Autonomous Language Learning With Technology Beyond The Classroom Chun Lai

Autonomous Language Learning With Technology
Beyond The Classroom Chun Lai download
https://ebookbell.com/product/autonomous-language-learning-with-
technology-beyond-the-classroom-chun-lai-50233872
Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.
Handbook Of Natural Language Processing And Machine Translation Darpa
Global Autonomous Language Exploitation 1st Edition Stephanie Strassel
https://ebookbell.com/product/handbook-of-natural-language-processing-
and-machine-translation-darpa-global-autonomous-language-
exploitation-1st-edition-stephanie-strassel-2543042
Autonomy Is In Our Hearts Zapatista Autonomous Government Through The
Lens Of The Tsotsil Language Fitzwater
https://ebookbell.com/product/autonomy-is-in-our-hearts-zapatista-
autonomous-government-through-the-lens-of-the-tsotsil-language-
fitzwater-11816518
Autonomics Development A Domainspecific Aspect Language Approach 1st
Edition Paul Soule Auth
https://ebookbell.com/product/autonomics-development-a-domainspecific-
aspect-language-approach-1st-edition-paul-soule-auth-2531100
Autonomous And Connected Heavy Vehicle Technology First Rajalakshmi
Krishnamurthi
https://ebookbell.com/product/autonomous-and-connected-heavy-vehicle-
technology-first-rajalakshmi-krishnamurthi-44864412

Autonomous Navigation And Deployment Of Uavs For Communication
Surveillance And Delivery Hailong Huang
https://ebookbell.com/product/autonomous-navigation-and-deployment-of-
uavs-for-communication-surveillance-and-delivery-hailong-
huang-46079598
Autonomous Vehicle Technology Global Exploration And Chinese Practice
Mingfang Du
https://ebookbell.com/product/autonomous-vehicle-technology-global-
exploration-and-chinese-practice-mingfang-du-46249306
Autonomous Vehicle Ethics The Trolley Problem And Beyond Ryan Jenkins
https://ebookbell.com/product/autonomous-vehicle-ethics-the-trolley-
problem-and-beyond-ryan-jenkins-46469512
Autonomous Trajectory Planning And Guidance Control For Launch
Vehicles Zhengyu Song
https://ebookbell.com/product/autonomous-trajectory-planning-and-
guidance-control-for-launch-vehicles-zhengyu-song-48651146
Autonomous Vehicles For Public Transportation Clin Iclodean
https://ebookbell.com/product/autonomous-vehicles-for-public-
transportation-clin-iclodean-48680656

Autonomous Language Learning
with Technology

Advances in Digital Language Learning and Teaching
Series Editors: Michael Thomas, University of Central Lancashire, UK, Mark
Peterson, Kyoto University, Japan, and Mark Warschauer, University of California
– Irvine, USA
Today’s language educators need support to understand how their learners are changing
and the ways technology can be used to aid their teaching and learning strategies.
The movement towards different modes of language learning – from presence based
to autonomous as well as blended and fully online modes – requires different skill sets
such as e-moderation and new ways of designing and developing language learning
tasks in the digital age. Theoretical studies that include practical case studies and high-
quality empirical studies incorporating critical perspectives are necessary to move the
field further. This new series is committed to providing such an outlet for high-quality
work on digital language learning and teaching. Volumes in the series will focus on a
number of areas including but not limited to:
– task-based learning and teaching approaches utilizing technology
– language learner creativity
– e-moderation and teaching languages online
– blended language learning
– designing courses for online and distance-language learning
– mobile-assisted language learning
– autonomous language learning, both in and outside of formal educational contexts
– the use of Web 2.0/social media technologies
– immersive and virtual language learning environments
– digital game-based language learning
– language educator professional development with digital technologies
– teaching language skills with technologies
Enquiries about the series can be made by contacting the series editors: Michael
Thomas (MThomas4@uclan.acuk), Mark Peterson (tufsmp@yahoo.com) and Mark
Warschauer (markw@uci.edu).
Titles in the Series
Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning in a Virtual Learning Environment,
Miranda Hamilton
Online Teaching and Learning: Sociocultural Perspectives,
edited by Carla Meskill
Task-based Language Learning in a Real-World Digital Environment,
edited by Paul Seedhouse
Teaching Languages with Technology: Communicative Approaches to Interactive
Whiteboard Use, edited by Euline Cutrim Schmid and Shona Whyte
WorldCall, edited by Ana Gimeno, Mike Levy, Françoise Blin and David Barr

with Technology
Beyond the Classroom
Chun Lai
Bloomsbury Academic
An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
LONDON • OXFORD • NEW YORK • NEW DELHI • SYDNEY

Bloomsbury Academic
An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
50 Bedford Square 1385 Broadway
London New York
WC1B 3DP NY 10018
UK USA
www.bloomsbury.com
BLOOMSBURY and the Diana logo are trademarks of
Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
First published 2017
© Chun Lai, 2017
Chun Lai has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the Author of this work.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval
system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers.
No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting
on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication
can be accepted by Bloomsbury or the author.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
ISBN: HB: 978-1-4742-4041-3
ePDF: 978-1-4742-4042-0
ePub: 978-1-4742-4043-7
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Lai, Chun (Language teacher) author.
Title: Autonomous language learning with technology beyond the classroom / Chun Lai.
Description: London; New York: Bloomsbury Academic, [2017] | Series:
Advances in Digital Language Learning and Teaching | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016058379| ISBN 9781474240413 (hb) | ISBN 9781474240437 (epub)
Subjects: LCSH: Language and languages–Study and teaching–Technological
innovations. | Language and languages–Study and
teaching–Self-instruction. | Language and languages–Computer-assisted
instruction. | Web-based instruction–Technological innovations. |
Distance education–Technological innovations. | on-line
Classification: LCC P53.855 .L24 2017 | DDC 418.0078/5–dc23 LC record
available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016058379
Cover design by James Watson
Cover image © shutterstock.com
Series: Advances in Digital Language Learning and Teaching
Typeset by Deanta Global Publishing Services, Chennai, India
To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com.
Here you will find extracts, author interviews, details of forthcoming events
and the option to sign up for our newsletters.

Contents
List of Figures vi
List of Tables vii
Part I
Understanding Out-of-Class Autonomous Language Learning
with Technology
1 Introducing Key Concepts 3
2 Theoretical Backgrounds and Frameworks 21
3 The Nature of Out-of-Class Autonomous Language Learning with
Technology 48
4 Factors that Affect Out-of-Class Autonomous Language Learning
with Technology 71
Part II
Promoting Out-of-Class Autonomous Language Learning
with Technology
5 Promoting Out-of-Class Autonomous Language Learning with
Technology: Learner Training 95
Technology: Teachers’ Role 116
Technology: The Resource and Environment Design 137
Part III
Researching Out-of-Class Autonomous Language Learning
with Technology
8 Towards a Research Agenda of Out-of-Class Autonomous
Language Learning with Technology 161
9 Conclusion and the Way Forward 188
References 197
Index 226

List of Figures
Figure 1.1 A frame of reference for discussing autonomous language
learning with technology beyond the classroom 16
Figure 2.1 Theoretical framework of autonomous language learning
with technology beyond the classroom 46
Figure 3.1 A framework of quality out-of-class language learning 69
Figure 4.1 The interaction of internal and external factors in Lai’s
(2013) study 89
Figure 4.2 The significant interactions in Lai et al.’s (2016) study 90
Figure 4.3 The influence of different teacher-practice variables and
their interaction paths 92
Figure 5.1 Essential components and processes in learner preparation 115
Figure 6.1 Teachers’ roles in supporting students’ autonomous use of
technology for out-of-class learning – component view 128
Figure 6.2 Teachers’ roles in supporting autonomous use of
technology for out-of-class learning – component and
process view 131
Figure 9.1 Research landscape of out-of-class autonomous language
learning with technology 191

List of Tables
Table 1.1 Terms associated with autonomous learning 17
Table 7.1 Design Principle 1 and the key issues 151
Table 8.1 A study on the nature of out-of-class language learning
with technology 163
Table 8.2 A study on learners’ interaction with technological resources 165
Table 8.3 A study on variation in autonomous language learning with
technology 168
Table 8.4 A study on learner construction of language-learning
ecologies 170
Table 8.5 Existent and recommended research focus for
Key Research Area 1 171
Table 8.6 A study on the effects of out-of-class learning
with technology 173
Table 8.7 Existent and recommended research focus for
Table 8.8 A study on how teachers could support learners’
out-of-class learning with technology 176
Table 8.9 Existing and recommended research focus for

Part One
Understanding Out-of-Class
with Technology

1
Introducing Key Concepts
Autonomous language learning is firmly grounded in constructivism, which
highlights the active roles that learners play in the learning process, and in
humanistic and cognitive psychology, which emphasizes the supporting of
learners’ inherent drive towards self-actualization of their full potential and
enabling them to utilize social, psychological and behavioural resources to
achieve personal transformation (Benson, 2011a; Gremmo and Riley, 1995).
Autonomous language learning intertwines with and is influenced by the
ongoing educational reforms aimed at allowing learners freedom in learning
and redefining teachers’ and students’ roles in education. It also aligns with the
focus on people’s freedom to direct their own lives as propagated in political
philosophy, and corresponds with the pursuit of self-directed learning and
informal learning as described in the adult education literature (Benson, 2011a).
There is a consensus in the literature that autonomous learning is more effective
than non-autonomous learning because the former is often associated with
greater perceived meaningfulness, personal relevance, emotional investment
and a greater likelihood of internalization. As Dickinson (1995) pointed out,
‘There is convincing evidence that people who take the initiative in learning learn
more things and learn better than people who sit at the feet of teachers, passively
waiting to be taught’ (p. 14). Griffiths (2008) concurred with Dickinson on the
essential role of autonomy in learning after reviewing the existing literature on
‘good language learners’. She found that a common characteristic of ‘successful’
language learners identified in these studies was their willingness to seek out
their own learning opportunities and their engagement with the language on
their own terms. Autonomy is such an important component in successful
language learning that Little (1994) stated ‘All genuinely successful learning is in
the end autonomous’ (p. 431).
Autonomous learning can occur in both formal and informal contexts.
Formal learning refers to intentional, compulsory, institutionally sponsored,
classroom-based learning that is highly structured and leads to formal

Autonomous Language Learning with Technology
4
credentials, whereas informal learning is learning that takes place outside
formal educational institutions (Marsick and Watkins, 2001). Informal learning
includes both planned, structured learning on a voluntary basis in flexible
learning programmes that do not lead to formal credentials (namely, non-
formal learning or informal education) and unplanned learning from everyday
life experience (Colley, Hodkinson and Malcolm, 2003; Rogers, 2016). As its title
indicates, this book primarily focuses on autonomous language learning that is
initiated by learners themselves and takes place outside language classrooms in
K–12 schools and universities.
Why such an interest in learning beyond the classroom? Dewey (1966),
arguing that all learning is worthwhile, was among the first few educators to
recognize the importance of informal learning. According to him, schools,
despite being an important means of learning, are ‘only one means’ of learning
(p. 4). Learning takes place in a variety of formal and informal settings across
time and space (Colley, Hodkinson and Malcolm, 2003; National Research
Council, 2009), and formal institutions are only part of it (Bäumer et al.,
2011). These formal and informal settings form ‘a complex web of synchronic
as well as chronological learning opportunities’ (Bäumer et al., 2011, p. 92),
which successful learners usually make good use of to enhance their learning
experience (Blyth and LaCroix-Dalluhn, 2011). It has also been found that
learning experience across these different settings often brings unique yet
complementary sets of outcomes (Blyth and LaCroix-Dalluhn, 2011; Lai,
2015a). Formal learning often generates cognitive skills, whereas the non-
cognitive skills that are inherent in many successful individuals are commonly
acquired through informal learning (Barron, 2006; Blyth and LaCroix-Dalluhn,
2011). Thus, to reach their full potential in learning and make learning more
effective, it is important for learners to engage in autonomous learning that
goes beyond classroom-based learning (Thornton, 2010), and to utilize different
forms of learning to extend personal learning (Hall, 2009). In fact, learners of
different ages have been found to construct personally relevant activity contexts
with diverse learning opportunities, resources and activities within and across
settings in order to meet their learning needs (Barron, 2006; Leander, Philips
and Taylor, 2010; Sefton-Green, 2006). Given that students engage in informal
learning outside the classroom, it would undermine educators’ endeavours to
enhance the quality of education if they did not make an effort to understand its
nature (Rogers, 2016).
Over the last decade, increasing attention in the field of language learning
has been paid to learning beyond the classroom. This enhanced attention

Introducing Key Concepts 5
comes from the rise and wide acceptance of communicative language-learning
theories that highlight extensive language exposure and authentic language
use and interaction as necessary conditions for language learning. It has been
further augmented by the proliferation and normalization of information and
communication technologies in people’s lives as technology-enhanced and
technology-mediated environments make these critical language-learning
conditions easily accessible. In-class language learning is often constrained in its
physical and human configurations and by its limited instruction hours, which
makes it hard to satisfy critical language-learning conditions. Thus, learning
beyond the classroom is much needed so that learners can make use of the
human, physical and environmental resources both available in their immediate
surroundings and mediated by technological resources to construct ideal
language-learning environments. The increased attention has also been boosted
by various research studies showing that autonomous out-of-class language
learning is positively associated with learners’ oral proficiency, vocabulary size
and knowledge, and reading and listening comprehension abilities (Sylvén
and Sundqvist, 2012; Sundqvist and Wikström, 2015), as well as their overall
grades in standardized tests (Lai, Zhu and Gong, 2015; Larsson, 2012). Research
studies have further found that the positive association between out-of-class
language learning and language-learning outcomes is manifested not only in
the cognitive domain but also in the affective domain, such as greater self-
efficacy and confidence in and enjoyment of language learning (Lai, Zhu and
Gong, 2015; Palviainen, 2012; Sundqvist, 2011). Research also shows that not
only do foreign-language learners perceive their out-of-class language-learning
experience positively, but they also view it as playing a qualitatively different role
from that of learning experience inside the classroom, and that the functions
of these two types of learning complement each other (Lai, 2015a). The recent
increased attention paid to out-of-class language learning echoes Benson’s
(2011b) observation that ‘after a period in which the pendulum of autonomy
has swung towards the classroom, we may be entering a period in which it
swings back towards out-of-class learning, or at least towards the ways in which
classroom teaching connects with students’ self-directed language learning
beyond the classroom’ (p. 18).
Despite the increased research attention paid to out-of-class language
learning, it remains a relatively uncharted terrain, in that researchers are only
starting to accumulate knowledge about its nature, its functions, its quality
indicators, the interaction between its various elements and constituents, and
its relationship to in-class language learning. Benson (2008) argued that ‘the

6
bulk of the literature on autonomy in language learning is concerned with
institutional settings and pays very little attention to non-institutional learning’
(p. 20). At present, researchers’ understanding of autonomous out-of-class
language learning is still quite limited. This book intends to provide an overview
of the current understanding of learners’ autonomous language learning beyond
the classroom, with a particular focus on their self-initiated use of technology
for learning. This interest in understanding language learners’ technology use
beyond the classroom has arisen partly because the normalization of technology
in human life makes it part and parcel of learners’ out-of-class learning
experience and partly because technology is likely to make the most contribution
to the construction of ideal language-learning environments since long-term,
frequent language immersion and study abroad are not realistic options for most
language learners.
In discussing autonomous language learning with technology beyond
the classroom, it is necessary first to understand what autonomy entails.
Understanding the different aspects or dimensions of autonomy and the
goals of autonomous language learning helps to set the frame of reference
for the discussion of autonomous language learning with technology outside
educational institutions.
Aspects of autonomy
There have been various definitions of autonomy, the most oft-cited of which
is that by Holec (1981), who defined autonomy as ‘the ability to take charge of
one’s own learning’ (p. 3). Benson (2001) also highlighted the capacity aspect of
autonomy, describing it as ‘the capacity to take control of one’s own learning’,
and argued that it ‘may take a variety of forms in relation to different levels of the
learning process’ (p. 47). Dickinson (1987) defined autonomy as ‘the situation
in which the learner is totally responsible for all the decisions concerned with
his learning and the implementation of those decisions’ (p. 11), thus adding
the situation aspect of autonomy. Dam and colleagues (1990) accentuated the
social aspect of autonomy and defined it as ‘a capacity and willingness to act
independently and in cooperation with others, as a social, responsible person’
(p. 102). The various definitions suggest that autonomy is a multidimensional
concept, and this multidimensionality is reflected in the duality of meaning in
the nature of autonomy, in the sociality of autonomy and in the teachability of
autonomy.

Nature of autonomy: Capacity and situational freedom dimensions
When talking about autonomy, a natural question would be: What exactly is it?
Benson (2008) reviewed the existent literature and concluded that autonomy
entails both a capacity dimension and a situation dimension, which he named
‘capacity’ and ‘situational freedom’, respectively. Benson (2011a) elaborated on
what he meant by ‘the capacity to control one’s own learning’ (p. 58). According
to him, the potential for autonomous action involves three essential components:
1) the ability to engage in self-directed learning (i.e. learners need not only to
grasp essential study skills but also to have adequate knowledge of the target
language to engage in a learning task on their own); 2) the desire for self-directed
learning (i.e. the intensity of learners’ intentions with respect to the self-directed
learning task); and 3) the freedom to engage in self-directed learning (i.e. the
degree to which learners are ‘permitted’ to control their learning). The first
two relate to the capacity dimension and the last one constitutes the situational
freedom dimension.
The capacity aspect refers to a set of competencies rather than a unitary
capacity for action (Benson, 2001; Lewis, 2013). Wall (2003) described this
capacity as an individual’s ability to chart ‘his own course through life …
according to his own understanding of what is valuable and worth doing’ (p. 308).
The competencies include a set of metacognitive and cognitive abilities associated
with the management of one’s learning process. Little (1991) referred to this set of
abilities as the capacity for ‘detachment, critical reflection, decision-making and
independent action’ (p. 4). The competencies also include learners’ attitudinal
ability to take responsibility for their own learning (Benson, 1997; Little 1999) and
to attribute value to their participation, and learners’ ‘social-interactive’ ability to
articulate and exchange their views with others (Hamilton, 2013; Little, 2007).
In addition, Lewis (2013) emphasized competencies associated with human
sociality, such as collaboration and communication abilities, global awareness,
cross-cultural skills and so on. Besides the multiplicity of the competencies
involved, essential competencies may also be different in different learning
contexts (e.g. solitary interaction with objects vs. interaction with the social
world) and at different times (Benson, 2001; Lewis, 2013). Hence, the context
of autonomous learning with technology beyond the classroom may demand a
unique set of competencies, given the particularities of learners’ interaction in
such settings.
The situational freedom aspect refers to learners having the right to have
control over their learning (Benson, 2009) and the freedom from others’

8
control over themselves (Hamilton, 2013). More importantly, this aspect
stresses the importance of structure in creating conditions that help teachers to
relinquish their control, offer learners ‘access to an environment that provides
a wide range of options’ (Wall, 2003, p. 308), and empower learners to exercise
agency in negotiating and shaping the direction of their learning and voicing
their views. Thus, the resources afforded by an environment, and the social and
discursive configurations and characteristics of the environment may define
the level of autonomy that the environment affords and hence may influence
the degree of autonomy that an individual can demonstrate. Moreover,
autonomy exists in the interdependent relationship between the individual
and the social, discursive and resource realities of the context within which
he or she exists (Benson, 2009). Nunan (1996) underlined the fact that the
degrees of autonomy depend on both individual factors such as personality,
goals in learning and prior educational experience, and contextual factors
such as the ideology and philosophy of a culture or community. The influence
of cultural values on autonomy through the values and beliefs of individuals
and the community is apparent in the sociocultural perspective of autonomy,
which accentuates the interaction between learners and the environment
(Dang, 2012; Oxford, 2008; Palfreyman, 2003). Accordingly, autonomy is
highly variable and may manifest itself differently for different people, in
different cultures, and even within the same person across temporal, spatial
and contextual dimensions (Benson, 2009; Murray, 2014; Sinclair, 2000). Thus,
learner autonomy is situation specific (Holec, 1981; Gao, 2007): learners might
be ‘autonomous in one area while dependent in another’ (Murray, 1999, p. 301).
The realities of the contexts for autonomy inside and outside the classroom
are different, and the characteristics of learning beyond the classroom may
shape individuals’ interaction with it and, hence, the levels of autonomy that
individuals exhibit and the support they need. For instance, Benson (2011b)
argued that the connection between teacher autonomy and learning autonomy
may manifest itself differently in classroom settings and out-of-class learning
settings. According to him, in the former setting, it is considered important for
teachers to be autonomous learners and autonomous practitioners themselves
in order to support learner autonomy, whereas in the latter setting, what is
valued more is teachers serving as language advisers to help learners make
informed decisions about their learning.
When discussing autonomy in any context, educators and researchers need to
take both aspects – capacity and the freedom afforded in a given situation – and
their interaction into consideration.

Sociality of autonomy: Independent and interpersonal dimensions
Earlier works on autonomy have overemphasized its independent nature,
an overemphasis that has gradually been redressed by the recognition that
interdependence is an essential component of autonomy in action (Boud,
1988). The duality of autonomy in having both independent and interpersonal
dimensions is reflected in Dam et al.’s (1990) definition of learner autonomy: ‘A
capacity and willingness to act independently and in cooperation with others, as
a social, responsible person’ (p. 102).
In their self-determination theory, Deci and Ryan (1985) regarded auton
omy as the fundamental psychological need of learners to initiate and source
their behaviours and self-expression. According to Deci and Ryan, learners
often enter a learning situation with degrees of inner motivational resources
that could lead to autonomous learning behaviours that they use to engage
themselves in the learning situation. The conditions of the learning situation,
including human relationships, support or thwart the inner motivational
resources that learners bring with them. Deci and Ryan therefore argued that
an individual’s sense of autonomy relies on two components: competence (i.e.
‘abilities to confront and overcome optimal challenges’ (Deci and Flaste, 1996,
p. 66) and relatedness (i.e. the feeling of being ‘connected with others in the
midst of being effective and autonomous’ (Deci and Flaste, 1996, p. 88). For
Deci and Ryan, social connections and relationships mediate learner autonomy.
Reasserting Dam’s (1995) arguments for the social dimension of learner
autonomy, Lewis (2013, 2014) emphasized the fact that social interactions
are part and parcel of learner autonomy, particularly so in online settings.
He argued that learner autonomy includes both the independent aspect of
interacting with objects for goal-driven behaviours and the interpersonal
aspect of interacting with the social world, where cooperative attitudes and
behaviours are crucial. These two aspects of learner autonomy may demand
different capacities and involve different patterns of interaction between
individuals and the learning situation.
Taking a developmental perspective, Little (1996) regarded collaboration as
essential to the development of autonomy. According to him, ‘The development
of a capacity for reflection and analysis, central to the development of learner
autonomy, depends on the development of an internationalization of a
capacity to participate fully and critically in social interactions’ (p. 210). This
view accentuates the role of social agents such as teachers and peers as well
as the redefinition of teachers’ and students’ roles in the language curriculum

10
in the development of learner autonomy (Voller, 1997; Sinclair, 2000). Thus,
the mediation of more capable others (Oxford, 2003; Murray, 2014), and
apprenticeship in a community of practice via ‘interaction, social construction
of knowledge, scaffolding, modelling, goal-setting, peer sharing and learning
reflection’ (Oxford, 2011, p. 29; Murray, 2014) are critical to the development
of autonomy. Equally important is the development of learners’ sense of self-
efficacy through constant reflective practices, conscious learning from observing
others and paying attention to ‘social persuasion’ (Bandura, 1997).
In sum, autonomy entails both independent and social aspects. Moreover,
both aspects need to be taken into account in a discussion of the exercise and
development of learner autonomy.
Teachability of autonomy: Natural propensity and
development dimensions
Autonomy is regarded as a natural propensity of human beings. Benson (2011b)
pointed out that, despite the controversies over the concept of autonomy,
researchers generally agree that ‘language learners naturally tend to take control
of their learning’ (p. 16). At the same time, he also pointed out another general
consensus in this research field: ‘Learners who lack autonomy are capable
of developing it’ (p. 15), which suggests that autonomy is something that can
be taught and developed. Little (2007) concurred with this point of view and
identifiedtwosensesofautonomy:thebiologicalinneraspectandthebehavioural
social aspect. According to him, the biological inner aspect refers to individuals’
thoughts,emotions,perceptionsandresponsestotheworldaroundthem,andthis
inner capacity is genetically determined. However, this inner capacity is enlarged
or suppressed by various individual and external factors, which shape people’s
individual- and social-oriented autonomous behaviours. This helps to explain
observations of learners’ not demonstrating autonomous behaviours when left to
exercise free choice in some situations (Raz, 1986; Sinclair, 2000). Consequently,
Benson (2012) concluded: ‘Although the potential for autonomy may be intrinsic
[in]thehumancondition,autonomyitselfissomethingthatmustbeacquiredand
maintained over the course of a lifetime’ (p. 32). Autonomy is not only teachable,
it also needs to be consciously supported, fostered and maintained. In fostering
learner autonomy, the development of long-term ‘dispositional autonomy’ needs
to be prioritized over sporadic ‘occurrent’ autonomy (Benson, 2012; Young, 1986,
p. 76). In other words, instead of scattering a few autonomous learning activities
here and there in their learning experience, a systematic and holistic approach

that integrates both the curriculum set-up and intervention arrangements and
takes account of the psychological, social, political and technical perspectives of
autonomy is needed to foster and maintain learners’ natural tendency towards
controlling their own learning.
In conclusion, autonomy involves both capacity and situational freedom,
includes both independent and interpersonal dimensions, and is a natural
propensity that needs to be consciously fostered and maintained. Autonomous
learning is ‘learning in which a capacity to control learning is displayed
or required’ (Benson, 2001, p. 110). Consequently, autonomy is both the
predispositions towards and the outcomes of autonomous learning. On the one
hand, learners ‘need to be autonomous in order to be able to learn independently’
(Lam and Reinders, 2005, p. 226), and on the other hand, the expected outcomes
of autonomous learning are not only cognitive and non-cognitive development
but also the development of learner autonomy. What then are the specific forms
of learner autonomy that foreign-language educators aim to develop?
Goals of autonomous language learning
The concept of autonomy was first introduced in the field of political science
to advocate people’s rights to freedom and control over their own lives. When
this concept is transferred to the field of language learning, what specific goals
should educators focus on achieving through autonomous learning? Littlewood
(1996) defined autonomy as the ‘capacity for thinking and acting independently
that may occur in any situation’ (p. 428). Independence in thinking and acting
involves different aspects, including independent decision-making and action
in language learning, independent use of the target language, and use of the
target language to make a difference in oneself and in society – in other words,
autonomy as language learner; autonomy as language user; and autonomy as
person. Macaro (1997) and Benson (2012) supported these goals in highlighting
the autonomy of language-learning competence, the autonomy of language
competence, the autonomy of independent choice and action, and personal
autonomy.
Autonomy as language learner
Autonomy as language learner involves acquiring the ability to engage in self-
directed learning both within and beyond the classroom through collective

12
experience(Littlewood,1996).Benson(2012)differentiatedthisgoalfurtherinto
autonomy in language learning and autonomy in learning. The former highlights
learners’ control over the purposes and goals of language learning, hence the
directions and content of learning, and the latter stresses learners’ control over
the management of the learning process. Thus, learners’ control over their own
learning involves three components: control of the learning content (‘what’ and
‘how much’); management of the ‘where’, ‘when’ and ‘how’ of language learning;
and the cognitive processes involved in learning such as noticing, metacognition
and reflection (Benson, 2011a). Developing autonomy as a language learner
necessarily involves helping students to reflect on the goals and purposes of
their language learning and to develop the ability to control the different aspects
of learning, and enhancing their ability to perceive affordances in the learning
contexts (Huang and Benson, 2013). Oxford (2015) further asserted that control
over learning also involves the socio-emotional aspects of learning, including
the management of beliefs, emotions, motivations and strategies (Costa and
Kallick, 2008; Schunk and Ertmer, 2000), the establishment and management
of social relationships (Costa and Kallick, 2008; Goleman, 2006; van Deurzen,
2012), and the ability to persist against adversity (Truebridge, 2014).
Autonomy as language user
Autonomy as language user or communicator refers to learners’ capacity
for creative language use and their ability to use situation-appropriate
communication strategies (Littlewood, 1996). This competence in generating
one’s own utterances is regarded as an important dimension of learner
autonomy since it can free learners from the restriction of input (Macaro,
1997; 2008). In this respect, Macaro (2008) stressed the importance of avoiding
a rigid prioritization of grammatical accuracy over risk taking and creative
language production. Situation-appropriate communication strategies refer
not only to the communication strategies that enhance learners’ opportunities
to maintain conversations in the target language despite a knowledge gap, but
also to the communication strategies in relation to attitudes and behaviours
that secure more learning and life opportunities, such as actively seeking help,
dealing with cultural challenges and shifts in sociocultural identities, cross-
cultural skills and global awareness, and respecting, trusting and relating to
others (Lewis, 2014; Oxford, 2011). Benson (2009a) argued that an important
aim of learner-autonomy support is to foster ‘the emergence of new and

relatively stable multilingual “selves” out of potentially disorienting processes
of second language acquisition’ (p. 23). Macaro (2008) further emphasized, in
the multilingual and multicultural contexts, language learners’ ability to make
independent free choices over what proficiency levels they strive to achieve in
the different languages that are used in society and over what language they
would use predominantly and what language they would try to maintain. Thus,
Macaro stressed the importance of engaging students in reflecting critically on
their strategic decisions and behaviours on language learning in relation to the
sociocultural contexts in which they live.
Autonomy as person
Littlewood (1996) defined autonomy as a person’s ability in a foreign-language
learning context to express personal meaning and create personal learning
contexts. Acknowledging this personal empowerment goal, Raya, Lamb and
Vieira (2007) further added a social goal in their definition of autonomy: ‘The
competence to develop as a self-determined, socially responsible and critically
aware participant in (and beyond) educational environments, within a vision
of education as (inter)personal empowerment and social transformation’
(p. 1). Thus, there is a strong emphasis in developing autonomy in life through
foreign-language learning – the enhanced power of self-expression (Aviram and
Assor, 2010; Benson, 2012). It is critical to develop learners’ acute perception
of sociocultural power relations and discursive resources in support of their
autonomous learning behaviour and their critical evaluation of the resource-
generation values of this behaviour in enhancing ‘cultural capital, identity and
future desires’ (Oxford, 2015, p. 66; Palfreyman, 2014). It is equally important to
encourage, engage and support students’ self-expression in the target language
and to foster a sense of personal and social responsibility and a sense of criticality.
The section above reviewed the literature on the nature of autonomy and
the goals of autonomous language learning. The nature of autonomy forms the
essence of autonomous learning and informs educators and researchers of the
various dimensions they need to consider in order to understand the exercise
of autonomy. The goals of autonomous language learning suggest that there
are three aspects of autonomy – autonomy as language learner, autonomy as
language user or communicator, and autonomy as person – that educators may
want to foster among the learners. Both the nature and the goals of autonomy
inform educators of the critical aspects and issues they need to pay attention

14
to in discussing how to support autonomous learning. These insights need
to be combined with an understanding of the particularities of learning with
technology in informal learning contexts to inform a discussion of autonomous
learning with technology beyond the classroom.
Characteristics of autonomous learning with technology
beyond the classroom
Learning beyond the classroom involves learning in informal contexts, which
is characterized by the possibility of the learning being emergent, contingent
and opportunistic since informal learning is both ‘reactive, unintended, and also
deliberative, intentional’ (Hager, 2012; Rogers, 2016, p. 270). Moreover, learning
beyond the classroom often involves constant monitoring, making appropriate
judgements, and adjusting short-term goals in a continually evolving process
(Hager and Halliday, 2006). Thus, in this learning context, learners’ flexible
mentalities and the ability to perceive the learning affordances in the emergent
events and environments are critical for them to seize and take advantage of
the ongoing opportunities for learning (Benson, 2013). Furthermore, informal
learning often involves collaborative components (Hager, 2012; Rogers, 2016)
and various social networks (Palfreyman, 2011), which redefine the roles
of teachers and students in learning. This is particularly true with informal
learning with technology, as various social networking tools permeate people’s
lives and technological tools and platforms are becoming highly interactive –
even online dictionary sites come with discussion forums. Consequently,
in this context, teachers’ roles need to be redefined (Benson, 2001) and the
influence of and learners’ interactions with different social agents need to be
taken into consideration. Hence, the abilities associated with human sociality
are becoming ever increasingly important for informal learning with technology
(Lewis, 2013, 2014; Oxford, 2011; Palfreyman, 2011). In addition, learning
beyond the classroom is highly contextual and ‘learners themselves are part
of the context’ (Kelley and Hager, 2015, p. 377). Therefore, theoretical lenses
that highlight learners’ holistic interactions with various elements within the
context would be especially helpful in understanding the nature of informal
learning (Hamilton, 2013; Luckin, 2010). Since learning beyond the classroom is
relatively unstructured, and the control of learning is in the hands of the learners,
learning that takes place in this context is often characterized by motivations,
relationships and commitments, and identity and agency are major issues in

the context of autonomous learning beyond the classroom (Sackey, Nguyen
and Grabill, 2015). Accordingly, the influence of these factors on learning may
be increased and needs to be given greater attention in this context. In terms
of the outcomes, learning in this context is most often implicit or tacit, which
makes it hard to be captured and quantified (Hager, 2012), and it is most often
holistic and whole-person embodied, often involving affective outcomes and
non-cognitive abilities (Barron et al., 2007; Blyth and LaCroix-Dalluhn, 2011;
Lai, Zhu and Gong, 2015). Scribner and Cole (1973) characterized out-of-class
learning as a fusion of the intellectual and the emotional aspects of learning.
This characteristic calls for the employment of a different set of criteria and
measurements in examining the influences of autonomous learning beyond the
classroom (Barron et al., 2007; Blyth and LaCroix-Dalluhn, 2011).
When the focus is especially on the use of technology for learning in this
context, additional issues are brought into the spotlight. For one thing,
technology may transform the specificities of both the goals of autonomous
language learning and the aspects of autonomy. The reciprocal relationship
between new literacies and learning autonomy and how it redefines learning
autonomy deserves attention (Benson, 2013; Blin, 2010; Villanueva, Ruiz-Madrid
and Luzón, 2010). Also, when technology mediates the learning experience,
what the capacity and the situational freedom dimensions of autonomy entail
needs to be reconceptualized as technology-mediated and technology-enhanced
environmentsmaydemanddifferentsetsofskillsandconditionsforaction(Chik,
2014; Oxford, 2008). Additionally, technology may bring with it new factors to
complicate the situation further. For instance, learners’ culturally shaped views
of and approaches to technological tools might influence their autonomous
learning intentions and behaviours with different technological tools.
Taking all these issues into consideration, Figure 1.1 synthesizes the
discussions above to provide a frame of reference for the discussion of
autonomous language learning with technology beyond the classroom in this
book. The various aspects of autonomy are placed at the centre of the figure to
highlight the major dimensions to consider, while its yin-yang shape and the
curved lines connecting the different dimensions signify the fluid interweaving
relationship between the duality of meaning of autonomy. The key features
of autonomous language learning with technology beyond the classroom are
placed in the middle. These key features both interact with the various aspects of
autonomy and moderate their interactions in achieving the three goals specified
in the outer circle.

16
As autonomy is a complex, multidimensional and variable term, which has
often been confused with many other terms, it is important to delineate the
relationship between autonomy and other related concepts in this introductory
chapter so that readers can have a clear idea of what is meant by ‘autonomous
learning’ in this book (see Table 1.1.).
Related terms
Autonomous learning and self-directed learning
Although autonomous learning and self-directed learning have different origins,
with the former originating from the political and philosophical literature and
the latter from the humanistic tradition of adult education literature, the two
concepts share many similarities. Both terms are characterized by a predominant
independent connotation in earlier works and were later conceptualized as
containing a strong interpersonal dimension. According to Knowles (1975),
‘self-directed learning usually takes place in association with various kinds of
helpers, such as teachers, tutors, mentors, resource people and peers’ (p. 18), and
Autonomy as
Learner
Autonomy as
Person
Autonomy
as Language
User
capacity
solitary
propensity
freedom
interpersonal
development
Figure 1.1 A frame of reference for discussing autonomous language learning with
technology beyond the classroom.

thus has a strong social component. Self-directed learning is conceptualized as
the interaction between process, personal attributes and the context (Bouchard,
2012; Spear and Mocker, 1984; Tough, 1971). As Percival (1996) asserted, the
essence of self-directed learning is that learners have control over all educational
decisions, and it could be both self-initiated and other-initiated and takes
place both in teacher-directed classrooms and beyond (Guglielmino, 2008).
Thus, similar to autonomous learning, self-directed learning contains both
independent and interdependent components (Guglielmino, 2008; Knowles,
1975; Percival, 1996). Stubbé and Theunissen (2008) maintained that self-
directed learning consisted of multiple dimensions: learner control (both the
capacity and the freedom to make decisions), self-regulating learning strategies
and reflection, and interaction with the social and physical environment. These
multiple dimensions of self-directed learning correspond with the key aspects
of autonomous learning. Furthermore, self-directed learning has similar
goals to those of autonomous learning. The goals of self-directed learning are
conceptualized as: 1) development of a learner’s capacity to be self-directed; 2)
transformationallearningthatbringschangestohowindividualsviewthemselves
and the world; and 3) promotion of emancipatory learning and social action
Table 1.1 Terms associated with autonomous learning
Association Term
Relation to autonomous
learning
Interchangeable term Self-directed learning ●
●
Similar dimensions
●
●
Similar goals
Related terms Agency ●
●
Source of origin
●
●
Prerequisite
●
●
‘Raw material’ (Huang,
2011, p. 242)
Metacognition ●
●
Key capacity
Identity ●
●
Outcome
●
●
‘Direction of development’
(Chik, 2007, p. 41)
Confusing terms Self-instruction/self-study Partial representation
Self-access ●
●
Solitary and away from the
mediation of teachers
Independent learning
Informal learning Partial representation of
●
●
Context for learning
●
●
Characteristics of learning

18
(Merriam et al., 2007). Thus, these two concepts place a similar emphasis on the
goals towards learning autonomy and personal autonomy. Given the similarities
in their conceptualization, these two terms are used interchangeably in this book.
There are three concepts that are different from autonomy but are closely
related to it. These concepts include agency, identity and metacognition.
Agency
Agency has been defined as learners’ capacity to choose among alternative
courses of action (Giddens, 1984), and learners’ intentional efforts to change
themselves or their situations through their own actions (Ray, 2009). Thus,
similar to autonomy, agency conveys a sense of deliberation and choice (Huang,
2011), the timing and the extent of whose exercise depend on learners’ belief
systems, motivation, affects, self-regulatory skills, abilities and affordances in
specific settings (Mercer, 2011). Agency is theorized as ‘a point of origin for
the development of autonomy’ (Benson, 2007, p. 30) and is a prerequisite for
autonomous learning (Gao and Zhang, 2011). However, agency focuses more
on self-conscious reflexive actions and not necessarily on realizing one’s control
over the learning process, although these intentional actions may enhance one’s
controlling capacity (Huang and Benson, 2013). Furthermore, autonomy is the
systematic exercise of control over one’s learning, while agency could involve
sporadic actions (Huang and Benson, 2013). Thereby, agency serves as the ‘raw
material’ for autonomy (Huang, 2011, p. 242) and helps strengthen learners’
autonomy in the technical sense, but it does not necessarily lead to learner
autonomy in the psychological and political sense. Thus, according to Huang and
Benson (2013), agency is a necessary but not sufficient condition for autonomy.
Metacognition
Metacognition, or learning strategies, is a critical component of the capacity
aspect of autonomy. According to Oxford (2008), the exercise of metacognition
both reflects and promotes autonomy. Gao and Zhang (2011) regarded agency
and metacognition as two sides of the same coin. They defined metacognition
as entailing knowledge of oneself, knowledge of the task and knowledge of
the strategies that are appropriate in fulfilling the task. They further argued
that agency needs to be supplemented with metacognitive operations (e.g. to
utilize their knowledge of themselves as learners, their understanding of the
task, and the selection and use of the appropriate strategies to tackle the task)

to realize autonomy. Aviram and Assor (2010) concurred with Gao and Zhang
and regarded self-knowledge as a critical ability to realize autonomy. Thus,
similar to agency, metacognition is a necessary but not sufficient condition for
autonomous learning.
Identity
Identity is ‘our sense of who we are and our relationship to the world’ (Kanno,
2003, p. 3). Benson (2007) regarded identity as an important outcome of
autonomy. As Little (1996) pointed out, autonomous learning can enlarge
learners’ sense of identity, and for autonomous language learners, the target
language would gradually be integrated into their definition of what they are.
Huang (2011) further argued that the relationship between autonomy and
identity might not be unilateral, but rather bilateral, whereby identity also serves
as a point of origin and the ‘direction of development’ for autonomy (Chik, 2007,
p. 41). So, the development of autonomy and identity go hand in hand, both
depending on the exercise of agency and metacognition (Huang, 2011).
There are also a few approaches to learning that are similar to autonomous
learning but only reflect partial aspects of autonomy. These include self-study or
self-access, independent learning and informal learning.
Autonomous learning is different from terms associated with other types
of learning such as self-study, or self-access, and independent learning. These
terms often carry an independent connotation and signify detachment from
external sources or influence (Ryan and Deci, 2002), whereas autonomous
learning has a strong social dimension and entails constant interaction,
negotiation, cooperation and so on (Dam, 1995). As Little (1996) pointed out,
autonomous learning is not self-instruction or teacher-free learning. In effect,
as Dickinson (1977) mentioned earlier, what defines autonomous learning is
not the specific forms of learning, namely whether it is self-directed or other-
directed, but rather ‘the individual specification of functional aims and the free
choice of means of achieving those aims’ (p. 17). Furthermore, these approaches
to learning symbolize only learners’ control over the learning environment,
which needs to be complemented with their internal capacity, knowledge and
motivation for taking control for autonomous learning to happen (Lamb, 2008).
Self-study, self-access and independent learning are forms of learning that could
be interwoven into learners’ autonomous learning experience, but they only
represent the independent dimension of autonomous learning. In autonomous
learning, different independent and collaborative forms of learning interweave

20
at different times of learning, and the key is being able to make a free choice of
different means of learning.
Informal learning refers to learning, intentional or unintentional, that takes
place outside formal educational institutions (Colley, Hodkinson and Malcolm,
2003;Rogers,2016).Theoreticaldiscussionsoninformallearningfocusprimarily
on its unstructured, unplanned nature (Colley, Hodkinson and Malcolm, 2003)
and emphasize the non-institutionalization of the context of learning (Hager,
2012; Rogers, 2016). Informal learning is different from autonomous learning
in that autonomous learning is not constrained to informal learning contexts
and can take place both within educational institutions and beyond. Another
important difference is that autonomous learning places more emphasis on
freedom of choice and the capacity to control, regardless of the contexts of
learning – informal or formal – and the nature of learning – structured and
planned or unstructured and unplanned. Informal learning may satisfy freedom
of choice, but it does not necessarily imply intentional learning efforts and
the capacity to control. Nonetheless, autonomous language learning with
technology beyond the classroom takes place in informal learning contexts and is
characterized by the nature of informal learning. The characteristics of informal
learning can help researchers and educators gain a better understanding of the
nature of autonomous language learning with technology beyond the classroom
and the conditions that support its development.

2
Theoretical Backgrounds and Frameworks
The concept of autonomy was introduced into the field of language education
in the 1970s with the establishment of Centre for Research and Pedagogical
Applications in Language Learning (CRAPEL), and technology has played an
important part in learner autonomy since early on. An important initiative in
CRAPEL’s approaches to autonomous learning has been the establishment of
the self-access resource centre. Stand-alone drill and practice software has been
an important resource that such centres curate and make available to students.
Thus, technology has been affiliated with autonomy since the very beginning,
serving as a potential facilitative tool for the exercise and development of
autonomy (Motteram, 1997). With the fast development of information and
communication technologies and their permeation into people’s lives, the
reciprocal relationship between technology and autonomous language learning
is attracting increasing attention.
Affinity of technology and autonomous learning
Educational technology has demonstrated its effectiveness as a purveyor of
learner autonomy.
(Murray, 1999, p. 296)
The development of autonomy is in no sense dependent on IT.
(Benson, 2005, p. 187)
The above quotations represent different views on the relationship between
technology and autonomous language learning in current academic discourse.
On the one hand, scholars extol the benefits of technology for the devel
opment of autonomy in offering important tools to facilitate the exercise of
autonomy and in creating new spaces and contexts for autonomous learning

22
(Murray, 1999; Kessler, 2009; Reinders and White, 2010); on the other hand,
scholars caution against the misleading view of technology as an indispensable
condition of autonomy and of autonomy as a necessary outcome of immersion
in technological environments (Benson, 2005; Kenning, 1996; Reinders and
White, 2010). Thus, technology brings both affordances and constraints to
the development of autonomy. As Reinders and White (2010) pointed out:
‘This tension between affordance and constraint is a recurring theme in the
investigation of the relationship between technology and autonomy’ (p. 2).
Some scholars further argue that technology redefines what autonomy entails
and therefore advocate re-examining and redefining the relationship between
technology and autonomous language learning (Benson, 2013; Blin, 2010).
Technology and the capacity to control
It is argued that technology can help enhance learners’ capacity to control their
own learning. For one thing, technology can help learners to monitor and
manage their learning process more effectively. Technology documents learners’
interaction within technological environments, which can be used as a reference
to help learners adjust their learning strategies and process. The wiki is one
such example, whereby learners’ collaborative writing process is recorded and
visualized in the system so that they can have a clear view of their collaboration
process. Technology also provides support for learners in exercising some
cognitive strategies during learning. Assistive tools such as annotation tools
enable learners to take notes and record their thinking processes while reading,
and pedagogical agents in technological platforms provide learners with the
immediate language, culture and strategy support they need as they interact
with materials in the target language. In addition, the access to virtual social
communities and the high levels of interactivity in most technological platforms
canhelplearnersmanagetheiremotions,motivationsandeffortsmoreeffectively.
At the same time, technology redefines capacities that are essential to
autonomous language learning. In the technological era, learners’ ability to deal
with copious information is critical to their exercise of autonomy (Qi, 2012). As
Saadatmand and Kumpulainen (2012) put it, learning in open and networked
environments demands high self-organization skills and the skills to deal with
emergentlearningopportunities.Inotherwords,learnersneedtonegotiateahuge
mass of resources, tools and possibilities; decide what to learn and which tools
and resources to use; build connections between the varieties of information; and
manage the level of interactions in various learning networks and communities.

Theoretical Backgrounds and Frameworks 23
Thus, multimodal language-learning technologies require learners to have
greater self-knowledge and self-awareness and exercise greater metacognitive
strategies such as making choices about tasks and selecting the technological
medium that suits both the task in hand and their learning preferences
(Shakarami and Abdullah, 2011; White, 1995). The incorporation of technology
into the out-of-class language-learning repertoire of learners also demands a
new set of knowledge and skills in relation to technology use, that is, learners’
understanding of the language-learning affordances of different technological
tools/platforms, their knowledge and skills in selecting and mapping appropriate
technological tools/platforms for different learning purposes, and their ability
to make effective use of these technologies for learning and to navigate across
different (learning) environments (Benson, 2013; Lai, 2013; Reinders and White,
2010). For instance, to benefit from learning experience that involves technology-
mediated communications, learners need to understand the characteristics of the
new discourse practices in such environments and to be able to engage in and
make use of these practices for language learning (Villanueva, Ruiz-Madrid and
Luzon, 2010). To benefit from the vast amount of information online, learners
need to develop the skills to ‘understand not only the text on the page, but the
whole multimodal ensemble of writing, images, layout, graphics, sound and
hypertext links’ (Hafner, Chik and Jones, 2015, p. 1). Scholars further highlight
the importance of being attuned, and strategically responsive, to technological
changes, and seizing and creating opportunities for learning (Benson, 2013).
In addition, technology also reprioritizes learners’ capacity to enjoy and succeed
intheautonomouslearningexperience.Duetotheprevalenceofsocialnetworking
tools and online interest-based communities, and the enhanced interactivity
featured in most technological platforms (i.e. through crowd sourcing, social
tagging,commentingandvariousinteractiontools),autonomouslanguagelearning
with technology beyond the classroom usually involves heavy social components.
This enhanced social dimension of autonomous learning mediated by technology
has made social competencies more important than ever (Benson, 2013; Chik,
2015; Lewis, 2013). Lewis (2013) argued that, in such collective learning contexts,
cooperative attitudes and behaviours, empathy and identifying with other learners
and reciprocity in giving and receiving help are critical to a positive autonomous
learning experience. Thus, the importance of social competencies (being prosocial
and relating to other members of the group) might be heightened in this context
as such competencies play a more critical role in determining whether learners can
enjoy and learn from the experience and hence in also determining the likelihood
of maintaining the learning behaviours (Lewis, 2014).

24
Technology and situational freedom
Technology provides learners with unrestricted access to language-learning
materials and language-use opportunities, and thus has the potential to proffer
learners the freedom and choice they need in autonomous learning (Hamilton,
2013). However, situational freedom is not just about offering alternative choices
but also about providing structures that facilitate autonomous actions (Benson,
2008; Reinders and White, 2010). Kenning (1996) accentuated the importance of
learners having the capacity to take advantage of the alternative choices offered:
‘The effective use of electronic tools and resources assumes certain prerequisites
and that unless learners already have certain attitudes, skills and strategies, they
are unlikely to derive much benefit’ (p. 132–3). Thus, Benson (2001) argued that
for technology to facilitate freedom of action, two conditions need to be met:
1) it must be structured in ways that provide ample opportunities for learner
choice and control; and 2) it must contain mechanisms that help learners to take
advantage of these opportunities.
Researchers further argue that technology may redefine the essential
characteristics of situational freedom and what it entails. Who are those ‘others’
from whose control learners are striving to be free in the use of technology
in informal learning contexts? Who are the social agents that might facilitate
or inhibit freedom seeking in informal learning contexts? What facilitating
conditions need to be built into the structures of technology-enhanced
learning environments to enable freedom seeking? Scholars argue that
online social networks are an important element in, and a means of, boosting
situational freedom in informal learning contexts (Palfreyman, 2011; Reinders
and White, 2010). As Lewis (2014) observed, with learners increasingly
exercising autonomy in social contexts, it is no longer appropriate to view
learner autonomy as an essentially self-centred concept; rather, educators need
to understand what learner autonomy might look like and what situational
freedom means when the operation of learner autonomy changes from
‘I-mode’ to ‘we-mode’.
Technology also reshapes the facilitating structures for situational freedom.
As Benson (2013) noted, the advent of information and communication
technologies has changed the nature of the supporting structures that
facilitate learners’ freedom of action. Benson argued that in early work on
autonomy, supporting structures for freedom of action had a strong flavour
of being ‘institutionalized and other-initiated’ in the form of collecting and
providing resources in self-access centres and equipping students with relevant

skills through training programmes. The development of information and
communication technologies has resulted in autonomous learning being more
self-initiated and taking place in informal contexts not mediated by, and even
without the knowledge of, teachers. Thus, the current discussion on supporting
structures for freedom of action demands a greater understanding of the
complexity of learners’ autonomous learning beyond the classroom (Benson,
2013; Benson and Reinders, 2011).
Technology and the goals of autonomy
Technology affords the most effective means of achieving the three goals of
autonomy. It offers opportunities and support for learners to manage the socio-
emotional aspects of learning. The interactive, social, authentic and entertaining
features of technology-enhanced or -mediated learning experience facilitate
learners’ management of their beliefs, emotions, motivations and strategies,
and afford them easy access to opportunities for cross-cultural interactions
and social relationship management that are difficult to realize in classroom
learning contexts. Technology may also foster the development of a positive
attitude towards autonomous language use (Reinders and White, 2010). For
instance, technological platforms, such as concordance, digital storytelling sites
and social networking tools, also provide safe environments for learners’ – even
for beginners – creative language use, for their experimentation with various
strategic decisions and behaviours, and for their multi-identity development.
Technology also brings new layers of meaning to the goals of autonomy. In
terms of autonomy as language learner, the goal is to develop not only learners’
capacity to manage the direction and process of their learning but also their
ability to attune themselves to learning opportunities afforded in various
formal and informal contexts and to perceive, employ and coordinate these
affordances in different contexts to construct a personalized learning experience
(Benson, 2013; Reinders and White, 2010). For the goal of autonomy as person,
technology brings new elements to what self-expression and social responsibility
entail. Meyers and colleagues (2013) argued that in the age of social media and
Web 2.0 services, self-expression contains the elements of an active, reflective
‘participatory creator’ (p. 362) of digital contents to shape and redefine the status
quo. Furthermore, digital creation carries the social responsibility for actively
engaging in mashups or other forms of creative use of digital contents and ‘for
maintaining connectability’ (p. 363) by offering opportunities for alternation,
extension and mashups by others.

26
Technology and concepts associated with autonomy
Technology may strengthen the link between some concepts and autonomous
learning. One oft-discussed concept is identity. Sackey et al. (2015) argued
that informal learning with technology ‘deepens the importance of identity
to learning’ (p. 115). On the one hand, such learning is heavily influenced by
learners’ identity. Fleckenstein (2005) talked about how the spatial distances and
‘facelessness’ that characterize technology-mediated interactions may challenge
online identity construction, which may influence learners’ investment and
persistence in autonomous learning behaviours in technology-mediated
environments. On the other hand, technology imposes demands on the
construction of new types of identities. For instance, social technologies such
as social networking tools and online communities ‘privilege a type of discourse
based on the construction and representation of personal and shared identities’
that break ‘the boundaries between private and public spheres’ (Maranto and
Barton, 2010, p. 43). It has also been argued that technology facilitates learners’
exercise of agency. According to Barron (2006), learning beyond the classroom
is often interest based, and the role that agency plays in informal learning is
to create learning opportunities by pursuing interests and developing human
relationships and to seek material resources to support the pursuit of those
interests. Social technological tools allow the proliferation of interest-based
communities and boost and support learners’ agentic actions in engaging in
interest-based learning beyond the classroom (Barron, 2010).
Thus, technology has much to bring to the arena of autonomous language
learning beyond the classroom. For one thing, it provides optimal conditions
and venues for autonomous learning. For another, it redefines what autonomous
learning entails and introduces new elements into autonomous learning. In the
section below, I will discuss various theoretical perspectives that could help shed
light on how students interpret and make use of the affinity between technology
and autonomous language learning beyond the classroom.
Theoretical perspectives in understanding autonomous
language learning with technology beyond the classroom
Learners’ autonomous language learning with technology beyond the classroom
is a complex phenomenon that involves various aspects and dimensions and
interactions thereof. Understanding this complex phenomenon relies on the
theoreticalinsightsfromdifferentresearchfields,includingtechnology-enhanced

learning, lifelong learning, informal learning and so on. This section will draw
upon some relevant theoretical models from different research fields that could
help researchers and educators to understand this phenomenon better.
Theories that help understand learners’ learning experience
Benson (2009b) observed that students’ learning experience involves ‘a
configuration of several settings’ (p. 231), and it is hard to interpret the meaning
of one setting without considering all the other settings in which learning may
take place simultaneously. He argued that it is important to pay attention to
‘the “ecology” of settings and modes of practices within the lives of language
learners’ (p. 233). The proposal to adopt an ecological perspective on learners’
learning experience beyond the class has been reinforced in quite a few existent
theoretical frameworks on students’ learning experience (Barron, 2006;
Hamilton, 2013; Luckin, 2010).
Hamilton’s ecological perspective of autonomous learning behaviour
in a technologically mediated environment
Hamilton (2013) advocated adopting an ecological approach to studying the
relationship between technology and autonomy. He emphasized studying learner
autonomy in any technologically mediated environment through exploring
how the introduction of technology transforms the affordances of a learning
environment and influences the totality of relationships in that environment.
Affordanceisacentralconceptoftheecologicalperspectiveonlearnerautonomy.
Following Chemero’s (2003) view that affordances should not be viewed as a
property of an environment but as ‘relations between the abilities of organisms
and features of the environment’ (p. 189), Hamilton emphasized that the totality
of relationship is embodied in the ways individuals interact with one another
and with physical resources in a technology-enhanced or technology-mediated
environment. Moreover, this totality of relationships defines the affordances of
technology for autonomous action because affordances are dependent on an
organism’s ability to perceive and take advantage of the totality of relations.
Hamilton’s framework of autonomous learning behaviour conceptualizes that
a learning environment consists of various activity spaces where learning takes
place. Each activity space contains material, cultural and discursive resources
and constraints that influence the relationships between individuals and the
multidimensional ways in which they engage with one another within the space.
The introduction of technology may reconfigure the social dynamics of the
activity spaces and change the ‘totality of relationships’ between individuals,

28
the affordances they appropriate and the language they use in the activity
spaces. Hamilton (2013) conceptualized the relationship between autonomy
and technology-mediated learning as follows: 1) learners have the potential for
autonomous behaviour in technology-mediated contexts; 2) the provision of a
well-resourced technological environment mediates potential ‘proactive’ and
‘reactive’ autonomy, but there is no guarantee that autonomous behaviours will
occur naturally. Therefore, both technological design and learners’ psychological
reactions need to be taken into consideration when discussing the relationship
between technology and autonomy; and 3) the technological element ‘transforms
the configuration of the learning environment, affecting how students respond
to one another, altering the dimensions of affordances for learning, and
influencing learners’ use of language’ (p. 217). Thus, Hamilton underscored
the importance of focusing on the affordances reconfigured by technology in
terms of learners’ autonomous selective use of, or ignorance of, elements of
the technological platform during their interaction with it and the nature of
individuals’ interactions with one another in the environments as they engaged
with the technology-enhanced or technology-mediated contents. Consequently,
adopting an ecological perspective on autonomous language learning requires a
focus on learners’ ability to create and perceive the affordances.
Hamilton’s framework is helpful in understanding learners’ autonomous
interaction with technologies within any technological space, namely, how
the technology-induced reconfiguration of the totality of relationship within
technologicallymediatedspacesshapelearners’autonomouslearningbehaviours
with the technological and non-technological elements in those spaces.
Bennett and Maton’s (2010) sociological view of learners’ autonomous
behaviours within a technologically mediated environment
Bennett and Maton (2010) proposed another perspective to understand
learners’ autonomous behaviours within any technologically mediated space.
They introduced their sociological approach to understanding learners’
autonomous interaction with technological resources out of their concern
about the educational practice of blindly encouraging the use of more daily-life
technologies in academic contexts to enhance the connection between learning
across contexts. They argued that superficial adoption of everyday technologies
in formal educational contexts may not bring the expected outcomes since the
affordances of the technologies and the required skills and knowledge may
change while transiting from one context to another. Thus, it is important and
meaningful to understand ‘what knowledge and assumptions students bring

to academic contexts from other aspects of their lives, and what that means to
teaching and learning’ (p. 11), and to theorize ‘the social practices and the forms
of knowledge in different contexts’ (p. 15).
Bennett and Maton adopted Bourdieu’s concepts of ‘field’, ‘capital’ and
‘habitus’ to investigate the social nature of technology for learning and to shed
light on learners’ technological practices in different contexts. In Bourdieu’s
(1990) theory, people exist in multiple social fields of practices that have their
respective agreed-upon conventions and ways of acting. Fields are structured
systems of social networks within which individuals manoeuvre, and different
fields have different objectified and embodied aspects (such as social values, ways
of acting, interests and social status hierarchies) that mediate social practices.
Capital refers to the status and resources that individuals possess and bring to
their social participation in the fields. It encapsulates different forms of power,
including economic, cultural, social or symbolic resources. Habitus refers to
the dispositions (perceptions, values and practices) shaped by experiences that
individuals carry across various social fields of practices or contexts. Individuals’
habitus is structured by their past and present circumstances and experiences,
and helps to shape their present and future perceptions and practices. Social
agents’ action in the field is critical to understanding individuals’ habitus.
Bourdieu (1986) summarized the relation of the three concepts as: ‘[(habitus)
(capital)] + field = practice’ (p. 101). The three components are interlocking,
and individuals’ practices and behaviours result from the interaction between
an individual’s dispositions, his or her material and symbolic assets, his or her
position in the social arena and the features of the social fields (Maton, 2008).
Thus, to understand learners’ autonomous learning behaviours and practices
within any technology-enhanced or technology-mediated environment, it is
important to analyse the nature of the settings, examining the conventions and
practices in the social field of practice, the capital that learners possess and bring
to the social field of practice and the habitus that learners may carry with them
to the social field. Furthermore, Bourdieu argued that when individuals move
between fields, their success depends on whether their habitus and capital are
congruent with the norms in the new field and on their ability to utilize and
gain capital in the new field. Bourdieu’s concepts of field, habitus and capital
have been widely applied in research on learners’ technological behaviours
inside and outside the classroom. The concept of habitus has been used to study
the relationship between digital choices and social class (North, Snyder and
Bulfin, 2008) and to help examine individuals’ current and future technology
practices (Beckman, Bennett and Lockyer, 2014). The concept of capital has also

30
been used to explain how family capital informs students’ use of technologies
for homework (Cranmer, 2006). Johnson (2009) also used Bourdieu’s theory
of field to investigate students’ learning inside and outside the classroom and
reveal the discrepancies between students’ and educators’ understanding of what
constitutes learning and the role of technology in the learning process.
Bennett and Maton (2010) further proposed the use of Bernstein’s (1999)
concepts to theorize the forms of knowledge gained in different settings and
students’ relationships with technology at school and in their everyday lives.
Bernstein differentiated ‘horizontal discourse’ from ‘vertical discourse’, and
these different forms of knowledge vary in terms of the context specificity/
dependency, embedment in social relations, degrees of affective loading and
the structure and the coherency of the knowledge and practices. According
to Bernstein, horizontal discourse refers to knowledge acquired in everyday
life, which is fragmented and context specific, immediate goal oriented, life
relevant, embedded in learners’ ongoing practices and acquired in interactions
with close and intimate social relations. Vertical discourse refers to knowledge
acquired in educational settings, which is often coherent and systematic, context
independent and explicit. Thus, the learning outcomes of technology use in
different contexts may take different forms.
Bennett and Maton suggested that these two theoretical lenses should be
used concurrently to provide useful information for conceptualizing ‘which
“everyday” technology-supported activities have most relevance for which
forms of formal education, when, where, how and for which students’ (p. 15).
The sociological perspective they take could not only help educators understand
learners’ autonomous learning behaviours with technology within any
technologically mediated space, but also enable them to compare technology use
and outcomes across different learning contexts. Complementing Hamilton’s
ecological perspective, which highlights the totality of relationships within any
technologically mediated space, Bennett and Maton’s sociological approach
enriches our understanding of the relationship between technology and
autonomy by emphasizing the interaction between learners’ capital and habitus
and the social fields of practice within the spaces.
White’s (2009) learner-context interface
White (2009) proposed yet another approach to examining learners’ autonomous
interaction with individual technological platforms. She proposed the learner-
context interface theory to explain learners’ autonomous learning in distance-
learning contexts. The theory highlights a learner-centric view and posits that

learning within a technology-enhanced or technology-mediated platform is
an individual process whereby learners construct ‘a personally meaningful and
effective interface between themselves and the learning context’ (p. 7). Thus, the
integral interaction between the learning context and the learner is the essence
of the relationship between technology and autonomy.
The theory consists of three dimensions: the learner, the context and the
interface. The learner dimension refers to learners’ beliefs, motivation, affect,
skills and needs that influence how they perceive, relate to and respond to the
learning context in order to construct a learning interface that is meaningful
to them. Learners’ learning experience at the interface in turn affects their
beliefs, affect and identity. The context dimension includes not only the
features of the platform and related learning sites but also the affordances and
constraints individual learners perceive and respond to. The interface is the
learning experience constructed through the dynamic interaction between the
affordances of the learning context and the needs, preferences and abilities of
the learner, which in turn informs and shapes future learning experience. Thus,
the construction of the interface relies on learners’ knowledge of themselves
and of the affordances and constraints of the context, and is shaped by learners’
metacognitive knowledge and beliefs in identifying, selecting and engaging with
opportunities for interaction and learning. The construction of the interface
involves the process of learners adjusting and adapting themselves to new roles
and identities, and enhances metacognition. Furthermore, the construction of
the interface is subject to the influence of individual attributes, the characteristics
of the technological platform and the social, personal and learning environment.
White’s learner interface theory complements the previous two perspectives
by highlighting the role of the metacognitive process in learners’ autonomous
interaction within technologically mediated spaces and adopts a dynamic view
of the interaction as an ongoing process of learners constantly adjusting and
adapting to their changing roles and identities in the interaction.
Barron’s (2006) learning ecology framework
Barron took a broader and more holistic approach to examining learners’
autonomous behaviour in constructing their personalized learning ecology.
Arguing that interest is the essence of self-initiated, self-sustaining learning,
and that interest-based learning often spans different settings, Barron (2006)
combined sociocultural and ecological theories of human development to
develop a learning ecology framework that captures the developmental process
of self-sustained learning and illustrates how learning is distributed across

32
different settings and resources. This framework pre-assumes that individuals are
simultaneously involved in multiple settings and are actively appropriating the
resources distributed in various contexts to engage in interest-driven learning.
It highlights interest as a trigger for students’ self-directed learning beyond
the classroom, and focuses on documenting the genesis of interest in learning
(the pathways of participation – the kinds of events, activities and process), the
strategic moves learners take to create activity contexts across settings and to
construct their learning ecology, and the changes in their learning ecology as
their learning transits through different settings.
Barron defined learning ecology as the set of physical or virtual contexts
that provide opportunities for learning, with each context comprising a
‘unique configuration of activities, material resources, relationships and
the interactions that emerge from them’ (Barron, 2006, p. 195). She further
conceptualized a learning ecology as ‘a dynamic entity that can be characterized
by the diversity and depth of learning resources and activities’ (p. 217). Barron’s
framework contains three conjectures: 1) Learners’ interest in learning is
triggered and sustained by a variety of ideational and relational resources
that are available in a learning ecology, including ongoing activities of other
people, interactions with social networks, books, computer programmes,
assignments and so on, and can develop in different contexts. Therefore, the
diversity of resources in one’s learning ecology is critical to sparking off self-
sustaining learning; 2) Once their interest is ignited, people employ a variety
of strategies to create learning opportunities and further their development,
such as seeking out informational resources, finding learning companions,
creating new informal activity contexts, developing knowledge networks and
so on; and 3) These interest-driven learning activities are boundary crossing,
with interests originating in one context and being followed up in many other
contexts, and there are ‘fertile bi-directional flows of knowledge between
contexts’ (p. 218). The changing relationships between individuals and the
social contexts contribute to boundary crossing. As a result, learners’ identity
development, engagement and competency development intertwine closely
with one another.
Barron’s learning ecology framework goes beyond analysing the nature
of learners’ autonomous interaction with technology within individual
technological spaces to shed light on how learners coordinate and traverse
different technological and non-technological spaces to construct their
learning ecologies and engage in self-sustaining learning. This theoretical
framework highlights the significant roles individuals play in sustaining their

own knowledge and identity development, and helps identify critical factors
and processes that make learning beyond the classroom self-sustaining. It also
suggests an expanded view of outcomes, focusing on the potential of educational
experience for preparing students for future learning and on its contribution to
competency development. This theoretical framework calls for research work
on the configurations of people, ideational resources and activities in learners’
interest development, taking into account learners’ prior history and sense of
self. It also highlights the interconnections between formal learning experience
and informal learning experience, and calls for research to unravel various
strategic moves that learners engage in across settings to sustain their interest-
driven learning. Barron (2006) further suggests using it as a framework for the
design and evaluation of intervention programmes that focus on supporting
informal learning through developing interest.
Luckin’s (2010) ecology of resources framework
Luckin’s (2010) framework also theorizes learners’ construction of an ecology
of learning but with a specific focus on the support mechanisms that help them
to make use of the different resource elements and interactions that contribute
to their construction of the ecology of learning. Her ecology of resources model
discusses how to design educational experiences to help learners be aware of
and select the various forms of assistance available in their environments so as
to construct a personalized learning experience that meets their learning needs.
According to Luckin (2008), an ecology of resources is ‘a set of inter-related
resource elements, including people and objects, the interactions between which
provide a particular context’ (p. 451). The zone of collaboration is the essence
of the ecology of resources and refers to learner appropriation of assistances in
one’s environment. It is ‘the relationship between the identification of a learner’s
collaborative capability and the specification of the assistance that needs
to be offered to the learner in order for them to succeed at a particular task’
(Luckin, 2010, p. 28). This zone of collaboration is full of forms of assistance that,
depending on learners’ capabilities, their motivation and their understanding of
their own knowledge and competency, could potentially be utilized as resources
to support learning. The zone of collaboration consists of the zone of available
assistance (ZAA) and the zone of proximal adjustment (ZPA). The ZAA refers
to the resources that are available to learners at particular points in time, and
the ZPA refers to the subset of resources that are actually appropriated by the
learners to meet their needs. The resources that comprise the ZAA include the
knowledge and skills to be learned, the tools, the people who know more about

34
this knowledge and these skills, and the environment – physical or virtual –
with which learners interact. According to this model, learners are surrounded
by various resources that could potentially provide assistance, of varying
degrees, to their learning (ZAA). Within these resources, there are subsets that
are appropriate to the learner’s needs at different stages of development (ZPA).
Learners actively construct these resource subsets to meet their learning needs
(the move from ZAA to ZPA) through an active negotiation process filtered
positively or negatively by the enablers or constraints around them. The filters
include the ‘more able partners’ (e.g. teachers, parents, peers, technological
tools) and their inherent characteristics and cultural roles, and learners’
cognitive, affective, metacognitive and epistemological resources such as their
learning motivations, epistemological beliefs, history of experience and so on.
These filters and the interactions between them affect learners’ interactions with
the various elements in the ecology.
Luckin’s (2010) ecology of resources model builds on Barron’s concept of
learning ecology to focus on the internal and external factors and processes
that mediate learners’ construction of their learning ecologies. It highlights the
identification of the elements of resources available to learners and the filters
and interactions that facilitate or constrain their utilization of these resources.
Luckin proposed this framework to map out the complexity of learner-centric
contexts. Based on the ecology of resources model, Luckin (2010) further
developed the ecology of resources design framework, which helps to situate
and ‘support the dynamic process of developing technology-rich learning
activities’ that ‘take a learner’s wider context into account’ (Luckin et al., 2013,
p. 36). This framework consists of three phases. Phase 1 involves identifying
the forms of assistances that could act as resources for learning and the filters
and their potential interactions. Phase 2 involves identifying the relationships
within and between the resources and their suitability with learners’ needs.
Phase 3 involves developing the scaffolds and adjustments to support learning
and enable the conversion of ZAA into ZPA. This framework is useful in guiding
the development of support mechanisms to facilitate learners’ construction of a
learning ecology.
Wong’s (2012) learner-centric view of mobile seamless learning
The above theoretical frameworks help explain how learners interact with
technology-mediated contexts to construct personalized learning experiences
and how they can utilize resources distributed across different settings to create
their own ecology of learning. In addition to these frameworks, there are also

other theoretical frameworks that could add to our understanding of learners’
construction of seamless learning experience across different contexts. Wong’s
(2012) learner-centric view of mobile seamless learning is one such example.
Focusing specifically on the seamless integration of learning experiences
across different contexts, scenarios and formats mediated by personal mobile
devices, Wong and Looi (2011) and Wong (2012) identified ten dimensions that
delineate what ‘seamlessness’ in mobile-assisted seamless learning (MSL) entails.
Among the ten dimensions, two stress the connection of learning experiences
across temporal (MSL3) and spatial (MSL4) aspects. Three dimensions pertain
to the ‘learning space’ aspect: the seamlessness of formal and informal learning
(MSL1); the seamlessness of personalized and social learning (MSL2); and
the seamlessness of the physical and digital worlds (MSL6). A further three
dimensions are related to the connection of facilitating resources and experiences
that learners have access to in both formal and informal contexts to construct
knowledge: the ubiquitous access to and utilization of learning resources
acquired in different places – both teacher supplied and learner self-initiated
(MSL5); the multiplicity of pedagogical or learning models that are facilitated
by the teachers (MSL10); and the connections between multiple learning tasks
(MSL8). Two last dimensions emphasize the connections and integration of
different learning resources, experiences and knowledge: learners integrate all
the personal learning tools, resources and self-created artefacts and selectively
take advantage of their affordances to construct a personalized learning hub
to support learning (MSL7); and learners synthesize prior and newly acquired
knowledge and multiple skills across disciplines (MSL9).
Wong (2012) further derived a model of mobile seamless learning from the
learner’s perspective – learners construct knowledge through perpetual learning
across contexts – to illustrate the relationship between these ten dimensions.
In this model, connections across time (MSL3) and across locations (MSL4)
are two universal dimensions that encompass all the other eight dimensions.
MSL5 and MSL10 are facilitating resources that learners acquire in formal and
informal contexts to facilitate their performance and seamless switch between
multiple learning tasks (MSL8), which leads to knowledge synthesis (MSL9).
MSL9 may then feed back to MSL 8 and initiate subsequent learning activities.
The three dimensions of the learning spaces – informal/formal (MSL1), social/
individual (MSL2) and physical/virtual (MSL6) – represent the continuum of
learning contexts where the learning experiences and facilitating resources
reside. The ultimate goal of seamless learning is not only to achieve knowledge
synthesis but also to develop the habits and skills for seamless learning.

36
Wong’s learner-centric mobile seamless learning model identifies various
dimensions that could be used to examine how learners identify, seize and
connect the technology-mediated opportunities and resources for learning that
abound in their daily living spaces to bridge their learning experience across
both formal and informal learning contexts. The model could also be utilized
to guide the set-up of instructional arrangements and the provision of support
mechanisms to realize seamless learning.
Emirbayer and Mische’s (1998) temporal view of agency
The various theoretical models discussed above touched lightly, if any, on the
temporal dimensions of learning ecology construction. For instance, Barron
(2006) pointed out that the construction of a learning ecology is an ongoing
process in response to different stages of interest development. Luckin (2010)
noted that the construction of the ZPA is subject to learners’ needs at different
times of development, while Wong (2012) regarded learning across time as an
overarching dimension of seamless learning. However, none of these models
gave a detailed account of the temporal dimensions of the relationship between
technology and autonomy.
Emirbayer and Mische’s (1998) temporal view of agency could help enhance our
understanding of the influence of temporal dimensions on learners’ interactions
with technological spaces and their construction of learning ecologies. Emirbayer
andMischedefinedagencyas‘atemporallyembeddedprocessofsocialengagement
informed by the past (in its habitual aspect), but also oriented toward the future
(as a capacity to imagine alternative possibilities) and toward the present (as a
capacity to contextualize past habits and future projects with contingencies of the
moment)’ (p. 963). They introduced the concept of ‘the chordal triad of agency’
(p.970),whichconsistsofthreeelements:1)theiterationalelement,whichrefersto
learners’selectivereactionsto‘pastpatternsofthoughtandaction’;2)theprojective
element, which refers to learners’ vision of the future projection of the action in
relation to their expectations, desires and fears for the future; and 3) the practical-
evaluative element, which refers to learners’ evaluative judgements and decision-
making with respect to several alternative routes of action. Emirbayer and Mische
pointed out that all three temporal elements exert influence – although in varying
degrees – on an individual’s decision-making concerning agentic actions, and that
these three elements may exert dissonant influences on agentic behaviours, with
one’s temporal orientation usually dominating in any given situation. Moreover,
the ‘chordal composition’ is relational and may change as learners react to different
situations and environments.

Thus, Emirbayer and Mische’s (1998) temporal view of agency elaborated
on and shed useful insights into how different temporal dimensions might
work together to affect both learners’ autonomous interaction with individuals’
technologically mediated spaces and their construction of learning ecologies.
Theories that help explain the factors affecting learners’
technological experience
Understanding the factors that affect learners’ technological experience is critical
since it helps explain the variations that exist in language learners’ autonomous
use of technology for learning (Lai and Gu, 2011; Winke and Goetler, 2008),
and also helps identify areas of support that educators could provide to foster
autonomous language learning with technology. There are a few theoretical
frameworks that can provide insights.
Technology adoption models
Autonomous learning with technology involves individuals’ decision-making in
regard to technology adoption. The theory of planned behaviour by Ajzen (1985;
2005) has been commended for explaining individual behavioural intentions.
This theory builds on the theory of reasoned action by Fishbein and Ajzen
(1975), which stipulates that individuals’ behavioural intentions are predicted
by their attitudes (i.e. perceived usefulness and enjoyment) towards the given
behaviour and the subjective norm (i.e. social influence and expectations)
associated with a behaviour. The theory of planned behaviour acknowledges
the predictive power of the two components posited in the theory of reasoned
action – attitude and subjective norm – but includes an additional construct:
perceived behavioural control, (i.e. a user’s perceived control in performing
a given behaviour). This construct has two underlying determinants: control
beliefs and perceived facilitation. Control beliefs refer to perceived availability
of capacities and opportunities. Perceived facilitation refers to the perceived
availability of resources and support to achieve a given outcome. Thus, the
theory of planned behaviour hypothesizes that attitude, subjective norm
and perceived behavioural control work together to predict an individual’s
behavioural intentions, which in turn predict individual behaviours.
Two technology adoption models, Davis’s (1989) technology acceptance
model (TAM) model and Venkatesh and colleagues’ (2003) united theory of
acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) model, build on the theory of
planned behaviour and elaborate on the components of each construct in the

38
context of technology adoption and conceptualize the interactions of these
variables in predicting individuals’ technology adoption behaviours. These
two models have been found to work well in explaining teacher and student
adoption of technology in educational contexts (McGill and Klobas, 2009;
Šumak, Polancic and Hericko, 2010; Teo, 2009; Teo and Schaik, 2012). The TAM
model includes three attitudinal factors that explain an individual’s intention
to adopt any given technological solution: perceived usefulness, perceived ease
of use and attitude towards technology. Perceived usefulness is ‘the degree
to which a person believes that using a particular system would enhance his
or her job performance’ (Davis, 1989, p. 320). Perceived ease of use refers to
‘the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would be
free of effort’ (p. 320). Attitude towards behaviour is ‘an individual’s positive
or negative feelings (evaluative affect) about performing the target behavior’
(Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975, p. 216). This model hypothesizes that perceived
usefulness and perceived ease of use influence users’ behavioural intentions
through attitude towards behaviour. Perceived ease of use also influences
perceived usefulness.
Integrating TAM and several other prominent technology acceptance
models, UTAUT has been validated in predicting technology adoption in
various organizational contexts, including instructional contexts (Taiwo and
Downe, 2013; Williams, Rana and Dwivedi, 2015). The UTAUT model includes
four endogenous variables: performance expectancy (i.e. a user’s expectation
regarding the efficacy of the technological solution in enhancing performance),
effort expectancy (i.e. a user’s expectation concerning the efforts needed in
using the technological solution), social influence (i.e. a user’s perception
concerning the social pressure to adopt the technological solution), and
facilitating conditions (i.e. a user’s perception of the support available to use the
technological solution). Performance expectancy, effort expectancy and social
influence are conceptualized to influence users’ intentions to adopt technological
solutions, which in turn predict usage behaviours. Also, facilitating conditions
are hypothesized to influence usage behaviours both directly and indirectly
through users’ intentions to adopt. Venkatesh et al. (2012) further suggest
adding price value (i.e. the cognitive trade-off between the perceived benefits
of technology behaviour and the monetary costs), hedonic motivation (i.e. user-
perceived enjoyment of technology use), and habit (i.e. the extent to which
users automatically engage in the technological behaviour) into the model in
the context of individual consumer use of technology. It is hypothesized that
hedonic motivation and price value influence usage behaviours through users’

intentions to adopt technological solutions, and habit predicts usage behaviours
both directly and indirectly through users’ intention to adopt.
Existent technology adoption models can be used to identify the critical
factors that influence language learners’ autonomous use of technology for
learning and to unravel the intricate interactions among these factors. More
importantly, researchers point out that despite the usefulness of the TPB in
explaining an individual’s acceptance of technology, the underlying structures
of and psychological antecedents to its key constructs are context- and domain
specific (Straub, 2009; Venkatesh, Davis and Morris, 2007). Thus, it is essential
to unravel the antecedents to the key determinants of autonomous technology
adoption for language learning. The literature on autonomous language learning
can offer insights into factors that are critical to this domain and the relationships
thereof. Mercer (2011) points out that autonomous language-learning behaviour
is contingent on ‘a learner’s sense of agency involving their belief systems, and the
control parameters of motivation, affect, metacognitive/self-regulatory skills, as
wellasactualabilitiesandtheaffordances,actualandperceivedinspecificsettings’
(p. 9). Thus, to Mercer, autonomous behaviour is a product of the interaction
betweenindividualpsychologicalfactorsandcontextualcharacteristics.Thisview
is concurred in several models of autonomous learning (Weinstein, Woodruff
and Awalt, 2002; Winnie and Hadwin, 1998). Individual psychological factors
include learner motivation, learner beliefs, dispositions and styles, knowledge of
learning strategies, skills and so on, while contextual characteristics include the
context of learning, resources, time, teacher influence and so on. Thus, this body
of literature could serve as a frame of reference for identifying various key factors
and relationships within and across these two categories that may influence
language learners’ autonomous use of technology for learning.
Social network theories
Today’s learners are networked individuals who are connected not only with
various community networks in their immediate surroundings but also with
geographically dispersed virtual communities (Castells, 2001). Learners’
interactions in different social networks shape their learning and development.
Social network is of particular importance in the context of autonomous learning
beyond the classroom, and its impact deserves special attention. Highlighting
the characteristics of informal learning as being interest based, Barron
(2010) deemed it important to understand how learners develop and sustain
engagement across settings, time and networks of support. She further asserted
that the focus on engagement accentuates learning as a process of becoming,

40
and thus memberships in affinity groups are particularly relevant. Consequently,
Barron (2010) argued for ‘a key role for persons in learners’ social networks
who can serve as learning partners that bridge contexts, settings, and learning
opportunities and support interest and identity development’ (p. 115). Similarly,
Palfreyman (2011) pointed out: ‘Understanding the patterns and nature of the
different relationships in an individual’s network will help us to understand what
s/he has to work with in learning beyond the classroom’ (p. 33). Thus, in the
context of autonomous learning beyond the classroom, it is important to refer
to social network theories to understand the social factors that affect learners’
autonomous technology use for learning.
Social network theories can help conceptualize how social factors could
influence learners’ autonomous learning with technology beyond the classroom.
Social network theories view people as living within networks of relationships
and regard human actions as facilitated or constrained by their social networks
(Palfreyman, 2011). Krackhardt and Hanson (1993) distinguished three types of
relationship networks: ‘advice networks’, ‘trust networks’ and ‘communication
networks’. Palfreyman (2011) argued that these three types of relationship
networks could serve different functions in supporting learning beyond
the classroom. The advice networks share guidance and advice for action, the
trust networks afford venues for emotion sharing and help seeking and the
communication networks provide opportunities for learners to discuss and
clarify the learning process. An associated concept of social network is social
capital. Social capital refers to the resources accrued by learners through their
relationships with others (Coleman, 1988), as well as the norms, relationships
and trusts that facilitate action (Putnam, 1993). The shape of the social network
determines the availability of social capital and the kinds of support that it could
provide to individuals. It is argued that networks with weak ties or bridging social
capital (i.e. lots of loose connections) lend themselves to providing new ideas
and useful information to their members, but not emotional support (Putnam,
2000). Networks with strong ties or bonding social capital are a good venue for
emotional support and bonding (Putnam, 2000). Technology and social capital
have a reciprocal relationship. On the one hand, technology – the internet in
particular – can not only broaden learners’ bridging social capital and afford the
establishment of new forms of social capital and relationship building, but also
affect bonding social capital (Bargh and McKenna, 2004; Resnick, 2001). On the
other hand, learners’ bonding and bridging social capital may influence their
access to technological ideas and support for learning and the intensity of their
engagement in such activities.

Thus, social network theories could provide in-depth insights into the
influence of social forces on autonomous technology use for learning beyond
the classroom, delineating the influences of different types of social network and
associated social capital. These theories could also help conceptualize how social
capitals could be utilized to support autonomous learning with technology
beyond the classroom.
Theories that help explain the development of autonomous
learning with technology
Educational research has two major purposes: to document a particular
phenomenon and to come up with interventions to improve the phenomenon.
In terms of autonomous language learning with technology, on the one hand,
educators are interested in charting out this less explored terrain to understand
learners’ autonomous learning behaviours with technology, and on the other
hand, they hope to enhance learners’ technological experience. There are a few
theoretical models that could inform their intervention endeavours.
Self-regulated learning models
Self-regulated learning refers to learners’ utilization of strategies to control their
cognition, motivation, behaviour and emotions in order to achieve various
learning, performance and avoidance goals (Panadero and Alonso-Tapia,
2014). Self-regulated theories theorize how various cognitive, motivational and
contextual factors influence the learning process (Greene and Azevedo, 2007).
The current literature contains two types of self-regulated learning models that
reflect different perspectives on self-regulated learning: component models and
process models.
Component models highlight learning strategies and regard them as learner
traits. Boekaerts’s (1999) and Pintrich’s (2000) self-regulation models are two
widely accepted component models. Boekaerts’s (1999) model underscored the
influence of three kinds of information on learners’ appraisal that directs their
learning behaviours. The three aspects include the cognitive (i.e. conceptual
and procedural knowledge and perception of the learning situation), the
metacognitive (i.e. the learning process and learners’ knowledge and skills
to regulate this process) and the motivational (i.e. learners’ goals, needs and
expectancies) aspects of self-regulation. Motivational regulation influences
learners’ metacognitive regulation, which in turn affects cognitive regulation.
There are corresponding self-regulation strategies for each aspect. Cognitive

Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:

Mutta pian yritti taas suru pulahtaa sielusta:
— Entä mitä sinä teet väli-aikoina? — kysyi Martva hetken
kuluttua.
— Ajattelen sinua…
Martva naurahti. Vastaus painoi äsken pulahtaneen surun alas.
Oolavi jatkoi:
— Luen kirjeitäsi… ja…
— Ja? — keskeytti Martva, josta se jo oli kylliksi, mitä Oolavi oli
luetellut.
— Etten aivan ikävään kuolisi, kuuntelen luennoita… Ehkä sitten
suoritan jonkun tutkinnon… ehkä myös agronoomitutkinnon. Olen
siitä isäni kanssa sopinut, — selitti Oolavi.
— Toivotan onnea!… Mutta muista vain kirjoittaa pitkiä… pitkiä…
hyvin pitkiä kirjeitä! — riemuitsi Martva.
Oolavi uudisti lupauksensa ja lisäsi:
— Oikeastaan minä olen velvollinen sinun tähtesi lähtemään: En,
näes, tahtoisi edessäsi olla niin tuhma ja oppimaton kuin olen. Siksi
menen kokoamaan tietoja…
Nuori tyttö rauhottui. Oolavi kohosi taas hänen silmissänsä
miehenä.
* * * * *

Taivas koreili jo täysissä öisissä tähtihelyissänsä. Autio järvenselkä
kaipaili kesäisiä valovöitänsä, ranta runojansa, metsä laulujansa.
Martva luki taas Harhaman kirjaa.
Luettavaksi osuivat nyt kuvaukset vallankumouksen huumaavista
höyryistä. Veren ja voiman hengähdys tuulahti hänessä. Jo edellisinä
iltoina olivat ne huumanneet Oolavia. Hän oli päihtynyt rakkaudesta,
joka vaahtosi veristen kuvauksien pinnalla. Kotonansa oli hän niitä
miettinyt, sotkenut ne yhteen muiden mietteiden kanssa, yhdeksi
elämän hämäräksi, elämän vaahtoavaksi viinisaoksi, joka kutsui ja
itse tarjoutui janoisille huulille.
Martva luki kuvauksia miehekkään Nikolain repäisevistä puheista,
joita Harhama oli kuvaillut hiukan siihen tapaan, kuin niistä on
puhuttu tässä kirjassa. Puheen voima ja sen äärimäinen ajatuksen
rohkeus tempasi hänen valmistuneen mielensä mukaansa, kuin
myrsky jossain suojassa lymyytyvän tyynen ilman. Hänen levoton
henkensä laski jo Tuukkalan koskena kuohuvia elämänkoskia, joissa
vedellä on voimaa koetella miehen käsivartta, koskella rohkeutta
tarttua sen veneeseen ja paiskata kuohujen vaahtoon, ottaaksensa
siten miehen mieltä kovin käsin kiinni…
Oolavi juopui voimasta. Hän halusi panna kovan kovaa vastaan.
Hänkin tahtoi näyttää elämänkoskille kätensä voiman. Suotta ei ollut
Tuukkalan koski häntä kasvattanut.
— Tämä on niin kauheaa, Oolavi! — huudahti Martva lukunsa
välissä hermostuneena, mieli järkyksissä.
— Se on hurmaavaa!… Ah! Semmoinen se pitää olla koski, jota
mies laskee, kun sinä istut veneessä! — oikaisi innostunut Oolavi.

Martva katsahti häneen nopeasti. Kun hän silloin näki Oolavin
rohkean, hehkuvan katseen ja sen voiman ja elämänhalun, joka
uhkui hänen olemuksestansa, painautui hän taas hengessänsä
hänen varaansa kokonansa. Oolavin voima ja irtipääsevä elämänhalu
veti häntä kuin pauhaava koski vesiporetta. Hän. oli kokonansa
Oolavin vallassa, turvattomana, voimattomana, haluten vain vajota
siihen suppiloon, joka avautui sen henkisen vesipyörteen silmänä,
jolla Oolavin voimakas henki häntä veti. Hän halusi siihen vajota,
koska siinä tuntui olevan varma turva ja onni. Hän itsekin innostui ja
rohkaistui.
— Tämä on niin hurjaa! — huudahti hän lukunsa lomassa.
— Se on toista, kuin Tuukkalan kotikoski! — uhmaili: Oolavi.
Martvan ääni raikastui. Posket hehkuivat, silmät paloivat. Sulhasen
uhma huumasi hänen sielunsa, jota kirjan kuvaus oli järkyttänyt.
— Siinä on voimaa ja miestä! — kuului Oolavin yllyttävä ääni.
Lampun liekistä pyörähti pieni savukiemura ja alkoi iloisesti tanssia
ilmassa.
Luku jatkui helinänä. Martvasta tuntui kuin istuisi hän Oolavin
veneessä. Vene kiiti kuohuvinta koskea alas. Hurjina vyöryävät
vaahtovuoret paiskailivat sitä ryöpystä ryöppyyn, aallolta aallolle.
Hän aivan värisi ja painautui Oolavin turviin, antautui hänen
armoillensa koko sielullansa… pyörtyi… huumautui ja juopui Oolavin
hurjasta voimasta. Nikolai tuntui hänestä Oolavin perikuvalta.
Oolavi katseli häntä hurmautuneena. Kun Martva kiihkonsa
vallassa hyppeli kuvauksesta kuvaukseen, näytti hän Oolavista, joka
oli kuvauksesta huumautunut, villiltä metsän tytöltä, tai Kaatjalta,

kunnes äkkiä hänen sieluunsa leimahti kuin salamakirkas kuva se
ajatus, että Martva on Litvan laulun nainen, joka hurjistuneena
ajelee hänen kanssansa ryöppyävällä elämän merenselällä. Aluksi
hän sitä ajatellessaan tyrmistyi, kuin ukkosen iskusta. Mutta heti
tempasi hänet jyrähdys uuteen yhä hurjempaan lentoon. Hän olisi
nyt, juopuneena, tahtonut ajella Martvan kanssa Litvanselällä juuri
niin, kuin se vedennainen: hurjistuneena, rohkeana, pelottavana,
myrskyn pauhatessa ja aallokon ärjyessä.
Luku jatkui. Ihastuksen huudahdukset helähtelivät sen sekaan
salamoina. Martvan sielussa suli miehekäs Nikolai kokonansa yhdeksi
Oolavin kanssa, muuttui kokonansa Oolaviksi. Häntä juovutti se
korkea, rohkea hengen lento, joka tuntui leimahtelevan Nikolain
sielusta ja joka huumaa naisen, jonka jaloa henkeä ei ole vielä
aistillisuus painanut maassa matelemaan. Huumauksensa vallassa ei
hän huomannut sitä, että Nikolai nousi kuin peto Jumalaa ja uskoa
vastaan, seisoi näyttämöllä täydellisenä pakanana, kieltämyksen
äärimäisenä henkenä, ruoska kädessä, käärmeen pää kantapään alla
ja Jumalan kimppuun syöksymäisillänsä ollen. Hän ei huomannut
sitäkään, että Nikolai oli vallankumouksellinen. Hän näki hänessä
ainoastaan Oolavin, voimakkaan, rohkean miehen ja suuren, jalon
hengen, puhtaan, jalon lemmen huumaaman naisen todellisen
sankarin.
Mutta Oolavi itse huomasi siitä kaikesta paljon ja huomasi ne
kuumeensa vallassa: Hänen edessänsä seisoi Nikolain suuri haamu,
kädessä pikari, josta hän tarjosi kieltämyksen voimakasta,
vaahtoavaa viinaa. Taruperäiseksi loihdittu Harhaman kirja oli
epäilyksen kuvauksillansa sytyttänyt hänen sielussansa ensin pienen
palon: se oli tartuttanut häneen epäilyn, ja nyt joi jo Oolavi sen

palon sammukkeeksi, lääkkeeksi, ensimäisen ryypyn kieltämyksen
suurta henkeä, sen tulisinta vaahtoa.
Kun Martva oli lopettanut, heitti hän kirjan käsistänsä pöydälle
kuin palavan hiilen, puristi käsiänsä hermostuneesti povensa
kohdalla vastatusten ja huudahti peljästyneen, kiihtyneen ja
turvattoman näköisenä:
— Ai!… Siinä on jotain demoonista!… Niin hurjaa ja kamalaa!…
Hän oli kuin viaton tyttö, joka on kuullut kerrottavan että
huoneessa on tonttuja ja sen luulon sokaisemana näkeekin niitä
siellä hämärissä hiiviskelevän. Arvostelut ja puheet olivat tehneet
Harhaman kirjan hänelle semmoiseksi tonttuhuoneeksi.
Mutta Oolavin henki hehkui tulena ja lieskana. Hän janosi
Harhaman kuvaamaa elämää, himoitsi sen kaikkia antimia: epäilyä,
kieltämystä, Pirun Eedenin, kirjan Hiiden myllyn, salaisuuksia,
hekkumaa ja kieltämystä. Kaikki sekottui hänen silmissänsä yhdeksi
elämänkaaokseksi, jota ei voida juoda pisaroittain, erottelemalla siitä
osa pois, vaan joka on juotava kokonansa.
Savupilvi iloitsi karkeloiden pieninä savukuplina.
Hetken kuluttua tuli Rannisto huoneesen. Oolavia tervehtien puheli
hän:
— Minä sinua odotinkin… Kun nyt menet kaupunkiin, ota minulta
valtakirja, että voit hoitaa minunkin asioitani pankissa ja muualla,
niin ei tarvitse itseni matkustella…
Hän jätti Oolaville valtakirjan, lisäten:

— Se on aivan täydellinen, niin että voit kaikki asiat sen nojalla
toimittaa… Osa vanhaa metsää on luettu ja sen kaupasta voit siellä
sopia… Mutta minä kirjoitan siitä tarkemmin talvemmalla…
Muutaman sanan vielä puhuttuansa lausui hän kovemmalla äänellä
sivuhuoneeseen:
— Pastori on hyvä ja tulee tänne istumaan!
Nuori pappi tuli, posket vielä keskeytyneestä puhelusta lämpiminä.
Tervehdittyänsä istahti hän sohvaan ja Rannisto jatkoi toisessa
huoneessa viritettyä keskusteluansa:
— Minä vielä jatkan puhettamme… Eikö mielestänne sosialismissa
ole liioteltua väite, että kaikki yksityinen omaisuus on varkautta?
Puheen aihe sattui Oolaville ikäänkuin äsken luetun jatkoksi. Hän
alkoi innostuneena ahmia pastori Aamuston selityksiä. Tämä selitti
hehkuvana:
— Sen lausemuodon minä pidän liioiteltuna ja vääränä. Oikeampi
olisi mielestäni sanoa: Omaisuus, joka ei ole hankittua omalla työllä,
on vierasta…
Rannisto istui ajatuksissansa. Nuori pappi jatkoi:
— Sillä riittääkö kunkin oma työ muuhun kuin keskimääräiseen
toimeentuloon?
— Sen täytyy tuottaa enemmän, — tarttui Rannisto selittäen:
Jos se ei muuhun riittäisi, niin millä olisi koottu se omaisuus, joka
on nykyisen polven käytettävänä?… Työstä on täytynyt jäädä
säästöä.

Martva, joka ei jaksanut seurata keskustelua, poistui. Hänen
lähdettyänsä alkoi pastori Aamusto selittää ajatustansa:
— Minä luen ne välttämättömät säästötkin toimeentuloon
kuuluviksi, koska ne kerran ovat aivan välttämättömät ihmis-
elämälle… Mutta silloin minä kysyn: Kuka suorittaa nykyään
suuremman työn: nekö, joilla on suuret tulot, vaiko se luokka, joka
näkee usein nälkää, suoranaista nälkää?
Rannisto oli vaiti. Pastori Aamusto vastasi hänen puolestansa itse:
— Te siis myönnätte, että köyhien joukko suorittaa työn — rikkaat
tekevät sitä joko nimeksi tai ei ollenkaan. Mutta jälkimäiset kantavat
suurta palkkaa, kokoavat suuria rikkauksia. Eivätkö he silloin kokoa
vierasta?
— Se on kyllä totta, — myönteli Rannisto. Oolavi, jonka silmissä
yhä häilähtelivät äskeisen vallankumouskuvan veriviivat, imi
keskustelun hengen itseensä, semmoisessa mielentilassa, joka
kaikkeen, mihin vain voi, panee omat hehkuvat värinsä. Sosialismi ja
vallankumous olivat hänen sielussansa jo ennenkin tavallaan
sulaneet yhteen. Nyt ne lopullisesti sulivat samaksi. Siihen vaikutti
se, että Nikolai oli sosialisti ja samalla vallankumouksellinen.
Nuori pappi selitti edelleen:
— Vääryys, jota nykyisessä yhteiskunnassa harjoitetaan, on
ilmeinen, sitä ei voida kieltää. Laki sen sallii, mutta laki ja oikeus
ovat kaksi eri asiaa.
Rannisto oudostui. Pastori selitti silloin:

— Sillä jos laki olisi sama kuin oikeus, ei se koskaan voisi
muuttua, koska korkein oikeus on aina sama, pysyvä ja
muuttumaton. Mutta voitteko löytää ainoatakaan lakipykälää, joka
olisi alusta meidän päivämme pysynyt? Eikö jokaista lakipykälää
vähäväliä kumota ja muuteta juuri sen tähden, että se on väärä?
— Siis ei meillä mielestänne ole ainoatakaan lakipykälää, joka olisi
samalla oikeus? — tarttui Rannisto kysyvästi.
— Ei ainotakaan joka olisi olemukseltaan ehdoton oikeus. Sillä jos
niin olisi, olisi se pykälä ikuinen, kuten seitsemäs käsky. Se ei enää
koskaan korjausta tarvitseisi… Mutta onko niin? Ei tietysti, Ei
ainoakaan inhimillinen lakipykälä voi olla ehdoton, absolutinen
oikeus: korkein totuus…
Ja yhä vilkastuen ja innostuen käänsi hän puheen takaisin sen
varsinaiseen aiheeseen, jatkaen:
— Mutta menemme nyt takaisin kysymykseen. Minä myönnän,
että ne, joilla on rikkauksia, joita he ovat koonneet oikeilla, laillisilla
keinoilla, eivät silti ole kaikki varkaita. Moni heistä itse tekee työtä,
sen arvosta, minkä hän jokapäiväiseen leipäänsä tarvitsee, ja silloin
hän on ainoastaan toisten ihmisten säästöjen hoitaja ja ehkä niiden
oikein käyttäjä. Mutta ne säästöt eivät voi olla hänen omiansa, vaan
hänen ja niiden joiden on täytynyt lain käskystä tyytyä vähään ja
luovuttaa osa työnsä tuloksista toisille… Mutta katsokaa, tokko
monikaan niistä, joiden hallussa ovat yhteiskunnan säästöt,
ansaitsee leipänsä otsansa hiessä!
Rannisto ajatteli yhtä ja toista, ja huomasi nuoren papin olevan
oikeassa. Se miehekäs kunnioitus, jolla hän työtä katseli, ja

mielenjalous vaikuttivat, että hän sisimmässänsä asettui
innostuneen, hurskaan papin puolelle.
Ja sama oli Oolavin laita. Hän oli kuten Rannisto työn-aatelia,
mies, joka vaistomaisesti halveksi työttömiä ja jonka jalo luonne
asettui sorrettujen puolelle. Hänelle kirkastui vallankumouskin
jaloksi, ja lain arvo aleni hänen silmissänsä, koska se oli vääryyden
turva. Niin alkoi hänessä itää uusi siemen, josta oli määrä nousta
kerran laihona omankäden-oikeus.
— Siksi tulee meidän kiittää Jeesusta, joka on meille lähettänyt
sosialistisen liikkeen maailmaa puhdistamaan, — jatkoi nuori pappi
selittäen: Se liike on se köysiruoska, jolla Hän ajaa temppelistänsä
pois väärintekijät. Meidän ei siis tule sitä ruoskaa vastustaa, vaan
koettaa toimia, ettei se joutuisi vääriin käsiin. Sillä Jumala usein
panee ruoskansa meidän, ihmisten, omiin käsiin, ja Hän on antanut
meille vapauden käyttää sitä hyödyksemme tai turmioksemme.
Ihmishenki on ainoa, jolle Hän on siinäkin vapauden antanut…
Oolavi hehkui. Rannisto mietti, punniten papin sanoja. Nuori pappi
selitti edelleen:
— Minä puhun Hänen temppelistänsä. Sillä eikö koko maailma ole
Hänen temppelinsä, Hänen, jonka Poika sanoi: 'Ei yksin
Jerusalemissa ja tällä vuorella'… siis kaikkialla palvellaan Jumalaa…
Ja eivätkö silloin ne, jotka elämässä ja yhteiskunnassa vääryyttä
tekevät, ole niitä samoja, jotka Jerusalemin temppelissä kauppaa
kävivät?
— Niin!… Minä en tahdo sitä ajatusta vääräksi sanoa, enkä minä
ole koskaan rikkaita väärintekijöitä puolustanut… En ole vihannut
sosialismia, mutta minua on vain surettanut sen huonot puolet ja

etenkin sen hyökkäys kirkkoa, uskontoa ja Jumalaa vastaan, —
selitti Rannisto harvasanaisena. Jokainen hänen sanansa huokui
rehellisyyttä ja harkintaa. Oolavi oli hetkeksi unohtanut Martvan ja
kaiken muun ja imi itseensä keskustelun henkeä. Pastori Aamusto
innostui:
— Ei kirkko ole sama kuin Jumala, ja sekin tarvitsee Jumalan
ruoskaa… Osottaahan sen kirkon historia: suurien reformaattorien
ilmestyminen, uskonnollisten liikkeiden puhkeaminen ulkopuolella
kirkkoa ja moni muu, joka on johtunut tyytymättömyydestä kirkkoa
kohtaan… Jeesus Kristus itse tuli puhdistamaan kirkkoa… Ja minä
uskon, että kirkko on kaikesta voittava. Senkin todistaa kirkon
historia: Ahdistelu ja vaino on sitä puhdistanut ja lujittanut. Niin on
nytkin käypä.
Puhuessansa hän yhä lämpeni ja lämpeni. Se lämpö tempasi
mukaansa ihmissydämet: Oolavi ja Rannisto katselivat häntä
ihastuneina. Innostunut puhuja jatkoi:
— Lisäksi: ei sosialismi käänny uskontoa vastaan, eikä se voi sitä
tehdä…
Kun Rannisto näytti oudostuneelta, kysyi puhuja.
— Sanokaa, voiko taloudellinen, yhteiskunnallinen oppi kääntyä
uskontoa vastaan? Eikö se ole sille yhtä mahdoton tehtävä, kuin se
olisi esimerkiksi maanviljelys-opille tai kieli-opille?
— Se on totta, — myönnytteli Rannisto ajatuksissansa. Oolavi oli
yhtenä ajatuksena. Nuori pappi selitteli edelleen:

— Jos sosialistisen aatteen kannattajissa on niitä, jotka samalla
taistelevat uskontoa vastaan, näin ei se asia ole yhteydessä
sosialismin kanssa, ei siitä johdu, eikä siihen kuulu. Uskon kieltäjiä
on yhtäläisesti kaikkien oppien kannattajien joukossa…
kielitieteilijöissä, filosofeissa ynnä muissa, eikä silti voida sanoa, että
esimerkiksi kieli-oppi on Jumalan-kielteinen.
Hän innostui innostumistansa. Hän puhui sosialismista, kuvaten
taas sitä ehkä aseeksi, jonka Jumala on antanut kurjien käteen, ja
pahotteli sitä, että sitä asetta käytetään usein väärin. Hän moitti
myös niitä, jotka tukkivat korvansa siltä valtaavalta kurjien
hätähuudolta, jona hän sosialismia piti.
— Minusta tuntuu, — tarttui silloin Rannisto — että Te pidätte
sosialistista yhteiskuntaa raamatun hengen mukaisena.
Nuori pappi vastasi vilkkaasti:
— Raamattu ei yleensä ole yhteiskuntaoppi. Se ei puhu siitä
asiasta mitään. Raamatun mukaan on jokainen yhteiskunta oikea,
kun se vain toimii Jumalan hengessä…
Hänen henkensä hehkui ja paloi, kun hän jatkoi:
— Minusta tuntuu, että sosialistinen yhteiskunta olisi juuri
raamatun hengen mukainen. Sillä ajatelkaapa, herra Rannisto:
Jeesus, joka pesi opetuslastensa jalat, lausui sitä tehdessään: 'Minä
annan teille esikuvan, että te tekisitte niin kuin minä teille tein'…
Jeesuksen ihana kuva oli loihdittu huoneeseen. Kaikki muu
himmeni
Hänen rinnallansa. Pappi kysyi:

— Jos nyt huomenna jokaikinen seuraisi Jeesuksen esimerkkiä,
tulisi Hänen opetuslapseksensa teoissa, olisiko silloin enää
palvelijoita ja isäntiä?
Ranniston täytyi vastata kieltävästi. Kysyjä teki johtopäätöksensä:
— No eikö silloin olisi meillä sosialistinen yhteiskunta valmis?
Ja silloin todellakin näytti sosialistinen yhteiskunta avautuvan
Ranniston ja Oolavin edessä Jumalan valtakuntana, jossa jokainen
on palvelija ja mestarina ja herrana on yksi ainoa, Jeesus.
Pappi innostui edelleen:
— Ensimäinen seurakunta oli sosialistinen… Minusta on
sosialistinen yhteiskunta juuri Jumalan valtakunta maan päällä. Se
on uskonnollisen elämän korkein, ihanin kukka… Se on kirkon työn
ihana tulos, jos se milloin tulee…
Kauniina, pyhänä seurakuntana kuvastui hänen sanoistansa uusi,
odotettava yhteiskunta, kun hän sitä edelleen kuvaili. Hänen
sanoistansa huokui uskovaisen vakaumus ja nöyrtyminen
seuraamaan Jeesuksen esimerkkiä. Puhelu ei ollut enää keskustelua.
Nuori pappi ikäänkuin julisti Jumalan sanaa, seisten alttarilla
seurakunnan edessä. Hän jatkoi:
— Siksi täytyykin, sanon täytyy sosialismin, jos se tahtoo voittaa,
turvautua lopulta juuri uskontoon, raamattuun. Ilman sitä se ei voi
voittaa. Ilman sitä se ei voi voitettuansa pysyä. Sillä eikö sosialistinen
yhteiskuntajärjestys olisi pysyvästi taattu, jos uskonto milloin voi
tehdä jokaisen toistensa jalkojen pesijäksi?

— Luonnollisesti, — yritti papin hurskaudesta ja jaloudesta
ihastunut Rannisto.
— Hyvä! — tarttui pappi. — Ja eikö se kaatuisi, kuten
ensimäinen seurakunta, heti kun ihmiset pahenisivat ja alkaisivat
vaatia toisia heidän jalkojansa pesemään?
Ranniston oli pakko vastata myöntävästi. Hurskas pappi jatkoi:
— Mutta kun sosialismin kannattajat sen huomaavat, eivätkö he
pakostakin ole silloin uskonnon hartaimmat kannattajat?
Rannistosta se tuntui epäämättömältä. Oolaville leveni sosialismi
jalona, jumalallisena, suurena henkisenä liikkeenä, joka perustaa
apostolien aikaista ihanaa seurakuntaa. Nikolai kirkastui hänen
silmissänsä. Huimaavat aatteet häilähtelivät hänen sielussansa. Pappi
jatkoi:
— Me siis näemme, että sosialistinen liike on lopulta aivan
luonnonlain pakolla uskonnon paras tuki ja turva, koska sen
ikävöimä yhteiskunta voi pysyä ainoastaan uskonnon varassa ja
turvissa. Eikö niin?
— Kyllä se minusta nyt siltä tuntuu, — myönteli Rannisto
sydämensä kaikella rehellisyydellä. Oolavi hehkui kilpaa papin
kanssa, vaikka sillä hehkulla oli ääretön ero. Pappi jatkoi:
— Sosialistit ovat juuri tehneet erehdyksen, kun ovat hyväksyneet
taloudellisen oppinsa muka perusvoimaksi Marxin opin
materialistisesta historian johdosta, eivätkä ole siksi ottaneet
uskontoa. Se Marxin oppi, että muka aineellinen taistelu on kaiken
johtavana voimana, on jo vääräkin. Ovathan suurimmat ihmishengen

voitot johtuneet kokonaan toisista vaikuttimista, sillä jos
tarkastamme suurimpia ihmishenkiä, niin huomaamme, että ne ovat
rikkautta pitäneet jonain arvottomana, alhaisena… Lisäksi eivät
suuret liikkeet kuten ristiretket ynnä monet muut ole olleet
aineellisuuden aiheuttamia.
Hän hengähti ja jatkoi taas:
— Marxin materialistinen oppi on karjan oppia. Se opettaa:
ihmisten pitää kulkea, kuten karjan, aina sinne, semmoiseen
yhteiskuntaan, missä on paras karjanlaidun… Se on alhainen oppi ja
siksi se ei saa kannattajiksensa jaloja ihmishenkiä. Lopulta täytyy
sosialismin itsensä tämä huomata ja ottaa jalon taloudellisen oppinsa
perusteeksi raamatun suuri, ylevä oppi… Jaloimmat köyhälistön
liikkeeseen yhtyneet henget ovatkin puhuneet toisessa hengessä
kuin Marx. Niinpä Carlyle huutaa: 'Karkottakaa ahneuden henki
sydämestänne!'…
Syntyi pieni levähdys. Kaikki ajattelivat. Oolavi kietoutui yhä
syvemmälle suuriin kysymyksiin… Elämän kosken veto koveni sitä
mukaa. Nuori pappi jatkoi:
— Teidän talonne, herra Rannisto, on minusta osaksi
sosialistinen: täällä ei ole isäntää ja palvelijaa… Eikö se olisi
uskonnon ihanin hedelmä, ihmishengen kaunein voitto, jos kerran
koko maailma olisi yksi ainoa kristillinen seurakunta: sosialistinen
yhteiskunta?
Hurskas Rannisto aivan heltyi sitä suurta uskonnon voittoa
ajatellessansa… Hän myönsi tähän asti väärin ymmärtäneensä
sosialismia, tuominneensa itse opin sen kannattajien mukaan. Pappi
jatkoi:

— Ja eikö se ole ihmishengen suurin alennus, mihin nykyinen,
itsekkyydelle rakennettu yhteiskunta polkee ihmisen, asettaen sen
toisen palvelijaksi? Ajatelkaa, herra Rannisto: Jumala loi ihmisen
ainoaksi vapaaksi, ja ihmiset itse polkevat sen jalkojensa pesijäksi,
orjaksi!
Oolavin jalo sielu nousi entistä voimakkaampaan kapinaan sortajia
vastaan. Hän kuvitteli jo seisovansa Nikolaina, sorrettujen
vapahtajana, Martva Kaatjana rinnallansa. Hän halusi syöstä
taisteluun. Nuori pappi jatkoi:
— Katsokaa eläinkuntaa! Sortaako siellä sama laji toistansa?
Eivätkö ne toisiansa pidä vertaisinansa, auta ja kunnioita? Milloin
sama laji eläinmaailmassa panee toisensa palvelijaksensa?
Molemmat kuulijat olivat hämmästyneitä. Pappi jatkoi:
— Mutta ihminen tekee sen! Eikö hän silloin ole alempana
eläintä?
Oolavin koko olemus kuohui. Rannisto oli masentunut. Pappi yhä
innostui. Hän jatkoi:
— Eikö yhteiskuntajärjestys, joka sen sallii, ole väärä?… Ja ovatko
lait, jotka sen sallivat, silloin samaa kuin oikeus?…
Rannisto ajatteli, huomasi papin olevan oikeassa ja lausui
ajatuksissansa:
— Kiitos, pastori, selityksistänne! Minä en ole asiaa aina jaksanut
ajatella niin kuin Te sen nyt selitätte… Tällä hetkellä minusta tuntuu,
että meidän ehkä olisi edistettävä sosialismia, edistääksemme sillä
Jumalan valtakuntaa…

— Kyllä, — tarttui pastori Aamusto, jatkaen: Mutta toista tietä
meidän on kuljettava: Meidän on edistettävä Jumalan valtakuntaa,
että sosialistinen yhteiskunta sen kautta syntyisi. Jos toisin teemme,
emmekö ole verrattavat mieheen, joka huonetta rakentaessansa
ensin koettaa asettaa harjahirren ja vasta sitten, kun huone olisi
valmis, aikoo asettaa peruskiven?
Vertaus tuntui Rannistosta sattuvalta. Pastori jatkoi:
— Ne sosialistit, jotka muuta tietä kulkevat: alkavat sosialismista
sinänsä, tullaksensa uskontoon, ne ovat verrattavat juuri
semmoiseen mieheen, joka harjahirren ensiksi asettaa. Heidän
huoneestansa ei mitään tule. Mutta aika tulee, että he huomaavat
erehdyksensä ja laskevat oikean peruskiven, ja silloin rakennus
kohoaa lujalle kalliolle rakennettuna…
Ja kun Rannisto ja Oolavi vielä äänettöminä ihailivat nuorta
pappia, jatkoi tämä:
— Mutta monella on aivan väärä käsitys sosialismista. Se ei ole
edes semmoinen oppi, joka oikein käsitettynä koskettelisi
valtiomuotoakaan…
— Nyt Te, pastori, liioittelette, — yritti Rannisto.
— En… En ollenkaan, — keskeytti Aamusto jatkaen: Eikö
itsevaltias voi säätää sosialistista yhteiskuntajärjestystä?
Rannisto hämmästyi. Ajateltuansa myönsi hän:
— Kyllä… Kyllä…

— Niin voi säätää joka-ikinen valtiomuoto, — tarttui pastori
Aamusto.
Sekä Rannisto että Oolavi olivat hämmästyneet. Nuoren papin
puheet tuntuivat heistä aivan itseselviltä. Hurskas pappi jatkoi:
— Siinä on nyt sosialismin 'kauheus'… pappisvalta voi sosialistisen
yhteiskunnan säätää yhtä hyvin, kuin yksinvalta, tai
kansanvaltakin…
Oolavin sielu, joka oli ennestänsäkin ratkaisemattomia, hänelle
hämäriä kysymyksiä täyteen ahdettu, sai yhä uutta ja uutta lisää.
Kysymyksien paljous vaikutti, että hän ei jaksanut nytkään kaikkea
täysin punnita, vaan ihastui vaistomaisesti siihen, mitä nuori pappi
kauniisti kuvasi. Tämä jatkoi:
— Minä vielä toistan, että ei sosialistinen yhteiskunta voikaan olla
kirkolle vaarallinen, vaan päinvastoin. Minä vielä lisään, että
nykyinen, itsekkyyteen perustuva yhteiskuntajärjestys on kirkolle
vaarallisempi kuin sosialismi…
Rannisto näytti ajattelevalta, jopa epäilevältä. Sen huomattuansa
kysyi pastori Aamusto:
— Voiko se kirkko pysyä, joka ryhtyy suojelemaan esimerkiksi
pahantekijöiden joukkoja, tai on liitossa niiden kanssa?
— Mahdotonta se olisi, — myönsi Rannisto.
— Voiko, — tarttui pastori Aamusto nopeasti — silloin myös
pysyä kirkko, joka ryhtyisi suojelemaan nykyistä, itsekkyyteen
perustuvaa yhteiskuntajärjestystä?

Ranniston ja Oolavin silmistä voi lukea selvän, kieltävän
vastauksen.
Puhuja lisäsi:
— Se on mahdoton. Jumala itse on hävittävä sen kirkon, joka
astuu vääryyden palvelukseen, kuten Hän hävitti todistuksen majan:
Jerusalemin temppelin. Hän lähettää sille kirkolle korven käärmeet,
pakottaakseen sen katsomaan Jeesukseen ja seuraamaan Häntä.
Hän käyttää aseenansa niitä, jotka näyttävät Hänen vihollisiltansa,
kuten Hän todistuksen majan hävitytti Rooman keisareilla, jotka
Hänen palvelijoitansa vainosivat ja itse astuivat hänen
istuimellensa…
Rannisto oli itse niitä asioita paljon ajatellut, mutta hehkuvan
papin kuvaamina kirkastuivat ne hänelle nyt suuremmiksi. Jumalan
viisaus ja suuruus ilmestyi hänen eteensä äärettömänä,
ijankaikkisena valomerenä. Avoimella äänellä lausui hän:
— Kaikki, mitä Te puhutte, tuntuu huokuvan jumalallista totuutta,
jota minä en voi kumota, vaikka vaistomaisesti ehkä tahtoisin
epäillä… Ehkä se epäily johtuu siitä, että en jaksa käsittää Jumalan
teitä täydellisesti.
— Yleensäkin meille ovat Jumalan tiet käsittämättömiä, —
myönsi innostunut pappi, jatkaen: Sama Rooma, joka oli kristittyjen
vainon keskus, tuli Jumalan tahdosta uudeksi Jerusalemiksi: Sieltä
käsin levitettiin kristin-usko halki tunnetun maailman. Minä uskon,
että niin on sosialisminkin käypä: Sen on pakko astua kirkon
palvelijaksi, sillä sen henki kätkee jo itseensä kristin-uskon hengen
idun: tasa-arvoisuuden, toistensa jalkojen pesemisen, jota ilman se
ei voi pystyssä pysyä. Sen käy aivan samoin kuin pakanallisen
Rooman, joka kristityitä vainotessansa kantoi itsessänsä sen itua:

uuden uskon tarvetta, kuten Hellaskin, joka rakensi temppelin
tuntemattomalle jumalalle…
Hän käveli innostuneena, palavana, kuunnellen Ranniston
huomautuksia. Ja taas ryhtyi hän kuvailemaan kirkon suurta
tehtävää sorrettujen asian-ajajana. Hän vetosi aina vain Jeesukseen,
lausui muun muassa:
— Jeesuksen sanat: 'Mitä te teette yhdelle näistä vähimmistä, sen
te teette minulle', käskee ennen kaikkia kirkkoa. Kirkon täytyy ennen
kaikkea seurata Jeesuksen oppia: olla kurjien auttaja. Ja minä suren
sitä, että kirkko ei ole uskaltanut astua sosialistista liikettä
johtamaan, kuten sen velvollisuus olisi, vaan on ryhtynyt sitä
vastustamaankin. Kirkolla ei ole mitään peljättävää, sillä se voittaa
oman näennäisen häviönsäkin kautta, puhdistuen siinä. Kirkon ei
tarvitse tehdä muuta kuin unohtaa itsensä ja seurata Jeesuksen
esimerkkiä, niin se hallitsee maailmaa. Ja juuri sosialismi,
sosialistinen yhteiskuntajärjestys olisi sen kädessä tehokkain ase,
mitä Jumala sille voi antaa, koska se järjestys on täydellisesti
ainoastaan kirkon varassa pysyvä ja on siis niin kokonansa uskonnon
armosta riippuva, kuin orja isäntänsä armosta…
Syntyi pieni hiljaisuus. Sen lopetti Rannisto huomauttaen:
— Niin… On kai sitä kirkossakin vikaa, jos sosialistisen liikkeen
kannattajat nousevat sitä vastaan!
Nuori pappi leimahti kuin tappuroissa tuli. Hän vakuutti:
— Jos siinä ei vikaa olisi, ei kukaan voisi sitä vastaan nousta, sillä
ei hullukaan lähde puhdasta pesemään, eikä tervettä parantamaan.
Se on nykyiselle kirkolle häpeäksi, että sitä vastaan noustaan, mutta

samalla se on sille eduksi. Mutta se, että sitä vastaan ääniä nousee,
on juuri kirkon ansio. Se osottaa, että kirkko ei ole hukkaan työtä
tehnyt…
— Nyt minä en Teitä ymmärrä, — yritti Rannisto.
— Te ymmärrätte heti, — tarttui nuori pappi kysyen:
— Jos ihmisessä ei olisi siveellistä tunnetta, nousisiko se
vääryyttä ja pahaa vastustamaan?
— Luonnollisesti ei, — vastasi Rannisto.
Kysyjä lämpeni edelleen, jatkaen:
— Eikö ihmisen siveellinen tunne ja tahto ole uskonnon luoma?
Eikö se yksinpä pakanoissakin, mikäli ne siveellisyyttä, sen alkeita jo
tajuavat, ole uskonnosta lähtöisin?
Kun Rannisto vaikeni, kysyi nuori pappi edelleen:
— Voitteko nimittäin mainita yhdenkään ainoan inhimilliseksi
sanotun siveys-opin, joka ei olisi uskonnon, raamatun aivan ilmiselvä
plagiati?
Rannisto oli paljon lukenut, mutta ei voinut mainita ainoatakaan.
Pappi selitti edelleen:
— Ei ole vielä siveys-oppia laatinut ainoakaan, joka ei itse olisi
saanut siveellistä tahtoansa ja aistiansa uskonnon välityksellä. Jo
antikisen maailman pakanalliset ajattelijat olivat tietämättänsä
jumalallisen siveellisyyskäsitteen inspirationin saaneita, ja mikä

heidän siveellisyydessänsä on oikeaksi tunnustettua, eikö se ole
täydellisesti kristin-uskon jäljittelyä?
Molemmat kuulijat olivat oudostuneita. He huomasivat, että nuori
pappi oli paljon lukenut ja että hän oli lukenut omilla aivoillansa, eikä
ajatellut laina-aivoilla. Puhuja teki johtopäätöksiänsä:
— Se on siis kirkon ansio, että se on voinut herättää ihmisessä
siveellisen aistin ja tahdon, joka saa sen nousemaan väärää vastaan,
ilmestyköön se väärä vaikkapa itse kirkossa… Kirkko itse niin
puhdistaa itsensä tai oikeastaan: Jumala puhdistaa kirkkonsa sen
omalla kädellä…
Kirkkaana, itseselviävänä valkeni molempien kuulijoiden eteen
innostuneen Jumalan palvelijan lausuma ja todistelema ajatus. He
hämmästyivät hänen ajatuksensa rohkeutta ja hänen uskoansa
Jumalan johtoon ja Jumalan kirkon lopulliseen voittoon. Heistä
näytti, että syntikin on ase Jumalan kädessä, pakanatkin, kuten
Rooma, palvelevat Häntä. Ja ne, jotka nousevat Häntä vastaan,
ovatkin vain vitsoja Hänen kädessänsä.
Oolavin hehkuvassa sielussa avautuivat elämän kysymykset
huimaavina kuvina kuin vesiselät, joissa selkä avautuu selän takana,
houkutellen rohkeaa purjehtijaa yhä kauemmaksi, ikäänkuin siellä
jossain olisi satumaita ja ihmesaaret nousisivat järven vesipovesta,
kukittaen päivänpaisteiset ulapat vesien paratiisiksi, missä onnettaret
asuvat, istuen kallionkärjillä tai kävellen vaaranteilla, kädessä vakka,
josta jakavat ihmisille kaikkea, mitä ihmishenki voi himoita: onnea,
viisautta, tietoa, puhdasta nautintoa. Tai availevat ne ihmishengen
nähtäviksi kaikki maailman salat, levittävät sille salatut asiat
hurmaavimpina kuvina. Sosialistinen asia kirkastui hänen edessänsä
nuoren papin ja Nikolain loistavavärisenä maalauksena, ja koko

elämä kaikkine kysymyksinensä laajeni, suureni ja kutsui häntä. Hän
halusi päästä tuntemaan elämää, kuten kesälintu odottaa vieraalla
maalla keväistä muuttopäiväänsä pesimismaillensa, missä kaunis
koivunvarpu odottaa puhtaana morsiusvuoteena.
* * * * *
Yö alkoi jo ummistua sydän-yöksi. Tähdet valaisivat kuuraista
metsää ja vitilumen peittämää maata, kiiluen palavimmillansa.
Kylmänhenki katseli liikkumattomana niitä maita, joilta se oli lämmön
tieltänsä pois ajanut, tullen itse talven-airueena sijalle.
Pastori Aamusto oli jo lähtenyt, ja Martva puheli taas kahden
kesken Oolavin kanssa. Kun hän nyt ajatteli, että Oolavi ei huomen-
iltana enää tulisikaan, haihtui kirjeiden tuottama ilo vähitellen ja
mieli sumeni ja katse raukesi. Hän koetti olla iloinen, mutta ilo ei
ottanut luistaaksensa. Huoneessa häilähteli surua vuoroin siellä,
vuoroin täällä, eikä nauru enää nauruksi helähtänyt: se jäi aina
puolitiehen, hymyilyyn. Tuntui kuin kuiskaileisi pahan-enne tietojansa
elämän ilojen ja toiveiden sekaan.
Oolavi oli huomaavinansa Martvan ikäänkuin väsyneeksi ja kysyi:
— Miksi näytät niin väsyneeltä?
— Niin… kun sinä lähdet nyt pois, — venytti Martva hitaalla
äänellä, jossa oli säveleenä lapsen äänensävy ja mielipaha.
Oolavi masentui. Herkkä mieli värisi Martvan hellistä sanoista. Hän
ei löytänyt sanoja, millä lohduttaa armasta tyttöä. Hänestä itsestänsä
tuntui nyt lähtö vaikealta. Martva huomasi hänen mielialansa, kokosi

kaikki ilonsa yhteen ja riemastuttaaksensa sekä Oolavin että itsensä,
kysyä heläytti:
— Mutta eikö totta: sinä tulet pian takaisin?… Niinhän?…
Kysymys tuli Oolaville kuin olisi onnenlintu lentänyt hänen syliinsä
siivet ja laulu yhtenä ilona. Hänen mielensä kuohahti ilosta ja
onnesta, kun kuuli Martvan äänen ja tiesi sen helisevän hänelle,
yksin hänelle. Riemunsa vallassa vastasi hän:
— Miten minä voin olla tulematta, kun sinä olet täällä!… Sinä —
hän suuteli Martvan kättä palavasti — minun onneni!… Minun ilo…
ni!…
— Et saa olla vallaton… et… et… et… et, — keskeytti
Martva, vetäen kättänsä pois suutelotulvasta.
Hetkeksi remahti taas ilo. Martva vakuutteli, ääni ja katse täynnä
viehkeyttä:
— Mutta et saa tulla, ennen kun olet kirjoittanut hyvin… hyyy-vin
paljon kirjeitä… Ethän tule ennen?
— Tulen… Sinun luoksesi minä tulen ennen kun ehtii tänne
ensimäinen kirje, jonka lähetän heti kun vain saavun kaupunkiin, —
vastusteli Oolavi leikillä.
— Hyi, kun olet tottelematon!, — naurahti Martva muka
nuhtelevalla äänellä, kiitollisena tottelemattomuudesta.
Mutta kun hän sitten sanoi Oolaville jäähyväisiä, saattaen häntä
eteiseen, tunsi hän sanomatonta tuskaa. Koko hänen sielunsa
hätäytyi, eikä hän tiennyt hädän syytä. Oli kuin olisi Oolavi lähdössä

varmaan kuolemaan, josta hän ei voi pelastaa häntä. Kun hän ojensi
Oolaville kätensä jäähyväisiksi, vapisi käsi kuin arka lintu haukan
iskun edellä, ja katse oli hätäytynyt.
Oolavi huomasi sen ja hänen silmiinsä tulvasivat kirkkaat
kyyneleet.
Martva painautui silloin hänen rintaansa vasten, etsien siitä turvaa.
Siinä itki hän kuin lapsi, värisi ja kärsi Oolavin kyynelien valuessa
hänen silkkihienolle tukallensa.
— Jumala olkoon suojanasi! — kuiskasi Martva kyyneliänsä
kuivaten.
Ovi sulkeutui, ja nuori mies lähti laskemaan purttansa
elämänkoskeen… Kun Martva palasi huoneeseensa, tuntui huone
tyhjältä, autiolta, kuin olisi siellä käynyt kuolema, vienyt isän ja äidin,
ja niiden kuoleman johdosta tullut pakollinen majanmuutto. Kukat ja
kaikki olivat jo rakkaasta huoneesta pois kannetut. Hän heitti
viimeisiä jäähyväisiä rakkaille muistoille… suri… itki… menehtyi
epätoivoon… Hänen mieleensä muistui taas Litvan laulu.
Raukeana, menehtyneenä kutistui hän kokoon ja itki katkerasti.
Vaan himmeä olikin totuudenlähde.
Talvi näytteli jo tuomisiansa: kynttilöinänsä hohtavia joulutähtiä,
hopeanheleitä pakkasiansa, kylmänkulkusiansa ja huikaisevia
lumirikkauksiansa. Pohjolan suuri lumivieras oli tullut.

Jo avautuivat kaikki taivaan tähtiaarteet. Maailman helmi, Suomi,
hohti talvipukimissansa, valkeissa lumiliinoissansa. Auringonpyörä
näyttäytyi päiväsydännä arastellen, punastuneena, kuin ujosteleva
morsian. Öisin hehkui taivas tähtipalona, joka tähti kirpeänkirkkaana
kuin purisi sitä pakkanen. Ilmassa helisi hopeainen jäähele. Kylmä
punasi poskea, valkea hanki painoi puhtaan värinsä ihmishenkeen ja
pakkasenpaukahdus reipastutti mieltä.
Oli tullut jo suuri talvi, Pohjolan lumijuhla jouluinensa,
kulkusinensa ja mäenlasku-iloinensa.
Suuressa kaupungissa pyörivät elämän jauhinkivet. Yhdet pyörivät
päivällä, jauhaen ihmistä suoraan suureksi ja jaloksi. Toiset myllyt
raatoivat öisin… jauhoivat ihmistä akanaksi ja ruumenen ja akanan
kautta takaisin siksi jaloksi eloksi, jona se solui öisen myllyn
kivensilmään. Nyt se näki rapakot kauneiksi vedenseliksi värjättyinä…
ihastui… laski purtensa väriselille, petti itseänsä, pettäen samalla
muita… loittoni aina vain kauvemmaksi onnen hakuun, kunnes jo
häipyi silmistä onnenranta, josta oli matkalle lähtenyt… hätäytyi
silloin ja huomasi olevansa alastomana, purrettomana, nähden
samalla onnen-ulapan olevankin rapamerenä… Jotkut silloin
kääntyivät takaisin ja saavuttivat kotirannan… Toiset painuivat ravan
lisäksi… Hyvä ja paha taisteli suurta, armotonta taisteluansa…
Hiiden myllyn sivuhuoneessa, johon näkyi näyttämö viistoon, istui
Oolavi kahden kesken tuomari Ounaston kanssa. Hän oli siellä
istunut jo useat illat. Harhaman kirjan kuvauksien luoma mieliala ja
niistä kuvauksista innostuneen Harviston kertomukset olivat hänet
sinne vetäneet kohta kun hän oli kaupunkiin tullut. Aluksi oli hän
tuntenut pettyneensä, hämmästynyt ja lähtenyt inhoten kotiinsa.
Mutta aina oli joku halu häntä sinne uudestaan vetänyt. Hän oli

uskonut lopultakin saavansa nähdä sitä ihanuutta, jonka kuvan
Harhaman kirja oli hänessä herättänyt, verhoten ruman ja
inhottavan akanamaisella runollisuudella. Aina uudestaan ja
uudestaan oli hän pettynyt ja poistunut. Taas ja taas oli hän muka
vielä kerran palannut, luullen silloin jo olevan nähtävänä sen, jota
hän janosi.
Viimein oli hän alkanut tottua siihen rumaan, joka kukki öisissä
valoissa, soiton ja höyryjen seassa, värinä ne haihtuvat värit, jotka
muuttavat silmän muuksi, ollen itse untakin petollisempia… Hän
juopui niistä väreistä, hitaasti tosin, mutta sitä varmemmasti, näki ne
jo muuna kuin mitä ne olivat ja kulki niiden houkuttelemana,
arkaillen ja varovasti vielä.
Päivin hän taas teki työtä, ahmi tietoja ahmimalla. Hänen entiset
laajat tietonsa ja luonnonlahjansa olivat hänellä apuna. Mikä oli
muille vuoden, se oli hänelle viikon työ. Synnynnäinen hienous ja
aatelisista aatelisimman talonpoikaiskodin luoma varmuus ja
itsetunto olivat hänestä jo alun pitäen tehneet miehen, joka
hienostuneessa seuraelämässä kohosi oman mittansa muita ylemmä
ja käänsi ihastuneet katseet itseensä.
Tuomari Ounasto oli vanhanpuoleinen herrasmies, jonka kasvoista
voi lukea, että hän oli aikoinansa elänyt. Katseessa oli
hyväntahtoisuutta, pilaa, jopa nerokkaisuuttakin, ja ketterät liikkeet
ja isällinen ääni tekivät hänestä joskus oivallisen, herttaisen sedän ja
isän perikuvan. Hän kävi aina pitkään hännystakkiin arvokkaasti
puettuna, ja kun se arvokkuus ja ikä joskus yhtyivät vanhahkon
elostelijan hullutuksiin, oli vakavankin vaikea olla hänelle
hymyilemättä. Heti ensi tuttavuudesta oli hän kiintynyt Oolaviin ja
nyt olivat he jo hyviä ystävyksiä. Usein olivat he sattuneet olemaan

yhdessä ylevähenkisten perheiden vieraina ja joutuneet ottamaan
osaa keskusteluihin, joissa pohdittiin elämänkysymyksiä ja
kaikkeuden ongelmoita. Oolavi oli aivan juomalla juonut niiden
keskustelujen henkeä, kun taas tuomari Ounasto enimmäkseen
vaikeni, tai selitteli asioita omalla tavallansa, höystäen keskustelua
sukkeluuksilla. Hän oli Jumalan kieltäjä ja elämän ivaaja, joka otti
elämästä sen, mikä siinä kulloinkin oli kepeää ja nautittavaksi
kelpaavaa. Mutta hänen ikänsä ja asemansa vaikuttivat sen, että
Oolavi kuunteli hänen kepeitä puheitansa harkiten, eikä aivan
välinpitämättömänä.
Hiiden myllyssä kohisi ilo. Viulut vinkuivat. Viini vaahtosi. Ihminen
solui kivensilmään. Yöelämä kehittyi kukkanuppuunsa.
Tuomari Ounasto puhui Oolaville, isällisenä, ja veljenä samalla:
— Ota, Oolavi, esimerkiksi eilinen keskustelu tohtori Heinolan
luona!… Eihän siinä ollut pontta, ei perää!
— Miten niin? — pisti Oolavi, katsellen akkunasta syrjäsilmin
myllyyn.
Tuomari Ounasto selitti, tehden joskus käsillään kuvaavan liikkeen:
— Miten 'miten niin'?… No: puhuvat totuudesta, elämän
totuudesta ja oikeudesta… Eihän elämässä ole mitään totuutta: ei
ole mitään erityistä oikeaa ja väärää… Elämässä on vain kaksi
puolta…
— Nimittäin? — katkaisi Oolavi naurahtaen, mutta samalla
uteliaana. Mylly ja totuus vetivät häntä kilpaa. Ounasto selitti,
huudahdellen:

— Nimittäin… Taas sinä, veli, kysyt 'nimittäin'!… Elämässä on
ainoastaan juutalainen puoli ja kreikkalainen puoli… Mikä on
juutalaiselle pyhä, se on kreikkalaiselle kauhistus. Esimerkiksi sian
liha… mikä kauhistus Mooseksen uskolaiselle! Mutta entä muille
uskovaisille!… mikä herkku on joulukinkku. Siinä se on koko totuus ja
oikea…
Hiiden mylly säesti outoa totuuden julistusta. Se säestys huumasi
Oolavin korvia. Se teki aivot herkiksi, kuumeisiksi… Huminan seasta
huomautti hän Ounastolle:
— Mutta emmehän me nyt elä juutalaisten ajassa.
Hiiden myllystä kuului nuoren tytön laulu. Väki nauroi laulun
sukkeluuksille. Kuului joku hyvähuuto.
— Millehän ne nyt huutavat! — innostui Ounasto ja otettuansa
asiasta selvän, katsahtamalla akkunasta, jatkoi hän: Iida siellä
laulelee… Kas, miten hyvästi se Iida veisaakin…
Hän istahti taas ja jatkoi:
— Miksi me emme elä juutalaisten ajassa ja kreikkalaisten?…
Elämme! Ihan täydelleen elämme niiden ajassa… Ota sosialistit ja
porvarit: Sosialistit pitävät porvareita varkaina… pauhaavat aivan
tosissaan… Porvarit taas haukkuvat varkaiksi sosialisteja. — Taivas
varjelkoon ihmistä molemmista!… Minä tuomitsen oikeudessa
molempia aivan armotta… No eikö siinä ole taas sama asia:
'totuuden' juutalainen ja kreikkalainen puoli?
— Niin… se nyt on siinä asiassa… Eihän yksi asia ole vielä koko
elämä, — puolusteli Oolavi miettivänä. Hän huomasi tuomari

Ounaston puheessa olevan oikeaakin. Niin alkoi totuus himmetä,
peittyä hämäriin. Mietteissänsä hän väliin vilkaisi myllyyn. Sieltä
kuului taas hyvähuutoja. Tyttö lauloi lavalla, vähän huolien laulusta,
mutta enemmän siitä, että kauniit hampaat näkyisivät. Ounasto
innostui:
— Entäs muut asiat?… Ovatko ne, veli, toisenlaisia?… Katsohan,
Oolavi, katsohan!…
Hän kumartui likemmä Oolavia ja jatkoi tärkeän näköisenä:
— Ota, veli, vaikka mikä asia, niin sama laatu siinä on… Kas
miten kovasti Iida kirkaisi!… Pitää taputtaa Iidalle… Hyvä! Hyvä!…
Uudestaan! Uudestaan!… Nyt minä taas jatkan: Ota, veli Oolavi,
vaikka mikä asia, niin siitä et löydä muuta kuin kaksi puolta:
juutalaisen ja kreikkalaisen oikean… Taas se Iida kirkaisi… Taputa,
taputa Iidalle!… Kas niin!… Minä taas jatkan: Sillä eikö joka asiaa
ajamassa ole kaksi kunniallista asian-ajajaa?
— No niin! — myönsi Oolavi miettivänä ja huumautuneena
samalla,
Ounasto jatkoi myllyn humun säestämänä:
— Mutta jos kerran olisi väärä ja oikea kaksi eri asiaa, niin
silloinhan kahdesta asian-ajajasta voisi ainoastaan toinen ajaa oikeaa
asiaa, toinen taas puolustaisi väärää, siis olisi konna… Voitko sinä
niin pahaa ajatella kummastakaan?
Oolavi vaikeni. Hän mietti. Totuudenlähteen vedenpinnalle varisi
lisää lehtiä… Mylly humisi sävelhumuna. Ounasto selitti:

Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.
More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge
connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and
personal growth every day!
ebookbell.com

Autonomous Language Learning With Technology Beyond The Classroom Chun Lai

More Related Content

Similar to Autonomous Language Learning With Technology Beyond The Classroom Chun Lai (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Autonomous Language Learning With Technology Beyond The Classroom Chun Lai