Advanced Japanese online: Development, implementation and

effectiveness of the course

ATJ 2011 Conference

April 2, 2011

Yumiko Tateyama, Meredith Hanson,

& Chuanning Huang

University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa   

Presentation outline

1. Previous Studies

2. Development and implementation of the advanced online four-skills JFL course (JPN402)

3. Evaluation rationale and external evaluators’ findings

4. Summary and implications

Previous Studies

Studies comparing four-skills online and classroom-based courses:• Chenoweth, Jones, and Tucker (2006)

– Beginning & intermediate French & Spanish – No significant differences between online

(hybrid) and classroom-based students• Blake, Wilson, Cetto, and Pardo-Ballester (2008)

– Online vs. hybrid vs. classroom-based – First-year Spanish– Comparable proficiency regardless of course

type

Remaining Questions

• Would the same results apply to…

– a less commonly taught language, like Japanese?

– an advanced-level course? – a completely online rather than a hybrid format

course?

JPN402: Fourth-Year Japanese II

• 4-credit course since Fall 2009 • Covers four skills (reading, writing, listening

& speaking) - last core course• Development of online version began in

2009; first offered in Spring & Fall 2010. • Asynchronous and housed in BRIX, an

environment specifically designed for online language learning (Sawatpanit, Suthers, & Fleming, 2004)

Design & Implementation

• Online version of JPN402: Instructional materials used in regular JPN402 + newly developed materials

• Topic-based: students learn content as well as forms - develop critical thinking and autonomous learning skills (Morioka et al., 2008)

• Create a learning community where students engage in learning through both independent and collaborative activities

Short documentaries

Interviews, talks

Strategiesfor talking:storytelling

Midterm & final projects

Develop basic research skills

• Watch sample presentation & read report

• Choose a topic

• Read materials related to the topic chosen

• Synthesize what was read and prepare a draft

• Read and comment on drafts

• Revise draft based on peer & teacher feedback

• Prepare a narrated presentation (video)

• Upload final draft & narrated presentation

• Offer feedback on classmates’ presentations

Evaluation Process

• Utilization-Focused Evaluation (Patton, 1997)• Primary goal: to collect data for course

improvement (formative evaluation)• Evaluation questions:

– Do students like this course?– Are students comfortable with the course?– Is it what students expected?– How do students compare this online course to

a regular classroom course?

Implementation and Participants

• Methods: Online surveys and in-person interviews• Repeated each semester (Spring 2010, Fall 2010)• Most students participated in the online surveys

– Spring 2010 mid-term (n=8)– Spring 2010 final (n=8)– Spring 2010 final classroom students (n=12)– Fall 2010 mid-term (n=10)– Fall 2010 final (n=9)– Fall 2010 final classroom students (n=12)

• Student interviews– Spring 2010 in-person (n=3)– Spring 2010 e-mail (n=2)– Fall 2010 in-person with instructor (n=4)

Evaluation Question 1: Do students like this course?

Overall, do you prefer this online course to a regular course?

0

2

4

6

8

10

Feb. Apr. Oct. Dec.

NoDon’t knowYes

Evaluation Question 2:Are students comfortable with this course?

Up to this point, are you comfortable with this course?

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Feb. Apr. Oct. Dec.

NoDon't knowYes

Are students comfortable with this course?

Evaluation Question 3: Is this course what students expected?

(1=Not at all, 3=Somewhat, 5=Exactly what I expected)

Online February (mid-term)

Online April (final)

Classroom April

3.33 3.78 3.92

Online October (mid-term)

Online December (final)

Classroom December

3.43 3.25 4.00

Evaluation Question 4:Comparing to a classroom-based course

• Taking JPN402 online is just as difficult, but may take more time.

• As expected, students perceive that there is less peer interaction and “real conversation” than in a classroom.

Comparing this online course to a classroom-based course

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Difficulty-Feb.

Apr. Oct. Dec.

Workload-Feb.

Apr. Oct. Dec.

Time needed-Feb.

Apr. Oct. Dec.

Peer interaction-Feb.

Apr. Oct. Dec.

"Real conversation"-Feb.

Apr. Oct. Dec.

Number of students

Less SameMore

Comparing to a classroom-based course

• Taking JPN402 online may require less participation, and may be less fun, but students may get more feedback.

• On the whole, lots of “same” ratings across the board.

Comparing this online course to a classroom-based course

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Required participation-Feb.

Apr. Oct.Dec.

Teacher feedback-Feb.

Apr. Oct.Dec.

Effect on motivation-Feb.

Apr. Oct.Dec.

Teacher's expectations-Feb.

Apr. Oct.Dec.

Effect on proficiency-Feb.

Apr. Oct.Dec.Fun-Feb.

Apr. Oct.Dec.

Number of students

Less SameMore

Evaluation Summary• Students generally comfortable with the course • Comparable to classroom-based courses

in terms of:– Rigor– Course activities– Learning outcomes

• Students appreciated the flexibility, but reported missing the camaraderie and “real conversation” practice they had had in previous classroom courses.

• Some still would prefer a classroom-based course.

Issues for future consideration • Offering students more opportunities to engage in

spontaneous talk, as well as to critically examine their talk (Yoshimi et al., 2010)

• Use of available resource websites (e.g., CALPER (http://calper.la.psu.edu/corpus.php) and CLEAR (http://clear.msu.edu/teaching/online/ria/)

• Kanji learning in online course • How to deal with style issues (written vs. spoken - CMC) • Incorporating teaching of strategies for reading authentic

texts of different genres to prepare students for academic reading (e.g., skimming, scanning, etc.) (cf. Ito et al., 2009)

• Incorporating typical learner errors generated during the course into lecture notes for future courses (e.g., structures, expressions, language use)

Mahalo

References• Blake, R., Wilson, N., Cetto, M., & Pardo-Ballester, C. (2008). Measuring oral proficiency in distance, face-to-face and

blended classrooms. Language Learning & Technology, 12(3), 114-127. • Bunker, Ellen L., & Takashima, Keita. (2010, February 13). Enhancing Student Self-Regulation in Online Content-

Based Language Learning. Presented at the Hawaii TESOL Annual Conference, Pearl City, HI.• Chenoweth, N.A., Jones, C. M., & Tucker, G.R. (2006). Language online: Principles of design and methods of

assessment. In R. P. Donaldson & M. A. Haggstrom (Eds.), Changing language education through CALL (pp.147-167). New York: Routledge.

• Fleming, S., Hiple, D. & Du, Y. (2002). Foreign language disance education: The university of Hawaii experience. In C. A. Spreen (Ed.), New technologies and language learning: Cases in the less commonly taught languages (Technical Report #25; pp. 13-54). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.

• Hitosugi, C. I. (2010). Eight years of teaching an advanced Japanese reading & writing online course: Report, reflections, future trajectory. Paper presented at the 24th Annual HALT Conference. Honolulu, HI.

• Ito, S., Yokota, A., Fukuoka, R., & Takano, A. (2009). Reading comprehension in an academic study on the research of comparative study of two reading tests. Tokyo University of Foreign Studies Bulletin of Japanese Language Center for International Students, 35, 31-46.

• Morioka, A., Takakura, A. H., & Ushida, E. (2008). Developing web-based multi-level materials for Japanese content based instruction. Japanese Language and Literature, 42, 361-387.

• Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-focused Evaluation: The New Century Text (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.  

• Sawatpanit, M., Suthers, D., & Fleming, S. (2004). "BRIX: Meeting the requirements for online second language learning," hicss, vol. 1, pp.10004b, Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'04) - Track 1, 2004.

• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts.

• Yoshimi, D. R., Suzuki, A., Nishida, H., & Gusman, J. (2010). Preparing learners for the “real world”: The challenges of teaching advanced oral skills for L2 learners. Paper presented at the 24th Annual HALT Conference. UHM.