Introduction

As this volume brings to the fore, the language learner at the beginning of the twenty‐first century is quite different from the one at the end of the twentieth century, particularly in view of the technologies that one can use to access learning resources and the uses one makes of them. The main learning context of the 1980s and 1990s was the second language (L2) classroom or immersion in a foreign country. Classroom learning tended to involve groups with similar backgrounds in learning (depending on the grade level), shared resources (a teacher, a textbook, and the audiovisual resources that accompanied them, sometimes an audio‐active‐comparative language laboratory), and a set pace of progression through a program. For learners particularly committed to their learning, supplemental activities outside the classroom, for example listening to music in the foreign language or finding a pen pal to write to once or twice a month, or even accessing foreign television with closed captions (cf. Vanderplank) could be found. The arrival of the internet and a host of new technologies at the end of the 1990s and into the twenty‐first century completely changed the situation and opened the door to learning practices often (but not always) based on the same individual desires, motivations, and attractions as in the past, but providing entirely new resources for accessing different affordances.

Language teachers today are well aware of this evolution in the practices of the students they accompany, but don't always have the means to access details about these practices. Research has begun to enquire into what exactly these practices are. How do they change with the age of the students, the language being learned, and current trends or technical innovations? Are there measurable effects on the development¹ of the language itself and, if so, on which aspects: perception, comprehension (of words, concepts), production, grammaticality, pronunciation, and, perhaps, others? One key underlying question for us is: “How does language development take place under the varying degrees of attention found in formal, nonformal, and informal contexts?” Depending on the answers found, a major issue for researchers interested in teaching is: “How can a learner's out‐of‐class language activities influence twenty‐first century language didactics?” and for the teachers: “What does this mean for my lessons?” This volume has attempted to answer different aspects of these questions, and indubitably opens up others. One of the most important novelties explored in these pages is that, from a second language acquisition (SLA) perspective, it would appear that many people engaging in these activities may not even realize that their L2 system is developing. Many of them are also not attending formal English classes. It is therefore possible to consider informal language learning as a stand‐alone phenomenon, and as an issue in modern language teaching.

This chapter examines the new dimensions of informal learning that emerge from the preceding chapters, many of which interact with each other, illustrating the very complexity which is so characteristic of informal learning. From a complex dynamic systems perspective, it is useful to look at a phenomenon as a whole and to identify interrelated subsystems within it. Each subsystem presented here (such as physical location, specific learner profiles, activities or subactivities and skills or subskills, range of technologies, device‐specific activities, etc.) will be described in terms of potential for future research and as an interacting aspect of the complex terrain of informal language learning. It is, of course, the interaction between these activities which provides insight into the personal learning environment of the informal learner, and the research related to multimodality, motivation, and cognition are of particular interest in making this link. Finally, diachronic perspectives are key to understanding informal language learning as a complex dynamic system, both from a macroscopic perspective (for example, Chapter 30 by Godwin Jones) and from a microscopic perspective as individual learners' personal learning environments evolve with time.

Looking forward, we explore the prospect of developing a holistic approach to language learning, which does not see things in a black‐and‐white, in‐and‐out (of the classroom) perspective, but as a continuum or integrated approach. Without falling into caricatures of formal or informal education, how can teachers and researchers integrate knowledge about informal learning into what they do, without trying to “informalize” the classroom or formalize what is happening outside? We will be exploring how these themes may indicate some of the main research orientations for this field in the near future.

Naming the field

As with any emerging field, the issue of terminology is often an indication of the differing theoretical frameworks and boundaries envisaged by the authors involved. Naming being fundamentally related to legitimation, finding consensual terminology would also help to establish the legitimacy of this emerging field. Five terms which have been used recently to describe the object of research in this book are: informal digital learning of English (Lee and Dressman 2018), extramural English (Sundqvist and Sylvén 2016), fully autonomous self‐instructed learning (Cole and Vanderplank 2016), self‐regulated out‐of‐class language learning with technology (Lai and Gu 2011), and the online informal learning of English (Sockett 2013, 2014; Toffoli and Sockett 2010, 2013).

These attempts at naming the field, as well as the keywords used in several of the contributions to this handbook are helpful as a guide to thinking about the issues in informal language learning going forward. Three key notions brought to light by these names are context, applications, and theoretical framework.

The choice of the term informal in the title of Handbook is perhaps an indication of a growing consensus around a term which is by no means transparent. The most fundamental drawback with the term “informal” to describe the types of learning illustrated in this book is the possible confusion with the informal register of language or restricting its use to learning in informal contexts. It is possible to falsely conclude that any contents reflecting life in the home and among friends are examples of informal learning, whereas TV series, films or YouTube videos may well be used in a formal context as learning materials prescribed by a teacher and evaluated as part of a formal curriculum. It is therefore important to regularly revisit the distinction between formal (school‐related), nonformal (use of specifically designed language learning materials when there is no school context) and informal (using materials not designed for language learning without a school context), although learners themselves seem to relate most easily to the contextual element (in or out of school). Many of the authors of chapters in this Handbook have contributed keywords which help us to focus on this distinction. Iglesias and Zheng remind us that learning takes place in informal contexts or settings, while Ewert and Godwin‐Jones refer to implicit and incidental learning, reminding us that learning also takes place while the learner is attending to other activities.

Zourou's contribution to this Handbook is a reminder that all of these out‐of‐class activities are part of the wider picture of what Benson and Reinders called learning “beyond the language classroom” or “out of classroom language learning” ([OCLL]; 2011). Benson's (2011) four‐category classification for qualifying OCLL (location, formality, pedagogy, and locus of control) may well be pertinent for many forms of what has been written about here, yet in many ways it is self‐referential and the categories remain unclear. If location provides no particular difficulty, the ideas of formality, pedagogy, and locus of control all seem to involve some overlapping concepts, principally “who is deciding what.” For Benson, the simple use of the term “learning” implies intentionality and therefore much of what researchers like Cole, Christianson and Deshaies, Dressman, Godwin‐Jones, Kusyk, and ourselves are interested in remains outside this classification, as we shall see further on.

In referring to “extramural English,” Sundqvist and Sylvén (2016) identify informal learning with location and as a set of opportunities to promote and facilitate classroom learning. Researchers approaching informal language learning from a teaching of English to speakers of other languages (TESOL) perspective could do well to adopt this approach. Few learners of geography go home each evening and study glaciation around their home, but a majority of learners of English do spend time outside the classroom engaged in English language activities. Hence the term extramural, as in “out‐of‐class(room),” invites the researcher to consider the links between activities carried out on both sides of the school wall and to develop approaches to make classroom learning more relevant. Hubbard and Odo's contributions to this Handbook, amongst others, offer an explicit focus on such issues and provide real direction for teachers asking “What does this mean for my lessons?”

A fundamental element of context in the other terms presented above is the issue of technology and online or digital learning. In some parts of the world, the shift from analogue to digital access to media may have been seen to have had little impact on language development, particularly in countries where English‐language television and films were already available to the general public and English language novels or magazines easy to come by. So it is that currently many researchers include activities such as reading English language books in the study of informal language learning. The widespread use of digital reading devices such as the Amazon Kindle further blurs the distinction between digital and analogue leisure activities since the same novel may be read in either paper or digital form.

Our own preference for limiting research to digital activities stems from the context of our initial research in France, where media contents in English were not widely available before the digital revolution. This distinction would also appear relevant to other large areas of the globe, in many areas of Africa, Asia, and South America. At the same time a major difficulty of this research and an argument against specifically focusing on digital resources is the, impossibility of isolating the various factors of influence on language development and separating digital informal learning from students' other activities: meeting people, going to “language cafés” and pubs, or just reading the English words that are flourishing in analogue media, billboards, and so on around the world.

Turning to the issue of links between formal and informal, these may be seen as either fundamental to the field or as secondary considerations. The use of the term self‐instructed by Cole (2015), Cole and Vanderplank (2016) is another indication that informal learning is considered by some as a pedagogically focused phenomenon. Arvanitis's reference to “self‐paced” learning, like Cole's “self‐instructed” learning, picking up on terms used by Little (2015, 2016), Little et al. (2017), Little and Thorne (2017), Holec (1979), Holec and Huttunen (1997), Dickinson (1987) and others, allows researchers to view informal learning as a type of learner autonomy, while Ewert's comments on “extensive reading” are a reminder that much of this research can be analyzed from the point of view of Krashen and Terrell's (1983) work on (comprehensible) input or Ellis's (2002, 2008, 2012, 2015) work on frequency effects and implicit learning.

Finally, from a theoretical point of view, names chosen to describe this field reflect ongoing work on the theoretical framework of informal learning. The term learning is taken in the broadest possible sense here, and indeed many of the contributors prefer terms such as “acquisition” (Christianson and Deshaies) “engagement” (Cole) and “development” (Chik) to draw informal learning research into discussions about the psycholinguistic mechanisms at work in such activities, particularly as they relate to attention, motivation, and nonlinear systemic change. As such, it can be useful to refer to the distinctions drawn by Schugurensky (2000) and developed by Bennett (2012), where informal learning is further defined as a matrix, appearing along the two fundamental axes of awareness and intentionality. Four types of informal learning can thus be distinguished, as pictured in Figure 31.1. Self‐directed learning is both intentional and aware; incidental learning is unintentional but the learner is aware that it is occurring; tacit learning is neither intentional, nor is one aware that it is occurring; and what Bennett calls “integrative” learning is intentional, but one is not necessarily aware of it. The latter has been considered problematic in education literature, as examples are difficult to imagine. However, in applied linguistics the term itself points us in what may be a fruitful direction, that initiated by Gardner and Lambert's (1972) integrative motivation. Here, we can understand integrative learning of a language as something we may intend, particularly when in an immersion, perhaps migration, situation, but which we may not be particularly aware of, at least concerning the specifics of the process and of attentionality (noticing) as proposed by Ellis (2006, 2007) and others. A major advantage of using the term “informal learning” rather than other terms defining such learning in contradistinction to classroom learning is that it implicitly ties into the wealth of existing research in the field of education (Brougère and Bézille 2007; Cross 2007; Knowles 1950; McGivney 1999; Sefton‐Green 2004). We would do well to pay attention to all of the parameters that define informal learning, from the informal contexts in which it may occur, to the types of materials that can be chosen (for example, distinguishing the online language apps that we have described elsewhere as “nonformal” from authentic foreign language activities), to the mental processes at work which make such learning qualitatively different from classroom and other more formal learning.

Framing informal learning

The interdisciplinary attraction of informal language learning

One of the major insights offered by this Handbook is the strongly interdisciplinary nature of informal language learning. It has been and may be studied from a number of different perspectives. Three such perspectives, which we will take a moment to reflect on here, are education, SLA, and TESOL. The strength of interdisciplinary study around an object such as informal learning, is that experts from each field can dialogue and share insights which give complementary views of language, of the learner and of learning resources.

Challenges for future research

Since the contributions to this book have demonstrated that informal language learning is a vibrant field, the main challenges are methodological in nature. We have stated that this field is mostly about studying change over relatively long time periods. Such activities are not always conducive to research careers in which the next publication needs to appear in a few weeks or months. Research comparing similar cohorts at intervals of a number of years such as the Beuzon and Dalibard (2017) study mentioned in the section “SLA‐Focused informal language learning” may be useful in this endeavor, as well as the necessary longitudinal study of individuals via diary studies, etc.

Real informal learners may not be people who sit in language classrooms, so getting data on people who are not in the system, because they are too young, too old, or just involved in other endeavors, must be an objective. SLA‐focused informal language learning has the difficult task of determining whether and how acquisition is taking place amongst learners who may have no formal contact with learning English at all. The challenge here is not so much to see whether frequent informal language learning practitioners have a better level than infrequent ones, since a high level may be a cause as well as a consequence of frequent informal language learning practices. Studies such as Sockett and Kusyk (2013) go some way to suggesting methodologies which may be helpful in isolating vocabulary specific to the informal learning context and in comparing informal language learning productions (what non‐natives write in fan fiction for example) to target productions (such as the actual scripts of TV shows).

One of the tasks awaiting SLA‐focused informal language learning is the operationalization of a range of theoretical positions around construction grammar (Goldberg 1995; Langacker 1986) which provide support to one of the premises of informal language learning: that learning is possible without conscious attention to form. Indeed, such cognitive views of language development focus on the key role of preponderant examples (“to give” as a ditransitive, etc.) of structures rather than the processing of grammatical rules. Research focusing on the characteristics of language productions of informal learners should yield many insights into the extent to which uptake from informal exposure supports such a view of language. More broadly, real informal learners have layers of contextual, cognitive, social/political specificities and these different layers should continue to be explored both individually and as a whole as an emerging theoretical framework for informal language learning becomes more consensual. Such a shared, coherent conceptual and epistemological frame would indicate the maturation of the field and allow researchers to get on with the business of building together from a common base.

Future research shopping list

Within these broad challenges, informal language learning offers a wealth of specific research opportunities in the years ahead. One of the main questions that remains to be answered is what is being learnt through the informal language learning practices of today beyond the existing studies of chunk uptake? Several studies have looked at vocabulary uptake and Cole (2015) has pinpointed a few grammatical constructions that would appear to originate in informal language practices. An article by Yibokou et al. (2019) points to some ways informal listening may be influencing pronunciation. Studies investigating why informal language learning is sometimes not effective in delivering language development are an inevitable aspect of future research. As researchers focus more closely on the profiles of successful informal learners, more will be learned about the psychological and social profiles of those who may be exposed to high quantities of, for example, listening contents, but still seem to learn little or nothing from the exposure. We believe there is room for a lot more research in these areas, research which will not only provide some answers in the area of informal language learning, but which will probably provide further insight into language acquisition in general.

Having reviewed a wide range of current informal language learning studies on school‐age children and a variety of higher‐education students, it is apparent that a number of different target populations remain to be studied in detail. These may include older learners, learners in workplace contexts, refugees, and heritage‐language learners. Anecdotal evidence suggests that seniors are actively involved in foreign language learning in informal contexts for the purposes of travel in retirement, to preserve cognitive plasticity (Bialystok et al. 2007), or as a new challenge that may be related to unfulfilled past projects or new social needs.

Much informal learning takes place in the workplace, as employees learn to do their jobs through informal interaction with colleagues and language learning may form a significant element of this. Janta and Keller's contribution to this volume (Chapter 15) is a helpful insight into people who develop new language skills specifically in the service industry, on either temporary or long‐term migration to a new country. Many other people are working in foreign‐language workplaces in their own country of birth. This could be the case in Europe, in large multinationals who have adopted a foreign working language (usually English) which becomes the language of communication as soon as a single foreign worker or manager participates in a conversation or meeting, as in other countries, where workplace etiquette suggests an official language or lingua franca rather than the use of local varieties. While in some contexts (such as France) corporations provide formal training for those who might find themselves in difficulty in such situations, this is far from the only resource employees have access to. Much remains to be learned about what other resources are being used, in what way and with what results.

Informal language learning studies on refugee and migrant populations are clearly of interest in the current international climate and might cover both intentional and unintentional language learning. Work in the present volume by Perry, Janta, and Keller is a good starting point and more can be done to focus on specific populations. Much remains to be done in contexts such as Africa and India, where the digital revolution looks somewhat different but where even poor populations have access to some digital resources (see Chapter 30 by Godwin‐Jones, where he discusses development of cheaper and more capable phones, coupled with various new access options such as subsidized data plans, community WiFi and open access centers). It would be fascinating to know how such usage of digital equipment is inciting linguistic change, from access to official and vehicular languages, to the neglect of local languages, the adoption of new norms, and the transgression of others.

Research into the nature or even quality of the contents to which learners are exposed has been helpfully touched on in chapter three of this volume by Mark Dressman. Does the fundamental quality of resources matter or are some “bad” videos actually more memorable to learners and therefore useful from an acquisition standpoint? As the beginnings of a move by younger learners away from professionally made video and toward large quantities of amateur “vlogger” videos can be seen in the research, these questions will become all the more relevant.

From the perspective of the philosophy of education, it may finally be helpful to consider whether informal language learning (and all other types of informal learning) are just a recognition of and return to the “natural order of things” where learning is a fundamental, life‐long, natural process (as explicitly stated in SDT). Since an ability to learn new skills throughout life is indispensable to current and future generations, the lessons of informal learning should be applied to formal contexts in order to prevent school from becoming an unnatural, inefficient parenthesis in the learner's trajectory.

In general, our enthusiasm for the topic of informal language learning stems from the fact that many different types of research can be carried out, such as quantitative research, qualitative research, acquisition studies, teaching studies, sociolinguistic or psycholinguistic approaches, as well as those focusing exclusively on informal language learning as a branch of computer‐assisted language learning (CALL). It is a field in which longitudinal study is very important, so PhDs in the field are welcome. Indeed, one of the challenges in the day‐to‐day life of the informal language learning researcher is that the normal cycle of research and production of articles and papers tends to last a few months, whereas important work on informal language learning remains to be done over much longer timespans. One consequence of these academic imperatives is that non‐school‐age learners tend to be underrepresented in informal language learning studies as teachers, whether in primary, secondary, or higher education, carry out research into the sample to which they have the easiest access. One means of short‐circuiting the timescales of informal language learning is, as Dörnyei (2014) has suggested, to engage in retrodictive studies, in which learners look back on their individual learner pathways as a way of understanding the current dynamics of their learning experience.

A final attraction of informal language learning as a field of study is that it is constantly changing as new technologies and trends develop. The mobile viewing of video, for example, is a development seen in the past five years driven by the growth of inexpensive mobile data connections and the expansion of affordable subscription services such as Netflix. This has also meant easy access to a much larger variety of content in many languages other than just English. All this adds up to the fact that for the researcher, the well of areas of study will never dry up. Apart from the likely lessening of the influence of TV series in English (and perhaps their increase in some other languages) and the arrival of vloggers, the other current tendency one may see as significant is the increase in interaction rather than just reception. This can be seen in the growth of commenting on videos rather than just watching them and indeed the general democratization of video production as a normal means of communication.

Conclusion

Looking forward, we wonder about the possibility of developing a holistic approach to language learning, that doesn't see things from a black‐and‐white, in‐and‐out (of the classroom) perspective, but as an integrated approach, building on a variety of continua or perhaps a variety of cycles. We are not different people in our personal and professional or personal and academic lives and ideally we should be able to imagine learning as some kind of seamless integration of all our life contexts.

A holistic approach to language learning is one in which the classroom may be a place to develop skills useful in the most trivial of leisure activities, since these are the real‐world applications of learning the language for many. “Understanding Breaking Bad 101” may not only be a popular course, but could also rekindle an interest in Chemistry. A holistic approach is also one in which the value of informal activities in the development of more formal and work‐related skills is recognized and operationalized as we have discussed in this chapter. At the heart of such approaches is the reality of communities of language users centered on shared themes and interests. The learning center is actually a learner center. This may mean promoting interactions and tasks around the real daily preoccupations of learners, which may just be the latest hair and makeup videos, offered by so called “lifestyle vloggers” or walking through a new video game.

Each generation of innovators in higher education has taken a small step by focusing on fields (such as contemporary culture or creative writing) once considered too trivial and too atheoretical to be worthy of academic study. It is time for informal language learning to take one of these steps.

REFERENCES

1. Bennett, E. E. (2012). A four‐part model of informal learning: extending Schugurensky's conceptual model. Presented at the Adult Education Research Conference, Saratoga Springs, NY. New Prairie Press: Kansas State University. https://newprairiepress.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3051&context=aerc.
2. Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning. Applied Linguistics in Action Series. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED454723.
3. Benson, P. (2006). Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching 40 (1): 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003958.
4. Benson, P. (2011). Language learning and teaching beyond the classroom: an introduction to the field. In: Beyond the Language Classroom, 7–16. Palgrave Macmillan.
5. Benson, P. and Reinders, H. (2011). Beyond the Language Classroom. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
6. Beuzon, S. and Dalibard, E. (2017). “Compétences en anglais en fin de collège [English skills at the end of middle school]: CEDRE 2004‐2010‐2016.” Note d'information 17 (20): 4. Paris: Ministère de l'Éducation Nationale DEPP.
7. Bialystok, E., Craik, F.I.M., and Freedman, M. (2007). Bilingualism as a protection against the onset of symptoms of dementia. Neuropsychologia 45 (2): 459–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.10.009.
8. Brougère, G. and Bézille, H. (2007). De l'usage de la notion d'informel dans le champ de l'éducation [The use of the notion of informality in the field of education]. Revue française de pédagogie 158: 117–160.
9. Candas, P. (2011). Analyzing student practice in language resource Centres of the Louis Pasteur University in Strasbourg: is planning really central to self‐directed learning? Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 5 (2): 191–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2011.577534.
10. Cole, J. (2015). Foreign language learning in the age of the internet: a comparison of informal acquirers and traditional classroom learners in Central Brazil. Doctoral thesis. University of Oxford, Oxford.
11. Cole, J. and Vanderplank, R. (2016). Comparing autonomous and class‐based learners in Brazil: evidence for the present‐day advantages of informal, out‐of‐class learning. System 61: 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.07.007.
12. Cristol, D. and Muller, A. (2013). Les apprentissages informels dans la formation pour adultes. Savoirs 32: 11–59. https://doi.org/10.3917/savo.032.0011.
13. Cross, J. (2007). Informal Learning: Rediscovering the Natural Pathways that Inspire Innovation and Performance. Wiley.
14. Dam, L. (2013). How to engage learners in authentic target language use – examples from an autonomy classroom. In: The Answer Is Learner Autonomy: Issues in Language Teaching and Learning (eds. A. Burkert, L. Dam and C. Ludwig), 76–94. Canterbury, Kent: IATEFL.
15. Deci, E.L., Vallerand, R.J., Pelletier, L.G., and Ryan, R.M. (1991). Motivation and education: the self‐determination perspective. Educational Psychologist 26 (3–4): 325–346.
16. Dickinson, L. (1987). Self‐Instruction in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17. Dörnyei, Z. (2014). Researching complex dynamic systems: ‘retrodictive qualitative modelling’ in the language classroom. Language Teaching 47 (1): 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000516.
18. Dressman, M. (2017). Informal language acquisition and classroom teaching: complementary, not competitive, approaches. Presented at the Korea TESOL International Conference, Seoul, South Korea.
19. Ellis, N.C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: a review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24 (2): 143–188. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002024.
20. Ellis, R. (2003). Task‐Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: OUP.
21. Ellis, N.C. (2006). Cognitive perspectives on SLA: the associative‐cognitive CREED. AILA Review 19: 100–121. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.19.08ell.
22. Ellis, N.C. (2007). The associative cognitive creed. In: Theories in Second Language Acquisition (eds. B. Van Patten and J. Williams), 77–95. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
23. Ellis, N.C. (2008). The dynamics of second language emergence: cycles of language use, language change, and language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal 92 (2): 232–249. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540‐4781.2008.00716.x.
24. Ellis, N.C. (2012). Formulaic language and second language acquisition: Zipf and the phrasal teddy bear. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32: 17–44. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190512000025.
25. Ellis, N.C. (2015). Implicit AND explicit learning: their dynamic interface and complexity. In: Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages (ed. P. Rebuschat), 3–23. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
26. Eneau, J. (2005). La part d'autrui dans la formation de soi; Autonomie, Autoformation et Réciprocité en Contexte Organisationnel [Alterity for self‐education: autonomy, self‐directed learning and reciprocity in organizational contexts]. Paris: L'Harmattan.
27. Gardner, R.C. and Lambert, W.E. (1972). Attitudes and Motivation in Second‐Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publisher http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED081270.
28. Geyer, M. (2018). Potentiel du smartphone comme outil informel d'apprentissage d'une langue étrangère ou seconde, par l'amélioration de la motivation : Observation des pratiques quotidiennes de collégiens en UPE2A, une étude de cas [The potential of the smartphone as an informal tool for learning a foreign or second language by improving motivation: Observation of the daily practices of pupils in a UPE2A, a case study]. Mémoire de Master. Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg.
29. Godwin‐Jones, R. (2018). Chasing the butterfly effect: informal language learning online as a complex system. Language Learning and Technology 22 (2): 8–27. https://doi.org/10125/44643.
30. Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31. Holec, H. (1979). Autonomy and foreign language learning. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED192557.
32. Holec, H. (1995). Mélanges CRAPEL n° 22 (Numéro spécial : Centre de Ressources). ATILF ‐ CRAPEL.
33. Holec, H. and Huttunen, I. (1997). L'autonomie de l'apprenant en langues vivantes: recherche et développement [Learner autonomy in modern languages: research and development]. Éditions du Conseil de l'Europe.
34. Jensen, S.H. (2017). Gaming as an English language learning resource among young children in Denmark. Calico Journal 34 (1) https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.29519.
35. Knowles, M.S. (1950). Informal Adult Education. New York: Association Press.
36. Krashen, S.D. and Terrell, T.D. (1983). The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. New York: Pergamon Press.
37. Kusyk, M. (2017). Les dynamiques du développement de l'anglais au travers d'activités informelles en ligne : une étude exploratoire auprès d'étudiants français et allemands [Dynamics of English development through informal online activities: an exploratory study with French and German students]. Doctoral thesis. Pädagogische Hochschule Karlsruhe & Université de Strasbourg.
38. Kusyk, M. and Sockett, G. (2012). From informal resource usage to incidental language acquisition: the new face of the non‐specialist learning English. ASp. La Revue Du GERAS 62: 45–65.
39. 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.
40. Langacker, R. (1986). An introduction to cognitive grammar. Cognitive Science 10 (1): 1–40.
41. Larsen‐Freeman, D. (2015). Saying what we mean: making the case for second language acquisition to become second language development. Language Teaching 48 (4): 491–505.
42. Lee, J.S. and Dressman, M. (2018). When IDLE hands make an English workshop: informal digital learning of English and language proficiency. TESOL Quarterly 52 (2): 435–445. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.422.
43. Little, D. (2015). University language centres, self‐access learning and learner autonomy. Recherche et Pratiques Pédagogiques En Langues de Spécialité XXXIV (1): 13–26. https://doi.org/10.4000/apliut.5008.
44. Little, D. (2016). Learner autonomy and second/foreign language learning [LLAS Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies]. Accessed July 10, 2016. www.llas.ac.uk/resources/gpg/1409.
45. Little, D. and Thorne, S.L. (2017). From learner autonomy to rewilding: a discussion. In: Learner Autonomy and Web 2.0 (eds. M. Cappellini, T. Lewis, A. Rivens Mompean and CALICO), 12–35. Sheffield: Equinox.
46. Little, D., Dam, L., and Legenhausen, L. (2017). Language Learner Autonomy; Theory, Practice and Research. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
47. Malcolm, J., Hodkinson, P., and Colley, H. (2003). The interrelationships between informal and formal learning. Journal of Workplace Learning 15 (7/8): 313–318. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620310504783.
48. McGivney, V. (1999). Informal Learning in the Community: A Trigger for Change and Development. Leicester, United Kingdom: National Institute for Adult Continuing Education.
49. Rholes, W.S. and Simpson, J.A. (eds.) (2006). Adult Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Implications, Vol. 1–1. New York: Guilford Press.
50. Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2017). Self‐Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. Guilford Publications.
51. Schugurensky, D. (2000). The forms of informal learning: towards a conceptualization of the field. Research Network on New Approaches to Lifelong Learning Working Paper 19: 8.
52. Sefton‐Green, J. (2004). Literature review in informal learning with technology outside school. https://telearn.archives‐ouvertes.fr/hal‐00190222.
53. Sockett, G. (2012). Le web social – La complexité au service de l'apprentissage informel de l'anglais. Alsic. Apprentissage des Langues et Systèmes d'Information et de Communication 15 (2) https://doi.org/10.4000/alsic.2505.
54. Sockett, G. (2013). Understanding the online informal learning of English as a complex dynamic system: an emic approach. ReCALL 25 (1): 48–62. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095834401200033X.
55. Sockett, G. (2014). The Online Informal Learning of English. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
56. Sockett, G. and Kusyk, M. (2013). L'apprentissage informel en ligne: nouvelle donne pour l'enseignement‐apprentissage de l'anglais [Informal online learning: A new dimension in the learning and teaching of English]. Recherche et pratiques pédagogiques en langues de spécialité 32 (1): 75–91. https://doi.org/10.4000/apliut.3578.
57. Sundqvist, P. and Sylvén, L.K. (2016). Extramural English in Teaching and Learning ‐ from Theory and Research to Practice. Palgrave Macmillan http://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9781137460479.
58. Toffoli, D. (2016). Attachment theory: insights into student postures in autonomous language learning. In: New Directions in Language Learning Psychology (eds. C. Gkonou, D. Tatzl and S. Mercer). Switzerland: Springer.
59. Toffoli, D. (2018). L'apprenant.e de langue 2020: profil, dynamiques, dispositifs. [The 2020 Language Learner: Profile, dynamics, educational systems]. HDR thesis. Université de Lille, Lille, France.
60. Toffoli, D. and Perrot, L. (2017). Autonomy, the online informal learning of English (OILE) and learning resource Centres (LRCs): relationships between learner autonomy, L2 proficiency, L2 autonomy and digital literacy. In: Learner Autonomy and Web 2.0 (eds. M. Cappellini, T. Lewis, A. Rivens Mompean and CALICO), 198–228. Sheffield: Equinox.
61. Toffoli, D. and Sockett, G. (2010). How non‐specialist students of English practice informal learning using web 2.0 tools. ASp. La Revue Du GERAS 58: 125–144. https://doi.org/10.4000/asp.1851.
62. Toffoli, D. and Sockett, G. (2013). University Teachers' perceptions of online informal learning of English (OILE). Computer Assisted Language Learning 28 (1): 7–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2013.776970.
63. Toffoli, D. and Sockett, G. (2015). L'apprentissage informel de l'anglais en ligne (AIAL), qu'est‐ce que ça change pour les centres de langues? [What does the Online Informal Learning of English (OILE)change for language centres?]. Recherche et Pratiques Pédagogiques En Langues de Spécialité XXXIV (1) https://apliut.revues.org/5055.
64. Vanderplank, R. (2016). ‘Effects of’ and ‘effects with’ captions: how exactly does watching a TV Programme with same‐language subtitles make a difference to language learners? Language Teaching 49 (2): 235–250. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444813000207.
65. Yibokou, K. S., Toffoli, D., and Vaxelaire, B. (2019). “Variabilité inter‐individuelle et intra‐individuelle dans la prononciation d'étudiants français qui pratiquent l'Apprentissage Informel de l'Anglais en Ligne. [Inter‐individual and intra‐individual variability in the pronunciation of French students who practice Online Informal Learning of English].” Lidil. Revue de Linguistique et de Didactique Des Langues 59.