There’s Something About SALL: A Response to Gardner and Miller

Carol J. Everhard, Formerly School of English, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece


This article is a response to the review article written by Gardner and Miller (2021) in relation to the state of the art in self-access at the time of the publication of their book (Gardner & Miller, 1999) and the progress and development of self-access since then. By way of response, this article examines and embellishes on some of the themes they explore in relation to the past, present and future of self-access learning and suggests some other possible themes worthy of note and consideration. This author concludes, as do they, that self-access as we currently know it and in forms still to be defined will remain with us for quite some time to come. 

Keywords: self-access, self-access centres (SACs), self-access language learning (SALL)

It was with particular interest and enthusiasm that I learned of Gardner and Miller’s (2021) contribution to Relay Journal, and I was even more enthusiastic when I read of the approach they intended to take, i.e., 1) providing an overview of self-access at the time of publication of their classic monograph, in 1999; 2) taking a look at the ‘here and now’ of self-access; and finally, 3) offering considerations concerning the future of self-access. It is not for me to question their opinions and perspectives, as clearly these emerge from the people and professionals that they were and have become. What I would like to do, however, based on my own knowledge and experience in the field, is to comment on some aspects of the ‘big picture’ they set out to create and to highlight some of these aspects with my own brushstrokes.

The School of English Undergraduate Course on Self-Access Language Learning

The first point I would like to make is that the book Establishing Self-Access: From Theory to Practice (Gardner & Miller, 1999) is a book with which I am very familiar indeed, but not as a guide to setting up self-access facilities, as that was something I had accomplished on a modest scale in the context of the Teaching Centre of the then-British Council Thessaloniki, in Greece, some 10 years before the book was published. My intimacy with the book stems from its use as a coursebook on a 3rd-year undergraduate applied linguistics course that I was offering as an optional required course in the School of English (SOE) at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki during a 7-year period from 2004 to 2010. It was the only book on the market that came close to the course contents I needed, and thus it was adopted, and happily so.

The course I organized had a large practical component, forming 40% of the course grade, in which learners could, ultimately, due to logistic and circumstantial needs within the department, choose from among three roles, which were: 1) Self-Access Centre (SAC) Managers/Organisers, enabling them to actually work in the small departmental Resource Centre (see Everhard, 2017); 2) Self-Access (SA)/Self-Access Language Learning (SALL) Mentors, where they could team up with my 1st-year students from our departmental Language Mastery course and find solutions to these students’ learning difficulties, language learning difficulties and/or general course difficulties, through self-access (see Everhard, 2015a; 2017); or 3) they could choose the option of being Self-Access Materials Creators/Designers and contribute useful items to the limited space of the Resource Centre shelves or computers (see Everhard, 2017). 

The course became quite popular, and each student on the course had their own personal copy of the Gardner and Miller book to study and keep. The course had a duration of one semester each year, constituting a period of 10–12 weeks, for 3 hours per week. For one of these hours, we focused on project work, or we used the faculty computer lab to visit sites of interest in the support of language learner autonomy (such as ALMS of the University of Helsinki) or self-access in language learning (many university sites in the UK, Hong Kong and elsewhere). A lengthy supplementary reading list was available, and a vast array of materials relevant to self-access and its organization, including photos of particular facilities, were placed on the online learning platform Blackboard, subscribed to and hosted by our university. Students sometimes made a close study of particular self-access facilities through their websites and presented their benefits to the rest of the class. We also went on a class visit to the self-access facility (now defunct) in the neighbouring institution of the University of Macedonia, in Thessaloniki. I did everything within my power to get the students engaged and involved.

My Views About ‘Establishing Self-Access: From Theory to Practice’

What characterizes the writing of Gardner and Miller’s (2021) review is its humility and modesty. The authors seem almost surprised that their book, published in 1999, has remained in print and circulation so many years later. It is of no surprise to me, as the topics covered in the book are still very much of relevance today, giving this monograph a rich and timeless quality. The book, I believe, formed a good starting point for student EFL teachers with little or no idea about autonomy and/or self-access. The bibliography is and was very thorough for those who wanted to explore further, and the case studies on offer have inspired teachers employed in many different types of educational institutions. 

My own approach to self-access has always been that of dealing with the MESS—Materials, Equipment, Staffing and Space—and these four topics are well-covered in the 12 chapters provided. Indeed, the chapters on counselling (now more commonly known as advising) and the need for evaluation of facilities were, in many ways, prophetic. The tables and figures provided throughout the book give added clarity and help the reader to focus on the key points in each subject area, so there is little or no guesswork involved. The information provided by the authors on formulating questionnaires for self-access appraisal are not just useful, but I would say invaluable, and the points for discussion at the end of each chapter are also very useful and thought-provoking. I am not sure what changes (if any) the authors would now make to the book, but what I would personally like to see is a more philosophical/ pedagogical backdrop on which to base self-access learning. For example, of great importance is the idea that SALL: 1) encourages greater ownership of learning as well as of facilities (see Everhard, 2012); 2) can contribute to cooperative and community learning (Wenger, 1998), and 3) through the range and variety of resources available, both human and material, can enable learners to achieve greater ‘access to self’ (Everhard, 2012). Also, it is very much worth emphasizing that self-access is not in any way restricted by time, space or passing fads, nor can a facility in one institution, as I know from personal experience, simply be transferred lock, stock and barrel to another. 

I have to be honest and say that my main disappointment with this book was not that it did not describe the state of the art of self-access at the time of publication, but the fact that the authors acknowledged that you could have self-access without the need for a state-of-the-art facility, but then proceeded to describe only well-endowed facilities, which some of us could do no more than dream of aspiring to. Having been involved in formal self-access organization twice (British Council, Thessaloniki and the School of English (SOE), Aristotle University of Thessaloniki), each time on a shoe-string budget, I would have liked at least one section of the book to be devoted to more quirky and low-budget forms of self-access, such as self-access in a portable box (which could be a shoe box or cereal packet), on a trolley, in a cupboard or bookcase, in the corner of a library or a computer lab or even in a converted kitchen (Hay, 1992)! I know reports of such facilities and struggles can be hard to come by, but some do exist (such as Mitchener, 1992; Papadima-Sophocleous, 2013) and should be acknowledged.

The Gardner and Miller Review

Concerning the ‘hot spots’ the authors mention, I would like to know which places they had in mind. I know that even within the British Council worldwide teaching operations, unless you happened to be a teaching centre director, it was very hard to find out what was being done in terms of self-access in other geographical locations (see Everhard, 2012 for a minimal listing). In some cases, this might have been due to matters of national or international security and politics (e.g., where English for military purposes was involved), but in others it probably had to do with finances and sharing of the pie, and for reasons of copyright, security and data protection, experimentation with systems and technologies tended to be kept under wraps. Equally well, competition between private enterprises in the UK and elsewhere could also have been conducive to secrecy, but some of these enterprises were particularly successful in implementing self-access, perhaps because they invested in personnel as much as in materials, equipment and space. I will return to this subject and share my discoveries about these enterprises shortly.

The authors surprised me by mentioning Leni Dam’s name, as she is not someone that one would immediately associate with self-access, and her work was part of a much larger movement working towards autonomy in Scandinavia. Again, with the exception perhaps of the Universities of Helsinki (Karlsson et al., 1997) and Jyväskylä (Kohonen et al., 2001), this was always a rather closed community, and it was difficult to find out about the work being done unless one was a guest at their regular meetings or had access to resulting publications. Dam’s work has been inspirational to many as a form of classroom practice which promotes learner autonomy, but it has to be admitted that what she achieved and how she achieved it has not proved particularly easy to emulate. 

Another ‘hotbed’ of autonomy activity has been the Iberian Peninsula, with ongoing cooperation between Spanish and Portuguese academics involved in teacher training which aims to ensure that present and future teachers will promote autonomy in the language classroom and beyond (Fernandes & Vieira, 2014; Jiménez Raya et al., 2007); however, it is again a rather closed shop, and my understanding is that the exploitation of self-access does not appear to be one of their priorities.

The Then and Now of Self-Access

Before dealing further with the ‘here and now’ of self-access, I would like to discuss my experiences of the ‘then and now’ of self-access as clearly a lot has happened in self-access over the past 20 to 30 years. Thanks to a course on self-access organized by the British Council in 1991 and run by Bell Schools, I was able to visit many self-access facilities in the UK, particularly in the Cambridge and Saffron Walden areas. What I saw in Saffron Walden was beyond amazing, and the efforts of the teaching staff and teacher-training staff as well as library and administration staff were clearly driven by enthusiasm, a common sense of purpose and a strong belief in their enterprise and in what they were doing. Sadly, due to relocation of resources, this facility no longer exists.

I then completed a tour of my own, visiting more facilities in the London area and in and around the English south coast. I often wonder what happened to some of those facilities and the people who dedicated so much time and effort to creating and promoting them. What was very clear to me at the time was that self-access use and exploitation was very much constrained by the typical 9-to-5 British working day. During these times, most students were required to attend class, and when they had free time for extra study, in the evening and at weekends, these facilities were generally closed. It is possible that this may have contributed to the demise of these centres and to the re-assigning of space, funding and personnel to meet other needs. Widespread ownership of PCs, laptops, tablets and smartphones, as well as ubiquitous access to the internet, have no doubt also played their part.

It was sad to hear from the authors that facilities in Hong Kong, which my students and I used to admire from afar, exist no more. More recently, the Covid pandemic and resulting restrictions on access to library and self-access facilities in many countries may have resulted in more (or less) self-access provision being made available online, as with teaching.

Innovative self-access

Thanks mainly to the activities and endeavours of IATEFL (International Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language) and its Learner Autonomy SIG (Special Interest Group), some interesting projects have come to my notice which did not set out as self-access projects, but which certainly seem to fall into that category. One worthy of mention is the ‘Holes in the Wall’ project of Sugata Mitra (2014). In it, we see young children lining up and grouping together to make use of a computer terminal and engaging with the material on offer, despite it being in a foreign language or at a level of complexity considered beyond their years and understanding. Such engagement occurs whether on a busy city street in India or in a remote village, so Mitra was able to convince himself and others that there was nothing coincidental about what occurred.

Indeed, under his guidance, a primary school teacher in the UK (Crawley, 2014) witnessed the same amazing results with her own class, through creating a Self-Organised Learning Environment (SOLE). Mitra advised her to reduce the number of computers available in her classroom so that students would be forced to cooperate, and he also advised her to set the students interesting questions and problems to solve. The students’ motivation and enthusiasm for learning as well as their rate of learning immediately peaked, and the cooperation between students was exceptional. The problem-solving involved progressing in many, sometimes quite complex subject areas simultaneously.

Little and Kirwan (2016) describe another project which is not concerned with self-access in the conventional sense, but nevertheless does involve ‘access’ to the cultural and linguistic heritage of ‘the self’ and of ‘others’ in a primary school classroom context in Dublin. What is encouraging about this project is that it capitalizes on the riches to be gleaned from modern-day multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-linguistic societies. By recognizing, highlighting and sharing differences and diversity (see Arnold, 2011, for a very interesting discussion of diversity), it encourages children not only to take an interest in such differences but to be proud of this diversity through sharing songs, poems, expressions and customs which have been passed down to them.

We might also include language cafés as a form of self-access. Sometimes these meetings to practice conversation in a particular language can be organized in any kind of available space, including self-access facilities, where there might be a lounge, or they may take place, as their name suggests, in an actual café or bar. The Blue Rain Café of Gao (2007) may have been among the first of its kind and is quite well-known. Unfortunately, because of their often informal and spontaneous nature and the fact that they are frequently set up by students themselves, there is not much documented evidence of their success.

Advising, affect and models of autonomy

As far as concerns the ‘here and now’ of self-access, I believe that more emphasis has to be given to the significant role played by advising and advisers in promoting learner autonomy and self-access learning (see accounts related to Kanda University of International Studies in Kato & Mynard, 2015; Ludwig & Mynard, 2019; Mynard & Carson, 2012), and also worthy of mention is the work of Tassinari at Freie Universität Berlin (see Tassinari, 2016, 2017), where not only staff advising, but student advising for SALL has been implemented. Advising and possibly also mentoring have been taken to a new level in many institutions and perhaps constitute one of the stepping stones which could or should have been identified by Gardner and Miller (2021) in their review. 

In their book, Gardner and Miller (1999) rightly devote space to the attitudes and beliefs of teachers and learners. For the ‘here and now’ of self-access, however, I think they should highlight the importance of advising in getting colleagues and learners to divulge not only their beliefs and attitudes, but also their feelings and emotions. Affective factors in language learning have very much come to the fore in recent years (Arnold, 2011; Tassinari & Ciekinski, 2013; Valdivia et al., 2011) and clearly influence the motivation and degree of effort and commitment that learners are prepared to agree to, both in the classroom and beyond. Arnold (2011) suggests that a more humanistic approach to language teaching and language learning, which takes account of affect, enables teachers to be themselves. It allows them to develop both as professionals and as people, and in this kind of setting and climate, they are less likely to experience burn-out. This kind of climate would also be beneficial to advisors and advisees in a self-access setting, encouraging honesty about feelings and placing advisor and advisee on the same footing.

In terms of finding a model of autonomy or of self-access learning, the authors suggest Benson’s (2011) model of autonomy (extended by Chik, 2014), as befitting self-access. It should be noted that this same model has also been explored and extended by others, such as Oxford (2008) and Murase (2015). In addition, there are other possible pedagogical models, provided by Dam, Reinders and Jiménez Raya et al. (for a presentation of these, see Everhard, 2018), while two models created specifically for SALL are those of Cooker (see Cooker, 2015; Pemberton & Cooker, 2012) and Tassinari (2012, 2015). In my own research into autonomy, I have found it important to have a model of autonomy to which I could relate both theory and practice and in which autonomy can be viewed as a matter of degree (Everhard, 2015b, 2016, 2019), and self-access clearly has no problem fitting into the model I have used.

What the Future Holds

For those of us who can no longer be involved in the ‘here and now’ of self-access, let us hope that Gardner and Miller and many others who are still involved will continue to inform us of new directions and innovations in self-access learning. Recently, I was lucky enough to be allowed to attend a few of the presentations at the Japan Association for Self-Access Learning (JASAL) 2021 Conference, which was held online on 23rd October, 2021. One of the talks I attended was given by Wongsarnpigoon, Bennett and Stevenson of Kanda University of International Studies and was concerned with the use of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) to expand learning spaces, and another by Andersson of Osaka University was concerned with the use of virtual reality applications. Both of these talks reflected current directions in SA learning and were most informative. As we are all aware, there is no shortage of apps and resources which can be used on our mobile devices, and with on-demand and replay TV, as well as on-demand cinema, there is much we can do to progress with a language or any other field of study, without having to leave our homes. The possibilities for self-access seem almost infinite.

I agree with Gardner and Miller about the importance of safety and security on the Internet, but as well as hacking, invasion or harassment online, equally well we have to be aware of the everyday threat within our facilities of pilfering of materials and parts or pieces of equipment and even of large-scale burglary. In one fell swoop, you can suddenly find yourself without databases and materials and equipment which have been put together over a lengthy period of time with dedication and perseverance, or have what was a space with a pleasant ambience conducive to learning and cooperation left looking sad, violated and empty. Unfortunately, the lesson learned by the SOE when this occurred was that there is no way of creating back-up to compensate for the ravaging of the heart and soul of an operation. It is particularly sad when it is the efforts by students for students that are undone.  

In that respect, I think it is also particularly important to lay emphasis on just how much the learners themselves can bring to the table and contribute to self-access, not only in the quality of the materials they can create, but in the surprisingly important roles they can assume (see Everhard, 2012, 2016). Indeed, the degree of students’ interest and commitment to self-access learning is catered to by JASAL, who regularly hold conferences and forums with students as the organisers and participants, which have proved very popular (see

I agree with Gardner and Miller that self-access adapts to its users, but clearly, in the future, it will continue to morph and evolve and will not only adapt to its users, but will be adapted by and for its users. There’s something about SALL, which leaves me in no doubt that self-access, both as we know it and in forms still to be discovered, will remain with us for a very long time to come.

Notes on the Contributor

Carol J. Everhard holds a PhD from the Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, School of English (SOE), Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, where she taught and coordinated undergraduate courses in Language Mastery and in Self-access and Foreign Language Learning. She organized Self-access Language Learning (SALL) resources, first for the British Council in Thessaloniki and then for SOE. Her research interests include learner-centred assessment, peer mentoring, ethnography and self-access language learning. 


Andersson, S. (2021, October 23). Exploring virtual reality applications for self-access language learning [Conference presentation]. JASAL Online 2021 Conference.

Arnold, J. (2011). Attention to affect in language learning. Anglistik Journal of English Studies, 22(1), 11-22.

Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and researching autonomy (2nd ed.). Pearson Education.

Chik, A. (2014). Digital gaming and language learning: Autonomy and community. Language learning & Technology, 18(2), 85-100. 

Cooker, L. (2015). Assessment as learner autonomy. In C. J. Everhard & L. Murphy (Eds.), Assessment and autonomy in language learning (pp. 89-113). Palgrave Macmillan.

Crawley, E. (2014, April 1). How we created Self-Organised Learning Environments (SOLEs) [Plenary presentation]. LASIG Pre-Conference Event, 48th Annual International Conference, Harrogate, UK.

Everhard, C. J. (2012). Re-placing the jewel in the crown of autonomy: A revisiting of the ‘self’ or ‘selves’ in self-access. SiSAL, 3(4), 377-391.

Everhard, C. J. (2015a). Implementing a student peer-mentoring programme for self-access language learning. SiSAL, 6(3), 300-312.

Everhard, C. J. (2015b). The assessment-autonomy relationship. In C. J. Everhard & L. Murphy (Eds.), Assessment and autonomy in language learning (pp. 8-34). Palgrave Macmillan. 

Everhard, C. J. (2016). What is this thing called autonomy? Finding a definition and a model. Selected papers of the 21st International Symposium on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics (ISTAL 21), (548-568).

Everhard, C. J. (2017). Preparing future EFL teachers to understand, develop and exploit self-access through project work. In M. Jiménez Raya, J. J. Martos Ramos, & M. G. Tassinari (Eds.), Learner and teacher autonomy in higher education: Perspectives from modern language teaching (pp. 75-94). Peter Lang. 

Everhard, C. J. (2018). Investigating the true colours of autonomy in language learning. In K. Schwienhorst (Ed.), Learner autonomy in second language pedagogy and research: Challenges and issues (pp. 73-103). Candlin & Mynard Publishing. (Original work published 2014)

Everhard, C. J. (2019). Exploring a model of autonomy to live, learn and teach by. In A. Burkert, L. Dam, & C. Ludwig (Eds.), The answer is learner autonomy: Issues in language teaching and learning (pp. 30-52). Candlin & Mynard Publishing. (Original work published 2013)

Fernandes, I. S., & Vieira, F. (2014). Pedagogy for autonomy in action: Tensions and possibilities. Independence, Newsletter of IATEFL LASIG, 60, 11-15.

Gao, X. (2007). A tale of Blue Rain Café: A study on the online narrative and construction about a community of English learners on the Chinese mainland. System 35(2), 259-270.

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).

Hay, E. (1992). Everything but the kitchen sink—setting up a self-access centre in Qatar. English Studies, Issue 10: Self-access in Language Learning (pp. 15-19). British Council.

Jiménez Raya, M., Lamb, T., & Vieira, F. (2007). Pedagogy for autonomy in language education in Europe: Towards a framework for learner and teacher development. Authentik.

Karlsson, L., Kjisik, F., & Nordlund, J. (1997). From here to autonomy: A Helsinki University Language Centre autonomous learning project. Helsinki University Press.

Kato, S., & Mynard, J. (2015). Reflective dialogue: Advising in language learning. Routledge.

Kohonen, V., Jaatinen, R., Kaikkonen, P., & Lehtovaara, J. (2000). Experiential learning in foreign language education. Pearson Education.

Little, D., & Kirwan, D. (2016, April 12). Language learner autonomy, documentation and action research [Plenary presentation]. IATEFL LASIG Pre-Conference Event, Birmingham, UK. 

Ludwig, C., & Mynard, J. (2019). Autonomy in language learning: Advising in action. Candlin & Mynard Publishing. (Original work published in 2012)

Mitchener, D. (1992). Setting up a self-access system on low resources. Independence, Newsletter of the IATEFL LISIG (now LASIG), 8, 18.

Mitra, S. (2014, April 5). The future of learning [Plenary presentation]. 48th Annual International IATEFL Conference, Harrogate, UK.

Murase, F. (2015). Measuring language learner autonomy: Problems and possibilities. In C. J. Everhard & L. Murphy (Eds.), Assessment and autonomy in language learning (pp. 35-63). Palgrave Macmillan. 

Mynard, J., & Carson, L. (2012). Advising in language learning: Dialogue, tools and context. Pearson Education.

Oxford, R. L. (2008). Hero with a thousand faces: Learner autonomy, learning strategies and learning tactics in independent language learning. In S. Hurd & T. Lewis (Eds.), Language learning strategies in independent strategies (pp. 41-63). Multilingual Matters.

Papadima-Sophocleous, S. (2013). Davids still exist among Goliaths: A story of modest self-access centre establishment and survival in times of economic decline. SiSAL, 4(4), 281-294.

Pemberton, R., & Cooker, L. (2012). Self-directed learning: Concepts, practice, and a novel research methodology. In S. Mercer, S. Ryan, & M. Williams, Psychology for language learning: Insights from research, theory and practice (pp. 203-219). Palgrave Macmillan. 

Tassinari, M. G. (2012). Evaluating learner autonomy: A dynamic model with descriptors. SiSAL, 3(1), 24-40.

Tassinari, M. G. (2015). Assessing learner autonomy: A dynamic model. In C.J. Everhard & L. Murphy (Eds.), Assessment and autonomy in language learning (pp. 64-88). Palgrave Macmillan.

Tassinari, M. G. (2016). Emotions and feelings in language advising discourse. In C. Gkonou, D. Tatzl, & S. Mercer (Eds.), New directions in language learning psychology (pp. 71-96). Springer. 

Tassinari, M. G. (2017). A self-access language centre for learners and teachers: Promoting autonomy in higher education. In M. Jiménez Raya, J.J. Martos Ramos, & M. G. Tassinari (Eds.), Learner and teacher autonomy in higher education: Perspectives from modern language teaching (pp. 183-208). Peter Lang. 

Tassinari, M. G., & Ciekanski, M. (2013). Accessing the self in self-access learning: Emotions and feelings in language advising. SiSAL, 4(4), 262-280.

Valdivia, S., McLoughlin, D., & Mynard, J. (2011). The importance of affective factors in self-access language learning courses. SiSAL, 2(2), 91-96.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. CUP. 

Wongsarnpigoon, I., Bennett, P. A., & Stevenson, R. (2021, October 23). Expanding learning spaces by accessing MOOCs for self-directed learning in a university course [Conference presentation]. JASAL Online 2021 Conference.

Farrelly, B., & Farrelly, P. (Directors). (1998). There’s something about Mary [Film]. 20th Century Fox.

2 thoughts on “There’s Something About SALL: A Response to Gardner and Miller”

  1. Everhard brings her deep knowledge and rich experience of the self-access field in her response to Gardner and Miller’s (2021) article on the progress of self-access since 1999.

    Much of my own career has been Japan-based, and in recent years especially (with the pandemic restrictions) there have been few opportunities for me to visit self-access facilities in other countries, so I appreciated the panoramic scope of this paper, learning about self-access in Greece, the Iberian Peninsula and the UK, and self-access in primary education settings and private language schools as well as in tertiary institutions.

    I chuckled as Everhard expressed her disappointment that only “well-endowed facilities” were described in Gardner and Miller’s book, and that facilities created and run on a shoe-string budget were barely mentioned. I have spent the last decade gradually transforming (on a very modest budget) an empty campus classroom with broken furniture into a warm and thriving social language learning space with a range of services for students, and fully agree that the stories of such low-budget self-access spaces need to be shared.

    This paper made me realize that self-access facilities around the world face issues that we barely consider in Japan. Everhard described the devastating effects of theft and burglary, and as a reader you can feel pain and violation this caused. In ten years only one graded reader has gone missing from the facility I manage at a rural, small, private Buddhist university in Gifu, Japan, even though the space is unstaffed in the early mornings, evenings, and weekends. I can only imagine how difficult is must be to reconcile security concerns with the aim to be as open and accessible to learners as possible.

    There is just one wording I would like Everhard to consider changing in this paper. She discusses language cafés as places where people “practice conversation” in a particular language. When people talk in social language learning spaces, they are *having* conversations, not “practicing” for some day in the future when they are going to have “real” conversations. The word “practice” implies the emerging speakers are not real or legitimate speakers of the language. Cristina Ros i Solé argues powerfully in “The Personal World of the Language Learner” that “language learners take part in the world and the home of the additional language, and dwell in it” (2016, p. 44).

    There is one question I was left considering after reading this paper. Everhard tells us of seemingly flourishing facilities which closed down due to funding cuts. People working in self-access see how their facilities benefit students on a daily basis and worry about this situation occurring. How can we prevent this? How can we show how our facilities are helping students so that we are not seen as expendable?

    Finally, I would like to thank Everhard for participating in the JASAL 2021 conference, and discussing it in the section on “What the Future Holds” in this article. I served as President of JASAL from 2019 to 2022, and our mission is to promote self-access language learning. I am delighted that the work of our members is being noticed outside of Japan!

    1. I would like to thank Clair sincerely for her interest in my Response to Gardner and Miller and for the important issues and stimulating questions she raises. I will endeavor to deal with these succinctly and try to avoid going over too much old ground.

      First of all, it is worth mentioning that in 2014, Gardner and Miller together produced another volume of their research which offers insights into the management of SALL in Hong Kong, and this again includes Case Studies. I was particularly impressed by the personalized account given by Helen Lavender in Case Study 6, with its nevertheless very thorough theoretical and philosophical underpinnings. She offers the reader a lot to think about.

      Gardner and Miller have done us a great service in producing this volume. If it were not for publications such as theirs, for associations such as HASALD and JASAL, and for journals such as SiSAL, with their focus on self-access, we might well remain forever in the dark about what is going on with self-access in other parts of the world, whether with well-endowed facilities or not.

      Regarding Clair’s concern about how we can ensure the survival of a self-access learning hub, I believe it is a risk that language teachers and self-access managers have to be prepared to take. The threat of reallocation of staff, space or finances may constantly hang over us, even when we have ensured the smooth operation of our resource and kept its running costs to a minimum. I believe, however, that an enterprise which is organized by students for students (with staff assistance) stands a better chance of survival since nowadays students and their representatives tend to have a greater say in how their courses and institutions are run. When students feel that a place, whether real or virtual, is their own, they are more likely to commit to it and this will be apparent (or has to be made apparent) to those who make important administrative decisions. I believe that the key to survival of SALL lies in student ownership, and I will outline the three levels on which I think ownership must operate.

      A student visitor to a Self-access facility I was responsible for once wrote in the Visitors’ Book that the Self-access Centre “filled her with passion (for learning)”. Clearly, the visitor came there with a purpose or mission and she found the facility met her needs and more. Such statements lead me to concur with Gardner and Miller (1999, p.141) that in creating such a resource, we “…must involve the students as ‘owners’ of the facilities, rather than simply users”. In other words, ownership of the facility matters. Students who have used the facility and are convinced of its usefulness can act as ‘magnets’ for other students. They can take on an ambassadorial role or an advisory role to draw other students in. Their familiarity with the layout of the facility and with materials content, as first-hand users themselves, gives them the edge over any purely administrative employee. It remains for us to find ways to motivate students to take on such roles on a regular basis.

      Living as we do in societies that demand that its members have qualifications and certification for their advancement in their chosen jobs and professions, it is almost inevitable that schooling, curricula and learning will be determined by the tests and examinations in which students are expected to perform. This was brought home to me when I asked my 1st year undergraduate students, most of whom were destined to become teachers of EFL, if they had ‘studied’ the vocabulary that we had encountered in an article we had been working on in class, something which I had recommended them to do. Their reaction to my question was that they did not want to spend time on new vocabulary unless there was a guarantee that it would come up in the exam. Although rather astonished by their reaction, really, I should not have been. After all, they had come through a system where what mattered was not learning per se, but passing tests and getting good grades, which tends to cultivate surface learning, remembering things superficially in our short-term memory, only to forget them when the exam has taken place. In other words, what is lacking is any sense of ownership of learning. This approach to learning is rather dangerous when applied to any subject, but particularly so with a language. How can there ever be progress?

      If activities in self-access mode are linked to activities in the classroom, learners can gradually grasp the idea of taking responsibility for their own learning, moving beyond the spoon-feeding on offer which makes them dependent on others (heteronomous), they will learn to take command of their own learning careers and become more autonomous. Creating links between the classroom, the curriculum and the self-access resource will help to highlight its importance to both students and policy-makers and encourage strategic learning, with nothing left to chance, where students plan out their activities, often in cooperation, thus allowing deep, meaningful learning to take place. My own view of autonomy tends to coincide, firstly, with that of Breen and Mann (1997), who see it as “…a way of being in the world” (authors’ emphasis) and also with that of Nolen (1995), who asserts that learners “can learn to be autonomous by being autonomous”.

      I loved the citation that Clair gave us, drawing our attention to the work of Cristina Ros i Solé. Ros i Solé’s enlightened views about language learning provide a much-needed breath of fresh air. Not many language teachers, it would seem, can think out of the box in this way and emphasize the importance of acculturation. In my own language teaching in higher education, I have always sought out ways to encourage language learners to discover and be the best possible version of themselves. Imhoof (1991) believes that mastery of a language involves taking on a new identity, while Dufeu (1994) believes that mastery is hampered by a ‘pedagogy of having’, rather than a ‘pedagogy of being’ (like that of Breen and Mann, mentioned previously). Dufeu also asserts that by really making the language our own, it will no longer seem ‘foreign’. In other words, learners must take on ownership of the language (and its culture).

      Thus far, I think Clair and I might find ourselves in agreement, but I am afraid that we will have to agree to disagree about the word practise (Br.) or practice (Am.) having negative connotations. I deliberately chose the word ‘conversation’ rather than ‘speaking skills’ for the simple reason that I was talking about ‘real’ conversations. If we are honest, not everyone is a good conversationalist, even in their L1. There are certain skills that have to be learned such as listening carefully to what people say, often with background noise or interruptions from mobile phones, recognizing speakers’ feelings and emotions, choosing appropriate responses (including non-verbal ones), looking out for clues in body language, using verbal and non-verbal connecting devices to maintain the flow of conversation, and the list goes on!

      The important question is not so much whether the learners are having conversations or not, but what kind of conversations they are having. If the content is superficial and frivolous, rather than tending towards the academic, this will not go down well with institutional management. Perhaps we should encourage students to have discussions with some kind of focus rather than just indulge in idle chit-chat (though we have to admit that chit-chat and conviviality are also important in people’s lives).

      To me, practice is all-important, not only to achieve improvement, but to be able to maintain whatever standard you have reached in any number of things – speaking languages, including sign language, playing a musical instrument, performing dance, participating in a team or individual sport, painting, carpentry, throwing ceramic pots, etc.

      In 2014, I attended a most interesting talk given at the IATEFL Conference in Harrogate by Stephen Scott Brewer in which he emphasized the importance of focused practice both in relationship to musicianship and to language learning. He speaks multiple languages and reached solo concert performance level in piano, neither of which would have been achieved without focused practice. He now encourages others to attain the same levels. Dancers and musicians of the highest order make their performances look so easy that it would never occur to us that not only do they have to rehearse for their performance, but they have to perform endless hours of special technical exercises every day to ensure that their agility and technique, as well as their interpretation, is as flawless as possible.

      Even so, I understand there may be others out there who feel the word ‘practice’ is in some way derogatory or demeaning, so I have compromised a little and changed the wording in the text to ‘practice and engage in conversation and discussions’.

      Finally, I am very happy to be able to tell you that although the burglary at the Resource Centre had a long and devastating effect on the School of English, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, thanks to Professor Marina Mattheoudakis of the Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics and the assistance of undergraduate students of the School of English, the Resource Centre has been brought back to life

      Long may it and self-access resources worldwide thrive!


      Breen, M. P., & Mann, S. J. (1997). Shooting arrows at the sun. In P. Benson & P. Voller (Eds.), Autonomy and independence in language learning (pp. 132-149). Longman.
      Brewer, S. S. (2014, April 2-5). Practice makes purfect – or does it? 48th IATEFL International Conference.
      Dufeu, B. (1994). Teaching myself. Oxford University Press.
      Gardner, D., & Miller, L. (1999). Establishing self-access: From theory to practice. Cambridge University Press.
      Gardner, D., & Miller, L. (2014). Managing self-access language learning. City University of Hong Kong Press.
      Imhoof, M. (1991). Making the most of classroom constraints. English Teaching Forum, 29(3), 40-41.
      Nolen, S. B. (1995). Teaching for autonomous learning. In C. Deforges (Ed.), An introduction to teaching: Psychological perspectives (pp. 197-215). Blackwell.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *