Keiko K. Schneider
Japanese Instructor
Dept. of Foreign Languages and Literatures
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131-1146 USA
e-mail:kschnei@nmjc.org

Learning Contracts have been used in education and training circles and sometimes even to complete a degree. Boak (1998) defines effective Learning Contracts as "a formal, written agreement between a learner and a tutor (or a trainer, or a coach) about what the learner will learn and how that learning will be measured." In stead of a traditional learning approach where the teacher designs a class and students receive it, students themselves get involved with the planning of class and learning process, including the assessment process. The role of teachers and students are different from the traditional sense, too. It makes students more in charge of their own learning under the supervision of teachers. Learning Contracts are truly "learner centered" approach. However, it is a rather foreign concept in the Japanese teaching field.

Successful language learners know that language learning is a life-long endeavor. Unfortunately no matter how good language teachers are, they are not going to be able to assist in learning forever. At some point, students have to become autonomous in their learning, and take charge of the continuation of learning. National and state standards are now a reality rather than a dream or a future plan. In ACTFL Standards 5.2, we recognized the importance of learners that are responsible for their own learning as life-long learners.

Practicing Learning Contracts while students have their teacher's help will encourage students to look at their learning consciously and critically. Learning Contracts allow an individualized program, reflecting students' age, gender, linguistics and cultural background, language ability and level, needs and interest, learning styles and beliefs (Thomson 1999) . Learning Contracts encourages learner autonomy by addressing the different needs and interests of students, differing learning styles, and multiple intelligences .

In this paper, a brief language learning course using Learning Contracts is described. There are several reasons why we decided to take this approach. First since the students were going to be in Japan, I wanted them to take full advantage of the living language around them. Authentic materials are plentiful in Japan. I wanted a program that would utilize or investigate something that they heard at a dinner table at their host family. Secondly, with that much choice of materials around them, I wanted them to pursue their own academic and professional interests within Japanese language learning. The students were undergraduate, graduate students and working professionals. If they wanted to read a brochure of a company in which they hoped to work as an intern in the near future, I wanted to give them an opportunity to do so. Finally, the logistics and varied levels of the group made Learning Contracts more realistic to run a class. There were a small group of people who had to complete class requirements for a class running concurrently back in the States. Most students were finished with the second semester, but there was a student who had finished the third-year level. In order for all of them to make the most of learning, some individualization was inevitable in this situation. I would like to present this Learning Contracts model as an alternative to a multi-level class. Multi-level classes are a reality for language teachers. The higher the level becomes, the wider the gap between students. We all know how difficult it is to mold various students to one class. Providing Learning Contracts may be a solution to this problem.

Learning Contracts were used in the Japanese language portion of the month long Japan study tour hosted by the New Mexico US-Japan Center. The Center offers an Intern Preparation and Placement Program where students complete language and culture study requirements and ultimately receive internship positions in Japan. During the study tour, students stay with a host family and make site visits to various companies and organizations.
The first difficulty we had to overcome was the lack of an on-site instructor. I was unable to go because I was teaching two summer courses in New Mexico. Because of the timing and the budget, we were unable to identify a trained language teacher on site. We, therefore, decided the two New Mexico US-Japan Center staff members coordinating the tour would act as tutors, and organized the class into "big group activities," involving the whole class and individualized activities. Learning Contracts were utilized in the language program to maximize personal learning. The course consisted of eight two-hour "classes" . Each began with cross-cultural training, and one whole-group activity. That was followed by individual activities designed by students. We were lucky enough to get an assistance from a local volunteer group who came once a week to work with students individually. Some volunteers were even teachers, and all were native speakers of Japanese.
The preparation started far in advance of the actual trip. (See Planning I and II) We presented the goal "The students will be able to acquire practical skills for an internship in terms of living in Japan and interacting (working) with the Japanese. " First students were asked to identify what they would like to do/ should be able to do with the language during the trip. I worked with them individually to identify realistic objectives based on the four language skills. Useful materials were distributed for planning. (See materials) Each student had tentative lesson plans approved by me before they left along with a list of materials needed. In Japan, students had to write a report at the end of each class comparing what the day's plan had been with what they actually accomplished (See Sample). The students were asked to write out the activity , how long it took, and which objective it met. They were then asked to describe the detail of each activity in "Evaluation of each activity". The report ends with the "Proposed plan for the next session". The tutor collected the report at the end of each class and faxed it to me . I responded with comments (See Comments), helped the students re-plan, if necessary, and provided new materials.

On the final day, students were asked to fill out evaluation form. They were asked to evaluate their accomplishments on each objective they identified earlier, evaluate tutors, volunteers and myself and the language course altogether in terms of the goal set up at the beginning of the planning session.

Overall, the language course was a modest success, although we learned that future improvements were needed. The first problem was that some of the students were not getting academic credits for this course and did not see why they had to do this. Lack of my presence in Japan also added a dimension to the Learning Contracts. The communication between the tutor and myself was difficult because of other activities and the time difference. Originally I wanted students to keep each activity short in order not to monopolize the volunteers and to stay engaged with an activity. Tutors had students change activities every twenty minutes. I wasn't informed that the students felt that was too short a time period to accomplish something and wanted it be more flexible.

For students, writing reports seemed to be a burden. I found that graduate students and professionals who are used to writing out plans and evaluation, and reflect critically on their own work did not have as much trouble as undergraduates. This was obvious in the planning stage where they had to come up with lesson plans.

However there were several advantages to the Learning Contracts. Students were able to work on immediate needs, primarily interaction with the host family. There were various projects that reflected students' needs and interests in both personal and professional aspects. They liked the presence and generous help of the volunteers. As Thomson says (1999) the evaluation is one area of further study. Because of the nature of the Learning Contracts, the students have to self-evaluate, but so does the instructor. Since the projects are varied, it is difficult to present grades as required in educational institutions.

Therefore, despite the problems, I believe that incorporating Learning Contracts and its individualized program will alleviate some consistent problems we have encountered in multi-level classes. It is a lot of work for students and also for the teacher in a different manner from the traditional class preparation. However it will be rewarding to complete a task that the student is really interested and needed instead of prescribed whole-class lesson plans.


References

ACTFL (1998) Executive Summary. Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Preparing for the 21st Century

Anderson, Geoff (1996) Learning Contracts: A Practical Guide. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing Inc

Boak, George (1998) A Complete Guide to Learning Contracts.
Brookfield, Vt. : Gower

Cristiano, Marilyn, J. (1993) "I Want to Learn What I Want to Learn in the Way I Choose to Learn it: Using Learning Contracts." Paper presented at the Western States Communication Association Great Ideas for Teaching Speech Community College Interest Group (ED 372 038)

Knowles, Malcom (1986) Using Learning Contracts. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Kolb, D. 1976 The Learning Style Inventory. Boston, MA: McBer and Co.

Laycock, M. And Stephenson, J. (Eds.) 1992 Using Learning Contracts in Higher Education. London: Kogan Page,

Pedler, Mike. (Ed.) (1997) Action Learning in Practice.
Brookfield, Vt. : Gower

Revans, R. (1980) Action Learning.
London: Blond and Briggs

Smith, Robert McCaughan. (1984)
Learning How to Learn: Applied Theory for Adults.
Mileton Keynes: Open University Press,

Thomson, Chisato K. (In press) "Gakushuu keiyakusho o tsukatta jiritsu gakushuu no kokoromi [A learning contract and learner autonomy in teaching Japanese as a foreign language: A case study]." Acquisition of Japanese as a Second Language. Vol. 2, 1999.

Back to ATJ99 Homepage