PROMOTING LEARNER AUTONOMY THROUGH SCHOOLOGY M-LEARNING PLATFORM IN AN EAP CLASS AT AN INDONESIAN UNIVERSITY

• Authors: Priyatno Ardi
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The advent of mobile learning platforms and Web 2.0 technologies is believed to provide an autonomous learning space that minimizes the power structure between the teacher and students in Indonesian EFL classes, accommodating the students to display their capacity to navigate their own learning. Schoology m-learning platform, a social networking learning management system, is one of potential platforms facilitating the exercise of autonomy in English language learning. This paper aims to report how Schoology m-learning platform facilitated the exercise of learner autonomy in an EAP class at an Indonesian higher education. The qualitative case study involved twenty one-students enrolled in an EAP course that adopted a blended learning method. The findings suggested that Schoology m-learning platform helped the students to exercise autonomy in EAP learning. The students exercised their control over learning management, cognitive process, and selection of learning materials. The exercise of autonomy is due to the affordance of Schoology. First, Schoology’s social networking interface facilitated interaction and communication among the students. Second, its mobile application enabled the students to learn English at their pace, time, and place. Third, the media-rich materials encouraged the students to further explore other materials online.

Keywords

EN

autonomy in language learning; Schoology; mobile learning; EAP

• Publisher: IATEFL Poland Computer Special Interest Group & University of Nicosia
• Journal: Teaching English with Technology
• Year: 2017
• Volume: 17
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 55-76

Contributors

author

Priyatno Ardi

• Sanata Dharma University

References

• Abas, Z. W. (2015). Fostering learning in the 21st century through student engagement. International Journal for Educational Media and Technology, 9(1), 3-15.
• Benson, P. (2006). Autonomy in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 40, 21-40.
• Benson, P. (2007). Autonomy and its role in learning. In J. Cummins and C. Davison (eds.), International Handbook of English Language Teaching (pp. 733-745). New York: Springer.
• Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning (2nd ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education.
• Bhattacharya, A., & Chauhan, K. (2010). Augmenting learner autonomy through blogging. ELT Journal, 64(4), 376-384.
• Chia, C. (2007). Autonomy in Language Learning: The Use of IT and Internet Resources. Singapore: McGraw-Hill Education.
• Cooker, L. (2013). “When I got a person to communicate with, I got a purpose to learn”: Evidence for social “modes of autonomy”. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 36(1), 29-49.
• Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Dardjowidjojo, S. (2001). Cultural constraints in the implementation of learner autonomy: The case in Indonesia. Journal of Southeast Asian Education, 2(2), 309-322.
• Dardjowidjojo, S. (2006). The implementability of Western approaches in Eastern societies. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching, 2(1), 1-20.
• Dickinson, L. (1987). Self-instruction in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Duff, P. (2008). Case Study Research in Applied Linguistics. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum/Taylor & Francis.
• Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
• Hood, M. (2009). Case study. In J. Heigham, & R. A. Croker (eds.), Qualitative Research in Applied Linguistics: A Practical Introduction (pp. 66-90). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Huang, J. & Benson, P. (2013). Autonomy, agency and identity in foreign and second language education. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 36(1), 7-28.
• Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Shield, L. (2008). An overview of mobile assisted language learning: From content delivery to supported collaboration and interaction. ReCALL, 20(3), 271-289.
• Little, D. (1991). Learner Autonomy I: Definitions, Issues and Problems. Dublin: Authentik.
• Little, D. (2000). Learner autonomy and human interdependence: Some theoretical and practical consequences of a social interactive view of cognition, learning, and language. In B. Sinclair, I. McGrath, & T. Lamb (eds.), Learner Autonomy, Teacher Autonomy: Future Directions (pp. 15-23). Harlow: Pearson.
• Little, D. (2004). Learner autonomy, teacher autonomy and the European Language Portfolio. Usages del Nouvelles Technologies dans l’Enseignement des langues Etràngeres: L’Autonomie de l’Enseignant et de l’Apprenant face aux Technologies de l’Information et de la Communication, 17-20.
• Little, D. (2007). Language learner autonomy: Some fundamental considerations revisited. International Journal of Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 14-29.
• Little, D. (2009). Language learner autonomy and the European language portfolio: Two L2 English examples. Language Teaching, 42(2), 222-233.
• Littlewood, W. (1999). Defining and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts. Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 71-94.
• Murray, G. (2014). Exploring the social dimensions of autonomy in language learning. In G. Murray (ed.), Social Dimensions of Autonomy in Language Learning (pp. 3-11). Basingstoke: Palgrave.
• Nakata, Y. (2011). Teachers’ readiness for promoting learner autonomy: A study of Japanese EFL high schools teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 900-910.
• Raya, M. J. & Vieira, F. (2015). Enhancing Autonomy in Language Education: A Case-Based Approach to Teacher and Learner Development. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Reinders, H., & Balcikanli, C. (2011). Learning to foster autonomy: The role of teacher education materials. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 2(1), 15-25.
• Reychav, I., Dunaway, M., & Kobayashi, M. (2015). Understanding mobile technology-fit behaviors outside the classroom. Computers & Education, 87, 142-150.
• Sanprasert, N. (2010). The application of a course management system to enhance autonomy in learning English as a foreign language. System, 38, 109-123.
• Sarrab, M., Elbasir, M., & Alnaeli, S. (2016). Towards a quality model of technical aspects for mobile learning services: An empirical investigation. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 100-112.
• Schoology. (2015). Schoology named finalist in higher ed and K-12 education technology in CODiE awards [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.Schoology.com/news/codie-finalist-2015.
• Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2007). A Theory of learning for the mobile age. In R. Andrews and C. Haythornthwaite (eds.), The Sage Handbook of e-Learning Research (pp. 221-47). London: Sage Publications Inc.
• Snodin, N. S. (2013). The effect of blended learning with a CMS on the development of autonomous learning: A case study of different degrees of autonomy achieved by individual learners. Computer & Education, 61, 209-216.
• Sung, Y., Chang, K., & Yang, J. (2015). How effective are mobile devices for language learning? A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 16, 68-84.
• Trust, T., Krutka, D. G., & Carpenter, J. G. (2016). “Together we are better”: Professional learning networks for teachers. Computer & Education, 102, 15-32.
• Villanueva, M. L., Ruiz-Madrid, M. N., & Luzón, M. J. (2010). Learner autonomy in digital environments: Conceptual framework. In M. J. Luzón, M. N. Ruiz-Madrid, and M. L. Villanueva (eds.), Digital Genre, New Literacies and Autonomy in Language Learning (pp. 1-16). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
• Wang, S., & Heffernan, N. (2009). Mobile 2.0 and mobile language learning. In M. Thomas (ed.), Handbook of Research on Web 2.0 and Second Language Learning (pp. 472-490). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.