“…One key finding is that “the ability to self‐regulate requires scaffolding” (p. 12). This finding echoes the view of another recent article that suggests learners may be unlikely to continue their learning “unless care were taken to facilitate the internalization of regulation through support of the learner's autonomy, competence, and relatedness” (Lou, Chaffee, Lascano, Dincer, & Noels, , p. 57). Lee () argues that, from a self‐determination theory perspective, self‐regulation must come from intrinsic motivation, but that from a language learning autonomy perspective, self‐regulated learning does not require the same self‐driven motivation.…”
Section: Other‐regulated Vs Self‐regulated Language Learning Strategiessupporting
confidence: 80%
“…This would also align strategies with other concepts where regulation is viewed as transformative. Self‐determination theory (Deci & Ryan, ), which represents the construct of motivation on a continuum based on the source of regulation, seems to be an apt model upon which to map regulated strategy use, not least because it “has been an important conceptual framework for understanding motivation across diverse domains” (Lou et al., , p. 210). As Deci and Ryan () note,From this perspective, then, it is possible for individuals to internalize regulations without having them become part of the self.…”
Section: Other‐regulated Vs Self‐regulated Language Learning Strategiesmentioning
“…One key finding is that “the ability to self‐regulate requires scaffolding” (p. 12). This finding echoes the view of another recent article that suggests learners may be unlikely to continue their learning “unless care were taken to facilitate the internalization of regulation through support of the learner's autonomy, competence, and relatedness” (Lou, Chaffee, Lascano, Dincer, & Noels, , p. 57). Lee () argues that, from a self‐determination theory perspective, self‐regulation must come from intrinsic motivation, but that from a language learning autonomy perspective, self‐regulated learning does not require the same self‐driven motivation.…”
Section: Other‐regulated Vs Self‐regulated Language Learning Strategiessupporting
confidence: 80%
“…This would also align strategies with other concepts where regulation is viewed as transformative. Self‐determination theory (Deci & Ryan, ), which represents the construct of motivation on a continuum based on the source of regulation, seems to be an apt model upon which to map regulated strategy use, not least because it “has been an important conceptual framework for understanding motivation across diverse domains” (Lou et al., , p. 210). As Deci and Ryan () note,From this perspective, then, it is possible for individuals to internalize regulations without having them become part of the self.…”
Section: Other‐regulated Vs Self‐regulated Language Learning Strategiesmentioning
“…This survey research was grounded on the main tenets of modern motivation theory, selfdetermination theory [SDT] (Deci & Ryan, 1985;Ryan & Deci, 2017). SDT provides an understanding of the psychological and social foundations of autonomous learning in life (Lou et al, 2018). Briefly, it suggests that people have innate psychological needs (i.e., autonomy, competence and relatedness), and these universal needs are met through people's interactions in a social context (Deci & Ryan, 1985;Ryan & Deci, 2017).…”
Technology in Education is our second issue for 2020. The issue's editorial team have worked hard, in difficult global conditions, to work with reviewers and authors to bring this issue to publication. Many thanks go to the editor, Michael P. Menchaca, and his two Associate Editors, Daniel Hoffman and De-Graft Johnson Dei. While we have a special issue, COVID-19: Education Responses to a Pandemic, opening for submissions later this year, we need to acknowledge now that technology in education has been at the forefront of many educationalists' minds. We look forward to receiving many different and thought-provoking submissions later in the year. On reflecting on what might be said about technology and its use in education, I was reminded of the following comment: As far as technology itself and education is concerned, technology is basically neutral. It's like a hammer. The hammer doesn't care whether you use it to build a house or whether on torture, using it to crush somebody's skull, the hammer can do either. (Noam Chomsky). Technology, the "knowledge or use of the mechanical arts and applied sciences" (one definition in The Australian Pocket Oxford Dictionary), has been in education for far longer than many current students would acknowledge. So often the term "technology in education" has come to mean the use of computers and the affordances of the Internet. Probably the first use of technology in education was the realization that you could use a stick to scrawl on the ground instead of using a finger with all the hazards that can entail. Rudimentary technology indeed, but technology nevertheless. Please don't get me wrong: I am a fan of technology. As a university lecturer I ran tutorials in Second Life for my distance education students: but I used it with a purpose, developing a sense of social presence which has been shown to be important for engagement. I didn't make the technology drive the education. Education is and always must be the driving force behind any use of technology.
“…Teachers' scaffolding is an important part of the development of learner autonomy (Lou, Chaffee, Vargas Lascano, Dincer, & Noels, 2018). The concept of scaffolding, as grounded in the work of Vygotsky (1978), is used to describe any support structure such as artifacts, resources, and environments provided to learners to help them with their learning (Puntambekar & Hubscher, 2005).…”
Section: Developing Learner Autonomy | 3 Of 15mentioning
This article investigates how adult English language learners from refugee backgrounds respond to teaching strategies that aim to facilitate the promotion of learner autonomy. Interest in learner autonomy has grown significantly in the area of second language (L2) teaching. The culturally appropriate model of autonomy has been widely advocated in the L2 literature. This article explores how students’ premigration experiences influence the development of autonomous learning. The data used in this article were collected from classroom observations and retrospective interviews with Bhutanese refugee students and teachers in an adult migrant English program in Australia. The findings show that refugee students’ premigration experiences, their cultural perceptions of teaching, and their learning preferences have a negative influence on the implementation of autonomy‐supportive instructional practices. This article suggests that adult refugee students from non‐Western cultural backgrounds should be guided slowly and progressively into the new culture and pedagogy of autonomous learning. Teachers should investigate how ready the students are in terms of taking responsibility and then use appropriate scaffolding as needed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
