The conception of Learner agency: its basic principles and perspectives of application in the educational process
Abstract
The research focuses on describing the conception of Learner agency and its application in educational language practices. It is stated that the conception of Learner agency is aimed at the strategic and responsible development of the student’s personality and the role of the teacher as a mediator in the learning process. The conception is based on the student’s previous educational experience and prerequisites for the formation of their personality, namely social background, abilities, awareness of their educational goals, motivation, self-confidence, responsibility for choosing learning activities and hopes for future professional achievements. Sociocognitive and sociocultural factors are to be considered while acquiring a foreign language. The article emphasizes that the student acts depending on their individual intentions and social relations which constitute the community of practices. Given the social context, the degree of participation in such communities of practices is determined by the student’s activity and can be peripheral or complete. An imaginary or targeted community of practices is conductive to achieving results better than their current indicators. The article notes that the student’s activities are nevertheless limited by the framework of formal decisions and social code of practices, such as the teacher’s authority or parents’ ambitions, which may hinder the effective development of the student’s learner agency.
Downloads
References
Aitken, N. (2011). Student Voice in Fair Assessment Practice. In: Webber, C., Lupart, J. (eds) Leading Student Assessment. Studies in Educational Leadership, vol 15. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1727-5_9
Arkoudis, S., & Davison, C. (2008). Chinese Students Perspectives on their social, cognitive, and linguistic investment in English medium interaction. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 18(1), 3-8. https://doi.org/10.1075/japc.18.1.01ark
Baldauf R. B, & Moni R. B. (2006). Learner Centeredness in Teaching English as a Foreign Language: Teachers’ Voices. 26th Annual Thai TESOL International Conference: Teaching, Learning, Researching: Three Pillars of TESOL, Chaing Mai, Thailand, 19-21 January 2006. Chaing Mai, Thailand: Thailand TESOL. Retrieved from: https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:8562
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
Barrance, R., & Elwood, J. (2018). National assessment policy reform 14–16 and its consequences for young people: student views and experiences of GCSE reform in Northern Ireland and Wales. Assessment in Education Principles Policy and Practice, 25(3), 252-271. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2017.1410465
Biesta, G., & Tedder, M. (2007). Agency and learning in the lifecourse: Towards an ecological perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 39(2), pp. 132-149. https://doi.org/10.1080/02660830.2007.11661545
Boud D., & Molloy E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge of design, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38:6, 698-712. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.691462
Bown, J. (2009). Self-regulatory strategies and agency in self-instructed language learning: A situated view. The Modern Language Journal, 93(4), 570-583. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00965.x
Davidson, D. 1980 (1971). Agency. In Essays Essays on Actions and Events. ed. D. Davidson, pp.43-61. Oxford: Clarenton Press. http://doi.org/10.1017/UPO9781844653621.009
Dewey, J. (1961). The school and society. (Revised ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago. https://doi.org/10.2307/367051
Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American journal of sociology, 103, pp. 962-1023. https://doi.org/10.1086/231294
Eteläpelto, A., Vähäsantanen, K., Hökkä, P., & Paloniemi, S. (2013). What is agency? Conceptualizing professional agency at work. Educational Research Review, 10, pp. 45-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.05.001
Flowerdew, J., & Miller, L. (2008). Social structure and individual agency in second language learning: Evidence from three life histories. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 5(4), 201-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427580802286173
Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.21177.01124
Gillette, B. (1994). The role of learner goals in L2 success: Sociocultural theory and children with special needs. In: J.P. Lantolf & G. Appel. (eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research, Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1994, 195-210. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237201246_Lantolf_J_Thorne_S_L_2007_Sociocultural_Theory_and_Second_Language_Learning_In_B_van_Patten_J_Williams_eds_Theories_in_Second_Language_Acquisition_pp_201-224_Mahwah_NJ_Lawrence_Erlbaum
Gumperz J., & Levinson S., eds. (1996). Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/44w544hc
Hamid, M., & Baldauf, R. (2011). English and socio-economic disadvantage: learner voices from rural Bangladesh. Language Learning Journal, 39(2), 201-217. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2011.573687
Hill J., & Mannheim B. (1992). Language and world view. Annual review of anthropology, 21(1), 381-404. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.21.100192.002121
Huang, J. (2011). A dynamic account of autonomy, agency and identity in TEFL learning. In G. Murray, X. Gao & M. Lamb (Eds.), Identity, motivation and autonomy: Exploring their links. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 229-246. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847693747-016
Kanno, Y., & Norton, B. (2003). Imagined communities and educational possibilities: Introduction. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 2(4), 241-249. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327701JLIE0204_1
Kinginger, C. (2002). Defining the Zone of Proximal Development in US foreign language education. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 240-261. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/23.2.240
Lantolf, J. P., & Pavlenko, A. (1995). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 15, 108-124. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190500002646
Lantolf, J. P., & Pavlenko, A. (2001). Second language activity theory: understanding second language learners as people. Learner Contribution to Language Learning. Harlow: Pearson Education., 141-158. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261796867_Second_Language_Activity_Understanding_learners_as_people
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313795407_Lantolf_J_Thorne_S_L_Poehner_M_2015_Sociocultural_Theory_and_Second_Language_Development_In_B_van_Patten_J_Williams_Eds_Theories_in_Second_Language_Acquisition_ pp_207-226_New_York_Routledge
Mann, P.S. (1994). Micro-Politics: Agency in Postfeminist Era. Minneapolis: University Minneapolis Press. https://www.jstor. org/stable/10.5749/j.ctttv6jb
McKay, S. L., & Wong, S. L. C. (1996). Multiple discourses, multiple identities: Investment and agency in second-language learning among Chinese adolescent immigrant students. Harvard Educational Review, 66(3), 577-609. https://doi.org/10.17763/ haer.66.3.n47r06u264944865
Mercer, S. (2011). Understanding learner agency as a complex dynamic system. System, 39(4), pp. 427-436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.08.001
Miller, E. R. (2010). Agency in the making: Adult immigrants’ accounts of language learning and work. TESOL Quarterly, 44(3), 465-487. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2010.226854
Morita, N. (2004). Negotiating participation and identity in second language academic communities. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 573-603. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588281
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change. Harlow, England: Longman/ Pearson. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588036
Palfreyman, D. (2006). Social context and resources for language learning. System, 34(3), 352-370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2006.05.001
Priestley, M., Biesta, G., and Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. London, UK: Bloomsbury. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474219426
Rovane, C. (1998). The Bounds of Agency: An Essay in Revisionary Metaphysics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400822423
Scheiffelin B.B. (1990). The Give and Take of Everyday Life: Language Socialization of Kaluli Children. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017.S0305000900011697
Segal, J.M. (1991). Agency and Alienation: A Theory of Human Presence. Savage, MD: Rowman Littlefield. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3069211
Smith, K., Gamlem, S., Sandal, A., & Engelsen, K. (2016). Educating for the future: A conceptual framework of responsive pedagogy. Cogent Education, 3, 1–12.https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1227021
Tudor, I. (1992). Learner-centredness in language teaching: Finding the right balance. System, 20(1), 31-44. https://doi. org/10.1016/0346-251X(92)90005-N
Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 51-68. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00052
Zuengler, J., & Miller, E. R. (2006). Cognitive and sociocultural perspectives: Two parallel SLA Worlds? TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 35-58. https://doi.org/10.2307/40264510
