27
Leveraging Technology to Integrate Informal Language Learning within Classroom Settings

PHILIP HUBBARD

Introduction

It is no secret that digital technology is an integral part of life in much of the modern world in both developed and developing countries. Yet language teachers often focus primarily or exclusively on what technology can do for them and their students in the classroom setting or its immediate extensions (Lai 2017). There is, however, a growing body of evidence that students use technology to engage in both deliberate and incidental language learning outside of class. For instance, Sylvén and Sundqvist (2012) show how such “extramural” experiences can provide rich language‐learning opportunities for adolescents, and Sockett (2014) devotes a full volume to the topic of online informal learning of English (OILE).

Advances incorporating technology, such as blended learning and flipped classrooms, have meant that students can accomplish a fair amount of planned language coursework outside the classroom setting. They can also participate in a fully online class, either synchronously or asynchronously. However, when these activities take the form of fixed, structured assignments, they simply represent the extension of the classroom into the student's world, just as reading textbooks or writing papers at home did in decades past. Such “homework” is still akin to formal classroom learning minus the possibility of on‐site teacher monitoring and feedback. In contrast, in this chapter we look at informal learning, but in a way that connects it with the formal structure of the language classroom and the influence of the teacher.

We begin with the assumption that formal and informal are not discrete categories but rather are defined along a continuum. At the formal end of that continuum, we have the most structured, rigid form of pedagogy, where there is no choice for the student. This is one where the learning paradigm is one of transmission for knowledge and drill for skills. At the other end, the most informal learning can be seen as lying completely outside of teacher or other “educational” influence. This continuum is paired with a different but related learning dimension, that of intentional and incidental. Assuming the learner is a cooperative partner in the venture, formal learning primarily involves intentional learning. However, the latter's connection to informal learning is less definitive. According to Marsick and Watkins (2001), “Informal learning is usually intentional but not highly structured” (p. 25). Despite the “usually intentional,” they describe incidental learning as a subcategory of informal since it is clearly less connected to formal.

Diagram of learning continua displaying two double-headed arrows between words Formal and Informal and Intentional and Incidental.

Figure 27.1 The learning continua of formal/informal and intentional/incidental.

Figure 27.1 shows these two learning dimensions. The key points here are that (i) these are continua, and a given event or experience (whether in or out of the classroom) may be placed roughly along some point on each scale independently, and (ii) there is not a predictable mapping between the formality and intentionality scales. The formal/informal scale is related to the context of the event or experience while the intentional/incidental scale is related to the degree to which the learner is deliberately trying to learn or practice language. Importantly, this can vary across individuals even within the same class setting. For instance, Learner A may experience some incidental learning even inside a highly structured class, perhaps noticing a new word on a poster in the classroom or picking up an idiom that is embedded in a video but is not isolated by the teacher, while Learner B in the same setting does neither. In contrast, Learner B may engage in more intentional learning in an informal setting than Learner A, such as consulting an electronic dictionary app during a visit to a museum for the explicit purpose of adding a newly encountered term to his or her word list to study later.

This is, of course, just one way to define informal learning. As other contributions to this domain have shown, there are a number of competing characterizations of the term. Writing in the context of adult education, Marsick and Volpe (1999, p. 5) contend that the following are common characteristics of informal learning:

  • It is integrated with daily routines.
  • It is triggered by an internal or external jolt.
  • It is not highly conscious.
  • It is haphazard and influenced by chance.
  • It is an inductive process of reflection and action.
  • It is linked to the learning of others.

It is not clear how well all of these points fit into conceptions of informal language learning that would be useful to a language teacher attempting to integrate it into his or her class. In particular, the points about it being “not highly conscious” and “haphazard” would seem to fall more into the incidental rather than intentional realm and to be problematic for teachers interested in assuring themselves that language learning is actually (or at least probably) taking place. For that reason, this chapter focuses primarily on informal learning in the sense of it (i) being relatively unstructured, with what structure there is provided by the learner for the learner, (ii) taking place outside the classroom, the “classroom” being a place defined as where teachers and learners convene for the purpose of learning, whether in a physical or a virtual space, and (iii) accommodating a broad range of intentionality but minimally assuming that students are deliberately placing themselves in a context where language learning can occur. The variables across students here will include the degree to which they at times consciously attend to linking language form and meaning along with noting other elements such as pragmatics and culture and also the degree to which they exercise the metacognitive skills of planning, monitoring, and reflection (Vandergrift and Goh 2012). Accordingly, it will overlap with areas such as self‐directed learning and issues of autonomy (Benson and Voller 2014). Additionally, unlike many other works on informal language learning, especially qualitative case studies such as those by Lam (2000) and others, this chapter does not seek to establish that informal learning is occurring or to characterize it. Instead, it aims at providing teachers interested in pursuing this path with both a rationale and strategies for integrating it into their classes.

At the outset of this endeavor, language teachers need to ask themselves the following two questions (and to be encouraged to do so by the teacher‐educators and administrators who respectively train and supervise them): (i) Do you accept the notion that informal, out‐of‐class language learning as a complement to and as a follow‐up from classroom learning is useful to most or all of your students? (ii) Do you believe those students will engage in such learning more effectively with your encouragement and support than without it? If the answer to both of these is “yes,” then the question stops being whether to integrate informal learning but rather how and to what extent. If the answer to either is no, then arguably the teacher's responsibility for such action, and the need to read the rest of this chapter, ends there. If the answer is “maybe” or “don't know,” read on.

This chapter begins by offering a rationale for teachers to engender and support a culture of metacognition (Vandergrift and Goh 2012), showing first that using technologies in informal learning activities can be of value in the short term both for the day‐to‐day functioning of the class and in achieving its learning objectives. Then, it highlights long‐term benefits in preparing the student for further learning once the class is completed. Although the value of incidental learning is acknowledged, the emphasis here is on students engaging in intentional learning experiences, tasks, and activities. Thus, they may be seen as lying simultaneously more on the intentional side and on the informal side of the Figure 27.1 continua. Crucially for the latter, they do not involve the teacher holding the reins of deciding what students learn nor exactly how they learn it. The second section outlines the ways in which teachers can support the development of informal learning practices, with particular emphasis on the role of learner training (Hubbard 2004, 2013). The third section discusses the role of strategies for informal learning, including identifying resources and procedures that learners can use to be more effective when working independently. The final section explores ways that teachers can evaluate students' informal learning, by extension providing students with tools they can subsequently use for self‐evaluation once the course has ended.

In order to provide some coherence and concreteness to the issues discussed here, throughout the chapter I provide examples and insights from a graduate‐level English as a second language (ESL) course I have taught and done research on in listening and vocabulary development (Hubbard and Romeo 2012; Romeo and Hubbard 2010). In addition to the more traditional goal of increasing language proficiency in these areas, the course has a major component supporting out‐of‐class informal learning. Listening and vocabulary are particularly rich areas for informal learning given the increasing amount of online audio and video material in many languages available to learners any time, any place, along with the technology tools for linking form and meaning. The course explicitly aims to provide students with training and experience for becoming more independent learners by engaging with online media incorporating topics of their choosing. For reference, the class notes are up and freely available at https://web.stanford.edu/~efs/693b.

The case for integrating informal learning into a language class

When teachers decide to integrate informal learning into their class, they have to accommodate a shift in the locus of control from themselves to the students. That can be unsettling for both, and consequently, teachers should have good reasons for doing this. Here, I lay out the case for integrating informal learning into a language class. A key concept underlying informal learning is that it commonly stems from students engaging in activities that are pleasurable to them. Krashen (1994) refers to this as the “pleasure hypothesis,” and Toffoli and Sockett (2015) specifically acknowledge its importance in OILE. Importantly, a teacher cannot mandate pleasure – it is in the experience of the individual student. Pleasurability has multiple dimensions. The content of language material can be connected to an established interest of the student, or the content, if new, can arouse curiosity. There may be favored modalities (music or movie genres for example), that provide motivation to the learner to engage with linguistically and culturally rich material. Or language may be embedded in activities or social interaction through online games (Cornillie et al. 2012) or social media (Thorne et al. 2009). Keeping this concept of pleasure in mind, teachers considering integrating informal learning into their class should be cognizant of both the short‐term and long‐term benefits.

Short‐term benefits

When a teacher integrates informal learning into a class in a way that is consistent with the pleasure concept just described, students gain a degree of control over their language learning, a critical step in the direction of their becoming autonomous. Initially, teacher support for informal learning sends learners the message that growth in language proficiency, along with the subtler dimension of confidence as a language learner, can take place outside the boundaries of the institution, away from the watchful eye of the instructor and most importantly independent of an imposed curriculum and learning structure. Embedding informal learning in the class allows for another benefit: students can share challenges of their isolated experiences and collaboratively seek ways to overcome them.

Long‐term benefits

The long‐term benefits of supporting informal language learning are potentially quite substantial. Once the class has ended, the continued building of language proficiency is in the hands of the learner – arguably, a learner who has been prepared to take that responsibility is more likely to succeed than one who has not. At one time, informal learning typically involved the learner traveling to or even living for an extended time in an environment where the target language was regularly spoken. This is no longer the case. As described in Sockett (2014) and in various chapters in the present volume, informal learning has migrated to the online realm. A person no longer needs to travel abroad (or even leave their home or office) to be connected to target language resources, communities, and speakers. This is especially the case with English in its role as a lingua franca used by non‐native English speakers from different first languages to connect with one another. Language use – native language, second language, and multilingual – will increasingly involve digital mediation and require new digital literacies (Chun et al. 2016). By integrating technology‐mediated informal learning experiences into their classes, teachers today have an opportunity not available to previous generations of truly preparing their students for lifelong learning. Beyond engagement with the language, Lai (2017) notes that over time, learning outside the classroom is more conducive to a learner's personal change as well as identity development. This resonates with elements related to motivation, such as those found in the theory of the L2 (second language) self (Dörnyei and Ushioda 2009).

Teacher support for informal language learning

Assuming that teachers plan to support informal language learning that is initially at least more intentional than incidental, the concept of learner self‐regulation becomes relevant. Lai (2017) cites Zimmerman's (2000) description of the four stages of self‐regulation development, with teacher involvement being stronger in the early stages and then gradually diminishing to a supporting role. These stages include (i) observing an expert performance, (ii) acting with assistance from an expert, (iii) acting on one's own in a structured setting, and (iv) acting on one's own and adapting to novel settings. Zimmerman proposes that this occurs through a cyclical process of forethought, monitoring, and reflection. Interestingly, this cyclical process echoes a number of similar metacognitive frameworks, such as Vandergrift and Goh's (2012) for listening. The remainder of this section explores three ways in which teachers can help their students develop effective informal learning skills through curricular design, motivation, and learner training.

Curricular

At the curricular level, the teacher can support informal learning in at least two ways. First, informal learning can be built directly into the course as a requirement, with students held accountable for providing evidence that they are engaging in such activities. This evidence can take the form of written work, such as a reflective report, or either a formal or informal presentation of the experience to other students. In such cases there should be some focus on what has been learned/recalled from the informal experience through items such as new words or expressions encountered, noticing of language forms and their linked functions (Schmidt 1990), cultural insights, etc. It is also useful to have students reflect on the process, helping them develop awareness of how they can control and direct their actions in informal environments (Romeo and Hubbard 2010). Second, the teacher can provide demonstrations and guidance in how to engage in informal learning in ways that are most compatible with language acquisition. Because such activities necessarily take class‐time away from formal language learning, it is important to reserve time for them as part of the class design. It is also necessary for teachers to have acquired the technical, strategic, and pedagogical competence themselves that they expect to nurture in their students (Healey et al. 2011).

Motivational

It is widely acknowledged that language teachers can have a strong influence on student motivation (Lightbown and Spada 2013). Thus, when a teacher shows both interest in and support for informal language learning, the chances of students engaging in it in a productive way increase. For communicative activities, motivation can be enhanced by encouraging students to write or speak to a real audience, either of classmates or those outside the class (Menezes and Verschoor 2017). Lai (2015), for example, showed how teachers' provision of “affection” support strengthened students' perceptions of the usefulness of out‐of‐class technology use.

As an element of the long‐term impact of a given language class, teachers should be aware of the motivational theory of the L2 self and more generally of the role of the teacher in supporting it (Dörnyei and Ushioda 2009). For example, class‐time can be spent on helping the learner construct an identity in one or more discourse communities that use the target language for all or part of their communication. Sauro (2017), for example, reviews the positive impact of students engaging with fan‐fiction communities. The tie to informal learning here is important: once a student's formal learning is over, language use becomes the norm. If subsequent language development is to be other than incidental, then the motivation for spending the additional time and energy in intentional informal learning needs to be cultivated during the period the student is in a class.

Learner training

Although some students seem to thrive in informal environments without any apparent outside assistance from the teacher (Lam 2000), others seem to founder. To address this and related issues, Hubbard (2013) presents a set of arguments for integrating learner training into technology‐enhanced language learning environments. As it is critical for teachers to be convinced of the value of learner training in order to be willing to spend the time and energy to engage in it, this section begins by briefly reviewing those arguments.

The first part of Hubbard (2013) presents a set of four possible assumptions teachers may have about learners that would give teachers a justification for not engaging in learner training. The first is that if the technology or task is properly designed, it will lead users down a productive path. The second is that learners will discover productive paths on their own over time without intervention. The third is that today's learners, having grown up as “digital natives” (Prensky 2001), understand and control their technologies sufficiently already and that training would be redundant. Finally, following Bax (2003, 2011), there is the assumption that the “normalization” of technology is making the need for specialized training obsolete. To counter these claims, the paper used four strands of evidence to argue for learner training. First, several key studies were cited to show that regardless of whether some learners may be capable of utilizing technology effectively for supporting their language development (either formally or informally), there is quite a range of readiness. For instance, a study by Goertler et al. (2012) concluded that students at their university had “only somewhat adequate computer skills” (311) for being successful in a hybrid Spanish language course. Second, several studies were cited showing that when technology‐focused learner training was integrated into a class or the amount of it increased, the outcomes improved. Romeo and Hubbard (2010), for example, reported that “pervasive” learner training led to similar outcomes in a listening class when the class‐time was cut in half and students did more work independently compared with more class‐time and less independent work. A third strand of evidence involved research where the authors concluded at the end of a study that learner training would likely have led to better outcomes (Bower and Kawaguchi 2011; Castellano et al. 2011; Cross 2011; Karabulut et al. 2012), following a pattern noted initially in Hubbard (2005). The final strand offered examples of studies where learner training had been deliberately incorporated into the research questions, showing both successes and examples of where additional work was still needed (Kennedy and Miceli 2010; Liang 2010).

Assuming a teacher accepts these arguments, how can he or she effectively integrate learner training into a class? Hubbard (2004) offered a set of five practice‐based principles for achieving this goal. Two in particular stand out as relevant for informal learning with technology: the recognition that training should be ongoing and cyclic and the value of having peer group debriefings on students' extramural language learning experiences. A complementary framework for this (Romeo and Hubbard 2010) notes that in addition to basic technical training in online tools and resources, learners should also receive strategic and pedagogical training to understand how best to utilize them for language learning.

The following section introduces some of the strategies that can be used for technology‐mediated informal language learning along with a discussion of the tools and their affordances that make this possible. As explained in the Introduction, to provide some coherence, these are shown in the context of a graduate‐level ESL listening and vocabulary development class. A focus on these skills is particularly justified given that modern technology makes resources available to support them, resources available anytime, to almost any learner, in the language of their choice, regardless of the presence or absence of others. Online audio and video texts of all types provide not only copious language input and information of interest; they also offer rich samples of cultural and interpersonal interactions for the students to observe and learn from in order to support their informal L2 social and cultural engagement.

Strategies and tools for informal language learning: Focus on listening and vocabulary development

Once a decision is made to integrate more informal learning into a language class, teachers need to consider how the students will engage with such experiences and resources. While productive informal learning can occur through use (Sockett 2014), teacher support and strategy training can make that productive outcome more likely, especially when technology is involved (Hubbard 2013; Vandergrift and Goh 2012). Indeed, a number of second language acquisition (SLA) scholars have pointed to the importance of learner strategy training over the past few decades. Purpura (2014, pp. 546–547) cites three major findings from this body of work that he claims every teacher should know: (i) strategy use correlates with learning success; (ii) metacognition is important; (iii) cognitive flexibility is crucial. His argument is that teachers have both the ability and responsibility to help their students develop strategies and learn to control their use. This is especially the case for teachers trying to support informal language learning outside their locus of control.

This section discusses ways that digital tools and online resources can be combined by students working on their own outside the formal classroom setting, describing how independent, out‐of‐class projects have been integrated and supported in an advanced listening and vocabulary development (ALVD) course targeting international graduate students in the US. For course details, see https://web.stanford.edu/~efs/693b.

Students in ALVD are all matriculated in master's or doctoral programs, and many of them are taking the course as a requirement following their performance on an English placement exam taken on arrival. The goals of the course are (i) to improve English listening proficiency and increase vocabulary across a range of settings from academic lectures to Hollywood films, and (ii) to provide the tools and techniques allowing students to continue learning on their own after the 10‐week course is completed. The course includes two central components that are relevant to the present discussion of informal learning. First, it incorporates ongoing learner training, emphasizing not only technology tools and resources but also concepts and simplified models from second language learning and teaching. This is in line with Romeo and Hubbard's (2010) learner training model incorporating pedagogical as well as strategic and technical training so that students know why a particular strategy is expected to work. The second component is a minimum three‐hour per week individual listening project (weeks 3–9), where students select online resources they will use based on interest, determine how they will go through them to support both enjoyment and language learning, and then produce a weekly reflective report on the experience.

The first two weeks of the course are devoted to introducing students to a simplified model for learner‐controlled listening and vocabulary activities based on three areas: improving listening comprehension (e.g. by engaging in pre‐listening and post‐listening, note‐taking, etc.); improving language knowledge (especially knowledge of vocabulary but also including phonology, grammar, and discourse as related to listening); and improving language processing with respect to speed, accuracy, and capacity. This last category is important as students often have difficulty with faster speech or speech containing unfamiliar accents. Many also seem to understand familiar content words but are inconsistent with grammatical forms like prepositions and inflectional endings that can affect meaning, or sometimes fail to accurately process English linking patterns to determine word boundaries and recognize even familiar items. Finally, their capacity may be limited as they fail to “chunk” effectively and instead process word‐by‐word (for more information, see https://web.stanford.edu/~efs/693b/week4.html). Following a meeting with the instructor about their interests and needs, they begin their independent projects in the third week. There are regular (typically biweekly) meetings with the instructor where the reports are reviewed, and individualized learner feedback is provided on both the strategies and materials they are using as shown in the reports and on any language or technology questions they may have. In the weeks without meetings, feedback is provided through the university course management system, Canvas.

Among several key areas that learners are provided useful guidance with are the following: selecting interesting and useful online materials and exploiting them for intentional learning, incorporating a range of digital tools to assist with comprehending those materials, and applying techniques and procedures for using those tools effectively for learning.

Support for selecting online material

The amount of audio and video material available to English and other world language learners is already enormous and growing daily. Based on reports from previous ALVD students, when they look for materials for their individual projects on popular websites like YouTube and TED (www.ted.com), they initially select based on a combination of popularity (most widely viewed by others) and personal interest. The first can be helpful since more popular materials tend to be more engaging, and the second is particularly important for sustaining motivation, as noted above (Krashen 1994; Toffoli and Sockett 2015). However, there are additional factors to consider if the material is to be useful for intentional (or even incidental) listening and vocabulary development. Students are therefore being trained to take the following factors into consideration.

Topic familiarity

The positive impact of topic familiarity on listening comprehension in second language learners has long been known (Schmidt‐Rinehart 1994). The background knowledge that can be brought into play in top‐down processing in particular means that students understand familiar topics better. As a consequence, it is easier for them to identify elements they are less familiar with (e.g. new vocabulary). While completely new material may also be quite interesting for various reasons, the cognitive burden in understanding the flood of new information arguably leaves less processing capacity for language learning. Thus, ALVD students are encouraged to look primarily for new material on topics both interesting and familiar.

Text support

Within the ALVD course, recognizing and getting the meaning of vocabulary is important both for initial comprehension of a text and as a learning objective. Text support for videos in particular can take the form of a transcript or subtitles in either the learner's first language or the target language. We will see below that how these are used is different from whether they are present, but it is clear that listening material with text support offers enhanced learning options, especially for accurately identifying new vocabulary (including phrases as well as individual words). Although new vocabulary can be learned incidentally through listening without text support, it is often difficult in practice even to capture the new word form within the speech stream, let alone infer its meaning. And unlike within an interactional environment such as a conversation, there is no way to negotiate meaning. Text support puts listening on a more equal footing with reading. Researchers in that domain have found that intentional language learning while reading provides advantages over solely relying on incidental exposure. Following a review of studies on the topic, Waring and Nation (2004) conclude that all studies comparing incidental learning with intentional learning show that intentional learning is more efficient and effective. This should not be seen as a competition between incidental and intentional learning. Rather, a well‐balanced language program should make good use of both types of learning (p. 107).

Visual support

Although students may be exposed to audio‐only input through radio, podcasts, songs, and such, there is clearly value in adding the visual dimension. Empirically grounded principles derived from the cognitive theory of multimedia (Mayer and Moreno 1998) show the positive effects of temporally and spatially well‐synchronized visual, text, and audio channels to support comprehension and retention in line with Paivio's (1990) dual‐coding hypothesis. ALVD students are thus encouraged to look for video materials rather than audio‐only where feasible to allow for the richer input that video provides. This includes narrated slide presentations of information and other types of audio incorporated into graphical and text animations.

Appropriate level

SLA research and theory, as well as the reading approach using graded texts (Hafiz and Tudor 1990), support the idea that language is best acquired when encountering forms not too far beyond the level already controlled relatively well by the learner. In her evaluation framework for computer‐assisted language learning (CALL) materials and tasks, Chapelle (2001) refers to this as language learning potential. Even if all the preceding criteria are met, material that is too far beyond a learner's abilities to process will not provide as useful a source for input as material that is. Students in the course are thus advised to consider elements such as vocabulary level, speech rate, and accent in selecting material. The first two can be calculated if the material is accompanied by a transcript (see below). It is also possible to curate a set of materials for students covering a range of potentially motivating topics, identifying rough level indicators and collecting the items into topical groups to support specific interests. This has been done for several groups of TED talks in the ALVD class (see https://web.stanford.edu/~efs/693b/TED1). Hubbard (2012) provides a more detailed rationale and guidelines for such curation.

Tools for identifying form and meaning

Students in the ALVD course are introduced to several tools that can be used to support both identifying language forms and determining their meanings. Four of these are covered here briefly from the technical side: subtitles and transcripts, online dictionaries, media players, and vocabulary profiling.

  • Subtitles and transcripts. Subtitles and transcripts are technologies that help learners with both the meaning and the form of the material they are listening to. Subtitles in the students' first language (used sparingly in this course) can offer translations of value; subtitles and transcripts in the target language can assist students in making connections between familiar items known in printed text form to their realization in connected speech, as well as aid them in identifying unfamiliar forms that can then be isolated so that their meanings can be determined. Transcripts have the added feature of being available for other kinds of text processing such as vocabulary frequency profiling (see the end of this list).
  • Online dictionaries. Besides traditional paper dictionaries, online or memory‐resident dictionaries downloaded onto a digital device can provide instantly available definitions for words and some phrases encountered in text form. If the form can be simply clicked on and the video automatically paused this keeps the interruption to a minimum (see www.viki.com for an example with several Asian languages). For reading, this is a feature on Amazon Kindles, where the word is not only defined but can be automatically added to a word list for later review, and we can expect this technology to proliferate over time.
  • Media players. Websites and apps that stream their own video such as Netflix, YouTube, or TED have built‐in dedicated media players. However, there are also standalone players that can play either streamed or downloaded material, e.g. Apple's QuickTime and Microsoft's Windows Media Player. For the ALVD class, the open‐source VLC player is recommended (https://www.videolan.org/vlc/index.html) because it works on PCs, Macs, Apple iOS (iPhones and iPads) and Androids and has two characteristics particularly useful to language learning. One is the ability to jump back about two seconds by using a simple keyboard command (Shift‐back arrow on computers) to rehear something just missed. The second is that it has a play speed control, allowing the user to slow down an audio or video stream to make it more salient and easier to process.
  • Vocabulary profiling. As mentioned, using subtitles or transcripts together with online dictionaries allows learners to identify and find definitions or translations for unfamiliar words in a few seconds. Deliberately learning these words by adding them to some sort of list or flashcard program and reviewing them a number of times takes quite a bit longer. Although not perfect, one way to help students determine the potential value of spending that extra time is to use the vocabulary profiler in Tom Cobb's Compleat Lexical Tutor (https://www.lextutor.ca/vp/comp). The most efficient way to do this is by copying and pasting a transcript of an audio or videotext into the text input box on the site and selecting a particular frequency list for comparison. The result provides students with frequencies in 1000‐word bands. For example, using the BNC‐COCA (British National Corpus + Corpus of Contemporary American English – see the site for an explanation), the word button would appear in the 2000‐word band (most frequent 1001–2000 words), sample in the 3000‐word band, and the less frequent word paste in the 5000‐word band. Depending on their proficiency level, students can then determine which of the unfamiliar words in the text would be most useful to learn in terms of overall frequency, ignoring those beyond a certain threshold unless they appear particularly useful.

Techniques and procedures

Within the structure of the ALVD course, techniques and procedures represent student strategies for working through the material selected by them to support the various dimensions of strengthening comprehension, building language knowledge (especially vocabulary), and improving language processing. More specifically, procedures are defined as sequences of techniques combined into an informal “lesson” structure by the learner. Some of these techniques and procedures are inspired by insights from second language research and methodology on listening (e.g. Vandergrift and Goh 2012; Rost and Wilson 2013) and vocabulary learning (e.g. Nation and Waring 1997), while others are new developments from teacher and student experience with the technology in the context of the course. Below are a few of the techniques that learners are trained in for the course: others may be found on the course website already mentioned.

  • Pre‐listening and post‐listening. Though built into typical textbook‐based listening lessons and widely taught in academic listening classes, pre‐listening and post‐listening steps may be ignored by students engaged in informal learning. In the ALVD course, students are trained to look for support material – for example, the summary at the beginning of a TED Talk, a short, related reading for other informational materials, or a synopsis for entertainment videos such as TV shows or movies at sites like www.imdb.com or for older movies www.eslnotes.com. The goal in all cases is to provide some background information and to activate any existing knowledge. For post‐listening, students can pause and reflect on what parts of a particular recording were challenging and decide how to approach these in a second listening. They are also encouraged to keep a written learning log or to make and record oral summaries and commentaries on what they listen to, keeping these in a portfolio for review.
  • Transcription (dictation). As a task that requires a focus on language form as well as meaning, students are introduced to transcription techniques to support improving language processing. Rather than the classic form of full sentences and with a focus on accuracy at all levels (including spelling and punctuation), students are instructed to (i) use material they have already listened to at least once for meaning; (ii) work through no more than one to two minutes of it with “chunks” that push but do not exceed their working memory capacity, pausing at the end of each chunk to transcribe it; (iii) listen at most two to three times before checking their answer against a transcript, paying close attention to what they missed, and then relistening to notice it.
  • Slowing speed. Students listen at slower than normal speed (ideally 80–85% of normal speed with the VLC player, but no slower than the 75% option built into the YouTube interface) to more easily process fast or reduced speech or speech with unfamiliar accents. Zhao (1997) reported clear advantages for slowed speech when learners were allowed control, and Matsuura et al. (2014) found that slowing speech to about 80% of normal offered advantages when the speech was heavily accented. Students are provided with this information and invited to experiment with the VLC play speed control to determine its personal value for them.
  • Toggling subtitles. Previous research shows that target language subtitles can be helpful for both comprehension and learning (Vanderplank 2016) but that relying too much on subtitles can be a problem and hinder the ability of the student to comprehend spoken language in their absence (Vandergrift and Goh 2012). In the ALVD course, students practice with and without subtitles as well as with toggling them on and off as needed depending on the learning objective. In other words, as with the play speed, the goal is to put the students in control, backed by experience and information that can help them make informed decisions regarding their use.

This section has focused on how to support informal language learning through listening and vocabulary development using the case of an advanced ESL class covering those topics. Much of what was described here is also relevant for the development of reading (see for example https://www.er‐central.com). These three areas (listening, reading, and vocabulary development) hold particular promise for widespread, ongoing informal learning because they do not require interlocutors and are arguably less stressful, particularly for students with limited proficiency, low confidence, and a low willingness to communicate (WTC) level (MacIntyre et al. 1998). Further, in line with the theme of this chapter, they can be readily mediated by technology that offers both the content and the tools for supporting low stress interaction with these L2 resources.

Despite the focus here on listening and vocabulary, teacher support for other types of informal language learning are of course important as well. In the more common “integrated skills” language classes, listening, reading, and vocabulary development can still be highlighted, but additional tasks and techniques can be provided to support spoken interaction, spoken presentation, and writing or any combination of the skill areas.

Designing and evaluating informal language learning experiences

In the typical context of a classroom with specified learning or performance objectives often linked to grading, the nature of informal learning may lead to problems of consistency. How can a teacher both promote informal learning and assess what sort of learning, if any, has actually occurred? Chun et al. (2016) observe: “Assessing students’ use of digital resources…is a challenging, multifaceted and dynamic process.” (p. 74). They begin by discussing the evaluation of the resources in terms of affordances of the digital tools, student experiences and expectations, and the language‐learning environment. Regarding use, they acknowledge the limitations of self‐report data and recommend input logging (to see when and for how long a student is visiting a site), screen capture, and eye‐tracking. Although these options may be available for research projects, the latter two are well outside the reach of the average classroom teacher, especially given the extramural nature of informal learning. This evaluation problem is echoed in Lai (2017), who points out that it is difficult to assess informal learning outcomes. She recommends considering more holistically how a teacher might support a student's “language‐learning ecology,” while noting that this is a largely unexplored area. Nevertheless, to adequately prepare learners for informal learning, a teacher would do well to understand more about them and their needs and desires, as well as the current “cultures‐of‐use” of the technology that they employ in their everyday lives (Thorne 2003). Despite the challenges, there remain indirect ways at least of getting feedback on learner experiences and progress. This section gives a brief description of some alternatives used in the ALVD course.

Reflective reports

Weekly reports by the students detail how they spent the minimum of three hours on their listening project. This includes what was listened to, when and for how long, what techniques and procedures were employed, and comments on what seemed to be successful and what the student might change for the following week. Through reviewing these individually and following up with class discussion and tutorials, the instructor can monitor progress and provide guidance.

Tutorials

The ALVD course is typically capped at 12–14 students and is often smaller. This allows the luxury of biweekly meetings with each student, during which time the instructor can get clarification and additional information about what the students are doing when they are listening to audio or video texts and exactly how they are doing it, as well as information on how vocabulary is being identified and reviewed. In larger classes, these meetings might only involve a small percentage of students but could still be informative.

Collaborative debriefings

Students do their projects independently. However, there are regular opportunities in class for them to meet in small groups and discuss their experiences with the materials they chose, the support tools they used, and the techniques and procedures that seemed valuable or problematic. These collaborative debriefings (Hubbard 2004) mitigate the isolation of learning independently and as a form of self‐evaluation can lead students to new insights as well as give opportunities for spoken interaction. Observing these discussions, the instructor can get a clearer idea of where not just individuals, but also clusters of students may be having problems. On occasion, they also provide the instructor with new ideas for materials or techniques to explore and then pass on.

Advice to future peers

Besides the collaborative debriefings, ALVD students can receive advice from students who have taken the course in the past. One of the class webpages contains descriptions of their preferred materials and techniques, along with more general advice (see https://web.stanford.edu/~efs/693b/peer‐advice.html). The content of this advice (which is collected at the end of Week 9 in a 10‐week course) can provide the instructor with summative data on what has impacted the individual student most.

Though not incorporated into the ALVD course, there are a number of other avenues for indirectly assessing the impact of informal learning. These include mid‐ and post‐course surveys and questionnaires, student presentations on their experiences, and learning diaries and portfolios.

Conclusion: The road ahead

This chapter has discussed the role of informal learning in language classes and argued for its value. It began by outlining a case for integrating informal learning into contemporary classrooms based on both short‐term gains that would help the learner meet the learning objectives of a language course and long‐term gains that would help sustain post‐course language learning and provide for subsequent engagement with the language resources and interactions. It then moved to ways that teachers could support such learning through curricular design, motivational encouragement, and learner training. As a detailed example, it discussed strategies for utilizing digital tools and online resources in informal learning experiences to support the development of vocabulary and listening proficiency in the framework of an advanced English course. It concluded with a brief discussion of the challenges of and options for options for evaluating the impacts of those experiences during formal coursework.

Despite the fact that technology for language learning has been available to at least some language teachers and learners since the early 1980s, the explosion of personal device use for entertainment and social networking in the last decade or so has shifted the focus from dedicated educational technology to using technology to leverage informal learning both in and out of class. Notwithstanding potential concerns at the institutional level of student exposure to “non‐standard” language forms, we assume here that such learning is both a reality and a potential boon to language development. Indeed, recent work in applied linguistics has been moving away from the “native speaker norm” as well as arguing for a multilingual world view, especially with regards to technology in language learning and use (Ortega 2017).

As digital technology continues to become more integrated into our lives, its role in language learning and use will continue to evolve. With the improvements in machine translation brought about by current and near‐future variants of artificial intelligence, computer‐mediated second language use is likely to become the most common form for many of our students. Exactly what parts of language classes will involve what we think of as language acquisition (or just “language development” (Douglas Fir Group 2016)) and what parts will be devoted to our students becoming proficient with tools and techniques for effective target language use remains an open question, but significant changes are lurking on the horizon. It is likely as well that the relationship between formal and informal learning will become even less distinct as the nature of classes and classrooms evolves in the next few decades. Consequently, if we are truly preparing both language teachers and language students to be lifelong learners, then a much more substantial part of the typical language course experience should be devoted to nurturing informal learning than is currently the case. The examples provided in this chapter can offer a foundation for those interested in seriously exploring this possibility.

REFERENCES

  1. Bax, S. (2003). CALL—past, present and future. System 31 (1): 13–28.
  2. Bax, S. (2011). Normalisation revisited: the effective use of technology in language education. International Journal of Computer‐Assisted Language Learning and Teaching (IJCALLT) 1 (2): 1–15.
  3. Benson, P. and Voller, P. (2014). Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning. Routledge.
  4. Bower, J. and Kawaguchi, S. (2011). Negotiation of meaning and corrective feedback in Japanese/English eTandem. Language Learning & Technology 15 (1): 41–71.
  5. Castellano, J., Mynard, J., and Rubesch, T. (2011). Action research student technology use in a self‐access center. Language Learning & Technology 15 (3): 12–27.
  6. Chapelle, C.A. (2001). Computer Applications in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
  7. Chun, D., Kern, R., and Smith, B. (2016). Technology in language use, language teaching, and language learning. The Modern Language Journal 100 (S1): 64–80.
  8. Cornillie, F., Thorne, S.L., and Desmet, P. (2012). ReCALL special issue: digital games for language learning: challenges and opportunities: editorial digital games for language learning: from hype to insight? ReCALL 24 (3): 243–256.
  9. Cross, J. (2011). Comprehending news videotexts: the influence of the visual content. Language Learning & Technology 15 (2): 44–68.
  10. Dörnyei, Z. and Ushioda, E. (eds.) (2009). Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self, vol. 36. Multilingual Matters.
  11. Douglas Fir Group (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. The Modern Language Journal 100 (S1): 19–47.
  12. Goertler, S., Bollen, M., and Gaff Jr, J. (2012). Students' readiness for and attitudes toward hybrid FL instruction. Calico Journal 29 (2): 297–320.
  13. Hafiz, F.M. and Tudor, I. (1990). Graded readers as an input medium in L2 learning. System 18 (1): 31–42.
  14. Healey, D., Hanson‐Smith, E., Hubbard, P. et al. (2011). TESOL Technology Standards: Description, Implementation, Integration. TESOL Publications.
  15. Hubbard, P. (2004). Learner training for effective use of CALL. In New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms, 57–80. Multilingual Matters.
  16. Hubbard, P. (2005). A review of subject characteristics in CALL research. Computer Assisted Language Learning 18 (5): 351–368.
  17. Hubbard, P. (2012). Curation for systemization of authentic content for autonomous learning. In EUROCALL Conference Proceedings, Gothenburg, Sweden (22–25 August), pp. 22–25.
  18. Hubbard, P. (2013). Making a case for learner training in technology enhanced language learning environments. CALICO Journal 30 (2): 163–178.
  19. Hubbard, P. and Romeo, K. (2012). Diversity in learner training. In: Computer‐Assisted Language Learning: Diversity in Research and Practice (ed. G. Stockwell), 33–48. Cambridge University Press.
  20. Karabulut, A., Levelle, K., Li, J., and Suvorov, R. (2012). Technology for French learning: a mismatch between expectations and reality. CALICO Journal 29 (2): 341–366.
  21. Kennedy, C. and Miceli, T. (2010). Corpus‐assisted creative writing: introducing intermediate Italian learners to a corpus as a reference resource. Language Learning & Technology 14 (1): 21–44.
  22. Krashen, S. (1994). The pleasure hypothesis. In: Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics (ed. J.E. Alatis), 299–322. Georgetown University Press.
  23. Lai, C. (2015). Modeling teachers' influence on learners' self‐directed use of technology for language learning outside the classroom. Computers & Education 82: 74–83.
  24. Lai, C. (2017). Autonomous Language Learning with Technology: Beyond the Classroom. Bloomsbury.
  25. 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 (3): 457–482.
  26. Liang, M.‐Y. (2010). Using synchronous online peer response groups in EFL writing: revision‐related discourse. Language Learning & Technology 14 (1): 45–64.
  27. Lightbown, P.M. and Spada, N. (2013). How Languages Are Learned 4th Edition‐Oxford Handbooks for Language Teachers. Oxford University Press.
  28. MacIntyre, P.D., Dörnyei, Z., Clément, R., and 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.
  29. Marsick, V.J. and Volpe, M. (1999). The nature and need for informal learning. Advances in Developing Human Resources 1 (3): 1–9.
  30. Marsick, V.J. and Watkins, K.E. (2001). Informal and incidental learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 2001 (89): 25–34.
  31. Matsuura, H., Chiba, R., Mahoney, S., and Rilling, S. (2014). Accent and speech rate effects in English as a Lingua Franca. System 46: 143–150.
  32. Mayer, R.E. and Moreno, R. (1998). A cognitive theory of multimedia learning: implications for design principles. Journal of Educational Psychology 91 (2): 358–368.
  33. Menezes, A.M. and Verschoor, J. (2017). PenPals go digital: reflecting about a collaborative project. In: Teaching English Reflectively with Technology (eds. P. Hubbard and S. Ioannou‐Georgiou), 191–206. IATEFL.
  34. Nation, P. and Waring, R. (1997). Vocabulary size, text coverage and word lists. Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy 14: 6–19.
  35. Ortega, L. (2017). New CALL‐SLA research interfaces for the 21st century: towards equitable multilingualism. CALICO Journal 34 (3): 285–316.
  36. Paivio, A. (1990). Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach. Oxford University Press.
  37. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants: part 1. On the Horizon 9 (5): 1–6.
  38. Purpura, J.E. (2014). Language learner strategies and styles. In: Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, vol. 4, 532–549.
  39. Romeo, K. and Hubbard, P. (2010). Pervasive CALL learner training for improving listening proficiency. In: WorldCALL: International Perspectives on Computer‐Assisted Language Learning (eds. M. Levy, F. Blin, C. Siskin and O. Takeuchi), 215. Routledge.
  40. Rost, M. and Wilson, J.J. (2013). Active Listening. Routledge.
  41. Sauro, S. (2017). Online fan practices and CALL. CALICO Journal 34 (2): 131–147.
  42. Schmidt, R.W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11 (2): 129–158.
  43. Schmidt‐Rinehart, B.C. (1994). The effects of topic familiarity on second language listening comprehension. The Modern Language Journal 78 (2): 179–189.
  44. Sockett, G. (2014). The Online Informal Learning of English. Springer.
  45. Sylvén, L.K. and Sundqvist, P. (2012). Gaming as extramural English L2 learning and L2 proficiency among young learners. ReCALL 24 (3): 302–321.
  46. Thorne, S.L. (2003). Artifacts and cultures‐of‐use in intercultural communication. Language Learning & Technology 7 (2): 38–67.
  47. Thorne, S.L., Black, R.W., and Sykes, J.M. (2009). Second language use, socialization, and learning in internet interest communities and online gaming. The Modern Language Journal 93: 802–821.
  48. Toffoli, D. and Sockett, G. (2015). University teachers' perceptions of online informal learning of English (OILE). Computer Assisted Language Learning 28 (1): 7–21.
  49. Vandergrift, L. and Goh, C.C.M. (2012). Teaching and Learning Second Language Listening: Metacognition in Action. Routledge.
  50. Vanderplank, R. (2016). Captioned Media in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching: Subtitles for the Deaf and Hard‐of‐Hearing as Tools for Language Learning. Springer.
  51. Waring, R. and Nation, I.S.P. (2004). Second language reading and incidental vocabulary learning. Angles on the English‐Speaking World 4: 97–110.
  52. Zhao, Y. (1997). The effects of listeners' control of speech rate on second language comprehension. Applied Linguistics 18 (1): 49–68.
  53. Zimmerman, B. (2000). Attaining self‐regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In: Handbook of Self‐regulation (eds M. Bokaerts, P. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner), 13–39. Academic Press.
..................Content has been hidden....................

You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.
Reset
3.15.143.181