Ho & Crookall, System- paper

Draft of a paper to appear in Wenden, A. & Dickinson, L. (Eds.) (1995). Autonomy in language
learning. (Special issue of System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and
Applied Linguistics, May 1995) Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Breaking with Chinese cultural traditions:

Learner autonomy in English language teaching

Judy Ho
City University of Hong Kong
David Crookall
Université de Technologie de Compiègne

ABSTRACT

Some of the basic thinking regarding certain aspects of learner autonomy is presented, (although the
preferred term is responsibility). However, certain cultural traits (such as the Chinese concern with
face) may be an obstacle to the promotion of autonomy, especially in the more traditional
organisation of some classrooms. The use of large-scale simulation can, however, transform the
ordinary classroom into a learning environment that powerfully promotes learner responsibility and
autonomy. A concrete example of how this actually happened is discussed in detail, as are the
cultural traits that both hinder and encourage autonomy in such a setting. The conclusion is that it is
through concrete actions of taking responsibility that responsibility is learned.

THE PATH TO AUTONOMY

The pursuit of learning after the completion of a formal course is now generally recognised as a
legitimate need and goal in the field of education. "[B]ecause of the complexity and rapidity of
change in our highly technological societies", it is important to help our learners "to develop the
attitude that learning is a life- long process and to acquire the skills of self-directed learning"
(Knowles, 1976: 23, cited in Wenden, 1987: 9) However, due to the highly complex nature of
language and language learning (Dickinson & Carver, 1980), encouraging autonomy in language
learners often proves to be a doubly difficult objective. In aiming for such an objective, it is useful
to ask the following questions. What is learner autonomy? What kinds of obstacles might be
encountered by a teacher in promoting autonomy in a traditional classroom setting? How might
these obstacles be overcome? Specifically, how might the classroom be transformed into a learning
environment that facilitates the promotion of autonomy ?

In this paper we will, first, provide a glimpse of some of the basic thinking regarding certain aspects
of autonomy. Next, we will consider how certain aspects of a learner’s cultural background may
impede the promotion of autonomy. Finally, we will give an account of how a simulation can
transform the traditional classroom into a learning environment that is able to deal with the
constraints to the promotion of autonomy presented by culture.

ASPECTS OF LEARNER AUTONOMY

Learner autonomy is generally recognised as an important "pedagogical goal" (Wenden, 1987), "a
philosophy of learning" (Henner-Stanchina & Riley, 1978: 75 ), "an unavoidable methodological
Ho & Crookall, System- paper
2
option" (Narcy, 1994) and as representing "the upper limit of self-directed learning measured on a
notional scale from fully directed to fully autonomous learning" (Dickinson, 1978). As the terms
goal, philosophy, method and notion would suggest, autonomy is not easily defined in a concrete
and tangible manner. Still, there are certain kinds of knowledge, skills, and attitudes which can be
said to characterize and/or lead towards autonomous learning.

Primary among these is self-knowledge -- knowing what one needs to learn and why. This
knowledge provides the basis for the exercise of the following skills, considered keys to self-
directed or autonomous learning (see Dickinson, 1987; Holec, 1981, 1989):
• choosing instructional materials,
• setting learning objectives and prioritizing them,
• determining when and how long to work on each objective,
• assessing progress and achievements and
• evaluating the learning program.
Learners also need skills to manage their time and to cope with stress and other negative affective
factors that may interfere with learning, and they need to have some basic knowledge about the
learning process and the nature of language (see Crookall, 1983; Ellis & Sinclair, 1989; Wenden,
1991). Finally, learners also need to be self-motivated and self-disciplined.

The extent to which a learner will acquire the above skills and knowledge depends on a host of
factors. One of these is the learner's and the teacher's views of and actions in regard to their
relationship and roles. Fernandes et al. (1990: 101) express it clearly:
In their everyday lives adults are required to ... make choices and decisions
regarding their lives, accept responsibility, and learn to do things for
themselves. However, language learners in the classroom often tend to revert
to the traditional role of pupil, who expects to be told what to do ... . As a
result, some learners have become teacher-dependent and often feel that it is
the teacher alone who is responsible for any learning and progress that takes
place.
Therefore, it is generally agreed that for learners to become autonomous, they must redefine their
views about teacher-learner roles. However, the burden of the responsibility for such a redefinition
should not be assigned solely to learners. The teacher also has a role to play in helping learners
realize that they, too, must take on responsibility for their learning.

As will be shown in this paper, one way in which this can be done is for the teacher to create an
environment in which responsibility is shared. While selected and structured by the teacher, such an
environment can allow learners to exercise increasing responsibility through decision making that is
either done independently of others or in a situation where they choose to be part of a group and,
therefore, to be dependent upon it for their learning. As Dickinson (1978: 12) points out “free
choice may in fact be a choice to relinquish [the learner's] autonomy over a particular stretch for a
particular purpose”.

We prefer to call this free choice “taking responsibility” for one’s own learning and for oneself in
the learning situation. We think that the nation of responsibility is more powerful than that of
autonomy, and is plagued by fewer negative connotations, and corresponds more closely to what
learners actually do. However, such a discussion would need another paper, and thus for present
purposes, we shall (hesitatingly!) continue to use the consecrated term, autonomy.
Ho & Crookall, System- paper
3
AUTONOMY AND CULTURE

While personal autonomy appears to be a universally desirable and beneficial objective, it is

important to remember that learner autonomy is implemented within the context of specific cultures.
Therefore, in choosing the skills and kinds of knowledge to develop and in selecting the procedures
or methods that are to be used to help learners develop skills for autonomy, the culturally-
constructed nature of the classroom setting needs to be taken into account. We must also consider
how certain cultural traits might either facilitate or inhibit the acquisition of these skills and
knowledge and, thus, restrain or assist the development of autonomy.

In China, one such trait is social relations in the classroom. Both teachers' and learners' views of
classroom roles are deeply rooted in the Chinese tradition of seeing oneself as a part of a "relational
hierarchy" (Chang & Holt, 1994: 105). Indeed, the importance of "social relations" and "hierarchy"
in Chinese culture has been observed by a number of scholars (see, e.g., Hsu, 1985; Chu, 1985;
Hwang, 1987). This hierarchy of human relations sets the general context within which we must
understand Chinese students' respect for authority and their view of the teacher as the authority
figure. Scollon and Scollon (1994a: 21) make some insightful observations about fundamental
differences in the way Asians and Westerners perceive authority.
The Asian focuses on the care, nurture and benevolence (or their
absence) of the person in authority while the westerner tends to focus
on the restriction, limitation and dependence of the person over which
the authority is exercised.
The writers go on to suggest that according to the Asian notion of authority, the teacher is expected
to exercise authority, that is, to look after or nurture her students and take charge.

Closely related to Chinese respect for authority is the Chinese pre-occupation with face. The
multiple meanings and importance of face to the Chinese have been discussed in many cross-
cultural studies (see, e.g., Ho,1976; Hwang, 1987; Scollon & Scollon, 1994b; Chang & Holt, 1994).
In particular, Chang and Holt (1994: 115) have made the point that in communicating with another
person, one must "protect the other's self-image and feelings, he or she is not confronted directly".
This point explains, at least in part, why many Chinese students will not challenge their teacher's
position on a given point (or even indeed authority in general). Chinese students have a great
respect for and wish to maintain their teacher's mien-tzu (face). With similar concern for mien-tzu,
the teacher is also reluctant to admit any inadequacies on his/her part. It is very difficult for a
Chinese teacher to say "I am sorry. I don't know. Let's work out a solution together".

Being autonomous often requires that students work independently of the teacher and this may
entail shared decision making, including the presenting opinions that differ from those of the
teacher. It is, thus, easy to see why Chinese students would not find autonomy very comfortable,
emotionally or indeed intellectually. One might even draw the conclusion that it is impossible for
Chinese students to learn to exercise responsibility for their learning in the classroom. This does
not necessarily have to be the case, however, as we will show below.

SIMULATION: CHANGING THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

As noted earlier, teachers need to create learning environments that will facilitate and enhance the
development of learner responsibility and, by implication, help overcome the obstacles that may
impede its development. This includes the barriers that are put up by cultural values and the norms
for appropriate classroom behavior that reflect these values. One methodology that can facilitate the
Ho & Crookall, System- paper
4
creation of such an environment is simulation/gaming (well known to System readers). In fact,
simulations and games are used routinely by countless language teachers the world over. However,
they are under-used as a direct means of providing learner training (for examples of such use, see
Ellis & Sinclair, 1989; Fernandes et al., 1990).

Here we describe how a large-scale simulation was used to provide both learner training in a
classroom setting without coming into conflict with cultural values that appear to be diametrically
opposed to autonomy. Specifically, one of the main objectives of this learning experience in a
simulation environment was to provide learners with an opportunity to learn how to exercise
responsibility for their learning .

Participants and tasks

Twenty-one students enrolled in the first year of the BA in English for Professional
Communication, at the City University of Hong Kong, participated in a large-scale, world-wide,
computer-mediated simulation, called Project IDEALS (supported by a major grant from FIPSE,
USA). They were one of 37 student teams that were located in a variety of countries around the
world and that participated in the simulation. Communication (both asynchronous and real-time)
among teams was made possible via the Internet and specialised interactive software. (For more
information on the project, see Crookall & Landis, 1992). Each team of students was assigned the
role of a particular nation -- the class of students we focus on here was assigned the role of a poor
landlocked country called Mountainia, which was very keen on gaining access to the sea. The
participants’ overall goal was to negotiated with the other country-teams the text of an international
treaty on how the world's ocean resources should be managed. To do this, the team had to carry out
a series of tasks, such as preparing a two-page policy statement, a ten-page position paper and
various drafts of the treaty. This particular simulation was run in February 1993 and lasted for
seven weeks, with several weeks preparation and follow-up work.

Simulations and autonomy

We describe below how participation in a simulation provided learners with an opportunity to take
responsibility for their learning (i.e., make decisions about their learning , plan, evaluate, monitor,
assess). We show how such a methodology can be used to create a learning environment that
contributes to the development of autonomy and why it can be considered an important method for
learner training.

1) Deciding to engage in the simulation. Making choices about what one wants to learn or even
whether one wants to learn at all is one of the first decisions required of autonomous learners (see,
e.g., Logan, 1973; Dickinson, 1978, 1987; Allwright, 1988). Therefore, a learning environment or
methodology which intends to help students develop the skills and attitudes that sustain autonomous
learning must provide students with an opportunity to make such decisions. In the present case, this
meant that the students' themselves should be committed to or choose to get involved in the
simulation.

To ensure this commitment, the teacher gave students information about the project, the benefits
and potential problems. Terms of the learning contract such as the use of English in all activities,
both inside and outside classrooms, were also presented. The students were then asked to decide
whether or not they would participate in the simulation. Thus, right from the start, students made an
important decision about their own learning and accepted the responsibilities that such a decision
Ho & Crookall, System- paper
5
would entail. Moreover, to make this decision, it was necessary for them to become aware of their
learning needs, interests and abilities -- the kind of self-knowledge mentioned earlier.

2) Taking responsibility for the simulation tasks. As noted above, the participants were assigned
the role of a particular country and, as ministers of this country, they were expected to work out an
international treaty on how the world's ocean resources should be managed. To do so, they were
required to take responsibility for the following tasks:
2a) Organizing their country. The second major decision to be made by students was how to
organise themselves in fundamental ways. They had to take ownership of their country by
deciding on their form of government -- a democracy, with ministries and a Prime Minister.
They then decided on ministry membership, elected a Prime Minister and ministers and
allocated other individual specialist responsibilities. All this was accomplished after lengthy
debates on what ministries would be the most important and relevant for the type of country
they represented. These actions provided further opportunities to take on responsibility and,
therefore, to promote autonomy.
2b) Policy making and goal setting. Once learners had set up their own sovereign (i.e.,
autonomous!) country, they had to establish policy -- they had to make their country work.
Ministers and specialists worked in collaboration with the elected Prime Minister in setting
goals for the country team and in drawing up the terms of the policy statement and position
paper. This constituted a steep learning curve in terms of taking responsibility and
exercising autonomy, but it was to pay off as the simulation progressed and the team quickly
began to face real-world tasks and to communicate with other countries. Participants’
responsibilities as ministers inevitably involved responsibilities as learners.
2c) Weekly meetings to discuss the affairs of state. As ministers, students held formal
meetings every week to discuss the business of the state. In these meetings, information was
presented, matters discussed, priorities set and decisions made. Learners had to decide what
to include in their discussions, how and when to conduct their meetings, and what course of
action to take. Partcipants spent much time outside of class in preparing such meetings. All
of this was achieved in a real-life situation, which was preset by the simulation. In other
words, the simulation enabled all these decision-making and responsiblity-taking processes
to take place in a natural manner.

3) Taking responsibility for the learning/exercise of skills necessary to the simulation task. In the
context of fulfilling their responsibilities as ministers of state, simulation participants (i.e., the
students) were also provided with an opportunity to self-direct their learning of the following skills:
3a) Conflict resolution skills. Working in groups not only means completing a series of given
tasks in time; it also requires that group members work through conflict situations and
accommodate different opinions. In the case of Mountainia, students learned how to deal
with differences of opinion and personal clashes. In other words, besides providing learners
with an opportunity to make decisions to organize and manage their country, the simulation
required that learners learn, autonomously and in the context of the simulation, the skills for
resolving conflicts amongst themselves. When asked how they solved problems involving
opinion differences or emotional conflicts among group members, most learners said they
would negotiate and come to a compromise (76%), recognize the existence of conflicts and
talk about them honestly with their group members (76%) and state their views and vote
(43%). In addition, the majority of respondents felt that by participating in the project, they
had also learned how to understand their classmates (62%) and deal with conflicts in a group
(57%). When reflecting on the development of their inter-personal relationships, the
majority of Partcipants (76%) thought that the project had brought them closer to their
Ho & Crookall, System- paper
6
classmates. Again, as in the case of the skills required to organize and manage their country,
the conflict-resolution skills were acquired through the exercise of responsibility and on an
autonomous basis.
3b) Language skills for professional communication. The range of language tasks was wide
and included all four skills. Students read writings of different genres: the background
readings included academic articles, legal documents and journalistic reports. Learners also
dealt with nearly 1750 simulation communications (editorials, arguments and proposals) of
varied lengths that arrived electronically from many other teams and from the Project
Director. Several thousand other messages were exchanged during live, real-time
teleconferences. From these various sources of written input, learners developed skimming
and scanning skills essential to sorting out relevant information for their group; they learned
to summarize significant points and prepare for meetings. Soon after decisions were reached
in their meetings, Mountainians wrote the necessary and appropriate diplomatic messages to
send out to other countries.
3c) Time management and contingency planning. The ability to manage one's time and to work
out contingency plans are skills which are strong indicators of autonomy. The simulation
provided opportunities to exercise these skills as well. The Project Director set very tight
schedules, with specific documents due by certain dates. Students could not wait for the
teacher to tell them what to do since tutorials were held only twice a week. Students learned
to be responsible not only for themselves, but also for their own group (their own country),
and ultimately for other teams. In a post-activity questionnaire when learners were asked
whether participation in the simulation had any influence on their management styles and
learning approaches, the majority pointed out that they had learned how to deal with matters
that cropped up suddenly (62%) and how to work under pressures and meet deadlines (57%).
In sum, here we see how a simulation can provide an authentic context for language learning and for
promoting learner responsibility. Moreover, in the present case, language tasks were integrated into
and became continuous with students' learning how to manage. Participants thus became
responsible for both their own country and their own learning.

Simulation, culture and autonomy

How does a simulation contribute to the development of autonomy in students from a cultural
background that is almost diametrically opposed to autonomy? Here we will consider two
characteristics of the simulation that made it possible for learners to overcome certain cultural
constraints to the exercise of autonomy.

First, simulations are unpredictable. There was no way in which the Project Director, let alone the
local facilitators, could predict what course the negotiations would take or what their outcome might
be. Moreover, it was also observed that when faced with an influx of rapid messages from the
telecommunications network, students had to exercise their own discretion and learn to negotiate
with other participants as fully responsible state officials. Thus, the precarious nature of the
simulation erodes the sense of security to which Chinese students traditionally cling, by relying on
the all-nurturing, all-benevolent, all-knowing teacher.

Second, simulations require problem sharing among learners and between learners and teachers. An
example was the technical break-downs which occurred in the course of the simulation. Nothing
that either the students or their teacher could do would remedy the situation -- the teacher allowed
herself to be seen as helpless as the students themselves. In a sense, the technical failures tore apart
the mien-tzu (face) of the teacher. This allowed the teacher to initiate a change in teacher-student
Ho & Crookall, System- paper
7
relationship, by admitting and professing not to know how to solve the problem, and by declaring
herself to be in the same boat as the participants. However, because this occurred within the
relatively less threatening context of the simulation, it was easier (than in more threatening,
traditional classrooms) for both the teacher and learners to redefine the role of the teacher. By
explicitly taking on a role of “counsellor, lecturer and adviser” (Rogers, 1969: 165, cited in
Dickinson, 1978: 22) and "helper" (Henner-Stanchina & Riley, 1978: 75) in the context of the
simulation, the teacher was able, relatively easily, to initiate a new type of relationship with her
learners. This was then carried over into non-simulation situations. In a word, simulation helps to
"declassroom" the classroom (Sharrock & Watson, 1985; Watson & Sharrock, 1990).

Culture, simulation and autonomy

However, moving a step further, we should note that, whereas some aspects of Chinese culture
appear to be impediments to autonomy, it also appears to be the case that other aspects of Chinese
culture may actually contribute to the development of autonomy, given the right situation -- in this
case, the simulation. In other words, although certain cultural traits may make autonomy difficult to
achieve, other cultural traits actually facilitate its attainment under certain circumstances.
Moreover, seems that simulation provides a context that both counters the negative and enhances
the positive aspects. We now look at two autonomy-enhancing traits in the context of simulation.

1) Achievement orientation. Although Chinese children have been frustrated in their "active or
exploratory demands" even from infancy (Ho,1986: 4), they are, nevertheless, under pressure to
achieve educationally (Ho, 1986; Wu, 1994). However, this can be done more easily and happily if
students are given learning tasks in which both their exploratory urges and their achievement
orientation are perceived as realizable and can indeed be achieved in a concrete manner. One such
task is a simulated negotiation in which (1) there is no fixed examination format to assess the
participants' comparative success or failure, and thus thwart their exploratory inclinations, and in
which (2) the are ample opportunities to achieve concrete ends to know that their have been
achieved. It is the participants who set goals for themselves and who assess how much they have
achieved, in their own terms and by their own standards.

By taking part in a project like IDEALS, students can, on the one hand, be active and exploratory,
and yet, on the other, satisfy their culturally-imposed need to be achievers. In the present case, the
members of Mountainia did achieve two of the most important objectives that they set for
themselves in their initial position paper, to wit, to gain access to the sea and fight against pollution
with other countries. Thus, the cultural emphasis on achievement contributed to the carrying out of
actions and the accomplishments of tasks which together moved the learners towards autonomy.
From another viewpoint, it may be said that such achievement-motivated actions and tasks actually
constituted acts of autonomy. This cultural trait probably would have played a far less prominent
role in promoting autonomy in an ordinary (non-simulation) classroom.

2) Inside-outside. Another aspect of Chinese culture which facilitates the promotion of autonomy
through simulations is the "inside and outside relationships" (Scollon & Scollon, 1994b: 16-18).
According to Tajfel (1984: 699) in such a situation,
[w]hen social groups differ in status and power, strategies aiming to maintain
a satisfactory social identity and to achieve positive distinctiveness from
other relevant groups on certain relevant dimensions of comparison do
undoubtedly continue to play an important role in collective behaviour.
Ho & Crookall, System- paper
8
In other words, the fact that students have to work as members of a team puts them in an inside
relationship [an ingroup] in which they can bond and express their opinions freely. On the other
hand, other teams with whom they have to negotiate are put into an outside relationship [the
outgroup]. Such a sense of group identity has an intrinsic motivational power. It engages learners'
in their learning tasks, motivates them to utilize all their resources in defending the interests of the
ingroup. It is difficult here to develop this theme further (for want of space), but the power of
ingroup cohesion on members’ motivation to enhance their self-image cannot be underestimated.
Such motivation impels participants to take responsibility for their sovereign country, to make
autonomous decisions and act upon them with a force and conviction that would not be conceivable
in an ordinary classroom. This deep involvement, a key to autonomous learning, is poignantly
expressed by a student in her reflections on taking part in Project IDEALS.
It was very exciting to be people of one of 27 countries in the world. We
enjoyed to be Mountainians. We did our best to keep "national information"
in extremely secret. We would feel worry and angry when our favour was
harassed by other countries. We would feel happy if we were successful to
grasp our interest. Although we would finish the "Project Ideals" in
approaching days, we still could not forget we were once the people of
peaceful and nature-loving country, Mountainia.

CONCLUSION

Through Project IDEALS, our students took part in an important and memorable experience. They
were keenly aware of dealing with people from other cultures; they became critical thinkers; they
learned to argue intelligently and to write effectively; they worked collaboratively with others; they
made informed decisions. Not least of all, underlying these more practical pursuits, they rose to the
challenge and opportunity of taking greater responsibility for their own learning. In addition, they
shared in each other's learning; thus while they became autonomous from the teacher, they
maintained the important social and collaborative aspect of the learning enterprise. We have also
shown how, despite cultural constraints, the simulation project enabled them to develop certain
knowledge, skills, and attitudes which are characteristic of learner autonomy.

What general lessons can be drawn from this experience? We offer the following. Autonomy
cannot be conferred by a teacher, at least not directly. Taking responsibility can only be
encouraged, sometimes necessitated, by learner participation in a personally-meaningful, real-world
context, such as a simulation. In the end, while it is the role of teachers to engineer situations in
which autonomy can be exercised, it is the learner who must actually do the exercising - perhaps
with some initial reassurance from the teacher. Indeed, learning to take responsibility is very much
like learning to do other things. Only the learner can learn - not the teacher. Moreover, the learner
can only learn by doing. In other words, only by taking steps towards autonomy and exercising that
autonomy will the learner be and become autonomous.

REFERENCES

ALLWRIGHT, D. (1988). Autonomy and individualization in whole class instruction. In Individualization

and Autonomy in Language Learning. ELT Documents 131. Modern English Publications and the
British Council.
CHANG H. & HOLT R. (1994). A Chinese perspective on face as inter-relational concern. In Ting-
Toomey, S. (Ed.) The Challenge of Facework. Albany: State University of New York Press.
CHU, G. (1985) The changing concept of self in contemporary China. In Marsella, A.J. et al. (Eds.)
Culture and Self: Asian and Western Perspectives. London: Tavistock Publications.
Ho & Crookall, System- paper
9
CROOKALL, D. & LANDIS, P. (1992) Global network simulation: An environment for global awareness.
In Crookall, D. & Arai, K. (Eds.) Global Interdependence: Simulation and Gaming Perspectives.
Tokyo: Springer-Verlag.
CROOKALL, D. (1983) Learner training: A neglected strategy (Parts 1 & 2). Modern English Teacher,
11:1:41-42 & 11:2:31-33.
DICKINSON, L. (1978). Autonomy, self-directed learning and individualization. In Individualization in
Language Learning. ELT Documents 103. British Council, ETIC Publications.
DICKINSON, L. (1987). Self-Instruction in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DICKINSON, L. & CARVER, D. (1980). Learning how to learn: Steps towards self-direction in foreign
language learning in schools. English Language Teaching Journal, 35(1), October 1980.
ELLIS, G. & SINCLAIR, B. (1989). Learning to learn English: A course in learner training. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
FERNANDES, J., ELLIS, G. & SINCLAIR, B. (1990). Learner training: Learning how to learn. In
Crookall, D. & Oxford, R. (Eds.) Simulation, Gaming, and Language Learning. Boston, MA: Newbury
House / Heinle & Heinle.
HENNER-STANCHINA, C. & RILEY, P. (1978) Aspects of autonomous learning. In Individualization in
Language Learning. ELT Documents 103. British Council, ETIC Publications.
HO, D. (1976). On the concept of face. American Journal of Sociology, 81:867-884.
HO, D. (1986). Chinese patterns of socialization: A critical review. In Bond, M. (Ed.) The Psychology of
the Chinese People. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
HOLEC, H. (1981). Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
HOLEC, H. (Ed.) (1989). Autonomy and Self-Directed Learning: Present Fields of Application.
Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
HSU, F. (1985). The self in cross-cultural perspectives. In Marsella, A.J. et al. (Eds.) Culture and Self
Asian and Western Perspectives. London: Tavistock Publications.
HWANG, K. (1987). Face and favour: The Chinese power game. American Journal of Sociology, 92(4),
January 1987.
LOGAN, G.E. (1973) Individualized Foreign Language Learning: An Organic Process. Boston: Newbury
House.
NARCY, J -P. (1994). Autonomie: Evolution ou revolution? Die Neueren Sprachen, October 1994.
SCOLLON, R. & SCOLLON, S. (1994a). The Post Confucian Confusion. Research Report No.37,
Department of English, City Polytechnic of Hong Kong.
SCOLLON, R. & SCOLLON, S. (1994b) Face parameters in east-west discourse. In Ting-Toomey, S.
(Ed.) The Challenge of Facework. Albany: State University of New York Press.
SHARROCK, W.W. & WATSON, D. R. (1985). Reality construction in L2 simulations. System, 13(3),
195-206.
TAJFEL, H. (1984). Intergroup relations, social myths and social justice in social psychology. In Tajfel,
H. (Ed.) The Social Dimension, Volume 2 . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
WATSON, D.R. & SHARROCK, W.W. (1990). Realities in simulation/ gaming. In Crookall, D. &
Oxford, R. (Eds.) Simulation, Gaming and Language Learning. Boston, MA: Newbury House / Heinle
& Heinle.
WENDEN, A. (1987). Conceptual background and utility. In Wenden, A. & Rubin,J. (Eds.) Learner
Strategies in Language Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall International.
WENDEN, A. (1991). Learner Strategies for Learner Autonomy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
International.
WU, D. (1994). Childhood Socialization. Paper presented at International Conference on Chinese
Psychology, Chinese University of Hong Kong, 31 May-2 June 1994.

FOOTNOTE
The authors are extremely grateful to Anita Wenden for her tremendous help in writing this article.