FROM POZNAŃ WITH LOVE

by Zosia Grudzińska

zosia_g@wp.pl

 

4th February, Poznań

 

The city looks lovely in the rays of the winter sun, inviting for a stroll. Alas, there is no time for sight-seeing. The telephone is ringing, reminding me that someone is waiting in the lobby. He turns out to be a student, very serious about his assignment of shepherding a group of respected academicians to the conference venue.

 

The event’s title is difficult to digest and almost impossible to translate. It is a symposium dedicated to the issue of “Autonomisation of Tertiary Education Students in View of the Effectiveness of the Didactic Processes at the Advanced Level”. Dig it? Well, all I could make out of it was: how do the tools of autonomy raise the effectiveness of the learning\teaching process of foreign languages at institutions of higher education?

 

The list of participants is impressive, abundant in titles. Most name tags are embellished with a three or four letter adornment, indicating their academic standing. Since I decided not to stand out of the crowd and generally not to show my maverick nature, mine also bears the modest “mgr”. Hardly a person without some “more elevated” indicator to be seen in the crowded cloakroom. It is a good sign. Learner Autonomy, which has been from time to time described as the “extreme” in the realm of pedagogical concepts, seems to acquire a certain nobility, having gathered such an audience.

 

The programme looks equally impressive, offering papers from practical to something for which I coined the phrase “applied pedagogical art” – like a lecture about neurological brain processes involved in learning foreign languages. There are many papers from Poznań, the Alma Mater of the symposium. Logical, as the event itself is only the final stage of a long-term project, initiated by the Faculty of Neophilology at the Adam Mickiewicz University. Since December 1999, lecturers conducted field research, checking various methods of the “autonomisation” of students (or the learning\teaching process, which sounds more humane to my ears). They evolved the concept of “half-autonomy”, which I would not like to criticise, since it seems a good starting point for reforming our tradition-bound ways of looking at the teaching profession, the hierarchy of priorities and the teacher’s role versus the students’ responsibilities. After having presented the project at the KBN they received a grant for on-going research. Several teams worked for a full academic year, implementing various tools of autonomy and collecting, collating and analysing data.

 

The last was for me the most important aspect of the project. The tools themselves are pretty “traditional” (Lo and behold, Learner Autonomy has already created a body of tradition!) and for most of our SIG members no revelation: “choice” lessons, where students themselves decided about the task (although within a limited range, a sort of “menu” cooked up by the tutor); peer evaluation; assessment techniques; developing the students' communicative competence and self-reliance; raising awareness of existing learning strategies and pin-pointing a learner’s own preferences in this aspect; non-verbal strategies influencing the effectiveness of didactic communication… I could make this list longer, but it would just be a litany of terms. I could not attend all the presentations anyway, as they were divided into three “strands”, interspersed with plenary discussions, of which more in a while. But to come back to the proverbial sheep: the researchers, being academic teachers trained in the proper usage of research tools, offered well-rounded conclusions, carefully based on real facts and figures – not “some maverick teacher imagination” – as often seems to be the argument of more conservative teachers when discussing the autonomy-supporting pedagogical approach.

 

I was inspired by the idea of plenary discussions based on the key dissertations of the project. In the effort to activate (autonomise?) the participants, the organisers of the Symposium planned a series of discussions based on the earlier study of the papers, sent out several weeks before the event. The idea is great, unfortunately here the organisation failed. Many of us – me included – got only one paper, and that a day or two before, leaving no time to really digest its contents. So the idea fell through, which does not diminish its appeal. We could use it in future. Obviously, the widespread use of e-mail makes it functional while sending out bulky envelopes would be rather impractical. Here again it comes to mind – how important is for us to keep up with technological progress. But this is just an aside.

 

The atmosphere, initially rather formal, has loosened a bit during the coffee and lunch breaks, leading to a very convivial dinner. Most participants left early, however, gathering strength for the second day of presentations and plenary meetings. There is something to say in favour of last night frolicking!

 

Our SIG was represented actively by two members: Danusia Wiśniewska, also one of the organisers of the Symposium, talked about the attitudes of students and what they expect from the teacher, when exposed to learner autonomy. Beata Opałka (neé Darzycka) spoke about her work with students at the Faculty of Pharmacy. To avoid accusations of nepotism, I shall refrain from reviewing their input.

 

I, for once, kept a low profile. The multitude and the magnitude of academic titles surrounding me proved very effective as an inhibitory device! Flippancy aside, it was heartening to witness tertiary education practitioners outside the world of EFL teachers and trainers talking about the benefits of learner autonomy. Some presentations gave me ideas – some of them have already proved themselves well in practise. All in all, time well spent – not to mention the charm of Poznań itself. Of which, as I said at the beginning, not enough could be visited, so if there ever is another symposium similar to this one, Danusiu – count me among the participants!

 

 Zosia Grudzińska 2002