Language Policy in Non-Classroom Language Learning Spaces

As self-access centres become increasingly social in function, the language of the interactions which take place in such language learning spaces (LLSs) and the guidelines or policies which guide their use have become increasingly important. Despite this, little research has been conducted into language policy. This preliminary study surveyed 50 self-access language learning practitioners in 30 institutions around the globe about their language policies and how they are received by different stakeholders, including learners. A range of approaches to language policy are in place, from strict policies that only permit the target language, to more flexible ones that allow or encourage learners' first languages. Around a third of institutions reported no official policy in place. The data reveals that LLSs with strict policies tend to be found more in EFL contexts, but the factors governing policy choice are complex and depend on local context. While support for all kinds of policies is present in the data set, there is a distinct trend towards flexibility and acknowledgement of the complexity of creating an environment which maximises learning opportunities for all users.

All of this research has resulted in a general rejection of the English-only model which dominated in the 1990s. Hall and Cook's (2013) extensive study of 2,785 practising teachers in a variety of contexts shows substantial support for the use of L1 in the classroom especially among more experienced educators. However, around half the teachers surveyed felt pressure from their institution, parents or learners themselves to conform to an English-only ideal. This suggests that while researchers and experienced practitioners tend to support the judicial use of L1 in the language classroom, especially with lower proficiency learners, the powerful image of a monolingual classroom as the ideal learning environment still prevails among wider society, suggesting that Butzkamm's (2003) claim of the "death of a dogma" 15 years ago was a little premature (p. 29).

Language Policy in LLSs
LLSs may have more in common with naturalistic settings than strictly controlled classroom environments, or at least represent a middle ground. They certainly differ from classrooms in a myriad of ways. As mentioned above, they are increasingly social spaces, with typical interactions ranging from simple greetings and transactional exchanges to in-depth intercultural discussions between learners, or metacognitively complex advisory sessions with a learning advisor. They may be multilingual spaces, and often cater for learners from a variety of backgrounds and proficiency levels. Usage of the facilities is often voluntary, which necessitates the creating of a welcoming environment that a teacher of a compulsory class does not have to consider. In many institutions the promotion of autonomy may take priority over language learning goals. In addition, LLSs may also have a remit to provide opportunities for interaction between people of many different cultures, who speak a variety of languages.
Several recent studies in Japan have started to look at the issue of language policy in LLSs. Adamson and Fujimoto-Adamson (2012)

document the move from
English-only to a more flexible language policy and report largely positive learner reactions to this shift. A small-scale study I conducted (Thornton, 2012) shows support for L1 in advising sessions among learning advisors. Imamura (2018) highlights the challenges of preserving and promoting target language interaction in an English-only space in part of a new and larger facility that the existing Englishonly SAC has moved into. She reports a discrepancy between student expectations of the space (student surveys prior to the move showed significant support for a partial or complete English-only policy) and their actual behaviour in terms of language use in the new space, as there has been a drop in English use in both the multilingual and English-only areas since the new facilities opened.
In my experience, language policy and use almost always feature in informal discussions between practitioners at conferences, yet very little attention has been paid to it in the literature. This study is a preliminary attempt to gain a deeper understanding of the current situation of language policy in language learning spaces around the globe.

Method
An extensive survey of 31 questions on language policy in LLSs (see Appendix) which included both open and closed-ended questions was designed to address the following research questions: • How common are different kinds of language policies in LLSs around the world?
• What factors feature in the rationales given for these policies?
• What attitudes do practitioners have towards the policies?
• How do the policies operate in practice in terms of enforcement and compliance?
In order to gain a detailed understanding of each LLS, contextual information about the institutions (size of student body, languages offered at the institution) and the LLS itself (age of LLS, number and majors of users) was also requested.
Respondents were asked to give details of their role(s) in the LLS and the number of years of experience in self-access language learning (SALL). The survey is included in the appendix.
The survey was piloted by four people, three of whom worked in LLSs in EFL contexts, and one in a predominantly English-speaking country where students of various nationalities were studying both EAP, and other modern foreign languages.
Based on the pilot responses and comments made about the questions, I revised several questions to remove minor inconsistencies and clarify confusing questions.
While the pilot confirmed that the survey took some time to complete (between 15 and 25 minutes), the survey was targeted specifically to a community of SALL practitioners likely to have interest in the topic. The survey was administered directly to known colleagues via email and indirectly through an autonomy-focused online discussion list in August 2016.
Of the 63 responses received, 13 were not full responses and thus deleted from the data set. For reasons of space this article will focus on the most relevant findings.
Respondents were asked, but not required, to share the name of their institution, and 40 out of 50 respondents did so. This enabled the data to be analysed on two levels: individual and institutional. To establish an understanding of the different institutions, a smaller data-set using only one response from each LLS (that of the most senior role) was compiled and analysed. Where the institution name had not been provided, each response was included unless other demographic information revealed that it came from the same institution as another respondent.

Data analysis
Responses to open-ended questions were subjected to a thematic analysis using HyperResearch, a qualitative research program. All data was coded, with categories emerging from the data. Originally, a separate group of codes were made for each key open-ended question in the data set. These codes were then refined to identify common categories emerging across different questions, to enable a deeper level of analysis.

Institutional data
There are 30 different LLSs at tertiary educational institutions from nine different countries represented in the data set. Japan, my own country of work, is overrepresented with 18 institutions.
As many centres cater for both local students studying foreign languages, and international students studying the dominant language of that country as a "second language", the task of determining a linguistic context is rather complicated.
Respondents were asked to identify the main language context of their LLS, and this designation was used to establish three different language context categories: foreign language (FL), second language (SL), official language (OL). With the exception of one OL-category LLS in Ireland whose focus was the Irish language, all institutions featured English as either the main language (21), one of several languages (5) or one of two target languages (3), the other being the home language of that country.
Thirteen out of 30 were multilingual spaces catering for three or more languages, and nine LLSs served more than six languages.

Patterns in language policy choice in LLSs
Respondents were asked to identify their space's language policy from the following list, and then asked to give further details. Table 1 Frequency of Different Language Policies

Language Policy
No. of institutions Only target language(s) to be used in all spaces at all times 5 Only target language(s) to be used at certain times 0 Only target language(s) to be used in certain spaces 6 Target language(s) use encouraged but not required 8 Language(s) of the home country to be used (which may be the target language of some users but not all) 0 There is an informal policy, but it is not officially stated 2 No official or informal policy 9 Other: 0 This self-designation was then combined with other details given about each policy to decide the final category of each institution. For example, the following respondent gave a "no official or informal policy" response, but from the comment below, "Target language(s) use encouraged but not required" was considered a better fit: We don't have foreign languages department, so we cannot push students to use English in this center. However, we always encourage them to use English and mainly, they try to use English here.

Policy by language context
As no responses were received for two categories, the data was grouped into the following categories for analysis: TL-only (including TL only in certain spaces); TL-encouraged policy; and no official policy (including informal policy).
All 11 institutions with strict TL-only language policies could be classified as FL or OL contexts, nine from Japan, one from Mexico and one from Ireland. All but the Irish LLS focused mainly on English, but five also catered for other foreign languages. It is not clear whether interaction in these languages was also permitted.
Institutions which operated more flexible TL-encouraged policies or no official policies at all came from a wider variety of countries and contexts, catering for second and foreign language learners in the following countries: Germany, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Turkey, the UAE, and the UK. Thirteen of 19 also catered for more than one language.

Figure 1. Policy by language context
The predominance of FL settings for TL-only LLSs is perhaps not surprising.
Where learners have little exposure to the target language outside the classroom, one would expect the role of an LLS as a place to use the language to become more prominent. This is supported by the data on policy rationale (see below).
No official language policy. Of the 15 respondents who worked in LLSs with no or only informal language policies, six gave no further details, one stated that the issue was a subject of discussion, and one explained that as the space was While it has not been decided explicitly, these centres do, therefore, seem to have unspoken expectations about the language of interaction, but it is unclear to what extent they match the mission of each individual LLS.

Rationales for language policy choices
Respondents were asked to give, to the best of their knowledge, the factors that were considered when determining the language policy. Twenty-eight comments were included in this analysis. The main reasons for each policy choice are discussed below. There were distinct patterns in the main reasons for choosing stricter or more flexible policies, but local context (i.e., stakeholder preferences and institutional culture), and, to a lesser extent, ideological considerations, played a role.
Overwhelmingly the main reason given for strict language policies was to provide more opportunities for target language use. Ten of 17 respondents mentioned this aspect explicitly in the rationale given, including the following comments: Spaces to use English are limited in Japan, so it provides an important opportunity that students don't get elsewhere. (Japan) For students to have an environment that they need to force themselves to use English to help students who do not want to /can not go on study abroad.

(Japan)
This zone was created so as to become the hub of Irish language activity on campus. This is the only "designated" formal space for Irish on campus. (Ireland) In two cases, including the Irish language zone mentioned above, the LLS was designated purely as a conversation lounge, and so this purpose was the whole raison d'être of the space.
For LLSs with more flexible policies, the desire to make the facilities accessible to lower proficiency users or non-English majors dominates, with a total of 12 comments. These are often explicitly linked to affective factors such as anxiety or low motivation of users: This concern with anxiety seems particularly prevalent in Japan, which is well-known for having many low-proficiency foreign language learners with high anxiety (Cutrone, 2009;Nishino & Watanabe, 2008). However, Gillies' (2007;2010) investigations into student motivation for using a SAC in the Japanese context revealed that language proficiency was not a predictor of use. This finding is supported by Rose and Elliott's (2010) study at the same institution, which found that the perception of users as a closed group of learners, rather than as highly proficient, was the stronger reason for students' reluctance to use the conversation lounge. While both these studies come from the same institution in Japan, they do suggest that multiple factors, not only language policy, need to be considered when attempting to make LLSs more accessible. While an English-only policy seems to be a barrier to usage in Japan, interestingly, in one case in Mexico, also an EFL context, this same language policy was seen to increase accessibility: [English-only policy was decided upon] to make the facilities as accessible as possible and to encourage attendance. (Mexico) Maybe this respondent is referring to the special nature of an English space, which could be seen as attractive to students interested in learning the language, but without further comment it is difficult to know for sure.
High motivation of users, can also be seen as a reason for not requiring a strict language policy, as seen in the comment below:

Contextual factors
Apart from these main differences in policy rationale, the following reasons were given to support both more flexible and stricter language policies in different contexts, suggesting that decisions are highly context dependent. Two other respondents in two different countries also mentioned having been influenced by policies of other centres across the country, suggesting that the institutional culture of one institution may spread to others.

Stakeholder preferences
Similar to institutional culture, stakeholders' views on policy can vary considerably from institution to institution, although it is noteworthy that no respondent listed this as the sole reason for policy. Two respondents from the same English-only LLS noted that stakeholders--administrators, teachers and advisors, and users --all shared a preference for English only, with one emphasising the PR benefits of the policy too:

The majority of students have a preference for an English only space (it was a strong reason for choosing this university). [It's] a huge selling point and
attractive to potential students. (Japan).
In another context, also in Japan, user feedback is given as the reason for changing to a more flexible policy:

Ideological considerations: Theories of autonomy and second language acquisition
Among these mainly practical and socially situated rationales for different language policies were also some ideological ones. While one respondent from Japan said that having multiple languages being studied in the centre made it "logistically complex", this was directly followed with: "it would contradict the goal of encouraging autonomy". It is not possible to understand from the comment which was the most important consideration.
Despite the fact that promoting autonomy in some form is mentioned by 21 respondents as forming part of the mission statements or founding principles of their LLSs, it is not commonly cited as part of the rationale for the language policy. Only one other respondent mentions autonomy as part of the rationale given for changing to a more flexible policy. Similarly, theories of second language acquisition (SLA), specifically the positive role L1 can play, is mentioned explicitly by only one respondent:

We believe this approach is backed by a lot of research and theory on the role of first-language use in L2 acquisition and means we cater to students' needs on an individual basis. (Japan)
One respondent admits that the English-only policy in their centre feels outdated now given new understandings about affect in language learning but was in line with the dominant SLA theories at the time the centre opened: [I]t needs updating as we now know more about language anxiety, willingness to communicate and other psychological factors which affect language learning. (Japan) It should be noted here that these ideological stances do appear more prominently when respondents were asked to give their personal attitudes to the language policies. These are detailed in the following section.

Attitudes to Language Policy
The rationales detailed above were not necessarily in line with the attitudes of the respondents themselves, and further questions in the survey asked them to give their own opinions of the current policy. While student attitudes were not directly elicited, respondents were asked about levels of compliance by users and staff of the centres.
Alignment with language policy. The extent to which the opinions of different stakeholders at each institution aligned with the stated policy was elicited using a closed checklist question, with an optional comment box. Respondents who stated their LLS had only an informal or no official policy were not asked this question, so data from 35 respondents was collected. As can be seen from Table 2, target-language-only policies attracted the most disagreement, with only three of 11 total respondents reporting no significant disagreement. Users were the most likely to disagree (5 instances). The more flexible policies were more broadly accepted, with 13 of 17 total respondents stating no significant disagreement. In these LLSs most disagreement came from LLS staff (4 instances  Comments from three respondents once again highlighted concern about the affective impact of a strict policy. Users were described as being "intimidated" and "discouraged", and the environment of a TL-only centre as being "off-putting".
There is also some evidence of a tension between practitioner and student opinions of the policy: Surveying our students, it is clear that the majority still want 'English only', but enough people are intimidated by the environment that we need to be more responsive to those students. (Japan) It seems severe to me, but a lot of the students like it! (Japan) Thirteen However, there was also a feeling that users also may prefer more emphasis on using the target language, or could be missing out on opportunities to use the TL: Only one respondent expressed the desire to move to a TL-only policy: We keep discussing the ways to promote target language use more instead of the users' native language. A 100% English zone is our goal at this point. (Turkey)

Compliance.
When examining responses about user compliance with the policy, no distinct patterns were evident in the data, suggesting the level of compliance depends on each individual user. There were even different accounts regarding which users tend to defy or ignore the stated policy. In one LLS with a TLonly policy a respondent noted that new users tend to use their own language, whereas in another LLS with the same policy it was regulars that were "lazy". Respondents from LLSs with both strict and flexible policies reported that users used their own languages for more private interactions: When students are in private booths, they revert to Japanese use. When staff are not nearby, they often speak in Japanese. Sometimes, students are caught speaking loudly in Japanese for all to hear. (Japan)

Conclusions
While this research is small in scale, and cannot claim to represent the views of all SALL practitioners in all contexts, it reveals that there is significant diversity in the language policies of non-classroom LLSs. Despite the research on the positive role of L1 in SLA, TL-only policies are still used as a way to encourage target language interaction, particularly in EFL environments. Practitioners confirm that more flexible policies seem to offer a more welcoming environment and foster autonomy, but if promoting target language use is an active part of the mission of the LLS, then specific measures may be needed to ensure that this does happen, especially in EFL contexts such as Japan.
This paper points to the necessity for more careful consideration of language policy and its impact on the usage of facilities and learning gains. While a third of respondents reported that their LLS had no official or informal policy, comments reveal that there is often still an assumed policy, often determined by the institutional culture or dominant national language. In such cases, LLS management should actively decide whether this kind of language use is in alignment with its mission.
This study also suggests that individual users will make their own decisions about the language they use, often regardless of official policy, and that people working in LLSs need to be able to respond flexibly to each learner. In the words of one respondent: I would suggest, however, that having a strict official policy whose enforcement is left to the discretion of the staff may be confusing for students if they are not made aware of why it is enforced differently in different circumstances. As educators, LLS practitioners should strive to help learners make the most advantageous decisions about language use, and provide an environment which maximises those opportunities. A contextually appropriate language policy can be one tool in promoting a suitable environment for learning.
As this is only a preliminary study, further research, in particularly studies investigating learner perceptions of language policy and actual analysis of naturally occurring interactions in LLSs would contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of how language policy affects social interaction and learning in LLSs. 21. How is the language policy currently communicated to the users? (Tick all that apply)

Notes on the Contributor
• Through signs around the centre • In official pamphlets • At orientation events and tours Others (please specify) 22. In practice, to what extent is the policy followed by users? Please give details.
23. In what ways is the policy enforced by staff? (Please choose all that apply to the staff in your LLS) Staff lead by example • Staff actively ask students to adhere to the policy • Staff praise language use which adheres to the policy • Staff ask users who don't adhere to the policy to leave • Staff don't actively enforce the policy Other (please specify) 24. How do you personally feel about this language policy/policies? If there is a different policy you would prefer, please say what it is, and why you would prefer it.
25. Do you know of any disagreement with the language policy from stakeholders? If so, from whom? Users • Staff working in the LLS • Faculty whose students use the LLS Administrators • Managers at the institution • No significant disagreement Please give a little detail about the kind of disagreement.
26. If you have any other comments you'd like to make about the language policy/policies at this LLS, please do so here.
About your role 27. Which of the following best describes your professional responsibilities in relation to the LLS (more than one choice possible)?
• Teacher • Learning advisor • Centre director • Programme coordinator • Administrator • Conversation facilitator Other (please specify below) 28. How long have you been involved in LLSs/self-access language learning?
• 0-5 years • 6-10 years • 10+ years In this time, if you have held multiple roles, please give details.
29. To what degree are you involved in major decisions about how the LLS is run?
• I make the final decisions • I make the decisions, but they need to be approved higher up in the institution • I am part of a committee/board which jointly makes the major decisions • I am consulted about major decisions • I am not involved in decision-making • Other (please specify) Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Your cooperation is very much appreciated.
30. If you feel able to give the name of your LLS and/or institution, please do so here (entirely voluntary). This will enable the researcher to track multiple responses from the same institution.
31. If you would be willing to take part in a 15-30 minute follow-up interview at your convenience, please give your email address here.