18
Hong Kong and Informal Language Learning

CHUN LAI AND BONING LYU

Introduction

The establishment of the Centre de Recherches et d'Applications Pédagogiques en Langues in France and similar self‐access language‐learning centers in other European countries in the 1970s led to the explosion of interest in learner autonomy and independent language learning. The notion of autonomous language learning had a monumental influences on language education in Hong Kong in the 1990s with the establishment of self‐access centers at universities to encourage and support learners to seek additional language learning opportunities (Gardner and Miller 1999). Since then, informal language learning – self‐directed language learning beyond the formal instructional contexts – has been an issue of interest in Hong Kong, and research findings have been accumulating in respect to Hong Kong language learners' autonomous language learning in the informal contexts. This chapter synthesizes the major findings from this body of literature, and analyzes how learners' informal language‐learning behaviors intertwine with the linguistic and sociocultural realities of Hong Kong. Before presenting the research findings on learners' informal language learning in the Hong Kong context, we will give a brief overview of the linguistic and sociocultural realities of Hong Kong so that the characteristics of informal language learning in this context can be made sense of against the backdrop of these realities.

The linguistic and sociocultural realities of Hong Kong

Hong Kong is a multilingual and multicultural society with 93.5% of the Hong Kong population being ethnic Chinese and 89.5% of them using Cantonese as their usual language (Census and Statistics Department 2012). Hong Kong was a British colony from the nineteenth century until the handover of sovereignty to the central Government in 1997, and Hong Kong Chinese went through such a different social, cultural, political, and historical experience from their mainland Chinese counterparts that these two groups of Chinese have significant cultural gaps despite sharing the same ethnicity and similar cultural heritage (Gao and Zhang 2011). Both Cantonese and English are the official languages but they serve different social functions: Cantonese is the dominant language in daily life and is the preferred language in most social, cultural, and political situations; English is often used in academic and professional contexts in written and formal registers, and is an asset and a passport to higher education and to career and social advancement (Flowerdew and Miller 2008; Gao and Zhang 2011; Chan 2016). Another spoken language, Mandarin, has been gaining status since the handover of Hong Kong. Most primary and secondary schools adopt Cantonese as the medium of instruction, whereas at universities English is primarily used as the medium of instruction. Thus, despite the co‐existence of three spoken languages, Cantonese is the dominant one in social interactions and the use of both English and Mandarin could be interpreted as “a marker of social distance” (Hyland 2004). Cantonese and English carry different social connotations: Cantonese is associated with the positive images of social cohesion, group solidarity, and community ties but the negative images of timidity and lack of ambition; English is associated with social and economic prestige, tangible rewards, and power but immodesty, arrogance, and showing off at the same time (Pennington 1998; Lai 2001). There are English‐using parts of the territory such as the Central, the hub of the international business headquarters and legal firms, and Tsim Sha Tsui, the international tourist hotels and shopping areas, but a typical young Hong Kong person usually has limited contact with English in their daily life (Flowerdew and Miller 2008; Chan 2016). Although there is limited access to English in social interactions, there is rich access to it via media including: abundant free English TV channels with English and Chinese subtitles and radio stations that air popular English TV programs and songs; free English newspapers films, and books that are widely available in local cinemas and bookstores; and easy access to social networking and online gaming sites such as Facebook and YouTube (Chik 2008; Wu 2012). Hong Kong households are also technologically well equipped with 80.6% computer ownership, 79.5% internet access, and 85.8% smartphone ownership for residents of 10 years old and above as of 2016 (Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department 2017). Most street signs and public documents are written in both English and Chinese.

Given the social status and functions of English, most Hong Kong Chinese were found to have a strong but instrumental motivation for learning English, and express the wish to speak fluent and correct English but only to the degree necessary to attain educational or career aims (Pennington 1998; Flowerdew and Miller 2008; Wu 2012). English is a compulsory subject in K‐12 schooling and schooling experience in K‐12 contexts in Hong Kong is often teacher‐directed, textbook‐bound, knowledge transmission‐dominated, examination‐driven, and competitive (Chik 2008; Chan 2012). University also offers compulsory, credit‐bearing English courses, elective credit‐bearing foreign language courses, self‐access learning centers, and a broad range of exchange programs with universities in different countries (Chan 2012). Family members are often heavily involved in primary and secondary school students' English learning through the supervising of school work or providing supplementary learning resources (Chik 2008), and English supplementary tutoring is prevalent in Hong Kong (Bray and Kwok 2003; Yung 2015). However, despite heavy investment at school and at home, many Hong Kong students are found incapable of using English well after 12 years of school learning (Flowerdew and Miller 2008). The Hong Kong educational system is characterized by strong centralization with a history of pushing down large‐scale, top‐down language reforms. In Hong Kong, a considerable amount of attention and resources have been invested to promote learner autonomy in K‐12 and tertiary education: lifelong and self‐directed language learning has been promoted in English secondary and tertiary level curriculum since 2001, and native‐speaking English teachers were hired in all local secondary schools to promote the social use of English (Curriculum Development Council 2001; Gardner and Miller 2011; Chan 2012). However, Hong Kong K‐12 students are frequently reported as relying on direct transmission of knowledge and have limited awareness of their abilities and responsibilities for self‐initiated learning (Lee 2005; Miller 2009). Rather than making a sweeping statement that Hong Kong students are weak in learner autonomy, Littlewood (1999) differentiated “proactive autonomy” (i.e. self‐initiated efforts in managing and regulating one's learning) from “reactive autonomy” (i.e. taking control of one's learning upon others' initiation), and pointed out that Hong Kong students are more likely to demonstrate a higher level of reactive autonomy as mediated by the close supervision of their parents and teachers. Holliday (2003) further observed that Hong Kong tertiary learners may exhibit more social autonomy where, rather than displaying autonomy publicly, they are autonomous through private work in their own social worlds.

In addition to these linguistic and sociocultural realities, there is also a unique phenomenon in Hong Kong related to informal language learning – the existence of self‐access centers at major universities. Most of those centers were established in the 1990s. During that era, tertiary institutions in Hong Kong expanded quickly and the Hong Kong government faced a pressing demand to enhance tertiary students' language development so that students could complete tertiary education without language barriers. As a result, the government introduced language enhancement grants, which sparked the development of self‐access centers at major universities in Hong Kong and made Hong Kong the hub of expertise in self‐access centers within the Southeast Asia region (Gardner and Miller 1999). These centers have been established to provide additional language learning resources, both digital and print, for learners to use outside their language class. Learners can access these centers in their free time to use the facilities and resources available. Language advising services are also provided at some centers to help learners to better understand their language‐learning needs and to provide guidance on their autonomous language‐learning experience. Learners' access to the resources and services at the centers is on a voluntary basis. With today's easy accessibility to both online and mobile language learning resources and enhanced connectivity with speakers and learners of the target language all over the world via the internet, the centers have often been observed not to be frequented by students. Thus, with the abundance of language‐learning resources and opportunities now available, the resource function of self‐access centers is becoming less and less significant. However, the centers' metacognitive and cognitive functions as well as their emotional and social support functions in the forms of learning‐advising sessions and of activity and gathering venues, are getting more important.

Hong Kong learners' engagement in informal language learning

From the 1990s onwards, two types of research studies have prevailed in the research field that examining Hong Kong learners' informal language learning: survey and interview studies that focus on understanding the types of language learning activities that students engaged in and narrative inquiries or case studies that focus on unraveling learners' life histories related to autonomous initiatives in out‐of‐class language learning. This body of literature has yielded insights into the nature of their out‐of‐class language learning ecologies and how the ecologies shift as learners transit across temporospatial and sociocultural contexts.

The nature of learners' out‐of‐class language learning activities

To provide a systematic description of the nature of learners' out‐of‐class language learning activities, we will refer to the categorizing frameworks that Benson (2011) and Richards (2015) proposed to differentiate and categorize out‐of‐class learning activities. Benson (2011) devised four dimensions: formality (i.e. the degree to which the learning experience is educationally structured), locus of control (i.e. the degree to which learners perceive learning to be controlled by themselves or by other people or instructional materials), location (i.e. the physical, social, and pedagogical relationships between the learners and the people and resources in the learning environment), and pedagogy (i.e. the extent to which educational processes such as the sequencing of contents and explicit explanations are involved). Richards (2015) further added a few dimensions pertaining to the medium, such as the modality, manner, and means, and the characteristics of the task and language use, such as the learning aims, type of interaction, etc. These two frameworks, in a nutshell, underscore three core aspects of out‐of‐class learning activities:

  1. Pedagogy/structure – the psychological process involved in the activity, namely the activity purpose (implicit incidental learning vs. explicit rule‐based learning), learner attention foci (primary focus on meaning vs. primary focus on form), and language processing (receptive vs. productive);
  2. Functions/support – the language learning and use needs that are addressed by the activity, namely the learning needs (cognitive, metacognitive, affective or social needs) and the language use needs (information, entertainment or socialization needs);
  3. Spaces/medium – the characteristics of the activity space and social space, such as the social relationships involved and the affordances and constraints of the medium.

In the following section, we will synthesize the nature of Hong Kong learners' out‐of‐class language learning activities along these three dimensions.

Pedagogy/structure dimension of out‐of‐class language learning activities

A salient theme in relation to the pedagogy/structure dimension of out‐of‐class learning activities as revealed in the current research was a consistent finding with regard to the predominance of receptive activities over time and across different learner populations. For instance, studies in the 1990s, such as Littlewood and Liu (1996) and Yap (1998), reported that both tertiary and secondary school students preferred and engaged more frequently in language‐learning activities that involved the use of receptive skills, such as listening to songs, reading newspapers, magazines or books, and watching English language television. Similar findings were reported in Pill's (2001) study on a group of adult advanced English learners who took evening classes at the British Council in Hong Kong, where reading and listening activities – such as watching English films, listening to English songs, reading books in English on subjects they enjoyed – were reported to be common activities that they did both in daily life and for English learning. Emailing for work communication was the only productive activity these learners engaged in frequently. A similar pattern was revealed among the pre‐service and in‐service English teachers that Hyland (2004) surveyed, who reported writing emails, reading academic books, and surfing the net as the most common activities, followed by watching videos, reading newspapers, watching TV programs and listening to songs. This tendency to engage more frequently in receptive activities was also confirmed in recent research studies with vocational education students (Wu 2012), secondary school students (Chan 2016), and university undergraduate students (Gardner and Yung 2017; Lai et al. 2018).

It was further found that enjoyment and interest were reported to be an important consideration in their selective engagement in out‐of‐class learning activities among both secondary and university students in Hong Kong and the resultant learning experience is often implicit and incidental (Yap 1998; Chan 2016; Lai and Zheng 2017). Ma (2015) found that university English language learners primarily used mobile technologies to search and access online resources and rarely used dedicated tutor‐like language learning apps, which suggested that these students utilized online resources as “tools” to fulfill personal needs rather than as language “tutors.” Wu (2012) calculated the proportion of different types of activities vocational education students engaged in, and found that formal, explicit learning activities, such as attending lessons, checking dictionaries, memorizing, practicing, and asking friends for language help, only comprised 14.7% of their out‐of‐class learning activities. When Pill (2001) asked his adult learners to brainstorm the reasons for not choosing certain out‐of‐class learning activities, 24 reasons listed by the learners had something to do with the activity not being part of their personal life. However, this dominance of enjoyment‐driven learning experience was not salient among K‐12 students and foreign language learners with relatively lower language proficiencies. Primary and secondary school students' out‐of‐class learning activities were most often found to be parent‐ or teacher‐initiated and with a primary focus on serving examination needs (Chik 2008; Chan 2012; Yung 2015). And Lai et al. (2018) found that a group of undergraduate foreign language students, consisting of primarily beginning or lower‐intermediate proficiency level learners, reported engaging more frequently in instruction‐oriented technological experiences such as multimedia online learning sites, instructional YouTube channels, podcasts and Facebook pages, and mobile flash cards and vocabulary apps. They engaged less frequently in entertainment‐ and information‐oriented technological experience such as YouTube video clips and movies, recommended links shared on friend's Facebook posts, Facebook updates of celebrities, news and entertainment podcasts, and online news. They engaged least frequently in social‐oriented technological experiences such as using WhatsApp, Twitter, Line, or Facebook for social exchange. Researchers further pointed out that although interest and enjoyment played a dominant role in shaping the nature of out‐of‐class activities, the activities were most often instrumentally oriented and pragmatically driven. Yap (1998) observed that secondary school students were very pragmatic and preferred activities that had practical values for their language learning, which was why they those chose to watch English movies over karaoke singing. The university students in Chan's (2012) study chose authentic interactions with international students on campus over the use of self‐access centers, considering that the former would yield immediate pragmatic benefits.

Despite the largely implicit nature of the learning experience that focuses on the enjoyment of pop cultures, students did report selective attention to language forms when interacting with the resources either because of the nature of the resources or through their own will. For instance, Chik (2011) found that university undergraduate gamers utilized various conscious learning strategies when interacting with games, including using online dictionaries and putting a notebook beside the computer when playing games, out of the need to learn relevant language for game play. Other studies have reported instances where learners chose to pay attention to language forms when engaging in pop culture leisure activities. Although Chan's (2016) participants stressed that enjoying the leisure activities, instead of language learning, was the primary purpose of engaging in the out‐of‐class activities, they did make a voluntary effort to strategically monitor their language processing, such as trying to improve listening skills by avoiding reading subtitles all the time and only accessing them when needed, watching movies several times and jotting down unknown words on notebook, or intentionally using the sentence structures and vocabularies learned from online reading while writing compositions for schoolwork. Lai et al. (2018) reported that undergraduate foreign language learners' attentional foci varied in response to different types of technological experience: They focused primarily on the general meaning when engaging in an information and entertainment‐oriented technological experience, and reported more note‐taking and regular review behaviors when engaging in an instruction‐oriented technological experience. And their engagement in social‐oriented technological experience was, interestingly, characterized by greater attention on language forms where the learners were very careful in language production and used such experience mainly to seek help on language problems and to practice language. Lai (2015a) further pointed out that learning beliefs played a critical role in shaping learners' attentional focus when interacting with technological resources. She reported how a university undergraduate learner of French, who believed in learning grammar systematically, frequented online French grammar for self‐study, whereas, a learner of Japanese used Japanese grammar websites merely as on‐demand aids when watching Japanese soapy operas to facilitate comprehension because she did not perceive the necessity of the systematic study of grammar. Furthermore, Hong Kong learners are found to believe strongly in the standards and accuracy of language in evaluating the usefulness of activities, which have caused discrepancies in the out‐of‐class activities they voluntarily engaged in and the activities they perceived as most helpful and important. For instance, the pre‐service and in‐service English teachers in Hyland's (2004) study engaged more frequently in writing emails and surfing the internet but rated these two items as less useful than reading newspaper and magazines, because they felt that the latter would give them more standard and formal use of English. Similarly, Yap (1998) found secondary school students engaged most frequently in listening to songs but ranked this as less important than reading magazines or books and speaking with foreigners, because they felt that the latter were important sources of “standard,” “error‐free” English. The emphasis on accurate and standard language not only caused the discrepancy in learners' perceptions and behaviors but also directly shaped some participants' decision‐making. For instance, some participants in Lai et al.'s (2018) study refrained from listening to songs or using social media because they were concerned about the trustworthiness of the language.

Function/support dimension of out‐of‐class language learning activities

Research studies have also examined the learning functions that Hong Kong students used out‐of‐class language learning activities to serve. Some studies examined the functions of out‐of‐class learning activities with regard to different dimensions of self‐regulated learning. For instance, Lai and Gu (2011) surveyed a group of Hong Kong university foreign language learners on how they used technological resources outside their language classrooms to self‐regulate their language‐learning experience. They found that the learners reported most positively on using technological resources to regulate their goal commitment such as persevering against obstacles and fulfilling language‐learning goals; regulate their learning resources such as expanding and enriching their language‐learning resources; and regulate their cultural learning and affective needs such as sustaining language learning interest. But the learners reported the least positively and showed the most variation in using technological resources to connect with native speakers and to seek help from peer learners. Similarly, undergraduate English language learners in Ma's (2015) study reported most positively on using mobile devices to regulate resources, goal commitment, and affective dimensions, but the least positively on using mobile devices to regulate their social connection needs.

Some studies have examined the functions of out‐of‐class language‐learning activities in reference to learners' perceptions of and interactions with different technological resources. Lai et al. (2018) interviewed and surveyed undergraduate foreign language learners' out‐of‐class technology‐enhanced language learning experience and profiled three distinct types of experience: instruction‐oriented technological experience where learners used technological resources to strengthen their linguistic knowledge of the target language; entertainment and information‐oriented technological experience where learners used technologies to access target language resources for entertainment or obtaining and sharing useful information in daily life; and social‐oriented technological experience, where learners used technological resources for social communication. These three types of technological experiences involved resources of different characteristics that were used for different motives and were associated with different interaction patterns, emotional responses, and perceived language gains. In addition, they identified a special type of technological experience that was assistive in nature. This technological experience was affiliated with the other three types of technological experiences and involved using technological tools (e.g. online dictionaries, online translation tools) to assist these three distinct types of technological experiences. Among the three distinct types of technological experience, the group of foreign language learners reported most positively on the instruction‐oriented technological experience and the least positively on the social‐oriented technological experience. Yap (1998) also reported that secondary students preferred activities of an entertainment nature to activities of an information nature.

Other studies have explored the functions of out‐of‐class language‐learning activities in the light of the affordances of mobile devices. Lai and Zheng (2017) identified three dimensions of out‐of‐class language learning with mobile devices: personalization where mobile devices were used to assist customized learning anytime and anywhere; authenticity where mobile devices were used to bring authentic language learning and use experience; and connectivity where mobile devices were used to connect with native speakers and learners of the language. The authors found that undergraduate foreign language learners used mobile devices mostly for personalization, and less for authenticity and connectivity.

Spaces/medium dimension of out‐of‐class language learning activities

In terms of the activity and social spaces of out‐of‐class language learning activities, research studies in the Hong Kong context have reported that students, both K‐12 and tertiary language learners, preferred private to public activities. Yap (1998) reported that her secondary school participants often used English inside the school with other peer learners and teachers despite their strong belief in the greater value of speaking with native speakers. Also these learners tended to engage in activities where they interacted with the target language privately and to avoid activities in which this engagement would be in public. Similarly, the pre‐service and in‐service English teachers in Hyland's (2004) study preferred activities that would not involve face‐to‐face contact, and limited English speaking to within their work or study environments.

As for the medium of out‐of‐class activities, Lai and Zheng (2017) found that Hong Kong undergraduate students used different technological tools for different dimensions of out‐of‐class learning. The learners used mobile devices primarily to seek instant help for comprehension and language use, and for social communication, but used laptops primarily for surfing online and watching videos. They used these two tools equally for studying vocabulary and grammar quizzes and for listening and casual reading. The authors further pointed out that the learners' differentiated use of technological tools for different activities had something to do with learners' positioning of the tools in their life, where mobile phones were more often associated with daily life and laptops were associated with serious study. The differentiated use was also to do with the affordances and constraints of these tools, with mobile phones constrained by small screens and unstable connections and the temporospatial contexts of it use being characterized by short duration, loud noise, and many distractions. Consequently, mobile devices were often used for casual tasks that were simpler and of short duration.

Thus, quite a few studies have been done to tap into the nature of out‐of‐class language learning experiences of English language learners at secondary schools, vacation education schools, or universities, with a limited few focusing on foreign language learners at the tertiary sectors. Findings from these studies showed that in terms of the pedagogical nature of the activities, Hong Kong learners tended to engage in more receptive activities. Although enjoyment and interest were the primary driving forces of out‐of‐class learning, instrumental, and pragmatic values were also important considerations, especially for the secondary school students whose out‐of‐class activities were most often examination‐oriented. Their selection of and interaction in out‐of‐class learning is influenced by their emphasis on the accuracy and standard of the language. The studies' findings also show that, in terms of the functional dimension of the activities, Hong Kong learners used out‐of‐class learning experience to serve various language learning and language use needed except the social needs; and that in terms of the space dimension of the activities, Hong Kong learners generally preferred private and independent activities.

Learners' construction of out‐of‐class language learning ecologies

Research further revealed that Hong Kong learners constructed their out‐of‐class learning ecologies in relation to their in‐class learning experience and other aspects of personal and social worlds. Chik's (2011) narrative inquiries on a few gamers' out‐of‐class language learning experience showed that what drove these learners to incorporate gaming into their out‐of‐class learning ecologies was their dissatisfaction with the highly structured knowledge‐transmission of the formal learning context that offered limited language application and authentic language use. The university foreign language learners in Lai's (2015a) study perceived their in‐class and out‐of‐class learning experience as complementary and closely intertwined. They selected and constructed out‐of‐class experiences that were fun and relaxing to compensate for the boring and serious nature of the in‐class learning. They incorporated in‐class activities and related resources and extended the materials used during in‐class learning. At the same time, they felt that their out‐of‐class learning experiences gave purpose and meaning to the things acquired inside the class, set goals for their in‐class learning, and helped to enrich their in‐class learning by bringing in authentic and interesting materials from real life. The successful secondary school students in Chan's (2012) study constructed out‐of‐class learning experiences that complemented their schoolwork: these students applied what they acquired outside their language classes in productive school tasks, which helped them establish proficient language user identity. Their successful productive experience inside the class boosted their confidence and motivated them to engage in similar activities in public spaces outside their language classes. Thus, the construction of out‐of‐class learning ecologies is often connected to the in‐class learning spaces and other personal and social spaces in which learners reside and the experiences in these spaces interacted with each other in a reciprocal manner.

Narrative inquiries have further delved into learners' construction of out‐of‐class learning ecologies when progressing through different stages of schooling. Chik (2008) elicited 10 undergraduate students' life histories in English learning and identified different characteristics of Hong Kong learners' out‐of‐class language learning experience at different stages. Chik found that learners shifted from a heavy focus on the significance of family members and school‐based learning during the primary school years, to a dual recognition of the values of both the school experience and the out‐of‐class English experience during the secondary school years, and then to a predominant appreciation of their out‐of‐class learning experience at the tertiary education years. Learners' out‐of‐class English experience during primary school years was characterized by structured activities organized by schools or commercial enterprises, such as English private tutorials or Hong Kong speech festivals, and learners tended to appraise out‐of‐class activities in terms of their contributions to academic learning and performance. In contrast, out‐of‐class English experiences during secondary school years were more diversified and started to be more self‐directed and naturalistic, such as speaking publicly, using English overseas, listening to pop songs, taking international English language tests, and so on. Although preparation for public examinations was the priority and shaped the nature of their out‐of‐class activities, learners' out‐of‐class English experience provided an important venue for the exploration and expression of their identities, which further fired variations in out‐of‐class English learning. Similarly, Chan's (2012) case study participants talked about how their out‐of‐class English experience was primarily initiated or induced by parents, teachers, and peers at primary schools; it became more instrumentally‐ and interest‐driven when progressing to secondary schools, and became more instrumentally driven, personal/career goal‐driven, and self‐directed when progressing to tertiary education. Thus, progression along schooling contexts redefines the locus of control, the structure, the variation, and the driving forces of out‐of‐class learning experiences.

Moreover, research studies have also tapped into the construction of out‐of‐class learning ecologies when learners traversed spatial‐temporal situations. Gao (2010) reported how four English language learners constantly configured and reconfigured their out‐of‐class English learning experience in response to the changes of the characteristics of material, discursive and social interactions, and the associated opportunities and setbacks in different contexts and at different times. One participant, Liu, when she first moved to Hong Kong from mainland China, engaged in a diverse array of out‐of‐class learning activities, such as listening to English radio or watching English TV programs, and making friends and socializing with local students, in an attempt to capitalize on the rich material and social resources available in Hong Kong for English learning. However, she encountered setbacks when trying to integrate into the local Hong Kong student community and subsequently turned to affiliate and interact more with Mandarin‐speaking mainland Chinese student community that was dominated by the discourse of achieving high academic results and pursuing postgraduate degrees at overseas universities, which influenced her into constructing memorization‐focused learning activities such as studying and reviewing academic vocabulary lists.

These studies on learners' construction of out‐of‐class learning ecologies suggest that the characteristics of learners' out‐of‐class language learning experience across time and space was largely shaped by the significant roles teachers and parents played in Hong Kong children's schooling, the examination orientation in Hong Kong's K‐12 schooling contexts, and learners' developing and dynamic identities.

This section has summarized the major findings on the nature of Hong Kong language learners' out‐of‐class language learning activities and the construction of their out‐of‐class learning ecologies. To interpret the characteristics of their out‐of‐class language learning experience, we need to situate these findings within the linguistic and sociocultural landscapes and the associated teaching and learning cultures in Hong Kong and examine how these contextual realities intertwine with learners' construction of out‐of‐class language learning experiences.

The interaction of out‐of‐class learning experience and linguistic and sociocultural realities

As elaborated earlier, the linguistic, sociocultural and educational realities in Hong Kong are characterized by social sanctions of the use of English in daily social communication, and the examination‐oriented and instrumentally driven English learning culture. These linguistic and sociocultural realities interact with Hong Kong learners' out‐of‐class language learning experience in a dialectic way: on the one hand, the linguistic and sociocultural realities shape the nature of informal language learning, and, on the other hand, learners' engagement in informal language learning helps free students from the potentially constraining influences of these realities on their language learning and use opportunities.

Linguistic, sociocultural, and educational realities shaping learners' out‐of‐class language learning

Current research has yielded empirical evidence showing that the linguistic, sociocultural, and educational realities has not only influenced the frequency of learners' selective engagement in out‐of‐class language learning but has also shaped the nature of their out‐of‐class experience.

The pragmatic approach to out‐of‐class language learning

The predominantly knowledge‐focused, examination‐oriented learning culture in Hong Kong K‐12 contexts has made students adopt a more pragmatic approach to out‐of‐class learning. Investing time and effort in learning to achieve academic results is socially espoused and valued (Carless 2011). It is frequently observed that K‐12 students took up activities with the aim of doing well in English public examinations (Chik 2008; Chan 2012; Wu 2012). The participants in Yung's (2015) study valued supplementary tutoring sessions to help them develop examination skills. One participant, despite enjoying the valuable opportunity to engage in fun interactions with the native speaker tutor, asked the tutor to focus, in the private tutoring sessions, on preparing him for oral examination which he felt less interesting but more useful. The influence of examination on their out‐of‐class learning behavior has something to do with Hong Kong students' concept of success which is often associated with academic achievement and career success (Salili 1993; Salili and Mak 1988) and their strong achievement motivation in English learning (Lin et al. 2003; Lee 1996). The influence of examination on out‐of‐class learning diminishes as students get into university where their out‐of‐class learning is more entertainment‐based (Spratt et al. 2002; Gan 2009; Chan 2012) and subject more to the variations in learning beliefs and self‐esteem (Lee 1998; Lai 2015a; Lai et al. 2018). Nonetheless, university students also exhibited a strong pragmatic stance where their investment in language learning is dependent on the pragmatic benefits of the activities in terms of academic results, and ideal and ought‐to L2 self, and on the activities' abilities to serve immediate or short‐term learning needs (Flowerdew and Miller 2008; Chan 2012; Gardner and Yung 2017). Hong Kong learners' pragmatic approach to out‐of‐class language learning leads them to make decisions on whether to engage in a certain out‐of‐class language activity based on the appraisal of the pragmatic values of the activity. In Chan's (2016) narrative inquiry study, two secondary school students dabbled occasionally into interest‐driven English pop culture materials outside the class due to the serious nature of the schoolwork inside the class. When they found that these out‐of‐class English pop culture activities eventually benefited their schoolwork, they were motivated to engage more frequently in these productive activities outside the classroom. The orientation toward only engaging in self‐directed practices that would benefit their coursework was also observed in other research studies conducted in Hong Kong (Humphreys and Spratt 2008; Chan et al. 2002). Furthermore, such a pragmatic approach also boosted the influences of authorities (e.g. teachers and parents) on the types of out‐of‐class language learning experience Hong Kong learners engaged in and shaped the dominance of other‐initiated out‐of‐class learning at the secondary school (Chik 2008; Lai and Gu 2011; Wu 2012; Lai 2015a). Hong Kong tertiary students were found to attach more significance to teacher guidance for English learning than their mainland Chinese counterparts (Gan 2009). Lai et al. (2018) found that teachers had even greater influence than peers on university foreign language learners' perception of the usefulness of certain out‐of‐class activities. Lai (2015b) found that teacher in‐class discursive and pedagogical behaviors influenced Hong Kong university foreign languages' out‐of‐class learning behaviors. Different dimensions of teacher support (teacher affective support in terms of encouragement and advice; teacher capacity support in terms of the provision of metacognitive and cognitive tips; and teacher behavior support in terms of incorporating technological resources into instruction and assignments) all had significant but differential influences on university foreign language learners' frequency of technology use for learning beyond the classroom. Further, Lai and colleagues (2017) looked at Hong Kong university foreign language learners' perceptions of teacher impact on their self‐directed language learning with technology beyond the classroom; they compared this with that of their American counterparts, and found that teacher capacity support was consistently the most influential teacher practice that affected students' self‐directed technology use across the two cultures. However, teacher affective support and teacher behavior support were significant predictors of Hong Kong students' out‐of‐class language learning behavior but not for US students. The greater influences of teacher affective support and teacher behavior support on Hong Kong learners were due to the sociocultural positioning of teachers in the Asian culture as sources of wisdom whose advice is trustworthy, and to Hong Kong being a high‐power distance culture where individuals are more likely to follow the advice and suggestions from authorities (Chan et al. 2002; Haley and Ferro 2011; Hu 2014). The reliance on and influences from teachers and parents were especially salient among the K‐12 students where learners were seen to engage in largely teacher‐ or parent‐initiated activities (Chik 2008; Chan 2012; Wu 2012). This reliance on other‐initiation and other‐guidance had something to do with the heavy investment in students' learning by the parents and teachers in the Confucianism culture and the greater likelihood of East Asian students' development of “reactive autonomy” than “proactive autonomy” (Littlewood 1999). Thus, Hong Kong learners' selective engagement in out‐of‐class language learning experience is pragmatically oriented and subject to the teachers' recognition and positive appraisal of its values on the improvement of school performance.

The private and receptive nature of out‐of‐class language learning

The pursuit of positive social image shapes the private and receptive nature of out‐of‐class language learning that serves limited social functions. Upholding a positive social image is a persistent pursuit of collectivism‐dominated cultures under the influence of Confucianism (Bond 1996; Kennedy 2002). Building and maintaining social cohesion and group solidarity is an important dimension of upholding positive social image, and people often adopt modesty and social conformity to achieve social cohesion. As using English in public and daily situations carries negative social implications in Hong Kong, language learners are frequently reported as engaging in private use and shunning the public use of English outside the classroom. The pre‐service and in‐service teachers in Hyland's (2004) study decided to confine their use of English to within their working contexts so that they would maintain in‐group solidarity among their communities, because shining before one's peers is regarded as improper in Confucianism (Wong 1984) and these teachers did not want to be viewed as arrogant and showing off by people around them. The same sentiment of fear of being regarded as arrogant was also listed as the reason for avoiding social use of English among local secondary school students and adult learners (Yap 1998; Pill 2001). The secondary school students in Yap's (1998) study listed three reasons for deciding against certain activities: (i) the activity being too troublesome or challenging; (ii) the activity being regarded as “abnormal behavior,” and (iii) the activity being regarded as being arrogant. Because of these concerns, the students avoided speaking English with local Chinese and in public for fear of being considered as strange and not being accepted in their social circles. Similarly, university foreign language learners were also found not to engage in active use of technologies for social connection outside the classroom (Lai and Zheng 2017; Lai et al. 2018) because this might carry negative implications for social networking. At the same time, not to lose face and be judged negatively in front of others is another dimension of upholding positive social image (Hyland 2004). Students in various studies have listed being afraid of making mistakes as an important reason behind their decision to engage in receptive activities rather than productive activities outside the classroom (Pill 2001; Chik 2008; Chan 2012; Lai and Zheng 2017; Lai et al. 2018). The secondary school students in Chan's (2012) study were found to choose not to engage in social interactions with their native speaking relatives due to the fear of making mistakes. The university foreign language learners in Lai et al. (2018) study were found to be very careful in their language production when interacting with others on social networking sites because they did not want to be laughed at for making mistakes. Thus, Wu (2012) concluded that the “notion of modesty and the fear of losing face in Confucianism” contribute to the popularity of receptive out‐of‐class activities over productive activities.

Out‐of‐class language learning minimizing the constraining influences of the linguistic and sociocultural realities in Hong Kong

Research has also yielded evidence suggesting that engaging in out‐of‐class language learning experiences might have helped learners to overcome some linguistic and sociocultural constraints in Hong Kong. In Chan's (2016) study, although a secondary school student knew that using English in non‐classroom situations was deemed a marker of arrogance, his experience of engaging in online blogging made him realize that he had the right to use English even in public spaces. Thus, the pop‐culture‐related out‐of‐class learning experience helped him to overcome the psychological barrier induced by social sanctions against English that he encountered at school. Chan (2012) also found that although the secondary school students in his study were compelled to seek out out‐of‐class learning activities with the hope of achieving high scores in public examinations, this instrumental motivation made them persist in their out‐of‐class learning experience, which helped enhance their efficacy in their language skills. The boosted confidence helped them overcome the social and psychological barriers, such as social sanctions and fear of making mistakes, and carried them toward more active use of the language in social situations. Chan (2012) further proposed that helping learners to build a “defect‐allowed L2 identity” rather than a “multicompetent L2 identity” might help offset the constraining influences of the fear of losing face and making mistakes on their out‐of‐class language learning endeavors.

At the same time, Chik (2008) gave an account of how learners' out‐of‐class learning experience helped them free themselves from a predominant focus on examination and academic performance. Students' experience of using English while traveling overseas boosted their confidence in their English skills and heightened their attention to English use, which helped reshape their identities as brave English users. This changed identity made them jump out of the habitual appraisal of the value of out‐of‐class learning activities in reference to their contribution to schoolwork improvement and started to value interactions with other speakers of English as an out‐of‐class activity.

Thus, learners' out‐of‐class language learning and the linguistic and sociocultural realities of Hong Kong have a two‐way interaction where, on the one hand, the contextual realities shape the nature of learners' selective engagement in out‐of‐class learning and, on the other hand, learners' engagement in out‐of‐class language learning helps them overcome some of the sociocultural and psychological constraints in the context. Therefore, the nature of learners' out‐of‐class language learning is closely intertwined with the linguistic and sociocultural realities in Hong Kong. Despite their shaping forces on learners' selective engagement in out‐of‐class learning, the constraints of the contextual realities could be reshaped by learner agency and learners' engagement in other‐initiated activities.

Conclusion

This chapter has reviewed the current research findings on informal language learning in the Hong Kong context, synthesizing its main characteristics and situating these characteristics within the linguistic and sociocultural realities in Hong Kong. It reveals that informal language learning in Hong Kong K‐12 contexts is predominantly other‐initiated and academic performance‐driven, whereas the scenario in the university context is more self‐initiated and interest‐driven. Regardless of the educational contexts, Hong Kong learners' informal language learning is primarily of a receptive and private nature with a strong pragmatic orientation and limited social functions, and is receptive to the influences of authorities such as teachers. More importantly, informal language learning is closely interrelated with the contextual realities in Hong Kong. Given the characteristics of the Hong Kong context, some important considerations when promoting informal language learning in the Hong Kong context are: making use of reactive autonomy where teachers play a more active bridging role in introducing learners to different out‐of‐class learning activities; highlighting the pragmatic values of out‐of‐class activities to entice students into experiencing some out‐of‐class learning activities to build confidence; and capitalizing on social autonomy that gives learners a comfortable zone in which to experiment with different out‐of‐class learning activities within their small social worlds. Thus, given that informal language learning is very much mediated by its linguistic, sociocultural, and educational contexts, the interpretation and promotion of informal language learning cannot do without a careful analysis of the characteristics of a particular context.

Research on informal language learning in the Hong Kong context has yielded some rich insights into the dynamic interaction between informal language learning, learner agency, and the societal characteristics in a multilingual and multicultural setting. However, the majority of research findings in the Hong Kong context have been based on language learners' informal English language‐learning experience, and more research is needed on learners' informal learning experience in different foreign languages. Furthermore, most of the studies have focused on documenting the landscape and natural trajectories of learners' informal language learning experience. With the rich understanding accumulated through this body of literature, the research field in this context is ripe for further exploration into issues related to educational interventions in promoting informal language learning in this context and more fine‐tuned studies into how learners progressively interact with different out‐of‐class learning activities and into the efficacies of informal language ecologies over time and across learning situations.

REFERENCES

  1. Benson, P. (2011). Language learning and teaching beyond the classroom: An introduction to the field. In: Beyond the Language Classroom. The Theory and Practice of Informal Language Learning and Teaching (eds. B. Phil and R. Hajo), 7–16. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  2. Bond, M.H. (1996). The Handbook of Chinese Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
  3. Bray, M. and Kwok, P. (2003). Demand for private supplementary tutoring: conceptual considerations, and socio‐economic patterns in Hong Kong. Economics of Education Review 22 (6): 611–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272‐7757(03)00032‐3.
  4. Carless, D. (2011). From Testing to Productive Student Learning: Implementing Formative Assessment in Confucian‐Heritage Settings. New York: Routledge.
  5. Census and Statistics Department (2012). Thematic household survey report. Report no. 49 Use of Language in Hong Kong. www.censtatd.gov.hk/hkstat/sub/sp370.jsp?productCode=C0000086 (accessed 14 August 2018)
  6. Census and Statistics Department (2017). Thematic household survey report. Report No. 62 Information Technology Usage and Penetration. www.censtatd.gov.hk/hkstat/sub/sp120.jsp?productCode=C0000031 (accessed 14 August 2018)
  7. Chan, H.W. (2012). Learner autonomy, agency, and affordances: multiple case studies of the out‐of‐class English learning of highly proficient university students in Hong Kong. PhD thesis. Chinese University of Hong Kong.
  8. Chan, H.W. (2016). Popular culture, English out‐of‐class activities, and learner autonomy among highly proficient secondary students in Hong Kong. Universal Journal of Educational Research 4 (8): 1918–1923. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2016.040823.
  9. Chan, V., Spratt, M., and Humphreys, G. (2002). Autonomous language learning: Hong Kong tertiary students' attitudes and behaviours. Evaluation & Research in Education 16 (1): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500790208667003.
  10. Chik, H.H. (2008). How experience shapes individual differences among second language learners: a biographical study of Hong Kong learners in five age groups. PhD thesis. The University of Hong Kong.
  11. Chik, H.H. (2011). Learner autonomy development through digital gameplay. Digital Culture & Education 3 (1): 30–45.
  12. Curriculum Development Council (2001). Learning to learn – The way forward in curriculum. www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?nodeID=2877&langno=1 (accessed 14 August 2018)
  13. Flowerdew, J. and Miller, L. (2008). Social structure and individual agency in second language learning: evidence from three life histories. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 5 (4): 201–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427580802286173.
  14. Gan, Z. (2009). ‘Asian learners’ re‐examined: an empirical study of language learning attitudes, strategies and motivation among mainland Chinese and Hong Kong students. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 30 (1): 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434630802307890.
  15. Gao, X.A. (2010). To be or not to be “part of them”: micropolitical challenges in mainland Chinese students' learning of English in a multilingual university. TESOL Quarterly 44 (2): 274–294. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2010.219944.
  16. Gao, X. and Zhang, L.J. (2011). Joining forces for synergy: agency and metacognition as interrelated theoretical perspectives on learner autonomy. In: Identity, Motivation and Autonomy in Language Learning (eds. G. Murray, X. Gao and T. Lamb), 25–41. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
  17. Gardner, D. and Miller, L. (1999). Establishing Self‐Access: From Theory to Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  18. Gardner, D. and Miller, L. (2011). Managing self‐access language learning: principles and practice. System 39 (1): 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.01.010.
  19. Gardner, D. and Yung, K.W.H. (2017). Learner motivation in self‐access language learning. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 11 (2): 159–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2015.1088545.
  20. Haley, M.H. and Ferro, M.S. (2011). Understanding the perceptions of Arabic and Chinese teachers toward transitioning into US schools. Foreign Language Annals 44 (2): 289–307.
  21. Holliday, A. (2003). Social autonomy: addressing the dangers of culturism in TESOL. In: Learner Autonomy Across Cultures (eds. D. Palfreyman and R. Smith), 110–126. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  22. Hu, R. (2014). Learning about the challenges of teaching in two worlds. In: East Meets West in Teacher Preparation: Crossing Chinese and American Borders (ed. W. Ma), 7–23. New York: Teachers College Press.
  23. Humphreys, G. and Spratt, M. (2008). Many languages, many motivations: a study of Hong Kong students' motivation to learn different target languages. System 36 (2): 313–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2007.09.010.
  24. Hyland, F. (2004). Learning autonomously: Contextualising out‐of‐class English language learning. Language Awareness 13 (3): 180–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410408667094.
  25. Kennedy, P. (2002). Learning cultures and learning styles: myth‐understandings about adult (Hong Kong) Chinese learners. International Journal of Lifelong Education 21 (5): 430–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370210156745.
  26. Lai, M.‐l. (2001). Hong Kong students' attitudes towards Cantonese, Putonghua and English after the change of sovereignty. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 22 (2): 112–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434630108666428.
  27. Lai, C. (2015a). Perceiving and traversing in‐class and out‐of‐class learning: accounts from foreign language learners in Hong Kong. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 9 (3): 265–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2014.918982.
  28. Lai, C. (2015b). Modeling teachers' influence on learners' self‐directed use of technology for language learning outside the classroom. Computers & Education 82: 74–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.005.
  29. Lai, C. and Gu, M. (2011). Self‐regulated out‐of‐class language learning with technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning 24 (4): 317–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2011.568417.
  30. Lai, C. and Zheng, D. (2017). Self‐directed use of mobile devices for language learning beyond the classroom. ReCALL 2017: 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344017000258.
  31. Lai, C., Li, X., and Wang, Q. (2017). Students' perceptions of teacher impact on their self‐directed language learning with technology beyond the classroom: cases of Hong Kong and US. Educational Technology Research and Development 65 (4): 1105–1133.
  32. Lai, C., Hu, X., and Lyu, B. (2018). Understanding the nature of learners' out‐of‐class language learning experience with technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning 31: 114–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1391293.
  33. Lee, W.O. (1996). The cultural context for Chinese learners: conceptions of learning in the Confucian tradition. In: The Chinese Learner: Cultural, Psychological and Contextual Influences (eds. D.A. Watkins and J.B. Biggs), 63–67. Hong Kong: CERC.
  34. Lee, I. (1998). Supporting greater autonomy in language learning. ELT Journal 52 (4): 282–289.
  35. Lee, I. (2005). English language teaching in Hong Kong special administrative region (HKSAR): a continuous challenge. In: Teaching English to the World: History, Curriculum, and Practice (ed. G. Braine), 35–45. New York: Routledge.
  36. Lin, Y.‐G., McKeachie, W.J., and Kim, Y.C. (2003). College student intrinsic and/or extrinsic motivation and learning. Learning and Individual Differences 13 (3): 251–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1041‐6080(02)00092‐4.
  37. Littlewood, W. (1999). Defining and developing autonomy in east Asian contexts. Applied Linguistics 20 (1): 71–94. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/20.1.71.
  38. Littlewood, W. and Liu, N.‐F. (1996). Hong Kong Students and their English. China: Macmillan Publishers (China) Limited.
  39. Ma, Q. (2015). An evidence‐based study of Hong Kong university students' mobile assisted language learning (MALL) experience. In: Worldcall: Sustainability and Computer‐Assisted Language Learning (eds. A. Gimeno‐Sanz, M. Levy, F. Blin and D. Barr), 212–229. New York: Bloomsbury.
  40. Miller, L. (2009). Reflective lesson planning: promoting learner autonomy in the classroom. In: Maintaining Control: Autonomy and Language Learning (eds. e.R. Pemberton, S. Toogood and A. Barfield), 109–124. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
  41. Pennington, M.C. (1998). The folly of language planning; Or, A brief history of the English language in Hong Kong. English Today 14 (2): 25–30. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078400010154.
  42. Pill, T.J.H. (2001). Adult learners' perceptions of out‐of‐class access to English. PhD thesis. The University of Hong Kong.
  43. Richards, J.C. (2015). The changing face of language learning: learning beyond the classroom. RELC Journal 46: 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688214561621.
  44. Salili, F. and Mak, P.H.T. (1988). Subjective meaning of success in high and low achievers. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 12 (2): 125–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147‐1767(88)90044‐2.
  45. Salili, F. (1993). Achievement motivation: a cross‐cultural study of British and Chinese motivational pattern. Unpublished Report. Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong.
  46. Spratt, M., Humphreys, G., and Chan, V. (2002). Autonomy and motivation: which comes first? Language Teaching Research 6 (3): 245–266. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168802lr106oa.
  47. Wong, C. (1984). Sociocultural factors counteract the instructional efforts of teaching through English in Hong Kong. Master's thesis. The University of Washington.
  48. Wu, M.M.‐f. (2012). Beliefs and out‐of‐class language learning of Chinese‐speaking ESL learners in Hong Kong. New Horizons in Education 60 (1): 35–52.
  49. Yap, S.‐l. (1998). Out‐of‐class use of English by secondary school students in a Hong Kong Anglo‐Chinese school. PhD thesis. The University of Hong Kong.
  50. Yung, K.W.‐H. (2015). Learning English in the shadows: understanding Chinese learners' experiences of private tutoring. TESOL Quarterly 49 (4): 707–732. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.193.
..................Content has been hidden....................

You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.
Reset
3.137.183.14