IATEFL
Darwin College, University of Kent
Canterbury, Kent
CT2 7NY, UK
Tel: +44 (0) 1227 824430
Fax: +44 (0) 1227 824431
Email: generalenquiries@iatefl.org
Web: www.iatefl.org
|
Learner Training (Part
II) By Barbara Sinclair (keeper of the Learner Training worm) appeared in Independence 38 (Summer 2006)) Barbara presents a valuable overview of approaches to and issues in learner training: So what is ’Learner Training’? ‘Learner training’ is not a term which is accepted by everyone working in the field of autonomy in language learning (Whitney 1988: 155). Those who object to the term ‘training’ for being too narrowly and too functionally focused, tend to use other terms, such as ‘learner development’, ‘learning to learn’, ‘learning learning’ and ‘promoting autonomy’. Indeed, although widely used (and I use this term myself) ‘learner training’ has led to confusion and to the concept being criticised (e.g., Benson 1996, 1997) as referring to a reductive, ‘technical’ version of autonomy, narrowly concerned with training learners in the specific strategies they require in order to function successfully without a teacher. I would prefer to consider this kind of ‘technical’ approach to learner training at one extreme of a continuum, with a broader, more educative and developmental version at the other. Indeed, my research over the years has confirmed that there are a multitude of different versions of ‘learner training’, and these are based on a number of context-related factors, such as the beliefs about language and language learning held by learners and teachers, the cultural, social and political environment, the nature of the educational system and the constraints imposed by it, as well as the levels of expertise of the teachers engaged in learner training. These, in turn, are influenced by the particular interpretation of autonomy espoused in that context. Another way of situating the different practices of learner training (or whatever one chooses to call it), is to look at the balance of control over the learning processes by teacher and learners (see Fig. 1). I have argued elsewhere (Sinclair 1991) that, at one extreme of the continuum (i.e. the ‘technical’ extreme), we can place the approaches to learner training which are highly teacher-directed. These approaches tend to have programmes of training that are pre-determined by the teacher and focus on training all of the students in the same set of strategies or skills. The aim is to improve the product by enhancing the process. These approaches to promoting autonomy often take the form of ‘study skills’ programmes, such as those for overseas students attending UK universities. ‘Strategy training’ has emerged from positivist origins in North America as a similar approach to promoting autonomy, although it appears that this would now also include encouraging learners to reflect on the processes of learning (see Cohen et al. 1995; Cohen and Weaver 1998; Oxford 1990). At the opposite extreme of the continuum would be the wholly learner-directed approach to learner training. This version has emerged from a background of critical theory and what has become known as the ‘process approach’ to language learning (Breen 1984), in which all aspects of the programme are negotiated between the learners and the teacher. The teacher acts as a facilitator, rather than an informant. In this version of learner training, there is no specific, pre-determined syllabus (although learners may refer to an institutional syllabus as a starting point for negotiations) and the focus is on whatever the learners want it to be. There may be no explicit focus on learning processes or strategies, unless the learners find they need to discuss these. This version of learner training may be considered rather radical for most formal learning situations, but has been shown to work well in Danish secondary school English classes, in that the pupils were able to select the content, peer teach, peer evaluate with the facilitation of their teacher, and demonstrate that they had developed greater motivation to be actively involved in and responsible for their own language learning progress (see Dam and Gabrielsen, 1988; Dam, 1995 for accounts of this approach). My view is that while some learners may find operating in this learning context a liberating and empowering experience, others may find it confusing and directionless, lacking in the necessary scaffolding to help them make informed decisions about their learning. Despite the positive results reported from Denmark, I have found that this approach to learner training works best with small groups of adult learners who have a clear understanding of their own aims and needs.  Between the two extremes in the continuum is a compromise position which may be labelled ‘teacher-guided/learner-decided’. In this version of learner training, the teacher takes an active role, as guide, demonstrator, informant, co-negotiator, counsellor, and facilitator in making learners more aware of the range of processes available to them for learning the language and encouraging them towards the discovery of personally suitable learning strategies. There is an explicit focus on the processes of learning and on encouraging learners to reflect and develop metacognitive awareness and strategies. The degree of learner negotiation in this version will depend on its appropriacy for the context. In other words, this version of learner training may vary from being relatively teacher-led to relatively learner-led. Whatever the relative focus, however, this version of learner training, based on the philosophy of constructivism, does not seek to impose a set of strategies on the learners. The learners must be allowed to come to their own conclusions about how best to learn the language and the teacher must accept and respect their views. This version of learner training can be said to be represented by the work of Holec and CRAPEL in Nancy, Dickinson (1987; 1988; 1992); Ellis and Sinclair (1985; 1989a; 1989b); Sinclair and Ellis (1984) and Wenden (1986), amongst others. In 1989 Ellis and Sinclair proposed a definition of learner training which relates to the ‘middle version’ as discussed above:
This definition recognises that there are many different factors which can affect a language learner’s success. These include psychological factors, such as cognitive and learning styles, motivation and aptitude, affective factors, such as attitudes, beliefs and emotional responses, physiological factors, such as sensory mode preference, physical health and learning environment preferences, as well as learning related factors, such as goals, needs, expectations and previous learning experience. Also included are the social, cultural and political contexts of the learners, and the various constraints that they bring with them. In recognition of the influence of these contextual factors, I later amended the definition to include reference to the context:
Conclusion There are many other definitions and descriptions of ‘learner training’ in the literature, of course, and it seems to me that the view one takes of this aspect of a language teacher’s role will depend on one’s set of beliefs and personal experiences of language learning, as well as the specific features and constraints of the context in which learning takes place. One question we can ask ourselves, however, is to what extent is there a central set of principles relating to ‘learner training’ that pertains to all or any language learning situation? Here, we meet the difficulties of researching such a slippery worm, of investigating different contexts in such a way and over a long enough period of time to produce data which can be easily collated and compared. Oh, what a big worm research into autonomy in language learning is!! References Benson, P. (1996). Concepts of autonomy in language learning. In R. Pemberton, E. S. L. Li, W. W. F. Or & H. D. Pierson (Eds.), Taking control: autonomy in language learning (pp. 27-34). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Benson, P. (1997). The philosophy and politics of learner autonomy. In P. Benson & P. Voller (Eds.), Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning (pp. 18-34). Harlow: Longman. Breen, M. P. (1984). Process syllabuses in language teaching. In C. J. Brumfit (Ed.), General English Syllabus Design (pp. 47-60). Oxford: Pergamon/Modern English Publications. Cohen, A., & Weaver, S. (1998). Strategies-based instruction for second language learners. SEAMEO Journal., 45-67. Cohen, A., Weaver, S., & Li, T. Y. (1995). The impact of strategies-based instruction on speaking a foreign language. Minnesota: National Language Resource Center, University of Minnesota. Dam, L. (1995). Learner Autonomy 3: from theory to classroom practice. Dublin: Authentik. Dam, L., & Gabrielsen, G. (1988). Developing learner autonomy in a school context: a six year experiment beginning in the learners' first year of English. In H. Holec (Ed.), Autonomy and Self-Directed Learning: present fields of application (pp. 19-33). Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Dickinson, L. (1987). Self-instruction in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dickinson, L. (1988). Learner training. In A. Brookes & P. Grundy (Eds.), Individualization and Autonomy in Language Learning (pp. 45-53). London: Modern English Publications in association with the British Council. Dickinson, L. (1992). Learner Autonomy 2: Learner Training for Language Learning. Dublin: Authentik. Ellis, G., & Sinclair, B. (1985). Learner training: preparation for learner autonomy. Les Cahiers de l'APLIUT, V, 2, 84-98. Ellis, G., & Sinclair, B. (1989a). Learning to learn English - a course in learner training Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Holexc Oxford, R. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House Pask, G. (1976). Styles and strategies of learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46,128-148. Sinclair, B. (1991). Learner Training and Tomorrow's Lesson. In L. Lewis (Ed.), Queensland Association of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Language (QATESOL), 'Tomorrow's Lesson' (pp. 22-29). Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia: QATESOL. Sinclair, B. (1996). Materials design for the promotion of learner autonomy: how explicit is "explicit"? In R. Pemberton, E. S. L. Li, W. W. F. Or & H. D. Pierson (Eds.), Taking Control: Autonomy in Language Learning (pp. 149-165). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Sinclair. B ( 2000). Learner Autonomy and its Development in the Teaching of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). Ph.D Thesis, University of Nottingham. Sinclair, B., & Ellis, G. (1984). Autonomy begins in the classroom. Modern English Teacher, 11, 4, 45-47 & 36. Wenden, A. (1986). Incorporating learner training in the classroom. System, 14, 315-325. Whitney, N. (1988) Editorial. English Language Teaching Journal 42/3: 155-156. Willing, K. (1988). Learning Styles in Adult Migrant Education. Adelaide: National Curriculum Resource Centre Barbara Sinclair is well-known for her work in the area of learner training. She is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Nottingham. The learner training worm is now on its way to Paris. |
