Sinclair - Learner Autonomy (1996)

Hong Kong University Press
Chapter Title: Materials design for the promotion of learner autonomy: how explicit is
‘explicit’?
Chapter Author(s): Barbara Sinclair
Book Title: Taking Control

Book Subtitle: Autonomy in Language Learning
Book Editor(s): Richard Pemberton, Edward S.L. Li, Winnie W.F. Or, Herbert D. Pierson
Published by: Hong Kong University Press. (1996)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt2jc12n.18
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Hong Kong University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Taking Control
This content downloaded from 148.88.244.227 on Wed, 23 May 2018 01:40:14 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
10
Materials design for the promotion of learner
autonomy: how explicit is 'explicit'?
Barbara Sinclair
Introduction
This chapte r consider s th e representatio n i n publishe d an d self-acces s
materials o f th e promotio n o f learne r autonom y i n languag e learning .
Learner autonomy is by no means a new concept, but its promotion in the
field o f language learning through systematic learner development (mos t
commonly referred to as learner training) is a relatively recent phenomenon.
In particular, the design o f tasks and material s which effectively promot e
such learne r developmen t ha s becom e a curren t issu e o f concer n fo r
materials writers and teachers .
Work in this field by Wenden (1987,1991), Ellis and Sinclair (1989) and
Oxford (1990 ) has highlighted th e need for explicit learner training in such
materials, i.e . a n explici t focu s o n bot h th e purpos e of , a s wel l a s th e
strategies required by, language-learning tasks. Research (Brown et al. 1983;
Duffy e t al. 1986) has shown that this kind o f explicitness is important fo r
the successful promotio n of learner autonomy. To what extent, however, is
such an explicit focus on the learning process in English language materials
possible? What is meant by 'explicit' and what should we be explicit about?
During the last decade publishers have increasingly become aware of
the nee d t o tak e accoun t o f learne r autonom y i n thei r Englis h languag e
course books. However, a recent survey (Sinclair and Ellis 1992) concludes
that activitie s aimin g t o promot e autonom y ar e ofte n presente d i n a n
unprincipled an d unexplicit way I t would seem that to achieve an explicit
focus o n learnin g t o lear n withou t overwhelmin g th e language-learnin g
aims o f th e material s o r presentin g th e learner s wit h additiona l hurdles ,
can be a difficult balancin g act for materials writers.
150 Barbar a Sinclair
In th e ligh t o f th e above , thi s chapte r aim s t o rais e som e point s fo r

reflection b y thos e involve d i n designin g material s fo r th e promotio n o f
learner autonom y an d t o sugges t som e practica l guidelines . Firstly , th e
chapter wil l conside r briefl y wha t i s mean t b y 'learne r autonomy ' an d
'learner training' . It will then focus on three issues:
1. th e potentia l rol e o f publishe d languag e teachin g material s i n th e
promotion o f learner autonomy ;
2. th e nature and degre e of 'explicitness' in published languag e teachin g
materials; and
3. th e implications of 'explicitness' for materials design for the self-acces s
centre.
Learner autonomy and learner training

This chapter take s as its starting point the definition o f learner autonom y
provided by Henri Holec (1981:3), which describes the autonomous learner
as one who "is capable of taking charge of his own learning", i.e. "capable
of determinin g objectives , definin g content s an d progressions , selectin g
methods and technique s to be used, monitoring an d evaluatin g what ha s
been learned" . I n othe r words , suc h a learne r ha s th e capacity to mak e
informed decision s abou t his/he r learning , but nee d no t d o s o all of th e
time; the promotion of learner autonomy and the realization of individua l
potential ar e often cite d a s basic educational goal s in our profession, an d
this humanisti c vie w require s tha t teacher s als o accep t tha t learne r
autonomy cannot be forced .
This chapter recognizes that a steady state of true autonomy is probably
unattainable. Rather, this varies in degree in individual learners according
to a rang e o f variable s o r conditions , suc h a s th e learnin g situatio n the y
find themselves in, the topic of study and the type of learning task they are
engaged in , a s wel l a s thei r awarenes s o f tas k demands , thei r leve l o f
competence, degre e o f confidenc e an d willingness , mood , motivation ,
reactions t o th e physica l environment , an d s o on . On e learne r ma y wel l
operate generally at a high level of autonomy outside the class, but tend to
be completely dependen t upo n th e teacher fo r directio n fo r certai n task s
while insid e the class. Another learne r ma y sho w grea t initiativ e in clas s
one day and none at all the next. There may be times when a learner chooses
to be dependent .
Holec's (1981 : 3 ) vie w tha t th e capacit y an d willingnes s t o b e
autonomous i n language learnin g i s not necessarily innat e has le d t o th e
development of techniques and procedures for helping learners learn how
Materials design for the promotion of learner autonomy 15 1
to learn, i.e. learner training. The term 'learner training' itself is sometimes
criticized as not properly representing the processes of development which
take place in the learner who is learning how t o learn. Although th e ter m
'learner development ' i s preferred b y some working in this field, 'learne r
training' is, nevertheless, the label most commonly given. Learner training,
as referred to in this chapter, ignores the narrow focus implied by the word
'training' and takes instead a broader, more educational view, as provided
by the following definition :
Learner trainin g aim s t o help learner s conside r th e factor s whic h affec t
their learnin g an d discove r th e learning strategie s which sui t them best ,
so tha t the y ma y becom e mor e effectiv e learner s an d tak e o n mor e
responsibility for their own learning. (Ellis and Sinclair 1989 : 2)
The role of published materials in the promotion of

learner autonomy
Anita Wenden (1991 : 7) has suggested tha t teacher education is crucial fo r

the successful introductio n and promotion of learner autonomy, as it is for
the management o f any educational change. Certainly, the techniques an d
processes involve d i n learne r trainin g requir e teacher s wh o ar e capable ,
motivated and informed. It can be argued that published language-teachin g
materials i n whic h th e promotio n o f learne r autonom y i s appropriatel y
presented hav e a potentiall y importan t rol e t o pla y i n th e creatio n an d
support o f suc h teachers , a s wel l a s o f mor e effectiv e an d autonomou s
learners.
Such materials can:
1. hel p teacher s understan d th e rational e an d procedure s fo r learne r
training by providing direction and support, as well as direct examples
of tasks; and
2. allo w teacher s t o experimen t wit h an d reflec t o n learner-trainin g
practices an d principle s i n thei r ow n teachin g context s an d fo r a n
extended perio d o f time — something teacher-trainin g course s rarel y
provide.
The abov e point s ar e important , fo r ho w man y traine e o r practisin g
teachers actuall y hav e acces s t o trainin g course s o n learne r training ?
Furthermore, d o suc h course s provid e adequat e training ? On e da y in -
service workshops, for example, are of limited help; the writer's experiences
as a teacher trainer indicate that, while the concept of learner training may
be quickly acquired, learning how actually to implement it in the classroom
takes a goo d dea l o f tim e an d practice . Thi s practica l applicatio n o f th e

theory of the promotion of learner autonomy needs to be carefully addresse d
not only by teacher trainers and teachers, but also by materials writers.
There ar e now o n th e marke t a limited numbe r o f books intende d t o
inform practisin g teacher s an d academic s o n th e theor y an d researc h i n
the fields of learner autonomy, learner strategies and learner training (e.g.
Wenden an d Rubi n 1987 ; Willin g 1988 , 1989 ; Elli s an d Sinclai r 1989 ;
O'Malley an d Chamo t 1990 ; Oxford 1990 ; Wenden 1991) . But how man y
English teacher s aroun d th e glob e actuall y hav e eas y acces s t o suc h
handbooks or are even aware of their existence? How much of the expertise
in thes e book s ca n the n b e passe d o n i n a practical wa y t o th e learners ?
Published teaching materials , however , ar e a resourc e mad e availabl e t o
most Englis h languag e teacher s aroun d th e worl d i n th e cours e o f thei r
daily work. Although such materials are always subject to the interpretation
of th e teacher s an d th e students , an d ma y no t b e use d i n th e manne r i n
which they were intended or be used inappropriately, they can nevertheless
be enormously influential; for those who do not teach their native language
— a large majority o f English language teacher s in the world — they ca n
be a vital source of information an d support .
Publishers wil l continu e t o inves t heavil y i n th e promotio n o f thei r
materials and to produce a wealth of new titles. Meanwhile, the competitive
world of ELT requires publishers to keep abreast of the latest thinking and,
at the same time, appeal to textbook buyers and teachers . The promotio n
of learner autonom y an d learne r training have, in the last ten years or so,
become topics of interest for academics, teachers and materials writers and,
as such, have now become saleable features of language course books. As a
result, there has been a recent proliferatio n o f English languag e teachin g
materials whic h purpor t t o includ e thes e aims . Despit e th e curren t
popularity of 'the promotion of learner autonomy', most course books d o
it rathe r badly , leavin g th e enormou s potentia l o f publishe d teachin g
materials in this area, for the most part, unrealized .
Explicitness in learner-training material s

A recent surve y o f published language-teachin g material s fo r bot h adul t
and young learners (Sinclair and Ellis 1992) aimed to investigate the ways
in whic h thes e material s promote d learne r autonom y throug h learner -
training activities . Th e surve y recognize d tha t a numbe r o f interactin g
factors would determine how the learner training was presented and a set
of criteria for assessing this was established .
One of the criteria focused o n the explicitness of the learner training in

the books, i.e. the extent to which the learner-training aspects of the materials
were made obvious to the learners and the teachers, in Brown et al.'s (1983)
terms, "informed" training, as opposed to "blind" training (training where
the learner has no idea of the aim, focus or purpose of the learner-trainin g
task). Such explicitness is, perhaps, one of the most difficult things to achieve
within the constraints set up by the act of publishing materials. However ,
experience of carrying out learner training indicates that it may be the single
most significant featur e of materials aiming to promote learner autonomy .
As has been pointed out by Wenden (1987:160), an explicit focus on learning
to learn enables learners to focus on and evaluate strategies that they may
be able to apply t o different learnin g situations, to understand wha t the y
are doing and why .
There are a number of factors which influence the way in which learner
training, and, hence, levels of explicitness, are incorporated into language-
teaching materials , suc h a s th e targe t students ' assume d ages , cultura l
backgrounds, levels , pas t learnin g experiences , expectations , attitudes ,
learning goals , motivation , a s wel l a s th e lengt h an d typ e o f course .
However, onc e th e write r ha s decide d o n th e learner-trainin g foci , th e
proportion and distribution of learner training in the course and the design
of the tasks to be included, he or she has to wrestle with their presentatio n
and th e degree of explicitness to include.
It ma y b e argue d that , i n orde r t o carr y ou t a learner-trainin g tas k
successfully, th e learner should kno w the following abou t it:
1. tha t it is a learner-training task and its general significance in the scheme
of the course;
Learners who do not know in advance if their course is to focus o n
aspects of learner training may regard the time spent on such activities
as tim e wasted ; experienc e ha s show n tha t i t i s importan t tha t the y
should be informed of the aims of the learner training and its importance
for thei r learnin g an d developin g autonomy . Learner-trainin g task s
should b e easily identifiable b y the learners, possibly through th e us e
of specific desig n features , suc h as colour coding, different typefaces ,
special headings etc.
2. th e purpose o f the task and its significance ;
Learners need to be aware of the learner-training focus of the task;
for example, that a particular strategy is being focused o n so that it can
be practised and, if desired, later transferred t o other learning tasks. To
give anothe r example , a tas k coul d enabl e learner s t o perceiv e tha t
encouraging th e exploratio n o f individua l attitude s toward s specifi c
aspects o f languag e learning , suc h a s pai r wor k practice , i s usefu l

because attitude s ca n affect th e way the y learn and th e progress the y
make.
3. wha t it requires the learner to do;
Learners nee d t o recogniz e wha t th e tas k demand s o f them , i.e .
reflection, accuracy, risk-taking etc.
4. ho w to do the task;
Learners nee d t o kno w ho w t o attac k a task. Suc h information i s
often include d i n the rubric.
5. whethe r it is a new type of task or one that is being recycled;
Clearly, task types which are novel to the learner need to be designed
so that the information th e student require s is clearly accessible. Task
types whic h ar e bein g recycle d fo r furthe r practic e ma y requir e les s
explicitness i n thei r presentation , bu t learner s ma y stil l need hel p i n
recognizing that they have already encountered such a task so that they
can make use of previously tried and evaluated strategies .
6. th e language with which to manage the task;
Some type s o f learner-trainin g tas k ma y b e carrie d ou t i n th e
learners' mothe r tongu e wit h n o los s o f learner-trainin g benefit .
However, mos t learner s an d teacher s woul d expec t t o operat e i n th e
target language . Obviously , learner s nee d t o hav e th e linguisti c
competence to do this and the language demands of the task need to be
carefully considered. It may, for example, be useful for the text presented
in a task introducing an d raisin g awareness of skimming strategies t o
be at a level slightly below the competence of the learners, so far as this
can be ascertained , s o that linguisti c difficultie s d o not interfer e wit h
the learner-training aim s of the task.
Can a writer include all of the above information fo r each new learner -
training task ? A survey o f mos t cours e books demonstrate s tha t author s
rarely try and that it is left to the teacher and learners to uncover the implicit.
Research by Duffy e t al. (1986), cited by Wenden (1991), demonstrated tha t
when teachers explicitly informed learner s of
1. wha t strategy they were learning,
2. ho w they should employ that strategy, and
3. i n what contexts they should appl y that strategy ,
the students indicated a greater awareness of what they were learning an d
why, as one might expect. However, this research was concerned with verbal
explanation. To what extent can a textbook writer rely on a teacher bein g
able or willing to do this? This would impl y th e need t o include notes o r

scripts for suc h explanations fo r teachers ' use. Unfortunately, i n practice,
many author s d o no t includ e suc h extensiv e note s o n learne r trainin g i n
their manuscripts, nor do many teachers make regular use of teachers' books
accompanying course materials or have access to them.
Let us now consider more specifically some of the decisions which need
to be made about learners' materials (see Figure 1 below). In doing so, it is
necessary to recognize that decisions which favour the promotion of learner
autonomy may conflict directl y with the publisher's business constraints ,
such as the number of pages provided for , the design of the pages and th e
limitations impose d b y layouts , and thi s ca n lead t o materials bein g les s
effective tha n they might be.
In terms o f providing th e most explici t training fo r both learner s an d
teachers, it may see m educationall y an d pragmaticall y mor e appropriat e
to focus th e learne r trainin g entirel y i n the learners' materials. However ,
the constraints set up by publishing, such as page size, layout and numbe r
of pages, call for a compromise which places at least some of the learner -
training information in the teacher's notes. The writer then needs to decide
how much information about the learner training the teacher's notes should
contain.
For example, which of the following shoul d be included :
1. 'Ho w t o handle it in class' (step-by-step instructions) ?
2. 'Wha t to say' (a script for the teacher)?
3. Backgroun d theor y (th e developmen t o f an d rational e fo r learne r
training)?
4. Theoretica l rationales for each learner-training activity ?
5. Recommende d furthe r readin g on related issues ?
Examples of a learner-training task
In order to consider in more detail the problems faced by a materials writer

in making a learner-training task explicit, we can take as an example a very
common classroom activity with a good deal of learner-training potential :
helping learners guess the meanings of unknown words in a text from th e
clues provided by the text. If we were to view explicitness as a continuum,
we would fin d a blind version of the task at one end and a highly explici t
version at the other. Figures 2 and 3 present examples of such versions. In
particular, note the differences i n rubric content and length, as well as text
content.
Figure 2 shows a task presented in its most common form in published
An introductio n
Should ther e be a n introductio n i n th e learners ' material s t o induct th e

learners int o th e cours e conten t an d approach , i.e . with a specifi c focu s
on th e inclusio n o f learne r training , o r shoul d thi s b e i n th e teacher' s
notes, or in both ?
Should thi s introduction be in prose or in the form o f a chart o r map, o r

both?
What languag e shoul d thi s be in ?
Should th e introductio n includ e a zer o uni t presentin g task s whic h

exemplify learner-trainin g principles ? (Fo r examples , se e Gedde s e t al .
1986; Soars and Soar s 1989. )
Headings / labels etc.
Should the y be interesting and quirk y to gain attention and motivate, or

say exactly what th e unit, task etc. is about ?
e.g. "How' s th e dog? " versu s "Ho w t o star t a conversatio n wit h you r
neighbour".
Rubrics
How lon g can they be ?
Should the y explain to the learners or use a questioning approach ?
How muc h metalanguag e ca n they contain ?
How muc h informatio n shoul d the y contain ? Fo r example , shoul d th e

aims of the task be stated? Should some of the task information b e put i n
the teacher's notes ? I f so, how much ?
What languag e shoul d the y be in ?
If task type s ar e recycled o r regular features , ho w shoul d thi s affect th e

rubric?
Figure 1: Som e decisions to be taken about learners' materials
Guess the meanings of the words in italics:
Our holiday was wonderful. We stayed in a hotel splunged at the top of a

tronk. The poon from ou r bedroom window was amazing. We could see
the lake and the slads behind it. We watched people wishwooshing on the
lake. Peter noobled how to windsurf. He wasn't very good at it. Dad went
fishing and flubbed a large goond. The hotel chef zicked it for our dinner. It
was very ooby.
Figure 2: A n example of a 'blind' or unexplicit task
materials. Teacher s an d learner s ar e lef t t o uncove r th e purpos e an d

significance o f th e task . I n man y classroom s ther e i s merel y a focu s o n
checking answers with no further discussio n as to how the learners mad e
their guesses, and th e learner-training potential of the task is ignored.
At the other extreme, Figure 3 below presents a task in which the level
of explicitness is highly developed. While such explicitness may be useful ,
there is a danger that the rubrics and explanations may sound patronizin g
to many learners . Other issues to consider are the level of language in the
rubrics and , thus , accessibilit y t o th e learners , an d whethe r th e targe t
language or mother tongue should be used. Furthermore, the length of the
task, a s i t i s presente d o n th e page , ma y hav e a demotivatin g effec t o n
learners. Finally, for financia l reasons , few publisher s woul d fin d suc h a
lengthy, page-consumin g tas k acceptabl e i n a cours e book . A s alread y
mentioned, a compromis e migh t involv e puttin g som e o f th e explici t
explanations and examples into the Teacher's Book with the intention that
the teacher would encourage the learners to consider these factors. Relying
on the teacher in this way, however, can be risky, as we have already noted,
so it is particularly important for writers and publishers to be aware of the
needs and levels of expertise of the teachers using the materials.
Another are a for compromis e might be in the design of the task itself,
for example, by using a questioning approach which encourages reflection ,
discussion an d a sharing o f ideas , rather tha n a telling one. For example ,
"What d o yo u d o whe n yo u com e acros s a word yo u don' t kno w whil e
you are reading?", instead of a paragraph explaining what "good readers"
do. This kind o f compromise i s particularly beneficial i f the materials ar e
used b y group s o f student s i n a classroom settin g wher e discussio n ca n
take place and where a teacher is confident abou t facilitating suc h learne r
training. In addition, a materials write r familia r wit h th e targe t learners '
cultural and educational backgrounds may be in a position to edit a highly
explicit task so that it focuses o n key issues relevant to those learners.
How to be a better reader: guessing unknown words

Good reader s tr y to gues s th e meaning s o f word s the y don' t kno w i f
they look importan t for understanding th e text. Good readers depen d
more on themselves tha n on dictionaries .
(Adapted fro m Elli s and Sinclai r 1989 )
(a) Som e words in the following tex t have been replaced by nonsens e
words. Can you gues s what th e original words coul d have been ?
Here's an example,
I missed th e bus, so I dibbed home."
Dibbed could mean "walked" or some other way of transporting yourself.

Sometimes you can guess from th e meaning of the sentence.
You know what "to miss a bus" means, so the answer is logical.
Sometimes you can guess from the word itself and from your knowledge
of English grammar :
The word comes after "I" and ends in "~ed", showing that it is
probably a verb in the simple past.
You can use clues like these to help you gues s the meaning o f a wor d
you don't know whenever you read a text.
(b) N o w tr y it :
The best way to learn new words and thei r meanings is by

(1) noobling. By constantly meeting a word in its (2) scrunge,
you wil l graduall y understan d mor e abou t th e word' s
meaning. Thi s i s a much better wa y o f (3 ) squifferising th e
meanings o f words tha n usin g your (4 ) Hag each tim e yo u
feel (5 ) boofed.
(Adapted fro m Elli s and Sinclair 1989)
(c) Discus s you r answers .
(d) H o w di d yo u guess ?
(e) D o you thin k you will use these strategies w h en yo u read ? Why ?
Why not ?
Figure 3: A n example of a highly explicit task
To summarize, then, it is suggested tha t explicit learner-training task s

can pla y a n importan t rol e i n th e promotio n o f learne r autonom y b y
informing bot h teache r an d learner . A s w e hav e seen , on e o f th e mor e
difficult aspect s o f achievin g a desire d leve l o f explicitnes s i n learners '
materials concern s th e us e o f rubrics . I n addition , ther e need s t o b e a n
appropriate balance between information provided in the learners' materials
and that given in the teacher's notes. The decisions which need to be taken
by a materials writer ca n only be informed b y a deeper understandin g of
the targe t student s an d thei r teachers . Inevitably , though , ther e wil l b e
compromise between the perceived needs of the learners and teachers and
the business constraints faced by the publishers.
Implications for self-access learning
Having raised issues concerning explicitness in published materials, let us

turn to materials for the self-access centre. What are the implications of the
above discussion for the design of tasks for self-study ?
Self-access learning poses its own dilemma; on one hand, the ultimate
purpose of the self-access centre is to provide learners with the opportunity
for self-direction; to allow learners to do what they like in whatever manne r
they like with whatever materials they choose, for a period of time specified
by themselves. Learners must be allowed t o make the materials their ow n
and tak e from the m whatever the y wish. For example, left t o themselves,
different learner s woul d probabl y approac h th e sam e writte n tex t i n
different ways and get from it different things ; one might practise skimming,
another might focus on new vocabulary, another might read the text purely
for pleasure, and so on.
On the other hand, experience has shown that the average learner needs
a period of guided induction and adjustment to the demands of self-directed
learning, especially when it is presented i n an institutionalized wa y in the
form of a self-access centre. Without some kind of preparation for self-acces s
learning, learners turned loos e in a sea of collected materials, authentic or
otherwise, generally ten d t o spend a lot of time in rather aimles s activity ,
desperately seekin g somethin g interestin g an d usefu l t o do , and en d u p
feeling frustrated , eve n angry , an d wit h a sense o f waste d time . Indeed ,
according to a director of studies who runs a language school in Lyons in
France which organizes its courses around a self-access centre, it takes, on
average, som e 3 0 hours o f practic e i n a self-acces s centr e befor e a ne w
student feel s satisfie d tha t h e o r sh e i s making goo d us e o f th e facilitie s
available.1 Usefu l thoug h suc h fre e experimentatio n ma y b e i n term s o f
learning about learning, most educational settings and most learners cannot
afford this . It follows, then, that learners need help in order to get the most
from a self-access centr e in as economical a period o f time as possible. In
addition t o suc h learne r training , the y als o need , however , t o hav e th e
freedom t o choose their own pathways, to practise learner autonomy. The
dilemma i s how to provide both things.
There ar e tw o principa l way s o f dealin g wit h this , whic h wil l b e
discussed below .
Learner training in the classroom

Perhaps th e most commonl y use d approac h i s to provide explici t learne r
training in the classroom and a series of induction sessions as preparation
for using a self-access centre. The learner training would, of course, be based
on the needs o f the learners, and woul d includ e increasin g opportunitie s
for self-direction . (Fo r example , adul t literac y an d basi c skill s student s
taking th e Communicatio n Skill s Programm e provide d b y th e Britis h
Council in Singapore in 1990-91 and who had had very limited experienc e
of classroom learnin g foun d th e concept of self-direction ver y difficult t o
accept.2 They were regularl y encourage d t o choose practice an d revisio n
activities fo r self-stud y i n th e classroo m unde r th e supervisio n o f th e
instructor. At first, the choice was between two alternatives and both were
explained orall y by the instructor before the students made their choice. It
took some time for the students to accept that they had t o choose one an d
not do both. Gradually, the choice was increased to three, then four, and so
on. After som e 240 hours of tuition, the students were happily doing self-
directed learnin g i n thei r lunc h breaks , choosin g fro m a wide r rang e o f
materials and in the absence of a teacher.)
The inductio n session s woul d focu s student s o n th e layout , system s
and procedures in the self-access centre, provide them with opportunitie s
to try working in it and to focus on experimentation and reflection. Learners
would be encouraged to report back in class and to discuss their experiences,
feelings an d problems . The y coul d als o b e encourage d t o evaluat e th e
strategies an d material s the y use d an d discus s these . Suggestion s fo r
implementing this kind of induction can be found in Ellis and Sinclair (1989:
56-61).
The disadvantage s o f thi s approac h includ e th e amoun t o f tim e tha t
needs to be spent in class on preparation. (Whil e it is time well spent, it is
not alway s recognize d a s suc h b y learner s o r teacher s wit h cramme d
syllabuses to follow.) Another is that this approach relies on the readines s
and expertis e o f th e teache r wit h regar d t o implementin g suc h learne r
training i n th e classroom . A s w e hav e alread y seen , thi s readines s o r

expertise cannot always be relied upon in practice.
Learner training through self-access materials

Another approac h woul d b e to provide learne r trainin g i n the self-acces s
centre throug h th e material s alone . As w e hav e see n wit h th e example s
presented earlier , materials which aim to focus student s explicitly on on e
or more aspects of the process of learning are directive, as are tasks which
focus student s o n one or more linguistic points. However, autonomy ca n
only b e gaine d whe n student s ar e fre e t o focu s o n whateve r the y wish .
Thus, it is suggested that there should be broadly two types of materials in
a self-acces s centre , thos e whic h ar e directiv e an d thos e whic h ar e not .
Directive materials would include learner-training tasks, as well as language
and skill s practic e exercises . Non-directive materials woul d consis t o f
collections of authentic texts, both written and recorded .
Directive material s whic h provid e languag e o r skill s practic e ar e
generally obviou s t o th e learners . They ma y b e labelle d "Practic e i n th e
past simple" , o r "Comparatives " an d s o on . The y ma y b e colour-code d
according to the skill they practise and the level of difficulty .
Directive materials which provide learne r trainin g need t o be explici t
in the ways discusse d previously . This time, however, w e canno t rel y o n
the presenc e o f a teache r fo r explanatio n o r encouragin g reflection . I t i s
clear, then, that learner-training materials for the self-access centre do need
more lengthy rubric s and explanations . The focus o f the task needs to be
explicitly stated , e.g . "Strategie s fo r guessin g unknow n word s i n a text" .
Such rubric s migh t eve n nee d t o b e i n th e learners ' mothe r tongue . A
distinction ma y additionall y b e mad e betwee n task s whic h focu s o n
different categorie s of strategies. For example, one category of tasks could
focus principall y o n th e developmen t o f metacognitiv e strategies , i.e .
reflection abou t learning , suc h a s thinking abou t ho w t o learn, plannin g
and evaluatin g learning . Another categor y might focus o n a combinatio n
of metacognitiv e an d cognitiv e strateg y development , wher e cognitiv e
learning strategie s involv e actuall y doin g somethin g wit h th e language ,
such a s predictin g th e topi c o f a tex t fro m it s titl e o r processin g ne w
vocabulary. A category o f tasks with such a combined focu s i s important ;
practical experienc e o f learne r trainin g suggest s tha t th e mos t effectiv e
learner developmen t take s plac e whe n trainin g combine s reflectio n an d
experimentation, i.e. thinking about the learning, as well as actually doing
it (O'Malley et al. 1985; Ellis and Sinclair 1986).
Materials in a self-access centre could thus be organized hierarchically ,
as shown in Figure 4.
Directive learner-trainin g task s
Level 1 Tasks focu s o n metacognitive development , e.g . question-

n a i r e s / q u i z z e s abou t needs , wants , preferences , self -
assessment
Directive task s
Learner-training tasks : Language developmen t

tasks:
Tasks focus mainl y on Tasks focus mainl y on
cognitive and metacognitive language developmen t
Level 2 development e.g . readin g e.g. "pas t perfect" ,
skills, listening skills , "conditionals", usin g
guessing unknow n words , linking devices ,
recognizing genr e and writing summaries , etc.
discourse structur e etc .
A
\r
Non-directive task s
^I
^
Level 3 Authentic material s with no specific tas k attache d
Figure 4: Suggeste d hierarchy of tasks for the self-access centr e
Learners entering the self-access centr e would be encouraged t o work

through one or more introductory tasks with a metacognitive focus at Level
1. These could b e i n th e for m o f questionnaires , quizze s an d explorator y
tasks whic h woul d encourag e learner s t o conside r thei r needs , wants ,
learning preferences an d styles , and provid e opportunit y fo r generalize d
self-assessment. Feedback would be given by these tasks which would direct
learners to consider using either the directive materials at Level 2 or non-

directive material s a t Leve l 3 . For example , fo r a learner wh o prefer s t o
work on his/her listening skills, there would be suggestions which woul d
guide him/he r t o loo k a t th e bank o f directiv e learner-trainin g task s o n
developing listenin g strategie s (Leve l 2), as well as directions for findin g
listening materia l t o practis e wit h a s he/sh e desire s (Leve l 3) . Student s
preferring a greater degree of direction would be able to work for a longer
period at Level 2 doing learner-training and language practice tasks before
proceeding to Level 3. Others might opt to miss Level 2 tasks and go straight
to practise at Level 3.
With self-access materials organized in this way learners should be able
to follow their own paths through the directive materials to the non-directive
materials. These paths wil l be varied an d individual . Learner s would b e
free t o rejec t an y suggestio n fo r furthe r directiv e tasks , yet, a t th e sam e
time, have the opportunity fo r explici t learner trainin g accordin g to their
needs and interests. As Holec (1981: 34) has suggested, there should be no
question o f forcin g learner s t o be autonomous , onl y o f developin g thei r
capacity to be more responsible for their own learning.
Figure 5 provide s a suggested template for a directive learner-trainin g
task a t Level 2 which incorporate s th e features o f explicitness previousl y
discussed. Th e heading s i n thi s templat e provid e a focu s fo r reflection ,
experimentation an d evaluation . Fo r example , th e sectio n o n "Learner -
training questions " (L T questions) encourage s learner s t o reflect o n thei r
approach t o th e tas k an d t o build a greate r awarenes s o f thei r learnin g
strategies and habits. "Self-assessment" focuse s th e learners on their ow n
performance o f th e task . Thi s ma y be presente d i n a variety o f ways ; a s
direct questions, as in Figure 5, as a chart or a scale, and so on. The learner's
assessment ca n b e recorde d t o provid e monitorin g o f progress . "Tas k
evaluation" aims to encourage learners to identify their learning preferences
and i s probably most effectivel y presente d a s a series of direct questions .
The section on "Further suggestions" requires at least four alternatives , as
suggested in Figure 5. These suggestions need to include precise reference s
to actual materials in the self-access centre so that they can be easily located.
Other suggestions may recommend directive tasks which focus on relevant
language-learning activities, rather than learner training. It would be usefu l
to provid e a syste m whereb y learner s coul d lo g thei r response s t o th e
different section s o f th e templat e and , thus , be i n a positio n t o monito r
their development. This could take the form of record cards, special learning
diaries or CD-ROM-based compute r programs .
Title: e.g. Dealing with unknown words

Skill: e.g. Reading
Strategies: e.g. Guessing the meaning of unknown words using
clues from:
(a) the words themselves (b) the text
Rationale: Why thes e strategies ar e usefu l
How the y can be transferred t o other task s
Instructions: How t o do the tas k
r 1
TASK
l_ J
LT questions: How di d you d o this? Strategies used ?

Answers: Where to find the m
Self-assessment: How di d you do ?
Task evaluation : How usefu l wa s this for you? Was it enjoyable ?
Further suggestions :
1 2 3 ^4
Level 2 Level 2 Level 3 Level 3

directive learner - directive learner - non-directive non-directive
training task s training task s tasks tasks
Further practic e Practice of othe r Same skill s Different skill s
of same strategie s strategies relate d area, differen t area, sam e
to skill/are a topics topic
Figure 5: Template for a directive learner-training task in the self-access centr e
Conclusion
It is the writer's belie f tha t learne r autonom y shoul d b e promote d i n a n
explicit way . A t th e sam e time , i t i s acknowledge d tha t achievin g a n
appropriate level of explicitness is not easy to do. This chapter has explored
issues relating to the nature and degre e of explicitness in learner-trainin g
tasks i n publishe d language-teachin g material s an d ha s suggeste d
guidelines for designin g tasks for the self-access centre. However, there is
one questio n whic h i s largely stil l unanswered, an d whic h probabl y ha s
many different answers ; how does a writer know that what he or she thinks
is explicit is actually explicit to the learner? Can it ever be guaranteed tha t
the material s designer' s focu s i s th e on e th e learne r wil l take ? Doe s i t
actually matte r sinc e al l material s wil l b e reinterprete d b y th e learne r
anyway? Perhap s furthe r researc h i s require d int o th e perception s o f
learners, teachers and writers of learner-training tasks. How far do writers
have to go to be explicit? When learner-training tasks are published, ho w
do we know whether they are explicit enough to promote learner autonomy
or annoyingly patronizing in their tone? To what extent do explicit learner-
training task s i n th e self-acces s centr e actuall y hel p promot e learne r
autonomy? The answers to these questions will no doubt differ accordin g
to th e individua l learner s an d learnin g context s examined , highlightin g
the need for materials designers to inform themselves as much as possible
about their target learners. Ultimately, however, the multiplicity of learners'
views concerning explicitness may lead us back to a situation in which the
materials writer ca n only operate in the light of his or her beliefs an d op t
for the best possible compromise .
Notes
1. Pearso n Brow n o f Englis h International , Lyons , France, i n a persona l

communication (1988).
2. Th e Communication Skills Programme (CSP) is a workplace literacy scheme
set up in 1990 by The British Council in Singapore for workers at the SIA
(Singapore Airlines) grou p of companies. It is estimated tha t som e 4,000
workers will undergo training over a period of 15-20 years. Barbara Sinclair
was CS P Project Directo r durin g th e programme' s developmen t phase ,
1990-1992. Further informatio n abou t the CSP can be obtained fro m Th e
Industrial Languag e Trainin g Unit , The Britis h Council , 30 Napier Rd. ,
Singapore 1025.

Sinclair - Learner Autonomy (1996)

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Sinclair - Learner Autonomy (1996)

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Hong Kong University Press

Book Title: Taking Control

In th e ligh t o f th e above , thi s chapte r aim s t o rais e som e point s fo r

Learner autonomy and learner training

The role of published materials in the promotion of

Anita Wenden (1991 : 7) has suggested tha t teacher education is crucial fo r

takes a goo d dea l o f tim e an d practice . Thi s practica l applicatio n o f th e

Explicitness in learner-training material s

One of the criteria focused o n the explicitness of the learner training in

aspects o f languag e learning , suc h a s pai r wor k practice , i s usefu l

able or willing to do this? This would impl y th e need t o include notes o r

Examples of a learner-training task

In order to consider in more detail the problems faced by a materials writer

Should ther e be a n introductio n i n th e learners ' material s t o induct th e

Should thi s introduction be in prose or in the form o f a chart o r map, o r

What languag e shoul d thi s be in ?

Should th e introductio n includ e a zer o uni t presentin g task s whic h

Headings / labels etc.

Should the y be interesting and quirk y to gain attention and motivate, or

How lon g can they be ?

Should the y explain to the learners or use a questioning approach ?

How muc h metalanguag e ca n they contain ?

How muc h informatio n shoul d the y contain ? Fo r example , shoul d th e

What languag e shoul d the y be in ?

If task type s ar e recycled o r regular features , ho w shoul d thi s affect th e

Figure 1: Som e decisions to be taken about learners' materials

Guess the meanings of the words in italics:

Our holiday was wonderful. We stayed in a hotel splunged at the top of a

Figure 2: A n example of a 'blind' or unexplicit task

materials. Teacher s an d learner s ar e lef t t o uncove r th e purpos e an d

How to be a better reader: guessing unknown words

I missed th e bus, so I dibbed home."

Dibbed could mean "walked" or some other way of transporting yourself.

The best way to learn new words and thei r meanings is by

(Adapted fro m Elli s and Sinclair 1989)

(c) Discus s you r answers .

Figure 3: A n example of a highly explicit task

To summarize, then, it is suggested tha t explicit learner-training task s

Implications for self-access learning

Having raised issues concerning explicitness in published materials, let us

Learner training in the classroom

training i n th e classroom . A s w e hav e alread y seen , thi s readines s o r

Learner training through self-access materials

Directive learner-trainin g task s

Level 1 Tasks focu s o n metacognitive development , e.g . question-

Learner-training tasks : Language developmen t

Figure 4: Suggeste d hierarchy of tasks for the self-access centr e

Learners entering the self-access centr e would be encouraged t o work

learners to consider using either the directive materials at Level 2 or non-

Title: e.g. Dealing with unknown words

LT questions: How di d you d o this? Strategies used ?

Level 2 Level 2 Level 3 Level 3

Figure 5: Template for a directive learner-training task in the self-access centr e

1. Pearso n Brow n o f Englis h International , Lyons , France, i n a persona l

S-ar putea să vă placă și