A Collaborative Perspective For Autonomy In Teaching And Learning
Abstract
This chapter examines how autonomy as a teaching-learning concept can prevail in a predominantly teacher-centered learning environment at the tertiary level. To do so, a comprehensive collaborative paradigm is used to highlight the inter-relationships between the players, the language and the subject in an EAP context. This will demonstrate how instructors and learners can explore autonomy first separately then together.
The observations and experiences gathered over a two-year period in a tertiary institution in Malaysia provide the body of data on which this chapter is based. The findings suggest that autonomy, in particular learner autonomy, cannot be “taught.” It needs to be developed by the teacher suppressing the desire to lead, and overcoming her phobia of uncertainty. Additionally, the language teacher must be prepared to collaborate with the subject lecturer to authenticate the learning goals.
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Aslanian, Y. 1985. Invetigating the reading problem of ESL students: An alternative. ELT Journal 39 (1): 20-27.
Benesch, S. 1996. Needs analysis and curriculum development in EAP: An example of a critical approach. TESOL Quarterly 30(4): 723-738.
Bhatia, V.K. 1986. Specialist-discipline and the ESP Curriculum. In M.L. Tickoo (ed.) ESP: State of the Art, Anthology Series 21. Singapore: SEAMEO, RELC.
Breen, M.P. & S. J. Mann. 1997. Shooting arrows at the sun: Perspectives on a pedagogy for autonomy. In P. Benson & P. Voller (eds.), Autonomy & independence in language learning. London: Longman.
Carrell, P. 1983b. Background knowledge in second language comprehension. Language learning and Communication.2(1): 25-34.
Carrell, P. & J.C. Eisterhold. 1988. Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. In P. Carrell, J. Devine and D. Eskey (eds.) Interactive approaches to second language reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carreon, E.S. 1988. New direction for ESP in the Philippines. In M.C. Tickoo (ed.), ESP: State of the Art, Anthology Series 21. Singapore: SEAMEO, RELC.
__________. 1990. Team teachin in the prepartion and design of ESP maerials. Teaching English for specific purposes. 9: 27-48.
Cooper, M. 1984. Linguistic competence of practised and unpractised readers of English. In J.C. Alderson & A.H. Urquhart (eds.), Reading in a foreign language. London: Longman.
Esch, E.M. (ed.) 1994. Self access and the adult learner. London: CILT.
Fanning, P. 1993. Broadening the ESP umbrella. English for specific purposes. 12: 159-170.
Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder & Herder.
Johns, T. & T. Dudley-Evans. 1980. An experiment in team-teaching of overseas postgraduate students of transportation and plant biology. ELT Documents 106. The British Council.
Hutchison, T. & A. Waters. 1987. English for Specific Purposes: A learning-centered approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kaufman, D. & J. Greenson Brooks. 1996. Interdisciplinary collaboration in teacher education: A constructivist approach. TESOL Quarterly. 30(2): 231-251.
Ng, K.K. 1999. English for Specific Purposes: The practioner dimension. Unpublished Ph.D thesis, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.
Nunan, D. 1991. Languge teaching methodology: A textbook for teachers. London: Prentice
Hall.
Pennycook, A. 1997. Cultural alternatives and autonomy. In P. Benson & P. Voller (eds.), Autonomy & independence in language learning. London: Longman.
Robinson, P. 1980. ESP: The present position. London: Pergamon Press.
__________. 1991. ESP today: A practitioner guide. New York: Prentice Hall.
Widdowson, H. 1983. Learning purpose and languge use. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
eISSN : 2550-2131
ISSN : 1675-8021