Page 25 [25]
OCR
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND self-directed learning, on the other hand, occurs when “the learner engages in language use for pleasure or interest, but also with the broader intention of learning” (Benson 2011b: 139). In this kind of learning, learners knowingly pursue opportunities for L2 exposure with the intention of learning from them. Similarly, Lee (2019b) connected digital environments with naturalistic selfdirected learning and claimed that EE activities might enable learners to acquire L2 linguistic elements from them. This is also emphazised by Boyer and Usinger (2015) and Grover (2015), who claim that control and active involvement from the learner is a prerequisite for this type of learning. However, it is important to emphasize that Benson’s (2011b) three concepts of autonomous learning, namely self-instruction, naturalistic learning, and self-directed naturalistic language learning, are all incorporated in the term extramural activities. Self-instruction occurs when the learner wishes to learn, naturalistic learning may occur without the learner’s conscious attention, and self-directed naturalistic learning, the combination of the former two, may occur when a learner consciously engages in EE activities with hopes of learning English. Consequently, extramural activities serve as an umbrella term for all activities taking place outside the classroom and independent of a classroom setting where learners are exposed to a particular L2. All in all, these three types of learning may involve a certain degree of intention and consciousness (or a lack thereof) from the learner’s perspective, so the following section aims to investigate the role of intention and consciousness in the foreign language processes when learning through EE activities. 2.2.2 Learning processes in SLA through extramural English activities Conscious and unconscious language learning has been a long-debated issue in the field of second language acquisition (SLA). Krashen (1982) argued that these were separate processes, thus the two learning processes are distinct, and the knowledge gained through them results in conscious and unconscious knowledge. Krashen (1982) calls the conscious learning process learning and the unconscious learning process acquisition. The former involves explicit, formal instruction, while the latter resembles the way children acquire their first language (L1), i.e., implicitly, with no formal instruction involved. However, it is difficult to test Krashen’s (1982) acquisition vs learning hypothesis. For instance, Ellis and Shintani (2014: 176) point out that Krashen’s theory “no longer figures in current thinking in SLA” because attention to linguistic form is needed even in incidental and implicit learning. In this book, therefore, similarly to most researchers in the field, I use the terms learning and acquisition interchangeably because the fundamental difference between conscious + 23 +
