Advertisement

Fostering Learner Autonomy in Technology-Enhanced ESP Courses

  • Ana María Gimeno SanzEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Educational Linguistics book series (EDUL, volume 19)

Abstract

The fact that there are more online resources available targeting learners with a higher language proficiency may imply that learners with lower proficiency levels, such as beginners and elementary learners, prefer face-to-face tuition and classroom contact, whereas intermediate and advanced learners are more willing to explore autonomous learning scenarios; a fact that seems only natural considering that learners who have an intermediate or advanced level of proficiency can, to a larger extent, become independent learners due to an existing knowledge base and subsequent understanding of the target language, conferring more autonomy on them. This also suggests that the Internet is slowly becoming an integral part of our English language teaching practice – especially at levels targeting higher intermediate to advanced learners – that there is an audience for these courses and also that learners are increasingly in need of materials and learning scenarios outside the boundaries of more traditional teaching. Learner autonomy is undoubtedly one of the assets brought about with the integration of computer-assisted language learning into the language curriculum. Strictly speaking, efficient learner autonomy should imply that learners take greater control over their learning, although this does not necessarily mean that their autonomy should be stripped of instructional guidance. For autonomy to be efficient, on the one hand, learners have to develop the capacity to be independent learners and, on the other, the institutional context in which they are studying must provide the appropriate backing and support for this to occur. This paper will reflect on a number of ICT-related initiatives that have been implemented at the Universidad Politécnica de Valencia in order to foster learner autonomy in a technology-enhanced setting for learners of English for specific purpose. The author will refer to the pedagogical implications deriving from her experience in designing online language learning courseware and to different means of increasing learner autonomy.

Keywords

Language Learning Target Language Learn Management System Open Educational Resource Advanced Learner 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Blin, F. 2005. CALL and the development of learner autonomy – An activity theoretical study. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Institute of Educational Technology, The Open University. http://webpages.dcu.ie/~blinf/BlinThesis.pdf. Accessed 10 June 2007.
  2. Colpaert, J. 2004. Design of online interactive language courseware: Conceptualization, specification and prototyping. Antwerp: University of Antwerp.Google Scholar
  3. Davies, G., and F. Riley. 2009. Glossary of ICT terminology. In Information and Communications Technology for Language Teachers (ICT4LT), ed. G. Davies. Slough: Thames Valley University [Online]. http://www.ict4lt.org/en/en_glossary.htm. Accessed 17 Nov 2009.
  4. Gibbons, A.S., J. Nelson, and R. Richards. 2000. The nature and origin of instructional objects. In The instructional use of learning objects, ed. D.A. Wiley. http://reusability.org/read/chapters/gibbons.doc. Accessed 17 Nov 2009.
  5. Gimeno Sanz, A. 2009a. Online courseware design and delivery: The InGenio authoring system. In Teaching academic and professional English online, 83–105. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  6. Gimeno Sanz, A. 2009b. How can CLIL benefit from the integration of information and communications technologies? In Content and language integrated learning: Cultural diversity, 77–102. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  7. Gimeno Sanz, A. 2010. Intermediate online English: An attempt to increase learner autonomy. Teaching English with Technology – Developing Online Teaching Skills Special Issue 10(3): 31–44. http://www.tewtjournal.org/VOL%2010/ISSUE%202/volume_10_issue_02-05_article_3.pdf. Accessed 23 Oct 2011.
  8. Gimeno Sanz, A., A. Martínez Sáez, A. Sevilla Pavón, and J.M. de Siqueira Rocha. 2011. Fostering autonomy in a pedagogically sound e-learning environment for learners of English for specific purposes. In Multiple voices in academic and professional discourse: Current issues in a specialised language research, teaching and new technologies, 547–560. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  9. Hartman, H. 2002. Scaffolding & cooperative learning, in human learning and instruction, 23–69. New York: City College of City University of New York.Google Scholar
  10. Liber, O. 2005. Learning objects: Conditions for viability. Institute of Educational Cybernetics: Journal Articles. University of Bolton. http://digitalcommons.bolton.ac.uk/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=iec_journalsp. Accessed 10 Oct 2009.
  11. Littlewood, W. 1997. Self-access: Why do we want it and what can it do? In Autonomy and independence in language learning, 79–91. Essex: Longman – Applied Linguistic and Language Study.Google Scholar
  12. Longmire, W. 2000. A primer on learning objects. Learning circuits, American Society for Training and Development. http://www.astd.org/LC/2000/0300_longmire.htm. Accessed 23 Oct 2011.
  13. Negroponte, N. 1995. Being digital. London: Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar
  14. Polsani, P.R. 2003. Use and abuse of reusable learning objects. Journal of Digital Information 3/4. http://journals.tdl.org/jodi/article/view/89/88. Accessed 17 Nov 2009.
  15. Pujolà, J.T. 2001. Did CALL feedback feed back? ReCALL 13(1): 79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Race, P. 2005. Effective learning. In Deliberations. London: Metropolitan University. http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/deliberations/effective-learning/independent.cfm. Accessed 18 Sept 2010.
  17. Seiz Ortiz, R., A. Gimeno Sanz, and B. Serra Cámara. 2010. Applying learning objects metadata theory for pedagogical evaluation of web-based CALL. In New trends in CALL: Working together, 187–194. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  18. Trinder, R. 2006. Language learning with computers: The student’s perspective. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  19. Wiley, D.A. 2000a. Learning object design and sequencing theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University. http://www.opencontent.org/docs/dissertation.pdf. Accessed 23 Oct 2011.
  20. Wiley, D.A. 2000b. Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. In The instructional use of learning objects, ed. D.A. Wiley. http://reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc. Accessed 17 Nov 2009.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Lingüística AplicadaUniversidad Politécnica de ValenciaValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations