students, I had the strong feeling that I was only superficially giving information and
training. That is to say, I was just telling them about definitions of old and new concepts
(e.g. evaluation∕self-evaluation, teacher∕counsellor), informing them where the materials
were and training them in the use of equipment. As I was not the only one with mixed
feelings about this, on several occasions, we decided to change the course. Between changes,
we held counsellors' meetings to discuss the 'new versions'. The last change of the user's
course was due to both practical and pedagogical issues. The time was reduced to ten hours.
We knew that for most of the students it was difficult to attend a course of 20 hours in a
fixed schedule. The content was reduced to only practical aspects. Its objective was to know
where the materials were and how to work with equipment. Although we still considered
that the "theoretical" part of the course was fundamental, we realised that that type of
information made no sense before working in the centre and experiencing self-learning.
Because of their lack of experience, users were not ready to understand the methodological
preparation, which also made the psychological preparation also meaningless. Before all
this, we thought, the learners needed to have a better idea of what working by themselves
implied. Therefore, we decided to deal with the psychological and methodological aspects
(see 2.2.2.1, p. 20) in the form of monthly workshops. These were modular in nature and not
compulsory but "highly recommended". In this sense, the students were free to make
decisions on the content and order of their leaming-to-leam development according to their
own needs and interests. The content of these workshops was varied: elaboration of study
plans, authentic materials, learning styles and strategies, language and culture, self-
evaluation, counselling sessions, evaluation of materials, etc. Although the changes were
well-founded, I still had the impression that something essential was missing.
A third unexpected development was the fact that the counselling sessions did not
work as students were completely reluctant to ask for them. In the case of the first
"compulsory" ones, they simply did not attend. At the beginning we thought that their
learning style, rhythm or personality were the reasons for not using the counselling service.
That would have meant that they were perhaps "naturally independent" and they did not
need us as helpers. Other reasons for my worries (such as the fact that most students drop
out) made me realise that such independence was a pure illusion. As an attempt to change
44