Principles for Developing Learner Agency in Language Learning in a New Eduscape with COVID-19

李国芳

Abstract： Agency， learners ability to act on their own learning through actively utilizing the resources and affordances in the learning environment， is of paramount importance to their success in language learning， especially within the online learning environment in a world confronting COVID-19. This paper illustrates the concept of agency from a sociocultural perspective， discusses factors that affect agency development in language learning， and proposes five teaching principles that promote learner agency for teachers designing language lessons online and offline.

Key words： Learner Agency； Teaching Principles； Literacy； Cultural Relevance； Interaction； Language Producer； Engaging Assessments

Introduction

In 2007， when I was conducting a research study about English language learners literacy development in and out of school in the U.S. （Li， 2015）， I met Yina， one of my research participants， a fourth-grade English language-learner who was a Hmong refugee with no other family members who were proficient in English. She was one year into school in the U.S.， but she was struggling with English learning. Yina shared with me that she was “not reading much，” and not writing much “cause English was hard.”She also shared with me that she had no friends in school because she “[didnt] know how to speak English… cant speak clearly.” However， at the end of the study two years later， she had become a fluent reader and writer in English， reading widely and writing different genres on her own including poems and short stories. She had even skipped a grade level in school. During our last interview， Yina described her passion for reading and writing in English： “I love to write and reading is my thing…I like to read a lot and a lot！！ … My favorite types of book that I like to read are manga books， fiction books， or fiction with nonfiction together books.”

What transformed Yina？ In my two years of research with her， I found Yina was becoming increasingly motivated and committed to improving her English： She began to self-initiate reading and writing at home， copying and rewriting some of her favorite characters from her favorite books， trying to write her own stories， reading extensively online and offline， and actively seeking resources to support her reading and writing （asking peers and teachers for books and using libraries）. That is， Yina had developed a strong sense of agency in second language learning that enabled her to exercise a measure of control over her own learning and use appropriate learning strategies despite the challenges she faced in and out of school.

Yinas success story shows the paramount importance of agency in facilitating second language development. In todays world plagued by the COVID-19 pandemic， where learners are increasingly learning languages and academic subjects online at home，learning automatically becomes “toolmediated and goal-directed action…connected with some outer activity”（Zimmerman & Schunk， 2013， p. 135）. More than ever， learners need to “take charge of ones self and ones learning in the face of uncertainty and frustration”（Zimmerman & Schunk， 2013， p. 140）. In this context， how to design the language learning-teaching cycle to foster learner agency in the self-directed learning environment is of paramount importance.

There is a consensus in language education that agency， or learners ability to act on their own learning through actively utilizing the resources and affordances in the learning environment， is critical to their success in language learning. Agentic second language learners like Yina have the capacity to exercise control over their own thought processes， motivation， and action（Bandura， 2001）， can initiate， take part in， and carry out actions （van Lier， 2008）， and have the ability to assign relevance and significance to things and events during their own learning processes（Lantolf & Thorne， 2006）. In sum， agency has a major impact on learners selfefficacy （beliefs about their own abilities）， identity （personal will and power）， motivation （desires and aspirations）， and metacognition （self-awareness and understanding of ones own learning processes）—four constructs which are instrumental in determining language learning success （Larsen-Freeman， 2019； Fincham & Li， 2019； Vandergriff， 2016）. van Lier （2008） points out that successful language learning depends crucially on the activity and initiative of the learner， as no amount of teaching or language material will magically transform into language knowledge unless the learners themselves make some effort to learn. Similarly， Pavlenko and Lantolf （2000） conclude that “ultimate attainment in second language learning relies on ones agency” （p. 169）.

Despite the importance of learner agency， current second and foreign language education has remained largely teacher-controlled and text-bound， leaving very little room for students to exercise control over their own learning， or opportunities to practice identifying resources or limitations in the learning environment and taking action to respond to these learning conditions. The results have been that many students remain passive and fail to activate their full potential for language learning or learning in general. In this article， building on my research on teaching and learning English as a second language in K-12 schools in international settings， I will discuss how language teachers can transform studentssecond language reading and writing by understanding the importance of agency， the factors that contribute to agency development， and the need to promote the right kind of language learning agency. The article will provide five guiding principles for English language teachers to develop class-based strategies to support agentic readers and writers by focusing on literacy skills， practicing culturally relevant teaching， promoting learner interaction， attending to language production process， and deploying diverse and engaging assessments.

A Sociocultural Perspective on Learner Agency and Its Development

Although agency has been conceptualized from diverse perspectives（Larsen-Freeman， 2019； McLoughlin， 2016）， a sociocultural view of agency in language learning is gaining increasing significance. Ahearn （2001）， for example， regards agency as “the socioculturally mediated capacity to act” （p. 112）， emphasizing the role of sociocultural factors in learners decisions to act on their learning processes. More recently， Larsen-Freeman （2019） also points out that agency is not an individual trait but highly relational because each learner is inextricably linked to his or her environment and especially to the inevitable presence of other people， such as teachers， parents， and peers， who are all crucial influences on the learners activities and actions during the learning process. Teachers， for example， normally have the power to determine the types of activities and resources made available to learners and the opportunities they will have to engage in the activities in and out of the classroom.

Another sociocultural dimension of agency is that it is distributed temporally and spatially （Emirbayer & Mische， 1998； Enfield & Kockelman， 2017； Larsen-Freeman， 2019）. Learnersagency is temporally situated because it is not only influenced by their current learning environment， but also by those learning conditions， interactions， and experiences that occurred in the past. As well， a learners current and past agentic development will have an impact on their learning orientation in the future. Another dimension of the distributed nature of agentic development is that the context or learning environment （past and present） matters to learners agency development（Shirazi， 2016）. These historical and contextual factors shape language learners agency development over time and across space.

Due to these relational， historical， and contextual factors， learnersdevelopment of agency is highly dependent upon the confluence of these factors with the availability of economic， cultural， and social resources within the learners particular physical environment and networked spaces （Biesta & Tedder， 2007； Larsen-Freeman， 2019； Vandergriff， 2016）. As Biesta and Tedder（2007） argue， “the achievement of agency will always result from the interplay of individual efforts， available resources and contextual and structural ‘factors as they come together in particular and， in a sense， always unique situations” （p. 137）.

Since these different dynamics vary substantially in different learning situations， each learners path toward achievement of agency can be different. Depending on the reconfigurations of learners personal will， sociocultural and materials resources， and the contextual elements in their learning environment， agency can both afford and constrain language learning （Duff， 2012）. When learner agency orients learners to the

right choice and influences self-efficacy， motivation， capacity to mobilize available resources， and ability to self-regulate， it leads to acquisition of language. On the other hand， when learners agency leads to choices or influences that promote resistance or compliance toward learning， it can result in negative outcomes（Li， 2013）. Aro （2016） followed two EFL learners in Finland from age seven（Grade 1） to college to understand their development of agency in EFL learning and found that although both learners achieved agency toward EFL learning in the early grades， Emma struggled with English learning throughout her school years because her agency lead her toward utilizing resources （such as watching English TV， which provided mostly oral input） that were ultimately limiting for her English learning. In contrast， Helen excelled in English throughout her school years because she oriented her resources（such as use of word dictionaries， reading books， and writing practices） to match school-based English practices that were writing-focused. As a result， while Emma felt increasingly defeated by learning EFL in school and eventually lost her sense of agency in learning， Helen moved forward to deeper learning with relative ease.

Of particular importance for whether learners achieve or lose their sense of agency is the teacher factor in their learning ecology. Teachers beliefs， pedagogical approaches， and resources provided for students are all important in fostering the “right” kind of agency. Teachers beliefs about students potential to learn can have a profound impact on learners agency development. A body of research has documented that teachers who hold deficit attitudes toward students learning potential （e.g.， labeling students as problem vs. independent learners； bad vs. good learners； low vs. high achievers） often engenders learnersnon-participation， resistance， and avoidance of learning （Harklau， 2000； Li； 2006； Miller & Zuengler， 2011； Morita， 2004； Talmy， 2008）. In contrast， teachers who hold a growth mindset with the belief that learners are in control of their own ability and can learn and improve will foster learners active engagement and motivation in their learning process. In the case of Yina， her teachers believed in her ability to learn and catch up with her English-speaking peers and provided her with social and material support（e.g.， engaging her with peers through regular lunch meetings and providing her with books and other resources）（Li， 2015）. This growth mindset on the part of teachers enabled Yina to actively seek all the resources available （such as finding peers and relatives to help homework， using online resources for language and subject area learning， and keeping in close contact with her ESL teachers about her learning） in her life to improve her English reading and writing and eventually surpassed her Englishspeaking peers in many areas in two years of time.

Yinas example also indicates that teachers pedagogical actions matter to foster agentic readers and writers. van Lier （2008） outlines six different pedagogical practices that may lead to differential agency achievement： from passivity to active commitment to learning. Classrooms where learners are not required to do much except respond minimally or follow teacher instructions often foster passivity and obedience. By contrast， those that allow learners to voluntarily answer teacher questions， ask their own questions， help other students， or engage in collaborative problemsolving all promote participation， inquisitiveness， autonomy， and commitment to learning. A case example is the EFL classrooms documented in Li， Sun， and Jees （2019） study in which teacher talk dominated most of the class time and teacher questions were mostly display questions or known information questions that did not require active participation from students. As a result， students in these classrooms remained passive and obedient and their minimal responses were characterized by repetitions of short answers and an absence of authentic oral output.

A large body of studies from around the world have revealed the impact of EFL teacher pedagogical practice on their students agency to learn （Graham， Courtney， Tonkyn， et al.， 2016； Mu？oz， 2017； Sah & Li， 2018）. Mu？oz （2017） conducted a 10-year longitudinal study in Spain that followed the trajectories of a group of young learners of EFL from age 6 to age 16 using a mixedmethods design to examine their outcomes in relation to their languagelearning aptitude and motivation. The study found that EFL lessons that were not adequately challenging and involve tiresome repetition were responsible for very slow development over the years and learners loss of motivation over time. Similar findings were also observed in another study situated in Hungary， where Nikolov （2009） investigated EFL agency development of 84 Hungarian students aged 6 to 14. Other studies in various contexts （e.g.， Graham， Courtney， Tonkyn， et al.， 2016； Sah & Li， 2018） also found that learners agency development was negatively affected by classroom experiences， in particular by activities that learners felt did not help them to learn effectively or to make continuing progress.

These studies suggest that in order to foster the right kind of agency， second language teachers must consider that agency is not just an individual effort， but also highly dependent on the resources provided to learners and the classroom environment and pedagogical practices that learners are subject to. As Reber（1993） states， teachers must ask “not[just] whats inside [a students] head， ask what [his/her] head is inside of” （p. 58）. Instructionally， this means second language teachers need to become what Epstein （2009） calls “intentional teachers” who not only teach content but also are intentional about the context and pedagogy of teaching and assessment that build on what students already know， highlight students strengths， and gives them confidence to gain control of their own learning processes， including confronting their weaknesses. Epstein（2009） explains：

“Intentional teachers use their knowledge of child development and literacy learning to supply materials， provide well-timed information， guide discussions， make thoughtful comments， ask meaningful questions， and pose calibrated challenges that advance childrens learning” （p. 40）.

I nte nt i o na l L a n g ua g e Instruction that Promotes Lear ner Agency： Five Principles

A number of instructional approaches have been found to be conducive to learner agency development. Among them are project-based language learning， inquirybased language learning， task-based language teaching and phenomenon-based language learning. All these approaches engage language learners with real-world issues and meaningful reading and writing activities through a series of learning tasks that have an authentic purpose and therefore promote students autonomy and agency in the learning process. However， many of these approaches， developed in English as a first language contexts， may be difficult to actualize in a foreign language learning context， especially in contexts where language teaching is often traditionally conducted in lecture style and favors rote learning （Li， Sun，& Jee， 2018）. While not all lessons can engage with real world issues and follow a project or phenomenon-based approach， in the EFL context， teachers can adapt their lessons by abiding the following five principles to promote greater learner agency in language learning that aims to move：

●from teaching the target language to teaching literacy skills；

●from teaching the target culture to making lessons culturally relevant to students；

●from focusing on providing language input to promoting interaction in the language；

●from attending to final products to students as producers of language；

●from preparing for exams to conducting engaging assessments.

1. From Teaching the Target Language to Teaching Literacy

In second and foreign language teaching， language was traditionally conceived of as a set of grammatical rules， and language learning was believed to primarily involve mastery of these rules （Cortazzi， & Jin， 1996； Fang & Li， in press）. This approach， however， has been documented to be largely ineffective in promoting either language learning or learner agency. In the Chinese context， this kind of grammar-based language teaching has been documented to lead to wide-spread resistance to language learning in both rural and urban schools（Fan & Cheng， 2015； Ke， 2016； J. Li， 2007）. Many students are also reported to suffer from high levels of study / test anxiety， which has been found to negatively impact their English test scores（J. Li， 2007）. And many students express a “hatred” for studying English starting in elementary school. One key reason is that English has been taught as a set of linguistic rules that has no applications outside the weekly English lessons.

An alternative perspective is to move away from seeing language as a set of rules to master towards viewing language learning as a means to achieve literacy in a second language. Literacy is commonly defined as “the ability to use language and images in rich and varied forms to read， write， listen， speak， view， represent， and think critically about ideas” （Ontario Ministry of Education， 2004， p. 5）. According to ACTFL （2020）， literacy is purposeful use of language skills （such as reading， writing， listening， speaking， and viewing） for purposeful communication in meaningful contexts and with engaging content. These literacy skills may include the ability to manage， analyze， and synthesize multiple streams of information， design and share information for global communities， build intentional cross-cultural connections and relationships with others， and create， critique， analyze， and evaluate multimedia texts， among others （NCTE， 2013）. Viewing learning a second language as a means to enhance these 21st century skills may require teachers to teach the language not as a set of prescriptive rules through isolated， drill-like exercises， but as connected goal areas that integrate reading， writing， listening， speaking， representing， viewing， and critical thinking with a communicative purpose（ACTFL， 2020）.

Teaching in this connected and integrated manner requires attention to text， context， and purpose in language use in the teaching-learning cycle whether it is online or offline （Fang & Li， in press）. In a second or foreign language classroom， repetitive drill exercises usually diminish interest and motivation， and hence agency. Providing ageappropriate texts and tasks that engage learners in reading， writing， representing， and higher-order thinking is essential. In lower-level classes， teachers can choose to read high-interest books as whole class or in small groups， and engage students in oral discussions and written responses to the text through drawing and writing. Similar approaches can also be applied to upper-level classrooms， where students are offered high-interest reading materials and authentic tasks around the readings that require the meaningful and purposeful use of reading， writing， speaking， and thinking skills （e.g.， small group discussions， interviews， or other meaningful tasks） （see Li， 2017 for examples of such connected instruction in low and higher grades）.

2. From Teaching the Target Culture to Culturally Relevant Teaching

Teaching language cannot be separated from teaching the target language culture. In a foreign language context， how to teach the target culture is a frequent challenge for any teacher. Research has revealed many English teachers vary widely in their awareness and knowledge of the target language culture and for too many， teaching the target language culture still means knowing and teaching target cultures of western norms without critical reflection（Li， 2013）. However， due to the fact that many English teachers do not have a deep knowledge of the target language culture， they often teach those specified in textbooks （Li， 2018）. For example，in Atays （2008） study of Turkish prospective teachers integration of culture in the classroom， it was found that besides the target culture specified in the textbook， the teachers did not discuss the local culture or any other culture； and they often chose not to discuss cultural differences even for a teaching unit that included cultural issues， if they felt they did not have enough knowledge about the target culture. Moreover， all the teachers believed that “focusing on learnersculture is not necessary” （Atay， 2008， p. 96）.

Due to this deep-seated conception of culture as the target language culture and teaching it as a subject of knowledge in the language classroom， teachers often overlook the affordance of local languages and cultures as funds of knowledge （González， Moll， & Amanti， 2005） in the language classroom. A funds-of-knowledge perspective regard the historically and culturally developed bodies of linguistic knowledge and skills from the teachers （and their students） local cultures and communities as rich cultural， linguistic， and cognitive resources and foundation for culturally responsive and meaningful lessons in the English language classroom （González， Moll， & Amanti， 2005； Li， 2018）. Seeing their prior knowledge in local varieties and cultures as funds of knowledge can help foster cultural and linguistic continuity among learners， promote intrinsic motivation， and increase academic achievement， and therefore develop their sense of agency for further learning.

This alternative perspective matters for the materials that teachers may provide to students. For example， in some classrooms， many students may choose to use English names for the language class. Besides a random choice of names， teachers can design a themed study of names by bringing in students cultures and identities and discussing important name-related issues in our daily lives. Teachers can conduct a critical reading of thought-provoking， relatable books such as The Name Jar （Choi， 2006）， My Name is Sangeol （Williams， 2009）， My Name is Maria Isabel （Ada， 1995）， or a book in their first language about names. Teachers can engage students in making connections to the story by talking about their own names， engaging them to interview their parents about their names and report back to class， generating questions they have about the story， retelling the story， or making predictions about the story. These kinds of active engagement activities will be culturally relevant to students and personally meaningful， and therefore， students will likely be more invested and more agentic in the learning process.

3. From Input to Interaction

The issue of language input and output has been widely discussed in the language teaching literature. Input refers to the language exposure a teacher provides to students （by the teacher and/ or through multimedia） and output means language produced by the students orally or in written forms （Swain， 1985）. In a language classroom， which is often the only place of language exposure outside school， input is therefore of paramount importance to students learning outcomes. A variety of technology tools and digital resources can be used to bring into the classroom authentic target language input well beyond what was formerly possible in traditional foreign language classrooms （Celik & Aytin， 2014； Li， Jee， & Sun， 2018； Li， Sun， & Jee， 2019）. Despite the increasing use of technology tools in the foreign language classroom， a body of research confirms that the majority of teachers make only minimal or superficial use of educational technology （Li & Ni， 2011a， 2011b； Li， Jee & Sun， 2018； Li， Sun， & Jee， 2019； Peeraer & Van Petegem， 2015）. Research on many current EFL teaching practices reveals an over-emphasis on the “technologies in English” rather than“technologies for English” （Cobo， 2016）. That is， English teaching practices in these English classrooms still remain“old-fashioned and pre-digital” （Selwyn， Nemorin， Bulfin， et al.， 2018， p. 151）. A body of studies in the Chinese context reveals that most Chinese EFL teachers use of technology is still mainly restricted to preparing for class and delivering instruction. These practices are reminiscent of the traditional model of foreign language teaching， which is highly textbook-driven and teachercentered （Li， Jee， & Sun， 2018； Li， Sun，& Jee， 2019； L. Li， 2014； Li & Walsh， 2011）.

Another striking finding in many EFL classrooms is a lack of interaction in the target language， be it studentteacher or student-student interaction. Research on EFL classroom talk indicates that teacher talk still dominates EFL classroom discourse around the world； and teachers choices of initiation are often characterized by display questions； and their most frequent feedback strategies （e.g.， gap filling or short evaluative comments） often do not encourage student target language output （Faruji， 2011； Lee， 2008； Long& Sato， 1983； Thornbury， 1996； Tsui， 2001； Walsh， 2002）. Existing literature on student output in EFL classrooms has revealed that the quantity and quality of EFL students responses are mostly restricted due to excessive teacher talk time and teacher control over the content and procedure of the classroom interaction （Cheng， 2009； Walsh， 2002）. In their study of four college EFL classrooms in China， Liu and Le （2012） found that the average amount of teacher talk time （68.89%） surpassed student talk time （21.66%） and other activities（6.67%） in a 45-minutes class. Similarly， discourse analyses of elementary EFL lessons in China by Li， Jee， and Sun，（2018） and Li， Sun， and Jee （2019） revealed that EFL teachers technology use played a negative role in facilitating communicative classroom discourses， with high-technology-use teachers using more display questions and directives and facilitating less spontaneous or authentic output from students in the target language. In addition， the teachers provided little corrective feedback. Therefore， the researchers concluded that such practices， despite being supported with new technologies， were detrimental to student target language interactions in the classroom.

The need to engage students in authentic interaction in the target language is the basis of the integrated， connected， culturally relevant teaching approach described earlier. This means teachers need to allow the development of fluency alongside the emphasis on accuracy in language learning. Opportunities to use the language for authentic communications and dialogues such as small group discussions， presentations， interviews， and other collaborative activities all increase students interaction and language output in the language classroom.

4. From Language Product to Language Producers

Another principle to develop agentic second language readers and writers is to move away from a product-oriented view of language learning. In this view， students often learn the target language by imitating model texts through controlled practice of the text features and focusing on organization of ideas more than the ideas themselves； often the emphasis is on the end product or results of learning（Nunan， 1999）. In contrast， a process approach considers the text as a starting point for collaborative learning and a resource for creative ideas generated by the language user. The emphasis is therefore on the creative process itself.

In addition to changing this focus， teachers also need to attend to the development of language learners as producers and users of language during the learning process. As van Lier （2004） argues， achieving literacy in a language must be accompanied by the development of a dually compatible identity that connects the learners self-identity with that afforded by the new language. This means language teaching must foster “a voice in that language， and having both the right to speak and the right to be heard， as well as having something of consequence to say” （van Lier， 2004， p. 83）.

One example of attending to both process and producers of language as well as products of learning is the activity of having students create “identity texts.”According to Cummins and Early （2011）， identity texts are works and artifacts produced or authored by students that are based on their own personal experiences or their social realities. These works or artifacts （e.g.， stories， poems， journals， art， drama， or videos） are often bior multilingual， and can be written， spoken， visual， musical， or multimodal. These identity text assignments can be embedded or connected to subject area learning such as language arts， social studies， and science. Examples of such projects include having students make dual language books and arts about the migration patterns of Canada geese and reflecting on the birds journey to survive between two homes （social studies） or having students create number sense problems and timelines in photo stories that incorporate their lived experiences， families， and home lives （math）. Literacy skills required to produce these identity texts are connected to the curriculum and encourage extensive reading，writing， and dialogues among peers， parents， and / or communities about their shared experiences and realities （for examples of identity texts instruction see Cummins， Hu， Markus， et al.， 2015）. These identity texts， based on personal realities， are often published and read， heard， or viewed by peers or the wider communities. Therefore， this process of producing the language through identity texts gives students a “voice” and sense of“power” in the language， affirms studentsidentities， and increases their sense of their agency （Cummins， Hu， Markus， et al.， 2015）. In todays world confronting COVID-19， students may experience emotional stress and anxiety during their stay-home lockdown. Teachers can give students voice and power in the language by encouraging students to compose identity texts documenting their lived experiences.

5. From Exams to Engaging Assessments

Transforming an informationtransmission mode of language teaching into integrated， culturally relevant teaching that focuses on interaction and development of learner identities cannot be accomplished if the assessment is exam-oriented and score-driven. van Lier （2004） argues that standards do not equal quality and the quality of language education cannot be measured by test scores. Indeed， students test scores on exams usually do not correspond with students literacy attainment in the language or their ability to use the language in the real world. Research has indicated that high-stakes exams usually increase students anxiety and stress and decrease learners motivation and engagement in learning （Fan & Cheng， 2015； Li J.， 2007）.

Therefore， to promote a greater sense of learner agency， assessments must be engaging for learning and addressing students affective filters during the learning process. Such engaging assessments need to first build on an understanding of students needs and strengths. By knowing studentsindividual differences， their pace of learning， as well as their strengths， teachers can then deploy diverse assessment methods to differentiate both instruction and assessment by providing options， personalization， and choice. In sum， engaging assessment “involves assuring that the assessment process—beginning with student learning outcome statements and ending with improvements in student