Volume 4, Issue 4 (12-2019)                   IJREE 2019, 4(4): 40-54 | Back to browse issues page


XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Hajimaghsoodi A, Saghaieh Bolghari M. From Collective Activity to Autonomous Learning: Fostering Learner Autonomy in Light of Activity Theory. IJREE. 2019; 4 (4)
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-254-en.html
Department of Foreign Languages, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract:   (611 Views)
Autonomous learning and social activity have excessively been the focus of interest in second language acquisition over the past decades. The present study aimed to explore how activity theory-as a branch of sociocultural theory focusing on social context-can promote Iranian EFL learners’ autonomy. To this end, fifty-six EFL students studying English translation at the Islamic Azad University, Tehran Central Branch, participated in the study. The participants were assigned to two groups, one experimental group and one control group. At the beginning of the semester, both groups took a language proficiency test to ensure their homogeneity. They also completed an autonomy questionnaire as the pre-test and post-test. The instruction in both groups was based on a five-step process of developing the academic writing skill, including prewriting, organizing, writing the first draft, revising and editing, and writing a new draft. However, only the experimental group received the instruction through an e-learning platform designed based on the six elements of activity theory-subjects, objects, mediating artifacts, rules, community, and division of labor-suitable for EFL writing classrooms. The results revealed that integrating activity theory to e-learning had a decisive role in enhancing the students’ learner autonomy. It is hoped that the findings raise both teachers and students’ awareness of implementing activity theory as a social learning framework to foster autonomous learning in EFL contexts.                                                                                                                                                                             
 
Full-Text [PDF 465 kb]   (55 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special

References
1. Arikan, A., & Bakla, A. (2011). Learner autonomy online: Stories from a blogging experience. In D. Gardner (Ed.), Fostering autonomy in language learning (pp. 240-251). Gaziantep: Zirve University. Retrieved from http://ilac2010.zirve.edu.tr
2. Barabadi, E., & Razmjoo, S. A. (2015). An activity theory analysis of ELT reform in Iranian public schools. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 127-166. doi:10.18869/acadpub.ijal.18.1.127 [DOI:10.18869/acadpub.ijal.18.1.127]
3. Benson, P. (2007). Autonomy and its role in learning. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 734-745). NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-46301-8_48 [DOI:10.1007/978-0-387-46301-8_48]
4. Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and researching autonomy. New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315833767 [DOI:10.4324/9781315833767]
5. Benson, P. (2011). What's new in autonomy? The Language Teacher, 35(4), 15-18. Retrieved from https://jalt-publications.org/files/pdf-article/plen3.pdf
6. Blin, F. (2004). CALL and the development of learner autonomy: Towards an activity-theoretical perspective. ReCALL, 16(2), 377-395. doi:10.1017/s0958344004000928 [DOI:10.1017/S0958344004000928]
7. Burston, J. (1996). CALL at the crossroads: Myths, realities, promises and challenges. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 19(2), 27-36. doi:10.1075/aral.19.2.02bur [DOI:10.1075/aral.19.2.02bur]
8. Cole, M., & Engeström, Y (1993). A cultural approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1-46). New York: CUP.
9. Collentine, K. (2011). Learner autonomy in a task-based 3D world and production. Language Learning & Technology, 15(3), 50-67. doi:10125/44262
10. Cotterall, S. (2000). Promoting learner autonomy through the curriculum: Principles for designing language courses. ELT Journal, 54(2), 109-117. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/31211652/ [DOI:10.1093/elt/54.2.109]
11. Dafei, D. (2007). An exploration of the relationship between learner autonomy and English proficiency. Asian EFL Journal, 24, 1-23. Retrieved from https://asian-efl-journal.com/pta_Nov_07_dd.pdf
12. Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26(3-4), 325-346. [DOI:10.1207/s15326985ep2603&4_6]
13. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep2603&4_6
14. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit. Retrieved from http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/Engestrom/Learning-by-Expanding.pdf
15. Engeström, Y. (1993). Developmental studies of work as a test bench of activity theory: The case of primary care medical practice. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 64-103). Cambridge: CUP. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511625510.004 [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511625510.004]
16. Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19-38). Cambridge: CUP. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511812774.003 [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511812774.003]
17. Farrell, T.S. C., & Jacobs, G. (2010). Essentials for successful English language teaching. London: Continuum.
18. Farivar, A., & Rahimi, A. (2015). The Impact of CALL on Iranian EFL Learners' Autonomy. Procedia-Social & Behavioral Sciences, 192, 644-649. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.112 [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.112]
19. Felix, U. (2005). E-learning pedagogy in the third millennium: The need for combining social and cognitive constructivist approaches. ReCALL, 17(1), 85-100. doi:10.1017/s0958344005000716 [DOI:10.1017/S0958344005000716]
20. Feryok, A. (2013). Teaching for learner autonomy: The teacher's role and sociocultural theory. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 7(3), 213-225. doi: 10.1080/17501229.2013.836203 [DOI:10.1080/17501229.2013.836203]
21. Figura, K., & Jarvis, H. (2007). Computer-based materials: a study of learner autonomy and strategies. System, 35(4), 448-468. doi:10.1016/j.system.2007.07.001 [DOI:10.1016/j.system.2007.07.001]
22. Hafner, C. A., & Miller, L. (2011). Fostering learner autonomy in English for science: A collaborative digital video project in a technological learning environment. Language Learning & Technology, 15(3), 68-86. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/52231/
23. Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
24. Hu, P., & Zhang, j. (2017). A pathway to learner autonomy: A self-determination theory perspective. Asia Pacific Educational Review, 18,147-157. doi:10.1007/s12564-016-9468-z [DOI:10.1007/s12564-016-9468-z]
25. Jarvis, H. (2012). Computers and learner autonomy: Trends and issues. London: British Council.
26. Kaptelinin, V., Nardi, B. A., & Macaulay, C. (1999). The activity checklist: A tool for representing the "space" of context. Interactions, 6(4), 27-39. doi:10.1145/306412.306431 [DOI:10.1145/306412.306431]
27. Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching, 33(2), 79-96. doi: 10.1017/S0261444800015329 [DOI:10.1017/S0261444800015329]
28. Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: OUP.
29. Lei, X. (2008). Exploring a sociocultural approach to writing strategy research: Mediated actions in writing activities. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 217-236. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2008.04.001 [DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2008.04.001]
30. Little, D. (2008). Knowledge about language and learner autonomy. In J. Cenoz & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd ed.) (pp. 247-258). NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3-153
31. Littlewood, W. (1996). Autonomy: An anatomy and a framework. System, 24(4), 427-435. doi:10.1016/s0346-251x(96)00039-5 [DOI:10.1016/S0346-251X(96)00039-5]
32. Meri, S. (2012). Autonomous computer-assisted language learning: Turkish primary school students' perceptions of Dyned software. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED595306.pdf
33. Milton, J. (1997). Providing computerized self-access opportunities for the development of writing skills. In P. Benson & P. Voller (Eds.), Autonomy and independence in language learning (pp. 237-263), London: Longman. doi:10.1017/s0272263198273062 [DOI:10.1017/S0272263198273062]
34. Mosvold, R., & Bjuland, R. (2011). An activity theory view on learning studies. International Journal of Early Childhood, 43(3), 261-275. doi:10.1007/s13158-011-0048-4 [DOI:10.1007/s13158-011-0048-4]
35. Nazari, M., Farnia, M., Ghonsooly, B., &, Jafarigohar, M. (2019). Contradictions in writing anxiety: A qualitative case study of expansive learning among Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Language and Translation, 9(1), 33-49. Retrieved from http://ttlt.azad.ac.ir/article_666059.html
36. Neumeier, P. (2005). A closer look at blended learning-Parameters for designing a blended learning environment for language teaching and learning. ReCALL, 17(2), 163-178. doi:10.1017/S0958344005000224 [DOI:10.1017/S0958344005000224]
37. Nunan, D. (2003). Nine steps to learner autonomy. Retrieved from www.su.se/polopoly_fs/1.84007.../menu/.../2003_11_Nunan_eng.pdf
38. Ohara, T. (2013, July). Conceptualization of learner autonomy: learner autonomy as the mediated capacity. Paper presented at the 18th Biennial Conference of the Japanese Studies Association of Australia, Australian National University, Australia.
39. Oshima, A., & Hogue, H. (2014). Longman Academic Writing Series 3: Paragraphs to Essays (4th Edition). Pearson Education ESL. https://www.amazon.com/Longman-Academic-Writing-Paragraphs-Essays/dp/0132915669
40. O'Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: CUP. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9781139524490]
41. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
42. Parks, S. (2000). Same task, different activities: Issues of investment identity, and use of strategy. TESL Canada Journal, 17(2), 21-28. doi:10.18806/tesl.v17i2.890 [DOI:10.18806/tesl.v17i2.890]
43. Rahman, M. M. (2013). CALL in promoting EFL learner autonomy at the tertiary level in Bangladesh. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11948/881
44. Rahimi, A., & Askari Bigdeli, R. (2013). ICT and EFL students' self-regulation mastery: Educational meat or poison? Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267272018_ICT_and_EFL_Students'_SelfRegulation_Mastery_Educational_Meat_or_Poison
45. Rahimi, A., Ebrahimi, N. A., & Eskandari, Z. (2013). The effects of using technology and the internet on some Iranian EFL students' perceptions of their communication classroom environment. Teaching English with Technology, 13(1), 3-19. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/54bf/39cdc4758383c66c47ebedc99dc2a95c924a.pdf
46. Schwienhorst, K. (2008). Learner autonomy and CALL environments. New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203012208 [DOI:10.4324/9780203012208]
47. Shetzer H., & Warschauer M. (2000). An electronic literacy approach to network based language learning. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network based Language Teaching: Concepts and Practice (pp. 171-185). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9781139524735.010 [DOI:10.1017/CBO9781139524735.010]
48. Stracke, E. (2007). A road to understanding: A qualitative study into why learners drop out of a blended language learning (BILL) environment. ReCALL, 19(1), 57-78. doi: 10.1017/S0958344007000511 [DOI:10.1017/S0958344007000511]
49. Thanasoulas, D. (2000). What is learner autonomy and how can it be fostered? The Internet TESL journal, 6(11). Retrieved from http://www.aitech.ac.jp/-iteslj/
50. Zhang, L. X., & Li, X. X. (2004). A comparative study on learner autonomy between Chinese students and west European students. Foreign Language World, 4, 15-23. Retrieved from http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-WYJY200404002.htm

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


© 2020 All Rights Reserved | International Journal of Research in English Education

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb