A study on knowledge transfer between in and out-of-school language learning

Published in: Menegale M. (Ed.) 2013. Autonomy in language learning: Getting learners actively involved. IATEFL: Canterbury, UK. ISBN: 978190109551

1

A study on knowledge transfer between in and out-of-school language learning

Marcella Menegale

Ca’ Foscari University of Venice Abstract The aim of this paper is to discuss the necessity of creating favourable conditions so that learners may recognize and make use of the existing learning opportunities at their disposal. Such a process of awareness is directed at becoming more conscious of learning strategy use and, in particular, of the way one personally applies language knowledge transfer. After briefly examining the literature on out-of-class learning including linguistic landscape and ICT, as well as considering the ever challenging issue of language transfer, this paper will present some research findings that are worth mentioning and debating for at least two reasons. Firstly, they showed a consistent lack of awareness in students’ ways of considering how (when, where, how often) they use foreign language(s): for instance, they seem unable (or unprepared) to grasp the learning opportunities that environment naturally provides - the kind of learning that, according to van Lier (1998:157), continuously occurs in a learner’s everyday social world. Secondly, a rather large discrepancy has been registered between students’ and teachers’ perceptions of the nature and quantity of foreign language use by pupils outside school, thus putting into question teaching practices implemented with the scope of helping students transfer language knowledge. Key Words: language knowledge transfer, language learning awareness, learner autonomy 1. Introduction One of the goals of language learning is that students can both apply outside the classroom what they learn at school and, vice versa, can use in classroom what derives from their experience in “real” life, i.e. outside school walls. However, knowledge transfer does not come spontaneously, as nearly a century of experimental research on the subject has proved; on the contrary, this capacity seems to be particularly complicated and difficult to encourage (James 2006:151). School Schools should assume a leading role in this respect, providing learners with the right conditions to recognise and make use of existing learning opportunities as well as the strategies that be employed in order to increase their capacity to make connections (Chamot, O’Malley 1994). However, what Dewey (1907:89) complained of more than a century ago with his famous statement often cited in literature – the fact that, from child’s point of view, the “great waste in the school” comes from its inadequacy in being able to promote knowledge transfer between school learning and experiential learning – is still the case.


2

Despite the importance of this issue, the literature on language acquisition has only recently been producing studies on the nature of language learning taking place beyond the language classroom and on its effects on classroom learning; as a consequence, data on students’ contacts with or use of foreign languages out of formal learning environments is very scarce so far. Reasons for this scarcity or lack of data are multiple: Benson (2011:8), for instance, stresses the “invisible” nature of the out-of-class learning process over and above its being less easily accessible than the classroom one. The crucial point here is that such research studies imply a certain level of language/learner/learning awareness by the subjects investigated: in order to gather data on opportunities for language use, the researcher cannot rely on anyone except the learner her/himself, through her/his field notes, answers to interviews, personal records or other introspective research tools. As a matter of fact, ‘awareness’ is the first goal both in Nunan’s (1997:192) and in Scharle and Szabó’s (2000:9) developmental models of learner autonomy, as a demonstration that it is a necessary condition in order to move forward with the ability to be autonomous and responsible for one’s own learning. Macaro’s words (2008:54) perfectly summarize this implication: “autonomy of language learning competence … is having the awareness, the knowledge, and the experience of strategy use, together with the metacognition to evaluate the effectiveness not only of individual strategies, … but also how all these map onto a much broader canvas of language learning over time”. Since awareness is the basis of the concept of learner autonomy, it follows that autonomy may offer a key to open the imaginary door which separates the part of world within the classroom from the part that stays outside. 2. Language learning in and outside the classroom Crabbe (1993 cited in Horinek 2007:8) states that one of the reasons for promoting autonomy in learning is simply “economic” in nature, resulting from the fact that “society does not have the resources to provide the level of personal instruction needed by all its members in every area of learning”. With regard to language learning in particular, every type of opportunity provided by the natural environment (from language displayed in some city settings to language spoken in virtual contexts) should be exploited: the learner cannot any longer be considered as someone who studies foreign language(s) inside the classroom, but rather as an individual who uses foreign language(s) in different communicative situations, which not only are varied and unpredictable, but also occur progressively more outside the language classroom. Granting access to an extensive and constant circulation of written and oral texts coming from all over the world, globalization of communication has allowed individuals to come into contact with hundreds, thousands, even millions of different materials in foreign languages. With regard to students, the vast part of such a contact derives from research carried out individually (because of personal interest or study) outside school, thus it belongs to that part of learning one accomplishes in autonomy. Considering that every single text in a foreign language represents a rich fount of information (from text structure to specific use of language), it could be afforded that the more one’s capacity to handle, select, manage resources, the more the foreign language s/he can capture, and, therefore, the wider the learner autonomy and one’s sense of language and learning awareness, the more frequent will be the


3

opportunities created by the learner her/himself (more or less intentionally) to use the foreign language and, as a consequence, to improve her/his competence. The study presented in this paper will seek to confirm this assertion, trying to take into account the enduring contrast between in-school and out-of-school learning. The field of study focussing on the relation between inside and outside school learning, although being recognised as one of the most worthy and weighty topics to be further investigated, has been “under-theorized” (Higgins 2009:402). The urge to explore this relation more in depth is also induced by data suggested from existing research, which brings to light how outside classroom learning seems to overcome in classroom learning as to quality and quantity of knowledge acquired: a few investigations showed that there are more activities and learning taking place outside the classroom than the researchers suspected (Lam 2000; Smith 2001; Pearson 2004 cited in Nguyen 2009; Hyland 2004), that most of students’ language knowledge consists of out-of-class learning (Lamb 2004, Pickard 1996) and, again, that successful students normally praise their own autonomous learning outside the school, while those who fail in general blame formal, school learning (Nunan 1991; Pickard 1995). Although still deficient in research, literature on language learning is undeniably interested in this issue, as confirmed by the number of terms coined in order to demarcate the boundaries between what one learns in the language classroom and what one runs into elsewhere. For Barnes (1976) it is a matter of “school knowledge”, which he assumes belongs to “others” and being largely forgotten later, versus “action knowledge”, coming from the experience of the single individual; for Crabbe (1993) the distinction is between “public domain”, i.e. what is offered in the classroom, versus “private domain”, i.e. what the learner experiences in her/his private life. It is not our intention to dwell here either on these or on other recurring dichotomies generally used to describe the one or the other part of the boundary. Suffice it to cite formal and informal learning1, where formal indicates learning occurring within an organised and structured context, which may lead to a formal recognition such as a diploma or a certificate, while informal is connected to learning resulting from daily life activities related to work, family, or leisure. Informal learning, often referred to as experiential learning, is usually unintentional (or incidental) while formal learning is intentional from the learner’s perspective (Colardyn, Bjornavold 2004:71)2.

1 In this case, it is a trichotomy, which can be identified recalling the definitions given in Colardyn and

Bjornavold (2004:71):

-Formal learning consists of learning that occurs within an organised and structured context (formal

education, in-company training), and that is designed as learning. It may lead to a formal recognition

(diploma, certificate). Formal learning is intentional from the learner‟s perspective.

-Non-formal learning consists of learning embedded in planned activities that are not explicitly designated

as learning, but which contain an important learning element. Non-formal learning is intentional from the

learner‟s point of view.

-Informal learning is defined as learning resulting from daily life activities related to work, family, or

leisure. It is often referred to as experiential learning and can to a certain degree be understood as accidental

learning. It is not structured in terms of learning objectives, learning time and/or learning support. Typically, it does not lead to certification. Informal learning may be intentional but in most cases, it is non-intentional

(or „incidental‟/random). 2 This extremely reductive account would open, indeed, a discussion upon each of the words ascribed to one

or the other type of learning. Among the others: Palfreyman (2011:17) asserts that “language learning beyond

the classroom is not unstructured”; Benson (2001:77) introduces the term “self directed naturalistic learning”,

where learners, driven by the interest for the target language, create naturalistic learning situations for


4

In particular, the informal, out-of-class learning the present paper will allude to is certainly close to Sundqvist (2011)’s definition of “extramural English”, i.e. any type of contact that a learner has with the target language beyond the walls of the classroom, being that contact either deliberately aimed at language acquisition or, as happens most of the time, something occurring accidentally. Another detail could be added even to this interpretation: considering the distinction existing both in pedagogy and sociolinguistics between ‘second language’ and ‘foreign language’3, it could be said that while what learnt at school is always ‘foreign language’ learning, what encountered outside the school can be ascribed to ‘second language’ learning. When, in fact, foreign language is used in real situations, for example to give directions to some tourists or chat with other people on topics of mutual interest, the perspective completely changes and that same ‘foreign language’ learnt at school instantly becomes ‘second language’ in another situations. Indeed, what causes this change in perspective is not the language itself, but the context of use of the target language, which turns out to be an occasion to either grasp new knowledge on resources of various natures or exchange meaningful information with interlocutors of different ages and nationalities. Therefore, several dimensions are involved in our interpretation, from learner motivation to input authenticity, and the factors listed below could help to further clarify our distinction between in- and out-of-school language learning.

FACTORS IN-SCHOOL LEARNING OUT-OF-SCHOOL LEARNING

a. Language Factor4 The learner studies one language at a time.

The learner may choose (or it can happen to him) to create contacts in more than one target language, hence exploiting multilingual practice (like code switching).

b. Language learner Factor5

The learner acquires the foreign language within a group, i.e. the classroom. Although a teacher may try to meet individual learning styles and learning needs, it is improbable that each student will actually be provided with individualised learning path.

The learner deals with foreign language(s) in different contexts and each time s/he faces the situation according to her/his own style.

themselves; Bialystok (1981) makes a distinction between “formal” and “functional language use”, with the former referring to the language code (such as syntax, morphology, and phonology) and the latter denoting

the use of language in communicative situations (this one happening mostly outside school). 3 “Second language” is a language which is not the native language of a number of individuals living in a

particular country, but is used as a medium of communication or medium of instruction in schools, etc. In

second language learning, one can receive input for learning both inside and outside the classroom, can

readily put to use what learns, as it happens for the first language. On the contrary, “foreign language” is a

language just learned for use in an area where that language is not generally spoken. While a second

language can be learnt even just relying on input coming from natural environment, a foreign language is

typically taught as a school subject (in this case, we speak of foreign language learning/teaching). 4 Divita (2011), (Kramsch 2009). 5 Larsen-Freeman (2001)


5

c. Age Factor6 The learner is in contact with other subjects all having the same age (except for the teacher).

The learner communicates with people of all ages.

d. Meaning Factor7 The learner considers studying the target foreign language the same as studying any school subject.

The learner uses foreign language(s) as a means of real communication.

e. Content Factor8 The learner’s attention is mainly focused on formal language and correctness (e.g. grammar).

The learner is almost exclusively concerned with vocabulary, idioms, cultural aspects, pronunciation, and use of everyday language. S/he does not care about grammar.

f. Beliefs Factor9

The learner considers her/himself as a language learner; it is up to the teacher taking all the decisions about the learning process.

The learner considers her/himself as a language user, who self-regulates her/his knowledge and opportunities to expand it.

g. Autonomy Factor10 Hardly the learner can develop a capacity for autonomy as the school system is primarily based on execution of teacher-controlled curriculum.

The learner can achieve a high degree of autonomy without being explicitly aware of it.

Figure 1: Factors describing the gap between in and out-of-school learning

What’s more, the gap between in- and out-of-school language learning seems to be perfectly bidirectional: students are generally hesitant in using the target language learned at school in out-of-school contexts (and, in truth, when they do, the result is sometimes rather questionable, especially from sociolinguistic point of view, cf. Wilkinson 2002) and, in the same way, what is learnt outside the classroom seems to be totally forgotten once they enter school. Instead, it is exactly through being able to exploit one’s whole knowledge seen as a unique system that an individual can became a good language learner and user. Once again, as in a virtual cycle, it is necessary to recall the concept of ‘awareness’ (which is in turn intrinsically connected to that of ‘learner autonomy’): in order to enhance language knowledge, it is necessary to own the capacity to exploit all kinds of resources at one’s disposal (starting from school teacher and school books to anything provided by the linguistic landscape, technologic devices, and so on) and, in order to do that, one needs to work on her/his sense of awareness, noticing language and learning tips, investigating personal learning style and beliefs, understand how to reach individual learning objectives, etc.. Following Little and Dam (1998:7), in order to help students develop this sense of awareness, and, more generally, a capacity to be autonomous learners, it is crucial to “make it a matter of conscious intention”. One of the starting points could certainly be

6 Kuure (2011) 7 van Lier (2000) 8 Kalaja et al. (2011) 9 Kalaja et al. (2011) 10 Little and Dam (1998)


6

raising students’ understanding of what surrounds them, as illustrated in the following paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2. 2. 1 Linguistic landscape

The linguistic landscape is authentic, contextualized input which is part of the social context (Cenoz, Gorter 2008:274).

The term ‘linguistic landscape’ comes from a sociolinguistic study accomplished by Landry and Bourhis (1997) and refers to the significant presence of foreign languages in urban areas, in particular, “the language of public roads, signs, advertising boards, street names, place names, commercial shop signs, and public signs on government buildings which form the linguistic landscape of a given territory, region or urban agglomeration” (p. 25). This list, including only relatively fixed signs and texts, has been widened by Torkington (2009), who proposes to also consider more “mobile” forms of text, such as “leaflets and flyers being distributed (and perhaps discarded) in the street, advertising on vans, buses and other vehicles that pass through the streets of the area under study, free tourist maps and other publications available on counters and desks of hotels and tourist information centres and many more examples besides. Some texts are more visible than others, but they are all potentially readable in public spaces” (p. 124). Not only do the linguistic landscape and soundscape provide information and symbols distinguishing the social status of a community that lives in a particular territory, but the ethnolinguistic vitality characterising certain areas may also come to affect its inhabitants toward the development of certain plurilingual competences. Indeed, although quite new, research in the field of linguistic landscape is offering a new approach to the analysis of the phenomenon of multilingualism and is proving to be an important source of information to better understand the use of language by individuals (Cenoz, Gorter 2006; Barni, Vedovelli 2009; Shohamy et al. 2010; Tufi, Blackwood 2010). The territory, seen as a “multimodal text” (Dagenais et al. 2009:256), rich in visual and auditory stimuli that reach the individual in different ways, becomes a “powerful tool for education” (Shohamy, Waksman 2009:326) for linguistic, cultural and personal growth. In this sense, Rowland (2012:2) asserts that “involving students in a linguistic landscape project decentralises the practice of language learning and ensures language learner interaction with a variety of highly contextualised, authentic texts in the public arena”. Cenoz and Gorter (2008:272) claim that the linguistic landscape provides at least five potential benefits to foreign language students as it furnishes: authentic input enhanced by the possibility of incidental language learning; conditions for the development of pragmatic competence through analysis of texts with different social functions; a source for the acquisition of literacy skills, considering that reading texts is no longer seen as a passive skill especially because modern multimodal texts combine visual, written and auditory information at the same time; stimuli for a “multicompetence” (citing Cook 1992) conceived as a multiplicity of language competences in the same mind, which allows the speaker to use different languages for different purposes and recurring to code switching as a resource to communicate in a more efficient way; conditions to improve one’s affective relationships with different languages through connotation.


7

In order to change the above mentioned potential benefits into effective opportunities, the first step is to guide students “to be aware and notice the multiple layers of meanings displayed in the public space” (Shohamy, Waksman 2009:328): to raise learner awareness on the (more or less conscious) use one makes of foreign languages, on the nature of those languages, on one’s mental representations about them, on the way the community tends to estimate (or underestimate) such languages: these are all aspects worth consideration (Dagenais et al. 2009:258). Moreover, thinking of European languages, the strong convergences of the international lexicon and other commonalities (i.e. vocabulary and structure similarities among languages belonging to the same family, like Romance languages, Germanic languages, etc.) may certainly be exploited to help the process of language awareness and favour the process of transfer of language knowledge. 2. 2 “New” learning environments

Net Generation students are achievement and goal oriented. Their question is not “What does it mean?” or “How does it work?” (as previous generations were inclined to ask), but rather “How do I build it?” This predilection maps to learning theory’s emphasis on active learning” (Brown 2005).

The “net generation” (Tapscott 1999) corresponds to a new profile with different attitudes and habits: exposed to technology since their early childhood, young “digital natives” (Prensky 2001), “multimedia beings” (Maragliano 1992), “new millennium learners” (Pedró 2006), use multimodal tools daily to accomplish a variety of tasks. Resuming the discussion existing in literature about the fact that this new generation would think and learn differently from former generations, Sanchez et al. (2011) report on the characteristics which best describe today’s young people and which essentially have to do with cognitive and social aspects. From the cognitive point of view, digital natives are used to processing information very fast, prefer multimedia to written texts, perform several tasks at the same time, work best if connected to the net, need immediacy in receiving answers, solutions, rewards; the consequence of this way of obtaining knowledge by processing discontinuous and non-linear information is reflected in a limited capacity to pay attention to the same thing for a prolonged amount of time (Prensky 2001; Oblinger, Oblinger 2005; Pedró 2006). From the social point of view, the fact that they spend most of their free time on the net (they are also called “netizen”, Hockly 2010) generates a contrast between being isolated from the real society around them and, simultaneously, being virtually connected with the world: on the net, opportunities for interaction are beyond question enhanced, since there is a predilection for group working, information and advise exchanging, knowledge and materials sharing (McNeely 2005; Tapscott 1999). Hence, the net generation derives its learning from practice, that is, it is really a matter of ‘learning by doing’: they do not read handbooks before using mobile phones or PC programmes but, on the contrary, they proceed with trials, mistakes and assumptions. By means of technology they experience new situations, acquire further content language knowledge and develop different skills. This makes young learners more active in what they do and aware of what they need in order to achieve their objectives: according to some studies reported in Skiba and Burton (2006), today’s students do perceive that only a small percentage of what they are learning at school will be of real importance in their lives, that school books they have bought will not

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01069.x/full#b11

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01069.x/full#b10


8

be fully utilized, that written code-based school learning is more and more distant from the world around them, which is instead made of more complex and multimedia types of texts. All these aspects cannot be disregarded by institutions, at each level, from politicians at the top of the pyramidal school structure to the teachers at the bottom. Unfortunately, notwithstanding efforts made by wealthier countries to conform to this trend, school technologization comes often without much detailed planning aimed to train teachers to develop and update their computing skills (Lai 2001). Yet, information and communication technologies (ICT) represent an inexhaustible and fertile resource as to input offered to language learners: from written/oral authentic materials to adapted educational texts, from entertainment products to social virtual spaces, and so on. The most used ‘net-working’ foreign language is indubitably English, but other languages do also appear with more or less frequency (depending on the topic, on the kind of accessible research material, etc.). However unintentional such language contacts may be, they provide opportunities for approaching, exploring, noticing other (or new) languages, given a certain degree of intelligibility between already mastered languages and new ones. Once again – as often happens when dealing with learning matters – the key word is ‘motivation’. It is rather obvious why young learners have also been defined as “the gamer generation” (Carstens, Beck 2005) and why a research focus has been opened for this topic in the literature on language learning (for a review, see Reinders, Wattana 2011; Protopsaltis et al. 2012). Passion for games and desire of entertainment seem to abolish all language barriers. Not only can the net generation successfully accomplish any type of task (the commonest is downloading songs and movies from the net following English language written procedures) but they even interact, while playing, with people from all over the world. Video games have therefore succeeded in building a language learning environment where young people use the target language in order to undertake new missions, complete due tasks and get into dozens of other activities. In such circumstances, the most used language skills are reading (game texts, such as mission goals or procedures) and listening (place descriptions, dialogue among characters, and so on) but also written production is rather frequent (in game parallel chats, gamers exchange suggestions on mutual difficulties, points of view about graphics matters, etc.). In this sense, video games as well as social media (Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Pinterest, among others) could be defined as virtual environments, or communities, in which the ‘foreign’ language becomes a ‘second’ language (for all but English native speakers) to all intents and purposes. Worth mention is research interest on the analysis of online interactions, which has been impressively growing (Crystal 2001; Penz 2001; Araújo e Sá, Melo, 2007), with a special eye on multilingual chat, where spontaneous communicative situations create conditions for collaborative knowledge construction through the development of strategies of language Intercomprehension and problem solving. However, recalling once again Little and Dam’s words (1998), while beyond the classroom we may activate autonomous behaviours without being explicitly aware of the fact, “when the development of learner autonomy is central to our pedagogical agenda” it is teachers’ duty to favour awareness of language and language learning, of the strategies learners use and develop, and of resources and opportunities they provide for themselves (Coste 2001).


9

3. Language transfer If I had to reduce all of educational psychology to just one principle, I would say this: The most important single factor influencing learning is what the learner already knows. Ascertain this and teach him accordingly (Ausubel 1968: iv).

According to this assertion, learning a language would mean relating new knowledge to already mastered relevant notions: as a consequence, students should be led to understand that learning a new language consists of “reorganizing” that knowledge about language they already have (Coste 1994 cited in Coste et al. 1997:18). It is not only a matter of adding new pieces to one’s own linguistic puzzle (or repertoire) but also to applying transfer of learning activated in different contexts. Consequently, multilingual and multicultural competence will not simply be the result of a sum of monolingual skills, but rather a sign of the ability to combine and switch among different types of skills, which are part of a unique, complex and constantly evolving language system. Since “transfer of learning occurs when learning in one context or with one set of materials impacts on performance in another context or with other related materials” (Perkins, Salomon 1992), studying a foreign language which is linguistically close to one’s native language should generate a “positive” knowledge transfer, supposed to help students learn the new language (although in early stages of learning “negative” transfer may cause trouble – i.e. contrasts of pronunciation, lexis and syntax). Citing the work of Perkins and Salomon (1988) and Fogarty et al. (1992), James (2006:152) proposes two educational techniques: the first (“hugging technique”) uses similarity to make the new learning experience more like future situations to which transfer is desired, relying on unconscious transfer primarily based on experience; the second (“bridging technique”), instead, asks students to consciously perform abstractions and generalisations and to identify alternative applications of the knowledge already mastered. Figure 2 shows strategies involved in both techniques, which have been here adapted for language teaching domain.

“Hugging techniques” “Bridging techniques” 1. Setting expectations: Simply alert learners to occasions where they can apply what they are learning directly,

without transformation or adjustment.

Example: "Remember, you'll be asked to use these pronouns correctly in the essay

due at the end of the week."

6. Anticipating applications: Ask students to predict possible applications remote

from the learning context.

Example: After students have practiced a thinking skill or other skill, ask, "Where

might you use this or adapt it? Let's brainstorm. Be creative". List the ideas

and discuss some. 2. Matching: Adjust the learning to

make it almost the same experience as the ultimate applications.

Example: Use of audio recordings of

academic lectures with the request to students to take notes on the main

content in anticipation of a quiz that will test their knowledge on the topics

proposed.

7. Generalizing concepts: Ask students to generalize from their experience so to produce widely applicable principles,

rules, and ideas.

Example: After reading articles taken from newspapers and reviews of different

genres, ask students to highlight what characterises each text register.

3. Simulating: Use simulation so that 8. Using analogies: Engage students in


10

students can use their ultimate knowledge o will be soon asked to use

new knowledge. Activities like role plays highly involve learners and have a positive effect on their attitudes to

language learning (Scarcella, Crookall 1990 cited in James 2006:154).

Example: Simulate a situation where

students need to ask for street directions, as preparation for next

school trip in the target foreign country

finding and elaborating an analogy between a topic under study and

something rather different from it, belonging to other contexts.

Example: Ask students to reflect in what

writing a literature essay and a technical report are comparable.

4. Modelling: Predicted outcomes can be showed and demonstrated rather

than just described or discussed.

Example: To make students understand how to write a report of biology

experiments, instead of describing the requested linguistic structures,

the teacher will show a sample of a written report, while orally explaining

its content.

9. Parallel problem solving: Engage students in solving problems with

parallel structure in two different areas, to that they can gain an appreciation for

the similarities and contrasts and use same strategies.

Example: Make students infer the meaning

of same new vocabulary first from a newspaper article, so letting them use and

find help from the knowledge of the context, and then from an academic text.

5. Problem-based learning: Have students learn content they are

supposed to use in solving problems through solving analogous kinds of

problems, pulling in the content as they need it (following "task-based language

teaching", as described in Nunan (1989) and Willis (1996) )

Example: Students work on drafting a

letter to be attached to their CV.

10. Metacognitive reflection: Prompt and support students in planning,

monitoring, and evaluating their own thinking.

Example: Ask students to reflect on how to prepare for a possible job interview, with

the perspective to understand what language requirements would be

necessary to face eventual troubles.

Figure 2: Strategies aimed at favouring transfer of knowledge in language teaching domain (adapted from Fogarty et al. 1992)

Considering autonomy in language learning, the importance of creating ‘bridges’ in learning process is thus evident, not only as transfers of language and skills but also as transfers of attitudes and aptitudes in language learning. 4. The study The findings presented below derive from a doctoral study on language learning autonomy and its impact on the development of plurilingual competences among secondary school students (Menegale 2011a). Data was collected using two different questionnaires, one targeting pupils (aged from 11 to 18) and the other targeting foreign language teachers, reaching a large population (a total of 473 pupils and 43 teachers) throughout Italy. Data was then analysed both qualitatively and quantitatively.


11

According to the focus of the current paper, the results that will be here discussed are those which helped investigate: (a) whether the levels of learner autonomy developed by students would influenced their use of the foreign language outside school, (b) the kind of activities usually performed in the target language outside school, (c) the nature of students’ perceptions of foreign language learning and use, both inside and outside school and, finally, (d) teachers’ perceptions of their students’ use of foreign language outside the classroom. Findings will be briefly illustrated below and then more thoroughly discussed in paragraph 5. (a) Do the levels of learner autonomy developed by students influence their use of the foreign language outside school? To find potential relationship between learner autonomy and increased use of the target language in out-of-school contexts, the level of autonomy of the subjects investigated11 was compared to the use of the foreign language outside of classroom, as asserted by the students themselves. Chi-square test revealed that there was a statistically significant dependence between the two variables (χ ² = 6,655 α <.05, df = 2), thought discrete data did not apparently reveal the nature of this association. Going into data interpretation, the conditional distribution of the frequency in use of the target language out of the school given the degree of autonomy shown by the subjects did not consent to the conclusion that a higher degree of responsibility corresponds to more frequent use of the target language: half of the subjects who had shown a greater level of learner autonomy affirmed to using or the use of the target language with a certain frequency in informal contexts, while the other half stated to never (or almost never) using it. Conversely, after considering the inverse distribution, i.e. the degree of autonomy given the frequency of use of the target language, it could be assumed that low level of development of autonomy always corresponds to very limited use of target language outside school. (b) What are the activities in the target language that students usually perform outside school? Frequency in performing activities requiring the use of the target language (watching TV or DVDs, listening to songs, reading books or magazines, PC use for study or leisure, etc.) was measured on a scale from ‘everyday’ to ‘never’. Not only could this data give understanding on what are the activities that student prefer to do, but also it could help to identify what skills students exercise more. Hence, since any type of task activates one or more particular language skills, in order to make clear the potential of each of the examined activity, Table 1 will display both frequency and skills involved.

LANGUAGE

SKILLS FREQUENCY

L R S W ACTIVITIES daily weekly monthly never

x Listening to songs 84,4 6,8 1,9 1,1

x x Homework 53,1 21,6 5,7 4,4 x x x x PC use for leisure 38,9 12,5 13,7 19,7 x x PC use for study 38,1 19,5 11,0 12,9

11 Cf. Menegale (2011b) for further details on how language learner autonomy has been measured.


12

x Watching TV/DVD 30,9 22,0 16,1 ,0 x x Speaking 16,5 19,2 16,7 21,6

x Leisure

books/reviews 14,2 14,6 21,4 30,0

x Letters/Email 9,9 11,0 18,4 41,2

Table 1: Frequency (descending order) in performing activities which demand target language use outside school. Percentage values calculated out of a total of n. 473 students; L=listening, R=reading, S=speaking, W=writing

In out-of-school contexts, for example, listening comprehension skill is practiced by listening to songs, watching movies or television programs, playing video games or interacting on the net; reading comprehension skill is exercised through the study of materials in relation to school lessons, the reading of multimedia texts concerning one’s favourite football team or artist, the reading of leisure books or magazines; speaking skill is part of activities such as conversation, mainly through technology software (i.e. Skype); writing is practiced by doing homework, both on textbooks and on the computer, as well as communicating with friends by e-mail or web chat. (c) What are students’ perceptions of foreign language learning and use inside and outside school? The different answers given by the subjects investigated by the questionnaire were not always consistent with each other: when asked with a general question whether they used (with less or more frequency) the target language outside school, only the 44,5% acknowledged using it usually or rather often. Then, when asked to specify what activities they usually performed (see above, point (b)) the percentages of the students using the foreign language outside school every day listening to song or doing homework raised respectively up to 84,4% and 53,1%. An evident discrepancy between the first and the second answer leads one to hypothesize a low level of learner awareness as to how much exactly students use the target language outside the classroom. This data will find room for discussion in paragraph 5. Now, considering students’ answers in more depth, we found that, among those who believe that what is learnt at school is different from what is learnt beyond school, a consistent amount considers that the difference lies especially in the kind of contents which are approached through the target language: 45,9% of the subjects maintained that the language they run into in informal contexts cannot be found in schoolbooks while 43,7% stated that what is acquired autonomously or in learning situations which are not ascribable to formal teaching is much closer to their everyday life, interests and needs. In addition, a rather high percentage, especially among younger students (1 out of 3), would consider the foreign language used outside the classroom less demanding because it does not requires as much of attention to grammar correctness and any to teacher’s evaluation. (d) What are teachers’ perceptions of their students’ use of foreign language outside the classroom? Data resulting from the questionnaire given to students was then compared with answers deriving from the questionnaire to teachers in order to see if there was a correspondence between the students’ and the teachers’ perceptions of the use of the foreign language by the students. First of all, 62.8% of the investigated teachers


13

asserted that their students regularly use the foreign language outside school –conversely, recalling the first question cited in point (c) above, only 45.5% of students seemed to frequently use the foreign language in out-of-school contexts (it is not possible to establish whether it is the teachers who overestimated the frequency or the students who underestimated the opportunities of language use: in any case, the data indicates a problem of low awareness by one group or the other, or maybe by both, and of lack of a process of classroom reflection and sharing on this particular topic). Regarding the type of activities performed, teachers confirmed what was declared by students, i.e. the prevalence of language contacts originated from the use of computer, TV/DVDs watching or music listening. Teachers’ perceptions derived from dialogues with their students, sometimes activated through specific activities such as “chatting corner” (mentioned by an investigated teacher), sometimes because the students themselves would reveal personal information, asking for help either on song translation or on decoding certain expressions encountered while reading or listening to something on the Internet or television. Only 3 teachers out of 43 reported on a specific survey conducted in their classrooms at the beginning of the school year and two other teachers stated having grasped information during either a teacher-parents meetings or teacher–parents meetings. 5. Discussion Although findings have shown that there is a statistically significant dependence between low levels of development of autonomy and very limited use of the target language outside school12, they do not allow us to affirm the opposite, i.e. higher level of development of learner autonomy is connected to higher use of target language outside school. From our point of view, this could be due to some extent to students’ low sense of awareness of language inputs and opportunities existing around them and to some other extent to a fairly distorted perception of what the use of a foreign language implies. For instance, the investigated students underestimate their use of foreign languages in their free time as they do not take into consideration some very common tasks they regularly and spontaneously accomplish, such as listening to songs, or watching TV series, or, again, reading texts on their smartphones. What’s more, not only are those genuine and spontaneous opportunities of authentic foreign language use hardly recognized by the students, but even the teachers themselves are barely able to acknowledge their worth and potential benefit. A clear example is represented by ‘listening to songs’ activity: since both students and teachers had underestimated this type of activity, at some point in the analysis we wondered whether it was not the case to exclude it from the list of the most significant out-of-school activities that are generally considered as relevant to experiential language acquisition (reading texts, watching videos, etc.). Going ahead in the study, however, ‘listening to songs’ was repeatedly cited both in the teachers’ and in the students’ answers as something which frequently generates further language input (students would recurrently ask for lyrics translation or expression clarifications, thus widening their vocabulary, awareness on linguistic structures, and so on). At this point it was no longer possible either to doubt the worth of the simplest and most common activities (like listening to an English song) or underestimate their

12 Research question (a), cf. paragraph 4.


14

implications in pedagogy (intrinsic motivation, spontaneous and experiential learning, etc.). Even though the students’ most frequently performed language activities involve the use of receptive skills13 (being the majority of the mentioned tasks essentially opportunities of listening and reading, see Table 1 above), such activities must not be regarded as less important than productive ones, just because formal learning officially requires the development of all four language skills – or five, if we consider interaction as a distinct skill on the basis of what the Common European Framework of References for Languages proposes14. Hawkins (1999:139)’s words help support our thesis: citing MacCarthy (1978), Hawkins argues that one of the main objectives of education should be to help students to “learn to listen” because, “ear training is the prerequisite of a successful learning”. Therefore, given that (1) young people spend many hours watching television or listening to radio and music, and (2) the increasing spread of non-European languages requires a refinement of listening skills, it is essential that listening becomes an opportunity of sound discrimination, structure identification and, in general, development of language through the processes of noticing and awareness If an opportunity of language learning/use is underestimated both by the students and the teachers (as happens with listening to songs, watching TV or playing video games), it will not be exploited for the cognitive potential it actually entails. At this point, the implications of a low level of language learning awareness on one’s capacity to perceive the opportunities of language learning and use outside the classroom and to take advantage of them with the aim to improve one’s competence should be clear. Another symptom of a distorted perception of what a language is and what its purposes are is represented by the students’ belief that the foreign language learnt at school is different from the language they encounter outside school15: according to the students, it seems that there is a language that people learn in a formal way, with traditional classroom methodology, and that is useful to pass language tests or to go on with academic language studies, and ‘another’ language, which is essentially more useful, authentic and concrete and is what people need to communicate outside school, to chat, to sing the songs you hear on the radio, to understand advertisements, to follow your favorite TV show, and so on. This perception is widely diffused among all the investigated students, notwithstanding the efforts made by their teachers to create constant connections between knowledge acquired in different situations (not only the duality in/outside school but also interdisciplinary links within school subjects and associations among different languages), as the teachers themselves report: now and then, they ask their students to describe their experiences related to the use of the target language, they use familiar lyrics in their class, they work on language awareness by comparing different languages in order to point differences and similarities, etc.. Yet, students do not seem to notice this work, so that is not enough. Why? First of all, it cannot be taken for granted that the pedagogical actions the teachers report putting into practice in their classes are fully realistic or that their didactic intentions actually match students’ perceptions. Nunan (1995:134-135) writes:

13 Research question (b), cf. paragraph 4. 14 Common European Framework of References for Languages (Council of Europe 2001). 15 Research question (c), cf. paragraph 4.


15

“While the teacher is busy teaching one thing, the learner is very often focusing on something else”: in truth, the studies which show the gap that exists between what teachers pursue and what their students perceive are quite numerous (Allwright 1988; Allwright, Bailey 1991 cited in Jing 2006:99; Nunan 1995; Sturtridge 1994). In particular, Barkhuizen (1998), Block (1994) and Slimani (1992), after focusing their attention on the teachers’ and students’ perceptions in relation to lesson learning objectives, nature of class activities and expected outcomes, found that teaching is interpreted in two very different and distant ways. In our case, the investigated teachers think they are supporting knowledge transfer, language awareness and learner autonomy but for some reason this does not reach the students. A first explanation could be that such kind of supporting actions are not part of a continuous, regular and explicit process of language/learner/learning awareness, but rather occasional teacher-initiated activities, which do not allow the students to develop individual capacity for reflection and use of knowledge (the lack of curricular coordination and continuity among school subjects, as well as within language education itself, is considered one of the most important “handicaps” in today’s educational system - Doyé 2003:2). A second point that could help explain why almost all teachers’ efforts turn out to be vain, despite their commitment to eliciting a natural use of the target language as close as possible to the students’ experiential world, might depend on the diversity of means used to convey learning. Formal learning usually takes place following traditional fronted-teacher methodology, mostly based on wide use of text books, which, notwithstanding the recent innovation in text design (i.e. e-exercises, e-book, etc.) aimed to enhance learner motivation and interactivity, are far from recreating the natural and spontaneous learning environment provided by the media and the linguistic landscape that students daily encounter outside the school walls. Here comes the last aspect investigated in our study: are teachers fully aware of the use of the target language(s) made by students in their free time? This question was directed towards understanding whether teachers have a correct and realistic perception of the quantity of linguistic input pervading student’s life, largely deriving from ICT and, as a consequence, of the potential benefit that informal use of technologies may bring to language acquisition16. Computers, I-pods, smartphones, and all the multimedia applications that attract young learners’ attention serve as a means to acquire new knowledge through the vehicle of a foreign language; several studies show that such technology devices, while involving learners’ active participation, allow for authentic and enhanced language learning (Yap 1998, cited in Nguyen 2009:89; Chan et al. 2002; Nguyen 2009). For many years, research on the use of ICT in school context has demonstrated the importance of technology in favouring meaningful learning and finer personalisation of the learning process – a condition that is of primary importance for the development of learner autonomy. Yet, Villanueva Alfonso (2006) warns about the way technology is implemented at school: despite the advantages of ICT being widely recognised (multiplication of stimuli and resources; adaptation to diverse paces and needs; accommodation to a variety of learning styles; promotion of horizontal communication through forums and electronic mail; encouragement of intercultural contacts), the simple fact of using technologies does not automatically lead to a change in learners’ attitudes towards

16 Research question (d), cf. paragraph 4.


16

language learning. On the contrary, students should be guided towards a greater awareness of what ICT offers (i.e. possibilities for interaction, access to information and communication as well as knowledge management) and how to exploit these resources in order to intentionally increase their language knowledge, apply knowledge transfer to other contexts and improve their competences. However, in order to do that, teachers should know exactly what kind of ICT their students use, how frequently and in what way. Notwithstanding the fact that both students and teachers do recognize the importance of technology as a means of contact with foreign languages, the discrepancy between the perceptions of the one and the other party as emerged in our study regarding students’ language use in out-of-school contexts, reveals a lack of communication on this issue. This denotes a need for explicit classroom reflection, which would produce a twofold positive effect: - teachers would know exactly what their students’ habits are as to foreign language use, what skills (and subskills) they have developed and what strategies they prefer to apply; as a result, they would propose up-to-date topic, activities and tools in order to keep learners’ motivation high, they would adopt correct teaching strategies in order to help students develop language learning awareness and autonomy, they would enhance learners’ active role; - students would be guided to reflect more on what they do outside school autonomously, how they learn, what kind of activities they accomplish, what strategies they use, what opportunities they run into every day; as a result, they would be much more aware of their language learning and of how to improve it, with a consequent exponential growth of their self-confidence and self-efficacy. 6. Conclusions, Implications and Further Reasearch Our research findings do not allow us to affirm that, statistically, the wider the learner autonomy and one’s sense of language and learning awareness, the more frequent will be either intentional or unintentional opportunities of foreign language use. Although such an assertion is fairly logical, the overall degree of learner autonomy found in the investigated students was so low in the whole sample that it was not possible to make significant comparisons among different representative groups. What comes out from further aspects explored in the same study is that students are unable to recognize language learning opportunities around them, so that they regularly manage activities that require the use of a foreign language without being conscious of doing them. Little (1996) argues that the best way to bring together linguistic practice and metacognitive reflection is either through the use of specific software created for language learning or through the Internet as a resource and enabler of communications that occur via computer-mediated formats. In other word, a new learning style (that of the “net generation”) unquestionably requires a new teaching approach, which combines group working, experiential learning, ICT and, preferably, the use of the linguistic landscape. If, on one hand, data has given results on out-of-class foreign language use connected to the use of technological software and tools, on the other hand nothing could be said about how the linguistic landscape affects the subjects’ language learning, as data was collected all over Italy and therefore from areas with disparate social, cultural and linguistic contexts. In effect, the contemporary sociolinguistic nature of most of the territories around the world is heterogeneous. The linguistic input comes from


17

foreign friends, neighbours, shopkeepers, tourists. Such a variability of factor needs to be investigated separately, following a specific research method (and not, as we did, only through a questionnaire). Recalling our findings, however, what can be maintained is that, as happened with regard to the use of technologies, even with regard to the linguistic landscape, students declare a low frequency of language learning opportunities. It is not scientifically reliable (since we cannot prove it through our data), even though it is a commonly-shared view, to assume that students’ lack of awareness of opportunities for language use are not only related to the use of technological devices but also to the surrounding linguistic landscape. The fact, then, that even teachers tend to misjudge the quantity of students’ foreign language use in out-of-school contexts, sometimes appearing to be not very conscious of the nature and importance of those contacts, helps explain why the degree of learner autonomy is still so limited. If teachers do not openly elicit classroom discussion and reflection on language system and language learning, they will not come to know students linguistic and learning habits. As a consequence, most of their attempts to enhance their motivation and sense of self-efficacy will be nonsense. Instead, to favour higher language competence, not only should teachers make their lessons more attractive as well as closer to students’ interests and ways of learning, but they should also work towards the development of higher level cognition, so as to make learning more stimulating from an intellectual point of view (Teo 2008: 412). Given that the demands from European institutions not only to master a foreign language but also to increase a language repertoire where different skills are developed at different levels (Council of Europe 2001), for this to happen it is important that learners feel motivated and confident to adequately face their outside-school language learning experiences: the simple fact of helping them recognize the conditions of multilingualism in which they live would be a starting point for a process of “éveil aux langues” (Candelier 2003), that is, language awareness. Research on learning strategies aimed at promoting language knowledge transfer has given life to a teaching approach of mutual language intelligibility and language awareness, which, for a couple of decades, has seemed to gain greater visibility in the education field: language Intercomprehension. Intercomprehension is defined as the situation in which speakers can understand the language of the other without studying it. In this case, it is necessary to distinguish active competence that one has in her/his own native language from passive competence one develops while trying to understand her/his interlocutor, who, in turn, is speaking her/his own language (Blanche-Benveniste 2001). Capucho (2008:240) adds that Intercomprehension is not an artificial invention made in the field of language teaching, but rather the simply recognition of natural and spontaneous processes activated by individuals, who are ‘unaware’ of such multilingual contacts. Hence, language Intercomprehension is a way of making students more conscious of the strategies to be adopted in order to integrate new knowledge into a unique language system, in school as well out of school. In fact, within the school context itself it is possible to identify a language diversity factor that qualifies its multilingual essence: the school language environment is characterized by learners’ multilingual repertoires, by the language predominantly used as a language of instruction, by the languages for specific purposes connected to the various subjects (incorrectly defined as ‘non-linguistic subjects’), by the curricular foreign languages (either taught in a traditional way or following most innovative approaches, such as C.L.I.L., Content and Language


18

Integrated Learning) (Coste 2009). As Aalto et al. (2011) point out, “the development of curiosity and respect for languages is fundamental to the development of a sense of esteem for our own linguistic repertoires”. For this reason, attention to multilingualism, language system, language functions and language use must find its proper space in the curriculum. To conclude, if findings from research (ours among others) show an overall insufficient degree of language learning awareness, little knowledge of students’ foreign language use by teachers, discrepancies in teachers’ and students’ perceptions on language system and its development, all this opens a discussion that cannot be postponed any longer; on the contrary, now more than ever language learning occurring outside school has to be addressed and investigated more in depth, exactly as much as it happens to language learning taking place in the classroom. Holliday (2003 cited in Benson 2006:25) is convinced that autonomy lies in the social reality students bring with them from their “external” lives. Hence, as the contexts in which languages are used, learned and taught are constantly changing (Kalaja et al. 2011:57), in order to study second language acquisition as becoming, researchers must widen their focus in order to include social meanings such as identities, personae or stances, therefore putting on the centre of their studies the role of the individual, her/his experiences and beliefs (Divita 2011:73), her/his linguist landscape, her/his language repertoire, her/his learning habits. References: Aalto, E., Abel, A., Boeckmann, K-B, Lamb, T. E. (2011) “MARILLE: Promoting

plurilingualism in the majority language classroom”, Babylonia, 1. pp. 44-48. Allwright, D. (1988) Observation in the Language Classroom. London: Longman Araújo e S|, M. H., Melo, S. (2007) “Online plurilingual interaction in the development

of language awareness”, Language Awareness, 16, 1. pp. 7-20. Ausubel, D. P. (1968) Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View. New York: Holt,

Rinehart & Winston. Barkhuizen, P. G. (1998), “Discovering Learners' Perceptions of ESL Classroom

Teaching/Learning Activities in a South African Context”, TESOL Quarterly, 32, 1. pp. 85-108.

Barnes D. (1976) From Communication to Curriculum. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Barni, M., Vedovelli, M. (2009) “L’Italia plurilingue fra contatto e superdiversit{”, in M.

Palermo (Ed.), Percorsi e strategie di apprendimento dell’italiano lingua seconda: Sondaggi su ADIL2. Perugia: Guerra Editore.

Benson, P. (2001) Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning. London: Longman.

Benson, P. (2006) “Autonomy in language teaching and learning. State of the art article”, Language Teaching, 40, 1. pp. 21–40.

Benson, P. (2011) “Language teaching and learning beyond the classroom: An introduction to the field”, in P. Benson, H. Reinders, Beyond the language classroom. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bialystok, E. (1981) “The role of conscious strategies in second language proficiency”, Modern Language Journal, 65(1), 25-35.


19

Blanche-Benveniste, C., Valli, A. (1997) “L’intercompréhension: Le cas des langues romanes”, Le Français dans le Monde, Recherches et Applications. Paris: Hachette.

Block, D. (1994) “A day in the life of a class: teacher/learner perceptions of task purpose in conflict”, System, 22, 4. pp. 473-86.

Brown, M. (2005) “Learning spaces”, in D. Oblinger, J. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the Net Generation. Washington, DC: Educause.

Candelier, M. (2003) Evlang – l’Eveil aux Langues à l’Ecole Primaire – Bilan d’une Innovation Européenne. Bruxelles: De Boek-Duculot.

Capucho, F. (2008) “L’intercompréhension est-elle une mode? Du linguiste citoyen au citoyen plurilingue, Pratiques, 139/140. pp. 238-250.

Carstens, A., Beck, J. (2005) “Get ready for the gamer generation”, TechTrends, 49, 3. pp. 22-25.

Chamot, A., O'Malley, J. M. (1994) The CALLA Handbook: Implementing the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach. New York: Addison Wesley.

Chan, V., Spratt, M., Humphreys, G. (2002) “Autonomous language learning: Hong Kong tertiary students”, Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 1. pp. 1-18.

Cenoz, J., Gorter, D. (2006) “Linguistic landscape and minority languages”, International Journal of Multilingualism, 3, 1. pp. 67-80.

Cenoz, J., Gorter, D. (2008) “The linguistic landscape as an additional source of input in second language acquisition”, IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 46, 3. pp. 267-287.

Colardyn, D., Bjornavold, J. (2004) “Validation of Formal, Non-Formal and Informal Learning: policy and practices in EU Member States”, European Journal of Education, 39, 1.

Cook, V. (1992) “Evidence for multi-competence”, Language Learning, 42. pp. 557–591.

Coste, D. (2001) “La notion de compétence plurilingue”, Atti del seminario L'enseignement des langues vivantes, perspectives, Direzione Generale dell’Insegnamento Scolastico, Ministero dell’Educazione nazionale. http://plurilinguisme.europeavenir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=226&Itemid=26

Coste, D. (2009) “La langue de scolarisation dans la perspective d’une éducation plurilingue et interculturelle”, Babylonia, 4. pp. 45-49.

Coste, D., Moore, D., Zarate, G. (1998) “Compétence plurilingue et pluriculturelle”, Apprentissage et Usage des Langues dans le Cadre Européen. Le Français dans le Monde. Paris: Hachette http://acedle.org/IMG/pdf/CompetencePlurilingue09.pdf

Council of Europe (2001) The Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crabbe, D. (1993) “Fostering autonomy within classroom: The teacher's responsibility”, System, 21, 4. pp. 443-452.

Crystal, D. (2001) Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dagenais, D., Moore, D., Sabatier, C., Lamarre, P., Armand, F. (2009) “Linguistic

landscape and language awareness”, in E. Shohamy, D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery. New York: Routledge.


20

Dewey, J. (1907) The School and Society: Being three lectures by John Dewey supplemented by a statement of the University Elementary School. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. http://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject/Dewey/Dewey_1907/Dewey_1907_toc.html

Divita, D. (2011) “Becoming multilingual: An ethnographic approach to SLA beyond the classroom”, in P. Benson, H. Reinders (Eds.), Beyond the language classroom. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Doyé, P. (2003) “Education for plurilingualism”. Talk given to the Third International ELT Research Conference “Languages for Life”, University of Çanakkale, Turkey. http://www.logincee.org/remote_libraryitem/5860?lang=en

Fogarty, R., Perkins, D., Barell, J. (1992) How to Teach for Transfer. Palatine: Skylight Publishing

Hawkins, E. W. (1999) “Foreign language study and language awareness”, Language Awareness, 8, 3-4. pp.124-142.

Higgins, C. (2009) “Language in and out of the classroom: Connecting contexts of language use with learning and teaching practices”, Language Teaching, 42, 3. pp: 401- 403.

Hockly, N. (2011) “The digital generation”, ELT Journal, 65, 3. pp. 322-325. Hořinek, M. (2007) A Closer Look at Learner Autonomy - A Qualitative Study. Master

tesi. Brno: Masaryk University. Hyland, F. (2004) “Learning autonomously: Contextualising out-of-class language

learning”, Language Awareness, 13, 3. pp. 180-202. James, M. A. (2006) “Teaching for transfer in ELT”, ELT Journal, 60, 2. pp. 151-159. Jing, H. (2006) “Learner resistance in metacognition training? An exploration of

mismatches between learner and teacher agendas”, Language Teaching Research, 10, 1. pp. 95-117.

Kalaja, P., Alanen, R., Palviainen, A., Dufva, H. (2011) “From Milk Cartons to English Roommates: Context and Agency in L2 Learning Beyond the Classroom”, in P. Benson, H. Reinders (Eds.), Beyond the language classroom. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kramsch, C. (2009) The Multilingual Subject. What language learners say about their experience and why it matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kuure, L. (2011) “Places for Learning: Technology-Mediated Language Learning Practices Beyond the Classroom”, in P. Benson, H. Reinders (Eds.), Beyond the language classroom. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lai, J. (2001) “Towards an analytic approach to assessing learner autonomy”, The AILA Review, 15. pp. 34-44.

Lam, W. S. E. (2000) “L2 literacy and the design of the self: A case study of a teenager writing on the Internet”, TESOL Quarterly, 34. pp. 457-482.

Lamb, M. (2004). “It depends on the students themselves: Independent language learning at an Indonesian state school”, Language Culture and Curriculum, 17. pp. 229–245.

Landry, R., Bourhis, R. Y. (1997) “Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: An empirical study”, Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16. pp. 23–49.

Larsen-Freeman, D., Long, M. H. (1991) An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. London: Longman.


21

Little, D. (1996) “Freedom to learn and compulsion to interact: Promoting learner autonomy through the use of information systems and information technology”, in R. Pemberton, E. Li, W. Or, H. Pierson (Eds.), Taking Control: Autonomy in Language Learning. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Little, D., Dam, L. (1998) “Learner autonomy: What and why?”, The Language Teacher Online, 10. pp. 7-8. http://www.jalt-publications.org/tlt/files/98/nov/littledam.html

Macaro, E. (2008) “The shifting dimension of language learner autonomy”, in T. Lamb, H. Reinders (Eds.), Learner and Teacher Autonomy. Concepts, Realities and Responses. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

McNeely, G. (2005) “Using technology as a learning tool, not just the cool new thing”, in D. G. Oblinger, J. L. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the Net Generation. Washington, D.C.: EDUCAUSE..

Menegale, M. (2011a) Dall'autonomia nell'apprendimento delle lingue straniere allo sviluppo della competenza plurilingue: una ricerca nella scuola secondaria - Doctoral Thesis. Venice: Ca' Foscari University. http://hdl.handle.net/10579/1086

Menegale, M. (2011b) “The importance of language learner autonomy for plurilingualism”, in K. Hein, B. Ruschoff, B. (Eds.), Involving language Learners. Success Stories and Constraints. Duisburg, Universitätsverlag Rhein-Ruhr.

Nguyen, T. C. L. (2009) Learner Autonomy and EFL Learning at the Tertiary Level in Vietnam - Doctoral Thesis. Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington. http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10063/1203/thesis.pdf?sequence=1

Nunan, D. (1989) Designing Task for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (1991) Language Teaching Methodology. London: Prentice Hall. Nunan, D. (1995) “Closing the gap between learning and instruction”, TESOL

Quarterly, 29, 1. pp. 133-58. Nunan D. (1997) “Designing and adapting materials to encourage learner

Aautonomy”, in P. Benson, P. Voller (Eds.), Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning. Harlow: Longman. pp. 192-203.

Oblinger, D., Oblinger, J. (2005) Educating the net generation. Washington, DC: Educause.

Palfreyman, D. (2006) “Social context and resources for language learning”, System, 34. pp. 352-70.

Pedró, F. (2006) The new millennium learners: challenging our views on ICT and learning. Paris: OECD-CERI.

Penz, H. (2001) “Cultural awareness and language awareness through dialogic social interaction using the Internet and other media”, in A-B. Fenner (Ed.), Cultural Awareness and Language Awareness Based on Dialogic Interaction with Texts in Foreign Language Learning. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.

Perkins, D. N., Salomon, G. (1988) “The science and art of transfer”, Educational Leadership, 46, 1. pp. 22-32. http://www.learnweb.harvard.edu/alps/thinking/docs/trancost.htm

Perkins, D. N., Salomon, G. (1992) “Transfer of learning”, International Encyclopedia of Education. (Second Edition). Oxford: Pergamon Press. http://learnweb.harvard.edu/alps/thinking/docs/traencyn.htm


22

Pickard, N. (1995) “Out-of class language learning strategies: Three case studies”, Language Learning Journal, 12. pp. 35-37.

Pickard, N. (1996) “Out-of-class language learning strategies.”, ELT Journal, 50. pp. 150-159.

Prensky, M. (2001) “Digital natives, digital immigrants”, On the Horizon, 9, 5. pp. 1–6. Protopsaltis A., Hetzner S., Pappa D., Pannese L. (2012) “Serious Games in Formal and

Informal Learning”, Special edition in eLearning papers. Opening Learning Horizons Discovering the Potential of Co-Creation Games and Open-learning. pp. 93-103. http://elearningpapers.eu/en/elearning_papers

Reinders, H., Wattana, S. (2011) “Learn English or die: The effects of digital games on interaction and willingness to communicate in a foreign language”, Digital Culture and Education, 3, 1. pp. 4-28.

Rowland, L. (2012) “The pedagogical benefits of a linguistic landscape project in Japan”, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1-12.

Sanchez, J., Salinas, A., Contreras, D., Meyer, E. (2011) “Does the new digital generation of learners exist? A qualitative study”, British Journal of Educational Technology, 42, 4. pp. 543–556.

Scharle A., Szabó A. (2000) Learner Autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Shohamy, E., Ben-Rafael, E., Barni, M. (2010) Linguistic landscape in the city. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Shohamy, E., Waksman, S. (2009) “Linguistic landscape as an ecological arena”, in E. Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery. New York: Routledge.

Skiba, D. J., Burton, A. J. (2006) “Adapting your teaching to accommodate the net generation of learners”, The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 11. http://www.nursingworld.org/MainMenuCategories/ANAMarketplace/ANAperiodicals/OJIN/TableofContents/Volume112006/No2May06/tpc30_416076.aspx

Slimani, A. (1992) “Evaluation of classroom interaction”, in J. C. Alderson, A. Berretta (Eds.), Evaluating Second Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Smith, R. (2001) “Group work for autonomy in Asia: Insights from teacher-research”, in L. Dam (Ed.), Learner Autonomy: New Insights. Special Issue of AILA Review, 15. pp. 70-81.

Sturtridge, G. (1994) “Si può educare all’autonomia? La conoscenza della metodologia didattica come strumento per l’autonomia del discente”, in L. Mariani (Ed.), L’Autonomia nell’Apprendimento Linguistico. Firenze: La Nuova Italia. ì

Sundqvist, P. (2011) “A Possible Path to Progress: Out-Of-School English Language

Learners in Sweden”, in P. Benson, H. Reinders (Eds.), Beyond the language classroom. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Tapscott, D. (1999). Growing up digital: The rise of the net generation. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Teo, P. (2008) “Outside in/inside out: Bridging the gap in literacy education in Singapore classrooms”, Language and Education, 22, 6. pp. 411-431.


23

Torkington, K. (2009) “Exploring the Linguistic Landscape: the case of the ‘Golden Triangle’ in the Algarve, Portugal’, in S. Disney, B. Forchtner, W. Ibrahim, N. Miller Miller (Eds.), Postgraduate Conference in Linguistics and Language Teaching, 3. Lancaster: Lancaster University.

Tufi, S., Blackwood, R. (2010) “Trademarks in the linguistic landscape: Methodological and theoretical challenges in qualifying brand names in the public space”, International Journal of Multilingualism, 7, 3. pp. 197-210.

van Lier, L. (1988) The classroom and the language learner: Ethnography and second language classroom research. London: Longman.

van Lier, L. (2000) “From input to affordance: Social interactive learning from an ecological perspective”, in J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Villanueva Alfonso, M-L. (2006) “ICT paradoxes from the point of view of autonomy training and plurilingualism”, Mélanges CRAPEL, 28. pp. 9-27.

Wilkinson, S. (2002) ‘The ominipresent classroom during summer study abroad: American students in conversations with their French hosts’, The Modern Language Journal, 86. pp. 157-73.

Willis, J. (1996) A Framework for Task-based Learning. Harlow: Addison-Wesley Longman.

A study on knowledge transfer between in and out-of-school language learning

Documents

Transcript of A study on knowledge transfer between in and out-of-school language learning