A number of LD SIG members made the journey to Hong Kong last week for the two-yearly conference of the Independent Learning Association Conference, but for those who didn’t, here’s a very partial and subjective account.
Having decided (in retrospect, perhaps rather unwisely) that I needn’t cancel my Wednesday classes, I arrived in Hong Kong on Wednesday night and rolled up at HKPU on Thursday when the conference was already in full swing. I know I missed a great tour of self-access facilities at three Hong Kong Universities on Tuesday, and an amazing line-up of presentations on Wednesday. Perhaps other LD-ers who were there can fill this gap…?
First up on Thursday morning was keynote speaker, Claire Ellen Weinstein from the University of Texas at Austin. A professor of Educational Psychology, she gave us an overview of the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI) the assessment instrument she has developed that is now widely used in the US and elsewhere to support struggling and at-risk students, and a triangular Model of Strategic Learning incorporating skill, will and self-regulation. The key point she made (or that I grasped) was that this is a gestalt model, in other words, it is the interaction of skill, will and self-regulation that makes the difference for learners, rather than a focus on any one element. Applying this to my own work situation, this reminds me that I need to try and strike a balance, providing models and opportunities for my students to develop their language and critical thinking skills, and at the same time, giving them ways and means to enhance their motivation and take control of their learning.
Computers are clearly an indispensable tool for autonomy learning and are at the heart of self-access language centers. Jo Mynard’s presentation on the benefits and challenges of computer-based resources for self-access drew on three different metaphors for thinking about computers: the computer as a tutor (for example, language courses or resources designed as computer-based language learning materials), the computer as a tool (authentic materials which can be exploited by learners for language development), and computer as “mindtools” (interactive CALL). This may not have been the intention of the presentation, but my take on this was that there was some hierarchy of preference implied, with the “mindtools” image the most ideal, because it offers a way for learners to interact and to practice “knowledge representation” in the target language.
Again, applying this to my situation, I have always thought of my classroom as a language learning “environment”, where learners practice knowledge representation with each other, as well as discuss with each other the problems they encounter in doing this. I do expect my students to use computers as tutors (for example, Purdue University’s OWL site does a far better job of teaching bibliographic conventions than I can) and as tools (Pitt University’s database of folk tales from around the world, or the news media for a news story project). I also ask my students to email me their assignments and to write nice polite cover messages when they do so ;-) But I realize that I could do a whole lot more with computers, and the only reason I don’t is that I tend to use what I’m familiar with and what has worked before. I do try new things each year, but I hesitate to do more for fear of being overwhelmed. That’s one of the reasons I enjoy going to conferences so much - they give me the motivation and confidence to push myself outside my comfort zone.
A lot of the people I met and presentations I went to were concerned with the use of computers. Fiona Henderson from the University of Victoria reported on the development of computer-based materials aimed at engaging and empowering learners, particularly those in the university’s off-shore campus in China. The academic literacy program that they have devised draws on popular media (manga) and culture (Chairman Mao plays table tennis with Arnie Schwarzenegger) in order to hook learners and provide a bridge into academic discourse. What struck me most was the amount of time and money spent (though the presenter complained that this was barely enough and decreasing) on developing this resource and the commitment of the institution to finding new and creative ways to attract and keep its student base in an increasingly competitive market.
By contrast, Kerstin Dofs’ presentation right afterward showed the other side of the coin: Reporting on the somewhat mixed results of the first year of self-access in a language teaching program in New Zealand, it seemed clear that for the institution involved, self-access was regarded as just a supplement to a more orthodox curriculum. Students had “self-access” hour once a week when they used a small room with computer terminals where they were encouraged to work through language learning programs, consult web sites and contribute to blogs. Learning facilitators, who were proficient language learners, were drafted in to help out and give advice, but the regular teachers were not paid anything for any work they did on the Self Access Center and, consequently, had little or no interest in it.
Later, I was talking to Joe Falout who described the inadequate resources for self-access at his university, and I realised that at my own university self-access is limited to a small guided readers library (which apparently took years of lobbying by my foreign language department colleagues to implement). Lucy Cooker, who set up the Self Access Learning Centre at Kanda University of Foreign Studies, and who now acts as a roving consultant while working on her PhD at Nottingham, agreed that Self-access requires a huge degree of commitment in terms of human and financial resources, as well as a paradigm shift on the part of the institution that goes down that route.
Probably many of us LD-ers in Japan work in universities or schools or language schools that haven’t (yet) made that paradigm shift. The places where I have taught have seemed to place their priority on the individual teacher over any idea of a curriculum. Learner development is assumed without any further inquiry; learner autonomy meets with raised eyebrows, and a suspicion that the teacher is not doing her job. Nanci Graves and Stacey Vye gave a presentation whose title, “More learner autonomy with less frustration”, expressed exactly this key conflict that I feel I face. Nanci and Stacey have loads of creative and practical ideas for teachers who don’t have the support of colleagues or an institution behind them, some of which I’ve heard in previous presentations and some of which I’ve incorporated into my own practice. The “frustration” in the title led me to expect that Nanci and Stacey would be addressing some of those institutional and ideological obstacles. The fact that they didn’t - or at least, didn’t in a way that I expected - has left me with more questions now than I had before. Which is a good thing :-) because Nanci and Stacey have a proposal with a remarkably similar title for an article in the new LD SIG book “Developing autonomy practices”. So I’m really looking forward to getting back to those questions when we meet again at the Writers’ Retreat on the 4th and 5th July in Tokyo (plug).
The last presentation I hit was, appropriately enough for a blog entry on the LD SIG website, Andy Barfield’s presentation on…. the LD SIG. Andy has been in the SIG since its first year and has been closely involved with it up until about a couple of years ago. Just before he left for his sabbatical year in the UK last spring, he interviewed four pseudonymous (!) SIG members about their reasons for joining the SIG and what they get out of it. In the presentation, Andy handed out pages of extracts from the interviews with each of the participants in his study with the aim of having us discuss what they meant and also to consider whether an Activity System model was helpful to understanding learner development in the LD SIG (I think). To tell the truth, I’m not a big fan of models. Give me a good story anytime. It always makes more sense to me than lines and arrows. Despite my small misgiving about the point of the model, Andy’s presentation was particularly thought-provoking to me as - let me confess it here and now - one of the participants in the study. Being interviewed was in itself a great opportunity to reflect on and articulate my expectations of the SIG, but being able to read other members’ stories showed me that the diversity of views and experiences within the SIG membership is a mighty asset both for each of us as individuals, and for the LD SIG as a whole.
Presentations mentioned
Claire Ellen Weinstein, “Strategic and self-regulated learning for the 21st century: the merging of skill, will and self-regulation”
Jo Mynard, “Benefits and challenges of computer-based resources for self-access”
Fiona Henderson, “Academic literacy: Modeling and empowering students for independent learning”
Kerstin Dofs, “Embedded self-study time in English as an Additional Language (EAL) programmes
Nanci Graves & Stacey Vye, “More learner autonomy with less frustration”
Andy Barfield, “Problematizing learning learner development”
Comments
Add Comment