AUTONOMIA E AUTO-AVALIAÇÃO

8/13/2019 AUTONOMIA E AUTO-AVALIAO

1/12

Autonomy at All Costs: An

Ethnography of Metacogn itiveSelf-Assessment andSelf-Management amongExperienced Language LearnersWILLIAM P. RIVERS

Bryn Mawr Collegeand theNational

Foreign LanguageCenter at theUniversity of

Maryland

1029 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 1000

Washington, DC 20005

Email : [email protected]

Research in cognition has shown that expert learners in diverse fields, including chess,mathematics, physics, and language learning, approach new learning tasks differently than

novice learn ers. More recent r esearch in n europsychology makes a stron g claim tha t meta cog-nition is separate from cognition and consists of two types of beh avior: self-assessment an dself-man agement . This article a na lyzes self-directed langua ge learning beha viors of ad ultthird-langua ge learn ers based on qualitative da ta. The d ata were gathered in 1993 an d 1994from 11 learners of Georgian and Kazakh at the University of Maryland at College Park. Alllearners had 2/2/2 (L/R/S) proficiency in Russian according to the Federal InteragencyLanguage Roundtable (FILR) scale. Data were analyzed using the Grounded Method foranalyzing qualitative data (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). All learners were found to assess theirprogress, lear ning styles, strategy preferences, a nd conflicts with tea ching styles an d with thebehaviors of other learners regularly. Based on these assessments, the majority of learnersmad e a ttempts at specific self-directed learning beha viors, focused pr imarily on chan ges tocourse materials and classroom activities, and targeted specific learning tasks and strategies.

METACOGNITION, EXECUTIVEFUNCTIONS, AND THE EXPERIENCEDLANGU AG E LEARNER

Research in several disparate fields ma kes a

stron g claim that meta cognition is fund amen tally

different than cognition. A recent comprehen-

sive review of the literature on educational re-

search, published by the National Research

Coun cil, summa rizes the role of metacogn ition in

learning: Individuals can be taught to regulate

their behaviors, and these regulator y activities en-

able self-monitoring and executive control of

ones performance (Bransford, Brown, &Cock-

ing, 1999, p. xii). One term for metacognition,

derived from research in developmental neurol-

ogy and neuropsychology, isexecut ive functions

(Denckla, 1996). Executive functions consist of

two types of metaco gnition: m etaco gnitive self-as-

sessment, i.e., the ability to assess ones own cog-nition (P aris, Lipson, & Wixson , 1983; Flavell,

Miller, & Miller, 1993) an d meta cogn itive self-

management, i .e., the ability to manage ones

further cognitive development (Brown & Palin-

TheModern LanguageJournal, 85, ii, (2001)0026-7902/01/279290 $1.50/0 2001The Modern L anguageJournal


2/12

scar, 1982; Flavell, Miller, & Miller, 1993). More-

over, research in neuropsychology ha s d emon-

strated specific locations for metacog nition in the

brain, and metacognitive assessment measures

have come to be used for th e differential diagno -

sis of brain trauma and developmental disorders

(Den ckla, 1996; Taylor, Schatschneider, Petrill,Barry, &Owens, 1996; Dennis, Barnes, Donnelly,

Wilkinson, & Humphreys, 1996; Meichenbaum,

Burland, G ruson, & Cameron, 1985).

Of self-man agemen t and self-assessment, the

latter emerges as the more critical skill. O wings,

Petersen, Bransford, Morris, and Stein (1980)

sho wed that fifth-gra ders with better self-monitor-

ing a bility perfor med better in self-regulated lan-

guage learning. They demonstrated that while

both of their groups were able to manage their

learning, those without accurate assessments oftheir knowledge an d ab ilities were less successful

in that management. In a study of the reading

strategies of second -grad ers an d fourth -grad ers,

Walczyk an d H all (1991) demon strated that self-

mon itoring emerges before self-man agemen t. Fi-

nally, Schra w (1994) noted tha t college studen ts

with poo r monitoring skills were less ab le to man -

age their learning, and performed worse, than

good monitors.

The parallel between the attributes of success-

ful autonomous/self-directed learners and ex-

ecutive fun ction (m etaco gnitive self-assessmen t

and metacogn itive self-man agemen t) is clear, if

one considers either the classic descriptions of

the autonomous learner as a learner who fixes

objectives, defines the content and program of

learn ing, selects the method s and techniques of

learning, and monitors and evaluates his or her

progress toward his or her objectives (H olec,

1981), o r th e attr ibutes of self-directed lear ning:

Learning builds on experience, is internally mo-

tivated , and is task-an d problem-center ed, ra ther

tha n r eferen t-center ed ( Knowles, 1975; also Bere-

iter, 1992, for a more general consideration of

learn ing as problem-centered). Self-managed /

self-directed learning requires the learner to as-

sess accurately and to man age actively his or her

learning goals, behaviors, environment, and out-

comes. Results of experiments in self-directed

language learning include increased productivity,

higher motivation, less frustration, and higher

retention rates, when self-directed language

learning is allowed (Ellis, 1994; Bachman, 1964;

Holec, 1980, 1987; Dickinson, 1987; G ard ner,Ginsberg, &Smythe, 1976; Gardner &McIntyre,

1991). Investigations of American college stu-

dents studying abroad have also shown links be-

tween self-directed language learning and in-

creased linguistic risk taking, a f acto r tied to ga ins

in speaking proficiency (Pellegrino, 1994, 1996;

Frank, 1997). The attributes of the good lan-

guage learn era personal learning style, a tol-

erant and outgoing approach to the target lan-

guage, technical know-how ab out h ow to tackle

a language, willingness to use the language inreal communication, and strategies for testing

an d r evision of h ypoth eses about th e Target Lan-

guage (Rubin, 1975, pp. 44-48)are chara c-

teristic of the Self-Directed Lan guage Learn er.

The genera l notion th at th e expert in any field

approaches learning differently than the novice

is well established.1 In fields as diverse as chess

(d e G root, 1965; Chase & Simon, 1973), ma the-

matics (Bro wn & Bur ton , 1978; Lewis, 1981; An-

derson, Green, Kline, & Neves, 1981), compu ter

programming (McKeithen, Reitman, Reuter, &Hirtle, 1981; Adelson, 1981), and physics (Chi,

G laser, & Rees, 1983), the expert learner ap-

proaches the learning task differently than the

novice. Each of these studies showed broa d simi-

larities among expert learners: more use than

no vices of cogn itive or metacog nitive strategies to

organize input and knowledge, including a gen-

eral tendency to reorganize learning tasks along

deeper abstract and conceptual structures and

schemata, rather than along surface structure.

The recent comprehen sive review of education al

research by the National Research Council con-

cluded that experts notice features and mean-

ingful patterns of information that are not no-

ticed by novices, experts have acquired a great

deal of content knowledge that is organized, and

their organization reflects a deep understanding

of th e studen t matter, and experts ha ve var ying

levels of flexibility in their approaches to new

situations (Bransford, Brown, &Cocking, 1999,

p. xiii).

Turning to language learning, several studies

reinforce the general findings on expert learn ers.

Ben Zeev (1977) reported th at bilingua l children

demonstrate greater flexibility in the use of learn-

ing strategies than monolingual children. Bia-

lystok (1992) supports this con clusion: In her

research on selective attention, she found that

bilingua ls perfo rmed significant ly better on tasks

requiring high levels of selective attention. The

bulk of studies on third language acquisition fo-

cus on some aspect of phonetic, morphological,

lexical, and syntactic transfer in closely related or

cognate languages; transfer effects in topologi-cally dissimilar or genetically unrelated lan-

guages;2 and the global effects of prior linguistic

experience on un iversal gramma r and para meter

setting (Zobl, 1992; Enomoto, 1994, Klein, 1995)

280 TheModern LanguageJournal 85 (2001)


3/12

or proficiency gain in a third language.3 In a

study on interference from second language

(Spanish) in third language (English) among

multilingual Yaq ui Indians in Arizona, Bartlet

(1989) found evidence of broad use of metacog-

nitive and communicative strategies in oral dis-

course and oral narrative. Mhle (1989) exam-ined learning strategies in German multilingual

university stud ents taking a variety of In do -Euro-

pean languages (French, Spanish, and English).

Mhle hypothesized that the n arration of a film

with no overt linguistic informa tion would be in-

fluenced by cog nitive processing.4 Mhle found

evidence of controlled lexical transfer, again a

metacognitive strategy.

Ramsay (1980) presented a study of 10 multil-

inguals and 10 monolinguals learning Euskera

(B asque) in self-paced, self-instructiona l fo rma t.A variety of materials, including vocabulary flash

cards, audiovisual material, and a grammar

primer were available to the students. Student

portfolios of materials studied were maintained

throughout the course, providing a record of the

materials accessed by each student. An achieve-

ment test was administered at the end of the

course, and the performa nce of both groups was

compared. Ramsay discovered that multilinguals

tended to perfo rm far better than monolinguals.

A group of 5 multilinguals and 1 monolingual

comprised a set of successful learners, who

scored more th an one standard deviation better

than the mean score on the achievement test.

Successful learn ers were cha racterized by: the use

of more cognitive and metacognitive strategies,

including substan tially more verbalization an d vo-

cal practice; use of mnemonic devices; a more

positive attitud e toward s the learn ing pr ocess (an

af fective stra tegy); use of positive affect reinfo rce-

ment; use of more sources of information; and

more risk taking an d less fear of er rors. Metacog-

nitive strategies, thus, are indicated as a primary

dif ference between the novice and exper t

learner, across a broad set of abstract systems of

knowledge, and specifically in language, at both

a very discrete level (the processing of specific

con stituent un its) a nd at th e discourse level. Wen-

den (1999) reviewed the literature on metacogni-

tion in language learning, and drew a similar

conclusion: good language learners as well as self-

directed lan guage lear ners exhibit metacog nitive

behaviors.

THE STU DY

This study is ba sed on open-end ed, retrospec-

tive sur vey da ta collected from the studen ts of the

Languages of the Former Soviet Union Project,

held in th e Russian section of the Depa rtment o f

G ermanic and Slavic Languages and Literatures

at the University of Maryland at College Park

during the 1993-94 academic year. The auth or

was the Program Manager and an instructor in

the Russian section of the Department of Ger-manic and Slavic Languages and Literatures at

the University of Maryland at College Park. The

students were adult learners, all of whom were

employed a s translator s or interp reters, an d who

had a minimum oral proficiency in Russian of 2

on the Federal Interagency Language Round-

table (FILR) scale in reading, listening, and

speaking. Their ages ranged from 26 to 64 years;

all had a BA in Russian or Russian area studies;

some had add itional coursework or the MA in a

variety of fields. None had studied abroad in Rus-sia or the former Soviet Union.

They were enrolled in courses in one of three

languages: G eorgian, Kazakh, and Kyrgyz. The

courses met 5 ho urs per da y, 5 da ys per week. The

Georgian course met for 20 weeks; the Kazakh

an d Kyrgyz courses met for 37 weeks. In all thr ee

courses, the goal was for th e participants to rea ch

2-level pro ficiency ( FILR scale) in read ing an d

listening. The instructors were language peda-

gogues from Georgia, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzia.

There were two instructors per course, each typi-

cally teaching on e-half of the day, a lthough the

schedule varied with workload and activities. A

variety of teaching methodologies were used, in-

cluding the structural approach in the G eorgian,

Kyrgyz, and Kazakh courses, with the Kazakh

course especially empha sizing a botto m-up ap-

proach to th e acq uisition of th e language; some

use of the communicative approach, especially in

the G eorgian cou rse, and to a lesser extent in the

Kazakh and Kyrgyz courses; and the Emotional-

Semantic Method in the Kyrgyz course.5

Analytical Methodology

The approach taken for this project is a quali-

tative description o f observed phen omen a, ba sed

on extensive written, self-reported da ta. B ecause

there was no con trol group , no claims of causality

or efficacy of treatment are made. Instead, I at-

tempt to document rigorously and describe cer-

tain beh aviors an d a ttitudes among a set of expe-

r ienced language learners in a part icular

environment.The collected da ta were ana lyzed by the aut hor

using the Grounded Method for the analysis of

qualitative data , as detailed by Strauss an d Cor bin

(1990). The Gro und ed Method req uires rigorous

Willi am P. Rivers 281


4/12

inductive analysis and verification of a given phe-

nomenon through a multistage analysis of quali-

tative, narrative data. The data were first read by

the author without any attempt to categorize

them. A second read ing was perform ed, again by

the author, and general categories of reported

events were noted. A third reading involved thedevelopment of systematic coding and chrono-

logical tracking of events including: learner pro-

gress self-assessments, lea rn er style a ssessmen ts,

learner-teacher style conflicts, learner-learner

style conflicts, and autonomy requests. At this

level, the events remain a set of isolated occur-

rences, unconnected through time or by other

variables. These second two steps taken together

constitute open coding. Coded events were

then re-coded by the auth or into axial groups of

similar events and phenomena. At all points inthe process, each narrative must be treated as a

whole and in context, to th e extent mad e feasible

by researcher n otes externa l to th e nar ratives, by

the narratives of other students with whom the

given student may have interacted, and by the

conditions under which the narratives were writ-

ten.

The results presented her e represent the major

observed phenomena. The narratives presented

below are presented in full, and are selected as

representative of the observed events and phe-

nomena.

Data Collecti on

Two survey instrum ents were used to elicit data

on learning behaviors. Initially, students were

given a questionn aire to complete each da y. This

one-page questionnaire consisted of a grid th at

students were to use to assess their progress and

the utility of various activities. A single, open-

ended question invited genera l commen ts on th e

back of the form. The overall student response

rate to th e grid portion o f the q uestionnaire was

initially less th an 50%. This response rate de-

clined dramatically, and after 3 weeks, the grid

qu estionna ire was aban don ed in favor of a weekly

questionnaire. The Georgian group (3 students)

returned 11 daily questionnaires (30%); the Kyr-

gyz group retu rn ed 71 (5 stud ents, 71%respon se

rate), and the Kazakh group returned 148 (8

students, 93%). In the main, the questionnaires

were not completed, save for the open-ended

commentary question. The responses to thatquestion form the first component o f the corpus

of survey respon ses.

The second instrument consisted of a weekly,

six-item, open-ended retrospective question-

na ire. The G eorgian gr oup retur ned 11 qu estion-

na ires (3 students, 32% response rate), the Kyr-

gyz group returned 31 questionnaires (5 stu-

dents, 17%), and the Kazakh group returned 48

questionn aires (8 studen ts, 18%). The an swers to

the questions on this sur vey constitute the second

major component of the corpus.The results reported here derive from a n an aly-

sis of the Georgian daily and weekly surveys, and

from the Kazakh daily surveys. The Kyrgyz data

were aban don ed, a s it proved impossible to iden-

tify and, therefore, to track individual respon-

dents from the surveys.

RESULTS

Students in both the G eorgian a nd the Kazakh

groups exhibited similar behaviors in three gen-eral areas: (self-)assessment, learner auton omy,

and self-directed language learning. Learners

gave ample evidence of their assessment of sev-

era l areas: lear ner-teach er style conflicts (see Ox-

ford & Lavine, 1992); learner style conflicts

within the group, and the effects thereof on the

class; self-assessmen t o f learn er style; an d ind ivid-

ual learning strategy preferences. All students re-

peatedly exhibited learner a uton omy, in the form

of d emands for the mod ification of some a spect

of the courses, including methodology, teacher

feedback, classroom environment, sequencing,

and activities. Most importantly, various students

demonstrated different self-directed language

learning behaviors, directed at the amelioration

of the learner-teacher an d learner-learner style

conflicts, and at th e individuals need for learn er

autonomy. Self-directed learning behaviors in-

cluded the prioritizing of classroom and home-

work a ssignments, selection of classroom and

homework tasks, and inclusion of an inde-

pendent study day into th e program. In this sec-

tion, I will examine each of th ese three phen om-

ena with respect to the corpus of survey respon ses

from the Languages of the Former Soviet Union

Pro ject. I will start with th e Georgian course, an d

then proceed to the Kazakh course.

Learn er-teacher style conflicts arise when the

teaching m ethodology in a given classroom ill

suits the cognitive style of a particular learner

(Oxford & Lavine, 1992; Leaver, 1993). In the

Georgian class, one of three students reported

tha t the emphasis on tra nslation du ring the read-

ing portion of the class was a source of stress andtension. The student correctly identified the

source of this stress, namely, that there was a

learner-teacher style conflict in those two por-

tions of the course. The student writes:



5/12

A week ago Thursday an d Friday we had some

trou ble. Wed. we had begun to experien ce the classic

Soviet-trained teacher w/American students syn-

drom e when [ Instructor A] expressed irritation th at

we did no t know the m aterial well enough , which led

into th e classic I read it, I d idnt/couldn t memorize

it rut (Georgian student 1, Daily survey 6).

Here, the studen t refersto th e instructors empha -

sis on rote memorizationa common pedagogi-

cal metho d in the Soviet Un ion. This insistence on

rote memorization, and American students un-

willingness to d o it, is a possible sour ce of co nflict

in classes with Soviet-trained instructors and

American students with little exposure to Soviet-

trained instructor s (Lea ver & Flank, 1987). It

should b e noted t hat th e majority of learners had

little exposure to Soviet-trained instructors, be-

cause n one had studied ab road. Any such expo-sure presumab lyca me during the studen ts under-

gra duate careers. The same stud ent con tinues:

I brought in a Georgian art book that related to a

book [Instructor A] showed me Thursday re [sic]

G eorgian h istor y. [Instructor A] told m e right off the

bat [that Instructor A] didnt like the bookwhich

was disconcerting . . . as a teacher of Classical lan-

guages, [Instructor A] ma y not be used to . . . cogn i-

tive, participatory teaching (G eorgian student 1,

Daily survey 6).

Student 2 had a different conflict:

They try to keep us talking, which I wouldnt have

considered all that important before, but I can see

how it is activating a lot of vocabulary (Georgian

student 2, Daily survey 4).

This respon se is illuminating in th at the studen t

recognizes her preference for activities other

than speaking, the emphasis in the course on

speaking, a nd some benefit of th e non -preferred

activity. This last tra itflexibility in learn er style

and learning strategy preferencesreappears

throughout the data.

Learner style conflicts within the class cohort

rema in a less well investigated area in research o n

cognitive styles and Second Lan guage Acquisi-

tion (SLA). Nonetheless, some researchers, nota-

bly Leaver ( 1993) ha ve recogn ized the p otential

for prob lems in classroom s with divergent learner

styles and learning strategy preferences among

the class cohort.6 All parties recogn ized the con-

flict:

Ive become increasingly aware o f th e differences inour personalities learning styles lately (Georgian

student 2, Weekly survey 1).

We waste a lot of time repeatin g explana tion s becau se

[G eorgian student 1] was busy talking a nd making

excuses instead o f listenin g. I know speaking pra ctice

is importan t, but when one students practice gets in

the way of general progress, its too mu ch (G eorgian

studen t 2, Weekly survey 1).

Student 1 was also well aware of this particular

conflict:

Im global extrovert. The other two are introvert

types, an d you can see tha t our d ifferent ca pabilities

come out in different activities. Im more creative in

composition, they have a better memory of vocab,

etc. ( G eorgia n student 1, Weekly survey 1).

This learner style conflictbetween an extro-

verted learner and two introverted class-

matesgenerated considerable difficulty and

frustration:

My only concern is, now tha t were runn ing short of

time, that we cant afford to spend a half hour to an

hour on [Student 1s] experiments in poetry, fairy

tales ancient history any more (G eorgian student

2, Weekly sur vey 1).

This conflict was not resolved until the depar -

ture from the course of Student 1 (the student

left the course for job-related r easons). Both stu-

dents exhibited a keen awareness of their own

learner styles and learning strategy preferences.

Georgian student 1 was aware of a difficulty

with short-term memory a nd the acquisition oflexicon, and resultant problems in activities re-

quiring the use of short-term memory and re-

cently taught lexicon:

The h ard part com es when we have to tra nslate it [a

newspaper article] on the spot in class . . . I do better

at other activities, when my inability to keep up

[doesnt interfere with the activity]. They [students 2

and 3] hear better/remember vocab better (Geor-

gian stud ent 1, Weekly sur vey 1).

Student 2 exhibited an awareness of difficulties

with o ral activities:


considered all that important before, but I can see

how it is activating a lot of vocabulary (Georgian

student 2, Da ily sur vey 4).

Informal consultations with the instructors and

the students tended to confirm the accuracy of

these assessments. Student 1 d id indeed have

more difficulty in acquiring vocabulary, and Stu-

den t 2 was more reluctant to en gage in conversa-

tion.One episode in the G eorgian course stand s as

a metaphor for learner autonomy. All students

repeatedly expressed their discomfort with the

pace of the course and the amount of the mate-



6/12

rial, either to the a dministration or to the teach-

ers:

We really cant d o all the h omewor k theyre asking us

to d o ( G eorgian student 1, Daily survey 3).

The complaint was made directly to the instruc-

tors, an illocutionary first step in learner auton-omy. The instructors responded by prioritizing

the h omework tasks for the studen ts:

It was some help today when they made an effort to

prioritize the tasks for us,after we tal ked i t over [my

emphasis] (Georgian student 1, Daily survey 3).

Apparently, the problem recurred, as evidenced

by the respon ses to th e prob lem in the later d aily

and weekly surveys:

At the end of the da y, [Instructo r B] agr eed to cut our

homework tasks back, so we have time to review vo-

cab, and to do what we can do with better quality . . .

(Georgian student 1, Daily survey 6).

We ha ve bo iled do wn all o ur a ctivities, in class and at

hom e, to the kind of work we agree we need an d want

most ( G eorgia n student 2, Weekly survey 3).

The first citation above addresses an additional

issue: the students self-assessment of the quality

of the work done. The second citation above ad-

dresses an issue besides the amount of home-

work: course content. Unfortunately for the pur-poses of research, these discussions were heldin

camera, as i t were, between the students and

teachers. That alone, the fact that the students

appealed directly to the instructors and left the

administration out of the loop, testifies to th e

degree of a uton omy exhibited by the studen ts. A

more typical response (as will be seen in the data

form the Kazakh group) would have been an

appeal to the teachers, followed b y an appeal to

the program administration.

Direct evidence of self-directed language learn-ing appears in the corpus of survey responses

from the participants in the Georgian course.

Student 1 claimed to have found materials of

personal interest (an art book), and this student

was accused by other students of writing poetry

and fairy tales. These are evidence of self-di-

rected language learning, insofar as the student

(Studen t 1) enga ged in activities which were no t

assigned by the instructors, which reflected the

studen ts own interests (po etry, fair y tales, G eor-

gian history), an d which reflected a learningstrategy preference:

Im more creat ive in composition, they h ave a better

memor y of vocab, etc. ( Geo rgian student 1, Weekly

survey 1).

This particular exa mple of self-directed lan gua ge

learning is the only clear instance occurring in

the corpus of survey responses from the G eorgian

course.

Two final points concerning the Georgian

course: First, of the three conflicts which appea r

in th e sur vey responses, two (the lear ner-teach erstyle conflict and the course workload and se-

quence conflict) were resolved by the learners

an d teachers, with minimal inter vention fro m the

ad ministration . The thirdthe lear ner style con-

flict within th e class, and an attend ant persona lity

clashwas resolved o nly by the remo val of o ne of

the learn ers, for rea son s unrelated t o th e course.

The ability to resolve such conflicts within the

framework of the classroom, when coupled with

remarks such as the following, indicate that the

learners (and teachers) in this course were flex-ible in their approach to the learning process:

I need much m ore pract ice in the area s tha t I like less

and tend to neglect when left to my own devices

(Georgian student 2, Daily survey 2).

On the oth er han d, we are getting practice where we

are weakest (Georgian student 1, Daily survey 4).


considered a ll that important before, but I can see

how it is activating a lot of vocabulary (Georgianstudent 2, Daily survey 4).

Tha t flexibility, as seen in th e research literatur e,

is a hallmark of the experienced lan guage learner

and the good language learner.

The Kazakh group, which consisted of 8 stu-

dents, provided a rich set of survey responses

containing evidence of: two broad learner-

teacher style conflicts; a grea t dea l of inform ation

on the learn ers self-assessment o f th eir pro gress,

learner styles, a nd learning strategy preferences;

an d a gro up-wide attem pt to chan ge the structureof the course. The Kazakh students seemed less

aware of the differences in individual learner

styles, often using the survey to appeal to the

administration for a modification which would

suit the individual making the appeal, even

though the same days surveys might contain re-

sponses from other learners praising the activity

which the first respondent wanted removed. In

the corpus of survey responses, the Kazakh gro up

evinces little a wareness of this pheno meno n.

The first learner-teacher style conflict arosefrom the drill and kill nature of the instruc-

tional techniques used, and the reaction of the

class cohort to those techniques. The reliance on

oral drills caused widespread conflict, with most



7/12

students objecting to the reliance on oral drills

an d req uesting mor e written d rills:

I feel like [Instructor D] is frustrated by our slow pace

in doing oral drills and our very slow response to

questions. This may be a cultural difference, Im not

sure. Perhaps they do a g reat dea l more oral dr illing

in the former Soviet Union, but I have never had todo so much oral drilling without extensive written

exercise first (Kaza kh studen t 1, D aily sur vey 6).

We need mo re written pr actice, especially with gra m-

mar. We do a lot of oral practice, but it would be

easier if we did some written work first (Kazakh stu-

den t 4, Da ily survey 6).

Our instructors seem to b e accustomed t o ora l repe-

tition a nd to or al exercises, with ma terial we have just

learned, while we are more accustomed to written

exercises, perha ps corrected ora lly. Some ad justmen t

is necessary on both sides (Kazakh student 5, dailysurvey 7).

The resolution to this conflict lay in a direct con-

frontation with the instructors:

[We] finally got up the courage today to tell our

teacher that we Americans almost never work ora lly

in school . . . oral drills are murder on us. Immedi-

ately everything started getting written out on the

board and we got to write down sentences and work

from our papers. It was great! (Kazakh student 1,

Daily survey 8).

Note as well that the resolution to this conflict

occurred only when the students expressed

autonomy, by approaching the instructor and re-

questing a specific change in the manner of pre-

sentation of n ew material. However, not a ll of th e

students agreed with the new approach:

[Instructor D writes] sentences, words on the board

it takes a long time to copy it all. By the time I

finish, she has already gone on to some new words,

etc., which means I am missing things. Others have

said the same thing (Kazakh student 6, Da ily survey8).

This studen t was the only one who gave a negative

response to the change from purely oral presen-

tation to a mixture of written an d oral presenta-

tion. (The others mentioned in the response

did not choose to do so in the surveys.) Thus, the

tentative con clusion is that fo r th e majority of th e

studen ts in th e Kazakh g roup, th is particular con -

flict was resolved in a satisfactory manner.

A second conflict arose during the use of a

top-do wn ap proa ch to newspaper texts. After a p-proximately 2 mon ths of instruction , the teachers

introduced authentic target language newspaper

articles, and directed the students to perform a

number of tasks with the articles: scanning, gist-

ing, and reading for detail. The responses to the

newspaper texts and th e approa ch used in ana lyz-

ing the texts indicated bo th a pprehension an d a

general p reference fo r bottom -up pr ocessing:7

The rather lengthy newspaper article is a bit over-

whelming initially but if I keep at it, I would think tha t

I may learn to decipher the structures (Kazakh stu-

den t 7, Da ily sur vey 11).

We ha d a lon g talk with o ur instructo rs tod ay and we

are not go ing to do m amot h [sic] newspaper articles

anymore for a while until we sort o f know the gram -

mar and structure that goes into them (Kazakh stu-


Again, the conflict was partially resolved by an

instance o f th e exercise of learn er auto nom yin

this case, th e ta lk with th e instructors.

Much as the Georgian cohort, the Kazakh stu-den ts a ctively assessed their learner styles an d

their learning strategy preferences. Among the

assessments of learner style were several assess-

ments of learn er type, according to no pa rticular

taxonomy:

Even though I rate myself as a global learner, it is

hard to do th at when there are so few good reference

texts or prim ers (Kazakh studen t 8, Da ily survey 6).

Here, a student claimed to be a global learner.

Oth ers claimed to b e an alytic learn ers:

Our instructor intends to spend several days (19) on

the possessive endings alone, which is a good

idea. . . . Such periodic concentration on certain as-

pects of the lan guage is necessar y, in m y opinion, if

we are to really learn the language (Kazakh student

5, Daily survey 6).

The fact that we have no textbook (but numerous

global/random handouts) makesit that much harder

to study prepare the exercises (Kazakh student 8,

Daily survey 9).

Other learners classified themselves as aural orvisual learn ers:

While this [taped dialogues] will be useful, progress

will be slower, at least for me, since my visual memory

is far superior to my aural m emor y (Kazakh student

1, Da ily sur vey 12).

Field-depend ence a lso receives implicit mention:

reciting words without con text is inher ently unsatisfy-

ing ( Kazakh studen t 2, Daily sur vey 9).

Our vocabulary is growing nicely, but is organized

aroun d pho netic sound s, rather tha n student matter,

i.e., words beginning withyrather than words con-

nected with a certain topic. I dont mind this, but

some students are bothered by it (Kazakh student 5,

Daily survey 3).



8/12

Although the cited examples also make refer-

ence to affective behaviors and learning strategy

preferences, the clear result to be drawn from

them is that th is particular coho rt of experienced

language learners was aware of their individual

learner styles and learning strategy preferences,

even where they could not name the style orstrategy.

The first example of self-assessment of learning

strategy preferen ces analyzed abo vethe stron g

and negative reaction to oral presentation, cou-

pled with the un iversal request for written pr esen-

tationis a clear example of the students assess-

ments of th eir learning strategy preferences with

respect to the mo de of presentation o f new mate-

rial. Other preferences expressed included a de-

sire for repetition:

Review, review, review! This is very good for me

(Kazakh student 1, Daily sur vey 12).

Another student expressed the desire for tran-

scripts, to accompany taped dialogues (Kazakh

stud ent 5, Da ily survey 13). A third student stated

a preference fo r gisted dialogues with glosses of

key vocabulary:

Give us a loose summa ry of what is going o n, a few of

the key phrases and any new vocabular y, then send us

home to see how we do recovering the whole dia-

logue ourselves (Kazakh student 1, Da ily sur vey 17).

At the level of learning strategies, especially at

the level of cognitive strategies, this cohort of

learners had a clear conception of their own pref-

erences and the interaction of those preferences

to th e course as a who le.

The students of the Kazakh group had one

singula r, collective assertion of lear ner a uton omy.

Beginning in the first week of class, a request was

taken up to add independent study time to the

course schedule:

I would suggest that the week be cut back to 4 days a

week with one day set aside for catching up on all the

material. If we had Wednesdays off, we would be

fresher for the remaining class days (Kazakh stu-


I do not wish to have an entire afternoon off but

would welcome taking 1 ho ur a week having each

of th em take two of us for 1/2 ho ur each . . . (Kaza kh

student 7, Da ily sur vey 4).

This requ est appear ed in the sur vey responses atotal of 24 times in the first 3 weeks of class. All

stud ents are represented a t least on ce in that tally.

The instructors d enied th e initial request. An ap-

peal was made to the program administrators,

who intervened and convinced the instructors of

the worth of an independent study day.

Other examples of learner autonomy included

a request for a n American-tra ined Turkic linguist

to deliver a lecture on Kazakh verbal morphol-

ogy:

Were having some problems und erstanding the

manner and usage of certain verb tenses. Perhaps

[Instructor G ] can help (Kazakh student 5, Daily sur-

vey 11).

Students also mad e requests for dictionar ies, text-

books, and primers. A recurrent request was to

slow the pace of the course and reduce the

amount of homework. This, too , req uired inter-

vention form the program staff, in careful con-

sultation with the instructors. Throughout the

course, the Kazakh cohort, both collectively andindividually, was quick to express learner auton-

omy.

In terms of learner autonomy, a pattern of re-

liance upon administrative intervention to

achieve the particular goals of the cohort became

clear. In general, there were two possible out-

comes to any a ssertion of learner autonomy:

either the ad option o f the students suggestion o r

the rejection of it. In th e latter case, the students

tended to continue pressing their request rather

tha n seeking alterna tives. Som e ind ividual stu-

den ts did occasiona lly d emonstrate some self-di-

rected langua ge lear ning beha viors, especially in

the latter stages of th e course. A source for the

relatively low inciden ce of self-directed lang uag e

learning behaviors may have been cultural. The

two instructors in this course tended initially to

reject any assertion of autonomy; the perceived

lack of a utonomy may have contributed to both

the lack of self-directed language learn ing behav-

iors, an d to th e students stubbo rn persistence in

asserting their au ton omy. Thus, the lack of auto n-

omy for the experienced learner created a feed-back mechanism, which only served to exacer-

bate the overall situation . A tenta tive co nclusion

to be drawn from the Kazakh daily survey re-

sponses is that autonomy is a prerequisite for

self-directed lan gua ge learn ing.

DISCUSSION

The experienced lang uage learn ers in the Lan -

guages of the Former Soviet Un ion Pro ject at the

University of Maryland all exhibited three com-mon types of beha viors: self-assessment of pro-

gress and learner style/learning strategy prefer-

ence issues; learner auton omy; a nd self-directed

language learning. These experienced language



9/12

learners accurately assessed: their learner styles,

any learner-teacher style conflicts, and any

learner style conflicts within the class.

These experienced language learners demon-

strated a high tendency towards learner auton-

omy, requesting and demanding substantive

changes to every aspect of the course, and espe-cially to course content and structure. These

demonstrations of autonomy were based upon

the learners self-assessments of learner style,

learning strategy preferences, and their progress

in the language. These experienced learners

tried to take control of the entire learning pro-

cess.

Also, when given the opportun ity, these experi-

enced langua ge learn ers used self-directed lan-

guage learning strategies to modify the learning

environ ment a nd aspects of th e learning pr ocess,including: type of input, mode of input, work-

load, and course structure.

These observations d eser ve fuller in vestigat ion

and replication in different environments (such

as typical college classroom instruction) and with

different types of learn ers (e.g., ad olescents, col-

lege students, and study abroad participants). In

addition, the effects of cultural dissonance be-

tween the students and the teachers cannot be

fully accounted for here; that is, these observa-

tions may or may not obtain in a classroom with

a teacher trained in the US. All of these questions

suggest fur ther avenues for research.

The accurate use of metacognitive, affective,

and social strategies to control the language

learning pr ocess an d th e learning environ ment is

the h allmark of self-directed lan guage learning.

In ord er for such learning to occur, learners must

be able to determine accurately what their needs

are, and they must ha ve the freedom to take ac-

tion to meet those needs. In the absence of either

accurate self-assessmen t or genuine auton omy,

self-directed lan gua ge learn ing will no t occur.

NOTES

1 The term expert is usually reserved for students

with several thousand hours of experience (there are

2000 working h our s in a year). Flower & Ha yes (1981)

argue th at no one, n ot even a ch ild prodigy, becomes a

world-class expert without at least 20,000 hours of expe-

rience (VanLehn, 1991, pp. 56061).2 Cognate languagesthose belonging to the same

subfamily of a given language family, e.g. French and

Spanishtypically a fford the learner a similar core

(phonology, morphology, lexicon, and syntax), with sys-

tematic and predictable differences between the lan-

guages. Jensen (1989) and Jordan (1991) both suggest

that the high degree of mutual intelligibility between

Portugu ese and Span ish can be used in teaching Portu-

guese to students h aving Spanish as a second languag e.

G ribble (1987) created a Bulgarian course for Russian

speakers based o n th at pr inciple. Townsend fo llowed in

1995 with a Czech course for Russian speakers (Town-

send, 1995). Several courses at the Defense Language

Institute Foreign Language Center have retrained

speakers of one language into another closely related

languag e: Czech L2 speakers in Serbo-Croat ian (Corin,

1994), French speakers into Haitian Creole, and Rus-

sian, Polish, a nd Czech speakers into Serbo-Croat ian.

Thomas (1985, 1988) also reports on extensive transfer

from Spanish as a second language into French as a

third language, although this transfer is noted as a

source of error in the target language. Azevedo (1978)

provides a brief catalog of interference from L2 in the

same type of learner, while endorsing the pro motion of

positive tran sfer. Earlier stud ies in tra nsfer in Third L an -

guage Acquisition sought to identify error as an effect ofprior linguistic experience; Ahukann a, Lun d, an d G en-

tile (1981) note semantic errors in learners of French

for whom Igbo was L1 and English, L2. The latter

trendtransfer errors due to prior linguistic experi-

encecan be assigned to tra ditional (con trastive an aly-

sis) studies of transfer errors in interlang uage fro m L1

(Gass, 1979; Gass &Selinker, 1992).3 Prior linguistic experience surfa ced as a predictor of

gain am ong m issionaries in Japan ( Jacobsen & Imho of,

1974). Jacobsen and Imhoof demonstrated that child-

hoo d bilingualism a nd multilingualism cor related posi-

tively with languag e g ain. Similar cor relations surfacedin studies of un dergrad uates studying abroa d in Russia

(Brecht, Davidson, and G insberg, 1990, 1991, 1993,

1995; Ginsberg, 1992) and of Foreign Service Institute

intensive language course participants (Ehrman &Ox-

ford, 1995). Each of the studies cited analysed a data-

base of at least 600 students repor ting previous linguistic

experience (proficiency in a nonnative language other

than the target language), and in each study, prior lin-

guistic experience was statistically significan t for gain in

oral proficiency. A Swedish study of the performance of

more than 2700 immigrant school children in the

eighth grade showed mixed results (Mgiste, 1984,1986); children in English classes who had a passive

command of their first language, and actively used

Swedish (their second language), performed better

than either students without prior linguistic experience,

or students who had an active command of only their

first langua ge. H owever, the study did n ot exam ine oral

proficiency, but performance on an achievement test.

The results of tha t achievement test may be more indica-

tive of performance in a formal learning environment

than of proficiency in the target langua ge.4 ThePear Film(Chafe, 1980) contains no overt lin-

guistic information. The film is not silentper se, but

there is no dialogue, nor any written language (e.g.,

signage, captions). The film was designed for experi-

ments in na rrative production a nd cog nitive processing.5 The Emotional-Semantic Metho d incorporates ele-

ments o f t he Total Physical Response a nd Silent Way



10/12

methods. See Omaggio Hadley (1993) for a description

of the latter two methods. A description of the Emo-

tional-Semantic Method may be found in Sydykova

(1989).6 Leaver suggests alleviating this potential conflict by

distributing students across class sections according to

their learner styles. This would allow the strengths and

weaknesses of individual students, or individual prefer-

ences in learning strategies, to complement those of

other individual learn ers in the class. Leavers sugges-

tionthe gro uping o f students by learn er styles to cre-

ate a complementary distribution of learner styles

within the classroomwas impractical in a course with

thr ee students an d two in structors (Lea ver, 1993).7 This is a possible example of the short-circuit hy-

poth esis in a ction (C larke, 1980).

REFERENCES

Adelson, B. (1981). Problem solving and the develop-

ment of abstract categories in programming lan-

guages.Cogniti on,9, 422433.

Ahukann a, J., Lund, N., &G entile, J. (1981). In ter-an d

intra-lingual interference effects in learning a

third language.Modern Language Journal, 65,

281287.

Anderson, J., Greeno, J., Kline, P., &Neves, D. (1981).

Acqu isition of prob lem solving skills. In J. And er-

son (Ed.),Cogni tive skil ls and their acquisit ion(pp.

191230). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso-ciates.

Azevedo , M. (1978). Id entifying Spa nish inter ference in

the speech of learn ers of Portuguese.Modern L an-

guage Journal,66, 1823.

Bachm an, J. (1964). Motivation in a task situation as a

function of ability and control over task.Journal of

Abnormal and Social Psychology,69, 272281.

Bartlet, G . (1989). The interaction of m ultilingual con -

straints. In H. D echert &M. Raupach (Eds.),Inter-

lingual processes(pp. 516). Tbingen, G erman y:

G unter Nar r Verlag.

Ben Zeev, S. (1977). The influence of bilingualism oncognitive strategy and cognitive development.

Child Development,48, 10081018.

Bereiter, C. ( 1992). Referen t-centred an d pr oblem -cen-

tred knowledge: Elements of an educational epis-

temology.Interchange, 23, 337361.

Bialystok, E. (1992). Selective attention in cognitive

processing: The bilingual edge. In R. H ar ris (Ed.) ,

Cogni tiveprocessing in bil inguals(pp. 501513). New

York: Elsevier.

Bran sford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. ( Eds.). ( 1999).

How people learn : Brain, mind, experience, and school.

Committee on Developments in the Science of

Learning, Commission on Behavioral and Social

Sciences and Education, National Research

Council . Washington, DC: National Academy

Press.

Brecht, R., Davidson, D., & Ginsberg, R. (1990). Em-

pirieskoje issledovanije razvitija reevoj kompe-

tencii v uslovijax inostran no go jazyka za rubeom.

[Empiricalresearch on the development of spoken

competence during languag e study abroa d]. In D.

Davidson (Ed.),Ameri can contribut ions to theVII i n-

ternational congress of M APRIAL (pp. 123152).

Washington, D C: American C ouncil of Teachers of

Russian.

Brecht, R., Davidson, D., & Ginsberg, R. (1991). On

evaluating proficiency gain in study abroad envi-

ronments: An empirical study of American stu-

dents of Russian (A preliminar y ana lysis of data ).

In Z. Dabars (Ed.),Selected papers delivered at the

NEH symposium in Russian languageand cul ture(pp.

101130). Washington, DC and Baltimore, MD:

The National Endowment for the Huma nities and

the Center of Russian Language and Culture of

Friends School.

Brecht, R., Davidson, D., & G insberg, R. ( 1993).Predic-

torsof foreign languagegain duri ng study abroad(pp.3766). Washington, DC: The National Foreign

Language Center Occasional Papers.

Bre cht, R., D avidson, D ., & G insberg, R. (1995). Pred ic-

tors of foreign language gain during study abroad.

In B. Freed (Ed.),Second languageacquisi tion in a

study abroad context(pp. 3766). Amsterdam, Phila-

delphia: J. B enjamins.

Brown, A., & Palinscar, L. (1982). Inducing strategic

learning from texts by means of informed, self-

control training.Topics in Learni ng and Learning

Disabil i ti es, 2,118.

Brown, J., & R. Burto n. (1978). D iagnostic models forprocedural bugs in basic mathematical skills.Cog-

nitiveScience,2, 155192.

Ch afe, W. ( 1980).Thepear stories: Cogniti ve, cul tural , and

li ngui sti c aspects of nar rati ve producti on. Norwood,

NJ: Ablex.

Cha se, W., & Simon, H. (1973). Perception in chess.

Cogni ti vePsychology,4, 5581.

Chi, M., Glaser, R., &Rees, E. (1981). Expertise in prob-

lem solving. InAdvances in the psychology of human

intelligence (Vol. 1.) Hillsdale, NJ: La wrence Erl-

baum Associates.

Clarke, M. ( 1980). The short circuit hypoth eses of ESLreadingOr when language competence inter-

feres with reading p erforma nce.Modern Language

Journal,64, 203209.

Co rin, A. (1994). Teach ing for proficiency: The con ver-

sion principle. A Czech to Serbo-Croa tian con ver-

sion course at the Defense Language Institute.

ACTR Letter: Newsletter of the American Council of

Teachers of Russian, 20(1), 15.

Denckla, M. (1996). Research on executive function in

a neurodevelopmental context: Application of

clinical measures.Developmental Neuropsychology,

12, 515.

Dennis, M., Barnes, M., Donnelly, R., Wilkinson, M., &

Humphreys, R. (1996). Appraising and managing

knowledge: Metacognitive skills after childhood

head injury. Developmental Neuropsychology, 12,

77103.



11/12

Dickinson, L. (1987).Self-instru ction in languagelearning.

Cam bridge: C ambridge Un iversity Press.

Ehrma n, M., & Oxford, R. (1995). Co gnition plus: Cor-

relates of lan guage learning success.Modern L an-

guageJournal,79, 6789.

Ellis, R. (1994).T he study of second language acquisi tion.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Enomoto, K. (1994). L2 perceptual acquisition: The

effect of multilingual linguistic experience on the

perception of a less novel contrast.Edinburgh

Working Papers in Appli ed Lingui stics,5, 1529.

Flavell, J., Miller, P., &Miller, S. (1993).Cogniti vedevelop-

ment (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice

Hall.

Flower, L., & Ha yes, J. (1981). A cogn itive pr ocess the-

ory of writing.Coll egeCompositi on and Communica-

tion, 32, 365387.

Frank, V. (1997, March).Potential negative effects of

homestay.Pa per presented at The Middle Atlantic

Conference of the American Association for theAdvan cement of Slavic Studies, Alban y, NY.

Gardner, R., Ginsberg, R., & Smythe, P. (1976). Atti-

tudes and motivation in second language learn-

ing: Cour se related chan ges.TheCanadian Modern

Languages Revi ew,3, 243266.

G ard ner, R., & MacIn tyre, P. (1991). Motivationa l vari-

ables in second language acquisition.Studi es in

Second L anguageAcquisi ti on,13, 5772.

Gass, S. (1979). Language transfer and language univer-

sals.LanguageLearni ng, 29, 327344.

G ass, S., & Selinker, L. ( 1992).Language transfer in lan-

guage learning. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: J. Ben-jamins.

G insberg, R. ( 1992).Languagegains durin g study abroad:

An analysis of the ACTR data. NFLC Working Pa -

pers. Washing ton , DC: The Nat iona l Foreign L an -

guage Cen ter.

Gribble, C. (1987).Reading Bulgarian through Russian.

Columbus, OH: Slavica.

de Groot, A. (1965).T hought and choice in chess. Paris:

Mouton.

Holec, H. (1980). Learner training: Meeting needs in

self-d irected learning. In H. Altman & C.

Vaughan James (Eds.),Foreign language teaching:Meeting indi vidual needs(pp. 3045). Oxford: Per-

gamon.

H olec, H . (1981).Autonomyand foreign languagelearning.

Oxford: Pergamon.

Holec, H. (1987). The learner as manager: Managing

learning o r man aging to learn. In A. Wenden &J.

Rubin (Eds.),Learner strategies in languagelearn ing.

(pp. 145157). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: P rentice-

Hall.

Jacobsen, M., & Imh oo f, M. (1974). Predicting success

in learning a second language.Modern L anguage

Journal, 58, 329336.

Jensen, J. (1989). On the mutual intelligibility of Span-

ish a nd Portuguese.H ispania,72, 848852.

Jordan, I. (1991). Portuguese for Spanish speakers: A

case for contrastive analysis. Hispania, 74,

788792.

Klein, E. (1995.) Second versus third language acquisi-

tion: Is there a d ifference?LanguageLearni ng,45,

419465.

Knowles, M. (1975).Self-di rected learn ing: A guidefor learn -

ers and teachers. New York: Associa tion Press.

Leaver, B. (1993).Teaching the whole class. Salinas, CA:

AGSI Press.

Leaver, B ., & Flan k, S. (1987).American-Sovi et di fferences

in teacher perspectives and behavior among teachers of

foreign languages. ERIC Digest. Washington, DC:

ERIC.

Lewis, C. ( 1981). Skill in a lgebra . In J. And erson ( Ed.),

Cogni tive skil ls and their acqui sit ion (pp. 85110).

H illsda le, NJ: Lawren ce Erlbau m Associates.

Mgiste, E. (1984). Learning a third language.Journal of

Multi li ngual and Mul ticultural Development, 5, 415

421.

Mgiste, E. (1986). Selected issues in second and third

languag e learning. In J. Vaid (Ed.),Languagepro-

cessing in bil inguals: Psycholi ngui sti c and neurophysi-ological perspectives (pp. 97122). Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

McKeithen , K., Reitman , J., Reuter, H., & Hirt le, S.

(1981). Knowledge organ ization and skill differ-

ences in computer programmers.Cogniti vePsychol-

ogy,13, 307325.

Meichenbau m, D., Burland, S., G ruson, L., &Cam eron,

R. (1985). Metaco gn itive assessmen t. In S. Yussen

(Ed.),Thegrowth of reflection in chi ldren(pp. 3-30).

Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Mhle, D. (1989). Multilingual interaction in foreign

language production. In H. Dechert & M. Rau-pach (Eds.),I nterl ingual processes(pp. 179194).

Tbingen, G erman y: G unter Nar r Verlag.

Naiman, N., Frlich, M., Stern, H., & Todesco, A.

(1978).T he good l anguage learner. Toron to: The

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, and

Rowley MA: Newbur y H ouse.

Om agg io H ad ley, A. (1993).Teaching languagei n context

(2nd ed.). Boston: Heinle.

Owings, R., Petersen, G., Bransford, J., Morris, C., &

Stein, B. (1980). Spontaneous monitoring and

regulation of learning: Acomparison of successful

and less successful fifth graders.Journal of Educa-ti onal Psychology, 72, 250256.

Oxfo rd, R., & Lavine, R. (1992). Teach er-student style

wars in the classroom: Research insights and sug-

gestions.ADFL Bul letin,23(2), 3845.

Pa ris, S., Lipson , M., & Wixson , K. (1983). Beco ming a

strategic reader.Contemporary Educational Psychol-

ogy, 8, 293316.

Pelleg rino, V. (1994).Condi ti onsof risk management behav-

ior among students studying abroad: A quali tative

study. Un published masters thesis. Bryn Mawr

Co llege, Br yn Mawr, PA.

Pellegrino, V. (1996). At the risk of speaking . . . Risk-

man agement in second language use.ACTR L etter,

22, 13, 613.

Ramsay, R. (1980). Lan gua ge-learn ing a ppro ach styles

of adult multilinguals a nd successful language

learners. In V. Teller &S. White (Eds.),Studies in



12/12

child languageand mul til inguali sm(pp. 7396) .New

York: New York Acad emy o f Scien ces.

Rubin, J. (1975). What the good language learner can

teach us.TESOL Quarterly,9, 4151.

Schraw, G. (1994). The effect of metacognitive knowl-

edge on local and global monitoring.Contemporary

Educati onal Psychology, 19, 143154.

Stern, H. (1975). What can we learn from the good

foreign language learner?Canadian M odern L an-

guage Revi ew, 31(4), 304318.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990).Basics of quali tati ve re-

search: Grounded theory procedures and techni ques,

(3rd ed.) .Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Sydykova, D. (1989).Emocionalno-smyslovaja metodika.

[The emotiona l-semantic method ]. Frunze: Kyr-

gyz State University.

Taylor, H ., Schatschneider, C., Petrill, S., Ba rr y, C., &

Owens, C. (1996). Executive dysfunction in chil-

dren with early brain disease: Outcomes post

Haemophilus Infl uenzae meningitis.DevelopmentalNeuropsychology, 12, 3551.

Thomas, J. (1985). The role played by prior linguistic

experience in second and third language learn-

ing. In R. Hall (Ed.),TheEleventh L inguisticAssocia-

tion of Canada and theUni ted StatesForum 1984(pp.

510520). Colum bia, SC: H orn beam Press.

Thomas, J. (1988). The role played by metalinguistic

awareness in second an d third langua ge learning.

Journal of Mult il ingual and Mult icul tural Develop-

ment,9,235246.

Thomas, J. (1992). Metalinguistic awareness in second

and third language learning. In R. Harris (Ed.),

Cogniti veprocessing in bil inguals(p p. 531545). Am-

sterdam: North-Ho lland .

Town send , C. (1995).Teaching theCzech languagethrough

Russian: Prepodavanije ekogo jazyka posredstvom

russkogo. Columbus, OH: Slavica.

VanLeh n, K. ( Ed.). (1991).Architectures for i ntell igence.

H illsda le, NJ: Lawren ce Erlba um Associates.

Walczyk, J., &H all, V. (1991). A developmental stud y of

childrens ability to adopt perspectives and find

errors in text.Contemporary Educati onal Psychology,

16, 217.

Wend en, A. (1999). Meta cogn itive knowledg e an d la n-

guage learning.Applied Li nguistics, 19,515537.

Zobl, H. (1992). Prior linguistic knowledge and theconservatism of the learning procedure: Gram-

maticality judgments of unilingual and multilin-

gual learners. In S. G ass & L. Selinker (Eds.),

Language transfer in language learning (pp.

176196). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: J. Ben-

jamins.

Forthcoming inTheModern LanguageJournal

Richard D. Lambert. U pdating the Foreign Lan guage Agenda

Maggie A. B ron er & Elaine Taro ne. Is It Fun? Langua ge Play in a Fifth-Grad e Span ish Immersion

Classroom

Peggy Buckwalter. Repair Sequences in Spanish L2 Dyadic Discourse: A Descriptive Study

Raymon d Moug eon & Kather ine Rehn er. Acquisition o f Sociolinguistic Var iant s by French Im mersion

Students: The Case of Restrictive Exprssions, and More

Salim Khaldieh. The Relationship Between Knowledge ofIcraab, Lexical Knowledge, and Reading

Com preh ension of Non-Native Read ers of Arab ic

David P. Benseler &Suzann e S. Moore. Do ctoral Degrees Gran ted in Foreign Lan guages in th e Un ited

States: 2000


AUTONOMIA E AUTO-AVALIAÇÃO

Documents

Transcript of AUTONOMIA E AUTO-AVALIAÇÃO