Submission before final proofreading. A COMPLEX SYSTEMS VIEW OF COURSE DESIGN: A CASE STUDY IN THE APPLICATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF RECURSIVE PROCEDURES Duane Kindt Introduction This case study is a companion to an earlier report, A complex systems view of course design (Kindt, 2002). Following Larsen-Freeman (1997), the report described 10 fundamental characteristics of chaos/complexity theory (CCT) and how an understanding of these characteristics can inform the dynamics of English language learning and teaching (LLT), including the development of recursive procedures (Murphey, 2001). Table 1 (below) reviews the 10 CCT characteristics within an emergent course design (ECD): 1. Complex 2. Emergent 3. Dynamic 4. Feedback 5. Chaotic 6. Recursive 7. Open sensitive An emergent course (EC) has an infinite number of arrangements of participants’ (teacher and students) behaviors and interactions. Participants make choices which affect other participants. Emphasis is on dynamic complexity and not cognitive complexity, which is also called complexity of detail. An EC evolves longitudinally from moment to moment in activities, from activity to activity within individual classes, from class to class, and even over course cycles. The teacher is viewed as the best expert for the context; students are best experts for their learning in the context. The value of group and collaboration are primary. It begins with an understanding that outcomes are undefined and focuses on building supportive rapport. In an EC, dynamism at all levels of scale is encouraged. Learning is defined as change. Individuals are all potential change agents and are influenced by change agents. This type of course supports complete feedback/feedforward loops; there is feedback on feedback. Adjustments are made explicit. Cognitive complexity is reduced to increase sensitivity to ongoing feedback. An EC has a chaotic nature. Participants increase understanding of individual and group edge of chaos—roughly equivalent to Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (ZPD)—in a variety of activities and situtations ECs are recursive. The teacher prepares by reflecting on past experiences in a similar context and introducing materials collected from former classes, if possible. Simplicity is favored. Language is seen as integrated; other language skills support learning oral communication skills. This approach is open and accepting, if appropriate, to outside influence. Potential information exchange is largely 1 predetermined by individuals experience. Eclecticism within constraints is acceptable, energizing, and motivating. 8. Adaptive 9. Unpredictable 10. Constrained An EC adjusts naturally to change within the class; it is able to make whole-scale changes if warranted, but within the welldefined constraints. Individuals adjust to one another in communication and behavior. ECs are unpredictable and acknowledge unpredictable events, which are sometimes “bad,” but often reviewed as part of the learning process. Procedures cannot be reduced to a complete list of guidelines. Holistic goals are determined in part by constraints, participants, and developments. Constraints allow for increased creativity by reducing the cognitive load (also called cognitive complexity.) Table 1: CCT characteristics of a language class within an emergent course design Awareness of these characteristics is especially important when desiring to increase interaction both at both intrapersonal (teacher’s and students’ cognitive systems) and interpersonal levels (the whole-class system and small group systems). When I began teaching the oral communication (OC) courses described in this case study, the characteristics in Table 1 (above) were not as clearly delineated. They were, however, recurrent topics of discussion in a CCT research group to which I belonged. Beginning in 1995, members of this group gathered for discussions, gave conference presentations, and published academic papers on the application of CCT to LLT (Kindt et al., 1999a; Kindt et al., 1999b). The group remains active as an online discussion group.1 As my awareness of complex, dynamic systems and implications for the language classroom grew—especially related to the development of recursive procedures—so did my awareness of classroom complexity and its many conundrums. Students, for example, are motivated by novelty and variety of activities and procedures (Nunan, 1989: 50), while they may feel confused or insecure—or even threatened—without a recognizable routine (Doyon, 2000: 14). Likewise, though it is generally accepted that 2 repetition is fundamental to language learning (Stevick, 1996: 108), students need opportunities for meaningful repetition (recursion) (Omaggio-Hadley, 1993: 57). In addition, increasing students’ attention on form can take attention away from fluency and vice versa (Aline, 1999: 14). There are, of course, many more. Procedures developed in an emergent course design In dealing with these and other conundrums in OC classes and considering the complex nature of LLT, several procedures were developed that may be of interest to educators. Before discussing those developments, however, it is important to note the emergent nature of these procedures and that all of them were subject to adjustment at any time during the course. With this in mind, teachers implementing an ECD for the first time could begin from the procedures presented here, making adjustments where appropriate according to the constraints of and developments in their particular courses and teaching contexts. The first of these procedures are themselves part of more elaborate procedures—called Recording Conversations for Student Evaluation (RCSE)2 and Longitudinal Videoing of Student Conversations (LVSC).3 I will introduce the procedures in the same order they were generally introduced in the course: 1) a collection of eclectic, topic-based introductory activities (see Appendix 1); 2) near-peer examples (Kindt, 2000a); 3) examples of communication strategies in use (Kindt, 2000a); 4) conversation cards (Kindt, 1999); 5) focus activities (Appendix 2), 6) audio/video recordings (Kindt and Murphey, 2001); 7) follow-up activities (Kindt, 2000a) (Appendix 3); 8) self- and peer evaluations (Kindt, 2001a); and 9) teacher feedback. Other more general procedures 1 See <www.chaosla.org>; contact <chaosla@mail.sp.myu.ac.jp>, Charles Adamson, administrator. Available at <http://www.nufs.ac.jp/~kindt/pages/RCSE.html>. 3 Available at <http://www.nufs.ac.jp/~kindt/pages/LVSC.html>. 2 3 include 10) action logs (Kindt 1999); 11) class newsletters (Kindt and Murphey, 2000) (Appendix 4); 12) eclectic group activities; and 13) Internet support. 4 A brief explanation of the 13 procedures follows: 1) Introductory and focus activities The introductory activities were schema-building (Brown, 1994: 235) activities that were often used to introduce a new topic and conversation task, but they also introduced group activities. These activities were collected over several years of teaching EFL in Japan and were periodically supplemented as student feedback dictated. They included materials such as video clips exercises, song clozes, listening exercises, techniques from teachers resource books, language learning games, and original activities. Though all the introductory and focus activities cannot be presented and described here, (one video exercise is presented in Appendix 1), it is important to note that they are a highly eclectic mix and have been adapted and re-adapted with classroom experience. 2) Near-peer examples Students had various views of what level of materials were most effective for increasing their own speaking ability. Some advanced students liked to learn from less advanced students’ conversation examples; some high-beginner students liked to learn from native examples (Kindt, 2000b). In using examples of former students—or near peers (Murphey, 1998a) performing the same conversation task current students will perform—I support the use of a variety of levels. The conversation tasks themselves varied in cognitive complexity from asking and answering questions supplied by the assignment to free conversation, a range similar to that described by Willis (1996). She notes, however, that freer use of the language “gives learners richer opportunities for 4 Available at <http://www.nufs.ac.jp/~kindt/pages/SOCCs.html>. 4 acquiring” (7). For students at an intermediate level and above, an approach based on freer use is reasonable. Though procedures varied, after the introductory activity students generally performed a listening task based on an audio or video recording of the near-peer conversation with or without a printed transcript of the conversation. Using an uncommon technique, the errors in these transcripts remain visible, but with a line struck through any unnecessary words and improvements written in bold. The following is one such passage, in this case from the topic, How to do something: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. D M D M D M D M D M D M D Uh, please tell me how to do something. Oh, yeah. I will tell you how to catch fish. Catch fish? Fishing? confirmation Oh, fishing. Yeah. I see. I see. showing understanding First, go to the lake or pond with fishing tackle. Ah. Second, look for the place where I you guess the fish is are swimming. What does “flace” mean? asking for meaning Un? Flace. asking again for meaning Place. repeating Place! Ah, I see. shadowing to show understanding (Kindt, 2000a: 29) On the second line, adding the word “will” improves the sentence. And on the eighth line, “you” is better than “I.” Though there are several ways to introduce these dialogues to students, they were intended to act as a guide for students’ subsequent conversations. 3) Communication strategies in use Each conversation example was approximately 5 minutes in length. Sections of the conversation appeared in the student textbook, transcribed to show communication strategies as they have been used in actual conversations (see above, the communication strategies are boxed in bold italics). The strategies used in the example conversations 5 are listed in the back of the textbook (Kindt, 2000a: 77-9; see Kindt, 2004 for the current version). Below is the entry for the strategy confirmation: 1. Clarifying, offering clarification, confirmation (Saying more to help your partner understand what you mean.) Yeah, that’s right. No, I said “something.” I mean… I meant to say… What I mean is… (Kindt, 2000a: 77) For each listing, there are examples of stereotypical expressions that represent the strategy (e.g., “Yeah, that’s right.”). Often the expressions we teach are not the expression we actually use (Willis, 1996). The example above shows that “Oh, fishing. Yeah” is used for confirmation; this is different from the stereotypical phrases above. Thus, I showed students the stereotypical phrases and various ways of employing the strategy and allowed the skill in using these phrases and strategies to emerge over time as opportunities arose in subsequent conversations. 4) Conversation cards In the textbook, on the first page of each of the 31 transcripts—one for each unit— there are 2 or 3 example conversation cards. These cards, called Students’ Own Conversation Cards (SOCCs), are similar to cue cards used by students primarily for reference during topic-based conversations. The following SOCCs introduction is from the textbook: Student’s Own Conversation Cards (SOCCs) are B6-size index cards with words, phrases, sentences, pictures, or drawings that help you talk with your classmates in English. Because you make your SOCCs using your own information, they are great for making English conversation interesting. (Kindt, 2000a: 3) The card below (Figure 1) was used by one of the students in the How to do something example conversation (see above): 6 Figure 1: Examples of a student’s conversation card After studying near-peer examples of their up-coming conversation task and time permitting, students occasionally had the opportunity to attempt an impromptu conversation of their own on the same topic. More often, however, students looked at the example cards and planned or began to make a card of their own, which was assigned as homework. 5) Focus activities Focus activities were similar to introductory activities, but the purpose of a focus activity was to practice certain language structures (Doughty & Williams, 1998b), communication strategies (Oxford, 1990), or vocabulary (Appendix 2), which emerged from classroom events. Often during a lesson, listening to practice conversations, or after checking students’ assignments, a common mistake or aspect of language use requiring improvement emerged (e.g., continued avoidance when not understanding). When I became aware of this, a short activity was then employed to respond to the 7 situation. This was especially useful between practice conversations and actual recording. 6) Audio/video recordings of topic-based conversations A procedure for assisting students in noticing their linguistic output has been promoted by Murphey and Kenny (1998). The procedure has also been used to help students evaluate their conversation tasks (Murphey & Woo, 1998). Because of increased affective barriers often associated with videotape, I began recording conversations with cassette recorders (Kindt, 1998) and after 3 recordings, progressed to videotape. This type of scaffolding (Donato, 1994) helped students to deal with potential affective barriers. When recording conversations, each student was able to use a recorder, prepare as they and their partner felt necessary, and then record the conversation. When videotaping, 4 students at a time in 2 sets of 2 were recorded for 4 minutes using 2 video cameras, each attached to 2 video recorders placed on opposite sides of the classroom (Murphey and Kenny, 1998; Murphey, 1998b). Students placed their videocassettes on the teacher’s desk at the beginning of the class and were chosen semirandomly as I was able to influence the selections. Others practiced while those selected were recorded. Their video was then immediately returned for their follow-up activities, such as transcriptions. Whether using a video or audio recorder, students were able to refer to their conversation cards as much or as little as they liked. They were, however, encouraged to use the cards progressively less during practice time, and as little as possible when recording. Some students recorded their conversations without looking at their cards. Despite this, no students—whatever their ability level—complained that the cards were useless. Students were also encouraged to make speaking L2 a target, though L1 use 8 was not strictly prohibited. Using Japanese was considered a useful communication strategy (Kindt, 2000a: 79) and students were relatively free to speak Japanese when appropriate. 7) Follow-up activities Below is a passage from the SOCC textbook to introduce follow-up activities5: …a few basic follow-up activities are transcriptions, summaries, and transummaries. Transcriptions are conversations in written form….A complete transcription is a full writing of your recorded conversation….A limited transcription is a transcription done within a certain time limit, like 30 minutes….A focused transcription is like a limited transcription but you limit the number of parts of the conversation you transcribe. Some teachers ask students to find 4 or 5 interesting parts of the conversation to transcribe. A summary is not really a transcription. To write a summary you simply listen to the whole conversation and then write the main points of the conversation….A transummary…is a combination of transcription, summary, and analysis. Students decide which combination works best for them. This is an effective follow-up technique when you are familiar with transcription and summary and comfortable with doing what works well for your learning (Kindt, 2000a: 9). Besides the follow-up activity, I also asked students to use a colored pen to make corrections and improvements. Using a transcription form 6 , they either made corrections or improvements in a space to the left of the transcribed conversation or directly on the conversation (see Appendix 3). 8) Self- and peer evaluations On the back of the transcription form, there is a self-evaluation form7 (Kindt, 2001a). To complete the self-evaluation form, students answered questions that encouraged them to notice structures in their and their partner’s language. They were also asked to reflect on their performances, give advice to their partner, and make goals for the following conversation. The questions include: 5 Available online at <http://www.nufs.ac.jp/~kindt/pages/followup.html>. 6 Available online at <http://www.nufs.ac.jp/~kindt/pages/trans_form.pdf>. 9 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. How did you prepare for this conversation? What are a few things that you said or did that you like? What are a few things that your partner said or did that you like? Give some advice to your partner for the next conversation. What do you want to do in the next conversation? Circle the grade would you give yourself for this conversation? What would you like to talk about next? Do you have any other comments? (Kindt, 2000a: 11) Self- and peer evaluations—along with a degree of student responsibility in deciding what they want to say in and how to prepare for conversations—were some of the first experiences students had on their way to becoming more autonomous learners. Because of the developmental nature of becoming more autonomous, recursion was central to success. Students were not expected to perform well in the initial stages of the course, though many did. 9) Teacher feedback Teacher feedback was both the final part of the recording procedure—provided as written corrections of or comments on the transcription forms—and a procedure in general. As a general procedure, it was most frequently provided in one of 3 forms: 1) ongoing feedback at anytime during the class or when students or I felt it necessary; 2) general comments to the class, often to introduce a focus activity, 3) as more personalized feedback in action logs (see section 10), or 4) as general comments in newsletters (described in section 11). 10) Action logs 7 Available online at <http://www.nufs.ac.jp/~kindt/pages/selfeval.html>. 10 A type of student response journal called an action log (Murphey, 1993) was employed to provide me with feedback on every class activity. An introduction to action logging is reproduced below from the support website8: Get a B5 notebook. Then, before each class, write the date and your English target. After class, write how much English you actually used, list what you did, and evaluate each activity by writing “1” (lowest) to “6” (highest) under the headings: Interesting, Useful, and Difficult. The “best” under Interesting and Useful is “6.” The “best” under Difficult is “4.” After evaluating each activity, comment on the class. Useful comments help make the class even better. If there is anything that you think your teacher should know about your thoughts, feelings, or experience in class, write it! (Kindt, 1999: online) Because Japanese students are often more proficient at writing than speaking English (Roby, 1999), and frequently deal with an affective barrier when talking with nativespeakers including teachers (Doyon, 2000), feedback in written form was an appropriate choice. 11) Class newsletters Class newsletters (Kindt & Murphey, 2000) were simply collections of comments from students’ action logs—with no names attached—written in a newsletter form. Because I chose the comments, they could be carefully selected to focus on certain class events or guide students’ behavior (Appendix 4). And because they were concerned with anticipatory events, they could be considered a type of feedforward. This type of feedback is often missing in language classrooms. When viewing the class as a system, however, it was apparent that complete feedback/feedforward loops were critical. 12) Eclectic group activities 8 Available online at <http://www.nufs.ac.jp/~kindt/pages/actionlogs.html>. 11 These activities were designed specifically to increase interaction and understanding of the class as a complex, dynamic system. They included Expert groups, Fishbowl, and String Throw, among others. Expert groups is a cooperative learning technique where students learn in a small group about a certain subject and then teach others (Kessler, 1992). Fishbowl is a highly interactive conversation activity in which students must move from an outer circle, where they cannot speak, to an inner circle when wanting to join a conversation; it has been examined in detail from the viewpoint of CCT (Cholewinski, 1999; Kindt et al., 1999a). Another systems-related activity is the String Throw (Kindt, 2001b). In this activity, a student relates something about his or her experience in the class while holding a ball of string. The ball is then thrown to another student while the former student continues to hold the string. By the end of the activity, all students and teacher are connected by the string. The systemic nature of the class is demonstrated by any individual pulling on the string, and the tug being felt by all others. Again, the importance of eclecticism was in energizing the class through novelty, but doing so within a framework that allows students to feel just secure enough, a point described above as the edge of chaos. 13) Internet support As students in general become more proficient with computers and the Internet, I have put resources online to help students prepare for their conversations. The entire SOCC textbook was available online in color with conversation topics linked to related sites and search engines.9 Students could access the instructions for their assignments and prepare for them using the example cards and Internet resources, including recordings of example conversations in QuickTime format. There was also a place for students to 9 Available at <http://www.nufs.ac.jp/~kindt/pages/SOCCs.html>. 12 read and write their comments about audio recordings and video recordings. Thus, the experiences of former students affected subsequent students, an example of recursion bridging classes from one year to the next. Although I do not advocate whole-scale adoption of these procedures and techniques in other contexts, generalizations may be possible considering both this course and others are fractals of course-ness. In other words, an awareness of how CCT contributed to the emergent design of this particular course can contribute to a similar awareness in other contexts. With a complex, systems view of classroom interaction and an account of emergent course design—including the understanding that it is always developing—I now turn to a brief description of how this particular course developed. Teaching oral communication at a Japanese university After 8 years of teaching at a Japanese senmon gakko (vocational school), I began teaching at a Japanese University. I knew at that time that becoming aware of the constraints of the administrative and teaching/learning systems, especially in those classes I was to teach, was critical for the relative success of the courses. I was familiar with the high level of freedom afforded native-speaking teachers in OC classes and relied on colleagues’ past experience and their advice. This freedom is due in large part to the ideological and methodological divides between Japanese and foreign-born teachers (Guest, 2000), and administrators “being more inclined to follow central authority…than worry about curriculum development and methods of instruction” (Ohta & Takakuwa, 1986: 161). A future colleague allowed me to observe a class and explained the system for videotaping student conversations described above (Murphey & Kenny, 1998). I heard 13 teachers speak of their experiences with many of the aforementioned tools and procedures including action logging and video recording. Discussion of specific methodology was minimal, as was explicit description of students’ over-all curriculum. But I assumed, probably due to the fact that all teachers have an MA degree or above, that the teacher had an appropriate methodology. Some teachers recommended using a textbook to provide a framework, but believing that materials should come out of the teacher’s and students’ experience (Kindt & Kindt, 1996; Yoshizumi, Adamson, & Kindt, 1994), I chose to teach without one in the first year. In considering the students, I was aware of the well-known stereotype that Japanese students are reticent and inactive (Tsui, 1996). I was also aware that the Japanese education system contributes in part to these stereotypes. This is not a criticism of Japanese education, but a description of the challenges many students face in successfully developing oral communication skills. They are used to receiving information for later reproduction in examinations (Ohta & Takakuwa, 1986: 158) and rarely express their views or interact with the teacher (Willis, 1993). Because students probably have limited opportunities to practice speaking in meaningful situations (Yuen, 1997), students are unaware of basic conversation strategies and find it difficult to move from structured to more personalized conversations (Helgesen, 1993). Furthermore, they often suffer from a perfection complex (Enns & Cox, 1999), not daring to speak unless they are sure their answer is correct. Even with a relatively recent emphasis on developing “students’ basic abilities to understand a foreign language and express themselves in it” (Monbusho, 1989), many students in the past few years and in the next few to come are those between “reading/writing is enough” and future students who will have had greater “emphasis on 14 oral communication” from primary school (Lamie, 1999: 3). Furthermore, it is well documented that the continuing over-emphasis on examinations “is a powerful deterrent against curricular reform” (Ohta & Takakuwa, 1986: 158). While some change is being initiated at home, the fact remains that when Japanese students travel out of Japan, people judge their language skill, and often their intelligence, “in terms of being able to speak that language” (Nunan, 1999: 225). Even with sufficient motivation, speaking is a demanding skill, requiring awareness of phonological and cultural features while attending to the competing needs of fluency and accuracy (Bailey & Savage, 1994: vii). Pressure to perform is great, but many students find themselves in a paradox: Why should I try so hard to succeed in a system that doesn’t support success? While the educational system moves toward a more communicative curriculum, foreign-speaking instructors may be in an advantageous position to institute change at the course level. Taking an CCT/emergent approach to OC courses may help teachers and students to benefit fully from this situation. The oral communication course All English majors at the university were required to take Oral Communication in their freshman and sophomore years. (English Conversation, Communicative English, Integrated English, and the like, are similar courses at other institutions that emphasize the development of interactive, spoken English skills.) Students met 3 times a week for 12 weeks in the 1st term (April to July), and for 13 weeks in the 2nd (late September to January). There were 4 groups in each grade, each with a different teacher. The groups were further divided into sections, a and b. For example, I taught sophomore OC group 3, sections a and b—OC3a and OC3b. The “a” section met for the first 45 minutes of a 15 90-minute period, while the “b” section was in a Language Laboratory (LL). Then the 2 sections changed locations for the remaining 45 minutes. In the 2nd semester, the “b” section met with their native-speaking teacher first and the “a” section second. The other sophomore classes met at the same time. A student failing his or her freshman OC course can still take sophomore OC in the following year, however, at some time they must re-take the freshman course. I had some students repeating sophomore OC and some repeating freshman courses in the same year, though this was rare. Institutional rules required that students be absent no more than 1/3 of class meetings each semester. Students who were excessively absent received an “S” grade, avoiding the negative appearance of an “F” grade on their undergraduate transcripts. Absenteeism, however, was rarely a problem, although each student received 16 to 18 ninety-minute periods of instruction per week. The greater portion of these courses were lectures, mostly given in Japanese. Students’ OC grades were decided by performance in the class with a native-speaking teacher (50%) and their LL scores (50%), though the native-speaking teacher provided the final evaluation. Each section had between 20 and 24 students; 80% female with some international and progressive high school graduates, returnees, and recommended students. International high schools offer courses similar to an American curriculum. Progressive high schools are those with programs aimed at developing students with high communication skills, often including a year abroad in their program. Returnees are students often classified as native-speakers because of several years living abroad. Recommended students are those who receive entrance to the university due to a complex arrangement between the university and some secondary institutions. Recommended students often have a 16 significantly lower ability, which is often accompanied by low self-esteem. They make great efforts to keep their recommended status secret. Most students, however, entered the English department based on an entrance exam (considered quite difficult compared to other departments). They took a Michigan listening test before classes start in April and again in December of their second year. Students who failed the test could not graduate. Most students were interested in using the English that they have put much time and energy into learning, however, there is what the students call a surampu (slump) in study efforts in May or June of their sophomore year. The influence of technological innovations The falling cost of audio and video recorders has made their use in the classroom more feasible. Because technology can enhance learning (McGovern, 1983; Nord, 1998), teachers at the university increasingly supported their use, especially when accompanied by certain discoveries, such as the importance of production (Gass, 1997; Swain, 1995) and the benefits of focusing on form (Doughty & Williams, 1998a; Long & Robinson, 1998; Spada, 1997). Funds were granted by the university for purchasing audio and video recorders and the media they require. The classroom had 2 video cameras, as mentioned above, and I had access to 48 portable cassette recorders. Many teachers and researchers use cassette recorders and video players in the language classroom. The most common of these are video, though cassette recorders remain popular for listening activities. Teachers use non-authentic video (materials made especially for teaching languages) (Cooper, Lavery, & Rinvolucri, 1991; Viney, 1999) and authentic video (materials not originally made for language teaching) (Lavery, 17 1984; Leaney & Strange, 1987) to introduce classroom activities, as supplementary material, and to record class projects (Lonergan, 1984). Educators use audio and video to teach everything from music (Linklater, 1997) to medicine (Betson, Fielding, Wong, Chung, & Nestel, 1997) to fine arts (Cruikshank, 1998) and of course, teacher training (Freeman, 1989; Mehan, 1993; Parish, 1976). Little has been written, however, on the use of audio (Kindt, 1998; Kluge & Taylor, 1999; Schneider, 1993) and video (Chang & Liu, [unpublished manuscript]; McGovern, 1983; McGrath, 1998; Murphey & Kenny, 1998; Murphey & Woo, 1998), specifically for focused, longitudinal training to increase students’ conversational ability. Collaborating with a colleague, and guided by feedback from students, I made attempts to tune the recording and videoing processes to the needs of the students. It became apparent that besides focusing students on form with noticing techniques and selfevaluations, a view over the long term was critical when looking at students’ language and autonomy development (Murphey, 1998b). As mentioned above, videoing and recording, has developed into important tools in the OC course. Near-peer role models and recording conversations Besides colleagues supporting the use of audio and video, several comments in students’ action logs gave me confidence in their use. One such comment was, “When I see them do it, I think I can do it.” This simple comment is the essence of near-peer role modeling (Arao, 1998). To introduce near-peer role models, students received examples of former students’ work with the errors still on the conversation transcription but corrected (see the section on Near-peer examples above). This gave students negative evidence (Rohde & Plaut, 1999), which is defined as how one can receive a deeper understanding of what is from the knowledge of what is not. Though 18 sometimes derided as unable to “capture the reality of genuine negotiation” (Nunan, 1999: 226), the use of dialogues in teaching is prevalent (Dornyei & Thurrell, 1992: x). And using conversations from former students made the task interesting, at their general level, and do-able in the eyes of the students. That students learned new lexical items in context and within discourse (Lewis, 1993) was another advantage of near-peer material. There was little focus on isolated words and a great emphasis on stereotypical collocations for certain contexts. As was previously mentioned, students can benefit greatly from material at a variety of ability levels. While researchers continue to discover ways to accurately tune into students’ i + 1 (Krashen & Terrell, 1983), ZPD (Vygotsky, 1978), or edge, I would argue that it is impossible for a student, let alone another person (teacher), to consistently know exactly where his or her zone is. As a result, learner training to help a student deal with situations out of his or her zone, or even below his or her zone, is more profitable. In a pilot study trying to match levels of material with students’ zones, I asked OC students to indicate the appropriateness for their own learning of near-peer model conversations about music lyrics (Kindt, 2000b). The conversations were at midbeginner, low-intermediate, and advance levels. Rather than finding that students preferred conversations below, at, or above their perceived level, they varied greatly in their preferences. Thus, showing students tactics for learning from texts at a variety of levels would be more productive than trying to find one level of material perfect for the class as well as trying to find the level for some of the students some of the time. In effect, students can learn more from learning how to learn from any level of material, than from trying, or assuming to, adjust to their individual levels. 19 After seeing or hearing their upperclassmen doing the task they were about to perform, students prepared at home for their own recordings. They were given a few opportunities for practice in the following class and then recorded. Besides encouraging students to stay in English, audio and video recordings provided students with a hard copy (a written transcription of part or the student’s entire recording) to study at their leisure. Though Long and Robinson (1998) assert that focus on form often consists of an occasional shift of attention to linguistic code features…triggered by perceived problem with comprehension or production (23), using hard copy is a better alternative than trying to attend to both form and fluency during online production. This heightened awareness, what Schmidt (1993) calls noticing (26), is central to learning through focus on form. I would agree with Murphey and Kenny (1998) that students could learn noticing both as a learning strategy during online speaking tasks and when at home watching or listening to their recordings and doing follow-up activities, which can be described as written noticing tasks. Students needed training in focusing on the forms that emerged out of their conversations. Teachers following the focus on form paradigm (Long, 1991) sometimes miss an important point: In many of the studies on form-focused instruction, the researchers selected the forms to be focused on, thus practically denying the learners any participation in their own learning. (Aline, 1999: 158) Students could discover for themselves how to select and practice certain structures and strategies that were of immediate benefit through recursive activities. Students could also increase their autonomy by self- and peer-evaluating their work, which was another part of the follow-up activity. 20 After students had taken their hard copy home, corrected any errors they could find, and evaluated their partners’ and their performances, they brought the transcriptions to class to compare with their partners. This gave them the opportunity to both learn from their partners and discover ways to improve future performance. At the end of class, I gathered the transcriptions or summaries and corrected the corrections, since students are better able to uptake my corrections of their corrections (Carroll & Swain, 1993; Roberts, 1995). The return of this type of information (listening to/watching their language production, doing follow-up activities, focusing on forms, self-evaluating, receiving peer-evaluation, and teachers’ corrections) within slightly different contexts are examples of recursive procedures that provide opportunities for meaningful repetition. Dealing with nervousness Some students were anxious or shy to speak in public and research into this sub-field is extensive (Bailey, 1983; Kindt, 1997; Scovel, 1978; Tsui, 1996). However, preliminary results in recording students’ conversations showed that a small amount of progress in a student’s ability to sustain conversations can rapidly build confidence. Students tended to bridge affective barriers by remembering and using a few conversation strategies and gambits. In fact, the use of strategies and becoming an autonomous learner are closely linked (Wenden, 1991). In the OC course, autonomy did not mean learning in isolation (Esch, 1997); students worked with each other to develop personal and group autonomy. In light of the interactive nature of complex, multi-leveled systems and emergence, the autonomous, group-minded student seemed quite plausible. An OC student once commented, “You never force us to do anything, but we want to do it. I don’t know why.” Giving students choice in this context 21 was an important part of learner autonomy is. Though the majority of Japanese students tend to follow the norm, making it clear that they have choices from the beginning of the course gave them the time necessary to adjust to the new responsibility (Bronner, 2000: 27). The class newsletter Probably the most salient reason for reintroducing students’ comments in the form of a newsletter (see Appendix 4) is so that students know they are not alone in the demanding endeavor of learning a second language. The following student comment supports this conclusion: “Without a newsletter, I feel like I am walking alone.” Perhaps newsletters also give students the security that the teacher is interested in their improvement or they may simply enjoy discovering others’ experiences in the class. Whatever the case, besides helping students to understand participants’ opinions of class events, newsletters helped me encourage OC students to try new behaviors and ways of approaching language learning. Students’ feedback overwhelmingly supported their use (Kindt & Murphey, 2000). Motivating students to produce Much has been written on motivating students in the Japanese EFL context (Doyon, 2000; Helgesen, 1993; Murphey, 1998b; Woo, 1997). Allowing them to be involved in their learning and the creation of materials are ways to increase involvement. In a report of his research on commercial textbooks and students’ own material, Cholewinski (1997) found that students engaged more in material that they made themselves. Though students did support the use of textbooks as providing a framework to the course, it would seem materials of their own creation offer greater interest and engagement (Graves, 1980; Kehe & Kehe, 1989). 22 In the first year of the OC course under study, I did not use conversation cards regularly, assuming that the students would consider them unnecessary or childish. I asked several students, however, whether or not conversation cards were useful. The common response was that the cards were useful because they gave students something provocative to look at, helped them to remember what they wanted to say, classmates’ cards were interesting, and the cards helped them to think about English the days there was no English class. Besides a concern for using conversation cards, I was also concerned that over-use of video techniques could distract from the interpersonal nature of the class. In an action log comment, one OC student wrote that she did not want our class to just be recording videos; she wanted to do things together (paraphrase). Because socializing as an important aspect of university life for Japanese students (Murphey, 1998a: 13), students may not be satisfied with merely preparing for a conversation in pairs each week. Thus, I had to consider other activities, including group work, that might motivate students. Eclectic activities, group work, and becoming independent “There is always something to be learned in your crazy activities, so it’s fun to try to find it.” This comment was written by a returnee, a Japanese national who lived in America for 12 years and is a native speaker of English. Though I gave her the option of studying independently, she wanted to come to class to socialize. I worried that she might be disinterested with English study, so I tried to introduce activities that would interest anyone studying communication. Another student commented on group work: At first I did not like group work, but I find working together can be wonderful (paraphrase). Not liking group work may seem odd 23 in a society generally described as group-oriented. The fact is, in the Japanese education system, most learning after elementary school is done alone. Students listen to teachers lecture and are subsequently tested on their knowledge. Students essentially have to relearn how to work in groups. In the OC class, group work was structured so that the process was readily recognizable and students could choose their own topics. This allowed them to become familiar with the routine (decide the topic, decide who will research what aspect, distribute the findings, decide how to present it to other students, practice presenting with one another, and then present finding to other students while audio taping) and develop certain skills in being independent. In other words, their experiences in working in groups—as well as becoming more autonomous—were recursive. Elsewhere (Kindt, 2002), I noted that Sinclair (2000) outlined learner autonomy as including 1) a heightened capacity to make informed decisions; 2) a willingness to take responsibility; 3) a process of learning how to take responsibility; 4) an understanding of various levels of independence according to situation and task; and 5) an ability to reflect and make informed decisions. I would add that autonomous learners show selfconfidence and the ability to adapt to different interlocutors and situations. As has been discussed above, an emergent course is based on both teacher and learner autonomy at the whole-class, small-group, and individual levels. Because students are able to try similar procedures several times during the course, less emphasis is placed on cognitive complexity and more on dynamic complexity, thus increasing both language learning and independence. 24 Conclusion As mentioned at the end of the companion to this work (Kindt, 2002), finding an approach to LLT that deals with its infinite complexity seems highly desirable. With increasing autonomy promoted for both teacher and students, educators need to focus on principles of dynamic interaction in the classroom; that is, considering it as a complex system. By viewing the various levels of the system (its fractal nature), we can begin to see patterns that allow us to generalize complex processes (emergence). Though we know patterns of complex social systems will never be completely reduced to simple rules, an awareness of CCT in LLT can help teachers find those salient features that guide course development. In the emergent course and recursive procedures described in this paper, it would seem a combination of constraint and eclecticism, guidance and autonomy, has given rise to both creativity and security, or more systemically, creativity in security. This is the benefit of a CCT view of the language classroom and an emergent course design. 25 Appendix 1 Introduction activity: Favorite movie scenes Lion King: Simba learns the hard way *Listen to this scene from the Lion King. Try to fill in the blanks. Then listen again and check your answers. {Simba is left out in the fields. There is just a cloud left where his father's image was. The wind tosses the grass restlessly. Rafiki approaches.} Rafiki: What was that? The weather-- Pbbbah! Very peculiar. Don't you think? Simba: Yeah. Looks like the winds are changing. Rafiki: Ahhh, change is good. Simba: Yeah, but it's not easy. I know what I have to do. But… going back means I'll have to face my past. I've been running from it for so long… {Rafiki smacks Simba on the head with his staff.} Simba: Oww! Jeez—what was that for? Rafiki: It doesn't matter; it's in the past! {laughs} Simba: {Rubbing head} Yeah, but it still hurts. Rafiki: Oh yes, the past can hurt. But the way I see it, you can either run from it, or... learn from it. {He swings at Simba with his staff again. This time Simba ducks.} Rafiki: Hah! You see? So, what are you going to do? Simba: First... I'm going to take your stick. {Simba tosses Rafiki's staff to the side.} Rafiki: No, no, no, no! Not the stick! Hey! Where are you going? Simba: {Shouting back} I'm going back! Rafiki: Good! Go on! Get out of here! {Rafiki laughs, hoots, ‘n’ hollers. As he holds his staff above his head, a few shooting stars zing across the sky. Music rises.} 26 Appendix 2 Focus activity: Picture vocabulary 27 Appendix 3 Follow-up activity: Transcription 28 Appendix 4 Feedback/feedforward procedure: Class newsletters Oral Communication Class Newsletter, Vol. 3 Please highlight the comments you want to talk about next class. Slash marks (/) separate your classmates’ comments. Newsletters I was a little bit surprised and impressed that the classmates have more positive opinions than I do. They gave me more motivation than what I had. Talking about/comparing transcriptions and self-evaluations Thanks to the example, I could understand what I should do. This type of example is very useful for me. / I think 10 minutes is too short. I want to have more time. / Comparing with a person from other pairs was nice because I got to know about others’ conversations. Talking about/comparing action logs I think reading partner’s action logs is very interesting. I enjoyed it very much because my partner wrote a lot of things in the log. / Changing my transcription or action log are very good things since they have the things which I don’t have. / When I read my partner’s action log, I felt more at ease. Fishbowl I think I rely on someone else. I’m ashamed and sorry. As I learned before, only one person can influence the whole class. So I think I have to understand the class system and I would like to be more courageous by the next Fishbowl. / I couldn’t take courage this time. Someday, can I take part in Fishbowl and enjoy it like tape recording? I hope so. / I want to prepare myself before the OC class every time and want to join the Fishbowl next time! / The day we enjoy Fishbowl very much will come! Song: Walk Unafraid (REM) The song was so meaningful for the next step of Fishbowl. / Talk Unafraid is a good phrase for our class. Each one of us will have to try to make this class a better one. / When I am depressed this song will cheer me up. / It is necessary for us to talk unafraid. I think the most important thing is to have confidence. Part-time jobs example conversation By listening to the example I learned some important things to improve the conversation. I’m also likely to make such a mistake so it’s useful. / Because we pointed out some bad points, we can improve our own conversations. Part-time jobs conversations practice I could talk about the topic with my partner pleasantly. Today’s practice was very effective for me. / My partner hardly asked some questions and didn’t say much. I thought that my partner is what I am. And I tried to help her like my partner who recorded the conversation with me before. It was a very x 30,000 wonderful experience for me! “Which expressions and conversation strategies are you focusing on?” I think it is very good because by knowing what my partner would like to do, we can make our conversation better. / I focused on interjecting. In this way, I want to use many expressions and conversation strategies. Part-time jobs conversations recording I didn’t feel nervous at all! / I liked the way we start and stop by ourselves. / I had prepared for this class so I can talk with my partner today better than last time. / It was easier to record than before because I’m getting used to speaking in English. 29 References Aline, D. P. (1999). Learners' Noticing of Their Own Second Language Output and Its Effects on Subsequent Task Performance by Japanese Learners of English as a Second Language. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Temple University, Tokyo. Arao, H. (1998). Near Peer Role Models. Nanzan University LT Briefs, 8, 2-4. Bailey, K., & Savage, L. (Eds.). (1994). New Ways in Teaching Speaking. Bloomington, IL: Pantagraph Printing. Bailey, K. M. (1983). Competitiveness and anxiety in adult second language learning: Looking at and through the diary studies. In H. W. Selinger & M. H. Long (Eds.), Classroom Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 67102). Rowley, Mass: Newbury House. Betson, C. L., Fielding, R., Wong, G., Chung, S. F., & Nestel, D. F. (1997). Evaluation of two videotape instruction programmes on how to break bad news—for Cantonese-speaking medical students in Hong Kong. Journal of Audiovisual Media in Medicine, 20(4), 172-177. Bronner, S. (2000). Learner Autonomy Japanese Style: The "Think in English" Approach. The Language Teacher, 24(1), 27-29, 55. Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Carroll, S., & Swain, S. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(3), 357-386. Chang, C. W., & Liu, H. F. (unpublished manuscript). Videotaping to detect anxiety and to provide feedback during oral testing : Fooyin Institute of Technology. Cholewinski, M. (1997). Maximizing materials and methods in EFL classes. Academic Journal of the English Department of Trident School of Languages, 1997, 1453. Cholewinski, M. (1999). Fishbowl: A speaking activity. English Teaching Forum (TESOL), Oct-Dec, 24-27. Cooper, R., Lavery, M., & Rinvolucri, M. (1991). Video. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cruikshank, I. (1998). Video: a method of delivering student feedback. Journal of Art and Design Education, 17(1), 87-95. Donato, R. (1994). Collective Scaffolding in L2 Learning. In J. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research . Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Dornyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1992). Conversation and Dialogues in Action. New York: Prentice Hall International. Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1998a). Focus on Form in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998b). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 197-261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Doyon, P. (2000). Shyness in the Japanese EFL Class. The Language Teacher, 24(1), 11-16. Enns, M., & Cox, B. (1999). Perfectionism and depressive symptom severity in manic depressive disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 37, 783-794. 30 Esch, E. M. (1997). Learner training for autonomous language learning. In P. Benson & P. Voller (Eds.), Autonomy and independence in language learning (pp. 164175). London: Longman. Freeman, D. (1989). Teacher training, development, and decision making: A model of teaching and related strategies for language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 23(1), 27-45. Gass, S. (1997). Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Graves, K. (1980). Student invested material. Cross Currents, 7, 31-44. Guest, M. (2000). What's Wrong with Japanese English Teachers? The Language Teacher, 24(1), 30-31. Helgesen, M. (1993). Dismantling a wall of silence: The "English conversation" class. In P. Wadden (Ed.), A Handbook for Teaching English at Japanese Colleges and Universities (pp. 37-49). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kehe, D. J., & Kehe, P. D. (1989). Student-invested material: Balancing teacher and student interest. JALT Journal, 11(1), 92-101. Kessler, C. (Ed.). (1992). Cooperative language learning: A teachers' resource book. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents. Kindt, D. (1997). Action research: Less anxiety, more interaction. The Academic Journal of Trident School of Languages, 54-83. Kindt, D. (1998). "Turning up the heat": Using cassette recorders to energize conversations. Nanzan's LT Briefs, 9, 21-24. Kindt, D. (1999). How to keep an action log. Available: http://www.ic.nanzanu.ac.jp/~kindt/ pages/actlog.html [1999, October]. Kindt, D. (2000a). Don't forget your SOCCs. Nagoya: Sankeisha. Kindt, D. (2000b). Zoning in materials in the EFL classroom. Thai TESOL Newsletter, 13, 2, pp. 12-18. Kindt, D. (2001a). Learning Independence: Recording conversations for student evaluation. Independence: Newsletter of the IATEFL Learner Independence Special Interest Group, Summer 2001(29), 5-9. Kindt, D. (2001b). String Throw. English Teaching Professional(20), 39. Kindt, D. (2002). A complex systems view of course design. Academic Journal of Nagoya University of Foreign Studies, 10 (11), 281-323. Kindt, D. (2004). Students' Own Conversation Cards. Nagoya: WellOn. Kindt, D., Cholewinski, M., Kumai, W., Lewis, P., & Taylor, M. (1999a). Complexity and the language classroom. Academia: Literature and Language, 67, 235-258. Kindt, D., & Kindt, S. (1996). Why Don't You Find Out for Yourself? Nagoya: Kawajuku Press. Kindt, D., Lewis, P., & Taylor, M. (1999b). Complexity Science and SLA: Practical insights for the language classroom. IATEFL99 Proceedings, 19. Kindt, D., & Murphey, T. (2000). Class newsletters: Feedback as feedforward. In D. Brooks, R. Long & J. Robbins (Eds.), 25th Annual JALT international conference on language teaching and learning (pp. 85-90): JALT. Kindt, D., & Murphey, T. (2001). Longitudinal Videoing of Student Conversations. Retrieved June 16, 2004, from http://www.nufs.ac.jp/~kindt/pages/LVSC.html Kluge, D., & Taylor, M. (1999). Outside taping for fluency: A practical system., JALT98: Proceedings (pp. 27-32). 31 Krashen, S., & Terrell, T. (1983). The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. Oxford: Pergamon. Lamie, J. M. (1999). Implementing successful educational innovation in Japan . New York: Paper presented at the Annual TESOL Convention. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 141-165. Lavery, M. (1984). Video and Language Teaching. Munich: Langenscheidt. Leaney, C., & Strange, J. (1987). Video in Action: Bell Educational Trust. Lewis, M. (1993). The Lexical Approach: The state of LLT and a way forward. Hove: Language Teaching Publications. Linklater, F. (1997). Effects of audio- and videotape models on performance achievement of beginning clarinetists. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45(3), 402-414. Lonergan, J. (1984). Video in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. De Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign Language Research in Cross-cultural Perspectives . Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on Form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 15-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McGovern, J. (1983). Video Applications in English Language Teaching: British Council, Pergamon. McGrath, K. (1998). Student Video Recordings, Feedback and Heightened Communicative Awareness (presentation ). Seoul: KoTESOL Annual Conference. Mehan, H. (1993). Why I like to look: On the use of Videotape as an Instrument in Educational Research. In M. Schratz (Ed.), Qualitative Voices in Educational Research (pp. 93-105). Monbusho. (1989). The New Revised Course of Study: Emphasis on Oral Communication. Monbusho, Handbook for Team-teaching (pp. 98-115). Tokyo: Gyosei Corporation. Murphey, T. (1993). Why don't teachers learn what learners learn? Taking the guesswork out with Action Logging. English teaching Forum(January), 6-10. Murphey, T. (1998a). In and between people: facilitating metacognition and identity construction. The Language Teacher, 27(7), 13-14. Murphey, T. (1998b). Self-evaluated video. In J. D. Brown (Ed.), New ways of classroom evaluation (pp. 64-66). Murphey, T. (2001). Tools of recursion, intermental zones of proximinal development, and critical collaborative autonomy. JALT Journal, 21(1), 130-150. Murphey, T., & Kenny, T. (1998). Intensifying practice and noticing through videoing conversations for self-evaluation. JALT Journal, 20(1), 126-140. Murphey, T., & Woo, L. (1998). Videoing Conversation for Student Evaluation: Educational Video's Diamond in the Rough. The Language Teacher, 22(8), 2124. Nord, J. (1998). Condemning our students to mediocrity. Academia: Literature and Language, 65, 117-204. 32 Nunan, D. (1989). Understanding Language Classrooms: A Guide for Teacher-Initiated Action. New York: Prentice-Hall. Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching and Learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Ohta, S., & Takakuwa, Y. (1986). Japan. In R. N. Tucker (Ed.), The Intergration of Media into the Curriculum (pp. 153-170). London: Kogan Page. Omaggio-Hadley, A. (1993). Teaching Language in Context. (2nd ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Oxford, R. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Parish, C. (1976). A basic format for ESL practice teaching utilizing video-tape. TESOL Quarterly, 10(3), 327-339. Roberts, M. (1995). Awareness and the efficacy of error correction. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning (pp. 163-182). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press. Roby, W. B. (1999). Action logs and Seikatsu Dayori. The Language Teacher, 23(7), 3. Rohde, D. L. T., & Plaut, D. C. (1999). Language acquisition in the absence of negative evidence: how important is starting small? Cognition, 72, 67-109. Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206-226. Schneider, P. (1993). Developing fluency with pair taping. JALT Journal, 15(1), 55-62. Scovel, T. (1978). The effect of affect on foreign language learning: A review of the anxiety research. Language Learning, 28(1), 129-142. Sinclair, B. (2000). Learner Autonomy: The next phase? In B. Sinclair, I. McGrath & T. Lamb (Eds.), Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy: Future Directions (pp. 15-22). Harlow: Longman. Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 30(2), 73-87. Stevick, E. (1996). Memory, Meaning & Method: A View of Language Teaching. (2nd ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidhofer (Eds.), Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tsui, A. B. M. (1996). Reticence and anxiety in second language learning. In B. K. M & D. Nunan (Eds.), Voices from the Language Classroom (pp. 145-167). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Viney, P. (1999). Non-authentic video for LLT. www.viney.uk.com/resourcesnav.htm. Available: ww.viney.uk.com/resourcesnav.htm [99.11.28]. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wenden, A. (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy: planning and implementing learner training for language learners. New York: Prentice Hall. Willis, J. (1996). A Framework for Task-Based Learning. London: Longman. Willis, M. (1993). What is the moral of the story? Teaching literature to English majors. In P. Wadden (Ed.), A Handbook for Teaching English at Japanese Colleges and Universities (pp. 91-98). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Woo, L. (1997). English for non-English majors in Japanese universities: Benefits of more listening in the first year. Academia: Literature and Language, 64, 301313. 33 Yoshizumi, C., Adamson, C., & Kindt, D. (1994). In For a Penny, In for a Pound. Nagoya: Kawaijuku Press. Yuen, L. (1997). How students account for their poor English skills. Paper presented at the On JALT96: Crossing Borders. 34