The role of the self-access centre in the tertiary language learning process

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

System 36 (2008) 123–140

www.elsevier.com/locate/system

SYSTEM

The role of the self-access centre in thetertiary language learning process

Bruce Morrison *

English Language Centre, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong

Received 7 February 2007; received in revised form 8 September 2007; accepted 17 October 2007

Abstract

This paper discusses the role of the self-access centre (SAC) in tertiary language learning andteaching, a role which has developed out of the changes that have occurred within the disciplinesof Applied Linguistics and Education as well as from wider changes in technology and society itself.As the focus in language learning has moved, over the past thirty years, from the teacher to the lear-ner, self-access language learning has emerged as a complement to the more traditional face-to-facelearning model, with SACs now operating in many parts of the world.

One aim of the study was to develop a theory of how a SAC operates, in other words to answerthe question ‘‘What is a self-access centre?” Central to this is the place that the SAC plays in thelearning and teaching process. The study suggested that the SAC plays four main roles: bringingtogether language learning and independent learning, enabling the learner to improve both linguisticproficiency and independent learning skills, providing the necessary resources and providing learnersupport. The study also identified a number of constraints that can hinder SACs from playing a fullyeffective and efficient role in the learning and teaching process.� 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Self-access language learning; Self-access centre; Independent learning; Learner independence; Res-ource-based learning; Language learning; English language teaching; Self-directed learning; Learner-centred

0346-251X/$ - see front matter � 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.system.2007.10.004

* Tel.: +852 2766 7542; fax: +852 2334 2141.E-mail address: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

124 B. Morrison / System 36 (2008) 123–140

1. Introduction

1.1. From English language teaching to English language learning

Prior to the 1970s, research in English language learning and teaching tended to focusprimarily not on the learner but on teaching methods. In the 1970s and 1980s, with the riseof the Communicative Approach in English language teaching (Brumfit and Johnson,1979; Breen and Candlin, 1980; Littlewood, 1981), the focus shifted to the learning pro-cess, curriculum design and the individual learner. Notions of the learner-centred curric-ulum and classroom (Curran, 1976), learning strategies (Rubin, 1975; Naiman et al.,1978) and learning skills (Rivers, 1972) became increasingly central to ELT pedagogy.There was, thus, an increasing emphasis on the learner as an individual which resultedin the emergence of more humanistic approaches to teaching such as The NaturalApproach (Terrell, 1977) and Community Language Learning (Curran, 1976), and agreater recognition of the centrality of the learner in the ELT process.

This change in focus developed against the background of studies on learner character-istics (Naiman et al., 1978; Diller, 1981); individual learner differences and individualisa-tion (Geddes and Sturtridge, 1982; Brookes and Grundy, 1988); the role of the teacher(Strevens, 1977; Geddes and Sturtridge, 1982); and the changing socio-political environ-ment of adult education as reflected in the Council of Europe’s Modern Languages Project(Holec, 1981). Educators have argued for a more learner-centred, reflective and less pre-scriptive approach to language teaching with learners taking more responsibility for theirown learning and for a focus on the development of effective learning strategies (e.g.Cohen, 1998; Dornyei, 2005; Oxford, 1990; Wenden, 1991).

1.2. From teacher dependence to learner independence

Both in the USA and in Europe, the concept of the independent learner has been amajor influence on education as seen in the work of Knowles (1975, 1980), Boud(1988), Holec (1981), Tough (1979) and Trim (1984) amongst others. The influence canalso be seen of concepts of informal education which lie outside the institutionalised struc-ture, and which aim to empower students to search for alternative ways to knowledge (e.g.Rogers, 1969; Freire, 1970; Illich, 1971).

In the USA, self-directed learning (Knowles, 1975; Brookfield, 1985; Candy, 1989), withits ‘‘notion of some personal control over either or both the planning (goals) and manage-ment (support) of the learning process” (Garrison, 1992: 140) has, for the past two decades,been a feature of the mainstream US post-secondary education system. In Europe, discus-sion of more learner-centred approaches has tended to focus on issues such as learner inde-

pendence and learner autonomy (Moore, 1973; Holec, 1981; Dickinson, 1987), resource-based

learning (Beswick, 1977; Noble, 1980), and self-access (Dickinson, 1987; Sheerin, 1989).

1.3. Resource-based learning

These approaches generally assume the learner’s interaction with a learning resourceother than only the teacher in her traditional role. Benson (2001: 113) uses the term‘‘resource-based approaches” to describe approaches, such as self-access, which includethe development of learner autonomy as a learning goal. He refers to resource-based learn-

B. Morrison / System 36 (2008) 123–140 125

ing (RBL) as an approach where the focus is upon ‘‘the learner’s interaction with learningresources”.

RBL can be viewed in the wider context of the increasing speed of social change, of theperceived need for ‘‘learning to learn” (Bruner, 1960) and a questioning of traditional school-ing itself (Illich, 1971). Increasingly, resource-based learning became closely associated withthe developments in information technology and their application to learning (Ryan et al.,2000). Thus, the development of RBL can be seen as marking an important paradigmaticshift in education as reflected in Beswick (1977) assertion that the approach is based on:

. . .the assumption that the student will learn from his own direct confrontation, indi-vidually or in a group, with a learning resource or set of resources, and activities con-nected with them, rather than from conventional exposition by the teacher.(Beswick, 1977: ix),

In this, one can see the germ from which self-access language learning (SALL)developed.

1.4. Development of self-access

The history of self-access can be viewed either as evolving from a RBL approach, or asa product of the wider developments taking place in language learning in the 1960s and1970s. The evidence points to it having roots in both.

The technological roots of self-access have been traced back, and compared, to thedevelopment of the language laboratories of the 1950s and 1960s (Gremmo and Riley,1995) which, although based firmly on behaviourist theories of language learning, didallow for an element of individualisation. Individualisation in the form of language labo-ratory-based programmed learning gave way to interest in individualisation in relation tothe development of learner autonomy (Smyth, 1978; Tumposky, 1982; Brookes and Grun-dy, 1988). The move in the 1970s away from the language laboratory catering solely forhighly-controlled, lock-step, whole class-focused learning activities (Dakin, 1973) aidedthe development of ‘‘learning resource centres” (Atherton, 1980; Raddon and Dix,1989). In these resource-focused learning centres, we can clearly see the emergence of ele-ments of the modern-day self-access centre (SAC).

Sheerin (1991), on the other hand, traces the term self-access back to the work of educa-tional philosophers such as Rogers (1969) and Illich (1971), to the developments in languagelearning and teaching such as those noted above, as well as to advances in educational psy-chology. Benson (1994) highlights questions of ideology and control while considering SALLin a socio-political context. In particular, however, Sheerin (1991), and Benson (2002), tracemuch of the practical origins of self-access language learning primarily to the Council of Eur-ope’s work and the setting up, in the late 1960s, of the Centre de Recherches et d’Applicationsen Languages (CRAPEL). It was at CRAPEL (Riley and Zoppis, 1985) and the University ofCambridge (Harding-Esch, 1982) that two of the first SACs were established.

1.5. Self-access language learning

Gardner and Miller (1999) use the term self-access language learning (SALL) to refer toa learner’s individual and unique interaction with the various elements of the self-accesslanguage learning environment. It is thus distinguished from other types of self-directed


learning by specific reference to the learner’s interaction with situated facilities that havebeen designed with that purpose in mind. There is no necessary, logical connectionbetween autonomous learning and self-access, and no evidence that a self-access modeof learning will, in itself, help to develop learner autonomy. SACs clearly, however, pro-vide support to enable self-access language learners to develop the skills and capabilities ofthe autonomous, independent and self-directed learner. Thus, one would expect the SALLprocess to at least be one in which learners take ‘‘more responsibility for their learningthan in teacher-directed settings” (Gardner and Miller, 1997: xvii).

1.6. Self-access centres

The growing acceptance, in recent years, of a self-access approach to language learningcan be seen in the increasing number of SACs, particularly in Europe, South America andSouth-east Asia, as well as in the number of international publications and conferencesfocusing on issues relating to SALL.

This increasing acceptance can be seen partly as a reflection of a more learner-focusedapproach to language education: in Sheerin (1997) terms the ‘‘ideological” goal of self-access. It is also, however, partly the result of three other developments that reflect whatSheerin refers to as the ‘‘pragmatic” goals of a self-access approach. Firstly, there has beena global increase in the demand for, and commercialisation of, the learning of English as ithas become the international language of commerce and technology (Sturtridge, 1997).Secondly, Sturtridge (1997: 66) makes reference to ‘‘the information explosion” and‘‘the electronic revolution” (Toffler, 1970) as factors. Institutions have set up resource cen-tres to bring together the increasing variety of technological aids available (McDevitt,1996; Drew and Ottewill, 1998). Thirdly, the SAC can be seen as having been designedto meet the needs of institutions that have to deal with increasing numbers of studentsat different stages in the life-long learning process. Knowles (1980) reminder that thetime-span for major cultural and technological change is, for the first time in history,shorter than the average life-span, reinforces the need for flexible educational structuresthat allow for continuing, self-directed learning.

2. The study

2.1. Objectives

The study (Morrison, 2006) aimed to develop a theory-based framework for the eval-uation of SACs within the tertiary language learning process. Since any evaluation con-ducted within the proposed evaluation framework would need to explicitly identify theelements of the SAC operation that were to be evaluated, it was therefore necessary firstto identify the underlying principles upon which a SAC operates and to develop a coherentoverview of the elements that combine to ensure its effective and efficient operation. Thispaper reports on those data relating to the development of this overview.

2.2. Method

Grounded Theory was the underpinning methodology of the study. Grounded Theorycan be defined as ‘‘an initial, systematic discovery of the theory from the data” (Glaser


and Strauss, 1967: 3) which ‘‘emerges from the bottom up. . .from many disparate pieces ofcollected evidence that are inter-connected” (Bogdan and Biklen, 1992: 3). In other words,there was no initial, pre-determined hypothesis or theory which was then to be proved ordisproved. Rather, relevant data was collected and analysed, and from this theory wasderived to explain the data.

2.3. Participants

Sixteen participants were selected on the basis of theoretical sampling (Glaser andStrauss, 1967) as fulfilling various stakeholder roles with reference to a SAC within a HongKong tertiary institution language centre. They were thus judged to be potentially valuablein developing a theory of how a SAC operates. The roles included those of tertiary SAClearner, teacher, co-ordinator and support staff, as well as SAC researchers. A brief expla-nation of these roles and a summary of the participants’ backgrounds are presented inAppendix 1.

2.4. Data collection and analysis

Data were first collected by means of semi-structured interviews which lasted between30 and 60 minutes. The protocols for these were developed not with a view to testing pre-determined hypotheses but rather to ‘‘obtain rich data to build theories that describe a set-ting. . .step by step from the examples and experiences collected during the interviews”

(Rubin and Rubin, 1995: 56). While the interview protocol (Appendix 2) highlighted top-ics for discussion, participants were also encouraged to explore topics as they felt appro-priate. As an interviewer, I strove to be open to new ideas and to display a ‘‘deliberatenaivete” (Kvale, 1996: 31) through the use of open-ended questions.

After transcription, the data were revisited many times and the iterative coding pro-cesses were recorded in the form of:

� memos that served as post-interview debriefing documents to capture initialimpressions;� a mindmap where the data was represented in a non-hierarchical manner to avoid pre-

mature grouping of data that might have biased further analysis;� entries in NVivo, an electronic coding tool, that enabled easy storage and sorting of

data;� summaries of both the mindmap and NVivo coding; and� a final consolidated summary that compared and synthesised the mindmap and NVivo

analyses.

After the development of an initial SAC operational theory, a follow-up, email ques-tionnaire was sent to all sixteen participants (Appendix 3). The questionnaire served toallow participants, without pressure of time, to clarify, confirm and enrich elements ofthe interview data. In addition, participants were asked to comment on the initialSAC theory in terms of the overall structure and the extent to which it matched theirunderstanding of the components of a SAC and the interaction between thesecomponents.


3. The role of the SAC in the learning process

Analysis identified four major roles that the SAC plays in the tertiary language learningprocess. The first was a dual, super-ordinate role in fostering language learning as well asthe development of independent learning skills. The other three were roles that the SACcan fulfil with reference to the individual’s learning process: as a facility that enables effec-tive, independent language learning; as a resource centre; and as a provider of learner sup-port. Discussion also focused on some of the constraints faced in the fulfilment of theseroles.

3.1. Bringing together language learning and independent learning

When asked why they use the SAC, only one SAC learner in this study actually stated:‘‘I go there to improve my English”, and language improvement was explicitly mentionedby only six other participants including, however, all five SAC learners. Despite this, itwould seem fair to assume that language improvement is one of the main reasons learnersvisit a language-learning focused, self-access facility. SAC researcher, Greg, seemed in nodoubt:

. . .the language gain thing is really, in my view, the main reason students go to self-access – they don’t go there thinking ‘‘I want to become an autonomous learner”,they go there thinking ‘‘my English isn’t very good, I need to do something about it”.

The focus on language learning is also reflected in the fact that, in the mission state-ments of all but one of the five Hong Kong tertiary SACs, the primary stated aim wasto enable learners to enhance their abilities in their target language. Indeed, despite thedevelopment of independent learning (IL) skills also being a declared aim of some SACs,there were no participant comments to suggest that learners primarily use the SAC withthis objective in mind.

There has been, however, considerable emphasis on the development of IL skills, asreflected in the names of some SACs: the Centre for Independent Language Learning,the Independent Language Learning Centre and the Independent Learning Centre. In thestudy, one participant referred to a SAC as an ‘‘independent learning centre”, whileSAC coordinator, Derek, reflecting Sheerin (1997) ‘‘ideological goal” of SALL, suggestedthat the development of IL skills should be the key aim of a SAC. He saw the effective useof a SAC by a learner as a stepping-stone on the way to the development of complete lear-ner autonomy. This view was supported by William, a SAC learner, who perceived the roleof the SAC to ‘‘help students to pick up self-learning and to encourage students to self-learn”.

When asked in the follow-up, email questionnaire if they agreed that ‘‘A SAC shouldexplicitly help learners to develop their independent learning skills”, only two participantsdisagreed and four strongly agreed with comments like it being ‘‘essential to aid progres-sion” and the SAC having:

. . .a duty to provide some learning opportunities which provide explicit developmentof the metacognitive knowledge and language learning skills that can help a languagelearner become more effective and independent in their learning.(Natalie, SAC researcher)


Generally, the data suggests that any SAC theory needs to reflect the fact that SACsfulfil a super-ordinate role in helping learners improve their language skills, while, atthe same time, develop appropriate independent learning skills.

3.2. Resource centre role

Although the SAC does not only serve as a resource centre, this role in the learning pro-cess should not be underestimated. Seven participants explicitly identified such a role forthe SAC and it is further reflected in the name of one SAC: The Languages Resource Cen-

tre. SAC learner, William, highlighted the resource centre role when he gave his reason forvisiting the SAC:

. . .when I find there is something I need to use in English and then I will go to thecentre to find things out.

A well-organised and well-managed SAC should be particularly well-suited to meet theneeds of a resource-based approach to learning. Participants identified four factors relat-ing to how the resource centre role can be effectively fulfilled. First, reflecting the SAClearner Bill’s comment that a centre should provide ‘‘every material that a language lear-ner requires”, a SAC should have an appropriately comprehensive set of learningmaterials.

Second, that such materials should be focused and appropriate was identified as a defin-ing SAC feature by three SAC researchers. Regarding the appropriacy of materials, how-ever, words of caution from Larry, a SAC teacher with six years’ experience of working ina SAC, concerning learners’ use of materials should be borne in mind:

. . .the indexing system is in a way selective in that it points students to stuff that isuseful so are the materials lists and pathways. . .but I still worry that students are leftto pick up a book and the teacher’s book that goes with it and they come acrossthings that they can’t do or that they can’t find the answers for. . .

Third, the materials must be ‘‘organised in such a way that it is obvious to studentswhere things are and how they can be accessed” (Natalie, SAC researcher). As LanguageCentre Head, Patty, expresses it, the learner should be able to ‘‘take things down andtouch them and look at them – you do not have to ask for them or go through catalogues”.

As seen above, SAC teacher Larry suggested three tools to enable easier learner accessto materials, but added a note of caution relating to the suitability of some of the learningmaterials to a SALL environment.

Finally, perhaps the notion of the SAC as a one-stop-shop encapsulates how the SACcan best fulfill its central role as a resource centre: by combining a sufficient number ofappropriate resources in one convenient place with a ‘‘service” ethos.

3.3. An enabling role

Apart from acting as a resource centre, the SAC was seen as enabling learners in twoimportant ways: by acting as a catalyst for the development of independent learning skills;and, by encouraging experimentation and thus aiding the development of both IL and lan-guage learning skills.


3.3.1. Catalyst for independent learning

In terms of enabling the development of IL skills, two SAC researchers (Derek andKen) perceived the SAC as a stepping-stone for the learner on the road to the ideal of fulllearner autonomy, with a medium-term goal of enabling the learner to take responsibilityfor her own learning, and a longer-term aim of enabling the learner to ‘‘do all those thingswithout a SAC”. The SAC acts as a catalyst to enable learners to develop their IL skills indifferent ways but seven of the participants explicitly pointed to learner choice as animportant element with SAC teacher, Chris, stating that ‘‘the learners (make) the deci-sions. . .they decide what to learn and when to learn and how to learn”. This can be con-trasted to the more controlled environment of the traditional classroom where teacherdirection is the norm.

3.3.2. ExperimentationWhile discussing learner choice, SAC researcher, Greg, suggested that the SAC ‘‘gives

learners a chance to experiment”. The term ‘‘experiment” was only used by two partici-pants but the notion of experimentation seems to be of direct relevance to the educationalphilosophy upon which SALL and, by extension, the SACs are based. Experimentationwas identified as one of the SAC learner’s responsibilities, and the chance for both learnersand teachers to experiment that was one of the things that make a SAC an importantresource for SALL. Greg also pointed towards experimentation being a powerful aid inthe development of effective learning strategies:

. . .I think the more that students experiment with things, the more they learn aboutthemselves, strategies that are suitable for themselves, the ways they like to learn,that kind of thing. . .

Although not synonymous, the term can be seen as a loose super-ordinate for notionsexpressed by other participants such as learners having ‘‘the freedom to do as they want”,‘‘flexibility”, the learners taking ‘‘responsibility” for their own learning, and the learnersacting as decision-makers.

When participants were asked in the post-interview e-mail questionnaire if they felt thatexperimentation could play an important role in the learning process, all responded pos-itively, with 50% strongly agreeing.

My own experience as a SAC co-ordinator likewise leads me to feel that experimenta-tion, in the wide sense of the word, has been a key element in the successful development ofSACs as well as, at the level of the learner, in terms of an individual’s pedagogical devel-opment. As a facet of learner choice and a recognised strategy for learning (Ref. Stern(1975) experimental language learning strategy and Kolb (1984) ‘‘active experimenta-tion”), the encouragement of experimentation is an important way in which the SACcan play an enabling role in the learning process.

Thus, any SAC theory needs to include the more resource-focused notion of being aprovider of language learning opportunities while at the same time, identifying more flex-ible, catalytic elements that encourage the development of independent learning skills.

3.4. Learner support role

The learner support role can be seen as being provided by human and non-humansources. Gardner and Miller (1999), amongst others, have stressed the need for human


learner support, a view that was supported by all participants. This support was seenas potentially coming from teachers, administrative and/or support staff, as well asother learners. The first two were seen primarily as providing guidance for learnersin using the centre effectively, and accessing useful and relevant materials, with the tea-cher also being able to help with language learning problems. The learners were iden-tified as providing support in terms of facilitating a ‘‘group-access” approach tolearning.

Thirteen participants in this study explicitly identified the need for a teacher within aSAC. The teacher roles identified included that of a facilitator, information source, guideand feedback provider. SAC learner, Terry, while clearly displaying an understanding ofthe independent learner, referred to the value of the teacher more generally as a problem-solver:

I think self-learning. . .your learning path is not mainly guided by the tutor, the learn-ing path is customised by yourself and if you have any problem arise during yourlearning path you can make use of the tutor to help you overcome the problem.

Interestingly, data from five participants (including one SAC learner) suggested thathuman support should also come from other learners. This was also implied in statementsthat were made to clarify or emphasise that SALL, with its focus on individualisation ofthe learning process, did not have to be undertaken alone:

. . .the key to it is the individualisation – by which I do not mean people workingalone in segregation, I just mean that things are tailored to the individual’s needsand that does not mean they can not work in groups.(Greg, SAC researcher).

SAC co-ordinator, Derek, suggested that learning in groups meant that learningbecame more of a social activity with group members providing peer support. This sup-port he identified as being of two main types: firstly, group interaction facilitating effectiveneeds analysis; and secondly, a group approach to language activities and assessment,again involving interaction, leading to better use being made of the materials and learningopportunities. This view was reflected in comments from William who, as a SAC learner,viewed a group-access approach as ‘‘very interactive and it provide opportunity for stu-dent to practise”.

In addition to the need for human support for the learner, participants recognised theneed for systemic, non-human support. Discussion focused primarily upon accessing, clas-sification and indexing of learning materials, and providing of a supportive structure tohelp learners develop effective learning strategies.

SAC researcher, Natalie, emphasised the need for clear organisation and ease of accessto materials. She went on to suggest explicitly (as others, when pointing out a similarity toa library or resource centre, did implicitly) that a SAC should be perceived as a serviceprovider and as such should pay attention to the efficiency of the service it offers. AnotherSAC researcher, Ken, suggested that ‘‘if you were establishing a SAC it would not be abad idea to have a good look at a library” in order to set up ‘‘the system from the learner’spoint of view”.

There were, however, two notes of caution with regard to the support provided to stu-dents when accessing materials. As noted above, Larry felt that, while indexes and learningpathways were useful in suggesting potentially relevant and useful materials for learners,


they did not help with learning strategy development. SAC coordinator, Derek, took thispoint further. While seeing the index as a useful ‘‘stepping stone” in the development of asuccessful independent learner, he saw a danger of the SAC actually substituting depen-dence on the teacher with a new dependence on the learner’s use of infra-structural fea-tures of the centre.

These were, however, the only notes of caution amongst the participants who otherwisespoke of the need for the SAC to provide structural support for the development of effec-tive learning strategies in the SAC learner. Amongst the examples of such support were:help for students to identify effective ways of achieving their goals; the use of learning logsto allow for progress measurement, review and feedback; a self-access ‘‘programme” ofstudy with opportunities for progress review and feedback; and ‘‘some systematic directionto go through” (Bill, SAC learner). Bill, while referring to ‘‘self-study”, when asked whatchanges he would like made to the SAC, stressed the need for support and referred toimposing a ‘‘self-study programme”:

The main change is that I want to impose some, design some study. . .for example,when new student come here. . .student to take a test first to test their standardand then focus on the standard they have. . .and then provide some differentprogramme.

One additional way in which some SACs support the learning process is by providingstructured SALL programmes that might be part of a non-SALL focused languageimprovement programme. This type of initiative was supported by two of the SACresearchers and was reflected in comments concerning the need for greater structure in stu-dents’ learning.

3.5. Constraints on the role of the SAC in the learning process

Participants identified a number of constraints that act upon the SAC in its role in thelearning process relating to: the profile of the SAC’s learners, SAC materials and the learn-ing environment of the institution within which the SAC operates.

3.5.1. Learner profiles

Two constraints were highlighted regarding learner profile. The first concerned learnerneeds. The mission statement of one SAC reflects an accepted tenet of independent learn-ing when it states that the centre’s mission includes helping learners to identify their learn-ing needs. However, SAC researcher, Greg, while agreeing that ‘‘an effective SAC is onethat meets the needs of its stakeholders”, suggested that neither SAC co-ordinators norteachers know what individual SAC learner needs are:

. . .if you do not have a lot of contact with your students, how do you know whattheir needs are – well, I think that is a major problem at the moment that we expe-rience with SACs, that we do not know really why the students are there. . .

Two other participants had similar worries. SAC coordinator, Michael, reported onthe ineffectiveness of successive needs analyses developed for one SAC. Natalie, as aSAC researcher, felt that the learners themselves often had no ‘‘specific aim in mind,they poke about, they look at what there is, they try one activity, they pick up a mag-


azine, think ‘oh no I’ll look at a video”’. She believes it is only the experienced SAClearner who is able to identify achievable aims for each SAC study session and eventhen ‘‘they probably get waylaid by a nice-looking magazine or video they think wouldbe fun to use”. Kwan (2002) identified this learning behaviour as a ‘‘flip-flop learningpattern”.

All the participants, when discussing learning needs, did so almost entirely in the con-text of the process of the individual learner identifying her needs (albeit with guidancefrom the SAC teacher) being a central and powerful feature of SALL. This focus onthe individual can be seen as a constraint upon the SAC particularly in terms of how toidentify individual learners’ needs, and in terms of identifying appropriate materials forthe centre.

The second constraining factor regarding the learner profile was that of the learners’lack of appropriate learning strategies and skills to enable them to make effective use ofthe SAC. An example of this was suggested by Bill who was concerned about the ‘‘kindof the book should I start from so I maybe waste some time to know, to go aroundand to search them, the material and for beginner maybe lose direction.”

Identifying with this frustration, SAC teacher, Larry, saw the problem, also identifiedby Little (1991: 49) in regard to materials selection, as being one of the learner beingexpected to develop strategies and skills that are usually expected of a teacher:

. . .you are asking non-expert students to partially take over the teacher’s role ofmaterials selection, marking, assessment in general – in fact the whole creation ofa study programme, needs analysis – which they are not expert in. . .

3.5.2. SAC materials

Participants also identified a centre’s learning materials as possibly constraining thelearning process in two ways: firstly, by the nature of the materials themselves; and sec-ondly, by the way learners access them.

When purchasing published materials, SACs have to consider their suitability forSALL. This issue was raised by the SAC managers in Gardner and Miller (1997) surveyof Hong Kong SACs. The criteria for suitability include two factors: their content suitabil-ity in that they are not ‘‘tailored to the individual’s needs” (Greg); and their usage suitabil-ity including factors such as whether there is a teacher’s book or comprehensive answerkey for learner reference. With in-house developed materials, the major constraint is thetime and resources necessary for their development.

How the SAC helps learners access the centre’s materials, and the subsequent way inwhich the learners might use them, were also identified by most participants as issues.Natalie, as a SAC researcher, suggested that, when it came to selecting learning materi-als, learners spent a lot of time ‘‘faffing about”, while SAC learner, Bill, expressed hisfrustration with regard to selecting appropriate materials, stating that he ‘‘cannot spendmany time to go through each kind of book”. Natalie continued by suggesting that partof the SAC teacher’s role is to ‘‘tell them about materials. . .(and to answer questionssuch as). . . ‘Where can I find listening materials?”’. This perceived need for SAC teacherguidance in the use of learning materials is a constraint in terms of SACs not alwaysbeing able to provide such support. If learners are not able to self-access material in aSAC, this represents a considerable constraint upon the centre in terms of the learningprocess.


3.5.3. Learning environment

The final constraining factor identified was the institutional learning environmentwithin which a SAC operates. Participants mainly referred to the degree of controlimposed over the learners and the learning process. Natalie referred to a ‘‘political viewof self-access”:

Natalie:

I’ve been in places where students have no freedom to do that and they are given spe-cific projects to do and specific lots of materials to get through. . .the only freedom theyhave is when they do it and how long they take.Interviewer:

Would you refer to that as ‘‘self-access”?Natalie:I think it’s an interpretation of self-access, it’s a specific political view of self-access.

However, while some of the participants might have viewed such control negatively,others did not. SAC researcher, Ken, for example, expressed support for the notion of ses-sions being timetabled in a SAC ‘‘so students are taken there and told to do things”.

A different type of constraint, which can emerge from the learning environment of thehost institution, is that SAC learners sometimes have different views from SAC teachers ofwhat SALL is, and what and how a learner can effectively use a SAC. This mismatch wasseen by SAC teacher, Chris, as one of the reasons why ‘‘the learner does not value this(SALL) experience” and why ‘‘they can not see the value of the learning process”.

4. Conclusion

As the focus in ELT has shifted towards the learner and the learning process, an interestin notions such as independent and resource-based learning has developed. Resulting fromthis, the growing acceptance of a self-access approach to learning has led to developmentof SACs which are increasingly seen as having an important role within the tertiary lan-guage learning process. There is a need, however, for a clearer understanding of how suchcentres operate and this paper has highlighted some aspects of the role that a SAC plays.

Analysis of the data from the study has identified the SAC having four main roleswithin the tertiary language learning process. In terms of effect, the SAC’s broad, dual rolein focusing on both increasing linguistic knowledge and proficiency, and developing effec-tive learning strategies is potentially the most persuasive in that this is something that maybe difficult for a teacher to achieve within the constraints of the average classroom. Theother three roles can then be seen as supporting this primary role.

In its central role as a resource centre, a SAC must incorporate facilities, and high-qual-ity learning materials which are sufficient, varied, relevant, structured and accessiblewithin a clearly defined learning space. This, in some senses, static role, is then in turn sup-ported by the roles that, in many ways, distinguish it from a library or resource centre: theSAC acts as a catalyst for independent learning and as a provider of both human and non-human learner support. In this regard, in addition to the need for clear and efficient orga-nisation of, and ease of access to, learning materials, the importance of the SAC teacher,particularly with regard to expert knowledge (both generally and specifically in terms ofidentifying learner needs) and guidance, should not be under-estimated.


In order for SACs to be accepted as providing an effective and efficient alternativeor complement to the more traditionally accepted modes of language teaching, there isa need for a clear understanding of how a SAC operates and interacts with the processof learning. In this regard, data relating to the role that a SAC plays in the tertiarylanguage learning process are valuable in informing such an understanding which, inturn, helps us move closer towards a theory of self-access language learning. Greaterunderstanding of the existing role of the SAC within the tertiary language learningenvironment can also assist language learning educators in considering ways in whichthe SAC can best be further developed to support language learners in their linguisticendeavours.

Appendix 1. Summary of participants’ roles and backgrounds

SAC co-ordinator: involved in the running of a Hong Kong SAC or similar educationaloperation at the time of the study

SAC learner: students who have used a tertiary SAC extensively for study purposesSAC teacher: teacher who has undergone SAC-focused teacher development and whose

duties include a considerable number of teaching hours within the SACSAC researcher: academic who has considerable experience in researching and publish-

ing in the area of self-access and independent learning

Role Pseudonym Background

English languageteacher

Rebecca (UK born, native-speaker[NS] female)

A very experienced Englishlanguage teacher and teachertrainer. Has publishedtextbooks and researched inthe area of learner autonomy.Familiar with one SAC butwith no SAC teaching oradministration experience

Language centremanager

Patty (UK born, NS female) Familiar with SAC but onlyas line-manager, no directinvolvement in SACoperation

(Ex) SACcoordinator

Derek (UK born, NS male) Worked as a Hong KongSAC coordinator andinvolved in setting up twoHong Kong SACs

SAC coordinator Michael (UK born, NS male) SAC coordinator since he setup SAC in 1993. Has wideresearch experience andpublications in the field

(continued on next page)

Appendix 1 (continued)

Role Pseudonym Background

SAC funder Ursula (UK born, NS female) Member of committee fundingSACs. Has limited knowledgeand experience of SACs

SAC learner Bill (Hong Kong born, non-nativespeaker [NNS] male)

Mature, part-time, post-graduatestudent employed as anaccountant

SAC learner Stephanie (Hong Kong born, NNSfemale)

Mature, post-graduate student,regular SAC user

SAC learner Terry (Hong Kong born, NNSmale)

Mature, part-time student whoworks as an auditor

SAC learner Vince (Hong Kong born, NNSmale)

Second year undergraduatestudent, regular SAC learner

SAC learner William (Hong Kong born, NNSmale)

Alumni with five years’experience of SAC use. Chiefadministrator and owner of smallbusiness

SAC researcher Greg (UK born, NS male) Involved in SALL since 1985,involved in setting up two HongKong SACs, has wide SACresearch experience andconsidered a leading expert in thefield

SAC researcher Ken (UK born, NS male) Involved in SALL since 1989,involved in setting up SACs inHong Kong and Thailand, haswide SAC research experienceand considered a leading expertin the field

SAC researcher Natalie (UK born, NS female) Widely published, respectedfigure in the field of learnerautonomy and SALL

SAC supportstaff member

Bob (Hong Kong born, NNS male) In present post for six years;duties include technical andclerical duties

SAC teacher Chris (Hong Kong born, NNSmale)

Teacher working only in SAC. Inpresent post for six years. Dutiesinclude learner counselling andmaterials development

SAC teacher Larry (UK born, NS male) Teacher working only in SAC. Inpresent post for six years. Dutiesinclude learner counselling andmaterials development



Appendix 2

The interview protocols, which served a s starting points for the interviews, differedaccording to the participant role but topics addressed included the following:

1. Background

� name� affiliation� degree, and type, of familiarity with a SAC� degree of familiarity/involvement with SALL

2. Self-access

� definition of self-access learning to a non-expert� description of a SAC: physically & pedagogically� types of activity learners most commonly engage in, in a SAC – why� aspects of the language-learning experience a SAC can be most/least effective in

supporting

3. Evaluating self-access

� definition of an effective SAC� the elements of a SAC that are essential to its effectiveness� elements of a SAC to be evaluated� possibility of evaluation of learner progress� evaluation participants

Appendix 3. Post-interview follow-up e-mail questionnaire: section relating to SAC definition

(First part only)

The questionnaire is in two parts. The first focuses on the elements that the interviewparticipants have identified as defining a SAC. The second considers some issues that aroseconcerning possible ways of evaluating a SAC. There are 14 items in total.

Some of the questions/statements below include a Likert scale choice, some just ask forcomment, and others include both. Comments would be much appreciated as they obvi-ously give a much clearer indication of your views than a simple one-in-four choicebetween pre-determined options.

The Likert scale is as follows. Please select one option by typing ‘‘X” next to it.

SA
A D SD Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
Part 1: Defining a SAC

1. Experimentation, on the part of the learner and in terms of their language learning, canplay an important part in the learning process in a SAC.h To what extent would you agree? SA A D SDh Please comment:


2. A SAC should be: ‘‘a fun, noisy, interactive, environment” where ‘‘students should beallowed. . .to come and talk and make noise and have fun.”h To what extent would you agree? SA A D SDh Please comment:

3. Self-Access Language Learning (SALL), when defined as a mode of learning, is a majorreason why learners study English in a SAC rather than in other educational venuessuch as a library (for example).h To what extent would you agree? SA A D SDh Please comment:

4. A SAC should explicitly help learners to develop their independent learning skills.h To what extent would you agree? SA A D SDh Please comment:

5. Learner control over the learning process is necessary in order for SALL to besuccessful.h To what extent would you agree? SA A D SDh Please comment:

6. Study participants identified eight aspects of the SAC teacher’s role. These were, theteacher as:� a consultant;� a counsellor;� a guide;� a language expert;� a trained professional;� having one-to-one contact with a learner;� a tutor;� a person for the learner to talk to about the learning process.Can you identify any others? If so, please comment:

7. Learner peer support (perhaps in the form of group-focused SALL) is important inorder for SALL to be successful.h To what extent would you agree? SA A D SDh Please comment:

8. It is important for the SAC to be a ‘‘one-stop-shop” in terms of providing learners withthe following in one location:� a wide range of materials available at various levels, catering to a variety of learning

styles;� easy access to learning materials;� an appropriate level of equipment;� an efficient infrastructure in terms of human and non-human resources.� To what extent would you agree? SA A D SD� Please comment:


9. What qualities do you think it would be important for non-teaching SAC support staff(either clerical or technical) to display in their work?h Please comment:

References

Atherton, B., 1980. Adapting Spaces for Resource-Based Learning. Centre for Educational Technology, London.

Benson, P., 1994. Self-access systems as information systems: questions of ideology and control. In: Gardner, D.,

Miller, L. (Eds.), Directions in Self-Access. Hong Kong University Press, Hong Kong, pp. 3–12.

Benson, P., 2001. Teaching & Researching Autonomy in Language Learning. Pearson Education, Harlow, Essex.

Benson, P., 2002. Rethinking the relationship of self-access and autonomy. Hong Kong Association for Self

Access Learning & Development Newsletter 3–7.

Beswick, N., 1977. Resource-Based Learning. Heinemann Educational Books, London.

Bogdan, R.C., Biklen, S.K., 1992. Qualitative Research for Education. Allyn & Bacon, MA, USA.

Boud, D. (Ed.), 1988. Developing Student Autonomy in Learning. Kogan Page, London.

Breen, M.P., Candlin, C.N., 1980. The essentials of a communicative curriculum in language teaching. Applied

Linguistics 1 (2), 89–112.

Brookes, A., Grundy, P., 1988. Individualisation & Autonomy in Language Learning. In: ELT Documents 131.

Modern English Publication & the British Council, London.

Brookfield, S. (Ed.), 1985. Self-Directed Learning: From Theory to Practice. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Brumfit, C.J., Johnson, K., 1979. The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching. Oxford University Press,

London.

Bruner, J., 1960. The Process of Education. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Candy, P.C., 1989. Constructivism & the study of self-direction in adult learning. Studies in the Education of

Adults 21, 95–116.

Cohen, A., 1998. Strategies in Learning & Using a Second Language. Addison Wesley Longman, Harlow.

Curran, C., 1976. Counseling–Learning in Second Languages. Apple River Press, Apple River, III.

Dakin, J., 1973. The Language Laboratory & Language Learning. Longman, London.

Dickinson, L., 1987. Autonomy, self-directed learning and individualisation. ELT Documents 103: Individual-

isation in Language Teaching. The British Council, London, pp. 7–28.

Diller, K.C., 1981. Individual Differences in Language Learning Aptitude. Rowley, Newbury House, Mass.

Dornyei, Z., 2005. The Psychology of the Language Learner. Lawrence Erlbaum, London.

Drew, F., Ottewill, R., 1998. Implications for the increasing of OALF for course design & delivery. Language

Learning Journal 17, 75–80.

Freire, P., 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Herder & Herder, NY.

Gardner, D., Miller, L., 1997. A Study of Tertiary Level Self-Access Facilities in Hong Kong. City University of

Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

Gardner, D., Miller, L., 1999. Establishing Self-Access. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Garrison, D.R., 1992. Critical thinking & self-directed learning in adult education: an analysis of responsibility

and control issues. Adult Education Quarterly 42 (3), 136–148.

Geddes, M., Sturtridge, G., 1982. Individualisation. Modern English Publications, London.

Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L., 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research.

Aldine Publishing, NY.

Gremmo, M.J., Riley, P., 1995. Autonomy, self-direction and self access in language teaching and learning: the

history of an idea. System 23 (2), 151–164.

Harding-Esch, E.M., 1982. The open access sound & video library of the University of Cambridge: progress

report & development. System 10 (1), 13–28.

Holec, H., 1981. Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Pergamon Press, Oxford.

Illich, I., 1971. Deschooling Society. Harper & Row, NY.

Knowles, M., 1975. Self-Directed Learning: A Guide for Teachers & Learners. Association Press, NY.

Knowles, M., 1980. The Modern Practice of Adult Education: From Pedagogy to Androgogy. Follet, Chicago.

Kolb, D., 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice Hall,

Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Kvale, S., 1996. InterViews. Sage Publications Inc., London.


Kwan, L.L., 2002. Study Strategies of Hong Kong University Students in a Self-Access Centre. Unpublished

Doctoral Dissertation, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong.

Little, D., 1991. Learner Autonomy 1: Definitions, Issues and Problems. Authentik, Dublin.

Littlewood, W., 1981. Communicative Language Teaching: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

McDevitt, B., 1996. The self-access language learning centre, University of Abertay Dundee: history of a project.

Language Learning Journal 13, 67–69.

Moore, C., 1973. Toward a theory of independent learning and teaching. Journal of Higher Education 64 (12),

661–679.

Morrison, B.J., 2006. Mapping a self-access language learning centre. In: Reinders, H., Lamb, T. (Eds.),

Supporting Independent Learning: Issues and Interventions. Peter Lang, Frankfurt.

Naiman, N., Frohlich, M., Stern, H.H., Todesco, A., 1978. The Good Language Learner. Ontario Institute for

Studies in Education, Ontario.

Noble, P., 1980. Resource-Based Learning in Post-Compulsory Education. Kogan Page, London.

Oxford, R., 1990. Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Rowley, Newbury House,

Mass.

Raddon, R., Dix, P., 1989. Planning Learning Resource Centres in Schools & Colleges. Gower, Aldershot, UK.

Riley, P., Zoppis, C., 1985. The sound and video library. In: Riley, P. (Ed.), Discourse and Learning. Longman,

London, pp. 286–298.

Rivers, W.M., 1972. Speaking in Many Tongues: Essays in Foreign Language Teaching. Rowley, Newbury

House, Mass.

Rogers, C.R., 1969. Freedom to Learn. Charles E. Merrill, Columbus, Ohio.

Rubin, J., 1975. What the ‘good language learner’ can teach us. TESOL Quarterly 9, 41–51.

Rubin, H.J., Rubin, I.S., 1995. Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. Sage Publications, London.

Ryan, S., Scott, B., Freeman, H., Patel, D., 2000. The Virtual University. Kogan Page, London.

Sheerin, S., 1989. Self-Access. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Sheerin, S., 1991. State of the art: self-access. Language Teaching 24 (3), 153–157.

Sheerin, S., 1997. An exploration of the relationship between self-access and independent learning. In: Benson, P.,

Voller, P. (Eds.), Autonomy & Independence in Language Learning. Addison Wesley Longman, London, pp.

54–65.

Smyth, E. (Ed.), 1978. Individualisation in Language Learning: ELT Documents 103. The British Council,

London.

Stern, H.H., 1975. What can we learn from the good language learner? The Canadian Modern Language Review

31, 304–318.

Strevens, P., 1977. New Orientations in the Teaching of English. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Sturtridge, G., 1997. Teaching and learning in self-access centres: changing roles? In: Benson, P., Voller, P. (Eds.),

Autonomy & Independence in Language Learning. Addison Wesley Longman, London, pp. 66–78.

Terrell, T.D., 1977. A natural approach to second language acquisition and learning. Modern Language Journal

61, 325–336.

Toffler, A., 1970. Future Shock. Pan, Bodley Head.

Tough, A.M., 1979. The Adult’s Learning Projects: A Fresh Approach to Theory & Practice. Sage Publications,

Austin, Tex.

Trim, J.L.M., 1984. Across the Threshold: Readings from the Modern Languages Projects of the Council of

Europe. Pergamon Press, Oxford.

Tumposky, N., 1982. The learner on his own. In: Geddes, M., Sturtridge, G. (Eds.), Individualisation. Modern

English Publishers, London, pp. 4–7.

Wenden, A., 1991. Learner Strategies for Learner Autonomy. Prentice Hall International, London.