1

Research agenda:

Language learning beyond the classroom

Hayo Reinders, Unitec, New Zealand

Phil Benson, Macquarie University, Australia

Dr. Hayo Reinders (www.innovationinteaching.org) is Professor of Education and

Head of Department at Unitec in New Zealand and Dean of the Graduate School at

Anaheim University in the United States. He is also Editor-in-Chief of the journal

‘Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching’. Hayo’s interests are in educational

technology, learner autonomy, and out-of-class learning and his most recent books are

on teaching methodologies, digital games, and second language acquisition. He edits

a book series on ‘New Language Learning and Teaching Environments’ for Palgrave

Macmillan.

[email protected]

Phil Benson is Professor of Applied Linguistics at Macquarie University, with more than 30

years experience of language teaching and teacher education in North Africa, the Middle

East, East Asia, and Australia. His main interests in teaching and research are in learner

autonomy and out-of-class learning. Pursuing these interests has led him into research on

long-term narratives of language learning, study abroad, and informal language learning using

digital media and popular culture resources. He has a preference for qualitative research

methods and is especially interested in narrative inquiry as an approach to language teaching

and learning research.

 2

[email protected]

Abstract

Most language learning research is carried out either in classrooms or among

classroom learners. As Richards (2015) points out, however, there are two dimensions

to successful learning: what happens inside classrooms and what happens outside

them. Rapid development of online media, communications technologies and

opportunities for travel have also expanded the world beyond the classroom for

language learners. Language learning and teaching BEYOND the classroom (LBC) is,

thus, emerging as a field ripe for the development of new research agendas (Benson &

Reinders 2011; Nunan & Richards 2015). We propose potentially fruitful avenues for

research here under the headings of settings for learning, learning processes and

teaching.

1. Introduction

This paper begins with a brief discussion of the overarching task of developing a

model of LBC that can underpin research in the field. It then proposes a number of

research tasks that we believe will help move research on LBC forwards. These tasks
 3

are organized under three headings: Settings, Learning processes, and Teaching.

These headings correspond to three basic questions in LBC research to which we do

not as yet have clear answers: Where does LBC take place? How does it take place?

How should teachers be involved?

2. Modelling LBC

LBC has been identified by a variety of names, including: out-of-class, after-class,

extra-curricular, self-access, out-of-school and distance learning; informal, non-

formal and naturalistic learning; non-instructed learning and self-instruction;

autonomous, independent, self-directed and self-regulated learning. These terms point

to a number of dimensions of LBC that need to be untangled in order for LBC to

become a coherent field of research. The development of a coherent descriptive model

that can help us to separate out the different forms and dimensions of LBC is an

overarching research task, to which data based studies in particular areas of LBC have

much to contribute.

In educational research, Schugurensky’s (2000) model identifies three main forms of

‘informal learning’, which are distinguished by degree of intentionality and conscious

awareness: ‘Self-directed learning’ is conscious and intentional; ‘incidental learning’

is conscious but not intentional; ‘socialization’ is both non-intentional and below the

level of conscious awareness. While this model is often cited in the literature, its

terminology is somewhat confusing. Informality is only one dimension of LBC, and

 4

the key terms of the model are linked to other terms that are not accounted for (e.g.

‘self-directed’ with ‘other-directed’, ‘intentional’ with ‘incidental’).

Benson’s (2011) preliminary model of LBC identifies four main dimensions based on

four of the more cited oppositions in the literature: location (out-of-class vs.

classroom), formality (informal vs. formal), pedagogy (non-instructed vs. instructed)

and locus of control (‘self-directed’ with ‘other-directed’). Table 1 includes a brief

description of each dimension with terms used to describe LBC that correspond to

them.

Table 1. Dimensions of LBC (Benson 2011a)

Dimension Description Terms

Location Where and when the learning Out-of-class, after-class,

takes place extra-curricular, self-

access, out-of-school,

distance

Formality The degree to which learning Informal, non-formal,

is linked to educational naturalistic

qualifications or structured by

educational institutions
 5

Pedagogy The degree to which teaching Non-instructed, self-

is involved instructed

Locus of How decisions are distributed Autonomous, independent,

control between the learner and others self-regulated

This model provides a basic framework for analyzing participation in a particular

LBC activity. Table 1 shows that, although LBC essentially refers to location,

location is, in fact, only one of several dimensions of LBC. After identifying the

location in which learning takes place, we may then determine whether the learning is

informal or formal, non-instructed or instructed, self-directed or other-directed

(bearing in mind that each distinction has its own complexities and should be treated

as a matter of degree). Chik’s (2014) study of digital gaming and Lai, Zhu & Gong’s

(2015) study of the quality of out-of-class learning illustrate how this model can be

used in the analysis of data on LBC.

Benson’s (2011) model is rudimentary, however, and clearly in need of further

development. Chik (2014) added a temporal dimension to the model, concerned with

the “TRAJECTORY” of a learner’s engagement in a particular form of LBC. Lai, Zhu &

Gong (2015) also consider VARIETY OF ACTIVITIES and the degree to which they are

MEANING FOCUSED as factors in the quality of LBC. Other important dimensions may

include: MEDIATION, or the resources used in learning (teaching and learning

materials, authentic texts, technologies, etc.); SOCIALITY, or the social relationships

 6

and networks involved in the learning process; MODALITY, or the learning practices

engaged in (e.g., language study, or language use: reading, listening, spoken or

written interaction); and a LINGUISTIC dimension, concerned with the language skills

and levels of language competence involved in LBC.

Three additional dimensions refer more to learning processes that may be

characteristic of LBC:

- Whether the learning is INTENTIONAL (attention focused on language learning) or

INCIDENTAL (attention focused elsewhere with language learning as a by-product)

(DeKeyser 2008).

- Whether the learning is EXPLICIT (adds to the learner’s conscious knowledge) or

IMPLICIT (adds to abilities or skills that lie below the level of conscious awareness)

(Ellis 2008).

- Whether the learning is INDUCTIVE (inferencing general rules from particular

instances) or DEDUCTIVE (applying general rules to particular instances).

Modelling LBC is clearly a long-term task. We are only beginning to

understand how the terms that describe LBC map on to its different dimensions, and

still less how these dimensions are connected with each other. Any study of LBC in a

particular context could profitably begin from a clear exposition of where the activity

in focus stands in relation to the various dimensions of LBC identified in this section.
 7

3. Settings for LBC

At this early stage of research, it is important to develop our knowledge of the settings

for LBC that are typically available to learners. Research tasks 1-3 are, therefore,

concerned with documenting settings for LBC and the uses that learners make of

them. These tasks are designed for researchers and teachers to carry out in the

contexts in which they work.

3.1 LBC Environments

The term LBC covers a variety of settings that are defined, negatively, as being not

‘in the classroom’. One way of making sense of these settings is to view them as

potential elements within broader ‘social ecologies’ of language learning (Kramsch

2002; van Lier 2003; Palfreyman 2014). From this perspective, LBC does not exclude

the classroom but rather CONNECTS WITH it. For example,

● Classroom learners can also engage in learning beyond the classroom.

● Autonomous learners can take classroom-based language courses.

● Self-study learners can use textbooks designed for classroom use.

 8

The classroom is, thus, likely to be one of a number of settings that make up the

affordances for, and constraints on, language learning within a broader environment.

At present, however, we do not have an adequate understanding of how these settings

blend in particular contexts of learning and teaching. There is also much to be done to

build on innovative work that examines how students make use of the varied

opportunities for LBC in their environments and connect these to classroom learning.

One study that addresses these issues is Lamb’s (2004) investigation of the

English language learning of junior high school students in a provincial Indonesian

city. Lamb explored relationships between the students’ learning in the classroom,

after-school lessons at school and in private institutions, and their use of resources in

their everyday environments outside school. He found that much of their learning

took place outside school English classes, but that these classes were, nevertheless,

important, due to the relationships that students established with teachers, rather than

lesson content. Lai’s (2015) study of Hong Kong undergraduate language learners

investigated attitudes to in-class and out-of-class learning. It found that the students

valued both but allocated different functions to them, which influenced their

expectations of classroom teaching.

Research task 1
Document the settings and resources for LBC that are available to a group of

learners with which you work. Analyse how they make use of these settings and

resources and how they connect them with classroom learning.

 9

This task can be carried out through ethnographic observation (e.g., Lamb 2004) or a

questionnaire based on the researchers’ evaluation of available resources (Lai 2015).

However, learning beyond the classroom clearly can take place in many different

settings, some of which may be private and some of which may not even be

recognised by learners as contexts for learning. For this reason, a combination of

methods is recommended and it is important that any instruments used make it clear

that the researcher is interested in ALL forms of learning, not simply those that the

participants may think the researcher is asking about. To understand WHAT kinds of

settings learning takes place in, quantitative methods such as the use of surveys can be

helpful. And to understand HOW participants use different settings for their learning,

further, in-depth information will need to be obtained. Ethnography involves the

researcher observing learning from the point of view of the participant (as much as

possible) and in the participant’s context (as opposed to, for example, a laboratory

setting). Observations over longer periods of time allow different types of learning

behaviour to emerge, and a rich description of the environment (including the place,

other learners, resources, etc) helps to understand the affordances for learning in

different contexts, as well as which aspects of language (e.g. vocabulary, pragmatics)

are most likely to be learned in them. For any particular group of learners, the issues

of interest will be (a) the configuration of settings and resources that is available, (b)

the affordances they offer and constraints on access to them, and (c) the uses learners

make of them.

3.2 The affordances and constraints of LBC

 10

In addition to broad studies of the settings and resources for LBC that are available to

particular groups of students, there is also an important role for in-depth studies of

particular settings. Our knowledge of the variety of settings for LBC has increased

considerably in recent years through studies that have focused on, for example,

language ‘cafés’ in educational institutions (Murray, Fujishima & Uzuki 2014), self-

organised communities or ‘English corners’ (Gao 2007; 2009), face-to-face or Skype

tutoring in the home (Barkhuizen 2011; Kozar & Sweller 2014), independent learning

in the home (Kuure 2011; Palfreyman 2011) and heritage language learning in the

community (e.g., Back 2013; Moore & MacDonald 2013). There are also a growing

number of studies of language learning in online settings, for example, ‘fan fiction’

(Black 2008), digital gaming (Chik 2014), and online TV dramas (Wang 2012).

Studies of these kinds not only extend our knowledge of the range of affordances for

LBC, they can also contribute to theory on the roles of learning spaces and social

networks in learning. Murray et al. (2014), for example, draw on theory from human

geography and mediated discourse analysis, to discuss what they call the ‘semiotics of

place’ in LBC in relation to a university facility in Japan that they describe as a

‘social learning space’. They argue that the ways in which students imagine, perceive

and define a space determines what they do in it and influences their autonomy within

that environment. Palfreyman (2011), on the other hand, draws on social network

theory to explore how female English-language students in the United Arab Emirates

draw on networks of family and friends to organize their learning in the home.
 11

Research task 2
Conduct an in-depth study of how one emerging setting is used for LBC by an

individual or small number of language learners.

In contrast to Research task 1, which focuses on the settings that make up a particular

LBC environment, this task focuses on a particular setting within the environment that

is used by some, but not all learners. Because of this narrower focus it is best carried

out with an individual or a small number of learners, and data might be collected

through retrospective interviews on the learners’ experiences of learning in the setting

or concurrent observation of their learning practices. Chik’s (2014) study of digital

gaming, for example, included interviews and ethnographic observation and, in

addition, data was gathered from an online forum thread on language learning and

gaming. Studies of this kind often begin from the researchers’ own everyday interests

or from noticing an interesting setting for LBC that a particular learner is using. There

are many undocumented settings for LBC, especially online, and those that have been

mentioned here are under-researched. Studies of particular settings can also contribute

to the theory of LBC, especially if they focus on the nature of the setting as an LBC

‘space’ and the social networks involved in learning.

3.3 Study abroad

Study abroad is a well-researched area that often involves both classroom learning

and LBC (Kinginger 2009). As a context for LBC, it deserves special attention, partly

because it is often the opportunities for immersion in out-of-class target language use
 12

that is most valued in study abroad and partly because the affordances for LBC are

often very different to those available in the home environment. Studies have also

found, however, that access to opportunities to use the target language, especially

with native speakers, are often constrained and largely confined to language classes

(Cotterall & Reinders 2001). In one recent study, Trentman (2013) found that

American students studying in Egypt used English more than Arabic, partly because

of the difficulty of accessing native speakers of Arabic and partly because they tended

to use English even when talking with Arabic speakers. At present, however, we

know relatively little about the ecologies of particular study abroad environments. In

particular, we know little about homestay and other LBC settings that are unique to

study abroad. Emerging qualitative research has, however, begun to cast light on the

part that learners play in constructing their own LBC environments in study abroad

(Benson 2012; Benson et al. 2012) and the kinds of learning and teaching that occur

in homestays (Wilkinson 2002; Zimmermann 2011).

Research task 3
Document and analyse the configuration of LBC settings in a particular study

abroad programme and the uses that students make of them.

This task is similar to Research task 1 in that it involves both documenting the

settings and resources in a learning environment and examining how students make

use of them. However, this task would be best carried out through in-depth study of

the experiences of individual students, both because students tend to construct their

own learning environments in study abroad and because it is important to understand

 13

how study abroad represents a change from the learning environment that the student

is accustomed to at home. Data collection methods might include retrospective

interviews and concurrent learner diaries. In the past, it has been difficult for

researchers from the students’ home countries to gather data from them while they are

studying abroad and new methods such as Skype interviewing and photo-blogging are

worth exploring. Benson’s (2012) individual case study of a Hong Kong student’s

study abroad environment in an Australian city relied on a retrospective interview

based on the student’s photo-blog, and would have been considerably enhanced if it

could have been carried out in collaboration with a researcher in the host city. Audio-

recordings of spoken interaction also proved to be a valuable source of data in

Wilkinson’s (2002) and Zimmermann’s (2011) homestay studies. While homestay

remains an under-researched setting, there are also other important study abroad

settings that have barely been investigated at all, including interactions with ‘study

buddies’, interactions with strangers in the street and public transport, and, in longer-

term study abroad, part-time jobs.

4. How do learners learn beyond the classroom?

4.1 The experience of LBC

The ways in which learners approach, structure and feel about their experiences of

LBC are of particular interest in that they are both reflective of, and - in as yet largely

unknown ways - cause of learners’ motivation, attitudes and their sense of identity as
 14

language learners or users. To understand the contribution that LBC makes to

learning, it is therefore crucial to understand how LBC relates to the learner. There

are several approaches to exploring this profoundly personal aspect of learning, for

example through the use of ‘language learning histories’, or accounts of how

individuals go about learning languages over relatively long periods of time (Benson

& Nunan 2005), often covering what Benson (2011b) calls their language learning

‘careers’. Language learning histories that cover the whole period from beginning to

learn a language to achieving a high level of proficiency in it (e.g., Benson, Chik &

Lim 2003) typically have two important characteristics. First they show how, both

concurrently and sequentially, language learning tends to involve in-class and out-of-

class learning experience. For example, many individuals begin learning a language

mainly in the classroom, gradually accumulate LBC experiences, and later in life

continue learning, often ‘naturalistically’, without attending classes. In Benson et al.

(2003), this pattern was observed to be typical for Asian learners who become

proficient in English, but other patterns might well be observed for learners of other

languages in other parts of the world (see, for example, Kalaja, Barcelos & Menezes

2008). Second, they show how, in the longer term, learning a second or foreign

language is not simply a matter of learning the forms and structures of the language or

even of learning how to use it to communicate; it is also a process that is tied in with

the development of identity (Block 2007; Benson et al 2012). While any engagement

with a new language, arguably, leads to a development of identity, Block (2007)

shows that experiences of classroom learning are in themselves unlikely to have a

deep impact on L2 identity, which is far more likely to emerge from critical
 15

experiences of using the language outside the classroom in situations that destabilize

identity, such as those often encountered by migrants or students abroad.

Although such studies provide fascinating insight into the language learning

journey from a learner’s perspective, most do not include a linguistic focus and do not

(aim to) record the types of input and output the learners engage in and how this

relates to subsequent learning. There is a need to better understand how LBC

experiences affect both language use IN THE MOMENT as well as their broader impact

on the learner and the learning process. One useful method for this is to apply Critical

Incident Analysis. This entails the recording and analysis of for events that

profoundly shape the learning experience. Such incidents can be purely linguistic

insights (‘that was when I finally understood the difference between the active and the

passive tense’), or they can be significant affective sources of (de)motivation (‘I felt

so embarrassed when those people couldn’t understand my accent’). Analysis of such

incidents can help to identify underlying causes, their impact on the learner, and their

impact on subsequent learning (Tripp 2011).

Research task 4
Use Critical Incident Analysis to identify and deconstruct key experiences in

LBC for their potential to inhibit or facilitate the language learning process.

Although Critical Incident Analysis is most commonly used in language teacher

education (Farrell 2008), a study such as the above could be used with learners to, for

example, draw on reflective writing or stimulated recall to encourage recollection and

 16

interpretation (for coverage of stimulated recall, or the use of audio, text or video

materials of the learner’s language see Gass & Mackey 2013). Such a study could

look at, for example, the types of (opportunities for) L2 interaction in particular

situations, how learners feel about encounters with native speakers, factors affecting

their willingness to communicate, or their self-motivation (Macintyre et al 1998) and

where they perceive the locus of control to be in such situations (with learners who

have a strong internal locus of control having been shown to be more successful in

LBC (Bown 2006)). Such studies would be particularly valuable in that they can help

to identify key enabling (or inhibiting) experiences and ways in which learners could

be supported to cope with and learn from them.

4.2 Strategies in LBC

Early research on language learning strategies paid a good deal of attention to the

strategies that learners employed beyond the classroom (e.g., Wenden 1987).

Subsequent work has tended towards evaluation of strategy use independently of

specific contexts of learning and, in survey instruments such as the SILL (Oxford

1990), the social and affective strategies that are likely to be most important in LBC

are less well developed than cognitive and metacognitive strategies. While there is

research on learners’ CAPACITY for strategy use in independent learning (Hurd and

Lewis 2008), little is known about ACTUAL strategy use in LBC and the affordances of

different learning environments for (the development of) strategy use. There is much

to be learned about out-of-class language learning strategies in the context of

approaches that link strategy use to self-regulation and motivation (Tseng, Dörnyei
 17

and Schmitt 2006; Vandergrift 2005) There have also been calls for more qualitative

research on the use of strategies (Rose 2012; Woodrow 2005). The most important

questions that are specific to LBC may be concerned less with cognitive and

metacognitive strategies than they are with the social and affective strategies that

learners use to create opportunities for LBC and to control communicative

interactions (Edwards and Roger 2015). Benson (2011c) uses the term ‘self-directed

naturalistic learning’ to describe situations in which learners set up an activity (e.g., a

face-to-face interaction with native speakers in the target language) for the purpose of

language learning or practice, but shift their focus away from language learning to the

content of the activity once they are engaged in it. The ability to set up such situations

is crucial to learners engaging in a range of LBC activities that depend on the

learner’s initiative to seek out people and resources that can both engage their

interests and enhance their language learning. Arnold and Fonseca-Mora (2015: 229),

for example, describe an English-speaking student studying in Spain who, finding that

‘the need she felt to make herself understood was stronger than the fear of making

mistakes’, ‘jumped in’ to conversations with Spanish speakers. Her success is

described as being partly due to the fact that she planned and visualized interactions

in advance and was ‘proactive’ in finding ways to contact Spanish speakers. Stanley’s

(2015: 244) account of her own learning of Spanish also describes how she got out of

her ‘comfort zone’ by ‘pushing’ herself into situations where she needed to use the

language before she felt ready to do so.

 18

Research task 5
Conduct a case study of a learner’s efforts to learn a language beyond the

classroom, focusing on the strategies used to identify, take advantage of, and/or

create opportunities to learn and use the language. Examine the factors that

affect the learner’s success in these efforts.

Following Woodrow’s (2005) call for more qualitative research on strategies, this task

is, perhaps, best conducted as a case study, using diaries, observation or interviews to

explore individual experiences of strategy use in LBC in depth. This task could be

carried out either as a third-person study (Arnold & Fonseca-Mora 2015) or first-

person self-study (Stanley 2015). Interviews might focus on successes and failures in

LBC and strategies that worked or did not work. If several interviews are carried out

at intervals, they can also address developments in strategy use over time. Edwards

and Rogers (2015), for example, interviewed a migrant to Australia shortly after

arrival and again two years later, and reported interesting developments in his

strategies for overcoming anxieties in speaking English concerning listening and

control. If learners can be persuaded to keep a diary or journal, recording occasions of

LBC and the strategies they use shortly after the event, more immediate recollections

can be collected and developments can be observed over time. Diaries are an

especially useful tool for self-study and were used to good effect in a recent study of

ecological influences on the authors’ strategies in learning Japanese in Japan by

Casanave (2012).
 19

4.3 Technology-enhanced learning

Although technology has the potential to facilitate LBC, it does not necessarily do so

(Reinders & White 2016). Technology-enhanced learning may cover a wide range of

‘locations’ (e.g. in class, in a computer lab, at home, while moving about), may be

more or less formal, can involve teacher instruction or self-instruction and can be

highly directed or carried out autonomously. Nonetheless, previous studies have given

valuable insight into how learners and teachers draw on technology to support LBC.

For example, studies of computer-mediated communication (CMC) have been fruitful

in research on instructed SLA, but have also given insight into how learners use CMC

in out-of-class settings. For example, Sanders (2006) showed that out-of-class online

chat led to more language production than in-class chat. Noting that most research on

negotiation of meaning in L2 interaction had been conducted among L2 users and

under experimental conditions, Tudini (2007) investigated negotiation of meaning in

online interactions between learners of Italian and native speakers. In contrast to

many earlier studies, she found that negotiation of meaning episodes were often

triggered by intercultural issues and often occurred outside the context of interactional

repair. Similarly, research on social networking has looked at the ways communities

can support L2 learners beyond the language classroom (Lamy & Zourou 2013).

Learners can derive motivation and affective support from other learners and find

opportunities for L2 interaction in meaningful contexts. Social networking also sits

well in an ecological view of language learning as it foregrounds the relationships

between people as the starting point for interaction and learning. There is some

emerging evidence from research that such environments encourage learners to persist
 20

in their language studies where otherwise they might have stopped; however, there are

also considerable impediments to independent learning (Clark & Gruba 2010).

Another area of growing interest is the use of digital games as avenues for

encouraging L2 use beyond the classroom (Gee 2003, Reinders 2012). Reinders &

Wattana (2014, 2015), for example, looked at the effects of completing game quests

on L2 learners’ willingness to communicate. Although there was a degree of

instructional intervention in the form of the requirement for students to complete

specific tasks, the medium (an online role-playing game) is one that students were

frequent users of. By moving their language learning from the more formal classroom

environment (as perceived by the students) to one that they engaged in outside the

classroom students reported lower anxiety, greater confidence and higher motivation,

all of which translated into increased interaction compared with classroom activities.

Recent studies have also started to look at the ways in which learners use digital

games to support their learning outside the classroom (Kuure 2011, Chik 2012,

Sundqvist & Sylvén 2012). Similarly, mobile technologies offer a great deal of

potential for the delivery and support of out-of-class learning (Beatty 2013, Pegrum

2014). Their characteristics of portability, social interactivity, context sensitivity,

connectivity and individuality (Klopfer, Squire & Jenkins 2003) facilitate the creation

of learning opportunities that are distributed, collaborative, situated, networked and

autonomous (Reinders, Lakarnchua & Pegrum 2015). These affordances are not fully

understood yet, nor is their impact on the type and amount of learning they encourage

beyond the classroom, and it is important that more research is carried out. In

particular, it is not yet known in what ways learners use technology and which aspects
 21

of their LBC they seek to use it for. Do learners use technology to ‘mimic’ classroom

learning when engaged in LBC with technology or do they find alternative ways of

learning? And what is the relationship between the type of LBC and acquisition?

Preliminary evidence shows a considerable effect for type of activity on success in

LBC (Lai, Zhu & Gong 2015) but research has not looked at the specific affordances

of technology in LBC.

Research task 6
Use Social Network Analysis to track the ways learners use technology for LBC

in one particular setting (e.g. in an online community, or in an online role-

playing game) to identify how learners create opportunities for language

learning within them.

Social Network Analysis, or SNA, (Scott 2012) is used to identify relationships and

social structures in groups and has been applied in sociolinguistics studies.. It draws

on observations and the collection of online data to graphically display how people

are connected. SNA could be applied, for example, to the ways in which L2 learners

connect with native speakers online, in what settings, and what factors influence the

type and amount of communication that ensues. By combining SNA with recordings

and analysis of learners’ interaction (e.g. Kurata 2010), evidence of (the development

of) different types of language use can be collected and interpreted on the basis of the

type of relationship between interlocutors as well as to identify how certain kinds of

interaction lead to more or less L2 input and interaction.

 22

5. How do teachers support LBC?

5.1 Teachers’ beliefs about LBC

Much of what we have written in this paper suggests that teachers should link

classroom teaching to their students’ LBC activities. This is supported by the strong

interest in the field of language teaching in notions such as learner-centredness and

autonomy (Benson 2007, 2011c), agency and identity (van Lier 2007; Mercer 2011),

which bridge classroom and out-of-class worlds and place learners’ interests,

experiences and development at the centre of classroom teaching. In practice,

however, such links are not commonly made. From the perspective of learners, the

classroom is usually only one of several settings in which they carry out their

language learning. From the perspective of teachers the classroom is likely to be seen

as central to their students’ learning, with LBC playing a supplementary role as an

opportunity to practise or extend classroom learning. Teachers’ beliefs about the

relationship between classroom learning and LBC can influence student learning,

therefore, especially if they are unaware of what their students do outside the

classroom, underestimate the amount of time and degree of engagement with LBC, or

fail to capitalise on knowledge and skills that the students bring to class. By

prescribing homework or by setting tasks and tests that require preparation outside

class, teachers may also reduce the time available for self-initiated LBC. At the same

time, through initiatives such as self-access learning or extra-curricular activities,

teachers may also create opportunities for LBC in situations where they are lacking or

difficult to access outside the school. Relatively little is known about the ways in
 23

which teachers encourage, support and prepare students for LBC, how related

classroom practices are influenced by teachers’ beliefs, how their beliefs and practices

are constrained by curricula (Graves 2008), and what effect these factors have on

student learning (both in the short term, and in the long term, after the course has

finished).

Research task 7
Carry out a mixed method research study that compares survey results of

teachers’ beliefs about LBC with observations of classroom practices relating to

LBC.

Borg & Al-Busaidi (2012) designed a questionnaire to evaluate teachers’ beliefs on

autonomy. The questionnaire included two items on LBC (‘Autonomy can develop

most effectively through learning outside the classroom’ and ‘Out-of-class tasks

which require learners to use the internet promote learner autonomy’. Though the

levels of agreement with these statements were not reported, extracts from open-

ended responses showed that some of the teachers attended to LBC in their teaching.

Borg & Al-Busaidi’s questionnaire could be adapted to include more questions on

teachers’ beliefs about the value and roles of LBC, while observational data on the

how teachers incorporated students’ LBC into classroom activities would give insight

into relationships between beliefs and classroom practices, and teachers repertoires of

techniques and activities teachers use for bringing LBC into the classroom.
 24

5.2 LBC ‘in the classroom’

Many courses require learners to complete activities that extend coursework to

settings outside the classroom, usually in the form of homework assignments. Some

such activities merely require learners to do things outside the classroom, such as read

a book, watch a movie, or interview a speaker of the target language. Others are more

extensive and use projects that have a major impact on the shape of the curriculum

and what happens in class. In one recent study, Chang et al (2014) observed that

educational research had shown how positive attitudes to homework are linked to

higher achievement, but the relationship between time spent on homework and

outcomes is inconsistent. Their study of homework in intensive foreign language

courses for adults revealed a negative correlation between time spent on homework

and course outcomes, which they suggested might be because the time spent on

assigned homework reduced the time available for unassigned individualized study.

Although they are less common than homework, out-of-class projects have received

more attention over the years. Legutke pioneered efforts to use project work outside

the classroom by having German learners of English interview travelers at the

Frankfurt airport (Legutke & Thomas 1991; see also Knox 2007). Linguistic

landscape research has also inspired LBC projects in which learners observe and

analyse language they observe on the street (Rowland 2013; Chern & Dooley 2014).

Chern & Dooley, for example, take young learners on ‘literacy walks’ in the streets of

Taipei to observe and photograph examples of English signage. Their project

combines out-of-class excursions with explicit teaching, because, they argue, ‘merely
 25

immersing students in print is inadequate’. An important difference between project

work and homework is that, while the homework typically extends in-class work to

LBC, out-of-class project work brings LBC into the classroom. While there are a

number of published accounts of such projects, they tend to be descriptive and there is

a need for more studies that both describe, analyse and evaluate the impact of

innovative project work on learning and classroom activities.

Research task 8
Carry out an action research project in which you design and evaluate a out-of-

class learning project for a group of learners that you teach.

Action research is an approach to research that allows teachers to both design and

evaluate the impact of an innovation. In this case, the out-of-class project could be

inspired by projects reported in the literature or designed by a teacher according to the

affordances in the local environment. Ideally an evaluation of an innovation in

teaching and learning would assess its impact on language proficiency. However, it

can be difficult for practitioners to set up a control group, who do not participate in

the innovation, for comparison. In addition, pre- and post-tests of proficiency

typically fail to show significant differences over short periods. For this reason, action

researchers tend to look for internal evidence of learning. For example, learners may

be asked to keep a learning log in which they regularly record their learning activities

and the amount of time spent on them, and document language that they have learned,

challenges they experience and their thoughts and feelings about the project. Teacher-

researchers should also keep their own field notes, including observations of student
 26

motivation and engagement, learning outcomes and the impact of the project on

classroom life. The objective would be to produce a rich qualitative data set that could

be used to improve the project in the future. Although it is often impractical to set up

a control group, interesting comparisons can be made if the innovation is preceded by

similar observations over a period in which the learners’ assigned LBC activities are

limited to homework tasks.

5.3 Preparing learners for LBC

There are a variety of ways to develop learners’ ability to engage in LBC, from

classroom-based activities, to alternative forms of ‘learner support’. Classroom-based

methods include short courses (where the focus is on developing skills for

independent learning and raising students’ awareness of the importance of learning

outside the classroom) (Rubin & Thompson 1994; Rubin et al. 2008). Other, common

forms of learner support include language advising (Reinders 2007; Mynard & Carson

2012). There are relatively few accounts, however, of classroom-based programmes

or initiatives that are specifically designed to help students with LBC. One interesting

example of such a study is Ryan’s (1997) account of a course for adult English-

language learners in Japan that involved research into the English-language learning

resources available in the local environment, training on strategies to use them for

language learning, and activities to raise awareness of the language learning

principles that underlie these strategies. As in the case of LBC projects, however,

there is a need for accounts of strategy or learner training initiatives to incorporate a

stronger element of evaluation.

 27

Research task 9
Carry out an action research project in which you design and evaluate a

initiative or programme to help students make better use of the resources for

LBC in their local environments.

This project would ideally follow Research Task 1 (a survey of the resources

available in a particular environment) as well as a survey, using a questionnaire or

interviews, to establish the students’ interests and perceptions of their needs. As this is

an action research project, the methods of data collection would be similar to those

used in Research Task 8, although the emphasis in this task should be on the impact

of the classroom programme on LBC, rather than the LBC work itself. Language

learning logs and the teacher-researchers’ field notes would provide evidence of the

students’ uptake of training provided in the programme. If the programme specifically

involves learner strategy training, pre- and post-project questionnaires could be

designed to evaluate students’ perceptions of how relevant the strategies covered by

the programme were to their learning outside the classroom. Interviews with a

selection of students (including those who appear to have benefitted most and least

from the programme) could also be conducted to provide insight into the particular

challenges that students face in putting the principles and techniques taught in the

classroom in practice in actual contexts of LBC.

 28

6. Conclusion

This paper has attempted to set a research agenda for LBC that addresses three main

areas: settings for LBC and the affordances and constraints that they offer, the

processes involved in LBC, and the roles that teachers can play in supporting LBC.

This research agenda is a broad one, and necessarily so, not only because LBC is a

relatively new area of interest in a field that has, hitherto, paid much more attention to

learning in classrooms, but also because opportunities for LBC are multiple, dynamic

and highly dependent on the language being learned and the context of learning.

At the start of this article we argued that LBC is not just a matter of learning away

from the classroom, but is rather in many cases an extension of classroom learning.

Increasing our attention to LBC may, therefore, lead to a realisation that the

classroom is less THE centre of most learners’ learning, than just one of many centres.

Changes in technology (in particular mobile-assisted language learning) and a shift of

attention to the learner as an active agent in his or her learning, make it all the more

important that we deepen our understand the relationship between LBC and learning

in or from the classroom. We argue that this deeper understanding will lead to a

reconceptualisation of the classroom as a ‘third space’ (Kramsch & Steffensen 2008),

created by learners and teachers in a dynamic and interactive manner, based on

learners’ individual experiences. This reconceptualisation will lead to a much more

fluid, dynamic view of the classroom as one node (albeit an important one) in an

interconnected web of learning opportunities. It is vital that future research places

 29

greater value on the role of the individual learner. Looking at his or her life and

learning outside the classroom is an excellent starting point.

References

Arnold, J. C. & Fonseca-Mora (2015). Language and cultural encounters:

Opportunities for interaction with native speakers. In D. Nunan & J. C. Richards

(eds.), 225‒234.

Back, M. (2013). “La Orquesta”: Symbolic performance in a multilingual community

of practice. The Modern Language Journal 97.2, 383‒396.

Barkhuizen, G. (2011). Home tutor cognitions and the nature of tutor-learner

relationships. In P. Benson & H. Reinders (eds.), 161‒174.

Beatty, K. (2013). Beyond the classroom: Mobile learning the wider world. The

International Research Foundation for English Language Education. Retrieved from

http://www.tirfonline.org/english-in-the-workforce/mobileassisted-language-

learning/.

Benson, P. (2007) Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching

40.1, 21‒40.
 30

Benson, P. (2011a). Language learning and teaching beyond the classroom: An

introduction to the field. In P. Benson & H. Reinders (eds.), 7-16.

Benson, P. (2011b). Language learning careers as a unit of analysis in narrative

research. TESOL Quarterly 45.3, 545-553.

Benson, P. (2011c). Teaching and researching autonomy (2nd edn). London: Pearson.

Benson, P. (2012). Individual difference and context in study abroad. In W. M. Chan, K.

N. Chin, S. K. Bhatt & I. Walker (eds.), Perspectives on individual characteristics and

foreign language education. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 221-238.

Benson, P., Barkhuizen, G., Bodycott, P. & Brown, J. (2012). Narratives of second

language identity in study abroad. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Benson, P., Chik, A. & Lim, H. Y. (2003). Becoming autonomous in an Asian

context: Autonomy as a sociocultural process. In D. Palfreyman & R.C. Smith (eds.),

Learner autonomy across cultures: Language education perspectives. Basingstoke:

Palgrave Macmillan, 23-40.

Benson, P. & Nunan, D. (eds.), (2005). Learners’ stories: Difference and diversity in

language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 31

Benson, P. & Reinders, H. (eds.) (2011). Beyond the language classroom.

Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Black, R. W. (2008). Digital design: English language learners and reader reviews in

adolescent fan fiction. In M. Knobel & C. Lankshear (eds.), A new literacies sampler.

New York, NY: Peter Lang, 115-136.

Block, D. (2007). Second language identities. New York: Continuum.

Borg, S. & Al-Busaidi, S. (2012). Learner autonomy: English language teachers’

beliefs and practices. ELT Research Paper 12-07. London: British Council.

Bown, J. (2006). Locus of learning and affective strategy use: Two factors affecting

success in self-instructed language learning. Foreign Language Annals 39.4, 640–

659.

Casanave, C. P. (2012). Diary of a dabbler: Ecological influences on an EFL teacher’s

efforts to study Japanese informally. TESOL Quarterly 46.4, 642-670.

Chern, C. L. & Dooley, K. (2014). Learning English by walking down the street. ELT

Journal 68.2, 113-123.

Chik, A. (2012). Digital gameplay for autonomous foreign language learning:

Gamers’ and language teachers’ perspectives. In H. Reinders (ed.), 95-114.

 32

Chik, A. (2014). Digital gaming and language learning: Autonomy and

community. Language Learning & Technology 18.2, 85–100.

Clark, C. & Gruba, P. (2010). The use of social networking sites for foreign language

learning: An autoethnographic study of Livemocha. In Proceedings of the Australian

Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education Annual Conference.

Melbourne: Ascilite.

Cotterall, S. & Reinders, H. (2001) Fortress or bridge? Learners’ perceptions and

practice in self access language learning. Tesolanz 8, 23-38.

DeKeyser, R. (2008). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long

(eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell, 312-348.

Edwards, E. & Roger, P. (2015). Seeking out challenges to develop L2 self-

confidence: A language learner’s journey to proficiency. TESL-EJ 18.1, 1-24.

Ellis, N. C. (2008). Implicit and explicit knowledge of language. In J. Cenoz & N. H.

Hornberger (Eds), Encyclopedia of language and education. Volume 6: Knowledge

about language. New York, NY: Springer, 1–13.

Farrell, T. (2008). Critical incidents in ELT initial teacher training. ELT Journal 62.1,

1-10
 33

Gao, X. (2007). A tale of Blue Rain Café: A study on the online narrative

construction about a community of English learners on the Chinese mainland. System

35.2, 259-270.

Gao, X. (2009). ‘English corner’ as an out-of-class learning activity. English

Language Teaching Journal 63.1, 60-67.

Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (2013). Stimulated recall methodology in second language

research. New York: Routledge.

Gee, J.P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy.

New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Graves, K. (2008). The language curriculum: A social contextual perspective.

Language Teaching 41.2, 147-181.

Hurd, S. & Lewis, T. (eds.) (2008). Language learning strategies in independent

settings. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Kalaja, P., Barcelos, A. M. F. & Menezes, V. (eds.) (2008). Narratives of learning

and teaching EFL. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

 34

Kinginger, C. (2009). Language learning and study abroad: A critical reading of

research. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Klopfer, E., Squire, K. & H. Jenkins (2003). Augmented reality simulations on PDAs.

Chicago, IL: AERA.

Knox, J. (2007). Foreign eyes on Thailand: An ESP project for EFL learners. In A.

Burns & H. da Silva Joyce (eds.), Planning and teaching creatively in a required

curriculum for adult learners. Alexandria, VA: TESOL, 119-14.

Kozar, O. & Sweller, N. (2014). An exploratory study of demographics, goals and

expectations of private online language learners in Russia. System 45.1, 39-51.

Kramsch, C. (2002). Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological

perspectives. London: Continuum.

Kramsch, C. & Steffensen, S. (2008). Ecological perspectives on second language

acquisition and socialization. In N. H. Hornberger (ed.) Encyclopedia of Language

and Education. New York, NY: Springer, 2595-2606.

Kuure, L. (2011). Places for learning: Technology-mediated language learning

practices beyond the classroom. In P. Benson & H. Reinders (eds.), 35-46).

 35

Kurata, N. (2010). Opportunities for foreign language learning and use within a

learner's informal social networks. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 17.4, 382-396.

Lai, C. (2015). Perceiving and traversing in-class and out-of-class learning: Accounts

from language learners in Hong Kong. Innovation in Language Learning and

Teaching, 9.3, 265-284.

Lai, C., Zhu, W. & Gong, G. (2015). Understanding the quality of out-of-class

English learning. TESOL Quarterly 49.2, 278-308.

Lamb, M. (2004). “It depends on the students themselves”: Independent language

learning at an Indonesian state school. Language, Culture & Curriculum 17.3, 229-

245.

Lamy, M.-N. & Zourou, K. (eds.) (2013). Social networking for language education.

Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Legutke, M. & Thomas, H. (1991). Process and experience in the language

classroom. London: Longman.

MacIntyre, P. D., Dörnyei, Z., Clément, R. & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing

willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and

affiliation. The Modern Language Journal 82.4, 545-562.

 36

Mercer, S. (2011). Understanding learner agency as a complex dynamic system.

System 39.4, 427-436.

Moore, D. & MacDonald, M. (2013). Language and literacy development in a

Canadian native community: Halq’émylem revitalization in a Stó:lō Head Start

Program in British Columbia. The Modern Language Journal 97.3, 702-719.

Murray, G., Fujishima, N. & Uzuki, M. (2014). The semiotics of place: Autonomy

and space. In G. Murray (ed.), Social dimensions of autonomy in language learning.

Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 81-99.

Mynard, J. & Carson, L. (eds.) (2012). Advising in language learning: Dialogue, tools

and context. Harlow: Longman.

Nunan, D. & Richards, J. C. (eds.) (2015). Language learning beyond the classroom.

London: Routledge.

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know.

Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Palfreyman, D. M. (2011). Family, friends, and learning beyond the classroom: Social

networks and social capital in language learning. In P. Benson & H. Reinders (eds.),

17-34.
 37

Palfreyman, D. (2014). The ecology of learner autonomy. In G. Murray (ed.), Social

dimensions of autonomy in language learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan,

175-191.

Pegrum, M. (2014). Mobile learning. Languages, literacies and cultures.

Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Reinders, H. (2007). University language advising: is it useful?. Reflections in English

Language Teaching 5.1, 1-8.

Reinders, H., (ed.) (2012). Digital games in language learning and teaching.

Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Reinders, H. (2014). Personal Learning Environments for Supporting Out-of-Class

Language Learning. ELT Forum 52.4, 14-19.

Reinders, H., Lakarnchua, O. & Pegrum, M. (2015). A trade-off in learning: Mobile

augmented reality for language learning. In M. Thomas & H. Reinders (eds.),

Contemporary task-based language teaching in Asia. London: Bloomsbury, 244-256.

Reinders, H. & Wattana, S. (2014). Can I say something? The effects of digital game

play on willingness to communicate. Language Learning & Technology 18.2, 101-

123.
 38

Reinders, H. & Wattana, S. (2015). Affect and willingness to communicate in digital

game-based learning. ReCALL 27.1, 38-57.

Reinders, H. & White, C. (2016). Twenty years of Learner Autonomy and

Technology: How far have we come and where to next? Language Learning &

Technology (forthcoming).

Richards, J. (2015). The changing face of language learning: learning beyond the

classroom. RELC Journal 46.1, 5-22.

Rose, H. (2012). Reconceptualizing strategic learning in the face of self-regulation:

Throwing language learning strategies out with the bathwater. Applied Linguistics

33.1, 92–98.

Rowland L. (2013). The pedagogical benefits of a linguistic landscape project in

Japan. International Journal of Bilingual Education & Bilingualism 16.4, 494-505.

Rubin, J. & Thompson, I. (1994). How to be a more successful language learner.

Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Rubin, J. (2008). Reflections on the Good Language Learner. In C. Griffiths,

(ed.), Lessons from the Good Language Learner. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 10-15.
 39

Ryan, S. (1997). Preparing learners for independence: Resources beyond the

classroom. In P. Benson & P. Voller (eds.), Autonomy and independence in language

learning. London: Longman, 215-224.

Sanders, R. (2006). A comparison of chat room productivity: In-class versus out-of-

class, CALICO Journal 24.1, 59-76.

Schugurensky, D. (2000). The forms of informal learning: Towards a

conceptualization of the field. NALL Working Report 19. Toronto: University of

Toronto, Centre for the Study of Education and Work.

Scott, J. (2012). Social network analysis. Sage: London.

Stanley, P. (2015). Talking to strangers: Learning Spanish by using it. In D. Nunan &

J. C. Richards (eds.), 244-252.

Sundqvist, P. & Sylvén, L. (2012). World of VocCraft: Computer games and Swedish

learners’ L2 English vocabulary. In: H. Reinders (ed.), 189-208.

Trentman, E. (2013). Arabic and English During study abroad in Cairo, Egypt: Issues

of access and use. The Modern Language Journal 97.2, 457-473.

Tripp, D. (2011). Critical incidents in teaching: Developing professional judgement.

London: Routledge.
 40

Tseng, W. T., Dörnyei, Z. & Schmitt, N. (2006). A new approach to assessing

strategic learning: the case of self-regulation in vocabulary acquisition. Applied

Linguistics 27.1, 78-102.

Tudini, V. (2007). Negotiation and intercultural learning in Italian native speaker chat

rooms. The Modern Language Journal 91.4, 577-61.

Vandergrift, L. (2005). Relationships among motivation orientations, metacognitive

awareness and proficiency in L2 listening. Applied Linguistics 26.1, 70-89.

van Lier, L. (2003). The Ecology and semiotics of language learning. A sociocultural

perspective. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

van Lier, L. (2007). Action-based teaching, autonomy and identity. Innovation in

Language Learning & Teaching 1.1, 46-65.

Wang, D. (2012). Self-directed English language learning through watching English

language television drama in China. Changing English 19.3, 339-348.

Wenden, A. (1987). How to be a successful language learner: Insights and

prescriptions from L2 learners. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (eds.), Learner strategies in

language learning. London: Prentice Hall, 103-114.

 41

Wilkinson, S. (2002). The omnipresent classroom during summer study abroad:

American students in conversation with their French hosts. The Modern Language

Journal 86.2, 157-173.

Woodrow, L. (2005). The challenge of measuring language learning strategies.

Foreign Language Annals 38.2, 90–100.

Zimmerman, E. (2011). Talk about language use: ‘I know a little about your

language’. In P. Benson & H. Reinders (eds.), Beyond the language classroom.

Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 88-105.