Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal 1(1)

Jo

Special issue on principles and practices

Jo

SISAL Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1, June, 2010, 1-4

!"!

CONTENTS: Volume 1, Number 1, June, 2010

• Editorial by Jo Mynard (1-4)

Perspectives

• Some Self-Access Principles by Lucy Cooker (5-9)

• What Factors Encourage High Levels of Student Participation in a Self-

Access Centre? by Keith Barrs (10-16)

Articles

• English Language Writing Centres in Japanese Universities: What do

Students Really Need? by Jim McKinley (17-31)

• An Investigation of Student use of a Self-Access English-only Speaking

Area by Heath Rose & Roxanne Elliott (32-46)

• Integrating Self-Access into the Curriculum: Our Experience by Gene

Thompson and Lee Atkinson (47-58)

Work in Progress

• A New Member of the Family: The Sojo International Learning Centre

by Jon Rowberry (59-64)

Reports

• Report on the Japan Association of Self-Access Learning (JASAL)

Forum, at the Japan Association for Language Teaching (JALT) 2009

Conference in Shizuoka. by Jo Mynard and Diego Navarro (65-67)

Editorial

Jo Mynard, Kanda University of International Studies, Japan

Welcome to the very first edition of the journal Studies in Self-Access

Learning, which will otherwise be known as SiSAL ( /si:sæl/ ). SiSAL began life as a

modest project at an institution of higher education in Japan. Originally intended as an

internal publication which would serve the team of administrative staff, teachers and

learning advisors at Kanda University of International Studies and its associated

institutions, the journal developed out of a desire to archive and share ongoing work

with each other and also with interested colleagues. However, colleagues at Kanda

and elsewhere expressed surprise that the initiative should have such a limited scope;

surely this was a golden opportunity for professionals in the field around the world to

learn from each other? After considerable reflection, it was agreed that SiSAL


!"!

Journal should be launched as a peer review journal, providing articles, reports,

reviews, perspectives and work in progress to educators and staff involved in self-

access learning worldwide.

I am certain that SiSAL Journal has a significant role to play in the field of

applied linguistics for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is a fact that relatively little has

been published about self-access in recent years and it is both important and necessary

to ensure that the practice of self-access learning remains within the consciousness of

teachers and other practitioners.

Secondly, SiSAL will highlight the fact that in many institutions, self-access

facilities continue to be an integral part of the learning experience for the study of

languages. While in such institutions the importance of self-access facilities tends to

be taken for granted, it must be remembered that in other institutions, colleagues are

not so well-versed in what self-access learning is, beyond setting homework, nor are

they altogether clear about what it is that distinguishes a Self-Access Centre from a

computer lab or a library. Unless more ongoing research and descriptions of practice

related to self-access are published, there is a real danger that these misunderstandings

and misconceptions will continue.

What this journal has the potential to do is to show that SACs are very much

thriving and moving in exciting new directions as practice continues to be informed

by research as well as being enhanced by technological developments.

Another important role that SiSAL Journal can play is in promoting research

and critical reflection in order to influence future directions in the field. SACs should

always be a ‘work in progress’. There are always new materials to consider and new

ways of using, presenting, adapting and organising existing materials. Learners’

needs and preferences change over time due to a number of factors and meeting these

fluctuating predilections requires constant vigilance and alertness. It is also important

to continue to pay attention not just to material resources, but to human resources too.

In what ways can learners be supported by staff, peers, teachers and learning

advisors?

Innovations implemented at a SAC in one part of the world, however remote,

may be incorporated into another SAC elsewhere and SiSAL Journal has a role to


!"!

play both in the cross-pollination of ideas and in the dissemination of this research

and practice.

Upcoming Issues

Readers will note that this first edition of SiSAL is mainly focussed on the

Japanese context; this is due to the original scope of the journal and the fact that work

had already begun on the submissions. Rather than delay the launch, we decided to go

ahead as scheduled, feeling as we did that although the context being shared is that of

Japan, the articles should still be of interest to those working in the field of self-access

learning in general. We anticipate that future issues will have a more international

flavour and with this view in mind, we invite you to submit articles, reports, reviews,

perspectives and work in progress. The forthcoming issues of SiSAL will focus on

particular themes which highlight various elements of self-access learning. It seemed

appropriate that the first issue should have the theme of ‘principles and practices’ in

order to define the field, while the next issue has the theme of ‘materials and

activities’.

About this Issue

Since the theme of this issue, as just mentioned, is ‘principles and practices’,

we begin with Lucy Cooker’s article 'Some self-access principles'. Based on her

experience in the field, Lucy outlines four principles which she finds are crucial for

the success of a SAC. Following this, Keith Barrs, in his opinion piece, takes a look at

two SACs that he has experience with. He discusses those elements that he noted as

being present in a successful SAC and suggests what could be lacking in a less

successful centre.

The scope of this journal includes skills support centres such as writing

centres and conversation lounges, so we are delighted to feature two full articles

which showcase research in these areas. Jim McKinley asks the question 'What do

students really need?', in his article on writing centres. He challenges the assumption

that a writing centre overseas should be modelled on centres in the United States and

describes some research where he investigates students’ expectations and needs.

Heath Rose and Roxanne Elliot conducted a research study into how university


!"!

students used an English-only conversation lounge and these results are shared in this

article.

Another challenge faced by educators and programme coordinators is how to

appropriately address the integration of self-access within a curriculum. Gene

Thompson and Lee Atkinson describe some of the challenges that they faced when

doing just that at their institution and outline some of the principles which they

established in order to overcome them and meet the needs of the students.

Thus far, the articles describe programmes that are already underway, so it is

useful to be able to feature a ‘work in progress’ piece by Jon Rowberry. Jon describes

some of the ways in which his institution is addressing the many aspects involved in

the establishment of a new self-access centre. The final piece is a report on the themes

arising at the forum dedicated to self-access at the recent Japan Association of

Language Teachers (JALT) conference.

I hope you enjoy this first issue and find applications which will be useful in

your own work, no matter where you are in the world.

Notes on the editor

Jo Mynard is the Director of the Self-Access Learning Centre and Assistant Director

of the English Language Institute at Kanda University of International Studies in

Japan. She holds an Ed.D. in TEFL from the University of Exeter, UK and an M.Phil.

in applied linguistics from Trinity College Dublin. She has taught EFL in Ireland,

Spain, England, the UAE and Japan, and has been involved in facilitating self-access

learning since 1996.

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my appreciation to Lucy Cooker and Carol Everhard for their

comments and suggestions on this first editorial. I would also like to thank the

authors and members of the review and editorial teams for helping to create this issue

and set the pace for future issues. Finally, the journal would probably not have

reached this stage had it not been for the encouragement given by Christopher

Candlin and Tim Murphey. Thank you both!

SiSAL Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1, June, 2010, 5-9

5

Some Self-access Principles

Lucy Cooker, University of Nottingham

In this article, I will describe how the Self-Access Learning Centre (SALC) at

Kanda University of International Studies (KUIS) was established, and discuss some of

the personal philosophies of self-access centres (SACs) and self-access learning that I

have developed over the eight years of being associated with this centre.

The idea for the SALC was born during my first semester teaching at KUIS in

1999. I had become frustrated with conferencing my students, and giving them advice

about what they should be doing to improve their English, and not being able to direct

them to any particular place where they could go to work on these skills. I was also

frustrated by the fact that the English Language Institute (ELI) where I worked had many

wonderful resources for learners such as graded readers, videos, and computers, but there

was no system for maintaining these. This meant that the graded readers were often

irretrievably missing, whilst the videos and the computers were locked away and students

had to get special permission to access them. Having experienced a self-access centre for

studying Italian at the University of Edinburgh, I felt that this was what was required at

KUIS for our students. I had researched some of the self-access centres in Hong Kong,

most of which had been established during the early 1990s. Educators involved in the

running of those SACs had established a professional organization – The Hong Kong

Association of Self-Access Learning and Development (HASALD) – to provide

professional support and networking opportunities for its members. However, I knew of

no other self-access centres in Japan, and there was certainly no network of professionals

working in other centres from whom novices in the field, such as myself, could receive

advice.

Not to be deterred I purchased a copy of Establishing Self-Access (Gardner &

Miller, 1999), read it cover to cover, and then drafted a proposal to establish a self-access

centre which was submitted to the university at the beginning of 2000. In November of

that year we heard that the initial proposal had been accepted, funding had been allocated,


6

space had been provided and we could start buying the equipment and resources to fill

our space.

The SALC opened on 1st June 2001 and went from strength to strength. We were

frequently full as learners came in to work on their listening or speaking skills, to practice

for tests, or to borrow graded readers. The SALC was so frequently full that the

university decided to construct a new building in part to house a new SALC. Together

with the ELI management, many members of the SALC team were involved in designing

the new building, which allowed us to incorporate into the construction some specific

features to enhance this space for language learning purposes. We watched the new

building grow and moved in at the beginning of the academic year in 2003.

Over the intervening years, the operation of the SALC has again gone from

strength to strength. It continues to have the strong research foundation that existed from

the very beginning and the large purpose-built space has allowed the development of the

wide range of resources now available to learners. Our first formalised learning

programme was BASIL – Be A Successful Independent Learner. This took learners

through the stages of assessing their needs and developing a learning plan. In 2003 we

started offering the SHM – the SALC Homework Module – an optional module of

SALC-based work which learners could take to gain extra credit for their freshman (first

year) English class grade (see Cooker & Torpey (2004) for further details on the SHM).

The limited success of this led us to develop the First Steps Module, a learner-training

programme which takes learners through the first steps towards learner autonomy, and its

sequel, the Learning How to Learn Module, in which learners implement the individual

learning plan they wrote for themselves at the end of the First Steps Module. In addition,

modules are now offered to sophomore (second year) students with an emphasis on

developing autonomous learning skills while focusing on reading, media English, writing

or speaking

As the SALC is concerned with meeting individual needs of learners and working

towards offering something close to a personal curriculum, such modules require an

intense amount of one-on-one work with learners. Thus, these developments required

extra learning advising support. The SALC now boasts a team of ten full-time learning


7

advisors, plus five full-time administrative staff, and approximately thirty part-time

student staff.

Over the course of my work in developing the SALC I have formulated a personal

philosophy of self-access centres and self-access learning, the main tenets of which are as

follows:

1. Self-access learning should be truly self-access.

Many institutions require students to use their self-access centre as part of a course of

study. I believe that self-access learning should be truly self-access, and whilst a certain

amount of guidance is necessary for learners to be able to use the centre and understand

how it operates, at no other time should they be required to use the facility. In the SALC

at KUIS, use of the centre is completely optional. Despite this, in the first semester of

2010 around 500 Freshman students signed up to take the optional First Steps Module.

This is just one indicator of how a truly self-access system can successfully foster

motivation for learning.

2. Students should have an integral role in the running of the centre.

From the very beginning students have had an important role in the development of the

SALC. Four KUIS graduates are now full-time administrators, and students continue to

play an important role not just in staffing the SALC, but also in selecting and trialling

materials and in promoting the centre. A recent innovation in terms of student

involvement is that of the SALC Student Committee (SSC), a group set up by students

who want to help promote the SALC and pass on students’ ideas to the SALC staff,

advisors and administration.

!

3. Language learning should be fun.

If a self-access centre is truly self-access, then learners need to be enticed into the centre,

and the most effective way of doing this is to make language learning fun. The SALC is

stocked with materials which aim to engage learners in ways which are fun and


8

entertaining. For example, music and movie-based activities, and the genuine interactions

in English between students themselves and between learning advisors and students,

allow learners to see that effective language learning should be related to everyday

activity, rather than something which is confined to classrooms and grammar textbooks.

In Japan, where English language classes are traditionally very teacher-centered and

grammar-oriented, encouraging learners to understand that language learning can be

enjoyable and worthwhile has always been one of the biggest challenges.

4. The learning environment is important.

From the very beginnings of the SALC, we aimed to create an environment which did not

feel like a typical university classroom or library. Through the combination of the

language policy, in which learners are encouraged to use English rather than Japanese for

every day communication, and the careful choice of colour schemes, furniture, physical

layout, displays, and décor, we succeeded in creating a space which felt “different”.

Learners commented that it felt like a “little piece of America” or that it was like a

“reverse home-stay”. Through this relaxed ambience we aimed to provide a place where

students would choose to hang out and speak English, and be enticed to use the facilities

and materials.

Notes on the contributor

Lucy Cooker is a PhD research student at the University of Nottingham. She is also an

External Consultant for the SALC at Kanda University of International Studies.

References

Cooker, L., & Torpey, M. (2004). From the Classroom to the Self-access Centre. The

Language Teacher 28 (6) 11-16.

Gardner, D., & Miller, L. (1999). Establishing self-access. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press)


9

Notes

A version of this article was originally published as:

Cooker, L. (2008). Some self access principles. Independence 43, 20-21.

It will also feature in a forthcoming IATEFL volume edited by C. Everhard, J. Mynard &

R.C. Smith.


!"#!

What Factors Encourage High Levels of Student Participation in a Self-Access

Centre?!

Keith Barrs, Kanda University of International Studies

Introduction

The motivation to write about Self-Access Centres (SACs) comes from experiencing a

marked difference in the frequency and depth of student participation at two separate centres; one in

a university in Japan and one in a private language school in England. In this context 'frequency'

means how often the students use the centre and 'depth' means in what ways and to what extent the

equipment and resources are used. At the SAC in Japan, the facilities are continually exploited by a

large number of students with many of them visiting three or four times a week, on an optional

basis, for usually over an hour each time. The activities in which the students are engaged include

listening to music while annotating lyrics, practising pronunciation in speaking booths, reading

English language novels and graded-readers, and communicating in the target-language with other

students and learning advisors. In contrast, the SAC at the institution in England is only frequented

by a very small number of students and the activities are generally limited to the issuance and return

of books and the use of computers for online social networking, which is usually conducted in the

native languages of the students.

From experiencing this marked difference, I began to reflect on some of the factors which

were contributing to the variation in frequency and depth of use at each centre. There are several

articles and books of essential reading in this area which discuss in detail factors such as students’

role in the centre, the nature and use of resources, the integration of the centre in the curriculum and

the need for a pedagogical rationale of the SAC (Gardner & Miller, 1999; Cotterall & Reinders,

2001; Benson, 2001; Cooker, 2008; Sekiya, Mynard & Cooker, forthcoming). This short paper


! ""!

presents my observations on three specific factors, related to the learning environment of the SAC,

that I feel are important in encouraging high levels of student participation: the presence of a

language policy, the availability of an orientation programme and an effective layout and design of

the building.

Definition of a SAC

In order to effectively evaluate the different situations in the SACs introduced above, it is

necessary to consider what is actually meant by the term 'Self-Access Centre.' Cottarell and

Reinders (2001, p. 2) propose the following definition, "A Self-Access Centre consists of a number

of resources (in the form of materials, activities and support), usually located in one place, and is

designed to accommodate learners of different levels, goals, styles and interests.” Gardner & Miller

(1999) highlight the fact that it is not simply the existence of self-access resources and services

which go into making up the SAC, but also how these materials are presented to the students. They

then set out a detailed explanation of what equipment and resources could be included and how it

should all be organised (pp. 145-155). Furthermore, Benson (2001, p.9) states that institutions often

establish SACs "without any strong pedagogical rationale,” which means that a SAC should be

firmly grounded in strong pedagogical principles.

When I considered the situation in the SAC in Japan and at the institution in England, in

light of these considerations, I observed that the fundamental difference between the two centres is

not in the physical resources or equipment, but in the type of learning environment which has been

created and offered to the students. The following sections will discuss three specific factors which

I believe significantly contribute to this difference in the learning environment: a language policy in

the SALC, an orientation programme for new students and the layout and design of the building.


!"#!

A SAC Language Policy

In my opinion, encouraging and supporting the use of a language throughout the SAC can

help to create an environment which fosters and develops regular use of the target language. In the

SAC in Japan there is a language policy whereby all student-student and student-staff

communication is to be conducted in English and this helps to motivate many learners to achieve

tasks and seek assistance through using the target language. In this way there is a supportive and

encouraging environment for the use of English, which motivates many students to visit and use the

facilities. It is true that some students, especially of a lower level, may be discouraged from using

the centre because of the language policy. However, I have found from discussions with students

that one of the main reasons for them using the facility is that it reflects the real-world situation of

conducting activities in English, and this is something which is generally difficult to experience in

Japan.

In contrast, the SAC in England has no language policy. This could be understood from the

point of view that students are more readily able to immerse themselves in English speaking

situations, but it is an unfortunate fact that many students, despite living in the target-language

environment, create a life where they can live day to day without needing to use English. By not

encouraging or supporting the use of the target-language, I feel that this SAC is missing an

opportunity to construct an environment which is attractive to the students for developing their self-

access learning abilities, and this could be one contributing factor to the centre being used for little

more than borrowing books and checking emails (in the students' native languages).


! "#!

A SAC Orientation Programme

In order for students to make appropriate use of SAC facilities, it is crucial that they know

and understand what is available and how to use it. In my opinion, there should be a comprehensive

orientation programme in place whereby students are introduced to what is on offer and guided in

the use of the resources and equipment. As pointed out by Cotterall and Reinders (2001, p. 6),

forcing students to use self-learning facilities may de-motivate them to learn independently, but it is

important to establish links between what happens in the class and what is available outside (and

how to use it) in order for the students to begin taking independence in their learning.

The SAC in Japan conducts a week of orientation activities for the Freshman students.

These activities include a tour of the SAC, assistance in setting up a SAC passport for borrowing

resources and an in-class presentation into what constitutes 'self-access' learning and how this can

be achieved in the centre. Furthermore, optional modules are offered whereby the students can gain

extra credits for their course through independent learning in the SAC. For example, Freshman

students are able to take an optional 'First Steps Module' which is designed to integrate their class-

based Freshman English course with the facilities and resources in the SAC. This creates a

supportive, encouraging and participatory environment where links are established between in-class

and out-of-class learning. There is no requirement for students to visit or use the centre but there is

encouragement and support for self-access learning which is created by integrating the SAC into the

wider university context. As a result of this supportive environment, the majority of Freshman

students independently visit the SAC on a number of occasions during their first few weeks and this

sets a trend for their continued use of the centre. Taking just one class as an example, 21 students

from 29 signed up for the optional self-study learner training module which they follow throughout

their first semester.


!"#!

In contrast, the SAC in the institution in England exists mainly as an adjunct to the main

school. Although the centre is well-stocked with a range of resources and equipment and all new

students are given a brief tour of the school and SAC, there is no explanation of how the centre can

be properly utilised and integrated into the students' programme of study. In my opinion, this

contributes to the student participation rate in the centre being very low and the ones who do visit it

often do little more than use the computers to access social networking sites in their own language.

Indeed, end-of-course feedback surveys show that many students finish their course at the school

never having used the centre. It can be seen that without an orientation programme, high rates of

student participation in the centre are unlikely, no matter how well the centre is resourced and

equipped.

The SAC Layout and Design

In order to create an environment which is conducive to self-access learning, attention needs

to be paid to the general design and layout of the building so that students can make effective use of

the centre by themselves (Gardner & Miller, 1999). First of all, the equipment should be easily

accessible and adaptable to a range of functional uses, such as stereos and TVs/DVDs for

listening/recording and areas for private or group interaction. Integrated into this there needs to be a

wide range of resources that are appropriately placed so that students can make effective use of the

equipment and materials.

The SAC in Japan has been designed with a focus on maximising the use of space and

encouraging a motivating working environment. The centre, whilst being one large open-plan room,

is divided into areas specific to particular activities and the resources are appropriately arranged to

coordinate with the equipment. There is sufficient division between private and public work areas

and the centre has a general feel of openness achieved through the use of full-glass fronts on rooms


! "#!

and open-style seating plans around stereos and TVs. In this centre I have observed high levels of

participation by students, using it for a variety of purposes from presentation practice in group

rooms to individual writing exercises at desks or computer stations.

The centre in England, although well-resourced and equipped, has not been designed with a

particular focus on fostering independent learning. There is a computer room with a square layout

and students facing out to the walls, and a separate listening/speaking room with stereos in a similar

layout. The equipment and resources are sufficient but there is nothing in the design to encourage a

range of functional uses of the equipment; there is no space for group activities or private booths for

speaking practice and, consequently, the learning environment which has been created is fairly

restrictive. Most importantly, the learning advisors are in a separate room and there is very little

contact between them and the students, making the environment unsupported. From my

observations, I have found that in order to encourage high levels of student participation in a SAC,

there needs to be appropriate consideration given to the design and layout of the centre.

Conclusion

Although a facility might be advertised as a 'Self-Access Centre' in its accompanying

promotional literature, that does not necessarily mean that a suitable learning environment has been

created which will encourage students to use the resources for help with their self-directed learning.

Along with Benson’s observation that SACs are often established without having a particular

pedagogical focus (2001, p. 9), it seems evident that SACs are often established without due care

and attention to the learning environment offered to the students. If institutions are to encourage

high levels of student participation in the self-access centre then it is clear that it is not enough to

simply establish a centre that is equipped and resourced with self-access materials. Research shows


!"#!

that many different factors are involved in encouraging this participation (Gardner & Miller, 1999;

Benson, 2001; Sekiya, Mynard & Cooker, forthcoming) and in this short article I have presented

my observations of those factors which I feel are particularly relevant to the two SACs where I have

experience. I believe that having a language policy, an orientation programme and an effective

layout and design are three factors which can help to motivate and encourage students to take

responsibility for their own learning in the self-access centre.


Keith Barrs lectures in Freshman English and Advanced Reading and Writing at Kanda University

of International Studies, Japan. His research interests include the uses and integration of technology

in the classroom as well as the learner interaction patterns encouraged by different pedagogical

approaches.

References

Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. Harlow: Pearson

Education Limited.

Cooker, L. (2008). Some self access principles. Independence 43, 20-21.

Cotterall, S., & Reinders, H. (2001). Fortress or bridge? Learners’ perceptions and practice in self

access language learning. Tesolanz, 8, 23-38.

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

CUP.

Sekiya, Y., Mynard, J., & Cooker, L. (forthcoming). !"#$%&'()*+,-./0,1

!" [Self-access learning which supports learner autonomy]. In H. Kojima, N. Ozeki & T.

Hiromori (Eds.), 23456!789: 13;<$= 6;2>?*+34!"#¯!"

#@AB%&!"97C DEF [Survey of English Language Education: Vol. 6.

Developing English learners: Learner factors & autonomous learning] (pp. 191-210).

Tokyo: Taishukan-shoten.

!"!#$%&'()*+,-%!"#$%&'%("$%&'%)*+,'%-.&.'%&/01&%%%

%

&/%

English Language Writing Centres in Japanese Universities: What do

Students Really Need?!

Jim McKinley, Sophia University, Tokyo, Japan

Abstract

The installation of English language writing centres in Japanese universities is a relatively

recent event—the first ones established with funding from the Ministry of Education in 2004.

Because of the EFL writing context, setting up a writing centre requires consideration of

students’ needs and cultural expectations of writing and writing centres. In general, writing

centres that have been established in Japanese universities follow a structure similar to those

in the US. This raises the question as to whether or not this is appropriate for the particular

needs of EFL students and the obstacles they face. For this study, in order to explore

students’ attitudes toward writing centres and the role they play in writing education,

interview data was collected from students of English composition in two different

departments at a university in Japan well known for its English language education: the

English department, which does not have a writing centre, and the liberal arts department,

which has one of the first writing centres established in Japan.

Keywords: writing centre, Japanese university, EFL writing, peer editing, writer feedback

Introduction & Background to the Study

In the early part of this decade, for Japanese students in English-medium universities

overseas, there was a seemingly overwhelming lack of English writing ability. It seemed that

many Japanese students had not had much or any previous academic writing education in

English before heading overseas. According to the research at the time (e.g. Casanave, 2003;

Connor, 2003), this was difficult to explain, as there was a great lack of scholarly

investigation being done in writing classrooms in Japanese universities. In 2006 the results of

an in-depth qualitative study conducted with English majors at a reputable university in Japan

involving classroom observations, interviews, and analysis of students’ written texts showed

that those students were provided with academic writing classes, but that the lack of emphasis

on the importance of writing skills (in comparison to speaking skills, for example) seemed to

greatly hinder their writing skills development (McKinley, 2006).

In an unpublished 2007 study carried out at the same university as the current study,

there were similar findings, compounded by the fact that there was no writing centre of

learning support resources (McKinley, 2007). What was most evident there was that

students—with just one writing class per week—were not spending sufficient time and energy

!"!#$%&'()*+,-%!"#$%&'%("$%&'%)*+,'%-.&.'%&/01&%

%&2%

developing their writing skills. The students who voluntarily attended writing workshops for

the unpublished study did so gratefully, and all made requests to the department to have a

writing centre established.

Historical Background

In general, translation skills, grammar, and spelling accuracy are components of

English writing that have held value in Japanese education since the Meiji restoration. Due to

this origin of language education in Japan, language mechanics form the basis of assessment

of English writing in Japanese educational systems today. In addition to this historical

importance, Japan’s examination culture has been responsible for reinforcing this value.

Ultimately, writing does not fit into Japan’s exam culture, a major reason being that it is

regarded as difficult to assess (see Hamp-Lyons, 2007)1. The assessment of content in

extended English composition requires knowledge that assessors cannot access easily, due to

limited language proficiency on the part of the teachers, and thus this skill remains neglected

in a culture that values examination scores over ability to communicate (Gilfert, 1999; Moore

& Lamie, 1996; Taylor & Taylor, 1995).

Approaches to EFL Writing in Japan Today (from Product to Process)

The continued reliance on the grammar-translation method is explained by teachers’

lack of training in other methodologies (Moore & Lamie, 1996). In universities, the

importance of passing examinations is less emphasised, and according to Casanave (2002) in

her book Writing Games, this is where the grammar-translation method (i.e. product

approach) leads into the model-product approach (i.e. process approach). This shift in

approach is related to the inclusion of genre theory and writing for specific purposes (Belcher,

2004). With the new focus on writing for specific purposes, genre studies (sometimes

identified as English for Specific Purposes) led to a natural progression of the model-product

approach.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

&%3#45"*65%789:0;<"+=%>",=%+"4%?,@,?%,A:#BCB4#<%4"%)8:8+D=%,A89%C*#4*?,'%=5,%?,@,?=%4"%

,A89%C*#4*?,=%B+%6,+,?8#%8=%C"+4?8=4B+6%E#,8?+B+6%C*#4*?,=F%8=%8%G8<%"@%:"B+4B+6%"*4%45,%

>B@@BC*#4<%"@%8==,==B+6%G?B4B+6%B+%8+%,A89%C*#4*?,$%

!"!#$%&'()*+,-%!"#$%&'%("$%&'%)*+,'%-.&.'%&/01&%

%&2%

The model-product approach is a pedagogical method focusing on process writing that

involves modeling, student-instructor negotiation, and autonomous composition. This

approach coincided with developments in writing for specific purposes and genre studies as it

allowed flexibility, making the writing process more accessible for both students and

instructors and allowing instructors to work directly with students at various stages on the

meanings they could create (Hyland, 2003).

Process writing became a popular approach in teaching L2 writing in the 1980s

(Susser, 1994) at the same time that communication skills became the focus for curricula and

policy-makers (Carroll, 1997). However, it has been suggested that the process revolution

may never have actually happened in Japan (Casanave, 2003). Further, the debate remains

whether process writing is actually more effective than product or form writing (Canagarajah,

2002). In traditional writing classes, the focus was on the typical (usually five-paragraph)

essay form and writing style, not content or structure, as teachers were unable to provide

feedback of any value on content (Shih, 1986).

A researcher and teacher of English language scholarship in Japan, Yoshimura (2001

as cited in Connor, 2003), conducted an experimental study echoing the work of Oi and

Kamimura (1997), who found Japanese students were successful when taught Western

argumentative essay patterns as well as organisational patterns and coherence structure.

Yoshimura acknowledges criticisms of teaching the form as opposed to the process and

content of essay writing, but is convinced that the benefit for beginning Japanese writing

students comes when they are comfortable with a form of writing. Yoshimura goes on to

explain that their success with form can then be transferred to future writing contexts

Yoshimura, as well as Matsuda (2001), suggest Japanese students are more comfortable with a

form of writing because of a lack of familiarity with English writing strategies.

Anthony (2000) refers to the teaching of form as the teaching of a genre. In a study he

conducted in a university in Japan, it was noted that students with considerable knowledge in

their subject areas could develop non-formal aspects in written text. He maintains however,

that

if the learners had little experience with the target context, a course aimed at

developing writing skills needed to operate in that context would be destined to fail.

In such cases, a focus on the more easily observable, formal features of the target

genre would perhaps be more effective. (p. 1)

!"!#$%&'()*+,-%!"#$%&'%("$%&'%)*+,'%-.&.'%&/01&%

%-.%

Because English is a foreign language in Japan and not a second language, students do not

sense any particular importance of English in their everyday lives. Also, the time frame for a

foreign language course tends to be short in Japanese universities—usually fifteen 90-minute

lessons over a period of one semester (Anthony, 2000). Although approaches in process

writing pedagogy may be useful, Anthony (2000) explains that

most have been developed in classrooms where the learners are either native speakers

or approaching native speaker levels. In a foreign language classroom, on the other

hand, few learners will be at an advanced level, and many will be struggling with even

basic vocabulary and grammar points. To ask such learners to analyze texts and

negotiate the writer's purpose, audience's assumptions, and so on components of

process writing is clearly unrealistic. (p. 1)

Based on Anthony’s observations, it seems that process writing did not necessarily

have a place in Japanese universities due to a general lack of proficiency of the students.

Therefore, instead of taking up major changes in pedagogy as part of the process revolution,

teachers of English writing in Japan have instead maintained product-based writing. Sensing

that L2 writing pedagogy was in need of some innovation without taking up the apparently

“unrealistic” efforts of process writing, scholars and researchers of the teaching of English

writing in Japan have been looking more towards social and political aspects (content) instead

of linguistic and textual aspects (accuracy) in finished written products. Casanave (2003), in

her discussion of the debate over Japan’s position on the process and “post-process”

movements, explains that a socio-political perspective needs to be expanded in order to

explore the diversity of individual writers and writing contexts. This emphasis is centred on

the basis that L2 writing education in Japan never caught on to the process movement.

Muncie (2000) suggests, however, that process writing exists in Japan but is

ineffective in that students have no choice in using feedback from their teachers who are

considered . Students are in no position to negotiate with redrafts; they simply must

follow their expert teacher’s advice as closely as possible. The feedback therefore loses any

value it may have had, he argues, had students been involved in it. In a trial conducted by

Muncie (2000) with academic English writing students in a Japanese university, using peer

feedback on mid-drafts and teacher feedback on final drafts encouraged writer autonomy.

The students were required to produce a summary using points from both peer and teacher

!"!#$%&'()*+,-%!"#$%&'%("$%&'%)*+,'%-.&.'%&/01&%

%-&%

feedback, which allowed the feedback to have more long-term effect on students' future

writing.

Collaborative Writing, Teacher Feedback and Peer Response

Japanese university students, with appropriate supervision, tend to respond positively

to a more collaborative style or writing in which dialogue between themselves as writers and

others helps them to achieve a final goal (Kubota 1999). As Clark and Ivanic (1997) point

out, “With respect to the interactive/interpersonal aspect of writing, writing collaboratively is

a very different activity from writing alone” (p. 83). Independent writing requires facilitation,

and this is normally achieved through successful “dialogue” between writer and assessor

through teacher feedback in various stages of the writing process. Student writers are able to

incorporate feedback and response not only from teachers but also peers into the process of

writing (Atkinson & Connor, 2008).

Peer response has developed from the social construction of knowledge (i.e. that

knowledge is socially constructed, see Vygotsky, 1978), and is an important part of L2 writing

instruction at the university level. Social relations may vary more widely based on students’

backgrounds with the target language, and although some earlier studies revealed negative

reactions to peer response (due to embarrassment or shame of others seeing their work, as

well as a lack of confidence in being useful as peer editors, see Falchikov, 1995), others

showed that revisions based on peer response increased performance and confidence of

responders (Leki, 1990). However, doubts remain on the validity of peer comments

(Atkinson & Connor, 2008), particularly in consideration of meeting the expectations of

native speaker teachers.

Attitudes to collaborative learning are ideological (Clark & Ivanic, 1997). The idea

that collaborative writing would lend itself well to Japanese culture seems logical.

Individualism is often played down, so building a piece of writing collaboratively would seem

appealing. However, traditional Japanese learning styles lead to hesitance and resistance to

collaboration (Taylor & Taylor, 1995). Ideas that only the teacher (and often only a native

English teacher) can provide useful feedback are not uncommon. In addition, students may

resist peer work activities since they lack confidence, as there is a belief that the purpose of

peer work is to be helped, and that can only be done by someone with more expertise

!"!#$%&'()*+,-%!"#$%&'%("$%&'%)*+,'%-.&.'%&/01&%

%--%

(Falchikov, 1995). Thus it would seem that there would be great interest in receiving tutorial

guidance in a writing centre.

Writing Centres – Politics and Other Obstacles

It was around 1975 that writing centres changed from writing clinics to writing

centres; conceptually they were no longer places for error correction, but rather places to

discuss and receive advice on writing (Haswell, 2008). A significant point here is that the

writing centre tutor became part of the teacher–student dialogue. This has been described as

an “interruption” or an attachment of “an ancillary learning centre course to the lecture

teacher’s classroom” (Haswell, 2008, p. 339). The fact is, the one-to-one, face-to-face

conference that happens in the writing centre is a completely different kind of dialogue, one

that follows the line of reasoning that university students receiving writing instruction are

“conceptualized in terms of catch-up, remediation, or immaturity. Ultimately university

writing teachers have taken on a repair role, and the writing centre tutors left with the truly

incompetent” (Haswell, 2008, p. 339).

This raises the issue for writing centre tutors as to whether they should conform to the

academic system—the set “writing program” within the department—or if they should

critique the system in order to encourage students to understand the value of critique and learn

to be effective critics themselves (Pemberton, 2006). It is a question of the goals of a writing

centre. Should tutors be serving as teaching assistants, helping students to reach the

expectations of the writing teachers? Or should they be guiding and offering students advice

in order to help them become better writers in general? There are many factors to consider in

the approaches a writing centre and its tutors take, but if they can agree on a community of

practice in which writer identities are facilitated and everyone involved is a full participant

(i.e. utilising Vygotsky’s social construction of knowledge framework where students can

negotiate their learning and development with instructors and tutors), then everyone should be

able to benefit (Geller, Eodice, Condon, Carroll, & Boquet, 2007).

!"!#$%&'()*+,-%!"#$%&'%("$%&'%)*+,'%-.&.'%&/01&%

%-1%

A Writing Centre in Japan

The writing centre in the liberal arts department of the university where the study was

held was established in 2004 (along with two other universities) as one of the "GP" (Good

Practice) projects with funding from the Ministry of Education and was awarded in

recognition of excellence in undergraduate education (Johnston, Cornwell, & Yoshida, 2008).

The centre provides students with one-to-one writing instruction in English only. Students

can work with tutors on all aspects of writing, usually consulting the writing centre with

course papers and application letters and essays. Although designed mostly for undergraduate

students of the liberal arts department, some graduate students and faculty also use it. The

group of tutors is made up of graduate students and two people with extensive tutoring

experience (in 2008 there were ten graduate student tutors and two non-student tutors). The

tutor training requires tutors to participate in a training session and read materials. The centre

has one director who is a professor of English in the department.

The Study

As part of any language curriculum, there is a certain focus on the skills of the target

language, typically reading, writing, listening and speaking. For students in the English

department, these skills are covered in compulsory or core curriculum courses. Listening and

speaking are lumped together into one course, and reading is presumably addressed in the

ever-unpopular writing course (although separate reading courses are offered in some

departments). The writing teachers have the task of making writing appealing to students, and

the obvious approach is the popular communicative style, where students can work in groups

and spend time peer reading each other’s writing. (This Western approach to writing

education coincides with the movement towards the process approach which although late,

has been gradually replacing the product approach in English writing curricula across Japan.)

All of these ideas are built into a “writing program”—a seemingly mysterious part of the

university curriculum.

This evasive concept of a writing program is most often associated with Writing

Program Administrators—those people responsible for the writing curriculum. That person is

usually a department chair or some other person in a leader role who may or may not have any

interest in writing (L’Eplattenier & Mastrangelo, 2004). The “writing program” in these cases

is for all intents and purposes left entirely up to the teachers. There are no guidelines, not even

!"!#$%&'()*+,-%!"#$%&'%("$%&'%)*+,'%-.&.'%&/01&%

%-2%

a standardized set of goals between writing teachers. There is no way to assure quality control

unless students complain. This is the situation at the university of the current study where

there are four different departments in which English writing is taught. This study was

designed to investigate students’ attitudes toward the writing education offered by two of

those four departments, and to explore how any awareness of a “writing program” affected

student attitude. While the liberal arts department has made efforts to assemble some kind of

writing program (in comparison to the others that have not), and has established a writing

centre, it has not been established within a documented writing program, per se. Students

may receive widely disparate instruction depending on their teacher. Ultimately, and

particularly for the English department students, the classes from which teachers receive the

most positive feedback are student-centred, and focused on collaborative writing.

Data Collection

Structured interviews were conducted with all students from four randomly selected

compulsory English composition classes, two in the English department (all were second-year

students of advanced-level proficiency) and two in the liberal arts department (all first-year

students considered of native or near-native fluency). A total of 76 students from the four

classes participated. All interviews were recorded using a digital voice recorder. There were

eight interview questions as follows:

1. Have you ever lived overseas? Where? How long?

2. Have you ever studied in an international school or school that specializes in English

language studies? If so, which school (where), and for how long?

3. Have you ever been to a writing centre for extra assistance on your writing (in any

language)? If so, where, when and in what language?

4. Do you feel it would help you for the writing assignments you have now to work with a

tutor in a writing centre? Why or why not? (Liberal arts students were asked to provide

feedback on any experiences in their writing centre.)

5. Do you feel that you are a strong writer in English? Why or why not?

6. Do you believe your writing classes are providing you with sufficient writing skills

development? Why or why not?

7. Do you believe peer reading in class is a valuable exercise? Why or why not?

8. Do you feel that you are able to work independently on your English writing? Why or why

not?

!"!#$%&'()*+,-%!"#$%&'%("$%&'%)*+,'%-.&.'%&/01&%

%-2%

Analysis of Results

The English department students and liberal arts students provided a variety of

responses, but there were some significant trends noted. Typical of the students at this

university, most had overseas experience. The interviews were conducted in English.

Compared with the two English department classes, the liberal arts students were

generally more positive about what the university was providing them in terms of writing

skills development. In addition, the liberal arts students were generally more positive about

their own writing ability and about peer reading activities in their writing classes. They were

also more positive about writing independently.

Although there is no writing centre available to English department students, some had

past experiences with writing centres in their high schools. All responded positively about

what a writing centre can offer, but negatively about the writing skills development offered by

the university.

It would be ideal to make a link between the writing centre and students’ satisfaction

with their writing skills development, but the comments by those liberal arts students who had

used the writing centre were noteworthy. While most students were positive about the

experience, with appreciative comments ranging from good advice to individual attention,

nearly half of those students commented that the value of using the writing centre depended

on the tutor, and two commented that they actually received bad advice.

Specific Cases

Liberal Arts class 1 (15 students): One third had used the writing centre. Of those, all

five students were positive about the writing centre, commenting that they received good

advice and appreciated the individual attention. Of those students who had not used the

writing centre, there were two negative comments: “I don’t need it,” and, “My friend had a

bad experience.”

In this class, all students felt positive about their writing skills development in their

classes. Three students (all who had never used the writing centre) gave a neutral or negative

response about peer reading exercises. One commented, “Professor feedback is better.”

!"!#$%&'()*+,-%!"#$%&'%("$%&'%)*+,'%-.&.'%&/01&%

%-2%

There were a total of five students who responded positively about writing independently,

none having been to the writing centre.

Liberal Arts class 2 (24 students): Fifteen of the students had used the writing centre.

Of those, nine were neutral or negative about the writing centre, mostly concerned that it

depends on the tutor whether the writing centre is helpful or not. The positive responses

ranged from helpful advice on grammar and overall writing skills to a general feeling of a

need for the centre. The two negative comments were: “Bad advice,” and, “The tutor couldn’t

help.”

In this class three students felt negative about their writing skills development in their

classes. Of those, two had not been to the writing centre. The one who had been gave a

neutral “depends on the tutor” response. Nearly all (21 students) were positive about peer

reading. As for confidence in writing independently, the class was fairly evenly split with

nine positive, seven neutral, and eight negative. Of the nine positive responses, only two had

been to the writing centre. Of the fifteen students who had been to the writing centre, thirteen

of them were neutral or negative about writing independently.

English class 1 (18 students): Only three students had experienced a writing centre

before enrolling in university. Sixteen students suggested they would go to a writing centre if

they could. Four students gave neutral or negative responses to their writing skills

development in their classes, three of those being the students with writing centre experience.

Three students gave positive responses for writing independently, only one with writing centre

experience.

English class 2 (19 students): No students had ever experienced a writing centre.

Nearly all (17 students) suggested they would go to a writing centre if they could. The one

negative comment was: “[I would not go to a writing centre because] we need to think for

ourselves.” This class had the highest ratio of dissatisfaction with their writing skills

development in their classes with six giving neutral responses. There were three neutral and

one negative response to peer reading. The negative comment was: “I can’t give advice.” Of

the three students who responded positively about writing independently, one was neutral and

one was negative toward using a writing centre.

!"!#$%&'()*+,-%!"#$%&'%("$%&'%)*+,'%-.&.'%&/01&%

%-/%

Conclusion

The study found that in the English department where there is no writing centre, the

students were found to be less positive about peer editing in class and working independently

than their counterparts in the liberal arts department who do have a writing centre. Students in

the liberal arts department who provided data were much more positive about peer editing and

working independently with their own writing, but less positive about the writing centre.

Ultimately, there is much to consider in the installation of a foreign language writing

centre. The idea of implementing a writing centre as a way of nurturing students’ ability to

write independently seems to have been lost somewhat on the students in this study. This is

not to suggest that the writing centre isn’t reaching the students and fulfilling a need. One

issue is that students don’t have a clear idea of what the writing centre is supposed to do for

them. Students’ expectations seem often to conflict with those of the tutor. For example,

comments in the interviews included, “I wanted him to fix my grammar but he wouldn’t,”

and, “I thought if I went to the writing centre I’d get an A on my paper… but I actually failed

it!” One solution (put into practice as of April 2010 at the writing centre) is for students to

complete a form that requires them to consider their needs specific to the writing they bring to

the centre. The form was built using feedback from the writing centre tutors and is titled “The

Writing Center Request Form” (see Appendix). It gives students a chance to review their

writing, and be reminded that the tutors are not going to correct their writing, but will attempt

to answer any particular questions raised by the student.

The other issue lies in the goals of the centre, students, and teachers. The tutors are

currently serving more as teaching assistants, rather than guides to students’ writing skills

development. The students are asking the tutors to help them meet the expectations of a

particular task, rather than discussing general writing needs. It seemed clear in this study that

it was the students who were able to indentify real writing needs who benefitted the most from

the centre. For the others, particularly those who felt neutral about the centre, the issue was

often that the tutor may not have been able to help explain the teachers’ expectations on a

task. In those two negative responses from Liberal Arts class 2, it seems the tutors even gave

advice that went against the task expectations. This is a dangerous path. It seems obvious

that the centre needs to move away from this type of tutoring, and more towards general skills

development. A strong recommendation would be for the centre to start writing workshops on

specific themes in collaboration with the writing teachers. Some suggested workshop themes

!"!#$%&'()*+,-%!"#$%&'%("$%&'%)*+,'%-.&.'%&/01&%

%-2%

(borrowed from the University of Sydney’s Learning Centre and adapted for use in the

unpublished 2007 study mentioned in the introduction) include: “Structures: Grammar and the

Paragraph,” “Critical Writing,” “Reading for Effective Note Taking,” and “Critical Reading.”

These workshops could be several weeks long with at least one meeting per week. This

should help assist students to become more independent and stronger writers.


Jim McKinley is an Assistant Professor of English and interim director of the Writing Center

in the Faculty of Liberal Arts at Sophia University in Tokyo, Japan. His research interests

include EFL writing curriculum design and implementation, and critical writing pedagogy.

References

Anthony, L. (2000). Implementing genre analysis in a foreign language classroom. TESOL

Matters, 10(3),18.

Atkinson, D., & Connor, U. (2008). Multilingual writing development. In C. Bazerman (Ed.),

Handbook of research of writing (pp. 515-532). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Belcher, D. (2004). Trends in teaching English for specific purposes. Annual Review of

Applied Linguistics, 24, 165-186.

Canagarajah, A. S. (2002). Critical academic writing and multilingual students. Ann Arbor,

MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Carroll, T. (1997). From script to speech: Language policy in Japan in the 1980s and 1990s.

Nissan Occasional Paper Series.

Casanave, C. P. (2002). Writing games: Multicultural case studies of academic literacy

practices in higher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Casanave, C. P. (2003). Looking ahead to more sociopolitically-oriented case study research

in L2 writing scholarship. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 85-102.

Clark, R., & Ivanic, R. (1997). The politics of writing. New York: Routledge.

Connor, U. (2003). Changing currents in contrastive rhetoric: Implications for teaching and

research. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp.

218-241). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Falchikov, N. (1995). Peer feedback marking: Developing peer assessment. Innovations in

Education and Teaching International, 32(2), 175 – 187.

!"!#$%&'()*+,-%!"#$%&'%("$%&'%)*+,'%-.&.'%&/01&%

%-2%

Geller, A. E., Eodice, M., Condon, F., Carroll, M., & Boquet, E. H. (2007). The everyday

writing center: A community of practice. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.

Gilfert, S. (1999). Let's write in English: Teacher, we never learned that. ITESL Journal, 5(4),

1-6.

Hamp-Lyons, L. (2007). The impact of testing practices on teaching: Ideologies and

alternatives. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English

language teaching, part one (pp. 487-504). Norwell, MA: Springer.

Haswell, R. H. (2008). Teaching of writing in higher education. In C. Bazerman (Ed.),

Handbook of research of writing (pp. 331-346). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second

Language Writing, 12(1), 17-29.

Johnston, S., Cornwell, S., & Yoshida, H. (2008). Writing centers in Japan. Osaka Jogakuin

College Journal, 5, 181-192.

Kubota, R. (1999). Japanese culture constructed by discourses: Implications for applied

linguistics research and ELT. TESOL Quarterly, 33(1), 9-35.

Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response. In B. Kroll (Ed.),

Second language writing (pp. 57-68). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

L’Eplattenier, B., & Mastrangelo, L. (2004). Historical studies of writing program

administration. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.

Mastuda, P. K. (2001). Voice in Japanese written discourse: Implications for second language

writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1-2), 35-53.

McKinley, J. (2006). Learning English writing in a Japanese university: Developing critical

argument & establishing writer identity. Journal of Asia TEFL 3(2).1-35.

McKinley, J. (2007). Diagnostic essay reveals major problems. Unpublished manuscript,

Sophia University, Tokyo, Japan.

Moore, G., & Lamie, J. (1996). Translate or communicate? English as a foreign language in

Japanese high schools. Commack, NY: Nova Science Publishers.

Muncie, J. (2000). Using written teacher feedback in EFL composition classes. ELT Journal,

54(1), 47.

Oi, K., & Kamimura, T. (1997). A pedagogical application of research in contrastive rhetoric.

JACET Bulletin, 28, 65-82.

Pemberton, M. A. (2006). Critique of conformity?: Ethics and advocacy in the writing center.

In C. Murphy & B. L. Stay (Eds.), The writing center director’s resource book (pp.

261-269). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Shih, M. (1986). Content-based approaches to teaching academic writing. TESOL Quarterly,

20(4), 617-648.

!"!#$%&'()*+,-%!"#$%&'%("$%&'%)*+,'%-.&.'%&/01&%

%1.%

Susser, B. (1994). Process approaches in ESL/EFL writing instruction. Journal of Second

Language Writing 3(1), 31-47.

Taylor, I., & Taylor, M. (1995). Writing and literacy in Chinese, Korean, and Japanese.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. (M. Cole, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Yoshimura, T. (2001). Formal instruction of rhetorical patterns and the effectiveness of using

L1 in argumentative writing in an EFL setting. Doctoral Dissertation, Temple

University, Japan.

!"#$%&'(')*$+#)(#&$,#-.#/($01&2$

3(.4#)(5$6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666$

78(#5$6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666$

+98//5$6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666$

:&1;#//1&5$6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666$

<//'*)2#)($8)4=1&$8&#8$1;$;1>./$?2./($@#$!"#$%&"!A5$66666666666666666666666666666666666$

6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666

6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666$

6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666$

'#(!")#*+,"-."..%/)*01"02&%.#3*?B1.$CD3!$>"#>E$("#/#$@#;1&#$F1.&$>1);#&#)>#GA*

!$$H$"8I#$("#$21/($(+!$#"!*!,$4#$1;$2F$J8J#&K$8)4$8)F$>122#)(/$1&$;##4@8>E$;&12$

2F$J&1;#//1&$?';$8I8'98@9#AL$

!$$H$"8I#$)"0"..$,5*,"$!%)6.*$)!*)/#".$(1$"#9J$;8>'9'(8(#$("#$4'/>.//'1)L$$

!!"#$%&#'()*+&,-.&!"#&/012&3)'&45(/&,)'*+0&,).(0.(6&7',/&8'0+(5).+&+/)'19&:0&-+;09&

()&3)'*&2*)<0++)*6$

$

!$$H$"8I#$,"-,"$!*75*+$+",$@#;1&#$@&')*')*$'($(1$("#$>#)(#&K$8)4$"8I#$("#$;1991M')*$

J1')(/$H$M8)($(1$4'/>.//$M'("$2F$(.(1&5$

NL 66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666$

OL 66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666$

PL 66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666$

!!"#$%&#'()*+&4511&!"#&,)**0,(&3)'*&=*->>-*6$

$

!$$H$"8I#$284#$2F$8JJ1')(2#)($8($9#8/($$*4"8*!$5.*9"4/,"$("#$8//'*)2#)($4.#$

48(#L$<//'*)2#)($4.#$48(#5$6666666666666666666666666666666666666$

!!"#$%&#/0&('()*5-1&-<<0,(+&(/0&4/)10&4*5(5.=&2*),0++6&?)'&>-3&*08'5*0&@AB"C&

*0D5+5).+&(/-(&4511&(-;0&(5>06&?)'*&,).<0*0.,0&5+&.)(&-.&095(5.=&+0++5).&<)*&>5.)*&

>5+(-;0+6$

$

!.(1&$/'*)8(.&#=>122#)(/5$6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666$

6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666$

3(.4#)($#I89.8('1)$1;$(.(1&'89$?J9#8/#$@#$/J#>';'>$8)4$4#(8'9#4K$8)4$&#(.&)$(1$:&1;LA5$

6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666

6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666$

6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666$


!"#!

An Investigation of Student Use of a Self-Access English-Only Speaking

Area

Heath Rose, Rikkyo University, Japan

Roxanne Elliott, California

Abstract

This study examines students' use of an English-only area designed as a drop-in centre for

students to practice English. The study investigated whether students' language ability, year of

study or department of study influenced use of this facility. Data was collected through a log

of student use of the area over a two-week period, and a survey given to 575 freshman

students across three departments of study at the university (English, International

Communication and Languages and Culture). The data showed no relationship between

student language ability and feelings of satisfaction and comfort or desire to use the area.

These results challenged the assumption that higher-level students used the area more often

and were more comfortable and confident than lower-level students. In addition to collecting

data on student use of and attitude toward the English-only area, interviews were also carried

out with all 42 instructors who worked in the area at the time of data collection. The

interviews with instructors indicated that ongoing speaking tasks during the first semester, like

those used in the International Communication department, could encourage more frequent

use of the English-only area, resulting in continued use of the area in later years. This study

indicates that the creation and trial of lessons that encourage student use of this English-only

area could be an area worthy of further research. The interviews with instructors also highlight

a number of issues connected to self-access speaking areas that will help inform other

institutions that are considering setting up similar facilities.

Introduction and Background to the Study

In the field of Second Language Acquisition, a number of factors have been

considered to affect students’ language learning. Some of these factors, such as motivation

and self-directed learning, have been explored over the past few decades, and more recently

research has turned to self-access learning. In order to promote self-directed learning, self-

access centres (SACs) have been established in many educational institutions (Malcolm,

2004). Despite this development of SACs in recent years, there has been little research into

the evaluation of student use of these centres (Morrison, 2005). This study, therefore, aims to

address this lack of research, by examining student use of a self-access conversation facility at

a language university. The study also investigates students’ desire to use the facility because

"motivation is a key factor that influences the extent to which learners are ready to learn

autonomously" (Spratt, Humphreys, & Chan, 2002, p. 245).

The university in which the current study was conducted has placed a great deal of

emphasis on the development of its students as autonomous learners, culminating in the

opening of a SAC in 2003. According to Cooker and Torpey (2004), motivating students to


! ""!

use the SAC at this particular institution and motivating them to become autonomous learners

has been a central objective of the English curriculum at this particular university, especially

in the freshman year. In their paper, Cooker and Torpey (2004) discuss the university

curricula and highlight the importance the university places “on fostering the capacity of our

learners to become autonomous and on conveying to them the opportunities for self-directed

learning” (p. 16). As part of its commitment to communicative language teaching and cross-

cultural understanding, over forty native speakers1 of English were working as instructors in

the university’s language institute at the time the study was conducted. As part of their

teaching duties, these instructors were required to spend 3 hours each week in a conversation

area – a lounge-like area adjacent to the SAC where students could drop in and speak to

friends and instructors on duty in an English-only environment. It is important to clarify that

although the conversation area was an official facility provided and operated by the language

institute, rather than the SAC, it was indisputably a self-access learning facility.

The conversation area was designed to assist in the development of the students’

communicative competence as a supplement to classroom activities. Savignon (1997) asserts

that communication is “a continuous process of expression, interpretation, and negotiation of

meaning” (p. 15). If a teacher participates in a conversation in the area, teacher input can be

most helpful in focusing on sociolinguistic competence, as that particular competence is

perhaps the most difficult for many speakers to improve through peer interaction.

Sociolinguistic competence consists of understanding the appropriateness of language in

context (Canale, 1983), and is “an interdisciplinary field of inquiry having to do with the

social rules of language use” (Savignon, 1997, p. 41). Sociolinguistic competence involves

skills such as knowing how to use language in different situations, and being sensitive to such

factors as formality, register, style, and geographic or social language variation. Thus, the

original rationale for the conversation area was that exposure to language in a cultural context

would improve students’ communicative and sociolinguistic competence.

It was also hoped that the area would encourage learner autonomy in the university.

Dam (2003) outlines learner autonomy as a cumulative process which she summarises in “a

learner’s four steps to learner responsibility” (p. 139): experience, awareness, influence, and

responsibility.

1 Although the authors prefer the term “proficient user” as defined by Rampton (1990), the term native-speaker

is used in this paper due to its widespread use in the literature. English was the native language of 37 of the 42

instructors. The remaining 5 instructors were proficient users of English, whose first language was a language

other than English.


!"#!

1. Experience with and insight into useful and relevant activities, suitable partners,

appropriate ways of organizing the work undertaken, and various ways of evaluating

process as well as progress.

2. Awareness of what, why, and how to learn; awareness of one’s role in the learning

process.

3. Influence on and participation in decision making as regards one’s own learning

(choice of activities, partners, materials, etc.).

4. Responsibility for one’s own learning.

In short, Dam (2003) claims that a teacher can review his or her own role in the development

of learner autonomy by asking the following questions:

• Have I prepared the students enough for autonomous learning?

• Have I followed the four steps?

• Have I created a good environment for learning?

The English-only speaking area addresses this final question—that is, while the curriculum of

the university helped guide the students toward learner autonomy, the speaking area was

intended to provide a good environment for them to practise and engage in learning language

outside the curriculum.

With three or four instructors on duty in the area at any one time from 9am to 4pm,

Monday through Saturday, the area represented a considerable financial investment on the

part of the institution. In fact this commitment worked out in excess of 42 million yen or

$US450,000 a year in wages alone under the assumption that conversation lounge duties are

performed in lieu of teaching duties. Despite this investment of instructor time and

institutional resources, little research had been conducted into student use of the area, nor into

attitudes towards the area from the perspectives of users and instructors. The purpose of the

current study was, therefore, three-fold:

1. To investigate patterns of student use.

2. To explore student attitudes towards the area.

3. To explore teacher attitudes towards the area.


! "#!

Research Methodology and Data Collection

Data were collected in three ways. Firstly, a logbook was implemented over a two-

week period where all students who engaged in conversation with an instructor on duty were

required to sign in and out, with information pertaining to their year of study, department, and

class number. From this, their language ability could be ascertained due to classes being

streamed according to a proficiency test.

Secondly, a survey was given to all freshman students across three departments

regarding their use of the English-only area. The survey was administered in Japanese and

posed the following questions:

1. How comfortable do you feel visiting the English-only area?

2. How clearly do you understand when teachers are on duty?

3. How clearly do you understand which teachers are on duty?

4. How clearly do you understand the purpose of the area and how to use it?

5. Is there a teacher available at the time when you would like to use the area?

6. How often do you use the area to talk with a teacher?

7. Why do you use the area?

8. How satisfied are you with the English-only area?

Thirdly, all instructors who worked in the area were interviewed over a two-month period.

Instructors were asked the following questions in semi-structured interview format.

1. What do you enjoy most about your duty?

2. How would you like student visitors to approach/interact with you? (Please

characterize your “ideal student visitor’s” behaviours.)

3. What kinds of conversations do you like to have/ which topics do you like to discuss

in the area?

4. What do you find frustrating about your duty?

5. Are there any topics students commonly bring up that you don’t like to or would rather

not discuss?

6. In what ways do you think the area is most useful to students?

7. Do you encourage your students to use the area? If so, how and how often?

8. Are the activities you encourage/assign useful in getting students to use the area?


!"#!

9. Do you have any suggestions for how any aspects of the area could be improved?

Log Book (Traffic Report) Findings

Results from the logbook of student use of the speaking area over the two-week period

revealed information on the type of students who visited this area. The results (summarized in

Figure 1) indicated that freshman students made up the majority of students who used the

area, comprising 54 percent of the total visits made during the two-week period. These results

also showed a decrease in use of the English-only area with each subsequent year level, with

fourth year students comprising just 3 percent of the visits made to the area in this period.

Such results indicated that the English-only area was largely a freshman and sophomore-

student domain.

Figure 1. English-only area use according to students' year of study.

When the same data was analysed according to the language ability of the students in

the freshman year, as indicated by performance of a proficiency exam, no relationship was

found. That is, students from high proficiency classes used the area as often as students from

the lower frequency classes. This challenged the assumptions of a previous study (Rose, 2007)


! "#!

that lower-level students may be less likely to use the English-only area than higher-level

students due to nervousness, lack of confidence in ability, or shyness.

When the data were split according to the department in which the student belonged,

there was a large difference between the percentage score. International Communication (IC)

majors comprised 50 percent of visits, compared to the English majors at 43 percent while

Language & Culture (ILC) majors were 7 percent. When these figures were adjusted

according to student numbers in each of the three departments, IC majors averaged 1.4 visits

per freshman student in this two-week period, compared to 0.3 visits per student in the

English and ILC Departments. These results indicate that on average an IC Department

freshman student visited the English-only area five times more often than the average English

department student. Later interviews with instructors revealed this might have been the result

of a regular speaking assignment in the form of a speaking journal being given to all freshman

students in this department.

Student Survey Findings

550 surveys were collected from all freshman students across the three departments.

The surveys asked eight questions regarding student use of the English-only area. With regard

to the first question, in which students were asked how comfortable they felt in using the

English-only area, less than half of the students indicated that they were comfortable about

using the area.


!"#!

Figure 2. How comfortable students felt using the English-only area.

Figure 2 shows these results divided according to the three departments. 67 (18 very

and 49 somewhat) percent of IC department students stated they were comfortable in using

the area, compared to 48 percent in the English department and 43 percent in the ILC

department. These results suggest a relationship between department and level of comfort.

The sixth survey item investigated the frequency of visits students made to the

English-only area. The results of the survey item are displayed in Figure 3.


! "#!

Figure 3. How often students used the English-only area.

The vast majority of students (67 percent) visited the area less than 5 times throughout

the semester. 26 percent visited once every one or two weeks. Seven percent visited more than

once a week. When the same results were divided according to the three departments,

considerable differences were discovered, as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Frequency of use, according to students' department.


!"#!

In the IC department, 31 percent of students reported using the area more than once a

week, compared to 7 percent in the English department and 15 percent in the ILC Department.

In the next bracket, 60 percent of IC department students reported using the area once every

one or two weeks, compared to 26 percent in the English department and 32 percent in the

ILC department. Similarly, while students who used the area less than 5 times throughout the

semester represented the majority of students in the English department (67 percent) and the

ILC department (53 percent), they made up only 9 percent of students in the IC department.

These results are consistent with the log book results which indicated the average IC

department student visited the area almost five times as often as the average English

department student.

The seventh survey item investigated reasons for using the English-only area and is

summarized in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Motivation for going to the English-only speaking area.

Seventeen percent indicated the completion of course tasks as the primary reason,

while two percent indicated an unwillingness to use the area. The vast majority indicated a

desire to use the area as the primary reason for visiting.


! "#!

When the results were viewed departmentally, once again differences became

apparent. As shown in Figure 6, while the English and ILC departments showed high levels of

self-motivation to use the English-only area, with a third of students reporting they used it

purely because they wanted to, this accounted for only nine percent in the case of IC students.

90 percent of IC students reported school tasks as a reason for using the area, 26 percent of

those indicating course tasks as the sole reason. These results indicate that students of the

English and ILC departments use the English-only area for different reasons than students of

the IC department. For IC department students, course tasks were the prevalent reason for

using the English-only area, although the majority of these students also expressed a

willingness to go.

Figure 6. Motivation for using the speaking area, according to department.

The final survey item investigated student satisfaction regarding the English-only area.

Half of the freshman students reported they were unsatisfied (5%) or not very satisfied (46%),

this compared with the other half who reported they were satisfied (34%) and very satisfied

(15%). These results did not differ greatly across departments.


!"#!

Interview Findings

Instructors were interviewed in a semi-structured interview format, where they were

asked to comment on a number of questions concerning student use of the area. Data were

transcribed and coded. The following findings emerged from the data:

1. Instructors recognized benefits that the speaking area provided students. Almost all

interviewees commented that the area provided students with a less structured and

more relaxed interaction than provided in language classrooms. Instructors agreed the

area allowed students to practice language use and helped build cultural awareness.

2. Instructors saw a link between early use of the area and continued use. Instructors

agreed that once students became regular users, it helped them maintain good habits

in using the area. They felt usage patterns of the area are established during students'

freshman year, and that if a student did not use the area in this first year, they were

unlikely to use it at all throughout their 4-year degree.

3. Instructors from the IC department gave a regular homework task in the form of a

speaking journal to their students, in which they were encouraged (but not required) to

use the speaking area for its completion. Such comments from IC department

instructors shed light on the different results concerning use of the area by the

students in both the logbook and survey data.

4. Instructors mentioned student shyness as an area of frustration. One factor mentioned

by nearly all instructors was that some students were very the shy and nervous

resulting in apprehension to approach the instructor or excessive quietness once

engaged in conversation.

5. Instructors mentioned unrealistic expectations from students as an area of frustration,

especially in regard to the expectation that the instructor should be the centre of

attention. Nearly all instructors commented that the student expected all conversation

to be centred on the instructor and thus took a passive role in initiating and

maintaining conversation. Some of the metaphors used by instructors regarding their


! "#!

perceived role in the area included “entertainer” (7 comments), “hub” (3), “focus” (2),

and even “zoo animal” (1).

6. Instructors saw topic management as an area of frustration. According to almost all

instructors, students did not seem to understand how to approach, initiate, sustain, and

conclude a conversation. Students often came unprepared to the area, and did not

know how to hit on a topic of mutual interest.

In summary, while instructors saw the benefit of students’ use of the area, there were a

number of frustrations, which stemmed from what the instructors viewed as inappropriate or

misunderstood use of the area by the students.

Discussion of Findings

The results indicate that classroom activities had a huge impact on student use of the

area. Students of the IC department who were given a structured and frequent speaking

journal task, were more inclined to use the English-only speaking area due to having this

purpose. This higher degree of use also equated with a higher satisfaction with the area, higher

awareness of how to use the area, and higher levels of comfort when in the speaking area.

However, a large number of students from this department commented that they used the area

solely to complete these tasks (26 percent). To some instructors, this brought into question the

self-access nature of using the area to complete the tasks. However, such results indicate the

positive benefits these tasks can have in familiarizing students with a self-access speaking

area, but also warn against prolonged use of these tasks once these aims have been achieved.

The interviews further highlighted a problem concerning student misunderstanding of

the purpose of the English-only area. Comments suggested that students expected that the

instructor should be the “hub” of the conversation, and therefore often visited the area

expecting the instructor to initiate and sustain the conversation. Instructors, on the other hand,

viewed their role as a conversation participant. This differing view concerning roles indicates

that awareness needed to be raised on how roles in the SAC are different from instructor-

learner roles in the classroom. Such findings echo opinions of self-access researchers who

assert that “a recognition of the changing roles of instructors in self-access is critical to the

success of centres” (Sturtridge, 1997, p. 66). The instructors commented that they enjoy

conversing with students who:


!""!

• initiate conversation

• engage other students in the conversation

• come prepared with a topic to discuss

• know how to start and end a conversation

• are genuinely interested in having a conversation on a given topic

• are active participants in the conversation

These results, therefore, can help inform similar institutions of ways in which they can

promote positive usage of their English-only areas. The results suggest materials should be

designed to teach the students about instructor expectations of them when using such

facilities. Resources could also be made to train students to become more active participants

in conversations with the instructors. With regard to instructors, they should feel empowered

both in the classroom and in the English-only area to tell students that the primary goal is

student-driven conversation, and the instructor serves as more of a participant and guide than

initiator. This conflict of roles both in and outside of the classroom also leads to the debate

over whether use of instructors is necessary in the speaking area at all. Perhaps the role of

native speaker on duty in the area could be more appropriately filled by employees who are

not professional academic staff. Employing foreign language exchange students, peers, or

English conversation instructors, where this pre-existing student-instructor relationship would

cease to be problematic, may prove more fruitful for some institutions.

Conclusions and Implications for Further Research

In conclusion, the data collected suggests many areas for positive change that can be

made to improve experiences in the English-only area for both instructors and students at the

institution. Further research into how to incorporate awareness-raising activities into the

freshman curriculum would be beneficial to future positive use of the area. This report

suggests the trial of tasks in the curriculum that promote correct usage of the English-only

area and to provide scaffolding to enable students to become more active and prepared users

of this area.


! "#!

The study also offers suggestions to educational institutions that are considering

establishing similar English-only facilities. Firstly, the findings of the study suggest careful

thought be made into how students are taught to use the area effectively. Secondly, students

should also be made aware of expectations placed on them by instructors in the area so that

they are able to leverage a maximum amount of benefit from the area. Thirdly, results show

classroom activities that encourage use of the area have a positive effect on both use of the

area and attitude toward this use. Finally, institutions should carefully evaluate the rationale

behind hiring decisions in terms of who they want to be working in the area and what their

role should be.

With regard to implications for future study, the authors acknowledge that the data for

this study is relatively old, being collected in 2005-2006. For this reason, the institution

already may have implemented many of the suggestions offered. Thus, a future study, which

reported on the effectiveness of these suggestions, would be of research interest. Furthermore,

as this study represents a single case of student use of an English-only facility, the findings

would be further strengthened through investigation of similar facilities offered at other

language institutions.

Notes on the contributors

Heath Rose is an assistant professor at Rikkyo University, Japan. He first became interested

in self-directed learning and learner autonomy in 2003 when he completed his masters

dissertation in the field of strategic learning. He continued this vein of research in his PhD

study in the fields of strategy use, motivation control and self-regulation in language learning.

Roxanne Elliott has taught and translated in Italy, Japan and California, where she now

resides. Her interest in motivation and autonomy grew as she pursued her MA in TESOL from

the Monterey Institute of International Studies in California. As an instructor at Kanda

University of International Studies from 2005 to 2007, she developed and implemented self-

access learning materials and teacher-led curriculum to encourage learner autonomy.


!"#!

References

Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy.

In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2-27).

New York: Longman.

Cooker, L., & Torpey, M. (2004). From self-direction to self-access: A chronicle of learner-

centred curriculum development [Special issue]. The Language Teacher: Perspectives

on Self-Access, 28(6), 11-14.

Dam, L. (2003). Developing learner autonomy: The teacher’s responsibility. In D. Little, J.

Ridley and E. Ushioda (Eds.), Learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom:

Teacher, learner, curriculum and assessment, pp. 126-150. Dublin: Authentik.

Malcolm, D. (2004). Why should learners contribute to the self-access centre?

ELT Journal, 58(4), 346-354.

Morrison, B. (2005). Evaluating language gain in a self-access language learning centre.

Language Teaching Research, 9(3): 267-293.

Rampton, M. (1990). Displacing the 'native speaker': Expertise, affiliation, and inheritance.

ELT Journal, 44(2), 97-101.

Rose, H. (2007). Jump-starting student motivation to use self-access learning facilities in

high-anxiety learning environments. Kanda Journal, 19, 171-188.

Savignon, S. J. (1997). Communicative competence theory and practice: Texts and contexts in

second language learning (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.

Spratt, M., Humphreys, G., & Chan, V. (2002). Autonomy and motivation:

Which comes first? Language Teaching Research, 6(3), 245-266.

Sturtridge, G. (1997). Teaching and language learning in self-access centres: Changing roles.

In P. Benson & P. Voller (Eds.), Autonomy and independence in language learning

(pp. 66-79). London: Longman.

!"!#$%&'()*+,-%!"#$%&'%("$%&'%)*+,'%-.&.'%/0123%

% /0%

Integrating Self-Access into the Curriculum: Our Experience Gene Thompson, Hiroshima Bunkyo Women’s University, Japan

Lee Atkinson, Hiroshima Bunkyo Women’s University, Japan

Abstract

Linking self-access and classroom learning is a difficult and time-consuming business, but one

which can lead to great rewards as learners develop independent learning skills and assume

greater responsibility for their learning. This paper will outline the approach for encouraging

independent learning employed in the first year English language curriculum at Hiroshima

Bunkyo Joshi Daigaku (HBJD), a four-year women’s only university in Japan. Two different

methods for doing this will be introduced: employing project-based learning activities and

linking classroom activities with a Self-Access Learning Center (SALC). The design of the

curriculum and the materials encourage individualized learning, while the project-based and

independent learning activities promote learner responsibility and control of learning (Dickinson,

1987) through utilization of the SALC. This paper will outline the issues involved in shifting

from a weakly linked curriculum and SALC to a more strongly linked curriculum-SALC

relationship. It will provide specific examples of this challenge before also discussing examples

of the successes and failures that have been faced by the curriculum design and self-access

teams in attempting to create a curriculum which strongly promotes independent learning. It is

hoped that sharing these experiences will provide some useful insights into the issues

surrounding the encouragement of independent learning and how these issues can be tackled

practically in a teaching situation.

Introduction

The establishment of the Bunkyo English Communication Center (BECC) at Hiroshima

Bunkyo Joshi Daigaku (HBJD) was a collaborative project between Kanda University of

International Studies (KUIS) and HBJD that utilized the knowledge and skills of KUIS in

helping HBJD to establish a new language curriculum and Self-Access Learning Center (SALC).

There were numerous challenges in creating the new center, and this paper focuses on efforts to

integrate self-access into the curriculum in response to the new educational environment.

The paper will begin by briefly summarizing some of the key challenges faced in

establishing the BECC, before introducing the rationale for encouraging autonomous learning

capacity using a self-access approach. The paper will then outline the differences in the

relationship between KUIS’s SALC and curriculum and the BECC’s SALC and curriculum

before moving on to a discussion about the ways in which self-access is linked with the

Freshman English curriculum at the BECC. Two methods for linking the SALC and curriculum

will be discussed: 1) the use of self-access activities which supplement classroom work and 2)

the use of SALC resources in projects that learners are required to complete as part of their

!"!#$%&'()*+,-%!"#$%&'%("$%&'%)*+,'%-.&.'%/0123%

%/3%

courses. Finally, the paper will conclude by suggesting areas for future research and

development with respect to self-access integration into the curriculum based on the 1st year

experience of the BECC team.

The BECC Project

The BECC Freshman English curriculum was designed to develop language proficiency

and autonomous capacity. The contents and philosophy of the curriculum reflect the KUIS

Freshman English program which emphasizes individualization, interdependence, and

interaction as key components in the learning process in creating a learner-centered curriculum1.

The majority of learners at HBJD major in psychology, nutrition, welfare or early childhood

education with only a small number majoring in languages. Irrespective of their major area of

study, all first year learners are required to complete the BECC Freshman English

program. Research into learner beliefs and attitudes towards English language learning at the

BECC (Foale & Gillies, 2008) indicated that a significant number of learners have negative

attitudes towards language learning based on their prior experience and perceived failures. This

has led them to believe they will never be successful language learners, and may be an example

of how “pessimistic explanatory styles” (Peterson, Maier, & Seligman, 1993) can lead to

feelings of helplessness. As a result, many BECC learners have little experience, or interest, in

autonomous language learning.

Language Education Reform in Japan

Debates about improving language education continue in Japan with reform movements

including the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology

(MEXT) “Action Plan to Cultivate Japanese with English Abilities” (MEXT, 2002, 2003)2 and

the establishment of gakushiryoku or ‘General Graduate Competencies’ (see Figure 1).

Gakushiryoku is the term used to describe the MEXT’s advisory that university graduates should

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1 For more about the BECC project, see Thompson and Foale (2008), while for about the educational philosophies

of the Freshman English curriculum at KUIS, see Johnson (1989), and Cooker and Torpey (2004).

-%For more about the Action Plan to Cultivate Japanese with English Abilities, see MEXT white papers and reports

(2005, 2006a, 2006b).%

!"!#$%&'()*+,-%!"#$%&'%("$%&'%)*+,'%-.&.'%/0123%

% /4%

have core competencies including basic foreign language ability, lifelong learning skills,

problem solving skills, and sufficient autonomous learning capacity to be able to make decisions

about future learning based on evaluations of past learning experiences. The BECC was charged

with not only developing students’ basic English proficiency, but also their cross-cultural

awareness and understanding, and skills for planning, and evaluating learning in line with the

principles of gakushiryoku in developing lifelong learning skills. For HBJD, the gakushiryoku

movement is one of the key drivers for instigating the collaborative project with KUIS to

establish the BECC language program and SALC, given KUIS' strong support of autonomous

learning and self-access, which was recognized as a “Center of Excellence” by the Ministry of

Education in 2003.

Figure 1. Autonomous learning in gakushiryoku.

Developing Autonomous Capacity Through Self-Access

As Benson (2001) explains, autonomy is usually considered to refer to three

interdependent areas concerning the capacity of learners to take control of their learning. These

three areas are the learners’ cognitive processes, the management of their learning, and the

content of their learning. Regarding the practice of autonomy, Gardner and Miller (1999)

explain how self-access centers are successful in providing structure for the development of

autonomous learning capacity by providing a space which allows learners the opportunity to

interact with the learning environment in unique ways in order to address their learning needs in

!"!#$%&'()*+,-%!"#$%&'%("$%&'%)*+,'%-.&.'%/0123%

%2.%

a personal manner. The two-part rationale for self-access is that it is a pragmatic response to the

individualization of education and, ideologically, it promotes learner independence (Sheerin,

1997). The challenge for developing autonomous learning capacity is encouraging and

equipping learners with the skills and confidence to start moving from teacher dependence

towards a state of greater autonomy in which they are able to take greater control over their

learning.

Gardner and Miller (1999) outline several possibilities as to how a SALC may be linked

with the curriculum, ranging along a continuum from no direct links or integration between the

SALC and curriculum to a fully integrated SALC and curriculum. At KUIS there is a weak link

between the SALC and the curriculum. Although there are programs in place, such as extra

learning modules which link the SALC and curriculum (Cooker & Torpey, 2004), learners are

not required to participate in these programs or to use SALC resources as part of their

curriculum. As the BECC SALC was originally based on the KUIS model, a weak relationship

between the BECC SALC and the curriculum was initially established. However, it soon became

apparent that the extent to which learners recognized the benefits of self-access learning was a

unique part of the KUIS university culture rather than a universal trait. We were faced with the

task of considering how to encourage autonomous learning behaviors for non-language majors,

who had a wide range of abilities and were in “different stages of the life-long learning process”

(Morrison, 2008, p. 126). This involved a re-conception of our place in their hierarchy of

educational needs, as despite the availability of the BECC’s self-access learning center, usage

data continued to show few learners making use of it. Our experience in this regard followed

that of Hess (1996) and Benson (2002), as we also naively “thought that learners of English …

would respond enthusiastically to self-access” (p. 3).

This led to the conclusion that we needed to develop clearer pathways (i.e. referring

learners to specific resources or materials) into the SALC. As Kell and Newton (1997, p. 52)

explain, pathways can operate as a “map” for “lost” learners, a “stepping-stone” for learners

with low confidence, and a “release” for bored learners. Cotterall and Reinders (2001) explain

that the SALC can function as a bridge between what Crabbe (1993) refers to as public-domain

learning and private-domain learning by linking the shared learning that is carried out in class

with the learners’ individual private learning. There was a need to highlight to learners the links

between their public and private learning in order for them to see the benefit of using the SALC

and to reduce their anxiety towards using the SALC. It was also felt that a more structured

approach to encouraging autonomous learning development was required, as the HBJD learner

group risked being overwhelmed by too much choice. Aldred and Williams (2000), appear to

!"!#$%&'()*+,-%!"#$%&'%("$%&'%)*+,'%-.&.'%/0123%

% 2&%

have experienced the same issue during the development of a self-access program in Hong Kong

where they found there was “too much choice for students” (p. 86) and that giving more

direction to learners in the form of recommendations or pathways helped to avoid paralysis of

choice by learners. In the KUIS institutional culture, with a relatively sophisticated language-

learner population, this problem was not evident. However, in the BECC context, a more

structured approach was seen as vital in developing learners' awareness of different ways of

learning and of controlling their learning.

Approaches Towards Developing Autonomy

While a strength of self-access learning is that it is flexible and can be tailored to match

the needs of the learners (Gardner & Miller, 1999), doing so effectively presented a major

challenge for the team charged with implementing the new curriculum and establishing the

SALC. The first step identified by the BECC teaching and learning advisor team was to provide

learners with more opportunities to take greater control of their learning, and as much as

possible, a self-access approach (Serra Salvia, 2000) involving the use of the self-access center

was the preferred means for providing these opportunities and developing autonomous learning

capacity.

As Benson (2001) explains, "any practice that encourages and enables learners to take

greater control of any aspect of their learning can be considered a means of promoting

autonomy” (p. 109). Two approaches for fostering the development of autonomous capacity by

linking the curriculum and SALC were selected for implementation:1) the creation of pathways

into the SALC through extension activities, which were a part of curriculum materials and

assessment, and 2) the provision of specific project support materials in the SALC, which

provided learners with resources for completing in-class presentation preparation and planning.

While this “coercion” of the learners to engage in self-access learning can be seen as a

contradiction of autonomous learning capacity development by “forcing” learners to become

consumers of products selected by others (Benson, 1994; Malcolm, 2004), it was considered that

in order to foster autonomous learning capacity, some orientation to the center (Navarro Coy &

Brady, 2003) was required first in order to facilitate learner development later. As Sheerin (1997,

p. 60) explains, “training” differs from “development” in that training involves “something that

is done by someone to someone else” while development is cognitive and “involves accepting

responsibility for one’s learning”, and we believed that development would not occur for most

of our learners without some training to structure the process.

!"!#$%&'()*+,-%!"#$%&'%("$%&'%)*+,'%-.&.'%/0123%

%2-%

Towards a More Integrated Curriculum - Self-Access Materials

For students who have never previously taken control of their learning, moving towards

greater control is a very challenging process. To support this process, the classroom materials

were directly linked with material and resources in the SALC through the use of extension

activities and projects - with the goal of giving learners some choice and control over some of

their language learning, ideally in a manner that reduced learner anxiety and resistance to a new

learning environment.

The SALC Extension Activities were developed to connect to the learners’ classroom

study and were designed to serve as an ongoing orientation to the SALC and its resources. These

activities were completed outside class time and required learners to make choices about which

activities to complete, when to visit the SALC, and who to work with. Some of the activities

could be done individually, while others needed to be completed with a partner, in a group, or

with a learning advisor or BECC teacher. For each activity different resources in the SALC were

utilized and learners were directed to specific resources or areas. These activities built upon

what the language learners experienced in class, and were designed to provide further practice in

a freer environment.

Integrating the Curriculum - Project-Based Materials

As Gardner and Miller (1999) explain, project-based learning can be an effective method

for helping to move learners towards autonomy through cooperating with their peers and

managing their learning, as “although a project may be started in class, learners could use self-

access facilities and libraries to continue their work” and “in this way classroom-based learning

can be linked with a self-access centre” (p. 167). It was considered crucial for integrating self-

access to make it an authentic experience for learners and to encourage learners to use the self-

access center by making it the obvious choice when researching projects without making the use

of the center compulsory for completing the project. This was achieved by setting the learners’

project preparation tasks which could be completed using only web-based or other outside

resources, but at the same time learners were made very aware of the print and multimedia

resources available in the SALC in the hope that they would use these instead. Furthermore the

center’s design - with “Group Access” areas and “Multi-purpose” rooms - provided ideal spaces

for carrying out project work. Learners’ awareness of SALC resources and equipment was raised

!"!#$%&'()*+,-%!"#$%&'%("$%&'%)*+,'%-.&.'%/0123%

% 24%

and developed through the self-access extension materials, so that when learners were presented

with research projects, they had a foundation of understanding about the center which they could

use to make an informed choice about using the center for their project work.

While identifying areas for encouraging autonomous capacity development by more

strongly linking the SALC and curriculum was relatively easy, the process of implementing the

initiatives varied. In order for such a system to be successful, the materials purchased, display

policies and resources developed had to be reconsidered with a view towards supporting the

curriculum materials. The project-based initiative was integrated smoothly and was immediately

successful. However, with respect to the extension activities, the implications on the relationship

between the curriculum and self-access center quickly become apparent. The challenges faced in

moving from a weakly-linked SALC and curriculum to a strongly-linked relationship will be

discussed in the next section.

What Happens When You Change the Relationship Between the SALC and Curriculum?

As Pemberton (2007) states, self-access must “support, but not direct, our students’

learning” (p. 42), and we found balancing “varying degrees of guidance” (Gardner & Miller,

1997, p. 17) difficult to manage at first. The immediate positive impact on the self-access center

was a far greater number of learners using the center and materials. However, soon strains were

observed on materials, staff time, infrastructure, and budget. These strains highlighted that

changing the relationship between the curriculum and SALC had implications which affected

the center as whole, and required attention in order to facilitate the change.

At a management level, the SALC needed areas for displaying materials for each subject,

and these materials needed to match the requirements of the learners completing their projects.

Thus, greater communication between the teaching staff and SALC learning advising team was

essential for ensuring the materials in the center matched the objectives of the curriculum.

In terms of materials, pathways act as a ‘controlled-access system’ (Miller & Rogerson-

Revell, 1993) which introduce learners to the center. Providing specific pathways into the SALC

gave even the most reluctant learners a clear reason and objective for using the center. However,

with the introduction of such materials, the burden on certain sections in the SALC, and specific

books, items, or resources within those sections, soon led to the realization that the pathways

into the SALC materials had to be general enough to allow for a large number of users at one

time, and also that choice was the crucial first element in encouraging autonomous learning

development.

!"!#$%&'()*+,-%!"#$%&'%("$%&'%)*+,'%-.&.'%/0123%

%2/%

Staff time also became an issue, as supervision for the SALC extension activities

involved requiring a learning advisor or teacher to initial the activity once learners had

completed it - something which seemed reasonable to the materials design team. However, in

practice this led to a steady stream of learners at learning advisors' doors, which meant they were

too busy to help the learners interact with the materials in the self-access center, provide

guidance for learners in need, and facilitate better understanding of the learning process - their

core duties in helping to support learners in their self-directed learning (see Mozzon-McPherson,

2007, for more about Learning Advisor roles).

There was also an impact on infrastructure. The sudden increase in learner numbers led

to long lines waiting for the photocopier, computers, voice recorders, or video cameras, and at

busy times every seat in the SALC was full. It quickly became apparent that although the

extension activities allowed learners a structured means of experiencing the SALC resources and

controlling aspects of their learning, overly specific SALC activities were also reinforcing

learners' poor experiences with language learning as the SALC resources and infrastructure were

pushed beyond its limits. Usage soared, but the center became too crowded at peak times, and

resources required to complete the activities were not always available.

The issues were (generally) resolved quickly by obtaining feedback from students,

teachers and advisors which led to revised activities within 3 months that incorporated more

choice, a greater range of generic activities, and required less overseeing by teachers and

learning advisors. The final result is a curriculum-SALC relationship which matches the needs

of the learning situation at the BECC more appropriately by introducing the SALC to our

learners in a more controlled and ongoing manner, and helps them to see the benefit of using the

SALC to extend their learning. However, our experience of moving from a weakly-linked to

strongly-linked SALC highlights the importance of fully considering the implications of changes

in educational philosophy on the “shop floor.”

Conclusion

The process of establishing any curriculum or self-access center will necessarily involve

a large amount of trial and error in meeting the needs of the local population. In moving from a

weakly linked SALC-curriculum relationship to a strongly linked relationship through the use of

SALC extension activities and project-based learning activities, the BECC program has moved

the self-access center to a central position in the curriculum itself. Through the ongoing

orientation to the SALC and independent learning that the extension activities provide, a much

!"!#$%&'()*+,-%!"#$%&'%("$%&'%)*+,'%-.&.'%/0123%

% 22%

greater number of learners are using the SALC resources and being exposed to opportunities to

take greater control over their own learning, and more learners are making use of the SALC in

their project learning. However, more users of the SALC does not equal more autonomous

learners, so the challenge for the project is to build upon the awareness raising measures

outlined in this paper with further practices for fostering autonomy and finding some means for

investigating what, if any, changes are occurring in learners’ beliefs or behaviors.

Suggestions for Further Research: Does the Practice Help Learners to Take Greater

Control Over Their Learning?

At the conclusion of its inaugural year, the BECC program is continuing to strive for the

most effective means of introducing all learners to the concept of autonomy and providing them

with opportunities to exercise greater control over their learning. These opportunities are

introduced via the curriculum in the form of SALC extension activities and projects. However,

more opportunities and practices for fostering autonomy continue to be considered, such as

better utilizing the educational technologies available and working towards an individualized

curriculum. While these opportunities are important, Benson (2001) reminds us that the key

question to ask of any practice that claims to foster autonomy is, "How does this practice help

learners to take greater control over their learning?” (p. 111) Therefore, research is required to

examine how effectively the approaches introduced enable learners to take control over their

learning and to determine whether they are able to recognize that they are developing their

autonomous capacity. Research could also explore whether more learners are using SALC

resources of their own initiative and for what purpose, whether their beliefs towards language

learning are changing, and most importantly, if intrinsic motivation is being generated by

providing learners with more opportunities to learn in different ways and take control of

different aspects of their learning.


Gene Thompson is the Curriculum Director at the Bunkyo English Communication Center at

Hiroshima Bunkyo Joshi Daigaku. His research interests include curriculum development, self-

efficacy, and beliefs about language learning.

!"!#$%&'()*+,-%!"#$%&'%("$%&'%)*+,'%-.&.'%/0123%

%24%

Lee Atkinson has taught English to speakers of other languages in Australia, Hong Kong and

Japan. She has an M.Ed in TESOL and is currently teaching at a Hiroshima Bunkyo Joshi

Daigaku. Her research interests include second language writing, CALL and autonomy.

References

Aldred, D., & Williams, G. (2000). The need for a focused approach: A case study. Links &

Letters, 7, 81-93.

Benson, P. (1994). Self-access systems as information systems: Questions of ideology and

control. In D. Gardner & L. Miller (Eds.). Directions in self-access language learning.

Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. Harlow: Pearson

Education Limited.

Benson, P. (2002). Rethinking the relationship of self-access and autonomy. Newsletter of the

Hong Kong Association for Self-Access Learning and Development, 5, 4-10. Retrieved

from http://lc.ust.hk/HASALD/newsletter/newsletterSept02.pdf

Cooker, L., & Torpey, M. (2004). From the classroom to the self-access centre: A chronicle of

learner-centered curriculum development. The Language Teacher, 28(6), 11-16.

Cotterall, S., & Reinders, H. (2001). Fortress or bridge? Learners’ perceptions and practice in

self access language learning. Tesolanz, 8, 23-38.

Crabbe, D. (1993). Fostering autonomy from within the classroom: The teacher’s responsibility.

System, 21(4), 443-452.

Dickinson, L. (1987). Self-instruction in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Foale, C., & Gillies, H. (2008, November). Half full or half empty? In G. Murray (Chair),

Interweaving Self-Access and Classroom Language Learning. Symposium conducted at

the JASAL Forum at the JALT 2008 Conference, Tokyo.

Gardner, D., & Miller, L. (1997). A study of tertiary level self-access facilities in Hong Kong.

Hong Kong: ESEP, City University of Hong Kong.

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

Cambridge University Press.

Hess, H. W. (1996). Computer-based support for foreign language learning. Foreign Language

Teaching (Daxue Waiyu Jiaoxue Yanjiu), January 1996, pp. 102-107.

!"!#$%&'()*+,-%!"#$%&'%("$%&'%)*+,'%-.&.'%/0123%

% 20%

Johnson, F.C. (1989). A new university, a new learning system, a new set of instructional

materials – the Kanda experiment. Kanda University of International Studies Journal, 1,

31-53.

Kell, J., & Newton, C. (1997). Roles of pathways in self-access systems. ELT Journal, 51(1),

48-53.

Malcolm, D. (2004). Why should learners contribute to the self-access center? ELT Journal,

58(4), 346-354.

Miller, L., & Rogerson-Revell, P. (1993). Self-access systems. ELT Journal, 47(3), 228-233.

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (2002). Developing a strategic

plan to cultivate “Japanese with English abilities.” Retrieved from

http://www.mext.go.jp/english/news/2002/07/020901.htm

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (2003). Regarding the

establishment of an action plan to cultivate “Japanese with English abilities.”

Retrieved from http://www.mext.go.jp/english/topics/03072801.htm

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (2005). FY2005 White Paper

on Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. Retrieved from

http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/html/06101913.htm

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (2006a). FY2006 White Paper

on Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. Retrieved from

http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/html/hpac200601/index.htm

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (2006b). !"#$%&'(

)*%+, Retrieved from

http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/kihon/about/06121913/002.pdf

Morrison, B. (2008). The role of the self-access center in the tertiary language learning process.

System, 36, 123-140.

Mozzon-McPherson, M. (2007). Supporting independent learning environments: An analysis of

structures and roles of language advisers. System, 35, 66-92.

Navarro Coy, M., & Brady, I. K. (2003). Promoting learner autonomy in self-access centers: The

key role of material. ELIA, 4, 69-86.

Pemberton, R. (2007). Rethinking the relationship of self-access and autonomy. Independence:

The Newsletter of the Learner Autonomy Special Interest Group, 42, 23-24. Retrieved

from http://www.learnerautonomy.org/pemberton2007.pdf

Peterson, C., Maier, S. F., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1993. Learned helplessness: A theory for the

age of personal control. New York: Oxford University Press.

Serra Salvia, O. (2000). Integrating a self-access system in a language learning institution: A

model for implementation. Links and Letters, 7, 95-109.

!"!#$%&'()*+,-%!"#$%&'%("$%&'%)*+,'%-.&.'%/0123%

%23%

Sheerin, S. (1997). An exploration of the relationship between self-access and independent

learning. In P. Benson & P. Voller (Eds.). Autonomy and independence in language

learning. Harlow: Pearson.

Thompson, G. R., & Foale, C. J. (2008). Adapting the BEPP model: The BECC project. Studies

in Linguistics and Language Teaching, 19, 253-289.

%


59

A New Member of the Family: The Sojo International Learning Center

Jon Rowberry, Sojo University, Kumamoto, Japan

The Sojo International Learning Centre (SILC) is a new facility which has been

developed jointly by Sojo University and the External Language Consultancy Centre

(ELCC) based at Kanda University of International Studies (KUIS). This report aims

to explain the rationale for the SILC project and to briefly outline the services offered

by the centre before going on to describe some of the practical challenges that were

encountered in getting the SILC up and running.

The SILC Project

Sojo University is a private university in Kumamoto city with a focus on

Engineering, Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Sciences. In 2009 a partnership was

established between the university and the External Language Consultancy Centre at

KUIS to deliver an English proficiency programme, initially targeting first year students,

as well as a self-access learning centre (SALC) for the use of the entire university

community. The Sojo International Learning Centre (SILC) formally opened in March

of this year in time to deliver the first year English requirement to students from all five

faculties.

The SILC is housed in a three-floor building which has been completely

refurbished to facilitate six teaching rooms, the SALC, the SILC cafe and all staff

offices. The building has been designed with a focus on comfort and usability so as to

make it as accessible as possible. In order to ensure that SILC users have an opportunity

to actively develop their language skills through communication, the second and third

floors of the SILC operate an ‘English-only’ policy. However, Japanese is permitted on

the first floor to provide a comfort zone for learners who may initially feel overwhelmed

by the English only environment and need a space to relax and build up confidence.


60

There are nine full-time teachers (including the SILC Director and Assistant

Director for Curriculum), two learning advisors (including the Assistant Director for the

SALC), a full-time SALC manager assisted by a number of part-time staff, and a SILC

general manager. The 11 teachers and learning advisors come from the United States,

the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and Japan. They each have extensive teaching

experience and at least Masters level qualifications in the field of EFL and seven of

them were previously based at Kanda University of International Studies in Chiba,

Japan.

Although focusing superficially on English language education, the function and

potential benefits of the SILC go well beyond language learning. For example, it is

anticipated that the communicative approach to language teaching and learning adopted

in the taught curriculum will allow students to develop their interpersonal skills and to

participate more actively in class, while the focus on independent learning will

encourage them to become more autonomous in all aspects of university life. Ultimately

it is hoped that improved English language skills combined with a high degree of

learner autonomy will help students to bridge the gap between graduate and

postgraduate courses as well as significantly enhancing their future employment

prospects in an increasingly competitive jobs market.

The Self-Access Learning Center

In order to realise these goals, establishment of a self-access centre was very

much at the heart of the initial proposal for the SILC project and the Sojo SALC

officially opened for business in June 2010. It is a state-of-the-art facility with a huge

variety of resources including custom-made worksheets, movies, music CDs, speaking

booths, computer software, graded readers and a wide range of books, magazines and

newspapers. At the heart of the SALC is the Conversation Lounge, where students can

talk informally to teachers and to each other, play board or card games in English, use

an English version Nintendo Wii, make comments or create sentences using a magnetic

poetry board, watch BBC World and access the Internet via a 50inch plasma TV screen.


61

The lounge also hosts a number of regular events including a monthly film night,

weekly discussions on sport and music and a computer-mediated communication project

with students in Alaska.

Moreover, in common with the SALC’s sister institutions at KUIS and

Hiroshima Bunkyo Women’s University, a learning advisory service is available for

students across the university in order to help learners to set manageable targets, find

appropriate resources and evaluate their own performance. In order to reinforce the

belief that independent learning does not just mean learning on your own five ‘Multi

Purpose Rooms’ are available in which groups of up to six students can meet to work

collaboratively on their learning in English. In this way, learning goals and methods are

determined by the learners themselves in collaboration with peers, learning advisors and

teachers according to their own individual needs.

Curriculum

English classes in the SILC are designed to help students increase confidence

and motivation for using English by activating what they may have already learnt in

school. They work in small groups on a variety of fun and engaging language-based

tasks and learn to communicate effectively, research and present information in English

and find out about other cultures. The curriculum has been built around a set of

proficiency descriptors adapted from the Common European Framework for Languages

and students are assessed continuously through regular quizzes, homework activities,

lesson participation and presentations as well as through a speaking test at the end of

each semester.

SILC teaching rooms are not traditional teaching rooms but are referred to as

‘Blended Learning Spaces’ (BLS). Desks and chairs can be moved freely around the

room to accommodate a variety of groupings and activities while state-of-the-art

audiovisual equipment facilitates audio, video and web-based learning. Each BLS is

equipped with a full set of student computers with English operating systems and

headphones for listening activities. The computers allow the students to undertake

research and compile documents and presentations in English as well as to communicate


62

electronically via ‘Sojo-M’, the SILC’s online interactive learning community hosted by

Moodle.

Research

The English Communication curriculum is constantly evolving on the basis of

action research being conducted in the SILC. Institutional research within the center

focuses primarily on the implementation and evaluation of SALC resources and

practices, the use of Sojo-M and other electronic tools to support students’ learning and

the effectiveness of the curriculum itself in meeting the needs of the students and

faculties.

Moreover, there are a number of more specific projects currently being pursued

by SILC lecturers. One of these focuses on student motivation, another is looking at

attitudes towards language learning while a third is investigating the potential benefits

of computer mediated communication.

Challenges

As with any new project, there have inevitably been teething problems. One of

the biggest headaches was in ensuring the design of the building as well as the furniture

and equipment were fit for purpose and ready on time. This was a massive undertaking

even given the invaluable assistance from the teams at KUIS, Bunkyo and KIFL (Kanda

Institute of Foreign Languages). Thankfully, the Sojo University senior managers were

thoroughly committed to the project from the outset and have been very supportive in

getting the center set up on schedule. Nonetheless, accommodating the various

expectations of academics, students, designers, budget holders and other stakeholders

has been a major challenge.

Of course, the opening of the building itself was only the beginning of the

process and this has been another source of frustration for many at the university.


63

Although classes began in the SILC in April, the Self-Access Learning Centre was not

originally due to open until the end of May with the remainder of the first semester

scheduled for setting up systems and working practices, conducting student orientations

and rolling out the various services before opening fully from September. The reality of

course, was that students and staff expected everything to be up and running as soon as

the building opened its doors back in March and since then the SALC team has been

working frantically to complete the ordering, database materials and get them out on the

shelves. Although the majority of services and resources are now available (ahead of

schedule) there was initially some confusion and frustration from students and staff who

visited the SALC in the opening weeks only to be told that they could look but not

touch.

Another thing we have had to grapple with has been making the centre

accessible for students with very full schedules. At our parent institution, KUIS,

students tend to have very busy lives but committed learners can usually find

opportunities within the working day to visit the SALC and make use of the facilities.

At Sojo, however, the working day for most students begins before 9 in the morning and

continues until 6. If they are lucky they may have one free period, usually the last one of

the day, but more often than not they will be in lessons or laboratory research until they

go home. To compound this issue, students from the Pharmacy department, who also

happen to be those with the greatest motivation for studying English, are based at a

separate campus more than a kilometer from the SILC. At present, the centre is only

open until 7pm and it has not been possible to remain open later than this or on

weekends because of insufficient staffing levels combined with security concerns. It is

difficult to schedule teachers to work late in the evening given that they are often in the

classroom at 8.50am teaching the first class of the day. However, with our proposed

expansion in 2011-12 it should be possible to extend our opening hours to better

accommodate the needs of all Sojo students.

Despite these challenges we feel that overall the establishment of the SILC has

been as smooth as can realistically be expected. Although fraught at times, it has been a

relatively uncomplicated birth thanks in no small part to the wealth of experience on

hand from mother KUIS and big brother Bunkyo as well as the Sojo ante- and postnatal

teams. As any parent will tell you, however, there is a long way to go yet and there will


64

no doubt be many a sleepless night before we see those tentative and wobbly first steps

turn into an assured and erudite swagger.


Jon Rowberry is from England where he completed an MA in TESOL from the Institute

of Education while working in further education. He subsequently spent three years at

KUIS in Chiba, before returning to the UK to teach and manage EAL provision at a

London secondary school. Now enjoying his third stint in Japan as Director of the SILC,

his research interests include student motivation, learner autonomy and CALL.

!


! "#!

Report on the Japan Association of Self-Access Learning (JASAL)

Forum, at the Japan Association for Language Teaching (JALT)

2009 Conference in Shizuoka.

Jo Mynard, Kanda University of International Studies

Diego Navarro, Kanda University of International Studies

Forum theme: The teaching-learning dialogue in self-access learning

The theme of the JALT 2009 conference was The teaching-learning dialogue: An

active mirror. In the area of self-access language learning the teaching-learning

dialogue primarily takes place in the language advising situation. In this forum,

educators from different universities in Japan addressed the following questions: What

form does the teaching-learning dialogue take in your centre? How has this dialogue

informed the practice of learners and educators working in your centre? For a fuller

discussion of the role of dialogue in self-access learning (based on presentations at this

forum), see Mynard, J., & Navarro, D. (2010).

Jo Mynard and Diego Navarro (Kanda University of International Studies)

described the types of interactions which occur in the language advising services

offered at the Self-Access Learning Centre (SALC) at their institution. They described

how the approach to advising draws on sociocultural theory and constructivism,

emphasizing the promotion of critical reflection through social interaction and on

creating opportunities for learners to reconstruct meaning. Interaction takes the form of

face-to-face meetings and is also facilitated through a written dialogue via weekly

journals between learning advisors and students.

Greg Lindeman (Soka University) described the “English Forum” at his

institution which is a programme that provides students with opportunities to discuss a

variety of topics with other students. The interaction is unique as the entire process is


!""!

managed by the students themselves rather than teachers or administrators. The

self-access centre employs around thirty students who facilitate one hour discussions

with groups of between six and ten people. The discussions run three times a day with

as many as six discussions occurring simultaneously.

Daniel Sasaki and Yukiko Ishikawa (Soka University) discussed three

different approaches to the advising service offered at their institution. Initially

advising took the form of strategy advice. This was later replaced with a system where

the learning advisor set tasks that required follow-up on the part of the learner.

Currently, the learning advisors are trialling a dialogue approach which stresses the

importance of negotiation and discussion. The learners are encouraged to take more

responsibility for their own learning and set short-term goals for themselves.

Stacey Vye (Saitama University) described a peer mentoring system operating

at her institution. Learners have opportunities for casual exchanges, and also to attend

workshops and advising sessions. These kinds of interactions give learners access to

multiple perspectives in addition to practicing the target language. Students are

involved in running the self-access centre and a scenario exists where learners are

teaching and teachers are also learning.

Herman Bartelen and Hisako Sugawara (Kanda Institute of Foreign

Languages) discussed developments over the past few years in the advising services at

their two year vocational collage in Tokyo. The demand for advising services has been

steadily increasing and the success has been attributed to a number of factors: the

opening of a new self-access centre, the hiring of a trained, experienced learning

advisor, an increase in the number of orientation sessions for students, and additional


! "#!

advertising. The advising sessions are all face to face and take place in the learner’s

choice of language (English or Japanese).

About JASAL

JASAL aims to promote self-access learning in Japan and to support educators in their

efforts to provide self-access language learning opportunities at universities and high

schools. To learn more about JASAL, or to become a member, visit the JASAL website

(http://jasalorg.wordpress.com).


Jo Mynard is the director of the Self-Access Learning Centre and assistant director of

the English Language Institute at Kanda University of International Studies in Japan.

She has been involved in facilitating self-access learning since 1996.

Diego Navarro has been teaching English for over ten years in a variety of settings. In

his current position as a learning advisor at Kanda University of International Studies,

he is involved in promoting learner autonomy and effective learning strategies.

Reference

Mynard, J., & Navarro, D. (2010). Dialogue in self-access learning. In A. M. Stoke

(Ed.), JALT 2009 Conference Proceedings. Tokyo: JALT.

Documents

Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal 1(1)