Introduction

This chapter has two main aims. The first is to review the key concepts in informal and autonomous learning. The second aim is to explain how second‐language (L2) and foreign‐language teachers can help their learners to benefit from the insights gained by autonomous learners. Autonomous and informal learners often dedicate significant time to their L2 learning and thus they have many insights to share that L2 learners could benefit from hearing just as L2 learners would benefit from seeing successful models of autonomous informal language learners.

Key concepts related to informal and autonomous language learning

Considerable debate exists around the definition of autonomy in the language‐learning classroom (Teng 2018). One somewhat widely used description has defined autonomous learning as “the ability to take charge of one's own learning” which entails “determining the objectives, defining the contents and progressions, selecting methods and techniques, monitoring the procedure of acquisitions, and evaluating what has been acquired” (Holec 1981, p. 3). Pawlak et al. (2017) point out that our language‐learning autonomy is apparent in our goal‐setting, resource and strategy use, time management, self‐assessment, as well as cognizance of our needs, goals and inclinations. Ability, desire, and freedom have also been identified as essential components of learner autonomy. Ability is thought to be characterized by the learner's study and language skill. Desire is described as the strength of a learner's intent to learn a language. Freedom indicates how much control learners have over their learning (Teng 2018).

Livingstone (2006) describes informal learning as “intentional or tacit learning in which we engage either individually or collectively without direct reliance on a teacher or an externally organized curriculum” (p. 204). Sockett (2014) clarified the distinctions among formal, informal, and nonformal language learning. He described formal language learning as occurring in classes (i.e. in public school) that can be voluntary or to fulfill an academic requirement. Classes taken as part of distance learning can also be considered as formal learning because they too follow a structured curriculum. Informal learning differs from formal learning in that it takes place in naturalistic settings typically using materials that are not intended for educational purposes. Nonformal learning refers to the use of professionally produced language‐learning materials (e.g. Rosetta Stone) for self‐study language‐learning purposes outside a formal language‐learning context such as a classroom. Based on this description, the language‐learning activities discussed here have characteristics most closely associated with informal and nonformal learning.

Benefits of informal autonomous language learning

A number of benefits have been identified for autonomous language learning. For instance, metacognitive awareness fosters learner autonomy (Little 1997; Nguyen and Gu 2013) and metacognitive awareness also supports learning and academic development (Teng 2016; Veenman et al. 1997). Thus, learner autonomy and academic achievement are closely related. A second benefit of autonomous learning is that autonomous language learners are by definition motivated because their autonomy is nurtured through their developing belief that they are responsible for their learning (Usuki 2003). Therefore, to genuinely raise motivation, educators must move away from attempting to motivate learners toward helping learners to motivate themselves (Ushioda 1996).

The fact that learner autonomy can be developed is encouraging. Thus, if learners struggle with taking the initiative in their language learning, their self‐reliance and resourcefulness can be developed with the teacher's assistance. Indeed, based on the assumption that teaching learner autonomy is possible, over the years, efforts have been made to promote greater learner autonomy through a variety of instructional approaches. Language‐learning self‐access centers are created based upon the idea that, with some guidance, L2 learners can find and effectively use the various resources and services available that can help them not only learn the L2 but also learn how to learn it better (Holec 1996). Other instructional approaches or methods that are predicated on the assumption that learner autonomy can and should be fostered include the instruction of language‐learning strategies (Chamot 2005), cooperative and collaborative language learning (Macaro 1997), project‐based language learning (Stoller 2002), and experiential language learning (Kohonen 1992). Even extensive reading presupposes that autonomy is fostered by the sense of control that learners have over their ability to select texts that interest them (Judge 2011). The success of these various methods for promoting learner autonomy in the L2 classroom serves as solid evidence for why we should continue to investigate other ways to encourage learner autonomy. A logical place to begin seems to be by paying closer attention to the language learning practices of already autonomous informal language learners.

Self‐directed language learning and technology

Numerous researchers have pointed out that the rise of autonomous learning in second and foreign language learning is closely associated with the development of technology (Richards 2015). Each new technological invention has further facilitated language learners' moves away from the classroom by allowing them to take increasingly more control over their own additional language learning. Many of these hardware and software tools are receiving considerable research attention. One form of technology that has contributed significantly to autonomous language learning in recent years is mobile technology (Warschauer and Liaw 2011). Mobile tools allow learners to take their language learning anywhere. In the past, learners were often constrained to practicing in a language lab tethered to a record player or even a desktop PC. Currently, they can watch almost any same language subtitled movie of their choice from anywhere they can access WiFi with their phone or tablet. Recent research into the use of mobile technology has shown that it is particularly useful in terms of its portability, social connectivity, context sensitivity, and individuality (Chinnery 2006). Mobile devices facilitate learning that is movable, real‐time, collaborative, and seamless as well (Wong and Looi 2011). However, they also come with some drawbacks such as the fact that they can be distracting or provide irrelevant learning resources (Gaudreau et al. 2014).

In addition to the advantages of autonomous learning offered by technological hardware, various forms of recently developed Web 2.0 software can also support second language learners' independent learning. Research into the use of social media has shown that it can be an effective facilitator of L2 self‐directed learning. Kim (2010) reported that English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers who used Twitter in their teaching interacted more and had stronger relationships with their students. Kim et al. (2011) likewise observed that the teachers' use of Twitter increased learners' language output and promoted their social relationships. However, both teachers and learners have to be made aware of the main drawbacks of social media for language learning such as there being high learner attrition from online learning tools and communities (Lin et al. 2016). This high attrition may be because only learners with high L2 learning motivation and self‐confidence appear to have positive attitudes toward using social networking sites (SNS) to learn English (Leis 2014). Also, SNS in the L2 classroom has the potential to cause some teacher/student conflict, decreased course achievement, and a diminished class rapport (Cho 2009). On the other hand, some research has found that providing learners with the means to interact with others may reduce learner attrition (Nielson 2011).

Video games have been suggested as another effective way to join an online community and have opportunities to interact with others in the target language. There have been a number of studies of online gamers who played in an L2 and its effect on their L2 learning. The types of online games referred to here are those designed for the entertainment of first language (L1) speakers rather than for educational purposes. Indeed, recent research has demonstrated that those who have played commercial off‐the‐shelf (COTS) games designed for L1 speakers generally do not enjoy playing educational games (Chik 2014). Because COTS games are made for L1 speakers, they can expose L2 users to rich target language being used for authentic communicative purposes (Cornillie et al. 2012). Online immersive game worlds are thought to encourage interaction that develops communicative competence through goal‐directed activities among players (Rama et al. 2012). Empirical research results have generally shown positive correlations between playing digital games and incidental L2 vocabulary learning, possibly due to reading in‐game texts (Sylvén and Sundqvist 2012). It is not only the games themselves that promote L2 learning. Gamers and fans produce often quite sophisticated game‐related paratexts (e.g. walkthroughs, and fan fiction) that provide them with a space to share their creative output with each other (Walsh and Apperley 2012) while they develop autonomy in their informal L2 learning (Benson and Chik 2011) and literacy skills (Gee and Hayes 2011).

The ubiquitous availability of mobile devices has opened up a space for the development of a wide variety of software apps that are specifically designed for second language learners. For example, apps intended to aid in the memorization of new vocabulary (e.g. Anki, Memrise) have been found to have a positive effect on learners' L2 vocabulary development (Altiner 2011; Dizon 2016). However, apps that enable learners to practice constructing sentences (e.g. Duolingo, Rosetta Stone) have demonstrated more mixed results. At least one study showed improvements in L2 learning beyond the classroom (Vesselinov and Grego 2012) although this study was commissioned by the developers of Duolingo. In contrast, other investigations revealed that Rosetta Stone (a software designed similarly to Duolingo) was not particularly effective for improving L2 learners' target language proficiency (Lord 2015) and there is high attrition for use of this type of resource (Nielson 2011). Self‐study digital video materials such as target language videos found on sites like YouTube have been demonstrated to raise motivation (Alm 2006) and improve task authenticity (Malhiwsky 2010), while promoting incidental vocabulary acquisition (Lin 2011) and learning autonomy (Watkins and Wilkins 2011).

Learners can even participate in online massive open online courses (MOOCs) to develop their L2 proficiency (Hockly 2015). In the process, they may benefit from unique affordances of MOOCs such as ample access to numerous language models and opportunities for feedback from a variety of sources (Rubio 2014). However, Martín‐Monje and Bárcena (2015) point out some potential limitations with using MOOCs for language learning. For instance, there is the problem that language learning is not just knowledge based but also skill based, so actual practice of that skill is required but practice opportunities on these courses are limited. In addition, the higher order, active participation required for language learning is not necessarily an asset of online learning environments. There are also concerns about the heavy reliance on peer assessment. These reasons may partially explain why MOOCs show such high dropout rates (Rosé et al. 2014).

Underlying theoretical constructs associated with autonomous language learning

A number of other psychological constructs are thought to closely associate with autonomous L2 learning. Each of these constructs is believed to connect to the others as well as autonomous learning in a mutually influencing manner. These constructs include identity, agency, motivation, and metacognition in addition to several others.

Identity is “how a person understands his or her relationship to the world, how that relationship is constructed across time and space, and how the person understands possibilities for the future” (Norton 2000, p. 5). Social identities comprise gender, ethnicity, race, and nationality (Block 2012) as well as religion, marital status, and language (Riley 2007). All these personal characteristics impact how a student sees themselves and is viewed and treated by others. Identity is multiple (e.g. I am a father and a teacher) and even contradictory (Toohey and Norton 2003). For example, I might be a “cool guy” in some contexts and a “nerd” in others. Language learning is a significant element of identity construction and identity strongly influences additional language learning (Teng 2018).

The learner's identity (i.e. how they come to see themselves) is formed through ongoing interactions in their personal history with their social world (Hawkins 2005). The learner's identity affects their access to the social networks, ability to participate in target language activities, and social position in a classroom community (Hawkins 2005; Norton and Toohey 2001). Students' engagement in school (or lack thereof) both shapes and is shaped by the person they believe they are, the person they want to become, and the person they eventually do become (Kaplan and Flum 2009) or do not want to become (McCaslin 2009). Thus, a learner's identity and associated social position (i.e. social class) can limit his or her access to, willingness, and ability to exploit language‐learning opportunities in or out of school so that learners of a lower social class can fail to take advantage of chances they have to learn the target language in both classroom and self‐access settings (Kanno 2003; Matear 2008).

Another relevant construct is the notion of learner agency. Investigations have been conducted into the association between learners' agency and their language learning. Ahearn (2001) defines agency as “the socioculturally mediated capacity to act” (p. 112). That is, it is the learner's ability to take action as it is constrained by the social and material circumstances (Kalaja et al. 2011). Benson (2007) contends that we can view agency as the basis of learner autonomy and strategic learning development. Gao and Zhang (2011) add that “metacognition and agency [should] be conceptualized as prerequisites for learners' autonomous learning, both contributing to our understanding of the processes underlying their autonomous learning and enabling us to offer informed support to their learning efforts” (p. 26). Teng (2018) points out that learners' agency shapes their identity and language learning. Previous experience affects agency, but it is also future oriented as learners set learning goals. Agency is necessary for learners to begin learning so they must believe they have agency to take advantage of their learning environment. He adds that a learner attempting to exercise agency does not automatically mean he or she can. Some contexts may prevent learners' best efforts to exercise their agency.

A third factor commonly associated with informal autonomous learning is motivation. Zaragoza (2011) states that “identity, motivation and autonomy are interlinked” (p. 103). Self‐determination theory (SDT) (Ryan and Deci 2000) connects motivation with learner autonomy. In particular, SDT emphasizes the importance of “a sense of personal autonomy” to the development of learners' intrinsic motivation. Similarly, Dörnyei's (2009) L2 “motivational self system” model highlights the role of an “ideal L2 self” where learners imagine themselves as the kind of L2 speaker they want to eventually become. Ushioda (2013) adds that our goal‐directed actions and desired identities and social groups that we want to be a part of are closely related. In this way, the social context plays an important role in shaping the development of learners' identity and motivation. That is, motivation is not necessarily fixed in the individual and can change depending on the social context. Ushioda (1996) also contends that learner autonomy and motivation mutually reinforce each other in the sense that learner autonomy promotes motivation; however, without motivation, autonomy is not possible.

Metacognition and language‐learning strategies are also constructs that are often connected with autonomous language learning. Metacognition has been defined as “thinking about thinking” (Flavell 1979, p. 906); a more expanded definition is “awareness of one's own thinking, awareness of the content of one's conceptions, an active monitoring of one's cognitive processes, an attempt to regulate one's cognitive processes in relationship to further learning, and an application of a set of heuristics as an effective device for helping people organize their methods of attack on problems in general” (Hennessey 1999, p. 3). Wenden (1998) defines metacognitive strategies as “general skills through which learners manage, direct, regulate, guide their learning, i.e. planning, monitoring and evaluating” (p. 519). Metacognition relates to autonomous language learning because metacognition has been posited as a precondition of autonomous learning (Gao and Zhang 2011). A concept that is closely associated with metacognition in language learning is learner strategies. Language learning strategies include metacognitive (e.g. planning), cognitive (e.g. translation), and affective (e.g. positive self‐talk). These types of strategies are said to allow learners to perform beyond their current capabilities (Oxford 1990). Oxford (1990) holds that “Learning strategies … are especially important for language learning because they are tools for active, self‐directed involvement, which is essential for developing communicative competence” (p. 1). She adds that language‐learning strategies allow the learner to be more self‐directed which enables them to study the L2 independently outside the classroom. Other work in language‐learning strategies views learner autonomy as being central. Indeed, several L2 learning strategies researchers have pointed out that learners need effective learning strategies to be autonomous learners (Cotterall 1995; Griffiths 2013) and that developing learner autonomy and strategy use mutually reinforce each other (Oxford 2008, 2017).

Other factors that can foster or impede L2 learner autonomy

A number of factors have been identified that affect learner autonomy in the language classroom. First, there are the factors that relate more to the teacher. Breen and Mann (1997) observed at least two teacher‐related factors that affect language learner autonomy. These factors included their confidence in the learner's capability to learn autonomously and their aspiration to nurture their learners' independence and self‐sufficiency. For the learner, their institutional context, age, educational background, and target language competence of the learners are all believed to influence their ability to act autonomously as language learners (Little 1995). Bailly (2011), discussing successful language learning beyond the classroom, adds that learner motivation, access to suitable learning resources and the presence of prerequisite learning skills are also necessary to ensure effective autonomous learning.

In addition to exploration of relevant technological tools, there has been significant discussion of other important learner variables that interact with self‐directed learning. One variable that has a close relationship with learner autonomy is learner readiness which is “the personal and environmental factors that prepare the student for study in [an] instructional situation” (Gunawardena and Duphorne 2001, p. 4). Indeed, Dam (1995) describes learner autonomy as being “characterized by a readiness to take charge of one's own learning in the service of one's needs and purposes. This entails a capacity and willingness to act independently and in cooperation with others, as a socially responsible person” (p. 1). Computer literacy has also been closely associated with learner autonomy because it provides the foundational knowledge learners need to access the new online tools that are largely responsible for the vastly increased ease with which L2 learners can engage in self‐directed language learning (Blake 2008; Sockett 2014).

As well as the impact of other variables on learner autonomy, researchers have explored the effect of autonomy on second language proficiency. Little (2007) insists that “the development of learner autonomy and the growth of target language proficiency are not only mutually supporting but fully integrated with each other” (p. 15). Empirical research generally appears to support this claim. Little et al. (2017) recently reviewed several of their own studies that investigated the relationship between learner autonomy and L2 proficiency development. Based on evidence that they have been gathering over the past 25 years, they concluded that autonomous language learning can support L2 proficiency development. Additional empirical work in other EFL contexts also facilitates the development of learner autonomy to foster L2 proficiency (Dafei 2007; Yen and Liu 2009).

Instructional approaches that encourage autonomous learning

A number of instructional approaches are used to introduce autonomous learning into the L2 classroom. These techniques can be broken down into those that are used inside and those used outside the classroom. One teaching approach commonly associated with autonomous learning beyond the classroom is distance learning. Distance learning can also combine classroom and blended learning. Blake (2008) points out that a lot of foreign language teachers doubt the effectiveness of distance learning for developing foreign language proficiency. Indeed, he claims many foreign language teachers see online courses as only being useful for rote mechanical drilling rather than communicative activities, even though this does not have to be the case.

Tandem learning has two learners with a different first language use their second language to send emails. The email is written in the sender's L2 (the receiver's L1). In their emails, they can discuss any topic they share an interest in, ask each other questions, as well as practice other language functions. Most importantly, learners are able to provide each other with feedback on their language use (Richards 2015). Research on this approach shows that the feedback that learners receive from tandem learning is typically taken up by the learner (Bower and Kawaguchi 2011).

Online informal learning of English (OILE) is arguably the most uninstructed approach to autonomous language learning. Learners report using same language subtitling to scaffold their target language comprehension. OILE includes a wide variety of input activities such as online reading, or listening to television series, music, and films. OILE learners also practice their L2 output through oral and written communication via Skype and text exchanges on social networking sites (Sockett 2014).

Autonomous learning within the classroom

Another pair of related instructional techniques that are thought to foster autonomous learning within the language classroom are collaborative and cooperative learning. Macaro (1997) argues that collaborative learning helps learners to become more autonomous by empowering them to take control of their learning. Likewise, Karim (2018) states that collaborative learning can support the development of learner autonomy through cooperative learning that “requires students to discover information on their own, it also helps them achieve autonomy and discover their own learning processes” (p.1).

Learner strategy instruction has also been put forth as a different classroom practice that can promote learner autonomy. Explicit strategy training can develop a range of strategies for the learner to use productively (Cohen 2014), while also supporting the successful strategies that learners bring with them from their own culture (Oxford 2017). This knowledge of learner strategies then allows learners to take control of their own learning and become more autonomous (Macaro 2001).

Self‐access learning centers (SACs) are slightly more marginally related to classroom learning. SACs are often attached to universities for student practice though they do not always have to be (Murray 2011). They offer different services and equipment to encourage independent study such as strategy instruction or access to language learning technology that can facilitate self‐study (Holec 1996). SACs benefit more mature EFL learners by fostering student enjoyment, engagement, experimentation, and ongoing reflection which help their metacognitive development. SAC learners also appreciate having access to a supportive community of learners where they can develop their oral English proficiency (Murray 2011). However, a potential limitation of SACs is the limited access to teacher guidance (Little 1997), so the learner often has to rely more heavily upon her own skills and abilities. Also, socioeconomic class differences in who can realistically access SACs calls into question their social equity (Zaragoza 2014).

Autonomous language‐learning communities

A concept that helps to explain the kind of learning processes that can occur when language learners connect with language enthusiasts online is the notion of learning communities (Wenger 1998). Participation in these online communities with other successful language learners can allow learners to gradually develop their own skill and ability to effectively learn about a domain of knowledge (Lave and Wenger 1991). Indeed, informal hobbyist learners find that it is other learners who offer the most information, support, and feedback and serve as the best models for newer learners (Brookfield 1986). After all, as noted in the section “Underlying theoretical constructs associated with autonomous language learning,” the community of learners that one finds oneself in or wants to become a member of also has an impact on a learner's identity (Hawkins 2005; Norton 2000).

In addition to the various types of online L2 learning communities we have discussed, other less commonly acknowledged communities and resources deserve some attention. These groups can be further broken down into those that focus more directly on language and those where language learning is incidental to doing other activities. Among the groups that have a language focus, internet interest communities are arguably the most directly focused on language learning. Within these communities, language learners share a lot of information with each other on how to find resources to facilitate their language learning. Activities that these communities engage in include sharing language learning suggestions, offering user reviews and opinions of resources available, conducting interviews with successful language learners, and offering responses to reader and listener questions.

These internet interest communities share information in a variety of ways such as blogs and language learning forums. Blogs are an invaluable resource because they are typically written either by someone who has learned one or more additional languages or by commercial websites selling language‐learning products such as FluentU or LingQ. The author normally shares suggestions for effective self‐study language learning methods. The advice provided often refers the reader to helpful (free) resources such as websites, apps, videos, and so forth. In the case of a number of blogs, such as Fluent in 3 Months, informal communities have sprung up around them where readers communicate with each other. These communities often get started in the comment section of the blog or in forums that have been set up as part of the blog. For example, the Mezzofanti Guild blog (www.mezzoguild.com) has a related online forum where readers can go to discuss the content of the blog or other topics. Blog readers often use forums or comments sections to give their reactions to the blog post such as agreeing with, disputing, or expanding on all or part of the post. Commenters will also occasionally debate amongst themselves about the content of the post.

Another type of resource comes from the language‐learning enthusiasts who rely on podcasting and videocasting to share their message. A number of bloggers also do podcasting. The content of both media overlaps considerably with what can be found on blogs and forums. The main advantage of these resources is that learners can watch or listen to them while doing another activity like driving to work or cleaning the house. As with blog posts, learners can leave comments on podcasts or videos. However, in the case of YouTube videos, they can also post their own response (and responses to responses) videos as well.

Non‐language oriented spaces and communities

Language learning can also occur in spaces where the focus is not explicitly on language learning. As Richards (2015) points out, online game and fan communities can be valuable resources for language learners. In online games, learners have the chance to participate in an online activity that they enjoy while learning the target language incidentally as they listen to, read notes from, and interact with fellow players. This activity provides something quite close to a naturalistic language learning environment (Arnseth 2006). Online chatrooms are another place where L2 learners can go to learn and practice their target language informally. A unique advantage of online chat is that it can make learners less dependent on the teacher (Sullivan and Pratt 1996) while enabling them to negotiate meaning through their interaction that pushes them to modify their output (Pellettieri 1999). Online chat experiences also improve learner's self‐perceived competence while lowering their anxiety and allowing them later to transfer to oral use the language that they practice in written chat (Compton 2002). Online fan communities can likewise provide L2 learners with a space where they can connect with others around the world to share common interests such as their favorite pop singers (Lam 2000) or fan fiction (Thorne and Black 2011) and begin to develop their identity as competent L2 users.

Benefits of participation in these online communities

When language learners join informal learning communities, they can receive a number of benefits for their L2 development. One key advantage is that they are exposed to a wide variety of models of L2 users that they can try to emulate as speakers of the target language. Learners who engage with these communities while observing what participants do and listening to what they say gain access to a considerable amount of valuable information. They can learn about the language‐learning shortcuts and resources that experienced learners in these communities use while having the opportunity to comment on the effectiveness of these language‐learning tools and resources based on their own experience using them. For example, newer successful autodidactic methods that have been recommended include detailed guidance on how to engage in self‐immersion (e.g. see japaneselevelup.com and www.alljapaneseallthetime.com) to attain advanced levels in Japanese. Product reviews about new language‐learning materials on the market, such as books, multimedia materials, software, or apps, are also available to introduce these products and point out their strengths and limitations.

Owing to the access to models of good language learners and explicit guidance on how to learn an additional language more efficiently, participation in these online communities offers learners the chance to increase their autonomy. The specific guidance they provide on how to use various L2 learning tools and resources greatly contributes to the development of learner autonomy. Learners are able to experiment with the advice offered in these communities, and reflect on the results they get, thus increasing their autonomy. This increased autonomy then in turn contributes to learners' greater motivation to learn the L2 because they have more control over what they learn as well as how they will learn it. They are also more likely to be motivated because they can work at their own pace and use the self‐study methods that they feel are most suitable for their learning style.

An additional benefit to learners that comes from engaging in informal L2 learning is the sense of community that it provides. While they are free to pursue learning through the kind of L2 content they want using their preferred methods on the one hand, they also have ample support available if they need it. For instance, the comment sections of blogs or videos often contain questions seeking greater detail about how to implement the ideas presented in the main post. A learner may mention how he tried the idea as well as what worked and what did not. From there, the original post author or others may respond with further suggestions on how to adapt the suggested technique or idea to better meet the learner's personal needs. This sense of community also shows through in the messages of mutual encouragement members give each other and in the way that these communities have reached out to each other offline to organize “real‐world” meetups and conferences such as LangFest (https://montreal.langfest.org) and the Polyglot Gathering (https://www.polyglotbratislava.com/organizers).

Potential dangers of online autonomous learning

Besides the advantages for the learner of using this approach, there are also some possible hazards that learners should be aware of with regard to the technology used, the resources available and the people involved. As with most activities online, we must strive to make the most of the wonderful free resources offered while also working to ensure that learners are safe from potential harm. Indeed, this is where the teacher can serve a vital role as a curator of these spaces and the resources they provide. After all, it is the teacher who is best suited to judge the quality of the language‐learning information being shared. If the teacher is also aware of the potential dangers, or at least can do the research necessary to discover what potential hazards exist, she may take steps to avoid them.

One of the major hurdles that many teachers in developing English as a second language (ESL) and English as a foreign language (EFL) contexts may face is the financial constraints that limit their access to the hardware and software necessary to enter these online spaces. As a possible way to address this lack of financial resources, the teacher may try to secure funding from local or international aid organizations to upgrade the technology at the school. Gaining online access in extremely rural locations or when the internet is censored may be more challenging. However, for the persistent rural teacher with access to some funds, options like “Internet‐in‐a‐Box” (http://internet‐in‐a‐box.org) exist, though lack of interactivity will remain a problem. Those whose internet is censored may lose access to some of these resources but, for the most part, this situation should not prevent teachers from doing many of the activities suggested here.

Another potential danger relates to the quality of the online language‐learning resources themselves. The issue here is how to distinguish useful from useless resources. Sometimes the difference is not obvious. Fortunately, there are a number of website quality evaluation tools online that can tell teachers what questions to ask themselves when they are deciding whether or not they should introduce a resource to their students. There are a number of useful website evaluation questions that a teacher may want to ask (see Murphy Odo 2016). However, teachers also need to develop their own ability to distinguish between high‐ and low‐quality resources.

A final pitfall that teachers have to be aware of is learners' online personal safety. This issue is the most potentially serious of all because it concerns the physical and psychological welfare of the learners. Although the internet is an amazing space with an astounding amount of free content available, there are also unsavory characters to be found online. The problem is that it can be difficult to distinguish the decent people from those with more predatory intentions. When going online, learners can be vulnerable in a number of ways, such as through the possibility of their exposure to inappropriate or explicit content. This threat may be considerably reduced by having students complete the recommended activities in the presence of a teacher. Using various kinds of internet parental control software such as Net Nanny (www.netnanny.com) or K9 Web Protection (http://www1.k9webprotection.com) may also reduce learners' chances of being exposed to inappropriate content online.

Resources available

Before reviewing the kinds of resources that are available to learners through accessing these communities, it is necessary to first discuss the types of language‐learning enthusiasts that can be found online. One collection of language learners that has surfaced online in recent years is self‐described online polyglots. A polyglot is defined as an individual who is multilingual, which means that he or she can speak multiple languages (Erard 2012). Many polyglots have set up YouTube channels and blogs to talk about their experiences and lessons gained from learning multiple languages. Some examples of these blogs include I Will Teach You a Language (www.iwillteachyoualanguage.com), Language Mastery (https://l2mastery.com) and Fluent in 3 Months (www.fluentin3months.com). They offer helpful information about language learning in general as well as how to learn and maintain multiple languages.

A second group of enthusiasts is the learners of various world languages. These include “modern” languages like French or Russian as well as other traditionally lesser studied foreign languages such as Japanese or Gaelic. Other types of languages might be included in this category, for example artificially constructed languages such as Klingon and Esperanto. Some websites created by these types of learners include Woman Learning Thai (http://womenlearnthai.com) and Talk to Me in Korean (https://talktomeinkorean.com). These websites contain suggestions about how to effectively study those specific languages as well as general language‐learning recommendations that could benefit all language learners. A related group of learners are those who have revived methods that have been lost over time from the study of ancient or “dead” languages such as Latin or ancient Greek. The value of these translation‐based approaches to language teaching has been receiving increasing acknowledgement in recent years (e.g. Butzkamm and Caldwell 2009; Cook 2010). Some sites that support these methods include HypLern (https://shop.hyplern.com/blogs) and Interlinear Books (https://interlinearbooks.com). It might be worthwhile for learners to connect with these resources to see whether these or other more traditional methods might work better for them as language learners.

A third relevant group of learners is those who have learned English as a second or foreign language. In fact, many of these learners are also polyglots who have successfully learned several languages. These resources often provide information that is specific to learning English so they focus more on the unique problems that English learners may encounter. Examples of these bloggers include Luca Lampariello (https://www.lucalampariello.com/blog), Teddy Nee (www.neeslanguageblog.com) and Shanthi Cumaraswamy Streat (https://englishwithatwist.com). The unique benefits about these resources are that the information is specific to learning English and it comes from people who have learned English the hard way.

A final group of people who would have much of value to share with language learners is language teachers. Language teachers differ from many of the other language‐learning enthusiasts just discussed because they are typically credentialed professionals. Thus, any tips that they share with regard to language learning are likely to be based more on widely accepted theories of language learning and sound principles of autodidactic language‐learning pedagogy. This collection of language teachers could include representatives from all of the languages discussed, such as world, ancient, constructed, and English as an additional language. Some examples of these types of blogs include Fun for Spanish Teachers (https://funforspanishteachers.com), English Teaching 101 (https://englishteaching101.com), and Todally Comprehensible Latin (http://todallycomprehensiblelatin.blogspot.com).

Just as there is a diverse collection of people who serve as an excellent resource for practical information about language learning, there is considerable variety in means by which this information is disseminated. Perhaps the currently most popular format may be blogs. Blogs typically contain numerous entries about a topic related to the author's area of interest. The entries are usually presented in reverse chronological order and they contain links to other websites or blogs. Some key advantages of blogs are that they often feature up‐to‐date content and they are interactive in the sense that most blogs have a comment section where readers can give feedback on the entries. Their main disadvantage is that they can be produced by anyone so there is no real guarantee about the quality of information or the authority of the author as an expert on the topic. The comments section of a blog is a space where the readers can respond to the content of the blog post and connect about ideas and claims being made in the post. These readers can also include fellow bloggers who often share insightful comments or responses. In fact, the comments section can sometimes be as informative as the original blog post.

Vlogs are another resource that are commonly used to share information by members of the language‐learning enthusiast community. Vlogs overlap considerably with blogs in their content but their format is usually a roughly 10‐minute video where the author shares his or her views with the audience. The video frequently consists of the author either speaking to a camera or through using some kind of info graphic software to display his or her ideas. These videos can be found on the video‐sharing site YouTube. The main advantage of a vlog post is that it can be easier to view than justing read a blog post. A major disadvantage is that, depending on the target language ability of the learner, a vlog post delivered in their L2 with a fast voice and a lack of or faulty closed captioning could be more difficult to understand than a blog post.

Podcasts are a third resource that language‐learning enthusiasts use to disseminate ideas about language learning. In terms of their content, podcasts often overlap with blogs and vlogs. Content is similar in delivery to vlogs in that the podcaster just speaks to the audience or interviews a guest. They differ from vlogs in that there is no visual support to accompany the broadcast. This can make them more challenging for learners if there is not a transcript to aid them (although there sometimes is). A major advantage of podcasts is that learners can listen to them at any time. Thus, when they are driving to work, exercising, or cleaning the house, learners are able to listen and receive advice on how to be a more effective language learner.

Online language‐learning message exchange forums also provide valuable information about language learning. These forums have been established so that language learners can freely share information about language learning with each other. Forums differ from the other resources mentioned thus far in that they are more interactive. Indeed, they focus on a dialogue among participants rather than the knowledge‐sharing of one individual who has established himself or herself as having expertise in the domain of knowledge. They work by someone beginning a thread about a topic, such as vocabulary learning, and others contributing their opinions and responses to the post. Forums are usually moderated by people whose duty it is to ensure that irrelevant or inappropriate material does not get posted. Some examples of these forums include https://forum.language‐learners.org, https://linguaholic.com, and https://www.fluentin3months.com/forum. The main advantage of forums is that they allow learners to ask questions or share ideas that elicit answers and responses from a wide variety of fellow language learners. A noteworthy limitation is that because anyone with a computer (or smartphone) can share their opinion, it can be difficult to separate the helpful information from the useless.

A final important source of knowledge for language learners is commercial language learning websites. Some examples of these websites include www.fluentu.com and https://www.livelingua.com/blog. Rather than being operated by an enthusiast or hobbyist, these websites are run by companies that often have some sort of product or service to sell. Some of these sites might be distinguished from others discussed in this chapter by their more professionally crafted designs. They also often offer guidance from a variety of authors rather than just one as is usually the case with blogs (with the exception of guest writers) and vlogs or podcasts. The unique advantage of these sites is that because the information is written by professional writers, it is often relatively well researched, clearly explained, and useful. The main disadvantage of the sites is that, being commercial enterprises, there will be product or service promotion.

Suggestions for using these resources in the L2 classroom

Having reviewed many of the resources available, this section will present some practical suggestions for how these resources might be effectively integrated into the L2 classroom. The first step in this process is for the teacher to locate potentially useful resources. This task can be achieved by the teacher searching Google and YouTube using keywords such as “language learning,” or “learn English (or other languages),” or “language learning blogs/podcasts/forums.” Alternatively, she may start by searching for some of the sites that are mentioned in this chapter. From there, she could peruse bloggers' and vloggers' lists of recommended sites or blog rolls. She might also pay attention to the comments sections of blogs and vlogs where other bloggers often leave links to their own blog. YouTube has the added advantage of the site also suggesting similar videos to the ones being viewed. Many of these suggested videos could lead to other useful resources.

Once the teacher has gathered a collection of resources that she believes will be helpful to learners, she can begin to share them with learners. The following suggested steps might serve as a useful guide for sharing these resources: (i) Access the web resource (e.g. blog or YouTube channel) and use website quality evaluation criteria to evaluate its suitability to introduce to learners; (ii) Upon determining the appropriateness of the source, extract the useful advice and suggested language learning strategies or tools (e.g. apps); (iii) Tell learners about the resource and demonstrate any language learning strategies or tools it describes.

Additionally, the teacher should model for learners how to locate potential resources and evaluate their quality through a “gradual release of responsibility,” scaffolded‐learning approach (Pearson and Gallagher 1983). This scaffolding process begins with the teacher engaging in thinking aloud to share with learners her thought process as she searches for and evaluates the resource. After learners appear to grasp the rudiments of how to find and evaluate resources, she can begin taking suggestions and comments from the class as a shared think‐aloud. When learners' input indicates that they have an appropriate understanding of how to find suitable sources, evaluate them, and extract useful information, the teacher can have them further practice finding and evaluating sources in small groups. While they do this, the teacher can circulate and give additional guidance and feedback as needed. Alternatively, students can assist each other at this time. Once small groups have shown the ability to effectively identify, evaluate, and extract information from sources, the teacher can have individuals try it themselves while assisting those who require additional guidance.

After students have learned how to select and use resources, the teacher can direct them to go and explore some of the web resources for themselves. However, before sending learners to work on their own, the teacher should familiarize them with some online tools that could help them to effectively use the new websites and resources. An example of a helpful scaffold is Google Translate because it can help learners to understand unknown parts of the text in the language‐learning resources they find. The captions feature of YouTube is another useful aid because it allows learners to better follow along with YouTube videos.

Upon informing learners about some of the resources available, they can be encouraged to go and glean some information from the online sites themselves. The teacher could tell them to locate one or two sources (e.g. blogs, YouTube channels, or websites) and then use those resources to find one or two pieces of advice, strategies, or language‐learning tools that they like. They can then be encouraged to self‐experiment with those tools for a week or two. They should keep a record of their experimentation that includes information such as the number of words they learned, changes in their attitude, or some other metric as appropriate.

After learners have finished their self‐experiment and arrived at some conclusions, the teacher should provide them with the opportunity to share and discuss their conclusions with their classmates. The sources, advice, and tools that learners introduce to their classmates should also be subjected to constructive peer evaluation. That is, some class‐time should be devoted to class discussion of the language‐learning strategies and tools suggested by students. This discussion could be structured so that a learner presents their ideas first, then others could ask questions, offer their own experiences, and suggest other similar versions, variations, or adaptations. This discussion could be concluded with a brainstorm of criteria for choosing effective language‐learning recommendations and a class selection of their favorite advice, strategies, or tools. For additional discussion of these ideas see (Murphy Odo 2016).

Conclusions: Making the formal informal again

We have considered how to take informal language‐learning methods and move them into the more formal learning environment of the language classroom. Now, we will reflect on how we can then take these informal language‐learning suggestions refined in the classroom and help students bring them back into their informal learning. This movement between informal and formal learning can assist learners to become more comfortable engaging in independent learning while providing them with the tools and guidance they need to learn autonomously. It proceeds roughly as follows: teachers task learners to investigate informal online learning spaces and communities after giving them guidance on how to detect unreliable websites and a directive to try on themselves the advice, strategies, and tools they find. Then, the informal learning becomes formal when learners bring some of the sources that they have found back into the classroom to reflect on, discuss, and evaluate with the aid of their peers and teacher. The final step is when learners are recommended to return to independent learning resources and communities and encouraged to contribute to their own input through suggested adaptations or new advice, strategies, or tools that they have developed themselves.

From there, the cycle can repeat itself again. That is, the now‐wiser learners who are more practiced in the art of autonomous language learning can once again seek out new resources online. They can then draw on their previous experience to do more careful self‐experimentation and informed evaluation during class discussions. With each repetition of this cycle, learners stand an increasingly better chance of experiencing the feeling that they can study the L2 independently and that it is something that they would want to do.

After learners have had the opportunity to discuss and evaluate the suggested resources they could be encouraged to then give back to the online enthusiasts and communities that served as their inspiration. The teacher could recommend that learners join and participate in these communities themselves. This participation might be as simple as their leaving comments on blog posts or videos that they found to be particularly helpful. It could also be more involved such as by having learners create their own language‐learning tips that they could then share online through blogs, vlogs or other venues.

REFERENCES

1. Ahearn, L.M. (2001). Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology 30: 109–137.
2. Alm, A. (2006). CALL for autonomy, competence and relatedness: motivating language learning environments in Web 2.0. The JALT CALL Journal 2 (3): 29–38.
3. Altiner, C. (2011). Integrating a Computer‐Based Flashcard Program into Academic Vocabulary Learning. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University.
4. Arnseth, H.C. (2006). Learning to play or playing to learn‐a critical account of the models of communication informing educational research on computer gameplay. Game Studies 6 (1): 1–11.
5. Bailly, S. (2011). Teenagers learning languages out of school: what, why and how do they learn? How can school help them? In: Beyond the Language Classroom (eds. P. Benson and H. Reinders), 119–131. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
6. Benson, P. (2007). Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching 40 (1): 21–40.
7. Benson, P. and Chik, A. (2011). Towards a more naturalistic CALL: video gaming and language learning. International Journal of Computer‐Assisted Language Learning and Teaching 1 (3): 1–13.
8. Blake, R. (2008). Brave New Digital Classroom. Washington, DC: Georgetown University.
9. Block, D. (2012). Economising globalisation and identity in applied linguistics in neoliberal times. In: Neoliberalism and Applied Linguistics (eds. D. Block, J. Gray and M. Holborow), 56–85. London: Routledge.
10. Bower, J. and Kawaguchi, S. (2011). Negotiation of meaning and corrective feedback in Japanese/English eTandem. Language Learning & Technology 15 (1): 41–71.
11. Breen, M.P. and Mann, S. (1997). Shooting arrows at the sun: perspectives on a pedagogy for autonomy. In: Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning (eds. P. Benson and P. Voller), 132–149. London: Longman.
12. Brookfield, S. (1986). Understanding and Facilitating Adult Learning: A Comprehensive Analysis of Principles and Effective Practices. London: McGraw‐Hill Education.
13. Butzkamm, W. and Caldwell, J.A. (2009). The Bilingual Reform: A Paradigm Shift in Foreign Language Teaching. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto Verlag.
14. Chamot, A.U. (2005). Language learning strategy instruction: current issues and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 25: 112–130.
15. Chik, A. (2014). Digital gaming and language learning: autonomy and community. Language Learning and Technology 18 (2): 85–100.
16. Chinnery, G.M. (2006). Emerging technologies. Going to the mall: Mobile assisted language learning. Language Learning & Technology 10 (1): 9–16.
17. Cho, Y. (2009). Investigating the use of social networking site in an ESL writing class. Multimedia Assisted Language Learning 12 (3): 9–37.
18. Cohen, A.D. (2014). Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language. New York: Routledge.
19. Compton, L. K.‐L. (2002). From chatting to confidence: a case study of the impact of online chatting on international teaching assistants' willingness to communicate, confidence level and fluency in oral communication. Unpublished Master's thesis. Iowa State University, Ames.
20. Cook, G. (2010). Translation in Language Teaching: An Argument for Reassessment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21. 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.
22. Cotterall, S. (1995). Readiness for autonomy: investigating learner beliefs. System 23 (2): 195–205.
23. Dafei, D. (2007). An exploration of the relationship between learner autonomy and English proficiency. Asian EFL Journal 24 (4): 24–34.
24. Dam, L. (1995). Learner Autonomy 3: From Theory to Classroom Practice. Dublin: Authentik.
25. Dizon, G. (2016). Quizlet in the EFL classroom: enhancing academic vocabulary acquisition of Japanese university students. Teaching English with Technology 16 (2): 40–56.
26. Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In: Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self, vol. 36 (eds. Z. Dörnyei and E. Ushioda), 9–11. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
27. Erard, M. (2012). Babel no More: The Search for the World's Most Extraordinary Language Learners. New York: Free Press.
28. Flavell, J.H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist 34 (10): 906.
29. 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: Exploring their Links (eds. G. Murray, T. Lamb and X. Gao), 25–41. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
30. Gaudreau, P., Miranda, D., and Gareau, A. (2014). Canadian university students in wireless classrooms: what do they do on their laptops and does it really matter? Computers & Education 70: 245–255.
31. Gee, J.P. and Hayes, E.R. (2011). Language and Learning in the Digital Age. New York: Routledge.
32. Griffiths, C. (2013). The Strategy Factor in Successful Language Learning. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
33. Gunawardena, C. N. and Duphorne, P. L. (2001). Which learner readiness factors, online features, and CMC related learning approaches are associated with learner satisfaction in computer conferences? Presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Seattle, WA (10–14 April 2001).
34. Hawkins, M.R. (2005). Becoming a student: identity work and academic literacies in early schooling. TESOL Quarterly 39 (1): 59–82.
35. Hennessey, M. G. (1999). Probing the dimensions of metacognition: implications for conceptual change teaching‐learning. Presented at the National Association for Research in Science Technology, Boston, MA.
36. Hockly, N. (2015). Developments in online language learning. ELT Journal 69 (3): 308–313.
37. Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
38. Holec, H. (1996). Self‐directed learning: an alternative form of training. Language Teaching 29 (2): 89–93.
39. Judge, P.B. (2011). Driven to read: enthusiastic readers in a Japanese high school's extensive reading program. Reading in a Foreign Language 23 (2): 161–186.
40. Kalaja, P., Alanen, R., Palviainen, A., and Dufva, H. (2011). From milk cartons to English roommates: context and agency in L2 learning beyond the classroom. In: Beyond the Language Classroom (eds. P. Benson and H. Reinders), 47–58. London: Palgrave.
41. Kanno, Y. (2003). Negotiating Bilingual and Bicultural Identities: Japanese Returnees Betwixt Two Worlds. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
42. Kaplan, A. and Flum, H. (2009). Motivation and identity: The relations of action and development in educational contexts – An introduction to the special issue. Educational Psychologist 44 (2): 73–77.
43. Karim, K. (2018). Cooperative language learning. In: The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching (eds. T. Liontas and M. Dellicarpini), 1–5. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
44. Kim, H. (2010). Three teachers' initial efforts to use twitter for teaching English in public schools. Multimedia Assisted Language Learning 13 (2): 129–154.
45. Kim, E.‐Y., Park, S.‐M., and Baek, S.‐H. (2011). Twitter and implications for its use in EFL learning. Multimedia Assisted Language Learning 14 (2): 113–137.
46. Kohonen, V. (1992). Experiential language learning: second language learning as cooperative learner education. In: Collaborative Language Learning and Teaching (eds. D. Nunan and M. Swan), 14–39. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47. 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.
48. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49. Leis, A. (2014). Encouraging autonomy through the use of a social networking system. JALT Call Journal 10 (1): 69–80.
50. Lin, L.‐F. (2011). The video comprehension strategies of Chinese‐speaking university students. Journal of Educational Computing Research 45 (3): 297–319.
51. Lin, C.‐H., Warschauer, M., and Blake, R. (2016). Language learning through social networks: perceptions and reality. Language Learning & Technology 20 (1): 124–147.
52. Little, D. (1995). Learning as dialogue: the dependence of learner autonomy on teacher autonomy. System 23 (2): 175–181.
53. Little, D. (1997). Learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom: theoretical foundations and some essentials of pedagogical practice. Zeitschrift Für Fremdsprachenforschung 8 (2): 227–244.
54. Little, D. (2007). Language learner autonomy: some fundamental considerations revisited. International Journal of Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 1 (1): 14–29.
55. Little, P.D., Dam, L., and Legenhausen, L. (2017). Language Learner Autonomy: Theory, Practice and Research. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
56. Livingstone, D.W. (2006). Informal learning: conceptual distinctions and preliminary findings. Counterpoints 249: 203–227.
57. Lord, G. (2015). I don't know how to use words in Spanish': Rosetta Stone and learner proficiency outcomes. The Modern Language Journal 99 (2): 401–405.
58. Macaro, E. (1997). Target Language, Collaborative Learning and Autonomy. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
59. Macaro, E. (2001). Learner Strategies in Second and Foreign Language Classrooms. London: Continuum.
60. Malhiwsky, D. R. (2010). Student achievement using Web 2.0 technologies: a mixed methods study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Nebraska, Omaha, NE.
61. Martín‐Monje, E. and Bárcena, E. (2015). Language MOOCS: An Emerging Field. In: Language MOOCS: Providing Learning, Transcending Boundaries (eds. E. Martín‐Monje and E. Bárcena), 1–13. Berlin: De Gruyter Open.
62. Matear, A. (2008). English language learning and education policy in Chile: can English really open doors for all? Asia Pacific Journal of Education 28 (2): 131–147.
63. McCaslin, M. (2009). Co‐regulation of student motivation and emergent identity. Educational Psychologist 44 (2): 137–146.
64. Murphy Odo, D. (2016). Crowdsourced language learning: lessons for TESOL educators from online language‐learning enthusiasts. English Teaching Forum 54: 14–23.
65. Murray, G. (2011). Older language learners, social learning spaces and community. In: Beyond the Language Classroom (eds. P. Benson and H. Reinders), 132–145. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
66. Nguyen, L.T.C. and Gu, Y. (2013). Strategy‐based instruction: a learner‐focused approach to developing learner autonomy. Language Teaching Research 17 (1): 9–30.
67. Nielson, K.B. (2011). Self‐study with language learning software in the workplace: what happens? Language Learning & Technology 15 (3): 110–129.
68. Norton, B. (2000). Identity and Language Learning: Social Processes and Educational Practice. London: Longman.
69. Norton, B. and Toohey, K. (2001). Changing perspectives on good language learners. TESOL Quarterly 35 (2): 307–322.
70. Oxford, R. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
71. Oxford, R.L. (2008). Hero with a thousand faces: learner autonomy, learning strategies and learning tactics in independent language learning. In: Language Learning Strategies in Independent Settings (eds. S. Hurd and T. Lewis), 41–63. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
72. Oxford, R.L. (2017). Teaching and Researching Language Learning Strategies: Self‐Regulation in Context. New York: Routledge.
73. Pawlak, M., Mystkowska‐Wiertelak, A., and Bielak, J. (eds.) (2017). Autonomy in Second Language Learning: Managing the Resources. Berlin: Springer.
74. Pearson, P.D. and Gallagher, G. (1983). The gradual release of responsibility model of instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology 8 (3): 112–123.
75. Pellettieri, J. (1999). Negotiation in cyberspace: the role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In: Network‐Based Language Teaching: Concepts and Practice (eds. M. Warschauer and R.G. Kern), 59–86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
76. Rama, P.S., Black, R.W., van Es, E., and Warschauer, M. (2012). Affordances for second language learning in world of Warcraft. ReCALL 24 (3): 322–338.
77. Richards, J.C. (2015). The changing face of language learning: learning beyond the classroom. RELC Journal 46 (1): 5–22.
78. Riley, P. (2007). Language, Culture and Identity: An Ethnolinguistic Perspective. London: Continuum.
79. Rosé, C.P., Carlson, R., Yang, D. et al. (2014). Social factors that contribute to attrition in MOOCs. In: Proceedings of the First ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale Conference, 197–198. New York, NY: ACM.
80. Rubio, F. (2014). Teaching pronunciation and comprehensibility in a language MOOC. In: Language MOOCs: Providing Learning, Transcending Boundaries (eds. E. Martín‐Monje and E. Bárcena), 143–160. Berlin: De Gruyter Open.
81. Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000). Self‐determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well‐being. American Psychologist 55 (1): 68–78.
82. Sockett, G. (2014). The Online Informal Learning of English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
83. Stoller, F. (2002). Project work: a means to promote language and content. In: Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice (eds. J.C. Richards and W. Renandya), 107–119. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
84. Sullivan, N. and Pratt, E. (1996). A comparative study of two ESL writing environments: a computer‐assisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom. System 24 (4): 491–501.
85. Sylvén, L.K. and Sundqvist, P. (2012). Gaming as extramural English L2 learning and L2 proficiency among young learners. ReCALL 24 (3): 302–321.
86. Teng, F. (2016). Immediate and delayed effects of embedded metacognitive instruction on Chinese EFL students' English writing and regulation of cognition. Thinking Skills and Creativity 22: 289–302.
87. Teng, M. (2018). Autonomy, Agency, and Identity in Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign Language. Singapore: Springer.
88. Thorne, S.L. and Black, R.W. (2011). Identity and interaction in internet‐mediated contexts. In: Identity Formation in Globalizing Contexts: Language Learning in the New Millennium, vol. 1 (ed. C. Higgins), 257–278. Berlin: De Gruyter.
89. Toohey, K. and Norton, B. (2003). Learner autonomy as agency in sociocultural settings. In: Learner Autonomy across Cultures: Language Education Perspectives (eds. D.M. Palfreyman and R. Smith), 58–72. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
90. Ushioda, E. (1996). Learner Autonomy 5: The Role of Motivation. Dublin: Authentik.
91. Ushioda, E. (2013). Motivation and ELT: global issues and local concerns. In: International Perspectives on Motivation: Language Learning and Professional Challenges (ed. E. Ushioda), 1–17. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
92. Usuki, M. (2003). Learner beliefs about language learning and learner autonomy: a reconsideration. In: Learner and Teacher Autonomy in Japan 1: Autonomy you Ask, vol. 1 (eds. A. Barfield and M. Nix), 11–26. Tokyo: Learner Development Special Interest Group of JALT.
93. Veenman, M.V., Elshout, J.J., and Meijer, J. (1997). The generality vs domain‐specificity of metacognitive skills in novice learning across domains. Learning and Instruction 7 (2): 187–209.
94. Vesselinov, R. and Grego, J. (2012). Duolingo Effectiveness Study, vol. 24. Pittsburgh, PA: Duolingo http://static.duolingo.com/s3/duolingoreport_final.pdf.
95. Walsh, C. and Apperley, T. (2012). Using gaming paratexts in the literacy classroom. In: Proceedings GLS 8.0 Games + Learning + Society Conference, 322–330. Madison, WI: ETC Press.
96. Warschauer, M. and Liaw, M.‐L. (2011). Emerging Technologies for Autonomous Language Learning. Studies in Self‐Access Learning Journal 2 (3): 107–118.
97. Watkins, J. and Wilkins, M. (2011). Using YouTube in the EFL classroom. Language Education in Asia 2 (1): 113–119.
98. Wenden, A.L. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning1. Applied Linguistics 19 (4): 515–537.
99. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning as a social system. Systems Thinker 9 (5): 2–3.
100. Wong, L.‐H. and Looi, C.‐K. (2011). What seams do we remove in mobile‐assisted seamless learning? A critical review of the literature. Computers & Education 57 (4): 2364–2381.
101. Yen, C.‐J. and Liu, S. (2009). Learner autonomy as a predictor of course success and final grades in community college online courses. Journal of Educational Computing Research 41 (3): 347–367.
102. Zaragoza, E.D.C. (2011). Identity, motivation and plurilingualism in self‐access centers. In: Identity, Motivation and Autonomy in Language Learning (eds. G. Murray, X. Gao and T. Lamb), 91–106. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
103. Zaragoza, E.D.C. (2014). Social class and autonomy: four cases studies in a Mexican SAC. In: Multiple Perspectives on the Self in SLA (eds. S. Mercer and M. Williams), 192–210. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.