| . |
. |
. |
|
Learner
Autonomy and Cooperative Learning
|
|
|
"Autonomous learning" and
"cooperative learning" are terms that recur over and over in recent TEFL
literature. Teachers who view language learning as an individualized process encourage
their learners to be autonomous. Others go a step further and expose their students to
cooperative learning in the classroom.
|
|
|
In a paper entitled "The Ethnography of
Autonomy," Philip Riley (1988) refers to the importance of group creation, group
discovery, group negotiation, and group sharing. This idea of group interaction
establishes an valuable framework in which individual learning processes can develop.
Moreover, the sharing of learning processes in teams not only strengthens the language
skills that students are to learn, it also exposes them to important social skills.
|
|
|
Along similar lines, Michael Legutke's
discussion of experiential learning (1991) touches upon the culture of the foreign
language classroom and emphasizes self-direction within group learning. Legutke's holistic
view of language learning encourages learners to bring their own experiences to the
classroom, and in doing so to take control of their own learning. The teacher's role in
the classroom then shifts from the classical teacher/textbook model to the more innovative
language/facilitator model. In this situation, the teacher sets tasks around the learners'
experiences, conducts continuous evaluations of learners to guide them in the learning
process; and develops an acceptable criteria of performance for the collective whole.
|
|
|
The studies by Riley and Legutke provide a
general framework for designing courses for professionals. When designing these programs,
I try to establish course objectives around professional needs and experiences, hoping to
achieve a cooperative language setting similar to what they describe. Their idea of
autonomous and cooperative learning-whether it be through a group project or learning
tasks-can be accomplished through an exchange of ideas and perspectives that makes the
learning experience relevant and meaningful to the participants.
|
|
|
While this is my personal objective
when designing a course for professionals, there are a number
of conflicts that arise, which I am sure are familiar other course
designers. This paper will address these conflicts and discuss
an approach for creating a language setting that leads to cooperative,
autonomous learning.
|
|
|
At the beginning of every quarter when a client
company approaches our department for a Business English course, I am faced with four
conflicts of interest. The first conflict resides in the demands made by the company. In
this case, the company requests a special course for its employees. The company imposes
not only the time, length and content of the course, but also its level of participation
and attendance. The company sets the parameters in which a teacher will have to teach a
number of linguistic skills within a time period, but the students may have low motivation
because they do not consider English as crucial for their professional development. This
is the cause for conflict in meeting some of the objectives stipulated by the company at
the beginning of the course.
|
|
|
A second conflict lies in the fact that company
goals may differ from the employee's. Unknown to the company, some learners have set
themselves different objectives in order to move up the company ladder or even out of the
company all together.
|
|
|
A third conflict lies in the degree of
difference between the supposed and the actual language level of the learner. While the
client company may perceive its employees to be at a certain proficiency level, it is
common to find that the employees themselves have a different perception. Both the company
and the employees may be dismayed by the results of a language placement test if either
envisioned the students as capable of acquiring the language skills for immediate use.
|
|
|
The final conflict that I have noted is one
imposed by teachers. In our attempts to make learners more responsible for their learning,
we do not take them by the hand through grammar exercises and verb tenses. We work towards
creating a collaborative and interdependent setting in the classroom. However, due to
cultural and/or personality factors, confusion may result as there simply may be some
language learners who do not care to be independent or to learn with/from other
classmates. Such students are very successful in the traditional language setting, where
the teacher leads activities, and students respond to controlled tasks; they do not want
any changes. Language learners fit different profiles depending on their age,
socio-cultural, ethnic, or linguistic background, as well as their level of education. And
the interstice between dependent and independent language learners should be recognized
and respected by the teacher. Students should be able to choose whether they want to
direct their own learning or be directed by others.
|
|
|
This paper is for the teacher whose students are
interested in independent, autonomous language learning; and it addresses the teacher who
wants to instill the notion of learner autonomy in his/her students.
|
|
|
These four conflicts, together or individually,
can create a stressful situation for the course designer, the language center, the
students, and the teachers. How can classes be conducted where different objectives can be
realized without the company canceling the contract, students skipping class, and the
teachers losing self-esteem?
|
|
|
A compromise has to be made. Language centers
cannot afford to lose company clients; and teachers, as professionals, will make every
effort to meet the learner's objectives as well as their own. One possibility resides in
the use of commercially produced textbooks. The problem with this approach, however, is
that the materials are all too often designed from a teacher-centered model and are not
really tailored to meet the specific needs of the company. The teachers are then faced
with having to modify the material.
|
|
|
Another possible approach when providing
in-company classes is that of photocopying fragments of material from a wide variety of
existing textbooks. This approach may suit the needs of the group but it may go against
international copyright laws!
|
|
|
In all company classes, teachers are working
with professionals who are aware of what options are available for professional
development. In the language classroom, a decision-making process should be nurtured and
developed. In fact, the learning process should be considered as a management process.
Anita Wenden (1987) describes this process as a series of decisions taken by both teacher
and student, with continuous planning and monitoring of language activities. In such an
environment, learners are active managers of their own learning, and the teacher becomes a
counselor who creates an environment to promote autonomous learning.
|
|
|
Autonomous learners want to direct their own
language learning. They want to know how to find learning resources, how to identify their
learning strategies, and how to evaluate the development of their own language skills. In
our professional programs, we have the learners identify their linguistic needs in a needs
analysis; and we use this information to construct the course. One way we feel that we can
promote autonomous learning in the language setting is to provide the learners with a course
objectives list, lesson outlines, and self-evaluation reports.
|
|
|
Course objectives are listed on the outline that
all learners receive. If the course involves a class project or a series of small tasks
leading toward a final project, this would be described along with the type of evaluation
to be used. (See Model A.) (see Figure 1
)
|
|
|
The idea behind handing the students a course
outline at the beginning of the term is to allow them to make key decisions on what they
want to study and when and how they want to learn it. Stevick (1990) suggests that most
adult learners are striving towards autonomy, and this same desire manifests itself in the
language classroom.
|
|
|
Students benefit from an outline of each lesson
that informs them about the language skills to be used for the different tasks in that
lesson. (See Model B.) Unlike the course objectives list, the lesson outline would
highlight the four language skills, classroom tasks, and materials used within that time
period. (see Figure 2 )
|
|
|
Such information helps learners identify what
linguistic skills they should be using to accomplish specific activities. They need to
know what skills are used and for what purpose. They also should identify those skills
that need closer monitoring to ensure better production. This encourages self-assessment
and exposes students to metacognitive concerns. An example of an evaluation form is shown
in Model C. (see Figure 3 )
|
|
|
Towards cooperative learning
|
|
|
In general, in-company classes tend to have
fewer students than general English classes. Such small groups of students allow teachers
to set learning tasks based on interaction and interdependence among the students.
|
|
|
As in any language setting, the professional
group of individuals forms a culture of its own. Social relations are structured and the
form of production is defined. This creates a dynamic state of cooperation and builds an
intimate setting for learning in the language classroom. Suddenly, the class textbook is
overshadowed by other sources such as journals, newspaper articles, and professional
experiences. The role of the teacher also shifts from the interpreter of institutional
materials to a language facilitator.
|
|
|
One of the best ways to create a social,
cooperative learning environment is for in-company classes that are at a low proficiency
level to be project-oriented. Some projects that work well include creating a company,
conducting a board meeting, giving a presentation, and holding a debate. Within each
project, the teacher structures activities carefully so that there is a sense of positive
interdependence among the members of the group. Mutual support and understanding of each
person's role in completing the project is fundamental in cooperative learning. In
face-to-face interactions, students are aware of each other's strengths and weaknesses,
and they slowly build a support network within the class.
|
|
|
In order to give adult learners the chance to
make choices and decisions in learning a new language, we must give them the opportunity
to reason and reflect on their performance in the classroom. The concepts of autonomous
learning and cooperative learning extends the adult learner's skills into linguistic areas
where teachers are regarded more as language facilitators than textbook interpreters. The
criteria that have been discussed in this paper can be summarized in the following points
for teachers and course designers interested in fostering a communicative interactive
learning setting:
|
|
|
- Flexibility: Within a tightly structured syllabus, the course should allow
students to have voice in determining the tasks they should be expected to perform.
Moreover, students should be given the freedom to study at their own pace and rhythm.
- Project: A series of small activities leading to a major classroom project
fosters group sharing and negotiation and establishes a significant framework for
individual learning.
- Course Objectives and Self-Assessment: Business English classes need to
inform learners what is expected of them and what they, in turn, can expect from the
course. Therefore, at the beginning of each course, learners should be informed of the
objectives of the class. They should be aware of the value of the skills that the teacher
wants them to learn, and they should be encouraged to take control of their own learning
and discern their learning styles and needs.
|
|
|
Mary
JO Rendon is the Director of the Department of English
for professionals at the Institute of North American Studies in
Barcelona. |
|
|
Return
|
|
|
- Giruoux, H. A. and P. McLaren, 1986. Teacher education and the politics for engagement:
The case of democratic schooling. Harvard Educational Review, 3, 3.
- Legutke, M. and H. Thomas. 1991. Process and experience in the language classroom. New
York: Longman.
- Riley, P. 1988. The ethnography of autonomy. London: Modern English Publications. E.L.T.
documents 131.
- Stevick, E. 1991. Success with foreign languages. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
- Wenden, A. 1987. Incorporating learner training in the classroom. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall.
|
|
Figure 1
Model A
Overall Course Objectives-
By the end of this 18-hour Professional English module, you will be able to perform
the following linguistic skills within a business context:
• initiate, continue and end conversations;
• give short prepared presentations
• demonstrate control of register;
• use question intonation correctly;
• say numbers up to one billion;
• talk about present situation and future plans;
• use relative pronouns
Evaluation criteria-
During the course, your oral production will be evaluated against the following
accuracy standard:
• use of conditionals
• use of superlatives
• use of future forms;
• use of a variety of tenses
Figure 2
Model B
Lesson Outline-
Language Level:
Content Area:
Lesson Objectives:
Language skills: listening/speaking:
reading/writing:
grammar:
vocabulary:
Material needed/used:
Figure 3
Model C
Self-Evaluation—
Name:_________________________
Course:________________________
Objectives:_____________________
- What activities did I do in the class?
___listening ___watch a video
___information gap ___dictation
___simulation ___reading
___pronunciation ___discussion
___other
- What do I think was the purpose of each activity?
- What linguistic skills do I feel I used in each activity? (speaking, reading, writing,
listening, working in pairs or individually). Can I define what strategies and skills I
used to perform the classroom activities?
- What have I learned from these activities?
- Can these activities help me achieve my goals? If so, how? What activities could help?
|
. |
. |