Promoting Self-Directed Learning – Part 1

Douglas Andrew Town1

Introduction

In the first of two articles based on my workshop “Promoting self-directed learning: A

strategic approach”, presented at the Tenth National Congress of Teachers and Students
of English in Bahía Blanca in July, I shall argue that teachers wishing to promote self-
directed learning need to examine their beliefs about language, learning and
management –particularly time management - in order to help students to set their own
goals for learning within the constraints of the school curriculum. I shall also argue that
students can learn to manage their time and make decisions about their learning through
the use of a learning diary. The second article will deal with the interrelated issues of
motivation, self-esteem and strategy training.

The management of learning

The management of learning is a complex affair. Whether we are concerned with course
management in general or classroom management in particular, success will depend
largely on our ability to see language, learning and management as a continuum.
Teachers who believe, for example, that language is a social phenomenon and that
learners develop communicative competence chiefly by negotiating meaning are
unlikely to achieve their goals if their own style of classroom management is teacher-
centred and authoritarian. However, as Everard and Morris (1990:4) have pointed out:
“people sometimes do not behave in accordance with principles which should be
obvious to them”.

There are many reasons why teachers may feel unsure about their role in the classroom.
Firstly, ideas about the nature of language and learning have, in recent years, undergone
several paradigmatic changes, leaving many confused about the nature and role of
instruction in second-language acquisition. In the 1980´s Krashen (1981, 1982, 1985)
argued that communicative competence could not be learned through formal study, only
acquired through natural communication. In the 1990’s, the instructed acquisition view
gained ground again (see Johnstone, 1992). Then came the Lexical Approach (Lewis,
1993, 1997), which downplayed the importance of grammar, followed by the Task-
Based Approach, which placed instruction at the back end of the learning process.
However, as Skehan (1994:190) warned "Requiring learners to engage in task-based
learning, if not balanced by other activities...” may mean that “... short-term
communicative gain assumes greater importance than longer-term grammatical
development”, once again emphasising a focus on form.

Secondly, as regards management, Everard and Morris (1990:xi) remarked more than a
decade ago that “the notion that teachers can and should be taught to manage is still
quite young” and that many teachers were, indeed, reluctant to see themselves as
managers at all. Little seems to have changed since then. But teachers that lack a solid
theoretical framework for what they do in the classroom may, unwittingly, regress to a
1
Profesor titular del Traductorado Público, Literario y Científico Técnico de la Universidad de Belgrano,
Argentina.

1
more traditional, text-book driven style of teaching – and this is particularly true of
teachers who are overworked, under-resourced or forced to implement overambitious
syllabuses with large classes of (often uncooperative) teenagers. In such conditions, the
pressure to reduce the syllabus to ‘so many units of the course book per term plus songs
on Friday afternoons’ is great indeed. However, as Harmer (1983:219) points out,
“textbooks tend to concentrate on the introduction of new language and controlled
work, both of which were features of the more traditional classroom.

Language, Learning and Management

Although writers such as Hutchinson and Waters (1987:52) claim that there is no link
between language description and language learning, the truth is that certain views of
language tend, in practice, to be associated, consciously or unconsciously, with certain
methods of teaching. At one end of the continuum, theories of language can be
classified in two broad categories: synthetic and analytical. Synthetic theories see
language as a stock of discrete elements that stand for already existing phenomena in
the “real” world. In this view, “people do not mean something by words, rather words
themselves have meanings” (Moore and Carling 1982:150). This view corresponds
closely to what Saussure called “langue” (language as an abstract, conventional system).
In contrast, analytical theories stress the fact that each individual’s perception of
“reality” is somewhat different (otherwise there would be no need for language at all)
and that individuals negotiate meaning through what Saussure called “parole” (actual
instances of communication involving motivation and thinking).

At the other end of the continuum lie theories of management. All managers have to
plan, organise, direct and control at least one of the following resources: human,
material and financial. Human resources are by far the most difficult to handle, so it
essential for teachers to have clear ideas regarding the nature of work, motivation and
leadership. Douglas McGregor (1960) identified two types of manager corresponding to
two conflicting assumptions about the nature of work: “Theory X” and “Theory Y”
(Everard and Morris, 1990). In the context of teaching, it is fair to say that “Theory X”
teachers tend to prefer a focus on “langue” and an impersonal, strictly cognitive
approach to learning (perhaps seasoned with a few “rewards” like Friday afternoon
songs), whereas “Theory Y” teachers tend to emphasise the more personal and social
aspects of language and a broader view of the term” cognitive” (see Table 1 below).
Understandably, many “Theory X” teachers are so because, with classes of potentially
disruptive adolescents, anything else feels “too risky”, as one teacher told me recently in
a workshop.

The first point to emphasise about this continuum is that both views of language are
complementary - there could be no actual instances of communication without a
common code, and vice-versa – and the association of one or other of these views with a
particular teaching methodology is something that every teacher should question. For
example, traditional classroom activities such as dictation, summary and translation are
common in business and nobody would claim that, in this context, they are not
communicative or meaningful. Yet, I have met many company managers from so-called
bilingual schools who can do none of these things very well. True bilinguals are a
different matter: they nearly always act as informal interpreters from childhood
(Harding and Riley, 1986).

2
Of course, I am not advocating a return to the grammar translation method. But there
are ways to make these activities meaningful in the classroom. For example, a
communicative variation on the traditional classroom dictation is to get students to do
short dictations from part of a tapescript in pairs, underlining each other’s possible
pronunciation and intonation mistakes and checking afterwards with the tape, rather
than focusing exclusively on spelling. This is meaningful because, in real life,
misunderstandings are often the speaker’s fault and, in this way, both students have
something to correct. Similarly, evaluating alternative translations or summaries of a
text in pairs or small groups can be a valuable awareness-raising and communicative
activity. Such activities “[make] salient the less obvious aspects of the input, so that it is
the learner who does the extraction and focusing, but as a function of how he or she has
been prepared.” (Skehan 1998: 49)

Conversely, teachers should be aware that pairwork and groupwork do not

automatically lead to “negotiation of meaning” and independent learning. All too often,
adolescents only work with friends whose opinions they already know, making many
‘opinion gap’ activities about fashion, music, school discipline etc (the type often found
in ELT textbooks) almost meaningless. In many cases, group dynamics actively
discourage students – especially boys - from ‘trying too hard’. Without the chance to
set individual learning goals and reflect on their learning (for example, in a guided
learning diary) and without the chance to show individual achievement (for example, in
a learning portfolio), students may well find their individuality submerged in the group.

The second point to emphasise about this continuum is that although language
description need not drive teaching methodology, the way that teachers – consciously or
unconsciously - perceive their managerial role certainly will. This is why I have
preferred to use the terms “ langue” and “ parole” rather than the more widely used
distinction between “ Syllabus A” and “Syllabus B”. “Theory X” teachers may not be
able to change much towards a more student-centred approach; but “Theory Y” teachers
should remember that accuracy has its place in the real world.

“Langue” “Parole”

1. Emphasis on tradition: 1. Emphasis on innovation:

Language as a finished product Language as a creative, on-going process

Words have fixed– i.e. dictionary – People mean things by words and create
meanings that reflect “reality” their own reality through words -

2. Emphasis on form and accuracy: 2. Emphasis on content and fluency:

Language is either right or wrong – Language is more or less appropriate - e.g.

e.g. as in FCE Paper 3 (Use of English), as in FCE Paper 2 (Writing), Paper 5
Paper 4 (Listening) (Speaking)

Grammar translation method; audio- Direct method; total immersion; process-

3
lingual method; early Council of Europe based syllabuses; task-based syllabuses
functional-notional syllabus

3. Objective needs 3. Subjective needs

Emphasis on “generally useful” language Emphasis on personal interests,

for academic, work or social purposes. experience and self-expression. Emphasis
Emphasis on institutional needs and on people’s uniqueness.
conforming to these

4. Individual learning 4. Social learning

Grammar translation method: learners Pair and group work

expected to “think for themselves”.
Learning through “negotiation of
Audio-lingual method: exposure to meaning” – i.e. through making mistakes
mistakes is “dangerous”
Learner-initiated topics and activities that
Early Council of Europe functional- involve learners’ emotions
notional syllabus: emphasis on
stereotyped interactions.

5. Teaching and conscious learning – 5. Unconscious acquisition – inductive

deductive approach approach

Emphasis on explanations, translation, Emphasis on extended reading and

models, exercises, drills... listening, social interaction, tasks...

6. Sequential learning 6. Holistic learning

Mostly left-brain learning. Mostly right-brain learning.

Favours students with Practical and Favours students with Adventurous and
Conceptual learning styles Social learning styles

Lockstep procedure; linear methods Pairwork and small group work, recursive
methods

7. Teachers as “Theory X” classroom 7. Teachers as “Theory Y” classroom

managers managers

Authoritarian. Believe that most people Democratic. Believe that people can be
are uncreative, irresponsible and need to self-directed if properly led.
be directed.
Motivation, activities, materials and Trust in their learners’ potential for

4
evaluation are best left to the teacher independent learning and self-evaluation

Impersonal, strictly “cognitive” approach Personal and social aspects of language

to learning. and language learning. Broader view of
“cognitive”

Fixed furniture and seating plan; Flexible furniture and seating plan;

Teacher talking time is high. Student talking time is high.

8. Pre-packaged materials 8. Student-produced materials

The textbook and the publisher set the Realia - not written for ELT classroom –
syllabus. The teacher “goes by the book”. plus student internet pages, class
magazines, videos, wall posters. ....

9. Norm-referenced assessment 9. Criterion-referenced assessment

“Objective” tests – multiple choice, Emphasis on motivation, process,

matching, true-false, etc. – with one cooperation, originality.
correct answer.

Numerical scores; being “right”. Criteria negotiated with the students.

Head and teacher final reports - mainly for Ongoing assessment. Peer and self-
the school and other institutions and for assessment. Emphasis on feedback.
parents

Fig. 1 - A Language, Learning and Management Continuum

Self management and learning diaries

The first people that teachers must learn to manage are – of course - themselves. Rogers
(1983) lists the personal qualities that a teacher needs to facilitate learning: ‘realness’
(entering into a relationship with the learner without a façade or a front), prizing,
acceptance and trust, and empathetic understanding. These qualities can be developed
partly through teacher education and development courses but, in my experience, failure
by teachers to respond adequately to students’ needs and the resulting hostility,
frustration or apathy that can build up on both sides have less to do with teachers’
personalities than with ineffective time-management both inside and outside the
classroom.

5
Students, too, can learn to plan and manage their learning better by using a learning
diary. However, if students are to keep a learning diary and write it up after each
activity, time must be set aside in each class for doing this – at least until students can
be trusted to do this outside the class (generally speaking, any new learning strategy
takes seven to eight weeks to ‘sink in’ and should not be rushed). Similarly, the teacher
must have enough time to check these diaries regularly and give students feedback.
With a class of thirty students taking lessons four hours per week, this will mean seeing
eight students in each lesson in order to give individual feedback to every student once a
week. So, decisions will have to made about when to collect the diaries, when to see the
students, what to prioritise in the short time available, etc.

Because of time pressure, I would suggest a structured approach to diary-keeping rather

than the open-ended type of diary recommended by Wenden (1998:102). The diary
could be written on photocopied sheets of A4. Each sheet would contain the following
questions with spaces for answers, as well as the date, the student’s name and the
teacher’s comments:

1. What task did you complete?

2. How long did you spend on the task?
3. What strategies did you use on the task?
4. What was the main thing you learned?
5. How would you do the same task again?

Once completed, the diary page would be kept in the student’s folder for assessment
together with any completed work and consulted the next time the student had to
complete a similar task. The main point to remember is that enough time should be
scheduled for these learner training activities before any decisions about specific lessons
are taken.

Giving choices to students

In order to promote self-directed learning, it is obvious that students must –at least
occasionally - have a choice of activities. Of course, this does not mean making radical
changes overnight or giving students more responsibility than they (or the teacher) can
comfortably handle. Learner training should be seen a process, like ‘democratic’
parenting, which respects the learners’ freedom within clearly defined and enforced
limits and with high expectations of performance. Although there is no recipe or
formula that can be applied to every class, teachers can begin to reflect on how to offer
students more choices by (say) taking their class timetable for the last four weeks,
noting down all the activities done with one particular class (including negotiations,
assessment and homework) and coding the activities according to the following
classification:

6
CORE SYLLABUS

1. Textbook / tapes with NO choice of activities

2. Textbook / tapes with choice of activities

OPTIONAL SYLLABUS

3. Teacher-driven (e.g. songs, games – if chosen by the teacher)

4. Student-driven - group / individual (e.g. self-access work, small-scale project
work)
5. Student-driven - whole class (e.g. large-scale project work, school play,
social evening)

Fig. 2 – A Continuum of Choice

The next step would be to decide how the timetable could be modified to include an
optional syllabus (if there is none) and to give more responsibility to the students, e.g.
by moving – at least sometimes - from 1 to 2 or, if this change has already been
consolidated, from 3 to 4, remembering to allow time in this schedule for diary writing
and individual feedback.

References

Everard, B and Morris, G. (1990). Effective School Management. Paul Chapman

Publishing Company.
Haring, E. and Riley, P (1986). The Bilingual Family. CUP.
Harmer, J. (1983) The Practice of English Language Teaching. Longman.
Hutchinson, A. and Waters, T. (1987) English for Specific Purposes. CUP.
Lewis, M. (1993). The Lexical Approach, LTP.
Lewis, M. (1997). Implementing the Lexical Approach. LTP.
Moore T. and Carling C. (1982) Understanding language: towards a post-Chomskyan
linguistics. MacMillan
Rogers, C. (1983). Freedom to Learn in the 80’s. Charles E.Merrill Publishing
Company.
Saussure, F. de (1915, 1978). Course in General Linguistics. Fontana Collins.
Skehan, P. (1994). "Second Language Acquisition Strategies, Interlanguage
Development and Task-based Learning" in Bygate et al.
Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. OUP.
Wenden, A. (1998). Learner Strategies for Learner Autonomy. Prentice Hall.

© Douglas Andrew Town, 2004

Training materials may be used if source is cited.