Learner autonomy is the willingness and capacity to “act independently and in co-operation with others as a socially responsible person” to take charge of one's learning (Dam, Reference Dam, Little, Ridley and Ushioda2003, p. 137) and to shift deliberately and flexibly “between individually-driven and group-driven behaviours” to serve one's needs (Lewis, Reference Lewis and Murray2014, p. 39). It also refers to the freedom that learners are given and their competency in converting environmental constraints into affordances to create freedom for autonomous action (Benson, Reference Benson2011; Lewis, Cappellini, & Rivens Mompean, Reference Peeters, Ludwig, Cappellini, Lewis and Mompean2017). Learner autonomy is often thought of along three dimensions: personal/general autonomy (i.e., a psychological disposition), language use autonomy (i.e., free and creative language use), and language learning autonomy (i.e., skills including taking initiatives to create optimal learning conditions and managing the cognitive, metacognitive, social, and psycho-affective aspects of learning) (Littlewood, Reference Littlewood1996; Toffoli & Perrot, Reference Toffoli, Perrot, Cappellini, Lewis and Mompean2017). It has also been argued that autonomy is social in nature, is the interaction of “the in-group ‘we’ with the autobiographical ‘I,’” and is relational (Little & Throne, Reference Little, Throne, Cappellini, Lewis and Mompean2017, p. 24). Autonomy intertwines with learner voices, identity, motivation, agency, and learning environment, and it works in synergy with these organic elements to affect learning (Lamb, Reference Lamb2011; Little, Reference Little, Kjisik, Voller, Aoki and Nakata2009). Being a natural propensity and innate capacity, autonomy is also a goal of learning (Benson, Reference Benson2011). The development of autonomy is a process of acquiring greater metacognitive awareness and knowledge about oneself and the learning process cognitively, socially, and emotionally (Lewis, Reference Lewis and Murray2014; O'Leary, Reference O'Leary and Murray2014). Its development is also a process of transitioning from other- and object-regulation to self-regulation that is mediated by the physical and social settings, grounded in learners’ interactions and cooperation with others, and intertwined with identity formation and agency development (Lewis, Reference Lewis and Murray2014; Murray, Reference Murray and Murray2014).

Technology has been part of the discourse on autonomy since autonomy's debut in the field of language education back in the 1970s. The relationship of technology and autonomy is a dynamic, bidirectional one where autonomy influences how learners perceive and position technology in relation to language learning, and technology impacts the execution and development of autonomy. Discussions of the influence of technology on autonomy are characterized by dialectical discourses on the “tension between affordance and constraint” (Lai, Reference Lai2017; Reinders & Hubbard, Reference Reinders, Hubbard and Thomas2013; Reinders & White, Reference Reinders and White2011, p. 2). On the one hand, technology is embraced for being a purveyor and an amplifier of learner autonomy (Little & Throne, Reference Little, Throne, Cappellini, Lewis and Mompean2017; Murray, Reference Murray1999). Technology enhances the accessibility of the target language environments and offers learners the freedom and choice they need in autonomous learning (Hamilton, Reference Hamilton2013). It affords and mediates authentic and social learning situations that are full of challenging uncertainties but with support, and it provides “structured unpredictability” that is deemed critical to the development of learner autonomy (Little & Throne, Reference Little, Throne, Cappellini, Lewis and Mompean2017, p. 20). It is a semiotic resource that learners can utilize to support autonomous behaviors and an identity signifier that learners willingly participate in to self-manage and self-regulate their learning (Pellerin, Reference Pellerin, Cappellini, Lewis and Mompean2017). On the other hand, technology can also present hurdles to the execution of learner autonomy (Reinders & Hubbard, Reference Reinders, Hubbard and Thomas2013). Technological environments pose great demand on learners’ digital, information, and media literacy, as well as their self-organization skills and metacognitive strategies (Hafner, Chik, & Jones, Reference Hafner, Chik and Jones2015; Toffoli & Perrot, Reference Toffoli, Perrot, Cappellini, Lewis and Mompean2017). Authentic language use mediated by technology may be too challenging to be usable or beneficial for some learners (Reinders & Hubbard, Reference Reinders, Hubbard and Thomas2013). The features of some technological tools and their contexts of use (e.g., small screens, noisy environments, and short duration of time for the use of mobile phones) may constrain learners’ use of the tools for autonomous actions (Lai & Zheng, Reference Lai and Zheng2018). Given the affinity of technology and autonomy, research has been conducted to explore the relationship between the two constructs. Since learners can execute autonomy in formal and informal learning situations, the extant literature has examined the relationship between technology and autonomy in both formal learning contexts (i.e., intentional, other-initiated and other-directed, institutionally sponsored, classroom-based learning that is highly structured and leads to formal credentials) and informal learning contexts (i.e., voluntary, self-initiated and self-directed, interest-driven, and unplanned learning in flexible learning programs and from everyday life experiences).

Research on the interaction of technology and autonomy in formal learning contexts has mainly examined how technology influences learners’ execution and development of autonomy in teacher-initiated technology-mediated learning experience. It has been found that learners execute greater autonomy in technological environments because technology reinforces learners’ digital identities (Pellerin, Reference Pellerin, Cappellini, Lewis and Mompean2017) and enables them to perform empowering daily-life identities that are often unrecognized in classroom learning and even experiment with imaginary identities (Little & Throne, Reference Little, Throne, Cappellini, Lewis and Mompean2017). Learners also exhibit greater awareness of language use and “a degree of personal agency that is an uncommon by-product of classroom instruction” (Goodwin-Jones, Reference Goodwin-Jones2011, p. 10). More importantly, the nature of learner autonomy gets redefined in technological environments—in particular, social technologies. Learner autonomy is extended to refer to a capacity to not only take responsibility for one's own learning but also contribute to others’ learning (Lewis, Reference Lewis and Murray2014; Little & Throne, Reference Little, Throne, Cappellini, Lewis and Mompean2017; Peeters & Ludwig, Reference Peeters, Ludwig, Cappellini, Lewis and Mompean2017). Execution of autonomy in technological environments relies heavily on learners’ social and emotional competencies (Benson, Reference Benson2013; Lewis, Reference Lewis and Murray2014; O'Leary, Reference O'Leary and Murray2014) and involves the negotiation of the “relationship of possibility” between individual learners and the physical, cognitive, and functional affordances of technologies and the negotiation of shared spaces (i.e., shared interests, common knowledge, etc.) among the learners (Garcia, O'Connor, & Cappellini, Reference Garcia, O'Connor, Cappellini, Cappellini, Lewis and Mompean2017). Autonomy in online collaborative spaces is indispensable of social mediation: sharing user-generated contents and personal experiences; acknowledging each other's presence, contributions, and efforts; motivating each other and supporting each other emotionally; and enjoying the online collaboration (Peeters & Ludwig, Reference Peeters, Ludwig, Cappellini, Lewis and Mompean2017). Even the metacognition process in such contexts becomes a communal one where learners rely on one another to discuss and set goals and plan the learning process (Peeters & Ludwig, Reference Peeters, Ludwig, Cappellini, Lewis and Mompean2017). It has been further found that learners encounter greater challenges in moving from “object-regulation” to “self-regulation” in technological environments. The challenges may come from a lack of transparency and support in the system design, instructors’ inappropriate positioning and pedagogical arrangement of the system, and learners’ lack of computer literacy and familiarity with the functionalities of the system (Suvorov & Cabello, Reference Suvorov, Cabello, Cappellini, Lewis and Mompean2017). In addition, this body of literature has also yielded some pro-autonomy features in pedagogical and system design. These features include but are not limited to (a) using technology to support experimentation and reflection as well as social interaction to enable learners to create artefacts or learning experiences that are personally meaningful, (b) creating learning experience that emulates students’ daily-life experiences and matching the selection and use of technological resources to support the experience, and (c) encouraging “flexible pedagogical practices” that evolve along with the coevolution of the technological tools and learners’ use of the tools (Hafner & Miller, Reference Hafner and Miller2011; Kessler, Bikowski, & Boggs, Reference Kessler, Bikowski and Boggs2012; Reinders & White, Reference Reinders and White2016; Schwienhorst, Reference Schwienhorst2008). In all, a pro-autonomy pedagogical environment needs to use technology to support “the continual emergence of autonomy” through “enhanced opportunities for agency, identity formation, decision-making and taking control of [one's] own learning” and to make learning relevant to learners’ life (Little & Throne, Reference Little, Throne, Cappellini, Lewis and Mompean2017, p. 27).

Research on the interaction of technology and autonomy in informal learning contexts is an emerging field. It has arisen partly as a result of the recent movement toward greater recognition of learner roles in learner autonomy development and technology-enhanced language learning (Reinders & White, Reference Reinders and White2016) and partly from the observation that learners’ use of technology for language learning beyond the classroom has become commonplace across K–12 and university sectors (Lai, Reference Lai2017). This body of literature has revealed that learners’ use of technology for informal learning is “emergent, interest-based, predominantly receptive and involving a heavy proportion of incidental learning” (Lai, Reference Lai2017, p. 50). Learners engage more in instruction-oriented and information and entertainment-oriented technological experiences that are of receptive nature, but rarely in social-oriented technological experiences that are of productive nature (Lai, Hu, & Lyu, Reference Lai, Hu and Lyu2018; Trinder, Reference Trinder2016). They feel that informal learning with technology benefits their listening and vocabulary development the most (Çelik, Arkın, & Sabriler, Reference Çelik, Arkın and Sabriler2012; Trinder, Reference Trinder2016). The tools they value and use most often are language learning technologies (e.g., online dictionaries, web-based translators) and audiovisual resources (e.g., music, online videos) (Steel & Levy, Reference Steel and Levy2013; Toffoli & Sockett, Reference Toffoli and Sockett2010; Trinder, Reference Trinder2016). They select resources that are relaxing and related to their personal interests, which could be used flexibly (Bailly, Reference Bailly, Benson and Reinders2011; Jones, Reference Jones2015; Lai, Reference Lai2015b). Their interaction with the resources often takes place incidentally during small, emergent periods of time or while they are multitasking (Cabot, Reference Cabot2014; Jones, Reference Jones2015; Rosell-Aguilar, Reference Rosell-Aguilar2013), and they focus predominantly on getting the gist rather than studying the language forms in detail (Olmedo, Reference Olmedo2015; Sockett & Toffoli, Reference Sockett and Toffoli2012). Moreover, learners construct their informal learning experience with a view to compensating for and complementing their formal learning experience, and they reconfigure their informal learning experience in response to changes in learning contexts and stages of learning (Benson, Chik, & Lim, Reference Benson, Chik, Lim, Palfreyman and Smith2003; Cabot, Reference Cabot2014; Gao, Reference Gao2010; Lai, Reference Lai2015b). In addition, this body of literature has found that learners’ autonomous learning with technology in informal learning contexts intertwines with their beliefs and identities (Wu, Reference Wu2012) as well as being influenced by a multitude of internal and external factors (Lai, Reference Lai2017).

Research on technology and research on autonomy in formal and informal learning contexts are thriving in parallel, with the goal of supporting the development of learner autonomy with technology in their respective contexts. However, there has been limited interaction between the two bodies of literature, which may have constrained efforts to amplify learner autonomy with technology. The lack of dialogue constrains the development of the research field because learning and development take place in learners' interaction with the array of physical, human, and discursive resources across different contexts and involve both formal and informal elements (Colley, Hodkinson, & Malcolm, Reference Colley, Hodkinson and Malcolm2003; Greenhow, Robelia, & Hughes, Reference Greenhow, Robelia and Hughes2009). Moreover, the three types of autonomy—personal autonomy, language-use autonomy, and language-learning autonomy—interact with one another in dynamic and bidirectional processes, and they work in synergy to drive autonomous learning with technology across formal and informal settings (Toffoli & Perrot, Reference Toffoli, Perrot, Cappellini, Lewis and Mompean2017). Thus, situating technology at the nexus of formal and informal learning contexts may contribute significantly to the development of learner autonomy. In effect, research has suggested the potential of bridging the two. Hafner and Miller (Reference Hafner and Miller2011) found that consciously incorporating the kind of technological tools and environments that learners engage with in informal learning contexts when designing technological experience in formal learning settings helped amplify learner autonomy. They argued that such a refocusing of the curriculum helps establish its relevance to students’ experiences in informal learning contexts. Similarly, reviewing the works on technology and autonomy in the past 20 years, Reinders and White (Reference Reinders and White2016) called for a move of related research and practice toward an alignment with “the tools, settings and activities that are of significance to language learners” (p. 151). On the other hand, literature has suggested that teachers’ behaviors in formal contexts play a critical role in influencing learners’ autonomous learning behaviors with technology in informal contexts (Castellano, Mynard, & Rubesch, Reference Castellano, Mynard and Rubesch2011; Lai, Reference Lai2013). Reinders (Reference Reinders2007) reported on how an online program developed to enhance autonomy was partly thwarted by the lack of recognition of and follow-up of students’ self-study efforts in the formal, classroom-based learning. Lai (Reference Lai2015a) found that teachers’ encouragement, resource recommendation, and cognitive/metacognitive tip sharing in relation to technological resources and their technology-enhanced in-class learning activities and assignments boosted students’ autonomous use of technology in informal learning.

Giving the permeability of learners’ autonomous learning experiences in formal and informal contexts, I suggest that greater efforts should be directed toward understanding how the interactions of learner autonomy and technology in formal and informal contexts are perpetually shaping each other. Research should explore how technology can be designed and used in formal learning contexts in ways that could facilitate learners’ autonomous use of technology in informal learning contexts. Likewise, it is also critical to investigate how to actively utilize learners’ technology-mediated autonomous learning in informal learning contexts to enhance learner autonomy in formal contexts. Stimulating and sustaining a cycle of technology and autonomy in both formal and informal learning contexts is a much needed and promising direction to explore in future research and development.