lc.ust.hk/~ailasc/news2002.html

Editor: Sara M Cotterall

MESSAGE FROM THE EDITOR

Welcome to the 2002 newsletter of the AILA Scientific Commission (SC) on Learner Autonomy. Please consult the guide to the contents below, to help you navigate your way around the newsletter.

1. Review of 2001-2002 activities
   # Membership
   # SC website
   # Newsletter
   # AUTO-L
   # LAPI
   # AILA Review Number 15
   # AILA News No 7



2. Fourth AILA SC Symposium on Learner Autonomy, Singapore, 2002
   a SC Symposium on Learner Autonomy
   b AILA SC Business Meeting, Tokyo 1999 - Draft Agend



3. Other Autonomy-Related Activities



4. Contributions from Scientific Commission Members



5. Recent Publications

Back to Newsletters

1. Review of 2001-2002 Activities

Membership
Our membership currently stands at just over 300 members, with new members registering every month. Our members include language teachers, researchers and learners. You can read about some of our most recent members in Section 4 of the newsletter. If you would like to introduce yourself and have missed out on contributing to the 2002 newsletter, you are always welcome to submit something to AUTO-L.

Scientific Commission Website
The SC website has been in existence since November 2000 and functions as the first point of contact for new members interested in the history of research into autonomy in language learning and those keen to find contacts in the field. Technical support for the website is provided by Irina Elgort of Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.

Newsletter
The newsletter is produced annually by Sara Cotterall, one of the SC convenors. The newsletter is now distributed electronically only. Members can read it on the website or download it from there.

AUTO-L Electronic Discussion Form (Anita L Wenden)
AUTO-L is an electronic discussion forum whose purpose is to promote dialogue and exchange among language teachers and researchers involved in the following subfields of language learning and teaching: learner autonomy, self-directed learning, learning strategies, learner development, learner independence, learner training and self-access.

The list has now been in operation since October 1996 and totals 314 subscribers. It has been co-moderated by Anita Wenden and Leslie Dickinson since its launch. In January 2002, Leslie Dickinson stepped down and Phil Benson replaced him as moderator. Technical support for the list is provided by Kamrul Ahsan, Educational Technology, York College, City University of New York.

Requests to be subscribed to the list or removed from it should be sent to Anita Wenden
<wldyc@cunyvm.cuny.edu>.

This year, the list has featured one guest coordinator, Jonathan Shaw of the Asian Institute of Technology, who shared resources on autonomy in language programmes in university settings. We wish to thank him for his efforts.

Finally, can we remind you that the quality of the exchange on the list depends on the subscribers. It is intended as a conduit of information about research projects, materials and methodology, conferences and publications. You are, therefore, encouraged to share this information with list members directly by posting it on AUTO-L or, if you prefer, send it to either one of the list moderators for posting.

In addition, if you have suggestions for future roundtable and/or colloquium discussions or for a guest coordinator series, and if you would like to volunteer to participate, please contact either of the moderators - Anita L Wenden (e-mail above) or Phil Benson <pbenson@hkucc.hku.hk>.

LAPI - Learner Autonomy Project Inventory (Leni Dam)
The LAPI has not been functioning recently - principally because new projects have not been reported. There is no doubt that some kind of list of on-going research on learner autonomy is needed, given the number of students making contact to request help. Mostly, these students need contacts for up-to-date data for their dissertation or thesis. These students have been given the names or addresses of people working in the area. But this approach is obviously not adequate. Hopefully there will be an even bigger interest for research within leaner autonomy in the future. I have therefore suggested that the issue be raised at our business meeting in Singapore: How can the need for updated research data be catered for within the Scientific Commission?

AILA Review Number 15 - “Learner Autonomy: New Insights”
This issue - devoted to papers presented at the Symposium on Learner Autonomy organised by the SC at the 1999 AILA congress in Tokyo - and edited by SC convenor Leni Dam has now been published. It includes the following papers:

Aoki, N. “The institutional and psychological context of learner autonomy.”

Carter, B. A. “From awareness to counselling in learner autonomy.”

Champagne, M. F., Clayton, T., Dimmitt, N., Laszewski, M., Savage, W., Shaw, J., Stroupe, R., Thein, M. M. and Walter, P. “The assessment of learner autonomy and language learning.”

Crabbe, D., Hoffmann, A. and Cotterall, S. 2001. “Examining the discourse of learner advisory sessions.”
Lai, J. “Towards an analytic approach to assessing learner autonomy.”

Pemberton, R., Toogood, S., Ho, Susanna and Lam, J. “Approaches to advising for self-directed language learning.”

Smith, R. C. “Group work for autonomy in Asia: insights from teacher research.”

Copies of AILA Review Number 15 will be distributed to AILA members through national affiliates of AILA, so contact your national affiliate if your copy has not yet arrived. In addition, AILA has agreed to provide all contributors with a copy whether they are members of an AILA affiliate or not. Non members of AILA can order copies of the Review as a book item through Amazon or any bookshop. But if there is a problem, copies can be ordered directly by credit card from: http://www.english.co.uk/acatalog/online.html

AILA News # 7
The AILA News #7 (January 2002) is now available in PDF format at the following website. From the link below go to 'Professional' and then to the 'AILA News'. http://www.arts.usyd.edu.au/departs/langcent/proframe.htm

Back to top

2. Fourth AILA SC Symposium on Learner Autonomy, Singapore, 2002

Theme: Relationships between Learner and Teacher Autonomy - Realities and Responses
We are pleased to announce that our proposal for the Commission’s 4th Symposium has been accepted by the Singapore AILA Congress organisers. We would now like to announce the Commission’s plans for our Symposium, and, in particular, the lead-up period from now until December. Our intention is to encourage discussion of the theme before the Symposium so that the event itself can be interactive and inclusive.

The Symposium framework will be structured around the three sections which comprise the abstract: Concepts, Realities and Responses. (Please see the abstract below). Sessions on these sections will be led by the authors at the Symposium.

In the period between September and November 2002, prior to the Symposium, short versions (1,000-1,500 words) of the individual papers will be posted on AUTO-L with semi-structured discussions designed to feed into the Symposium framework.

Procedural details of the E-discussion and Symposium will be worked out as the organizers, authors and participants collaborate over the ensuing months. We are looking forward to an extended period of interaction and to coming together at the Symposium in December. We also intend to make as many connections as possible with other papers and symposia related to learner autonomy.

AILA 2002 Scientific Commission on Learner Autonomy Symposium Proposal Relationships between Learner and Teacher Autonomy: Realities and Responses

This symposium will explore the relationships between learner and teacher autonomy through practice-based studies carried out in university, school and teacher education settings. The eleven contributions display a range of innovative research methodologies which allow issues to be considered from different perspectives.

The opening section conceptualizes theories of autonomy by focussing firstly on teacher and learner notions of control, then on consciousness-raising and its potential for increasing freedom from control. It concludes with a study of student-teachers’ beliefs about autonomy.

The symposium’s central studies explore the realities of constraints on autonomy. These are examined firstly from learners’ perspectives through an interview-based study, then from teachers’ perspectives in a study which attributes resistance to autonomy to peer opinion and institutional limitations. The significance of context is then explored in a study involving teacher-teacher dialogues.

Moving onto practical pedagogical and research approaches, the third section offers examples of teacher-researcher responses to constraints on learner and teacher autonomy. Several papers examine interventions designed to encourage reflection, for example through action research. Others look at examples of teacher collaboration, either in terms of empowerment, or as a practical means of creating learning environments conducive to teacher and learner autonomy. Examples of innovative research methods include the use of student-teacher biographies and verbal reports; teacher-initiated action research with feedback questionnaires and classroom observation; and a discourse of team-teaching informed by an interpretive research approach.

Consistent with the theme of autonomy (and the AILA 2002 theme of “opportunities for innovation and creativity”), an innovative approach to symposium organization will include presentation of and interaction around the papers in an electronic format in the lead-up to the event. The symposium can then be spent in a dialogue aimed at defining relationships between learner and teacher autonomy.

Organizers: Terry Lamb (University of Sheffield, UK) and William Savage (Consultant, Thailand).

Contributors: Phil Benson (Hong Kong University); Turid Trebbi (University of Bergen, Norway); HélPne Martinez (University of Kassel, Germany); Sara Cotterall and David Crabbe (Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand); Vera Santos (Centro Universitario Franciscano, Santa Maria, Brazil); Melissa Megan and Lili Song (Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China); Sultan Alagoz and Richard C Smith (University of Warwick, UK); Sada A Daoud (University of Damascus, Syria); Flavia Vieira, Madalena Paiva and Isabel Marques (University of Minho, Braga, Portugal); Richard Pemberton, Sarah Toogood, Susanna Ho and Elza Tsang (Hong Kong University of Science and Technology); Jonathan Shaw (Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand.)

The draft agenda for the business meeting of the SC (which will take place at AILA 2002) appears below. All SC members are encouraged to attend. The organisers have not yet confirmed the time of the business meeting but we will advertise it on AUTO-L as soon as we are informed. Please contact Terry Lamb before you leave for Singapore to obtain details of the time and place of the business meeting.

1. Brief report of activities from the convenors.
2. Confirmation of revised aims of the Scientific Commission (see “Revised Aims of the SC” below)
3. Discussion of ways of maintaining an up-to-date database of research projects
4. Election of new SC convenors

If you would like to contribute other items for the agenda, please forward them to Sara Cotterall before July 1, 2002.

Revised Aims of the Scientific Commission
At the 1999 AILA SC Business Meeting in Tokyo, David Crabbe, Naoko Aoki and Jonathan Shaw were asked to produce a revised statement of aims for the SC. Members were sent a copy of the revised statement of aims (which appear below) in March 2000 and invited to contact one of the SC convenors with any suggested modifications. The 2002 business meeting of the Scientific Commission will invite the members present to formally adopt and endorse the new statement of aims. Any members unable to attend the Symposium who wish to comment on the revision should e-mail comments to Sara Cotterall before December 2002.

Purpose
The AILA Scientific Commission on Learner Autonomy is established to advance understanding of the role of learner autonomy in successful language learning.

Aim
The aim of the Commission is to promote research and disseminate findings on:

1. the nature of learner autonomy
2. the conditions under which learner autonomy develops in individuals
3. processes by which teachers or advisors might encourage or enhance learner autonomy in specific learning contexts

Objectives
The objectives of the Commission are:

1. to maintain a data-base of its members and the research projects undertaken by them and other researchers
2. to maintain a website and a bibliography of material related to learner autonomy
3. to prepare an annual newsletter
4. to hold forums at the International Congress of AILA and at other appropriate times in which research is presented and discussed.

Election of New Convenors
An election of new convenors will take place later this year both electronically and as part of the AILA SC symposium in Singapore in December 2002. The electronic option is provided in order to give members who will not be attending the symposium an opportunity to choose a convenor. A slate of nominees and a ballot will be sent out electronically in October. All ballots returned by mail will be opened at the AILA SC Business Meeting, when the new convenors will be elected and confirmed.

Back to top

3. Other Autonomy-Related Activities

Developing Autonomy. 2nd Conference of the College and University Educators’ SIG of the Japan Association for Language Teaching, Miho Kenshukan, Japan, May 2001.
Developing Autonomy was the second annual conference of the CUE (College and University Educators) SIG of JALT (Japan Assoc. for Lang. Teaching). More than fifty presenters joined with delegates from across Japan for a weekend of lively discussions and deliberations at a retreat-style conference center operated by Tokai University.

The 43 presentations and workshops convened in one of four themed rooms: Focus on the Learner, Focus on the Teacher, Insights and Research, and Materials and Methods. Speeches from the three featured speakers also addressed a range of issues and ideas: Andrew Finch (The Hong Kong Polytechnic University) focussed on the need for a holistic model of teaching and learning, one that should promote autonomous, critically thinking, responsible members of society rather than competitive consumers. This new model should supplant the current industrial-based model; Alan Mackenzie (Keisen University) addressed teachers’ roles - specifically the need for teachers, in their search for greater autonomy and professional/personal growth, to work within the constraints of their own context to foster change; Steve Snyder (Kyushu University of Health and Welfare) spoke of the enormous impact of extra-classroom influences on learner variation, and hence the need for teachers to provide options to accommodate these differences. He also addressed how such choices might be implemented given the various constraints on teachers.

The proceedings of the conference edited by Alan Mackenzie and Eamon McCafferty contain thirty-five papers from presenters and attendees and will go to print in April 2002. For more details or to purchase a copy please contact Eamon McCafferty by email (eamon@gol.com) or at the following address: Shirasagi 1-6-7, Nakano-ku, Tokyo, Japan 165-0035.

Berlin European Year of Languages Conference, 28-30 June 2001
One of the major events of the European Year of Languages was held at the Freie Universität in Berlin, Germany last summer (28-30 June 2001). Entitled Multilingualism and New Learning Environments, the conference drew in large numbers of representatives from universities across Europe and from the European Language Council, one of the organising bodies.

The conference was organised around a series of major plenary sessions and a number of workshop series. The workshops were each divided into four sessions, and each session included several papers around a particular theme.

One of the workshop series focussed on Independent Language Learning, and the Scientific Commission for Learner Autonomy in Language Learning was invited to send a representative to address the topic. This role was carried out by Terry Lamb, who delivered a paper to introduce a session entitled “Methodological and pedagogical needs emerging from the introduction of independent learning”.

The papers in the conference were intended to address a number of broad issues which need to be considered for the development of future language policy in Europe, and the overall aim was to produce recommendations for such policy. Terry’s paper therefore addressed the following questions:

1. What is the rationale for the introduction of more independent language learning in the multilingual and multicultural Europe of the 21st century?
2. What exactly does learner autonomy mean?
3. What are the implications of different understandings of learner autonomy for the learner and the teacher?
4. Which methodological and pedagogical approaches, both prior to and during their time in higher education, will enable learners to be prepared for their new responsibilities?
5. How can policy support such developments?

The presentation stimulated useful discussion on these and other related questions, as well as encouraging a sharing of practice and experience. It is hoped that the ensuing critical perspectives on future directions will inform policy at a European level.

Autonomy: Perspectives from the English Language Classroom, Challenges for English Language Teaching Organisations, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia, 12-14 March, 2002.
The Fourth National Conference, jointly organised by Institut Teknologi Bandung, the British Council and the University of Leeds, focussed on the key theme of autonomy. Autonomy was viewed from three angles - its relationship to learning, its demands on the teacher and tis challenges for the management of university language centers in Indonesia. Further information can be found at: http://www.lc.itb.ac.id/2002conf.htm or by e-mailing Dr A Gumawang Jati at: <jati@melsa.net.id>.

Back to top

4 Contributions from Scientific Commission Members

Alex Ding (<Alex.Ding@nottingham.ac.uk>) from the University of Nottingham recently submitted this summary of his PhD work on learner autonomy. Alex writes: "I work at the Center for English Language Education, University of Nottingham where I am involved in technology enhanced language learning and creating a virtual self-access center for EAP students. For a number of years I worked in French universities including the École Normale Supéerieure de Lyon, École Nationale Supérieure des Sciences de l'Information et des BibliothPques, and the Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Lyon. The main focus of my work has been the setting up of self-access centers and the promotion of learner autonomy.

I am presently conducting research into the theory and practice of promoting collaborative learner and teacher autonomy in a virtual self-access center. The aim of this research is to examine how theories of collaborative autonomy and self-access language learning (SALL) can be applied in a virtual self-access center (VSAC) for EAP students and tutors. Part of this research is to establish an intersubjectivist framework for promoting autonomy and to apply it to the setting up and running of a virtual self-access center.

The main focus of the research is to examine how autonomy for both tutors and students can be fostered on-line. One of the essential areas of this research is to identify the critical factors that determine the nature and limits of tutor and student autonomy in an on-line environment and to examine ways in which the VSAC is appropriated (in terms of taking control) by both tutors and students. Based on these findings, ways in which the VSAC can take into account the limits of autonomy by providing appropriate training, materials, support and scaffolding for both students and tutors will be examined.

Some of the questions I am pursuing include:

• Does intersubjectivity provide a convincing theoretical framework for conceptualising autonomy?
• How can the World Wide Web, synchronous and asynchronous tools be used most effectively to foster tutor and student collaborative autonomy?
• In what ways do student and tutor conceptions of their autonomy and roles influence attitudes, beliefs, and actions in an on-line learning environment?
• Is the VSAC a viable framework to facilitate autonomy and collaboration? What are the limits and potential of a VSAC in terms of collaboration and autonomy?

If you would like more information about this research (including access to my research website) or would like to collaborate, I'd be pleased to hear from you at: <alex.ding@nottingham.ac.uk>".


David Palfreyman (<David.Palfreyman@zu.ac.ae>) from Zayed University in Dubai contributed the following summary of his PhD thesis which investigated one area related to learner autonomy.

Learner autonomy and culture in one particular setting

I recently completed my PhD in Language Studies, which focused on an area related to learner autonomy. The title of my thesis is “The Socio-Cultural Construction of Learner Independence and Learner Autonomy”. I conducted my research in the English Language Section of the University in Turkey where I was working. I will try to summarize here my main findings and conclusions; but first I’d like to explain something about how my views of my teaching situation and of learner autonomy changed as a result of my PhD work.

The ‘University School of English’ (USE) where I carried out my study is responsible for providing English preparation for students before they enter their University department. In the early ‘90’s, USE had taken on an expatriate management team which had been the catalyst for a new curriculum based on principles of language skills and learner independence – implemented by means of study skills training, learner training and self access. My initial interest was in cultural differences between local and expatriate teachers, and how the two groups view classroom methodology. I chose learner autonomy as a more specific focus, partly because I was interested in it, but also because the concept seemed to arouse controversy in USE. However, as I looked into how the idea of learner autonomy fitted into this particular context, and thought and read about the issues involved, I found that my perspective on autonomy changed:

• From ‘learner autonomy’ to ‘how people interpret learning and autonomy’.

I moved from trying to determine what learner autonomy ‘is’ and whether teachers and students understand it clearly, to investigating how different participants interpret the idea of autonomy and, more broadly, the role of the learner. I found, for example, that although most teachers and students expressed some support for the idea of autonomy, they interpreted this in different ways. Some of these interpretations correspond to Benson’s (1997) ‘technical’, ‘psychological’ and ‘political’ views of autonomy; others do not.

• From studying teachers and/or learners to studying the institutional context as a whole.

I also found that taking a purely ‘learner-centerd’ or ‘teacher-centerd’ approach to the research seemed not to do justice to the fact that students and teachers in USE are participants in an ongoing social setting (as in any other institution): their work interacts with, for example, the institutional curriculum and those who manage it.

• From ‘culture’ to ‘cultures’ to ‘discourses’.

My view of ‘culture’ also changed. I started by looking for differences between Turkish and expatriate teachers and their students; but looking at teachers and learners in their institutional context meant considering ‘institutional culture’, too. I started to look more at a range of ‘cultural’ values, particularly the cultural assumptions of the (mainly British) expatriate staff. I also came to see the ELT profession, and the interpretations of learner autonomy which it constructs, as forming a professional culture: a cultural ‘package’ of which (certain interpretations of) learner autonomy are an important part. In reading about culture in other disciplines (e.g. in anthropology and cultural studies), I started to notice how these different cultures were intertwined with ‘discourses’ and with people’s interests at the classroom and institutional level.

Here are the main findings which I present in my thesis:

1. Learner independence in USE is interpreted in different ways, for example in curriculum documents, in everyday discussions, and in interviews with informants. Sometimes it is interpreted in ‘psychological’ terms (cf Benson, 1997), such as attitudes or creative thinking; and sometimes in ‘technical’ terms, such as skills for learning without supervision. As the USE curriculum developed, the technical view tended to become more aligned with the institution’s need to direct and train students for university life, rather than with ‘empowering’ them.
2. Learner independence also became a reference point for cultural politics surrounding ethnicity and institutional roles: expatriate managers, for example, saw Turkish students and teachers as rejecting the idea of learner autonomy because it was unfamiliar to them.
3. The multiple perspectives on autonomy in USE were reflected in teachers’ views of learning and study. Teachers’ perceptions of their own and students’ roles also fed into their views of learner autonomy. One view, which I refer to as ‘centripetal’, is that the teacher and learners have a shared responsibility for keeping the class on track and together, and that autonomy involves exercising effort and self-restraint in achieving this. Another, ‘centrifugal’ interpretation is that ‘good’ learners are ones who pursue their own agenda and think differently from their peers.
4. Many teachers perceived a tension between on the one hand their own role in ‘helping’ students, and on the other the roles which they see the institution as constructing for them, as promoters of learner autonomy: they sometimes felt that encouraging autonomy meant not giving students any help.
5. Teachers saw the institution as positioning both students and teachers inconsistently – and sometimes inappropriately – with regard to autonomy. They saw the institution’s ‘hidden curriculum’ as contradicting its own professed aim of developing independence.
6. Certain teacher-student interactions (e.g. asking the teacher for further help after class) suggest the presence of autonomy in a broad sense; but because these fell outside the institution’s definitions of independence, they tended to be viewed as showing ‘teacher dependence’ rather than the opposite.
7. Students felt that they are not given the freedom they deserve: in contrast to the perceptions of many managers and teachers, they seemed to desire some degree of autonomy, and indeed this was an important part of their expectation of university life; but they felt that they were thwarted in this.
8. Students saw their studies within a social and institutional context: teachers, other students and family were all seen as affecting their learning in positive and negative ways. In fact, these other people were often seen as resources (like certain kinds of teaching materials), of which students wished to make active, independent use on their own terms. However, again this did not sit easily with the institution’s interpretation of learner independence as solitary activity.

Overall, carrying out and writing up this study made me think in depth about different perspectives on learning, and on what I was used to calling ‘learner autonomy’; and about the relationship between learner autonomy and other aspects of learning and study, including culture, power relationships and social interdependence.

If you are interested, you can browse the thesis at http://f7385.tripod.com/Thesis/.


Joseph Rézeau (<joseph.rezeau@pop.free.fr>) from the University of Rennes, in France, recently contacted us with details of his PhD thesis. He wrote "Just in case you decide that some of the readers of the forthcoming newsletter might be interested in passages from my PhD thesis related to the topic of autonomous learning, although it is written in French, here is the internet address where the full text can be found: http://joseph.rezeau.free.fr. A French resume and an English summary can be found at: http://joseph.rezeau.free.fr/theseNet/resumes.htm. The part concerned with autonomy is at: http//joseph.rezeau.free.fr/theseNet/theseNet-2_-4.html#Heading1313
The text is browsable on line in HTML format and downloadable as Acrobat.PDF files.".


Andrea.Wilczynski (Andrea.Wilczynski@newcastle.ac.uk) from the University of Newcastle has recently joined the SC. She writes: "I am working as a lecturer in Modern Languages at the Language Center, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. We have (supposedly) the biggest self-access center for language learning in the UK so initially a lot of my work here was centerd around self-access users and the learning paths they were taking. The center provides an advisory service which is run by academic staff. We keep a log book to note down enquiries and advice given to
learners which I have used as the basis of a study into categories of learner questions.

My other interests are Tandem learning which I introduced as a voluntary, non-accredited scheme in 1997 and learner training. In the European Languages Section, we offer a number of courses which
promote independent study and seek to integrate elements of learner training. We are now developing (web-based) distance learning materials for a European Masters Degree in Marine Technology which will have a compulsory language element. My responsibility is the design of the German module."

Back to top

5. Recent Publications

Benson, P. 2001. Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning. Essex, Harlow: Longman.

Breen, Michael and Andrew Littlejohn (eds.) 2002. Classroom Decision-Making. Negotiation and Process Syllabuses in Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge. Cambridge University Press (2000)

Breen, Michael (ed.) 2000. Learner Contributions to Language Learning: New Directions in Research. Essex, Harlow: Pearson Education (2000)

Cotterall, S. and Reinders, H. 2001. “Language learners learning independently: how autonomous are they?” Toegepast Taalwetenschappen in Artikelen 65, 1: 85-97

Dam, L. (ed.) 2001. Learner Autonomy: New Insights. (AILA Review 15) Huddersfield, West Yorkshire: AILA. (ISSN 14461-0213)

Dam, Len (forthcoming) “Developing learner autonomy - the teacher's responsibility” in Little, David (ed.) Towards Autonomy in Foreign Language Learning - Learner, Teacher, Educational System. Dublin: Authentik

Hart, N. 2002. “Intra-group autonomy and authentic materials: A different approach to ELT in Japanese colleges and universities”, System 30, 1:33-46.

Hurd, S., Beaven, T. and Ortega, A. 2001. “Developing autonomy in a distance language learning context: issues and dilemmas for course writers.” System 29, 3: 341-355.

Mackenzie, A. and McCafferty, E. (eds). 2002. Developing Autonomy: Proceedings of the 2nd CUE Conference at Miho Kenshukan, Japan, May 2001. CUE SIG: Japan Association of Language Teachers.

Pemberton, R. & Toogood, S. (2001) ‘Learner and adviser expectations in a self-directed language-learning programme.’ In M. Mozzon-McPherson & R. Vismans (eds.) Beyond Language Teaching towards Language Advising, pp. 66-83. London: CILT.