Content uploaded by Hayo Reinders
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hayo Reinders on Oct 31, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
POSITION PAPER
Technology, Motivation and Autonomy, and
Teacher Psychology in Language Learning:
Exploring the Myths and Possibilities
Glenn Stockwell1* and Hayo Reinders2*†
1
Waseda University and
2
King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi
*Corresponding author. E-mail: gstock@waseda.jp,hayo@innovationinteaching.org
Abstract
The expectations of the impact of technology for language teaching and learning have
often exceeded the actual results themselves, where emerging technologies are often
believed to be more effective than existing ones simply because they are newer, with little
consideration of the differences in associated pedagogies (see Bax, 2003; Levy & Stockwell,
2006). Technology is often believed to be inherently motivating for students and linked to
the development of autonomy. The realities of technology and its influence on motivation
are proving to be somewhat more complex than perceived for both language teachers and
learners (Stockwell, 2013). Technology can provide opportunities for motivated learners
but is unlikely to lead to motivation or autonomous behavior in many learners unless
appropriate pedagogies are applied that capitalize on the affordances of the technologies
and include sufficient training in how to use the technologies for language learning pur-
poses (see Reinders, 2018a). At the same time, the role of teachers in the classroom and
their attitudes toward their environment and the pressures that they face (Mercer &
Kostoulas, 2018) can also impact technology implementation. This article brings together
these three interrelated areas and explores how they link to technology: learner motivation
and autonomy, teacher psychology, and pedagogical considerations.
Keywords: technology; autonomy; motivation; teacher psychology
Overview
Some 15 years ago, the late Stephen Bax (2003) published a seminal article that has had
a wide-reaching impact on the field of computer-assisted language learning (CALL).
The element of that article that had the greatest impact was his discussion of normal-
ization, where he argued that technologies would become such a natural part of the
learning environment that they would no longer be noticed, and the separation of
the field of CALL from that of language teaching and learning in a larger sense
would in essence become redundant. To a certain extent, Bax’s prediction has indeed
come true, and it is quite normal to see technologies being discussed as a natural
part of many language teaching and learning environments.
†
Hayo Reinders’s affiliation has been corrected. A corrigendum detailing this change has also been
published (doi:10.1017/S0267190519000175).
© Cambridge University Press 2019
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (2019), 39,40–51
doi:10.1017/S0267190519000084
A less-often cited element of Bax’s(2003) article is, however, one that has surpris-
ingly far-reaching implications for the field of CALL, where he described two fallacies
that he considered to inhibit the normalization of technology in language teaching and
learning. First, he argued that there was a widespread view that technology (specifically
software) should be able to do everything, and that the more features that the technol-
ogy has, the more inherently effective it would be. Second, he suggested that it was
believed that the mere existence of technology is the only relevant factor in the success-
ful implementation of technology as a (seamless) part of a language teaching and learn-
ing curriculum. Technology should not be viewed as a “miracle cure-all”(Chambers &
Bax, 2006, p. 465). Both of these views pointed to an unrealistic perspective of technol-
ogy, where technology is somehow able to inherently contribute to language learning,
largely irrespective of other factors. Technology has often been given “black box”status,
where it is expected to be able to contribute to enhanced motivation, more active
engagement in learning activities, and enhanced autonomy.
While research into technology in language teaching and learning has come a long
way since Bax’s(2003) observations, the question remains as to whether these fallacies
from more than 15 years ago have been resolved. Language teachers need to ask them-
selves if they hold a more realistic perspective regarding technology today, in particular
about the potential for technology to lead to more successful learning compared with
nonuse, and if they, as educators, comprehend the need for adequate training along
with pedagogical, administrative, and technical support.
It would be difficult to argue that these overstated views have in fact been invalidated
in any universal sense. The emergence of mobile technologies has provided some evi-
dence of this persisting view. Questions are frequently asked about the best app to learn
a certain language, most often without accompanying information such as the level of
the students, the skills to be targeted, and the anticipated learning outcomes. This per-
spective is very clearly in line with the first fallacy that Bax (2003) highlighted, indicat-
ing that this view continues to persist. Compounded with this, an underlying
assumption often held by teachers is that learners will be motivated to use their mobile
devices to carry out these app-based learning activities. This corresponds very closely
with the second fallacy, where the mere existence of technologies will result in mean-
ingful engagement in activities using them.
With regard to learners, autonomy and motivation are two main areas that have
gained considerable attention over the past quarter century (see Little, Dam, &
Legenhausen, 2017; Ushioda, 2013). While autonomy is often described as being closely
linked to motivation, it certainly should not be confused with being the same thing. Not
all motivated learners are autonomous, and similarly, not all learners who have the
potential to be autonomous actually are. That being said, few would argue against
there being a definite interdependence between motivation and autonomy (Spratt,
Humphreys, & Chan, 2002). The importance of motivation in language learning cannot
be overstated, given that having sufficient motivation can make up for various deficien-
cies in learner aptitude and the learning environment (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015). Needless
to say, the opposite could also be said, in that even when the learner has sufficient apti-
tude and an ideal learning environment, a lack of motivation can result in an inability to
make the most of these.
Investigations into motivation as a determinant of success in learning a second lan-
guage have been subject to some degree of criticism. Clearly, one of the major reasons
for this has been the difficulty in defining motivation in any quantifiable sense, mainly
because the term is used extremely broadly to refer to rather different, albeit related,
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 41
things, such as overall attitudes toward learning, motivation to engage in a task or activ-
ity, or even the reasons why a learner has undertaken language study in the first place.
Motivation itself has been the focus of research into second language teaching and
learning for decades, often influenced by research from behavioral psychology (e.g.,
Deci & Ryan, 1985; Dörnyei, 2005; Gardner & Lambert, 1972; Gardner & MacIntyre,
1993). Without going into the various perspectives on the role of motivation and sec-
ond language learning, the numerous discussions and research results to date make it
clear that motivation is an individual, an environmental, and a social construct that
is prone to change and influence from both direct and indirect factors (see Dörnyei,
MacIntyre, & Henry, 2015; Larsen-Freeman, 2015). Even in the absence of a clear
and quantifiable definition of motivation, most teachers have some fundamental idea
of what it means for their learners to be motivated in a broad sense, and the “moti-
vated”learner is seen as being desirable, with the expectation of more successful learn-
ing outcomes than with learners who do not possess this motivation.
Autonomy is another area where a good deal of discussion has taken place over the
last several years, with learning moving from a largely teacher-centered undertaking
through to a more learner-centered one. The term autonomy itself has been notoriously
difficult to define, often expressed in rather broad terms such as experiencing oneself as
the origin of one’s behavior (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011) and the capacity to take control
of one’s learning (Benson, 2013). A more operationalized definition from Murray
(2014) categorizes autonomy as taking responsibility for goal setting, materials selec-
tion, strategy implementation, monitoring progress, and assessment. As Schwienhorst
(2011) pointed out, autonomy is likely to vary greatly across skills, and it is difficult
to make a case for autonomy associated with one particular area as having any degree
of transferability to other areas. Others have argued that Holec’s(1981) view of
autonomy as an individual internal construct that is independent of outside social inter-
actions does not accurately reflect the various evolving independencies and interdepen-
dencies that take place during the learning process (see Lewis, 2014). Each of these
positions on autonomy combine to illustrate the elusiveness of the term. For the
most part, teachers would tend to have an idea of what it is that they would like learners
to achieve with regard to their learning (e.g., to be able to go beyond the teacher require-
ments for learning and to select and undertake activities that develop their own lan-
guage learning skills without direct instruction), but the factors that lead to this state
remain more difficult to pin down accurately. Part of this complexity can be seen in
the discussion by Benson (1997), who provided three versions of autonomy: technical,
psychological, and political. In this distinction, Benson saw technical autonomy as “the
act of learning a language outside the framework of an educational institution and with-
out the intervention of a teacher”(p. 19). Psychological autonomy includes the attitudes
and abilities that allow the learner to take responsibility for their learning, and political
autonomy includes the framework—most commonly the educational environment—
that can lend support to learners’individual learning. While this is far from the only
way in which autonomy can be dissected, this example does serve to show the sheer
range of interpretations of autonomy that can be derived from the notion. In much
the same way as motivation, however, when teachers use the term autonomy, it is likely
that they have some broad concept of desirable behavior that they look for in their
learners. There would, of course, be some individual variation, but one would generally
expect that teachers would consider autonomous learners to be those learners who are
willing and able to go beyond the requirements of the course to seek out learning
resources for themselves and use them in an effective manner.
42 Glenn Stockwell and Hayo Reinders
The position of the teacher in the overall equation with regard to facilitating tech-
nology usage is another important area, with teachers often possessing exaggerated
expectations as to what learners are capable of with technology (Hubbard, 2004) and
underestimating their own abilities to use technology effectively in teaching as well as
the potential learning outcomes from technology (Yaghi & Abu-Saba, 1998). The digital
natives concept proposed by Prensky (2001) has done very little to alleviate these con-
cerns. While some younger users of technology may have some advantages in terms of
the ways in which they use technology for private purposes, this has not been shown to
be an accurate determinant of their ability to use it for learning purposes (Stockwell &
Hubbard, 2013). The perception that learners are more capable users of technology
than teachers can lead to unrealistic expectations as to what they can achieve with
the technology in educational contexts as well, which can potentially impact teacher
motivation. Pressure from the institution (Stockwell, 2013), fears regarding the superi-
ority of learners with regard to technology usage (Levy & Stockwell, 2006), and unre-
alistic outlooks concerning technology making language teachers obsolete or redundant
(Wray & Medwell, 1991) have the potential to detrimentally affect the way in which the
teacher engages with the technology, which ultimately has the potential to impact the
learning environment.
From this brief introductory discussion, it is clear that technology can have far-reaching
effects in the language classroom, but that it is often surrounded by somewhat unrealistic
expectations that can impact the way in which it is viewed and used by both teachers and
learners. The realities of technology with regard to motivation and autonomy, along with
the real and perceived issues faced by teachers, are discussed in more depth below.
Technology and Learner Motivation and Autonomy
The position of technology as a motivator has been quite widely observed in the liter-
ature, despite receiving only moderate support from empirical evidence (for a discus-
sion, see Golonka, Bowles, Frank, Richardson, & Freynik, 2014). This viewpoint of
technology as a means of motivating learners is based largely on short-term studies
where the motivational impacts are for the most part anecdotal or based on subjective
measures from the learners themselves (e.g., Felix, 2005; Hubbard, 2005). Indeed, tech-
nology as a motivator is likely a concept that is more associated with a time when tech-
nologies were more of a novelty (e.g., Murray, 1998), but given the shift in the balance
of power toward learners as predominant technology users, rather than teachers, it is
not surprising that this view is no longer mainstream (Stockwell, 2013). This being
the case, the technology itself is unlikely to hold any long-term motivational value,
and sustained usage of the technology will depend on other determining factors.
Indeed, contrary to the opinion held by many teachers, according to Bax (2003), tech-
nology in itself has not shown to be an accurate predictor of task engagement. Stockwell
(2019) found that an increased penetration rate of smart phones had very little impact
on both the amount and quality of engagement for learners in completing online activ-
ities, and that other factors such as the environment and training were far more likely to
have made a difference.
Technology in itself is highly unlikely to lead to autonomy, but rather, technology
has the potential to provide opportunities for engaging with the target language for
learners who possess some degree of autonomy. The complexities of autonomy have
been outlined above, but technology emphasizes another issue that needs consideration
for learners to move toward autonomous behaviors—the need for learners to have
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 43
sufficient skills in order to engage in tasks in a meaningful manner (Hubbard & Romeo,
2012; Reinders, 2018a). Autonomous behavior is highly unlikely to occur without a suf-
ficient balance of motivation and skills (Stockwell, forthcoming). That is, learners who
do not possess sufficient skills to know how to undertake the language learning activ-
ities without constant encouragement and support from the teacher (regardless of
whether this takes either a carrot or a stick approach), they are unlikely to sustain
this engagement for any meaningful duration. At the same time, even if the learners
do indeed possess these skills, if they do not have the motivation to actually engage
in the activities, then these skills may be largely wasted. Another important observation
is that both motivation and skills need to be nurtured. The lack of transferability of
skills (and even motivation) from one field of learning to another—be it learning vocab-
ulary, developing listening skills, or writing an academic essay—means that autonomy
should not be assumed just because it is exhibited in a given related area. Learners may
find that they are more motivated to engage in one type of activity just because of the
nature of this activity (and in the case of technology, the tools that are used may result
in a more positive attitude toward this type of activity), but this motivation may be
somewhat reduced in other areas. Needless to say, having sufficient skills to be able
to engage in unfamiliar areas would be seen as a prerequisite to learning effectively,
and thus support is once again vital for success.
Where we see technology having the opportunity to assist in motivating learners is
through the social interactions that new communication tools make possible (Ushioda,
2011). Both motivation and autonomy are thought to exist within social contexts that
can be enhanced by technology, but simply engaging in online communication is highly
unlikely to automatically result in autonomy or have any long-term impact on motiva-
tion. Teachers often place expectations on learners to interact with one another through
social tools such as Facebook, but communication is rarely sustained and is highly depen-
dent upon ongoing intervention from the teacher (Appel & Mullen, 2002;Tran,2018).
Such behavior could hardly be called autonomous, and motivation is extremely closely
linked to the degree to which the teacher is willing and able to interact with others.
Spontaneous interaction by learners is indeed possible, but this is more likely to be seen
with higher-level learners or those who have already been able to establish links with mem-
bers of the online communities in which they participate (Choi & Nunan, 2018;
Pasfield-Neofitou, 2012). What becomes evident is that technology itself is not the key
issue in motivating learners, but rather what they can do with the technology and whether
or not they see how this relates to their individual language learning objectives.
Technology and Teacher Psychology
Only in the past several years has the importance of teacher psychology started to attract
the attention that it deserves. The psychology of the learner has long been an important
aspect of research and discussion in language teaching and learning (e.g., Dörnyei &
Ryan, 2015; Williams & Burden, 1997; Williams, Mercer, & Ryan, 2016), and this
has formed the foundation for the majority of theories that account for how learners
learn a language, how they interact with others, their motivation for learning languages,
and how they regulate themselves in the learning process. However, we have seen less
research regarding the psychology of language teachers. In much the same way as learn-
ers develop a self-image of themselves as learners of a language, teachers also develop a
self-image as users of technology (Sahakyan, Lamb, & Chambers, 2018). Hardly sur-
prising, in much the same way that learners come into the classroom with an idealistic
44 Glenn Stockwell and Hayo Reinders
image of what they expect the language classroom and teacher to be like, teachers pos-
sess similar ideas, with expectations of the types of learners that they hope to have in
their classes (Dewaele & Mercer, 2018; Kalaja & Mäntylä, 2018).
Teacher education itself is an enormous field and has been the focus of numerous
publications over the years that attempt to provide teachers with some foundation to
prepare them for teaching from a range of different perspectives, including historical,
practical, and social viewpoints (e.g., Horwitz, 2013; Johnson, 2009; Larsen-Freeman
& Anderson, 2011). Training for using technology in language teaching and learning
has, however, been somewhat less prevalent. There have been a number of publications
targeted toward teacher education with technology (e.g., Hubbard & Levy, 2006; Son &
Windeatt, 2017), but technology has remained an area that has been somewhat
neglected in courses in terms of having clear objectives in achieving relevant competen-
cies and understanding how to make sense of the range of tools that are available (Son,
2018). The motivation for teachers to use technology itself is also extremely varied,
ranging from internal-initiated (i.e., the teacher makes the decision to use the technol-
ogy) to external-initiated (i.e., the decision to use the technology is made by others; see
Stockwell, 2013, for a discussion). Teachers have often expressed reluctance to accept
new approaches (Reinders, 2018b), and it is not surprising that this is also evidenced
in adoption of technology.
In the absence of comprehensive in-service teaching, the onus for learning how to
use technologies effectively for their individual environments falls squarely on the
teachers themselves. Teachers who possess a certain degree of agency will find it less
imposing to do this (White, 2018), but teachers often struggle with gaining recognition
for their efforts to improve their skills (Costley, 2011) and are faced with inequities
regarding access to such learning (Evans, Guile, & Harris, 2011). External pressures
to use technology are often the result of decisions that were made by administrators
without sufficient consultation with the teachers who become the end users of the tech-
nology, so it is not surprising to see that there is some degree of reluctance expressed by
teachers who feel dissatisfied or even distrust of the technologies. Such negative atti-
tudes often filter down to the learners, who can sense their teachers’lack of enthusiasm
(or even criticism) about the technologies that they are required to use, and this can
have a detrimental effect on the learning environment on the whole.
For most teachers, gaining sufficient skills in using technology without training has
proven to be difficult (Robb, 2006), with the burden of when, where, and how to gain
these skills falling on the shoulders of the teachers themselves, often in their own time.
Teachers need to have a knowledge of the range of tools available, and they must also
know the best ways in which to apply appropriate technologies to the learning goals of
the varied contexts in which they find themselves, but finding ways of acquiring such
knowledge without assistance requires teachers to seek out information about the
resources through accessing relevant research and engaging in dialogue with others
who have experience (Stockwell, 2009). As has been addressed above, another ongoing
problem is finding ways to train learners to use resources effectively for language learn-
ing, but in many cases the teachers themselves are also somewhere along the learning
curve. To achieve better training, Kolaitis, Mahoney, Pomann, and Hubbard (2006) sug-
gested a collaborative approach where teachers can start on a smaller scale in project
groups initially while interacting with more experienced peers, and as teachers become
more capable of supporting one another in technology training groups, they can then
extend their new technology skills to regular classroom settings. To do this successfully,
the teacher needs to be able to view the materials and the environment from the
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 45
perspective of the learner (Hubbard, 2004); working in project groups enables partici-
pants to experience new materials and approaches from the perspective of both the
teacher and the learner. Given the importance of learner training so that learners
will be able to use technological resources as a part of their learning, sufficient time
needs to be devoted for teachers to learn the technology. Both teachers and learners
will need to find the best way of providing training that suits the dynamics of that par-
ticular group, often in the midst of the curricular constraints.
Pedagogical Considerations
The complexities of maintaining motivation and encouraging autonomous behavior
through technology are intertwined with a range of factors relating to the technologies
themselves; the experiences, goals, views, and expectations of both the learners and
teachers; the institutional environment; and the support for learning how to use
these technologies effectively and to deal with difficulties as they arise. Learning to
use a technology for language learning does not necessarily mean that the technology
is something they have not used before, although it might be the case with emerging
technologies, such as a new learning management system or a smart board. Learning
how to use the range of functions of existing technologies, even as simple as an
audio player, in a way that can enhance the learning process can contribute to improved
learning outcomes (e.g., Romeo & Hubbard, 2010).
Motivation is extremely dynamic and volatile and may be affected by a range of fac-
tors that go beyond the technology itself. The short-term motivational benefits of cer-
tain technologies are unlikely to lead to any meaningful sustained interaction, so
teachers need to try to maintain motivation in other ways that do not depend on the
technology itself. Similarly, autonomy is not a natural outcome of using technology,
but is rather very much a product of the skills and attitudes toward learning certain ele-
ments of the language. Finally, teacher considerations in the overall context must also be
given attention, as they will directly impact learner attitudes toward technology, the
ways in which learners use the technology, and the longevity of usage (see Stockwell,
2013). These include how teachers are able to maintain their own motivation and skills
with the use of technologies, often in the face of unrealistic expectations regarding what
learners are capable of.
A list of pedagogical principles for using technology in the classroom are provided
below, based on the discussion above. These principles were designed as a way to pro-
mote best practices with regard to deriving maximum benefit from technology use for
language teaching and learning. The choice of technologies will depend heavily on the
individual context, given that access to technology will differ among learners. Indeed,
arguing for the latest technologies relates very much to the fallacies pointed out by
Bax (2003), and as such, the salient point is not what the technologies themselves
are, but that the available technologies are used in a way that enhances the learning pro-
cess as much as possible.
1. Seek out peers who have used technology as a part of their language teaching
environments
Observing technology in use can give practitioners a good idea of the problems that
might be encountered when using that technology. As Cairns (2011) suggested, com-
munities of practice in the workplace allow participants to experience real-world
46 Glenn Stockwell and Hayo Reinders
environments and make it possible for teachers to learn in a participatory manner
through social interaction with their peers (Wenger, 2000). Interactions with experi-
enced peers can lead to the development of a support structure that can give assistance
when necessary when implementing technologies.
2. Become familiar with the tools in a range of contexts in which learners would be
expected to use them
It is not uncommon for teachers to assign online activities to learners without having an
idea in mind of when and where learners will actually interact with them. In an era
where there are expectations for some elements of learning to take place outside of
class (e.g., flipped classrooms), it is important to have some idea of exactly when and
where this type of learning will take place, and the types of difficulties that learners
might encounter to make it possible to add some preventative measures early on. For
example, Stockwell and Liu (2015) used the same online vocabulary learning activities
with students in Japan and Taiwan, but found very different usage patterns. Learners in
Japan used their mobile phones while commuting, whereas Taiwanese students used
their computers at home. The primary reason for this difference was that the
Japanese students were commuting by train or bus, while the Taiwanese students
were commuting by motorcycle. Much in line with Hubbard’s(2004) ideas, experienc-
ing task engagement as a learner can help teachers to get a feel for the problems such as
distractions and ideal length of time to spend on activities, and to deal with any poten-
tial problems such as network and battery issues, boredom, and a lack of necessary strat-
egies to use the tools effectively.
3. Avoid overestimating learners’abilities to use technology for learning purposes
As has been discussed above, learners will come into the classroom with a range of expe-
riences and skills that may or may not equip them for learning through technology. Many
learners are quite familiar with using technology (particularly mobile technologies) for
private purposes, but this should not be taken as a foregone conclusion (Hubbard,
2004) and is a rather poor determiner of their ability to use technology effectively for
learning a language. Many learners will have had some experiences with learning through
technology, but these will often be negative, either by being required to use resources
without appropriate training or attempting to self-study through online tools and apps
with minimal success. Providing sufficient training can have an enormous impact on atti-
tudes to learning through technology as well as enabling both teachers and learners to
make more effective and efficient use of technology (Hubbard & Romeo, 2012).
4. Provide ongoing hands-on training in multiple strategies for learning specific skills
Learners will likely bring with them various preferences for using different tools (Levy
& Stockwell, 2006), so providing a range of learning strategies can appeal to a broader
student base. Strategy training should go beyond superficial explanations of the strate-
gies based on assumptions that the learners have understood what is required of them,
but rather should include an element where learners can actually try different strategies
with a technology during class time to make sure that they can carry them out without
supervision. These might include showing learners how to slow down the speed while
listening to a passage to make it easier to isolate individual words or phrases or advising
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 47
learners to use the pause button while listening to give them time to carry out activities
such as shadowing. It is quite common for learners to forget strategies if they don’t use
them. Often they have selected only one or two out of a range of options, so providing
training on an ongoing, cyclical basis gives them a chance to try strategies that they did
not choose to use the first time that they were introduced. Different skills are likely to
have a variety of strategies that can be applied, so ensuring that learners know exactly
how the strategies can assist them can also help them to engage in activities with a
clearer idea of what they are trying to achieve. Helping learners to see the relationship
between the strategies that they already possess and technology, as well as showing new
strategies that have emerged as a result of functions inherent in technologies, can give
them a strong foundation on which to explore how to improve their own learning pro-
cesses. Whether strategy training is carried out in the first or second language will
depend very much on learner proficiency in the target language, but it is important
that the learners can clearly comprehend and reflect upon the strategies that they are
shown and they choose to adopt.
5. Avoid assumptions about global autonomy based on task-specific sustained
engagement
Even if learners exhibit sustained engagement in specific tasks or activities, this is not a
reliable indicator of their ability to engage in other activities without further training.
Learners can give the impression of global autonomy as a result of their behavior
when engaging in certain tasks, but this is unlikely to be transferred to other types
of tasks unless they are provided with training (cf. Schwienhorst, 2011). While sustained
engagement might be considered as a condition for autonomy, engagement itself does
not fulfil the conditions outlined by Murray (2014), which includes setting goals, select-
ing materials, implementing appropriate strategies, and keeping track of their own pro-
gress. That being the case, unsupervised (e.g., outside of class) sustained engagement
can give the illusion of autonomy that may or may not actually exist. Training learners
in a range of skills and areas with multiple strategies over time may lead to higher levels
of sustainability, but this does not necessarily equate with autonomy.
6. Encourage dialogue between learners and the teacher about strategies used
Strategies tend to be rather private, where very few learners will have had the opportu-
nity to discuss the strategies that they have used with the teacher or with other learners.
Through taking the time to consider and explain the strategies that they use with others,
learners can think through the strengths and weaknesses of strategies and reflect on their
use of strategies (Romeo & Hubbard, 2010). An advantage of having teachers be a party
to this discussion is that the teachers may also have the opportunity to find out about
strategies that they were not aware of, broadening their own repertoire of strategies that
they might then introduce to later classes. Hearing the voices of the learners can also
make the teachers better able to train learners, which can serve the double function
of potentially enhancing learning and having a motivating effect on the teacher.
Conclusion
The purpose of this article is to dispel some of the myths of using technology for lan-
guage teaching and learning, and to encourage teachers to take a more balanced view of
48 Glenn Stockwell and Hayo Reinders
technology when introducing it in their own language teaching contexts. As Bax (2003)
pointed out, technology is often viewed somewhat unrealistically in what it can achieve,
and knowing the limitations of the technology—and the limitations of the users of the
technology—can help teachers to identify how these limitations can be overcome.
Teaching with technology is a challenge. There are multiple skills that both teachers
and learners require to create an optimum learning environment, and these are often
difficult to acquire without appropriate support. Seeking out communities of practice
in the workplace can be a good starting point, but it is important for teachers to
bear in mind that the learners themselves are likely to be highly inexperienced users
of technology for language learning. Providing varied, ongoing training to learners
that caters to multiple skills can help learners have a better idea of what they should
be doing with technology. Over time, these skills might motivate learners to engage
in activities in a more sustained manner. Through such experiences, the learners may
get a sense of what they need to further develop their skills, which could in turn
lead to autonomous learning skills. What is key in all cases is patience, and both teach-
ers and learners need to have an open mind to new approaches and practices that can
positively change the face of the learning environment.
Author ORCIDs. Glenn Stockwell, 0000-0001-6420-3788.
References
Appel, C., & Mullen, T. (2002). A new tool for teachers and researchers involved in e-mail tandem language
learning. ReCALL,14(2), 195–208.
Bax, S. (2003). CALL—past, present and future. System,31(1), 13–28.
Benson, P. (1997). The philosophy and politics of autonomy. In P. Benson & P. Voller (Eds.), Autonomy
and independence in language learning (pp. 18–35). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Benson, P. (2013). Teaching and researching autonomy (2nd ed.). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Cairns, L. (2011). Learning in the workplace: Communities of practice and beyond. In M. Malloch,
L. Cairns, K. Evans, & B. N. O’Connor (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of workplace learning ( pp. 73–
85). London, UK: SAGE.
Chambers, A., & Bax, S. (2006). Making CALL work: Towards normalisation. System,34(4), 465–479.
Choi, J., & Nunan, D. (2018). Language learning and activation in and beyond the classroom. Australian
Journal of Applied Linguistics,1(2), 49–63.
Costley, C. (2011). Workplace learning and higher education. In M. Malloch, L. Cairns, K. Evans, & B.
N. O’Connor (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of workplace learning ( pp. 395–406). London, UK: SAGE.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behaviour.
New York, NY: Pergamon.
Dewaele, J.-M., & Mercer, S. (2018). Variation in ESL/EFL teachers’attitudes towards their students. In
S. Mercer & A. Kostoulas (Eds.), Language teacher psychology (pp. 178–195). Bristol, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acqui-
sition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dörnyei, Z., MacIntyre, P. D., & Henry, A. (2015). Introduction: Applying complex dynamic systems prin-
ciples to empirical research on L2 motivation. In Z. Dörnyei, P. D. MacIntyre, & A. Henry (Eds.),
Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 1–10). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Maters.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. New York, NY: Routledge.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and researching motivation (2nd ed.). Abingdon, UK:
Routledge.
Evans, K., Guile, D., & Harris, J. (2011). Workplace learning and higher education. In M. Malloch,
L. Cairns, K. Evans, & B. N. O’Connor (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of workplace learning ( pp. 149–
162). London, UK: SAGE.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 49
Felix, U. (2005). Analysing recent CALL effectiveness research—Towards a common agenda. Computer
Assisted Language Learning,18(1–2), 1–32.
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second-language learning. Rowley,
MA: Newbury House.
Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1993). A student’s contributions to second language learning. Part II:
Affective variables. Language Teaching,26,1–11.
Golonka, E. M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V. M., Richardson, D. L., & Freynik, S. (2014). Technologies for for-
eign language learning: a review of technology types and their effectiveness. Computer Assisted Language
Learning,27(1), 70–105.
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Horwitz, E. K. (2013). Becoming a language teacher: A practical guide to second language learning and
teaching (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Allyn & Bacon.
Hubbard, P. (2004). Learner training for effective use of CALL. In S. Fotos & C. Browne (Eds.), Perspectives
on CALL for second language classrooms (pp. 45–68). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hubbard, P. (2005). A review of subject characteristics in CALL research. Computer Assisted Language
Learning,18(5), 351–368.
Hubbard, P., & Levy, M. (2006). Teacher education in CALL. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John
Benjamins.
Hubbard, P., & Romeo, K. (2012). Diversity in learner training. In G. Stockwell (Ed.), Computer-assisted
language learning: Diversity in research and practice (pp. 33–48). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Johnson, K. E. (2009). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Kalaja, P., & Mäntylä, K. (2018). “The English class of my dreams”: Envisioning teaching a foreign lan-
guage. In S. Mercer & A. Kostoulas (Eds.), Language teacher psychology (pp. 34–52). Bristol, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Kolaitis, M., Mahoney, M. A., Pomann, H., & Hubbard, P. (2006). Training ourselves to train our students
for CALL. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in CALL (pp. 317–334). Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2015). Ten “lessons”from complex dynamic systems theory: What is on offer? In
Z. Dörnyei, P. D. MacIntyre, & A. Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 1–
10). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Maters.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques and principles in language teaching (3rd ed.).
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Levy, M., & Stockwell, G. (2006). CALL dimensions: Issues and options in computer-assisted language learn-
ing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lewis, T. (2014). Learner autonomy and the theory of sociality. In G. Murray (Ed.), Social dimensions of
autonomy in language learning (pp. 37–59). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Little, D., Dam, L., & Legenhausen, L. (2017). Language learning autonomy: Theory, practice and research.
Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Mercer, S., & Kostoulas, A. (Eds.). (2018). Language teacher psychology. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Murray, D. (1998). Language and society in cyberspace. TESOL Matters,8(4), 9–21.
Murray, G. (2014). Exploring the social dimension of autonomy in language learning. In G. Murray (Ed.),
Social dimensions of autonomy in language learning ( pp. 3–14). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pasfield-Neofitou, S. E. (2012). Online communication in a second language: Social interaction, language use
and learning Japanese. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon,9(5), 1–9.
Reinders, H. (2018a). Autonomy and technology. In L. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English
language teaching. New York, NY: Wiley.
Reinders, H. (2018b). Teacher resistance and resilience. In L. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of
English language teaching. New York, NY: Wiley.
Robb, T. (2006). Helping teachers to help themselves. In P. Hubbard & M. Levy (Eds.), Teacher education in
CALL (pp. 335–348). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
50 Glenn Stockwell and Hayo Reinders
Romeo, K., & Hubbard, P. (2010). Pervasive CALL learner training for improving listening proficiency. In
M. Levy, F. Blin, C. Siskin, & O. Takeuchi (Eds.), WorldCALL: International perspectives on computer
assisted language learning (pp. 215–229). New York, NY: Routledge.
Sahakyan, T., Lamb, M., & Chambers, G. (2018). Language teacher motivation: From the ideal to the fea-
sible self. In S. Mercer & A. Kostoulas (Eds.), Language teacher psychology (pp. 53–70). Bristol, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Schwienhorst, K. (2011). Learner autonomy and CALL environments. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Son, J.-B. (2018). Teacher development in technology-enhanced language teaching. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Son, J.-B., & Windeatt, S. (Eds.). (2017). Language teacher education and psychology: Approaches and prac-
tices. London, UK: Bloomsbury.
Spratt, M., Humphreys, G., & Chan, V. (2002). Autonomy and motivation: Which comes first? Language
Teaching Research,6(3), 245–266.
Stockwell, G. (2009). Teacher education in CALL: Teaching teachers to education themselves. Innovation in
Language Learning and Teaching,3(1), 99–112.
Stockwell, G. (2013). Technology and motivation in English language teaching and learning. In E. Ushioda
(Ed.), International perspectives in motivation: Language learning and professional challenges (pp. 156–
175). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Stockwell, G. (2019). Insights from replication on the factors affecting successful task implementation in
mobile learning. Technology in Language Teaching & Learning,1(1).
Stockwell, G. (forthcoming). Mobile-assisted language learning: Concepts, contexts, and challenges.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Stockwell, G., & Hubbard, P. (2013). Some emerging principles for mobile-assisted language learning. TIRF
Report,2013,1–14.
Stockwell, G., & Liu, Y. C. (2015). Engaging in mobile phone-based activities for learning vocabulary: An
investigation in Japan and Taiwan. CALICO Journal,32(2), 299–322.
Tran, P. (2018). Enhancing online language learning task engagement through social interaction. Australian
Journal of Applied Linguistics,1(2), 88–101.
Ushioda, E. (2011). Language learning motivation, self and identity: Current theoretical perspectives,
Computer Assisted Language Learning,24(3), 199–210.
Ushioda, E. (2013). Motivation and ELT: Global issues and local concerns. In E. Ushioda (Ed.),
International perspectives on motivation: Language learning and professional challenges (pp. 1–17).
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization,7(2), 225–246.
White, C. (2018). Language teacher agency. In S. Mercer & A. Kostoulas (Eds.), Language teacher psychol-
ogy (pp. 196–210). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Williams, M., & Burden, R. L. (1997). Psychology for language teachers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Williams, M., Mercer, S., & Ryan, S. (2016). Exploring psychology in language learning and teaching.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Wray, D., & Medwell, J. (1991). Literacy and language in the primary years. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Yaghi, H. M., & Abu-Saba, M. B. (1998). Teachers’computer anxiety: An international perspective.
Computers in Human Behavior,4(2), 321–326.
Cite this article: Stockwell G, Reinders H (2019). Technology, Motivation and Autonomy, and Teacher
Psychology in Language Learning: Exploring the Myths and Possibilities. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics 39,40–51. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190519000084
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 51
