0% found this document useful (0 votes)
81 viewsBeing Learners
Uploaded by
Nico GutierrezCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
81 viewsBeing Learners
Uploaded by
Nico GutierrezCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
/ 32
at
Being learners
Learning a language invo ves, for Gur students, challenge® to their cognitive abilities, their
self-esteem anc, frequentiy, their sacial skills. itis, in Rebecca Oxford's words, a ‘cacrageous
process’ (Oxford 2073: 195). It is thus vitally mporzant to knaw how our eamers feel, what
they need and wha: helps them to 2€ successful. Such knowledge is half the secret of have
be a good teacher.
The age factor
The age of the students in front of us w Il be a major deciding factor in how we teach Lhem
and what we ask them to do. People of d ferent ages have differen: needs, competences
and cognitive skills: we might expect children of primary age to acquire much of a fareign
langage through ply, for exam ple, whereas for adults we can reasonably expect a greater
use of abstract thought.
‘One of the most common heiiefs about age and larquage learring is that young chileren
leam faster anc more effectively than ayy other age grou. Most peaple can think of
examples which appear to bear this out — such as when children move toa different country)
and eppear to pick up @ new anguage with remarkable ease, However, as we shall see, this
not always true of children, even in that situacion; indeed, the stary of child language taciity
may be something of a myth.
Itis certainly true that children wne Jearn a new language early have a facility with the
pronunciation which is sometimes deniec older leainers. _ynne Cameron, far example,
suggests hat children ‘-eproduce the accent of their teachers with deadly accuracy’ (2003
111}, Carol Read recounts now she hears a youne studens af hers saying Listen, Quiet nave
Attention, please! in such a perlect imitation of the teacher that ‘the thougnt of parody
passes throuch my head’ (2003: 7).
However, 23ert from pronunciation ability, it appears that alder crildren (that is, children
fiom about the age of 12 aiid Uiougl) abolescerice) actually do better as language
Jeamersthan their younger caunterparts, given the right rircuimstances (Light bown ancl
Saatia 201 3; 92-98).
itis not being suegested thar young ch Iden cannot acquire secend lang.1ages su ccessiully
As we have already said, many of them achieve significant competence, especially i
bitincual situations. But English is increasingly baing taught at younger and younger ages,
and while this mey have grea: benefits n terms 0 citizenship, demperacy. tolerance and
multiccituralisrn, for example, such early learning does vet alweys appear to offer the
substantial success often claimed for it - especially when there Is ineffective tra isfer of skills
and methodolegy f-om primary to secondary schoel.
The relative superiority of older children 2s language eamers (especially in formal
educat onal settings) may have something to'do with their increased cegnitive abilicies,
subset allevar than tr hanafit frien mera abstract annraactes to lanquade teaching. It rray Being learners
lsd have something to do with the way they are taughtor, quite simply. the number of
hours that are given to Enclish at the different ages. What this sugests is that if we really
want young learner teaching to be successful, we will have to think carefully about our
goals for the learners, the amount of time we can give for the enterprise. and tne tyne of
educational experience we wish to give them. Singing songs and doinc arts and craft work
in the English class may be extremely enjoyable for younger learners, but unless there Is
enough time to expand on it for appropriate linguistic development, it may rot be enough
for successtul acquisition,
Lastly, we need to consider the ‘critical period aypathesis’ (CPt), This is the bellet (first
proposed by Panfiele and Roberts (1959) and popularised by Lernenberg (1967)} that there
isacritical period’ for lancuage learning, which ends sometime around pubel ty. This belief
would seem ta be supported by the observation that older children, ard others postpuberty,
generally seem to have greater difficulty in approximating native-spesker pronunciation than
yourg childrer do = although this may somerimes De a deliberate (or even subboenscious)
retention of zhelr cultural end linguistic Identity. 3ut he ides that there is an optimal age
for language learning beceres less tenable wren, as we have seen, older children shaw
themselves ta be effective languace learners. Nor is there evidence to suggest that post-
pubescent learners in genera! are necessar'ly ineffective lanquage learne’s. Anyway, they
have compensatory mechanisms such as ther ability to tink about what they are doing and
se their developed intellect.sel skills to understand how language works ~ and these have
nothing to do with any critical period.
In what follows; we will cansder students at different ages.as tf-all the members of each
age group are the same. Yet each student is an individual, with diferent experiences bath in
aiid ouside the Cléssroom. Comments lrere aboul yaung Crluten, Leehayels aiid adulls Ga
only be generalisations. Much also depends upar individual learrer differences (see 5.2) ard
upon mietivation bee 5.3),
Young learners
Various theo*ists have described! the way that children develop, and the various eges and
stages Urey go through. Jean Pagel suygested Ilrat child en skarl ot the sensoninetus stage,
and zhen preceed hrough the jnzuitive stage end the concrate-cperational stage before
finally ‘eaching the formal operational stage: where abstraction becomes increasingly
poss ble, Leo Vygotsky (see page 112) emphassed the place of social interaction in child
language development. lie suggested a Zone of Prewimal Development (ZPD) where
ch idren are -eacy to learn something new, provides such new know'edge Is ‘scaffolded’ (i.e.
introduced in stages in a helpful way) by a ‘knower* (someone who is more knowledgeable
than the leamer ard who, thus, ca provide scaffalding).
Bath Erik E“kson (1963) and Abraham Maslow (1968) saw development as bene closely
bound up in the child's confidence and sell-esteem, while Reuven Feuerstein suggested that
cthilcren’s cognitive structures are infinitely modifiable wth the belp of a modifier —much like
Vygotsky's knower (see Williams and Burden 1997; 40-42),
he tetmn young learner encompasses ehiidren from about three years old to the age of
about twelve. Clearly, therefare, it would be foolish to make generalisations since ch idreen’s
cngnit've and emotional faculties change dramatically aver that perinc. As welll as this,
individuel children have different chatacters and tates of development. Gespite individual
Variation, we can perhaps make some useful distinctions between two groups: chapters
Younger children, from five upwards:
are enthusiastic about teaming (if it happens in the right way).
learn best through play and other enjoyable activities.
use everything in the physical world (what they see, do, hear and tauch, etc.) for
learning and understanding things.
use language skills without analysing (or being able to analyse) why or
how they use chem,
like to do well and enjoy being praised
have lively Imaginations.
cannot, sometimes, tell the difference between fact and fiction,
have @ short attention span: they can’t concentrate on the same thing for a ong times
will talk (and participate) a lot if they are engaged.
often do not understand the adult world, but they don't say ‘| don't understand’. They
just "go along? with it
are wery good at imitating people — so they pick up the teacher's intonation, ete.
cannot decide what to learn by themselves (ar how to do It).
are self-centred and like playing by themselves.
afe camfortable with the idea that thete are rules and routines for things.
Older children, from ten and above:
are making sease of the adult worle-eround them
can tell the difference between fact and fict
have (sometimes strong) views about what they like and don't like.
asi (a lot of) questions.
are able to work solely with the spoken word, without alweys needing the
physicat world to help.
can make some decisions about their own learning,
can understand abstract concepts and symbols, and can generalise.
have a strong sense of what is right and fair.
Despite the obviots difference between these age groups — and the “act that no-one single
chile will perfectly fit tne descriptions we have q ven —we san make seme recommendations
about yaunger leamers in general.
Inthe first place, goad teachets at this level need to provice a rich diet of learning
experiences wiriulie rcouraye Ue stuceiits te get information fii a variety of sources,
hay need to work with their sudents individually and in groups, developing strong
ielationships (see 6,°."), Trey need to plana range of activities fora given time period,
and should be flexible enough te mave on to the nest exercise when they see their
students getting bored.
Teachers of young learners need to spend time understanding how their students think
and operate, They néed to’ be ableto pick up on their students’ current Interests se-that
they can use these to motivate the chi dren. And they need good orel skills in Frglish, since
speaking and listening are the skills whicn will be used most of all at ths ace. Tre teache's
pronuine ation — thei level of ‘international intellaibility’ (see 16.1)—will have an impertant
effect here, too, precisely because, as we have said, children imitate it sc well Being learners
All of this reminds us that once a decision has been taken to teach English to younger
earners, there is a nzed for highly skilled and dedicated teaching. |his (ray well be the mest
difficult (but rewarding) age to teach, but wren teachers do it well (and tre conditians
are tight), there is ne reason why students should not defy some o* te research results we
mentioned above and be highly successful learners ~ provided, of course. that this success is
fo [ewed up as they move to a new school or grade.
We can also draw some conclusions about what a classroom for young children shat Id look
like ard what mh ght be going on in It. First of all, we will wan the classruom to be bright
ard colourful, with windows the chiidren can see nut nf. and with enough oom for different
‘activities to be taking place, We might expect the students to be werking in groups in
diferent parts of the classroom, changing their activity every ten minutes or so.
Because chi dren love ciscovering things, and because they respond well to aeing asked to
tise thei’ Imagination, they may well be involved in puzele-like activities, in making things, in
drawing things, In games. in physizal movement or in songs. A good primary classroom mixes
play and learning in an atmosphere af cheerful and supportive harmony. And, in. comman
‘with their lives outside the classroom, te young leamers wil have access to (and use) various
computer anc mobile devices (see Chapter 1 1)
Teenagers
It has become fashionable to call the teenage brain a ‘work in pragress’ (Connor 2006).
This is because it seems that many ef the autward signs of physica change thet adolescents
undergo are mirrored inside the brain, where sign ficant developments are 2lso taking place,
One of the charges that occurs is the (temporary) phenornenon of 'syraptic pruning’ of
the frontal co-tex. This (s the part of the brain where rational decision-making takes place.
During the process of readjusting its functions and processes, the adolescent's linaic system,
where emotions and ‘gut reactions’ occur, appears to have undue prominence. One resuit
of this, amongst others. is that teenagers experience intense eration, wh ch overrides te
more rational pre-fronte| cortex reasoning. As Simion Fearinan puts it. ‘Some challenging
behaviour fram teenagers is understanclable, perhaps inevitable and maybe even desirable’
{Pearlman 2009: 34).
Tessa Woodware! puints oul that teenagers get bored by activities that last too long, ar by
slow-pased lessons. They may have some problems with) authority (especially if they have
proolems at home), havea highly developed sense of whet is righ: and fait, and get irritated if
they do nat see the reaso7 for activities (Woodward 20.116}
IF this all sounds too negative, we need to remind ourselves that adolescents also ave
huce reserves of (temporary) ereray: they ctten have passionate attach ments to jrterests
sue as music and sport; and they are frequently ceeply invelved in and with the lives of
their peer group.
This passior can also extend to causes trey believe in-anc! stories that interest then, They
can be extremely humeraus - teenage class oums are ofter full oF laughter—and very
cteative in their thinking. As they develop, thelr capacity thr abstract thought and intellectual
act vity (at whatever level) becuines fore pronounced, Far from being probiem students
{though they may sometimes cause prablems), teenage students “nay be the most en oyable
and engagiiy to work with. S13
haar
Successful teachers cf teenage’s make every effort to be fait, and they deal with disruptive
behaviaur calmly and epprapriately (je# 9.3). Where appropriate, they may wart to keep
their activities short and fast-paced. A lot will depene on the teacher's energy endl the
students’ perception of their comrnitmert and engagement with the class.
A key ingredient of successfy teaching for this age group is to make what we do relevant
to the students’ lives. They may rat underscand the importance of studying lanquages, but
ifwe can relate what we are doing and the topics we concentrate on’ —to their own lives
{and perhaps their view of their ideal L2 self (see 5.3.1}, we can hape for their genuine
engagemet ir what is happening in the classroem, For-example, wewill want to get them,
to respond to texts and situatiens with their own troughts and experences, rather than
just answering questions and doing abstract learning activities. Although adolescents are
perfectly capable of abstract thaugh:, we might want to say that in ceneral “t wha: is beng
taught does yet rave ¢ direct canrection te their real vas ... they sinply switch off" (Chaves
Gomes 2011; 31}
Tessa Woodward (201 1b) suggests thar teachers should take into a teenage class at least
‘two or three times as. many activities as they might need, and that they stculd have clear
ideas about whiat early Finishers in groupwork can do (see 10.4.4).
Tinaly, as Pari Greenaway suggests, involving teenagers in decisions about wha> they are
doing is likely to encourage their encagement (Greenaway 2013) for, as Lindsay Miller and
calleagues ir koxg Kong report inthei- article abo.st esta blisning a sel access centve in
2 secondary scnpo) m Hong Kong, “tre teachers from the school ... made the decision 10
-cafablish a SAC, but they made arether more important decision, thet was te incude their
students In the development ofthe SAC. Ihis resulted in a cu ture of “Seltaecess Language
Learning” (SALl) being promoted very quickly within the schao, and a sease af ownership of
the SAC among the students" (Miller, Tsang Shuk-Cring and Hopkins 2007: 227).
Adults
Many adults, writes lanet Eyring, ‘go to school even though they may fee! embarrassed or
self-conscious being na language class et an older age’ (Eyring 2014: 572), But shis sense of
embarrassment is by no means.a ways oresent.
Ic Woks as if there are as many myths about adult learners as there-are about other age
groups. One thing, however, is certain, ane that is that ‘adults are ... likely to be more critical
nd demanding, and ready to complain to thre teacher or tine jnstitut on if Urey feel Ue
teaching Is unsatisfactory’ {lr 201 2: 268),
‘As we shalllsee, there Is ¢ differencs bebweeh youriger adults and older ‘seniov" leamers,
‘wha may have specific features which are worth paying attention to. However. as with all
othe® groups, chrorolegical age Is not necessa‘ily the deciding factor snce ind viduals can
vary é dtamatically. The following generalisations may helo us think more carefully about
adult tearners
Adults have many advantages as language learners:
> They can engage with abstract theught
+ Ihey have a whole range of life experiences to draw or.
+ they have expeczations about the learning process, nd they already have thelr own se:
pattems of teaming.
+ Adults tend, on the whole, to be more dliscip'ined than other age gjoups and, crucially.
they are often prepared to struggle on desaite boredom. Boing earners
+ Adults came into classraoms with a rich range of eaperiences which allow teachers to use
a wide range ot activities with them,
» Unlike young children and teenagers, they often havea clear understanding of why
they are earning and what they went to get out of it. Many adults are more able to
sustain a level of motivation by holding on to-a distant geal in a way that teenagers find
more diffic.t,
However, adults are never entirely problemree learners, and they have a number of
characteristics which can sometimes make leaming and teaching problemztic:
» They can be critical of teaching methods, Their previous learning experiences may
have predisposed them to one particular methodological style, which makes them
uncomfortable with unfamiliar teaching patterns. Convarsely. they may ba hestile ta
Certain teaching ancl learning activities which replicate the teaching they received earlier
in their educational careers,
+ They may have experienced failure or critie’sm at school, which makes them anxious and
under-contident about learning a lenauage.
+ Many older adults worry that their intellectual powers may be diminishing with age. They
are concerned to keep thelr creative powers alive (Williams and Burden 1947: 32).
» Adults are more likely to miss lessons than younger learners for a variety of reasons,
+ Even when adults are successful at léeming grammar and vocabulary ~ and deating with
language sills - thay "may st ll experience sicnificant difficulty mastering pionunciatian
aiid oral fluency’ (Saepoon 20-9),
Mark Wekinnon and Soatie Acomat, discussing stiidents around the age of sisty. suggest
that whilst it is simply not tue that ‘senior’ leamers cannot.work as effectively as younger
learners, neverthzless we do slow down as we age in our response co auclitory stimuli, end
olcer leamers sometimes react mo-e slowly than their younger counterparts. They sugeest
that sevior learners are ot especially good at respanding to nstructions andl, crucially, that
in many cases speaking and Istenirg cause then the mast stress (Mcklrinon and Acamat
20108}. They ao on ta suqgest that we should be more accommacating ot our older
learners’ preferences for different teachirg techniques and approaches, ratver than just
pushing our own, perhaps younger, view of «what effective learning Is, We need, they say, to
include a variety of recyelirg activities -o help our learners’ short-term mempry tetant’on, and
se painwork and groupwork for peer support (McKinnon and Acomat 201 0b).
What, then, can be done ta mexim'se the advantages ef adult learners and minimise
sore of she Uisadvar tages, especially of siynificarily older stuvients? Her sett Puch ita, i
an echo.of what we have said about teaching edalescents. argues that we reed to build
an {and celebrate) the students" priot knowledge, bus thet irr portantly ‘we need to find
texts tha: “speak” te our students in serrns of beinc relevart and accessible to them
Puchta 2013: 51),
Above all, perhaps, we should quard against thinking that adult ¢ asses should elways be
seriaus, for as Lianne Ross found, her aduilt students enjoyed learning that was ‘spontaneous
and natural" when she used 2 children's “Guess woe" game ina lesson (Ross 2009). In
the same vein, Hersert Puchta (see above) recommends the use of lighter’ texts
adult classtoams.
The concept of ‘adult’ embraces many differen: stages and realities, Our job as teachers s
To find out how we can use what the students know and have experienced —and who they
are ~ to make our lessons especially relevant for them.
cy shaper
5.2 Leamerdifferences
Any group of learners is made up of individuals. itis clear that they are not all the same. Fo
example, they have different perscnalities, irterests and serhaps leaming styes (though, as
Wwe shall see, this is a controversial tapic). We might say, 700, thay students trom different
cultures.and educationa backgrounds —espec ally when they are ‘thrown together’ in
groups — have different expectations, which sometimes clash with each ather, and, more
importantly, perzps, with the way the teacher organises the learning.
One fine of Investigation into the cifferences between individual students, pioreeredin the
1860s, was the suggestion that same people had an antitude for leaming (the ability to leam
quickly) whiclt was more highly sleveluped ih thei Lhat1invathers, Aptitude t&sts attempted
to measuire this, but have been cliscradited, partly becatse quickness af learning is anly one
measure of success, and alsa beca.sse t can. anyway, o¢ affected by many ather factors, such
as motivation {Hall 2011: 129). “urtrermere, testing sameone’s aptitude seems to suggest
that It is 2stat'c mental capacity, yet people's abilities to learn can alter quite diamatically in
certain situations.
However, so Tie schools in the USA still use either the Macleir Language Aptitude Test
(MLAT) {Carroll and Sapon 2002) or the Pimsleur Lanquage Aptitucle Rettery (Pimsieu", Reed
and Stansfield 2004); there are other similar tests, which aim to predict whether individuals
can and will learn lanquages successfully,
The problert with these tests is that they have ne predie-ive power about the kind of
comact individuals will have with a fordign language, the kind of learning experiences
they will have, of the students’ need to learn it. “he fact js that many different people with
extremiely divergent levels of enteral eclucation arid cognitive skills seerr ta Le able !o lear
langueges remarkably well, given the right circumstances. And it is these circumstances that
aptitude tests are unable to measure.
instead of trying Lo say if someone eaLtd be a good learne’: perhaps it might be better to
try ta describe the strategies that stuclents use anc find aut how trese influence success,
Perhaps, it has been argued, success is bat nd up with \eamer styles and preferences.
5.2.1 Learner styles
According to lames Purpura, students eniploy a range of strategies fer learning, Using
metacogmitive strategies they mentally reaulate actions of bet awiours such 2s planning
what to do or thinking agou: - and mon'toriag ~ their foreign language use, They use socief
strategies to collaborate wity their fellow studerts anc others and their affective strategies
are behaviours that allow them to-adjust their feelings, beliefs and attitudes, Purpura
believes that students use their strateqic competence ‘either consciously and deliberately
or unconscloushy and automatically to further (their) processing while they are learning
and performing SFl. (Second or foreign language) tas (Purpura 20 14:533). When these
strategic competences combine with the Ieerrers’ feelings, motivation and perceptual
preferences, Purpura suggests, we end up with leamer styles.
Although, 2s wa stall see, many cemmentators are highly sceptica about the valueaf |
this ind uf desctiption far tethodolagival decision-making, alterpls to describe uifere it
learne- preferences of one kindl or another have been made, and these have had a significant
effect on materials design and on discussions about teaching, Marjorie Raserberg suggests
that “Spotlighting learning styles, especially when accompanied by ideas and act vities ane ising learhers
differentiated according to learner preference, can be a very supportive tool’ (201 3a: Part A).
What, then, are some of the variables that have been suggested?
| Perceptual preferences fach of us reacts to a iarige ol sensory Input. In the world of NIP
| (neure:linquist’c programming) these ae clescribed as Visuat (re’ating to what we see).
| Auuitary (ielating to what we heal), Kinaesthetic relating to movement), Olfactory (-elating
| tocursense of smell) and Gustatory [relating to our sense of taste}. Most people, wh le usine|
f
|
|
|
allthese systerns to experience the warld, revertheless neve one ‘preferred primary system
(Revel and Norman 1997: 31), of, suggests Marjori2 Rosenberg, ‘in stressful situations, we
tend ta use a primary and (serretimes) a-secondtaty systery in which we perceive, process
and store information’ (Rosenberg 2013a: Part A).
Personality factors Perhaps we are mote extroverted or more ntrovertad. Ifhe former,
the thecry goes, we are much ore likely’ta speak out and collstorate with others than
| Invroverted learners who are reluctant to da either.
Muttiple intelligences (M1) In his book Frames cf Mind, Howard Gardner suggested that
we do nat possess asing intelligence, but a range ol “intelligences (Gardner 1983},
Initially, he listed seven of these: musicai/rtythmical, verbal linguistic, visualy spatial, bouiiy/
kinaesthetic. logical) mathematica), inesgpersopal and interpersonal. All people have all of
| ‘these intelligences, he said, but in each person one (cr more) of them fs mare pronounced.
This allowed him to predie: thet a typical occ.patien (or “end state’) for people with a
strength in jagical maxheratical intelligence is that of the scientist, wlrereas a Lyical
end state ‘or people with strengths in visual /spatial intelligence right well be that of
the revigator ~ and so an. Gardner hassinee added aiveiy!ch intelligence, which he calls
| paturatistic intelligence (Gatciner 1993) to account far the ability to recognise and classify
paltertis in nature; Daniel Goleman has added a ninth: ‘erotianal intelligence’ (Golernan
1996}. This neludesthe ability to empathise. control impube and self-mativate, and the
term emotional intelligence has entered common usage when clescribing, especially, people
who appear not te have it, i.e.someane might be said ta ‘lack emotional invelligence
| (though exactly what t’is, is otten not discussed in such descriptions).
How we process things There are many descriptions of the differant ways that peeple
apparently process information. Rosenberg (201 3a) makes a difference between ‘global
lear vers (thase who ‘perceive material in a holistic manner’) and ‘analytic' leamers (those
who ‘tend to remember specifies and werk best elcne, a5 groupwork could be perceived
a¢ distracting’. Differences have been suggested, ta, between ‘fieid-sensitive” leamers
(whe greter to get information ir context) and ‘fieldinsensitive" learners (who are happyto
get information in the abstract). Then there are, apparently, ‘induct've' learners (who want
examples first} and ‘deductive’ learners (weho prefer ta start with rules and theares arid thet
| applythem to examples}. And so.an. More than a decade age. Frank Coffield, David Mast
Elaine Hall and Kathryn Ecclestorie tcuk é louk al the sracessing characteristics that were
then available and came up with the following (partial) list af opposites (see Figure 1), convergers versus divergers initiators versus reasaners
verbalisers versus imagers intuitionists versus analysts
holists versus serialists extroverts versus Introverts
deep versus surfaes learning sensing versus intuition
activists versus reflectors thinking versus feeling
‘pragmatists versus theorists judging versus perceiving
adaptors versus innovators left brainers versus right brainers
assimilators versus explorers meaning-directed versus undirected
field dependent versus tield independent theorists versus humanitarians
globalists versus analysts activists versus theorists
assimilators versus accommodatoss pragmatists versus reflectors
imaginative versus analytic learners organisers versus innovators
non-committers versus plungers leftsjanalytics/inductivesfsuccessive
common-sense versus dynamic learners Processors versus rightsjalobats)
deductives|simultaneous processors
executivesjhievarchicsjconservatives
versus legislativesjanarchicsfliberals
concrete versus abstract learners
random versus sequential learners
gure | Different leaner descriptions (rom Coffield et al 2004: 136)
What all the many researchers who try to identify individual learner characteristics warit ta
do, of course, is to use What they have found out to help teachers offer appropriate materials
and accivities for those different individuels. This is, of course, a Jauelanle aim, but indoes
pose sigrificant prob eitis. According to fn Serivener, in. discussion about NLP and multiple
intelligences, ‘the descriptions and suppesi:ions of how peop e differare all supposition
fie, believed, Lut nat proved) and, at best, only a glimpse of a wider truth’ (Scrivener
2012: 106). This is. perhaps, tre nub of the problem, There is little evidence co shaw any
correlations between Individua learner differences and different levels of success, Or rather
it is impossib ¢ to say whether a student wich an apparen: leaner style will do better with one
kind of instruction thar another with an apparently different learner style.
All those years aco, Frank Coffield and his colleagues suggested that while discussions of
learner styles may be of cons derable irterest to theorists, they themselves would ‘advise
against pedagogical ntervention based solely on any of the learing style Instruments’
{Coffield et a/ 2004: 140). In part, this is becavse, a8 we can see above, there ere sa many
ciflerent models avaiiaale that it is almast impossible to chuuse Letween them, but itis also
because “for the amount of attention they [learning style theories] receive, there is very little
evidence of their efficacy’ (Mayne 2012: 66).
John Geake worries that ideas such as multiple inte ligences and neu ro-linguistic
prog-aciming (with its emphasis 99 VAK — Visual, Auditory end Kinaesthetic teaming s:yles) are
“neuromythalogies’. It is worth quoting what he has to say at length: 25.3
Boingleamers
"W¥e use thot of cue Wins moet of tha time... Becatse ourbidins are densely inteeconnected,
anid we expiait this inleraunnectivity ta chable our primitively evolved primate brains to liven
ur complex meder human world. Although arain imaging detneaies areas of highs: (and lowver)
aolivation in response ta pa:tioular tasks, thinking involves coordinated interoonnectivity fern
both sides." the brain, not separate leét-ant-righ-brained thanking, High inteligence reulress
‘higher levels of inter hormispheric and cther connectad aeuivity. "The brain's imseroonnactivity
incluees tke senses, especially vision anc hearing We do not gam by One sense alorte, hence
VAK leaming szyles do not reflect how our brains ecrualy lea, nor tho individual difietennes we
observe in classrooms. Neuroimaging studies do not support multiple tnzelligenoes An fact, the
opposite is rua! {Ceke 2008: 13)
It would scem, therefare, that in the eyes of many, discussions about jearner sry es are
valueless; however, this may not be entirely the case. lim Sciivenes, (O" examnpe, wonders
Whether, when conside“ing preferences anc personalities, e:c. ‘their man yalue isin offering
us thought experiments along tie lines of “what if this were true?* — making us think
about the ideas andl. in’ doing $0, re‘lecting on ou7 oun default teachire styles arid our own
Curent understanding of learner differences end responses to them’ (Scrivener 2072; 108).
Here is somnething thet mast peaple can agree an: that mary of us have some ‘ingrained
pallens" in the way we teach (Rosenbeg 20 3b: 6), If there is a mismatch between these
‘patterns’ anc the way our students prefer to study. it may make it mare cfifficult fortkem to
fea successfully:
There is astrang possibility, therefore, tet we may have got things the wrong way round!
Instead of trying to pigeonhole student characteristics (which may, aswe have seen, be a
fruitless task anyway), it would be much better to encourage the students themselves to think
‘about what they resend to successfully so that they ran rhoose the strategies and activities
which best suit them —ard which they like mast, This is the appr cacti we will conside in
5.5.1 and, ndeed, the whole purpose of encouraging our learners to be autonomous is for
the students to discover what ‘works vest’ fer them, We will, of course, listen to their opinions
and may indeed mociify our teaching on the basis of these (see 9.5.4}, but thatis a farcry
from the suqyestion that we can identity different leamer types in any scientific way and base
our teaching ypan it.
Huweves, because the idea that there might be a clash between teacher style aiid learner
preference does have 2 ring of truth about it, thinking about different learmers might
provoke us inte considering our awn teaching habits and, as a result, it might encourage us
ta consider carefully, Qur ‘ingrained patterrs’ through the eyes of aur students. When tlte:
happens, something will have been achieved
Motivation
All teachers know that it is ezsier to teach students who are motivated than students W719
aren‘t, but what 1s motivation and where des it came from?
Marion Wiliams and Rober: Burden suggest that notivation is a ‘state of cognitive arousal”
which provokes a “deciston to 2ct’, a5 a result of which there \s ‘sustained intellec:ual and}
ar physical e“fort’ so that the parsan can achieve some ‘previously set. goal’ (Williams and
Burden 1997: 120). lane Arrold adds an affective element to her cefinition: the basic idea
can generally be reduced ta the state of wanting to do something enouch te put cut the
‘® chapter §
effort necessary Lo achieve it. There tends to be a mixture of the cagritive (setting goals) and
the affective (mobilizing the energy to each themy'(Ameld 2013: 36), Whereas Williams
and Buiden suggest that the strength of any motivation will depend on how much walue
the individual places an the outcome he ar she w shes ta achieve: for lane Amo d. the
student's self-esteem wll have a powerful effect on the depth of their motivational drive,
for ‘a student who be ieves he can't [eam the language is right. He can't unless he changes
this ballet’ (2013: 30). Zoltan Domnyei says that ‘the human mind being a highly Integrated
neural network, motivation constantly interacts with cognitive and emotional issues and
complex motivational censtruets usually include cognitive and affective comaonents’
{DGrnyei 2674: 519).
5.3.4 Understanding the nature of motivation
Writers on motivation make a difference between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Extrinsic
motivation comes from oulside the leamers themselves ard may, for example, be provoked
by the need — or the desire — to pass an exam, or by the fact tnat the leame” has a trip to
a foreign country and needs to get thel- language up toa commun catively efficient level
Intrinsic motivation is described as ‘passion for lezrring' and a 'sense of competence while
performing challenging tasks' (Oxford 2013: 98}. Students who are intrinsically motivated
are driven by a desire to succeed in class and by what happens nthe lessan. As we shall
see, teachers have considerably more power tu influence intrinsic motivation than its:
extrinsic cousin.
Cnce upair @ thine i: was sugcested that our motivation as students was € ther instrumesrtal
(we-are learning because we thins it will have an_nstrumencal benefit —we will get a new job
or be asle to live somewhere new, for example} or integrative (we believe that the language |
speaking community wno speak the language we are learning have qualities which we woul |
a0 like to heve and be @ part off. According to Robert Gardner, integrative motivation won
outal the time and is a far greater motivator than the more prosaic instrumental motivation
could be (Gardner 1985),
For Zoltan LSiryei [2014], there. also a relationship between she students’ views of
themselves. and themselves as speakers of the larquage they are learning. But instead of
a lying this sa some perceived noticn of targetlanguage values as Gardner had suggested,
LS:nyel proposes a three pronged view of motivational factors. He suggests tat motivation
\s provoked by 1) an (deal L2 Sef: Lie person Ural the learner would lice to be in the
Jenguage they are learning. The gap between this and their actual self is. something that the
student wants to close. This ‘self-image’ has to be plausble and sufficiently different from
the current self as to nake it entifiate, Crucially. this selfimage is seen by the leamer as
not comfortably within his or her reach, but has to be “fought for’; 2) an Ought-to 12 seif:
these are the attributes that learners believe they oucht ts pessess to avoid any necative
sutcomes; 3} the L2 jearning experience: this is the result of the learning environment and
isattecced by the impact of success and failure, for example. Hf this fs true and if, as lane
‘Amold suggesteel (see 5.2), the learne'’s se f-es-eem is a vital element for success, ten a lot
of our effort wi | be directed! at nurturing our learners’ view of their L2 self end at making
the classroom experlence a way of supporting this. We will look at what teache's can do to,
effect this in 5.3.3. Beingleaners
‘Fall our students were highly motivated, life wou d be considerably easier ~ at least at
the stait of a new course (See 5.3.3). But frequencly they are not. Keiko Saku| anc! Nell
Cowie (2072) discuss the feelings of Japanese university scudents of Eaclish andl find that
the ‘daik side’ af mot vation — ‘unmotivation’- is sometimes present in that situation,
whether this manifests itself as a kind of aggressive negativity or s mply as a lack of interest in
lenguage learning.
How is students’ motivation (or ‘unmitivation') aHected by the seople and places a°ound
their? {his is wwlial we will consider in the next section,
What affects motivation?
Scudents! atti:udles are influanced by a-number of people’ andl paces. Most important of
these for younger leaness, pemtans, are their farnilies’ altiLucles Lu the iea ting of foreign
languages. If such learning s seen as a priarity in the household, then the student js like y.
mere often than not, to reflect these attitudes. But if anquad learning is uninteresting to tre
family, then the student will need to have teir awn strong feelings in order to counter “his.
The studen:s' peers will also affect their fee'ings. If language learning is seem as. an
important anci srestigious zctivity by the other students around them, they are far more likely
to view the act vity positively than if their colleagues think the whole exercise Is unnecessary.
Forolder students, the ntluence of family 3s, perhaps, less likely te alfect their feelings.
But the altitude of the people araund them will have a strong bearivg on how they feel. In
a cavatry where foreign-larquage speaking Is seen as something oositive. there Is c early
a much greater chance tha: students will be pleased ~a be learning. Conversely, sacietles
where foreign languages are seen as largely Irrelevant can have a negative-effect on ery
individual’s desire to learn - or, rrore importantly, taeir ability ta sustain that mot'vation.
Younger studerts, as we saw in 5.1.1, have a natural curiosity, and sh s can qfeatly affect
their initial mativation. But as we get older, previous learning experences car have a st’ong
impact ov how motivated we are likely to. be, and can have a progressively corrosive effect
upon that cu-iosity, The belief that we car or cannot learn languedes is, as ane Arnold
suggested (see 5.3], extremely powerful and can either spur us ferward or hold us back
Danuta Wisniewska points aut that scrme pewale seem to believe that ‘in the contemporary
warld young peoale are willing to lear foreign languages, capecially English, and we believe
they should find English classes interesting’ but research shows that ‘adolescents are very
ofter unmotivated to lear, are disaffected anc cisengaged" Wisniewska 2913: 213). This
lack of motivat on, like the ‘unmotivation’ identified i7 thelr Japanese university students
ley Sakul and Cowie (see 5.3.1), may have somethirg to da with issues such as class size,
Lie Compulsory rature of the leaning, and the attitude of the school or university they
are studying In,
{ris certainly true that inany youny pacpile fa | to ste the importance o* learning another
fanguage and do nat enjey the conditions in which it takes place or the way it is done, Bt
we should sot despair! In the first place, many other students are excited at the prospect oF
raving an ‘ideal L2 self’ (see 5.3.1). and secandly, there is a lotwe can do bath te provoke
positive motivation and, Tore importantly, help to nurture and sustain it.
What teachers can do about student motivation
Motivacion Is not the sole resaensibility o* the teacher. t couldn't be, for she reasors we
Mentioned in 5.3.2. But ibs sumthing that we can have a profound effect upon, ehapree
Affect Clearly, based! an what we have said so far, feelings anc emotions have a lot to
do with how mo;ivated or unmotivated a students. This is wry ts so Important to help
students create the ‘vision’ of their ideal .2 self. and to reminc them of this as often as
appropriate. Jane Arnoid believes tha: frequently ‘using language activities which foster
self-esteem i one way to Crange limiting beliefs that students may have! (2013: 34), end
that the teacher has the double task of ensuring that the ability ta speak the lancuage is
attractive andi, importantly, “exalainirg that if they are willing to work, they can reach their
goals’ (2013: 37).
‘The really important thing to remember is that if znd when our students became
mat vated, this feelirg does nat necessary last, unless we do aur best te sustain it through
activities and encouragement, through clear qoal aid task-setting, and through activities
which maintain our stuctents” self-esteem. This anguinig process s, of cauist, greal ly helpec
by the establishment of gone classionm rapport (see 6.1.1) and ty teachers taking a
personal interest in theirstucents and personalising lessons so that tye livas of the students
are reflected in what happens in zhe lessons (Neale 2011).
One of the ways of provoking excitement and seif'esteem is by increasing the students’
expectation of success. However, Ifthis expectation Is not met, students ray wall become
derrotivatec since continual failure has a7 ecremely negative effect cr self belie.
Achievement One of the most important tasks a teacher has is to try to mateh what the
students are asked to co with tre possibilty that they can actua ly achieve it. Such goak
secting is a vital skil, tis complex because doing something which is too easy is not an
achievement. On the contrary, an aparopriate learning goal is one where the students
mnanage to da sermething whic was, before they stared, just outside their reach. The
{cus on the Zone of Proximal Development (7FD —see 5.1, 1) in much thinkng about
reaching reflects this. We beliave tha: students learn best wien they are ir the zone, ready
‘and more importantly, ble} ta lear sameching new. But achievement which metivates
sores through eHort, ard so qurtask is to be sure our students can achieve the short- and
ong-term goals we place before thet jor which they, Uernselves frave iclentil ee), while
araviing them with a reasonable level of challenge,
Achievernient Is mst commonly measured thraugh grades of ene sortor anather, but
these can tave a baleful eect an student motivation if they are caretessly awarded. of
*Fthe students are frequently failing te acrieve the grades they desire. One of the ways
af improving the situation, suggests Darnyei (2014) isto make the crades transparent,
with c ear success crteria, se the students know what they are aiming at. Grades need to
vetlect ettort and improvement a5 well as just numerical achievement. Ine whole grading
environeent will be greetly improved (in motivational terms) when there is continuous
assessment (perhaps portfolio assessment) as well a5 the mere usual tests and exams, We will
return to these issues in Chapter 22.
Activities What we actually ask the students to do wil have aconside-aale effect on their
intrins:¢ motivation. Mil tacatten, however, the matenals and activities that students ae
as¢ed to. be involved in are, at best, unengaging and, at worst, menotonous. Some official
‘ceuIseDOCks = and the exa™ preparation trat goes with them ~ can have a deaciening effect
tan student metivatian {though this daes nat need to be the case—sée-4.9.? and 22.2}
The heve Lo be ways of changing this unsat'sfactory situat on. Being learners
One of the keys to sustaining student motivation is to make the materia’s and activities
we are using relevant: to our stucevts’ Ives ane interests, As we shall see in Chapter 11. ths
will irvalve using the kinds cf devices they (and we) are familar wit), such 25 Nobile phones
ane tablets. But itis not just this. We also want to t-y to mace what we offer and talk about
relewa e world the students live in and. where possible, to the stuclents’ ideal |2 salt
Tris sucgests that even if we are aaliged to use materials tha: are themselves nat especially
interes we need te “nel ways of relating wat is in them to the stucents themselves
(see 4.9.2), We cen ask them what trey thnk of the material, We carvask them to change
the information ina text, for example, so that it is relevant to thelr lives, or change the
craracters in a dialcgue so that shey recognise the kind of people viho are talking.
Anether key to sustaining motivation isto vary che activities we use with aur classes. Tris
is partly so that we can cater far different learner preferences.and strategies (sce 5.2.1), but
also so that our lessons do nat become predictable, and :hus uninteresting. Good teachers
balance teir students’ neec for routine (which engencers feelings of comfart anid security)
with 2 more apparently anarchic mix of unexpeczed activities.
Attitude However ‘nice’ teachers are. the students are Unlikely ta follow them willingly (anc
do what is asked of them) unless they have confidence in their professional abilities. Students
need te believe that we know whet we are doing
This confidence ina teacher may start the moment we walk into the classtoamt for the
first time —because of the students’ perception of our attitude to the job, Aspects such as
the Way we dress, where we stand and the way wetalk to the class all haye a searing here
Students also need to feel trat we know about the subject we are tet tiny. Conscivusly ur
unconsciously they 1eed to feel that we are prepared ta each English in general and that
We ate srepared to teach this lesson in particular. One of the ehief reasons (but not the arly
one, of Course} why classes occasionally become uncisciplined is because teachers do not
have erough for the students to do - or seem not to be quite sure what to do next
When students have confidence jn the teacher, they are likely to remain engaged with
what fs going on. IF chey lose that confidence, It becorres difficult for them to sustain she
motivation they might have started with,
Agency Fhilosophers rave always tried ta evaluate the individual's power to act, whether
from a Descartes perspective {| thin, therefore | arn) or a Nietzschean view {we mako
chiciges based on our Selfish desires}. Agency describes cur ability ta have control in our lives
ane, through aur own thinking and will, to effect change in the way we live,
Alot ofthe time students have things done to them and, as.a result, r'sk being passive
recipients of whatever is Leing I'anded down, We should be equally interested, however, in
things dene by the students, so that they become, like the agent af a passive se-tence “the
thing of person that does’
When students have agency, they get to make some of the decisions about wret is going
on, and, asa consequence, they take some resuonsibility for their learning. “oF example,
wie right allow our'stucents to teil us when ard If they want te be cerrected in fluency
actvity. rather than always deciding ourse’ves when correction is anpropriate and when itis
net. We might have the students tell us what words they fine difficult to pronounce, rater
than assum ng they all havethe-same difficuities. S.4.1
5.4.2
We might summarise this d scussion by saying that ‘the brain needs positive emotions,
experiences af Success, and a sense of ownersh p in order to be fully engaged in the learner
process’ (Puchta 2013: 58). The sense of awrership tat Herbert Puchta refers to has a lat
to dowith the students’ agency and their ability to be autonomous leamers, Ihese are issues
that we will discuss ir 5.5.
Levels
Iris not difficult to see (and heer) the difference between a student who is a. complete
beginner, and one who is very advanced, Whereas the former will struggle to understand
what is said and will find it difficit to say anything wary much, the latter may well fine!
themselves alinost indistinguishable (except perhaps in termsof accent] from semeone
who grew up with English as a mother tongue. However, if we are to select appropriace
strategies, activities snd materials tor our students, we need to be able to identity
their evel of proficiency in a significantly more sophisticaced way than merely saying
beginrier and advanced.
From beginner to advanced laced
Wher people talk abauit beginners, they frequent y
make a distinction between ‘real and ‘fale’ Upperintermediaee
beginners. The former are those students who
have absolutely no krowledge of Englisy at all, micsintermediate
whereas false beainners’ know someting, but riot
enough to really say anything. Students whe start lower intermediate! prentermmediate
a beginners progress to the elementary level, and
then to intermediate before they make it all tie elementary
way to advanced, However. intermediate jsusually a ny
subdivided into lower- and upperintermediate, so
that a student who isat 2.9000 uoperintermediace
level $ very close to being considered as an advanced —Figui"s 2 Representing different
student, These levels are surrnarised in Figuie 2. student levels
Coursehnesk publishers ane schools often say shat it will fake students sarrewhere hetween
90 and 120 hours te complete a level and be ready to move on ta the yext one,
The problem with tris way of describing student levels is that the terms are very imprec se:
what ‘intermediate’ means to one school may be somewhat different to te definition of
intermediate sarewhere else, A consensus of sore sort jas generally been achieved by te
fact tet ceursebocks from different publ shers show sign ficant similarities in their syllabuses,
etc.. but there are some ditterences, too. And the levels have traditionally been delineated
mostly in terms of different linguistic {grammar} structures.
The CEFR levels
The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) was the res.ilt of colleboration
between the Counsil of Europe and the Association of Languege Testers in Lurope (ALTE). It
proposes sixlevel trame ot reterence to describe what s:udents at the ditterent levels are
able.to do. O-icinally designed to take account of the plurality of languages within Europe
ieelbeginner fase beu ie Being learners
(the levels are equally applicable to airy lanquaue), the CEFR has become widely referenced 19
many different parts.of the world.
“The six levels of the CEFR aie A? (breakthreuigh of begitner), A2 {waystage or elementary),
87 (threshold ar intermiediata), B2 (vantage of upper-intermediate). C7 (effective operational
proficiency or advanced), and C2 (mastery or proficiency), They do not all descritte equally
long stretches of abi ity (waich has led some te come up with labels such as B1+, etc.) but
what mekes them special is that they are described not in terms of linguistic elements, but
instead in zerms of ‘can do’ statements, which describe what people are able to do with the
language. Thus at the A1 level. 3 speaker “can introd sce himself/herself and athers and can
ask and answer questions about persona’ cetalts such as where he/she lives, peaple he/she
knows and things he/she has’. At the B1 level, students ‘can deal with most situations likely to
arise while trave ling in an area where the language $ spoken’ whilst at the C7 tevel, they can
‘express ideas flLently ard spontaneously without much obvious searching for expressions”
and ‘can use language flexibly and efectively for social, academic and professional purposes’
woen stucents Fave reached 'masce-y or proficiency’ (that isthe C2 level) they can ‘express
Uleniselves spontaneously, very “luently and precisely, differentiating finer shades of maening
even in the mast complex situations".
is immediately cearthat the ‘can do’ statements, however finely worked out, are
descriptors that same people might wish ta Tiaderate or change, But what gives them their
power—ane the reason that they have kecome so widely used — is the fact that the studerts
themselves can work out their own levels based on these 'can do’ statements (writte7 in
heir mother tongue, but referring to the language they are eaming), ard they can use
chese statements {and many other ‘can do’ statements which have faund thelr way into
coursebooks and learning programmes) to see what they have learnt ane what soil remains to
ae done. The ‘can do’ statements offer tre exciting jiospect of the stdents being in charge
of their own progress~ a key feature of learner autonomy (see 5.5).
Since the anvival of the CEFR, publishers, in paiticulat, have tried zo. peg the sin levels to the
more trad tlaral categories af beginner, intermediate, etc, (see Figure 3),
| Seginners intermediate Advances
faige Elementary Pre Upper
becinners intermediate. inte mediate
Figure 3 Tetms for different student levels (anid ALTE levels)
Other frameworks of language proficiency
Various organ setiors have attempted to refine and) expand the ‘ean do’ statements from the
CEF2 (you can find web addresses for them in the chapter’ notes.an page 110), These incluclz
the British Counci /EAQUALS Core Jriventary, which alms te shaw how the CEFR levels can be
used to guide course design and teacher decisions. The English Vocabulary Profile (EVP) fram
Carnbridye University Press says which words are used by learners at the d tierent levels of the
CEFR ancl is thus 1:ieful lexical resource for students and teachers. The Cambridge Enqlish
Stale Isa sophisticated 230-point scale, aligned with the'CEFR, which gives candidates for
* spn
‘Camibnielge exams @ more sophisticated reading of thelr results and their language abilities
than previous level descriptors.
Although the CEFR is widely accepted as 3 benchmark by many course desiqjners, it has
some limitations. In the fist place, the major‘ty of the ‘can do! statements refer to spoken
English so that the coverage of the other skills is patchy. Seconclly, these ‘can do’ statementé
are concentrated. forthe most part, inthe A2-B2 levels.
The Global Scale of English, produced by Pearson, aims to avaid taese limitations by
creating # 90-paint scale aligned to the original CEFR research data, This not only includes
many more ‘can do" descriptors for diferent language skills, but it also has new ‘can do*
scatements at 3 level below A1 (for example: ‘Can recognise numbers up to-ten").
GSE 0 20 30 40 50 #9 70 8 90
ce beta offer the learners a “menu” of leamer strategies. and invite ther to.
experiment until they find the ones that best suit them’ (2006: 176), Thus, for example. we
might show aur students a range of recording / note-aking techniques (see Figure 5), avid
these could then dea springboerc for a
discussion about whar works best for Sen
incividual scutents in the class
Point by point 2s
Learning English F :
Loree Sep ee
| PB Reading YP spaatetti Lerner
Simpl fied reuers os Concentrade: po aye oF malig in clas,
(learnt iueiature)
2 Ways of neacing in class oh temewors la Iportiant
| 3. Authentic material f
a Newsnapers \
b the interer
/ Sion rears —
Masai: appa Tama
Litas hed wie SACK fa abr ary
Figure 5 Possible note-taking vechniques
‘s) 5.6.2
chapter
Coals and processes Some teachers go further than encouraging their students to craose
Svfategies (and eflect an tein clwices}. Their aims to get ehei~ students to thirk about
thelr leaming processes and plan thelr “learning camipaign’ accordingly. Daniel Barber ane
Duncan Foard suggest ‘SMART goals evaluator’ (Barber and Faord 201-4a}, The ecronyr)
| stands for Specific, Measurable, Agreed, Realistic ane Time-bound goals, and the suggestion
is that the students set themselves gaals that have these characteristics, they will have a
chance of success. Moreover, because the goal 's measurable, they will be cble to see if they
have achieved it,
tila Morison wants to encourage “self-directed language teaming’ in much the same
vray (Morrison 2012), In his scneme (and see also Morrison and Navarre 2014), suceesslul
learning involves Plznning, Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation, students eed to
plan their own learning goals (far example, work ng on a lancuage skill within a specific
gente = see 29.2.2) and work our how to |malernent them (e.g. what they are going to do},
They have ta moniter their own progress and, as with the ‘smart altemnat ve, -hey have to,
be ehle to evaluate (or measure} hoyr well their goaly have been achieved, They need to
think about what they can useto heipthem achieve thel- coals and wht activities they will
take part in. Theyalso need ta review what they are doing and what they have done. SUCt)
reflection, as we Nave seen, is an important element in becoming more self-aware and thus
in becom ng more autonomous.
Sucr goal-setting is readily actrievable whe we are teacting one-to-one (see 7.1.2), but
less easy to achieve with large classes af stucents. In such sitvations, we may find shat we
want to develop goals tor the whole class or at least discusstthis (see 5.5.4). However, if
we can encavrege aur students to develop treir own plans oF study in this way, w= will have
gone sorte oF the way towards helping therr to become gen.tinely autonomous.
Autonomy tasks
One way of allowing students to rely ov their awn ‘esources aiid learning potential anc
on each ather - ‘5 by setting tasks which ask them to take responsibility for their own:
learning. Thes, ler exainple, Grecory Friedman had his lapanese students set up their own
‘lexical database’ (Friedman 2003), They used the web as their own living corpus (see 11.3),
searching for collocations, etc. anc then sharing what they had discovered through emails
and:a wiki dictionary. The point of the wark these university students were asked te co is that
instead of being ‘givert vocabulary, or looking it up in dictionaries, they used web scarching
to find examoles of words they were interested in and which they could then share (together
‘with tre collocational information they had found) with their colleagues.
Caroline Vickers and Estela Ene asked their advanced students ta compare their own use
of the hypothetiea: past conditional with examples of ils use in an autherttic text. twas uo
to the students to work out the cifference between thelrown language end that of a more
competent user (V.chers ard Ene 2006). Chris Stillwell et.al had their students transcribe their
own speech ca notice how well they were doing aud lo micke recessary alterations (Stillwell,
Curabba, Alexander. Kid, Kim, Stone and Wyle 2010).
Atanu Bhattacharya and Kiran Chauhan had their Indian students write lags (see. 11.3),
which made the students more autonomous since they had to ereate and edit their own
blegs to make them attractive erough for athers to visit’ (Bhattacharya and Chauhen 2010;
4), One answer to the question of how fo enceutage learner autonomy is simply to give
the students tasks that they really want to do, especially whe they care a lot about the Being learners
on
ey
).
il
i
e
ir
finished prosuct. That's why blogging and other public online pastirgs works when students
know that anyone car see their work, they often make 2 saecial elfort to make it acceptable
(see 11.3 and 20.3).
Valerie Sartor woulc agree. She warts to move away from a ‘banking model’ of education
where teachers deposit their knowledge, and instead ‘help our students to create ard
strengthen their awn voices’ (Sartor 2014: 19). [n her case, the students had to choose a
topic that interested them and then put tagether a portfolio of texts within different genres
~from web articles to plays. from poetry to rap, for example. When they tad finished, they
preseated treir topics to the class in whatever way sulted them — using aresentation sofware
ar through written accounts, ete. They ‘nat only gained higher levels of English literecy, aut
alse learnt to take respersibility for their own leaming and to @xplore'a variety af texts and
media’ ‘Sartor 201.4: 20),
‘Arlt will depend on who our students are ~ both in terms of their age and level - and also
07 hew big our classes are, But the exsimples we have quoted here can |ustifisb y be said to
have contributed te learner autoromy by getting the students to invest themselves nthe
learniny tasks, rather than havirg everything done for then by a tezcher.
Open learning, self-access centres and student ‘helpers’
We can get ourstudents to Jearn ay themselves thrauigh ‘open learning’ and sel-access
centres, Instead cf everyone duiny .he same thing at the same time, the students can cheose
what to-co and, crucially. do it an tein awn. We can also get the students to yelp each other.
Open learning
Laura Bergmenn used open learning with young learners and teenagers in government
schaols in Austria because ‘apen leating approaches are characterised by self-determination,
independence and the follewing othe leamers' own interests, They give the learners sure
degree of choice in what, when, where, with wiom and how they learn’ (Bergmann and
Ruffino 291 Tat 4]. pen leaming, the students are glven a qurrber af tasks to clause
from and they €27 evaluate their own success in these tasks. They do the rasks an ther ow
(although the teacher is on hand to help f and wnen necessary} and they do ax many. as trey
thinkthey need,
‘One way of organising open learning iste tive (ine students a collection of exercises and
activities. all of which they have to da. but in any order they choose. aut this s nat “eal oper
Jearning and ‘soon the students realise how little freedom trey neve and become frustrated!
(Berqrnann anc Ruffine 20° 14: 5}, Laura Sergrrann gave her students a wide range of
activities whicli they could select from in order to be able to meet —ta their own setisfaction
~ variety of ‘can do’ scatemerts (see, for example. 5.4.2), Such “can do” statements could be
tied 10 linguistic items ar funetions (e.g, '| can ask about when to meet and understand the
replies’) so that the students themselves decicle when they have reac ved their goal, and Keep
going until they are satisfiec! that they can do these things. For Bergmann and Riffing, ‘asthe
students cease relying, or the teacher to drive their leaminig forward, they experierice Uhell
‘own agency. sometimes for the frst time ir their lives’ {Bergmann andl Rutfina 201 1b: 20).
‘Open learning = asis the case with a lot af primary teaching around the world —reles on
the class‘oom having a nuinber cf different areas for different learning activities. Thus, for
example, there might be a computer euirier, a speaking area. a listening area, etc. The main
thing is thet tha studerts should 2e able to mnve around and change places, depending ar schapnor S
whet they want to co because “open leztning also mears open elasstooms. There’s no reason
why your students can’t use the corridor, the library, the cartteen or the playground to work!
(Bergmann and Ruffino 207 1e: 6), Not ll teachers can allow thelr students to ‘disappea”
inthis way, of course. but getting the students to be genuinely responsible for their own
feainniny is greatly enhanced If they-can mave from area to area.
Selfaccess centres
When open learning bec anes irstitutionalised, learning institutions often create seltaccess
entres {SACS}, These are pleces where toe sudents can go ta study.on their own, They:can
“eac books, do grammar exercises, |sten to audio material or watch videos,
Ihe design of self-access centres—and the ways they are administered —will have a direct
beating on their success or failure. We need te make sure that the physical environment is
approphate tor our studefits, We have to decide if we want to provide areas where they can
work (and talk} tagecher, far examle. We heve to think about how peaple will move around
the centre, and arecict which will be the most popblar sites. We will want to pravide lighting
and decoration which is conduc ve to relaxed study, without maing the area so relaxing that
the studerts fall asleep.
Another important consideration will be the systems we use for classifying matarial and
getting the students to Havigate through the diferent possibilities on offer. this apaties to
Compurer sites (such as Coursehnok companion sits, ete.) which offer self-directed learning
material just as it does te the kind of ahysical learning centres we have been talking about.
Material sho ld bee early signposted ~ what it is, what it Is for. what level it caters for, how
it wil help the students, etc, The centre or website shauid offer ‘sathways' that the students
might want to follow so that when student finishes an activity, they might read: Now you |
have done this scanning exercise, you might want to try x, which asks you to read a tel nia
ditferent way. You can then compare your reactions to bot ‘eading approaches
in order
