide agreement about running a similar offer for your SIG memberships, so if you do pay for a 5‐year JALT membership, please note that you will – for the time being – still need to pay your 1500 yen SIG memberships(s) on a yearly basis. For detailed information about joining the LD SIG as a JALT member or becoming a LD SIG subscriber as a non‐ JALT member, please go to http://ld‐ sig.org/join/. If you have any questions or comments about any of the above, please contact the Learner Development SIG membership chair Rachelle Jorgenson rachellejorgenson@gmail.com. Many thanks. Newsletter of the JALT Learner Development SIG Feature Article フィチャード アーテイクル Developing an online environment to enable the independent learning of English pronunciation 英語の発音の自主学習を可能にするオンライン環 境の開発 Mathew Porter Hiroshima Bunkyo Women’s University マシュー・ポーター，広島文教女子大学 Abstract: This exploratory study examines an online pronunciation course designed to (a) help university students develop meta-linguistic knowledge about pronunciation, (b) gain familiarity with cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies (c) develop self-monitoring skills, and (d) develop phonological competency individually and at their own pace. 110 low-intermediate, first-year university students in a required listening course completed eight post-module questionnaires and provided feedback on six areas using a 5-point Likert scale. Two additional questionnaires administered at the end of the semester asked students about their perceived improvement, performance, helpfulness of the assignments, and other aspects of the class in general. All questionnaires allowed for open comments. The results showed students desired more guidance with segmentals and preferred Japanese instructions. Open comments suggested the course provided a satisfactory environment for achieving the above goals, but improvements could be made by including more multimedia, more freedom, and more voices. Keywords: pronunciation learning strategies, metalinguistic, self-monitoring, autonomy, CALL 要 旨 : この探索的研究は、大学生が(a)発音についてのメタ言語的知識を発達させ、 (b)認知ストラテ ジーおよびメタ認知ストラテジーへの理解を深め、(c)自己モニタースキルを発達させ、(d)音韻論的 能力を個別に且つ各自のペースで発達させるのを支援するために作成されたオンライン発音コースに ついて考察するものである。必修のリスニング授業を受講する初中級レベルの大学１年生１１０名が モジュール終了後の８つのアンケートに回答し、５段階のリッカート尺度を用いて６つの領域につい てのフィードバックを提供した。学期末にさらに２つのアンケートを実施し、学生たちに向上したと 思う点、学習への取り組み、課題の有益性、授業全般に関するその他の側面について質問した。すべ てのアンケートには自由記述欄を設けた。本研究の結果から、学生たちは分節についてより多くの指 導を希望し、日本語による指導をより好むことが分かった。自由記述からはこのコースが上記の目標 を達成するのに十分な環境を提供したことが示唆されたが、マルチメディア、自由、そして学生たち の声をより多く取り入れることによって更なる改善が可能だと思われる。 キーワード：発音学習ストラテジー、メタ言語、自己モニタリング、オートノミー、コンピュータ支 援語学学習 M any teachers of Japanese students of English are already undoubtedly aware that many students struggle to accurately perceive and reproduce the sounds of English. According to Pawlak (2010), the complexity of foreign language pronunciation and the difficulty of achieving phonological competence in an EFL environment can be alleviated by fostering learner autonomy. Learner autonomy, as it relates to pronunciation learning, entails being able to self-monitor and selfevaluate so as to set goals, plan the learning process, and choose suitable strategies for improving one’s pronunciation (Pawlak, 2011). However, this may prove impossible without a phonetic and phonological awareness of English (Vitanova, 2002) which can be developed through training in pronunciation learning strategies (PLS). LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) 21 JALT学習者ティヘロフメントSIGの会報 Research into PLS is still in its early stages, and there have been few studies examining what kinds of strategies exist and which would be beneficial to introduce to adult EFL students. Peterson (2000), describes 21 different tactics that her participants—American university students of Spanish—had used when studying pronunciation and organized them according to Oxford’s (1990) classification system. Cognitive and metacognitive strategies, made up of naturalistic and formal practice, learning about and analyzing the sound system, setting goals, planning for language tasks, and evaluating oneself, were the most common PLS used. (For other studies on PLS see Derwing & Rossiter, 2002; Eckstein, 2007; Osbourne, 2003; and Varasarin, 2007.) Getting students to self-monitor and self-evaluate means explicitly teaching students about specific features of English pronunciation (Vitanova, 2002). In the metacompetence model of phonological acquisition, Wrembel (2008) describes phonological metacompetence as “conscious knowledge of and about the grammar of the language and which may be developed by making the learner metalinguistically aware of L2 phonetics and phonology” (p. 2). Wrembel has proposed an approach for teachers to help students develop phonological metacompetence, made up of basic awarenessraising activities, articulatory control exercises, informed teaching techniques, and the use of multimedia learning aids, which will “equip students with self-monitoring strategies” (p. 2). This strongly suggests that there is value in explicitly teaching pronunciation features even though this has been seen as incompatible with the communicative approach (CA). However, pronunciation teaching has gradually come to focus on the importance of producing comprehensible speech (over nativeness) because it facilitates communication. This means that both segmentals that have a “high functional load” such as vowel sounds found in minimal pairs and meaning-rich prosodic features should be taught so students can develop phonological competency (Celce-Murcia, Brinton, & Goodwin, 1996). Perception plays a key role in the development of phonological competency, and the L1 greatly influences how L2 sounds are perceived because the perceiver must have enough prior knowledge to identify, interpret, and sometimes even review and reappraise the underlying phonological units in order to accurately process language (Tatham & Morton, 2011). Research has shown that adults can become able to perceive and produce phonemes crucial to communication in the L2 and create new categories for those sounds (for an extensive discussion of this and other aspects of the Speech Learning model, see Flege, 1995). It has also been shown that L2 vowel production is influenced by how L2 vowels are perceived and that non-native subjects’ accuracy is related to their accuracy in perceiving the same sounds (Flege, 1997). There is also evidence that perceptual training can lead to improvement in production, even without teacher-instructed articulation practice (Thomson, 2011). For suprasgementals, Abe (2009) found that providing Japanese university students with instruction about rhythm, linking, assimilation, and elision produced gains in perception and production of those features. (For other studies documenting the effectiveness of teaching suprasegmentals in order to improve perception and production see Derwing & Munro, 1998; Pennington & Ellis, 2000; Tanner & Landon, 2009.) In the case of Japanese, the influence of the student’s L1 creates serious perception and production problems at both the segmental and suprasegmental levels. Two influential features of Japanese that effect English pronunciation are the lower number of vowel and consonant possibilities and its predominantly consonant-vowel (CVCV) syllable structure. Since Japanese only has 5 vowels and lacks consonants such as v (/v/) and th (both / θ/ and /ð/), English words represented in Japanese are noticeably different and often far removed from their English equivalents. Also, the syllable structure makes consonant clusters and closed syllables problematic (Rogerson-Revell, 2011). Unfortunately, the use of katakana as an aid in English reading and the large number of loanwords from English modified to fit the Japanese sound system reinforces these problems (Martin, 2004). Furthermore, there are prosodic differences as well because Japanese is a mora-timed language, which means that almost all sounds represented by the kana syllabary are of the same relative length when spoken. In other words, は (ha) andあ (a) are the same length, but あん (an) or ああ (aa) are actually twice as long. Additionally, stress is distributed equally on each syllable and vowels are seldom reduced, so both rhythm and intonation are markedly different from English (Tsujimura, 2007). Although Japanese students’ formal study of English begins in junior high school, most students don’t receive enough pronunciation guidance or extensive exposure to comprehensible listening input before entering university. Historically, the approach to English teaching at the junior high and high school levels has focused on reading and grammar while preparing students for entrance 22 LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) Newsletter of the JALT Learner Development SIG examinations, which until recently did not focus on communication and therefore comprehensible pronunciation. In addition, junior high and high school teachers have reported lacking an understanding of English phonetics and phonology as well as training in methods for effectively teaching pronunciation in their classes (Kochiyama, 2011). Naturally, the majority of pre-university Japanese students of English have been exposed to non-Japanese English through popular culture and perhaps access to non-Japanese English teachers at the primary or secondary school levels, but by the time they reach university they still lack extensive experience listening to simple, non-Japanese English with their attention focused on pronunciation features (Nakashima, 2006). University teachers hoping to assist students in developing students’ ability to perceive and produce English more accurately might find it hard to effectively support their students due to large class sizes, time restrictions, curriculum constraints, and individual differences in ability and motivation. As more universities adopt Moodle and similar virtual learning environments, teachers might be attracted to such environments as a way of coping with classroom limitations and start to design and share multimedia content for pronunciation study. Such online environments, especially if they incorporate web 2.0 features allowing for collaboration and interaction, could help to foster autonomy (Bailly, 2010) as students learn to pay deeper attention to English and monitor their own pronunciation. This paper introduces an exploratory project I undertook to develop an online Moodle environment where students could access explanations and examples in English and Japanese in order to develop their metalinguistic knowledge of English pronunciation, gain familiarity with cognitive and metacognitive strategies in order to develop self-monitoring skills, and explore activities and links to external sites where they could develop phonological competency individually and at their own pace. This project is in its early stages and this preliminary study was initiated to discover if the above goals were being met and in what ways the online environment could be improved. My hope is to create a shared, collaborative space for teachers and Japanese students of English which effectively achieves the above stated goals. The class The Moodle course was made up of 8 modules covering, in chronological order: morae, phonemes, syllables, vowels, consonants, ellipses and elision, stress 1, and stress 2. Since Moodle allows creators to hide or show content to course members, pronunciation modules were prepared in advance and hidden until that week’s class had finished. At the end of a class, a new module was revealed and students were told to complete it by the next class. The first three modules - morae, phonemes, and syllables - used a contrastive approach to get students to notice particular features about the English sound system vis-à-vis the Japanese. All three modules included English introductions to the topics with exercises, discussion board activities (for example, posting rhyming words or haiku), and quizzes. Beginning with the vowel module, the remaining modules were delivered using Japanese. Two modules were created to reintroduce and review phonemes. The vowel module dealt with the differences between Japanese and English vowel sound categories, the physical articulation of vowel sounds, and self-awareness activities such as reporting about the shape of one’s mouth when making Japanese vowel sounds. The approach used in the consonant module was similar except students were given instructions to go offsite to a free phonetics lab (http://www.uiowa.edu/~acadtech/phonetics/) which has flash animation, video, and native examples. Using these materials, students were asked to report which consonant sounds were difficult to hear and make. Although the morae topic was not reintroduced in Japanese, syllables were reinforced in the remaining suprasegmental modules where possible. The ellipses and elision module used recorded examples and quizzes to introduce students to the elimination of unstressed sounds (ellipses) and the addition of glides (the semivowels /w/ and /j/) between vowel sounds to aid in pronunciation (elision). Stress 1, the most independent module, asked students to select unknown words from the unit vocabulary list and note the word’s syllables and stress pattern in their vocabulary journals. It also included a listening activity where students listened to two words and answered whether their stress patterns were the same. The final module, Stress 2, introduced stress differences in noun-verb homophones with word and sentence examples for practice and testing. Since each module was created after viewing feedback from a previous module, the development of materials and the approach was organic and tried to respond to student needs within the limitations of LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) 23 JALT学習者ティヘロフメントSIGの会報 the environment. As will be discussed below, the lack of feedback and desire for further guidance were ever-present challenges, so where appropriate I addressed this by making Japanese-language videos and uploading them to the course. Being reactionary, these do not neatly fit into the modules, and could be conceived of as a “review” section added into the following week’s modules. In total, I made 11 videos for the course. Using the information about difficult consonants reported by students, I made 10 videos explaining how to articulate the difficult sounds, indicating where a similar sound might already exist in Japanese, and introducing practice exercises. The final video explained how to notice syllable boundaries using the mouth’s movements. Additionally, for homework students were responsible for listening to a 15-minute Voice of America (VOA) Special English (http://www.voanews.com/learningenglish/home/) short story, completing one video on English Central (EC) (http://www.englishcentral.com/), doing the self-study unit from the textbook (Listen In 1, Nunan, 1998), and keeping a vocabulary journal of unknown words from a word list from the VOA short stories and textbook. Participants The participants in this study were 111 first-year students from a university in western Japan majoring in Law (n=51), Commerce (n=37), Economics (n=29), or Human and Environmental Sciences (n=4). All students were enrolled in English I, a required listening course focusing on TOEIC preparation, which met once a week for 90 minutes, 15 times during the first semester. The TOEIC Bridge was used as a placement test for incoming first-year students, and all students had tested into level 3 (low intermediate), the highest first-year English level at our university. Two classes were made up entirely of students from either Law (TOEIC Bridge average 145; Listening section average 69) or Commerce (146; 68), while the final class serviced the Economics department and Human and Environmental Science (145; 68) department. Method Data was collected using Moodle questionnaires (Appendix 1) in which students were asked if they completed the module (P) and for feedback on 6 areas: ease (E), meaningfulness (M), comprehension (C), interest in studying further (I), need for guidance (G), and language (L) using a 5-point Likert scale. They were also given space to freely write comments. The first questionnaire was delivered electronically in class and covered the first three modules: morae, phonemes, and syllables. It was given after a test and all students were able to finish before the end of the period. In subsequent weeks, a questionnaire was available online as the final step of each module and students responded to them on their own. From this data, I tabulated student participation on each module and calculated the means and standard deviations for each area. I then translated, coded, and tabulated open comments. After the final exam, students completed a final Moodle questionnaire (Appendix 2) in class asking for feedback on course assignments, including the pronunciation modules. Afterwards, they filled out the university’s course survey. Again, students had enough time to complete all of the questionnaires. I was able to instantaneously view responses to Moodle questionnaires and received the analyzed data from the university’s survey along with any open responses after the semester ended. I tabulated the responses from the Moodle questionnaire and then translated, coded, and tabulated all of the open comments from both questionnaires. Results Figure 1 shows students’ self-reported progress for each module based on questionnaire responses. 24 LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) Newsletter of the JALT Learner Development SIG 110 100 90 80 70 No. of 60 Participants 50 40 30 20 10 0 Neither Attempted Completed Module Figure 1: Participation per module As Figure 1 shows, all students report having either completed or attempted the first three modules (N=110). After the third module, students began to fail to respond to the questionnaire, so it can only be assumed that they did not attempt the weekly activities. The final module was undertaken by only half of the original 110 participants, although the weekly participation is not a simple downward trend. The number of students attempting but not completing the modules does decrease steadily. In the final Moodle questionnaire at the end of the semester, students were asked if they had completed all of the modules in the pronunciation course and 74% of the respondents (N=108) reported that they always did, 23% reported that they sometimes did, while only 3% said they had not completed one module. Figure 2 shows the distribution of completion numbers based on responses to the module questionnaires. Modules completed Number of students 0 5 1 4 2 6 3 17 4 17 5 18 6 15 7 14 8 14 9 10 Total 110 Figure 2: Total number of modules completed Accordingly, only 13% of students completed all of the modules and 83% completed some of the modules. The questionnaires were voluntary which may account for the large discrepancy. The means and standard deviations for student responses to the 6 areas investigated are displayed in Figure 3. The greyscale represents the scope of the first questionnaire and (N) is the number of respondents. In the first three modules, only English was used, and language (L) above shows that students had a strong desire to have the modules presented in Japanese, which was subsequently accommodated. Mora N E M C I G L 110 2.81 3.49 3.03 3.05 3.59 3.88 0.87 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.96 0.99 2.63 3.27 2.71 2.94 3.49 3.88 0.94 0.82 0.88 0.89 0.88 0.94 2.82 3.35 3.12 3.05 3.36 3.77 0.94 0.93 0.87 0.92 1.00 1.00 2.04 3.89 2.85 3.33 3.92 3.11 0.88 1.05 1.08 1.09 1.00 0.97 2.51 3.88 3.17 3.43 3.74 3.03 SD Phonemes 110 SD Syllables 110 SD Vowels 73 SD Consonants 65 LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) 25 JALT学習者ティヘロフメントSIGの会報 SD E&E 70 SD Stress1 67 SD Stress2 55 SD 0.95 1.05 0.94 0.93 0.85 0.86 2.79 3.75 3.31 3.41 3.59 3.15 0.92 1.07 0.91 0.99 0.81 0.80 3.22 3.78 3.51 3.49 3.43 3.12 0.99 1.23 1.00 1.06 0.98 0.94 3.55 4.09 3.95 3.76 3.56 3.35 1.02 1.08 1.09 1.03 0.95 0.79 Figure 3: Means and standard deviations for the six areas E M C I G Stress 2 3.55 Stress 1 3.22 Syllables 2.82 Morae 2.81 E&E 2.79 Phonemes 2.63 Consonants 2.51 Vowels 2.04 Stress 2 4.09 Vowels 3.89 Consonants 3.88 Stress 1 3.78 E&E 3.75 Morae 3.49 Syllables 3.35 Phonemes 3.27 Stress 2 3.95 Stress 1 3.51 E&E 3.31 Consonants 3.17 Syllables 3.12 Morae 3.03 Vowels 2.85 Phonemes 2.71 Stress 2 3.76 Stress 1 3.49 Consonants 3.43 E&E 3.41 Vowels 3.33 Syllables 3.05 Morae 3.05 Phonemes 2.94 Vowels 3.92 Consonants 3.74 Morae 3.59 E&E 3.59 Stress 2 3.56 Phonemes 3.49 Stress 1 3.43 Syllables 3.36 Figure 4: Means ranked by area Two areas, (E) and comprehension (C), were the most variable and did not seem to be related to the language of delivery. The means for meaningfulness (M) were higher once the modules were presented in Japanese. Starting with the fourth module, it can be assumed that only the students who found the pronunciation modules meaningful continued to pursue their independent study. Interest (I) in studying the module topics in greater detail was low when the modules were in English, climbing a little after they were presented in Japanese. Desire for additional guidance (G) was highest with segmentals; however, students seemed to consistently want guidance on other modules regardless of language of instruction. In Figure 4, the means of five areas—ease (E), meaningfulness (M), comprehension (C), interest (I), and guidance (G)—have been rearranged in rank order from highest to lowest. Morae, Phonemes, and Syllables could be considered the test phase of the project as the modules were not well received and the results of the questionnaire were taken into immediate consideration to improve the following modules. These areas ranked worst in meaningfulness, comprehension, and further interest. Even though they were in English, they ranked higher in ease than modules covering segmentals in Japanese. Although 110 students completed the questionnaire, comments were received from only 12 students on the Morae module, 10 students on the Phoneme module, and 6 students on the Syllable module. Their responses are recorded in Figure 5 further below The responses show students had difficulty dealing with unfamiliar topics and they wanted more support in the form of additional explanations, in-class guidance, or Japanese language. The two modules dealing with segmentals, vowels and consonants, ranked low in ease and comprehension, 26 LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) Newsletter of the JALT Learner Development SIG high in meaningfulness, and highest in desire for guidance. This suggests that there is something that made the segmental modules difficult and hard to understand while participants believed that the content was important to know. Comments from 17 students on the vowel and consonant modules are summarized in Figure 6. Although the module had asked students to focus closely on the physical aspects of sound and the desire for more guidance was requested in the articulation, this proved challenging for some students form of in-class teacher intervention and the use of more examples. In response to this, more visual and aural examples were created to help students understand consonant articulation. As a result, students had remarked how much easier the consonant module had been thanks to videos, animations, and recordings. Respondents Comment M P S I don’t understand. 2 3 2 I want to know more. 1 1 0 Please explain it more. 3 2 2 I don’t even understand this topic in Japanese. 1 2 0 I’ve never studied this before. 0 0 1 Please talk about it in class. 2 1 1 Please use Japanese. 2 0 1 I’m not good with computers. 1 0 0 Figure 5: Comments from Morae, Phoneme, and Syllable modules Respondents Comment V Articulating vowel sounds is difficult. 5 I want more guidance. 5 I’m trying to pay more attention when articulating vowel sounds. The vowel charts were helpful. 4 The recordings were helpful. 1 The consonant module was easier than the vowel module. It is hard to read/write pronunciation symbols. C 2 3 3 Figure 6: Comments from Vowel and Consonant modules The Ellipses and Elision module ranked around the middle in most areas, but low on ease. Both ellipses and elision rely on an understanding of syllable boundaries, with which students were still having a problem. Comments were received from 18 students and are listed in Figure 7 (see below). This time students commented on my Japanese, although more comments were expected because there was no native Japanese input on any of the Japanese language materials produced. In addition, these comments are what lead to the creation of the syllable video with link to additional syllable practice at http://www.bbc.co.uk/skillswise/game/ en01soun-game-syllables-factory. Both stress modules were at the top of the rankings for ease, comprehension, and desire to study more deeply, with Stress 2 also ranking highest in perceived meaningfulness. This was reflected in the comments received. The Stress 1 module received comments from 24 people while the Stress 2 module had comments from 15 people. Relevant comments are shown in Figure 8 (see below). LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) 27 JALT学習者ティヘロフメントSIGの会報 Comment Respondents I don’t understand syllables yet. 4 I need to practice. 2 This is important in order to sound more native. 2 The audio was helpful. 1 I’m paying attention to vowels and consonants more. Adding w/y makes it easier to say words. 1 The Japanese explanation was helpful. 1 Your Japanese was a little strange. 2 Learning pronunciation is fun, but I want to study in class. 1 1 Figure 7: Comments from the Ellipses and Elision module Although the comments allude to why the modules were easy to understand through the use of multimedia resources, they also suggest that the high ratings received for meaningfulness are due to how comprehension can be affected by a lack of proficiency with stress (and syllables). The comments also point to a need for improved use of dictionary skills using IPA. Comment S1 I think I need to understand syllables first. 1 I think stress is important. 1 If I pay attention to how my mouth opens, I can understand syllables. The syllable video was easy to understand. The syllable game helped me to understand better. The syllable game was fun. I have a deeper understanding thanks to looking things up on my own. I don't know how to note stress in my vocabulary journal. I can now notice that verb-noun homophones have different stress patterns. I will use this new knowledge to monitor my speech and comprehension. I don’t know what to do when my dictionary gives me conflicting information about stress. S2 1 3 3 3 1 1 5 2 1 Figure 8: Comments from Stress 1 and 2 modules On the final Moodle survey at the end of the semester, students were asked if the pronunciation course had been helpful and 81% responded that it had been very helpful with only 5% answering that it hadn’t been helpful at all. When asked if their pronunciation had improved, 74% believed that it had improved a lot, while 13% reported that they had felt no change. Of the 55 participants that left comments, 12 specifically mentioned the pronunciation course. See Figure 9 below for their responses. 28 LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) Newsletter of the JALT Learner Development SIG As can be seen, the comments were both positive and negative, and the desire for in-class guidance continued to be a theme until the very end. In a class survey given by the university, another 54 open comments were collected, 15 of which focused on the pronunciation course. The comments are presented in Figure 10. Although these final comments are positive, they should be interpreted holistically with all previous comments in order to serve as catalysts for further improvements to materials, approach, and delivery, as will be discussed in the next section. Comment Respondents The materials were helpful. 3 The pronunciation course was too difficult. 3 I wanted more in-class help with pronunciation. 3 I want to continue working on my pronunciation. 3 Figure 9: Final Moodle questionnaire comments Comment Respondents I can understand pronunciation better than before. 4 The materials were helpful. 4 The detailed explanations were helpful. 2 I liked studying at my own pace. 2 I like that this class focused on pronunciation. 2 I am more aware of my pronunciation now. 1 I liked using the internet to study pronunciation. 1 Figure 10: Comments from end-of-semester class survey Discussion This exploratory project was envisioned as a way for students to (a) develop their metalinguistic knowledge of English pronunciation, (b) gain familiarity with cognitive and metacognitive strategies for improving their pronunciation, (c) develop self-monitoring skills, (d) develop phonological competency, and (e) work on goals 1-4 individually and at their own pace. Whether the project has met any of these goals and in what ways is up for debate; however, I think there is a case to be made for this type of environment to support the independent learning of pronunciation. First, metalinguistic knowledge of phonetics and phonology is gained by learning about the features of not only the target language but also one’s mother tongue. Students were exposed to information, through a variety of media, explicitly drawing their attention to pronunciation features. I believe that comments in which students report understanding something better or now being able to understand a specific highlighted feature are evidence that these students are on their way to developing cognitive awareness of English pronunciation that can be put to use in their practice of English listening or speaking. Ideally I think it would be best if future participants in the course were also enrolled in a class that spent some classroom time on communicative activities to supply students with a natural environment for further pronunciation practice. Cognitive and metacognitive strategies for pronunciation were introduced inductively throughout the modules. These included those cognitive PLS mentioned in Peterson (2000) such as listening to and imitating English speakers, practicing through repetition, talking aloud or silently to oneself, noticing the position of articulators, noticing contrasts between the target language and your mother tongue, LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) 29 JALT学習者ティヘロフメントSIGの会報 and metacognitive PLS such as learning about phonology and phonetics, focusing on particular sounds, or listening to one’s own pronunciation (possible in EC). Although there is some evidence in the comments that students were beginning to use these strategies, I think more research is needed as it is unclear if students had just used the strategies within the limited confines of the online environment or if they had indeed acquired them and started applying them in other learning or communicative situations. Furthermore, since students were not given a PLS battery at the start of the semester, it remains unclear whether some students were already using these strategies especially as they are not often introduced in junior and senior high school. Monitoring skills are theorized to rest upon phonetic and phonological awareness (Pawlak, 2010; Vitanova, 2002), so it is possible that those students whose metalinguistic awareness of English was strengthened by the pronunciation course could also have developed or strengthened their ability to self-monitor, and again there are a few comments from students who reported actively trying to pay attention to specific pronunciation features. However, more detailed and experimental classroom research is needed to discover if the course really realizes this goal as well as to measure the existence of this skill before the start of the course. Phonological competency is a very large area and one that takes years to develop. Pennington's (1994) research asserts that "the typical case in L2 acquisition seems to be that learners approach new values for phonological features gradually and piecemeal, rather than as the outcome of a rapid shift" (p.95), meaning that a single lesson is not going to awaken some large and powerful shift in phonological competence. Although it would be difficult to provide evidence of gains in phonological competency as a result of this course; I believe the online course did lay the groundwork for improvement by providing students with an environment in which to develop their metalinguistic knowledge, use of PLS, and self-monitoring ability. With the additional out-of-class work as well as short communicative speaking opportunities in the listening classroom, I am not surprised that 87% of students reported that they felt their pronunciation had improved. Once again, controlled, longitudinal investigation is needed to measure change in both production and perhaps students’ personal approaches to pronunciation learning to see how effective the course has been in achieving this goal. Finally, was this environment conducive to independent learning? Looking at the number of students who completed all or a significant portion of the lessons, I believe it may not have been. My initial approach may have been a contributing factor in dissuading people from undertaking the pronunciation course because students at this level were overwhelmingly unprepared to study the topics in English. The addition of Japanese explanations improved student understanding, but perhaps it was too late. A second reason could be the lack of in-class guidance related to the pronunciation modules of which many students seemed eager for in their comments. Unfortunately, my classroom situation limited the amount of explicit, individualized pronunciation teaching that could be done because our limited class time was already committed to vocabulary and comprehension quizzes and listening and speaking activities. To remedy the lack of individualized feedback, I created a forum on Moodle and encouraged students to ask questions there or come to my office and talk with me, but none used either support line. As a topic, suprasegmentals seemed to be easier to digest in an online environment, but one of the reasons could be that every week students had a lot of opportunities to hear comprehensible English in EC and VOA assignments and notice the features that were being introduced. Segmentals, especially vowels, proved to be harder, and I have since become aware of an online resource that I would like to introduce to students for improving the perception and production of vowel sounds (http://www.englishaccentcoach.com/). One improvement that needs to be made relates to the degree of freedom students have within the pronunciation course. The modules in the course were required and linear, and a new module was introduced every week. This means students worked at my pace although I had hoped that they would work at their own. This could be allievated by providing a can-do survey or test related to pronunciation features or to specific goals allowing access to a related module with explanations and activities. Modules also should include more activities, explanations, and materials. Although students did comment that diagrams and charts were helpful, audio recordings that provided students with an opportunity to hear a non-Japanese English speaker and video recordings of Japanese explanations seemed to have had a greater impact on students. However, the non-Japanese samples used in the Moodle course featured only my voice, which could mean that students had grown accustomed to my 30 LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) Newsletter of the JALT Learner Development SIG speech and generalized phonological competence could be limited. Therefore, future versions of the course need to provide exposure to a variety of male and female voices from various English backgrounds. Finally, a review module could be made freely accessible for students wanting more guidance and practice in a specific area at any given time. The original intention for the data collected in this study was to feed back into future modules and incarnations of the pronunciation course, so there are obvious flaws in how the data was gathered and analyzed and a lot of opportunity for future research. Nevertheless, much time and effort went into designing and creating this environment and the research that was undertaken to write this paper has made me feel that the investment has been worthwhile and is worthy of further pursuit. In the future, I hope I can continue to develop the course and design empirical research studies specifically looking at the development of self-monitoring skills and the use of pronunciation learning strategies within this or a similar environment. Mathew Porter has been working with English learners in the U.S. and Japan since 1999. He currently works at a self-access learning center and is making a transition from classroom teacher to learning advisor, which has been a great opportunity for reflection and growth. References Abe, H. (2009). The effect of interactive input enhancement on the acquisition of the English connected speech by Japanese college students. In M. Ashby & J. Maidment (eds.), Phonetics Teaching and Learning Proceedings. University College London. Retrieved from http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/ptlc/proceedings/ ptlcpaper_29e.pdf Abe, H. (2011). Effects of form-focused instruction on the acquisition of weak forms by Japanese EFL learners. The 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS XVII) Proceedings. Hong Kong. Retrieved from http://www.icphs2011.hk/resources/ OnlineProceedings/RegularSession/Abe/Abe.pdf Bailly, S. (2010). Supporting autonomy development in online learning environments. In M.J. Luzon, M.N. Ruiz-Madrid, & M.L. Villanueva, (eds.), Digital Genres, New Literacies and Autonomy in Language Learning (pp. 81-99). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Beasom, S. (2011). Aspects of phonological competence in Japanese EFL learners. Accents Asia, 4(1), 36-59. Retrieved from http://www.accentsasia.org/4-1/beasom.pdf Best, C. & Strange, W. (1992). Effects of phonological and phonetic factors on cross-language perception of approximants. Journal of Phonetics, 20, 305-330. Bongaerts, T., Van Summeren, C. Planken, B. & Schils, E. (1997). Age and ultimate attainment in the pronunciation of a foreign language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(4), 447-465. DOI 10.1017/S0272263197004026 Bradlow, A., Akahane-Yamada, R., Pisoni, D.B., & Tohkura, Y. (1999). Training Japanese listeners to identify English /r/and /l/: Long-term retention of learning in perception and production. Perception & Psychophysics, 61(5), 977-985. Celce-Murcia, M, Brinton, D.M., & Goodwin J.M. (1996). Teaching Pronunciation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Derwing, T.M., Murray J.M., & Munro, G.W. (1998). Evidence in Favor of a Broad Framework for Pronunciation Instruction. Language Learning, 48(3), 393-410. DOI: 10.1111/0023-8333.00047 Derwing, T.M. &Rossiter, M.J. (2002). ESL learners’ perceptions of their pronunciation needs and strategies. System, 30, 155–166. DOI: 10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00012-X Eckstein, G.T. (2007). A correlation of pronunciation learning strategies with spontaneous English pronunciation of adult ESL learners. Unpublished MA thesis. Brigham Young University, Provo, UT. Retrieved from http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/ETD/image/ etd1973.pdf. Flege, J.E., (1995). Second Language Speech Learning Theory, Findings, and Problems. In W. Strange (ed.), Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-Language Research. (pp. 233-277). Timonium, MD: York Press. Flege, J.E., Takagi, N., & Mann V. (1996). Lexical familiarity and English-language experience affect Japanese adults’ perception of /?/ and /l/. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 99(2), 1161-1173. Flege, J.E., Frieda, E.M., & Takeshi, N. (1997a). Amount of native-language (L1) useaffects the pronunciation of an L2. Journal of Phonetics, 25(2), 169-186. DOI: 10.1006/jpho.1996.0040 Flege, J.E., Bohn, O.S., & Jang, S. (1997b). Effects of experience on non-native speakers’production and perception of English vowels. Journal of Phonetics, 25(4), 437-470. DOI: 10.1006/jpho.1997.0052 LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) 31 JALT学習者ティヘロフメントSIGの会報 Fraser, H. (2006). Helping teachers help students with pronunciation: A cognitive approach. Prospect, 21(1), 80-97. Hahn, L.D. (2004). Primary stress an intelligibility: Research to motivate the teaching of suprasegmentals. TESOL Quarterly, 38(2), 201-223. Hartshorn, J. (2006). Pronunciation Matters: English Consonant Production by AUAP Students. Asia University Publication CELE Journal, 14, 1-8. Retrieved from http://www.asia-u.ac.jp/cele/ cele_assets/CELE20Journal%202006%20Vol%2014/002Ponunciation%20Matters%20AUAP%20 James.pdf Ingels, S.A. (2011). The effects of self-monitoring strategy use on the pronunciation of learners of English. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, Champaign, IL. Retrieved from http://apling. public.iastate.edu/PSLLT/2009/ingels.pdf Kochiyama, M. (2011). Status of English Pronunciation Teaching in Teacher-Training Courses: A Survey of University Syllabi in Kinki Area. Conference Proceedings of the Japan Association for Language Education & Technology. Nagoya. Luzon, M.J., Ruiz-Madrid, M.N. (2010). Webtasks for the development of language learner autonomy in the digital environment. In M.J. Luzon, M.N. Ruiz-Madrid, & M.L. Villanueva, (eds.), Digital Genres, New Literacies and Autonomy in Language Learning (pp. 81-99). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Martin, A. (2004). The ‘katakana effect’ and teaching English in Japan. English Today 77, 20 (1), 5055. DOI 10.1017/S0266078404001087 Martohardjono, G. & Flynn S. (1995). Is there an age factor for universal grammar? In D. Singleton & Z. Lengyel (eds.), The Age Factor in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 135-153). Bristol, PA, Multilingual Matters, Ltd. Morley, J. (1991). The pronunciation component in teaching English to speakers of other languages. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 481-520. Munro, M., & Derwing, T. (1995). Processing time, accent, and comprehensibility in the perception of native and foreign-accented speech. Language and Speech, 38(3), 289-306. DOI 10.1177/002383099503800305 Nakashima, T. (2006). Intelligibility, suprasegmentals, and L2 pronunciation instruction for EFL Japanese learners. Fukuoka Kyouiku Daigaku Kiyou [Bulletin of Fukuoka University of Education], 55(1) 27-42. Retrieved from http://libopa.fukuoka-edu.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/10780/14/1/1003.pdf Neufeld, G. (1977). Language learning ability in adults: A study of the acquisition of prosodic and articulatory features. (Report No. FL 008 393) Toronto, ON: Department of the Secretary of State, Ottawa. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 135 233). Retrieved from ERIC database. http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED135233.pdf Nunan, D. (1998). Listen In: The student’s book 1. Singapore: InternationalThomson Publishing. Osbourne, A.G. (2003). Pronunciation strategies of advanced ESOL learners. IRAL International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 41(2), 131-143. DOI 0.1515/iral.2003.005 Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Pawlak, M. (2010). Designing and piloting a tool for the measurement of the use of pronunciation learning strategies. Research in Language, 8, 189-202. DOI 10.2478/v10015-010-0005-6 Pawlak, M (2011). Students' successes and failures in learning foreign language pronunciation: Insights from diary data. In J. Arabski & A. Wojtaszek (eds.), The Acquisition of L2 Phonology (pp. 165-182). Bristol: Mulitlingual Matters. Pennington, M. (1999). Computer-Aided Pronunciation Pedagogy: Promise, Limitations, Directions. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 12(5), 427–440. Pennington, M. & Ellis, N. (2000). Cantonese speakers' memory for English sentences with prosodic cues. The Modern Language Journal, 84(3), 372-389. Peterson, S (2000). Pronunciation learning strategies: A first look. (Report No. FL 026 618) (ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 450 599) Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ ED450599.pdf Repp, B.H. & Liberman, A.M. (1987). Phonetic category boundaries are flexible. In S. Harnad (ed.), Categorical Perception (pp. 89-112). Cambridge: University Press. Rogerson-Revell, P. (2011). English Phonology and Pronunciation Teaching. New York: Continuum. Saito, K & Lyster, R (2011). Effects of Form-Focused Instruction and Corrective Feedback on L2 Pronunciation Development of /r/* by Japanese Learners of English. Language Learning [online], 1-39. DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00639.x 32 LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) Newsletter of the JALT Learner Development SIG Tanner, M. W. & Landon, M. M. (2009). The effects of computer-assisted pronunciation readings on ESL learners’ use of pausing, stress, intonation, and overall comprehensibility. Language Learning & Technology, 13 (3), 51-65. DOI 10.1002/ana.22485 Tatham, M & Morton, K. (2011). Speech Production and Perception. Edinburgh: University Press. Thompson, T. & Gaddes, M (2005). The importance of teaching pronunciation to adult learners. Asian EFL Journal, 2. Retrieved from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/pta_feb_04_mgtt.php Thomson, R. I. (2012, to appear). Pronunciation and the brain: Using research to inform practice. Contact. TESL Ontario Research Symposium Special Issue. Thomson, R. I. (2012, March). English Accent Coach: Not quite a fairy godmother for pronunciation instruction, but a step in the right direction. Contact 38(1), 18-24. Tsujimura, N (2007). An Introduction to Japanese Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. Varasarin, P. (2007). An Action Research Study of Pronunciation Training, Language Learning Strategies and Speaking Confidence. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Victoria University, Melbourne. Retrieved from http://vuir.vu.edu.au/1437/1/Varasarin.pdf Vitanova, G. & Miller, A. (2002). Reflective practice in pronunciation learning. The Internet TESL Journal, 8(1). Wrembel, M. (2005). Metacompetence-oriented Model of Phonological Acquisition: Implications for the Teaching and Learning of Second Language Pronunciation. Phonetics Teaching and Learning Proceedings. London University: University College London. Retrieved from http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/ ptlc2005.html/ Wrembel M. (2008). In search of effective strategies for L2 pronunciation teaching and learning. In M. Pawlak (ed.), Investigating English Language Learning and Teaching (pp.179-194). Poznan Kalisz: Faculty of Pedagogy and Fine Arts in Kalisz, UAM. Appendix 1 I’d like to ask you about the online pronunciation course so that I can find ways to improve it. Please answer the questions below. There is no right answer and your responses are anonymous. Thank you very much for your help. 1. Did you complete the entire module? 2. In the next section, I’d like to ask you how much do you agree or disagree with the statements below. Click on a number from 1 to 5. 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neither agree nor disagree 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly agree This module was easy. I think studying this is meaningful. I was able to understand. I want to study this more deeply. I want it to be explained more. I want you to use more Japanese (English*). 3. Please use the space below to write any comments or suggestions you have. *From the fourth module. Appendix 2 I’d like to ask about your beliefs and behavior in regard to this English 1 course. Please answer the questions below. There is no right answer and your responses are anonymous. Thank you very much for your help. 1. Read the statements below and answer (1) yes, (2) no, or (3) no change. I think I did better on TOEIC this time. I think my listening ability has improved. LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) 33 JALT学習者ティヘロフメントSIGの会報 I think my vocabulary has increased. I think I like English more. I think I have gotten used to listening to English. I think my pronunciation has improved. 2. Read the statements below and answer (1) always, (2) sometimes, or (3) never. I did the vocabulary journal homework. I did the self-study homework from the textbook. I listened to and read the VOA short story. I just listened to the VOA short story. I just read the VOA short story. I did English Central. I did the pronunciation homework. 3. Read the statements below and answer (1) yes, (2) no, or (3) no change. The vocabulary journal homework was helpful. The self-study homework from the textbook was helpful. The VOA short story was helpful. English Central was helpful. The pronunciation homework was helpful. 4. Complete the statements below with one of the following words: (1) easy, (2) hard, or (3) just right. The vocabulary journal homework was The self-study homework from the textbook was The VOA short story was English Central was The pronunciation homework was 5. Please use the space below to write any comments or suggestions you have for next semester. 34 LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) Newsletter of the JALT Learner Development SIG Feature Article フィチャード アーテイクル Private tuition as a learning format for Japanese adult learners of L2 English 日 本 人 成 人 の L2 英 語 学 習 者 の た め の 学 習 形 式 と し て の個人教授 Lee Arnold Hoshi University, Seigakuin University, Shibaura Institute of Technology リー・アーノルド 星薬科大学,聖学院大学,芝浦工業大学 Abstract: Japanese learners of L2 English in secondary and higher education have often been characterized as group-oriented and risk-averse. Yet adult Japanese continue with L2 development for necessary employment and career purposes, often in private lessons, to an extent that may contradict stereotypical characterizations. While commercial language schools have responded to such needs and interests for adults, cost is often a factor. Adult learners are nonetheless seeking this format both inside and outside of commercial ELT, perhaps with a latent desire for learner autonomy and a rationale grounded in adult life experience. Such desire, with life experience as a component, may enrich the profile of Japanese learners across the board if taken into account, and may elevate oneon-one lessons into a broader scheme of private tuition for adult L2 learning. Keywords: Japanese adult learners, private lessons, private tuition, andragogy キーワード： 日本人成人学習者、個人レッスン、個人教授、アンドラゴジー(成人教育学) 要 旨 : 中等及び高等教育において英語を第二言語(L2)として学ぶ日本人は、「集団主義的」且つ「危 機回避的」と特徴づけられることが多い。しかし、成人の学習者は雇用維持や昇進の目的でL2学習を 継続し、多くは個人授業を通してこのような既成のイメージには一致しないレベルに達している。こ のような成人のニーズや関心には、民間の語学学校が対応しているが、費用がしばしば問題となる。 それでもなお成人の学習者は、民間の英語教育機関の内外で、この学習形式(個人教授)を求めている。 これはおそらく自律的学習を潜在的に求めているためであり、且つ成人としての人生経験に基づいた 理由からであろう。このような欲求が存在することを考慮することで、我々は、日本人学習者が全般 的にどのような特徴を持つのか理解を深めることができる。また、成人のL2学習のための個人教授と いう広い視野の中で、マンツーマンレッスンの地位向上に貢献しうる。 A llwright's (1995) paper on the social context of classroom language learning highlighted a dynamic that he believed had gone largely unnoticed: the potentially negative influence of L2 learners in groups on individual L2 learners. He traced this lack of attention to the striving in second language acquisition (SLA) studies for research legitimacy in applied linguistics rather than education, and to a preoccupation with details of methodology and psycholinguistic accounts of SLA. Such details increasingly, and ironically, centered on the what the individual underwent, rather than the role social interaction played, in the SLA process. This had the effect, in his view, of ignoring the classroom as a social setting in its own right and how social dynamics shaped the learner (p. 7). In Japanese ELT contexts, however, the social dynamic is significant to the extent that some teachers, especially those new to the country, may see individual Japanese learners as defined by the group so completely as to be unable to rise above it. In such a view, the needs of the individual may be seen as lesser in importance to the needs of the group, reinforcing Allwright's (1985) concerns all the more and circulating an image of Japanese as ultimately too dependent on the group to be capable of full L2 mastery. LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) 35 JALT学習者ティヘロフメントSIGの会報 Yet if such an assumption of group definition is even true, it is true only part of the time. Mainstream Japanese university research in English, understandably focused on its predominantly late-teens/early-twenties learner demographic, overlooks what many Japanese may be capable of achieving in the L2 once they leave higher education and make their way into the working world. Indeed, Japanese adults must often continue L2 development for the purpose of real-life engagement across a spectrum of public and private interests wherever the L2 is required. Given the action, choices and demands involved, there is no room for passivity or inhibition. For adult learners, the joys and difficulties of their lives may form a powerful source of L2 motivation and development. Yet such a source is still largely untapped as a basis for expanding the sense that Japanese are ultimately more capable of realizing greater L2 learner development than what they have often been given credit for. This paper will therefore explore Japanese adult L2 learner capability by way of a format that may draw the most from their life experience - the private lesson. Such a framework could potentially serve as a developmental context for the autonomy that fits with adult learner orientation, unobstructed by negative social dynamics and connected to the bottom-up initiative that adult deliberation calls for. The following will be an account of two adult learners I have had in private lessons – one at a language school where I was once employed, and the other in a private arrangement. A reflection on two adult learners Dr. Takeda (a pseudonym) was a highly educated medical science professional in a hospital affiliated with a medical school northeast of Tokyo. In once-a-week sessions, he made it clear from our first meeting about how the lessons should go and what materials he wanted to use. While the materials were recommended by the school, he had a sense as to what he wanted from them - specifically, smoother spoken output with improved pronunciation and grammatical cohesion. While I privately questioned such emphasis given how proficient he already seemed, I agreed to work with him on these terms. In each lesson, we would work through some structures he was comfortable in as warm-up activities towards his target structures. He insisted on repeated dialog pair practice with me on these structures, and based on these forms we would create new personalized conversations, with work on pronunciation points if needed. As the year continued, we would deal with readings in the text with these forms as his confidence grew. He challenged me on the structures and insisted on deeper answers for their rationale and use. Any preparation on my part soon focused more on supplementary exercises, including my own materials which centered on particular structures and their use. He showed me, progressively over time, what his particular goal for the week's session was. He knew how to discuss issues in his field; he was drawing from the outside as a way of attending to what doubts he may still have had with his output. I soon stopped assigning homework; he did it without being asked. At the end of the year, when my schedule was to change and I could no longer continue our lessons together, he brought me a box of Belgian chocolates and a letter of praise to the school director about my work. A few years later, a private student I had taken on directly was similarly unique for the reflective character he brought to bear. Mr. Nishimura (also a pseudonym) was a young minister in a church who expected to be sent to Canada for a number of years with his wife and infant daughter. His aim was discussion on topics of his choosing with social issues, particularly those that overlapped with what he expected to hear from his Canadian church members should he be posted there. He had selected a reading text and had ideas about what he wanted from it, and while I believed it was suited for him, I advised him to push beyond it into discussion based on reflection of the topics themselves, rather than weekly updates on what he had read. He undertook this eagerly and soon began emailing me in advance on what he would talk about from a particular reading, saying that this would enable us to focus on discussion in our sessions. While he wanted to hear my thoughts on these issues, he also wanted feedback on how well he had presented himself in his talk on them and how thought-out a certain view on an issue at hand had been. He told me that he did not expect me to agree with him, and sometimes I did not – but that was 36 LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) Newsletter of the JALT Learner Development SIG not central to the aim of our sessions. I nonetheless advised him on how he might handle himself with those who may disagree and push things with him with strategies that would be most useful in such cases. Based on his own initiative, he began using such points in discussion, asking for critiques on them. I began emailing him these critiques, which he then replied to in unsolicited but well-thought reflections that sometimes showed change in his views. He eventually received his assignment to Canada, thanking me in a card for our sessions and confident that his English came away substantially improved. Both of these learners brought a sense of purpose, great confidence, initiative and determination to their learning, even with any doubts they may have had in areas of their language. The case of Dr. Takeda in particular fits with Krashen's (2006) description of the autonomous language acquirer, in terms of the vigorous pro-activity in execution he shared with Mr. Nishimura in what he wanted to achieve in the L2. If fully maximized in these terms, the one-on-one setting for adult learners moves away from a group lesson tailored to one person towards an individualized vehicle more like an ongoing tutorial. It may therefore be better to refer to it as private tuition, and requires a different approach by a teacher and realization by the learner engaged in it. The notion of an individualized learning scheme may nonetheless be problematic, and calls for a review of issues that may negate the effects of private tuition. Issues of private tuition The marketability of private lessons in commercial ELT may admittedly represent a personalization of choice among learners in that connectedness to the instructor, particularly the native-speaker, and the L2 can be bought, reinforcing the notion of learners as consumers. As many English conversation schools also tend to charge more for one-on-one lessons than in groups, a narrow learner base may only be reached – namely, middle-class corporate workers with the disposable income for such lessons. The greater learner capability that the one-on-one format may show promise for may therefore not develop over a wider range of adult learners. In addition, the type of psychosocial dependence with a corresponding expectation of indulgence identified by Doi (1973) as peculiar among Japanese, explored further by Befu (1983), Clancy (1986), and McDaniel (2005), and treated as an aspect in a number of L2 learning issues involving Japanese by Bohn (2004), Doyon (2000, 2003), Pritchard (1995) and Yoneoka (2000) may indeed play a role in hampering learner capability even into the adult years, to a degree that the private lesson format may not be able to remedy. While outside of ELT, Hofstede's concept of uncertainty avoidance (1980), which emerged from his insights about the scope of interaction within cultural boundaries, has bearing as well. His uncertainty avoidance index (1991) expanded this concept further; on this scale, countries and their cultures were gauged on the degree that withdrawal from ambiguous or uncomfortable outcomes within sociocultural interactions are permitted to individuals. In his findings, he ranked Japan somewhat highly for the great importance attached by a significant number of Japanese to procedure and certainty in outcome over ranges of interaction across business, educational and other societal settings and situations (Hofstede, 1991). Doyon (2000) also provides an account of shyness in the Japanese university L2 classroom that may be formidable as a learning barrier. He traces this phenomenon to the compulsory educational years, particularly on the secondary level, where student performance appears to be evaluated to a degree that goes beyond learning and into the assessment of students themselves as people; as a result, low self-esteem can arise in many students, with the possible result of a performance-oriented dependence on the approval of others, especially those in authority (p. 13). As most Japanese leaving school will have likely gone through such an orientation, those teaching in higher education will receive what it may produce – hesitant, easily overwhelmed and fearful learners who may be unlikely to develop a heartfelt love of learning free from external approval. Breaking through issues and stereotypes Given the economic and sociocultural obstacles present, why are adult learners still seeking out oneon-one learning? One explanation is that dissatisfaction with the typical group lesson may have emerged and that they have perceived a learning format they can engage in within a safe haven, where proactive effort can be freed. With regard to the learners in my reflection this may have been the case, as they controlled the question of their learning, but on their terms and time. More importantly, it may be possible that they are seeking out this format as a release from the social LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) 37 JALT学習者ティヘロフメントSIGの会報 tensions Allwright (1995) points out. They may have accepted the interpersonal risks that can come with one-on-one interaction as a price that must be paid in order to break through the L2 pain barrier, perhaps even coming to feel that such a barrier is best broken away from their peers. On these terms, a more meaningful conception of private tuition is enhanced when it maximizes greater release from such psychosocial tensions and sets learners as agents who can shape their learning. The negative influence of the group in the L2 classroom what Allwright found may be seen as a network of patterns among individuals in relation to groups – perhaps of value in tracing certain aspects of behavior in relation to other learners, but falling short when examining individual learners. Indeed, accounts of dependence, avoidance and shyness may even be unhelpful when we look at adult learners themselves, let alone men and women with rights and responsibilities. On those terms, if Japanese adult learners are to be taken with their existential characteristics into consideration, tropes of dependence, avoidance and shyness must be put aside. Even more, there must be a departure from the temptation to see these elements as forming a narrative about Japanese as a whole. Only then will it be possible to see them in their own right as workers, professionals, spouses, parents, travelers and returnees to Japan. Ultimately, for Japanese adult life to meet the demands placed upon it, the group dynamic may not hold sway in the long run. An account by Kirk (1999) of adult students admitted into EFL classes at a regional university in southwest Japan demonstrate the advantages they bring in interaction, motivation, and networking to their younger classmates. If such students can have this kind of impact in a higher educational context, what might be gained by explicitly seeking it out in a one-on-one format? Realities of adult learners and Knowles' andragogy The lives of adult Japanese living and working within the current social and economic realities of Japan may be increasingly contradicting stereotypical images. Those who have left the country for travel or extended living and working situations more often than not return changed from their engagement with foreign cultures. Many are increasingly forced into changing jobs and careers as well given the erosion of traditional patterns of lifetime employment. The societal pressures that may have given rise to certain psychosocial conditions in the past may now be gradually breaking down - or being engaged with by a newer type of Japanese adult, one more resilient. In the light of such realities, teachers could ask who these learners are in their work experiences, career paths and daily lives. Indeed, what are they looking for? What has been the character of their previous learning and life experience? Where do they wish to position their current and future L2 use? What is in the research literature that will help us to understand who they are? Adult life experience may be expressed within such learners consciously or not, because such experience goes to the heart of who they are as people. Such questions were raised by Knowles (1973), in holding that adult learners situate their learning in relation to their life experience. This was the culmination of his research on the differences between adults and children in learning styles, and rounded out his body of thought about adult learning, dubbed andragogy, or the education of adults (Knowles, 1970; Merriam & Caffarella, 1991). To Knowles, the adult learner is driven by a sense of application that is direct, immediate, and instrumental, centered in the way “(...) both programmed experiences (psychotherapy, adult education) and unprogrammed experiences (marriage, child rearing, occupational activities) produce deep-seated changes in the ways adults approach problems, handle risk and organize their thinking” (p. 46). Knowles' scheme is grounded in a North American context of individualism and bottom-up initiative that seems at odds with Japanese sociocultural patterns. Yet what may reconcile these seemingly opposed sources is an instrumental focus that may possess cross-cultural applicability. Such focus draws from an adult what a given situation may require – something that demands, for example, as much from the new recruit at a Japanese company as it does from his or her counterpart overseas. The ability to handle what emerges may therefore be a sign of mature adult development regardless of cultural contexts and societal factors. Extending this line, he proposed that one's readiness to learn coincided with one's developmental maturity towards the assumption of social roles: 38 LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) Newsletter of the JALT Learner Development SIG This assumption is that as an individual matures, his readiness to learn is decreasingly the product of his biological development and academic pressure and is increasingly the product of the developmental tasks required for the performance of his evolving social roles. In a sense, pedagogy assumes that children are ready to learn those things they “ought” to because of their biological and academic development, whereas andragogy assumes that learners are ready to learn those things they “need” to because of the developmental phases they are approaching in their roles as workers, spouses, parents, organizational members and leaders, leisure time users, and the like (1973, pp. 46-47). How may private tuition bring this formulation into Japanese adult learning contexts, especially with regard to the existential characteristics of learners? It may be best imported through a focus on the content of adult experience, contextualized into L2 areas most relevant for the learner, and on the character of communication that most fully brings out the richness of such content. Structure and features of private tuition While private tuition may not necessarily be about conversation, the character of discussion, either to personalize the content of lessons, or as an extension of themes within it, is central on three counts: first, in the freer range of discussion and engagement that will be opened up from the nature of oneon-one interaction; second, from the way that alternatives to the grammar-orientation in much Japanese instruction of L2 English can be explored; and third, in how context frames the spoken discourse that occurs in analytical and practical terms. Brown (2000) points out that the rules governing conversation, even where they belong to a fundamental area of linguistic competence in the learner's L1, have been given little attention in the L2 classroom (p. 255). Attention-getting, topic nomination, topic development, and topic termination, with skills such as turn-taking and clarification, are culturally-specific and may not always transcend cultural boundaries. Grice (1967) gave what Brown calls conversational “maxims” that form a four-point guide for topic development, clarification, and maintenance that may aid in bridging such gaps: 1. Quantity: Say only as much as is necessary for understanding the communication. 2. Quality: Say only what is true. 3. Relevance: Say only what is relevant. 4. Manner: Be clear. (cited in Brown, 2000, p. 257) Where conversation may make the whole, or even part, of content, Guest (1998) argues against the use of written forms as models. His corrective focuses on ellipsis, in how it shows what the L2 and L1 have in common with regard to unmarked forms and other less complex structures. In his view, ignoring spoken forms in favor of so-called “standard” language not only tends to overemphasize the differences between the L1 and L2 at their greatest points of divergence, but circulates a false image of the L2 to the extent that it “may increase psychological barriers to acquisition” (p. 22). His response is concise: “Freeing students from unnecessarily complex grammatical deliberation by focusing on the common shortcuts and interpersonal features of English that are manifest in spoken grammar (SG) can serve to lessen possible resultant cross-cultural misunderstandings and interpersonal friction” (p. 22). In choice of material, the previous reference to Krashen's (2006) autonomous language acquirer may, at least in some cases, fit the characterization of some adult learners and make room for a similar degree of liberation in content. His analysis of the potential of narrow listening and reading for pleasure holds promise for the autonomous acquirer (p. 4-5); the focus that may be enabled was realized by my two learners in their approach to their material even given their more instrumental purposes, and may suit a wider range of adult learners in one-on-one interaction as well. When taken further with the conversational features described, more meaningful discussion from such material may be realized. Rights and responsibilities in private tuition The question still remains on what is there to prevent individualized tuition from becoming a reinforcement, rather than a release, from any misconceptions of learner role or L2 learning an adult student may have. Could this prevent a learner from drawing on the fullness of his or her social roles as valuable assets? What indeed is there to prevent individualized tuition from enabling dependence? Teachers must make it clear that private tuition still calls on learners to draw from the changes LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) 39 JALT学習者ティヘロフメントSIGの会報 Knowles (1973) captured that leads to adult response to situational events. Yet given the expectations attached that are still reasonably within what adult responsibility can handle, there is little room for dependence or avoidance, as the purpose of the format will be defeated. To summarize, here is a set of guidelines for both teachers and learners that may be used to structure an individualized plan of tuition. For learners: 1. Private tuition gives an adult learner the right and responsibility to control the method and content of learning. 2. Private tuition necessitates proactive effort by the learner to a greater degree than in group lessons. 3. Private tuition requires the learner's life experience to form some part of its content. For teachers: 1. Private tuition calls on the teacher to be a cooperator and facilitator with the adult learner. 2. Private tuition necessitates as much thinking on the part of a teacher as that of group lessons. 3. Private tuition dictates proactive thinking by the teacher to respond to a learner's direction. These guidelines can be laid out with prospective students as conditions of private tuition, with room for more to be added. As a whole, they can form the structure for a plan tailored for a learner that dictates equal input from both sides. Conclusion What Japanese adult L2 learners may be capable of achieving in private tuition, despite sociocultural and economic barriers, may make it worth more than what it has previously been conceived. Yet its true measure comes when there is understanding about how private tuition differs from group lessons, placement of learners and their life experience at the center, and clarity by both teachers and learners on what it calls for. The maturation of Japanese adult learners from their life experience and the learning orientation it may result in could nonetheless enable them to realize greater autonomy. Lee Arnold is a part-time lecturer in the Hoshi University General Studies Department in pharmaceutical English, the Seigakuin University English Communication Arts program, and the Shibaura Institute of Technology Department of Engineering English program. He has been living and working in Japan since 1997, first in Ibaraki and Chiba prefectures, and since 2007, in Tokyo. He holds a Graduate Certificate in Education and an M.Ed. (Honours) in TESOL from the University of Tasmania and his research interests are in adult language learning, and vocabulary organization for enhanced reading comprehension and speaking ability. References Allwright, R.L. (1995). Contextual factors in classroom language learning. Lancaster University Centre for Research in Language Education Working Papers, 35. Retrieved from http://www.ling.lancs. ac.uk/groups/crile/docs/crile35allwrigh.pdf Befu, H. (1983). Internationalization of Japan and nihon bunkaren. In H. Befu & H. Mannari (Eds.), The challenges of Japan's internationalization: Organization and culture (pp. 232-266). Osaka: Kwansei Gakuin University. Bohn, M.T. (2004). Japanese classroom behavior: A micro-analysis of self-reports versus classroom observations, with implications for language teachers. Applied Language Learning, 14(1), 1-35. Brown, H.D. (2000). Principles of language teaching and learning (2nd ed.). New York: Longman. Clancy, P.M. (1986). The acquisition of communicative style in Japanese. In B. Shieffelin & E. Ochs (Eds.), Language socialization across cultures (pp. 213-250). New York: Cambridge University Press. Doi, T. (1973). The anatomy of dependence. New York: Kodansha America. Doyon, P. (2000). Shyness in the Japanese EFL class: Why it is a problem, what it is, what causes it, and what to do about it. The Language Teacher, 24(1), 11-17. Doyon, P. (2003). Enhancing value perception in the Japanese EFL classroom. Asian-EFL-Journal, 5(1). Retrieved from http://www.tesol-journal. com/march03.sub5b.htm Grice, H.P. (1967). Logic and conversation. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Berkeley. Guest, M. (1998). Spoken grammar: Easing the transitions. The Language Teacher, 22(6), 21-24. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills: Sage. 40 LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) Newsletter of the JALT Learner Development SIG Hofstede, G. (1991). Culture and organisations. London: McGraw-Hill. Kirk, D. T. (1999). Andragogy in English as a foreign language classes at Prefectural University of Kumamoto. Journal of the Prefectural University of Kumamoto Administration, 6(1), 55-67. Knowles, M.S. (1970). The modern practice of adult education: Andragogy versus pedagogy. New York: Association Press. Knowles, M.S. (1973). The adult learner: A neglected species. Houston: Gulf. Krashen, S. (2006). The autonomous language acquirer (ALA): Definition, rationale, and some suggestions. In E.M. Skier & M. Kohyama (Eds.), More autonomy you ask! (Learner and teacher autonomy in Japan 2) (pp. 1-8). Tokyo: JALT. McDaniel, E.R. (2005). Japanese nonverbal communication: A reflection on cultural themes. In L.A. Samovar, R.E. Porter & E.R. McDaniel (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 266-274). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Merriam, S.B., & Caffarella, R.S. (1991). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pritchard, R.M.O. (1995). Amae and the Japanese learner of English: An action research study. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 8(3), 249-64. Yoneoka, J. (2000). What is a kokusaijin? A 10-year study. The Language Teacher, 24(9), 7-13. LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) 41 JALT学習者ティヘロフメントSIGの会報 Voices 読者の声 Autonomy Big and Small Phil Benson, The Hong Kong Institute of Education フィル・ベンソン 香港教育学院 Michael Mondejar, International University of Japan マイケル・モデジャー 国際大学 Jackie Suginaga, Komazawa Women’s University 杉長ジャッキー 駒沢女子大学 Keywords: autonomy, grammar, vocabulary, institutional education, demotivation, self-instruction, self-access, independent learning, self-access learning, democratic schools, technology and language development, project work キ ー ワ ー ド :自律学習、文法、語彙、学校教育、意欲喪失、独習、セルフアクセス、独立学習、セル フアクセス学習、デモクラティックスクール、技術と言語発達、プロジェクトワーク J ackie Suginaga and Michael Mondejar were thrilled and honoured to meet Phil Benson, one of the plenary speakers at the JALT national conference in Tokyo last November. As Phil has been a writer and researcher at the forefront of learner autonomy for many years, we wanted to interview him to get some insight into how his interest in autonomy started, how his ideas have evolved, and what advice he could give to teachers who wish to promote learner autonomy. Sitting down over coffee, Michael started the ball rolling with an important question… Michael: So why do you think promoting learner autonomy is important in second language acquisition? Phil: I think it’s important in learning and I think it’s especially important in second language acquisition because of this idea that really there’s no curriculum for a second language. If you’re going to learn a second language to a high level, first of all you have to do a lot of work outside the classroom and second, everybody’s going to learn in their own way, anyway. So, it’s that idea that second language acquisition is a very variable thing already, whether you are introducing autonomy or not. So, I believe that autonomy is important, because that’s what people need to do – they need to learn a language in their own way, to use it for what they want to use it for. Michael: How would you respond to people who have researched first language acquisition and have stated that people’s first language is acquired in stages? Wouldn’t those people say that you have to structure language learning in a certain way? Phil: Well, I don’t think that that idea is incompatible with autonomy. I mean, I myself would think that if I was learning a new language, I would want to learn the tense system, I would want to learn how to make singular and plural, those basic grammatical things. That’s how I was taught French at school, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But I think that that’s actually a very small part of learning a foreign language. So, I am not against the structure at all. I think there are some things that are better as structured. But in fact, I think that that can generally be done in a very short time. It’s the development - it’s going beyond that kind of beginner, intermediate stage and so on – that takes time and requires autonomy. In my own experience of teaching myself languages, I’ve started with a grammar book and tried to get on top of the grammar, the basic vocabulary, the kind of vocabulary you find in a list of common words. That doesn’t take long, but then that’s when the difficult part starts. I think you can also learn a language autonomously from the beginning. But what I’m saying really is that autonomy doesn’t mean that you have to learn everything autonomously and everything in a kind of deconstructed way. 42 LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) Newsletter of the JALT Learner Development SIG Michael: I wanted to ask you something that occurred to me when I read your book, Teaching and Researching Autonomy. Students who are already very motivated to learn a language, wouldn’t they automatically become autonomous? Phil: Well, I don’t think they would automatically become autonomous, because that’s something that schools and universities can discourage. I think institutional education often demotivates students. The biggest risk in education is that you will actually discourage the students rather than encourage them. But there is a link between motivation and autonomy, so I would agree that autonomy is perhaps more for motivated students than for less motivated students. There are also unmotivated students, right? There are students in language classes who really don’t want to learn those languages. I think autonomy means that students should be free to not learn a language, free to spend their time learning something else instead. We can take a step outside language learning and look at autonomy as having a choice about the kind of subjects we want to learn. This is the thing with English language teaching though, isn’t it? Everybody has to learn English, particularly in Asia. In Europe and the West, we talk about language aptitude – that is, some people are better at learning a language than other people. But in Asia, you rarely hear people talk about language aptitude. It just seems that everybody has to do it, and it’s how hard you work that determines your success. Jackie: Why did you first become interested in autonomy? Phil: The reason why I got interested in autonomy was because I myself would prefer self-instruction. I prefer to teach myself than to go to classes. I’ve learned Spanish, Portuguese and Italian in this way. I tried to learn Japanese and Cantonese too but had a lot less success with those. So, I guess I am pretty autonomous myself. That’s how I got interested in, first of all, self-access because when I went to Hong Kong it was to help set up a self-access center in Hong Kong University. I thought that that was a really great thing for me because this was the kind of thing that I would love to have myself. So, to help set something like that up for students was really interesting. Michael: Could you tell us more about the self-access center? Phil: Well, that was in the early 1990’s, and at that time they expanded the university education system. These were all English-medium universities, so when they expanded by about 20%, they were very concerned about the level of the English of the students. They gave a lot of funds to the universities for what they called “language enhancement”. Most of the universities at that time set up these self-access centers, with various degrees of success. I think the ones that have worked particularly well were City University, The Science and Technology University and the Polytechnic University. The one we worked in at Hong Kong University, it’s been OK, but we had a lot more difficulty than the other universities in terms of trying to integrate the self-access and the teaching together. I think other universities were more successful in doing that. Jackie: Would, for example, students research their own projects at the self-access center? And was this combined with some classroom teaching? Phil: Yes, we tried various things. For example we had a course where 60% was classroom teaching and 40% of the course was actually set up so that you could do what you want. You could choose to complete a project yourself, you would set targets or carry out the learning yourself, and keep a record, and so on. That kind of approach was less successful because there was a lack of connection between what students were doing in the classroom, which was mainly academic writing, and what they were doing in the self-access center, which would often be at a much lower level. At other universities they developed programs that were 100% self-access, and you could get credit for that. Michael: So there was no classroom instructor, or no classroom time? Phil: In some cases. There was a program called the Independent Learning Program at City University, where students could opt for that. The students had to take an English course, but they could opt to take it in a classroom or they could opt to take it through self access. If they opted to take LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) 43 JALT学習者ティヘロフメントSIGの会報 it through self-access, I think there was no classroom instruction. There may have been a kind of a learner-training workshop, but there was no curriculum, no set of skills that you had to improve – it was all self-directed. Jackie: But there was a teacher there for guidance? Phil: Yes. So, say if it was a classroom course, you would have 20 students in your class. If it was a self-access course, you would also have 20 students who you were responsible for. Michael: Was there any research in, say, gains in language proficiency? Phil: I’m pretty sure there wasn’t research on language proficiency, no. It would be really difficult to do because they were pretty short courses and the students are pretty advanced already when they go in, compared to other levels. At this age in Hong Kong, they have already done about 15 years of English classes, so it’s very difficult to measure their language proficiency anyway, and then if you are looking for an improvement over 10 weeks. There are some interesting articles written by Jean Young and her colleagues about that course. Jackie: With regards to teacher autonomy and learner autonomy, do you think that they are connected in any way? Phil: Well, I should say that I understand what learner autonomy is. I am not sure that I, or anybody else, really understands what teacher autonomy is, in the sense that there are a number of ways that you can use that term, teacher autonomy. You can talk about whether teachers are autonomous learners or not, so that’s a sort of learner autonomy of teachers, they are autonomous in their learning to teach. Then, there is teacher autonomy in the sense that they have a freedom to do and to make decisions in the classroom. So, you know, there are so many different ways to define it that it’s difficult to say. I am a lot less comfortable with teacher autonomy than I am with learner autonomy. The other problem with the idea of teacher autonomy is that if teacher autonomy means teachers having more freedom in the classroom, is that an end in itself? If teachers have more freedom in the classroom, they can use that freedom any way they want. It might not necessarily be to promote learner autonomy. So, the way I prefer to look at the whole issue is in terms of the specific constraints that prevent teachers from allowing students to be more autonomous rather than more general constraints on their own behavior. But not everyone would agree with that. I’d be very reluctant and slow to take on this idea of teacher autonomy. I understand what people are talking about, but I think our priority here is learner autonomy, and then teacher autonomy. Yes, there’s a link, but it also takes you off into other areas about teachers’ lives, professional work, etc. which are not necessarily related to learner autonomy. Michael: What do you think about this idea of filling students with knowledge, like pouring water into a vessel, versus nurturing them like a seed, providing them with the necessary conditions in which to grow? Phil: Well, I prefer the second, but I am not sure how helpful these kinds of metaphors are. I don’t know if this is a metaphor, but I like to think of students as people. I don’t want to be critical about how other people conceptualize things. But for me, I find it very important to remember that students are people. They are people like me, they are just as tired as I am, and they have the same kinds of concerns that I have. I think it is easy for teachers to forget that and treat students like they don’t have lives or that they don’t have their own particular concerns. Particularly in language learning, that’s important. That’s where you begin: the idea that students are learning languages for particular reasons or for a particular purpose and so on, and if you can help them develop those reasons and purposes, then that’s good teaching. That’s teaching for autonomy. That’s like the seed growing - so it’s not a bad metaphor. I think the idea that learning is growth is a valid idea. Otherwise, you’re going to see the learner as an empty vessel, and you’ve got to try to fill it up. So we are all looking for alternatives to that idea of filling up an empty vessel with knowledge. Michael: Isn’t this idea still prevalent in Asia? The idea that the teacher has to bestow this knowledge upon the learner and then the learner has to absorb it? 44 LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) Newsletter of the JALT Learner Development SIG Phil: My impression is that it is prevalent in education systems. It’s odd, actually, because when you look at policies and curriculum documents and so on, that idea is not there. It’s all learner-centered, it’s all lifelong learning, it’s all communicative and task-based and so on. But it seems that at the level of the way that schools organize things, you tend to get that filling-up-the-vessel idea, and I think it’s got a lot to do with the big high-stakes public examinations. I think that once you get that, it encourages a lot of conformity. Hopefully, in Hong Kong at the school level, it’s changing a little bit because they’ve just introduced a lot of in-class, in-school assessments. But we have a system where you have one examination for the whole territory, for the whole city. In principle, I should be able to go into a school on Tuesday, for example, and see what’s happening in that school and I should be able to go anywhere in the city and see exactly the same thing happening. That’s the ideal situation, but I think it’s impossible and they can’t enforce it. It just doesn’t work. And that’s irrespective of the level of the students. You’ve got really good students and really weak students, and they’re all supposed to be doing the same thing. The driving force of that is the examination. So, I guess within educations systems, you have a lot of different drivers and they conflict sometimes. But this is the case all over Asia. We have these education policies, particularly at the school level, which are in favor of learner centeredness, communicative teaching, autonomy, etc., but it seems that the school systems themselves and the examinations systems conflict with that – they disconnect. And this is why you can talk to teachers about autonomy. This is why they want to talk about it. It creates a kind of fertile ground where you can actually have a discussion. But at the end of the day the teachers are quite likely to go away and say “yes, but I can’t do anything”. So, I feel that it’s important that we try to address that problem. Jackie: How has your thinking towards autonomy evolved? Phil: Well, I think there’s a big autonomy and a smaller autonomy, and the big autonomy is really about education reform, about really changing the whole approach to language learning and language education. And then there’s a small autonomy, which is what teachers can practically do without changing the whole system. If you work in teacher education or even when you are speaking at conferences like this, it’s not really helpful to tell teachers that the entire education system should change, or even that they should change it. Well, maybe they can do that, but they can’t do it tomorrow. So, I think that we try to put that idea in their minds that it would be great if the whole education system would change, but there are also things that you can do now that will be good for your students. Michael: How do you feel about democratic schools such as Sudbury – where they promote a Rousseau-like curriculum, where the learners have more freedom to explore different kinds of stimuli and take up whatever interests them? Also, learners have a stake in deciding the rules in the school; they can propose rules and have the same voting power as school staff. There are several of these schools even in Japan. I’m wondering how successful they are? Phil: This is a whole informal education system in the States, right? I think every big city, every state has one or two of these schools and some are better known than others. The impression I have of these schools is that they generally serve kids who are dropping out, who are failing in the state system. So in a sense, as a parent, you only send your kind there when they fail everything else. It’s really a last resort. If they fail there, it doesn’t really matter because they’ve failed everywhere else. It does seem that they work for many of those kids. You’re talking about kids who have taken almost no responsibility for their learning, and are very, very demotivated. These schools can have an effect in motivating or empowering the students. Michael: Do you have any experience working with these schools? Phil: No, I don’t have any experience, no. To my knowledge, there was a well-known one in England – Summerhill. If you’re interested, get the book (http://www.amazon.com/Summerhill-School-New-ViewChildhood/dp/0312141378). A.S Neill was the headmaster – he wrote the book on it. It was one of the first of these free schools in the 60s. There were no rules, you didn’t have to go to class, you could do anything you wanted. Well, what they claimed was that normally the kids would just sort of lie around LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) 45 JALT学習者ティヘロフメントSIGの会報 and do nothing for six weeks, and then they would get bored. They started going along to lessons because they were interesting. There have been a number of very well-known graduates. But whether that’s a model for an entire education system – I don’t know. These schools have a particular role within the mainstream education system in that they are taking up the kids who really can’t cope with mainstream education. Michael: Do you think technology has had an effect on learner autonomy, particularly with increasing use of online and mobile technology? Anyone can access any kind of information in the blink of an eye. Phil: Yes, I think it’s had a massive effect, actually. I think that it is probably the most important thing that is influencing autonomous language learning, especially in countries or in situations where students don’t have direct access to the language they’re learning. The Internet has really quite radically changed that situation because kids are spending hours every day on it. It’s like that’s another country that they live in. All the research I’ve seen which has looked at students, the language, and the Internet is really showing that they do access, particularly in English, the foreign language that they are learning out of class on their own. They don’t tell the teachers. It’s not part of homework. They just do it. Whether they connect it to what they’re learning in school or not, I don’t know, but I think often they don’t. Jackie: What about the situation in Hong Kong? Do students access the Internet to learn English? Phil: The major complaint that I’ve heard in Hong Kong year after year is the students don’t practice English outside class, but actually they do now. We know that they do, especially at the secondary level. They get into things on the computer, and they’re doing it all the time, even if only they’re playing games. Maybe it’s very different in Japan. In Hong Kong, very few people play video games in Chinese. Most people play in English because of the quality of the games. So Japanese games come out in an English version and a Chinese version. But normally the English version is much better than the Chinese version. It’s much more sophisticated. It’s because the Chinese game is a copy, it’s not under license. It’s not exactly the same game. Actually, it’s not just the language, but the game itself. The English games are always ahead. They may even be a year ahead of the Chinese games. That’s why more people play games in English instead of Chinese. But lots of kids are finding ways to use the Internet in a foreign language, so I think that’s really going to have a very big impact. Michael: Do you think technology will have an impact on the role of the teacher in the future? Computer-assisted language learning is still a relatively new field. Do you think it may change our goals? Phil: If you’re teaching English to students in Japan, or you’re teaching English to Japanese students who are at a British or American university, the approach would be very different, right? To oversimplify, you’ve got a foreign language approach and a second language approach. So, what I’m thinking is that in foreign language situations, the Internet is making English more of a second language. So I think it’s that kind of adaptation - you have to adapt teaching to account for the fact that students have so many more opportunities to talk to people or do things outside of class. And the idea, for example, that we take all the text into the classroom for the students for reading – we find the text and give it to the students – is so unnecessary now. It is very easy to ask the kids to go out and go find a text for themselves. If they’ve got mobile phones they can even do it while they’re sitting in the classroom. I think this applies particularly to the self-access context. People involved with self-access are already rethinking this. You don’t have to provide all of the resources anymore. It’s probably more important to be knowledgeable about the resources that are available on the Internet. Students don’t necessarily have to come to your self-access center. To a certain extent, self-access is maybe becoming redundant as well. Self-access centers may become more like social centers for people interested in learning foreign languages. Jackie: What have been the most crucial moments in developing your own thinking about researching and promoting autonomy? Phil: Well, I started off in self-access with the idea that autonomy was about self-instruction, about providing people with resources for self-instruction. And I think the major way in which my thinking has 46 LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) Newsletter of the JALT Learner Development SIG developed is that it shifted from the idea of providing resources in a particular place to looking at types of learners and to what extent they are autonomous inside and outside the classroom. So, that’s been the biggest development over 20 years or so. And I think a lot of other people in the field have gone through a similar development as well. Michael: What advice would you give for teachers seeking to promote learner autonomy in an environment where teacher-centered instruction is still the norm? Phil: My advice is – and you can quote me on this – do what you can and don’t worry that you are not achieving the really big goal. Try to do small things that you can do and that won’t get you into too much trouble. Like a lot of people, I thought of learner autonomy as a kind of goal, something you’re trying to achieve with students. That’s fine, but sometimes I just have to prepare my next lesson. When I do that I can just think about ‘how am I going to teach this stuff’. But if I add in autonomy, I think ‘how am I going to teach this stuff’ and ‘how am I going to introduce some autonomy in the course as well’, and I will prepare in a different way. The way I prepare it may not achieve the goal of autonomy in the end, but it will be different – it will take autonomy into account. So going back to advice for teachers, when you’re planning lessons, when you’re planning a course, just think about where autonomy can fit in. If you think about autonomy, will you do this a little bit differently? There’s an interesting thing that Kumaravadivelu (2003) says - I was actually quite strongly influenced by him and his ‘post-method pedagogy’. He has ten principles, ten things you should think about whenever you’re planning a curriculum or a course. What struck me is his idea that autonomy is one of these principles. So, I’m excessively interested in autonomy, but for everybody else, autonomy is only going to be one of ten things to consider. So, in terms of practically making autonomy work in teaching – just factor autonomy into your planning. There will be a very small number of people who actually plan their courses to achieve autonomy, but for everybody else, what we can hope is that they incorporate it in one way or another. Jackie: How do you factor autonomy into your courses? Phil: Mainly by trying to create spaces where the students can have more choices and make more decisions. People expect my classes are really autonomous, but they’re not, actually, because of the situation I teach in. For example, in one class I have 160 students in a lecture hall. I’m supposed to give a lecture – that’s the way this course is structured. So I do little things in the lecture to try to give them choices, try to get them more engaged, but it’s still a lecture; it’s still not the best way to teach. Jackie: How about learners who prefer the teacher to do everything for them and think they’re too busy to be autonomous? Phil: Actually, that’s a real problem. My kid goes to an international school where they do a lot of project work. It’s progressive in the sense of having the students more actively involved in what they’re doing. But the number of things he has to keep in his head and managing the workload is challenging because he’s involved in many project groups. You can handle one or two…but what if you have five of those? Five different subjects, five different groups to manage? You’ve got to plan everything and so on. So I think, in schools that adopt that approach, the problem that they face is the complexity of managing learning. My feeling is that the filling-up-a-vessel approach is very efficient in terms of the amount of knowledge you can pour in, but if you’re going to have more of a constructivist approach, I think there’s a trade-off: You have to say that they’re not going to learn quite as much – their learning may have to be more focused. The benefits that you get in terms of the student’s development of learning skills outweighs the number of words they know. It’s quality versus quantity. But this is a very difficult argument because people think it’s important that autonomous learners should get to the same level of proficiency as non-autonomous learners. And I think they may not, actually. We may have to accept that and persuade people that there are more important things than level of proficiency – for example, relevance, usefulness of what you learn. When we measure proficiency, we are very often measuring useless, trivial knowledge. There may be other things we have to consider, personal relevance in particular. These things are difficult to weigh and measure. Michael: So while autonomy may be an ideal, it doesn’t always mesh well with current beliefs and goals. LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) 47 JALT学習者ティヘロフメントSIGの会報 Phil: Well, no, if you’re looking at the bigger picture, and you look at education policies, it does mesh well. I think what doesn’t mesh well are the education policies and the systems. It’s the institutionalization of education that is the problem, which makes it difficult to implement these policies. There seems to be a willingness among people who are at policy decision-making levels, but it’s difficult to put it into practice, and it’s difficult to get people to practice what they preach. Jackie: That’s something for us all to think about. Do you have any last words to say? Phil: I think it’s what I said before: Please think about autonomy when you’re planning your teaching. Keep it in mind. References Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and researching autonomy (2nd ed.). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Limited. Hafner, C. A., Fisher, D., & Young, J. (2007). Integrating independent learning: Lessons learned and implications for the classroom. In D. Gardner (Ed.), Learner autonomy 10: Integration and support (pp. 33-55). Dublin: Authentik. Hafner, C. A., & Young, J. (2006). From teacher to facilitator: Developing perspectives. In L. Miller (Ed.), Learner Autonomy 9: Autonomy in the Classroom (pp. 104-127). Dublin: Authentik. Hafner, C. A., Young, J., & Fisher, D. (2007). Shifting sands: Supporting teachers in facilitating independent learning. In A. Barfield & S. H. Brown (Eds.). Reconstructing autonomy in language education: Inquiry and innovation (pp. 196-208). Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Neill, A. S. (1996). Summerhill school: A new view of childhood. New York, NY: St. Martin's Griffin. Sudbury Valley School. http://www.sudval.org/01_abou_02.html Note The photo on this page shows Robert Moreau, Phil Benson and Jackie Suginaga. 48 LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) Newsletter of the JALT Learner Development SIG Looking back 報告 My Reflections of the January 29th Get‐Together Teachers College Columbia University Tokyo Campus, January 29th, 2012 １月２９日エリア・ミーティ ング振り返って コロンビア大 学ティーチャーズ・カレッジ （於：東京）２０１２年１月 ２９日 Rachelle Jorgenson 昭和女子大学 Rachelle Jorgenson Showa Women’s University Key words: collaboration, discussion, research interests, learning, reflection, observation A ndy Barfield and Stacey Vye started off the Tokyo LD-SIG get-together with an introduction of the SIG and what goals they envision for the get-togethers. The goal of the gettogethers is for participants to discuss our teaching contexts and research interests related to learner development issues – how our students learn and understand language and how we as teachers learn too. By getting together, we can better collaborate, develop ideas for research or classroom practice and support each other. Reflection: For me this is really important. In my Teacher’s College Columbia University days I had my classmates to bounce ideas off of and I found that discussing different concepts with others helped me a lot to clarify not only my understanding but also focus in on what was really important and how I wanted to approach my own classroom. I did a lot of presentations and research projects with my classmates in the final year of my master’s degree and I found working in a group to be not only extremely helpful for confidence building but also fun. The LD SIG gettogethers are providing me with the same kind of learning and researching atmosphere that I enjoyed at Columbia. Since there were a lot of new members joining the get-together, Andy and Stacey had the new participants make a group with a person who had attended the December meeting to bring them up to speed. My group was Mike Nix, Masuko Miyahara, Fumiko Kurosawa and me. Fumiko had attended the December meeting so she told us what they did and then proceeded to tell us about what she was interested in researching. She is interested in “tandem learning.” It was very interesting to hear that there is an international association of tandem learning that pairs language learners up with native speakers over the Internet. Masuko also had a chance to tell us her research interest, which was “Autonomy and Identity.” It was very inspiring to hear that her university wants to implement autonomous learning underlying the whole curriculum at her university. Unfortunately, Mike and I didn’t have a chance to talk about our research interests. Reflection: I felt this activity really helped make the new members feel welcomed into the fold. Even though we had missed the December meeting, we could still catch up and participate in the get-togethers to follow. Fumiko and Masuko’s stories were really inspiring! In the next part of the gettogether, we were asked to write a few of our research interests on a A3 paper and walk around the room with the paper facing outwards so that others could see if they had similar research interests. My A3 paper had two areas of interest. The first was helping my students establish more effective vocabulary learning practices outside the classroom and how does encouraging feelings of happiness, excitement and energized focus affect memory. My second research interest was helping my students become better critical thinkers and agents of change. I ended up talking to Andy and Lee LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) 49 JALT学習者ティヘロフメントSIGの会報 Arnold a lot as they were both interested in vocabulary too. But I talked to a lot of other people as well. Reflection: I thought this was an efficient and creative way of getting a large group of people to quickly find others with similar interests. I also enjoyed the fact that I met a lot of different people though briefly. As the contact person for the get-together, it was great to meet people and start connecting the names of people I had contacted by email with their faces. I wanted to have more time to talk with people but we had to keep things focused. After the A3 paper activity, we sat down in groups of people with similar research interests. My group was Andy Barfield, James Underwood, Lee Arnold and me. I hadn’t talked to James at all before so I wasn’t sure exactly what specifically he was interested in. Lee and I had talked a lot. We are both teaching content classes in which the students were having difficulty discussing topics due to lack of vocabulary. We wondered how we could better help our students. I could be mistaken but I think James was interested in vocabulary acquisition strategies. Andy had been doing research related to vocabulary for one year already. His students had written reflections about the way that they learn vocabulary. He is teaching a content class in which students have to do a research project on some social, political or global issue and though vocabulary is not explicitly taught, students have to be able to explain their research to their classmates in presentation format. In preparation for this activity, students initially felt that they needed to study “new and difficult” words but when they went through the process of explaining their research to others, they realized that their vocabulary focus shifted to “important and useful for explaining my research.” Reflection: My initial feeling in this meeting was that I needed to start doing a lot of reading on my own so that I could get a feel for what kind of research is being done in this area and what I would like to do with my own classes. Andy had mentioned reading Paul Nation’s Learning Vocabulary in Another Language as a good base for the field. Later on he recommended another source, Folse’s Vocabulary Myths. I plan to get a hold of these resources and others and start familiarizing myself with the field. In the later part of the get-together, John Fanselow, in his usual unique and creative way, asked us to watch a video clip of an “ideal 50 LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) class.” He had us transcribe what the teacher and students were saying. Although the class seemed very positive, we learned that by transcribing it, there were “issues.” The teacher was not really listening to her students’ responses but instead focused on the answer to the question she had asked. His point is that when we audio or video tape our classes and do a bit of transcribing, we can realize a wealth of information that is not readily available to us compared to if we just reflect about our class afterwards. He encouraged us to ask the question, “What do students learn from this kind of teaching? Is the instruction useful and helpful or is it stupid and useless?” Reflection: This exercise reminded me of when I took the Observation course at TC. I had some basic questions about my movements in the classroom and how I interacted with students. I video taped my class and was quite surprised by what I learned. I think that when we are teaching, we often are in our own “zone” thinking about what we have to accomplish in that time period allotted. We do things that we don’t realize and I was reminded that either video or audio taping my classes is an excellent way of collecting data for research! Final reflection: I thoroughly enjoyed the th January 29 Tokyo get-together! It was inspiring on many levels. My current work situation is so busy and sometimes I feel that it is all I can do just to keep up with my responsibilities. But this gathering helped me get back my motivation to start exploring my students’ learning and researching again. I teach a class about social and cultural issues in which students read a lot of articles and then discuss and debate them. The students find it difficult to discuss and debate various topics due to a lack of vocabulary. I want to help them with their productive vocabulary and vocabulary coping strategies. I still have a lot of reading to do but I look forward to future gatherings for more support and inspiration!  Rachelle Jorgenson is an assistant professor at Showa Women's University in Tokyo. Her current research interests are learner autonomy, vocabulary building and critical thinking. References Folse, Keith S. (2004). Vocabulary myths. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press. Nation, Paul I. S. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Newsletter of the JALT Learner Development SIG Tokyo Campus, February 19th, 2012 My Reflection on the February 19th Get–Together, Teachers College Columbia University which is a kind of self-directed assignment. In the project, each student chooses a topic and a web site to view, and then uses a notebook to record what he or she learned from the web site. Finally, he or she makes a presentation about it to share with other classmates. ２月１９日エリア・ミーティ ングを振り返って,コロンビア 大学ティーチャーズ・カレッ ジ（於：東京）２０１２年２ 月１９日 Group discussions Tomoko School Kurita, Kawamura High Key words: learner development interests, getting to know each other, self-assessment within a self-directed framework, language learner vs language user, identity I recently became a member of JALT as well as LD-SIG in January 2012. This was my second time to attend a LD-SIG get-together. In reviewing the January meeting, I enjoyed getting to know other members’ learner development interests and different teaching contexts. I decided to join the group which had an interest in self-assessment within a self-directed framework, although vocabulary development and collaborative learning were also fascinating topics for me. Getting to know LD-SIG members I thank Andy for providing us with the opportunities to learn new things and get to know other members of LD-SIG. Talking with a LD-SIG member made my vague ideas of selfdirected projects clearer. I talked to an attendee named Ken, who teaches in a college. I teach English in an elementary school. Our teaching contexts were different but we shared a lot of interests about vocabulary development and autonomous learning amongst others. Ken talked about his vocabulary building practices at the college. I talked about the project I recently started I joined the group “self-assessment within a self-directed framework”. Some people left and some new people joined our group, including Sachiko, Chris and Lynn. Chris and Lynn shared their English drama project in which the students wrote and performed a play, showing the video by iPhone. Peter had summarized the previous discussion in January and it helped a lot to confirm our shared perspectives at this meeting. We discussed our various interests and teaching contexts. However, it seemed difficult to narrow our interests into specific research questions. This was because we have such different teaching contexts, which would make the content of assessment varied. Although it seems important for students to self-assess their performance and improvement within the self-directed framework, the ability of learners to self-assess themselves depends on the student’s age and proficiency level. Although it seemed difficult for our discussion to move forward we tried to brainstorm ideas. I suggested a selfassessment of learner’s identity as an L2 user vs. an L2 learner. From my experience as a Japanese learner and teacher of English, I have been wondering if having identity as an English learner might be critical to Japanese learners of English. I found a difference between Japanese people who view themselves as English users who use English as a foreign or the second language in a real context and Japanese people who view themselves as English learners in terms of confidence and autonomy. Recently, I had two returnee students (one is a th 4th grader from Canada, the other is a 5 grader from Indonesia) at the elementary school. I noticed the returnees who had confidence in speaking and writing English even though they had no more grammar and spelling knowledge than some classmates who had learned English only in Japan. On the other hand, good students who study in Japan feel less confident comparing themselves to the returnees. As for learning, Japanese people as English learners tend to try to get more knowledge about English in school LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) 51 JALT学習者ティヘロフメントSIGの会報 context but not use it in a real context. They tend to be passive learners. They don’t like making mistakes and even think it is impossible to be an English user unless they master the language perfectly. After talking about my insight above, we shared ideas about differences in identity between an L2 user and an L2 learner. Peter shared his insight that the English user vs. English learner might be relevant to fluency vs. accuracy. Sachiko, who is teaching at an English conversation school, shared her idea that her students seemed to have identities as English users rather than English learners because they were aiming to study abroad. We agreed that our group would explore the relationship between self-assessment, learner identity, socio-cultural aspects and motivation. I am excited to see how our group research will develop. Tomoko teaches English at Kawamura High School. Her current research interests are listening for acquisition, autonomous learning, CALL and cooperative learning. She has an MA TESOL degree from Teachers College Columbia. Looking forward 今後のイベント LD SIG Forums in 2012 2012 LD SIGフ ォ ー ラ ム (6 月 JALT CALL Conference 2012 Konan University, June 1-3, 2012 http://conference.jaltcall.org/2011/jaltca ll-2012/ Darren Elliott LD-SIG Forum Coordinator T he JALT LD-SIG will be holding another forum at the JALTCALL Conference 2012. JALTCALL 2012 will be held at the Konan CUBE, Hirao School of Management, Konan University from June 1-3, 2012. From self-access centres with cassette libraries to m-learning, technology has played an important role in learner autonomy in language education. However, CALL activities 52 LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) are not intrinsically autonomous and Learner Autonomy need not make use of educational technologies. In this forum, we will explore CALL as viewed through the prism of learner autonomy, and vice versa, in an attempt to find common ground. Each presenter will give his or her fifteenminute presentation twice (including questions) within the 90-minute slot, giving participants the opportunity to see four different presentations. Of course, visitors are welcome to join the full session or just come in to see one or two presentations. We will have short presentations on Facebook, CALL in selfaccess centres, e-learning, blended learning and other autonomy / technology-related topics, from a number of experienced and talented presenters. The JALTCALL conference itself is always well worth attending, with visitors from around the world and a lively atmosphere. This year, the conference welcomes a true leader in the field with the visit of Dr. Stephen Bax as featured speaker. Nakasendo 2012 Conference Urawa Citizen’s Hall, June 2, 2012 http://nakasendoconference.com Robert Moreau International Christian High School University T he LD-SIG forum this year at the Nakasendo 2012 Conference in Urawa, nd Saitama on June 2 promises to be an interesting space in which participants can share a variety of ideas on teaching and learner development. Since December 2011, members of the LD-SIG have been meeting on a monthly basis and, in groups, have been discussing ideas and conducting small-scale practitioner research in the following areas: collaborative learning, language learning strategies, self-assessment, and vocabulary development. In this forum, members of each research group will set-up display stations where people can learn more about what members of each group has been working on, ask questions and engage in dialogue on the different topics that people have been exploring so far. Finally, participants will be invited to share thoughts and ideas about what they have seen and discussed. Newsletter of the JALT Learner Development SIG The goal of the forum is to better acquaint conference attendees with the work of LD-SIG, and also, through the sharing of ideas, allow participants to take away with them new ideas that may be useful for their own learning and teaching practices. JALT Pan‐SIG Conference Literacy: SIGnals of Emergence Hiroshima University's Higashi‐ Hiroshima campus, 16‐17 June http://www.pansig.org/2012/ LD SIG Forum: Language, Literacies, Learners ‐ Development Beyond the Classroom • • Outside the classroom is Japan, where English is typically perceived as a very foreign language with which our students will have little contact. Through rotating minipresentations, we will report explorations of different ways of exploiting, or creating, a world beyond the classroom to challenge this perception, helping our students become more motivated, focused, and independent (or interdependent) language learners. We will address these topics: the purposes, planning and running of English camps; language learner histories and digital comics; media literacy development; online pronunciation resources, finding and talking with English speakers outside the classroom; running Scrabble contests; and assessing learner autonomy. Learner Development SIG Forum at JALT2012, ACT City, Hamamatsu October 12‐15, 2012 Bill Mboutsiadis Meisei University and the University of Toronto D The plan is for this year’s LD-SIG forum is to involve many presentations exploring how learner development can be theorized from different practices, so that overlapping and conflicting definitions and ideologies of ‘learner development’ can be discussed ahead of the SIG holding a 20th anniversary retreat/conference in 2013 (more details to follow in the coming months). Definitions and ideologies development may draw from: Jim Ronald Hiroshima Shudo University ジム・ロナルド, 広島修道大学 ear Learner Development members and newcomers, This year we are proposing to hold a forum on “Defining Learner Development: Different Interests”, and we would like to invite you to take part. SIG • • of learner Different theories of learning and the learner (e.g. cognitive, constructivist, or socio-cultural views); Different areas and tools of, and/or approaches to, learning (e.g. advising, self-access, self-assessment, collaborative group-based learning, learning strategies, vocabulary development); Different issues and principles to do with interaction and learner development (e.g. agency, autonomy, criticality, differentiation, identity, motivation, narrative knowledging, near-peer modeling, positioning, scaffolding); Other discourses of learning and development. Each contributor to the forum will present (a) particular case(s) of learning and learner practices, and also theorize from such cases about what learner development may mean/is about within their local context and practice. Cases may be drawn from classroom learning, self-access learning, outside-class learning, at different levels and ages of education and development. Cases may also be fully language learning-based or to do with academic study, content-based learning, or learning across the curriculum. At present we envisage that the forum will feature simultaneous displays or presentation corners (poster, laptop, tablet, kamishibai, and so on), with plenty of opportunities for audience interaction, discussion and plenary round-up. Many thanks – we’re looking forward to seeing you there! Bill LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) 53 JALT学習者ティヘロフメントSIGの会報 SIG Matters インフォメーション 財務報告 LD SIG Financial Report 2011年10月 - 2012年3月 Oct 2011– March 2012 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 10/1/11 11/1/11 12/1/11 1/1/12 2/1/12 3/1/12 Balance in bank account 銀行預金残高 493,059 645,063 391,877 344,160 344,162 344,164 Reserve liabilities JALT本部預け金 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 0 95,000 0 0 0 0 743,059 990,063 641,877 594,160 594,162 594,164 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total revenue 総収入 269,304 146,394 303 2 2 20,003 Total expenses 総支出 ‐22,300 ‐494,580 ‐48,020 ‐0 ‐0 ‐0 ‐0 ‐0 ‐0 ‐0 ‐0 ‐0 End balance 当月帳簿残高 990,063 641,877 594,160 594,162 594,164 614,167 Balance in bank account 銀行口座の残高 645,063 391,877 344,160 344,162 344,164 364,167 0 0 0 0 0 0 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 95,000 0 0 0 0 0 990,063 641,877 594,160 594,162 594,164 614,167 Cash on hand 現金 Balance carried forward 前月資産残高 The current month activities Total revenue liabilities 仮受金等総額 Total expense liabilities 仮払金等総額 Balance in other accounts その他の口座残高 Reserve liabilities JALT本部預け金 Cash on hand 現金 LD SIG balance 当月資産残高 Major revenue 主な収入 2011年10月 - 2012年3月 October 2011– March 2012 Membership dues SIG会費 (A) Tohoku donation from LD members LD-SIG会員からの東北被災地向け寄付預かり(B) 139,500 55,000 20,000 RA conference registration fees RA出版記念カンファレンス 参加費(C) 12,500 80,000 RA conference table fees from publishers RA出版記念カンファレンス スポンサー・テーブル 使用料 12,000 24,000 Bridge loan repayment from FLP-SIG FLP-SIGへの当座貸付返済 (D) 50,000 Temporary cash out from Treasurer 会計係からの仮受金 (E) 54 LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) 42,090 Newsletter of the JALT Learner Development SIG Major expenses 主な経費 2011年10月 - 2012年3月 October 2011– March 2012 Expenses for RA conference RA出版記念カンファレンス必要経費 1,700 231,350 20,000 Donation to the Best of JALT Best of JALTへの寄付 Co-sponsoring a JALT2011 plenary speaker JALT2011の講演者共同招聘費用 100,000 Conference grants LD SIG 年次大会参加助成金 (F) 80,000 IATEFL-KANDA Conference grants IATEFL-KANDAカンファレンス参加費助成 (G) 80,000 Shipping LD materials for JALT2011 JALT2011会場へのLD資料配送料 5,270 Repayment to Treasurer (temporary cash out) 会計係からの仮受金返済 (E) 42,090 NOTES (A) 1,500 93 members (for 6 months) (B) The following LD members have donated for the SIG's future plan to support those in Tohoku. 以下のLD-SIG会 員から、東北被災地支援目的で寄付を預かっている: (1)Richard Silver (35,000yen) (2)Funds surplus at an informal SIG party (20,000yen) 非公式のSIG会合での余剰 (3)Andy Barfield (15,000yen) (4)Philip Brown (5,000yen). Also, we reserve the following amount for the future donation: 更に、将来の寄 付目的で、以下の金額を準備金として保有している：SIG's original budget SIGの寄付目的予算 50,000 Alison's donation (June 2011) 30,000 In total we currently have 155,000 yen for the donation purpose. 総 額で、寄付目的で155000円を現在保有している。 以下のLD-SIG会員から、東北被災地支援目的で寄付を預かっている。 Also, we reserve the following amount for the future donation: 更に、将来の寄付目的で、以下の金額を準備金として保有している： In total we currently have 155,000 yen for the donation purpose. 総額で、寄付目的で155000円を現在保有している。 (C) From 54 participants at "Realizing Autonomy" conference held in October 10月開催の"Realizing Autonomy"カンファレンスにおける参加者５４名からの参加費 (D) Bridging Loan for FLP-SIG (December 2010) was repaid in full. FLP-SIGへの当座貸付(2010/12月実施)は、予定通り全額返済された。 (E) Treasurer temporarily used her own money to send grants, which was returned to her in December. 会計係は助成金を用意するのに、一時的に自分の資金を使ったが、１２月には返済された。 (F) 40,000 2 members (G) 40,000 2 members st SIG fund balance March 31 2012 / SIG資金残高2012年3月31日 Balance in bank account 銀行口座の残高 364,167 Reserve liabilities JALT本部預け金 250,000 TOTAL 合計 614,167 LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) 55 JALT学習者ティヘロフメントSIGの会報 PLANNED EXPENSES April to Dec 2012 2012年4月- 12月予定経費 Table Rental for JALT2012 ALT2012でのSIGテーブル代 (17,000) Shipping LD materials to JALT2012 JALT2012への資材送料 (10,000) Shipping fees for other events 他のイベントへの送料 (10,000) LD web site cost (including domain name registration) LD専用ウェブサイト費用(ドメイン名登録料含む) (7,200) Financial support for Nakasendo 中仙道カンファレンス協力 (10,000) Donation for Best of JALT2012 JALT2012のBest of JALT寄付 (20,000) 2 Tohoku JALT+LD SIG membership grants 東北JALT・LD SIG会費助成 ２名 2 Pan SIG conference grants (25,000 yen each) JALT PAN‐SIG 2012年度大会参加助成金 ２名 2 LD SIG research grants (25,000 yen each) LD SIG 研究助成金 ２名 2 National conference grants (40,000 yen each) JALT全国大会参加助成金 ２名 *1 *2 (20,000) (50,000) (50,000) (80,000) Donations to the disaster‐stricken area 被災地への寄付 (155,000) *3 Other miscellaneous 他の雑費 SUB-TOTAL 小計 (20,000) (449,200) PROJECTED REVENUE April to Dec 2012 2012年4月- 12月予定収入 Membership 75 members (150 members * 6 months/12) 会費 半年分 SUB-TOTAL 小計 112,500 112,500 Projected SIG fund balance Dec 31st, 2012 予定SIG資金残高2012年12月31日 Balance in bank account 銀行口座の残高 127,467 Reserve liabilities JALT本部預け金 TOTAL 合計 150,000 277,467 *4 NOTES *1 JALT membership fees vary, but do not exceed 10,000 yen a year. JALTの会費は何種類かあるが、最高年 額は1万円。 *2 We have other grants, but they require no cash out. 他にも補助金制度はあるが、現金の出金は不要： (1) 10 First‐time LD SIG subscription grants / LD SIG体験入会・会費助成(非JALT会員向け)10名 (2) 10 First‐time LD SIG membership starter grants / LD SIG体験入会・会費助成(JALT会員向け) 10名 *3 See the Notes in Actual 「実績」の備考欄参照 *4 We will need to have 100,000 yen back from Reserve Fund to have enough operating funds. ＪＡＬＴ本部預け金から10万円を戻して、運転資金を確保する必要がある。 Hiromi Furusawa 古澤 弘美 LD SIG treasurer LDSIG財務 May 6th, 2012 2012年5月6日 56 LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) Newsletter of the JALT Learner Development SIG Contributing to Learning Learning 「学習の学習」原稿募集 Learning Learning is your space for continuing to make the connections that interest you. You are warmly invited and encouraged to contribute to the next issue of Learning Learning. We welcome writing in Japanese and English, and in different formats and different lengths about different issues connected with learner and teacher development, such as: • Articles (about 2,500 to 4,000 words, with a 100 word summary) • Reports (about 500 to 1,000 words) • Learner histories (about 500 to 1,000 words) • Stories of autonomy (about 500 to 1,000 words) • Book reviews (about 500 to 1,000 words) • Letters to the SIG (about 500 words) • Personal profiles (100 words more or less) • Critical reflections (100 words more or less) • Research interests (100 words more or less) • Photographs • Poems… and much more… We would like to encourage new writing and new writers and are also very happy to work with you in developing your writing. We would be delighted to hear from you about your ideas, reflections, experiences, and interests to do with learner development, learner autonomy and teacher autonomy. We hope to publish the next issue of Learning Learning in October 2012. Ideally, we would like to hear from you well before July 31, 2012 – in reality, the door is always open, so feel free to contact somebody in the editorial team when you are ready: Jackie Suginaga Michael Mondejar Hugh Nicoll Fumiko Murase jackiesuginaga AT MARK gmail.com mikemondoman AT MARK gmail.com hnicoll AT MARK gmail.com, and fumikomurase AT MARK gmail.com Learning Learning is the newsletter of the JALT Learner Development SIG. We aim to publish twice a year in April and October. All pieces are copyright of their respective authors. All pieces are copyright of their respective authors. Permission to re-print and/or re-produce online writing from Learning Learning should be sought directly from the author(s) concerned. If arrangements are made for the reprinting and/or reproduction online of an article originally published in Learning Learning, we respectfully request that the full citation reference for the original article in Learning Learning be included with the reprinted and/or re-produced online versio. 「学習の学習」は会員に興味あるつなかりを 構築 する空間てす。次号「学習の学習」への 投稿を募 集しています。形式や長さを問わ、 学習者の発 達に関連した以下のようなさまさ ま文章を歓迎し ています: • 論文 (約4000語-10000語) • 報告書 (約2000語-4000語) • 学習者のヒストリー (約2000語-4000語) • 自律性に関する体験談 (約2000語-4000 語) • 書評 (約2000語-4000語) • SIGへの手紙 (約2000語) • 個人フ ロフィール (約400語) • クリティカル・リフレクション (約400語) • 研究興味 (約400語) • 詩 その他 これまてにない形式のもの、また新しい方々 か らのこ投稿をお待ちしております。内容に ついて もせひこ相談くたさい。みなさまのこ 意見やお考 え、こ経験、そして学習者の発達 、学習者の自律 性と教師の自律性に関するこ となと、せひお聞か せくだ さい。 次号「学習の学習」は2012年10月1日に出版の 予定てす。2012年7月31日まてにこ連絡いたた けれは幸いてす。受け付けは常にいたしており ますの て、アイティアが まとまり次第、遠慮 なくいすれ かの編集員にこ連絡くたさい。 Jackie Suginaga jackiesuginaga AT MARK gmail.com Michael Mondejar mikemondoman AT MARK gmail.com Hugh Nicoll hnicoll AT MARK gmail.com, and Fumiko Murase fumikomurase AT MARK gmail.com 「学習の学習」はJALT学習者ティヘロフメン トSIGの会報てす。年2回4月と10月に出版予定 てす。全ての原稿の版権はそれぞ れの執筆 者にあり ます。「学習の学習」の文章を他の 出版物に使う 場合は直接その執筆者の許可を もらってくたさい。 LEARNING LEARNING 19(1) 57