Stacey Vye, Saitama University
Vye, S. (2023). There is Something About Affirming SALL: An Everhard and Gardner and Miller Review. Relay Journal, 6(1), 95-101. https://doi.org/10.37237/relay/060107
[Download paginated PDF version]
*This page reflects the original version of this document. Please see PDF for most recent and updated version.
Abstract
This article reviews Everhard’s (2022) response to Gardner and Miller (2021), which included her position on the evolution and growth of self-access language learning (SALL), her reflections on Gardner and Miller’s (1999) seminal self-access handbook, and the possible futures of SALL. I concur with Everhard and her response to Gardner and Miller (1999; 2021) that the future success of self-access learning centers (SALCs) is uncertain because of technological advances in learning spaces and materials. Moreover, Everhard and Gardner and Miller (2021) noted a trend of reappropriating SALC spaces for other academic projects and uses of the structures. However, I also agree with Everhard and Gardner and Miller (2021) that there is something about SALL; it may not be the same as we know it in the future. The reason is that SALL adapts to its users, so SALCs will most likely survive if their institutions support them. However, there will undoubtedly be more automatized services and fewer faculty and staff to support learners.
Keywords: self-access language learning (SALL), Self-access learning centers (SALCs), learner autonomy, adapting to learners
It is a privilege to write a review of a review of Everhard’s (2022) response to Gardner and Miller (2021) on the past, present, and future of SALL. First, I read Gardner and Miller’s (2021) paper based on their presentation hosted by the Research Institute for Learner Autonomy’s (RILAE) sixth Lab Session at Kanda University of International Studies. Their paper reflected on the growth of SALL since Gardner and Miller’s (1999) publication on establishing self-access spaces, its current developments, and future trends. Subsequently, I decided to review Everhard’s response to Gardner and Miller’s (2021) evolution of SALL, which included her reflections on Gardner and Miller’s (1999) self-access handbook and her views on the progression of SALL based on her research and experience.
In this review, I will reflect on the development of self-access language learning (SALL) by exploring its history through Everhard’s (2022) reflections on Gardner and Miller (1999; 2021). Then I will discuss SALL’s present and possible future developments. Like the three authors, I understand that self-access is still being defined, and its strength is that SALL adapts to learners. However, its future is uncertain. My reflections on SALL are based on my engagement with students, staff, and faculty as coordinator of a small self-access center, the English Resource Center (ERC), at Saitama University, a national university in Japan. Our students can participate in group advising sessions with three volunteer advisors during four afternoons per week. In the past 15 years, our center has evolved and changed over several iterative cycles based on the English learners’ needs and funding, or the lack thereof.
Everhard’s (2022) Reflections on Gardner and Miller (1999)
Everhard (2022) meticulously documented her reflections and research on her elective undergraduate self-access learning course at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki from 2004 to 2010. In the course, the learners chose one of two roles as a self-access learning center (SALC) organizer, either a SALL mentor for learners with difficulties or a self-access materials creator. The course book for students was Establishing Self-Access From Theory to Practice (Gardner & Miller, 1999), which she found useful, not for establishing a center, as she had already done twice, but for the students, as it was the closest to her course design and was currently in print at the time. Everhard suggested the book’s strength was navigating the MESS or materials, equipment, staffing, and space in SALCs. These four areas of MESS were discussed thoroughly in 12 chapters, along with the theme of advising, which Gardner and Miller (1999) identified as counselling. The authors provided ample tables, figures, and charts for each part of the MESS areas and also for other advising subject areas such as “learners’ and teachers’ beliefs and attitudes towards language learning” and counselling that were clear and easy to understand (p. 37). I can recall, as Everhard does, Gardner and Miller (1999) explained how to design a wide range of self-assessments for learners and evaluations of self-access for educators that measure the efficiency of the programs, which are still thorough and timeless over 20 years later. I have had Gardner and Miller’s (1999) hardcover handbook for many years, yet I have not taken advantage of designing educator evaluations of a SALC, so Everhard’s description is a valuable reminder for me to make them.
One contention Everhard had with Gardner and Miller’s (1999) book is that self-access does not need to be in a state-of-the-art center, but she noted there were no examples of low-budget or small self-access centers. I can empathize with being involved with a self-access space without or on a shoestring budget. My go-to book that helped our English Resource Center (ERC) at Saitama University obtain a budget was the advice from Sheerin (1989) on obtaining and maintaining hard-fought funding. The ERC had no budget for several years until, with advocacy, we received and have continued to have funding since 2013 for the learners. Nevertheless, keeping the funding has been an issue where former advisors got permission to use a portion of the budget for themselves instead of for the learners in the ERC. Additionally, a staff member misappropriated the budget for another use. As a positive result, the advisors directly manage the budget, and the funds are appropriated up to 10 months prior than previous years. Therefore, maintaining funding and not assuming the grants are given is crucial for protecting their status.
Finally, since Gardner and Miller (2021) suggested, but had not provided examples of small or low-budget SALCs, Everhard (2022) offered compelling accounts of self-access spaces, such as on a trolly or in a former kitchen. I recommend a chapter on challenging learning spaces in a juvenile detention center in Brazil (Reis, 2018). The author, an English instructor, detailed the challenges of how incarcerated learners in their English language learning program have the potential to construct flourishing learning spaces. Nevertheless, the learners took turns making their space discursive that impeded the learning opportunities due to the confusion and distrust while being detained (Reis, 2018). Therefore, thoughtful care and awareness of language learning in confused spaces can mitigate learner stagnation. The concept of self-access learning can occur in various and unique locations, which makes the field exciting and dynamic. Next, I will refer to Everhard’s section of her review of Gardner and Miller’s (2021) reflections on the historical development of SALL and current and future trends.
Response to Everhard’s (2022) Review of Gardner and Miller (2021)
I was not as concerned as Everhard (2022) was about the ‘hot spots’ where self-access centers were historically, yet I appreciate her note that it was challenging to find out what other self-access centers were operating in different regions of the world due to public and private security issues. Perhaps also, in the 1980s and 1990s, SALL environments and SALC facilities were not prominently available on the Internet or promoted through social media with online collaborations and conferences as they are currently. In addition, I was surprised by Gardner and Miller’s (2021) mention of Leni Dam being associated with self-access, as she is prominently known for facilitating learner autonomy, reflection, and learning journals in the classroom (Dam, 1995). In addition, Gardner and Miller (2021) briefly mentioned that self-access could be categorized by published works of classroom practice and studies of SALCs, yet the latter has traditionally been more prominent. Therefore, I feel that Gardner and Miller (2021) could have included additional notable publications that fostered learner autonomy inside and outside of classrooms and SALCs during the 1990s. One such edited book published in that era is Benson and Voller (1997), which included influential authors focusing on learner autonomy from its philosophy to practice. In addition, the chapter Ryan (1997) published provided me with practical ideas from the late 1990s to the early 2000s to promote learner reflection by utilizing authentic learning materials beyond the classroom. The chapter was useful because during that period of time, my students did not have access to a SALC.
Trends of SALC closures: Low attendance, inconvenient hours, politics, and technology
Everhard (2022) reflected on her tours of SALCs in 1991 in the U.K. that were flourishing centers. She noted that despite the dedication the advisors made by supporting students through their time and effort, many of these SALCs do not exist today. I believe it is essential for SALC organizers to be mindful of why the centers were closed to avoid this in one’s own context. The reasons for these closures include low attendance, inconvenient opening hours, politics, and technological advances. Everhard suggested that the low-attendance issues influenced decisions to reassign the space, funding, and staff for other programs. Additionally, sometimes the SALC hours were inconvenient for learners to attend, so the centers closed. I was refreshingly reminded by Everhard that opening hours is an access issue as most students take classes during SALC opening hours from nine to five. The ERC at Saitama University has also been exploring more timetables for when students can make use of the center.
On the contrary, Everhard (2022) noted that some popular and well-attended SALCs have also been shut down because other faculties hunt for funding, and the SALC funds get reappropriated and can no longer operate. In other words, politics seems to be another factor in the closing of SALCs besides low attendance rates and inconvenient opening times. Therefore, I am cautious about reappropriating SALC spaces for other projects. Finally, I was also saddened, as Everhard was, to learn from Gardner and Miller (2021) that some SALCs in Hong Kong have been closed. In 2009, when I attended the Maintaining Control: Autonomy in Language Learning Conference (Pemberton et al., 2009), I got to go on a tour of several self-access centers, and I learned about many functional and learner-based practices that are still used at our center in the ERC. It is such a pity that these well-attended centers that I visited have closed their doors.
Everhard (2022) and Gardner and Miller (2021) briefly mention that due to technological advances, learners have various devices and access to the Internet, where innumerable SALL opportunities are available, negating the need for physical SALCs. Some SALCs have morphed from physical spaces into omnipresent online learning platforms (Gardner & Miller, 2021), and poof, the SALCs disappeared. In the case of the ERC, the pandemic positively forced us to use technology by conducting group advising online through a password-protected portal using the university login that redirects to video conferencing. Currently, we have continued this service in a hybrid in-person and online setting, which remains a flexible, inclusive feature for our learners in the time and space continuum. In other words, our new setup is, to some extent, universal in design with a 360-degree camera that allows students to join in person or remotely from their homes, overseas at their exchange programs, across campus, or outdoors for their own learning purposes. The contrast of location is innovative and brings about a heightened engagement and curiosity due to joining from diverse locals. In the next section, more SALL innovations will be detailed.
Innovations of SALL
There were several examples of innovation in self-access mentioned in Everhard (2022). Bravo for Everhard’s mention of Sugita Mitra’s (2010) work with the holes in the wall projects, self-organized learning environments (SOLE), and also a Granny Cloud where the elderly in the U.K. are connected with school children around the world to read stories and share learning experiences. Mitra achieved great English proficiency successes through the learners’ use of collaboration and technology that can occur with or without SALCs. Regarding the use of innovation in learning spaces, I recommend Murray and Lamb’s (2018) edited book of rich chapters from academics worldwide that explores spaces and places for autonomous language learning, which include physical, virtual, and metaphorical spaces where learning occurs. Although these spaces are not exclusively attached to SALCs, they are places where there is self-access in each domain: urban spaces, teacher education spaces, classroom spaces and beyond, and institutional spaces (Murray & Lamb, 2018). This book is helpful for exploring possible spaces for self-access without a traditional SALC, how to expand places for learning, or how to preserve self-access for students once their SALC has been closed. Lastly, the references list for each chapter is robust for further reading and research.
SALL advising and affect
Regarding advising, affect, and models of autonomy, Everhard’s (2022) extensive in-text citations about SALLs and learner autonomy environments contributed to the research cited in Gardner and Miller (2021). However, I must give Gardner and Miller (2021, p. 55) the benefit of the doubt when they mention, “Our coverage is influenced by our own working experiences as academics,” and perhaps the subject of emotions or affect in SALL is a more recent aspect of advising not represented in their current contexts. I agree with Everhard that Kato and Mynard (2015), Ludwig and Mynard (2019), Mynard and Carson (2012), and Tassinari (2018) have promoted advising through learner-centered reflective dialogues and coaching in advising for learner awareness and transformations for an empowering approach. Coaching in advising can be transformational, as observed in Boyatzis, Smith, and Beveridge’s (2013) research on coaching with compassion for health, well-being, and sustained and targeted change.
Concluding Remarks
I agree with Everhard (2022) and Gardner and Miller (2021) that the history of SALCs has been ever-changing and evolving, yet the continued success of physical centers is uncertain due to technological advances in SALL. In this review, I reflected on the development of SALL by exploring its history by reviewing Everhard’s reflections on Gardner and Miller (1999; 2021) based on my own experiences with SALL and SALCs. Then, I suggested innovative and new spaces where SALL can occur. I concurred with Everhard that there is a more recent trend of a significant amount of research on reflective dialogues and learner emotions related to SALL. Like Everhard and Gardner and Miller (2021), I understand that self-access is still being defined, and its strength is that it adapts to learners. Because of artificial intelligence and technology, DVDs will be obsolete, but hopefully not the advisors and SALCs. Therefore, I agree that there is something about SALL that will not be the same as we know it now, and although its future will adapt to its users, there probably will be more automation and fewer people.
Note on the contributor
Stacey Vye is a professor and volunteer advisor at Saitama University. For 22 years, she has been researching learner and teacher autonomy before their language education buzzword status.
Reference
Benson, P., & Voller, P. (1997). Autonomy and independence in language learning. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(97)90167-6
Boyatzis, R. E., Smith, M. L., & Beveridge, A. (2013). Coaching with compassion. The Journal of Behavioral Science. 49(2), 153-178. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886312462236
Dam, L. (1995). Learner autonomy 3: From theory to classroom practice. Authentik. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(97)85684-9
Everhard, C. J. (2022). There’s something about SALL: A response to Gardner and Miller. Relay Journal, 5(1), 19-30.
https://doi.org/10.37237/relay/050103
Gardner, D., & Miller, L. (1999). Establishing self-access: From theory to practice. Cambridge University Press.
Gardner, D., & Miller, L. (2021). After “Establishing…”: Self-access learning then, now and into the future. Relay Journal, 4(2), 55-65. https://doi.org/10.37237/relay/040202
Kato, S., & Mynard, J. (2015). Reflective dialogue: Advising in language learning. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315739649
Ludwig, C., & Mynard, J. (2019). Autonomy in language learning: Advising in action. Candlin & Mynard Publishing.
Mitra, S. (2010, July). The child-driven education. [Video]. TED Conference. http://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_the_child_driven_education?language=en
Murray, G., & Lamb, T. (2018). Space, place and autonomy in language learning. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781317220909-1
Mynard, J., & Carson, L. (2012). Advising in language learning: Dialogue, tools and context. Pearson Education. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315833040
Pemberton, R., Toogood, S., & Barfield, A. (Eds.). (2009). Maintaining control: Autonomy and language learning. Hong Kong University Press. https://doi.org/10.5790/hongkong/9789622099234.001.0001
Reis, d. S. V. (2018). Time, space, and memory in the teaching and learning of English within a Brazilian juvenile detention centre: The effect of suspension in a confused space (pp. 179-198). In G. Murray and T. Lamb (Eds.), Space, place and autonomy in language learning. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781317220909-12
Ryan, S. (1997). Preparing learners for independence: Resources beyond the classroom (pp. 215-224). In P. Benson and P. Voller (Eds.), Autonomy and independence in language learning. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315842172-18
Sheerin, S. (1989). Self-access. Oxford University Press.
Tassinari, M. G. (2018). A dynamic model for autonomy: Self-assessment as reflection. Relay Journal, 1(1), 47-54. https://doi.org/10.37237/relay/010104
When the editors asked me to write a review to Stacey Vye’s recent piece in Relay Journal, I readily agreed, as reviewing has always been a great way for me to reflect on interesting ideas and hone my own skills as a writer and researcher. I also find Relay Journal’s approach to review refreshing and engaging.
On reading Stacey’s paper I realised that this would be slightly more complicated than a usual review, as the piece is itself a review of a review (Carol Everhard’s 2022 review of Gardner and Miller’s 2021 paper!). I enjoyed going back to read the original papers it is a reaction to, and this has given me not one but three different perspectives to help my own reflection.
First, I want to congratulate Stacey on an insightful review, which manages to refer to both Everhard and Gardner and Miller’s work without creating confusion. She highlights commonalities with Everhard’s experiences, especially the pivotal nature that Gardner & Miller’s original 1999 book has played in both of their successful self-access initiatives, and working in environments where financial and other pressures have affected these plans. Her account of her experiences with the ERC at Saitama University resonate with my own experiences of sustaining self-access communities in light of technological advances which offer both affordances and challenges. I would love to hear more about how the 360-degree camera can enhance students’ experiences, and how the hybrid set-up works in practice.
Like Vye, I appreciate Everhard’s inclusion of innovations originating beyond the field of SALL, and the reminder that we need to learn from those beyond our narrow but supportive field. This focus on innovations and the potential of different space and place that Vye brings by highlighting Murray and Lamb’s 2018 book is very welcome. Equally so is the emphasis on the increasing understanding of the role of affect in SALL and advising. With the pressures caused by the pandemic, there is huge potential for a more central role for advising in supporting students’ well-being on and off campus.
Finally I’d like to thank Vye for providing the catalyst for me to reflect not only on her own thoughts on the development of SALL, but also on Everhard’s and Gardner and Miller’s. This rich tapestry of interactions has really helped me to clarify my current thoughts on where we are and where we may be headed as a field. I wholeheartedly agree that there will be a role for SALL for the foreseeable future, but it is up to practitioners and researchers such as ourselves and the work of journal such as Relay to understand the environment we find ourselves in fully and advocate strongly for that role in each individual context.
Dear Katherine,
Thank you so much for taking up this challenge of reviewing a review of a review of Carol Everhard’s 2022 review of Gardner and Miller’s 2021 papers on the history and trends in self-access centers and self-access language learning (SALL). Over a year and a half ago, the editors asked me to provide a review of Everhard (2022). I, too, enjoyed reading the original articles and providing a lengthy review response to improve my research, writing, and conceptualizations. Based on the body of work, the editor suggested I write a longer piece by turning it into a paper and including my own perspectives on the history of self-access language learning, which has broadened my insights on the processes of SALL in various contexts.
Regarding reviewing Everhard’s (2022) and Gardner and Miller’s (2021) works, in earlier drafts, some sections were unclear to the editor. Case in point, a salient theme was that although I was reviewing the authors’ perceptions and analyses of SALLs, there were few examples of my perspectives based on the 16 years of coordinating, co-coordinating, and advising at Saitama University English Resource Center (ERC) in earlier drafts, so the editor guided my writing through reflective questioning to include more details about my context. With more confidence, I realized that I, too, have something to share; although our center is small, it has been a labor of love facilitating learning outside the classroom.
I am so glad you asked how the Meeting OWL 360-degree camera hybrid group advising works in practice and how the sessions enhance the students’ experiences. At the time of the Vye (2023) publication, the ERC was in the early stages of our hybrid group advising program, so I am happy to report our affordances with the technology, and the challenges have so far been promising and meaningful for our learners. The in-person and remote attendees log in to a separate portal to direct the online learners to ZOOM. Each attendee provides their reasons for attending the group sessions that appear on one portal, so the advisor will know slightly in advance how to facilitate the group sessions. The remote students appear on a large overhead screen and communicate with the in-person students at a designated table near the Meeting OWL audio/visual camera. The ERC in-person attendees can be seen, and their voices can be heard without headphones in a group advising setting on the same screen. Everyone can view the ERC room from a 360-degree angle, which makes the remote students feel like they are in the room. Four video lenses in the OWL have sensors that feature their video on the overhead screen. When a person speaks in the ERC, the audio and visuals give more significant opportunities for all participants to communicate actively because the speaker appears on camera.
The responses from the hybrid sessions have been positive. A big part of the success is that our remote students often have more experience with technology and know-how with Zoom turn-taking and are more advanced in their studies, which provides near-peer role models for the learners in the ERC. The ERC learners have also shared digital content for language learning ideas on a hybrid platform and provided personalized tours remotely of their exchange universities abroad. The in-person learners ask questions as potential exchange students, and some have become inspired as their study abroad plans become more real for them.
Additionally, a more comfortable home-type environment was created in the ERC in 2023, including the popular plush pillows (Taylor et al., 2022) that reduce learner anxiety. The sharing of artifacts and virtual backgrounds has increased the learners’ creativity, play, and content engagement while reducing stress at the same time.
Lastly, the future of SALL will undoubtedly change, so I believe it is up to the practitioners to stay involved with their language centers to learn and grow with these changes. Thank you, Katherine Thornton, for sharing your thoughts, which helped me grow as a practitioner. SALL indeed benefits from the SALC practitioners submitting to journals like the Relay and JASAL Journals so that a wider audience can engage in the ever-changing environments of SALL and advocate for the learners’ and advisors’ roles in language learning and education in the future.
Best wishes,
Stacey
References
Everhard, C. J. (2022). There’s something about SALL: A response to Gardner and Miller. Relay Journal, 5(1), 19-30. https://doi.org/10.37237/relay/050103
Gardner, D., & Miller, L. (2021). After “Establishing…”: Self-access learning then, now and into the future. Relay Journal, 4(2), 55-65. https://doi.org/10.37237/relay/040202
Taylor, C., Thornton, K., Wongsarnpigoon, I., & Vye, S. (2022). Report on the JASAL forum at JALT2021. Serendipities in self-access learning: Positives from the pandemic. JASAL Journal, 3(1), 33–46. https://jasalorg.com/report-on-the-jasal-forum-at-jalt2021-serendipities-in-self-access-learning-positives-from-the-pandemic/