Publications-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 英語學習者於課堂外自主網衝之能動性: 學習者個人與他者之差異
EFL Learner Agency in Out-of-class Free Voluntary Surfing: Inter-and-intra Individual Variability作者 王費瑜
Wang, Fei-yu貢獻者 李思穎<br>尤雪瑛
Sy-ying Lee<br>Hsueh-ying Yu
王費瑜
Fei-yu Wang關鍵詞 課堂外線上學習
自主網衝
英語為外語的學習者之能動性
複雜動態系統理論架構
學習軌跡
Out-of-class Online Learning
Free Voluntary Surfing
EFL learner agency
Complex Dynamic Systems Theory
Trajectory日期 2020 上傳時間 2-Sep-2020 11:33:38 (UTC+8) 摘要 隨著現代科技日新月異，課堂外的網路學習儼然成為電腦輔助教學領域的重要流派。同時，學習者能動性的重要性近年已獲得第二語言習得研究者的關注，鑑於此兩新興學術範疇所存在的潛在關聯，這篇貫時性的質性研究旨在探究以英語為外語的學習者於課堂外自主網衝的能動性。此研究主要基於兩項前提：（一）語言學習者針對其學習目標為具有學習意圖、意志力和能力的施為者；（二）學習者之能動性並非靜態結果，而是該施為者與其環境互動的動態結果之呈現。此研究包含兩個目的：（一）深入探究個別學習者內部與外部影響其學習能動性的因素；（二）記載個別學習者進行課外自主網衝的學習軌跡，以檢視外語學習者個人與他者學習能動性之差異。有鑒於外語學習乃非線性之發展，本研究借用複雜動態系統理論架構來呈現課室外參與自主網衝的外語學習者之複雜樣貌。由於複雜動態系統理論架構著重於時間對語言學習所造成的重要影響，因此此質性研究亦關注學習者過往之學習經驗、當下的參與以及其努力參與課室外非正式之數位學習後所帶來的改變，以提供研究者對於其研究議題有更深入之理解。本研究運用情境分析作為分析工具，並採用多種資料來源以提高此質性研究之可信任度。分析結果所呈現的三個地圖源自於各式資料，包含問卷、半結構式訪談、臉書貼文和研究者的反思日誌。研究結果呈現外語學習者於課室外進行自主網衝時所遇到各層面的影響以及學習者能動性的學習軌跡。本研究顯示不同程度的外語學習者能動性源於個人之自我組織與和環境之共同適應之結果。此外，隨著兩位施為者於課室外的努力，個別學習軌跡呈現了兩位外語學習者（施為者）之初期學習狀況、參與和改變。本研究除了記載了個別外語學習者在其能動性中所展現的個體性與特殊性，個別學習軌亦突顯了包括動機中的興趣、後設認知中的省思、社群中能力較佳的學習者之支持、以及環境脈絡中如網路的支持等不同面向的賦能因素。除此之外，本研究發現學校功課和考試限縮了外語學習者於課室外進行自發性線上學習之能動性。此一發現可視為課堂內學習對於外語學習者於進行課室外自主線上學習之負面影響。透過複雜動態系統理論的濾鏡探討外語學習者於課室外的自主網衝之能動性，捕捉了課室外自主線上學習之複雜與多變。學習者之個別學習軌跡的呈現顯示課室外自主網衝能使英語學習更具意義、更具個別關聯、並且有更愉悅的學習經驗，尤其對於非英語系學生而言。
With the prevalence and convenience of modern technology, out-of-class online learning has become an important line of inquiry in the field of CALL. Also, the significance of learner agency has raised researchers` attention in the field of SLA. This longitudinal study was set to probe two EFL learners` learner agency in the practice of out-of-class Free Voluntary Surfing with the awareness of the potential link between the two burgeoning academic areas. The exploration of the overarching construct in the naturalistic learning outside the classroom is under the two premises. First of all, learners are agents who have intent, will, and capacity to achieve desired or intended learning goals. Second, learner agency is not a static construct but a dynamic interplay between the agent and the embedded context. Therefore, the purpose of this study is twofold: (a) it delves into the individual (i.e., internal) and contextual (i.e., external) factors impacting learner agency and (b) it documents the individual trajectory of out-of-class Free Voluntary Surfing to uncover their intra-and-inter variability in learner agency.Underpinning this qualitative inquiry by the non-linear thinking, the theoretical framework of Complexity Dynamic Systems Theory was borrowed to capture the complexity and dynamism behind the agentive learning behavior in out-of-class FVS. The holistic view deriving from the theoretical lens of Complex Dynamic Systems Theory has included the past-present-and-future perspective in this qualitative research. This historical-and-processual examination of EFL learner agency has taken the impact of the factor of time—the past learning experience, and present engagement, and changes after pouring the strenuous efforts in out-of-class informal digital learning—into consideration that provides the researcher a better understanding of the inquiry under examination.This study has adopted situational analysis for the exploration of research inquiries. Employing situational analysis as the analytical tool in this study, the three maps (relational map, social arenas map, and positional map) engendered from the multiple data sources, including questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, Facebook postings, and the researcher’s reflectional journals, uncover the influential factors and the trajectory of learner agency in the self-initiated and self-directed practice of out-of-class FVS.With the revelation of the two sub-systems of individual and contextual factors empowering or constraining the two participants’ agentive learning behaviors in out-of-class informal online learning, the findings showcase that the various levels of EFL learner agency have resulted from the individual learners’ self-organization of and co-adaptation to the emergent factors in the process. The emergence of the individual trajectories features the initial learning conditions, engagement, and changes along with the strenuous efforts the two agents pouring in the practice outside the language classroom.Further, while the study has documented the individuality and particularity of individual EFL learner agency, the qualitative inquiry has foregrounded the enablement of the different aspects—motivational, metacognitive, social, and contextual empowering language learners’ agentive behavior, including interest, reflection, the support from a more able member in the community, and the affordances of the Internet.On the other hand, with regard to the mutual influence of formal learning in out-of-class informal online learning, the study has captured the negative force of schoolwork and tests that constrain EFL learner agency in the self-initiated online learning outside the classroom. Situating EFL learner agency in out-of-class Free Voluntary Surfing in the theoretical lens of Complex Dynamic Systems Theory, the findings bring to fore the relational and emergent nature of the overarching construct in informal online learning outside the language classroom. The unveiling of the individual trajectory of learner agency further supports the potential of out-of-class Free Voluntary Surfing in making EFL learning more meaningful, relevant, and pleasant, particularly among non-English majors.參考文獻 Ahearn, L. M. (2001). Language and agency. Annual review of anthropology, 30(1), 109-137.Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2018). The L2 motivational self system: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8(4), 721-754.Antonie, A. (2015). Facebook for informal language learning: Perspectives from tertiary language students. The EuroCALL Review, 23, doi:10.4995/eurocall.2015.4665Alm, A. (2015). “Facebook for Informal Language Learning: Perspectives from Tertiary Language Students.” The EUROCALL Review, 23 (2): 3–18.Archer, M. (1988). Culture and Agency: The Place of Culture in Social Theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.Archer, M. (2000). Being Human: The Problem of Agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Archer, M. (2003). Structure, agency and the internal conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Archer, M. S., & Archer, M. S. (2000). Being human: The problem of agency:Cambridge University Press.Archer, M. S., & Archer, M. S. (2003). Structure, agency and the internal conversation: Cambridge University Press.Arnold, N. (2009). Online Extensive Reading for Advanced Foreign Language Learners: An Evaluation Study. Foreign Language Annals, 42(2), 340-366.Badri, M., Alnuaimi, A., Guang, Y., Al Rashedi, A., & Temsah, K. (2016). School children’s use of digital devices, social media and parental knowledge and involvement – the case of Abu Dhabi. Journal of Education Information Technology https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317642379_School_performance_social_networking_effects_and_learning_of_school_children_Evidence_of_reciprocal_relationships_in_Abu_DhabiBagga-Gupta, S. (2015). Performing and Accounting Language and Identity: Agency as actors-in-(inter)action-with-tools. In P. Deters, X. Gao, E. R. Miller, & G. Vitanova, (Eds.), Theorizing and analyzing agency in second language learning (pp. 17–36). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Bagga-Gupta, S. (2014). 7 Performing and Accounting Language and Identity: Agency as Actors-in-(inter)action-with-tools. In (pp. 113-132): Multilingual Matters.Bakewell, O. (2010). Some Reflections on Structure and Agency in MigrationTheory. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(10), 1689-1708.doi:10.1080/1369183x.2010.489382Bakewell, O. (2010). Some Reflections on Structure and Agency in MigrationTheory. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(10), 1689-1708.doi:10.1080/1369183x.2010.489382Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Ballance, O. J. (2012). Mobile language learning: more than just “the platform”.Language Learning & Technology, 16(3), 21-23.Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(2), 164–180. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00011.xBandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1–26.Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175–1184. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122Bandura, A., Freeman, W. H., & Lightsey, R. (1999). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise ofControl. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 13(2), 158-166. doi:10.1891/0889-8391.13.2.158Barnard, L., Lan, W. Y., To, Y. M., Paton, V. O., & Lai, S. L. (2009). Measuring self-regulation in online and blended learning environments. The internet and higher education, 12(1), 1-6.Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: A learning ecology perspective. Human Development, 49(4), 193-224.Beckman, K., Bennett, S., & Lockyer, L. (2014). Understanding students` use and value of technology for learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(3), 346-367.Benson, P. (2001). Autonomy in Language Learning. Harlow: Longman.Benson, P. (2011). “Language Learning and Teaching Beyond the Classroom: AnIntroduction to the Field.” In Beyond the Language Classroom (pp. 7–16),edited by P. Benson, and H. Reinders. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Benson, P (2011). Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning. Second edition. London: Longman.Benson, P., & Chik, A. (2010). New literacies and autonomy in foreign language learning. In M. J. Luzón, M. N. Ruiz-Madrid, & M. L. Villanueva, Digital genres, new literacies, and autonomy in language learning (pp. 63-80). Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Benson, P., & Reinders, H. (2011). Beyond the language classroom. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Benson, P., & Voller, P. (2014). Introduction: autonomy and independence in language learning. In Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning (pp. 1-12): Routledge.Bernacki, M. L., Aguilar, A. C., & Byrnes, J. P. (2011). Self-regulated learning and technology-enhanced learning environments: An opportunity-propensity analysis. In Fostering self-regulated learning through ICT (pp. 1-26). IGI Global.Biesta, G., & Tedder, M. (2007). Agency and learning in the lifecourse: Towards an ecological perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 39, 132–149.Blackwell, O. (2010). Some reflections on structure and agency in migration theory. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(10), 1689-1708.Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 120–136.Blaschke, L. M. (2012). Heutagogy and lifelong learning: A review of heutagogicalPractice and self-determined learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(1), 56-71.Blin, F., & Jalkanen, J. (2014). Designing for language learning: agency and languaging in hybrid environments. Apples-Journal of Applied Language Studies, 8(1), 147-170.Block, D. (2015). Structure, agency, individualization and the critical realist challenge. In P. Deters, X. Gao, E. R. Miller, & G. Vitanova, (Eds.), Theorizing and analyzing agency in second language learning (pp. 17–36). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Block, D. (2014). 2 Structure, Agency, Individualization and the Critical RealistChallenge. In Theorizing and Analyzing Agency in Second Language Learning (pp. 17-36): Multilingual Matters.Block, D. (2003). The Social Turn in Second Language Acquisition. GeorgetownUniversity Press, 3240 Prospect Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007.Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (2000). Self-regulation: An introductory overview. In Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 1-9). Academic Press.Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Bown, J. (2009). Self-regulatory strategies and agency in self-instructed language learning: A situated view. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 570–583. doi:10.1111/j.1540- 4781.2009.00965.xBrown, H., & Lee, H. (2015). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach tolanguage pedagogy (Fourth Edi). London: White Palms: Pearson EducationInc.Bryant, A. (2002). “Re-grounding Grounded Theory”, The Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 4(1), pp. 25-42.Bryant, Antony (2003). A Constructive/ist Response to Glaser [25 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 4(1), Art. 15, http://nbnresolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0301155.Burnard, P. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A practical guide throughqualitative analysis Kathy Charmaz Constructing Grounded Theory: Apractical guide through qualitative analysis. SageBurns, E. (2004). Julian Baggini, Philosophy: Key Themes, (Basingstoke: PalgraveMacmillan, 2002), and Philosophy: Key Texts, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002). Think, 2(6), 103-106. doi:10.1017/s1477175600002876Burris, B. (1980). Book Review: Outline of a Theory of Practice. InsurgentSociologist, 9(4), 89-91. doi:10.1177/089692058000900410Cameron, L. (2003). Metaphor in educational discourse. London: Continuum.Capra, F., & Luisi, P. L. (2014). The systems view of life. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.Carter, B., & New, C. (2005). Making realism work: Realist social theory and. empirical research. Routledge.Castellano, J., Mynard, J., & Rubesch, T. (2011). Student technology use in a self-access center. Language Learning & Technology, 15(3), 12-27.Celik, S., Arkın, E., & Sabriler, D. (2012). EFL learners’ use of ICT for self-regulated learning. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 8, 98–118.Chapelle, C. (2009). The relationship between second language acquisition theory andcomputer-assisted language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 741-753.Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide throughqualitative analysis. Sage.Cheney, A. W., & Terry, K. P. (2018). Immersive learning environments as complexdynamic systems. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in HigherEducation, 30(2), 277-289.Chie, M. (2018). Portraits of second language learners: An L2 learner agencyperspective. Multilingual Matters.Chik, A. (2017). Learner Autonomy and Digital Practices. In Autonomy in LanguageLearning and Teaching (pp. 73-92): Palgrave Macmillan UK.Chik, A. (2014). Digital gaming and language learning: Autonomy and community.Language Learning & Technology, 18(2), 85-100.Chik, A. (2013). Naturalistic CALL and digital gaming. TESOL quarterly, 47(4), 834-839.Cho, K.-S., Ahn, K.-O., & Krashen, S. (2005). The effects of narrow reading ofauthentic texts on interest and reading ability in English as a foreign language.Reading Improvement, 42(1), 58-65.Chun, D. M. (2016). The role of technology in SLA research. Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 98-115.Chun, D. M., Kern, R., & Smith, B. (2016). Technology in language use, language teaching, and language learning. Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 64–80.Clarke, A. E., Friese, C., & Washburn, R. S. (2018). Situational Analysis: GroundedTheory After the Interpretive Turn. Thousand Oaks, California : SAGE.Clarke, A. E., & C. Friese (2007). Grounded theorising using situational analysis. In A. Bryant and K. Charmaz.(eds), The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory, London: SAGE.Clarke, A. E. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Clarke, A. E. (2003). Situational analyses: Grounded theory mapping after thepostmodern turn. Symbolic interaction, 26(4), 553-576.Cole, J. (2015). “Foreign Language Learning in the Age of the Internet: A Comparison of Informal Acquirers and Traditional Classroom Learners in Central Brazil.” Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. University of Oxford.Cole, J., & Vanderplank, R. (2016). “Comparing Autonomous and Class-Based Learners in Brazil: Evidence for the Presentday Advantages of Informal, out-of-Class Learning.” System, 61, 31–42.Coxhead, Y. W. N. B. A., & Bytheway, J. (2015). Learning vocabulary using twomassive online resources: you will not blink. In Language learning beyond theclassroom (pp. 81-90). Routledge.Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2004). Supporting self-regulation in student-centered web-based learning environments. International Journal on E-Learning, 3(1), 40–47.Darvin, R., & Norton, B. (2016). Investment and language learning in the 21st century. Langage et société(3), 19-38.de Bot, K. (2015). Rates of change: Timescales in second language development. Motivational dynamics in language learning, 29-37.Demouy, V., A. Jones, Q. Kan, A. Kukulska-Hulme, & A. Eardley. (2016). “Why and How Do Distance Learners Use Mobile Devices for Language Learning?” The EuroCALL Review, 24 (1), 10–24.den Outer, B., Handley, K., & Price, M. (2013). Situational analysis and mapping for. use in education research: a reflexive methodology?. Studies in Higher Education, 38(10), 1504-1521.Derrida, J. (1978). Writing and differences. Alan Bass, translator. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Deters, P., Gao, X., Miller, E. R., & Vitanova, G. (Eds.). (2015). Theorizing and analyzing agency in second language learning: Interdisciplinary approaches (Vol. 84). Multilingual Matters.Dewaele, J. (2009) Individual differences in second language acquisition. In: Ritchie, W. C. and Bhatia, T. K. (eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (p.623-646). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.Dey, I. (2004). ‘Grounded theory’, in C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. Gubrium and D. Silverman (eds.), Qualitative research practice. London: Sage, pp. 80-93.Dornyei, Z. (2019). Towards a better understanding of the L2 Learning Experience,the Cinderella of the L2 Motivational Self System. Studies in SecondLanguage Learning and Teaching, 9(1), 19-30.Dornyei, Z. (2014). Researching complex dynamic systems: ‘Retrodictive qualitative modelling’ in the language classroom. Language Teaching, 47(1), 80-91.Dörnyei, Z. (2009a). The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 9–42.Dornyei, Z. (2009b). Individual differences: Interplay of learner characteristics and learning environment. In N. C. Ellis & D. Larsen-Freeman (Eds.), Language as a complex adaptive system (pp. 230-248). Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (Eds.). (2009). Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (Vol. 36). Multilingual Matters.Ducate, L. C. & Lomicka, L. L. (2008). Adventures in the blogosphere: from blog readers to blog writers. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(1), 9-28.Duff, P. (2012a). “Identity, Agency and SLA.” In Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, edited by A. Mackey, and S. Gass, 410–426. London: Routledge.Duff, P. (2012b). Triangulation in qualitative second language research.Plenary talk presented at the Second Language Research Forum, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.Duff, P., & Doherty, L. (2015). Examining agency in (second) language socialization research. In P. Deters, X. Gao, E. R. Miller, & G. Vitanova, (Eds.), Theorizing and analyzing agency in second language learning (pp. 54–72). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Dufva, P., & Aro, M. (2015). Dialogical view on language learners’ agency: Connecting intrapersonal with interpersonal. In P. Deters, X. Gao, E. R. Miller, & G. Vitanova, (Eds.), Theorizing and analyzing agency in second language learning (pp. 37–53). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Dufva, H. (2011). Language learners as socio-cognitive and embodied agent: Dialogical considerations. Language. Communication and Social Environment, 9, 6-24.Dupuy, B. C. (1999). Narrow listening: An alternative way to develop and enhancelistening comprehension in students of French as a foreign language. System, 27(3), 351-361.Duran, C. S. (2015). Theorizing young language learner agency through the lens of multilingual repertoires: A sociocultural perspective. Theorizing and analyzing agency in second language learning: Interdisciplinary approaches, 73-90.Duranti, A. (2004). Agency in language. In. A. Duranti (ed.) A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, pp. 451-473. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Duranti, A. & Goodwin, C. (eds). (1992). Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. PressDweck, C. S. 1999. Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Hove: Psychology Press.Egbert, J. (2004). A study of flow theory in the foreign language classroom. CanadianModern Language Review, 60(5), 549-586.Elman, J. (2003). Development: It`s about time. Developmental Science, 6(4), 430-433.Ely, R., Ainley, M., & Pearce, J. (2013). MORE THAN ENJOYMENT: Identifying. the Positive Affect Component of Interest That Supports Student Engagement and Achievement. Middle Grades Research Journal, 8(1).English, M. C., & Kitsantas, A. (2013). Supporting Student Self-Regulated Learningin Problem- and Project-Based Learning. Interdisciplinary Journal ofProblem-Based Learning, 7(2). doi:10.7771/1541-5015.1339Finch, A. (2010). Critical incidents and language learning: Sensitivity to initialconditions. System, 38(3), 422-431.Fosket, J. R. (2015). Situating knowledge. Situational analysis in practice. Mapping research with grounded theory, 195-215.Fukuda, A. (2017). The Japanese EFL Learners’ self-regulated language learning and proficiency. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 65-87.Funder, D. C. (2001). The really, really fundamental attribution error. Psychological Inquiry, 12 (1), 21–23.Gao, X. (2013). Reflexive and reflective thinking: a crucial link between agency and autonomy. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 7(3), 226-237.Gao, X. (2010). Strategic language learning: The roles of agency and context. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Gao, X. (2007). A tale of Blue Rain Café: A study on the online narrative constructionabout a community of English learners on the Chinese mainland. System, 35(2), 259-270.Gao, X., & Zhang, L. J. (2011). Joining forces for synergy: Agency and metacognition as interrelated theoretical perspectives on learner autonomy. Identity, motivation and autonomy in language learning, 25-41.Gehlbach, H., Brown, S. W., Ioannou, A., Boyer, M. A., Hudson, N., Niv-Solomon,A., & Janik, L. (2008). Increasing interest in social studies: Social perspective taking and self-efficacy in stimulating simulations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 894-914.Giddens A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. PressGilmore, A. (2016). Language learning in context: Complex dynamic systems and therole of mixed methods research. In The dynamic interplay between context andthe language learner(pp. 194-224). Palgrave Macmillan, London.Gkonou, P. (2015). Agency, anxiety and activity: Understanding the classroom behaviour of EFL learners. Theorizing and analyzing agency in second language learning: Interdisciplinary approaches, 195-213.Glas, K. (2016). Opening up ‘spaces for manoeuvre’: English teacher perspectives onlearner motivation. Research Papers in Education, 31(4), 442-461.Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.Godwin-Jones, R. (2017). Smartphones and language learning. Language Learning &Technology, 21(2), 3-17.Godwin-Jones, R. (1999). Web course design and creation for language learning. CALICO Journal, 17 (1), 43-58.Goller, M. (2017). Human agency at work: An active approach towards expertisedevelopment: Springer.Golovatch, Y., & Vanderplank, R. (2007). Unwitting agents: the role of adult learners`attributions of success in shaping language-learning behaviour. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, 13(2), 127-155.Gong, M., Xu, Y., & Yu, Y. (2004). An enhanced Technology Acceptance Model forweb-based learning. Journal of Information Systems Education, 15(4), 365–374.Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated humaninteraction. Journal of pragmatics, 32(10), 1489-1522.Gradman, H. L., & Hanania, E. (1991). Language learning background factors and ESL proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 75(1), 39-51.Groot, P. J. M. (2000). Computer-assisted second language vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 56-76.Guo, Z., Xiao, L., Van Toorn, C., Lai, Y., & Seo, C. (2016). Promoting online learners’continuance intention: An integrated flow framework. Information &Management, 53, 279-295.Guz, E., & Tetiurka, M. (2016). Positive emotions and learner engagement: insights. from an early FL classroom. In Positive psychology perspectives on foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 133-153): Springer.Hamilton, M. (2013). Autonomy and foreign language learning in a virtual learning environment. London: Bloomsbury Academic Publishing.Handford, M. (2016). The dynamic interplay between language and social context inthe language classroom: Interpersonal turn taking for ELF learners. In TheDynamic Interplay between Context and the Language Learner (pp. 151-171).Palgrave Macmillan, London.Heggart, K. R., & Yoo, J. (2018). Getting the Most from Google classroom: A pedagogical framework for tertiary educators. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 140-153.Heo, G. M., & Lee, R. (2013). Blogs and social network sites as activity systems: Exploring adult informal learning process through activity theory framework. Educational Technology & Society, 16(4), 133–145.Hew, K. F. (2015). Towards a model of engaging online students: Lessons from MOOCs and four policy documents. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 5(6), 425-431.Hill, J. H., & Irvine, J. T. (Eds.). (1993). Responsibility and evidence in oral discourse (No. 15). Cambridge University Press.Hiver, P., & Al‐Hoorie, A. H. (2020). Reexamining the role of vision in secondLanguage motivation: A preregistered conceptual replication of You, Dörnyei,and Csizér (2016). Language Learning, 70(1), 48-102.Hiver, P., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2020). Motivation: It is a relational system (H. A.-H. a. P. Ali, D. MacIntyre Ed.). Blue Ridges Summit, PA, USA: Multilingual. Matters.Hiver, P., & Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2016). A dynamic ensemble for second language research: Putting complexity theory into practice. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 741-756.Hiver, P., & Whitehead, G. E. (2018). Sites of struggle: Classroom practice and the complex dynamic entanglement of language teacher agency and identity. System, 30, 1-11.Hiver, P., & Whitehead, G. E. (2018). Sites of struggle: Classroom practice and thecomplex dynamic entanglement of language teacher agency and identity. System, 79(1), 70-80.Hiver, P., Zhou, A., Tahmouresi, S., Sang, Y., & Papi, M. (2020). Why stories matter:Exploring learner engagement and metacognition through narratives of the L2 learning experience. System, 102260.Hiver, P. (2015). Attractor states: Multilingual MattersHolec, H. (1981). 1981: Autonomy in foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.Holland, A. A. (2019). Effective principles of informal online learning design: A theory-building metasynthesis of qualitative research. Computers & Education, 128, 214-226.Hsu, C. Y., Tsai, M. J., Hou, H. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2014). Epistemic beliefs, online search strategies, and behavioral patterns while exploring socioscientific issues. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23 (3), 471-480.Huang, J. (2011). ‘‘A Dynamic Account of Autonomy, Agency and Identity in (T) EFL Learning.’’ In Identity, Motivation and Autonomy in Language Learning (p.229-246), edited by G. Murray, X. Gao, and T. Lamb. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Huang, J. P., & Benson, P. (2013). Autonomy, agency and identity in foreign and second language education. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 36(1), 7-28.Hung, H. T. (2015). Flipping the classroom for English language learners to foster active learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(1), 81-96.Hyland, F. (2004). Learning autonomously: contextualizing out-of-class English language learning. Language Awareness, 13(3), 180-202.Indah, R. N. (2017). Critical thinking, writing performance and topic familiarity ofIndonesian EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8(2), 229-236.Irwin, C. G., Ball, L., Desbrow, B., & Leveritt, M. (2012). Students’ perceptions of using Facebook as an interactive learning resource at university. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 19, 69-83.Isbell, D. R. (2018). Online informal language learning: Insights from a Korean learning community. Language Learning & Technology, 22(3), 82-102.Jalkanen, J.,& Vaarala, H. (2013). Digital texts for learning Finnish: Shared resources and emerging practices. Language Learning & Technology, 17(1), 107-124.Järvelä, S., & Renninger, K. (2014). Designing for learning: Interest, motivation, andengagement. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Jarvis, H., & Achilleos, M. (2013). From Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) to Mobile Assisted Language use. TESL-EJ, 16 (4), 1–18.Jarvis, H., & Krashen, S.D. (2014). Is CALL Obsolete? Language Acquisition and Language Learning Revisited in a Digital age. TESL-EJ, 17 (4), 1–6.Järvenoja, H., Järvelä, S., Törmänen, T., Näykki, P., Malmberg, J., Kurki, K., Mykkanen, A. & Isohätälä, J. (2018). Capturing Motivation and Emotion Regulation during a Learning Process. Frontline Learning Research, 6(3), 85-104.Jensen, S. H. (2017). Gaming as an English language learning resource among youngchildren in Denmark. Calico Journal, 34(1), 1-19.Huang, J. P., & Benson, P. (2013). Autonomy agency and identity in foreign andsecond language education. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 36(1), 7.Jones, A. (2015). “Social Media for Informal Minority Language Learning: Exploring Welsh Learners’ Practices.” Journal of Interactive Media in Education 7: 1–9.Jones, A. (2015). Mobile informal language learning: Exploring Welsh Learners’ practices. eLearning Papers, 45, 4–14.Joseph, J. E. (2006). Applied linguistics and the choices people make (or do they?). International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 237-241.Kahn, P., Everington, L., Kelm, K., Reid, I., & Watkins, F. (2017). Understandingstudent engagement in online learning environments: The role of. reflexivity. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(1), 203-218.Kahn, P. E. (2014). Theorising student engagement in higher education. British Educational Research Journal, 40(6), 1005–1018.Kalaja, P., Alanen, R., Palviainen, Å., & Dufva, H. (2011). From milk cartons to. English roommates: Context and agency in L2 learning beyond the classroom. In Beyond the language classroom (pp. 47-58). Palgrave Macmillan, London.Karp I. (1986). Agency and social theory: a review of Anthony Giddens. Am. Ethnol. 13(1), 131–37.Katyal, K. R., & Evers, C. W. (2004). Teacher leadership and autonomous studentlearning: Adjusting to the new realities. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(4-5), 367-382.Kim, S. (2014). “Developing Autonomous Learning for Oral Proficiency Using Digital Storytelling.” Language Learning and Technology, 18 (2): 20–35.Kim, Y., Sohn, D. and Choi, S. M. (2011) Cultural difference in motivations for using social network sites: A comparative study of American and Korean college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1): 365–372.Kizilcec, R. F., Perez-Sanagustín, M., & Maldonado, J. J. (2017). Self-regulated learning strategies predict learner behavior and goal attainment in Massive Open Online Courses. Computers & Education, 104, 18-33.Knight, J., Barbera, E., & Appel, C. (2017). A framework for learner agency in online spoken interaction tasks. ReCALL, 29(3), 276-293.Knight, J., & Barbera, E. (2018). Navigational acts and discourse: Fostering learner agency in computer-assisted language learning. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 16(1), 67-76, available online at www.ejel.orgKogler, H. H. (2012). Agency and the other: On the intersubjective roots ofself-identity. New Ideas in Psychology, 30, 47–64.Kop, R. (2011). The challenges to connectivist learning on open online networks: Learning experiences during a massive open online course. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v12i3.882Kormos, J., & Csizér, K. (2014). The interaction of motivation, self-regulatory strategies, and autonomous learning behavior in different learner groups. TESOL Quarterly, 48(2), 275-299.Kozar, O., & Sweller, N. (2014). An exploratory study of demographics, goals and. expectations of private online language learners in Russia. System, 45, 3951. doi:10.1016/j.system.2014.04.005Krapp, A., Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. (1992). Interest, Learning and Development.The role of interest in learning and development (K. Renninger, Hidi, S., & Krapp, A. Ed.): Hillsdale: NJ: Erlbaum.Krashen, S. D. (2014). The composing process. Research Journal: Ecolint Institute ofTeaching and Learning. International School of Geneva, 2, 20-30.Krashen, S. D. (2011). Free voluntary reading. ABC-CLIO.Krashen, S. (2005). The composing process and the academic composing process. IJFLT, 7.Krashen, S. D. (2004). The power of reading: Insights from the research: Insightsfrom the research: ABC-CLIO.Krashen, S. D. (2001). Incubation: A neglected aspect of the composing process. ESLJournal, 4(2), 10-11.Krashen, S. D. (1996). The case for narrow listening. System, 24(1), 97-100.Krashen, S. D. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additionalevidence for the input hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal, 73(4), 440464.Krashen, S. D. (1988). Do we learn to read by reading? The relationship between freereading and reading ability. Linguistics in context: Connecting observation and understanding, 29, 269-298.Krashen, S. D. (1984). Writing, research, theory, and applications: Pergamon.Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford University Press.Krashen, S. D., & Lee, S.-y. (2004). Competence in foreign language writing:Progress and lacunae. Literacy Across Cultures, 12(2), 10-14.Kuczynski, L., & Parkin, C. M. (2007). Agency and bidirectionality in socialization: Interactions, transactions, and relational dialectics. Handbook of socialization: Theory and research, 259-283.Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2009). Will Mobile Learning Change Language Learning?. ReCALL, 21(2), 157–165.Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2012). Smart Devices or People? A Mobile Learning Quandary. International Journal of Learning and Media, 4 (3-4), 73–77.Kumpulainen, K., & Sefton-Green, J. (2014). What is connected learning and how toresearch it? International Journal of Learning and Media, 4(2), 7-18.Kuppens, A.H. (2010). Incidental foreign language acquisition from media exposure. Learning, Media and Technology, 35, 65–85.Kusyk, M., & Sockett, G. (2012). “From Informal Resource Usage to Incidental Language Acquisition: Language Uptake from Online Television Viewing in English.” ASp. la Revue du GERAS, 62, 45–65.Kusyk, M. (2017). The development of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in L2 written production through informal participation in online activities. CALICO Journal, 34(1), 75–96.Kuure, L. (2011). Places for learning: Technology mediated language learning practices beyond the classroom. In P. Benson, & H. Reinders (Eds.), Beyond the language classroom (pp. 35-46). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Lafford, B. A. (2009). Toward an ecological CALL: Update to Garrett (1991). Themodern language journal, 93, 673-696.Lafford, P. T., & Lafford, B. A. (1997). Learning language and culture with Internet technologies. In M. D. Bush & R. M. Terry (Eds.), Technology-enhanced language learning (pp. 215-262). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.Lai, C. (2017). Autonomous language learning with technology: Beyond the classroom: Bloomsbury Publishing.Lai, C. (2013). A framework of developing self-directed technology use for language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 17(2), 100–122.Lai, C. (2015). Modeling teachers’ influence on learners’ self-directed use of technology for language learning outside the classroom. Computers & Education, 82: 74–83.Lai, C. (2015). Perceiving and Traversing In-class and Out-of-class Learning: Accounts from Foreign Language Learners in Hong Kong. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 9 (3), 265–284.Lai, C., & Gu, M. (2011). “Self-regulated Out-of-class Language Learning with Technology.” Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24 (4): 317–335.Lai, C., Hu, X., & Lyu, B. (2018). Understanding the nature of learners’ out-of-classlanguage learning experience with technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(1-2), 114-143.Lai, C., Shum, M., & Tian, Y. (2016). Enhancing learners’ self-directed use of technology for language learning: the effectiveness of an online training platform. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(1), 40-60.Lai, C., & Zheng, D. (2018). Self-directed use of mobile devices for languageLearning beyond the classroom. ReCALL, 30(3), 299-318.Lai, C., Zhu, W., & Gong, G. (2015). Understanding the quality of out‐of‐class English learning. TESOL Quarterly, 49(2), 278-308.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.Lantolf, J. P., & Pavlenko, A. (2001). (S)econd (L) anguage (A) ctivity theory: Understanding second language learners as people. Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research, 141-158.Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Larsen-Freeman, D. (2019). On language learner agency: A complex dynamic systems theory perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 103, 61-79.Larsen-Freeman, D. (2018). Looking ahead: Future directions in, and future research into, second language acquisition. Foreign Language Annals, 51, 55– 72.Larsen–Freeman, D. (2012). Complex, dynamic systems: A new transdisciplinary theme for applied linguistics? Language Teaching, 45, 202–214.Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 26, 141–165.Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex Systems and Applied Linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Oxford University Press.Laura M., A. (2001). Language and Agency. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30, 109-137. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.30.1.109Lawson, M. A., & Masyn, K. E. (2015). Analyzing profiles, predictors, and consequences of student engagement dispositions. Journal of School Psychology, 53(1), 63-86.Layder, D. (1998). Sociological practice: Linking theory and social research. Sage.Lee, L. (2016). Autonomous learning through task-based instruction in fully online language courses. Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 81-97.Leander, K. M., Phillips, N. C., & Taylor, K. H. (2010). The changing social spacesof learning: Mapping new mobilities. Review of Research in Education, 34(1),329-394.Lee, C., Yeung, A. S., & Cheung, K. W. (2019). Learner perceptions versus. Technology usage: A study of adolescent English learners in Hong Kong secondary schools. Computers & Education, 133, 13-26.Lee, J. S. (2019). Quantity and diversity of informal digital learning of English. Language Learning & Technology, 23 (1), 114-126.Lee, J. S. (2019). Informal digital learning of English and second language vocabularyoutcomes: Can quantity conquer quality? British journal of educational technology, 50(2), 767-778.Lee, J. S. (2017). Informal digital learning of English and second language vocabulary. outcomes: Can quantity conquer quality? British Journal of Educational Technology, doi:10.1111/bjet.12599.Lee, J. S., & Dressman, M. (2018). When IDLE hands make an English workshop: Informal digital learning of English and language proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 52(2), 435–445.Lee, L., & Markey, A. (2014). A study of learners’ perceptions of online interculturalexchange through Web 2.0 technologies. ReCALL, 26(3), 281-297.Lee, S. W. Y., & Tsai, C. C. (2011). Students` perceptions of collaboration, self-regulated learning, and information seeking in the context of Internet-based learning and traditional learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 905-914.Lee, S.-Y. (2015). Joining the ‘literacy club’: When reading meets blogging. ELTJournal, 69(4), 373-382.Lee, S.-Y. (2001). What makes it difficult to write: Theory, research, andimplications:Crane Publishing Company.Leppanen, S., Pitkanen-Huhta, A., Piirainen-Marsh, A., Nikula, T., & Peuronen, S.(2009). Young people`s translocal new media uses: A multiperspective analysis of language choice and heteroglossia. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(4), 1080-1107.Levak, N., & Son, J-B. (2017). Facilitating second language learners’ listening comprehension with Second Life and Skype. ReCALL, 29(2), 200-218.Levy, M., & Steel, C. (2015). Language learner perspectives on the functionality and use of electronic language dictionaries. ReCALL, 27(2), 177-196.Liao, C. C., Chang, W. C., & Chan, T. W. (2018). The effects of participation,performance, and interest in a game‐based writing environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(3), 211-222.Lin, C.H., Warschauer, M., & Blake, R. (2016). Language learning through social networks: Perceptions and reality. Language Learning & Technology, 20, 124–147.Lincoln Y, Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic Enquiry. London, Sage.Lindgren, R., & McDaniel, R. (2012). Transforming online learning through narrativeand student agency. Educational Technology & Society, 15(4), 344.Little, D. (2004). Constructing a theory of learner autonomy: some steps along the way. Future perspectives in foreign language education, 15-25.Little, D., & Dam, L. (1998). Learner autonomy: What and why? LANGUAGETEACHER-KYOTO-JALT, 22, 7-8.Little, D., & Erickson, G. (2015). Learner identity, learner agency, and the assessment of language proficiency: Some reflections prompted by the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 120-139.Liu, C. C., Chen, W. C., Lin, H. M., & Huang, Y.Y. (2017). A remix-oriented approach to promoting student engagement in a long-term participatory learning program. Computers & Education, 110, 1-15.Liu, M., McKelroy, E., Kang, J., Harron, J., & Liu, S. (2016). Examining the use of Facebook and Twitter as an additional social space in a MOOC. American Journal of Distance Education, 30(1), 14–26.Liu, Q., & Chao, C. C. (2018). CALL from an ecological perspective: How a teacherperceives affordance and fosters learner agency in a technology-mediatedlanguage classroom. ReCALL, 30(1), 68-87.Liu, S. H. J., Lan, Y. J., & Ho, C. Y. Y. (2014). Exploring the relationship between self-regulated vocabulary learning and web-based collaboration. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 404-419.Luo, H., Yang, T-T., Xue, J., & Zuo, M. (2019). Impact of student agency on learning performance and learning experience in a flipped classroom. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(2), 819-831.Lyrigkou, C. (2018). Not to be overlooked: agency in informal language contact. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1-16.Malcolm, J., Hodkinson, P., & Colley, H. (2003). Informality and formality inlearning: a report for the Learning and Skills Research Centre: Learning andSkills Research Centre.Marc Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon,9(5), 1-6.Marefat, F., & Barbari, F. (2009). The relationship between out-of-class language learning strategy use and reading comprehension ability. Porta Linguarum, 12, 91–106.Margaret S., A. (2002). Meta-reflexives. In (pp. 255-297): Cambridge UniversityPress.Mason, B. (2004). Improving TOEFL Scores from Reading Alone. InternationalJournal of Foreign Language Teaching, 2(1), 2-5.Masood, B., Ali, A., Asma, A. R., Guang, Y., & Khaled, T. (2016). School children’suse of digital devices, social media and parental knowledge and involvement –the case of Abu Dhabi. Education and Information Technologies, 22, 2645-2664. doi:10.1007/s10639-016-9557-yMcCarthey, S. J., López-Velásquez, A. M., García, G. E., Lin, S., & Guo, Y.-H.(2004). Understanding writing contexts for English language learners.Research in the Teaching of English, 351-394.McCombs, B. L. (1994). Strategies for assessing and enhancing motivation: Keys topromoting self-regulated learning and performance. In H. F. O’Neil, Jr., & M.Drillings (Eds.). Motivation, Theory and Research (pp. 49-70). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Eribaum Associates.McKinney, P., & Sen, B. (2016). The use of technology in group-work: A situational. analysis of students` reflective writing. Education for Information, 32(4), 375-396.McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. (2010). Personalised and self regulated learning in the Web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1).Mercer, S. (2018). Psychology for language learning: Spare a thought for the teacher.Language Teaching, 51(4), 504-525.Mercer, S. (2012). The complexity of learner agency. Apples-Journal of Applied Language Studies.Mercer, S. (2011). Language learner self-concept: Complexity, continuity and change. System, 39 (3), 335–346.Mercer, S. (2011). Understanding learner agency as a complex dynamic system. System, 39 (4), 427–436.Mercer, S. & Ryan, S. (2010). A mindset for EFL: Learners’ beliefs about the role of natural talent. ELT Journal, 64 (4), 436–444.Mick, C. (2015). Sociological approaches to second language learning and agency. InP. Deters, X. Gao, E. R. Miller, & G. Vitanova, (Eds.), Theorizing and. analyzing agency in second language learning (pp. 91–112). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Min, H. T. (2008). EFL vocabulary acquisition and retention: Reading plus vocabulary enhancement activities and narrow reading. Language Learning, 58(1), 73-115.Miller, E. R. (2014). The language of adult immigrants: Agency in the making. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Miller, E. R. (2016). The ideology of learner agency and the neoliberal self. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 26, 348–365.Moghari, M. H., & Marandi, S. S. (2017). Triumph through texting: Restoring learners’ interest in grammar. ReCall, 29(3), 357-372.Moje, E. B., & Luke, A. (2009). Literacy and identity: Examining the metaphors in history and contemporary research. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(4), 415-437.Mompean, J. A., & Fouz -González, J. (2016). Twitter -based EFL Pronunciation Instruction. Language Learning & Technology, 20(1), 166-190.Mruck, K. (2007). Das Beispiel der Open-Access-Zeitschrift Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research (FQS). Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie, 55(6), 251-257. doi:10.3196/18642950085445190Muñoz, C. (2012). The significance of intensive exposure as a turning point inlearners’ histories. Intensive exposure experiences in second languagelearning, 141-160.Nelson, T. O., A. W. Kruglanski, and J. T. Jost. 1998. ‘‘Knowing Thyself and Others: Progress in Metacognitive Social Psychology.’’ In Metacognition: Cognitive and Social Dimensions, edited by V. Y. Yzerbyt, G. Lories, and B. Darnne, 69-79. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Newmann, F. M. (1986). Priorities for the future: Toward a common agenda. SocialEducation, 50(4), 240-250.Nike, A. (2009). Online Extensive Reading for Advanced Foreign LanguageLearners: An Evaluation Study. Foreign Language Annals, 42, 340-366.Nitta, R., & Baba, K. (2015). Self-regulation in the evolution of the ideal L2 self: Acomplex dynamic systems approach to the L2 motivational selfsystem. Motivational dynamics in language learning, 367-396.Norris, C. (1984). Margins of Philosophy. By Jacques Derrida (Trans. Alan Bass).The University of Chicago Press. 1982. 330 pp. Romance Studies, 3(1), 43-54. doi:10.1179/026399085786621828Norton, B. (2017). Learner investment and language teacher identity. Reflections onLanguage teacher identity research, 80-86. In Barkhuizen, G. (Ed.). Reflections on language teacher identity research. Taylor & Francis.Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation: Multilingual Matters.Norton, B. & Toohey, K. (2001). ‘Changing perspectives on good language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 35: 307–22.Nowak, A., Vallacher, R. and Zochowski, M. (2005) The emergence of personality: Dynamic foundations of individual variation. Developmental Review, 25, 351–385.Nunan, D., & David, N. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge University Press.Oradini, F. & Saunders, G. (2008). The use of social networking by students and staff in higher education. Paper presented at the iLearning Forum, Paris. http://www.eifel. org/publications/proceedings/ilf08/contributions/improving-quality-of-learning withtechnologies/ Oradini_Saunders.pdfOrhan, Y. (2018). An Investigation of Out-of-Class Language Activities of Tertiary-Level EFL Learners. Education Reform Journal, 3(1), 1-14.Overton, W. F. (2007). A Coherent Metatheory for Dynamic Systems. Humandevelopment, 50(2/3), 154-159.Paiva, V. L. M. O. (2011). Identity, motivation and autonomy in second language acquisition from the perspective of complex adaptive systems. In G. Murray, X. S. Gao & T. Lamb (Eds.), Identity, motivation and autonomy in language learning (pp. 57-72). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Palfreyman, D. M. (2011). Family, friends, and learning beyond the classroom: Socialnetworks and social capital in language learning. In Beyond the language classroom (pp. 17-34): Springer.Palfreyman, D. M. (2011). Family, friends, and learning beyond the classroom: Socialnetworks and social capital in language learning. In Beyond the languageclassroom (pp. 17-34). Palgrave Macmillan, London.Palfreyman, D. & Smith, R.C., eds. (2003). Learner autonomy across cultures: Language Education Perspectives. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacmillanPanigrahi, R. (2018). Online learning: Adoption, continuance, and learning outcome—A review of literature. International Journal of Information Management, 43, 1-14.Panigrahi, R., Srivastava, P. R., & Sharma, D. (2018). Online learning: Adoption,continuance, and learning outcome—A review of literature. International Journal of Information Management, 43, 1-14.Park, J., Yang, J-S., & Hsieh, Y. C. (2014). University level second language readers’ online reading and comprehension strategies. Language Learning & Technology, 18(3), 148-172.Philp, J., & Duchesne, S. (2016). Exploring engagement in tasks in the languageclassroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 50-72.Rambe, P., & Chikobvu, D. (2014). Using Reflexive Agency to Explore Students’ Access to Online Learning Resources in Resource Constrained Learning Environments. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5 (20), 1147-1157.Rappa, N. A., & Tang, K. S. (2017). Student agency: An analysis of students’networked relations across the informal and formal learningdomains. Research in Science Education, 47(3), 673-684.Reeve, J., & Tseng, C. M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 257–267.Reinders, H. (2011). Materials development for learning beyond the classroom.In Benson, P., & Reinders, H. (Eds.). Beyond the language classroom (pp. 175-189). Springer.Reinders, H., & White, C. (2011). Learner autonomy and new learning environments. Special issue of Language Learning & Technology, 15(3), 1-3.Reinhardt, J. & Zander, V. (2011). Social networking in an intensive English program classroom: A language socialization perspective. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 326-344.Renninger, K. A. (1992). Individual interest and development: Implications for theoryand practice. The Role of Interest in Learning and Development, 26(3-4), 361-395.Renninger, K. A. (1992). Individual interest and development: Implications for theoryand practice (Vol. 26).Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2011). Revisiting the conceptualization, measurement, and generation of interest. Educational Psychologist, 46(3), 168-184.Renninger, K. A., & Su, S. (2012). Interest and its development.Ricca, B. (2012). Beyond teaching methods: A complexity approach. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 9, 31-51.Richards, J.C. (2015). The changing face of language learning: Learning beyond the classroom. RELC Journal, 46, 5–22.Rife, S. C., Cate, K. L., Kosinski, M., & Stillwell, D. (2016). Participant recruitmentand data collection through Facebook: The role of personalityfactors. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 19(1), 69-83.Rodrigo, V. (2003). Narrow listening and audio-library: The transitional stage in theprocess of developing listening comprehension in a foreign language. Mextesol Journal, 27(1), 9-25.Rose, M., & Rose, M. A. (2009). Writer`s block: The cognitive dimension: SIU Press.Rosell-Aguilar, F. (2004). Well done and well liked: online information literacy skills and learner impressions of the web as a resource for foreign language learning. ReCall, 16(1), 210-224.Rubio, F. D. (2014). Self-esteem and self-concept in foreign languagelearning. Multiple perspectives on the self in SLA, 4158.Ryan, S., & Irie, K. (2014). Imagined and possible selves: Stories we tell ourselvesabout ourselves. Multiple perspectives on the self in SLA, 109-126.Salaberry, M. R. (2000). L2 Morphosyntactic Development in Text-Based Computer-Mediated Communication. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(1), 5-27. doi:10.1076/0958-8221(200002)13:1;1-k;ft005Salma, U. (2015). Problems and practical needs of writing skill in EFL context: An. analysis of Iranian students of Aligarh Muslim University. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 20(11), 74-76.Salomon, G. (1984). “Television is ‘Easy’ and Print is ‘Tough’: The Differential Investment of Mental Effort in Learning as a Function of Perceptions and Attribution.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 76 (4), 647–658. http://doi.org/10.1037/ 0022-0663.76.4.647Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning & Technology, 13(1), 96-120.Savin-Baden, M., & Major, C. H. (2013). Qualitative research: The essential guide to theory and practice. Routledge.Schmitt, N., & Carter, R. (2000). The lexical advantages of narrow reading for secondlanguage learners. Tesol Journal, 9(1), 4-9.Scholz, K. (2017). “Encouraging Free Play: Extramural Digital Game-Based Language Learning as a Complex Adaptive System.” CALICO Journal, 34 (1): 39–57.Schulze, M., & Scholz, K. (2016). CALL theory: Complex adaptive systems. In C.Caws & M.-J. Hamel (Eds.), Learner-computer interactions: New insights on. CALL theories and applications (pp. 65-87). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Sealey, A., & Carter, B. (2004). Applied linguistics as social science. A&C Black.Sendag, S., Gedik, N., & Toker, S. (2018). Impact of repetitive listening, listening aid. and podcast length on EFL podcast listening. Computers & Education, 125, 273-283.Smith, F. (2012). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading andlearning to read: Routledge.Smith, F. (1985). Reading without nonsense: Teachers College Press.Smith, K., & Craig, H. (2013). Enhancing the autonomous use of CALL: A new curriculum model in EFL. CALICO Journal, 30(2), 252-278.Sockett, G. (2014). The Online Informal Learning of English. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Sockett, G. (2013). Understanding the online informal learning of English as a complex n dynamic system: An emic approach. ReCall, 25(1), 48-62.Sockett, G. (2012). From informal resource usage to incidental language acquisition: language uptake from online television viewing in English. Asp, 62, 45-65.Sockett, G., & Kusyk, M. (2015). Online informal learning of English: Frequency effects in the uptake of chunks of language from participation in web-based activities. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 153–177). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110378528-009Sockett, G. & Toffoli, D. (2012). Beyond learner autonomy: A dynamic systems view of the informal learning of English in virtual online communities. ReCALL, 24(2), 138-151.Song, D., & Bonk, C. J. (2016). Motivational factors in self-directed informal learningfrom online learning resources. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1205838.Stanfield, P. W. (2015). Analyzing Learner Agency in Second Language Learning: A Place-based Approach. In P. Deters, X. Gao, E. R. Miller, & G. Vitanova, (Eds.), Theorizing and analyzing agency in second language learning (pp. 173–194). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Stevens, D. D., & Cooper, J. E. (2009). Journal keeping: How to use reflective writing. for effective learning, teaching, professional insight, and positive change. Sterling, Virginia: Stylus Publishing, LLC.Stickler, U., & Emke, M. (2011). Tandem learning in virtual spaces: Supporting non-formal and informal learning in adults. In Benson, P., & Reinders, H. (Eds.). Beyond the language classroom (pp. 146-160): Springer.Su, Y., Zheng, C., Liang, J. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2018). Examining the relationship between English language learners’ online self-regulation and their self-efficacy. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2018, 34(3), 105-121.Sumuer, E. (2018). Factors related to college students` self-directed learning with technology. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 29-43.Sun, J. C. Y., & Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer self‐efficacy andself‐regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education.British journal of educational technology, 43(2), 191-204.Sundqvist, P. (2011). A possible path to progress: Out-of-school English languagelearners in Sweden. In Beyond the language classroom (pp. 106-118).Palgrave Macmillan, London.Sundqvist, P. (2009). “Extramural English Matters: Out-of-school English and its Impact on Swedish Ninth-graders’ Oral Proficiency and Vocabulary.” Diss., Karlstad University, Karlstad. Retrieved from http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/ get/diva2:275141/FULLTEXT03.pdfSundqvist, P., & Wikström, P. (2015). “Out-of-school Digital Gameplay and In-school L2 English Vocabulary Outcomes.” System, 51, 65–76.Sundqvist, P., & Sylven, L. K. (2016). Extramural English in the teaching and learning: From theory and research to practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Swain, M. (2009). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced secondLanguage proficiency. Advanced language learning: The contribution ofHalliday and Vygotsky, 95.Sylvén, L. K., & Sundqvist, P. (2012). Gaming as extramural English L2 learning andL2 proficiency among young learners. ReCALL, 24(3), 302-321.Sztompka. P. (ed.) 1994. Agency and Structure: Reorienting Social Theory. International Studies in Global Change,Vol. 4. Langhorne, PA: Gordon BreachTare, M., Golonka, E. M., Vatz, K., Bonilla, C. L., Crooks, C., & Strong, R. (2014).Effects of interactive chat versus independent writing on L2 learning. Language Learning & Technology, 18 (3), 208-227.Tejeda, M. J. (2007). Book Review: Clarke, A. E. (2005). Situational analysis:Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Organizational Research Methods, 10(2), 390-392. doi:10.1177/1094428106290198Teo, T. (2018). Students and Teachers’ Intention to Use Technology: Assessing Their Measurement Equivalence and Structural Invariance. Journal of Educational Computing. DOI 10.1007/s10639-016-9557-yThomas, M., Reinders, H., & Warschauer, M. (Eds.). (2013). Contemporary computerassisted language learning. London/New York: Bloomsbury.Toffoli, D., & Sockett, D. (2010). “How Non-specialist Students of English Practice Informal Learning Using web 2.0 Tools.” ASp. la Revue du GERAS, (58), 125–144.Toohey, K., & Norton, B. (2003). Learner autonomy as agency in sociocultural settings. In D. Palfreyman & R. C. Smith (Eds.), Learner autonomy across cultures (pp. 58–72). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Torkzadeh, G., & Van Dyke, T. P. (2002). Effects of training on Internet self-efficacy and computer user attitudes. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(5), 479–494.Tsai, I. C. (2012). Understanding social nature of an online community of practice for learning to teach. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(2), 271–285.Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255-272.Tsai, C. W., Shen, P. D., & Fan, Y. T. (2013). Research trends in self‐regulated learning research in online learning environments: A review of studies published in selected journals from 2003 to 2012. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(5), E107-E110.Tsai, M. J., Hsu, C. Y., & Tsai, C. C. (2011). Investigation of high school students` online science information searching performance: The role of implicit and explicit strategies. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(2), 246-254.Tsai, M. J. & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Junior high school students` Internet usage and self-efficacy: A reexamination of the gender gap. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1182-1192.Tsai M-J., & Tsai, C. C. (2010) Junior high school students’ internet usage and self-efficacy: a re-examination of the gender gap. Comput Educ, 54, 1182–1192.Tsai, Y.-L., & Tsai, C. C. (2018). Digital game-based second-language vocabulary learning and conditions of research designs: A meta-analysis study. Computers & Education, 125, 345-357Tseng, S. C., Liang, J. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2014). Students` self-regulated learning, online information evaluative standards and online academic searching strategies. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(1), 106-121.Tu, Y. W., Shih, M., & Tsai, C. C. (2008). Eighth graders’ web searching strategiesand outcomes: The role of task types, web experiences and epistemologicalbeliefs. Computers and Education, 51(3), 1142–1153.Ushioda, E. (2015). Context and complex dynamic systems theory. In Z. Dornyei, P. MacIntyre, & A. Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 47–54). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Ushioda, E. (2014). Motivational perspectives on the self in SLA: A developmentalview. Multiple perspectives on the self in SLA, 127-141.Ushioda, E. (2011a). Language learning motivation, self and identity: Current theoretical perspectives. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24, 199–210.Ushioda, E. (2011b). Motivating learners to speak as themselves. Identity, motivation and autonomy in language learning, 11-24.Ushioda, E. (2009). A person-in-context relational view of emergent motivation, self and identity. Bristol: UK: Multilingual Matters.Ushioda, E. (2007). Motivation, autonomy and sociocultural theory. In: Benson, P. (Ed.), Learner Autonomy: Teacher and Learner Perspectives. Authentik, Dublin, pp. 5-24.Ushioda, E., & Dörnyei, Z. (2011). Teaching and Researching: Motivation. Pearson Education.van Geert, P. (2011). The contribution of complex dynamic systems to development. Child Development Perspectives, 5, 273–278.van Lier, L. (2008). Agency in the classroom. In J. Lantolf & M. Poehner (Eds.),Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp. 163–186). London: Equinox.van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology of langauge learning: A sociocultural perspective. Boston, MA: Kluwer.Vanderplank, R. (2016). Captioned Media in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching: Subtitles for the Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing as Tools for Language Learning. Houndmills, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Verspoor, M. (2012). Symposium: Dynamic systems/Complexity theory as a newapproach to second language development. Language Teaching, 45(4), 533-534.Verspoor, M., de Bot, K., & Lowie, W. (Eds.). (2011). A dynamic approach to secondlanguage development. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Voller, P. (1997). Does the teacher have a role in autonomous learning?‟ In P. Benson. & P. Voller (eds). Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning (pp. 98-113). London: Longman.Waes, L. V., Weijen, D. V., & Leijten, M. (2014). Learning to write in an online writing center: The effect of learning styles on the writing process. Computers & Education, 73, 60-71.Wang, F. Y., & Lee, S. Y. (2013). Let’s surf: How does free voluntary surfing make English learning comprehensible and compelling? Selected Paper from the 22nd International Symposium and Book Fair on English Teaching (CD-ROM, pp. 403-411). Taipei: Crane.,2013/11/14-2013/11/16Wang, F. Y., & Lee, S. Y. (2015). Free voluntary surfing: An extensive reading curriculum supported by technology. In L. H. Das, S. Brand-Gruwel, J. Walhout & K. Kok (Eds.), (2015). The School Library Rocks: Proceedings of the 44th International Association of SchoolWarschauer, M., (1996). Computer Assisted Language Learning: an Introduction. In: Fotos S., (ed). 1998. Multimedia language teaching (pp.3-20). Tokyo: Logos International.Warschauer, M. (2004). Technological change and the future of CALL. In S. Fotos & C. Brown (Eds.), New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.Cambridge university press.Wertsch, J. V., Tulviste, P., & Hagstrom, F. (1993). A sociocultural approach to agency. Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children’s development, 23, 336-356.Williams, R., Karousou, R., & Mackness, J. (2011). Emergent learning and learning ecologies in Web 2.0. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 39–59.Winters, F. I., Greene, J. A., & Costich, C. M. (2008). Self-regulation of learning within computer-based learning environments: A critical analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 429–444.Wong, L. L., & Nunan, D. (2011). The learning styles and strategies of effective language learners. System, 39(2), 144-163.Wu, M. M.-f. (2012). Beliefs and Out-of-class language learning of Chinese-speakingESL learners in Hong Kong. New Horizons in Education, 60(1), 35-52.Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2005). Information commitments: Evaluative standards and information searching strategies in web-based learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(5), 374-385.Xiao, J. (2012). Successful and unsuccessful distance language learners: An ‘affective’ perspective. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 27,121–136.Xiao, J. (2014). Learner agency in language learning: the story of a distancelearner of EFL in China. Distance Education, 35(1), 4–17.Yang, H., & Clarke, M. (2018). Spaces of agency within contextual constraints: a case study of teacher’s response to EFL reform in a Chinese university. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 38(2), 187-201.Yashima, T., & Arano, K. (2015). Understanding EFL learners’ motivational dynamics: A three-level model from a dynamic systems and sociocultural perspective. Motivational dynamics in language learning, 285-314.Yin, R. (2016). Qualitative research from start to finish (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.You, C., & Chan, L. (2015). The dynamics of L2 imagery in future motivational self-guides. In Z. Dornyei, P. MacIntyre, & A. Henry (Eds.), Motivationaldynamics in language learning (pp. 397-418). Bristol, UK: MultilingualMatters.Zeidner, M., Boekaerts, M., & Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Self-Regulation. In Boekaerts,M., Zeidner, M., & Pintrich, P. R. (Eds.). Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 749-768): Elsevier.Zhang, J. (2013). Learner agency, motive, and self-regulated learning in an onlineESL writing class. IALLT Journal of Language Learning Technologies, 43(2),57-81.Zheng, C., Liang, J. C., Yang, Y. F., & Tsai, C. C. (2016). The relationship between Chinese university students` conceptions of language learning and their online self-regulation. System, 57, 66-78.Zheng, C., Liang, J. C., Li, M., & Tsai, C. C. (2018). The relationship between English language learners’ motivation and online self-regulation: A structural equation modelling approach. System, 76, 144-157.Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In Boekaerts, M., Zeidner, M., & Pintrich, P. R. (Eds.). Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39). Academic Press.Zimmerman, B.J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329– 339.Zimmerman, B. J., & Cleary, T. J. (2006). Adolescents’ development of personal agency: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and self-regulatory skill. Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents, 5, 45-69.Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2008). Motivation: An essential dimension of. self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research and applications (pp. 1–30). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum. 描述 博士
國立政治大學
英國語文學系
100551505資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0100551505 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 李思穎<br>尤雪瑛 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Sy-ying Lee<br>Hsueh-ying Yu en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 王費瑜 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Fei-yu Wang en_US dc.creator (作者) 王費瑜 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Wang, Fei-yu en_US dc.date (日期) 2020 en_US dc.date.accessioned 2-Sep-2020 11:33:38 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 2-Sep-2020 11:33:38 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 2-Sep-2020 11:33:38 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0100551505 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/131437 - dc.description (描述) 博士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 英國語文學系 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 100551505 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 隨著現代科技日新月異，課堂外的網路學習儼然成為電腦輔助教學領域的重要流派。同時，學習者能動性的重要性近年已獲得第二語言習得研究者的關注，鑑於此兩新興學術範疇所存在的潛在關聯，這篇貫時性的質性研究旨在探究以英語為外語的學習者於課堂外自主網衝的能動性。此研究主要基於兩項前提：（一）語言學習者針對其學習目標為具有學習意圖、意志力和能力的施為者；（二）學習者之能動性並非靜態結果，而是該施為者與其環境互動的動態結果之呈現。此研究包含兩個目的：（一）深入探究個別學習者內部與外部影響其學習能動性的因素；（二）記載個別學習者進行課外自主網衝的學習軌跡，以檢視外語學習者個人與他者學習能動性之差異。有鑒於外語學習乃非線性之發展，本研究借用複雜動態系統理論架構來呈現課室外參與自主網衝的外語學習者之複雜樣貌。由於複雜動態系統理論架構著重於時間對語言學習所造成的重要影響，因此此質性研究亦關注學習者過往之學習經驗、當下的參與以及其努力參與課室外非正式之數位學習後所帶來的改變，以提供研究者對於其研究議題有更深入之理解。本研究運用情境分析作為分析工具，並採用多種資料來源以提高此質性研究之可信任度。分析結果所呈現的三個地圖源自於各式資料，包含問卷、半結構式訪談、臉書貼文和研究者的反思日誌。研究結果呈現外語學習者於課室外進行自主網衝時所遇到各層面的影響以及學習者能動性的學習軌跡。本研究顯示不同程度的外語學習者能動性源於個人之自我組織與和環境之共同適應之結果。此外，隨著兩位施為者於課室外的努力，個別學習軌跡呈現了兩位外語學習者（施為者）之初期學習狀況、參與和改變。本研究除了記載了個別外語學習者在其能動性中所展現的個體性與特殊性，個別學習軌亦突顯了包括動機中的興趣、後設認知中的省思、社群中能力較佳的學習者之支持、以及環境脈絡中如網路的支持等不同面向的賦能因素。除此之外，本研究發現學校功課和考試限縮了外語學習者於課室外進行自發性線上學習之能動性。此一發現可視為課堂內學習對於外語學習者於進行課室外自主線上學習之負面影響。透過複雜動態系統理論的濾鏡探討外語學習者於課室外的自主網衝之能動性，捕捉了課室外自主線上學習之複雜與多變。學習者之個別學習軌跡的呈現顯示課室外自主網衝能使英語學習更具意義、更具個別關聯、並且有更愉悅的學習經驗，尤其對於非英語系學生而言。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) With the prevalence and convenience of modern technology, out-of-class online learning has become an important line of inquiry in the field of CALL. Also, the significance of learner agency has raised researchers` attention in the field of SLA. This longitudinal study was set to probe two EFL learners` learner agency in the practice of out-of-class Free Voluntary Surfing with the awareness of the potential link between the two burgeoning academic areas. The exploration of the overarching construct in the naturalistic learning outside the classroom is under the two premises. First of all, learners are agents who have intent, will, and capacity to achieve desired or intended learning goals. Second, learner agency is not a static construct but a dynamic interplay between the agent and the embedded context. Therefore, the purpose of this study is twofold: (a) it delves into the individual (i.e., internal) and contextual (i.e., external) factors impacting learner agency and (b) it documents the individual trajectory of out-of-class Free Voluntary Surfing to uncover their intra-and-inter variability in learner agency.Underpinning this qualitative inquiry by the non-linear thinking, the theoretical framework of Complexity Dynamic Systems Theory was borrowed to capture the complexity and dynamism behind the agentive learning behavior in out-of-class FVS. The holistic view deriving from the theoretical lens of Complex Dynamic Systems Theory has included the past-present-and-future perspective in this qualitative research. This historical-and-processual examination of EFL learner agency has taken the impact of the factor of time—the past learning experience, and present engagement, and changes after pouring the strenuous efforts in out-of-class informal digital learning—into consideration that provides the researcher a better understanding of the inquiry under examination.This study has adopted situational analysis for the exploration of research inquiries. Employing situational analysis as the analytical tool in this study, the three maps (relational map, social arenas map, and positional map) engendered from the multiple data sources, including questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, Facebook postings, and the researcher’s reflectional journals, uncover the influential factors and the trajectory of learner agency in the self-initiated and self-directed practice of out-of-class FVS.With the revelation of the two sub-systems of individual and contextual factors empowering or constraining the two participants’ agentive learning behaviors in out-of-class informal online learning, the findings showcase that the various levels of EFL learner agency have resulted from the individual learners’ self-organization of and co-adaptation to the emergent factors in the process. The emergence of the individual trajectories features the initial learning conditions, engagement, and changes along with the strenuous efforts the two agents pouring in the practice outside the language classroom.Further, while the study has documented the individuality and particularity of individual EFL learner agency, the qualitative inquiry has foregrounded the enablement of the different aspects—motivational, metacognitive, social, and contextual empowering language learners’ agentive behavior, including interest, reflection, the support from a more able member in the community, and the affordances of the Internet.On the other hand, with regard to the mutual influence of formal learning in out-of-class informal online learning, the study has captured the negative force of schoolwork and tests that constrain EFL learner agency in the self-initiated online learning outside the classroom. Situating EFL learner agency in out-of-class Free Voluntary Surfing in the theoretical lens of Complex Dynamic Systems Theory, the findings bring to fore the relational and emergent nature of the overarching construct in informal online learning outside the language classroom. The unveiling of the individual trajectory of learner agency further supports the potential of out-of-class Free Voluntary Surfing in making EFL learning more meaningful, relevant, and pleasant, particularly among non-English majors. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents CHINESE ABSTRACT ........................................................................................ VIII ENGLISH ABSTRACT ............................................................................................. X CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................ 1STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ................................................................................. 5 PURPOSE OF THE PRESENT STUDY............................................................................ 6 CONTRIBUTION .......................................................................................................... 7CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................... 9OUT-OF-CLASS INFORMAL ONLINE LEARNING........................................................ 9 The Diversity of the Terms Used in the Literature...............................................9 The Link between Out-of-class Informal Online Learning and Language Development ........................................................................................................ 10 The Practices in Out-of-class Online Informal Learning ................................. 13 The Underlying Factors Governing the Self-directed Learning Behavior in Out-of-class Online Informal Learning ............................................................. 14LEARNER AGENCY .................................................................................................. 19 Notion of Agency ................................................................................................. 20 Learner Agency―Focus on the Learner ........................................................... 24 Learner Agency―Focus on the Context............................................................32 Learner Agency in Out-of-class Online Learning ............................................. 37THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................................. 44 Complex Dynamic Systems Theory .................................................................... 45 Complexity Dynamic Systems Theory and Learner Agency..............................48CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY............................................................................. 51THE STUDY .............................................................................................................. 52 Prior in-class Free Voluntary Surfing Experience............................................52 Sampling Strategy................................................................................................ 53 Participants .......................................................................................................... 56 The Context.......................................................................................................... 58DATA COLLECTION ................................................................................................. 59 Questionnaires ..................................................................................................... 60 Semi-structured Interviews ................................................................................. 60 FB postings .......................................................................................................... 62 Researcher’s Reflection Journals....................................................................... 62PROCEDURE ............................................................................................................. 63 DATA ANALYSIS....................................................................................................... 65 POSITIONING AS THE RESEARCHER AND A MORE ABLE MEMBER IN THIS STUDY .................................................................................................................................. 69CHAPTER4 SERENA............................................................................................73 THE COMPLEX SYSTEM OF SERENA’S LEARNER AGENCY .................................... 73ivThe Two Emergent Sub-systems of the Complex System of Serena’s Learner Agency.................................................................................................................. 81 Serena’s Trajectory of Learner Agency in Out-of-class FVS: Initial Conditions, Engagement, and Changes ........................................................... 120CHAPTER5 MANDY...........................................................................................165THE COMPLEX SYSTEM OF MANDY’S LEARNER AGENCY .................................. 165 The Two Emergent Sub-systems of the Complex system of Mandy’s Learner Agency................................................................................................................ 171 Mandy’s Trajectory of Learner Agency in Out-of-class FVS: Initial Conditions, Engagement, and Changes ........................................................... 202CHAPTER6 DISCUSSIONS................................................................................243EFL LEARNER AGENCY IN OUT-OF-CLASS FVS IS INTRA-PERSONALLY SITUATED................................................................................................................................ 243EFL LEARNER AGENCY IN OUT-OF-CLASS FVS IS CONTEXTUALLY MEDIATED................................................................................................................................ 257INDIVIDUAL TRAJECTORY EMERGES AS A MANIFESTATION OF THE INTER-AND- INTRA- INDIVIDUAL VARIABILITY IN EFL LEARNER AGENCY IN OUT-OF-CLASS FVS ........................................................................................................................ 274CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION................................................................................. 303SITUATING EFL LEARNER AGENCY IN OUT-OF-CLASS INFORMAL ONLINE LEARNING .............................................................................................................. 304 PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS .............................................................................. 308 LIMITATIONS OF THE PRESENT STUDY................................................................. 311 DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE STUDIES ...................................................................... 312REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 315APPENDIXES.......................................................................................................... 337APPENDIX A TITLE: FVS REFLECTION FORM ........................................................ 337 APPENDIX B TITLE: SERENA’S SURFING FOOTPRINT .......................................... 338 APPENDIX C TITLE: MANDY’S SURFING FOOTPRINT .......................................... 339vList of TablesTable 1 Notion of Agency ......................................................................................... 22 Table 2 Differences between the Participants ........................................................... 58 Table 3 Number of Postings from Serena`s Out-of-class FVS................................ 126 Table 4 Number of postings from Mandy’s out-of-class FVS................................ 208viFigure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 Figure 17 Figure 18 Figure 19 Figure 20 Figure 21 Figure 22 Figure 23 Figure 24 Figure 25 Figure 26List of FiguresThe Relational Map of Serena`s Learner Agency ...................................... 74 The Social Arenas Map of Serena’s Leaner Agency ............................... 104 Word Clouds of Serena’s Facebook Postings .......................................... 127 The Nokia 330 Phone is Back .................................................................. 131 RafalNadal...............................................................................................132 The Positional Map of Serena`s Learner Agency ..................................... 145 The Relational Map of Mandy`s Learner Agency .................................... 166 The Social Arenas Map of Mandy`s Learner Agency .............................. 184 Mandy’s Reflection on Million Reasons.................................................. 186Mandy`s Interaction Threads on FB ....................................................... 187 Reading of Pokeman Go Shared by the Teacher ................................... 194 Interaction threads between Serena and the teacher .............................. 195 Word Clouds of Mandy’s Facebook Postings........................................ 211 Stop the Hate .......................................................................................... 213 A Call to Man......................................................................................... 214 Why domestic victims don’t leave? ....................................................... 215 Interaction Threads between Mandy and the Teacher ........................... 216 Choice: The Peace Education Program at Zonderwater Prison ............. 217 Why “Scout Mindset” is Crucial to Good Judgment ............................. 218 Life Lessons from Video Games............................................................ 219 My love letter to cosplay ........................................................................ 219 Reflection on Why we choose suicide ................................................... 222 Interaction Threads between Mandy and the Teacher ........................... 223 Let’s Talk about Dying .......................................................................... 224 I Just Sued the School System ............................................................... 225 The Positional Map of Mandy`s Learner Agency .................................. 230 zh_TW dc.format.extent 11481734 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0100551505 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 課堂外線上學習 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 自主網衝 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 英語為外語的學習者之能動性 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 複雜動態系統理論架構 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 學習軌跡 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Out-of-class Online Learning en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Free Voluntary Surfing en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) EFL learner agency en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Complex Dynamic Systems Theory en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Trajectory en_US dc.title (題名) 英語學習者於課堂外自主網衝之能動性: 學習者個人與他者之差異 zh_TW dc.title (題名) EFL Learner Agency in Out-of-class Free Voluntary Surfing: Inter-and-intra Individual Variability en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Ahearn, L. M. (2001). Language and agency. Annual review of anthropology, 30(1), 109-137.Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2018). The L2 motivational self system: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8(4), 721-754.Antonie, A. (2015). Facebook for informal language learning: Perspectives from tertiary language students. The EuroCALL Review, 23, doi:10.4995/eurocall.2015.4665Alm, A. (2015). “Facebook for Informal Language Learning: Perspectives from Tertiary Language Students.” The EUROCALL Review, 23 (2): 3–18.Archer, M. (1988). Culture and Agency: The Place of Culture in Social Theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.Archer, M. (2000). Being Human: The Problem of Agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Archer, M. (2003). Structure, agency and the internal conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Archer, M. S., & Archer, M. S. (2000). Being human: The problem of agency:Cambridge University Press.Archer, M. S., & Archer, M. S. (2003). Structure, agency and the internal conversation: Cambridge University Press.Arnold, N. (2009). Online Extensive Reading for Advanced Foreign Language Learners: An Evaluation Study. Foreign Language Annals, 42(2), 340-366.Badri, M., Alnuaimi, A., Guang, Y., Al Rashedi, A., & Temsah, K. (2016). School children’s use of digital devices, social media and parental knowledge and involvement – the case of Abu Dhabi. Journal of Education Information Technology https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317642379_School_performance_social_networking_effects_and_learning_of_school_children_Evidence_of_reciprocal_relationships_in_Abu_DhabiBagga-Gupta, S. (2015). Performing and Accounting Language and Identity: Agency as actors-in-(inter)action-with-tools. In P. Deters, X. Gao, E. R. Miller, & G. Vitanova, (Eds.), Theorizing and analyzing agency in second language learning (pp. 17–36). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Bagga-Gupta, S. (2014). 7 Performing and Accounting Language and Identity: Agency as Actors-in-(inter)action-with-tools. In (pp. 113-132): Multilingual Matters.Bakewell, O. (2010). Some Reflections on Structure and Agency in MigrationTheory. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(10), 1689-1708.doi:10.1080/1369183x.2010.489382Bakewell, O. (2010). Some Reflections on Structure and Agency in MigrationTheory. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(10), 1689-1708.doi:10.1080/1369183x.2010.489382Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Ballance, O. J. (2012). Mobile language learning: more than just “the platform”.Language Learning & Technology, 16(3), 21-23.Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(2), 164–180. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00011.xBandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1–26.Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175–1184. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122Bandura, A., Freeman, W. H., & Lightsey, R. (1999). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise ofControl. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 13(2), 158-166. doi:10.1891/0889-8391.13.2.158Barnard, L., Lan, W. Y., To, Y. M., Paton, V. O., & Lai, S. L. (2009). Measuring self-regulation in online and blended learning environments. The internet and higher education, 12(1), 1-6.Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: A learning ecology perspective. Human Development, 49(4), 193-224.Beckman, K., Bennett, S., & Lockyer, L. (2014). Understanding students` use and value of technology for learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(3), 346-367.Benson, P. (2001). Autonomy in Language Learning. Harlow: Longman.Benson, P. (2011). “Language Learning and Teaching Beyond the Classroom: AnIntroduction to the Field.” In Beyond the Language Classroom (pp. 7–16),edited by P. Benson, and H. Reinders. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Benson, P (2011). Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning. Second edition. London: Longman.Benson, P., & Chik, A. (2010). New literacies and autonomy in foreign language learning. In M. J. Luzón, M. N. Ruiz-Madrid, & M. L. Villanueva, Digital genres, new literacies, and autonomy in language learning (pp. 63-80). Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Benson, P., & Reinders, H. (2011). Beyond the language classroom. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Benson, P., & Voller, P. (2014). Introduction: autonomy and independence in language learning. In Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning (pp. 1-12): Routledge.Bernacki, M. L., Aguilar, A. C., & Byrnes, J. P. (2011). Self-regulated learning and technology-enhanced learning environments: An opportunity-propensity analysis. In Fostering self-regulated learning through ICT (pp. 1-26). IGI Global.Biesta, G., & Tedder, M. (2007). Agency and learning in the lifecourse: Towards an ecological perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 39, 132–149.Blackwell, O. (2010). Some reflections on structure and agency in migration theory. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(10), 1689-1708.Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 120–136.Blaschke, L. M. (2012). Heutagogy and lifelong learning: A review of heutagogicalPractice and self-determined learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(1), 56-71.Blin, F., & Jalkanen, J. (2014). Designing for language learning: agency and languaging in hybrid environments. Apples-Journal of Applied Language Studies, 8(1), 147-170.Block, D. (2015). Structure, agency, individualization and the critical realist challenge. In P. Deters, X. Gao, E. R. Miller, & G. Vitanova, (Eds.), Theorizing and analyzing agency in second language learning (pp. 17–36). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Block, D. (2014). 2 Structure, Agency, Individualization and the Critical RealistChallenge. In Theorizing and Analyzing Agency in Second Language Learning (pp. 17-36): Multilingual Matters.Block, D. (2003). The Social Turn in Second Language Acquisition. GeorgetownUniversity Press, 3240 Prospect Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007.Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (2000). Self-regulation: An introductory overview. In Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 1-9). Academic Press.Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Bown, J. (2009). Self-regulatory strategies and agency in self-instructed language learning: A situated view. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 570–583. doi:10.1111/j.1540- 4781.2009.00965.xBrown, H., & Lee, H. (2015). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach tolanguage pedagogy (Fourth Edi). London: White Palms: Pearson EducationInc.Bryant, A. (2002). “Re-grounding Grounded Theory”, The Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 4(1), pp. 25-42.Bryant, Antony (2003). A Constructive/ist Response to Glaser [25 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 4(1), Art. 15, http://nbnresolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0301155.Burnard, P. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A practical guide throughqualitative analysis Kathy Charmaz Constructing Grounded Theory: Apractical guide through qualitative analysis. SageBurns, E. (2004). Julian Baggini, Philosophy: Key Themes, (Basingstoke: PalgraveMacmillan, 2002), and Philosophy: Key Texts, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002). Think, 2(6), 103-106. doi:10.1017/s1477175600002876Burris, B. (1980). Book Review: Outline of a Theory of Practice. InsurgentSociologist, 9(4), 89-91. doi:10.1177/089692058000900410Cameron, L. (2003). Metaphor in educational discourse. London: Continuum.Capra, F., & Luisi, P. L. (2014). The systems view of life. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.Carter, B., & New, C. (2005). Making realism work: Realist social theory and. empirical research. Routledge.Castellano, J., Mynard, J., & Rubesch, T. (2011). Student technology use in a self-access center. Language Learning & Technology, 15(3), 12-27.Celik, S., Arkın, E., & Sabriler, D. (2012). EFL learners’ use of ICT for self-regulated learning. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 8, 98–118.Chapelle, C. (2009). The relationship between second language acquisition theory andcomputer-assisted language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 741-753.Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide throughqualitative analysis. Sage.Cheney, A. W., & Terry, K. P. (2018). Immersive learning environments as complexdynamic systems. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in HigherEducation, 30(2), 277-289.Chie, M. (2018). Portraits of second language learners: An L2 learner agencyperspective. Multilingual Matters.Chik, A. (2017). Learner Autonomy and Digital Practices. In Autonomy in LanguageLearning and Teaching (pp. 73-92): Palgrave Macmillan UK.Chik, A. (2014). Digital gaming and language learning: Autonomy and community.Language Learning & Technology, 18(2), 85-100.Chik, A. (2013). Naturalistic CALL and digital gaming. TESOL quarterly, 47(4), 834-839.Cho, K.-S., Ahn, K.-O., & Krashen, S. (2005). The effects of narrow reading ofauthentic texts on interest and reading ability in English as a foreign language.Reading Improvement, 42(1), 58-65.Chun, D. M. (2016). The role of technology in SLA research. Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 98-115.Chun, D. M., Kern, R., & Smith, B. (2016). Technology in language use, language teaching, and language learning. Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 64–80.Clarke, A. E., Friese, C., & Washburn, R. S. (2018). Situational Analysis: GroundedTheory After the Interpretive Turn. Thousand Oaks, California : SAGE.Clarke, A. E., & C. Friese (2007). Grounded theorising using situational analysis. In A. Bryant and K. Charmaz.(eds), The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory, London: SAGE.Clarke, A. E. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Clarke, A. E. (2003). Situational analyses: Grounded theory mapping after thepostmodern turn. Symbolic interaction, 26(4), 553-576.Cole, J. (2015). “Foreign Language Learning in the Age of the Internet: A Comparison of Informal Acquirers and Traditional Classroom Learners in Central Brazil.” Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. University of Oxford.Cole, J., & Vanderplank, R. (2016). “Comparing Autonomous and Class-Based Learners in Brazil: Evidence for the Presentday Advantages of Informal, out-of-Class Learning.” System, 61, 31–42.Coxhead, Y. W. N. B. A., & Bytheway, J. (2015). Learning vocabulary using twomassive online resources: you will not blink. In Language learning beyond theclassroom (pp. 81-90). Routledge.Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2004). Supporting self-regulation in student-centered web-based learning environments. International Journal on E-Learning, 3(1), 40–47.Darvin, R., & Norton, B. (2016). Investment and language learning in the 21st century. Langage et société(3), 19-38.de Bot, K. (2015). Rates of change: Timescales in second language development. Motivational dynamics in language learning, 29-37.Demouy, V., A. Jones, Q. Kan, A. Kukulska-Hulme, & A. Eardley. (2016). “Why and How Do Distance Learners Use Mobile Devices for Language Learning?” The EuroCALL Review, 24 (1), 10–24.den Outer, B., Handley, K., & Price, M. (2013). Situational analysis and mapping for. use in education research: a reflexive methodology?. Studies in Higher Education, 38(10), 1504-1521.Derrida, J. (1978). Writing and differences. Alan Bass, translator. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Deters, P., Gao, X., Miller, E. R., & Vitanova, G. (Eds.). (2015). Theorizing and analyzing agency in second language learning: Interdisciplinary approaches (Vol. 84). Multilingual Matters.Dewaele, J. (2009) Individual differences in second language acquisition. In: Ritchie, W. C. and Bhatia, T. K. (eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (p.623-646). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.Dey, I. (2004). ‘Grounded theory’, in C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. Gubrium and D. Silverman (eds.), Qualitative research practice. London: Sage, pp. 80-93.Dornyei, Z. (2019). Towards a better understanding of the L2 Learning Experience,the Cinderella of the L2 Motivational Self System. Studies in SecondLanguage Learning and Teaching, 9(1), 19-30.Dornyei, Z. (2014). Researching complex dynamic systems: ‘Retrodictive qualitative modelling’ in the language classroom. Language Teaching, 47(1), 80-91.Dörnyei, Z. (2009a). The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 9–42.Dornyei, Z. (2009b). Individual differences: Interplay of learner characteristics and learning environment. In N. C. Ellis & D. Larsen-Freeman (Eds.), Language as a complex adaptive system (pp. 230-248). Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (Eds.). (2009). Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (Vol. 36). Multilingual Matters.Ducate, L. C. & Lomicka, L. L. (2008). Adventures in the blogosphere: from blog readers to blog writers. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(1), 9-28.Duff, P. (2012a). “Identity, Agency and SLA.” In Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, edited by A. Mackey, and S. Gass, 410–426. London: Routledge.Duff, P. (2012b). Triangulation in qualitative second language research.Plenary talk presented at the Second Language Research Forum, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.Duff, P., & Doherty, L. (2015). Examining agency in (second) language socialization research. In P. Deters, X. Gao, E. R. Miller, & G. Vitanova, (Eds.), Theorizing and analyzing agency in second language learning (pp. 54–72). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Dufva, P., & Aro, M. (2015). Dialogical view on language learners’ agency: Connecting intrapersonal with interpersonal. In P. Deters, X. Gao, E. R. Miller, & G. Vitanova, (Eds.), Theorizing and analyzing agency in second language learning (pp. 37–53). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Dufva, H. (2011). Language learners as socio-cognitive and embodied agent: Dialogical considerations. Language. Communication and Social Environment, 9, 6-24.Dupuy, B. C. (1999). Narrow listening: An alternative way to develop and enhancelistening comprehension in students of French as a foreign language. System, 27(3), 351-361.Duran, C. S. (2015). Theorizing young language learner agency through the lens of multilingual repertoires: A sociocultural perspective. Theorizing and analyzing agency in second language learning: Interdisciplinary approaches, 73-90.Duranti, A. (2004). Agency in language. In. A. Duranti (ed.) A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, pp. 451-473. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Duranti, A. & Goodwin, C. (eds). (1992). Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. PressDweck, C. S. 1999. Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Hove: Psychology Press.Egbert, J. (2004). A study of flow theory in the foreign language classroom. CanadianModern Language Review, 60(5), 549-586.Elman, J. (2003). Development: It`s about time. Developmental Science, 6(4), 430-433.Ely, R., Ainley, M., & Pearce, J. (2013). MORE THAN ENJOYMENT: Identifying. the Positive Affect Component of Interest That Supports Student Engagement and Achievement. Middle Grades Research Journal, 8(1).English, M. C., & Kitsantas, A. (2013). Supporting Student Self-Regulated Learningin Problem- and Project-Based Learning. Interdisciplinary Journal ofProblem-Based Learning, 7(2). doi:10.7771/1541-5015.1339Finch, A. (2010). Critical incidents and language learning: Sensitivity to initialconditions. System, 38(3), 422-431.Fosket, J. R. (2015). Situating knowledge. Situational analysis in practice. Mapping research with grounded theory, 195-215.Fukuda, A. (2017). The Japanese EFL Learners’ self-regulated language learning and proficiency. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 65-87.Funder, D. C. (2001). The really, really fundamental attribution error. Psychological Inquiry, 12 (1), 21–23.Gao, X. (2013). Reflexive and reflective thinking: a crucial link between agency and autonomy. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 7(3), 226-237.Gao, X. (2010). Strategic language learning: The roles of agency and context. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Gao, X. (2007). A tale of Blue Rain Café: A study on the online narrative constructionabout a community of English learners on the Chinese mainland. System, 35(2), 259-270.Gao, X., & Zhang, L. J. (2011). Joining forces for synergy: Agency and metacognition as interrelated theoretical perspectives on learner autonomy. Identity, motivation and autonomy in language learning, 25-41.Gehlbach, H., Brown, S. W., Ioannou, A., Boyer, M. A., Hudson, N., Niv-Solomon,A., & Janik, L. (2008). Increasing interest in social studies: Social perspective taking and self-efficacy in stimulating simulations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 894-914.Giddens A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. PressGilmore, A. (2016). Language learning in context: Complex dynamic systems and therole of mixed methods research. In The dynamic interplay between context andthe language learner(pp. 194-224). Palgrave Macmillan, London.Gkonou, P. (2015). Agency, anxiety and activity: Understanding the classroom behaviour of EFL learners. Theorizing and analyzing agency in second language learning: Interdisciplinary approaches, 195-213.Glas, K. (2016). Opening up ‘spaces for manoeuvre’: English teacher perspectives onlearner motivation. Research Papers in Education, 31(4), 442-461.Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.Godwin-Jones, R. (2017). Smartphones and language learning. Language Learning &Technology, 21(2), 3-17.Godwin-Jones, R. (1999). Web course design and creation for language learning. CALICO Journal, 17 (1), 43-58.Goller, M. (2017). Human agency at work: An active approach towards expertisedevelopment: Springer.Golovatch, Y., & Vanderplank, R. (2007). Unwitting agents: the role of adult learners`attributions of success in shaping language-learning behaviour. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, 13(2), 127-155.Gong, M., Xu, Y., & Yu, Y. (2004). An enhanced Technology Acceptance Model forweb-based learning. Journal of Information Systems Education, 15(4), 365–374.Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated humaninteraction. Journal of pragmatics, 32(10), 1489-1522.Gradman, H. L., & Hanania, E. (1991). Language learning background factors and ESL proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 75(1), 39-51.Groot, P. J. M. (2000). Computer-assisted second language vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 56-76.Guo, Z., Xiao, L., Van Toorn, C., Lai, Y., & Seo, C. (2016). Promoting online learners’continuance intention: An integrated flow framework. Information &Management, 53, 279-295.Guz, E., & Tetiurka, M. (2016). Positive emotions and learner engagement: insights. from an early FL classroom. In Positive psychology perspectives on foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 133-153): Springer.Hamilton, M. (2013). Autonomy and foreign language learning in a virtual learning environment. London: Bloomsbury Academic Publishing.Handford, M. (2016). The dynamic interplay between language and social context inthe language classroom: Interpersonal turn taking for ELF learners. In TheDynamic Interplay between Context and the Language Learner (pp. 151-171).Palgrave Macmillan, London.Heggart, K. R., & Yoo, J. (2018). Getting the Most from Google classroom: A pedagogical framework for tertiary educators. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 140-153.Heo, G. M., & Lee, R. (2013). Blogs and social network sites as activity systems: Exploring adult informal learning process through activity theory framework. Educational Technology & Society, 16(4), 133–145.Hew, K. F. (2015). Towards a model of engaging online students: Lessons from MOOCs and four policy documents. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 5(6), 425-431.Hill, J. H., & Irvine, J. T. (Eds.). (1993). Responsibility and evidence in oral discourse (No. 15). Cambridge University Press.Hiver, P., & Al‐Hoorie, A. H. (2020). Reexamining the role of vision in secondLanguage motivation: A preregistered conceptual replication of You, Dörnyei,and Csizér (2016). Language Learning, 70(1), 48-102.Hiver, P., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2020). Motivation: It is a relational system (H. A.-H. a. P. Ali, D. MacIntyre Ed.). Blue Ridges Summit, PA, USA: Multilingual. Matters.Hiver, P., & Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2016). A dynamic ensemble for second language research: Putting complexity theory into practice. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 741-756.Hiver, P., & Whitehead, G. E. (2018). Sites of struggle: Classroom practice and the complex dynamic entanglement of language teacher agency and identity. System, 30, 1-11.Hiver, P., & Whitehead, G. E. (2018). Sites of struggle: Classroom practice and thecomplex dynamic entanglement of language teacher agency and identity. System, 79(1), 70-80.Hiver, P., Zhou, A., Tahmouresi, S., Sang, Y., & Papi, M. (2020). Why stories matter:Exploring learner engagement and metacognition through narratives of the L2 learning experience. System, 102260.Hiver, P. (2015). Attractor states: Multilingual MattersHolec, H. (1981). 1981: Autonomy in foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.Holland, A. A. (2019). Effective principles of informal online learning design: A theory-building metasynthesis of qualitative research. Computers & Education, 128, 214-226.Hsu, C. Y., Tsai, M. J., Hou, H. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2014). Epistemic beliefs, online search strategies, and behavioral patterns while exploring socioscientific issues. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23 (3), 471-480.Huang, J. (2011). ‘‘A Dynamic Account of Autonomy, Agency and Identity in (T) EFL Learning.’’ In Identity, Motivation and Autonomy in Language Learning (p.229-246), edited by G. Murray, X. Gao, and T. Lamb. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Huang, J. P., & Benson, P. (2013). Autonomy, agency and identity in foreign and second language education. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 36(1), 7-28.Hung, H. T. (2015). Flipping the classroom for English language learners to foster active learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(1), 81-96.Hyland, F. (2004). Learning autonomously: contextualizing out-of-class English language learning. Language Awareness, 13(3), 180-202.Indah, R. N. (2017). Critical thinking, writing performance and topic familiarity ofIndonesian EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8(2), 229-236.Irwin, C. G., Ball, L., Desbrow, B., & Leveritt, M. (2012). Students’ perceptions of using Facebook as an interactive learning resource at university. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 19, 69-83.Isbell, D. R. (2018). Online informal language learning: Insights from a Korean learning community. Language Learning & Technology, 22(3), 82-102.Jalkanen, J.,& Vaarala, H. (2013). Digital texts for learning Finnish: Shared resources and emerging practices. Language Learning & Technology, 17(1), 107-124.Järvelä, S., & Renninger, K. (2014). Designing for learning: Interest, motivation, andengagement. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Jarvis, H., & Achilleos, M. (2013). From Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) to Mobile Assisted Language use. TESL-EJ, 16 (4), 1–18.Jarvis, H., & Krashen, S.D. (2014). Is CALL Obsolete? Language Acquisition and Language Learning Revisited in a Digital age. TESL-EJ, 17 (4), 1–6.Järvenoja, H., Järvelä, S., Törmänen, T., Näykki, P., Malmberg, J., Kurki, K., Mykkanen, A. & Isohätälä, J. (2018). Capturing Motivation and Emotion Regulation during a Learning Process. Frontline Learning Research, 6(3), 85-104.Jensen, S. H. (2017). Gaming as an English language learning resource among youngchildren in Denmark. Calico Journal, 34(1), 1-19.Huang, J. P., & Benson, P. (2013). Autonomy agency and identity in foreign andsecond language education. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 36(1), 7.Jones, A. (2015). “Social Media for Informal Minority Language Learning: Exploring Welsh Learners’ Practices.” Journal of Interactive Media in Education 7: 1–9.Jones, A. (2015). Mobile informal language learning: Exploring Welsh Learners’ practices. eLearning Papers, 45, 4–14.Joseph, J. E. (2006). Applied linguistics and the choices people make (or do they?). International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 237-241.Kahn, P., Everington, L., Kelm, K., Reid, I., & Watkins, F. (2017). Understandingstudent engagement in online learning environments: The role of. reflexivity. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(1), 203-218.Kahn, P. E. (2014). Theorising student engagement in higher education. British Educational Research Journal, 40(6), 1005–1018.Kalaja, P., Alanen, R., Palviainen, Å., & Dufva, H. (2011). From milk cartons to. English roommates: Context and agency in L2 learning beyond the classroom. In Beyond the language classroom (pp. 47-58). Palgrave Macmillan, London.Karp I. (1986). Agency and social theory: a review of Anthony Giddens. Am. Ethnol. 13(1), 131–37.Katyal, K. R., & Evers, C. W. (2004). Teacher leadership and autonomous studentlearning: Adjusting to the new realities. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(4-5), 367-382.Kim, S. (2014). “Developing Autonomous Learning for Oral Proficiency Using Digital Storytelling.” Language Learning and Technology, 18 (2): 20–35.Kim, Y., Sohn, D. and Choi, S. M. (2011) Cultural difference in motivations for using social network sites: A comparative study of American and Korean college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1): 365–372.Kizilcec, R. F., Perez-Sanagustín, M., & Maldonado, J. J. (2017). Self-regulated learning strategies predict learner behavior and goal attainment in Massive Open Online Courses. Computers & Education, 104, 18-33.Knight, J., Barbera, E., & Appel, C. (2017). A framework for learner agency in online spoken interaction tasks. ReCALL, 29(3), 276-293.Knight, J., & Barbera, E. (2018). Navigational acts and discourse: Fostering learner agency in computer-assisted language learning. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 16(1), 67-76, available online at www.ejel.orgKogler, H. H. (2012). Agency and the other: On the intersubjective roots ofself-identity. New Ideas in Psychology, 30, 47–64.Kop, R. (2011). The challenges to connectivist learning on open online networks: Learning experiences during a massive open online course. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v12i3.882Kormos, J., & Csizér, K. (2014). The interaction of motivation, self-regulatory strategies, and autonomous learning behavior in different learner groups. TESOL Quarterly, 48(2), 275-299.Kozar, O., & Sweller, N. (2014). An exploratory study of demographics, goals and. expectations of private online language learners in Russia. System, 45, 3951. doi:10.1016/j.system.2014.04.005Krapp, A., Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. (1992). Interest, Learning and Development.The role of interest in learning and development (K. Renninger, Hidi, S., & Krapp, A. Ed.): Hillsdale: NJ: Erlbaum.Krashen, S. D. (2014). The composing process. Research Journal: Ecolint Institute ofTeaching and Learning. International School of Geneva, 2, 20-30.Krashen, S. D. (2011). Free voluntary reading. ABC-CLIO.Krashen, S. (2005). The composing process and the academic composing process. IJFLT, 7.Krashen, S. D. (2004). The power of reading: Insights from the research: Insightsfrom the research: ABC-CLIO.Krashen, S. D. (2001). Incubation: A neglected aspect of the composing process. ESLJournal, 4(2), 10-11.Krashen, S. D. (1996). The case for narrow listening. System, 24(1), 97-100.Krashen, S. D. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additionalevidence for the input hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal, 73(4), 440464.Krashen, S. D. (1988). Do we learn to read by reading? The relationship between freereading and reading ability. Linguistics in context: Connecting observation and understanding, 29, 269-298.Krashen, S. D. (1984). Writing, research, theory, and applications: Pergamon.Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford University Press.Krashen, S. D., & Lee, S.-y. (2004). Competence in foreign language writing:Progress and lacunae. Literacy Across Cultures, 12(2), 10-14.Kuczynski, L., & Parkin, C. M. (2007). Agency and bidirectionality in socialization: Interactions, transactions, and relational dialectics. Handbook of socialization: Theory and research, 259-283.Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2009). Will Mobile Learning Change Language Learning?. ReCALL, 21(2), 157–165.Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2012). Smart Devices or People? A Mobile Learning Quandary. International Journal of Learning and Media, 4 (3-4), 73–77.Kumpulainen, K., & Sefton-Green, J. (2014). What is connected learning and how toresearch it? International Journal of Learning and Media, 4(2), 7-18.Kuppens, A.H. (2010). Incidental foreign language acquisition from media exposure. Learning, Media and Technology, 35, 65–85.Kusyk, M., & Sockett, G. (2012). “From Informal Resource Usage to Incidental Language Acquisition: Language Uptake from Online Television Viewing in English.” ASp. la Revue du GERAS, 62, 45–65.Kusyk, M. (2017). The development of complexity, accuracy, and fluency in L2 written production through informal participation in online activities. CALICO Journal, 34(1), 75–96.Kuure, L. (2011). Places for learning: Technology mediated language learning practices beyond the classroom. In P. Benson, & H. Reinders (Eds.), Beyond the language classroom (pp. 35-46). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Lafford, B. A. (2009). Toward an ecological CALL: Update to Garrett (1991). Themodern language journal, 93, 673-696.Lafford, P. T., & Lafford, B. A. (1997). Learning language and culture with Internet technologies. In M. D. Bush & R. M. Terry (Eds.), Technology-enhanced language learning (pp. 215-262). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.Lai, C. (2017). Autonomous language learning with technology: Beyond the classroom: Bloomsbury Publishing.Lai, C. (2013). A framework of developing self-directed technology use for language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 17(2), 100–122.Lai, C. (2015). Modeling teachers’ influence on learners’ self-directed use of technology for language learning outside the classroom. Computers & Education, 82: 74–83.Lai, C. (2015). Perceiving and Traversing In-class and Out-of-class Learning: Accounts from Foreign Language Learners in Hong Kong. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 9 (3), 265–284.Lai, C., & Gu, M. (2011). “Self-regulated Out-of-class Language Learning with Technology.” Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24 (4): 317–335.Lai, C., Hu, X., & Lyu, B. (2018). Understanding the nature of learners’ out-of-classlanguage learning experience with technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(1-2), 114-143.Lai, C., Shum, M., & Tian, Y. (2016). Enhancing learners’ self-directed use of technology for language learning: the effectiveness of an online training platform. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(1), 40-60.Lai, C., & Zheng, D. (2018). Self-directed use of mobile devices for languageLearning beyond the classroom. ReCALL, 30(3), 299-318.Lai, C., Zhu, W., & Gong, G. (2015). Understanding the quality of out‐of‐class English learning. TESOL Quarterly, 49(2), 278-308.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.Lantolf, J. P., & Pavlenko, A. (2001). (S)econd (L) anguage (A) ctivity theory: Understanding second language learners as people. Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research, 141-158.Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Larsen-Freeman, D. (2019). On language learner agency: A complex dynamic systems theory perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 103, 61-79.Larsen-Freeman, D. (2018). Looking ahead: Future directions in, and future research into, second language acquisition. Foreign Language Annals, 51, 55– 72.Larsen–Freeman, D. (2012). Complex, dynamic systems: A new transdisciplinary theme for applied linguistics? Language Teaching, 45, 202–214.Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 26, 141–165.Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex Systems and Applied Linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Oxford University Press.Laura M., A. (2001). Language and Agency. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30, 109-137. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.30.1.109Lawson, M. A., & Masyn, K. E. (2015). Analyzing profiles, predictors, and consequences of student engagement dispositions. Journal of School Psychology, 53(1), 63-86.Layder, D. (1998). Sociological practice: Linking theory and social research. Sage.Lee, L. (2016). Autonomous learning through task-based instruction in fully online language courses. Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 81-97.Leander, K. M., Phillips, N. C., & Taylor, K. H. (2010). The changing social spacesof learning: Mapping new mobilities. Review of Research in Education, 34(1),329-394.Lee, C., Yeung, A. S., & Cheung, K. W. (2019). Learner perceptions versus. Technology usage: A study of adolescent English learners in Hong Kong secondary schools. Computers & Education, 133, 13-26.Lee, J. S. (2019). Quantity and diversity of informal digital learning of English. Language Learning & Technology, 23 (1), 114-126.Lee, J. S. (2019). Informal digital learning of English and second language vocabularyoutcomes: Can quantity conquer quality? British journal of educational technology, 50(2), 767-778.Lee, J. S. (2017). Informal digital learning of English and second language vocabulary. outcomes: Can quantity conquer quality? British Journal of Educational Technology, doi:10.1111/bjet.12599.Lee, J. S., & Dressman, M. (2018). When IDLE hands make an English workshop: Informal digital learning of English and language proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 52(2), 435–445.Lee, L., & Markey, A. (2014). A study of learners’ perceptions of online interculturalexchange through Web 2.0 technologies. ReCALL, 26(3), 281-297.Lee, S. W. Y., & Tsai, C. C. (2011). Students` perceptions of collaboration, self-regulated learning, and information seeking in the context of Internet-based learning and traditional learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 905-914.Lee, S.-Y. (2015). Joining the ‘literacy club’: When reading meets blogging. ELTJournal, 69(4), 373-382.Lee, S.-Y. (2001). What makes it difficult to write: Theory, research, andimplications:Crane Publishing Company.Leppanen, S., Pitkanen-Huhta, A., Piirainen-Marsh, A., Nikula, T., & Peuronen, S.(2009). Young people`s translocal new media uses: A multiperspective analysis of language choice and heteroglossia. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(4), 1080-1107.Levak, N., & Son, J-B. (2017). Facilitating second language learners’ listening comprehension with Second Life and Skype. ReCALL, 29(2), 200-218.Levy, M., & Steel, C. (2015). Language learner perspectives on the functionality and use of electronic language dictionaries. ReCALL, 27(2), 177-196.Liao, C. C., Chang, W. C., & Chan, T. W. (2018). The effects of participation,performance, and interest in a game‐based writing environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(3), 211-222.Lin, C.H., Warschauer, M., & Blake, R. (2016). Language learning through social networks: Perceptions and reality. Language Learning & Technology, 20, 124–147.Lincoln Y, Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic Enquiry. London, Sage.Lindgren, R., & McDaniel, R. (2012). Transforming online learning through narrativeand student agency. Educational Technology & Society, 15(4), 344.Little, D. (2004). Constructing a theory of learner autonomy: some steps along the way. Future perspectives in foreign language education, 15-25.Little, D., & Dam, L. (1998). Learner autonomy: What and why? LANGUAGETEACHER-KYOTO-JALT, 22, 7-8.Little, D., & Erickson, G. (2015). Learner identity, learner agency, and the assessment of language proficiency: Some reflections prompted by the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 120-139.Liu, C. C., Chen, W. C., Lin, H. M., & Huang, Y.Y. (2017). A remix-oriented approach to promoting student engagement in a long-term participatory learning program. Computers & Education, 110, 1-15.Liu, M., McKelroy, E., Kang, J., Harron, J., & Liu, S. (2016). Examining the use of Facebook and Twitter as an additional social space in a MOOC. American Journal of Distance Education, 30(1), 14–26.Liu, Q., & Chao, C. C. (2018). CALL from an ecological perspective: How a teacherperceives affordance and fosters learner agency in a technology-mediatedlanguage classroom. ReCALL, 30(1), 68-87.Liu, S. H. J., Lan, Y. J., & Ho, C. Y. Y. (2014). Exploring the relationship between self-regulated vocabulary learning and web-based collaboration. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 404-419.Luo, H., Yang, T-T., Xue, J., & Zuo, M. (2019). Impact of student agency on learning performance and learning experience in a flipped classroom. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(2), 819-831.Lyrigkou, C. (2018). Not to be overlooked: agency in informal language contact. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1-16.Malcolm, J., Hodkinson, P., & Colley, H. (2003). Informality and formality inlearning: a report for the Learning and Skills Research Centre: Learning andSkills Research Centre.Marc Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon,9(5), 1-6.Marefat, F., & Barbari, F. (2009). The relationship between out-of-class language learning strategy use and reading comprehension ability. Porta Linguarum, 12, 91–106.Margaret S., A. (2002). Meta-reflexives. In (pp. 255-297): Cambridge UniversityPress.Mason, B. (2004). Improving TOEFL Scores from Reading Alone. InternationalJournal of Foreign Language Teaching, 2(1), 2-5.Masood, B., Ali, A., Asma, A. R., Guang, Y., & Khaled, T. (2016). School children’suse of digital devices, social media and parental knowledge and involvement –the case of Abu Dhabi. Education and Information Technologies, 22, 2645-2664. doi:10.1007/s10639-016-9557-yMcCarthey, S. J., López-Velásquez, A. M., García, G. E., Lin, S., & Guo, Y.-H.(2004). Understanding writing contexts for English language learners.Research in the Teaching of English, 351-394.McCombs, B. L. (1994). Strategies for assessing and enhancing motivation: Keys topromoting self-regulated learning and performance. In H. F. O’Neil, Jr., & M.Drillings (Eds.). Motivation, Theory and Research (pp. 49-70). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Eribaum Associates.McKinney, P., & Sen, B. (2016). The use of technology in group-work: A situational. analysis of students` reflective writing. Education for Information, 32(4), 375-396.McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. (2010). Personalised and self regulated learning in the Web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1).Mercer, S. (2018). Psychology for language learning: Spare a thought for the teacher.Language Teaching, 51(4), 504-525.Mercer, S. (2012). The complexity of learner agency. Apples-Journal of Applied Language Studies.Mercer, S. (2011). Language learner self-concept: Complexity, continuity and change. System, 39 (3), 335–346.Mercer, S. (2011). Understanding learner agency as a complex dynamic system. System, 39 (4), 427–436.Mercer, S. & Ryan, S. (2010). A mindset for EFL: Learners’ beliefs about the role of natural talent. ELT Journal, 64 (4), 436–444.Mick, C. (2015). Sociological approaches to second language learning and agency. InP. Deters, X. Gao, E. R. Miller, & G. Vitanova, (Eds.), Theorizing and. analyzing agency in second language learning (pp. 91–112). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Min, H. T. (2008). EFL vocabulary acquisition and retention: Reading plus vocabulary enhancement activities and narrow reading. Language Learning, 58(1), 73-115.Miller, E. R. (2014). The language of adult immigrants: Agency in the making. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Miller, E. R. (2016). The ideology of learner agency and the neoliberal self. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 26, 348–365.Moghari, M. H., & Marandi, S. S. (2017). Triumph through texting: Restoring learners’ interest in grammar. ReCall, 29(3), 357-372.Moje, E. B., & Luke, A. (2009). Literacy and identity: Examining the metaphors in history and contemporary research. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(4), 415-437.Mompean, J. A., & Fouz -González, J. (2016). Twitter -based EFL Pronunciation Instruction. Language Learning & Technology, 20(1), 166-190.Mruck, K. (2007). Das Beispiel der Open-Access-Zeitschrift Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research (FQS). Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie, 55(6), 251-257. doi:10.3196/18642950085445190Muñoz, C. (2012). The significance of intensive exposure as a turning point inlearners’ histories. Intensive exposure experiences in second languagelearning, 141-160.Nelson, T. O., A. W. Kruglanski, and J. T. Jost. 1998. ‘‘Knowing Thyself and Others: Progress in Metacognitive Social Psychology.’’ In Metacognition: Cognitive and Social Dimensions, edited by V. Y. Yzerbyt, G. Lories, and B. Darnne, 69-79. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Newmann, F. M. (1986). Priorities for the future: Toward a common agenda. SocialEducation, 50(4), 240-250.Nike, A. (2009). Online Extensive Reading for Advanced Foreign LanguageLearners: An Evaluation Study. Foreign Language Annals, 42, 340-366.Nitta, R., & Baba, K. (2015). Self-regulation in the evolution of the ideal L2 self: Acomplex dynamic systems approach to the L2 motivational selfsystem. Motivational dynamics in language learning, 367-396.Norris, C. (1984). Margins of Philosophy. By Jacques Derrida (Trans. Alan Bass).The University of Chicago Press. 1982. 330 pp. Romance Studies, 3(1), 43-54. doi:10.1179/026399085786621828Norton, B. (2017). Learner investment and language teacher identity. Reflections onLanguage teacher identity research, 80-86. In Barkhuizen, G. (Ed.). Reflections on language teacher identity research. Taylor & Francis.Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation: Multilingual Matters.Norton, B. & Toohey, K. (2001). ‘Changing perspectives on good language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 35: 307–22.Nowak, A., Vallacher, R. and Zochowski, M. (2005) The emergence of personality: Dynamic foundations of individual variation. Developmental Review, 25, 351–385.Nunan, D., & David, N. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge University Press.Oradini, F. & Saunders, G. (2008). The use of social networking by students and staff in higher education. Paper presented at the iLearning Forum, Paris. http://www.eifel. org/publications/proceedings/ilf08/contributions/improving-quality-of-learning withtechnologies/ Oradini_Saunders.pdfOrhan, Y. (2018). An Investigation of Out-of-Class Language Activities of Tertiary-Level EFL Learners. Education Reform Journal, 3(1), 1-14.Overton, W. F. (2007). A Coherent Metatheory for Dynamic Systems. Humandevelopment, 50(2/3), 154-159.Paiva, V. L. M. O. (2011). Identity, motivation and autonomy in second language acquisition from the perspective of complex adaptive systems. In G. Murray, X. S. Gao & T. Lamb (Eds.), Identity, motivation and autonomy in language learning (pp. 57-72). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Palfreyman, D. M. (2011). Family, friends, and learning beyond the classroom: Socialnetworks and social capital in language learning. In Beyond the language classroom (pp. 17-34): Springer.Palfreyman, D. M. (2011). Family, friends, and learning beyond the classroom: Socialnetworks and social capital in language learning. In Beyond the languageclassroom (pp. 17-34). Palgrave Macmillan, London.Palfreyman, D. & Smith, R.C., eds. (2003). Learner autonomy across cultures: Language Education Perspectives. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacmillanPanigrahi, R. (2018). Online learning: Adoption, continuance, and learning outcome—A review of literature. International Journal of Information Management, 43, 1-14.Panigrahi, R., Srivastava, P. R., & Sharma, D. (2018). Online learning: Adoption,continuance, and learning outcome—A review of literature. International Journal of Information Management, 43, 1-14.Park, J., Yang, J-S., & Hsieh, Y. C. (2014). University level second language readers’ online reading and comprehension strategies. Language Learning & Technology, 18(3), 148-172.Philp, J., & Duchesne, S. (2016). Exploring engagement in tasks in the languageclassroom. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 50-72.Rambe, P., & Chikobvu, D. (2014). Using Reflexive Agency to Explore Students’ Access to Online Learning Resources in Resource Constrained Learning Environments. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5 (20), 1147-1157.Rappa, N. A., & Tang, K. S. (2017). Student agency: An analysis of students’networked relations across the informal and formal learningdomains. Research in Science Education, 47(3), 673-684.Reeve, J., & Tseng, C. M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 257–267.Reinders, H. (2011). Materials development for learning beyond the classroom.In Benson, P., & Reinders, H. (Eds.). Beyond the language classroom (pp. 175-189). Springer.Reinders, H., & White, C. (2011). Learner autonomy and new learning environments. Special issue of Language Learning & Technology, 15(3), 1-3.Reinhardt, J. & Zander, V. (2011). Social networking in an intensive English program classroom: A language socialization perspective. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 326-344.Renninger, K. A. (1992). Individual interest and development: Implications for theoryand practice. The Role of Interest in Learning and Development, 26(3-4), 361-395.Renninger, K. A. (1992). Individual interest and development: Implications for theoryand practice (Vol. 26).Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2011). Revisiting the conceptualization, measurement, and generation of interest. Educational Psychologist, 46(3), 168-184.Renninger, K. A., & Su, S. (2012). Interest and its development.Ricca, B. (2012). Beyond teaching methods: A complexity approach. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 9, 31-51.Richards, J.C. (2015). The changing face of language learning: Learning beyond the classroom. RELC Journal, 46, 5–22.Rife, S. C., Cate, K. L., Kosinski, M., & Stillwell, D. (2016). Participant recruitmentand data collection through Facebook: The role of personalityfactors. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 19(1), 69-83.Rodrigo, V. (2003). Narrow listening and audio-library: The transitional stage in theprocess of developing listening comprehension in a foreign language. Mextesol Journal, 27(1), 9-25.Rose, M., & Rose, M. A. (2009). Writer`s block: The cognitive dimension: SIU Press.Rosell-Aguilar, F. (2004). Well done and well liked: online information literacy skills and learner impressions of the web as a resource for foreign language learning. ReCall, 16(1), 210-224.Rubio, F. D. (2014). Self-esteem and self-concept in foreign languagelearning. Multiple perspectives on the self in SLA, 4158.Ryan, S., & Irie, K. (2014). Imagined and possible selves: Stories we tell ourselvesabout ourselves. Multiple perspectives on the self in SLA, 109-126.Salaberry, M. R. (2000). L2 Morphosyntactic Development in Text-Based Computer-Mediated Communication. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(1), 5-27. doi:10.1076/0958-8221(200002)13:1;1-k;ft005Salma, U. (2015). Problems and practical needs of writing skill in EFL context: An. analysis of Iranian students of Aligarh Muslim University. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 20(11), 74-76.Salomon, G. (1984). “Television is ‘Easy’ and Print is ‘Tough’: The Differential Investment of Mental Effort in Learning as a Function of Perceptions and Attribution.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 76 (4), 647–658. http://doi.org/10.1037/ 0022-0663.76.4.647Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning & Technology, 13(1), 96-120.Savin-Baden, M., & Major, C. H. (2013). Qualitative research: The essential guide to theory and practice. Routledge.Schmitt, N., & Carter, R. (2000). The lexical advantages of narrow reading for secondlanguage learners. Tesol Journal, 9(1), 4-9.Scholz, K. (2017). “Encouraging Free Play: Extramural Digital Game-Based Language Learning as a Complex Adaptive System.” CALICO Journal, 34 (1): 39–57.Schulze, M., & Scholz, K. (2016). CALL theory: Complex adaptive systems. In C.Caws & M.-J. Hamel (Eds.), Learner-computer interactions: New insights on. CALL theories and applications (pp. 65-87). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Sealey, A., & Carter, B. (2004). Applied linguistics as social science. A&C Black.Sendag, S., Gedik, N., & Toker, S. (2018). Impact of repetitive listening, listening aid. and podcast length on EFL podcast listening. Computers & Education, 125, 273-283.Smith, F. (2012). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading andlearning to read: Routledge.Smith, F. (1985). Reading without nonsense: Teachers College Press.Smith, K., & Craig, H. (2013). Enhancing the autonomous use of CALL: A new curriculum model in EFL. CALICO Journal, 30(2), 252-278.Sockett, G. (2014). The Online Informal Learning of English. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Sockett, G. (2013). Understanding the online informal learning of English as a complex n dynamic system: An emic approach. ReCall, 25(1), 48-62.Sockett, G. (2012). From informal resource usage to incidental language acquisition: language uptake from online television viewing in English. Asp, 62, 45-65.Sockett, G., & Kusyk, M. (2015). Online informal learning of English: Frequency effects in the uptake of chunks of language from participation in web-based activities. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 153–177). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110378528-009Sockett, G. & Toffoli, D. (2012). Beyond learner autonomy: A dynamic systems view of the informal learning of English in virtual online communities. ReCALL, 24(2), 138-151.Song, D., & Bonk, C. J. (2016). Motivational factors in self-directed informal learningfrom online learning resources. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1205838.Stanfield, P. W. (2015). Analyzing Learner Agency in Second Language Learning: A Place-based Approach. In P. Deters, X. Gao, E. R. Miller, & G. Vitanova, (Eds.), Theorizing and analyzing agency in second language learning (pp. 173–194). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Stevens, D. D., & Cooper, J. E. (2009). Journal keeping: How to use reflective writing. for effective learning, teaching, professional insight, and positive change. Sterling, Virginia: Stylus Publishing, LLC.Stickler, U., & Emke, M. (2011). Tandem learning in virtual spaces: Supporting non-formal and informal learning in adults. In Benson, P., & Reinders, H. (Eds.). Beyond the language classroom (pp. 146-160): Springer.Su, Y., Zheng, C., Liang, J. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2018). Examining the relationship between English language learners’ online self-regulation and their self-efficacy. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2018, 34(3), 105-121.Sumuer, E. (2018). Factors related to college students` self-directed learning with technology. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 29-43.Sun, J. C. Y., & Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer self‐efficacy andself‐regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education.British journal of educational technology, 43(2), 191-204.Sundqvist, P. (2011). A possible path to progress: Out-of-school English languagelearners in Sweden. In Beyond the language classroom (pp. 106-118).Palgrave Macmillan, London.Sundqvist, P. (2009). “Extramural English Matters: Out-of-school English and its Impact on Swedish Ninth-graders’ Oral Proficiency and Vocabulary.” Diss., Karlstad University, Karlstad. Retrieved from http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/ get/diva2:275141/FULLTEXT03.pdfSundqvist, P., & Wikström, P. (2015). “Out-of-school Digital Gameplay and In-school L2 English Vocabulary Outcomes.” System, 51, 65–76.Sundqvist, P., & Sylven, L. K. (2016). Extramural English in the teaching and learning: From theory and research to practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Swain, M. (2009). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced secondLanguage proficiency. Advanced language learning: The contribution ofHalliday and Vygotsky, 95.Sylvén, L. K., & Sundqvist, P. (2012). Gaming as extramural English L2 learning andL2 proficiency among young learners. ReCALL, 24(3), 302-321.Sztompka. P. (ed.) 1994. Agency and Structure: Reorienting Social Theory. International Studies in Global Change,Vol. 4. Langhorne, PA: Gordon BreachTare, M., Golonka, E. M., Vatz, K., Bonilla, C. L., Crooks, C., & Strong, R. (2014).Effects of interactive chat versus independent writing on L2 learning. Language Learning & Technology, 18 (3), 208-227.Tejeda, M. J. (2007). Book Review: Clarke, A. E. (2005). Situational analysis:Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Organizational Research Methods, 10(2), 390-392. doi:10.1177/1094428106290198Teo, T. (2018). Students and Teachers’ Intention to Use Technology: Assessing Their Measurement Equivalence and Structural Invariance. Journal of Educational Computing. DOI 10.1007/s10639-016-9557-yThomas, M., Reinders, H., & Warschauer, M. (Eds.). (2013). Contemporary computerassisted language learning. London/New York: Bloomsbury.Toffoli, D., & Sockett, D. (2010). “How Non-specialist Students of English Practice Informal Learning Using web 2.0 Tools.” ASp. la Revue du GERAS, (58), 125–144.Toohey, K., & Norton, B. (2003). Learner autonomy as agency in sociocultural settings. In D. Palfreyman & R. C. Smith (Eds.), Learner autonomy across cultures (pp. 58–72). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Torkzadeh, G., & Van Dyke, T. P. (2002). Effects of training on Internet self-efficacy and computer user attitudes. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(5), 479–494.Tsai, I. C. (2012). Understanding social nature of an online community of practice for learning to teach. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(2), 271–285.Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255-272.Tsai, C. W., Shen, P. D., & Fan, Y. T. (2013). Research trends in self‐regulated learning research in online learning environments: A review of studies published in selected journals from 2003 to 2012. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(5), E107-E110.Tsai, M. J., Hsu, C. Y., & Tsai, C. C. (2011). Investigation of high school students` online science information searching performance: The role of implicit and explicit strategies. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(2), 246-254.Tsai, M. J. & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Junior high school students` Internet usage and self-efficacy: A reexamination of the gender gap. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1182-1192.Tsai M-J., & Tsai, C. C. (2010) Junior high school students’ internet usage and self-efficacy: a re-examination of the gender gap. Comput Educ, 54, 1182–1192.Tsai, Y.-L., & Tsai, C. C. (2018). Digital game-based second-language vocabulary learning and conditions of research designs: A meta-analysis study. Computers & Education, 125, 345-357Tseng, S. C., Liang, J. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2014). Students` self-regulated learning, online information evaluative standards and online academic searching strategies. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(1), 106-121.Tu, Y. W., Shih, M., & Tsai, C. C. (2008). Eighth graders’ web searching strategiesand outcomes: The role of task types, web experiences and epistemologicalbeliefs. Computers and Education, 51(3), 1142–1153.Ushioda, E. (2015). Context and complex dynamic systems theory. In Z. Dornyei, P. MacIntyre, & A. Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 47–54). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Ushioda, E. (2014). Motivational perspectives on the self in SLA: A developmentalview. Multiple perspectives on the self in SLA, 127-141.Ushioda, E. (2011a). Language learning motivation, self and identity: Current theoretical perspectives. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24, 199–210.Ushioda, E. (2011b). Motivating learners to speak as themselves. Identity, motivation and autonomy in language learning, 11-24.Ushioda, E. (2009). A person-in-context relational view of emergent motivation, self and identity. Bristol: UK: Multilingual Matters.Ushioda, E. (2007). Motivation, autonomy and sociocultural theory. In: Benson, P. (Ed.), Learner Autonomy: Teacher and Learner Perspectives. Authentik, Dublin, pp. 5-24.Ushioda, E., & Dörnyei, Z. (2011). Teaching and Researching: Motivation. Pearson Education.van Geert, P. (2011). The contribution of complex dynamic systems to development. Child Development Perspectives, 5, 273–278.van Lier, L. (2008). Agency in the classroom. In J. Lantolf & M. Poehner (Eds.),Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp. 163–186). London: Equinox.van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology of langauge learning: A sociocultural perspective. Boston, MA: Kluwer.Vanderplank, R. (2016). Captioned Media in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching: Subtitles for the Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing as Tools for Language Learning. Houndmills, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Verspoor, M. (2012). Symposium: Dynamic systems/Complexity theory as a newapproach to second language development. Language Teaching, 45(4), 533-534.Verspoor, M., de Bot, K., & Lowie, W. (Eds.). (2011). A dynamic approach to secondlanguage development. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Voller, P. (1997). Does the teacher have a role in autonomous learning?‟ In P. Benson. & P. Voller (eds). Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning (pp. 98-113). London: Longman.Waes, L. V., Weijen, D. V., & Leijten, M. (2014). Learning to write in an online writing center: The effect of learning styles on the writing process. Computers & Education, 73, 60-71.Wang, F. Y., & Lee, S. Y. (2013). Let’s surf: How does free voluntary surfing make English learning comprehensible and compelling? Selected Paper from the 22nd International Symposium and Book Fair on English Teaching (CD-ROM, pp. 403-411). Taipei: Crane.,2013/11/14-2013/11/16Wang, F. Y., & Lee, S. Y. (2015). Free voluntary surfing: An extensive reading curriculum supported by technology. In L. H. Das, S. Brand-Gruwel, J. Walhout & K. Kok (Eds.), (2015). The School Library Rocks: Proceedings of the 44th International Association of SchoolWarschauer, M., (1996). Computer Assisted Language Learning: an Introduction. In: Fotos S., (ed). 1998. Multimedia language teaching (pp.3-20). Tokyo: Logos International.Warschauer, M. (2004). Technological change and the future of CALL. In S. Fotos & C. Brown (Eds.), New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.Cambridge university press.Wertsch, J. V., Tulviste, P., & Hagstrom, F. (1993). A sociocultural approach to agency. Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children’s development, 23, 336-356.Williams, R., Karousou, R., & Mackness, J. (2011). Emergent learning and learning ecologies in Web 2.0. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 39–59.Winters, F. I., Greene, J. A., & Costich, C. M. (2008). Self-regulation of learning within computer-based learning environments: A critical analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 429–444.Wong, L. L., & Nunan, D. (2011). The learning styles and strategies of effective language learners. System, 39(2), 144-163.Wu, M. M.-f. (2012). Beliefs and Out-of-class language learning of Chinese-speakingESL learners in Hong Kong. New Horizons in Education, 60(1), 35-52.Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2005). Information commitments: Evaluative standards and information searching strategies in web-based learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(5), 374-385.Xiao, J. (2012). Successful and unsuccessful distance language learners: An ‘affective’ perspective. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 27,121–136.Xiao, J. (2014). Learner agency in language learning: the story of a distancelearner of EFL in China. Distance Education, 35(1), 4–17.Yang, H., & Clarke, M. (2018). Spaces of agency within contextual constraints: a case study of teacher’s response to EFL reform in a Chinese university. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 38(2), 187-201.Yashima, T., & Arano, K. (2015). Understanding EFL learners’ motivational dynamics: A three-level model from a dynamic systems and sociocultural perspective. Motivational dynamics in language learning, 285-314.Yin, R. (2016). Qualitative research from start to finish (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.You, C., & Chan, L. (2015). The dynamics of L2 imagery in future motivational self-guides. In Z. Dornyei, P. MacIntyre, & A. Henry (Eds.), Motivationaldynamics in language learning (pp. 397-418). Bristol, UK: MultilingualMatters.Zeidner, M., Boekaerts, M., & Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Self-Regulation. In Boekaerts,M., Zeidner, M., & Pintrich, P. R. (Eds.). Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 749-768): Elsevier.Zhang, J. (2013). Learner agency, motive, and self-regulated learning in an onlineESL writing class. IALLT Journal of Language Learning Technologies, 43(2),57-81.Zheng, C., Liang, J. C., Yang, Y. F., & Tsai, C. C. (2016). The relationship between Chinese university students` conceptions of language learning and their online self-regulation. System, 57, 66-78.Zheng, C., Liang, J. C., Li, M., & Tsai, C. C. (2018). The relationship between English language learners’ motivation and online self-regulation: A structural equation modelling approach. System, 76, 144-157.Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In Boekaerts, M., Zeidner, M., & Pintrich, P. R. (Eds.). Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39). Academic Press.Zimmerman, B.J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329– 339.Zimmerman, B. J., & Cleary, T. J. (2006). Adolescents’ development of personal agency: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and self-regulatory skill. Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents, 5, 45-69.Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2008). Motivation: An essential dimension of. self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research and applications (pp. 1–30). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum. zh_TW dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU202001528 en_US
