1BEYOND THE CLASSROOM:A CASE FOR OUT-OF-CLASSLANGUAGE LEARNINGDAVID NUNAN
Professor Emeritus of Applied Linguistics, University of Hong Kong

ABSTRACTThe most successful language learners often attribute much of their success to initiatives they undertook to extend
opportunities for language learning beyond the classroom. Experiential learning theory also argues that making connections
between in-class learning and personalized out-of-class applications maximizes learning. The litmus test of success insecond language learning is whether the learner can actually use the language to communicate beyond the classroom.
Recent developments in information technology, particularly the Internet, give learners access to an astonishing variety
of authentic aural and written texts. The proliferation of social networking sites provides learners with opportunities tocommunicate in speech and writing with other users of their chosen target language around the globe.
In this paper, I will argue that learning through using language in authentic as well as pedagogically structured contexts
outside the classroom can significantly enhance the language learning process. Practical illustrations and examples in theform of case studies will be presented to illustrate the rich variety of opportunities that exist for language learning and use
outside the classroom.

2

INTRODUCTION
The two contexts for language learning and use are inside the classroom and outside the classroom. Traditionally, theclassroom world was where language was learned, and the world beyond the classroom was where language was used.
This distinction between language learning and language use began to break down with the development of communicative
language teaching, which brought with it experiential learning (Kohonen 1992) and the notion that one could actuallyacquire a language by using it productively and communicatively inside the classroom. By the same token, one could also
increase the rate of acquisition by studying and using the language beyond the classroom.
Until recently, opportunities for language learning beyond the classroom were fairly limited. These days, however, thankslargely to technology, there are enormous opportunities for individuals, regardless of the language they are learning,
to connect and interact with other speakers of those languages. One of the interesting things that is happening is that
there is an enormous spread of individuals using a wide range of languages. Not just languages that are used widely forinternational communication, business communication, media and so on, such as English, Japanese, Chinese, Spanish andArabic, but minor languages as well. The number of second language conversations – so, ones between second language
speakers of these global languages – is increasing exponentially.
In fact, if you could take a snapshot of individuals around the world engaged in that moment in genuine communication
beyond the classroom using English, it would reveal far more second language to second language speakers of English
than native speakers, whether conversing with other native speakers or with second language speakers. English can nolonger be claimed to belong to any one national group, not even the English themselves. Native speakers can no longer
claim that they own the English language. These days, English belongs to anybody who chooses to use it. And I would argue
the same goes for Japanese, Chinese, Spanish, Arabic, and for the many other languages that are used around the world.
In the background section that follows, I shall draw a contrast between patterns of language use in the classroom anddiscourse outside it. I shall also set out some of the limitations of the classroom, as well as pointing to some of theadvantages of language learning beyond the classroom. This is followed by five case studies of language learning beyond
the classroom. These studies show how teachers in a range of contexts, and using a range of languages around the world,
have developed ways of encouraging their learners to develop target language skills beyond the classroom. They havebeen selected from an edited collection of twenty-eight studies of language learning beyond the classroom (Nunan &Richards 2015).

BACKGROUND
Prior research has shown that classroom discourse tends to be structured and hierarchical. It involves simple rituals androutines as well as display language. Behaviour and contexts of use are safe and predictable (McCarthy & Walsh 2003).
Discourse beyond the classroom, on the other hand, is relatively unstructured and its contexts of use generate complex
rituals and routines resulting in authentic (rather than display) language. Behaviour is unregulated, and communication isrelatively risky and unpredictable. Comparing the discourses used by learners in the classroom and beyond the classroom
provides insights into the complex relationship between instructed language acquisition and language use. While thestructured, hierarchical discourse of the classroom has certain benefits for learners, particularly in the early stages oflearning another language, it is also important for them to be exposed to the risky business of authentic interaction beyond
the classroom.
In the 1980s, the idea was proposed of making classrooms indistinguishable from the world outside the classroom in termsof discourse and interaction. The idea was that learners would “pick up” the second language through a little-understoodprocess of osmosis in much the same way as they acquired their first language (Krashen & Terrell 1983). This so-called“natural approach”, in which teachers organized integrative opportunities in class that mirrored those that took place outside
the classroom, certainly had merit. However, to completely exclude classroom language and patterns of interaction was a
mistake. Classrooms exist to provide learners with learning opportunities that they cannot get outside the classroom. We
need both in-class and out-of-class learning / using activities to maximize the learning potential for our students.

3

Beyond the classroom, learners have opportunities for authentic input, comprehensible input as it is called, but also authentic
output, opportunities to get closer to the kind of language that we use for authentic communication because that is in fact
what they are going to be doing with the language that they are learning. Beyond the classroom, there is a much broader
range of interactional contexts than can exist in the classroom, where the only people that a student can interact with are
the teacher and other students. And, of course, there are unequal power relationships between teacher and students that
affect the discourse. For example, students rarely if ever get to ask questions of the teacher apart from language-related
questions. And the great majority of teacher questions are not genuine questions at all, but are “display” questions, thefunction of which is to get students to display their knowledge. While classrooms and what goes on in them are criticallyimportant to successful language learning, so also is learning outside the classroom.
In summary, language classrooms have a particular place and a particular value. While they are necessary, in many
contexts, they are not sufficient for language acquisition to develop to the point where learners can communicate effectively
beyond the classroom. We need to provide learners with structured, semi-structured and unstructured opportunities tostudy and practise language beyond the classroom.

CASE STUDIESCASE STUDY 1: EXTENSIVE READING (DAY & ROBB 2015)
Anderson (2008) argues that the best way of developing fluent reading skills is through extensive reading. He distinguishes
between intensive and extensive reading as follows:
The differences between intensive and extensive reading are important for teachers to understand. Intensive
reading is the teaching of reading skills, vocabulary, and phonological instruction, typically through shortreading passages followed by reading comprehension exercises. Extensive reading is reading of longer
passages with a focus on enjoyment and / or learning new information while reading. There is typically no
accountability required during extensive reading. (Anderson 2008, 8)
In contrast with intensive reading, extensive reading is carried out for enjoyment rather than for the purpose of mastering
grammar and vocabulary. Linguistic skills and knowledge will develop incidentally rather than intentionally.
Day and Robb (2015) present the case study of Wendy, a beginner learning Japanese as a foreign language. In addition toundergoing formal instruction, Wendy made the decision to embark on a self-study program based on extensive reading. Overa nine-week period she read forty-three books. These were simple books, including comic books and children’s storybooks.
During this time, she kept a journal of the extensive reading experiences. At week ten, she made the following note:
The cool thing about reading so far, or perhaps I should say the rewarding part is when I am able to recognize
words that I have read from other books before. Last night I took a Japanese children’s book from thebookshelf and was going to show the pictures to my baby. As I scanned through the book, I realized that I
could read some of the words. (cited in Day & Robb 2015, 4)
Day and Robb identify five principles that underpin successful extensive reading programs. In the first place, given thefact that the primary aim is reading for pleasure and that learning will be incidental rather than intentional, the reading
texts must be well within the reader’s comfort zone. The second principle is to provide learners with a variety of readingmaterial. This will help to maintain interest and motivation. Older learners should be given the opportunity to select theirown reading material. As the name implies, extensive reading entails reading as much as possible. Finally, the focus should
be on reading for enjoyment and general understanding rather than for specific linguistic information. This is not to saythat there are not specific language outcomes. Vocabulary development is particularly facilitated by extensive reading.
However, as has been mentioned, it happens incidentally. Day and Robb (2005, 7) also argue that extensive reading fosters
positive attitudes towards reading in general: “perhaps the best result from numerous studies is that students develop
positive attitudes towards reading and increased motivation to study the target language”.

4

CASE STUDY 2: EMAIL TANDEM LEARNING (SASAKI 2015)
In email tandem learning, a second language learner is paired up with a first language speaker of the language he/she is learning. That speaker will be a second language learner of the other person’s first language. Sasaki (2015)
presents a case study of two high school language learners, Shelly, an American learning Japanese, and Shogo,a native Japanese speaker learning English, who took part in an email tandem learning program to augment theirregular in-class language courses. Shelly sent Shogo emails in Japanese, and Shogo wrote to Shelly in English.
Shelly responded to Shogo’s email in English, correcting mistakes and pointing out cultural information, and Shogo did thesame to Shelly’s email in Japanese.
Sasaki notes that:
The unique aspect of this activity is that, unlike regular native speaker-nonnative speaker (NS-NNS)
communication, where only one participant (i.e. NNS) benefits as a learner, tandem partners bring their own
L1 knowledge and reciprocally support their partner’s L2 learning. Therefore e-mail tandem is considered
to be potentially beneficial to L2 learners on both sides. This practice stands on the notion of collaborative
learning where each interlocutor plays an active role as an expert of his or her own L1 and provides scaffolding
to assist the partner’s (i.e. novice’s) L2 learning. (Sasaki 2015, 116)
The technique promotes learner-centeredness and independence because the students get to make decisions about what
topics to write about and what kind of feedback to provide to their partner. Having to provide linguistic explanations about
aspects of their native language improves their linguistic awareness. At one point, after Shogo had corrected Shelly’s misuseof the -wa and -ga particles, Shelly asked for a grammatical explanation of the difference. Shogo was embarrassed to admitthat he didn’t know: like most native speakers, he had relatively little knowledge of the grammatical rules of his own language.
His journal entry reads:
In the previous reply, she wrote, “How can I distinguish -wa and -ga? They both mark the subject of thesentence!” I felt she was irritated, but I couldn’t answer right away. I felt guilty for not being able to solve
her problem.
One day in his regular English class, the teacher reviewed the use of the definite and indefinite article and suddenly
he realized what the distinction was between -wa and ‑ga. He wrote:
Finally! I discovered the difference between “-wa” and “-ga”, which is almost like the distinction of English
articles “a” and “the”. I hope Shelly will be glad to know this.
Students also developed intercultural knowledge and awareness. One of the topics that Shelly and Shogo chose was on
festivals. By describing and comparing important festivals, they were able to enrich their knowledge of American andJapanese culture.
Sasaki makes a number of observations on the email tandem learning technique. Firstly, e-mail tandem helps learners
develop linguistic skills by using language as both medium and topic of communication. Secondly, it is important toencourage learners to learn from each other’s cultural background. Shogo, for example, realizes that before she makes acriticism of his English, Shelly praises him. In his reflective journal, he notes, “I received a lot of comments in her feedback,and I felt good every time I read them. I think it’s an American custom to offer high praise when they give negative
comments so that their comments do not sound like refusal or rejection but instead constructive.” Sasaki’s third point isthat through the e-mail tandem technique, learners engage in authentic communication rather than regurgitating prefabricated patterns or reproduce the meaning of others. Finally, the technique fosters learner autonomy, and increases
metalinguistic awareness.

5

CASE STUDY 3: DIALOGUE JOURNALS (CHIESA & BAILEY 2015)
For Chiesa and Bailey (2015), the dialogue journal is an ideal vehicle for connecting the classroom with the world beyond
the classroom. A dialogue journal contains reciprocal, ongoing written exchanges between students and teachers usedconsistently over time (Peyton 1993). Chiesa and Bailey (2015) report on a dialogue journal case study between Jennifer,a university student in China, and Dave, her American teacher. The study was carried out over the course of a semester.
Jennifer wrote to Dave on a regular basis, and Dave responded. In the case study, some major issues emerged thathighlight some of the strengths of this technique as a way of making connections between the pedagogical context of theclassroom and the personal world of the student beyond the classroom.
In the journal, Jennifer documents her dysfunctional home life, including physical and mental abuse, that impinged on her
ability to focus on her studies. In one entry, she recounted the following episode:
The time when I found my dad didn’t love my mom was on my tenth birthday. My dad left us, no,abandoned us. My mom woke me up in the early morning, and handed me a note, asking me to read aloud.
(My mom is illiterate.) I recognized my father’s handwriting. That note was very short, but the content in
it was so hurtful to my mom and me that it took me nearly 30 minutes to finish reading it. The scene ofsearching for my father around the city where I lived became a scar later in my heart. I could not understandthe reason why my dad left without saying anything. (Jennifer, Journal entry #3)
This entry highlights the fact that journal entries can raise issues that can prove to be extremely challenging for the teacher
and that will almost certainly not come up in regular classroom discussions, but will have a material effect on the abilityof the student to deal with the exigencies of regular classroom study – even though the incident may have taken placesome years before, as is the case with Jennifer. In this instance, the teacher, Dave, has to decide how to respond to what
was clearly a traumatic incident.
A fundamental principle in responding to students’ journal entries is that the focus should be on experiential rather thanlinguistic content, that is, the teacher should respond to the ideas expressed and not to issues of discourse, grammar or
vocabulary. (That said, the teaching might identify certain errors that are commonly made by different students in theclass, and use these as the basis of a follow-up language review.) Another important principle is that the teacher should
adopt a personal rather than an instructional stance in reacting to the students’ entries. As Chiesa and Bailey state, “Theteacher should relinquish power in order to build interactive reciprocity.”
As indicated above, a major benefit of dialogue journals is that they provide a window on the world of the learners beyond
the classroom. They provide a means of building into the instructional process the interests, needs and experiences oflearners. This is a fundamental feature of a learner-centred approach to instruction (Nunan 2013). Needless to say, theteacher needs to exercise judgment when making decisions about what content from dialogue journals to draw on, andhow to draw on the content. Confidentiality has to be respected at all times, and it would be inappropriate to draw directlyon the content from Jennifer’s journal. However, such content can act as a warning signal to the teacher about the possible
negative impact of touching on certain subjects in class.
A drawback of the technique is that it is time consuming, but for the students, but also for the teacher, particularly if he /she is teaching large classes. Dave the teacher who features in this case study spent many hours each week responding
to the entries made by his students.

6

CASE STUDY 4: INTENSIVE LISTENING (GRODE & STACY 2015)
In case study 1, I presented a snapshot of extensive reading, while at the same time making the point that intensive reading
can also be useful. Extensive and intensive listening can also be valuable ways of improving listening skills. Intensive
listening involved the close study of a relatively short audio or videoclip. In the study presented by Grode and Stacy (2015)
Keiko, a Japanese student of English, and her partner, decided they wanted to improve the accuracy of some specificfeatures of discourse, grammar and pronunciation. They found a short scene in the popular television series Sex and theCity which contained the target features of interest. Guided by their teachers, they then carried out an independent threestep procedure on the scene. Firstly, they listened to the scene multiple times, and made a written transcription, marking
pronunciation features they wanted to focus on such as the phonemes /l/ and /r/ and intonation and stress patterns. Thenthey rehearsed the scene using the transcript. Finally, they tried “shadowing” the original, listening to and speaking alongwith short segments, trying to get as close to the original as possible.
When the teachers reviewed Keiko’s attempts to mimic the original, they found that her
errors were stubbornly resistant to change. She could use the target forms, for example /l/ and /r/ whenmonitoring her speech, but would continue to make the same errors when focused on meaning. Building
automaticity through drilling proved helpful. “… the facilitation of extensive practice is also an underlying
principle of improving spoken accuracy for the basic notion of repetition is a solid one that can lead toautomaticity of use”. (Grode & Stacy 2015)
The authors identify four principles for getting learners to undertake intensive listening. Firstly, get learners working withauthentic material and developing a greater awareness of the elements that make up English speech. Although the Sex
and the City material was scripted, it was not specially written and recorded for the purposes of language teaching. The
students were therefore working with naturalistic chunks of material. Secondly, in practising the transcript and shadowing
the original scene, the students were encouraged to strive for automaticity. The third principle is raising awareness.
Through the intensive study of short scenes from television dramas, students’ linguistic awareness of their own speech,
as well as the characteristics of English, were raised. Finally, the task fostered autonomy: the students took key decisions
about which drama to work from and which linguistic features to practise, and completed the practice activities outside
the classroom. The perceived disadvantage was that the procedure, particularly doing the transcription, was extremely
time consuming.

CASE STUDY 5: CONTACT ASSIGNMENTS (CADD 2015)
Contact assignments are designed to provide learners with structured opportunities to use the target language forauthentic communication with native speakers or advanced learners of the target language. Study-abroad programs,
tandem language techniques (such as the email tandem technique described in case study 2), and language villages are
all designed to provide such opportunities. (Language villages provide a relatively short, intensive language immersion
experience without the learners having to leave their own country.) Arnold and Fonseca (2015, 225) state that “The starting
point of the experience is learners’ desire to improve their language skills and increase their knowledge of the culture insituations of authentic communication.”
Cadd describes a university program he established for students studying foreign languages. Students were required totake part in summer study-abroad programs. During this time they had to complete twelve contact assignments alongwith a self-evaluation, and report back to the professors and fellow students on a class website. He presents a case studyof Monica, an American student of Spanish, who undertook a study-abroad program in Spain. Monica carried out twelve
tasks that required her to interact with native speakers and report back to the teachers and fellow students through theonline discussion forum.
Here is an example of a typical contact assignment. As can be seen, the assignment has two parts: a task part, describing
what the student is to do, and an evaluation guide, consisting of reflective questions for the student to complete as theyreport back on their experience.

7

Task
Attend a festival, fair, public event etc. celebrated in the culture. Speak with at least two members of theculture who are present. Choose two who are quite different: e.g. young vs. old, male vs. female etc. Ask why
the event is important.
Reflective questions
Which festival, fair, public event etc. did you investigate? What is its history? Did you learn anything
meaningful about the culture? If so, what? Did you notice any differences between your style ofcommunication and theirs? If so, what were they? Did you have problems understanding them? If so,
what did you do about it? (Cadd 2015)
Monica’s response to the contact assignments overall was positive. She reported that her fluency and confidence increased
as a result of undertaking them.
If I can introduce myself to the person and get the person to see that I can speak Spanish well enough to hold aconversation, they are much less likely to keep switching back into English. They are appreciative that someone
can speak the language fairly well and so I get more practice. (Monica Journal entry)
Cadd argues that success with foreign language learning is significantly enhanced with out-of-class learning experiences,and that the blending of in-class learning and out-of-class applications represents the optimal environment for successwith foreign language learning. However, the caveat is that the success of study-abroad programs rests very muchon the extent to which the students interact with members of the target community. He cites research suggestingthat many study-abroad programs are ineffective because students do not avail themselves of the opportunity tointeract, but effectively “ghettoize” themselves by socializing with other students of their own language background.
It is understandable that students want to stay within their “cultural comfort zone” to minimize culture shock and theanxiety of publicly interacting in a foreign language. The solution is to create a program of contact assignments suchas the one devised by Cadd. He argues that these assignments need to be “decisive interventions” (Laubscher 1994).
A “decisive intervention” is one in which the student gains an insider perspective on the target language and culture, usuallyfrom a “key informant” who will in the normal course of events be a native speaker: it is more than simply collecting andreporting information, it is a consciousness-raising experience.
In summary, while contact assignments can be threatening and create anxiety, overall they improve confidence, fluency
and cultural sensitivity. They are also motivating, because students find real-world applications for what they have learnedin class.

BENEFITS AND PITFALLSBENEFITS
Each of the techniques described above have their own unique strengths and weaknesses. However, there are some
generalizations that we can make across most out-of-class activities. When considering benefits of out-of-class learning,
the twenty-eight students reported in Nunan and Richards (2015) most often came up with these three words: authenticity,
meaningful, and autonomy.
There are two types of authenticity: input authenticity and output authenticity. Input authenticity refers to the aural andwritten texts that learners are exposed to. These are texts that came about in the course of regular communication rather
than being specially written for the purposes of teaching a language. Specially written texts are important, particularly inthe early stages of the learning process, but exposure to authentic texts is also externally helpful; some, and I am one ofthem, would say it is fundamental. Authenticity of output is also fundamental. Learners need to go beyond the productionof prefabricated formulaic utterances to producing their own unique utterances. Again, in the early stages, the production of
formulaic utterances is an important step in the acquisition process, but in order to engage in meaningful communication,
learners need to go beyond these prefabricated patterns.

8This brings us to the next benefit of out-of-class experiences: they provide opportunities for authentic interaction. At the
beginning of the chapter, I pointed out some of the characteristics of classroom interaction that makes it different frommeaningful interaction outside the classroom, such as that it is ritualistic and predictable. I also noted that this is a goodthing in the early stages of language learning, because it provides security to the learner and enables him / her to makesense of and practise core grammatical patterns in a secure, supportive environment. In meaningful, communicativeinteractions outside of the classroom, such as those that are necessitated by, for example, contact assignments in studyabroad programs, they need to deal with uncertainty and unpredictability. They also get to practise important skills suchas initiating a conversation, asking for clarification, signalling lack of understanding, checking comprehension and othercommunicative strategies.
The third benefit of out-of-class activities is that, by their very nature, they lead to the development of autonomy.
Whether the out-of-class activity is initiated by the teacher or is self-initiated by the student, when they actually engage
in the task itself they have to function autonomously in making decisions about how to proceed with the task, how,when and with whom to interact, etc. The practice of autonomy is illustrated in each of the five case studies that form
the body of this chapter. On case study 1, Wendy makes decisions about which materials to read, and how much timeto spend on independent reading. Shogo and Shelly, in case study 2, have to decide on which topics to discuss, how to
structure their own target language messages, and what kind of feedback to give to their partner. Similarly, in casestudy 3, Jennifer has to decide on whether she will reveal to her teacher, Dave, highly personal and emotionally charged
incidents from her personal life. (And Dave, for his part has to decide how to deal with these.) Although Keiko’s intensive
listening task is directed by the teacher, she and her partner have to decide on which phonological, grammatical anddiscourse features to focus on, which TV drama to select, which scene from the drama to work with, and how muchtime to devote to the activity. In the final case study, Monica has to decide which of the contact assignments to carryout, how to initiate the interaction necessitated by the assignment, and how to complete it, negotiating meaning anddeploying other communication strategies to see the assignment through to a successful conclusion. She also has towork independently to reflect on and evaluate the assignment.

PITFALLS
A pitfall mentioned by virtually all of the participants involved in out-of-class activities is that they are time consuming.
This is the case for students and, for some assignments such as dialogue journals, for teachers as well. In some ways
this is a benefit in disguise. There is evidence that the amount of additional time devoted to language learning beyond
the classroom is correlated with success at foreign language learning. For example, Wong and Nunan (2011) find it is asignificant factor differentiating between more successful and less successful learners. The more successful learners
spent up to fifteen hours a week using English outside the classroom, while less successful learners spent less than
one hour a week on out-of-class tasks.
Another pitfall frequently mentioned in the case of tasks requiring face-to-face interaction, such as contact assignments,
was that they could be threatening and anxiety-creating. Initially, at least, students reported that being forced to interact
with native speakers was a frightening prospect. In the long run, however, all improved fluency, confidence, and sensitivity
towards the target culture.

CONCLUSION
In this chapter, I have made a case for blended learning programs, suggesting that this can be achieved through theaddition of an out-of-class dimension to traditional classroom programs. I illustrated the range and diversity of out-of-classlearning through five activities: extensive reading, email tandem learning, dialogue journals, intensive listening, and contact
assignments. I also discussed some general benefits and pitfalls of out-of-class learning, illustrating these with reference
to five case studies.
Based on their analysis of twenty-eight language learning activities, Nunan and Richards (2015, xv) make seven observations
on language learning beyond the classroom. I shall conclude the chapter by listing and glossing these seven observations.

9

1. Out-of-class activities provide opportunity to address some of the limitations of classroom-based learning. These include
limited access to authentic input and output.
2. The wide-ranging benefits such opportunities provide encompass the development of language and communication
skills, improvements in confidence and motivation, personal growth, and intercultural awareness. In other words, outof-class learning addresses the shortcomings of classroom instruction in the cognitive, communicative and affective
domains.
3. Out-of-class learning provides authentic language experiences and opportunities for real communication. Again, inthe body of the chapter, I have contrasted the relative artificiality and predictability of classroom interaction with theopportunities for meaningful communication afforded by out-of-class activities.
4. There is a need to integrate classroom-based learning with out-of-classroom learning since both support each other.
I have taken pains to stress the fact that in-class and out-of-class learning are not “either-or” options. Both have theirown particular contributions to make to the learning process.
5. It is important to establish clear goals for out-of-class learning activities, to prepare students for the activities, and toprovide follow-up in the classroom. As learners are on their own, and having to function autonomously in the out-ofclass component of the program, the goals of the activity have to be clearly articulated, there has to be careful in-classpreparation, and a debriefing and evaluation after the activity is essential.
6. The activities entail new roles for both teachers and learners as well as the need to develop learning and communication
strategies to support out-of-class learning. As learners will be functioning autonomously, without the guidance and supportof the teacher, they will have to adopt a different role from that of the recipient of knowledge. Teachers also have to seethemselves as guides and supporters rather than dispensers of information.
7. Particularly through technology, many out-of-class activities allow learners to make use of the tools and digital resourcesthat are a part of their everyday lives. Technology has made out-of-class learning feasible in many contexts and situations
where, hitherto, it was only an aspiration or even a dream. These days, technological tools and digital resources are apart of everyone’s daily reality. It is up to the teacher to show learners how to use these tools and resources not only forentertainment and communication but also for independent learning.

10

REFERENCES
Anderson, N. 2008. Practical English Language Teaching: Reading. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Arnold, J. and C. Fonseca-Mora. 2015. “Opportunities for interaction with native speakers”.
In Language Learning Beyond the Classroom, ed. D. Nunan and J.C. Richards, 225–34. New York: Routledge.
Benson, P. and H. Reinders, eds. 2011. Beyond the Language Classroom. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cadd, M. 2015. “Increasing the linguistic and cultural benefits of study abroad”. In Language Learning Beyond the Classroom, ed. D. Nunan and J.C. Richards,
253–62. New York: Routledge.
Chiesa, D. and K. Bailey. 2015. “Dialogue journals: Learning for a lifetime”. In Language Learning Beyond the Classroom, ed. D. Nunan and J.C. Richards,
53–62. New York: Routledge.
Day, R. and T. Robb. 2015. “Extensive reading”. In Language Learning Beyond the Classroom, ed. D. Nunan and J.C. Richards, 3–12. New York: Routledge.
Grode, J. and A. Stacy. 2015. “Authentic materials and project-based learning”. In Language Learning Beyond the Classroom, ed. D. Nunan and J.C. Richards,
171–79. New York: Routledge.
Kohonen, V. 1992. “Experiential language learning: second language learning as cooperative learner education”. In Collaborative Language Learning andTeaching, ed. D. Nunan, 14–39. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krashen, S. and T. Terrell. 1983. The Natural Approach. Oxford: Pergamon.
Laubscher, M.R. 1994. Encounters with Difference: Student perceptions of out-of-class experiences in encounters abroad. Westport CT: Greenwood Press
McCarthy, M. and S. Walsh. 2003. “Discourse”. In Practical English Language Teaching, ed. D. Nunan, 173–95. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nunan, D. 2013. Learner-Centered English Language Education: Selected Works of David Nunan. New York: Routledge.
Nunan, D. and J.C. Richards. 2015. “Preface”. In Language Learning Beyond the Classroom, ed. D. Nunan and J.C. Richards, xi–xvi. New York: Routledge.
Peyton, J. 1993. “Dialogue journals: Interactive writing to develop language and literacy”. Retrieved from http:/www.cal.org/resources/digest/peyton01.html
Sasaki, A. 2015. “E-mail tandem language learning”. In Language Learning Beyond the Classroom, ed. D. Nunan and J.C. Richards, 115–26. New York:
Routledge.
Wong, L. and D. Nunan. 2011. “The effective language learner”. System 39 (2): 144–62.