LANGUAGE LEARNING MOOCS : REFLECTING ON THE CREATION OF TECHNOLOGY-BASED LEARNING MATERIALS IN A MOOLC"
Research collaboration
Context and problem
Downes (2014) claims that the success of a MOOC is process-defined
rather than outcomes-defined, and that it should be seen as a vehicle for
discovery and experience.
Completion rates may be misleading (Jordan and Gee).
Cormier and Carré insist on the possibility to propose learning
environments that would act as a catalyst of knowledge.
LMOOCs : participants ? Diversity of participants and heterogeneous
language learning outcomes and learning processes.
LMOOCs : Aim ? Move away from an inherent educational potential of
digital technology of MOOCs and instead focus "on means-end" way of
thinking course design.
How well can language learning take place in an LMOOC ?
Theoretical background
Complexity theory and
emergentism
Unpredictable complementarity
of the tasks
Links between process and
tasks
Necessity of interactions
Limitation of the training
Performances vs skills
Social interactionist theory
Social Motivation of the
learning but doesn't take into
account training process
Necessity to take into account
the context of learning
Activity Theory allows the essential
apprehension of the dynamic nature of the
process.
If perceptions drive actions then "good
design" makes affordance (Gibson) explicit.
Course design and
adjustment
(Intervention research)
LMOOCs
• LMOOC context : variability of learning objectives/emerging needs/ language
learning takes place in an informal technological environment, long life learning
takes place in a learning environment which has a goal that is pursued but can not
be achieved (Koper, 2004).
• Language learning in LMOOCs should focus on process and performance vs skills
= language learning environment acts as a catalyst of knowledge = reflecting on
language learning strategies.
• Course design : the more open the course is, the more the potential of
participants will be limited by the lack of structure, but instructional design may
also miss critical elements of learning process (ZDP).
• Previous research works (Narcy-Combes, 2007) showed that the implementation
of a "soft system' was able to take into account an emerging context of learning
and manage heterogeneous groups.
• Implementing a language learning environment within an LMOOC = design
course and content so as they act as organizing circumstances (Spear and
Mocker) in order for participants to act.
Based on Bertin JC and Narcy-Combes model
Linear
process/technological/institu
tional instruction
Course design
non linear process
Macro tasks and micro tasks
Course design (managing heterogeneity) : follow a non-linear path including
alternative learning objective, oriented macro-tasks which create needs for micro
tasks. Macro tasks designed for the development of learning and micro tasks
designed for linguistic training ( Demaizière - Narcy-Combes 2005).
The design of the language learning environment included tasks focusing on both
form(s) (Ellis,) and meaning to trigger “exploration” and “pursuance” of “emergent
goals”.
In SLA, different definitions of “task” are presented, Candlin (1987) : "one of a set
of differentiated, sequenceable, problem posing activities involving learners and
teachers in some joint selection from a range of varied cognitive and communicative
procedures applied to existing and new knowledge in the collective exploration and
pursuance of foreseen or emergent goals within a social milieu".
Process and performance = no MCQ but rather "Use of dynamic and productive
learning tasks that stimulate higher-order thinking processes and problem solving,
such as analysis, synthesis, experimentation,creativity, and the examination of
language learning from different perspectives" (Koper, 2004).
Content
• TBLT approach = cognitivism, focus on meaning and forms / socio
constructivism = collaboration and interaction + regular completion of
"real" tasks to favor language acquisition. (Narcy-Combes M.F et Belan
S, 2010).
• Macro tasks : identification and categorization of problems in production.
Input related to every day life topics/ output with focus on meaning.
• Micro tasks : sociolinguistic and pragmatic language skills. Focus on form
& noticing (Swain 2000).
• Self evaluation questionnaire and peer assessment : peer assessment,
identification and categorization of problems in production, collective
feedback on errors. Self-evaluation questionnaire individualized feedback
and advice on remedial work (metacognitive reflection).
• Forum : interaction with peers and language use in context.
Results
• Participants' perception of the course design : 1.
Comparison of course instruction (selection of macro-tasks and
micro-tasks) and participants' activity. 2. Learner's appropriation of
the design to take control of their own learning.
• Success of design and of language learning : how well the course
design has achieved language learning goals set by the course and
goals participants set themselves ?
• How well has language learning taken place ? This requires to try to
evaluate the role of "input, interaction and output" in the learning
environment, learners' language reflective activity through the
MOOC, including the language use in context (Forum interaction).
• Data are collected from active participants in the MOOC
(participants who have done at least one action during the MOOC).
Macro task
Cognitive
questionnaire
Micro tasks
Related to
the macro
Tasks
Micro task :
French
pronunciation
Micro tasks
Discourse structure
Micro tasks
Taking notes
Discussions
Achievement of design, organizing
language learning
Course statistics :
number of
actions/task
Course design/ learners' use of course
statistics/ participants'surveys
6 5 42 3
6
4
1 5 2
6
4
53
2
0
4.5
9
13.5
18
22.5
Main macro task Micro tasks Cognitive questionnaires useful links pool of microtasks
Discussions
Course statistics
Participants' answers (post survey)
Course design
Achievement of learners' goals
95 45 23 54 32 27 71
Results of learners perception of tasks
Macro task
Micro tasks related to macro tasks
Course cogntive surveys
Remediation tasks from Ressource center
Peer assessment
Forum
Input : videos and chosen topics
81 79 78 82 79
Week 3 : results of partcipants'survey
Achievement of personal goals
Feeling of improvement in language skills
Language reflecting activity
Additionnal tasks completion
Ability to achieve tasks throughout the course
Content analysis of week 3 : forum interactions
discussions methodology (2000 threads during 5 weeks)
• Lamy and Goodfellow, 1999 : reflexive conversations refer explicitly to language
learning. Schon 1987 demonstrated that reflection is an essential component of
professional knowledge and practice.
Week 3 : 366
messages
Reuse of the
input the
output
Reflective
dialogues over
language
Reflective
monologues
Reflective
ConversationsConversations
Macro task
related
discussions ++++ + + +
Micro task
related
discussions ++ +
Overall
discussions
During week 3+ + ++ + ++
Conclusion • TBLT approach is interesting in the design of LMOOCs but selection of micro tasks are
based on learners' needs. They are unpredictable in MOOC contexts.
• Goal oriented tasks encourage learners to reflect on their own use of language (Lamy
and Good fellow, 1999; Pelletieri,2000).
• Type of tasks and topics chosen have an important effect on the nature of on line
discussions. Interaction and use of language in context is a way to make use of
LMOOCs as catalysts of language learning.
• LMOOCs may allow the outsourcing of messages and operations that circulate in the
neuronal system, information and codes. Cognition moves towards this new tool,
making participants aware of language learning metacognition processes. A reflection
on how the design (using simple cognitive tools vs focus on technical materials) can
favor meta linguistic awareness may be a way to emphasize language learning
performance in LMOOCs.
• Research limitations : out of the 10755 participants we don't exactly know what the
remaining 10 000 "non active participants" have done during session 1. Many issues
and questions remain open and need to be addressed in future research. Adjustment
of the existing experimental MOOC may help LMOOC designers to create successful
Massive Open Interactive Language LearningEnvironments.
Thank you for listening
MOOC Paroles de Fle, team SPIN, Damien Aubert, SUL, I-FLE,
scientific advisor, JP Narcy-Combes.
Session 2 : https://www.fun-
mooc.fr/courses/univnantes/31001S02/session02/about
Email : [email protected]
References
• Bertin, J-C., Gravé, P. & Narcy-Combes, J-P.(2010). Second language distance learning and Teaching :theoretical
perspectives and didactic ergonomics. Hershey (Penn) : IGI Global.
• Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Lancereau-Forster.
• McAllister, J., M.-F. Narcy-Combes & R. Starkey-Perret (2012). “Language teachers' perceptions of a task-based
learning programmein a French university”. In Shehadeh, A. & C.A. Coombe (eds.). Task-Based Language Teaching
in Foreign Language Contexts: Researchand Implementation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing, 313–342.
• O’Grady, W. (2010). Emergentism in P. Hogan (dir.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the LanguageSciences (pp.
274-76). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
• Piaget, J. (1970). Psychologie et épistémologie. Paris : Gonthiers Denoël.
• Randall, M. (2007). Memory, psychology and second language learning. Amsterdam-Philadelphia : JohnBenjamins.•
• Spear, G. E., & Mocker, D. W. (1984). The organizing circumstance: Environmental determinants in selfdirected
learning. Adult education quarterly, 35(1), 1-10
• Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J.
Lantolf (Ed.),Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97-114), Oxford, Oxford University Press
• Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B.Seidlhofer (Eds.), For H.G.
Widdowson: Principles and practice in the study of language (pp.125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
References
• Dave Cormier (18 April 2013). [Video on YouTube Attention les MOOC!?! University of
Prince Edward Island.
• Downes, Stephen. "Learning networks and connective knowledge", Instructional
Technology Forum, 2006, accessed 31 July 2012
• Koper, E.J.R. (2003). Combining re-usable learning resources and services to
pedagogical purposeful units of learning. In A. Littlejohn (Ed.), Reusing Online
Resources: A Sustainable Approach to eLearning (pp. 46-59). London: Kogan Page.
• Koper, R., & van Es, R. (2004). Modeling units of learning from a pedagogical
perspective. In R. McGreal (Ed.), Online education using learning objects. London:
RoutledgeFalmer.
• Lave J, Wenger E: Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge; 1991.
• Yuan, Li; Powell, Stephen; Olivier, Bill (2014). "Beyond MOOCs: Sustainable Online
Learning in Institutions". Cetis publications. Retrieved 31 January 2015.
No lectures vs videos
Macro task
Micro Tasks