pedagogy-driven design for online language teaching and learning

Jozef Colpaert 477

CALICO Journal, 23 (3), p-p 477-497. © 2006 CALICO Journal

Pedagogy-driven Design for Online Language Teaching and Learning

JOZEF COLPAERTUniversiteit Antwerpen

ABSTRACTThis article discusses some pedagogical implications of a research project car-ried out at the University of Antwerp between 1996 and 2004. Its objective was to explore the boundaries of a pedagogy-driven approach in research-based re-search-oriented CALL system design. The starting point was the observation of a serious decrease in linguistic-didactic functionalities and in overall interactivity of online language learning programs compared to applications developed earlier on CD-ROM. The resulting research question was the following: which software tools, components, and protocols are most efficient for designing, developing, and implementing online interactive language courseware? Besides deliverables in terms of design models, object models, architectures, and frameworks, this project also yielded relevant pedagogical conclusions for online language peda-gogy, the role of the teacher, and pre-service and in-service training. These con-clusions should be read as provisional suggestions which can lead to new work-ing hypotheses in the field of online language learning and teaching.

KEYWORDSPedagogy-driven Design, Language Courseware Engineering, Teacher Training, Language Pedagogy.

INTRODUCTION

What does it take to teach online? What should teachers know about new tech-nologies? Which tasks should they be able to carry out with new technologies? To what extent does technology affect the choice of language teaching and learning methods? In other words, do we need a specific online pedagogy? If so, how does this affect pre-service and in-service teacher training? It is often stated that online systems afford many activities for language learn-ing and teaching. But to what extent are these activities really “new?” Before the Internet period, authentic materials were already available through radio, televi-sion, and newspapers; students could speak or correspond with native speakers and communicate with teachers or fellow students by postal mail or telephone, and practice with CD-ROMs. Many teachers were already accustomed to asking their students to write letters to Tourist Offices, ask for brochures, read them,

478 CALICO Journal, Vol. 23, No. 3

summarize them, and copy-paste relevant information into a beautiful collage that they would present with their fellow students in a simulated television pro-gram (with or without video camera). They asked their students to write letters to native-speaking pen pals in other countries, often in a collaborative way. They recorded the radio news in the morning and used it as authentic material in the classroom, combining it with meaningful tasks or simple vocabulary explanation and fill-in or translation exercises. What has changed with the advent of the Internet? All the activities described above have become easier, cheaper, faster, more synchronous, and more acces-sible. Teachers appear to have less reason not to try out the widest possible range of activities and tasks. The Internet exponentially increases the dimensions of quantity, speed, and accessibility in learning environments; but, except for virtual environments like MOOs, few learning or teaching activities developed so far are genuine pedagogical innovations. To what extent then can we state there is or should be an online pedagogy? As far as online language teaching and learning is concerned, we can distinguish four approaches.

1. The technology-driven approach attempts to formulate a pedagogy based on the advantages and the innovative features of a new medium and some-times even tries to promote the medium itself. The pedagogy is rarely radi-cally new, but often a regeneration of an existing (sometimes even forgot-ten) method (Decoo, 2001).

2. The attributes-based approach analyzes the capabilities of a particular me-dium with respect to its potential effect on learning (Salomon, 1979; Koz-ma, 1991). Media can be analyzed in terms of their “cognitively relevant” capabilities, which relate to three aspects: the technology of the medium (e.g., physical, mechanical, or electronic capabilities), its symbol systems (e.g., written language, spoken language, pictures, or graphs) and process-ing capabilities (e.g., displaying, receiving, storing, retrieving, organizing, transforming, or evaluating information).

3. The affordances-based approach evaluates the potential or the capacity of new technologies to enhance the language learning and teaching pro-cess. The term affordance was coined by Gibson (1979) and refers to the potential for action or the capacity of real-world objects to help humans in executing their assertive will. In the CALL literature, attention is being increasingly turned to the precisely defined potential of new online systems and technologies to reach a desired goal, in this case language learning and teaching (LeLoup & Ponterio, 1998). Moeller (1997) summarizes affordances for language learning as fol-lows:

Today’s on-line technologies afford opportunities for enhancing stu-dents’ access to up-to-date and even up-to-the-minute cultural materials and realia. The use of these on-line authentic materials can help provide

Jozef Colpaert 479

students with a level of cultural awareness that is most often acquired by means of experience abroad. In addition, communicative activities using these materials can provide engaging opportunities for students to acquire the target language. Students at various proficiency levels can participate as individuals or small groups in summarizing on-line news reports, listen to songs in the target language, and write travel guides based on geographic and cultural information found on the World Wide Web. Interactive activities consist of e-mail, electronic conferencing, multi-user activities (such as MOOs), voice-based chatting with Internet telephone applications, and interactive video using CUSeeMe1 technol-ogy. (p. 11)

This approach mainly focuses on models of good practice. Awareness of affordances is a prerequisite, but knowing how to implement them is an-other challenge. Felix (2003) states, “We interpret best practice to mean using the most appropriate tools to their best potential to achieve sound pedagogical processes and outcomes” (pp. 8-9, original emphasis).

4. The pedagogy-based approach is more rigid and principled. It starts from a detailed specification of what is needed for language-teaching and -learn-ing purposes in a specific context, defines the most appropriate method, and finally attempts to describe the technological requirements to make it work. There are four problems associated with the pedagogy-based approach:

- First, a number of self-proclaimed pedagogy-driven approaches are in fact affordances-based or even disguised technology-driven ap-proaches. They tout the innovative features of a technology but hide constraints and deficiencies behind the supposed advantages of a new pedagogical model or behind an impressive terminology.

- Many language teachers and researchers may feel inhibited. They are convinced that advanced technological skills and knowledge are needed to be able to specify systems based on a complete model of pedagogical requirements.

- By means of a model of pedagogical requirements, teachers can evalu-ate the usability and eventual usefulness of existing applications, both tutors (also called tutorial CALL or language courseware) and tools (nowadays CMC) (Colpaert, 2004). In many situations, however, the required applications do not yet exist. Developing “dedicated CALL,” meaning applications developed by design for language learning and teaching purposes, appears to be a huge challenge. Not only is tutorial CALL said to be stigmatized and marginalized (Hubbard & Bradin Siskin, 2004), developers also report that the labor intensiveness of content authoring, the complexity of linguistic/didactic functionalities, and the rapidly evolving technology are often underestimated. That is why more and more researchers and teachers appear to abandon their development efforts in favor of CMC tools.


- This author still believes that the future of CALL depends on the even-tual breakthrough of dedicated CALL. The main problem in this re-spect is the gap between technology and language pedagogy. Attempts to bridge this gap have been rather unsuccessful. Basically, there are two ways to try to solve this problem. The first is to work with mul-tidisciplinary teams (including language pedagogues, teachers, soft-ware engineers, content providers, artistic designers, and instructional designers). A second way is to work with language teachers who have learned how to write programs and with software developers who have been shown the ropes in language pedagogy. Both approaches have not been instrumental in major breakthroughs in CALL system devel-opment thus far.

In the next sections we will describe a research project carried out at the Uni-versity of Antwerp, Belgium, between 1996 and 2004 which tried to explore the boundaries of a pedagogy-driven approach in research-based research-oriented CALL system design. We will describe the consequences for online language pedagogy, the role of the teacher, and pre-service and in-service training.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Researchers and developers in the field of computer-assisted language learning (CALL) have been confronted with one of the most intricate questions in recent years: which software tools, components, and protocols are most efficient for de-signing, developing and implementing online interactive language courseware? Interactive language courseware refers to language learning programs which offer a number of linguistic/didactic functionalities such as content selection, con-tent interaction, generation of exercises and tests, feedback, help, follow up of the learning process, reporting, remedial activities, or natural-language-processing routines. The online language-learning programs which have been developed thus far show a serious decrease in linguistic/didactic functionalities and in overall interactivity in comparison to applications that were developed earlier on CD-ROM. This restriction seems to be intrinsic to the applied technology itself. The approach taken in the project described here (Colpaert, 2004) was a peda-gogy-driven approach based on two steps: (a) define first what is needed in terms of functionalities and (b) evaluate to what extent available technologies allow them to be implemented. The goal of this research project was to try to prove that sufficient linguistic/didactic functionality can be realized online by applying an adequate design model. The project’s design model was integrated in a research-based research-ori-ented engineering lifecycle based on the traditional and systematic ADDIE model (analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation), in which each stage delivers output which serves as input for the subsequent stage (See Figure 1). Analysis stands for the description of the learning environment or design space and for the formulation of the system requirements based on epistemological, empirical, technological and other considerations.

Jozef Colpaert 481

Figure 1Language Courseware Engineering Loop

While analysis stands for the description of what exists, design is a creative and constructive process leading to new ideas, concepts, and models as solutions. The output of the design stage should also be considered a working hypothesis which can be verified and validated (or adjusted) after each implementation and evaluation. Each iteration will lead to new working hypotheses. This process is the so-called engineering loop. Theory informs the design stage, especially during conceptualization, but the-ory should also form the basis of the analysis phase. The results of the evaluation phase yield new expertise and knowledge, thus feeding the empirical component of the theory base. Technology does not shape the concept. Rather, discrete elements of the ar-chitecture are tested on available technologies during the prototyping phase of the design process. A SWOT analysis of technology in general and of existing language courseware in particular should be included in the analysis phase. Tech-nology only becomes a significant factor in the development stage. The design model consists of three subsequent stages: conceptualization, speci-fication and prototyping.

1. Conceptualization stands for the iterative creation of a concept as an an-swer or solution to the earlier defined requirements. The use of metaphors

Analysis

Implementation

conceptualizationspecificationprototyping

Development

Evaluation

TechnologyTheory

Design


(Hémard, 1997; Lonfils & Vanparys, 2001) in this context is instrumental: they allow the synthesis, in a comprehensive but comprehensible way, of a large number of interrelated actors and factors. This synthesis is not only pivotal to all members of the development team, or even to the developer himself/herself, it is also helpful for the user in understanding the system image (Peterson, 1998). Examples of metaphors include an interactive textbook, an adventure game (treasure hunt), or a virtual campus. The out-put of this conceptualization process is the detailed description (in natural language) of a system, its behavior upon interaction as a way to achieve the users’ goals, and a description of how the developer has applied the useful-ness criteria.

2. Specification describes (a) the back-end—the system structure in terms of components and their interaction and (b) the front-end—the user interface with screen design, menu systems, and navigation.

3. During the prototyping stage, before starting the actual development, developers want to estimate risks and check feasibility. On the basis of the specification, they identify discrete (isolated) elements for which the choice of a particular technology is not obvious (Levy, 1999, p. 99). Ex-amples include menu systems, fill-in exercises, string matching algorithms, and content selection routines.

PROJECT OUTCOMES

Besides deliverables in terms of object models, architectures. and frameworks, this project also yielded relevant pedagogical conclusions for online language learning and teaching.

1. It is possible to apply a pedagogy-driven approach based on an ontological specification (“What can be specified can be developed”). Technology is not the problem, the concept is.

2. Specification is the key issue for bridging the gap between software engi-neers and language pedagogues. It is the most efficient way to communi-cate; it remains as independent as possible from technology, and it allows language pedagogues to keep concepts and models in their own hands.

3. In teacher training, less time should be spent on checklists of evaluation criteria. Instead, more time should be devoted to specification and concep-tualization.

The design model itself, together with these considerations, has led to the 10 suggestions described below to consider when teaching online. They should be read as new working hypotheses based on 20 years of experience in CALL re-search and development. They are not presented as facts or accepted findings supported by references, but as challenges for language teachers who wish to con-tribute to CALL research by testing these working hypotheses in their respective language-teaching situations.

Jozef Colpaert 483

TEN STEPS IN PEDAGOGY-DRIVEN DESIGN FOR ONLINE LANGUAGE TEACHING

The basic reasoning is as follows: analyze the language learning situation, set your pedagogical goals and define your language method first, before considering any technological choices or evaluations. Subsequently, referring to your require-ments, check if you can use existing systems or whether you need additional de-velopment of dedicated technologies and systems. We will now detail this reasoning in the following steps:

1. the learning environment, 2. the system requirements, 3. the learning architecture, 4. the activity framework, 5. linguistic/didactic functionalities, 6. personas and goals, 7. conceptualization, 8. specification, 9. preuse evaluation, and 10. postuse evaluation.

Describe the Learning EnvironmentBefore reflecting upon a system to be used in a particular learning situation, one should analyze in detail all actors and factors involved. The most important fac-tors are learner characteristics such as age, gender, physical abilities, education, cultural or ethnic background, training, needs, geographical distance, learning problems, anxiety, personality, computing experience, acquired level and com-petence, motivation, proficiency level, native language, attitudes, learning styles, cognitive styles, preferred learning strategies, aptitude, and goals. As a second step, teachers should set their pedagogical goals as attainable re-sults. Third, they should define or choose a language method as the most appropri-ate way of reaching these goals. In a pedagogy-driven approach, the language method is indeed chosen before any particular medium, technology, or system.

Since the end of the 19th century, technological media have been closely con-nected to a number of new methods. If I may paraphrase Marshall McLuhan’s famous statement “the medium is the message,” I would say that quite often “the medium makes the method.” I mean by this that the possibilities and limitations of the medium determine the boundaries of the method, because the method can handily use the medium to promote itself, while the normal way would be that the method evaluates to what extent the medium could be useful. (Decoo, 2001).

Describe the System Requirements (GLDT Grid)The next step is to translate the description of the learning environment (includ-


ing the chosen language method) into an operational grid of system requirements. This grid is based on four levels of general, local, differential, and targeted re-quirements.

1. General requirements include both higher level and lower level consid-erations that must be considered in relation to language courseware engi-neering in general, such as generally accepted and valid facts and findings about language pedagogy, teachers, learners, content, and technology.

2. Local requirements are circumstances, characteristics, or features which are specific to a particular design space or context and which must be re-spected as such. The learning situation (infrastructure, location, available content, available technology and media), the language method used, com-mon characteristics of learners (and teachers), and the role of other actors should be described in detail.

3. Differential requirements are parameters which reflect differences within a particular context or design space (e.g., learner type A versus learner type B, teacher type A versus teacher type B, classroom type A versus classroom type B) or expected changes within that context (e.g., operating system, computer infrastructure, language method, teacher attitude, etc.). All as-pects subject to such change should be identified and described. These dif-ferential requirements should be reflected as parameters and variables in the system to be used or developed.

4. Targeted requirements are factors amenable to improvement, aspects that can and should be improved by the system to be developed. Specific read-ing or writing skills, anxiety and dyslexia are obvious examples, but pos-sible improvements concerning teachers, language pedagogy, technology, content, and related actors should also be taken into account. It is the pre-cise delineation of these factors that will lead to the system focus.

The output of the analysis phase should consist of answers in each cell of Table 1

Table 1GLDT Grid

General Local Differential TargetedLearnerTeacherPedagogyTechnologyContentOther actors

Filling in this grid is a challenging, thought provoking, and revealing activity. Some guidance questions can be found in Colpaert (2004, pp.138-139).

Jozef Colpaert 485

Describe the Architecture of the Distributed Learning EnvironmentOnline technologies allow the design of ‘distributed’ learning environments. The term ‘distributed’ not only refers to the physical aspect of location (inside or out-side the classroom), but also to the distribution of our focus over four components: (a) the learner, (b) the teacher, (c) the colearner, and (d) the content. The learner can be inside or outside the classroom, the teacher can be present, synchronously available or asynchronously, the materials and content can be available in the classroom or online, and the colearners or fellow pupils can either be in the class-room or geographically distant (see Figure 2).

Figure 2Distributed Online Learning Environment

These eight possibilities amount to numerous flexible combinations such as: in-classroom learner connects to remote content, in-classroom learner connects to out-of-classroom teacher, in-classroom learner connects to out-of-classroom cole-arner, and out-of-classroom learner connects to in-classroom teacher. Every com-bination leads to a new setting which can be appropriate for a specific moment in the learning process or for a specific task. There is no need for any technological knowledge in order to be able to draw this architecture.

Apply an Activity Framework

The following IIC (information, interaction and communication) framework can be used to conceptualize a typology of activities as affordances (excluding admin-istrative tasks). A basic distinction can be made between mediated and nonmedi-

classroom w

all

colearner

content

colearner

teacher content

teacher

learner

learner


ated activities in a framework based on IIC. Mediated in this case means activities with a human or technological didactic intervention. Nonmediated activities in-clude incidental learning or activities in which the student practices in real situa-tions, without human or technological didactic intervention (see Table 2).

Table 2IIC framework

Mediated NonmediatedInformation Adapted authentic material Authentic materialInteraction Dedicated services Nondedicated servicesCommunication Language learning aware Nonlanguage learning aware

Information includes activities based on authentic multimedia materials (audio, video, and text). The use of authentic materials fits in a task-based approach, either collaborative or autonomous; but it is also helpful in providing up-to-date information on current issues and cultural topics. Mediation consists in providing text adaptation, translation or hyperlinks with explanations (De Ridder, 2003; Ly-man-Hager, 2001). Interaction refers to bidirectional interaction with content, usually in applica-tions designed or not for language-learning purposes (Felix, 2001). Mediation on the level of interaction consists in offering appropriate feedback, help, and reme-diation, mostly in what is called tutorial CALL or language courseware. Nonme-diated interaction, that is, the use of software not developed for language learning or teaching, can help the student to practice such real-world tasks as making hotel reservations, booking flights, or engaging in virtual investments. However, this mode has no language-oriented mediation. Communication in this context involves two kinds of human interaction. Through online services, an individual can communicate with people who are aware that that person is learning a language, which—automatically or not—en-tails some kind of mediation. Mediated communication includes (a) communica-tion among colearners or nonnative speakers (NNSs), which mainly focuses on negotiation of meaning; (b) communication between learner and teacher, focus-ing on scaffolding (Hoven, 1997); and (c) communication with native speakers (NSs) in synchronous or asynchronous tandem learning (Appel & Vogel, 2001; Schwienhorst, 2003), which can be done through e-mail, online chat, or MOOs (Schwienhorst, 2004; Shield, 2003). Nonmediated communication refers to communication with people who are not aware that their interlocutor is learning a language and hence provide no explicit mediation. Nonmediated communication is possible with native speakers through email, online chat (with multiple unknown users), and MOOs. Nonmediated com-munication is normally too difficult for beginning-level learners but works well for those who want to practice and refine their skills on a more advanced level in a reality-based (socio)cultural context.

Jozef Colpaert 487

Define Linguistic/Didactic FunctionalitiesIn order to meet requirements for language learning and teaching, systems should offer a series of functionalities. Functionalities are groups of software functions which enable systems to carry out specific tasks. For example, a printing function enables a system to retrieve and print documents over a network, and a tracking function logs all relevant user information. Functions are grouped into functional-ities depending on the goal of the taxonomy or classification, which will mostly be pragmatic, administrative or technological. The following classification of func-tionalities was developed on the basis of the author’s experience in developing pedagogy-driven applications (Colpaert & Decoo, 1999). Again, the term ‘lin-guistic/didactic’ refers to both linguistic and didactic functionalities intended for (or possibly useful for) language learning and teaching (see Table 3).

Table 3Classification of FunctionalitiesTool Commands: print, send, play, display …Monitor User requests: advice on demand, context-sensitive help, content

selection …Mentor Continuous follow up of the learning process without user request:

user information, tracking, logging …Tutor System intervention: adaptive testing, adaptive navigation and

menu systems, learning scenarios, intelligent tutoring, remediation, agents (Hubbard, 1999) …

Lector One-way instruction: videotaped lesson, course on hyperlinked web pages …

Dedicated CALL systems, applications, and services can always be designed to incorporate one or more of these functionality types, arranged in order of increas-ing system initiative and decreasing learner initiative (see also Colpaert, 2004, pp. 85-87):

Figure 3Classification of Linguistic/Didactic Functionality Types (LDFT)

Learner

System

Tool

Monitor

Mentor

Tutor

Lector

– +


These functions do not exist separately as applications but should be considered properties, each of which contributes in a unique but concerted way to the overall profile of an application. They are not only useful as parameters in design and development, but also for implementation and evaluation. At this point, the model based on user initiative versus system initiative has a rather unexpected consequence: it allows us to reconceptualize language course-ware and the classic tutor-tool dichotomy. Language courseware is dedicated soft-ware with interaction on content and with some or all of the previously mentioned functions, hence a typology of language courseware based on the presence or ab-sence of these functions (the number of functionalities does not necessarily entail conclusions or judgments about the usefulness of an application).

Table 3Typology of Language Courseware Applications

Tool Monitor Mentor Tutor LectorApp 1 X X XApp 2 X X XApp 3 X XApp 4 X X X…App n X X X X X

In fact, there is only one useful dichotomy in CALL: dedicated systems versus nondedicated systems. Dedicated systems are developed by design for language learning, teaching, and testing; they should therefore offer sufficient function-alities to meet local and general didactic, educational, and pedagogical require-ments. Language courseware is not rote drill and practice; it can offer the com-bined force of tutors and tools. In this view, language courseware can play a vital role in experiential, socioconstructivist, task-based, and collaborative language learning. Nondedicated systems (tools or CMC) can play a role in language learning and teaching but, by definition, will never offer appropriate guidance, feedback, track-ing, or reporting functionalities.

Define Personas and Their GoalsIn contrast to early Shneiderman models (1987) and iterative user prototyping, Cooper (1997) states that an explicit user survey is not the best source of informa-tion during the conceptualization process:

The most obvious approach, to find the actual user and ask him, doesn’t work for a number of reasons, but the main one is that merely being the victim of a particular problem doesn’t automatically bestow on one the power to see its solution. The actual user is still a valuable resource, and we devote consider-

Jozef Colpaert 489

able attention to him or her, but we never let the user directly affect the solu-tion. … The actual method that works sounds trivial, but it is tremendously powerful and effective in every case: We make up pretend users and design for them. We call these pretend users ‘personas’ and they are the necessary foundation of good interaction design. Personas are not real people, but they represent them throughout the design process. They are hypothetical arche-types of actual users. (pp. 123-24)

The actual user knows the problem perhaps better than anyone else but is not necessarily the best problem analyzer or solution provider. The success of the de-sign process mainly depends on the designer’s ability to accurately think through solutions for hypothetical users. By taking ‘personas’ (or user types) as the pivotal point and by eliciting their goals, Cooper, in our view, adds the missing link be-tween system requirements (analysis) and the concept of the solution (design). Personas belong to the analysis phase (differential requirements). ‘Personal goals’ (e.g., “not feel stupid,” “not make mistakes,” “get an adequate amount of work done,” or “have fun”) and ‘corporate goals’ (e.g., “increase our profit,” “in-crease our market share,” “defeat our competition,” or “go public”) also belong to the analysis phase. As a compromise between conflicting personal and corporate goals, ‘practical goals’, however, do not necessarily exist in the user’s mind and have to be worked out by the designer as a first step in the design process. In our view, uncritically applying the design principles of software engineering for business environments to language learning and teaching can be as detrimen-tal as giving priority to the system developer’s false goals (e.g., “save memory,” “save keystrokes,” “run in a browser,” “be easy to learn.” “safeguard data integ-rity,” “use cool technology or features,” or “maintain consistency across plat-forms”). However, Cooper’s goal-oriented interaction design deserves further exploration. Replacing corporate goals in the Cooper model by pedagogical goals produces a remarkably relevant profile. Pedagogical goals can be defined as proficiency guidelines, foreign language standards, yardsticks, benchmarks, frameworks, or curricula at various levels: international (European), country, state and school district (US), or institution (school, company, or training institute). Pedagogical goals can state objectives such as requirements for vocabulary, skills, grammar, cultural topics, and speech acts. Examples include the Common European Frame-work of Reference, the Flemish eindtermen, the ACTFL proficiency guidelines, and the goals of training institutes. It is significant that user goals are mentioned less frequently in CALL litera-ture than user characteristics, needs, profiles, and so forth. One of the exceptions, Watts (1997), observes,

In the design of any set of instructional materials, … consideration must be given to the goals of the potential users and the means they will use to reach these goals. Learner goals should be seen in the context of the complex in-terplay of diverse personal and situational factors such as age, educational background and level of language experience. (p. 6)


He acknowledges that older students may see their language learning goals as directly related to “occupational priorities” while “younger students” may have “more diffuse” goals.

The goals might also be seen in terms of improved skill performance such as increased proficiency in speaking or in writing or in acquisition of particular knowledge sets or in general areas such as gaining a better appreciation of another culture. Obviously, motivation is a key factor in both goal setting and goal attainment. (p.6)

Does this mean that goals are not immediately relevant to language courseware engineering? It is true that a majority of students in secondary and higher educa-tion see language learning not as an explicit objective, but rather as an obligation. Only a minority of students, when compared to highly motivated autonomous language learners or students in adult education, can rightfully be described as explicitly or inherently motivated by the “goal” of language learning. Cooper’s approach and definition, however, does make goals—especially prac-tical goals—highly relevant to courseware engineering purposes. They are also compatible with our experience in language courseware engineering (Decoo & Colpaert, 1999; Colpaert, 2004). The language courseware designer should conceive a hypothetical compromise between pedagogical goals and personal goals. Formulating this compromise is a delicate part of the design process, and perhaps the most difficult part, for the following reasons:

1. Learners, parents, training managers and certainly teachers are aware of the pedagogical goals, but they are not always aware of their personal goals.

2. They are not always aware that there is a conflict or contradiction between pedagogical goals and their personal goals.

3. They do not know that in case of conflicting goals, compromises can be worked out. This aspect is, of course, basically a psychological problem.

4. Explicitly asking users about their goals can be deceptive. Designers can and should, at least during the analysis phase, question or interview the targeted users about their background, profile and needs, but not about their goals.

5. Practical goals are the result of a thorough analysis, not necessarily in the user’s mind, but certainly in the designer’s mind.

ConceptualizeHow does a designer proceed from system requirements to solution concepts? In this model, we achieve this shift by concentrating on our pedagogy-driven approach, rather than being driven by affordances, advantages, strengths, and op-portunities of technologies. Conceptualization in this view consists of two concurrent and iterative activi-ties: concept development and the application of usefulness criteria (see Figure 4).

Jozef Colpaert 491

Figure 4Conceptualization

Concept development as an iterative process means that the system is devel-oped during repeated walk throughs of four steps: the identification of personas, the hypothesization of practical goals, the elaboration of scenarios, and the de-scription of system tasks. ‘Scenarios’ describe how personas will use the system to be developed. Cooper (1997) distinguishes among daily use (useful, important, and frequent actions), necessary use (actions which must be performed but which are not frequent), and edge-case scenarios. The next step consists in translating the scenarios into sys-tem tasks, based on the previously described LDFT model (see Figure 3 above). The developer should put special emphasis on the integration of tools. The evolving concept should be checked, iteratively or not, against the follow-ing usefulness criteria:

1. ‘Usability’ includes all criteria that will have an impact on whether a sys-tem can be used by the targeted users: availability, accessibility, price, in-stallation modalities, face value, and so on.

2. ‘Usage’ represents the criteria which should guarantee that the actual use corresponds to the intended use, or at least to a pedagogically sound use, taking into account the varying requirements for first use (ergonomics), continued use (location, duration, modalities, etc.) and long-term use.

3. ‘User satisfaction’ covers all criteria which should assure that the user will continue to employ the program for a long time and that he/she will be as satisfied as possible. User satisfaction criteria include: acceptability, user-friendliness, content quality, software quality, hardware compatibility, face validity, self-confidence, self-image, positioning versus learning process, general feeling, mental model, and locus of control.

4. Criteria for optimizing ‘didactic efficiency’ have the goal of increasing the efficiency and effectiveness (learning effect) of the learning and teaching process. These criteria comprise teacher fit, learner fit, compatibility with the language method, interaction on rich and varied content, and so forth.

Concept development Usefulness criteria

Personas Usability

Practical goals Usage

Scenarios User satisfaction MetaphorSystem tasks Didactic efficiency


Chapelle (2003) recommends six criteria for CALL task appropriateness based on SLA findings: language learning potential, learner focus, meaning focus, authenticity, positive impact and practicality. Chapelle also insists on task characteristics geared toward inducing acquisition of vocabulary and syntax based on input, interaction and production.

The output of this conceptualization process is the detailed description (in natu-ral language) of a system, its behavior upon interaction as a way to realize the users’ goals, and a description of how the developer has applied the usefulness criteria.

Specify“What can be specified, can be developed.” This view is based on the ‘ontologi-cal approach’ in software engineering (Eris, Hanson, Mabogunje, & Leifer, 1999; Gruber, 1993). It is “a way of specifying content-specific agreements for the shar-ing and reuse of knowledge among software entities” (Gruber 1993, p.1), espe-cially software agents and AI systems. As Gruber defines it, “An ontology is an explicit specification of a conceptualization. The term is borrowed from philoso-phy, where an Ontology is a systematic account of Existence. For AI systems, what ‘exists’ is that which can be represented.” (p. 5) Specification describes

1. The back end: the system structure in terms of components and their inter-action, also called the architecture. This can be done in natural language and graphs, or in unified modeling language (UML). Using the earlier men-tioned IIC framework, such architecture might look as follows:

Figure 5Architecture

2. The front end: the user interface with screen design, menu systems, and navigation.

Communication withcolearners, natives, teacher, …

Download (updated)application fromsoftware provider

Tier ALearner interface

Tier BInteraction-administration

Tier CApplication database

Information(web, external data files)

Teacher in/outDesigner in/outParent out Content provider in/out

Jozef Colpaert 493

In the pre-Internet period, the common (Schneiderman-inspired) adage was: “If you can draw the interface, then you can write the program.” Now the motto for online systems seems to be to postpone front-end interface considerations as long as possible.

Perform Preuse Evaluation as SelectionWith this blueprint of requirements, teachers can start to evaluate to what extent existing systems and technologies allow them to realize their goals. This screen-ing of systems on the basis of a set of pedagogical requirements adapted to the local learning situation is a relatively new but efficient evaluation method: it en-tails checking preuse potential effectiveness with a view toward comparing and selecting the best possible technology. In case new systems and/or technologies have to be developed, teachers can and should play an important role. Objections to this point will be “yes, but the development cost is far too high” and “we do not have enough technological background to participate in development.” “The only thing more expensive than software is bad software,” quips Alan Cooper (1997). The major cost in development is content authoring and concep-tual design. Conceptual design in our approach is completely independent from technology. Once a blueprint has been created, it can be developed in a few days or weeks in any operating system or programming language. Teachers already know how to develop content. They do not have to learn how to write a program but, instead, how to design—a skill that will appear to be very useful in other circumstances as well.

Perform Postuse Evaluation as Collaborative ResearchEvaluation in its second form involves the measurement of effectiveness (and possibly usefulness) of a particular system. Hubbard’s survey of “Unanswered Questions in Computer Assisted Language Learning” (2002, 2003), was sent to 120 selected CALL professionals from around the world, asking them to articu-late a research question they would like to see answered. The survey resulted in 64 contributions on design-centered issues, effectiveness issues, learner-centered is-sues, and research-centered issues. A significant number of contributions focused on the evaluation of effectiveness. When considering these various viewpoints and insights, so many parameters emerge that a simple comparison between learn-ing a language with or without courseware does not lead to academically valid and reliable results (see also Chapelle, Jamieson, & Park, 1996; Chapelle, 2003). Indeed, the evaluation of effectiveness ultimately depends on the profile of the ap-plication, the target group, the learning environment, the exercise types used and the language teaching/learning method, among other, less significant factors. Another form of evaluation concerns the measurement of ‘usefulness,’ namely the extent to which the goals set initially have been realized. This entails not only the general pedagogical goals, but also the practical goals of teachers, learners, their parents, and so on.


Teachers can contribute to CALL research by giving feedback and by formulat-ing new working hypotheses using the earlier described ADDIE model. CALL researchers should set up the projects, methodologies, and channels to make this possible.

CONCLUSION

This article explains a rationale for research-based research-oriented online lan-guage teaching. It is obviously not a full-fledged course in online language teach-ing. The 10 steps described above are not ready-to-use detailed guidelines but, rather, hypotheses which should be validated in the real world. Few arguments corroborate the claim that there is something like an online pedagogy. However, online systems make our language method or approach far more efficient, and, more important, in a pedagogy-based approach, they force us to reconsider our assumptions. Nevertheless, these systems should not shape the method as such. Teachers should become designers: designers of what they need as a preuse evaluation mechanism and designers in development as a new way of bridging the gap between technology and pedagogy. However, most important, teachers can and should become contributors in CALL research, provided they work in a research-based research-oriented approach. The main consequence for pre-service and in-service training is that teachers should not be trained in applying guidelines, checklists, and principles but in ana-lyzing learning situations, setting their goals, defining their language method, re-flecting on the requirements, and designing solutions. Time has come for teacher trainers to make the effort, for teachers to discover their role as designers, and for researchers to recognize the value of their work.

NOTE1 Technology for live video conferencing, instant messaging, and chat groups based on text, voice, and video (see http://www.cuworld.com).

REFERENCESAppel, C., & Vogel, C. (2001). Investigating syntax priming in an e-mail tandem language

learning environment. In K. Cameron (Ed.), The challenge of change (pp. 177-84). Exeter, UK: Elm Bank Publications.

Chapelle, C., Jamieson, J., & Park, Y. (1996). Second language classroom research tradi-tions: How does CALL fit? In M. C. Pennington (Ed.), The power of CALL (pp. 33-53). Houston, TX: Athelstan.

Chapelle, C. (2003). English language learning and technology. Lectures on applied lin-guistics in the age of information and communication technology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Jozef Colpaert 495

Colpaert, J. (2004). Design of online interactive language courseware: Conceptualization, specification and prototyping. Research into the impact of linguistic-didactic functionality on software architecture (Doctoral dissertation, University of An-twerp). UMI micropublication number 3141560. Also available at http:// www.didascalia.be/doc-design.pdf

Colpaert, J., & Decoo, W. (1999). The role of didactic functions in CALL design. In K. Cameron (Ed.), CALL & the learning community (pp. 64-74). Exeter, UK: Elm Bank Publications.

Cooper, A. (1997). The inmates are running the asylum: Why high-tech products drive us crazy and how to restore the sanity. Indianapolis, IN: SAMS.

Decoo, W. (2001). On the mortality of language learning methods. Forum article on the DIDASCALIA web site. Retrieved February 8, 2006, from http://www.didasca lia.be/mortality.htm.

Decoo, W., & Colpaert, J. (1999). User-driven development and content-based research. In K. Cameron (Ed.), Computer assisted language learning: Media, design and applications (pp. 35-58). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

De Ridder, I. (2003). Reading from the screen in a second language: Empirical studies on the effect of marked hyperlinks on incidental vocabulary learning, text compre-hension and the reading process. Antwerp: Garant.

Eris, Ö., Hansen, P., Mabogunje, A., & Leifer, L. (1999, August). Toward a pragmatic ontology for product development projects in small teams. Paper presented at ICED 99, Munich. Retrieved February 8, 2006, from http://www-cdr.stanford.edu/~ozgur/Ozgur_Eris_ICED99.pdf

Felix, U. (Ed.). (2001). Beyond Babel: Language learning online. Melbourne: Language Australia.

Felix, U. (Ed.). (2003). Language learning online: Towards best practice. Lisse, The Neth-erlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Gibson, J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mif-flin.

Gruber, T. R. (1993). Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing (Technical report KSL 93-04). Knowledge Systems Laboratory. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University. Retrieved February 8, 2006, from http://ksl-web.stanford.edu/knowledge-sharing/papers/README.html#onto-design

Hémard, D. (1997). Design principles and guidelines for authoring hypermedia language learning applications. System, 25 (1), 9-27.

Hoven, D. (1997). Improving the management of flow of control in computer-assisted listening comprehension tasks for second and foreign language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. Retrieved February 8, 2006, from http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/cryptsoft/dlh/thesis

Hubbard, P. (1999). Teaching agents in tutorial CALL. Paper presented at CALICO 1999, Oxford (Ohio). Retrieved February 8, 2006, from http://www.stanford.edu/~efs/phil/papers.htm

Hubbard, P. (2002). A survey of unanswered questions in computer assisted language learn-ing. Retrieved February 8, 2006, from http://www.stanford.edu/~efs/callsurvey


Hubbard, P. (2003). A survey of unanswered questions in CALL. Computer Assisted Lan-guage Learning, 16 (2-3), 141-154.

Hubbard, P. & Bradin Siskin, C. (2004). Another look at tutorial CALL. ReCall, 16 (2), 448-461.

Kozma, R. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61 (2), 179-211.

LeLoup, J. W., & Ponterio, R. (1998). Using WWW multimedia in the foreign language classroom: Is this for me? Language Learning & Technology, 2 (1), 4-10. Re-trieved February 8, 2006, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol2num1/Onthenet/index.html.

Levy, M. (1999). Design processes in CALL: Integrating theory, research and evaluation. In K. Cameron (Ed.), CALL: Media, design and applications (pp. 83-107). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Lyman-Hager, M. (2001). Lecture interactive de textes “authentiques”: Du texte à l’hypertexte. In F. H. Lemonnier & L. Duquette (Eds.), L’impact de l’utilisation de l’ordinateur et des nouvelles technologies dans l’apprentissage des langues (pp. 23-48). Montréal: Les Cahiers Scientifiques, ACFAS.

Lonfils, C., & Vanparys, J. (2001). How to design user-friendly CALL interfaces? Com-puter Assisted Language Learning, 14 (5), 405-17.

Moeller, A. (1997). Moving from instruction to learning with technology: Where’s the content? CALICO Journal, 14 (2-4), 5-13. Available at http://calico.org/jour nalarticles.html

Peterson, M. (1998). Creating hypermedia learning environments: Guidelines for design-ers. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 11 (2), 115-24.

Salomon, G. (1979). Interaction of media, cognition, and learning. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Schwienhorst, K. (2003). Learner autonomy and tandem learning: Putting principles into practice in synchronous and asynchronous telecommunications environments. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16 (5), 427-444.

Schwienhorst, K. (2004). Native-speaker/non native-speaker discourse in the MOO: Topic negotiation and initiation in a synchronous text-based environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17 (1), 35-50.

Shield, L. (2003). MOO as a language learning tool. In U. Felix (Ed.), Language learning online: Towards best practice (pp. 97-122). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Shneiderman, B. (1987). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human-com-puter interaction. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Watts, N. (1997). A learner-based design model for interactive multimedia language learn-ing packages. System, 25 (1), 1-8.

Jozef Colpaert 497

AUTHOR’S BIODATA

Dr. Jozef Colpaert is Professor of Educational Technology and Director of the Research Center DIDASCALIA. He is also Director R&D of LINGUAPOLIS, the Institute for Language & Communication and Editor of Computer Assisted Language Learning. His major research interests include the design of (language) learning environments.

AUTHOR’S ADDRESS

Prof. dr. Jozef COLPAERTIOIWUniversiteit Antwerpen - CDEUniversiteitsplein, 1 - D0.102610 AntwerpenBelgiumPhone: + 32 (0)3 820 29 72Fax : + 32 (0)3 820 29 86Email: [email protected]: www.ua.ac.be/jozef.colpaert

pedagogy-driven design for online language teaching and learning

Documents